In December 2024, the EU4Digital project released a final report summarizing its findings on innovative clusters. The report focused on assessing the state and positions of clusters and identifying their needs and priorities for supporting innovation and digitalization among their members. This study was conducted within the Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. A distinguishing feature of the study was its extensive research scope and robust statistical base.
Overall, the research team analyzed data from 318 clusters across the EaP countries, with 41 organizations undergoing evaluation for cluster management quality based on ESCA (European Secretariat for Cluster Analysis) criteria. As an incentive for development, five EaP clusters, including three Ukrainian ones, were awarded ESCA bronze-level certifications at a conference in Chisinau in October.
The results of this project are particularly significant for Ukrainian clusters from multiple perspectives, especially given that Ukrainian clusters hold a dominant position among the EaP countries. According to the Ukrainian Cluster Alliance (UCA), this cluster study is the most comprehensive and in-depth study of the history of the cluster movement in Ukraine.
Moreover, many of the report’s findings and topics raised in the report resonate strongly with issues that UCA has consistently addressed over the past three years. In light of this, UCA’s Executive Directorate highlighted the key takeaways from this report in a dedicated review for the benefit of Ukrainian clusters.
The review will focus on seven tracks that align with the EU4Digital report. Each track offers an overview of the relevant Ukrainian context, EU4Digital findings, outstanding issues for the cluster community, and potential directions for action in 2025.
Effective cluster management is a foundational requirement for the development and sustainability of clusters. For the past three years, this issue has been a priority on the Ukrainian Cluster Alliance's (UCA) agenda. Among the 40+ clusters currently part of UCA, fewer than one-third have a dedicated manager who handles operations on a systematic and regular basis. Even fewer—just five organizations—boast management teams comprising three or more members. Without adequate managerial resources, the functionality and growth of clusters remain highly uncertain.
Figure 1 illustrates the level of resource allocation by EaP countries and the composition of cluster management bodies.
Fig. 1
The data highlights that robust governance structures such as Boards, thematic committees, or working groups are feasible only for clusters with more than 30 member organizations. In 2024, three Ukrainian clusters—APPAU (Association of Industrial Automation of Ukraine), Kharkiv IT Cluster, and Lviv IT Cluster—achieved ESCA Bronze certification. This evaluation covers 28 indicators, including organizational structure, member composition and quantity, formalized strategies and action plans, financial stability, the range and quality of services provided, and notable achievements. The EU4Digital methodology also evaluates clusters' capabilities to foster innovation and digitalization among their members, with a broader focus on supporting SMEs in local markets (explored further in the next track).
Overall, the EU4Digital report's findings align with those from UCA. A particularly noteworthy aspect of the EU4Digital methodology is its segmentation of clusters into mature clusters and proto-clusters—young clusters at an early stage of development. Management challenges are prevalent across both groups. A potential criticism of the EU4Digital report could be its uniform evaluation of these two distinct categories, as the dynamics and needs of mature clusters and proto-clusters differ significantly.
Key Discussion Points:
During UCA's July 2024 Assembly, a resolution was adopted requiring clusters joining UCA to meet minimum size criteria, allowing for a membership as small as five organizations. This decision aimed to expand coverage and provide better support to young clusters. However, the lack of alignment between this approach and UCA’s Executive Directorate’s capacity to serve many young clusters became a pressing issue by the end of the year. For example, despite receiving support, many young clusters occupying specific and otherwise promising niches on the market have not met performance expectations. The primary reasons cited are weak cluster management and insufficient collective resources to allocate experts for specialized directions.
Ideas for Development in 2025:
- New Segmentation and Value Propositions: Develop a new segmentation model that differentiates between mature and young clusters, offering tailored value propositions for each group. Align UCA’s service model with this segmentation to optimize resource allocation and support.
- Monitoring System for Young Clusters: Introduce a monitoring system to track the growth and development of young clusters. Establish a framework for determining actionable steps if a cluster fails to demonstrate progress, ensuring efficient resource use and timely interventions.
