TAIEX PROJECT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LITHUANIAN STI POLICY:

SPECIFIC VIEW ON GOVERNANCE, EVALUATION AND COLLABORATION ISSUES

FINAL REPORT WITH POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Kai Husso, Reijo Munther & Christopher Palmberg

C O N T E N T

1. Background, rationale and structure of the report

Evolving focus and approaches of the project

Why the TAIEX project

2. National vision, strategy formulation process and the role of the STI Council

Long-term vision and strategy for Lithuania

Improving system-wide governance and steering: STI Council as a central player

3. Incentivizing industry–academia collaboration

Lithuanian challenges and the need for new RDI programme models

Examples of collaborative policy initiatives from Finland

The viability of industry driven research agendas – the Finnish SHOK programmes

From SHOKs towards business ecosystem promotion and new research funding instruments

4. Utilizing R&D definitions and impact objectives for ex-ante evaluation

Definitions of R&D and impacts

Examples of the utilization of definitions for ex-ante evaluation

Funding criteria and evaluation in the Academy of Finland

EU-funded regional activities promoting national funding, case sustainability

Building up a unified evaluation system (or not)

5. Conclusions and policy recommendations

References

Appendix 1. Innovative enterprises and collaboration in Lithuania

Appendix 2. The Finnish and Lithuanian funding and evaluation systems and the scope

of operations of various RDI support organisations

Appendix 3. Gender equality

1

1. Background, rationale and structure of the report

Evolving focus and approaches of the project

The original objective of this TAIEX project was to give advice on how to ensure a uniform

understanding of all types of research, experimental development and innovation (RDI) activities and

the right translation of such understanding in all evaluation processes of RDI activities in Lithuania.

The first expert mission to Vilnius focused on how RDI activities are defined and evaluated in

Lithuanian ministries and agencies. During the first mission it became clear that the original

objective had to be broadened to consider how a national vision and strategy can contribute to a

more uninform understanding of RDI, as well as how this understanding can be utilized for

incentivizing industry–academia cooperation in new ways.

Before the second mission, the Finnish experts hosted a visit by Lithuanian policymakers to Finland

to extend their knowledge about the role and evaluation practices of Finnish RDI funding agencies

and learn from Finnish policies for incentivizing multilateral collaboration between business

enterprises, higher education institutions and government R&D labs.

The second mission to Vilnius was to gain further information about the policy needs of the

Lithuanians as well as to gain additional material on how ministries and agencies implement RDI

definitions, related activities and ex-ante evaluations of funding applications.

The aim of the third and the last mission of this project was to discuss with all the relevant

Lithuanian organisations about the key findings and preliminary policy implications that the experts

had delivered before the meetings. In addition, during the course of the project, intense

correspondence between Lithuanians and Finnish experts offered an option to clarify the questions

that were not possible to deal with during the mission meetings.

This final report of the TAIEX project concentrates on the three main topics that were raised in the

mid-term policy report before the second mission. The report deals with the issues in relation to: 1)

the need of national strategy and vision formulation process and the role of STI Council in the

Lithuanian innovation system; 2) how to incentivize industry–academia collaboration; and 3) how to

interpret RDI definitions and impact objectives for ex-ante evaluation. The last chapter of the report

summarises the main findings and policy recommendations.

Why the TAIEX project

The Lithuanian innovation system has developed positively in recent years largely also due to an

influx of EU funding dedicated to R&D through, for example, a smart specialization programme.

There are signs of an increasingly favorable start-up environment, some specific areas of strengths

are emerging in the areas of biopharma, photonics, ICT and creative industries, and the country host

a handful of significant companies in these areas.

However, the innovation system appears to be highly fragmented in many respects and the system

comprises of numerous agencies and various sorts of R&D infrastructures and schemes that partly

engage in overlapping activities. This fragmentation creates silos, especially across the research,

experimental development and innovation continuum, and it hampers the creation of critical mass in

policy design and implementation. Public R&D funding is mainly directed to research rather than

2

experimental development and innovation, the absorptive capability amongst companies appears to

be low, and human resources are relatively limited.

Developing policy instruments is always an evolving process where good policy practices are being

created over a long period. Attention needs to be paid not only to design of details or technical

issues of implementation but to changing demand of expertise, changing nature of collaboration,

competition and programmes and fluctuating economic conditions (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. An example of changing nature of collaboration and competition in the course of time, and

reactive advancement in the design of programmes.

The Lithuanian government has, also based on previous expert assessments, noted these challenges

and has made (and will make) significant changes in the system and policies to address them (see

e.g. OECD 2016; EU JRC 2017). Policies in Lithuanian are primarily enacted through legislation. The

new law on technology and innovation from 30 June 2018 seeks to broaden the definition of R&D so

that an increasing share of the funding could be directed to experimental development and

innovation under the auspices of the Ministry of Economy and Innovation (MoEI).

Nonetheless, there appears to be significant unclarity about the definition of R&D and the

relationship between research on the one hand, and the application of research for experimental

development and innovation on the other. This unclarity is hampering the establishment of a unified

system of evaluation (as far as such a system is useful or even possible to erect, as the experts see

it). It may also broaden in a counter-productive manner the rift between MoEI and the Ministry of

Education, Science and Sport (MoESS) in terms of mandates and allocation of R&D funds.

Another significant change is the merger between several major R&D and innovation (RDI) funding

and support agencies. Currently one of these agencies has joint steering from both MoEI and MoESS

and this appears to complicate policy implementation. Further, the agencies currently face human

resource constraints, they seem to lack – to various extents – impact logic frameworks, key

performance indicators, systemic ex-ante and ex-post project evaluation approaches, and seem to

have limited possibilities to implement autonomous proactive strategies.

3

2. National vision, strategy formulation process and the role of the STI Council

In order to sort out the inefficiencies of the national innovation system, enhance the system-wide

governance of policy actions and increase multilateral collaboration within the system, Lithuania is in

need of more efficient policy procedures and tools, and more RDI-favourable culture/atmosphere.

Key issues and indicators related to innovative enterprises and the patterns of collaboration in

Lithuania are presented in Appendix 1.

Compared to other EU countries and EFTA countries, Lithuanian large enterprises and SMEs

collaborate relatively little with higher education institutions (<20% of innovative companies) and

public and private research institutes (≤10% of innovative companies). On the other hand, the

starting point with regards innovation in Lithuania is pretty reasonable: 43% of enterprises carry out

innovation activities and almost 37% are employed in doing product and/or process innovation. The

weak point relates to a very low share (8%) of innovative companies that co-operate with higher

education institutions. In addition, the structure of innovation expenditure in Lithuania is very

heavily centred on acquisition of machinery, equipment and software. Compared to innovation

intensive countries such as Sweden, Finland and Denmark, the share of innovation expenditure in in-

house R&D is extremely low (10% vs. >50% in SWE, FI, DEN).

Fragmentation hampers the creation of joint actions, such as national vision and strategies for policy

design, implementation and impacts. The experts argue that a wide national vision and strategy

formulation process together with a stronger STI Council and clear leadership (with well-

communicated direction for the system and its parts) are essential for better intellectual and

economic effect in Lithuania.

