Evaluation of investments in Research and Technological Development (RTD) infrastructures and activities supported by the European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) in the period 2007-2013 : case study Czech Republic.
Date: 2021-12-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
Subjects: EU investment, EU research policy, European Regional Development Fund, added value, case study, impact study, information technology, knowledge management, organisation of research, regional disparity, regions of the Czech Republic, research expenditure (EU), scientific research, sustainable development, technological change

Evaluation of investments in 
Research and Technological 
Development (RTD) 
infrastructures and activities 
supported by the European 
Regional Development Funds 
(ERDF) in the period 2007-
2013 

Contract N° 2018CE16BAT111 

Case study report  

Czech Republic 

Written by  
Authors: Marie Feřtrová 

Lucie Jungwiertová 
Kateřina Gregorová 
Vojtěch Kadlec 
Pavel Jovanovič 

February 2021 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 
Directorate B — Policy 
Unit B.2 — Evaluation and European Semester  
Contact: David Alba and Carlo Amati 
E-mail: David.Alba@ec.europa.eu,  
Carlo.Amati@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation of investments in 
Research and Technological 
Development (RTD) 
infrastructures and activities 
supported by the European 
Regional Development Funds 
(ERDF) in the period 2007-
2013 

Contract N° 2018CE16BAT111 

Case study report  

Czech Republic 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 

2021 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

Manuscript completed in February 2021 

1st edition 

The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.  

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 

ISBN 978-92-76-45982-8 
doi: 10.2776/536460 

© European Union, 2021 
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.  
The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 
14.12.2011, p. 39). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................. 9 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 17 

ANALYSIS OF THE POLICY CONTEXT AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL ... 19 

2.1.  National RTD objectives and strategies .......................................................... 19 
2.2.  The links between national, regional and European objectives and strategies in 

the field of RTD support (2 pages) ................................................................ 22 
2.2.1.  Linkages between national RTD policies and ERDF support ........ 22 
2.2.2.  Linkages between regional RTD policies and ERDF support ........ 22 
2.2.3.  Linkages between ERDF support for RTD and Horizon 2020 ....... 24 
Implementation of ERDF funds for the 2007-2013 period in the Czech Republic .. 25 
2.3.1.  Volume  of  ERDF  financing  for  RTD-related  activities  and 

2.3. 

supported OPs ..................................................................... 25 

2.3.2.  The  ERDF  RTD  support  policy  mix:  key  instruments  and 

rationale for selection ........................................................... 27 

3. 

CONTRIBUTION ANALYSIS OF SELECTED POLICY INSTRUMENTS 
/ MAJOR PROJECT ...................................................................... 32 

3.1.  Overview  of  the  Operational  Programme  Research  and  Development  for 

Innovations (OP RDI) .................................................................................. 33 

3.2.  Policy  instrument:  Infrastructure  investments  into  research-related  education 
under  the  Operational  Programme  OP  Research  and  Development  for 
Innovations ................................................................................................ 38 
3.2.1.  Theory of Change of the policy instrument .............................. 38 
3.2.2.  Contribution  analysis  of 

Infrastructure 

investments 

into 

research-related education .................................................... 44 
3.2.3.  General assessment of the policy instrument ........................... 52 

3.3.  Policy  Instrument:  ICT  Infrastructure  Investments  under  the  Operational 

Programme Research and Development for Innovations .................................. 55 
3.3.1.  Theory of the policy instrument ............................................. 55 
3.3.2.  Contribution analysis of the policy instrument .......................... 60 
3.3.3.  General assessment of the policy instrument ........................... 67 

3.4.  Policy  Instrument:  ELI:  Extreme  Light  Infrastructure  implemented  under  the 

Operational Program Research and Development for Innovation ....................... 70 
3.4.1.  Theory of Change of the major project ................................... 70 
3.4.2.  Contribution analysis of the major project ............................... 76 
3.4.3.  General assessment of the major project ................................ 83 

4. 

GENERAL FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNT ............................... 70 

  OVERVIEW OF EVIDENCE COLLECTED ON EXPECTED EFFECTS OF 
THE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS INTO RESEARCH-
RELATED EDUCATION INSTRUMENT ........................................... 90 

OVERVIEW OF EVIDENCE COLLECTED ON EXPECTED 
EFFETS OF THE ICT INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY INSTRUMENT ..... 94 

OVERVIEW OF EVIDENCE COLLECTED ON EXPECTED 

EFFETS OF THE ELI: EXTREME LIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE 
INSTRUMENT .............................................................................. 97 

INTERVIEW LIST ............................................................ 102 

 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................... 103 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF FIGURES 
Figure 1.  Total R&D expenditure over GDP – 2007 and 2017 .................................................. 20 

Figure 2.  Public R&D expenditure over GDP – 2007 and 2017 ................................................ 21 

Figure 3.  Business R&D expenditure over GDP – 2007 and 2017 ............................................ 21 

Figure 4.  Total R&D personnel in percentage of total population – 2007 and 2017 .................... 21 

Figure 5.  Distribution of ERDF funding for RTD in the Czech Republic by OP ............................. 26 

Figure 6.  Share of themes in ERDF funding for RTD in the Czech Republic by OP, % on total 

ERDF contribution to RTD themes ......................................................................... 26 

Figure 7.  Overview of ERDF funding by policy instrument in the Czech Republic ....................... 27 

Figure 8.  Overview of ERDF funding by type of RTD in the Czech Republic ............................... 29 

Figure 9.  Overview of ERDF funding by field of science in the Czech Republic ........................... 29 

Figure 10.  Regional  concentration  of  RTD  investments  in  the  Czech  Republic  based  on 

beneficiary's headquarters ................................................................................... 30 

Figure 11.  Regional concentration of RTD investments in the Czech Republic based on project 

location ............................................................................................................. 31 

Figure 12.  Theory  of  change  of  Research-related  teaching  infrastructure  at  higher  education 

institutions ......................................................................................................... 42 

Figure 13.  Regional  concentration  of  RTD  investments  in  the  context  of  policy  instrument  1 

based on project location ..................................................................................... 45 

Figure 14.  Presentation  of  the  results  of  the  contribution  analysis  for  the  Infrastructure 

investments into research-related education .......................................................... 54 

Figure 15.  ToC for ICT Infrastructure Investments .................................................................. 58 

Figure 16.  Representation of the results of the contribution analysis for the ICT Infrastructure 

Investments policy instrument .............................................................................. 69 

Figure 17.  Research activities in the ELI Beamlines facility ...................................................... 72 

Figure 18.  Theory of change of the ELI: Extreme Light Infrastructure policy instrument .............. 73 

Figure 19.  Direct results of the ELI project Phase I and their types ........................................... 79 

Figure 20.  Results  of  the  ELI  project  Phase  II  (following  project  from  the  OP  RDI)  and  their 

types ................................................................................................................. 79 

Figure 21.  Presentation  of  the  results  of  the  contribution  analysis  for  the  ELI:  Extreme  Laser 

Infrastructure major project ................................................................................. 85 

LIST OF TABLES 
Table 1.  Evolution  of  RTD  performance  in  Czech  Republic  from  2007  to  2017  according  to 

the results of the cluster analysis .......................................................................... 22 

Table 2.  Overview of the ERDF funding by target beneficiary in the Czech Republic ................. 28 

Table 3. 

