Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Management and Coordination Model (D.2.1)
Monitoring of Implementation of Integrated Science, Studies and Business
Centres (Valleys) and Joint Research Programmes Project
Contract No: SLN9-01/10
Date: 3 February 2012
Version: v0.8
i
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Overview of the implementation environment of the Valleys and JRPs ..................................... 5
3. International Experience and Relevant Basic Principles ........................................................... 14 3.1 Clusters and (managed) networks ............................................................................................... 15
3.2 Science Parks & Incubators ........................................................................................................ 16
3.3 Governing and managing research centres ................................................................................. 18
4. Management and Coordination Model; Organisational Structure ........................................... 22 4.1 Main objectives ........................................................................................................................... 22
4.2 Functions and responsibilities ..................................................................................................... 22
4.3 Detailed description of the procedures of coordination and management .................................. 35
4.4 Relations with the supervising institutions ................................................................................. 37
4.5 Detailed procedures of decision making ..................................................................................... 37
4.6 List of qualification requirements ............................................................................................... 37
4.7 Preconditions for the implementation of the model .................................................................... 40
4.8 Detailed action plan and procedures for the implementation of the model ................................ 40
5. Management and Coordination Model post 2014 ....................................................................... 41
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Matrix of Valleys, JRPs and original R&D infrastructure projects ................................................. 6
Figure 2: General scheme of current Valleys and JRPs management and coordination ................................. 9
Figure 3: General scheme of suggested Valleys and JRPs management and coordination model ................. 23
Figure 4: Implementation procedure ............................................................................................................... 35
Figure 5: Proposed post-2014 scheme of Joint Research Programme management and coordination
model .............................................................................................................................................................. 42
2
Definitions and abbreviations
Terms and
Abbreviations
Explanation
Assigned
institution
Institution, which would become responsible for funding allocation for R&D activities and
RISC decision implementation, after Management and Coordination model
implementation
Common
National
Integrated
Programme
(CNIP)
A programme aiming to increase the proportion of business sectors and households that are
receptive to R&D and R&D application
Contract Agreement signed between Research and Higher Education Monitoring and Analysis
centre (MOSTA) and consortium of Ernst&Young Baltic and Technopolis Group on 8
December 2010. Agreement number SLN9-01/10
Coordination
Council (JRP„s
Board)
Body ensuring proper management and administration of each of Joint Research
Programmes
CNIP & RICP
committee
Joint Steering Committee for Common National Integrated and Research and Industry
Cooperation programmes
CPMA Central Project Management Agency
ESF Agency The European Social Fund Agency
EU European Union
EU Structural
funds
Projects financed from EU structural support funds. Ministry of Education and Science
structural support measures for R&D infrastructure development VP2-1.1-ŠMM-04-V-01,
VP2-1.1-ŠMM-04-V-02 and 1,3 and 1,4 priorities. Ministry of Economy EU structural
support measures VP2-1.4-ŪM-04-V Inogeb LT-2 for R&D infrastructure development
and 1.3 and 1.4 priorities projects.
EY UAB “Ernst & Young Baltic“
General National
Research and
Science and
Industry
Cooperation
Programme
(RICP)
A programme aiming to strengthen public R&D base available for business in order to
increase the relative proportion of scientific research and R&D application in receptive
business sectors
HEI Higher education institution
HES Higher education system
IPR Intellectual property rights
JRP Joint Research Programme: a complex of results that are expected to be reached by the
development of research and economical activity in the relevant research sectors and by
implementation of R&D projects and programmes, funded from the EU and national
sources
JRP soft projects Other projects mentioned in JRP programmes for scientific research, researchers mobility,
studies programmes development, etc.
KPI Key performance indicator
LBSA Lithuanian Business Support Agency
Manager of
Open Access
Organisation managing Open Access Centre (OAC) after its management is handed over
from the developer of the OAC
3
Centre
MoES or
Ministry
The Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Education and Science
National
Integrated
Programme
(NIP)
Complex R&D, studies and knowledge intensive business development programme in the
relevant sector. The NIP covers R&D of the relevant sector, technology development and
transfer, development of competent specialists, strengthening of research and studies
infrastructure and other means to improve economic competitiveness
OAC Open Access Centre
OAC users Lithuanian and foreign scientific institutions and business entities using open access
centres
PRI Public Research Institution
Programme
administrator
Coordinates and implements Coordination Council's decisions
Project
Supervisory
Group
A R&D infrastructure development project committee formed in compliance with decree
Nr. V-2126 of the Minister of Education and Science.
R&D Research and development
R&D
infrastructure
projects
Current 20 projects in total broken-down as follows: 14 ongoing projects of the Ministry of
Education and Science and 6 projects of the Ministry of Economy, which have yet to
commence. In future the number of projects can change.
RISC Research and Innovation Strategy Council, which should be implemented according to the
suggested Management and Coordination Model
RTDI Research, technology development and innovation
S&T Science and Technology
TG Technopolis Consulting Group Belgium
Valley Integrated Science Studies and Business Centres: Research, studies and knowledge
intensive business potential (the whole of entities), concentrated in one territory with
shared or interrelated infrastructure and contributing consistently to the development of
knowledge society and knowledge economy and to the enhancement of competitiveness of
Lithuania‟s economy.
Valleys
Monitoring
Group (MG)
During the period of project implementation the functions of MG will be undertaken by
consortium Technopolis Group and Ernst & Young Baltic. An organizational structure for
monitoring JRPs and Valleys programmes implementation. During the period, determined
in agreement, Monitoring Group functions carried out by consortium.
Valley projects Current 20 R&D infrastructure projects defined in valley programmes, which consist of 14
projects of the Ministry of Education and Science and six projects of the Ministry of
Economy, implemented within the framework of JRPs, soft and other projects.
Valleys
Supervisory
Board
Body responsible for supervision of the implementation of the Valleys projects and JRPs
and making recommendations to responsible ministries
4
1. Introduction
In 2008, the Government of the Republic of Lithuania adopted a resolution on the establishment of
five integrated centres of science, studies and business (“Valleys”). The aim is to concentrate the
scientific research, studies and knowledge intensive business potential in specific geographical areas.
The Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) and the Ministry of Economy (MoE) allocated up to
€400m for the implementation of Valley programmes through the National Integrated Programme
(NIP) and the General National Research and Science and Industry Cooperation Programme (RICP).
In order to improve the co-ordination and synergies among the Valleys and Valley participants
(higher education institutions, public research institutions and business partners) and to have more
results-oriented Valley projects, it was decided to design Joint Research Programmes (JRPs). JRPs
were approved in the following four research areas:
Natural Resources and Agriculture;
Biomedicine and Biotechnology;
Materials Science, Physical and Chemical Technologies;
Engineering and Information Technologies.
The five Valleys and four JRP programmes, together with subsequent amendments, resulted in the
creation of a number of Valley and JRP management and coordination mechanisms: a Valley
Supervisory Council, JRP Boards, Valley Associations, a Valleys Monitoring Group (MG), etc.
Implementation of the ongoing 20 Valleys and JRP projects has already progressed significantly and
the above mentioned management and coordination mechanisms are expected to be established and to
function properly.
This report provides an overview of the current situation of the Valleys‟ and JRPs‟ mechanisms and
suggests a model for improvement of the current management and coordination system. The model
describes the organisational structure of the management and coordination of Valleys‟ and JRPs‟,
their main objectives, functions and responsibilities. It also presents working procedures, relations
with other decision-making bodies responsible for the management of the Valleys projects and JRPs‟
procedures for coordination and approval of decisions. Finally, it describes the required qualifications
of the responsible persons as well as preconditions and approach of the model implementation.
Once the model has been approved by the MoES, implementation will begin and the detailed
operational procedures and protocols for the model will be worked out through on-going dialogue
with the MoES and other stakeholders in the system (see section 4).
The model is based on a documentation review and interviews with stakeholders and managers of the
Valleys projects and JRPs. The main objective of these meetings was for the MG to familiarise itself
with the progress of the Valleys with particular emphasis on management issues. The scope of
analysis covered four JRPs and 20 valleys‟ infrastructure projects within the remit of the MG. Given
the initial analysis, the implementation of the model will require amendments to the existing
regulations of the Valley and JRP and some specification of Model components can only be achieved
later in the implementation phase following discussions with key stakeholders and Valley participants.
The report consists of three main sections:
Section 2 provides an overview of and observations on the current management and
coordination structures of the Valleys and JRPs following a series of site visits
Section 3 presents principles of good practice to be considered in developing a new model
Section 4 outlines recommendations for a new management and coordination model, to be
further refined in discussion with the Contracting Authority and other key stakeholders.
5
2. Overview of the implementation environment of the Valleys and JRPs
This section reviews the Valleys‟ and JRPs‟ operating environment and outstanding issues. This
follows a series of nationwide visits to the main Valley locations in late January and early February
2011. A thorough understanding of the Valleys‟ and JRPs‟ programmes implementation issues and
challenges is crucial for the improvement of relevant management and coordination mechanisms.
2.1 R&D infrastructure projects in the Valley and JRP programmes context
The 20 R&D and innovation infrastructure projects are grouped under one of the five Valleys and at
the same time under one of the four JRPs (see Figure 1 overleaf). The MoES has signed contracts to
fund 14 projects and the MoE to fund six projects. However, currently the Ministry of Economy (via
LVAP) are evaluating proposals for three additional projects.
Figure 1 positions these projects with respect to the Valley responsible for the implementation
(horizontal axis) and under the relevant JRP (vertical axis).
2.1.1 Valley orientation and research focus
Valley programmes are to a large extent oriented to infrastructure development. The purpose of the
Valleys is to upgrade and concentrate the research infrastructure in selected geographic areas. It is
also the intention to encourage the development of knowledge-intensive business, and to develop
shared networks. Although the Valley programmes have a clear focus on improved cooperation with
business, they are also designed to upgrade the general infrastructure of selected HEIs and PRIs which
suffered from underinvestment for more than 15 years.
Thematically, as can be seen from Figure 1, with the exception of the Marine and Nemunas valleys,
the Valleys are active across more than one JRP, underscoring the cross-cutting nature of their
technological specialisation. On the other hand, both Santaka and Santara are investing heavily in
biomedicine and biotechnology while Sauletekis and Santaka valleys are both active in the material
science, physical and chemical field.. This suggests that there is a need for close scrutiny of planned
investments to avoid duplication of equipment purchsed, etc.
2.1.2 Valley and JRP coordination
In order to improve co-ordination, co-operation and synergies between the Valleys and between
Valley participants, the four JRPs were established. The JRPs‟ goal is to concentrate research
potential in selected sectors across Lithuania, to improve the effectiveness of EU funded initiatives,
and to develop education, training and business co-operation mechanisms. The 20 R&D infrastructure
projects are linked by the JRPs as well as funding for research and studies (“soft projects”). It is
intended that the combination of infrastructure and soft projects in specific sectors will accelerate
innovation in the selected research areas.
