Drivers for clustering and inter-project collaboration: A case of Horizon Europe projects

Benissa, Takwa; Patil, Anish Article Drivers for clustering and inter-project collaboration: A case of Horizon Europe projects Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Benissa, Takwa; Patil, Anish (2024) : Drivers for clustering and inter-project collaboration: A case of Horizon Europe projects, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 5, pp. 1-14, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14050104 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/320923 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Benissa, Takwa, and Anish Patil. 2024. Drivers for Clustering and Inter-Project Collaboration—A Case of Horizon Europe Projects. Administrative Sciences 14: 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci14050104 Received: 3 February 2024 Revised: 13 May 2024 Accepted: 14 May 2024 Published: 17 May 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). administrative sciences Article Drivers for Clustering and Inter-Project Collaboration—A Case of Horizon Europe Projects Takwa Benissa 1and Anish Patil 2,* 1Avesta Battery & Energy Engineering, 9400 Ninove, Belgium 2TechConcepts B.V., 2821 LE Stolwijk, The Netherlands *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: This paper investigates the drivers and dynamics of clustering and inter-project collaboration within the framework of the Horizon Europe and Horizon 2020 projects. Leveraging a survey-based approach, we examine key themes surrounding the perception of clustering, the willingness to share information under legal confidentiality, and motivations for engaging with partners from different projects. The survey instrument, implemented via Microsoft Forms, was distributed among the consortia of eight EU projects participating in the SOLID4B cluster. Notably, the questionnaire was meticulously crafted based on an in-depth analysis of the SOLID4B case and comprehensive discussions with project coordinators and communication and dissemination managers from all participating projects. These discussions aimed to establish a clear roadmap for the cluster, ensuring the questionnaire’s relevance and usefulness for all participants. Data analysis was conducted within the same platform, facilitating efficient data processing and visualization. Our findings reveal that a significant majority of respondents (48 out of 55) perceive clustering as a valuable asset, indicative of a positive shift in perspectives. Challenges related to confidentiality were addressed through nuanced insights, with respondents demonstrating a willingness to share routine best practices, significant breakthroughs, and deliverables within a legally protected framework. Furthermore, a robust majority (40 out of 55) expressed a keen interest in collaborative endeavors, underscoring a collective drive to extend activities beyond individual project boundaries. The study highlights the importance of clustering with other projects in maximizing the impact of the Horizon program, extending stakeholder networks, and sharing knowledge and achievements in research and innovation. These insights contribute to a deeper understanding of the motivations and challenges surrounding clustering and collaboration within the Horizon Europe and Horizon 2020 projects. Ultimately, the findings pave the way for informed strategies aimed at fostering a dynamic and interconnected research community. Keywords: Horizon Europe; Horizon 2020; clustering activities; collaboration; synergies; impact 1. Introduction Horizon Europe is the EU’s key funding programme for research and innovation, with a budget of EUR 95.5 billion for a programme that runs from 2021 to 2027. It is the 9th Framework Programme (FP) and its goals are to tackle climate change, help to achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, and boost the EU’s competitiveness and growth. The programme facilitates collaboration and strengthens the impact of research and innovation in developing, supporting, and implementing EU policies while addressing global challenges. It enables the development and dissemination of excellent knowledge and technologies (European Commission 2021). As per the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation report with regard to the Systems-Based Methods for Research & Innovation Policy, European framework programs that boost research and innovation could be conceptualized and practiced under the Transformative Innovation Policy (TIP) approach. TIP refers to a set of strategic measures aimed Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14050104 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 104 2 of 14 at promoting research and innovation activities that have the potential to fundamentally transform social, economic, and environmental systems (Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2023). An overview of the framework programs between 2002 (FP6) and 2023 (Horizon Europe–FP9) is illustrated in Figure 1. The framework program (FP) intends to define thematic priority areas that need support and implement horizontal actions to stimulate the efficacy of community research. The scope of the framework program, initially focused on pre-competitive research, has, over time, been widened to encompass all the activities of the innovation process. Innovation is a process encompassing