s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com · Web viewIdentifying those stakeholders and case study participants...

Proposal for

DEPARTMENT FOR BUSINESS INNOVATION AND SKILLS

RESEARCH ON ECCONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION TOOLKIT

Prepared for: Janine Coleman, Research Buying Unit, BISBy: Leigh Sear, SFEDI

Date: May 2013

SFEDIEnterprise House

18 Parsons Court, Welbury WayAycliffe Business Park

Aycliffe, County Durham DL5 6ZEwww.sfedi.co.uk

Department for Business Innovation and Skills

Economic Development and Regulation Research

Table of Contents

1. Summary of Proposal 2

2. Meeting the Specification 3-10

3. Risk Management 10-11

4. Data Security 11-12

5. Project Timings and Costing and Resource Arrangements 12-13

6. References and Relevant Experience and Expertise 13-14

7. Further Information 14

Appendices

Appendix 1: Team biographies

Appendix 2: Project case studies

BIS – Economic Development and Regulation Toolkit (BIS/RBU/033/2012) Page 1

1. Summary of Proposal1.1 SFEDI, in partnership with the Institute for International Management Practice (IIMP,

Anglia Ruskin University) and Newcastle University, welcomes the opportunity to submit a proposal in response to an invitation to tender issued by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) for research into best regulatory practice at the intersection between economic development and regulatory departments.

1.2 BRDO is working towards a simple and clearer regulatory environment. A key element to this work has been working on developing the evidence base on how good regulation can support local business and economic growth. But beyond BRDO/LBRO case study and other business perception research that touches obliquely on this topic (LBRO 2008; 2010; 2012; BRDO 2013), there is a lack of evidence around how regulators and local economic development agencies can work together to deliver outcomes and benefits for local businesses leading to economic growth. This research will seek to address this gap in the evidence base.

1.3 Specifically a three-stage action research approach is adopted where Stage 1 establishes and defines exactly what innovative regulatory practice facilitating economic growth means. Stage 2 involves case studies on innovative and successful better regulation practice in local authority areas, working together with economic development and regulatory practitioners. Stage 3 distills and synthesizes the findings and builds on the engagement with best practice champions to best prepare the evidence-base for creating a practical toolkit for local authorities and regulators to enhance the effectiveness of their regulatory practices.

1.4 SFEDI, along with the IIMP and Newcastle University have extensive experience of understanding the impact of regulation on business development and learning and skills development, the relationship between regulation and economic development, as well as using the outcomes from applied research to develop tools and resources which can be used by local authorities and other local enterprise organisations.

1.5 Given these experiences, and our expertise in undertaking applied research projects for organisations in the public and private sector, we will be able to provide you with an evidence base around how innovation in regulatory practice is supporting local economic development, in order to support the development of a toolkit which can be used to share effective practice between local authorities and local enterprise organisations.

1.6 The remainder of this proposal outlines: Our understanding of the need for the research and the associated aims and

objectives Our approach to undertaking the research which will address the key areas of ‘need

to know’ Project timings and costings Relevant areas of expertise and experience.


2. Meeting the Specification

2.1 Setting the Scene – Need for the Research2.1.1 Recent research has shown that regulation, whilst it does mean higher direct and

administrative compliance costs to operating a smaller business (Carter et al., 2009, p. 265), is often accepted as a necessary part of doing business and can enable as well as constrain businesses that wish to grow. The implication of research by Carter et al. and others is that researchers, policy-makers and small firm lobby groups should look to other things that ‘impinge on the vitality of the small business sector’ (2009, p. 277).

2.1.2 This suggests that the emphasis should be on creating better, more effective, growth-facilitating regulation and regulatory regimes at the local level, not simply remove it and hope that growth will follow. In other words the quality of regulation regimes plays a key role in facilitating economic growth.

2.1.3 There has, however, been little systematic research on the raft of innovative practices and initiatives pioneered by BRDO/LBRO and others, or on the complex nature of the different actors that make up the regulatory regimes that shape local and regional economies (i.e. local authority economic development departments, LEPs, sector bodies and professional services firms/economic development consultants).

2.1.4 The remainder of this proposal outlines an approach to providing a fuller understanding of these issues, in order to develop an evidence base for BIS, local authorities and LEPs of what works at a local level, and in so doing, how different regulation programmes can work together better.