The Lithuanian innovation system needs a strong leadership: this would help significantly in

having a much clearer, widely shared direction for the future.

The formulation of a national strategy and vision and the further development of STI council are

the essential tools to make consistent, system-wide progress in the Lithuanian RDI policy

environment.

Long-term vision and strategy for Lithuania

National long-term vision and strategy formulation process would be fruitful for all key stakeholders

of the Lithuanian STI regime (we understand a strategy as a plan about how to reach the vision). In

Finland, the Research and Innovation Policy Council has traditionally prepared national level STI

strategies. For instance, in 2006, 2010 and 2014 the Council adopted specific strategy documents

(RIC 2006, 2010, 2014), and in 2005, the Council drafted a specific Government Resolution on the

structural development of public research system (RIC 2005). The last one actually turned out to be a

very strong paper leading to an extended wave of major renewals in the Finnish national innovation

system during the next eight years.

In the Finnish case, a wide-based, representative Council has been a natural choice as a leader of the

vision and strategy formulation. It worked well as a platform for preliminary discussions as well as

for official and informal dialogue between key stakeholders with regard to STI policy. However, in

other countries, in addition to a Council, Prime Minister’s Office or a group of STI-relevant ministries

capable of intense co-operation and willing to share responsibilities, for example, could lead the

process.

4

The vision and strategy work could be the bridge between governmental policy and concrete joint

actions within a system. It sets a framework for utilizing intellectual and economic resources within

dynamic Lithuanian settings. It is also a method to build a clear and simpler overall view on the

otherwise complex web of thoughts, ideas, knowledge, values, legal frameworks and institutional

set-up of the innovation system. In addition, the key precondition for drafting a strategy is a

widespread understanding of the goals of the extended effort. The process of preparation of vision

and strategy is essential in order to ensure the commitment of political and other central

stakeholders. All the participants should easily find a convenient role in the process.

A joint vision about what innovation policies in Lithuania wish to achieve (in terms on economic and

societal impacts) could mitigate misunderstandings, contribute to a unified view on the aims and

thereby also help agencies find their specific role on the system. It could also mitigate the challenges

that the Lithuanians experience in creating a unified RDI ex-ante evaluation system. It would indeed

make more sense to define certain key performance and impact indicators for the system based on

the national vision and strategies and allow for greater autonomy for agencies to define their own

specific evaluation systems based on their specific roles in policy implementation.

Strong political support and involvement are the cornerstones of the joint exercise. Without them,

there is no need to launch the process. The STI Council could take a role as a leader and coordinator

of the vision and strategy formulation process. It does not mean that it will always has a final say on

everything. All the key actors of the national innovation system should have a decent role to play in

the process. The facilitator of the process should be an outsider.

While political involvement in and support for the formulation processes are essential, the process

itself shouldn’t be a highly political enterprise (with a strong role of politicians to say what to do,

what are the objectives). Once again, it is about the process, trust and transparency: prerequisites of

a well-working Council is based on commitment and building up multilateral partnership.

The process of building a national vision should pay much attention to multilateral cooperation

among ministries and agencies involved. In addition, high commitment rates at all levels of the

research and innovation system should be ensured.

In the end, the way the vision and strategy are being done will be decided by Lithuanians

themselves. It needs to be ensured that they are well in line with EU policies and objectives, but at

the same time, they should not be strongly steered by EU issues. This relates to the exit strategy

Lithuanians will need in order to reduce its reliance on EU funding.

After completing the strategy, there should be a clear roadmap in place, accepted by everyone or at

least majority. This would make it easier to take concrete steps forward and implement the (possibly

jointly designed) initiatives. In this context, Lithuanians could use a set of Key Performance

Indicators (KPIs) to enhance the monitoring of implementation of policy measures and to follow the

changes in the performance level of the national innovation system. The number of KPIs should be

less than 20, and with the help of these indicators, the STI Council as well as ministries should be

able to better assess the efficiency of reform actions and the progress made. The same KPI approach

could be applied to the steering RDI financing organisations and when specific policy initiatives and

instruments are being designed.

Necessity of national vision and strategy formulation – policy implications for Lithuania:

• Initiate a multilateral joint vision and strategy process involving at least political decision

5

makers, the principal ministries with regard to RDI, major RDI support agencies, higher education

institutions, government R&D institutes, the business enterprise sector and various other

beneficiaries such as players from the third sector.

• National vision and strategy process should be carried out before any major changes such as

large agency consolidations and priority-settings will be made.

• The focus of the vision and strategy should be relatively extended, covering the role of RDI in

the economy and society, not only how to develop STI activities and policies as such.

• Widely adopted vision and strategy would make national STI policies and policy processes

more consistent and long lasting, stretching over government terms and political changes.

Improving system-wide governance and steering: STI Council as a central player

The Council should take a clear position as a system leader: it could take a significant role in the

governance and overall steering of the innovation system and the overall communication of

intended actions and policy advice across the system.

When reading the mandate of the STI Council, the first reaction is that everything one needs to

increase the impact of the Council on the entire innovation system and make the Council to work

more efficiently is already there. The focus is quite right, but maybe there is now far too much on

the agenda.

The composition of the Council could be reviewed. The number of ministers is essential: in addition

to Prime Minister, at least ministers responsible for science, technology, innovation, economy,

industry and financial issues should have a place in the Council. In principle, all ministries relevant for

R&D and innovation should play a part.

How independent the Council secretariat is and how independent do you think it should be? In

general terms, experts share a view that Research and Higher Education Monitoring and Analysis

Centre MOSTA may not be the most optimal entity to operate as a Council secretariat. Otherwise

the tasks of MOSTA itself make sense – MOSTA should carry on serving e.g. the Council as an expert

organisation and provide wide knowledge of timely policy topics.

The process of preparation of the Council issues is crucial. There are various good international

policy practises that could be followed. Based on the Finnish experience, there could be some 5–8

meetings a year. These meetings as well as all the other preparatory meetings (for instance in the

form of thematic subcommittee meetings chaired by ministers) should be organised by an

independent secretariat of some 3–5 highly qualified experts (minimum) in policy design and

research (depending on the tasks of the secretariat). The independence of the secretariat should be

secured in a way that is accepted by all stakeholders of the innovation system. Secretariat could be

placed either in the Prime Minister’s office or in line organisations of ministries but with full degrees

of freedom to act primarily according to the interest of the Council and its more general national

interests. To support the policy planning work of the Council secretariat and maintain good

bidirectional communication with all the ministries, the Council secretariat could organise meetings

with the ministry representatives (f.ex. Research Directors of ministries) on a regular basis. In these

meetings, all relevant and timely topics should be discussed, including the recent news from the

Council and future meeting agendas.

Relevant questions include e.g.: How often and to what extent the Council exploits external

(domestic or foreign) expertise? Is there a clear procedure for external interventions? Does the

Council have sufficient resources to support its independency? What needs to be emphasised is that

it is highly evident that various players will have high self-interests and expectations to the issues the

6

Council will dealt with. This should be well acknowledged and be conscious of. Key issues of the

development of STI Council are shown in Figure 2.