6
Figure 1: Matrix of Valleys, JRPs and original R&D infrastructure projects
Valley
Joint Research Programme
Valley program financing
Biomedicine and Biotechnology Engineering and information
Technology JRP Natural resources and agriculture
Material science, physical and chemical technology
Sauletekis
Development of Civil Engineering Centre in Vilnius Gediminas
Technical University (LTL 18,9 m)
Establishment of National Natural Science and Technology
Centre (LTL 200,3 m)
Total: LTL 641,4 m
Development of Vilnius University Laser Research Centre
"Naglis" (LTL 11,43 m)
Santara
Establishment of Joint Innovative Medical Centre (LTL 51,25 m)
Establishment of Information Technology Open Access Centre (LTL
5,4 m)
Establishment of Natural Joint Research Centre (LTL 15 m)
Total: LTL 485,46 m
Establishment of Joint Research Centre of Life Sciences (LTL 125,37 m)
Development of Technology Parks Investments, establishment of engineering communication networks, construction and installation of ICT business incubator
and technology centre. (LTL 26,770 m)
Construction and Installation of Bio Technology Park business incubator of the 1st and 2nd sections (LTL
12,905 m)
Santaka
Establishment of National Open Access to R & D centre in Kaunas University of Technology (5,9 of total LTL
119,8 m)
Establishment of National Open Access to R & D Centre in Kaunas
University of Technology (24,68 of total LTL 119,8 m)
Establishment of Open-access National Future
Energy Technology centre (LTL 22,5 m)
Establishment of National Open Access to R & D centre in Kaunas University of Technology. (63,29
of total LTL 119,8 m)
Total: LTL 288,45 m
Establishment of Recent Pharmaceutical and Health Technology Centre (LTL 53,0 m)
Establishment of Open-access National Future Energy Technology Centre (10,25 of total LTL 22,5 m)
Establishment of Open Access National Future Energy
Technology Centre (LTL 5,88 m) Establishment of Technology Transfer and Business Incubator Database. (LTL 28,412 m)
7
Valley
Joint Research Programme
Valley program financing
Biomedicine and Biotechnology Engineering and information
Technology JRP Natural resources and agriculture
Material science, physical and chemical technology
Nemunas
Development 5 R&D Centres, reorganization of studies and related infrastructure and institutions
of science (LTL 80,289 m)
Total: LTL 221,448 m
Development of Animal Health, Nutrition and Animal Materials Science and Education
Infrastructure, consolidation of the scientific potential (LTL 30,303 m)
Development of Food Science and Technology R & D Infrastructure and consolidation of scientific
capacity (LTL 8,433 m)
Communication and Technology Transfer Centre Phase I: establishment of open access laboratory of
fruit and vegetable processing technology (LTL 3,799 m)
Phase II: formation of the infrastructure and material base (LTL 8,828 m)
Marine
Establishment of Marine Valley core and renewal of education infrastructure (LTL 89,181 m)
Total: LTL 241,351 m
Establishment of Utilities and Communications Networks, Development of Science and Technology
Park infrastructure (LTL 22,239 m)
JRPs financing
1. Valley programmes R & D infrastructure projects. ERDF - 235,5205
2. National integrated program. ERDF - 28,97, ESF - 22,93.
Total: LTL 287,4205 m
1. Valley programmes R & D infrastructure projects. ERDF - 64,23
2. National integrated program. ERDF - 12, ESF - 23,4.
Total: LTL 99,63 m
1. Ministry of education and science: ERDF - 237,153; ESF - 24,240
2. Ministry of Economy 28 3. Other: 57,348 (Ministries of Economy and
Environment) Total: LTL 346,741 m
1. Valley programmes R & D infrastructure projects. ERDF -
280,9 2. National integrated program.
ERDF - 20, ESF - 31,62. Total: LTL 332,52 m
Ministry of Economy R&D infrastructure projects funded from program Inogeb-2
Ministry of Education and Science R&D infrastructure projects funded from CNIP programme
Ministry of Education and Science R&D infrastructure projects funded from RICP programme
8
2.1.3 Valley vision and definition
The interviews suggest that there is an absence of a common vision and agreement on what
constitutes a “Valley”. The development of the valleys is based on the own initiative and the
balancing of the needs of Valley participants, mostly HEIs and PRIs. An examination of the 20 Valley
infrastructure projects reveals a mix of components, including: research centres, studies centres and
business incubators. Hence, both geographically and R&D sector based approaches to science,
technology and innovation development are running in parallel during the current phase of the
Valleys‟ development. However, there may be a need for a more structured approach when planning
future valley development.
2.2 Current Valleys and JRPs management and coordination model
All together, the Valley and JRP programmes and project management bodies and instruments (e.g.
joint cooperation agreements) constitute a complex operational management system. Figure 2 presents
the current management and coordination model.
The various valley participants and management bodies are divided in three levels based on
responsibilities: (i) Policy- and decision- making level; (ii) Programme management, supervisory and
monitoring level; and (iii) Project implementation level.
2.2.1 Policy- and decision- making level
At this strategic decision making level, the main participants are the MoES, MoE, the Ministry of
Health, the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, the Research Council and the Valleys
Supervisory Council.
The Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of the Agriculture are only
involved in funding specific projects.
The Valleys Supervisory Council is responsible for making strategic decisions regarding the
implementation of the overall Valley system; and making recommendations and suggesting strategic
decisions regarding JRPs and Common National Integrated Programme (CNIP) development.
9
Figure 2: General scheme of current Valleys and JRPs management and coordination
ESF Agency CPMA
JRP Board
LBSACNIP&RICP
CommitteeMG
Project
Supervisory
Group
Other Ministries
Ministry of
Education and
Science
Ministry of
Economy
Valleys
Supervisory
Council
R&D
infrastructure
project
Policy formation and
decision making
Supervision and
monitoring
Implementation
Association
JRP Soft
Projects
Successor
10
2.2.2 Programme management, supervisory and monitoring level
This level consists of the implementing agencies which also monitor and supervise project progress
and handle payments, etc. supervisory and monitoring bodies:
Grants for research and study projects, or the so-called “soft projects” (priorities 1.2 and 1.3.
of the EU‟s structural support) funding the operational research activities are managed and
controlled by the European Social Fund Agency (ESFA);
R&D infrastructure development projects (2.1. EU structural support priority) are funded by
the MoES and MoE. Implementing agencies are the Central Project Management Agency
(CPMA) and the Lithuanian Business Support Agency (LBSA), respectively.
Funding is provided via CNIP and RICP, which have a joint committee for the evaluation of project
progress and completion. Another function of this joint committee is to formulate opinions to the
MoES regarding funding decision.
In principle, there should be four JRP Coordinating Boards in the form of collegiate bodies with dual
responsibility for programme supervision and implementation in their respective research fields.
However, these have never been established.. In more detail, the board‟s responsibilities should be:
coordination, monitoring and assessment of the programme;
planning and suggesting new themes and projects to the Valleys Supervisory Council;
analysis of the progress reports and provision of recommendations to programme managers
and funding ministries;
monitoring achievements of programme goals in different phases;
preparation of reports on programme implementation on a six monthly basis to the Valley
Supervisory Council;
provision of recommendations to the Valley Supervisory Board regarding strategic decisions;
analysis of project managers‟ suggestions and making recommendations to responsible
ministries regarding the amendments to funding;
ensuring compliance to Open Access Centre (OAC) standard regulation principles;
provide proposals for managers of open-access infrastructure and recommendations regarding
management and administrative adjustment of the rules;
consideration of conflicts between interested parties regarding the use of OAC equipment,
intellectual property rights or other related disputes; and
making proposals, which if implemented, could create a real partnership between world-class
companies and integrated science, study and business centres; encourage fast development of
new internationally competitive enterprises; ensure innovation and high- technologies in
various sectors of the economy.
The Valley Monitoring Group (MG) consists of Technopolis Group and Ernst & Young Baltic and
operates, since January 2011, under the supervision of MOSTA in the framework of a service contract
concluded after a competitive tender. The main functions of the MG are the following:
preparation of various models for efficient operation of the system of Valleys;
monitoring of R&D infrastructure development projects and achievements of the Valley and
JRP objectives, R&D Infrastructure development activities; and
providing consultations and recommendations to institutions responsible for the
implementation of the Valley projects and JRP concerning management and coordination of
the Valleys projects and JRPs, planning and development of R&D infrastructure and
organisation of public procurement.
11
2.2.3 Project implementation level
This level consists of project managers and teams from HEIs and PRIs and associated R&D
infrastructure projects and JRP soft projects. Each R&D infrastructure development project has its
own manager, who is institutionally responsible for the delivery of results and processes. There are
currently 13 institutions implementing 20 R&D infrastructure projects.
Each of the ongoing MoES 14 R&D infrastructure projects is required to establish a Project
Supervisory Group (PSG), responsible for monitoring project implementation. No such requirement
yet exists for the MoE funded R&D infrastructure. In the future the number of project can change.
The PSGs consist of representatives of project partners and are responsible for:
supervising compliance with obligations provided for in the trilateral agreements, ensuring
execution of project tasks according to project schedule, analysing reasons for delays and
considering possible solutions;
submitting proposals for project implementation activities, procurement processes, revision of
project budgets and goals, use of saved funds, additional support needs, assurance of project
continuity;
examining project managers‟ reports on project implementation and decisions made in the
previous meetings. Meetings should be held at least once every six months;
assessing project progress along with other experts; and
initiating other activities which would ensure the implementation of a high-quality project.
At the early stages of the Valleys programmes responsibility for Valleys‟ programme implementation
and coordination was given to Associations that should have been created. The Associations were
expected to have the following responsibilities:
implementation of the Valley‟s objectives;
coordination of the interests of the Valley‟s partners;
representation of the interests of the Valley's partners;
approval of valley development documents between the Valley‟s partners;
coordination of Valley development;
implementation of the programme, activities and projects prioritisation;
assurance of added-value generation: benefits to science, studies, business and society;
ensuring efficient Valley management;
Valley performance indicators measurement, monitoring and evaluation;
publicising Valley activities and results: ensuring openness of activities;
ensuring horizontal cooperation between Valleys in order to use available property, scientific
findings and resources effectively;
ensuring effective cooperation of science and business; and
ensuring the effective use of open access to the new research infrastructures.
12
2.3 Key observations
As outlined earlier our observations on the current status of the Valleys and JRPs and related issues
were formed during multiple meetings and discussions with representatives of the key institutions
involved in the Valleys and JRPs implementation. Key observations are outlined in the section below.
2.3.1 National R&D vision and goals
Currently, there is a lack of commonly agreed vision of the desired final result and a lack of a unified
approach to science, studies and business centre development. Moreover, there is a need for “Valleys”
alignment with national R&D goals.
Valley and JRPs are running in parallel with their own management and control mechanisms and
objectives although the success of their implementation depends on the same 20 R&D projects. There
is no common agreement on the “Valley” concept either from the Government/ministries or from
Valley/JRP participants. There is a mix of different science, research and innovation components –
research centres, incubators, technology and science parks – which are being implemented
simultaneously. Also, there is no fully functioning mechanism in the form of a management body to
align “Valley” development with national goals and priority sectors.
2.3.2 National science and technology priorities
The priority research areas are a mix of technology domains and „classic‟ science and technology
disciplines.
Many countries define their priority areas either in terms of societal challenges or in terms of sectors/
emerging technology domains that they see as priorities. Germany, for instance, has moved from
naming key technologies in the first phase of their High-Tech Strategy to naming five key challenges
in the second phase: Climate and Energy, Health and Food, Mobility, Security and Communication.
The scientific domains run across all these themes and are challenged to demonstrate their
contribution to the societal challenges. The Netherlands has recently named nine top sectors, each
with a number of main activities as the focal point for their science and technology policy. They have
also named the Valleys that will contribute most to each of these nine top sectors. Nevertheless, both
of these countries ensure that sufficient basic funding goes into the research system to support basic
science and scientific domains that are indirectly linked to the national priorities such as social
sciences and humanities and economics.
2.3.3 JRP Boards
It is observed that JRP boards are not functioning as defined in the Joint Research Programmes.
JRP Boards are not established in three JRPs: Biomedicine and Biotechnology, Engineering and
Information Technology, Material Science, Physical and Chemical Technology. The Natural
Resources and Agriculture Board is not functioning as defined in JRP documentation.
A JRP Board is virtually a collegiate body having limited administrative resources and powers to
execute the functions assigned. The success of JRP Boards‟ functioning is highly dependent on good
will and co-operation of JRP participants and availability of additional funding for further Valley
development.
Within the current set-up and without additional funding JRP participants have limited incentive to
cooperate.
2.3.4 Valley Associations
Associations are good mechanisms to involve business partners in the Valley development but they do
not have enough powers to execute functions assigned to associations or influence specific R&D
infrastructure projects.