Financial scale of RTD projects funded under the policy instrument ........................... 45 

Table 4.  Overview of relevant monitoring indicators at the level of policy instrument 1 ............ 46 

Table 5.  Projects funded by the policy instrument 1 by indicator and level of achievement ....... 47 

Table 6.  Breakdown of funded projects – Information infrastructure ...................................... 61 

Table 7.  Breakdown of funded projects – Electronic information resources .............................. 63 

Table 8.  Overview of relevant monitoring indicators at the level of policy instrument ............... 77 

6 

 
 
 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS  

BN 

CA 

CS 

Billion 

Contribution Analysis 

Case study 

CZK 

Czech Crown 

DG REGIO  Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 

DG COMP  Directorate-General for Competition 

EC 

EIR 

ELI 

ERA 

European Commission 

Electronic information resources 

Extreme Light Infrastructure  

European Research Area 

ERDF 

European Regional Development Fund 

ESF 

ESIF 

ESFRI 

EU 

FP6 

FP7 

European Social Fund 

European Structural and Investment Funds 
the European Strategy Forum on Research 
Infrastructures 

European Union 

6th Framework Programme 

7th Framework Programme 

GDP 

Gross Domestic Product 

GERD 

Gross Expenditure on Research and Development 

H2020 

Horizon 2020 

HEIs 

Higher Education Institutions 

HiLASE 

High-tech Laser Research Centre 

HR 

ICT 

IoP 

Human Resources 

Information and Communication Technologies 

Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences 

ISPROFIN  Information System for Programme Financing 

M 

MA 

Million 

Managing Authority 

MEYS 

Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports 

MS(s) 

Member State(s) 

NO 

NDP 

Number 

National Development Plan 

NSRF 

National Strategic Reference Framework 

OP 

Operational Programme 

OP EC 

Operational Programme Education for Competitiveness  

7 

 
OP EI 

Operational Programme Enterprise and Innovation 

OP PA 

Operational Programme Prague Adaptability  

OP PC 

OP RDI 

Operational Programme Prague – Competitiveness  
Operational Programme Research and Development for 
Innovations 

PA 

Priority Axis 

PALS 

Prague Asterix Laser System 

PI 

R&D 

RDI 

Policy Instrument 

Research and Development 

Research, Development and Innovation 

RIS3 

Regional Innovation Smart Specialization Strategies  

RTD 

Research and Technological Development 

RTOs 

Research and Technology Organizations 

STAR 

Science, Technology Advanced Region 

SUSEN 

Sustainable Energy (major project) 

ToC(s) 

Theory of Change(s) 

8 

 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

BACKGROUND AND GOAL OF THE CASE STUDY 

This  study  is  one  of  seven  case  studies  (CS)  developed  within  the  third  task  of  the  ex‐
post  evaluation  of  investments  in  Research  and  Technological  Development  (RTD) 
infrastructures  and  activities  supported  by  the  European  Regional  Development  Funds 
(ERDF) in the period 2007-2013. It focuses on the Czech Republic, a Member State of the 
European Union since 2004, for  which  the programming period 2007-2013 was the first 
full-fledged  period.  The  allocated  amount  of  EUR  26.7  billion  for  the  Cohesion  policy 
opened  an  unprecedented  opportunity  for  many  thematic  areas.  For  the  realisation  of 
investments  under  the  code  of  expenditure  01  and  02  (Research  infrastructure  and 
research activities), three ERDF operational programmes (OP) were prepared to mutually 
address  the  needs  of  the  RTD  of  the  country.  The  total  ERDF  contribution  reached  EUR 
1.9  billion.  From  the  financial  point  of  view,  the  Operational  Programme  Research  and 
Development  for  Innovations  for  the  Czech  Republic  (OP  RDI)  was  the  most  important 
and  explicit  policy  instrument  after  many  years  of  underinvestment  and  limited  political 
priority to the RTD sphere. The OP RDI covered 88% of the ERDF contribution for R&D in 
the  country  and  fell  within  the  framework  laid  out  for  the  Convergence  Objective.  The 
finally allocated budget of EUR 2.2 billion (of which EUR 1.8 billion by ERDF). The support 
was  provided  to  regions  throughout  the  Czech  Republic  outside  the  Capital  City  of 
Prague, which fell under the Regional Competitiveness and Employment Objective.  

This  case  study  investigates  predominantly  the  example  of  three  policy  instruments, 
whether the ERDF policy mix for RTD achieved its intended objectives and responded to 
the  country's  policy  challenges.  It  also  looks  at  whether  the  selected  interventions  for 
RTD infrastructure and activities were effective and according to which mechanisms. The 
CS looked at the RTD policy mix funded by the ERDF from three distinct perspectives: (i) 
from  the  perspective  of  a  Member  state  and  all  relevant  ERDF-OPs  supporting  the  RTD 
infrastructure  sphere,  (ii)  from  the  level  of  the  OP  supporting  the  selected  policy 
instruments  for  in-depth  analysis  in  this  evaluation,  and  (iii)  from  the  perspective  of 
three selected policy instruments (PI). The Czech CS examines more deeply the following 
policy instruments and major project, all supported by the OP RDI: 

  (PI1) Infrastructure investments for research-related education at public 
higher  education  institutions  (HEIs)  within  the  Priority  Axes  4  "Research-
related  teaching  infrastructure  in  higher  education"  of  the  OP  RDI.  According  to 
the Task 1 classification, they are 62 projects, representing 22% of the OP  ERDF 
expenditure.  The  PI  consisted  of  constructing  new  facilities  or  modernising  the 
equipment  in  HEIs,  used  for  both  education  and  research  purposes.  These 
projects  aimed  to  reinforce  the  pool  of  highly  qualified  human  resources,  which 
was perceived to be the key to the competitiveness of the Czech economy.  

  (PI2)  ICT  infrastructure  investments  funded  from  the  Priority  Axes  3 
"Commercialization and popularisation of R&D" of the OP RDI. This PI included 12 
projects,  representing  2.3%  of  the  OP  RDI  expenditure.  The  projects  included 
investments  for  e-infrastructure,  computing  grids  and  data  digitisation,  storage, 
access,  ICT  network  systems,  information  infrastructure  for  R&D,  investments  in 
material  and  technical  ensuring,  and  non-material  needs  (software,  licenses, 
databases etc.).  

  (PI3)  Major  Project  "ELI:  Extreme  Light  Infrastructure"  (ELI)  supported 
from the Priority Axes 1 "European Centres of Excellence". It accounted for 10.3% 
of the OP expenditure.  It was a  strategic investment in line with the OP's aim to 
support  the  concentration  of  the  top  RTD  capacities  (in  terms  of  infrastructure, 
financial  and  human  resources,  themes)  and  establish  a  few  top  excellence 
flagships R&D centres in the Czech Republic.  

The methodology has been based on a Contribution Analysis approach and the underlying 
development  of  Theories  of  Change  (ToC)  for  selected  policy  instruments.  This  involved 
disentangling the complex causal relationships within different stages  of implementation 
and  these  policy  instruments'  results  to  identify  the  contributions  made  by  the  ERDF  to 

9 

 
improving RTD in specific regions and  the Member States. This approach aimed to build 
and  consequently  verify  the  ToC  in  a  specific  region/MS  and  context,  addressing  the 
specific  conditions  influencing  the  policy  rationale  (further  explored  in  the  cross-case 
analysis), the interplay of different stakeholders, their expectations and observed effects 
as a result of the policy instruments.  

The  data  collection  for  the  CS  was  based  on  desk  research  and  semi-structured 
interviews  with  35  relevant  stakeholders.  Desk  research  covered  data  and  information, 
especially from strategic and programming documents, evaluations, projects' application 
and reporting documentation, statistical data, and indicators from the monitoring system 
and other analytical studies. The CS also builds on the evidence available from a previous 
project task.  

OVERVIEW OF KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

Analysis of the policy context at the national level 

At the outset of the programming period 2007-2013, the Czech Republic lagged behind in 
many  RTD  characteristics  compared  to  the  EU  averages.  Only  3%  of  R&D  sources 
originated  abroad,  illustrating  insufficient  engagement  in  international  R&D  cooperation 
and in the European Research Area (ERA) in particular. The system of public R&D lacked 
thematic concentration and was characterised by high fragmentation. This led to a lack of 
top-class  R&D  centres  in  a  limited  number  of  fields  with  excellent  performance.  There 
was  a  profound  shortage  of  adequate  RTD  infrastructure,  facilities,  and  material 
equipment  across  all  the  Czech  Republic  regions.  Production  of  high-quality  and 
internationally respected R&D results was below the average of developed countries (with 
positive  exceptions  in  some  fields).  The  ability  to  translate  the  results  of  basic  research 
into  the  application  was  even  lower.  This  was  one  of  the  consequences  of  dysfunctional 
R&D  cooperation  between  private  and  public  sectors  and  of  insufficient  use  of  venture 
capital  and  support  of  spin-offs.  Hand  in  hand  with  the  outlined  constraints,  the  Czech 
Republic  lacked  adequate  R&D  human  capacities  (e.g.  a  share  of  the  population  with  a 
university  degree  was  substantially  below  the  EU  average),  especially  in  technical  and 
natural sciences.  