many different activities conducted by various actors that exchange knowledge, funds, and skills. Innovation is the key driver of economic performance, and a critical factor in the ‘competitiveness’ of research and industries (Porter 1998;Ferras-Hernandez and Nylund 2018). Universities, institutes, and public research centers have a strategic role nationally by generating technological knowledge that is transferable to the industry, which can transform it into economic and social value for users and clients, the institution itself, and society. The objective of this collaboration is to develop and/or complete the innovation process for the production of goods and services competitively. Collaborative transnational research projects have been the main instrument for the implementation of the FP, with various types of beneficiary, including individual researchers and companies, public and private research organizations, public–private consortia, and also ministries, agencies and other users (EPRS 2017). Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 14 the Transformative Innovation Policy (TIP) approach. TIP refers to a set of strategic measures aimed at promoting research and innovation activities that have the potential to fundamentally transform social, economic, and environmental systems (Directorate-Gen- eral for Research and Innovation 2023). An overview of the framework programs between 2002 (FP6) and 2023 (Horizon Europe–FP9) is illustrated in Figure 1. The framework program (FP) intends to define thematic priority areas that need support and implement horizontal actions to stimulate the efficacy of community research. The scope of the framework program, initially focused on pre-competitive research, has, over time, been widened to encompass all the activities of the innovation process. Innovation is a process encompassing many different activities conducted by various actors that exchange knowledge, funds, and skills. Innovation is the key driver of economic performance, and a critical factor in the ‘competitiveness’ of research and industries (Porter 1998; Ferras-Hernandez and Nylund 2018). Universities, institutes, and public research centers have a strategic role nationally by generating technological knowledge that is transferable to the industry, which can transform it into economic and social value for users and clients, the institution itself, and society. The objective of this collaboration is to develop and/or complete the innovation process for the production of goods and services competitively. Collaborative transnational research projects have been the main instrument for the implementation of the FP, with various types of beneficiary, including individual researchers and companies, public and private research organizations, public–private consortia, and also ministries, agencies and other users (EPRS 2017). Figure 1. General evolution of the FP between 2002 and 2023. Figure source: (Cavicchi et al. 2023). Almost all funding mechanisms within the FP require projects to collaborate with other partners. However, such a requirement is limited to intra-project collaborations; on the other hand, inter-project collaborations or collaborations with entities outside of the project are recommended. There are no clear mandates on how such collaborations should be developed. Over the last few years, evaluation studies have pointed out the increased need for collaboration outside of the projects to maximize the project impact, and increase synergies and innovation uptake (European Commission 2021; Secretary-General of the European Commission 2018; Science Europe 2016; ISE 2021). Collaborative research programs have a significant impact on the structure of national innovation systems by creating and strengthening networks (dynamic and “fit for Figure 1. General evolution of the FP between 2002 and 2023. Figure source: (Cavicchi et al. 2023). Almost all funding mechanisms within the FP require projects to collaborate with other partners. However, such a requirement is limited to intra-project collaborations; on the other hand, inter-project collaborations or collaborations with entities outside of the project are recommended. There are no clear mandates on how such collaborations should be developed. Over the last few years, evaluation studies have pointed out the increased need for collaboration outside of the projects to maximize the project impact, and increase synergies and innovation uptake (European Commission 2021;Secretary-General of the European Commission 2018;Science Europe 2016;ISE 2021). Collaborative research programs have a significant impact on the structure of national innovation systems by creating and strengthening networks (dynamic and “fit for purpose”), which are essential for breeding innovation clusters ( Shuman and Twombly 2010; Christensen et al. 2020;Ponomariov and Boardman 2010). These networks involve both technology and market stakeholders and are extended to include industry, research and technology producers (Liyanage 1995;Olmos-Peñuela et al. 2017). The network and col- Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 104 3 of 14 laboration among cluster members can play important roles in enhancing productivity and problem solving, which can contribute to enhancing the efficient use of resources (Barakat et al. 2023 ;Durugbo 2016). Social networks highlight the patterns of human interaction on