2.2 Aim and Objectives2.2.1 The overall aim of the research project is to develop the evidence base for BIS, local

authorities and LEPs of what works at a local level and how work programmes around regulation and business and enterprise development can work better together. In so doing, the outcomes from the research can be used by BRDO to inform the development of a practical toolkit for local authorities that can add value to their work in a cost effective way.

2.2.2 To this effect we will address the following objectives: To identify examples of best practice working between economic development and

regulatory departments To explore the connections and blockages between different regulators, local

authorities, LEPs and government agencies To identify the opportunities in the near term for economic development and

regulation professionals to work together and avoid duplication To develop an understanding of the role that sector bodies, professional service

firms and consultants play and might play in creating new opportunities in future regulatory regimes

To scope out a toolkit for local authorities.

2.2.3 The key outcomes from the project will include: A matrix of key elements which constitute innovation in regulatory practice


A process map of the key stages in the development of innovative and collaborative regulatory practices

An outline specification for the toolkit A final report summarisingrises the key findings to emerge from the project.

2.3 Methodology2.3.1 Our approach to undertaking the research project will be underpinned by an action

research methodology. This will allow us to unpack issues related to innovation and collaboration in regulatory practice and the ways in which better regulation supports economic growth at a local level from different perspectives. It will also generate insights, in the language and terms used within different communities of practice, which can be used to shape tools and resources which that can be used by local authorities to add value to their work.

2.3.2 There are three stages of activity to our proposed approach:

Stage 1 – Project inception and scoping of definitions and issuesStage 2 – Assessment of innovation in regulatory practice - Case study researchStage 3 – Sensemaking and reporting

2.3.3 A number of specific tasks will be undertaken as part of each stage. Although presented sequentially, certain activities will be undertaken at the same time to ensure that the project is completed within the identified timescales.

Stage 1 – Project inception and scoping of definitions and issues2.3.4 The project will commence with an inception meeting between the SFEDI project team

and the project manager from BIS. This will provide an opportunity for both teams to discuss and confirm the key issues around: scope of the project, key project variables, schedule of activities, key milestones and reporting and updating.

2.3.5 We would also discuss the role for a project/steering group in the project and dates for meeting of this group. Based on previous experiences of working with such groups, they could play a key role in reviewing research tools, identifying key stakeholders and resources and reflecting on key outcomes from the research. This input will be important, for example, in reviewing the key challenges and opportunities associated with closer collaboration. We would look to meet with the group two to three times through the life of the project – at inception, upon completion of the case studies and upon completion to consider the report and specification for the toolkit.

2.3.6 Following the inception meeting, the team will conduct scoping telephone interviews with up to five appropriate BRDO officers and five local and regional better regulation ‘champions’ who have been innovative in creating better regulatory practice (i.e. the ‘volunteers’ identified by BRDO). These ‘volunteer authorities’ and our own relationships and networks with economic development and regulator contacts will provide access to further innovative practitioner in other local authority areas.

2.37 These initial scoping interviews, the outcomes from which will be presented at the first full project meeting, will provide knowledge with which to agree what constitutes


innovation in regulatory practices to support growth at a local level. This will provide a framework against which we can select the case studies and a model for what data needs to be captured. In total five hours, plus three hours for post interview notation will be costed.

2.3.8 In addition, we would seek to distill what is currently known through a review of the existing current research base. This would involve a comprehensive and systematic review (costed at 32 hours) of any existing case studies in the institutional ‘grey’ literature and research into regulatory good practice commissioned by:

BIS/BDRO/LBRO RDAs, LEPs, local authority economic development departments Regulators (e.g. HSE, EA, SIA, Trading Standards etc.) Academic bodies.

2.3.9 We will summarise the key outcomes from this stage in an inception and scoping briefing paper. This will provide both teams with a set of agreed milestones against which to review progress over the life of the project. The paper will be discussed at the first project group update/review meeting.

Stage 2: Assessment of innovation in regulatory practice - Case study research2.3.10 Based on the outcomes from Stage 1, this stage will undertake research with a series of

case studies identified as demonstrating innovation and collaborative in regulatory practice.

