roadMAP [PDF, 1.9 MB] - fteval

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Please note that this handbook is the “long” version consisting of a lot of background material and references and in particular a lot of practical hints whereas the “short” version concentrates on the latter. Please keep in mind that mainly programme managers were involved in the preparation of this handbook and that is why it is very practically oriented rather than being a scientific paper. Please note further that references are only used for the more theoretical issues in this handbook, for the practical part stemming from MAP-TN and StarMAP we have deliberately not quoted references for reasons of brevity. A short description of MAP-TN and StarMAP programmes can be found in the Annex. Further detailed background material referring to all issues discussed in this handbook can be downloaded from the MAP-TN homepage (www.map-network.net) which also serves as a forum for feedback and discussion. The members of the MAP Thematic Network very much hope that you find this handbook useful for your daily work, either to be trained (e.g. for newly recruited programme managers) or to have your way of working and your management methods confirmed or modified. 1.3 The MAP Thematic Network In 2000 TIG, an Austrian agency specialised in the management of MAPs started to create a network of RTDI programme managers and complementary organisations to exchange experience and know-how about the strategic and day-to-day-work of designing, implementing and evaluating RTDI funding programmes. These ideas mainly drew on the results of a workshop in Karlsruhe about the challenges of Multi Actors – Multy Measures Programmes at ISI in 2000 3 . A proposal – called MAP-TN - was therefore submitted in June 2001 to the STRATA programme (5 th EU Framework Programme) and started in January 2002 with the following partners working together over a period of two years: • Austria: TIG - Technologie Impulse Gesellschaft (www.tig.or.at) • Germany: ISI - Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (www.isi.fhg.de) • Spain / Basque Country: Asociación Unitec (www.asociacionunitec.com) • Sweden: VINNOVA – The Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems (www.vinnova.se) • United Kingdom: Technopolis Ldt. (www.technopolis-group.com) • Hungary: Ministry of Education / Research and Development Division (www.om.hu) • Slovenia: PMIS-lab – Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maribor (www.uni-mb.si) • Ireland: SEI – Sustainable Energy Ireland (www.sei.ie) • Belgium / Flanders: IWT – Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (www.iwt.be) 3 see the contribution of Bührer, Kuhlmann and Stampferin Bührer / Kuhlmann 2003 <strong>roadMAP</strong> 3
• Estonia: Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications (www.mkm.ee) • EARMA – the European Association for Research Managers and Administrators (no RTDI programme involved; partner for dissemination activities) (www.earma.org) 1.4 StarMAP and DiscoMAP At the very moment when the network was granted EU funding two further proposals were launched within the STRATA programme to ensure funding of additional activities with regard to “good practices in MAP management”. The projects “StarMAP” and “DiscoMAP”. Also these proposals were evaluated positively. With StarMAP the “database” of the network was expanded as the project looked at six other MAPs in the Netherlands, France, Finland, Norway 4 , Canada and Australia, focussing on quite long term mature programmes in countries not participating in the MAP-TN. DiscoMAP increased the dissemination activities, respectively an international conference at the end of the projects, scheduled for the 29 and 30 March 2004 in Vienna. 1.4.1 Which MAPs were investigated? The MAPs under comparison can be classified as following: Exhibit 2 Characteristics of Network or Cluster oriented programmes and Competence Centre programmes 4 Competence Centre programmes (with or without thematic focus) Network or Cluster oriented programmes (with or without thematic focus; some are SME oriented programmes with a rather loose network character) Very strong cooperation within the projects (centre) Loose cooperation within the projects “Physical” centres Science-driven Science to innovation driven Note that although in some cases Competence Centres have to be created as a legal entity of their own, in our opinion they are not seen as classical institutions for three reasons: (i) in general, institutions aim at a longer term duration (with no ex ante fixed date of termination in mind) and thus are associated with financing instruments that are in general not to be terminated after a defined period of time (e.g. General University Funds) Competence Centres have a fixed end date and are the “deliverables” of funding programmes; (ii) in Competence Centres, network characteristics e.g. non-hierarchical formal structures and cooperation are dominant; (iii) the centres are always public private partnerships regarding financing, planning and operation. 4 It has to be pointed out that the Norwegian programme TEFT turned out (after an in-depth review) to be MAP-like but doesn’t fulfil all MAP criteria, mentioned in chapter 2. However, as there might be some interesting aspects of the SME targeted programme, we left it in the descriptions. <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: The chapter on the design phase dea
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 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 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 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Country Organisation MAP 1. Support
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Country Organisation MAP AT TIG K p
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Country Organisation MAP 1. Monitor
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
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?