roadMAP [PDF, 1.9 MB] - fteval

Finally it has to be said that design and management of MAPs are closely interlinked elements
of one process, though often managed by different actors. Even some of the activities we called
“network gardening” are part of a MAP preparation process. The more coherent a network
oriented RTDI policy acts, the more harmonic different programmes – including MAPs – and
other preparatory and accompanying measures will interact.
4.2.3 The roles of MAPs in innovation systems
MAPs are funding programmes and only part of an overall systems oriented RTDI policy
approach. While “Multi Measures” and “Multi Actors” are always a necessary precondition within
an explicit programme structure, the way of approaching different actor settings can be very
different and distinct. (see chapter 2 on Definition of MAPs). Within our sample of MAPs and
beyond we can roughly distinguish (i) network- / cluster-oriented MAPs and (ii) Centre
programmes; the latter forming cooperatively funded and governed research entities generally
called Competence Centres.
The function of all MAPs is to change actor settings and trajectories via temporarily funded
projects or centres within programmes. On a policy level it is important to see that also other
kinds of interventions like new institutions or regulatory measures could be possible answers to
the challenges described above. The advantage of programmes including MAPs is their
temporary, direct and adaptable character and their ability to influence institutional and systemic
settings. Metaphorically speaking all forms of MAPs can be used in three following ways:
• As a kind of glue, linking together important parts of an innovation system, which would not
link up at all / that fast / that strongly etc. A typical gluing activity is science – industry
cooperation which is seen as crucial in innovation systems but faces a lot of barriers in both
worlds. MAPs can contribute in this way to “produce” behavioural additionality – which in our
case is also one of the most important evaluation criteria of such cooperation funding
schemes.
• As a kind of solvent, changing rules, habits and incentives within subcultures. As we know
from innovation research, trajectories always happen and they can be traps. Organisations
find themselves locked in routines and need an incentive to change, to go into new kinds of
research, new partnerships, new internal arrangements etc.
• As a kind of bypass, building roads around traditional blocks which are hard to change.
Typical examples are strong departmental structures within universities or research
institutions which will not perish overnight. MAPs can build ways around such disciplinary
pillars by establishing new forms of long-term cooperations (compare ISI / KMFA 2004).
engender enthusiasm for new beginnings (Boekholt et. al. 1998). Bührer et al. (2002) recommend three
corresponding policy instruments which are derived from the portfolio of all state technology and innovation
policy: resource policies to activate the network potential, e.g. by financial promotional funds, infrastructure
equipment, improvement of access to venture capital (VC); advice on strategic development potentials; "long
promotional breath" corresponding to the long-term development tradition of grown models in order to achieve
the necessary sustainability of network dynamics after the promotional measure is finished.
roadMAP 19