The twin transition has been a key agenda item for the Ukrainian Cluster Alliance (UCA) since its inception. While most UCA clusters support this direction—especially when applying for new grants or declaring their commitment—the reality is that more than half of the current clusters lack capability and weak interest in this area. Here are some examples:
- In August 2022, APPAU conducted a series of events to promote digital innovations specifically for UCA clusters. Less than five clusters and their members were involved.
- In December 2024, at the final GDT Textile conference, which showcased Ukraine's first SME twin transition roadmap, only nine participants from UCA clusters were present out of 80 registered attendees, representing just five clusters.
- Only six UCA clusters are represented in the Industry 5.0 Community of Practice (CoP 5.0), with eight members out of nearly 30 experts selected by APPAU for 12 working groups.
Numerous similar cases highlight the significant gap between declarations and actual capabilities. This discrepancy causes serious concern for the UCA Executive Directorate, especially since UCA positions its clusters as leaders in the twin transition of SMEs. The reality is far from this vision.
How do these data align with the EU4Digital report?
The focus of the EU4Digital project on digital innovation is clear. Firstly, it aligns with the European course—clusters in the EU are inherently positioned as innovative, with an emphasis on digital and green innovations cultivated for over a decade. Secondly, the essence of the EU4Digital program is the development of digital innovations.
Figure 2 shows the framework for assessing the state and capabilities of clusters, with indicators 4.3 and 4.4 being particularly revealing.
Рис. 2 Framework for Evaluating Innovative Clusters
The EU4Digital study data fully confirm that support for digitalization—both at the level of strategic planning and in providing tangible services to SMEs—is one of the weakest aspects of clusters across all five EaP countries, as shown in Figure 3.
Notably, despite having strong IT clusters, Ukraine falls behind other EaP countries in its focus on digitalization.
Рис. 3 Prioritization of Strategic Areas for Clusters Based on Their Needs
Key Ideas for Discussion:
- The situation within UCA appears contradictory. On the one hand, the alliance includes the country's top digitalization leaders (e.g., APPAU, IT clusters, and 5-7 other high-tech clusters). On the other hand, most clusters from traditional industries either ignore twin transition topics or occasionally engage in superficial promotional activities without creating tangible services for their members. Even basic tasks, such as disseminating information or involving members in shared services provided by UCA’s Executive Directorate, are challenging.
Development Ideas for 2025:
- Segmentation: Identify a group of clusters for which the twin transition is genuinely a priority and concentrate partnership proposals exclusively on them.
- Creative and Proactive Engagement: Actively involve clusters in twin transition topics by formalizing plans and mutual commitments over a defined period.
- Specialized Training: Organize dedicated training sessions for cluster leaders, drawing on the experience of similar programs held in Poland in 2023-2024.
Traditionally, a lack of organizational resources leads to a deficit in competencies and skills. Within UCA, the most commonly discussed skill gaps include:
- Networking and Matchmaking: Skills in building connections and fostering collaborations.
- Communications: Effective internal and external communication strategies.
- Fundraising and Project Management: Proficiency in securing funding and managing projects.
- International Collaboration and Export Marketing: Including strong English proficiency.
- Knowledge of Modern Technologies: Staying updated with industry advancements.
The EU4Digital survey data reflect similar findings (see Figure 3), except omitting these foundational networking and matchmaking skills.
Fig. 3 Gaps in cluster managers skills
Key Ideas for Discussion: the valid question here is not what to learn but how and whom to train. Selecting coordinators and developing comprehensive programs explicitly tailored for clusters remains a top priority for UCA.
Development Directions for 2025:
- Launch Training and Development Programs: Initiate several training programs prepared by the UCA Development Team: Cluster Academy, Cluster Management School, and Project Management School. These UCA’s initiatives seek partnership and donor support in 2025-27.