An independent evaluation of the Council carried out by independent foreign experts would be

highly useful e.g. to: a) enhance the impact of the Council activities; b) fortify the governance and

steering of Lithuanian RDI policy environment; c) adopt more efficient working methods, tools and

policy procedures.

When the Council will be evaluated, pay attention to the group of experts (3–4 persons): for

example, there should not be any high-level researchers (that don’t know enough about real life of

government and policy-making) or political figures (that might have strong interests but are unaware

about the substance).

Figure 2. Key issues for developing the STI Council, policy and governance.

Need to enhance the role and impact of the STI Council – policy implications for Lithuania:

• The Council should take more strategic role within the Lithuanian system. Commitment by the

political leaders in the Council work is highly essential.

• The capacity of the Council should be increased to deal with more demanding, multi-facetted

and politically more sensitive issues, and to make widely adopted policy recommendations across the

innovation system.

• Working procedures and processes of the Council should be enhanced. The Council needs a

strong commitment and intense involvement of the government. More committed approach by the

other Council members would be highly welcomed too.

• Evaluate the STI Council: the evaluation should be independent and carried out by external

experts and with the help of Lithuanian authorities and other key stakeholders of the national

innovation system.

• The potential of new national science and technology programmes (STPs) could be extended

7

and made more open to joint actions of various players. STPs could be bcome an efficient, jointly

steered and financed PPP-based policy instrument.

3. Incentivizing industry–academia collaboration

Lithuanian challenges and the need for new RDI programme models

Lithuania suffers from comparatively low performance in innovation. Only a very few, relatively

narrow fields of industry are R&D intensive, and the volume of R&D carried out by the business

enterprise sector is rather low. The public research system is mostly built around universities and

basic research, and innovation suffers from missing links to research. This tendency is also reflected

in rather traditional approaches towards research, experimental development and innovation (RDI)

programme to incentivize industry-academia collaboration in Lithuania. In this context, government

R&D institutes could play a role as an essential player to bridge the knowledge gab between

universities and companies. This would require determined development measures and further

public funding directed to R&D institutes.

Globalization, digitalization and the broadening of innovation from R&D to other non-technological

domains is challenging traditional RDI programme models. Funding agencies are reacting by

rethinking their programme models (for example in Sweden, Finland, the UK and Austria). The

emphasis is on facilitating cross-sectoral networks, internationally attractive test-beds, innovation

ecosystems and new types of partnerships between both the private and public sectors, and within

the public sector itself. There is an increasing focus on need-based (or mission-based) approaches

whereby companies and other actors in society are engaged from the bottom-up in setting priorities

and in identifying strategic areas. Further, there is increasing recognition of the importance of

intangible assets (such as data banks, business competences and models, services, design etc.)

There are also signs in Lithuania that the policy thinking of RDI programme design and

implementation is changing. The new law on technology and innovation from 30th June 2018

emphasizes the importance of the experimental development part of R&D, thus recognizing that

research per se will not lead to innovation. Further, even though the thematic R&D programmes are

implemented through funding to national research institute some leeway is also given to bottom-up

initiatives for what is called ‘need-based´ R&D whereby the institutes themselves define the societal

problem that they address.

The need-based approach mentioned above is an important and interesting initiative in engage

actors also from the bottom-up. However, a recent OECD review suggests that this initiative has

been hampered by a lack suitable of ex-ante evaluation frameworks and that the research institutes

tend to produce research outputs rather than solutions for societal needs (OECD 2016). Other recent

programme schemes include the Valleys programme, the High-technology Development

programme, Industrial Biotechnology Programme, and the National Research during 2007–13, as

well as the ongoing Smart Specialization Strategy, regional science and technology parks. The

recently initiated Science, Technology and Innovation development strategy may also lead to new

and interesting initiatives.

Despite some recent initiatives that seem to be aligned with RDI programming activities in other

countries the general impression of the Lithuania case is that the incentives to intensify industry-

academia collaboration emanate from top-down policies formalized into laws that mandate

ministries and their agencies to implement either functional (e.g. procurement) or thematic (e.g.

specific areas deemed relevant) programmes. This approach is hampering cross-ministerial

collaboration, it minimizes the ability of companies and other societal actors to define strategic

8

areas and societal needs, and it may lead to an overly focus only on R&D as a source of innovation

and competitiveness.

Need for new programme models – policy implications for Lithuania:

• The recent emphasis on experimental development should be accompanied with new

collaborative cross-ministerial (MoEI + MoESS) RDI programmes that blend research, experimental

development and innovation funding

• RDI programme design and implementation to incentivize industry-academia collaboration

should be influenced by both top-down national visions and strategies, and bottom-up ideation to

engage companies and society

• Attention should also be given to covering non-technological aspects of innovation in RDI

programmes, thus also incentivizing industry-academia collaboration in new ways

In the following, the development of Finnish programme models to incentivize industry–academia

collaboration is reviewed in order to concretize the broader policy implications discussed above.

Examples of collaborative policy initiatives from Finland

There have been number of structural changes in Finland since the early 2000s. These include a new

capitalization model whereby universities are funded based on their ability to attract private capital,

structural consolidation of the public research system to avoid duplications of research, as well as

the establishment of the Strategic Research Council (SRC) in 2014 to support research for societal

needs. An underlying aim of these reforms has also been to increase university-industry

collaboration, for example by encouraging greater financial autonomy (reliance on non-

governmental funding), need-based research and specialization both for greater societal relevance

and scientific excellence. However, there have also been significant and counterproductive

government funding allocation cuts, especially for applied research.

The overall impacts of these reforms on incentives for university-industry collaboration appear to

have been rather limited. For example, analysis based on large survey data and interviews with both

researchers and companies from 2010, 2011 and 2014 conclude that university governance

influences research content very indirectly and is mediated by multiple other factors, meaning that

structural policy changes are not, at least in the short run, translated into changed research content

and greater incentives for industry collaboration. Those researchers that had experience with

industry collaboration reported that collaboration mostly serves academic ends such as securing

research funding and searching for new research ideas.

From a Lithuanian perspective, the evolution of Finnish R&D programme models is more interesting

since the trends has been towards new types of bottom-up programme models and initiatives,

including new types of university-industry collaboration. There are also examples from Finland

where R&D programmes have been designed and implemented across ministerial silos or through

the collaboration between numerous funding agencies although cross-ministerial R&D programmes

overall still are rare. The figure below provides and overview of the evolution of Finnish R&D

programmes since the 1990s.

The history of Tekes’ R&D programmes has been labelled with both a) gradual, logic developments

and determined search for well-working policy practices and b) unexpected changes in the policy

directions and various discontinuations. Tekes programming has changed from narrowly defined

technology development projects into covering cross-cutting/cross-sectoral themes. In addition,

9

funding is more extended from R&D to innovation and beyond, even covering activities that help

companies to enter into foreign markets.

Figure 3. The evolution of R&D programme models in Finland.

