Reply To: 2.1. Regional assets mapping (INTELSPACE)

RIS3 Forums General 2.1. Regional assets mapping (INTELSPACE) Reply To: 2.1. Regional assets mapping (INTELSPACE)



About page

1. delete point 1 and 2 and renumber, because these activities only get you to the page you are already reading. This merely serves to confuse the reader.
2. don’t use the term “platform” to describe the application – again confusing.
3. Figure 1 is not clear enough and can be improved. the “user’s initial input” is confusing. Don’t think we should be asking for “user input” this is too technical a term and suggests they should bring something to the exercise before they start, rather than get select all of this from the application. Instead we should ask the user to select data for the region in question, over the given time-period and on the basic of available indicators.


Don’t use the term variables, when they have previously been referred to as indicators. The guide also needs to be rewritten as the standard of English language is not what would be expected form a user.


demography and society and economy and labour, don’t seem particularly useful in terms of measuring assets, but instead capturing resources. The structure of business statistics, business demographics and innovations systems are much more useful. the geography option is very limited.

Again are we talking about variables or indicators?

we like the fact you can select multiple “variables” to map your assets, but it would be better if these could select multiple regions to compare this performance against. it would also be good to compare the regions performance against that of the nation-state and also on a trans-national basis.

We appreciate you can carry out a multiple regional asset mapping, but this can only be done by downloading the data for each region manually if you want to analyse more than one variable at the same time. to do this you need to export the data manually into an excel file. This is too time consuming and will put people off carrying out such an asset mapping.

The visualisation results are not as engaging as they need to be. It is difficult to gain any critical insights form the results contained in the graphs. some of the data sets also seems to be expired and therefore don’t offer any up-to-date information on performance (for example; structural business statistics).

Where is the trend analysis in terms of % change per annum?

Another problem can be found in the visualisation of volumes and percentages in the same graphic (for example, this can be seen in the innovation systems variables, where you seem to be comparing the equivalent of fruit with temperature).