This topic became highly relevant for UCA in 2024. Initially, it was assumed that clusters were “hidden champions” in attracting SMEs, at least their members. Moreover, UCA's early activities involved many universities and scientific institutions. However, the realities of 2024 reveal a different picture—clusters rarely showcase their SMEs, and finding genuine academic experts ready to contribute to Working Groups immediately is a significant challenge.
Only a few clusters have succeeded in this area. For example:
- Business Engagement Champions: The Ukrainian Furniture Association, APPAU, Podillya Fashion Cluster, and the Heat Energy Cluster, which launched successfully in 2024, are notable examples.
- Academic Expertise: UCA is largely reliant on the small group of active experts who have worked consistently with APPAU since 2018. Only they maintain a systematic, regular, and publicly visible high level of expertise.
EU4Digital Data Alignment:
The EU4Digital findings align with these observations:
- 68% of clusters face challenges in engaging large businesses.
- 41% report similar issues with medium-sized businesses.
The report highlights that this lack of engagement diminishes clusters’ overall capabilities, as large and medium-sized businesses bring resources, advanced technologies, and standards. Additionally, large organizations are crucial for identifying supply chain gaps and innovation ecosystem weaknesses—areas where clusters can excel.
Figure 4: Level of Business and Academic Engagement in EaP Clusters
Key Ideas for Discussion:
- How can large and medium-sized companies be attracted to clusters, and what value propositions should be offered to them?
- How to foster mutually beneficial collaboration with academics and universities.
Development Directions for 2025: develop a focused approach, including exchanges and documenting best practices, on:
a) Designing special programs for engaging medium and large businesses.
b) Better aligning academic involvement with business needs.
Since 2018, APPAU has been focusing on integrating cluster approaches with those of DIHs (Digital Innovation Hubs). During this period, APPAU and partners from the Industry4Ukraine platform began positioning clusters and DIHs as the two “pillars” (key institutions) of regional innovation ecosystems in nearly all relevant documents.
UCA’s position paper “Developing DIHs in Ukraine” clearly outlines the challenges and expectations in this domain. Therefore, the fact that five EDIHs (European Digital Innovation Hubs) include our innovative clusters as key consortium leaders strongly results from the European Commission’s 2024 selection.
However, this is just the beginning of the journey. Any guidance on directions and steps forward is valuable. What insights does the EU4Digital report provide in this track? Figure 5 showcases EU best practices in implementing the four key roles of EDIHs.
Figure 5
Given this list, UCA’s progress and growth areas become clear. At UCA, we have long focused on building an expert community and are ending 2024 with 12 expert Working Groups. Their level of competence is significantly improved compared to 2023. The GDT Textile and DT4SME projects have provided us with experience using two SME self-diagnosis tools for digital maturity (ADMA & DMA). This experience forms the foundation for many EDIHs to expand their efforts. Additionally, the Twin Transition Roadmap represents a genuine breakthrough, overcoming stagnation in strategic planning over the past five years.
However, growth areas remain:
- Flagship Pilot Projects: Clusters and EDIHs lack standout pilot projects in digital transformation across various SME-involved domains.
- Testbeds and Labs: There is a notable shortage of modern testing facilities and laboratories.
- Innovation Tracking: Efforts to catalogue leading innovators across clusters are underdeveloped.
- Advanced Training Programs: Training on Industry 4.0 and 5.0 topics is insufficient.
- Fundraising for SMEs: Support for SMEs in securing funding needs significant improvement.
Key Ideas for Discussion:
The list of best practices in Figure 5 can indeed serve as a checklist for developing strategies in EDIHs where our clusters are involved. However, as previously mentioned in Tracks 2–4, the readiness to provide qualified services to SMEs for digital transformation is low in most Ukrainian consortia. This makes the topic particularly complex and requires deeper exploration. From our experience and the immediate outlook, the following points are clear:
- Focusing Selectively on Best Practices: Of the 20+ best practices, we should choose those that align with our maturity level. It is crucial to share experiences with Eastern European clusters 5–7 years ahead of us.