At the national level, Finnish innovation policy is known for numerous science and technology

programs that have led to a measurable increase in industry-academia collaboration. At Tekes, the

main R&D funding agencies until 2018, technology programmes have been set-up explicitly to

stimulate industry-academia collaboration in areas of strategic importance to Finland. Specific

mechanisms to do this include project steering groups comprising of both researchers and company

representatives, activation through workshops and seminars, specific funding criteria that require

company co-funding in projects, and external programme coordinators responsible for linking

research with industry. In some science-driven areas, such as nanotechnology in the 1990s, these

mechanisms have been particularly important.

The trend for R&D programming at Tekes has been a shift from technology-specific programmes

towards programmes with a broader societal scope, examples of the latter include the ‘Green

Growth’, ‘Witty City’, ‘Innovation in Social- and Healthcare’, ‘Money from feelings’ and ‘Business

with Impacts, BEAM’ programmes. These broader programmes are public-private partnerships

where R&D projects also implement national policy visions and strategies and where collaboration is

extended to other public sector funders or actors (cities, municipalities, ministries). Additional

examples include the so-called OSKE programme that have incentivized the establishment of

regional centres of excellence through collaboration between research and SMEs. From a Lithuanian

perspective these mentioned programmes could be especially interesting due to their cross-cutting,

partly non-technological and regional nature.

The INKA programme was also an interesting test in the Finnish governance of structural funds. The

aim was through application to reform the city development policy in a way that only few cities were

nominated as leaders in chosen areas. When only five cities were chosen by the government it was

soon noted that because for the strong political pressure, seven cities had to be nominated as

member cities to those five topics. This adds up that only 12 of 18 regions were involved and the

programme was regionally unbalanced by nature. This unbalance and strong pressure from those

left outside the programme, combined with challenges to manage innovation programmes and

projects in the context of city governance structures, lead to an early closure of the INKA concept.

10

One lesson learned is that a bottom-up approach whereby the regions themselves define priorities,

is better than a top-down one. Another lesson learned is that politicians and decision-makers should

not give in to strong external pressure by those who have been excluded from programmes.

Hopefully in Lithuania the Smart Specialization strategies may avoid some of the challenges that the

INKA concept led to.

Finnish collaborative policy initiatives – policy implications for Lithuania:

• Top-down structural reforms are less effective in changing the incentives of researchers to

collaborate with industry compared with new R&D programme approaches and funding criteria that

stimulate new types of bottom-up activities

• Good practices to incentivize industry-academia collaboration in RDI programmes include

project-level steering boards with industry representatives, utilization of research and company

activation through workshops and other types of co-creation events, specific funding criteria for

company co-funding, external programme coordinators from the private sector etc.

• RDI programmes should not only focus on R&D and technological topics, the example of

Finland also shows that non-technological aspects of innovation can be advanced through

programme activities to engage new actors, partnerships and modes of innovation

The viability of industry driven research agendas – the Finnish SHOK programmes

At the sectoral level the six strategic centres of excellence (SHOKs) is the clearest example of how

Finnish innovation policies have sought to incentivize industry-academia collaboration in

strategically selected areas. The aims of the SHOK programme was to create new knowledge and

expertise, to accelerate innovation processes, and to bring industrial renewal through new types of

cooperation, interaction and co-creation, also intended to support the emergence of internationally

attractive and competitive innovation environments in Finland. The Finnish government invested

over 1 billion euros during 2006–2015 into the six SHOKs, amounting to some 90 million euro a year.

The SHOKs have been limited companies owned by industry shareholders (together with

universities, municipalities, etc. as co-shareholders) that have set defined the strategic research

agendas (SRA) industry–academia collaboration. The strategic research agendas have been

implemented through programmes run by the SHOKs and funded by both the Academy of Finland

and Tekes subject to specific funding criteria. The SHOKs have sometimes been very large entities

where companies and research groups have participated through joint programme plans.

The SHOK programme were evaluated in 2013 and the overall verdict was rather negative. The

evaluation recognized good work in defining joint strategic research agendas. However, the

evaluation also found multiple and often internally contradictory objective leading to inadequate

steering and performance, tensions between the short-term view of industry and longer-term view

of academia, and low level of internationalisation. In response to these findings the steering group

of the SHOKs suggested more focus and sharper research goals in order to create new business,

closer cooperation and networking between top researchers and companies, more competition in

SHOK funding, a renewal of the evaluation and monitoring system, management and governance.

Despite the suggestions for renewal the government decided to end earmarked funding for the

SHOK programme in 2015, where by only two SHOKs remain to date (DIMECC and CLIC, see

reference section for www sites) and pursue their activity based on other competitive funding. In

addition to ending earmarked funding for the SHOK programme the government has also

significantly cut back funding for applied research at Tekes, in effect significantly challenging

11

traditional possibilities to incentivize industry–academia collaboration through top-down

approaches in areas of strategic importance to Finland. Unfortunately, the cut-back of earmarked

SHOK funding has also meant that several good practices were lost. Some of these may also be

relevant for Lithuania. For example, the SHOKs have promoted new partnerships, they have

contributed to implementing government policies e.g. in the area of healthcare, and they have

incentivized industry-academia collaboration.

The government cut-backs of funding for applied research, as well as the ending of earmarked

funding for the SHOK programme, has challenged Tekes (from 2018 Business Finland) to develop

new R&D programme types and funding criteria to incentivize industry-academia collaboration. In

addition, there has been increasing awareness that digitalization, globalization and complex societal

challenges also call for new policy approaches that incorporate the growing importance of non-

technological innovation (for example business models), digital platforms and networks. Companies

increasingly build their competitiveness through symbiotic relationships with collaborators,

competitors and other actors within business ecosystems.

The Finnish SHOK programme – policy implications for Lithuania:

• Industry play an important role in defining strategic research agendas for academia,

mechanisms should be in place to ensure that these agendas are co-created in order to achieve long-

term commitment from all partners

• Large RDI programmes, such as the SHOKs, are effective in mobilizing actors, integrating

industry-academia collaboration, implementing national strategies in education, employment and

industrial policy, and creating critical mass in chosen areas

• A situation where large RDI programmes, such as the SHOKs, become too dependent on a few

public funders should be avoided and a plan should be in place to increase the share of industry

funding over time (an exit plan)

• Large RDI programme, such as the SHOKs, should remain open for inclusion of new partners

and international collaboration, marketing and branding activities are important

From SHOKs towards business ecosystem promotion and new research funding instruments

As the SHOK programme came to an end, Finnish innovation support agencies (Academy of Finland,

Tekes, Sitra, Finnvera, and Finpro) decided to join forces and develop a new joint strategy with the

aim to shift the focus of RDI support beyond individual projects, companies and sectors towards

broader business ecosystems in areas of key importance to Finland. This so-called SUUNTA

(‘Direction’ in English) strategy was preceded by extensive sense-making, foresight and joint policy

vision work related megatrends, significant business opportunities and challenges that Finland is

facing. The areas of natural resources and resource efficiency, digitalization, wellbeing and health

were identified as the most potential in which new business ecosystems can emerge.