2.3.11 Drawing upon inputs from discussions with BRDO of findings from Stage 1, the project team will then arrange and conduct 12 case studies based on separate local authority environments. In total, 15 case studies will be initiated and costed as it is the experience of the project team that some leeway for drop out or lack of uptake is desirable. The case studies will be recruited in conjunction with BRDO who will be recruiting ‘voluntary authorities’ as per the tender specification. In conjunction with this the project team will recruit key personnel from local authority areas. Details on how this will be achieved can be found in the section below ‘Recruitment of participants’.

2.3.12 As the purpose of the research is to identify innovative practice, the sample of case studies does not necessarily need to be generally representative of UK local authority areas. However, attention will be given to select local authority areas that address the following general criteria: Geographies (e.g. North England/Midlands/South England and urban/rural as to

capture different issues faced by businesses operating in these areas) Industrial histories and structures (as to capture a broad spread of sector-specific

regulatory interests) Levels of economic strength and growth (as to capture the relationship between

growth and regulation).

2.3.13 Each of the case studies will be conducted rigorously and to a standard format, consisting of: Identifying a key case study contact who will help secure introductions and access

to key stakeholders


Face to face interviews with relevant officials from local authorities, trading standards officers, regional regulatory officials from key government agencies, the LEP, business representative groups, and relevant professional service firms and consultants. Up to five face-to-face interviews will be undertaken within each case study

Observing meetings and attending local networking events. In order to fully engage with the innovative practices being researched, project team researchers will seek to observe interactions between different regulation practices taking place between different stakeholders. For example, project researchers will attend meetings and events as appropriate and review findings together with the key case study contact. This step will involve up to 5 hours per case

Reviewing appropriate documentation (e.g. research reports, meeting minutes, evaluation reports) to assist in understanding different aspects of the development and management of the innovation in regulatory practices in the case study.

2.3.14 In total the 12 case studies will be conducted which will mean 12 x 5 interviews (60 hours), plus 12 x 5 hours of observational engagement (60 hours), plus an additional 24 hours (12 interviews) for cases that are not fully realized (144 hours in total).

Stage 3: Sensemaking and reporting2.3.15 As an action research project seeking to explore further potential for effective

collaboration between economic development staff and local regulators, the project team will act as a catalyst in distilling and sharing insights from the research to all participants. Crucially this will involve development and sensemaking activities to facilitate further innovation in this space at local levels.

2.3.16 To achieve this the following activities will take place: Data from Stages 1 and 2 will be analysed via content analysis, and then

synthesised into key findings that will frame subsequent activity A workshop which will disseminate the research findings to stakeholders, including

all case study participants. The workshop will be framed in such a way as to facilitate discussion about future ways of collaborating and working. The day-long workshop (8 hours) will consist of two parts. The morning, in addition to a short presentation about the findings, will focus on a discussion centering on sharing key innovations and best practices, and surfacing why certain forms of collaborative working succeed and others don’t. The second half of the workshop will seek to develop understanding of why certain initiatives, innovations and collaborations have been successful, and identify how further collaboration and interaction can be facilitated

Following the workshop, the project team will draft a full report detailing the key messages from the research and engagement activity. The report will be supported by a presentation to the BRDO followed by a discussion on how the research and engagement activity best facilitates a toolkit to disseminate learning for local authorities. The outcomes from this presentation will be incorporated into the final report

A specification for the toolkit will be developed which can then be used by the BRDO to underpin further discussions around the development and delivery.

2.4 Project Management and Quality Assurance


2.4.1 A dedicated project team from SFEDI, and the IIMP and Newcastle University will be assembled for this project (see Section 2.6 below). Leigh Sear from SFEDI will act as project manager. He has extensive experience of managing applied research and development projects over the last 15 years for a range of clients in the public, private and third sectors. For example, Leigh has recently completed a research project for BIS on graduate recruitment to SMEs and a review of the labour market intelligence on business and enterprise for CFA. Leigh is also currently working with Liverpool City Region LEP in mapping of business support across the City region, the outcomes from which will be developed into a tool which can be used by businesses and business support organisations to identify appropriate business support.