- Clusters’ Role in Engaging SMEs: Clusters need to emphasize their role in forming and engaging SMEs in ecosystems planned for development. Universities, as the primary source of experts, will not take on this task. However, the current level of SME engagement is weak (refer to Track #4), making this a priority growth area.
- Questioning the EU’s Four Specialization Areas: The EU's imposition of four specific areas of EDIH specialization (AI, HPC, Cybersecurity, Ledger Technology, and quantum) seems dubious. Combining emerging technologies with emerging markets (low maturity) raises concerns about the results.
Our research and market surveys over the past six years have never indicated significant SME demand for these technologies. While pilots in cybersecurity, AI, blockchain, and similar areas were popular among large holdings from 2018 to 2021, they achieved limited success. Among SMEs, demand for such solutions is virtually non-existent.
Instead, there is growing demand for:
- Established Technologies: SMEs prefer mature, cost-effective solutions from Industry 3.0.
- Technologies Reaching the Plateau of Maturity: According to Gartner’s methodology, there is increasing interest in technologies focused on applications rather than innovation. These include ERP-MES-APS, Digital Lean, Asset Management (e.g., predictive maintenance and energy resource management), quality control, and traceability.
The technologies enabling these solutions are important but secondary unless they deliver fundamentally different results. For EDIHs, it is far more critical to specialize in applications tailored to specific industries rather than promoting trendy technologies disconnected from industrial contexts.
Fig. 6 Step-by-step methodology EDIHs
Development Directions for 2025:
- Rapid Consolidation of Sectoral and Regional Ecosystems:
Clusters should play a central role in achieving the following:- Identify key service providers aligned with SME needs and establish collaboration with them.
- Integrating advanced cluster techniques in networking and matchmaking processes.
- Establishment of Shared Service Models:
Create service-sharing frameworks where services are optimally distributed within the consortium. - Expert Pool Preparation:
Develop a pool of experts, prioritizing innovation management, brokerage, and fundraising. - Structural Changes in Universities:
Advocate for forming dedicated teams of experts within universities to support these initiatives.
The issue of state support for clusters is well-known within UCA and has been a recurring topic at many public events since 2020. The government did not support the draft National Program for Cluster Development until 2027, and hopes for its revival only emerged in 2024 with the launch of the Accelerate GDT project. In this project, the Ministry of Economy is an associated partner of UCA, and the partners are committed to implementing the principles of the twin transition in new cluster policies. However, these validated and official policies at the State level are still absent.
In the context of the new SME support strategy until 2027, there is some expectation that the government will eventually take action. On the other hand, regional initiatives appear more promising. For instance, Lviv sets a benchmark, successfully implementing its city-level cluster support policy primarily through voucher instruments. Other regions also have specific cluster support tools, and the spread of such practices is a positive development.
The EU4Digital report identifies a similarly challenging situation regarding cluster support across all EaP countries. Interestingly, Ukraine performs slightly better than its neighbours in this assessment. However, the report highlights a significant gap compared to EU countries, where the situation is far more favourable. EU clusters benefit from a comprehensive arsenal of tools and practices and extensive experience in their application (see Figure 7).
The result of EaP is chronic underfunding of clusters. According to the report:
- 5% of identified clusters have no budget at all.
- 10% operate on less than €10,000 annually.
- 56% have annual budgets between €10,000 and €100,000.
In Ukraine, 85% of clusters receive no funding from public funds, while 22% rely entirely on donor funding. Additionally, another 22% do not collect membership fees.
In simple terms, this means Ukrainian clusters are underfunded. Consequently, they cannot afford to employ highly qualified managers, develop quality services, or organize large-scale events.
Figure 7: Key Trends and Practices in Cluster Support in EU Countries
UCA’s position aligns closely with the EU4Digital report’s recommendations. Advocating for including cluster-related topics in policymakers' agendas at all levels remains one of UCA’s key strategic objectives.
Key Ideas for Discussion:
- Improved Coordination: There is a need for much better synchronization and coordination in interactions with central and regional authorities (ЦОВВ-РОВВ-ОМС). An ideal solution would be to create a dedicated position within UCA’s Executive Directorate to facilitate this interaction. Such a role does not currently exist.