The EU played a key role in fostering the country towards the focus on the RTD sector as 
a  prerequisite  for  building  a  competitive  economy.  The  Czech  Republic  had  a  series  of 
national strategic documents related to the R&D policy till the EU accession. In the years 
after,  however,  they  were  to  a  large  extent  only  formal,  and  their  implementation 
faltered.  In  other  words,  there  was  no  systemic,  conceptualised  and  functional  national 
RTD policy till the start of the 2007-2013 programming period. Thus, the country needed 
to  establish  the  basic  functional  policy  frameworks  to  ensure  effective  usage  of  the 
anticipated  EU  funds.  The  Reform  of  Research,  Development  and  Innovation  system 
introduced in 2008 was aimed to be the key strategic framework to transform the Czech 
RDI  policy  landscape.  Furthermore,  the  National  Policy  of  Research,  Development  and 
Innovations 2009-2015 was formulated, and all its main objectives were strongly aligned 
to  the  proposed  ERDF  RTD  policy  mix.  The  European  Structural  Funds  (both  ERDF  and 
ESF)  were  expected  to  be  the  prime  financial  sources  and  drivers  for  implementing  the 
National  RDI  Policy  because  the  national  financial  sources  were  insufficient  to  cover 
anticipated profound changes in the R&D sector of the country. 

Although  there  was  a  very  strong 
interconnection  between  the  national  RTD 
strategies/policy  and  the  ERDF  support  in  terms  of  thematical  orientation  and 
identification of key bottlenecks and related priorities, at the operational level, a double-
track system of coordination and management of these two strategic policy streams has 
existed.  In  addition,  the  institutional  fragmentation in  the  management  of  the  RDI  area 
has played a rather negative role in the pursuit of the RTD policies in the Czech Republic. 
At the regional level, a systemic approach to the RTD support was a rare exception  and 
started  to  evolve  only  at  the  end  of  the  programming  period  2007-2013.  The  policy 
frameworks  anticipated  the  linkages  between  the  ERDF  support  for  RTD  and  other 
European programmes (i.e. FP7 and the successor programme H2020). Still, they did not 
widely materialise, as the direct mechanisms for maximising the potential synergies were 

10 

 
not  set  up.  A  relatively  short  time  passed  since  the  newly  R&D  infrastructures  were 
accomplished and could have participated in these programmes. 

As  in  many  countries,  the  R&D  capacities  and  production  are  not  equally  distributed  in 
the Czech Republic. There is a strong dominance of the Capital City of Prague over other 
Czech regions. Prague has historically played a central role in the R&D sector and higher 
education and concentrated 2/3 of the R&D capacities. There were intensive debates  on 
how to approach a trade-off between the principle of excellence in R&D and the principle 
of  social  and  economic  territorial  cohesion  to  support  lagging  regions  to  catch-up.  
Nevertheless, eventually, the country had to accommodate the EU funding conditions for 
regional  eligibility  and  could  not  have  included  the  Prague  region  into  the  ERDF  policy 
mix,  even  though  the  RTD  investment  needs  were  across  the  whole  country.  The 
eventual regional targeting led to some problems in funds absorption for the more limited 
lagging  regions'  capacities  and,  more  importantly,  to  some  negative  systemic 
consequences  for  the  entire  RTD  system.  Although  additional  instruments  funded  by 
national and also EU sources for Prague were planned, due to the economic crisis and the 
instability of national governmental priorities and weak national strategic management of 
these additional funds, these were not realised. 

The data analysis at the MS-level shows that the strongest budgetary allocation across all 
OPs  went  to  category  02  expenditure  (RTD  infrastructure),  counting  to  almost  89%1  of 
ERDF  support  purely  or  in  combination  with  the  01  expenditure  category  allocated  for 
R&D infrastructure investments. The largest recipients of the RTD ERDF support were the 
public  HEIs  (almost  41%  of  the  total  analysed  RTD  ERDF  support)  concentrating  on 
infrastructure investments for research/research and education that had to cope with the 
instability  of  the  national  system  of  financing.  The  second  most  important  targets  were 
the  newly  established  centres  of  excellence  and  competence  centres  (29%  of  the  total 
analysed RTD ERDF funding) implemented via infrastructure investments for research. In 
terms of science, almost 85% of the ERDF contribution was allocated to natural sciences, 
engineering, technology and medical and health sciences.  

Achievement  of  intended  effects  of  the  analysed  policy  instruments  (i.e. 
effectiveness) 

The ERDF RTD budget allocated to the country played an irreplaceable role in constituting 
the modern conditions for R&D in the Czech Republic. There is a wide consensus that the 
OP  RDI  has  succeeded  in  its  prime  goal  –  to  build,  develop  and  modernised  R&D 
infrastructure  in  the  Czech  Republic  –  and  it  has  enabled  to  shift  of  the  R&D 
infrastructural  capacities  in  the  country  at  a  qualitatively  different  level,  comparable  to 
the  European  standards.  Consequently,  the  necessary  infrastructural  conditions  for  the 
middle-to-long-term effects of the RTD support (i.e. the involvement in the international 
RDI  arena,  the  cooperation  between  public  research  and  business  sectors,  the 
development  of  a  knowledge-based  economy)  were  achieved  by  the  analysed  OP  RDI. 
Nevertheless,  the  OP  was  less  successful  in  ensuring  adequate  R&D  human  resources 
that  could  have  fully  exploited  all  established  capacities,  even  though  this  was  the 
domain  of  the  complementary  ESF  OPs.  Unfortunately,  the  OP  investments  were  not 
accompanied  by  any  reform  of  the  R&D  and  higher  education  system  that  would  have 
supported the investment efforts and contributed to the needed systemic changes (e.g. a 
concentration of R&D efforts to the limited number of excellent capacities). 

The  evaluation  focused  on  the  three  different  policy  instruments  (including  one  major 
project)  and  can  provide  additional  details  on  the  achievement  of  these  instruments' 
intended  effects.  For  all  investigated  PIs  pay  that  the  intended  activities,  outputs  and 
short-term outcomes were mostly achieved. At the same time, on a more complex level, 

1 Projects funded under category 02  (RTD infrastructure) received  almost 52% of ERDF funding while 37% of 
this budget was allocated to projects that fell into categories 01– RTD activities and 02 – RTD infrastructure at 
the  same  time.  The rest  (i.e.  only 11.6%  of  the  ERDF  contribution)  was  implemented  through  projects  falling 
only into category 01. 

11 

 
                                           
the  provability  of  effects  is  lower,  and  these  effects  could  have  been  verified  only  to  a 
limited extent, if at all. 

The  evaluation  proved  that  the  policy  instrument  supporting  infrastructure  investments 
for  research-related  education  at  public  higher  education  institutions  succeeded  to  fulfil 
its prime aim to eliminate the abysmal difference in the quantity and particular quality of 
infrastructure  for  research-related  education  as  compared  to  standards  of  developed 
countries and thus create favourable conditions for the education of human resources for 
R&D  and  research  itself.  It  also  ensured  RTD  infrastructural  endowments  for  more 
peripheral  regions.  In  conjunction  with  a  range  of  complementary  actions  (funded  from 
the  different  policy  instruments  of  the  Structural  funds  RTD  policy  mix  or  national 
sources),  overall  "quality  of  the  environment"  at  supported  universities  was  increased, 
and it is believed the quality of tertiary education was improved at least to some extent. 
Moreover, positive outcomes  related to improvements in managerial,  organisational and 
communication  processes  at  HEIs  were  also  detected.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
intervention's intended outcome in terms of ensuring adequate human capacities for R&D 
has not been fully achieved (also at the level of the entire OP RDI). The reasons for that 
lie  beyond  the  PI  and  relate  to  more  systemic  aspects  of  doctoral  studies  in  the  Czech 
Republic.  The  qualitative  evidence  suggests  that  the  PI  contributed  at  least  to  some 
extent to the maintenance of a certain level of post-graduates. 

