Boosting Europe’s creative future: inside ekip’s prioritisation phase

iStockphoto

In Brussels and beyond, cultural policy is often accused of reacting too late to technological shocks or market shifts. ekip, the European platform working to strengthen Cultural and Creative Industries (CCIs), is attempting something different: to decide in advance where innovation policy should act — and why.

ekip pursues a collaborative, open-innovation approach that fosters knowledge exchange across organizations and sectors. Through its recommendations on the Building Blocks that shape innovation ecosystems, it supports complex research and innovation processes and helps guide ecosystem transitions to ensure long-term continuity and coordinated impact.

Rather than treating policymaking as a reactive fix for isolated problems, ekip reframes it as a forward-looking innovation strategy — designed to future-proof collaboration, strengthen competitiveness and build long-term resilience.

At the base of that effort sits its prioritization phase, central for ekip.

A critical nexus

The ekip Engine, the elaborated process to run policy sprints, unfolds in four movements: Identification, Prioritization, Investigation and Formulation. Identification maps possible directions, innovation potentials. Investigation probes policy gaps. Prioritisation connects the two.

“The consequences are significant. The areas selected here will guide research, shape recommendations and aim to influence how Europe’s innovation ecosystems are supported in the years ahead,” says Alfonso Martin Mateo Industrial Design Engineer at TU Delft, an ekip partner.

From potential to priority

The logic proceeds in stages. First come Innovation Areas —domains with the potential to generate innovations, where the ‘Building Blocks’ of the ecosystem have the right features to support and encourage innovation with creatives. These are refined into Thematic Areas, more specific streams within each domain. Only after evaluation do some of these become official Policy Areas.

Research meets participation

One of the methodology’s defining strengths lies in its hybrid design. The process begins with a systemic review of academic literature, EU documents, professional reports and existing initiatives. This mapping and clustering exercise identifies patterns, gaps and emerging trends.

But research alone is not enough. The findings are tested and refined through collaborative workshops and validation sessions with consortium partners and external experts. Participatory techniques ensure that priorities are not only theoretically robust but also grounded in sector realities.

”The result is a blend of academic rigour and practical relevance. It also builds early engagement around proposed areas, generating interest and ownership before formal investigation begins,” says Giulia Calabretta, associate professor in strategic design.

This material is used to also in “the City Prototyping” be the base for the initiating real innovation work – work with the innovation portfolios in the cities.

Balancing Europe’s tensions

A distinctive feature is the Validation Mapping tool, developed in Engine sprints. It plots proposed priorities across two axes. Horizontally, it contrasts technology-driven knowledge (Key Enabling Technologies) with insights from the social sciences and humanities — a reflection of the tension between tech acceleration and human-centred meaning. Vertically, it contrasts EU-level agendas and transitions with local and regional innovation pushes.

Illustration

”CCIs are positioned as mediators between these forces. They can translate top-down ambitions into lived practice and humanize technological transformation. By mapping Thematic Areas across these quadrants, ekip avoids overemphasis on one pole while neglecting others,” says Alfonso Martin Mateo.

Criteria with impact

Selection is guided by layered criteria. Proposals are assessed for their capacity to strengthen professionalization and resilience within CCIs; to offer new angles for intervention and to contribute to sustainable competitiveness and democratic values at EU level. At the same time, their ability to deliver tangible benefits for regional and urban ecosystems is scrutinized.

”Cross-sectoral engagement is another key lens. The question is not only what CCIs gain, but how they catalyze innovation beyond their own boundaries,” says Alfonso Martin Mateo.

Such multi-level evaluation ensures that prioritization is neither fashionable nor arbitrary. It is justified against strategic, societal and ecosystem considerations.

”In an era when Europe must define its competitive edge and democratic resilience, the prioritization phase offers a quietly radical proposition. Before policy can be bold, it must be chosen with care — and with a clear sense of the ecosystems it seeks to sustain.”