roadMAP [PDF, 1.9 MB] - fteval

Box 25
“Boards” as a qualitative steering element in addition to the standardised monitoring system –
The Case of the Austrian K plus Programme
“Boards” are periodical meetings of all the partners involved in a K plus centre, including the funding
and managing organisations. Boards are no legal bodies according to Austrian corporate law, but due
to the strategic orientation – the board makes decisions or recommendation on issues like budget, new
projects, and new partners – the board has some informal power. Intended as forums for self-
organisation of centres, the boards are successful in creating common understanding and cooperative
culture. The programme manager TIG participates in the boards as a non-voting member and takes a
role as advisor, as observer or as consultant.
From the point of view of the programme manager, boards have been established as an important
instrument for monitoring of culture, behaviour and ongoing developments. Especially in combination
with other more quantitative monitoring it provides a very good information base. One major challenge
is the balance between a purely passive attitude and a too strong steering behaviour. Another
challenge is the handling of vested interest: Participants often pursue individual interests, less often the
interest of the centre. Conclusion: Valuable instrument, but use with care.
One more major topic of discussion was the question of monitoring fatigue. Although most of
the programmes employ modest monitoring systems, HU, ES and esp. SE, AU and CA mention
the point of the „burdensome financial audit“ or the threat of „monitoring fatigue“. CA’s NCEs
complained about the high reporting load which was quite often required by the network
managers and not by the programme management, the NCE directorate.
Monitoring fatigue is especially a problem if the system is neither transparent nor user-friendly.
This is especially the case, if collected data are difficult to gather for the projects and centres,
and if same data collected more than one time for different purposes, and if no one has any
idea what happens with the enormous amount of data collected. MAPs with no problems
concerning monitoring fatigue employ good, relatively simple and robust systems. One special
case to mention in this context is the DE with its CCN programme, where the monitoring system
for R&D projects in the context of the CCN is the one which is used for all R&D grants in
Germany. Therefore, it is well known to the researchers from university and industry, not too
exhaustive but fulfils the requirements to assure accountability.
To avoid monitoring fatigue, a general rule should be applied: Collect all data you use and use
all data you collect.
In conclusion, monitoring strengths of most of the MAPs include: Good financial and milestone
data, which facilitates management of centres and projects. The collection of data allows the
generation of reports on demand concerning all financial aspects that feeds into evaluations and
other ad hoc requests. The bureaucracy and burden for the projects and centres is bearable.
Monitoring weaknesses include: The systems are less flexible when it comes to generating
reports on qualitative matters (here a construction similar to the mentioned “boards” can be
helpful). In most cases, outcome and impact data are not fully reliable. The monitoring systems
are backward oriented and can serve as a basis for decisions on further developments only in a
limited form.
roadMAP 93