The SUUNTA strategy contributed to the development of a new funding instruments to facilitate

roadmap work by the actors, to support network orchestration (i.e. development of joint roadmaps,

facilitation workshops, matchmaking, strengthening of trust amongst partners), and to stimulate

digital platforms and the utilization of big data. Currently Business Finland is supporting business

ecosystems through in three phases. In the first phase a private sector actor can receive funding in

the range of 50 000–150 000 euros for 3–6 months to develop a common vision and road map for

developing the ecosystem. In the second phase, the identified orchestrator can receive funding for

2–6 years to implement the vision and road map on behalf of the whole business ecosystem. In the

third phase, the core company of the most promising business ecosystems can receive a capital loan

to boost its business and the ecosystem as a whole (so-called Growth engine funding, see Figure 4).

12

Figure 4. The ecosystem and growth engine funding model by Business Finland.

The SUUNTA strategy has been an attempt to reduce the number of different strategies within the

state organisation. Besides the practical output described above, it also activated the ministries

around common concepts and directions and lead to a strengthening of an ecosystem approach in

the national strategy. In early 2019, all state secretaries published a common view on the future

development of the Finnish innovation policy which supports even more unified application of

national strategy among different governmental organisations. Accordingly, the SUUNTA strategy

work may also be a model of working that could be interesting for Lithuanians to look closer.

Meanwhile Tekes/Business Finland has also renewed its research funding instruments with the aim

to activate the research groups that have the greatest capability and interest to collaborate with

industry. The so-called co-creation funding is intended for developing research ideas in collaboration

with companies so that the provided solution is as suitable as possible for industrial use. This funding

is also intended to lead to a follow-up co-innovation project where a minimum of three companies

are involved as utilizers of research, at least two of these companies should also have their own

parallel R&D projects. The co-creation funding covers 60% of eligible costs of the total project

expenses up to a maximum on 100’000 euros. The co-innovation funding can be much larger

depending on the number of companies involved. Each company project is funded subject to specific

applicable R&D criteria and funding levels.

The new business ecosystem, co-creation and co-innovation funding instruments are currently in

widespread use throughout the Business Finland RDI programmes. They represent a departure from

more top-down approaches in that they empower companies, researchers and other actors in the

system. The new instruments provide greater room for emergent visions, road maps and networking

emanating from actors themselves rather than top-down government visions and strategies. They

are likely to attract new types of actors and new types of networks that across sectors. Furthermore,

the new funding instruments are likely to incentivize new types of academia-industry collaborations

that also extend beyond traditional R&D collaboration.

New ecosystem and research funding instruments – policy implications for Lithuania:

• Innovation capabilities and competitiveness is increasingly built in interaction with a large

13

number of partners throughout networks and business ecosystems, whereby facilitation and

orchestration also become important (along with RDI project funding)

• Joint strategy work amongst funding agencies can play an important role on defining a joint

‘language’, policy proprieties, division of labor and suitable policy mixes

• Specific funding criteria and instrument designs (e.g. the co-creation and co-innovation

instruments) can be effective in activating the most industrially-relevant research groups to

collaborate in new ways

4. Utilizing R&D definitions and impact objectives for ex-ante evaluation

Definitions of R&D and impacts

As far as R&D definitions are concerned, the experts suggest – as a general rule – that all the

stakeholders of the Lithuanian innovation system should adopt and follow the definitions of the

OECD Frascati Manual (v. 2015) and Oslo Manual (2018) for impact objectives and ex-ante

evaluations. In addition, all the mistakes in the Lithuanian translation of R&D and innovation should

be corrected without major delay or then use the English version whenever it is possible.

The experts would like to emphasise that the EU definitions refer to political aims while the OECD

definitions are originally designed for statistical measurement purposes. As a general rule, for the

use and application of OECD and EU definitions, it would be useful to follow first the OECD

definitions (Frascati and Oslo Manuals) because they are accurate, well documented and globally

adopted. Then, when dealing with the funding from the EU, it is rather clear that one needs to follow

the instructions of the financier.

However, since OECD and EU definitions sometimes differ quite much from each other, it can

potentially create serious challenges. On the other hand, one challenges for the Lithuanians could be

that their discussions may be overly affected by difficulties in interpreting the OECD and EU

definitions and that their room for manoeuvre in designed indigenous RDI policies may be

constrained by the overly dependence on EU funding.

During the expert team missions to Vilnius, it became many times evident that experts used in

evaluating applications are not too familiar with the RDI definitions. This is why, to some extent, it is

understandable that some sort of unified evaluation procedures, forms and understanding are

needed to streamline the evaluation practises across the innovation system. It was mentioned that,

in some case, approximately 70% of applications were approved which is a very high figure and

raises many doubts about the quality of the approved applications and RDI work done in these

projects.

Examples of the utilization of definitions for ex-ante evaluation

Within Tekes/Business Finland the evaluation is done in house. For every application a group

consisting relevant knowledge from scientific quality to economical and market evaluation is

formed. The funding proposals are the presented in a meeting where all person nominated to follow

either certain knowledge or business area are present. According to funding size, the proposal is

taken up to three funding meeting levels before the final decision. All instruments, grants, loans and

even public procurement are handled similar way. No pointing system is used, but the decision

maker is looking for unanimous decisions, and if in doubt, the questions arising will be handled by

the group responsible for the funding proposal by returning the proposal.

14

Altogether Business Finland currently has some 100 in-house experts for evaluating the funding

eligibility of project applications and some other 250 in-house experts to help customers in other

ways. In 2017, 6’300 applications with a total volume of 733 million euro were received whereby one

expert on average evaluated 63 applications. The size and complexity of applications varies by the

type of funding that is applied for whereby some experts may evaluate less and others may evaluate

much more. Out of these 6’300 applications, 3’385 were granted with a volume of 510 million euro,

implying that the approval rate is 71%. This is a high percentage and demonstrate the high extent at

which in-house experts interact with the applicants in a customer-centric way to minimize

incomplete and low-quality applications. Business Finland also uses a Customer Relationship

Management system to provide smooth and agile services.

Application specific evaluation teams (their size depend on the size of the application and consortia)

discuss the application and its alignment with R&D and innovation definitions, based on which the

funding level is set. Priority is given to projects with higher expected impacts and those that score

higher in terms of the NABC model (explained later) based on qualitative evaluations. Funding

decisions are taken by funding directors based on the preparatory work that the evaluation team has

done. Decision-making is cascaded to higher decision levels depending on their volume. Funding

applications that exceed 1 million euro are decided by the Director General as the final authority.