one hand, while on the other hand, they have has important implications for the spread of information (Newman 2001). Scientific collaboration networks are an important subset of social networks as they document patterns of collaboration that drive technological progress and innovation in our society (Vasilyeva et al. 2021). Scientific collaboration with industrial and other interdisciplinary partners shows strong benefits in terms of innovation (Uyen and Carayol 2005;Keown et al. 2008). This article makes a clear distinction between networking and clustering. Networking involves communication and information exchange for mutual benefit. A simple example of networking is the case in which a group of entities shares information about their experience with the use of a specific tool (Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh 2006). On the other hand, clustering, as understood within the context of this research, in addition to exchanging information, involves aligning activities so that more efficient results are achieved ( Ter Wal and Boschma 2011 ;Camarinha-Matos et al. 2019). Clusters are highlighted as a type of inter-organizational network that contributes to regional development and competitiveness (Franco and Esteves 2020). Clusters can be defined as interconnected entities (composed of different types of stakeholders) that cooperate among themselves, creating competitive advantages and developing environments that promote innovativeness ( Zhao et al. 2023 ;Owen-Smith and Powell 2004; Whittington et al. 2009 ). In this context, inter-stakeholder knowledge exchanges arise as an alternative, filling the firm’s knowledge gaps and helping to innovate and enter new markets (Porter 1990; Anicet Bittencourt et al. 2018). In the context of EU projects, networking and clustering represent two distinct approaches to collaboration and knowledge exchange. Networking involves communication and information exchange among entities for mutual benefit, occurring on a broader scale and encompassing interactions between individuals, organizations, or institutions within a specific field or sector. Its goal is to facilitate the sharing of knowledge, experiences, resources, and best practices, often through activities such as workshops, seminars, conferences, webinars, online forums, and professional associations. Clustering, on the other hand, focuses on aligning activities among entities to achieve more efficient outcomes within specific thematic areas, research domains, or geographic regions. It aims to bring together stakeholders with complementary expertise, resources, and interests to address common challenges or pursue shared goals, typically through joint research initiatives, collaborative projects, knowledge-sharing platforms, innovation networks, and industry clusters. While networking emphasizes broad communication and information exchange, clustering fosters collaboration and synergy within targeted communities or domains, both playing essential roles in EU projects by facilitating collaboration, knowledge exchange, and innovation across different scales and objectives. This paper presents a novel framework focusing on clustering activities within EU projects, offering insights into their impact and effectiveness in fostering collaboration, innovation, and knowledge exchange. It is critical to understand the factors driving collaborations among researchers, particularly between researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds and partners from other sectors (Woolley et al. 2015). Drawing from the lessons learned from clustering initiatives, it provides valuable guidance for optimizing future EU-funded projects to maximize their impact and address societal challenges more effectively. The objective of this paper is to investigate the impact and effectiveness of clustering activities within EU-funded projects, specifically focusing on collaboration, innovation, and knowledge exchange. Employing a cross-sectional methodology, this paper systematically analyzes and synthesizes data from a diverse range of EU-funded projects across different thematic areas and geographic regions. This approach enables the identification of common trends, challenges, and best practices across a broad spectrum of projects, Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 104 4 of 14 providing valuable insights for policymakers, project coordinators, and stakeholders seeking to enhance the effectiveness and impact of future EU-funded endeavors. 2. Problem Definition The importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and stakeholder engagement in achieving the expected impact of the Horizon Europe program is well understood (Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2023). However, it is yet unclear how interdisciplinary collaboration and stakeholder engagement should be carried out outside the project realm. Recognizing collaboration as a cornerstone of scientific progress, the European Commission fosters partnerships and knowledge exchange through its funding programs for research and innovation, like Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe. Among the collaborative efforts promoted by the EU are so-called cluster events, typically joint workshops or conferences organized by one or several project consortia within a cluster. The overarching challenge lies in the ambiguity surrounding the implementation of