2.4.2 A number of activities will be undertaken to ensure the project is completed on time and within agreed budgets. These will include: SFEDI acting as the lead contractor and being responsible for the delivery of the

contract within the project manager from BRDO Submission of a project inception note summarising the key outcomes from the

inception meeting, particularly in terms of deliverables and milestones Submission of regular project progress updates Review meetings with the project manager from BRDO and the project/steering

group Update meetings amongst the project team to check progress against agreed

milestones and to discuss emergent findings.

2.4.3 In addition, the overall design of the project will mean that individuals within the team are responsible for particular tasks, rather than leaving these tasks unallocated and risking that they are sidelined or lost amongst the project team.

2.4.4 In terms of the relationship between SFEDI, the IIMP (Anglia Ruskin University) and Newcastle Universityies, SFEDI will be the lead partner and as such responsible for managing the relationship with BRDO and the delivery of the contract within the agreed timescales. The roles and responsibilities for each organisation in relation to the delivery of the project are outlined in Table 1 below.

2.4.5 SFEDI has managed a number of research contracts on such a basis and therefore have a set of systems in place to ensure the contract is delivered on time and within budget. We will ensure that: SFEDI will be responsible for the relationship with BRDO and delivery of the

contract SFEDI will attend progress meetings with BRDO SFEDI will issue the IIMP and Newcastle University with an engagement letter which

will outline the tasks to be delivered, associated outputs and deliverables and milestones

SFEDI and ARU and Newcastle University will meet regularly to review progress.

Table 1: Project responsibilities


Activity SFEDI IIMP (ARU) Newcastle UniversityStage 1Project inception and ongoing management

Scoping of issues and definitions

Review of existing research Briefing paper Stage 2Case study research Stage 3Sensemaking and review Workshop Final reporting Toolkit specification

2.4.6 Such quality management arrangements between SFEDI, and the IIMP and Newcastle University are not only useful in agreeing the division of work between the three organisations but also establishing a set of key milestones which can be used to review progress of activities delegated to the IIMP and Newcastle University. In this case, it is anticipated that 25 per cent and 10 per cent of the project (in terms of amount of work to be undertaken) will be sub-contracted to the IIMP and Newcastle University respectively.

2.4.7 SFEDI has an internal quality management system that underpins the successful delivery of projects on time and to budget. This system includes: allocation of a dedicated project manager for each project, regular internal progress reviews, project inception and regular update meetings with a client, access to other Directors in the business address any issues which may arise over the quality of project delivery and end of project review meetings.

2.4.8 Whilst Anglia Ruskin and Newcastle Universities have no formal quality management accreditation, both comply with the Joint Code of Practice for Research and work is subject to peer review through academic qualification. In addition, both have an internal audit department who perform a programme of school, process and project based audits to support accountability and transparency of activity to external stakeholders. For example, IIMP forms an integral part of the Lord Ashcroft International Business School (LAIBS) within Anglia Ruskin University. The IIMP therefore benefits from the university accredited quality assurance awards. ARU has ISO9000 and LAIBS has been awarded the Investor in People qualification. Anglia Ruskin University All products and services offered through IIMP have to be approved by the formal Quality Assurance procedures in place within Anglia Ruskin University through the QAA.

2.5 Recruitment of participants2.5.1 As is indicated in the Section 2.6 below, and Appendix 1, the project team have

extensive experience researching the business regulation, particularly as it relates to local economic development and growth. Specifically Simon Down, Jane Pollard and


Paul Richter have extensive connections to a range of national regulation professionals (e.g. in the BRDO, HSE, EA, BIS, SIA). At a regional level, they have conducted research in both West and East Midlands and the North East and have very strong connections with regional regulators and local authority stakeholders, including trading standards personnel and local LEPs. More recently Simon Down has developed strong links to various stakeholder in the Cambridgeshire/Peterborough and Essex/Kent local authority and LEP areas.

2.5.2 Similarly, SFEDI have extensive connections nationally with local authority stakeholders developed through many years of project contracting. Leigh is currently working with Liverpool City region LEP to map business support across the Liverpool city region. In addition, Leigh has recently completed projects for a number of local authorities in the North East (e.g. evaluating the Be Enterprising programme in County Durham) and the Convention of Local Authorities in Scotland (COSLA).