Consequently, the Czech Republic still crucially lacks sufficient human capital for research 
and innovations, even more in the context of the newly established R&D infrastructures. 
In the long-term perspective, the PI expected the infrastructure  would contribute to the 
involvement  of  HEIs  in  the  international  RDI  arena  and  for  cooperation  between 
universities  and  business  sectors.  As  an 
for  the 
materialisation  of  middle  and  long-term  effects,  the  existence  of  a  regional  strategic 
approach  to  RDI  development  was  proved.  The  profound  achievement  of  these  effects 
requires more time since the interventions were accomplished. The realisation of the PI1 
brought about also a set of unintended negative effects related to a polarisation between 
the regional HEIs and Prague's HEIs due to the eligibility setting. 

important  supporting 

factor 

As  far  as  the  policy  instrument  of  ICT  infrastructure  investments  is  concerned,  all 
outlined  outputs,  i.e.,  the  new  or  modernised  information  infrastructure  for  R&D  and 
electronic  information  resources,  were  achieved.  The  monitoring  indicators  were  even 
exceeded.  The  instrument  has  addressed  the  pronounced  need  for  this  kind  of 
investments  of  the  Czech  R&D.  All  potential  risks  were  seriously  considered  and  well-
managed.  The  new  investments  enabled  the  higher  storage,  computational  and 
information capacities of R&D institutions and improved  scientific information resources. 
These  achievements  contributed  to  a  significant  shift  of  conditions  for  conducting  the 
R&D  in  the  Czech  Republic,  eventually  comparable  with  the  European  research 
organisations.  The  PI  was  of  a  marginal  extent  and  too  narrowly  delimitated  to 
significantly  influence  the  integration  of  the  Czech  R&D  institutions  into  the  European 
Research  Area  or  impact  the  cooperation  of  the  R&D  institutions.  Nevertheless,  the  PI 
improved academia's situation; however, it can be hardly attributable only to this PI. This 
policy  instrument  has  a  supporting  character  for  the  R&D  area,  and  the  more  complex 
effects can be attained only with the concurrence of other activities and causal links.  

The  evaluation  proved  that  the  main  intended  effects  of  the  third  instrument,  the  ELI 
major  project,  were  achieved  to  a  full  or  significant  extent.  This  is  also  valid  for  target 
values  of  respective  monitoring  indicators,  as–  some  of  them  were  even  exceeded.  The 
main evident result was a considerable  enlargement of  research  capacities in  the Czech 
Republic  with  the  unique  quality  and  performance  at  the  global  level,  which  was  a 
necessary  precondition  to  the  involvement  of  the  Czech  research  institutions  into  the 
European  network  and  collaboration  with  top  research  partners.  The  ELI  infrastructure 
played a key  role in this process, and synergies with other investments into  the R&D in 
the  locality  of  Dolní  Břežany  were  an  important  enabling  factor.  The  newly  created 
research  cluster  concentrated  a  critical  mass  of  fundamental  and  applied  research 
activities. It thus helped facilitate the change of the whole local research ecosystem and 
attract excellent foreign researchers. 

12 

 
On  the  other  hand,  this  newly  set  RDI  ecosystem  requires  continuous  support  from  the 
European,  national  and  local  levels.  The  ELI  infrastructure's  sustainability  remains  the 
main issue for the future. It is still early to measure the ELI's impact on the national RDI 
system, and the competitiveness of the Czech economy as this complex investment was 
fully accomplished only in the period 2014-2020. Such a complex project needs time to 
settle in the ecosystem and to develop its potential fully.  

Drivers and barriers to success 

There  was  an  enormous  delay  in  the  start  of  the  OP  RDI  (due  to  the  belated  and  long-
lasting  preparation,  including  long  negotiations  with  the  EC,  and  the  insufficient  initial 
capacity  of  the  Czech  authorities)  that  negatively  impacted  the  entire  implementation 
and the pressure on withdrawing at the end of the period. The situation of the analysed 
PIs  was  even  exacerbated  by  the  significant  financial  and  content  demands  of  the 
supported  R&D  projects.  Unfortunately,  the  political  and  managerial  instability  and  the 
vibrant  professional  capacity  of  the  Managing  Authority  during  the  programming  period 
were  identified  as  cumbersome  factor  for  the  implementation.  The  required  rules  were 
complicated,  frequently  with  ambiguous  interpretation  and  the  administrative  load  for 
beneficiaries  inappropriate.  Limited  experience  on  the  beneficiaries'  side  was  also  a 
challenge; they had to go straight away to realise the complex projects without previous 
experience with the EU funds.  

The  R&D  system  requires  more  than  others  stability  and  predictability.  However,  the 
Czech Republic has suffered from the institutional fragmentation of responsibilities for the 
RDI management and strategic directing that induced  the cumbersome decision-making 
processes  and  harmed  the  assumptions  of  stability  and  predictability.  Moreover,  the 
criteria for the national funding of research institutions and universities changed several 
times and affected the practical operation of supported projects, mainly in the period of 
compulsory  sustainability.  In  addition,  as  an  indirect  implication  of  the  economic  crisis, 
the government did not increase the public R&D  expenditure  over the period as initially 
anticipated  beyond  the  co-funding  requirements  and  did  not  compensate  the  R&D 
investments for the region of Prague from national sources fully.  

The whole OP RDI and the anticipated effects were strongly influenced by the only limited 
eligibility  for  the  Prague  R&D  institutions  being  in  a  competitiveness  region,  despite  it 
being  central  in  the  tertiary  education  system  and  in  the  Czechia  R&D  structure.  The 
pronounced  regional  disparities  in  R&D  capacities  and  production  between  the  Prague 
region and the rest of the country were a challenge in implementing the OP, which aimed 
at supporting top-class RTD. The OP negotiations succeeded to agree with the EC on an 
exception  for  Prague  only  at  the  end  of  the  programming  period  for  one  policy 
instrument. 

Another  barrier  to  success  concerned  the  system  of  public  procurements  and  state  aid. 
Both  areas  suffered  from  similar  key  problems:  unclear  interpretation  and  legislation 
changes  over  the  period,  from  the  EU  level  (State  Aid)  and  the  national  level  (Act  on 
public  tendering).  The  situation  was  particularly  problematic  for  the  R&D  sector  since 
technologies develop fast, and months-lasting public tendering processes could allow the 
purchase of outdated products. 

The  OP  RDI  proved  to  be  more  effective,  especially  in  regions  with  a  critical  size  of  the 
existing  R&D  capacity  and  the  consensual  support  across  diverse  stakeholders  in  the 
form of regional innovation strategy.  

Relevance 

The  present  case  study's  findings  suggest  that  the  RTD  ERDF  support  in  the  Czech 
Republic  responded  to  the  main  identified  challenges  and  needs  of  the  Czech  RTD 
system.  Thematic  relevance  of  the  support  from  the  OP  RDI  and  all  evaluated 
instruments has proved to be high as the ERDF support responded to the infrastructural 
R&D  needs  of  the  Czech  Republic.  All  evaluated  PIs  achieved  to  full  extent  compliance 
with  analytical  findings  prepared  for  the  OP  RDI  and  reflected  actual  trends  in  the  R&D 

13 

 
sector.  Consequently,  the  ERDF  RTD  investment  strategy  focused  on  infrastructural 
development  (i.e.  the  02-expenditure  category).  The  main  rationale  behind  the 
prioritisation  of  infrastructure  investments  was  to  create  competitive  conditions  for 
conducting  top  international  quality  research  and  upgrading  infrastructure  at  public 
higher education institutions to ensure increased quantity and quality of human resources 
for R&D.  

The  main  thematic  focus  of  the  ERDF  support  was  found  to  be  in  line  with  the  national 
priorities  as  the  intensive  support  was  provided  to  engineering  and  technology  and  to 
natural and life sciences (in total, 85%  of ERDF). More than  one-third of the RTD ERDF 
funding  was  concentrated  on  a  combination  of  applied/industrial  research  and 
experimental development. Activities focused on fundamental RTD, and a combination of 
fundamental and applied/industrial type of RTD also recorded a significant share (24.5%, 
resp. 24.6%). 

There was a key issue regarding the regional targeting of the ERDF RTD support. In line 
with  the  eligibility  rules,  most  of  the  ERDF  sources  were  aimed  at  the  convergence 
regions  proved  by  the  conducted  analyses  based  on  the 
location  of  project 
implementation  (94.4%  of  the  ERDF  RTD  funds  targeted  these  regions).  The  analyses 
uncovered  that  the  main  recipient  of  the  support  was  the  NUTS2  Jihovýchod  region.  A 
part of this region (the South Moravian region) run the first regional innovation strategy 
in  the  country  that  was  the  underlying  factor  for  the  leading  position  in  acquired  ERDF 
RTD  sources.  On  the  other  hand,  Prague's  competitiveness  region  received  a  marginal 
ERDF  support  (in  total  EUR  107.63  million)  from  a  regional  OP  and  from  the  agreed 
exception between the Managing Authority and the European Commission for the PI1 at 
the end of the programming period. While this is in line with the objective of the policy to 
tackle  regional  disparities,  it  proved  to  be  a  challenge  for  the  entire  RTD  system  of  the 
country and in the implementation of the OP, in particular in the face of the more limited 
capacities  of  lagging  regions  in  preparing  good  projects  and  ensuring  timely  funds 
absorption. 

