roadMAP [PDF, 1.9 MB] - fteval

Further necessary but no discriminating features for MAPs
• Programme character: See definition of RTDI programmes, (Annex); namely the
characteristics “public support of RTDI activities”, “existence of a structural framework”, “set
of goals and rules (regularly in the form of funding guidelines”, “common umbrella” and
“generally limited lifetime”). As MAPs are complex programmes, co-ordination issues are of
special importance and in many cases an explicit, often external programme management is
installed. As we talk about “RTDI funding programmes”, mere planning documents or
strategy papers are not MAPs. The term “RTDI funding programme” also excludes
institutions, which can run / manage MAPs but are not MAPs or programmes themselves.
• Complexity: MAPs have a minimum level of complexity, resulting from the Multi Actor and
the Multi Measure criteria described above. Therefore MAPs are always threatened by overcomplexity
and role-conflicts. „Multi Goals“ is not necessarily an element of MAPs. Also note
the strong interlinks between MAPs and the underlying institutional system. This point is not
fully MAP-specific, but all MAPs show such an orientation.
• Evaluations: ex ante, monitoring and ex post with a particular focus on MAP-specifics and
effects are at least stated in the set of goals and rules. (MAP-specific evaluation and
monitoring features are covered in chapter 6).
Optional features of MAPs occurring in most of the programmes
• Competitive bidding for funds and public calls: Funding is in most cases given only after
a competitive selection procedure. Quite often a mixture between top-down and bottom-up
takes place. This means very often free choice of topics and formation of consortia.
• Two layers of “supporters”: MAPs are in most cases managed / implemented by an
external programme management or an agency commissioned by a ministry or a comparable
institution. There are MAPs where one institution or funding agency has all the relevant tools
in hand, while within other MAPs different institutions or funding agencies grant different
forms of support with different tools. Due to varying policy settings, the supporting structures
can be highly distinctive: Sometimes a ministry has a very strong role also in operative
matters, sometimes specialised agencies have clearly defined sub-tasks in a MAP etc. Note
that this point is not fully MAP-specific, but nearly all MAPs show such features.
• Specific learning elements and feedback loops: Due to the mentioned systems and Multi
Actor approach most MAPs have some learning instruments.
So the most important features are: Multi-measures on the level of performers,
cooperation between Multi Actors from different worlds on the level of performers and
addressing of innovation system problems as the main driving rationale (see also
chapter 9)
roadMAP 11