roadMAP [PDF, 1.9 MB] - fteval

More documents

Recommendations

Info

d) Definition of the ways of support: RTDI funding programmes can show also a wide range of instruments, the most prominent ones being of financial nature like grants, loans or guarantees. Many programmes (also) include „softer“ measures like information, advice, business support etc. e) Definition of an annual or multi-annual budget. f) Definition of the duties of both sides (supporting programme management and supported initiative) regarding legal obligations, reporting, monitoring, subject to evaluations etc. g) Possibility to evaluate the whole set of actions covered by a „programme“ in a coherent way. This means again: Are there explicit common goals? Are there explicit rules of procedure? Are there measurable outputs and impacts which can be attributed to the programme? 3. RTDI funding programmes have – as already mentioned above – within their structure a set of goals and a set of rules that should specify the activities supported by the programme and distinguish them from other activities. Such specifications can be technology-oriented (e.g. „Biotech Funding Programme“) or defined in a more horizontal way aimed at functions within the innovation system (e.g. „Programme to foster cooperation science - industry“). 4. Within an RTDI funding programme the activities supported shall serve the common thematic or structural goals of the programme. The links between the supported activities under the programme umbrella (e.g. a Biotech programme) can be rather loose („it has to be scientific Biotech projects“) or strong („the funded projects must be part of a managed thematic, interdisciplinary network“). 5. RTDI funding programmes generally have a limited lifetime („the programme runs from ... to ...) or the lifetime of the programme ends when the last project or other initiatives supported by the programme ends. Projects always have a given timetable with a defined end-date. 6. An RTDI funding programme itself is different from a „legal entity“ and from an „institution“; but an instrument accessible and of possible usefulness for individual and / or legal persons. 7. An RTDI funding programme is an activity / a set of activities run and governed by a responsible authority ( see 2.), i.e. a RTDI funding institution like an agency, a ministry, or a research council. <strong>roadMAP</strong> 133
12.1.3 Instruments different from RTDI funding programmes Programmes are different from generic funding activities and schemes, from organisations and from projects: Direct generic funding schemes: Typical for this kind of RTDI funding instruments are agencies or research councils giving support (in the form of grants or in another way) to initiatives brought forward by a RTDI performer, be it a firm, a scientist or comparable natural or legal persons. This support is granted, project per project, under a set of common rules. Such rules specify only lifetime, RTD intensity, funding rates, the form of the proposal and similar formal characteristics of applicable initiatives. These direct generic funding schemes often have a limited lifetime, but there are also many cases where such a scheme is open for decades with no ending date, being the main „product“ of a funding institution. Such schemes generally neither have a thematic focus nor a strategic orientation or strategic goals. E.g.: Their mission is not to „boost Biotech applications to strengthen young Biotech firms within the next three years“, but to „enhance general competitiveness of the Nation’s industry“ by open single project funding. Of course the borders between such activities and RTDI funding programmes are blurred; the same is true for the borders between schemes and the funding institutions running them. Indirect generic support activities: Instruments like RTDI tax credits are no funding programmes because there is generally no limited lifetime of this activity, there are generally no specific goals and no thematic / structural missions. Moreover, there is by definition no set of managed activities as funding instrument. Organisations: Organisations generally do not have a limited lifetime but are considered permanent fixtures, even when they undergo periodic evaluation. The normal features of an organisation are: Long term mission; possibility to act as a legal person with all rights, duties and liabilities; written company agreement, formal boards and bodies, most of them according to law; director(s) and employees; etc. Institutions as legal persons can apply for and run / manage RTDI funding programmes and / or projects. • Special issue: Programmes for the set-up of institutionalised RTDI performers like Competence Centres. Some programmes try to trigger cooperative R&D by selecting and funding new institutions with a limited life-time. The main task of these institutions is to run a number of cooperative R&D projects and to perform related activities, often in form of giving an initial boost for consortia that shall work in a self-sustaining way after the end of the funding. Nevertheless the „nature“ of an RTDI funding programme is given, as long as the characteristics under 10.1.2 are there. • Funding Organisations: As stated under 10.1.2, a programme has to be governed / to be run by a responsible authority. These authorities are organisations, their instruments are inter alia RTDI funding programmes. Projects: Projects have a clearly set lifetime, a work plan and include a well defined task. Whether small or large, they are targeted at one issue (....). Projects can be part of programmes, while programmes are generally an umbrella for a number of projects. 134 <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 and 10:
• Estonia: Ministry of Economic A
Page 11 and 12:
The graph below is an attempt to vi
Page 13 and 14:
8 roadMAP
Page 15 and 16:
10 “Performers” - Measures on t
Page 17 and 18:
12 roadMAP
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 43 and 44:
38 roadMAP
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: 12 ANNEX 12.1 Definition of RTDI fu
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 167 and 168: Country Organisation MAP 1. Support
Page 175 and 176: Country Organisation MAP AT TIG K p
Page 183 and 184: Country Organisation MAP 1. Monitor
Page 189 and 190:
Country Organisation MAP AT TIG K p
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?