On  the  contrary,  the  OP's  strategic  objective  to  promote  top-class  RTD  would  have 
required  to  concentrate  a  higher  share  of  funds  in  the  capital  region  where  higher  and 
better  capacities  were  present.  Moreover,  the  R&D  sector  in  Prague  suffered  from  the 
same infrastructural deficit as the convergence regions.  s For this reason, the relevance 
of the ERDF support was lower in terms of regional targeting and national needs. 

Efficiency 

The  intention  of  policy-makers  was  that  the  OP  RDI  would  have  been  a  catalyst  of 
fundamental changes in the Czech R&D system. The volume of financial support provided 
by  the  ERDF  to  support  the  RTD  activities  and  infrastructure  was  sufficiently  high  to 
"move the needle" for the country's RDI system (the data analysis at the MS-level shows 
the  RTD  investments  in  the  Czech  Republic  accounted  for  EUR  1.9  billion  representing 
almost  14%  of  the  total  ERDF  contribution  to  the  country).  With  the  ERDF  support,  the 
Czech  Republic  was  given  a  unique  opportunity  to  resolve  its  R&D  infrastructural 
handicap  from  the  past,  to  establish  a  limited  number  of  R&D  excellence  centres,  to 
develop their infrastructural and human capacities to mitigate high fragmentation of R&D 
and  to  produce  top  research  outcomes  competitive  in  the  international  arena  and 
applicable  in  practice.  The  then  existing  national  and  regional  policies  supporting  RTD 
were marginal compared to the ERDF RTD investments in 2007-2013. 

the  national  research 

The ERDF support was efficient to reach the perceptible difference in the overall level of 
quality  of 
infrastructure  and  higher  education  system 
predominantly in the convergence regions. Nevertheless, the anticipated concentration of 
funds from the OP RDI to limited R&D capacities has not been reached to the full extent. 
While concentration in the infrastructural investments into research-related education at 
universities was ensured and to a large extent also in the policy instrument of centres of 
excellence, the number of established regional research centres within the Priority Axis 2 
is  questioned,  and  some  of  them  demonstrated  already  poorer  quality  and  concerns  for 
sustainability. 

Sustainability  

14 

 
The  sustainability  of  all  analysed  policy  instruments  depends  dominantly  on  public 
resources.  The  sustainability  of  invested  infrastructure  within  the  first  two  policy 
instruments  under  assessment  throughout  compulsory  sustainability  was  ensured  with 
internal  sources  of  the  supported  HEIs.  However,  some  questions  arise  as  concerns  the 
sustainability  of  acquired  technological  competitiveness  and  thus  related  to  needed 
sources  for  the  gradual  upgrade  of  the  purchased  research  equipment.  The  HEIs  would 
not be able to cover all sources required for the modernisation.  

The sustainability of the large excellence R&D infrastructures newly developed thanks to 
the  OP  RDI  remains  the  key  issue  for  the  future.  The  MA  was  aware  of  that,  and 
therefore  they  emphasized,  quality,  international  relevance,  and  connection  to  the 
European  research  network  during  the  preparatory  phase  of  projects.  These  new 
excellent international R&D infrastructures have created a strong commitment for public 
budgets,  and  the  overwhelming  majority  of  projects  is  not  sustainable  without  public 
financing. That is relevant for all projects funded under the Priority Axis 1 of the OP RDI 
(not  only  the  ELI  project).  In  order  to  ensure  compulsory  sustainability,  the  national 
programmes  of  sustainability  of  newly  created  research  centres  have  been  opened  and 
funded from the state budget. However, this is not a long-term sustainable solution. The 
management  of  these  new  R&D  infrastructures  will  have  to  focus  on  diversification  of 
funds  for  operation  and  further  development.  Especially  in  R&D,  the  technologies  and 
equipment  could  become  obsolete  quite  quickly.  They  will  have  to  rapidly  increase  the 
volume of industry cooperation, set up their own spin-off companies and use other ways 
to get financial resources from private resources and commercial activities. 

Coherence 

The  OP  RDI  explicitly  conceived  synergies  with  other  ERDF  and  ESF  OPs.  These 
programmes  were  designed  ex-ante  to  jointly  address  challenges  identified  for  the  RTD 
and  innovation  systems  in  the  Czech  Republic.  Synergies  were  explicitly  defined  in  the 
programming  documents  and  reflected  in  the  appraisal  process  favouring  synergic 
projects.  Therefore,  most  of  the  HEIs  benefitting  from  the  PI1  implemented  either 
simultaneously or later (even in the 2014-2020 period) synergic actions supported by the 
ESF programmes. In addition, the complementarities with the projects funded from other 
sources were demonstrated at the interviewed HEIs. The analysed ELI major project, the 
largest  single  investment  under  the  ERDF  RTD  policy  mix,  witnessed  a  strong 
complementarity  with  other  supported  projects,  identified  as  one  of  the  key  enabling 
factors.  Due  to  the  co-location  of  projects,  it  has  been  created  a  core  for  the  national 
innovation milieu in lasers. 

The OP RDI anticipated explicitly to create synergies with FP7 and Horizon2020 in terms 
of possible external funding for successful research teams  at the supported RTD centres 
(e.g.  ELI  project).  The  aim  was  to  ensure  that  the  supported  research  centres  would 
have  decreased  public  funding  share  favouring  external  (international)  research  grants 
and sources from contract research. No specific coordination mechanisms were explicitly 
in  place  during  the  implementation  of  the  OP.  Nevertheless,  as  a  result  of  efforts  to 
succeed  in  the  international  competition  for  research  grants,  specialised  grant  offices 
were established within most supported RTD centres and thus improved management of 
research  fundraising.  However,  the  translation  of  these  efforts  into  increased  success 
rate in these programmes has not been generally materialised yet.    

EU added value 

The  evaluation confirmed that without the ERDF support, the infrastructure investments 
into  the  majority  of  institutions  would  have  never  been  realised  in  this  scale  and  time-
space. Therefore, the role of ERDF funding was irreplaceable. Many supported projects of 
Centres  of  excellence  (and  a  couple  of  regional  competence  research  centres) 
significantly  improved  the  added  value  of  science  and  research  capacities  at  the 
European  level.  They  became  an  important  part  of  the  European  network  with  high 
intensity  of  international  research  activities.  Attracting  new  countries  as  observing 
partners  of  the  ELI  consortium  and  other  cooperating  institutions  enabled  to  rapidly 
enhance  the  added  value  of  EU  research  capacities  in  the  worldwide  competition.  In 
international  R&D 
addition, 

infrastructure  enhanced 

into  the  HEIs 

investments 

15 

 
cooperation  and  production  of  top-ranked  research  results,  as  confirmed  by  interviewed 
universities. 

The  investments  from  the  OP  RDI  overwhelmingly  contributed  to  significantly  improve 
the  capacity  and  quality  of  research  in  the  Czech  Republic.  There  is  a  wide  consensus 
that this would not have been possible without the ERDF financing on such a scale. It was 
necessary to upgrade the quality of R&D infrastructure and equipment to be competitive 
in  Europe.  Thanks  to  the  massive  investments  in  the  R&D  sector  in  the  2007-2013 
period,  the  quality  of  newly  built  research  infrastructure  is  comparable  with  Western 
countries in THE EU. 

16 

 
1.  INTRODUCTION  

This case study has been carried out in the framework of the Evaluation of investments 
in  Research  and  Technological  Development  (RTD)  infrastructures  and  activities 
supported  by  the  European  Regional  Development  Funds  (ERDF)  in  the  period  2007-
2013.  The  evaluation's  main  objective  is  to  identify  the  effectiveness  of  RTD 
infrastructures  and  activities,  their  coherence  with  other  policies,  their  efficiency, 
relevance, and EU added value. The evaluation covers 53 Operational Programmes (OPs) 
selected by the European Commission, covering a substantial amount of the RTD funding 
(€14.64  billion,  or  about  85%  of  the  EU  total  for  the  relevant  themes)  provided  during 
this programming period. 

As  part  of  the  evaluation,  a  total  of  seven  case  studies  (CS)  have  been  carried  out  to 
illustrate  the  concrete  effects  of  ERDF-supported  RTD  policy  instruments.  Case  studies 
were  designed  to  examine  the  use  of  funding  for  different  policy  instruments  in  the 
selected Member States and the specific context in which they were implemented, their 
rationale, their effectiveness and their long-term sustainability. 