- Diversification of Funding Sources: UCA’s experience in 2024 is illustrative—diversifying funding sources was relatively straightforward. Unlike the crisis period 2022, when there was only one donor, UCA now has at least seven.
Development Directions for 2025:
- National-Level Policies and Strategies: Develop policies and strategies at the central government level (as part of the Accelerate GDT project).
- Regional Policies and Strategies: Create policies and strategies in six regions (under the Clusters6Policies project).
- Systematic Dissemination of Best Practices: Share successful cluster development practices with policymakers across all levels.
- Support for Clusters in Diversifying Funding Sources: Assist clusters in identifying and securing varied funding streams.
Clusters function as service organizations, where the quality and quantity of services determine their value proposition for members, SMEs, and other participants. Developing these services is a significant challenge for young clusters.
Tracks 2–4 clearly highlight this: Without full-time, highly qualified managers, relevant experience, skills, and competencies—particularly in engaging and matching members within regional or industry ecosystems—and limited budgets, high-quality services are unlikely to emerge. It would take a miracle for everything to align simultaneously, enabling a cluster to achieve steady growth quickly.
UCA’s statistics show that the average time it takes a cluster to achieve self-sustainability and develop a service portfolio is 3 to 5 years.
Importance of Phased Development:
Phased and well-structured development using appropriate tools at each maturity stage is crucial for young clusters. With the right approach and external support, success is achievable. This is precisely why UCA positions itself as a cluster accelerator.
UCA provides:
- Shared Services: Support that young clusters cannot yet develop for their members.
- Mentorship: Guidance throughout their evolutionary development.
Additionally, UCA leverages two key tools:
- Continuous exchange of best practices.
- A proprietary cluster development methodology.
Insights from the EU4Digital Report:
The report focuses on digitalization-related services and highlights that clusters are significantly behind in this area (see Figure 8). In other words, while there are declarations of intent, actual services are largely absent.
Figure 8: Availability and Prioritization of Services by Clusters in EaP Countries
The availability of digitalization support services in EaP clusters is significantly lower than in EU clusters. Only 21% of EaP clusters offer such services in their portfolios, 50% lower than EU clusters, where 42% provide digitalization support.
Figure 9 shows key constraints in Providing Services. The vast majority of clusters face substantial limitations in delivering services due to:
- Lack of Information: Insufficient knowledge about potential services and their delivery mechanisms.
- Lack of Expertise: A shortage of skilled personnel capable of managing and implementing these services.
- Lack of Funding: Limited financial resources to develop and sustain service offerings.
The most significant gaps are observed in the organization of services related to digitalization, where all three constraints converge.
Fig.9
Key Ideas for Discussion:
This situation is very familiar to UCA and aligns entirely with our experience. Most UCA cluster leaders lack the knowledge and skills to organize digitalization services for SMEs. This is precisely why, in 2023, UCA introduced a service model that includes some of these services— such as innovation fundraising, matching with digital solution providers, and educational campaigns.
While many clusters actively utilise these services, uptake remains insufficient and uneven. Therefore, the key questions for 2025 are:
- How can we increase the penetration of shared services among UCA clusters?
- How do we balance interests and achieve a win-win collaboration?
(Currently, the shared services provided by UCA’s Executive Directorate are not fully covered by membership fees or donor contributions, leaving APPAU to sponsor many activities.)
Development Directions for 2025:
- Align Shared Services with New Segmentation: Structure UCA’s shared service offerings based on the principle of providing more services to clusters that:
- (a) Fulfill their commitments to growth.
- (b) Collaborate in delivering services (as outlined in UCA’s model).
- (c) Contribute back to UCA—not necessarily financially, but by engaging their members actively in initiatives.