Associations have just started their activities and are highly dependent and driven by HEIs and PRIs
except for the case of the Santara Association where business representatives play a leading role.
Associations generally see their role as operating as “friends” of the Valley. Marine, Nemunas,
Santaka, and Santara all have Associations established, while Sauletekis does not have any
13
Association. In most cases Associations do not have enough power to coordinate or influence R&D
infrastructure project managers or execute fully other Association functions except for general
coordination and public relations, Valley representation, marketing;
actual business partner involvement in Associations and R&D activity is low except for
Santara valley;
all associations suffer from the lack of initial funding as R&D infrastructure is not functional
and participation from business is low.
2.3.5 Project Supervisory Groups (PSGs)
From the various discussions, it is evident that Project Supervisory Groups are not fully operational.
Santara (except for two Vilnius university projects), Santaka and Marine valleys have their Project
Supervisory Groups established, while Sauletekis and Nemunas valleys are planning the
establishment of such groups.
Project Supervisory Groups are expected to stop their activities after final transfer-acceptance of R&D
infrastructure project results although the actual achievement of Valley/JRP programmes
results(outcome) may take a few more years.
Tracking project results after the end of the project implementation is assumed to be the responsibility
of the OAC although the OAC structure and functioning is unclear.
There is no agreed organisational approach on how specific project results will be tracked and
supervision of “soft” outputs of the whole process ensured.
2.3.6 Measurement of results
There is a lack of a clear and reliable method for measuring Valleys and JRPs results (outputs).
Although all Valleys and JRPs participants have submitted their key performance indicators and
values in the programme formation phase, there is no clarity on what is the output of specific projects
and respective institutions participating in the project. There is a mix of opinions on whether the
Valley/JRP results (outputs) are related to specific projects or overall achievements of the institutions
participating in Valleys/JRPs.
2.3.7 Open Access Centre (OAC) functioning
Responsibility for OAC functioning is dispersed among JRP boards, Associations and HEIs. Despite
OAC regulations published by the MoES functioning of the OAC is not clear for all Valleys. Key
issues raised in meetings were organisational structuring of OAC, accessibility rules and pricing.
Requirements to ensure open access is embedded in JRP Boards‟ and Associations‟ functions and
naturally assumed by institutions involved in research centre development.
2.3.8 Other management and coordination issues
There is no funding planned from the state or HEIs/PRIs for running and maintaining the new R&D
infrastructures and there is a lack of researchers who would ensure sufficient employment of R&D
equipment in Nemunas and Marine Valleys.
14
3. International Experience and Relevant Basic Principles
This section examines international good practice in clusters, science parks and incubators and
suggests some basic principles to be considered in further developing the Lithuanian Valleys.
Studies on the success factors and the role of policy behind successful „high-tech regions‟, inspired by
the example of Silicon Valley1, can inform the M&C model for the Lithuanian Valley initiative. A
relevant question for policymakers is whether high-tech regions can be created by policy initiatives.
The studies suggest that policy decisions – from national or regional government - definitely can
make a difference, but they are not a sufficient condition for a high-tech region to emerge.
From the available evidence, it can be concluded that:
timing is key if the aim is to develop excellence from an investment in a particular research
facility (laboratory, infrastructure) as entry barriers into a newly emerging technology field
increase as they mature and finding the niches where added value can be made by newcomers
becomes more difficult. Therefore repeating what many other regions have done before
without having a specific „unique selling point‟ is not a good strategy;
almost all cases with the exception of the Finnish Oulu region, had a number of structural
characteristics of hot spots already present in the region. These were either embedded in a
long history of (academic) research (e.g. Cambridge, Leuven, Lund) or the presence of strong
industrial actors (Helsinki, Munich, Grenoble) or the combination of both. All these cases are
also urban areas with considerable populations which already have some degree of
concentration of human skills due to their population size and (regional) capital function.
There are only a few examples in Europe where regional hot spots have emerged from
scratch. Even the Oulu case has a history of almost two decades of dedicated action from
national government, regional actors and industry. Some of the French high-tech regions were
also created with considerable public funding coming from the national government into a
number of large research centres;
all examples also show that persistence in strategy is needed and results from policy actions
cannot be expected within the short to medium term. It often takes one or more decades for a
region to develop sufficient critical mass and interaction between the different actors in the
system to develop their reputation.
Although the literature and experience suggest that there is not a single recipe for the emergence or
development of high-tech valleys, a number of issues provide important lessons for policy makers:
the „triple helix‟ between government (national or local), knowledge institutes and industry in
the region has to function as a catalyst. As we have seen not all parties have to be involved
from the start (e.g. Cambridge, Leuven and Munich are examples where involvement of the
local government was quite late, Oulu an example where the business sector came in later) but
at least two pillars of the triple helix must jump start the dynamics. For national policy this
means that supporting high-tech regions in areas where the „Triple Helix‟ has not found
momentum will be less effective.
In terms of government policies the following have in our view been the most influential in the
successful cases of high-tech valleys elsewhere in the world:
investment in state-of-the-art research institutions and facilities, also ensuring the abundance
of skilled staff. This showed often to be „by default‟ if generic RTDI support goes to
regionally concentrated players (e.g. Cambridge in the UK, Grenoble, Oulu and Helsinki), but
1 See for instance, Boekholt, McKibbin, Charlet, Muscio and Reid, (2005) Quick Scan Public Policies to support ‘Hot-Spots’ in Europe, Technopolis, Amsterdam.
15
also through deliberate investments in leading institutions (e.g. IMEC in Leuven, VTT in
Oulu, Crolles facilities in Grenoble) which have a high relevance for industry;
active support of entrepreneurship and new technology based firms in a limited number of
technology areas that reinforce the critical mass of activity in that area, through thematic
science parks, incubators and financing instruments. This is mostly done at regional or local
level. The local universities have to take an active position in this;
facilitation by national and regional governments of strategy building, cluster policies and
regional marketing of a local area.
The development of a common vision of what the valley or cluster wants to achieve is a crucial
element. In the case of the Lithuanian Valleys this still seems to be missing. In effect the current
valley system can be characterised as a mixture of “clusters” and “science parks”. These two generic
classifications are discussed in the following two sections and some general principles are provided.
3.1 Clusters and (managed) networks
Clusters, next to the concept of 'systems of innovation', have been and still are one of the most
accepted concepts in innovation policy since the mid 1990s. Most European countries have adopted
the concept in some way. While some countries such as Denmark or Finland have positioned their
cluster policy at national level aiming for competitive advantage for the nation's economy, other
countries such as Austria or the UK have put their focus at regional development. Australia, New
Zealand, or Norway gave the issue of SMEs a high priority in their interpretation of cluster policy.
Moreover, Sweden, Australia, Canada, Austria, and the Netherlands – in this historical order – and
more recently new EU Member States such as Estonia, Hungary and to some extent the Czech
Republic, have put a strong emphasis also on organised industry-research collaborations by
establishing so-called “competence centres”, “networks of competence”, or “top-institutes”.
Lithuania, the case in hand, has coined the Valleys as the dominant concept to increase and support
interaction between higher education institutions, public research, incubation of technology-based
start-ups, and established companies.
It can be seen that there is no uniform definition of clusters. However, there are some elements in
common, in particular a focus on increased interaction, mainly through collaboration in innovation
projects. To a large part this is due to the fact that national or regional governments have taken the
initiative and by doing so they have put their focus on particular priority areas, mainly in the field of
research and innovation policy. Accordingly, most policy-driven clusters and networks do have a
deliberate bias towards RTDI.
In the context of the Valleys the concepts of local clusters and managed networks do play a significant
role, particularly regarding Marine Valley, Nemunas Valley and the part of Santara Valley dedicated
to biotechnology and biomedicine. In terms of principles of good practice, a vast body of hands-on
experience from Sweden, Austria, The Netherlands, Germany, and Czech Republic can be called
upon. The most pertinent lessons to be learned are:
first of all adopt Seneca's great insight: "If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no
wind is favourable!";
know as much as possible about your target group, their goals, strategies, values and
bottlenecks. Know their key people, have access to them. Understand the mutual business
interest, but also of greed and fear;
identify innovators, champions, key people, actors ready and willing to participate in
'collective actions';
identify 'winning' constellations for networking or collaboration and make them work.
Provide financial support for innovation projects combined with managerial assistance. Focus
on those type of services, which can be easily adopted/consumed;
16
to the extent that pioneering services and projects are adopted it is time to invest in
developing a common vision and related branding. Again, it is helpful to have testimonials
from third parties who can praise the services;
establish brokerage functions aiming at a more systematic provision of services. Still,
concentrate on services, which can be easily adopted and which can be attributed to the
cluster or network management;
to the extent that direct support is adopted and appreciated by your target group, gradually
develop and implement actions to improve framework conditions such as training, provision
of specialised business services, recruitment, and regulation;
always think and act in terms of companies, institutes, and people, generally of actors and
NOT of artefacts such as projects or networks. Project funded networks often fall apart if the
projects are not strongly linked to the (core) businesses of the respective partners. This
implies that any kind of project managers have to have a good access to those people and
actors behind the projects, to make sure that the projects are well perceived and integrated
into the wider business of the respective actors and network partners (in case of collaborative
projects); and
look for testimonials, examples of good practice, trust and reputation and always a handful of
patrons which helps to move into a self-supporting structure.
3.2 Science Parks & Incubators
A considerable element in the R&D-projects of the Lithuanian Valleys consists of the development of
science parks and incubators including a number of state-of-the-art laboratories. A set of general
assumptions underpin the development of science parks and incubators within a regional „high-tech
valley‟ concept, namely:
their presence will have a positive impact on the creation and growth of (high-tech) start-up
firms and on creating better linkages with the regional economy;
their location close to university premises will be supportive to stimulating academia-industry
linkages; and
if an eco-system of research and entrepreneurship develops this will help attract investments
and highly skilled people from outside the region and country.
Science parks and incubators are a widely spread phenomenon across industrially developed countries
and regions. The rationale for this type of investment is often inspired by a small number of success
cases that are frequently sited as examples of internationally renowned parks such as Research
Triangle Park in North Carolina (USA), Sophia Antipolis and Grenoble in southern France,
Cambridge Science Park (UK), and Hsinchu Science Park (Taiwan). Alongside these renowned
success stories there is a much larger group of science parks that have a strong regional function but
hardly an international reputation and most likely a much larger group of science parks that have
become (perhaps lucrative) real estate objects, but hardly function as a catalyst for new emerging
business in their region. The challenge for Lithuania is thus to develop science parks and incubators
that have a positive effect on regional economic growth and spill-overs to the rest of the society.
With science parks and incubators there is no simple „good practice‟ example that could be used in the
Lithuanian case. The factors of success and failure of these parks are a combination of quite a number
of factors, some which can be influenced through R&D policy, but then many factors are difficult to
influence, particularly in the short term. Thus what „good practice‟ entails for Lithuania depends on
quite a number of issues that will be established through analysing and coaching of the individual
Valleys and their science park managers.
Literature and experience on science parks shows that a number of factors are the basis of success in
terms of these parks becoming dynamic hubs of open innovation:
the appropriate composition of organisations present on and in the vicinity of the park. The
companies and research centres have overlapping and complementary expertise so they can
17
use each other‟s knowledge and (international) networks; this would suggest that a science
parks should have a specific thematic focus or at least a combination of technological
domains that can benefit from each other. Indeed all successful cases have a clear thematic
focus which has helped the park management to develop strategies on what type of tenants to
accept and attract to the science park, thus slowly creating the critical mass needed to become
a magnet for other investments;
the most successful parks attract at least one „anchor tenant‟ that attracts other organisations
to locate in or near the park. This could be an outstanding research centre or an international
company that would attract suppliers;
the proximity of research organisations (university or other research laboratory) is influential
for the purpose of providing a pool of human resources, but also to establish research
alliances between the companies on the park and public research; often the science parks have
comprehensive programmes to scout, coach and support business opportunities that come
from research;
in order to develop an international reputation a park needs to have tenants with international
networks and partnerships;
to support the early stage development and growth of start-up companies links with seed and
venture capital investors need to be established;
from a policy perspective it is also clear that tenacity and continuity is an important element:
all success stories took several decades to become successful.