2.5.3 These extensive connections mean that the project team have a number of networks through which they will be able to identify and gain access to a range of different case studies. For example, in mapping business support in Liverpool, SFEDI have identified a local authority who is using Section 106 payments to create focused SME finance programmes. Identifying those stakeholders and case study participants who exhibit the best practice and innovations in regulatory collaboration will be further ensured by the Stage 1 research design. This will provide excellent intelligence from BRDO and the best known innovators, and recruitment will ‘snowball’ out from this.

2.6 Staffing2.6.1 The project team will be led by Leigh Sear of SFEDI and will draw upon the experience

and expertise of the following staff from SFEDI, the IIMP (Anglia Ruskin University) and Newcastle University: Jo Lee, Project Executive, SFEDI Simon Down, Professor of Management and Director of the Institute of

International Management Practice, Anglia Ruskin University Dr Stephanie Russell, Lecturer in Organization and Management, Institute of

International Management Practice, Anglia Ruskin University Jane Pollard, Professor of Economic Geography, Centre for Urban and Regional

Development Studies (CURDS), Newcastle University Paul Richter, Lecturer in Management, Newcastle University Business School,

Newcastle University.


2.6.2 The roles and responsibilities of each member of the team are outlined below in Table 2.

Team member Project Role Responsibilities % of workLeigh Sear Project Director Leigh will take responsibility for

project direction and management and liaison with BRDO as well as contributing to the case study research

20

Jo Lee Researcher Jo will be involved in undertaking the field research and data analysis

45

Simon Down Strategic Adviser Simon will provide senior academic guidance to the project, complete one case study and take a leading role in presenting findings

5

Stephanie Russell Researcher Stephanie will be involved in undertaking the field research and data analysis

20

Jane Pollard Senior Researcher Jane will provide senior academic support and advice to the project and complete one case study

5

Paul Richter Researcher Paul will be involved in undertaking the field research and data analysis

5

2.6.3 Tailored biographies for each member of the team are contained within Appendix 1.

2.7 Outcomes2.7.1 The key outcomes from the project will include:

A matrix of key elements which constitute innovation in regulatory practice A process map of the key stages in the development of innovative and collaborative

regulatory practice An outline specification for the toolkit A final report summarises the key findings to emerge from the project.

3. Risk Management3.1 The project team recognise that there are risks to completing the project successfully.

As discussed elsewhere, sufficient project management expertise and organisational capacity exists within the research design to allow for contingencies. For example, the scope of the project team outlined above in Section 2.6 provides a degree of flexibility to meet any unexpected events which may occur during the life of the project.

3.2 Key potential risks are identified and mitigations explained in Table 3 below.


Table 3: Analysis of potential project risks

Risk and impact Likelihood Mitigation AssessmentAchieving clarity over key project definitions (e.g. innovation, growth etc.)

That key concepts underlying what innovation in regulation collaborative practice and how growth is affective are not agreed early on in the project

Unlikely First project meeting will present and discuss evidence and sufficient time will be given for discussionKey concept terms will be formally agreed in project briefing note

Low

Engaging with case studies

That the key innovators will not be selected for the case studies meaning that project remit will not be achievedThat case studies will not be extensive enough

Unlikely

Unlikely

Stage 1 of project provides ample intelligence of innovators. Project team provides sufficient network contacts to facilitate access

Stage 1 of the project research design facilitates sufficient contingency by aiming at 12 15 case studies for the target of 120

Low

Low

Loss/illness of project team members

That personnel will not be able to carry out tasks

Possible Project team members are flexible and will stand in for each other in case of illness (etc.). SFEDI have alternative researchers. Simon Down is prepared and able to step in and manage project if Leigh Sear incapacitated. Sufficient administrative flexibility exists to make adjustments to balance of payments.

Medium


4. Data Security4.1 The project will generate a range of data including notations from telephone

conversations, interview recordings and transcriptions. All partners will create a separate folder on electronic devices in which to file information. This will aid project communications, meeting notes and reports being kept separately from other ongoing project commitments. In addition, all data files will be held on a secure Dropbox account where access will be managed by SFEDI and only the project team will have access. At the end of the project access will be given to the BRDO key contact point.

