Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Poster druid maria kapsali 3


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Poster druid maria kapsali 3

  1. 1. Project<br />POLICY FOCUS: DEPLOYMENT OF NEW<br />Policy instruments<br />Tensions in the Boundary<br /><ul><li>Participation rules
  2. 2. Transnational collaboration – Validation of markets or deployment in markets through a venture
  3. 3. Deployment objective lost in evaluations
  4. 4. Negotiation is mainly budget cutting
  5. 5. Evaluation procedures not set up to deal with project change
  6. 6. Institutional void Lack of infrastructural cohesion </li></ul>Implementation rationale -><br /><ul><li> Continuous and systematic controlling through monitoring –measurement procedures and participation rules </li></ul>Boundary Management <br /><ul><li>Project manager focuses on stage management
  7. 7. The role is that of ambassador and scout instead of task coordinator and guard
  8. 8. Cannot negotiate much + Participation rules – project manager ends up doing admin work
  9. 9. The Project Manager cannot buffer his team and is too busy to bring up boundaries
  10. 10. Instead the project manager is adjusting measurement Systems and aligning with agendas </li></ul>Project Management Tasks <br />Planning: formal, Work Breakdown packages <br />Communication: formal through the Policy-project boundary and distant working with partners <br />Task control and coordination: Low<br />Operational Change <br />The boundary role dominates the inner- boundary-leader role of the project manager <br />Managing relations becomes the main project manager activity, the Project Manager is marginalized and loses control over participant’s focus and tasks <br />Relational stability vs operational flexibility <br />Tension between the Boundary and the Project Manager roles <br />Implementation design: evaluation instruments <br />Task requirements little flexibility no change slack<br />Implementation instruments: Top-down rigorous controls on management process (efficiency)<br />Manage operational change <br />Relations in their networks <br />Leadership – internal relations <br />Strategic Goal <br />Misalignment <br />Dr. Maria Kapsali <br />Research Associate<br />Research theme F - Projects, Networks and Ecologies <br />Relating in project networks and innovation systems<br />Relating in theory<br />The findings <br />Problem: <br /><ul><li>Systemic relations are not defined and conceptualized in both project and Innovation Systems literatures
  11. 11. We need to map the dynamic interactions and their causality in Innovation Systems relating </li></ul>Question: WHY TO STUDY THIS?<br /><ul><li>Because the lack of explanation of the dynamic interactions between actors in an Innovation System severely limits us from designing effective policy implementation instruments </li></ul>Question: HOW TO STUDY THIS? <br /><ul><li>By creating a blueprint – relational map to describe the dynamic interaction between policy implementation and projects in an Innovation System
  12. 12. To show causality in this dynamic interaction </li></ul>Literature says: <br />Two types of literature: Triple Helix (in Innovation Systems) and project networks. <br />In the Triple Helix the boundaries of the actors blur and fuse, there is migration of production activities and role substitution that leads to changes in the actors’ internal roles and activities <br />This leads to mixed ways of organizing and change in the structures of actors <br />The project networks theory advocates that project networks are temporary, dominated by a variety of logics, identities, values and loyalties that create ecologies with different nodes of transacting <br />Their linkages are fluid and network structures defined by project activities, dynamic interactions and institutional dependencies <br />Tension between relational flexibility and operational stability – operations need to be more flexible for relations to be more stable (standardize expectations and create swift trust) to solve the problem of institutional embeddedness <br />Project management methodologies are designed to make project processes and activities predictable tl be managed in a reductionist way <br /><ul><li>14 EU FP5 eTENand ISTs healthcare technology projects. </li></ul>1. First, that the management of operational change in project activities was not effective <br />3. Third, the level of openness to other boundary relationships within the projects networks were low... <br />Main finding: systemic relations were dominated by controlling-evaluation processes, which inhibited flexibility in managerial decision making and action. The three main findings were:<br />Policy implementation instruments confine managerial action and choice in hard-closed boundaries <br />The results <br />2. Second, the management of internal relationships-coordination within the project group was weak.. <br />Managing operational change was weak <br />Leader’s role was weakened – sponsor boundary management takes precedence <br />Focus on policy-project boundary management <br />The causal flowchart tracing the causality in the relational ties between policy-project in the EU innovation system. <br />A detailed relational map of the interactive dynamics between policy and projects.<br />