nep-ppm New Economics Papers
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management
Issue of 2020‒03‒30
six papers chosen by
Arvi Kuura
Tartu Ülikool

  1. The COASTAL project: Increasing land-sea synergies and coastal-rural collaboration for a healthy ocean. By Ebun Akinsete; Alice Guittard; Phoebe Koundouri
  2. Unlocking the radical potential of German innovators How can R&D policy foster radical innovation? By Hesse, Kolja
  3. Value creation and value appropriation In innovative coopetition projects By Paul Chiambaretto; Jonathan Maurice; Marc Willinger
  4. Towards An ‘Ideal’ Cluster Support Program: Blending The Approaches By Evgeniy Kutsenko; Ekaterina Islankina; Vasiliy Abashkin; Elena Popova
  5. Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox Demonstration: Bay Area Rapid Transit Integrated Carpool to Transit Access Program Evaluation Report By Martin, Elliot; Cohen, Adam; Yassine, Ziad; Brown, Les; Shaheen, Susan
  6. Estimating Resiliency Benefits of Road Upgradation : Case of the East Road in Malaita, Solomon Islands By Marcelo Gordillo,Darwin; Raina,Aditi

  1. By: Ebun Akinsete (ICRE8); Alice Guittard (ICRE8); Phoebe Koundouri
    Abstract: Coastal and sea regions not only concentrate populations and intensive economic activity but also environmental stresses and higher levels of pollution. On the other hand, rural hinterlands face depopulation and often economic recession while still environmentally impacting coastal regions. Land-based activities (agriculture, forestry, industries and urbanization) are directly and indirectly impacting land, coastal and sea ecosystems (soil and river pollutions, marine water eutrophication, etc.), the coastal region are the downstream recipient of land use negative practice externalities. At river basin scale, despite the fact that land-based ecosystems are linked to coastal and sea ecosystems through water flows, the understanding of these links remains limited partly due to sectorized and fragmented research and governance practices. At the European policy level, legislations follow these spatial and sectoral approaches, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Marine Strategic Framework Directive (MSFD) which seek to achieve 'Good Environmental Status' of rivers and marine water respectively, but both lack interconnections and common working principles. Although river water flows directly impact coastal and marine waters, neither the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) nor the Integrate Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) principles sufficiently address the gaps between sea management, coastal management and inland management. The EU H2020 COASTAL project adopts an innovative source-to-sea approach where at river basin scale, sea, coastal and rural regions are seen as a whole and single ecosystem. The project seeks to improve land-sea synergies in strategic business and policy decision making, and collaborations between coastal and rural stakeholders in order to (1) create connections between land ecosystems and coastal ecosystems, for sustainable use and management of theses ecosystems as well as reaching the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) pertaining to the sustainable use of freshwater (SDG 6), seas (SDG14), terrestrial ecosystems (SDG 15) and climate change impacts (SDG13); (2) support sustainable growth in rural, coastal and marine sectors by fostering cross-sectoral collaborations; (3) develop links between EU WFD, MFD and CAP by developing policy alternatives for coastal-rural areas. The COASTAL project adopts a strong participatory multi-actor, bottom-up approach based on collaboration between rural, coastal and sea stakeholders. The methodology and tools used combine local and scientific knowledge to explore and analyse social, environmental and economic land-sea interactions in a collaborative System-Dynamic framework to identify problems and develop practical and robust business road maps and strategic policy guidelines to improve land-sea synergies and coastal-rural collaborations. The project adopts an interactive approach via Multi-Actors Labs (MALs) centered around 6 selected coastal regions (in Belgium, Sweden, Romania, Greece, Spain and France) with both common as well as unique opportunities and challenges.