There are very few examples of successful science parks that have managed to create economic
growth and jobs only on the basis of their science & technology capacity without having an existing
industrial basis. The city of Leuven is one such an example where the university (KU Leuven) and the
public research centre, IMEC, together with local government have established three different science
parks where high tech start-ups have grown to medium sized and large companies and where
international companies have located some of their R&D facilities. These science parks have a clear
focus on either electronics or biotech. But the city can rely on world class research and a professional
research management in both the university and IMEC. The strategy to support start-ups and attract
tenants from outside the parks are focused on these particular areas. During the building of the newest
bio-tech park the technical installation of the park has taken into account the specific requirements
that state-of-the-art international tenants need in terms of water and toxic material installations, safety,
cleanliness and so on. This type of pro-active preparation should be expected in the case of the
Lithuanian parks as well. At the same time it should take into account the financial position of young
start-ups who cannot afford high rents. A science park business plan should take into account all those
considerations from the very start.
Existing companies in the Valley regions rarely establish linkages with science park tenants from their
own initiative, as there are considerable cultural and technological barriers to overcome. Outreach
programmes, technological development services and dedicated (cluster) actions that involve local
firms in specific technological fields require intermediaries who understand both the technological
domain and the business sectors involved. This is extremely context specific and how to organise this
varies from sector to sector and needs to cater for the innovation development stage of the companies
in the region. Thus for the Lithuanian valleys this would need specific development depending on the
technological domain of the parks and clusters involved and the existing companies in the country.
Considering the role for the State in the development of science parks, there are a number of
fundamental principles. In the early development phase the government role is to ensure that the
science park developers take decisions that will form the basis for later success. In the business plans
of the science parks they should:
ensure there is a clear vision on the ambitions and achievements of the park also in
relationship to current strengths of the Valley in terms of both science and technology (S&T)
competences and the business developments that will underpin the socio-economic role of the
science park in the region;
18
ensure that the science parks management has a clear vision of the type of tenants that will
occupy the buildings in the medium to long-term in relation to the thematic focus outlined
from the outset. If this vision is not present a typical pattern will be that the science parks and
Incubator developments will become simply real estate objects or university buildings, losing
sight of their intended goal. This requires that parks have a professional management and that
adequate financial resources have been allocated to various management functions;
stimulate long-term assessment of the necessary human resource capacity for development of
the science parks and programme actions if the demand cannot be met by the present
population of graduates, researchers and skilled workers in the private sector;
make an assessment on the technological need for physical research equipment in relation to
the focus of the science parks (e.g. a bio-tech facility has different technical requirements than
a campus that relies on ICT development or marine research);
make an analysis of the long-term financial investment needs of the science parks and its
tenants and ensure these can be mobilised when needed. Typically in the international success
cases the government share of the funding is gradually diminishing while there is still a strong
stake from the government to ensure its wider socio-economic purpose. In developing the
financial plans for the science parks, EU State Aid rules need to be adhered to as science
parks can have a clear distorting effect on the private market; and
support the development of focus and critical mass of the valleys in the prioritisation in
overall science and technology policy; for instance through the funding of the higher
education sector, the definition of „third tasks‟ and the assessment criteria during the
evaluation of universities and research centres.
In a further exploitation in the development stage state organisations can then:
support the science parks with programmes and actions to network between the parks and
internationalise the activities; and
facilitate entrepreneurship in and around universities through dedicated programmes,
competitions and higher education policies; in Europe science parks that are successful in
stimulating research related spin-offs do this in close cooperation with universities and the
„valorisation‟ routes are strongly supported by the highest university management. The
universities will need clear policies and regulations concerning intellectual property rights
(IPR) and rules for staff to engage in commercial activities.
For each of these specific functions and factors related to science parks success there are ample
international examples to be found. What these examples are will depend on the specific strengths and
weaknesses as well as opportunities and threats of each of the valleys. In the course of the exercise it
is important to make a careful diagnostic of the situation in each valley and university and to work
together with the science parks management to consider the best strategy to overcome potential
bottlenecks. The MG will assist in such activities throughout contract duration.
3.3 Governing and managing research centres
The Valleys are considered as spatially integrated conglomerates of universities, research centres,
incubators and last, but not least, companies.
In this section specific attention is paid to the set-up, governance, and management of public research
centres. Specific attention is focused on the issue of how to cope with the inherent tendency of
research centres to become overloaded with expectations. These expectations mainly results from
their attribution as interfaces, particularly between academic research, the business sector (itself
ranging from SMEs to internationally acting companies) and public institutions. The role they have to
fulfil in this model is publishing articles in scholarly journals, performing contract research, filing
patents, generating income from licenses, networking, consulting, and training. Given these high
expectations they often suffer from goal overload and mission stretch. Accordingly, most attention has
to be paid to defining reasonable targets.
19
The following criteria are the outcome of an exercise undertaken to create a conceptual framework
which tries to fulfil two essential requirements: (i) to cover the full range of strategically relevant
issues, and (ii) to be as simple and robust as possible. It was particularly used to describe, evaluate,
and negotiate the implementation of so-called 'Centres of Excellence' and 'Regional Research
Centres'. While the former are mainly oriented at world-class academic research, the latter have a
clear (down-stream) orientation at industry and specialised public institutions.
The trade-off between these two requirements has been solved by keeping the number of criteria low,
while adding a larger number of so-called 'guiding questions' to provide opportunities to throw light
on specific aspects and parameters, according the particular setting.
Some criteria include:
Quality of management / management model
Is the management structure sound and appropriate for the organisation's mission and
goals? Does the organisation have clear supervisory and advisory functions (where
appropriate) ?
Is the experience of the management staff adequate and well demonstrated ? If they
have a shared affiliation, is there a clear indication how is this going to be managed ?
Does the organisational model specify how the involvement of users/partners in the
steering of the project will be ensured ?
In case of consortia, does the proposal clearly define the relationships within the
consortium ?
Are the proposed activities defined unambiguously, and are they well defined in terms
of logical and temporal sequence ? Are the time periods allowed for individual
activities adequate and realistic ?
Is there a stated quality policy and is this policy adequate and convincing ?
Are the legal (ownership, public procurement), institutional and organisational risks
adequately described, including the probability of their occurrence? Are the proposed
measures to control/manage/ eliminate the risks sufficient ?
Budget and funding
Detail and appropriateness of the budget (costs) and financial sustainability, balance
of costs, revenues and a realistic assessment of risks ?
Are the planned costs adequate and appropriate ? Are the estimated operational costs
after completion realistic (high/low) ?
Are the revenue plan and the re-investment plan duly justified and sufficient ? Are its
assumptions clearly articulated ?
Is there a clear time-schedule with milestones for an overall budgeting and its
eventual changes ? Is there a realistic assessment of associated risks and a
corresponding contingency plan ?
Performance contract. Having achieved a sufficiently credible plan the next step is to agree on
a so-called performance contract, which should fulfil the following criteria:
It regulates the relationship between the principal (Ministry, funding body) and the
actor (the university, the research centre, the incubator, the association etc.);
Duration should not be shorter than three years. In case of proven trust, duration can
go up to seven years;
The performance contract should mainly include an agreement on mission, related
goals, and related indicators on the one hand and funding and funding conditions on
the other hand; it should concentrate on manageable outputs rather than on non-
manageable impacts;
The number of goals, and related goal indicators should be as small as possible;
20
All involved actors should have a clear overview and unambiguous understanding of
all indicators. The check, whether the agreed indicators are fulfilled should be
possible without additional procedures such as audits or evaluations;
In case of more complex issues – a case at hand is the goal, to build up a well-
functioning large research infrastructure – goal achievement can be verified by a
positive assessment of an external peer review. However, as said, this should be the
exception;
The principal (Ministry, funding body) should try to adhere to their contract over the
whole period. In case of poor fulfilment or serious mistakes it should help to
overcome the problems rather than to punish the management. Consequences will be
drawn in the following period when a new phase will commence;
The first round of performance contracts is mainly for learning on both sides of the
table;
In the first round external assistance can be of great help as it contributes to prevent
compromises.
Quality of the research programme
Are the research and development activities of high relevance and high quality in
terms of content and methods ?
What is its relationship to the state-of-the-art and what is the potential of the research
programme to bring novel solutions to concrete economic and social issues ?
Is there a potential to produce relevant scientific results ?
Will the research activity stimulate R&D collaboration with the envisaged users and
increase their interest in such collaboration ?
Is there a long-term plan for the development of the centre and its R&D activities ?
Are R&D activities well justified in the context of the Valley / in the national context
(in relevant cases also at an international level), and in line with JRPs and other
national development plans / innovation strategies ?
Is there a match between the size/structure of the research group(s), the ambition of
the research activity/programme (i.e. critical size for the planned activity) and the
planned resources ?
Standing of key staff
Are the academic / business credentials, past achievements and experience of the key
personnel (especially in terms of producing relevant results used by concrete users)
sufficient to give a reasonable assurance of the future quality of the centre (CVs, lists
of key achievements, publications and applied results) ?
Did the key personnel demonstrate outstanding achievements in the past (awards,
exploitation of research results, contracts with major application partners etc.) ?
Is there a convincing proof of commitment by the key staff? If there are
shared/multiple affiliations, is there a convincing model of how this will be managed
?
Is there a realistic and convincing time-schedule with milestones for activities related
to the development of the team with an indication of associated risks and how will
they be controlled / managed ?
Application potential, specification of the users
Is there sufficient potential for the adoption and use of the project results in the
Valley, in Lithuania, and where appropriate, abroad – in the business sector, in public
sector, in civil society organisations ?
Is there a need (and does the proposal address the need) for a closer integration of the
research centre with the users of results ?
Are the users/application partners sufficiently and concretely defined ?
21
Do the proposal/business plan/strategic plan contain – given the specific character of
the research field – a convincing strategy for exploitation of intellectual
property/outcomes? Are there concrete and adequate plans and steps to be taken in
this direction ?
Is there a credible promise (based on a proven history) of well functioning
partnerships with users/application partners (letters, specifications of the history of
previous collaboration and plans for future collaboration) that may lead to a
production of relevant results ?
Do the proposal/business plan/strategic plan contain a concrete, convincing and
adequate business model for use of the newly built R&D infrastructure by external
users (by whom, under what conditions) ?
Are the users/application partners sufficiently competent to adopt the respective
results / service offers? Do they have an adequate absorption capacity for
collaboration / offered services ?
Are the users/application partners significant, i.e. do they include major corporations
or organisations that are or may become important clients for the outcome of
research/service activity ?
Is the collaboration with users/application partners sufficiently intensive in terms of
number and volume ?
Is the collaboration with users/application partners – given the specific character of
the (research) field – sufficiently intensive in terms of financial volumes and in
proportion to the financial volume of the project ?
Can it be expected that the application sector will have an important benefit from the
project? Can it contribute to an increase in its competitiveness?
Human resources policy
Is the age, seniority and gender structure of the team and the plans for its further
development balanced and appropriate ?
Does the organisation already have (or plans to install) a system for further training of
R&D personnel, and is it suitable to contribute to the accomplishment of the
organisation's mission and agenda ?
Does the (proposal for the) organisation have a clearly formulated recruitment plan,
including re-integration of Lithuanians from abroad ?
Does the (proposal for the) organisation have a career development plan, including an
indication of the motivation for advancement of staff, addressing also gender aspects?
Does the (proposal for the) organisation have a plan for mobility of researchers
(especially vis-à-vis application / industrial partners) ?