The CS evaluation research followed a methodology set and developed by the core team. 
The  methodology  has  been  based  on  a  Contribution  Analysis  (CA)  and  the  underlying 
development  of  Theories  of  Change  (ToC)  for  selected  policy  instruments  (PI).  This 
involved  disentangling  the  complex  causal  relationships  within  different  stages  of 
implementation and production of these policy instruments' results, in light of identifying 
the  contributions  made  by  the  ERDF  to  improving  RTD  in  specific  regions  and  Member 
States  (MS).  The  approach  aimed  was  to  build  and  consequently  verify  the  ToC  in  a 
specific  region/MS  and  context,  addressing  the  specific  conditions  influencing  the  policy 
rationale  (further  explored  in  the  cross-case  analysis),  the  interplay  of  different 
stakeholders,  their  expectations  and  observed  effects  as  a  result  of  the  policy 
instruments.  

The CS had to look at the RTD policy mix funded from the ERDF from the three distinct 
perspectives:  (i)  from  the  perspective  of  a  Member  state  and  all  relevant  ERDF-OPs 
supporting  RTD  infrastructure  sphere,  (ii)  from  the  level  of  OP  supporting  the  selected 
policy instruments for in-depth analysis in this evaluation, and (iii) from the perspective 
of  three  selected  policy  instruments.  The  Czech  CS  examines  the  following  policy 
instruments  that  all  received  funding  under  the  OP  Research  and  Development  for 
Innovations for the programming period 2007-2013 (OP RDI): 

  Infrastructure investments for research-related teaching at public higher 
education  institutions  (HEIs)  within  the  Priority  Axes  4  "Infrastructure  for 
University education related to Research". According to Task 1 classification, they 
are 62 projects, representing 22% of the OP ERDF expenditure. The PI consisted 
of constructing new facilities or modernising the equipment in HEIs, used for both 
education  and  research  purposes.  These  projects  aimed  to  reinforce  the  pool  of 
highly  qualified  human  resources,  which  was  perceived  to  be  key  to  the 
competitiveness of the Czech economy.  

  ICT-based  infrastructures  funded  from  the  Priority  Axes  3  "Commercialisation 
and popularisation of R&D". This PI included 12 projects, representing 2.3% of OP 
ERDF  expenditure.  Projects  included  investments  for  e-infrastructure,  computing 
grids  and  data  digitisation,  storage,  access,  ICT  network  systems,  information 
infrastructure  for  R&D,  investments  in  material  and  technical  ensuring,  and  non-
material needs (software, licenses, databases etc.).  

  Major  Project  "ELI:  Extreme  Light  Infrastructure"  (hereinafter  ELI) 
supported from the Priority Axes 1 "European Centres of Excellence". It accounts 
for  10.3%  of  the  OP  expenditure.  It  was  a  strategic  investment  in  line  with  the 
OP's  aim  to  support  the  concentration  of  top  RTD  capacities  (in  terms  of 
infrastructure,  financial  and  human  resources,  themes)  and  to  establish  a  few 
flagships of top excellence R&D centres in the Czech Republic.  

The  rationale  for  selecting  these  instruments  reflected  (i)  the  various  parameters  of 
cross-selection  of  policy  instruments  at  the  level  of  the  entire  evaluation  study  and 
possibilities  for  further  analyses  across  the  MSs  and  (ii)  relative  importance  of 

17 

 
instruments in the context of the Czech Republic. The OP RDI concentrated 88% of ERDF 
funding for RTD infrastructure, and it included the key investment measures of the ERDF 
RTD  policy  mix  in  the  Czech  Republic.  While  the  selected  major  project  ELI  represents 
absolutely a unique case of strategic investment in all means (financial, expert, thematic, 
complexity),  the  instrument  of  infrastructure  investment  for  research-related  education 
at  public  HEIs  received  a  considerable  level  of  ERDF  funding.  It  includes  a  relatively 
homogenous  group  of  projects  enabling  to  reach  a  certain  level  of  generalisation  in  the 
assessment.  On  the  other  hand,  the  policy  instrument,  including  three  strategic  ICT 
infrastructure  projects  (plus  nine  other  projects  focused  especially  on  electronic 
information resources), has been rather marginal in the context of the RTD policy mix as 
well  as  in  financial  terms.  Moreover,  this  policy  instrument  was  rather  artificially 
delineated within one of the OP's priority axis for the purpose of evaluation that hindered 
an  in-depth  analysis.  However,  this  PI  was  important  in  terms  to  build  basic  conditions 
from today's R&D perspective. 

The  CS  is  based  predominantly  on  desk  research,  secondary  data  analysis  and  semi-
structured interviews with relevant stakeholders. The main consulted documents included 
strategic  and  programming  documents,  project  documentation  (project  applications, 
technical  annexes,  final  implementation  reports),  statistical  data,  monitoring  data  and 
indicators  from  the  central  monitoring  system  provided  by  the  National  Coordination 
Authority, Ministry of Regional Development and by the Ministry of Industry and Trade in 
the  course  of  competition  of  Task  1,  and  other  relevant  literature  (e.g.  evaluation 
studies,  analytical  documents  of  MAs  etc.).  Secondary  data  analysed  by  the  evaluation 
leader for Task 1 were used mainly for the OPs level analysis. Monitoring indicators were 
taken into consideration, although available at the level of the entire programme and the 
most often not broken down into individual support measures. Nevertheless, some of the 
monitoring indicators for outputs and outcomes were available also at the project level. 

In total, 35 interviewees contributed to the information basement for  the  elaboration of 
this  CS.  The  interviews  were  realised  both  face-to-face  and  online2  during  September-
October  2020  with  representatives  of  policymakers,  former  and  current  programme 
managers,  beneficiaries,  relevant  regional  stakeholders,  and  individual  experts  in  the 
R&D policy.  

The  analysis  also  builds  on  the  evidence  available  from  a  previous  task,  including  a 
comprehensive  mapping  and  classification  of  projects  and  beneficiaries  funded  in  53 
Operational  Programmes  in  18  Member  States  under  the  codes  of  expenditures  01  and 
02  (Research  infrastructure  and  activities;  see  the  First  Intermediate  Report  for  more 
details) and cluster analysis of European regions according to their R&D performance.  

The  CS  also  faced  some  methodological  challenges  related  to  the  limits  of  monitoring 
data/indicators (i.e. mainly the discrepancy between the location of beneficiaries and the 
location  of  project  realisation  or  location  of  effects3),  limited  availability  of  projects 
documentation, lack of indicators at the PI level.  

Interviews,  however,  provided  very  useful 
insights  and  anecdotal  evidence, 
complementing aggregated quantitative indicators, which were primarily available  at the 
programme level.  

The following chapters provide an overview of the RTD national policies and ERDF policy 
mix implemented in the country. Then, Chapter 3 is specifically devoted to analysing the 
national  OP  RDI  and  the  policy  instruments.  Chapter  4  provides  a  general  summary 
assessment. 

2 The form of interviews was influenced by the actual situation around the Covid-19 pandemic. Only one field 

visit was realized (for the ELI project – Dolní Břežany). 

3 One problem was that  many R&D institutions had headquarters in Prague but their projects were realized in 

different convergence region. 

18 

 
 
                                           
2.  ANALYSIS OF THE POLICY CONTEXT AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL  

2.1.  National RTD objectives and strategies  

The  Czech  Republic  joined  the  European  Union  in  2004,  and  the  ERDF  support  in  the 
programming  period  2007-2013  thus  represented  the  first  full-fledged  programming 
period  for  the  10  million  inhabitants.  Within  the  allocated  amount  of  around  EUR  26 
billion  for  all  themes  and  regions  of  Cohesion  policy  in  the  country,  an  unprecedented 
opportunity  was  also  opened  for  the  underdeveloped  Czech  R&D  system.  This 
represented  the  first  systemic  set  of  interventions  addressing  the  research  field  after 
many years of underinvestment and limited political priority.  