4.2 All participants engaging with the project will be ensured that the data from interviews and meetings and review of documentation will be treated in a confidential manner. Any information to be shared with other partners will be shown to the appropriate person for their consent.

5. Project Timings and Costing and Resource Arrangements5.1 An indicative project work plan is provided below. This outlines the tasks to be

undertaken, their timings and key milestones in the delivery of the project.

Figure 1: Indicative Project Work plan

[insert Figure 1 about here]

5.2 The specific activities, deliverables and milestones will be agreed with you during the inception meeting, with due cognisance given during the mobilisation stage of the project to specific risks and reporting requirements.

5.3 The key milestones are: Project inception note (w/c 10th June 2013) Briefing paper on the scoping of definitions and issues and review of current

thinking (w/c 1st July 2013) Completion of case studies (w/c 2nd September 2013) Draft final report (w/c 30th September 2013) Final report (w/c 21st October 2013) Draft toolkit specification (w/c 21st October 2013)

5.4 We have assumed that the project shall commence on the 3rd June 2013 and will be completed by the end of October 2013, i.e. a project duration of 21 weeks.

5.5 Based on the activities outlined above, the total cost of the project would be £31,815 including VAT. The table below provides a breakdown of the overall project cost by each stage of the project.

Stage No. of days Professional costs (£)

Expenses Total costs (£)

1: Project inception and scoping 13.5 5,612.50 350 5,962.502: Assessment of innovative practice 25 6,350 2,400 11,1503: Sensemaking and reporting 19.5 8,325 1,850 10,175


Total (exc VAT) 58 21,912.50 4,600 26,512.50VAT (at 20%) - - - 5,302.50Total (inc VAT) 58 - - 31,815

5.6 The costings are based on the following inputs and day rates:

Team member

Role Day Rate No. of days (by stage)

1 2 3Leigh Sear Project

managementResearch delivery

500 3.75 2.5 5.5

Jo Lee Research delivery

200 2.25 9.5 4

Simon Down

Project managementResearch delivery

600 2.75 2.5 5

Stephanie Russell

Research delivery

350 2.25 5.5 3

Jane Pollard

Research delivery

400 1.5 1 1.5

Paul Richter

Strategic advice

250 1 4 0.5

5.7 Stated costs include all anticipated expenditure (administration, travel and subsistence). Any other expenses would only be incurred with the prior approval of BIS and would be charged at cost.

5.8 We would agree a specific invoicing schedule at the inception meeting. We would typically seek to raise invoices upon project commencement and then in line with a schedule of payments that would be agreed at project inception.

6. References and Relevant Experience and Expertise6.1 This tender is submitted by SFEDI, in partnership with the IIMP (Anglia Ruskin

University) and Newcastle University. All three organisations have extensive knowledge and expertise in: Researching the dynamics of regulation to support business and economic growth -

Based on an ESRC funded project ‘Situating small business regulation: A longitudinal study of how small firms receive, understand and respond to regulation’, Simon Down, Jane Pollard and Paul Richter have been researching the way small businesses receive and respond to regulatory change for the last four years. The project included an extensive programme of impact and engagement activity and close relationships with the BDRO, HSE, Environment Agency, Security Industry Authority and other regional regulatory bodies, specifically in the East Midlands and North East.


Reviewing and assessing economic development best practice at a local and regional level – SFEDI, IIMP and Newcastle University have extensive experience of benchmarking and evaluation of small business and economic development policy initiatives. For example, SFEDI is currently undertaking a project for Liverpool City Region LEP mapping business support and financial assistance for SMEs across the City region.

Undertaking applied business and enterprise policy research – SFEDI has extensive experience of successfully managing and completing applied business and enterprise policy research at a sub-regional, regional and national level. For example, in 2012, Leigh Sear of SFEDI and Simon Down (then at Newcastle University) led and delivered a BIS sponsored project on Graduate Recruitment to SMEs which sought to understand stakeholders views of the rationale for policy intervention and the associated policy options. SFEDI has also recently completed a project for UKCES which focused on generating a set of different policy and practice options for engaging SMEs with Investors in People.