Key Recommendations from the EU4Digital Report
The recommendations of the EU4Digital report are generally clear, appropriate, and relevant for Ukrainian clusters. The nearly two dozen recommendations have been summarized into five main categories to simplify their presentation. Comparisons to the EU context support these categories and focus on the following areas:
1. Development of Cluster Policies and Programs at the State Level.
This category emphasizes the need for robust national-level cluster policies and associated support measures.
The key message from the Report:
“Every region or country with sufficient industrial or innovation potential should develop its own cluster policy supported by corresponding cluster programs. Clusters are a powerful tool for fostering innovation, R&D investments, business-science collaboration, and enterprise internationalization.”
Specific Reports’ recommendations for UCA clusters:
- Program Structure: The report identifies seven key factors to include in cluster programs.
- Support Instruments: Offers a range of potential tools, including financial support, technical assistance (e.g., for networking and cluster promotion), and internationalization efforts.
- Cluster Segmentation: Highlights the importance of segmenting clusters by their stage in the lifecycle and providing differentiated support accordingly.
- Proposed Framework: The report provides an indicative framework for support programs, breaking them down by timelines and aligning them with the lifecycle stages of cluster organizations.
This structured approach offers UCA valuable insights into designing and advocating for policies and programs that align with international best practices.
2. Strengthening and Improving Cluster Management Quality
The report emphasizes several measures to enhance cluster governance, including:
a. Increasing the Number of Managers: expand cluster management teams to handle strategic and operational responsibilities better.
b. Improving Organizational Structures: Enhance organizational frameworks to allocate operational and strategic roles.
c. Engaging Key Stakeholders: To bring additional expertise and resources, cluster management should incorporate diverse stakeholders, such as large companies and academics.
d. Enhancing Strategic Planning: Improve planning, KPI monitoring, and corrective actions to align cluster activities with strategic goals.
e. Focusing on Skill Development: Strengthen the skills of management teams, particularly in innovation, digitalization, and overall management capacity.
f. Ensuring Financial Sustainability: Improve financial stability by Establishing membership fees.
Securing funding from public sources and donors. Diversifying funding streams to reduce reliance on single sources.
g. Enhancing Marketing and Branding: Increase visibility and attractiveness by improving marketing communications and cluster branding.
The report provides specific recommendations for addressing challenges at different stages of the cluster lifecycle.
For example, if a young cluster is “stuck” at an early development stage, unable to break the cycle of:
low membership → low fees → no dedicated manager → no value creation → low membership,
The report recommends the following actions:
- Hire a Cluster Manager: Secure resources for at least a part-time (0.5 FTE) cluster manager position.
- Foster Collaborative Initiatives: Identify activities that unite cluster members and can evolve into projects to realize the cluster’s collective potential as quickly as possible.
- Apply for Donor Funding: Submit these projects to donor organizations, emphasizing innovation and the cluster’s synergistic potential as key selling points.
3. Focused Support for Young Clusters
State and other support programs should prioritize young clusters, which make up 85% of clusters in the EaP region. Tailored interventions are essential to address their specific developmental challenges.
4. Improving Member Engagement at the Cluster Level
a. Focus on KPI #1: Membership Growth. Prioritize increasing the number of cluster members, primarily through participation in joint initiatives and projects. The report highlights significant disparities between clusters in the EU and EaP, which apply to 90% of UCA clusters.
b. Better Engagement of Key Stakeholders. Enhance efforts to involve large businesses, academics, and developers in cluster activities.
c. Improving Service Quantity and Quality. Focus on expanding and enhancing the range of services offered to members.
5. Strengthening Clusters as Tools for SME Digital Transformation
a. Systematic Digital Cluster Matching. Ensure consistent and systematic matching of digital clusters (and their members) with clusters from traditional industries.
b. Collaboration with EDIHs. Combine efforts with European Digital Innovation Hubs (EDIHs) to create better synergies in supporting SMEs’ digitalization.
6. Enhancing Internationalization and EU Cluster Collaboration
a. Benchmarking and Knowledge Transfer. Continuously improve benchmarking processes and the transfer of best practices from EU countries, including cluster program evaluations at the national level.
b. Applying ECSA Quality Criteria. Adopt European Secretariat for Cluster Analysis (ECSA) quality standards to standardize and align cluster practices.
