Alasdair Reid, Bilbao, 1 April 2014

Programme Management for dummies…

Or why a good strategy is not enough to foster innovation

Why is programme management important ?

“…evaluation studies indicate that the overall success of these (innovation)

programmes can be increased by rigorous selection processes combined

with monitoring, systematic pre-application support, stronger interaction between programme management and participants, minimal bureaucracy and

prolonged scheme duration…”!!

Edler et al (2013) Compendium of Innovation Policy

Designing a good strategy is only step 1

TAFTIE (2005), based on MAP

Some core concepts❖ The ultimate goal of a Programme is to realise outcomes and benefits of strategic relevance. !

❖ To achieve this a programme is designed as a temporary flexible organisation structure created to coordinate, direct and oversee the implementation of a set of related projects and activities in order to deliver outcomes and benefits related to strategic objectives. !

❖ A programme is likely to have a life that spans several years. A Project is usually of shorter duration (a few months perhaps) and will be focussed on the creation of a set of deliverables within agreed cost, time and quality parameters. !

❖ The term Portfolio is used to describe the total set of programmes and stand-alone projects undertaken by an organisation. !

❖ Programmes usually require the commitment and active involvement of more than one organisation to achieve the desired outcomes. !

❖ Programmes deliver, or enable, one or more benefits i.e. measurable improvement resulting from an outcome and perceived as an advantage by one or more stakeholders.

Programmes are likely to be❖ Cross-cutting !

❖ Multi-disciplinary !

❖ Risky !

❖ Uncertain, with unpredictable outcomes !

❖ Long duration (spanning years rather than months) !

❖ Influenced by a wide range of interested parties with differing degrees of commitment !

❖ Impacting on a wide range of stakeholders some of whom may suffer ‘dis-benefits’ !

❖ Liable to change direction in the light of experience and external events.

Seven principles for success❖ Remaining aligned with ‘corporate’ (Government) strategy !

❖ Leading change !

❖ Envisioning and communicating a better future !

❖ Focusing on benefits and threat to their achievement !

❖ Designing and delivering a coherent capability !

❖ Learning from experience !

❖ Adding value!UK Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (2010)

Programme management cycle

Cabinet Office – Managing Successful Programmes, 2011

Principles and governance themesNine governance themes:!❖ Organisation !❖ Vision !❖ Leadership & Stakeholder

Engagement !❖ Benefits Realisation Management !❖ Design and Delivery !❖ Planning and Control !❖ Business Case !❖ Risk Management and Issue

Resolution !❖ Quality Management

BIS (2010)

Innovation policies for innovation systems ?

We tend to design programmes for specific bottlenecks forgetting that their outcomes are dependent on many factors and stakeholders!!We need rather to adopt a portfolio approach - remove ‘silos’ and deliver policy via inter-agency co-operation.

Lorem Ipsum Dolor

The complexity of innovation policy is a growing challenge for programme managers

Source: Compendium of Innovation Policy, Edler et al (2013)

Type of programme

What do we observe in practice ? (1) ❖ Programme organisation & vision:!

❖ Innovation strategies (e.g. RIS3) often designed in parallel to ERDF ‘operational programmes’:!

❖ Stakeholders consulted on strategies but less explicitly involved in programme design!

❖ Proper feasibility studies rarely done.!

❖ Programme intervention logics poorly codified and little use of ‘logic models’ or ‘theory of change’ to explore hypothesis about external factors influencing programme outcomes.

Stakeholder management❖ Innovation programmes require strong

stakeholder management skills:!

❖ Cover a diverse range of stakeholders with potentially conflicting interests/incentives (e.g. business people versus researchers) !

❖ A detailed stakeholder mapping should be done at outset and updated regularly throughout programme cycle!

❖ Formal steering committees need to be complemented by more creative work with specific groups of stakeholders

What do we observe in practice ? (2) ❖ Even well designed programmes fail to be delivered effectively…!

❖ State Aid rules applied ‘to the letter’/‘badly’ - e.g. “the rules say we can’t fund companies and researchers in same programme”, !

❖ Poorly defined/‘over-stringent’ selection criteria exclude target beneficiaries (e.g. financial viability criteria which rule out weakly profitable but potentially innovative firms)!

❖ Beautiful ideas meet hard reality (e.g. the practical barriers to pre-commercial procurement, regional venture capital funds without a ‘deal flow’, etc.)

What do we observe in practice ? (3) ❖ Programme management (increasingly) handed on by Ministries to

(innovation) agencies to deliver: !

❖ Plus side: agencies offer more flexible means to deliver novel types of support (temporary recruitment of specialists to manage delivery, and provide expert support).!

❖ Risk: original policy goals become ‘lost in translation’ as part of agencies own ‘corporate plan’ or due to lack of know-how in specialist areas;!

❖ Increasingly important role for “project engineers/brokers” - e.g. role of operational units of competitiveness clusters in developing collaborative projects.

Realising the benefits❖ Little attention to pre-emptive intervention by programme managers

to manage risks and resolve common issues faced by projects!

❖ Technical assistance funds not used to boost capabilities of programme managers!

❖ Programme management as a bureaucrat necessity rather than a strategic tool to optimise value from a portfolio of projects!

❖ Evaluation as a ‘control mechanism’ or for ‘public accountability’ rather than a means to improve programme performance !

❖ Stakeholders involvement in programme at discrete intervals (mid-term review, etc.) rather than as part of on-going re-design.

Critically: effective programme management facilitates the tracking of outcomes against the original intervention logic - improving evaluation capacities

Monitoring & evaluating programme outcomes

Technopolis Group/MIOIR (2012)!Evaluation of Innovation Activities!Guidance on methods and practices!A publication for the Directorate-General for Regional Policy, European Commission

Thank you

Alasdair Reid Director technopolis |group| Belgium 12 avenue de Tervuren 1040 Brussels

To contact me: !Email: alasdair.reid@technopolis-group.com Skype: alasdairreid