roadMAP [PDF, 1.9 MB] - fteval

Other points that matter are:
• Clear interfaces and – even more important – a clear rationale and “message” of the MAP.
There is a trade-off between clear-cut programme marketing and different target groups,
nevertheless this is one decisive success factor;
• Competitive and transparent selection procedures;
• Balanced management approaches, with a good mix of determination and laissez faire;
• Special monitoring requirements to safeguard a broad array of feedbacks beyond simplistic
signals and indicators;
• Systemic evaluation approaches to capture behavioural additionality, network effects,
impact on level of consortium partner etc.
So we could draw a MAP governance matrix, where some minimum requirements for successful
MAPs are included.
The matrix combines the five levels of governance with the five big steps in the MAP policy
cycle, which is also the underlying structure of the MAP-TN. It asks for favourable framework
conditions (1 st and 2 nd level governance, i.e. the levels rather influencing MAP agencies and
stakeholders) and for suitable programme specifics and procedures (3 rd , 4 th and 5 th level, i.e. the
levels rather influenced by MAP agencies and stakeholders).
This matrix can be useful for the analysis and comparison of individual MAPs. Of course some
of the requirements are equally necessary for other forms of funding programmes and of course
there are country and MAP specific differences. A final remark: Good practice, but not best
practice is feasible (Rose 1993).
114
roadMAP