At the outset of the programming period, the Czech Republic lagged behind in many RTD 
characteristics compared to EU27 averages. Only 3% of R&D sources originated abroad, 
illustrating  insufficient  engagement  in  the  international  R&D  cooperation,  the  ERA  in 
particular.  The  system  of  public  R&D  lacked  thematic  concentration  and  led  to  high 
fragmentation.  This  led  to  a  lack  of  top-class  R&D  centres  in  a  number  of  fields.  There 
was  a  profound  shortage  of  adequate  RTD  infrastructure,  facilities,  and  material 
equipment  across  all  the  Czech  Republic  regions.  Production  of  high-quality  and 
internationally respected R&D results was under the average of developed countries (with 
exceptions in some fields), and the ability to translate results of basic research into  the 
application  was  even  more  insufficient.4  This  was  one  of  the  consequences  of 
dysfunctional R&D cooperation between private and public sectors and insufficient use of 
venture  capital  and  support  of  spin-offs.  Hand  in  hand  with  outlined  constraints,  the 
Czech  Republic  lacked  adequate  R&D  human  capacities  (e.g.  a  share  of  the  population 
with a university degree was substantially below the EU average), especially in technical 
and natural sciences.  

The Czech Republic had a series of national strategic documents related to R&D policies 
till  the  EU  accession.  However,  they  were,  to  a  large  extent,  only  formal,  and  their 
implementation faltered because the responsibilities for these policies as well as the basic 
policy  frameworks  were  laid  down  by  the  respective  legislative  act  only  in  2002.  In  the 
context of the Lisbon Strategy, the National Reform Program 2005-2008 defined as one 
of  the  priorities  "the  creation  of  an  environment  stimulating  research,  development  and 
innovation  and  specific  measures  in  the  R&D  field"  with  the  target  to  devote  to  public 
R&D support at least 1% of GDP in 2010. The very first specific priorities in the R&D area 
of the country were formulated in the National Research and Development Policy for the 
period  2004–2008  (i.e.  human  resources,  international  cooperation  in  R&D,  regional 
aspects  of R&D, use of  R&D  results in practice  and evaluation  of R&D). Simultaneously, 
the  National  Innovation  Policy  2005-2010  provided  a  basic  conceptualisation  of  the 
country's  needs  in  terms  of  innovations  (i.e.  enhancement  of  R&D  as  the  sources  for 
innovations,  creation  of  functional  cooperation  between  the  public  and  private  sectors, 
ensuring of human resources for innovations and streamlining the performance of public 
administration in research, development and innovation). However, neither of these two 
policies  were  fully  implemented.  In  other  words,  there  was  no  systemic,  conceptualised 
and  functional  national  or  regional  RTD  policy  till  the  start  of  the  2007-2013 
programming period. 

Importantly, the Reform of Research, Development and Innovation system introduced in 
2008  represented  the  key  strategic  framework  to  transform  the  Czech  RDI  policy 
landscape.  The  rationale  for  the  Reform  was  (i)  the  low  added  value  of  the  RDI  for  the 
Czech  economy and society, (ii) the inefficient system  of the R&D funding and its limits 
to effectively use the expected EU sources for RTD, (iii) high fragmentation of the Czech 
R&D  system,  absence  of  excellence  and  RTD  priorities,  and  (iv)  the  lack  of  cooperation 
between  research  institutions  and  enterprises.  The  implementation  of  this  Reform 
resulted, for example, in the establishment of the Technological Agency as a unified body 

4 For example, the number of PTC patent applications over GDP was only 981 in 2007 while the EU-28 average 
was 3,879; according to the European Innovation Scoreboard, the Czech Republic reached the index value 0.34 
in 2006 while the EU-25 average was 0.45 and the leading countries 0.73 (Sweden) and 0.69 (Switzerland).  

19 

 
                                           
for  the  provision  of  public  support  for  applied  research.  In  addition,  the  White  Paper  of 
Tertiary Education, also published in 2008, presented the objectives of planned principal 
reform of tertiary education in the Czech Republic, including the focus on the third role of 
higher  education  institutions  (i.e.  participation  in  economic  development,  cooperation 
with the industry and on technology transfers etc.).  

The Czech strategic RDI frameworks suffered from the fragmentation undermined by the 
low  strategic  thinking  in  public  administration  and  the  fragmented  R&D  institutional 
landscape5  in  the  country.  The  key  authorities  responsible  for  the  management  of  the 
R&D sector were: the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (the central administrative 
authority for R&D, responsible for drawing up national strategies for R&D), the Research 
and Development Council (an expert and advisory body of the Government in the field of 
research  and  development),  the  Grant  Agency  of  the  Czech  Republic  (an  organisational 
body  of  the  state  and  administrator  of  public  calls  for  R&D  projects),  the  Technology 
Agency  of  the  Czech  Republic6  and  other  central  public  administration  authorities 
ensuring  the  preparation  of  specific  R&D  programmes.  In  addition,  the  Ministry  of 
Industry  and  Trade  has  played  a  key  role  in  orchestrating  national  efforts  in  innovation 
policies.  Moreover,  based  on  its  competence  in  enhancing  favourable  socio-economic 
development,  the  regional  administration  of  some  regions  started  to  develop  their 
pioneering generation of regional innovation strategies.       

As  in  many  other  countries,  the  R&D  capacities  and  production  were  not  equally 
distributed in the national territory, with a strong dominance of the Capital City of Prague 
over  other  Czech  regions.  As  one  of  the  regions  with  the  highest  GDP  per  capita  in  the 
EU,  Prague  has  historically  concentrated  the  large  share  of  universities,  R&D  capacities, 
and  of  the  national  R&D  budget.  Between  2007  and  2017,  the  dominance  of  Prague 
significantly decreased in favour of Central Bohemia (CZ02 Střední Čechy) and Southeast 
(CZ06  Jihovýchod)  in  terms  of  total  R&D  expenditure  over  GDP.  Although  public  R&D 
expenditure over GDP was still centralised in Prague in 2017, all other regions increased 
their  share  of  the  public  R&D  over  GDP  in  2017  compared  to  the  situation  in  2007. 
Moreover,  an  even  more  profound  increase  in  the  percentage  of  R&D  expenditure  over 
GDP was observed in the business sector (see the following figures). 

Total R&D expenditure over GDP – 2007 and 2017 

Source: CSIL elaboration based on EUROSTAT data. 
Note: Values are expressed in percentage of GDP. 

5 Act No. 130/2002 Coll on the Support of Research and Development from Public Funds. 
6 Established in 2009; until then this state support had been fragmented among a large number of providers. 

20 

1.691.302.301.510.810.230.991.290.920.721.981.792.502.391.300.301.292.311.421.040.00.51.01.52.02.53.020072017 
 
                                           
Public R&D expenditure over GDP – 2007 and 2017 

Business R&D expenditure over GDP – 2007 and 2017 

Source: CSIL elaboration based on EUROSTAT data. 
Note: Values are expressed in percentage of GDP. 

Source: CSIL elaboration based on EUROSTAT data. 
Note: Values are expressed in percentage of GDP. 

In  terms  of  R&D  personnel  over  the  total  population,  the  relative  dominance  of  Prague 
remained  more  or  less  stable  between  2007-2017.  Nevertheless,  the  highest  growth  in 
this  characteristic  was  witnessed  in  the  CZ06-Jihovýchod  region  that  corresponds  to  a 
number of newly created R&D capacities in this region thanks to the ERDF support.  

Total R&D personnel in percentage of total population – 2007 and 2017 

Source: CSIL elaboration based on EUROSTAT data. 
Note: Values are expressed in percentage of the total population. 

The results of cluster analysis carried out within this evaluation suggest that even though 
ERDF  investments  were  focused  predominantly  on  less  developed  regions,  they  did  not 
experience any significant leap in RTD performance between 2007-2017. In convergence 
regions, the performance remained stable over time (with the only exception of the most 
underdeveloped  region  of  Northwest  –  CZ04)  while  considerably  improving  in  Prague's 
competitiveness  region  (see  Table  1).  The  explanations  might  be  at  least  twofold:  first, 
regional patterns in RDI witness long inertia (even across several generations), therefore 
it cannot be expected these patterns would be changed within ten years and that Prague 

21 

0.610.551.350.240.330.040.200.560.210.200.660.661.310.520.420.060.260.900.360.260.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.6200720171.070.750.931.270.470.190.790.730.710.511.311.131.181.870.870.241.031.401.060.770.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0200720170.480.481.760.420.320.080.340.440.300.220.610.661.900.540.440.120.460.830.480.380.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.020072017 
 
 
 
(CZ01)  as  a  natural  R&D  centre  of  the  country  would  stop  its  natural  development 
trajectory.  Second,  the  level  of  NUTS2  regions  might  be  rather  broad  in  the  context  of 
some  Czech  regions,  and  the  evolution  of  RTD  performance  would  be  better  uncovered 
from  a  more  detailed  regional  perspective  (i.e.  NUTS3  level).  Especially  for  the  CZ07-
Jihovýchod region, there are pronounced intra-regional disparities. 

