";} /*B6D1B1EE*/ ?>

Wednesday, August 31, 2016
English (United Kingdom)French (Fr)
          |          The European Association of Development Agencies
The more time passes, the more I see that the best-intentioned strategies and best made on paper are not being implemented successfully because they have to face difficulties in deployment of technological, human, and financial resources as well as in targeting the market to be covered, whether in the public or the private sector.

In the public sector, the main reasons of this difference between intentions and achievements are:
  • public service offer not in line with demand;
  • evaluation based on transactions (number of beneficiaries) and not on transforming the ecosystem;
  • organisation-centric called JIMA (Just In My Administration);
  • failure in knowledge management;
  • dogmatic approach of politicians aiming at standardizing practices (cf. overdose of clusters and incubators, for instance);
  • short-term vision coupled together with multiannual programmes;
  • excessive use of grants;
  • capturing financial volumes (ERDF volume, Horizon 2020, etc) regardless their real purpose and the absorption capacity. How can certain representatives of Member States claim for a greater share of FP7 when their administrations are not able to absorb the funds they are allocated under the Cohesion Policy?

Let's simply hope that the EU2020 strategy and the RIS³ strategies will contradict me and invent a new way of implementing a strategy. However, when facing the reality on the field in recent months, I did not see any signs of a real change of course for those eight parameters.

EURADA supports