The evaluation is based on so called NABC method, which was developed in the USA by the Stanford

Research Institute (www.sri.com). It was originally conceived for the business world, but was later

adapted to several other sectors. Letters NABC stand for: N for Need. N is the most important factor

in the method. An idea without a practical need for it remains just what it is: a good idea and

nothing more. A for Approach. A is usually a point of departure for most activities, but with the

NABC method, A always comes after N. B for Benefit. B stands for the innovative elements of an

idea, in other words that which constitutes its uniqueness. C for Competition. C stands for a study of

the competition existing in the area concerned. C is often mistaken for N. C, however, focuses on the

reality within which a concept has to function

The presentation based on NABC is then pitched in decision meetings. The person responsible for

the funding decisions is looking for unanimous decisions but still he or she holds the responsibility

that the guidelines of the state aid rules are followed. If in doubt, the questions arising are handled

by the group responsible for the funding proposal by returning the proposal for further preparation.

The person nominated in charge of the presentation is responsible for organizing that all information

needed for the presentation is gathered.

For programmes, the programme board consisting enterprise members is consulted about the

applications of research organisations but the final decision always remains in house. Except for

programmes there is a continuous call for applications. In programmes the call is continuous for

enterprises but with special times for research organisations. In a programme lifetime research calls

are not organized during the last years in order to stress the need for business applications to take

the development to the market. Research organizations still participate as subcontractors for

enterprises.

Funding criteria and evaluation in the Academy of Finland

Academy of Finland organises the evaluation in the traditional academic peer-review method with

panels to meet and discuss. Tekes/BF person are often participating to panels whenever the

programme is having even a possibility to provide knowledge for enterprises. Both organisations

have frequent meeting between experts in order discuss the research strategies in different

academic fields.

15

The Academy of Finland allocates funding on a competitive basis to the best researchers and

research teams and to the most promising young researchers. Scientifically ambitious projects are a

particular goal. Funding is provided for all scientific disciplines. The principles for the allocation of

funding are as follows:

- high quality

- international outlook and cooperation

- impact

- responsibility

- contribution to science renewal.

High-level international peer review is the key tool for identifying the best and most promising

projects. Academy’s four research councils, the Strategic Research Council, the Finnish Research

Infrastructure Committee or subcommittees make the funding decisions based on the peer reviews.

Most common criteria used in reviewing applications have been: I) scientific quality and

innovativeness of the research plan; II) feasibility of the research plan; III) competence of the

applicant/research team; IV) International and national collaborative contracts and researcher

mobility and; V) quality and strengthening of the research environment. However, it needs to be

stressed that criteria for funding decisions can be instrument-specific.

The Academy of Finland’s new instrument, so-called Flagship Programme, is a fresh example of how

to renew thinking and gradually change the mind-set in universities. The programme was created

with a specific aim to narrow down the Academia-Industry gab (’scientific excellence’ vs. ‘impact and

relevance’). It supports excellent research and sustainable solutions to societal challenges and

advances economic growth by developing new business opportunities.

The Flagship Programme is an instrument that promotes excellent research and versatile impact

arising therefrom. The programme supports future knowledge and know-how and sustainable

solutions to societal challenges and advances economic growth by developing new business

opportunities. By providing substantial long-term funding, the programme accelerates active

collaboration between different actors and facilitates the development and expansion and

systematic operations.

With six flagships in total, the programme is now completed. The host organisations of the flagships

include six universities, two research institutes and Helsinki University Hospital. In 2019–2022, the

organisations will fund the flagships with a total of 320 million euros. The Academy of Finland’s

funding contribution comes to 54.5 million euros.

The aim of the Academy of Finland’s flagship programme is to pool together expertise from different

fields in Finland to form high-level research and impact clusters that will further contribute to

increasing the quality and impact of Finnish research.

A flagship is a mix of cutting-edge research, impact in support of economic growth and/or society,

close connections to the business sector and society, adaptability, and a clear commitment from

host organisations.

- Demonstrated scientific excellence

- Plan for promoting scientific excellence

- Ecosystem and organisation of candidate flagship

- Demonstrated impact in support of economic growth and/or society

- Plan for promoting impact in support of economic growth and/or society

16

- Ecosystem and organisation of candidate flagship.

Although the OECD definitions serve in many countries as basic guideline for the experts to decide

issues like time to market, in practical terms, EU Member States are ought to follow EU legislation,

definitions and criteria when funds for RDI are being allocated. A practical example is given next

about the use ERDF funding in Finland.

EU-funded regional activities promoting national funding, case sustainability

Sustainable development is one of the key principles guiding the structural fund activities In Finland.

The aim is to ensure that the activities support the achievement of the sustainable development

objects laid out by the community in social, ecological, cultural and economic fields and that the

overall impacts on the environment, climate and human well-being are positive. This requires the

inclusion of the environmental perspective in programming during its different stages.

Ecological sustainability is promoted through ERDF measures by improving the environmental

expertise and responsibility and energy efficiency of SMEs, by investing in material research and

technology, production technology, efficient logistics and activities making use of side streams and

waste energy contents. Economic sustainability can be improved by developing new green business

opportunities, which are available in such sectors as cleantech and bioeconomy and by promoting

longer working careers. Social and cultural sustainability can be improved by increasing inclusion and

by promoting the working and functional capacity of people facing the risk of social exclusion, by

promoting diversity management at Finnish workplaces and by strengthening development based on

citizen actors at local level.

Sustainable growth as a tool for promoting more resource-efficient, greener and more competitive

economy is one of the key issues in the national strategy of Finland. Achievement of EU's climate

and energy targets and the transition towards a more resource-efficient economy are prioritised

issues. The key measure is to promote energy and material efficiency and to increase the use of

renewable energy sources. Therefore Finland has set a higher national aim for ERDF measures, 25%

of funding must be directed at measures promoting low-carbon activities.

However, the evaluations have confirmed the need for Finland to further strengthen technology-

specific capabilities of regions in relation to targeted strategic value chains or as today, business

ecosystems connecting different branches of industry having economic ties. Circular economy is one

good example of a sustainability driver where new business ideas will be found outside of the

traditional value chain. Yet, a balance between regional specialisation and regional adaptability (e.g.

academic support) has to be found in order to facilitate sustainable transition and there has to more

advanced ways to share the best practices among the regions.

Too much attention in Lithuania is given to RDI definitions at the expense of the ideation of new

ways of working, new policy instruments and mixes, priority-setting as well as nation-wide

discussion of the aims and desired impacts of RDI activities and policies.

As far as the use of RDI definitions are concerned, it seems that the approach in Lithuania is

rather top-down oriented where the main emphasis is on utilising OECD and EU definitions for

legislation that specifies how these definitions play out in the distribution of government funds

rather than which impacts are sought. The overly reliance on EU defined schemes emphasizes the

top-down approach further. New policy roadmaps, e.g. related to digitalization, and programmes

(e.g. related to RDI procurement) are being developed but actor-driven bottom-up programming

activities are still rare and seldom cross-ministerial and agency boundaries.

17

In Appendix 2, the Lithuanian and Finnish funding systems (and evaluation systems at the same

time) and the scope of operations of various RDI support organisations are being described.

Although Appendix 2 offers a simple approach to the Lithuanian model of allocating public RDI

support and evaluating activities (and the Finnish model as a comparison), it raises many thoughts

and potential policy issues about how to streamline the RDI support system and renew the entire

national innovation system as well.