6.2 A number of case studies are provided in Appendix 2 which that illustrate the abilities of the above project team to meet the requirements set out in the tender specification. In particular, they outline our familiarity with the policy environment, our experience of working with government agencies, our experience of facilitating dialogue between regulation and economic development professional, and conducting quality research in this specific area.

6.3 The following two organisations would be willing to provide a reference in terms of our ability to complete applied research projects on time and within budget. Reference 1 – Dr Ian Drummond, Department for Business innovation and Skills,

Level 2, 2 St Paul’s Place, 125 Norfolk Street, Sheffield S1 2FJ, [email protected]

Reference 2 -

7. Further information7.1 For further information on any aspect of this proposal, please contact Leigh Sear on

01325 307 336 or [email protected].


Leigh Sear, 05/06/13,

Simon, Would the ESRC provide a reference for the regulation project?

Appendix 1: Tailored biographies

SFEDI

Leigh Sear, Chief ExecutiveLeigh is currently Chief Executive of SFEDI Solutions, part of the SFEDI Group, which is the Standard Setting Body for Business and Enterprise in the UK. Having previously worked at Durham Business School and Wood Holmes Group, Leigh has over 17 years experience of understanding and support enterprise development at a national and international level. In the UK, Leigh has worked with a range of national government departments and agencies, regional development agencies, local authorities, local enterprise agencies, higher education institutions, community and voluntary sector organisations, large corporates (e.g. banks) and SMEs. He has experience in undertaking a range of applied research and consultancy projects including policy and strategic reviews, monitoring and evaluations, audits and reviews of business support structures and needs analyses. Leigh has particular expertise and interest in understanding and supporting enterprise education and learning and skills development in SMEs.

Leigh is Chair of the Advisory Body for the Small Firms Enterprise Development Initiative (SFEDI) and for six years (until 2008) a Director and Board Member of the Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship (a UK small business research body). At a European level, Leigh has been a member of the Executive Committee of the Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Small Business Network at the European Foundation of Management Development. Leigh is an Associate of the Centre for Knowledge Innovation, Technology and Enterprise (KITE) within the University of Newcastle and a Principal Lecturer in Enterprise at the Centre for International Business, Lord Ashcroft International Business School, Anglia Ruskin University.

Jo Lee, Project ExecutiveAs a Project Executive within SFEDI, Jo contributes to the delivery of research and development activity projects, manages the qualifications approval process and provides support to National Awarding Bodies. As part of this, Jo coordinates regular events and meetings for Awarding Bodies. Examples of current research and development activity include updating of the labour market intelligence in business enterprise and the development of national occupational standards on enterprising skills. Prior to joining SFEDI, Jo worked in a consultancy business in the North East for nearly four years providing research and event management support. For example, in 2010, Jo was involved in undertaking a national survey of enterprise coaches and organising an event to disseminate the findings from the survey to policy, practice and professional stakeholder organisations. Jo also has extensive experience of working with small businesses to support their development (e.g. through website design and development).

The Institute of International Management Practice, Anglia Ruskin University

Simon Down, Professor of ManagementSimon is Professor of Management and Director of the Institute of International Management Practice, Anglia Ruskin University. He is the author of two books: Narratives of Enterprise: Crafting Entrepreneurial Self-identity in a Small Firm (Edward Elgar, 2006), an ethnographic study of a small firm in the UK, and a textbook, Enterprise, Entrepreneurship and Small Business (Sage, 2010), and has published articles on small firm policy and economic regional development, entrepreneurial self-identity, indigenous entrepreneurship, management history


and ethnographic methodology in journals such as Human Relations, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Organization and the International Small Business Journal. He was Principal Investigator of a project (2009-2012, £248k) researching how small firms receive and respond to regulation in a longitudinal project funded by the ESRC, and is working with project colleagues, Prof Jane Pollard and Paul Richter (Newcastle University) preparing academic papers for publication on this topic. He was also co-applicant on the BIS funded project ‘Research on Graduate Recruitment to SMEs (June-October 2012, £20,000).

Stephanie Russell, Lecturer in Organisation and ManagementStephanie is a Lecturer at Anglia Ruskin University, at the Lord Ashcroft International Business School, and her main research interest explores how firms use regulation to promote quality and consistency in their products and services. She received her Ph.D from Keele University in September 2011; an ethnographic fieldwork study exploring the impact of regulation and the consequences of self-regulation in the Passive Fire Protection Industry (funded by an ESRC doctoral grant). Stephanie’s current work focuses on the ways in which firms use the discourses of enterprise, morality and denial as a means to engage in regulatory compliance.