    Date: 2020–03
  2. By: Hesse, Kolja (University of Bremen)
    Abstract: Recently, the outstanding potential of radical innovations has been acknowledged to foster the economic development of countries and regions. However, due to market imperfection, economic actors do not engage in radical innovation to a socially desirable degree. Hence, governments have established measures to compensate the under-investment in private R&D. For instance, in Germany and on the European level innovation agencies have been established to support innovations that move the technological frontier. In the light of this development, this study aims to answer the question whether direct funding of R&D projects in general and collaborative R&D grants in particular can support the emergence of radical innovations. Furthermore, this study scrutinises on the effect of policy-induced cross-innovation activities on radical innovation processes. Although many scholars advise policy makers to support activities inducing cross-fertilisation in order to enhance radical innovation, we lack evidence whether the funding of such research projects actually has an effect. The results can be of interest for scholars as well as policy makers aiming to support this type of innovation.
    Keywords: R&D subsidies; R&D collaboration; cross-innovation activities; radical innovation; treatment effects
    JEL: C30 H20 O31 O38
    Date: 2020–03–27
  3. By: Paul Chiambaretto (MRM - Montpellier Research in Management - UM1 - Université Montpellier 1 - UM3 - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - UM2 - Université Montpellier 2 - Sciences et Techniques - UPVD - Université de Perpignan Via Domitia - Groupe Sup de Co Montpellier (GSCM) - Montpellier Business School - UM - Université de Montpellier); Jonathan Maurice (TSM - Toulouse School of Management Research - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - TSM - Toulouse School of Management - UT1 - Université Toulouse 1 Capitole - UT1 - Université Toulouse 1 Capitole); Marc Willinger (CEE-M - Centre d'Economie de l'Environnement - Montpellier - FRE2010 - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)
    Abstract: This article provides a formal model of the value creation-appropriation dilemma in the coopetition for innovation, i.e., alliances among competing firms. The model determines the levels of cooperation that maximize the profit of each firm in an innovative coopetition agreement regardless of the number of firms and their respective budget endowments dedicated to the coopetitive project. We answer the following questions. Within an innovative coopetition agreement, will the partners cooperate more or less when their budget endowments change? What is the impact on profit? When is it profitable to accept a new partner into the agreement? What happens to the remaining firms when a partner withdraws from the agreement? We show that when the coopetitive budget of the focal firm increases, the focal firm allocates a larger part of this budget to value creation activities and increases its profit. In contrast, when a partnering firm increases its coopetitive budget, the focal firm reduces its budget for value creation activities to maintain a sufficient budget for value appropriation activities. We also show that the addition of a competitor with a large coopetitive budget to the innovative coopetition agreement decreases the cooperation of the focal firm but increases the profit of the initial partnering firms. In contrast, the exit of a partnering firm with a large coopetitive budget from the agreement intensifies the cooperation among the remaining firms but reduces their profit
    Keywords: coopetition,value creation,value appropriation,innovative coopetition projects,game theory
    Date: 2020
  4. By: Evgeniy Kutsenko (National Research University Higher School of Economics); Ekaterina Islankina (National Research University Higher School of Economics); Vasiliy Abashkin (National Research University Higher School of Economics); Elena Popova (National Research University Higher School of Economics)
    Abstract: Clusters have become a major element of innovation and industrial policies in many countries worldwide. Over the years, targeted cluster support programs have been designed and implemented, each featuring a variety of approaches to the selection of clusters, terms and prerequisites for funds allocation, the areas of support, etc. Such approaches have both the advantages and drawbacks, which leads to a conception of an ‘ideal’ support program mix that could consider the best practices and ignore some unsuccessful solutions. The working paper aims at suggesting such an ‘ideal’ approach to designing a cluster support program, based on the synchronization of the most effective elements of various such programs in Russia. Over the past decade, cluster policy has occupied an important position in the agenda of the Russian Government. Two federal Ministries – the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Industry and Trade initiated several cluster support programs for innovative and industrial clusters. Nowadays, there are more than 118 clusters in Russia, and over a half of them benefit from current public support measures – 27 innovative clusters, 42 industrial and 12 leading clusters. The comparative analysis of federal support programs revealed several benefits and limitations in both approaches in terms of subsidy allocation principles, areas of support and cluster selection criteria. In particular, among the key advantages of innovative clusters programs are the focus on cluster management development, and identifying the strongest clusters through one-time selection procedure. The successful features of industrial clusters program are permanent application process, reduction of budget risk due to compensation principle of funding, and stimulation of cooperation through special requirements for joint projects. The major disadvantages of innovative cluster support programs are budget risks caused by advanced financing of cluster activities, and a lack of project focus; the probability to support low-quality projects and neglecting the issue of cluster management development are the key weaknesses within the industrial clusters program. The paper suggests a ‘smart’ synchronization of approaches to cluster support, which blends the best practices of different ministries.