In Lithuania, the overlapping focuses of the funding organisations and the activities funded through

the schemes of various funders are obvious. At the same time it is important to note that

overlapping actions between various players are not only a bad thing. To some extent, it is necessary

to have overlapping activities and objectives between players. Otherwise there wouldn’t be enough

bridges between players that serve as connecting links which are always needed when organisations

seek for joint actions, mutual interests and possibilities to pool resources. Currently, the Finnish

system may not be the model to follow due to too narrow room for overlapping activities and

seeking for mutual interests and too scarce “opportunity spaces” for joint financing and other

support actions.

Building up a unified evaluation system (or not)

In the Finnish system, unified evaluation is applied to take the national and EU strategies as the main

guideline. Unified evaluation does not mean common evaluation methods through all financing

organizations but the common understanding of the basics of RDI definitions [OECD Manuals on

R&D (2015) and innovation (2018)] and the strategic objectives of the policy actions and public

financing. In the following this thinking is explained more.

- The Finnish model of “a unified evaluation system” (both ex-ante and ex-post) is as

described in Appendix 2. Public financing entities (BF and the Academy) have today rather

distinctive, specific focus, tasks and policy objectives.

- There are some overlapping funding areas and they have evolved during the course of time

(for various reasons). Division of work has become very clear but at the price of weakening

possibilities for concrete collaboration and co-financing.

- More detailed focus varies depending on an instrument and its objectives. What’s the aim of

the funded activity: high quality (basic) research, looking for option to go forward in applied

research, finding a solution to a specific practical problem, etc.

- RDI definitions or OECD manuals do not have a role to play or steer what will be funded. The

ultimate objective of a given instrument and expected impacts are driving criteria. Key

performance and impact goals and indicators are used when specifications are being made

in the beginning and when the work is being steered and evaluted.

Policy objectives like attracting investments in innovative sectors with relevant growth potential and

higher value added activities are doomed to remain an empty shell without a comprehensive

understanding of global innovation networks or the functioning of corporate value chains. Regions

or countries benefit a lot from the ability to strategically position themselves therein in order to

develop unique competitive advantages. For example, even if two regions perform automobile-

related R&D, the local firms may not be competent in the same segments of the value chains or

activities. These activities may also not require the same mixes of skills and resources, giving rise to

knowledge gaps for policymakers such as:

- Which R&D and Innovation (R&D&I) activities – sub-functions or tasks – are actually

performed in the region/country?

18

- By which type of firms or organisations?

- What are the location and governance specific patterns?

Just at the moment the automotive industry example is very illustrative as Europe as whole is

searching means to tackle the new competition outside Europe due to the electrification of

transport. The questions above apply very well even in the European scale and we may anticipate

that the situation is not favourable to smaller member states with less possibilities of national

funding. However, the more member states will be involved, the better possibility for Europe to

reach competitiveness sooner as we have learned from the development of Airbus.

The knowledge achieved through answering the questions above would facilitate the identification

and attraction of region/country-specific innovation activities and a better-fitted integration strategy

for local companies and organisations. This is even more important for less developed regions, which

are often not well connected at the EU and global levels and where critical mass is hardly achievable

in most R&I domains. Furthermore, such knowledge and positioning constitute relevant inputs for

both innovation policy and research in order to apprehend the differentiated effects of corporate

strategies on a country’s industrial and innovation dynamics and development.

If we take look to the different EU-programmes – such as cPPP, H2020, HEU, ERDF, Invest EU,

Defence Fund and IPCEI – we may easily note that the topics (e.g. batteries, cybersecurity, health,

biomaterials) in the work programmes are quite the same in all EU-programmes. Europe is now

using its full power to regain its competitiveness in strategic areas. All TLRs will be met. Different

DGs work in the same direction with their tools. At the same time this calls member states to

develop new governance to for coherent ways to implement national policies with EU policies.

So, in order to organise unified evaluation system a consensus of the goals is needed. This can be

reached through common meetings and tasks, e.g. common programmes between organisations. At

first sight, one may think that this leads to a very strict top-down guidance, but this can be avoided

by open discussion on the means how to reach the strategic goals and to discuss the goals openly.

One successful example from Lithuania is how the smart specialization is applied. As the EC states,

the strategy has already made a positive change in Europe. Smart specialization has allowed us to

start developing a strategic approach to innovation development, prioritizing research and

innovation, and concentrating resources on the most relevant areas for each region. We also see

smart specialization as an opportunity to bring together main stakeholders interested in

development of innovation and to involve them in the process of selecting priority areas, thereby

promoting greater cooperation between the private and public sectors.

In Lithuania, four main priorities show the highest efficiency and potential: molecular technologies,

functional materials, laser technologies, and public health. According to the evaluation just

published (ref.!), these priorities with highest performance are distinguished by the volume of

attracted investments, increased cooperation between industry and academia, increasing human

capital as well as internationally important scientific publications.

Referring to the examples above, our main message related to unified evaluation is the development

of means to have a unified understanding of the strategic goals. The problem with different

interpretations of terminology or definitions can be solved only through dialogue and by working

together.

• A major development of evaluation system in Lithuania should be a part of the

19

national long-term vision building and strategy formulation process, where the RDI definitions of

Frascati and Oslo Manuals and their relations to the definitions used by the EU will be clarified.

• With regard to the use and interpretations of the various definition in relation to RDI, the

OECD definitions serve as basic guideline for the experts to decide issues like time to market, etc.

However, the national legislation and internal guidelines are based on EU legislation on state aid.

Whenever an EU criteria is of specific value for fulfilling the national strategy, this funding criteria

could be applied.

5. Conclusions and policy recommendations

Recent direction of development of the Lithuania innovation system – with many reforms and

promising initiatives raised during the past two years and some of them in the implementation

phase right now – is undoubtedly correct. With that being said, a major development area, which is

at the same time the root cause for many challenges in the Lithuanian innovation system, is the

governance of the system as a whole.

Therefore, governance mechanisms has to be enhanced significantly with the help of new

multilateral policy forums and processes that bring political, administration, expert and enterprise

communities together for joint policy design and activities that e.g. pave the way towards more

profound partnerships between key stakeholders of the system. In this respect, much could be

gained by drafting and adopting a well-focussed holistic national vision and strategy that are

supported by a consolidated, clear division of work across agencies, and concrete coordination

mechanisms across ministries, including the adoption of widely accepted ex-ante and ex-post

evaluation procedures and criteria (although not a unified “system” across the innovation system).

Finland was considered as an interesting peer country. Finland has made large renewals and

provides some good (and also bad) examples especially in relation to national visions, industry–

academia collaboration, extended renewals of university and government R&D institute systems,

and utilization of R&D definitions and ex-ante evaluations. Nonetheless, Finland is also at a different

phase of development and in certain ways not suitable to be compared with Lithuania (scale,

tradition, volume of private and public R&D, role of EU funding, collaboration, number of innovative

companies, etc.).

Today, cross-ministerial working parties are currently making proposals to ministries in Lithuania.