Is there a realistic and convincing time-schedule with milestones for activities related
to development of human resources with an indication of associated risks and how
will they be controlled/managed ?
22
4. Management and Coordination Model; Organisational Structure
This section presents the suggested changes to the current management and coordination model of the
Valleys programmes and JRPs. Rather than binding recommendations, they are framed as suggestions
to be developed and refined in discussion with MOSTA, MoES, MoE and other key stakeholders.
4.1 Main objectives
The current system suffers from a lack of coherent priorities and transparent mechanisms to
implement these priorities. Hence, the new model has two main objectives:
to increase coordination of R&D activities across the Valleys and Lithuania as a whole;
to facilitate synergies between the Lithuanian R&D system and its counterparts in the EU.
Firstly, a new “Research and Innovation Strategy Council” is proposed based on the existing Valleys
Supervisory Council, but with a wider remit. This body would have the responsibility to liaise with
the Government and develop an overall R&D strategy and priorities for Lithuania, with due regard to
international developments in particular in the EU. The specific functions of the current Valleys
Supervisory Council would be handled by the new Council or a working group within it. The policies
developed by the Council would then be implemented by one or more Assigned Institutions who
would formalise the priorities and selection criteria of a particular programme and handle the bidding
process. The assigned institution would be assisted in this process by national and in some cases
international evaluators. These evaluators would assess each project at least once during the life of the
projects and could recommend to withhold funding if satisfactory progress has not been made.
4.2 Functions and responsibilities
The suggested changes are made with a view to achieving the objectives of Valley programmes and
JRP. In formulating these suggestions the intention is to satisfy seven criteria:
the model should be capable of rapid implementation (6-12 months from agreement) without
major changes to current legislation and programmes structure;
implementation of the model should not result in a significant increase in administrative
burden for the main stakeholders, rather it should hopefully result in a reduction;
implementation of the model should increase transparency of the process;
the model should be priorities driven;
the model should encourage horizontal activity across the Valleys fostering cooperation;
the model participants should have power and administrative resources to execute assigned
functions; and
the proposed model should fit the Lithuanian context.
A schematic representation of the suggested Valleys and JRPs management and coordination model is
presented in Figure 3.
23
Figure 3: General scheme of suggested Valleys and JRPs management and coordination model
Policy formation
and decision
making
Supervision and
monitoring
Implementation
Policy
Implementation
Research and
Innovation
Strategy Council
Research Council of
Lithuania
Assigned Institution (MITA)
Bio
me
dic
ine
an
d
Bio
tech
no
log
y
Na
tura
l R
eso
urc
es a
nd
Ag
ricu
ltu
re
Ma
teria
l S
cie
nce
, P
hysic
al a
nd
Ch
em
ica
l te
ch
no
log
y
En
gin
ee
rin
g a
nd
in
form
atio
n
tech
no
log
y
Management and Coordination
Financing and
Controlling
Agencies
Valley association
Ministry of
Education and
Science
Ministry of
EconomyOther Ministries
Government
Valley
programme
projects
Other Valley
programme
projects
JRP projects
R&D infrastructure
project
Project
Supervisory Group
JRP Soft Projects
HEIs, PRIs and
business
representatives
Secretariat MOSTA
MG
24
The management model should address four levels:
policy formation and decision making;
policy implementation;
supervision and monitoring of the Valley projects and the contribution of various funding
programmes to the development of the JRP scientific fields;
project implementation.
Note that an extra level of “policy implementation” has been added. This is explained more fully
below but the rationale is that we propose the use of existing (or new) organisations to implement
policies reflecting government priorities. The proposed system is also designed to facilitate the
introduction of measures which will encourage the benefactors of the infrastructure projects to use the
new facilities more efficiently and encourage them to look for synergies between the different
elements of the Valleys.
4.2.1 Policy formation and decision making
At the level of policy formation and decision making a body close to the policy making arena
should organise the process of national priority setting, take decisions on priority domains, define the
weight of each of these priorities and the intended goals and objectives. In our view this body should
have representatives from the Government (including relevant Ministries those that decide on
funding), from the research community, as well as from industry and civil society organisations.
There is no ready-made model of such an overseeing body in any country. Where the Science and
Technology Policy Council worked well in Finland, almost exact copies of this type of Council in
other countries such as The Netherlands, Ireland and France failed to have the same impact. The
necessary condition for success lies in the people forming the Council, their mandate and the
influence they have on real decision-making.
Currently, there is no organisation with a mandate to develop the national priority setting for the
medium to long term. The funding through the JRP programming is more than half of the research
funding that goes into the Lithuanian science system. This has a major impact on the entire system.
Thus if a solution is to be found which has an institutional element (e.g. the founding of a committee
or temporary body, the allocation of powers to existing bodies, etc.) this should be well prepared and
discussed with the stakehlders.
It is suggested that a “Research and Innovation Strategy Council” (RISC or the Council) should be
formed to perform the function of priority setting through a dialogue with the MoES, MoE, and other
relevant ministries such as Agriculture, Health, Environment. The new body should be based on the
current Valley Supervisory Council and will take over its and other similar type functions. To enable
this, the following steps need to be undertaken as soon as possible:
define the mandate of such a body and its responsibilities;
make a profile and define requirements of the type of people/organisations that could be
representatives;
develop a work plan with clear goals and milestones relevant for dominant actors;
sketch a process of stakeholder involvement, the use of tools (foresight, etc) to settle the
medium to long term goals and priorities of Lithuania; and
allocate a budget for this activity (e.g. Secretariat).
The RISC should be a permanent body, but may be required to adapt its structure or focus in the
future to changing economic and/or political circumstances. The Council should be appointed by the
Government, preferably the Prime Minister, or at least ministerial level. It is important to have high-
level representation for such a body to perform its duties effectively.
In Finland, the Science and Technology Policy Council is chaired by the Prime Minister. The
membership consists of the Minister of Education and Science, the Minister of Economy, the Minister
25
of Finance, and up to four other ministers appointed by the Council of State. In the UK, the Council of
Science and Technology is also appointed by the Prime Minister but comprises high-level
representatives from academia, the business world and government. Such a body should have high-
level political support to ensure that its policies are implemented. We do not suggest that the Finnish
or UK model is copied in Lithuania, as a similar body operated previously and was abolished.
On the mandate and tasks of the Council, an international comparison with similar bodies in other
countries is helpful. The remit of the Finnish Research and Innovation Council for instance, is to
assist the Government and its ministries by:
following national and international developments in research, technology and innovation;
reviewing the field and developments in it;
addressing major matters relating to the development of science, technology and innovation
policy and the human resources they entail and preparing proposals and plans concerning
these for the Government;
preparing matters relating to the development and allocation of public research and innovation
funding on a preparatory basis for the Government;
coordinating Government activities in the field of science, technology and innovation policy
and;
executing other tasks assigned to it by the Government.
Thus its remit is mostly one of advice to the government (on priorities, on new developments, on
addressing weaknesses in the system), rather than taking decisions on allocating funding. The Council
should look at the broader issues concerning the innovation system and not be involved in the
management details of R&D funding programmes. However, this advice needs to be implemented
(when deemed appropriate by the Government) and this requires high-level political support and a
well resourced Secretariat.
In practice the Finnish Secretariat of the Council has launched a number of studies and assessments
on the Finnish National Innovation System that formed the building blocks for the development of the
national innovation strategy:
a number of reports on the internationalisation of the Finnish R&D system, how to develop
evaluation and foresight, whether to set up strategic centres of excellence and so on;
in the early years, the Council launched a broad international evaluation of the research
funding system leading to major shifts in the balance of funding from innovation and
technology to basic academic research;
regular reviews of the Finnish innovation systems with recommendations for the Government.
The Finnish Secretariat has a Secretary General and two Chief Planning Officers so a relatively small
and lean management. According to the Finnish Council‟s Chief Planning Officer, the Secretariat can
act comparatively freely and make decisions and initial proposals on issues such as annual work
programme and contents of meeting agendas. The studies are commissioned to various research and
consultancy actors from Finland and abroad and aim to feed the discussions in the Council. In
Lithuania a role to provide the „strategic intelligence‟ could also be played by MOSTA.
Similar to the Finnish case, other international examples such as the Irish Advisory Council for
Science, Technology and Innovation and The Netherlands (previous) Innovation Platform, have an
advisory role, not a decision-making role. They would typically have a secretariat drawing on
existing departments and agencies. In the case of the Dutch Innovation Platform a temporary
Secretariat was formed by people seconded from ministries, agencies and the Research Council.
The Lithuanian RISC would have a similar advisory role and, supported by a secretariat, could:
commission reviews of the Lithuanian research and innovation system or specific topics;
develop annual or advisory reports on the main challenges of the system as well as identifying
opportunities and priorities for policy action in the medium to long term;
26
suggest the outlines of policy instruments and programmes that could address the challenges
as well as the opportunities;
oversee whether an appropriate balance of funding/resources exists between basic science
versus applied science, institutional funding versus competitive funding, bottom-up research
versus strategic and thematic research, research versus innovation and entrepreneurship, on
the basis of evidence provided by the reviews and studies.
The above functions should supplement and compliment existing initiatives by the Science Council,
MITA, MOSTA and others specific elements of policy relevant to the role proposed for RISC. The
aim is that the RISC will coordinate and strengthen all such activities not replace them.
Though the intention is that the Council will become a permanent institution its role is likely to vary
over time. In the first year the following activities should be priorities:
define a constitution and operating procedures for the Council;
define priorities for the current Lithuanian R&D infrastructure;
design an initial call for proposals for projects designed to improve the efficiency of the
utilisation of the Valleys‟ research infrastructure;
design a Lithuanian R&D strategy for the next period of Structural Funds beginning in 2013;
in parallel with the previous point, the Council should pay due consideration to required
changes in the R&D funding infrastructure e.g. what will be the status of the JRPs after 2013
or will they be replaced with other mechanisms reflecting changing national priorities;
when developing national R&D strategies the Council should make every effort to align these
with international priorities, particularly those of the EU.
In relation to the JRP; the Council should validate whether the themes of the JRPs are still in line with
the Lithuanian societal and economic priorities, whether in case of additional funding schemes, they
should be allocated across all four JRPs or to specific priority areas, and how the governance and
implementation of the current JRPs should be reinforced.
For the success of the functioning of the Council it is important, that advice to allocate funding to
certain priorities is implemented. In order to have a sufficient support from a wider set of stakeholders
the choice of members should be a good representation of the triple helix of government, research and
business. There needs to be sufficient support from the government and politicians to take the
Council‟s recommendations seriously. This implies that it will require the right (level of) people on
the Council, for it to be taken seriously and for recommendations to be „binding‟.
In terms of planned investment in research infrastructure, there is need for a clear connection to be
made to the international level, in particular, the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructure
(ESFRI), building on the work undertaken by the Research Council. Policy development should be
closely aligned to the high level strategies that have an impact on the Lithuanian science system. Such
a strategy would help Lithuania to integrate more fully into the European Research Area (ERA).
The membership of Valleys Supervisory Council (VSC) is a basis for the Council. As stated
previously, if the Council is to perform effectively it must be supported at ministerial level so the first
step is to gain this support. The key ministries involved (MoES, MOE as a minimum) should then
form a working group to discuss changes in the membership of the VSC to reflect its wider remit. The
RISC should have at least the following range of representatives:
representatives from MoE and MoES and possibly other ministries involved in the JRP
domains (e.g. Agriculture, Health) (2-4);
representatives from the business sector from all four JRP domains (4-6);
representatives from academia, the major universities and research institutes and reflecting the
four JRP domains (4-6);
representatives from the Science Council and MITA (2).
27
At a minimum the Council should contain high-level representatives from academia, business and
government. It should be of manageable size (maximum 10-15 persons) and meet on a regular
quarterly basis. In addition to permanent seats on the Council, other experts could be invited to
specialised sub-committees according to the agenda.