interdisciplinary collaboration and stakeholder engagement beyond project boundaries within the Horizon Europe program. Despite the acknowledged importance of collaboration and engagement, particularly through cluster events, there remains a significant gap in understanding the most effective strategies for executing such activities beyond individual projects. This gap hinders the realization of Horizon Europe’s objectives, as stakeholders grapple with the complexities of leveraging collaboration as a catalyst for scientific progress. Consequently, there is an urgent need for research aimed at delineating clear methodologies and frameworks to facilitate effective interdisciplinary collaboration and stakeholder engagement outside the project scopes within the Horizon Europe framework and associated funding programs. With this objective in mind, there is a conscious effort to boost clustering amongst projects. The aim of forming a cluster is to facilitate synergies and knowledge exchange, ultimately accelerating scientific progress and innovation. When it comes to the way they are organized, not all clusters are alike: while some are formed ad hoc, for example, for a specific event (henceforth, referred to as bottom-up), others are already defined before a group of funded projects starts (henceforth, referred to as top-down). When clusters are formed in an ad-hoc way - projects and their partners interact with partners from other projects, relevant stakeholders (including industries, NGOs or policy makers) and other entities such as regulatory bodies or standardization agencies as and when deemed necessary. On the other hand, top-down clusters have clear requirements from the start. For example, such methods of clustering include CSAs (Coordinated Support Actions), which encourage collaboration outside the project by having a single project that links different projects together to achieve a common goal. Herein, the objective is to enable mutual learning to enable projects to take advantage of insights and practices from other projects. Projects that are members of clusters participate in joint activities and gain benefits from sharing complementary essential knowledge, including resources and skills (Guimarães et al. 2021). The clear benefit of clustering is the sharing of knowledge and the creation of synergies. Although the advantage of clustering, as an impact maximization strategy, is quite apparent, no literature review has given an insight into developing effective clusters and realizing their objectives. There is a need for an overview that can couple the level of clustering with the expected impact. Project coordinators and beneficiaries are already busy with developing new innovations, and clustering should not be an additional nuisance; instead, it should be of added value. Hence, this paper intends to develop a framework/overview that will summarize the various reasons why projects should cluster. Keeping this problem in mind, this article will primarily address the following questions: What are the perceived opportunities and challenges for the project and its beneficiaries when clustering and collaborating with other projects? What are the key success factors for fostering sustainable collaboration and synergy within project clusters over the long term? Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 104 5 of 14 What are the barriers and challenges encountered by projects when attempting to join or participate in existing clusters, and how can these be mitigated? What are the implications of project clustering for the dissemination and uptake of research results and innovations within relevant stakeholder communities? What are the necessary conditions that could facilitate effective collaboration and knowledge sharing within project clusters? 3. SOLiD4B Cluster The Solid4B collaboration stands as a catalyst for innovation, propelling the pace of advancement within the solid-state battery domain. The collaborative environment nurtures holistic problem solving, addressing challenges from diverse perspectives. Engaging a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including industry partners, policymakers, researchers, and the public, ensures the widespread recognition and appreciation of the benefits emerging from solid-state battery research. Through shared resources and knowledge, Solid4B optimizes the utilization of research and development, minimizing redundancies and maximizing the overall impact on the evolving landscape of sustainable energy solutions. The Solid4B cluster is a hub for collaboration and innovation, strategically fostering research synergies among European-level projects on Li-metal-based solid-state batteries. In total, eight EU projects, funded under the topics HORIZONCL5-2021-D2-01-03, HORIZON-CL5-2021-D2-01-05, and LC-BAT1-2019, have established a solid knowledge base around Gen 4a and Gen 4b SSBs and share Gen 4b material-related achievements. The SOLID4B cluster represents a collaborative initiative comprising 99 partners across 19 countries, collectively spanning the entire value chain of Li-metal-based solid-state battery (SSB) production. With a diverse composition of stakeholders, including research institutions, manufacturers, and suppliers, this cluster aims to address critical challenges and advance the technology of solid-state batteries. The international distribution of partners