However, it seems that the impact of the work of these parties are far from being optimal. Hence,

it’s rather clear that working procedures and composition of these parties need to be renewed, and

collaborative modes of activities updated. For example, decision-makers and senior management

should go bravely for teambuilding across various organisational and functional boarders (and

search ways to make progress in reaching joint views, visions, roadmaps and solutions). This could

take a form of a so-called STI Sauna, with a specific aim to foster trust-building and increase trust

across the system. This idea popped up many times during the mission meetings and discussions. In

a nutshell, more multilateral discussion forums and opportunities are needed between various STI

players. In these more informal but repeated discussions RDI issues should be dealt together with

the issues in relation to the development needs of the economy, productivity, society and wellbeing.

In Lithuania, there are comparatively many STI policy schemes that aim at supporting multilateral

cooperation and clusterisation among public and private entities, and intensifying transfer of

technologies, research results and expertise. These include e.g. the Valleys programme, the High-

technology Development programme, as well as the ongoing Smart Specialization Strategy, and

numerous regional science and technology parks. As a result of all this active development,

coordination and governance of the innovation system has become more complex and challenging.

20

In longer term, it is necessary to reduce the number of initiatives, streamline the support and

clusterisation schemes and establish fewer but much better financed centres to push cooperation

and tech transfer agendas forward, both nationally and internationally.

Summary of main policy implications related to industry–academia collaboration is as follows. (I)

More focus on RDI programmes across sectors that blend research, experimental development and

innovation, engage new types of actors and society, include also non-technical aspects of innovation.

(II) Work on renewing specific funding instruments and ways of working with researchers and

incentivizing industry–academy interactions to lure out the most active appliers of science. (III)

Ensure that also companies and industry can engage in defining strategic research agendas, develop

agile programmes with exit plans, ensure that they also are bottom-up driven (e.g. through enabling

orchestration) and collaboration internationally. (IV) Incentivize agencies to collaboration, and

develop a common ‘language and strategy’ to implement a national vision.

Gender equality issues were not specifically discussed during the missions or in the report. However,

it needs to be emphasised that in a relatively small country as Lithuania, economic and intellectual

resources available are comparatively limited, and this is the principle reason why it is a matter of

utter importance to pay more attention to equal opportunities. The question is about bringing

gender equality better in balance in everyday life and ensuring that working procedures and modes

of action will be corrected whenever misbehaviour has been pointed out (see Appendix 3).

21

References

JRC (2018). RIO Country Report 2017: Lithuania. JRC Science for Policy Report. European Union,

Luxembourg.

OECD (2016). OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Lithuania 2016. OECD, Paris.

OECD (2017). OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Finland 2017, OECD, Paris.

RIC (2005). Government Resolution on the Structural Development of the Public Research System.

Ministry of Education and Culture, Helsinki.

RIC (2006). Science, technology, and innovation. The Science and technology Policy Council of

Finland, Helsinki.

RIC (2010). Research and Innovation Policy Guidelines for 2011–2015. The Research and Innovation

Policy Council of Finland, Helsinki.

RIC (2014). Reformative Finland: Research and innovation policy guidelines for 2015–2020. The

Research and Innovation Policy Council of Finland, Helsinki.

Selected www-sites on the central topics of the report:

Examples

of new RDI

programme

models

https://catapult.org.uk/

https://www.ffg.at/en/comet-competence-centers-excellent-technologies

https://www.vinnova.se/en/m/strategic-innovation-programmes/

https://www.vinnova.se/en/m/challenge-driven-innovation/

https://taftie.org/sites/default/files/Taftie_TF_CompAct_Final_Report%20_LV.pdf

The SHOK

programme

https://tem.fi/documents/1410877/3437254/Licence+to+SHOK+08022013.pdf

https://www.dimecc.com/

https://clicinnovation.fi/

The

ecosystems

and growth

engines

funding

model

https://tem.fi/en/ecosystems

https://www.businessfinland.fi/en/for-finnish-

customers/services/funding/growth-engines/funding-for-the-orchestration-of-

growth-engines/

https://www.businessfinland.fi/en/for-finnish-

customers/services/funding/growth-engines/growth-engines-funding/

Business

Finland co-

creation

and co-

innovation

funding

model

https://www.businessfinland.fi/en/for-finnish-

customers/services/funding/research-organizations/in-brief/

22

Appendix 1. Innovative enterprises and collaboration in Lithuania.

Figure 1. Share (%) of innovative enterprises cooperating with higher education institutions or

government, public and private research institutes.

Figure 2. Share (%) of enterprises with innovation activity in selected countries in 2012–2014

(source: Eurostat).

23

Figure 3. Innovation co-operation of any type and innovation co-operation with universities and

other HEIs in selected countries in 2012–2014: share (%) of enterprises with innovation activity

relating to products or processes (source: Eurostat).

Figure 4. The structure of innovation expenditure in selected counties in 2014 (source: Eurostat).

24

Appendix 2.

The Finnish and Lithuanian funding and evaluation systems and the scope of

operations of various RDI support organisations.

FINNISH MODEL OF A UNIFIED EVALUATION SYSTEMFINNISH MODEL OF A UNIFIED EVALUATION SYSTEMFINNISH MODEL OF A UNIFIED EVALUATION SYSTEMFINNISH MODEL OF A UNIFIED EVALUATION SYSTEMScopeScopeScopeScope of of of of fundingfundingfundingfunding and and and and evaluationevaluationevaluationevaluation in in in in thethethethe AoFAoFAoFAoF and Tekes/BFand Tekes/BFand Tekes/BFand Tekes/BF

Basic research DevelopmentApplied research Innovation…and beyond

”Industrial” research

Academy Tekes/BFIn the 1990s

and 2000s

In the 2010s

25

Appendix 3.

Gender equality

In line with the EU Gender Action Plan 2016–2020, the European Commission aims to strengthen

girls' and women's rights, to give them a stronger voice and to improve their participation as well as

empower them in all the areas in which we provide assistance. In this regard, the experts were being

asked how they assess the progress of policy or the institutional set-up in Lithuania.

From the point of view of the principal aim of your mission, the EU Gender Action Plan 2016–2020

and gender issues were not directly discussed during the mission. There were a plenty of well-

focussed STI policy talks and presentations, but gender issues were not among them. However, it is

very evident that gender issues are matters of utmost importance for a small country like Lithuania

with limited human and economic resources.

The expert team did find positive developments in Lithuania with regard to gender equality but

there is still some issues that needs to be remedied. In general terms, the issue is about getting

attitudes towards equal opportunities in balance in everyday life and ensuring that working

procedures and modes of action will be corrected whenever and wherever obvious misbehaviour

has been pointed out.

It is essential that all the talents of females (as well as males) will be in the best possible use to

support the growth of the economy and the increase of employment rate and citizens’ wellbeing.

Specific attention should be paid to underline that all organisations starting from the responsible

ministries to funding and support organisations should promote:

-inclusive education and STI policies (gender equality and anti-discrimination)

-the contents of research and innovation (mainstreaming gender perspective and equal

opportunities)

-women’s’ careers in education and STI (equal participation and opportunities).