The RISC should also be supported by a sufficiently well-resourced Secretariat. It is important that
this Secretariat has a broad enough mandate to prepare meetings, gather relevant data and commission
studies if needed. It should come with proposals that could be supported by various ministries and
stakeholder groups. The Secretariat ensures the continuity of the Council as the members of the
Council are people with busy schedules. A model that could work well is one that was used by The
Netherland‟s Innovation Platform, where the Secretariat was staffed by 10-15 people seconded from
the Ministries and the Agencies involved, thus representing a broad policy spectrum. Each of the
members could liaise with their parent Ministry for feedback so that proposals can be made that have
already secured some support and consensus building between the various bodies that would be
expected to take responsibility for recommendations (e.g. for new funding, regulation and so on). For
Lithuania, we suggest perhaps not to include so many people to start with but have a well-functioning
team together bringing 2-3 people from MITA and 2-3 from MOSTA. These people should be
employed and stay within their respective organisations, but provide the Secretariat functions to
RISC.
4.2.2 Policy and programme implementation
Given the important role of both the Valley programme and the four JRPs to Lithuania‟s R&D
capability it is important that the two initiatives together develop the areas where Lithuania can
become an attractive international player, not only in the world of science and research but also in
economic and societal areas that rely on research, development and innovation. The current Valleys
and themes for the JRPs were selected some years ago. This should be seen as a step in a process in
which Lithuania focuses on a number of areas or domains for some years and then adjusts as the
context changes. As international examples show, on the one hand the development of strong clusters
and valleys needs time, and, on the other hand, it takes some time to know what clusters and valleys
are the real national priorities.
The current JRPs categorise Lithuanian R&D into four categories with only limited reference to
specific sector/subsector or national priorities. With MoE and MoES using different classifications it
is difficult to align activities across different policy making institutions and to create a unified
approach to financing and priorities setting. Although this topic is outside the model scope and is not
a prerequisite for the functioning of the model, it has direct implications for the implementation of
JRPs and, therefore, will be briefly addressed.
The JRPs have set their objectives and performance indicators based on the four selected subject
areas. It is clear the JRPs are accountable for these indicators but what is not clear is the mechanism
by which they will be monitored. Ideally there should be a body that oversees the four areas, can take
decisions or give strong advice to the Ministries on progress in each of these areas and decide on
whether there is a need for a shift in the priority domains. If this body is too closely related to the
current science system it would replicate the status quo. We need to distinguish between the various
levels and functions attached to the JRPs:
the JRP as a concept of a thematic and strategic focus of channelling part of Lithuania‟s
investments for research and innovation with a function to:
develop the strategic direction and priorities for the medium to long term.
the JRPs as a legal programme which has a number of functions:
to allocate further funding to the Valleys and projects within the JRP programmes;
to oversee and monitor the KPIs defined on the JRP level.
the JRPs as a forum for self-organisation by the stakeholders represented through the JRP
Boards which in principle had the function of:
28
developing thematic strategies and priorities;
preparing joint activities within the four areas and establishing more synergy.
Our view on these three levels is:
the JRP as a concept of channelling the funding to strategic areas for Lithuania is important
but the governance of actually setting the priority agendas and aligning them to the national
innovation strategy agenda needs to be strengthened. For that purpose we propose the RISC;
the JRP as a legal programme needs a stronger institutional setting as there is no clear
responsibility at this moment. The funding and monitoring functions which at this moment are
not being accomplished should be managed by MITA and MOSTA. The responsibility of
reporting and delivering on the KPIs should be devolved to the project level. In the future
with new funding coming an alternative is to re-establish a JRP-stakeholder Boards as an
obligation to propose a full strategic vision for their specific thematic area;
the JRP-Board level has not functioned as a stakeholder forum to develop joint strategies for
the four areas and to coordinate activities across projects in the field. The reasons for this are
that the definition of the four areas is still quite broad and technology focused and there are no
incentives for the stakeholders to be held accountable for the KPIs on the programme level.
We suggest that they should be abolished.
There is no institution or body at this moment, which can be held accountable for achieving these
objectives and performance indicators. The foreseen JRP Boards are not acting in this capacity. There
are two alternative routes to this situation:
the concept of four overarching JRPs is abolished and the Ministries continue to work directly
with the projects (the ongoing and future 20 „hard-infrastructure‟ and soft projects), the
Valley Programmes and the individual institutions that are operating them. The disadvantage
of such an approach is that there will be little chance for a coherent sectoral or thematic
strategic approach, but rather a large number of loosely connected projects;
another alternative is to appoint an institution that takes the responsibility to oversee and
manage the four JRPs; This has the advantage that current and future funding programmes
can be more aligned with priorities of the sectoral or thematic focus of the individual JRPs
and that an overview of the KPIs at the horizontal levels can be maintained. It is proposed that
MITA could take over such responsibility though this assumes a strengthening of its
organisational capacity.
In principle policies recommended by the RISC and decided on by the ministries, would be
implemented by the Science Council and/or MITA. The Science Council would have responsibility
for funding instruments concerned primarily with fundamental or basic research whereas programmes
of a more applied or strategic nature should be handled by MITA. In addition funding schemes and
projects dealing with innovation and entrepreneurship issues can be better handled by MITA rather
than the Science Council. In either case the RISC will develop the priority areas, eligibility and
selection criteria and then work with the “Assigned Institution” to produce the detailed application
procedures. As today the JRPs are mostly concerned with strategic and applied research, collaboration
with industry and entrepreneurship, MITA seems better placed to oversee the JRP programmes and
implement any further funding for the Valleys and the JRP projects. Thus our advice would be that
JRPs should be handled by MITA. This agency would however need the resources and human
capabilities to accomplish these tasks.
The Valley and project managers would then in the future directly report to MITA and provide the
agreed monitoring data. MITA could establish four separate units for each of the thematic areas and
an overall JRP management that oversees all four areas and takes part in the RISC.
A similar organisation can be found in the innovation agency in The Netherlands (Agency NL) that
has both vertical units dealing with a specific „thematic focus area‟ set by the Innovation Platform.
Agency NL and in particular its Innovation Directorate has a Project Management Office for what are
called the „Priority Areas‟ for The Netherlands. Originally these were 1) Water and water
29
management 2) High tech sectors and Materials 3) Food and Flowers. Later these were expanded with
Priority Areas such as Maritime, Automotive, Service Innovation and Life Sciences and Health. In
addition the office has small „horizontal‟ Units dealing with generic issues across all thematic areas
such as ensuring environmental sustainability, setting the Framework Conditions and communication.
It is important that there is a Management (in Agency NL a Director and Deputy Director) who
oversee all information across thematic areas. Each of the thematic units has a small team interacting
with the stakeholders in their domain. In the Lithuanian case one could suggest that depending on the
size of the area each JRP area is looked after by 1-2 people and there is a horizontal management of 1-
2 people as well in addition to some support staff.
In the short- to medium- term (during the implementation of the Valleys monitoring project) the
Monitoring Group should ensure that it is not gathering the same information as CPVA/LVPA and
should share all gathered information if that helps CPVA/LVPA (and any other agencies) in
performing their projects monitoring functions. In their turn, CPVA and LVPA should share with the
Monitoring Group their gathered information in order for the Monitoring Group to create as full
picture about projects implementation as possible.
The monitoring role of CPVA and LVPA finishes once the projects perform their contracts in putting
up the buildings and acquiring all the equipment (i.e. Phase I of the project). These agencies do not
have a role in monitoring Phase II of the projects (i.e. what happens once the buildings and equipment
are in place and functioning and the projects are focusing on performing research on a open access
principle). Two scenarios are possible during Phase II: CPVA/LVPA are not involved at all OR
project submit all the monitoring information to these agencies and the Monitoring Group‟s successor
performs analysis of these data. We suggest that all the monitoring related to the innovation and the
R&D projects should be taken out of LVPA/CPVA and be with the agency which will be responsible
for the implementation of the R&D and innovation programmes.
Once the priorities and main themes are agreed in the RISC and decided by the responsible
government bodies, it then would become the responsibility of the „Assigned Institution‟ to issue calls
and receive applications. This institution would then check the applications for administrative details
and eligibility criteria before submitting them for technical evaluation. Normally this will involve peer
review and in large projects at least an element of this should be international. In the case of the
Science Council, a well developed system for evaluation based on peer review already exists. In the
short term other assigned institutions could employ the database of experts hosted by the Science
Council, but in time they should build upon their own evaluation system. In addition, it is absolutely
crucial to involve international peer reviewers. How the implementation of additional funding could
be organised is detailed in task 4.4. of our assignment.
For some lines of funding it may be desirable for both the Science Council and MITA to play a role.
In Finland some programmes (called cluster programmes) are funded jointly by TEKES and the
Academy of Finland to provide both fundamental and applied research in a particular area
simultaneously. A new coordination committee is to be set up between the Science Council and
MITA which should facilitate this process.
MITA could use the Science Council network of reviewers or could utilise its in-house system of
Committees. In many cases MITA will need a different type of expertise and rather than having
scientific peers they would need experts with experience in building/operating research
infrastructures, technology transfer or incubator management. The exact nature of the evaluation will
be decided for each individual programme and is part of the preparations for the call.
Investment decisions for the current 14 infrastructure projects have already been made and these
should be efficiently and effectively implemented. In the short-term the urgency is that stronger
management is created and empowered at project implementation level. Nevertheless, it is understood
that the MoES will have a need to allocate funding for „soft-projects‟ that are more focused on
research careers and competences as well as additional infrastructure projects. In our view the
allocation of these funds should be strongly aligned to the funding in the research infrastructure
projects. However, if the suggestions and selection of the funded projects is proposed by the
stakeholders themselves there is a risk that the projects will be distributed equally among the
organisations represented in the JRP and not on the basis of quality and synergy with the existing
30
R&D infrastructure projects. We therefore propose a selection process that is more in line with good
practice in other research systems: an open and transparent competition on the basis of well defined
criteria and assessed by (international) peers who do not have a conflict of interest. Empowerment of
teams and institutions should be the key objectives of the respective funding decisions.
For this particular activity the appointed agency, e.g. MITA, could set up a competitive funding round
for these soft projects requesting the researchers and Project Supervisory Groups to:
describe the research programme/competence building projects, related to their research
infrastructure projects. This could also include technical skills for research infrastructure
operators, skills related to support for entrepreneurship in the incubators and science parks,
training for researchers to use the research infrastructure and equipment purchased in the hard
infrastructure projects;
ensure that activities will increase the effectiveness of the use of the research infrastructures
and raise the quality /relevance of the research undertaken; and
ensure that this could encourage developments towards more open access to the research
infrastructure in the future. It is obvious that the applicants who have successfully
implemented research infrastructure will be in a preferred position to be awarded “soft
projects”.
4.2.3 Supervision and monitoring
In our view the Supervision and Monitoring layer in this phase of the Valleys programme should be
lean. At this moment there is the Monitoring Group and the Financing and Controlling Agencies.
A strategy should be developed which describes how the role of the Monitoring Group is
continued/refined after the three year project is finished. To avoid duplication in monitoring of the
JRPs and R&D infrastructure projects, the monitoring and data collection function for the time being
should be undertaken by the MG in association with MOSTA, but gradually transferred to an assigned
body within the timeframe of the project. MOSTA already has responsibility for monitoring functions
in the Higher Education sector and would be well placed to play a role in the overall monitoring
process. However, MITA as the organisation which we suggest will be responsible for the JPR
implementation should perform the monitoring function of the JPRs and the Valleys programme. The
decision on the form and function of the successors to the MG should be made by the Ministry.
4.2.4 Project implementation
Valley Associations
Currently, some Associations are mostly composed of members from business and operate as an
industrial club with members meeting and discussing matters of common concern. In other cases the
Association is of mixed membership from academia, research institutes and business sectors and
concentrates on issues related to marketing of the Valley and public relations with limited influence
over Valley R&D project implementation. Despite the limitations of currently functioning
Associations, they are probably the only open access mechanism for business to be incorporated in the
development and activity of Valleys.