    Keywords: cluster policy, innovative clusters, national cluster support program, industrial clusters.
    JEL: D04 O18 O19 O38 R58
    Date: 2020
  5. By: Martin, Elliot; Cohen, Adam; Yassine, Ziad; Brown, Les; Shaheen, Susan
    Abstract: The Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox Demonstration Program provides a venue through which integrated MOD concepts and solutions, supported through local partnerships, are demonstrated in real-world settings. For each of the 11 MOD Sandbox Demonstration projects, a MOD Sandbox Independent Evaluation was conducted that includes an analysis of project impacts from performance measures provided by the project partners and an assessment of the business models used. This document presents the Evaluation Report for the BART Integrated Carpool to Transit Access Program project. The project tested a number of hypotheses that explored the project impacts on carpooling, costs, enforcement, ridership, parking, and vehicle miles of travel (VMT). The evaluation generally found that the project increased overall carpooling to BART, commensurately increased the utilization of parking spaces by carpooling vehicles, and increased the number of people per vehicle parking at BART stations. The evaluation determined that the overall cost of enforcement per carpool space declined, primarily because spaces used for carpools increased without significantly increased enforcement burden. The evaluation did not have data available to determine whether illegal use of carpool spaces had changed significantly as a result of the project. On the related matter of enforcement, the evaluation did not have data to quantify changes in fraudulent use of carpool spaces and, instead, relied on discussions with enforcement staff, which suggested that fraudulent use had dropped as a result of the project. The evaluation did find that the project produced a wider distribution of arrival times to carpool spaces, which was an objective of BART, to permit greater flexibility of travel times in the morning for carpooling riders. The evaluation found that the project likely increased BART ridership, although not by margins large enough to be statistically noticeable within normal fluctuations of station ridership. Data were not available to determine whether this increase in ridership raised revenue that exceeded the costs of the project. However, users reported reduced personal transportation costs a result of the project. The project found that overall VMT very likely declined as result of the project due to the reduced driving alone to stations. Finally, expert interviews with project personnel produced lessons learned on implementation and policy that may inform similar projects in the future.
    Keywords: Engineering, Mobility on Demand, MOD, sandbox, shared mobility, mobility as a service, independent evaluation, transit, carpooling
    Date: 2020–02–01
  6. By: Marcelo Gordillo,Darwin; Raina,Aditi
    Abstract: Governments and their multilateral partners are increasingly recognizing the importance of incorporating climate and disaster resilience considerations into infrastructure development plans as well as the related construction and financing decisions. The potential medium- and long-term benefits of increased resilience must be considered alongside short-term costs of resilient design and implementation. The objective of this paper to estimate the resiliency benefits, in terms of key socioeconomic outcomes, under several road upgradation options and rainfall scenarios. The estimated benefits are compared against the related lifecycle costs to inform investment decisions. The analysis is based on the methodology developed by the World Bank and Kyoto University to operationalize and measure key infrastructure resilience concepts at the project level. The East Road in Malaita in the Solomon Islands is used to pilot the this methodology and examine its applicability. The parameters selected to measure resiliency are based on the key benefits the road provides to the people living around it: economic benefits proxied by travel time, access to hospitals, and access to markets. Due to data constraints in Malaita, the report is based primarily on expert inputs and geo-spatial data. It considers mainly technical improvements to road upgradation that might impact resiliency.
    Date: 2020–03–19

This nep-ppm issue is ©2020 by Arvi Kuura. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.