Scottish Government

9 Firms' assessment of the scheme

Introduction

9.1 This chapter starts by examining whether the grant recipients used other support in addition to the support provided via the SMART scheme, where the support came from and how useful it was. It then focuses on the grant recipients' assessments of different aspects of SMART.

Other support used

9.2 Table 9.1 shows that almost half of the grant recipients used support over and above that provided by the scheme. It also shows that there was little variation in the use of other support according to class of respondent, except that very small firms and firms undertaking projects in the later period were more likely than respondents as a whole to have done so.

Table 9.1 Did you access any other support or advice in relation to your project in addition to the support from the scheme, e.g. from HEIs, consultants or other Government schemes?

• A number is shown in bold where, taking into account the margin of error due to sampling, we are 95% certain that it is different from the number in the left hand total column (using a Chi-Squared statistical test)
• Source: PACEC Survey (Q49A)

9.3 Table 9.2 indicates that the other support came mainly from advisers in the tertiary education sector. Firms undertaking feasibility projects were more likely than respondents as a whole to have used this source of support.

Table 9.2 If yes, what support was used?

• Respondents could select more than one option; so percentages in any column may sum to more than 100
• A number is shown in bold where, taking into account the margin of error due to sampling, we are 95% certain that it is different from the number in the left hand total column (using a Chi-Squared statistical test)
• Source: PACEC Survey (q49B)

9.4 Table 9.3 describes how the grant recipients that had used other support rated it. It shows that the very large majority described the support as 'Useful' or 'Very useful'. About half of the respondents that had used particular sources of support described it as 'Very useful' in each case. The type of support that attracted the lowest proportion of 'Very useful' ratings was larger research/ technology companies.

9.5 The table also shows that firms undertaking feasibility projects were less likely than those undertaking R&D projects to describe each type of support as very useful. Similarly, with the exception of support from SME/ independent business advisers/consultants, respondents from the later period were more likely than those from the earlier period to rate the support used as very useful. Likewise, very small firms were comparatively likely to rate any particular type of support very highly.

Table 9.3 How useful was the support?

• Respondents could select more than one option; so percentages in any column may sum to more than 100
• A number is shown in bold where, taking into account the margin of error due to sampling, we are 95% certain that it is different from the number in the left hand total column (using a Chi-Squared statistical test)
• Source: PACEC Survey (q49C6)

9.6 Grant recipients were also asked if they would continue to use other support in the future; and, if so, from where. Table 9.4 shows the responses and it reveals a very similar pattern of support to that shown in Table 9.2. This is not surprising, however, given that other support used to date was generally rated highly.

Table 9.4 Is the support likely to continue?

• Respondents could select more than one option; so percentages in any column may sum to more than 100
• A number is shown in bold where, taking into account the margin of error due to sampling, we are 95% certain that it is different from the number in the left hand total column (using a Chi-Squared statistical test)
• Source: PACEC Survey (q49D)

Assessments of the scheme

9.7 Table 9.5 summarises how the grant recipients rated various aspects of the scheme; and it indicates that every aspect was rated relatively highly overall by all categories of respondent. The only aspect of the scheme that was rated as less than good on average was the application procedure.

Table 9.5 How would you assess the following aspects of the scheme? Mean Score (1=Very poor, 2=poor, 3=fair, 4=good 5=very good).

• Source: PACEC Survey (Q50)

9.8 Table 9.6 delves deeper into grant recipients' assessments, by showing the proportion of respondents rating different aspects of the schemes highly or lowly. It shows that, apart from the application procedures, each aspect of the scheme considered was rated as Very good or Good by the overwhelming majority of respondents. The table also shows that the variations in the ratings according to category of respondent were not great, although it appears that companies undertaking later period projects were slightly more likely than those undertaking earlier projects to express dissatisfaction.

Table 9.6 Positive and negative assessments of different aspects of the scheme (% saying Very Poor/Poor and Good/Very Good. Excludes those saying Fair.)

• Table does not show proportion of respondents rating aspects of the scheme as Fair.
• Source: PACEC Survey (Q50A8)

9.9 The requirement for match funding was raised as a problem by several businesses in the follow-up interviews. It was a particular problem for start-ups.

9.10 There were a number of criticisms of the application process. It was thought by several recipients that the forward predictions for three years were irrelevant and probably entirely hypothetical and unreliable, and that business plans for new or young companies could only reasonably look forward one or one and a half years. One year business plans followed by a further year's strategic forecast was suggested as a more reasonable target.

9.11 The forms were criticised as requiring too much information and needing to be simplified and focussed more on technological innovation. However, there was an alternative viewpoint that the selection procedure should be more rigorous in order to weed out unwise or incompetent users of taxpayers' money, and one recipient compared the SMART forms favourably with the "horrendously outrageous" procedure for applying for EU funds.

9.12 The application procedure was thought to be time-consuming and expensive, without any guarantee of results. "If SMART could publish a booklet for the guidance of young companies, with a template of how to apply (maybe with actual examples if permission could be obtained), it would be most helpful."

9.13 One respondent thought SMART funds should not go to university spin-out companies, since they already had access to proof-of-concept funding and appeared to be getting the lion's share of SMART funding as well.

9.14 There was some demand for additional advice and consultation from SMART, for example on patent acquisition which was seen as difficult and expensive, and a suggestion of a further round of funding. "More advice is also needed to lead companies on to SMART Plus, to route them on to a highway, as it were."

Summary of key findings

• Almost half of the grant recipients used support over and above that provided by the scheme (Table 9.1) and the very large majority of these described the support as Useful or Very useful (Table 9.3).
• Most of those who had used additional support would continue to do so (Table 9.4).
• Every aspect of the scheme was rated relatively highly by grant recipients (Table 9.5). The only aspect of the scheme that was rated as less than Good on average was the application process.
• Recipients were keen on more advice and support.