Newcastle University

Jane Pollard, Professor of Economic GeographyJane works at the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies and the School of Geography, Politics and Sociology at Newcastle University, UK. Her research interests include the regulation of economic activity and the role and financial intermediaries in regional economic development. This work has involved funded research on Birmingham’s Jewellery Quarter which informed the then Regional Development Agency, Advantage West Midlands, Business Growth Unit on redevelopment opportunities (2002). This project was followed by One North East funded research looking at the North East’s financial markets and institutions and their potential role in regional economic growth (2003, £3000). She was also part of the team in CURDS that worked with Regeneris Consulting and the Durham Business School to produce the definitive labour market analysis of the restructuring at Northern Rock (2009-2010, £148k). Her most recent ESRC funded research with Simon Down, Paul Richter and Prof Monder Ram OBE explored regulatory understanding and adaptation in high growth SMEs in the East Midlands and North East and was the basis for policy discussion with BIS, HSE, EA, DEFRA and local authorities (2009-2012, £248k.

Paul Richter, Lecturer in Innovation and EntrepreneurshipPaul works at the Newcastle University Business School and has been involved in numerous policy and practice-oriented research projects over the last ten years. Most recently, from 2009-12 (£248k), Paul was Co-Investigator of a project researching how small firms receive and respond to regulation in a longitudinal project funded by the ESRC together with Jane Pollard and Simon Down. This project has involved engaging with a range of stakeholders including BIS, the BRDO, and the FSB over developing smarter, evidence-based approaches to regulating small firms. Paul has published policy-focused articles in journals such as Public Money and Management and Social Policy and Society on innovations in public services. He was also co-investigator on ‘The North East Improvement and Efficiency Partnership’ project that investigated and identified good practice in information governance across local authorities in the North East (Sept-November 2009, £20k). Paul was also a researcher on the EU funded FP6 project (Older Peoples Services at Home: OLDES (2007-2010, £260k), and a researcher on the EPSRC funded System Integration programme (Advanced Multi-Agency Service Environments:


AMASE) project that explored the problems faced by public agencies as they try to design services and information systems to enable joint working and information sharing across organisational and professional boundaries and within the requirements of law (2001-2004, £638k).


Appendix 2: Project Case Studies

Case Study #1 – Situating small business regulation (ESRC 2009-June 2012, £248k)

This research project has involved conducting longitudinal and qualitative fieldwork into how small firms understand and respond over time to different forms of regulation in contrasting sectoral and geographic contexts. The novelty of the research lies in its attention to both the spatial and temporal context in which small firms operate and respond to regulation. The qualitative data produced complements existing statistical-based 'snapshot' surveys but demonstrates the complexity and dynamism of firms' understandings of and responses to regulation, including unforeseen effects of regulation and sectoral, temporal and spatial variations in firm behaviour.

The project has involved punctuated fieldwork visits to 14 firms over 28 months to explore how the firms dealt with both existing and newly introduced regulatory initiatives. The research design explicitly addressed regional differences in firm behaviour can compared four hi-growth sectors (environmental goods and services, bio-business, film and interactive media and security sectors) in the North East and East Midlands.

There have been a range of outcomes from the project including: a workshop aimed at sharing our findings with small firms entitled ‘Managing regulation: how to make regulation work for your business’. A key message from the research for small firms has been that adopting a professional, formalising stance to the management of compliance issues is a corollary of a growth strategy. A conference (‘Where Next for Small Business Regulation? Building Better Policy’), on June 29th 2012 at the BIS conference centre aimed to build on the work of the policy-oriented steering group, that has been advising the project team. Various relationships with relevant policy-makers (BRDO, HSE, EA, BIS, SIA, Economic Development professionals etc.) have underpinned the project and form a strong basis for establishing links in local authority areas.


s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com · Web viewIdentifying those stakeholders and case study participants...

Documents

Transcript of s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com · Web viewIdentifying those stakeholders and case study participants...