Preliminary Proposals from UCA for Its Members and Ukrainian Cluster Stakeholders
As mentioned at the beginning of this review, the EU4Digital report is unprecedented in its scope and quality of information about the current state of the EaP countries and its recommendations. UCA has already recommended that its Board and the Cluster Policy Committee study these documents.
The report encourages UCA to reassess its strategies and plans, both about external stakeholders and internally, regarding previously developed policies and strategies. Based on the EU4Digital recommendations, the following proposals are essential for discussions with UCA clusters and key stakeholders (donors, the European Commission, and others). These steps are vital for integrating into national policies and action plans to support the cluster movement.
1. Government Leadership – Establishing Centralized Oversight
Many EU4Digital recommendations, while not explicitly stated, are addressed to government structures. These bodies must establish cluster policies and development programs, as is the norm globally.
In Ukraine, this challenge remains unmet. Despite positive relationships and some understanding of the importance of clusters within the Ministry of Economy, there are no concrete commitments to create or launch such policies. References to clusters in sections of the SME support strategy until 2027 cannot currently be considered a substitute for dedicated cluster policies.
Clusters need a specifically targeted program incorporating the measures outlined in the EU4Digital report.
2. Strengthening All Institutions for Cluster Support
This applies to both governmental and non-governmental institutions and must include the formal recognition of UCA as the principal association for cluster development in Ukraine.
UCA has consistently been the government’s leading non-governmental partner in creating and implementing cluster policies and programs. The draft National Cluster Development Program (2020), multiple position papers, and substantial achievements in cluster development over the past three years attest to UCA’s professionalism and dedication.
However, some stakeholders still fail to recognize UCA’s central role. Misunderstandings with GIZ-Ukraine in 2023–2024 exemplify this, where a separate team created conflicting situations with UCA. Poor coordination between 2022 and 2024 led to fragmented actions and reduced project effectiveness. Improved coordination is essential, especially given the challenges young clusters face and the involvement of new actors such as regional administrations, development agencies, and sectoral associations.
3. Expanding and Prioritizing Support Tools for Clusters
Support instruments should align with cluster maturity levels and broader sectoral and regional goals, such as industrial and innovation development or the twin transition of SMEs.
For instance, UCA is discussing scaling Lviv’s successful voucher-based support model. However, this remains the only regular example of regional government support. The broader range of tools outlined in the EU4Digital report must be tailored to align with specific regions or sectors’ innovation and industrial goals.
4. Quality Segmentation and Selective Support
The EU4Digital report, summarizing European experiences, highlights the importance of segmentation by lifecycle stage and sector. This includes distinguishing between tech-savvy and traditional industry clusters (e.g., digital service providers).
Equally important is supporting clusters demonstrating clear growth trajectories, even early. For example, the Ukrainian Heat Energy Cluster, launched in the spring of 2024, has already united 20 manufacturers nationwide, developed valuable member services, and aims to set an industry agenda. This contrasts with some associations that label themselves as clusters solely to secure grants.
Government and international organizations must differentiate “who’s who” in Ukraine and prioritize support for clusters with genuine growth potential.
5. Monitoring and Reporting on Cluster Program Implementation
Cluster program monitoring and periodic reporting should be collective and public and involve stakeholders responsible for advancing the cluster movement in Ukraine. Such reporting is scarce from donors and beneficiaries, including clusters and service providers.
UCA’s Executive Directorate will present a more comprehensive framework of cluster policy guidelines to the Ministry of Economy, Cluster Committee, UCA Board, and General Assembly.
Conclusion:
We thank the EU4Digital team for their analysis and recommendations. Such documents guide, inspire and direct our efforts. UCA is ready to implement the provided recommendations. Despite the challenges of wartime, Ukrainian clusters remain resilient, steadfastly integrating into European value chains and ecosystems, and open to collaboration with European clusters.
UCA Executive Directorate