Recommendations for the Valley Associations include:
encourage Associations to concentrate on representation of Valley participants and partnering
with the business community; and
reconsider the geographical Valley management concept.
Project Supervisory Groups
The current project management system for the 14 MoES projects appears to be functioning with
most of the Valleys showing progress despite the problems of procurement delays. The PSGs are not
yet operational in many cases although basic reporting procedures are followed as far as it can be
31
ascertained. We see the PSGs‟ role as a management implementation group rather than having a
supervisory function as these groups are composed of the direct stakeholders involved in the projects.
Moreover, in the medium-term the PSGs should be viewed as an additional capacity to “market” the
infrastructure and to increase open access.
PSGs should be established as soon as possible to enable effective monitoring of project progress. It is
important to ensure that the requirement to have PSGs is embedded in the financing agreements of the
six MoE R&D infrastructure projects. PSGs will vary in size according to the size and nature of the
project. For example, if the project is an incubator or technology park a small group representing
managers, initiators, tenants and ministries would be sufficient. Where the project is more complex
such as a large national R&D facility a larger group would be necessary reflecting the structure of the
project e.g. representatives of ministries, management, laboratories, initiators and users.
The PSGs will be responsible for collating the necessary information on progress and results achieved
and providing it to the MG. The PSGs will cease to function when the infrastructure project is fully
implemented. Before this happens a new supervisory group should be established to manage the
ongoing usage of the equipment and ensure involvement of all relevant stakeholders. The form of this
group will differ dependent on the type of facility in question. However, the emphasis will be on
efficient utilisation of the facilities and achievement of Valley/JRP results and this will require a
different set of skills to those required for the construction and/or installation phase.
A major role for these new managers will be the supervision of the development of efficient strategies
to maximise the benefits of the infrastructure. Thus each project has to define its individual mode of
“open access”, based on individual business plans. They will also be responsible for the coordination
of project results and ensuring that these are integrated into the overall Valley/JRP results, and
coordinated with other JRP soft projects Management will also need to be involved in the preparation
of a business plan for each project, assisted by the MG.
In all cases a member of the MG would be included in the membership of each PSG and would ensure
that the structure and function of each group complies to basic principles, including:
key performance indicators for the project are known and followed, including those existing
ones related to financing, etc.;
a business plan is developed in collaboration with members of the MG;
compliance with OAC standard regulation principles is ensured including proposals for
managers of open-access infrastructure and recommendations regarding management and
administrative adjustment of the rules;
coordination with other related JRP projects is ensured; and
additional arrangements for maintenance and renewal of equipment are suggested.
Recommendations for the PSGs can be summarised as follows:
the PSGs should be made more accountable for the progress of the R&D projects;
a requirement should be introduced to have PSGs in all six MoE R&D infrastructure projects;
reshape PSG functioning by introducing a two-stage supervisory mechanism:
PSG for construction and/or installation phase;
management structure for R&D infrastructure utilisation phase until JRP closure.
extend the management structure by incorporating supervision of related JRP soft projects,
establishment of open access, functioning and activity planning.
4.2.5 Summary of roles and keys actions per actor
After approval from the MoES, MoE and MOSTA to take this model forward and enter the
implementation phase, the following Table 1 gives an overview by actor of their key functions, the
key actions to be taken by the first quarter of 2012 (short term), actions that need to be taken in
quarter 2 and 3 of 2012 and actions for the medium to long term.
32
Table 1: Overview of recommended key functions and actions to be taken
Actors
/organisations Roles and key functions
Key Actions
before 1st April 2012 (Quarter 1)
Key actions
in Quarter 2 & 3 of 2012 Medium to long-term actions
Lithuanian
government Overall policy formulation and
decision making.
Set up a dialogue process to define the
mandate of the RISC and its responsibilities;
first within the government, subsequently
with ministries and stakeholders involved;
Make a profile and define requirements of
the type of people/organisations that could
be representatives;
Appoint the members of RISC;
Sketch a process of stakeholder
involvement, the use of tools (foresight, etc)
to settle the medium to long term goals and
priorities of Lithuania;
Allocate a budget for this activity (e.g.
Secretariat);
Launch RISC in summer/autumn 2012.
Negotiate and approve (multi-)
annual work programme and
finances of RISC;
Requests for specific studies
and empirical evidence for
decision making.
Review functioning of RISC
every year after its launch;
Review RISCs annual reports.
RISC Advise government on key
policy priorities for R&D and
S&T policy in Lithuania and
preparing government
decisions;
Advise government on R&D
and S&T funding;
Advise on international R&D
and S&T cooperation.
Not yet applicable. Set up Secretariat function;
Develop a work programme
with clear goals and
milestones relevant for
dominant actors;
Define strategic intelligence
needs and SWOT of current
Lithuanian strategic
intelligence system.
Define advice on R&D and
S&T priorities for 2015-2020;
Define an R&D and S&T
internationalisation strategy;
Write Annual Reports to
discuss actions and results.
Ministry of
Science and Policy formulation and
decision making on Research
Develop mandate for MITA;
Allocate budget for MITA;
Provide input on policy needs
and priorities to RISC.
Evaluate science and research
elements of Valleys and JRPs;
33
Actors
/organisations Roles and key functions
Key Actions
before 1st April 2012 (Quarter 1)
Key actions
in Quarter 2 & 3 of 2012 Medium to long-term actions
Education and HEI;
Develop strategic intelligence
on R&D and S&T system in
Lithuania.
Review Integrated science, studies and
business centres (valleys) concept.
Define long term strategies for
R&D and S&T also in
preparation of new Structural
Funds programming period.
Ministry of
Economy Policy formulation and
decision making on Innovation
and Economic Policy.
Develop mandate and objectives for MITA;
Allocate budget to MITA;
Provide input on policy needs
and priorities to RISC;
Approve MITA‟s work
programme and finances.
Evaluate MITA and its
programmes;
Define long term strategies for
R&D and S&T also in
preparation of new Structural
Funds programming period.
Ministry of
Finance Decide on financial
arrangements of activities to
be launched.
MITA to acquire EU structural support
funds administrator status.
Provide input to RISC
considering the financial
framework conditions.
Define long term strategies
funding of R&D and S&T.
Other Ministries Policy formulation and
decision making on science,
research and innovation needs
in their domain.
Not yet applicable. Provide input to RISC on
priorities for investments in
science, research and
innovation.
Define long term strategies for
RDI also in preparation of new
Structural Funds programming
period.
MITA Managing the JRP
programmes.
Not yet applicable. Choose 2-3 appropriate people
to perform part of the RISC‟s
Secretariat functions;
Prepare the design and
management of potential new
programmes for the Valleys
and JRPs.
Renew evaluation and
monitoring system for the
Valleys and JRPs;
Administer and monitor the
JPRs and Valleys
programmes;
Provide progress reports to
RISC;
Act as a Secretariat to RISC.
MOSTA Providing strategic
intelligence on science and
Organise high level meeting of
representatives from MoES, MoE, President
Choose 2-3 appropriate people
to perform part of the RISC‟s
Develop a Science, and Higher
Research Monitoring System
34
Actors
/organisations Roles and key functions
Key Actions
before 1st April 2012 (Quarter 1)
Key actions
in Quarter 2 & 3 of 2012 Medium to long-term actions
higher education to Ministries
and RISC.
office, Consortium. Secretariat functions;
Prepare Monitoring Group
role;
Provide support to RISC work
programme with strategic
intelligence on science and
education system.
for Lithuania.
Valley
Associations Marketing arm/tool for the
Valley;
Representation of Valley
participants and partnering
with the business community.
Build up relational network with business
communities.
Develop inter-linkages
between Valleys and business
communities;
Formulate internationalisation
strategies for Valleys.
Maintain and renew inter-
linkages with business
community;
Build up international
visibility of Valleys.
Financing and
Controlling
Agencies
Collate financial data. Engage in financial control. Engage in financial control. Define together with other
stakeholder financial control
system for next SF period.
Project
Supervisory
Groups
Collating data on progress of
the JRP projects;
Report progress to the MG.
Support JRP projects in setting up
performance criteria systems;
Collect data from the Valleys and JRP
projects.
Report on progress. Report on progress and results.
35
4.3 Detailed description of the procedures of coordination and management
The application of the Management and Coordination model assumes a number of specific steps as
part of an overall procedure for decision-making and implementation. These steps are illustrated in
the following flow-chart.
Figure 4: Implementation procedure
The Government, represented by the MoES, MoE and other ministries involved in the Valley
programmes, appoint the members of the Research and Innovation Strategy Council (RISC). The
members are appointed for several years and a rotation scheme is put in place to replace some of the
members (e.g. a third of the membership is replaced every two years). The membership is set on the
the basis of an equal representation. To avoid potentially loosing lots „old‟ members due to the
rotation, there is a need to build some safety features into the system. Groups take time to "gel" and
36
losing a third every two years could mean that the cohesion of the group never becomes properly
established. There is also a risk losing "good" members, i.e. those with strategic and objective
perspectives. So, of the third that are selected to 'retire', the Ministries could retain the option to
reappoint e.g. 50- 60%. That way, you get some new blood but also retain experience (of how a
Council works) and cohesion.
As a working method, the Work Programme (WP) ideally should be developed in advance by the
RISC secretariat with relevant civil servants to make sure that the WP developed is relevant, needed
and therefore likely to be implemented. This does not have to be explicitly stated in this document but
somehow the message should get across that the RISC members need to feel/believe that they are
independent but at the same time they have to "play" within the system otherwise individual views
can take a lead and misguide the process.
The RISC is provided with a mandate to advise the government on topics that relate to the Lithuanian
knowledge society and economy. It is important not to make the description of the policy domains too
narrow so that the issues can be reviewed in a broad manner. This mandate should involve the
frequency of the Council‟s advice and its key working processes. The most appropriate way this can
be achieved is the agreement that the RISC makes an annual work programme with foreseen tasks and
required budgets, that is subsequently discussed and approved by the responsible ministries and
government representatives. The cycle of the RISC advice should take account of budgetary cycles,
the cycles of the major Structural Funds decisions and foreseen funding decisions related to the
Valleys. The work programme should cover the core of the advisory work, however the government
should also hold some additional budget for unforeseen topics that would require the RISC‟s advice
on the short term.
The RISC will be asked to propose the outlines of new policy instruments (their objectives, target
groups and expected outcomes and impacts) based on solid evidence. However not their detailed
design. If proposals for new policies are accepted, the Ministries involved are charged with the
definition and design of the details of the programmes. It could seek help from agencies or assigned
institutions to fine-tune the implementation details. This function can gradually move to the Assigned
Institution if the need arises. The Monitoring requirements for programmes and initiatives are defined
and aligned with the future evaluation requirements. The Assigned Institution will provide a proposal
for the Monitoring framework, which needs approval from the Ministry.
The Ministry should also develop the programme management requirements such as the budget for its
execution, the rules and procedures for the operations of the programme during the entire cycle of
soliciting proposals to awarding grants and contracts, the closure of completed projects and the
dissemination of the programme results. They are also responsible to define the legal conditions and
consistency with funding rules of the Structural Funds. As in the above paragraph, the Assigned
Institution can gradually take over these tasks.
The Ministry (or Ministries) involved develop a performance contract with the Assigned Institution,
which provides the Multiannual Framework for the Assigned Institution to allocate the necessary
human resources and strategic intelligence to execute the programme implementation. The Assigned
Institution is asked to report to the Ministry every six months and later annually on the progress of the
programme implementation, once a proper monitoring system in place. However, quarterly meetings
of all agencies and ministries could be organised to discuss „hot‟ issues. It should provide an analysis
of the progress and if relevant, reasons why agreed milestones (e.g. the selection of grants) have not
been met and suggest measures to overcome these bottlenecks. The Assigned Institution is also
responsible for instructing the organisations involved in the project implementation what monitoring
data they should provide at which frequency. In order to be in line with the Assigned Institutions
cycle a six-month reporting period seems appropriate.
