roadMAP [PDF, 1.9 MB] - fteval

More documents

Recommendations

Info

An overview of programmes and their classification is presented in the following table and graph: Exhibit 3: Programme overview Country Name of the MAP Classification of MAP Austria AT Australia AU Belgium BE Canada CA Germany DE Estonia EE Spain ES Finland FI France FR Hungary HU Ireland IE Netherlands NL Norway NO Slovenia SL Sweden SE United Kingdom UK Kplus www.kplus.at CRC www.crc.gov.au VIS / CIN www.iwt.be NCE www.nce.gc.ca CCN www.nanonet.de Competence Centres Estonia www.mkm.ee PCTI-Cooperación www.euskadi.net/industria Technology Programme www.tekes.fi PREDIT www.predit.prd.fr KKK www.om.hu Energy RDD Programme www.sei.ie TS www.senter.nl TEFT www.snd.no Toolmakers Programme www.uni-mb.si Competence Centre Programme www.vinnova.se Partners in Innovation www.pii.org.uk Competence Centre programme Competence Centre programme Network oriented programme Network oriented programme Competence Centre programme with thematic focus (nanotechnology) Competence Centre programme Network oriented programme (with SME focus) Cluster oriented programme Network oriented programme with thematic focus (transport) Competence Centre programme Network oriented programme with thematic focus (energy) Cluster oriented programme Network oriented programme (with SME focus) Cluster oriented programme (with SME and thematic focus) Competence Centre programme Network oriented programme with thematic focus (construction) <strong>roadMAP</strong> 5
The graph below is an attempt to visualise the programme classification with regard to the following characteristics: • science versus innovation driven programmes • from short term project cooperation to long term networks and centre programmes Exhibit 4: Typology of MAPs 1.5 Further remarks With the MAP-TN not only a stable platform for an open and frank exchange of experience based on confidence and trust was created, but it was also the starting point of further cooperation, staff exchange, and mutual collaboration as experts for evaluations, invitations as speaker to national workshops, etc... From the beginning the MAP Thematic Network was supposed to be a learning platform for its members. E.g. this network was extremely valuable for EE as it ran parallel to the design process of the Estonian Competence Centre programme and a lot of the network’s experience could be fed into the programme design. Also in Sweden a second call for Competence Centres was prepared at this time. 6 Innovation Science NO ES NL UK IE thematic not thematic Project cooperation Networks Competence centres FR SL AU HU short term mid term long term BE FI DE CA EE AT SE <strong>roadMAP</strong>
Page 1 and 2: MULTI ACTORS AND MULTI MEASURES PRO
Page 3 and 4: ii roadMAP
Page 5 and 6: iv 6.8 Lessons from the MAP-TN and
Page 7 and 8: The chapter on the design phase dea
Page 9: • Estonia: Ministry of Economic A
Page 13 and 14: 8 roadMAP
Page 15 and 16: 10 “Performers” - Measures on t
Page 19 and 20: • MAPs encourage interdisciplinar
Page 21 and 22: 4.2 Reasons for launching MAPs 4.2.
Page 23 and 24: We have to distinguish three issues
Page 25 and 26: To sum up: most MAPs are an answer
Page 27 and 28: 4.3 Actors in the design process 4.
Page 29 and 30: Box 3 The Australian CRC Programme
Page 31 and 32: 4.4.3 Scoring goals … and scores
Page 33 and 34: The larger size of the programmes a
Page 35 and 36: In MAPs (like in other programmes)
Page 37 and 38: Finally, foreign peers ensure - at
Page 39 and 40: Box 9 The Austrian K plus programme
Page 41 and 42: 4.7 Lessons from the MAP-TN and Sta
Page 45 and 46: The conclusion is that we must sear
Page 47 and 48: Box 12 The UK Partners in Innovatio
Page 49 and 50: Exhibit 8: Open calls for proposals
Page 51 and 52: • The level of competition for aw
Page 53 and 54: Box 16 The Swedish Competence Centr
Page 55 and 56: In practice, these technologies hav
Page 57 and 58: Box 17 The Finnish Technology Progr
Page 59 and 60: Box 18 The German CC Nanotechnology
Page 61 and 62:
The quality of education and traini
Page 63 and 64:
Examining the critical success fact
Page 65 and 66:
6.2 Evaluator input to the contract
Page 67 and 68:
6.3.3 Key principles for consortium
Page 69 and 70:
Notes: • Principal Agreement - is
Page 71 and 72:
Box 21 Policy objectives in state f
Page 73 and 74:
Contract negotiations within MAPs a
Page 75 and 76:
• An agreed timetable is importan
Page 77 and 78:
• Less standardisation is usually
Page 79 and 80:
Relatively few MAPs involve initial
Page 81 and 82:
However, there should be a good rea
Page 83 and 84:
6.8.4 Duration of negotiations •
Page 85 and 86:
80 roadMAP
Page 87 and 88:
7.2 Basic definitions and questions
Page 89 and 90:
aggregated currently. Monitoring sh
Page 91 and 92:
7.3.3 Evaluating MAPs: How do we me
Page 93 and 94:
Peers are important contributors in
Page 95 and 96:
(iii) Help making the different per
Page 97 and 98:
7.4.1 Monitoring The term "Monitori
Page 99 and 100:
7.4.2 Project evaluation “Project
Page 101 and 102:
Box 27 Comprehensive stage-by-stage
Page 103 and 104:
Box 28 Evaluation as a „learning
Page 105 and 106:
enefit/cost analysis” where the d
Page 107 and 108:
Modified peer review’s key weakne
Page 109 and 110:
• Funding for MAPs usually origin
Page 111 and 112:
Finally, some authors see in the ST
Page 113 and 114:
which can be of a planned or unplan
Page 115 and 116:
Another is the issue of the set of
Page 117 and 118:
8.4.4 Fourth level („operative“
Page 119 and 120:
Other points that matter are: • C
Page 121 and 122:
8.6 Empirical findings from the MAP
Page 123 and 124:
The co-ordination issue is tackled
Page 125 and 126:
Examples for publicity vs. confiden
Page 127 and 128:
(EE). Compared to other features of
Page 129 and 130:
Box 32 Organisational Learning in A
Page 131 and 132:
indeed play an important role to su
Page 133 and 134:
9.6 Lessons learned - recommendatio
Page 135 and 136:
130 roadMAP
Page 137 and 138:
12 ANNEX 12.1 Definition of RTDI fu
Page 139 and 140:
12.1.3 Instruments different from R
Page 141 and 142:
12.2.3 SE: Competence Centre Progra
Page 143 and 144:
12.2.7 SL: The Toolmaker’s Progra
Page 145 and 146:
12.2.12 CA: NCE - Networks of Centr
Page 147 and 148:
12.3 NL: TS - Technological Coopera
Page 149 and 150:
European Commission (1999): Evaluat
Page 151 and 152:
Schibany / Jörg / Polt (1999): Tow
Page 153 and 154:
148 roadMAP
Page 155 and 156:
Country Organisation MAP AT TIG Kpl
Page 157 and 158:
Country Organisation MAP 1. MAP gui
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Country Organisation MAP 1. Support
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Country Organisation MAP AT TIG K p
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Country Organisation MAP 1. Monitor
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Country MAP AU CRC CA NCE FI Techno
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
show all

roadMAP [PDF, 1.9 MB] - fteval

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?