roadMAP [PDF, 1.9 MB] - fteval

More documents

Recommendations

Info

12.3.7 StarMAPs 1. Governance 2. Design Country MAP 1.1 Governance 2.1. Introduction/overview on design of this specific MAP AU CRC Minister of Education Science and Training CRC Committee CRC Secretariat (--> Administration) Expert Panel (Life Science & Physical Science and Engineering) Visitors CA NCE Ministry: member of Steering Committee; StCom (= Deputy Minister + 3 Presidents of Granting Councils); Agency = NCE directorate: organisation of all aspects of implementation; External experts: high level for selection committeed (recommendations) + peers for Interdisciplinary expert panel (technical reports) FI Technology Programmes Each programme has a steering group, an external programme director and a responsible person at Tekes. Large programmes additionally are divided into theme areas with its own steering group. projects might have their own advisory board or steering group as well. design process started in 1989 (chief scientist - prime minister). Got topic of elections and was approved in 1990. no linear process; Minister announced in 1989 programme during elections + 10 evaluation criteria; original intention: centre programme; pr. Designed in 1 year jointly with Research Councils result of the recommendations of several committees appointed by the Council of State in the early 1980 to overcome the economic recession and the problems based on structural changes FR PREDIT designed and funded by 4 ministries 3rd PREDIT programme launched in and 2 national agencies; managed by March 2002 11 operational groups NL TS Ministry of Economic Affairs responsible for programme design, budgeting and supervision; Senter = programme manager; external to reinforce the co-operation between firms and knowledge institutes, government announced widening of its policy for promoting strategic co- experts for project evaluations and exoperation between high-tech firms post evaluations and the public research infrastructure by a new technological co-operation scheme, BTS NO TEFT TEFT is a national sub-programme within the MOBI programme and is financed by the Ministry for Local Government and Regional Affairs and the Ministry of Trade and Industry through the RCN. TEFT is governed by a combined mechanism of a board, or programme committee, elected by the RCN, a programme manager at the RCN, an implementation manager at SINTEF and a TEFT steering group. In 1989, the TEFT forerunner programme DTS was launched and ran for five years. basic idea was perceived need of firms to enhance their technological capacity through technology assistance (target group = SMEs); programme evaluated and further devolopped - TEFT 2.2. MAP guidelines, underlying documents Guidleines have undergone several modifications (e.g. stornger emphasis on SMEs) but principly repained unchanged Pr. Follow laws from Tresury Board - evaluation every 5 year required There is a manual of about 15 pages for tasks of the programme manager and the steering group. Additionally, there exist a general guideline for evaluations of technology programmes small number of basis documents which provide the legal basis some legal acts National Budget; Programme catalogue for 2000 from the Research Council of Norway;
Country MAP AU CRC CA NCE FI Technology Programmes FR PREDIT NL TS NO TEFT 2.3. Reasons for launching MAPs 2.4. International influence 2.5. Relations overall and operative goals; Interface programme design and evaluation 1) enhancing cooperation betweein universities and CISRO (focus on industry oriented research) 2) benefiting AUS econoy and protecting its know how 3) overcome the geograghical and institutional dispersion and segmentation. Simmiliarities with ERCs in USA . Strong influence not documented. Project Evaluation: evaluation procedure was part of original design, monitoring of outputs has gained sicnificance over time. Programme Evaluation: Evaluations are mandatory for all gouvernement funding programmes since 1990 1995: Changing Research Culture 1998: Review of Greater Commercialisation & self funding of CRCs no specific reason out of NIS gap from US and UK Ex post programme evaluation already considered in the design phase In the 1980s, Finland changed its policy from research and science orientation to technology orientation. Reasons for this were economic and social. motivated by a desire of multiple government bodies with an interest in land transport to increase coherence of their research activities; priority evolution from transport technologies to the social and environmental management of national transport systems TS was launched in 2001 as a result of further streamlining technology policy instruments; TS = result of integration of 2 schemes need of the SMEs to increase contact with R&D institutions and to enhance their competence and technological capacity is the central motivation of the programme. The R&D institutions themselves were typically oriented towards larger firms, yes, in particular Japan and Sweden (based on literature) dictated by French particularities (e.g. inter-ministerial sponsorship). The possibility of direct transposition of foreign practices appears to be limited to French administrators Networking; cooperation; commercialisation; internationalisation quality approach that shall refer to three levels of realisation: the individual project, the operational (or thematic) groups, and the global management of the programme. limited operative goals: technological success of projects; cooperation process; economic perspective of projects; system for monitoring and impact assessment set up after programme start no international model; recommendations by a Swedish consultancy taken into account Business development and infrastructure development
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 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 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 193: Country Organisation MAP AT TIG K p
Page 197 and 198: Country MAP AU CRC CA NCE FI Techno
show all

roadMAP [PDF, 1.9 MB] - fteval

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?