The monitoring reports should feed into the evaluation process managed at Ministry level. The
monitoring data and reports are essential background for the internal or externally (tendered out to
consultants) evaluations of programmes at mid-term or ex-post stage. In turn, these evaluations will
inform the strategic periodic review of policy carried out by the RISC and ultimately future
Government decisions on national priorities.
37
4.4 Relations with the supervising institutions
The relations with the supervising institutions have as such been outlined in sub-section 4.3 of this
report. In addition, communications routes between MG, MOSTA and the MoES are already well
defined in the Communication Plan for this project which has been produced as a separate document.
Although developed for the current work of the Monitoring Group, the principles applied in the
Communication Plan can be taken to the next levels.
4.5 Detailed procedures of decision making
The decision making procedures follow the cascade of responsibility described in 4.3 and is following
the accepted public administration practice and legal base of Lithuania.
The Government and Ministries decide on:
the composition of the RISC, the budget and resources for the RISC‟s and approve the RISC‟s
annual work programme;
the Lithuanian Research and Innovation Policy strategy and its priorities and its alignment
with international and European policy developments;
what new policy instruments to launch, which existing policy instruments to adapt or abolish.
The RISC provides advice to the Government to develop policies or to set policy priorities. Following
the approval of its annual work programme it can decide on allocating the funding for its Secretariat
and the necessary strategic intelligence needed to perform its tasks to review Lithuania‟s strengths and
weaknesses, commission specific studies, organise stakeholder dialogues and dissemination of its
advisory work.
The Assigned Institutions, following their performance contracts with the Ministries and the
procedures of the individual policy programmes, decide on the implementation of the programmes,
the administrative requirements of the project contractors and the organisation of their monitoring
tasks. In the case of the current Valley programmes they liaise with the Monitoring Group (who are
bound by their Terms of Reference) on how these monitoring and coaching activities are performed.
The R&D project leaders decide on the implementation of their projects following the formal project
requirements as agreed in their R&D contracts.
4.6 List of qualification requirements
Qualification requirements will vary depending on the role of the participating agency. Table 2
presents preferred qualification requirements for the four levels of the model. Please refer to earlier
sections to see which level individuals are being proposed. If the recommendations are followed as
prescribed, the list of qualifications in Table 2 should be used as guidelines only.
38
Table 2: Qualification requirements for four model levels
Level Qualification requirements
Policy formation
and decision
making
Research and Innovation Strategy Council
For the representatives of the Government:
higher profile work (preferably on the ministerial level) in the MoES or MoE;
understanding and/or experience in national and EU policy-making arena;
experience of strategy development in a research environment or at least 10 years
of experience in strategy development in other environments;
(preferably) experience in forward looking priority setting exercises' or 'Forward
Looking Activities (FLAs' as used by the DG RTD in the EU Commission) or, set
up of innovation system and similar work;
experience in the development of the Lithuanian innovation system;
understanding and (preferably) work experience with research infrastructure on
the Lithuanian and (preferably) EU (ESFRI) level;
understanding of the EU SF environment;
a record of past integrity would be as important as academic qualifications.
For the representatives from the research community:
(preferably) 10 years of experience in decision-making, priority setting in
research;
Significant research management experience, e.g. running a research lab or team
of up to 15 people
(preferably) PhD level degree in the research fields of high priority to Lithuania;
proven track record of international research work;
(preferably) experience in working on the Valleys programmes;
understanding and (preferably) work experience with research infrastructure on
the Lithuanian and (preferably) EU (ESFRI) level.
For the representatives from industry and civil society organisations:
(preferably) 10 years of experience in the top management roles (i.e. involvement
in decision-making);
(preferably) experience in working with the research environment;
(preferably) experience in working on the Valleys programmes.
Secretariat of the Research and Innovation Strategy Council
relevant policy research experience including in the support of Task Forces, Ad
Hoc Working Groups etc. in the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of Education,
implementing agencies under various ministries, leading Lithuanian research
institutions or research-intensive and successful businesses;
understanding and/or experience in national and EU policy-making arena;
experience of strategy development in a research environment;
(preferably) experience in 'forward looking priority setting exercises' or 'Forward
Looking Activities (FLAs' as used by the DG RTD in the EU Commission), set
up of innovation system and similar work;
experience in the development of the Lithuanian innovation system;
understanding and (preferably) work experience with research infrastructure on
the Lithuanian and (preferably) EU (ESFRI) level;
39
experience in designing and/or working on the Valleys programme;
understanding of the EU SF environment;
understanding and experience in relation to the European Research Area;
ability to organise, research and prepare background papers and final outputs to a
level commensurate with expectations of RISC;
ability to work with multi-level, multi-stakeholder groups;
well networked in the academic and business community.
Policy
implementation
Assigned institution
For people working in thematic units:
o (min) 5 years experience in the field related to the scientific area this
person will be looking after;
o (preferably) PhD (or at least Master) education in the scientific fields
this person will be looking after;
o (preferably) either 5 years experience in the related scientific research
field;
For people working in a horizontal management:
o Requirements and qualifications here will be not any different to the
current requirements of the people working in a similar functions in
similar agencies in Lithuania;
o Ability to analyse collected data; understand the nature of research, what
it can bring. Ability to support and steer the Valleys to deliver agreed
outcomes;
For people working in support functions:
o Requirements and qualifications here will be not any different to the
current requirements of the people working in a similar functions in
similar agencies in Lithuania;
People involved in technical evaluations of proposals:
(preferably in international) PhD degree in the scientific fields this person will be
looking after;
(min) 5 years experience in the field related to the scientific area, preferably
abroad;
(preferably) either 5 years experience in the related scientific research field either
in the academic or business environment, preferably abroad;
understanding of the international research field in a specific research field‟.
Supervision and
monitoring
The model does not suggest any new supervisory and monitoring functions/roles to the
already existing ones under the current systems. Hence, the qualifications and experiences
stay as they are.
Implementation
level
The model does not suggest any new implementation level functions/roles to the already
existing ones under the current systems. Hence, the qualifications and experiences stay as
they are.
40
4.7 Preconditions for the implementation of the model
A first precondition for the implementation of the model is that the will to implement exists on the
part of the Government and MoES and MoE. A second precondition is that a RISC Board with people
of high level stature and representing relevant stakeholder groups can be assigned and made
operational before the end of 2011 and that budgets are allocated to ensure that this body can perform
its tasks. At the minimum resources should be provided to develop its first annual work programme.
A third precondition is that the Assigned Institutions are functional and have the necessary human
resources and experience to fulfil their core tasks.
It is difficult to be more specific until specific programmes have been identified. For instance if a
programme was intended to increase cooperation between research institutes and business then good
will and the ability to communicate ideas effectively would be important prerequisites on both sides –
when specific programmes are identified preconditions will be included in the relevant
documentation.
4.8 Detailed action plan and procedures for the implementation of the model
Assuming that MoES and MoE take the decision concerning the main agencies to be employed the
action plan (presented in Figure 2 and Table 1) sets out the tasks that are related to the contract of the
Monitoring Group for Monitoring and Implementation of the Valleys and JRPs contract. Table 3
summarises the key actions to be taken, and the suggested tasks and actions per actor set out above.
Table 3: Action plan for the implementation of the model
No Action Responsible
institution Timeframe
1 Review Integrated science, studies and business centres (valleys)
concept.
MoES By end 2011
2 Support to Assigned Institutions to develop and finalise the
Monitoring Framework and set division of labour for monitoring
and coaching Valleys and R&D projects
Assigned Institution Oct 2011 –
July 2012
3 Set up a working group Monitoring group,
MOSTA and MoES
July 2011 –
Spring 2013
4 Amend documents:
Four Joint Research programmes;
Approval of concept of Integrated science, studies and
business centres (valleys);
Five Integrated science, studies and business centres
(valleys) programmes;
Approval of Open Access Centre Management Regulation;
Establishment of Valleys Supervisory Council.
MoES and LR
Government
July 2011 –
April 2012
5 Organise high level meeting of representatives from MoES,
MoE, President office, Consortium
MOSTA October 2011
6 Establish Research and Innovation Strategy Council LR Government Autumn
2012
7 Establish Research and Innovation Strategy Council‟s Secretariat MoES Autumn
2012
8 MITA to acquire EU structural support funds administrator
status
Ministry of Finance Autumn
2012
9 R&D and innovation priority review and approval of new list in
Research and Innovation Strategy Council
LR Government Spring 2013
10 The Consortium to transfer Monitoring Group functions to
successor organisation
Successor
organisation
June 2014
41
5. Management and Coordination Model post 2014
The Monitoring Group are responsible to assist in the implementation of the M&C Model for the
duration of the contract, that is, until June 2014. While there is no contractual obligation to make a
proposal for the functioning of the management and coordination model beyond this date, we are
conscious that the preparations for the next period of Structural Fund assistance are beginning
already. Hence, there is a need to reflection on how the management and coordination model should
evolve to allow a more effective programme and strategic management and monitoring and evaluation
framework in the 2014-20 period.
A schematic representation of our proposal for a future management and coordination model for
research and innovation (incubator, etc.) infrastructure and related thematic research funding
programmes is presented in Figure 3.
Our recommendations draw on the findings of the project reporting to date including work under
reviewing of best practice on management of research infrastructure (T.3.1.2) and on-going
monitoring and supervision of the current projects (e.g. T.1.3.1 and T.1.3.2):
The Lithuanian agency structure is overly complicated compared to other EU countries, even
other „new‟ Member States. There is a need to integrate in operational implementing
agencies (MITA, Lithuanian Research Council) the financial control, Structural Fund
payment and procurement oversight functions currently assigned to specific „specialised‟
agencies;
The Monitoring Group is of the view that post-2014 MITA should be responsible for joint
research programme and research and innovation infrastructure management should be
ensured by a team of specialists located in MITA. The Lithuanian Research Council would
remain responsible for fundamental research project funding and would work in tandem with
MITA in providing expertise for project selection and review (at stop-go points in project
implementation, etc.) for the applied research and innovation funding measures.
MOSTA should not be involved in programme monitoring or over-sight but rather perform a
role as a policy think-tank monitoring and evaluating system wide changes and future trends
and contributing to advising both the RISC and the Government on future higher education
and research priorities.
A specific research and innovation infrastructure programme should be created that would be
managed by MITA funding on-going extension of facilities supported during 2007-13 or new
RI facilities that would be selected based on a competitive call. This horizontal programme
will complement funding programmes for applied and fundamental research that would be
targeted towards the four priorities of the JRPs.
The Valley „programme‟ as such will be discontinued but limited „soft‟ funding for Valley
Associations to build up marketing and promotion (national and international) and non-
project specific co-ordination of stakeholders should be maintained (or appear).
42
Figure 5: Proposed post-2014 scheme of Joint Research Programme management and coordination model
Policy formation
and decision
making
Supervision and
monitoring
Implementation
Policy
Implementation
Research and
Innovation
Strategy Council
Research Council of
Lithuania
Assigned Institution (MITA)
Bio
me
dic
ine
an
d
Bio
tech
no
log
y
Na
tura
l R
eso
urc
es a
nd
Ag
ricu
ltu
re
Ma
teria
l S
cie
nce,
Ph
ysic
al a
nd
Ch
em
ica
l te
ch
no
log
y
En
gin
ee
rin
g a
nd
in
form
atio
n
tech
no
log
y
Management and Coordination
Valley association
Ministry of
Education and
Science
Ministry of
EconomyOther Ministries
Government
Valley
projects
Valley incubation
and technology
transfer projects
JRP projects
R&D infrastructure
project
Project
Supervisory Group
JRP Soft Projects
HEIs, PRIs and
business
representatives
Secretariat MOSTA
