roadMAP [PDF, 1.9 MB] - fteval

Box 7
The Finnish Technology Programmes – let’s remain flexible
The funding in Technology programmes follows the general principles and criteria of RTDI funding
defined by EU commission R&D framework, Government acts concerning grants and loans and funding
principles and criteria defined by Tekes based on the previously mentioned framework and acts. Each
programme can and usually does define additional criteria to focus and direct RTDI within the
programme to a specific direction. These additional criteria are defined in consultation with key
stakeholders. Furthermore, there are guidelines for programmes for defining IPR rules and contracts.
Practices related to selection procedures, monitoring practices, etc. are mostly tacit knowledge, not
documented in detail. This has been partly intentional to allow for a sufficient degree of innovativeness.
Most of these are currently documented for each programme separately to allow for transparency and
exchange of good practice, but still the level of general programme guidelines is intentionally left to the
level of guidance and check listing, not taken to the level of detailed instructions, rules or procedures.
There is a manual of about 15 pages for tasks of the programme manager and the steering group. The
rules are flexible, just giving an orientation and supporting the programme steering. The necessity to
adapt the procedures and programme structure to the specific objectives and the structure of the
corresponding sector is emphasised. Additionally, there exists a general guideline for evaluations of
technology programmes.
4.6 International influence and opening up of national programmes
4.6.1 International influences and pedigrees
In the evolving European Research Area (ERA, European Commission 2000), international
influence and interplay becomes more and more important and takes place at different levels,
for example more international research alliances and networks, the opening up of national
programmes, the involvement of foreign peers in selection procedures etc. However, it is
essential to take the importance of the framework conditions into account: As Good and even
Best Practice approaches grew highly popular namely in the OECD (OECD 1998a, 1998b,
OECD 1999b) and EU context and it became fashionable to import foreign programme
concepts, there is a certain danger to underestimate different legal, organisational, cultural
frameworks and questions like budgets, size, past success etc. (see also chapter 8 on
governance). Nevertheless especially MAPs need careful comparisons on management level
due to their complexity and their specific problems as for example the lack of a dominant actor
and the careful balancing of the different actor interests.
A further entrance door for international influence in the MAP context is the strong involvement
of foreign peers in ex ante, monitoring and ex post evaluations which is caused not only by
scientific necessities or country size but also simply by the fact that MAPs are very often large
programmes addressing the most relevant national actors so that competent peers have to be
looked for abroad. A further advantage of foreign peers is that they can feed in their experience,
often stemming from their own MAPs.
roadMAP 31