underscores the global nature of this effort, fostering a rich exchange of expertise and resources. The comprehensive coverage of the value chain ensures the involvement of key players in material development, cell manufacturing, testing, and commercialization. This holistic approach positions SOLID4B at the forefront of research and development, with collaborative efforts focused on joint projects, knowledge sharing, and technology transfer. The noteworthy technological advancements achieved by the cluster are anticipated to have far-reaching implications for the field, promising improvements in battery performance, safety, and sustainability. Operating as a dynamic network, the SOLID4B cluster’s fundamental purpose is to convert research data into valuable insights for various stakeholders. In doing so, the cluster nurtures a collaborative environment that transcends the confines of individual projects, promoting shared knowledge and driving collective progress in the field. The cluster focuses on advancing R&D in the electric vehicle field, contributing to sustainable transportation. The cluster maximizes the dissemination of research achievements, ensuring a broader impact and awareness. Additionally, by sharing knowledge and experience, Solid4B supports individual project performance, facilitating effective problem solving and success. An overview of the SOLID4B cluster projects is presented below: • SPINMATE: Create a scalable, sustainable pilot line (TRL6) for the large-scale manufacturing of Generation 4b (Gen 4b) Solid-State Battery (SSB) cells and modules. • ADVAGEN: Creating high-energy-density EU-made SSBs, crucial for sectors like the automotive industry. • AM4BAT: Revolutionizing lithium-ion battery manufacturing by utilizing additive manufacturing technologies for 3D lithium-ion batteries. • HIDDEN: Developing self-healing processes that could extend the lifespan of lithiummetal batteries by 50% • PULSELION): Enhancing energy density and safety in lithium-metal solid-state batteries, focusing on large-scale, in-house production. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 104 6 of 14 • SEATBELT: Battery cell with a low cost, sustainable and safe design, meeting a high energy density (>380 Wh/kg) and long cyclability (>500 cycles). • SOLiD: Developing a sustainable and cost-efficient pilot-scale manufacturing process for advanced solid-state Li-metal batteries. • PSIONIC: Developing all-solid-state battery technology by using amorphous crosslinked polyethylene oxide laminated on a thin lithium foil. In conclusion, the Solid4B cluster fuels innovation in solid-state batteries, fostering collaboration for electric vehicle advancement. Focused on lithium-metal-based batteries, the cluster boosts research dissemination and project performance. 4. Research Methodology In order to address the research questions raised in this study, a cross-sectional approach by means of a questionnaire was used to gather valuable insights from the partners of the SOLID4B cluster. Notably, the formulation of the questionnaire stemmed from a comprehensive analysis of audience feedback on participation in SOLID4B cluster activities, supplemented by extensive dialogue with cluster partners (Benissa 2023). These interactions facilitated the development of a clear roadmap for the cluster, ensuring that the questionnaire effectively captured the multifaceted motivations, approaches, and challenges encountered by project stakeholders. This iterative process underscored the importance of stakeholder engagement and participatory decision making in shaping the research methodology, thereby enhancing the relevance and applicability of the study findings. The questionnaire is a tool widely used for data collection compared to interview and observation in empirical research; this study used Closed (multiple choice) and Open (descriptive) questions (Trupti and Ronald 2022;Wong et al. 2012). The most prevalent method of data collection is the employment of online questionnaires because of their efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the collection of vast amounts of information, which makes the process of data collection and analysis harmonized (Rowley 2014; Taherdoost 2022; Mildred 2014; Dewaele 2018). As shown in Table 1, the questionnaire consisted of four main sections: motivation, approach, implementation, and general open questions and the corresponding questions and types. The questionnaire included a variety of variables related to motivation, approach, the frequency of collaboration, awareness of cluster-level events, and general experiences with cross-project collaboration. A total of 55 responses were collected. Out of the 55 respondents, 22 were representatives from the industry, 3 were from academia, 22 were from R&D centers, 8 were from innovation consultancies and 3 were from public agencies. The questionnaire utilized a combination of closed-ended multiple-choice questions, offering participants the flexibility to express their opinions and preferences succinctly. Subsequently, the quantitative data obtained from the closed-ended questions underwent rigorous statistical analysis to unveil underlying patterns and trends among the core partners within the SOLID4B cluster. Furthermore, the qualitative insights derived from the open-ended questions were meticulously analyzed thematically, allowing for the extraction of nuanced and context-rich information from the participants’ responses. The utilization of the Microsoft form platform not only facilitated the survey administration process but also enabled seamless data management and analysis, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of the survey results. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 104 7 of 14 Table 1. Questionnaire structure and questions. # Section Corresponding Questions Type 1Motivation–Why do projects cluster i. What are the primary drivers for collaborating and clustering with other projects? ii. Do you collaborate because there are inherent benefits or because it is required by the EU? iii. Over the course of your project, what benefits does your organization expect to receive from collaborating with other projects? iv. Are there any specific challenges or barriers to effective collaboration and knowledge exchange with partners from other projects? v. Please reflect on question #4. Do you have any recommendations for the SOLID4B cluster to overcome the above-mentioned challenges? Closed, multiple choice. Except question v., which is open, descriptive 2Approach–How should projects cluster vi. What is the optimum frequency, according to you, for a common cluster activity? vii. If there is a confidentiality agreement between all the cluster projects in place? What are you willing to share with other projects? viii. Do you think that a common repository of related projects with the following information would help collaboration and increase synergies? Closed, multiple choice 3Implementation–When should networking happen ix. Do you actively seek opportunities to engage with partners from different projects in external events, conferences, or research networks to expand the cluster’s reach and influence? x. The cluster leader has strived to organize events at the cluster level every 6 months. Are you aware of these events? Have you received regular updates about the progress? Would you like to participate actively in such events? Closed, multiple choice 4 General–open questions xi. From your experience, do you have any example of a successful collaboration/clustering across different projects? According to you, what are the factors contributing to its success? xii. When it comes to the SOLID4B cluster, are the expectations and opportunities arising from cross-project collaboration clear to you? Open, descriptive 5. Analysis and Results This section analyzes the questionnaire responses, and the analysis is grouped into two sections: opportunities and challenges. These two sections reflect on the research question of this article and highlight why projects cluster and the challenges that need to be addressed before such clustering can deliver positive results and help in maximizing project/cluster impact. 5.1. Opportunities In analyzing the survey results, a compelling narrative emerges, indicating that the vast majority of our partners, precisely 48 out of 55 respondents, perceive clustering not as an obligation but as a significant and advantageous asset for their organizations. This Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 104 8 of 14 finding suggests a fundamental shift in how our partners conceptualize clustering, transcending the notion of a mandatory collaboration and moving towards one that brings tangible benefits. Key insights from the responses highlight the proactive nature of our partners, who actively seek and embrace opportunities to engage with counterparts from various projects. This proactiveness is particularly evident in their enthusiastic participation in events and workshops facilitated by the clustering initiative. The deliberate effort to form connections across projects indicates a recognition of the value derived from interdisciplinary interactions and the cross-pollination of ideas. The qualitative aspect of the responses indicates that partners perceive clustering as a dynamic platform fostering collaboration, knowledge sharing, and synergies that extend beyond the confines of individual projects. The sentiment expressed reflects an understanding that these collaborative endeavors contribute to the enrichment of both personal and organizational perspectives. Moreover, the survey results underscore the importance of events and workshops as critical spaces for these interactions to unfold. The partners actively seeking such opportunities suggests a collective desire for continuous learning, networking, and the establishment of a collaborative ecosystem. The connections forged across projects not only contribute to the partners’ professional development, but also enhance the overall effectiveness and innovation potential of the entire clustering initiative. In conclusion, the survey results offer compelling evidence that the partners within the clustering framework not only embrace but actively value the collaborative environment it provides. This shift in perception from obligation to benefit emphasizes the significance of fostering a culture of active engagement and collaboration within our scientific community, ultimately contributing to the collective advancement of knowledge and innovation. As can be seen from Figure 2, the primary drivers behind collaboration include technical synergies (82% of respondents) and networking (80%), followed by visibility (55%). Only a third of respondents identified impact, as well as the exchange of market knowledge and intelligence, as drivers for clustering. Given the high score for technical synergies as a driver, it can be inferred that the strong technical focus and identity of the SOLID4B cluster have a positive impact on fostering technical collaborations, which is in line with the SOLID4B goals. In total, 44 out of the 55 participants also identified networking as a primary driver, indicating that clustering is a useful tool in harnessing interdisciplinary collaboration. An increased visibility score of 55% seems to be a nice side benefit of being involved in clustering, but it does not seem to be a key driver. Only every third participant identified impact and market intelligence exchange as a clustering incentive. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14 in events and workshops facilitated by the clustering initiative. The deliberate effort to form connections across projects indicates a recognition of the value derived from interdisciplinary interactions and the cross-pollination of ideas. The qualitative aspect of the responses indicates that partners perceive clustering as a dynamic platform fostering collaboration, knowledge sharing, and synergies that extend beyond the confines of individual projects. The sentiment expressed reflects an understanding that these collaborative endeavors contribute to the enrichment of both personal and organizational perspectives. Moreover, the survey results underscore the importance of events and workshops as critical spaces for these interactions to unfold. The partners actively seeking such opportunities suggests a collective desire for continuous learning, networking, and the establishment of a collaborative ecosystem. The connections forged across projects not only contribute to the partners’ professional development, but also enhance the overall effectiveness and innovation potential of the entire clustering initiative. In conclusion, the survey results offer compelling evidence that the partners within the clustering framework not only embrace but actively value the collaborative environment it provides. This shift in perception from obligation to benefit emphasizes the significance of fostering a culture of active engagement and collaboration within our scientific community, ultimately contributing to the collective advancement of knowledge and innovation. As can be seen from Figure 2, the primary drivers behind collaboration include technical synergies (82% of respondents) and networking (80%), followed by visibility (55%). Only a third of respondents identified impact, as well as the exchange of market knowledge and intelligence, as drivers for clustering. Given the high score for technical synergies as a driver, it can be inferred that the strong technical focus and identity of the SOLID4B cluster have a positive impact on fostering technical collaborations, which is in line with the SOLID4B goals. In total, 44 out of the 55 participants also identified networking as a primary driver, indicating that clustering is a useful tool in harnessing interdisciplinary collaboration. An increased visibility score of 55% seems to be a nice side benefit of being involved in clustering, but it does not seem to be a key driver. Only every third participant identified impact and market intelligence exchange as a clustering incentive. Figure 2. Primary drivers for collaborating and clustering with other projects. As presented in Figure 3, an overwhelming majority, specifically 52 out of the 55 survey participants, identified scientific exploitation (e.g., follow-up project) as a significant benefit of clustering. In line with the recognition of technical synergies and networking as the primary motivations for clustering, it can be reiterated that scientific exploitation is the primary anticipated benefit within these collaborative activities. Commercial and social exploitation achieved comparatively lower scores, with 42% and 29%, respectively. The stakeholders expressing interest in commercial exploitation predominantly consist of industrial and R&D participants, pointing to the significant potential for bilateral collaborations resulting from clustering activities. It can also be noted that only 10 out of the 55 participants expect policy changes as an outcome of clustering, indicating little awareness of how clustering can impact change on a regulatory level. Figure 2. Primary drivers for collaborating and clustering with other projects. As presented in Figure 3, an overwhelming majority, specifically 52 out of the 55 survey participants, identified scientific exploitation (e.g., follow-up project) as a significant benefit of clustering. In line with the recognition of technical synergies and networking as the primary motivations for clustering, it can be reiterated that scientific exploitation is the primary anticipated benefit within these collaborative activities. Commercial and social exploitation achieved comparatively lower scores, with 42% and 29%, respectively. The stakeholders expressing interest in commercial exploitation predominantly consist of industrial and R&D participants, pointing to the significant potential for bilateral collaborations resulting from clustering activities. It can also be noted that only 10 out of the 55 participants expect policy changes as an outcome of clustering, indicating little awareness of how clustering can impact change on a regulatory level.