  Evolution  of  RTD  performance  in  Czech  Republic  from  2007  to  2017 

according to the results of the cluster analysis 

2007 

2017 

Evolution 
07-17 

CZ01-Praha 

Moderate - 

Moderate + 

CZ02-Střední Čechy 

Moderate - 

Moderate - 

CZ03-Jihozápad 

Moderate - 

Moderate - 

CZ04-Severozápad 

Modest - 

Modest + 

CZ05-Severovýchod 

Moderate - 

Moderate - 

CZ06-Jihovýchod 

Moderate - 

Moderate - 

CZ07-Střední Morava 

Moderate - 

Moderate - 

CZ08-Moravskoslezsko 

Moderate - 

Moderate - 

Clusters: Modest -; Modest +; Moderate -; Moderate +; Strong Business; Leaders. 

Source: CSIL elaboration based on the results of the Cluster analysis performed under Task 1 

2.2.  The links between national, regional and European objectives and 

strategies in the field of RTD support  

2.2.1. 

Linkages between national RTD policies and ERDF support 

Despite the existence of a range of national strategic documents related to the  country's 
RDI sector, in the time of preparation for the 2007-2013 programming period, there was 
no comprehensive and functional strategic framework for RTD and innovation policy. Its 
preparation was mainly induced by the EU in the context of prospective support from the 
Cohesion  Policy.  As  a  result,  the  National  Policy  of  Research,  Development  and 
Innovations  2009-2015  (the  National  RDI  Policy)  was  formulated,  and  all  its  main 
objectives  were  strongly  aligned  to  the  proposed  ERDF  RTD  policy  mix  in  the  National 
Strategic  Reference  Framework  2007-2013  and  relevant  ERDF  RTD-oriented  OPs  (see 
section 2.3.2 for details).  The European Structural Funds (both ERDF and  ESF) were 
expected  to  be  the  prime  financial  sources  and  drivers  for  implementing  the  National 
RDI Policy because the national financial sources were insufficient  to  cover anticipated 
profound  changes  in  the  R&D  sector  of  the  country.  One  of  the  aims  of  the  national 
policy, in general, was to fund large R&D infrastructures and to support the excellence of 
R&D,  to  improve  cooperation  between  public  and  private  sector  and  application  of 
research  results,  to  enhance  the  development  of  human  capacities  in  R&D  and  to 
stimulate R&D international cooperation of Czech entities. Furthermore, the National RDI 
Policy  encompassed  the  Priorities  of  Applied  Research,  Development  and  Innovation 
2009-2011  and  covered  biological  and  ecological  aspects  of  sustainable  development, 
molecular  biology  and  biotechnology,  energy  resources,  materials  research,  competitive 
engineering,  information  society,  security  and  defence,  and  priorities  of  development  of 
Czech  society.  The  ERDF  RTD  support  was  aimed  to  fund  operations  in  line  with  these 

22 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
thematic  priorities.  Also,  this  approach  was  accompanied  by  the  Czech  Roadmap  for 
Large  Research,  Development  and  Innovation  Infrastructures  introduced  in  2010  and 
regularly updated, directing the development of new R&D infrastructures of national and 
international  importance  in  the  Czech  Republic  funded  predominantly  from  the  ERDF 
support. 

Although  there  was  a  very  strong 
interconnection  between  the  national  RTD 
strategies/policy  and  the  ERDF  support  in  terms  of  thematical  orientation  and 
identification of key bottlenecks and related priorities, at the operational level, a double-
track system of coordination and management of these two strategic policy streams has 
existed. Besides, the institutional fragmentation in the management of the RDI area has 
played a rather negative role in pursuing RTD policies in the Czech Republic.  

As  already  stressed,  the  ERDF  support  into  the  R&D  sector  was  the  prime  source  for 
realising  the  national  RDI  strategic  objectives  and  the  entire  strategy  development 
process.  The  importance  of  support  became  even  greater  because  the  Czech  economy 
was  facing  the  economic  crisis  and  its  impacts  since  2008.  Before  the  crisis,  the  total 
R&D expenditure represented 1.55% of GDP in 2006, and a slow increase over the 2000-
2006  period  was  attributable  to  the  expenditure  of  the  private  sector.  This  trend  was 
suspended by the crisis, and a slump in the R&D expenditure was evident in the business 
sector,  particularly  from  large  enterprises.7  The  public  R&D  expenditure  had  not 
experienced  deviation  as  a  consequence  of  the  crisis.8  However,  the  economic  crisis 
impacted the overall planned strategy of public R&D expenditure seriously. While before 
the  crisis,  the  government  promised  to  increase  support  programmes  for  research  and 
science investments by 8% annually to massively accelerate the development of the R&D 
sector;  due  to  the  economic  crisis,  the  government  reconsidered  these  plans,  and  the 
volume of national R&D public funds sustained at a steady level during 2007-2010. In the 
following years, the national R&D expenditure increased mainly due to co-funding of R&D 
projects  supported  by  the  Cohesion  policy  (e.g.  in  the  period  2011-2015,  the  R&D 
expenditure from the state budget doubled in comparison to the level in 2007). 

Moreover,  the  economic  crisis  influenced  the  availability  of  financial  sources  for  newly 
created  research  centres'  sustainability  as  the  business  sector  reduced  its  demand  for 
contract research. Due to other factors (e.g. the changed rules of State Aid, see more in 
section 3.1), the National Programmes for Sustainability had to be introduced to support 
the  sustainability  of  the  newly  established  large  R&D  infrastructures  supported  by  the 
ERDF.  These  programmes,  however,  were  funded  entirely  from  the  national  budget  for 
R&D.  Consequently,  the  national  public  R&D  finance  dramatically  decreased  outside  the 
framework  of  ERDF-supported  projects  (i.e.  apart  from  co-funding  and  supporting 
sustainability),  and  for  example,  the  initially  planned  investments  into  Prague's 
infrastructure  from  the  national sources were no longer possible.  As a  result of creating 
several  new  R&D  entities  with  the  ERDF  support  in  2007-2013,  the  national  finance 
competition from the state budget has even sharpened. 

2.2.2. 

Linkages between regional RTD policies and ERDF support 

At the beginning of the programming period 2007-2013, regional RTD policies were only 
at  their  outset.  The  only  region  that  had  a  developed  and  accepted  regional  RTD  policy 
was the South Moravian region. Some of the other regions were little by little preparing 
their  first  generation  of  regional  innovation  strategies,  but  an  explicit  manifestation  of 
R&D policies into regional strategic planning occurred only during the preparation of the 
programming period 2014-2020.  

a 

fondu 

7  Ministry  of  Regional  Development  (2013):  Analýza  vlivu  ekonomické  krize  na  implementaci  strukturálních 
fondů 
http://www.eeip.cz/wp-
republice, 
content/uploads/2014/03/140515_Analyza_krize_SF.pdf (accessed 10.10. 2020). 
8 
výzkum 
https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/46014864/21100117a.pdf/fa60c23c-24c8-494f-baeb-
a8cb73e70311?version=1.2 (accessed 10.10. 2020). 

soudržnosti 

rozpočtové 

(2016): 

výdaje 

České 

Státní 

CZSO 

vývoj 

ČR, 

na 

v 

v 

a 

23 

 
                                           
In  some  regions,  efforts  were  made  to  align  regional  innovation  strategies  and  the 
analysed  RTD  policy  mix  funded  by  the  Cohesion  policy  (see  section  2.3.2  for  details). 
For example, the South Moravian region took the opportunity to use ERDF investments of 
2007-2013 as a catalyst for planned changes in the regional economy structure. In some 
other  regions,  the  ERDF  investments  well  fitted  the  newly  elaborated  regional 
development strategies (Olomoucký and Moravskoslezský regions).  

2.2.3. 
Research and Innovation Framework Programmes/Horizon 2020 

Linkages  between  ERDF  support  for  RTD  and  the  European 

The  Czech  Republic  reported  low  attendance  in  the  European  Research  and  Innovation 
Framework Programmes (FP6, FP7) and overall low internationalisation of the Czech R&D 
system.  The  Czech  Republic  was  ranked  21st  among  the  EU-27  countries  in  the  total 
number  of  registered  projects  that  included  Czech  research  teams  at  least  as  project 
partners. If ranked according to the absolute number of participations in the projects of 
the  FP6,  the  Czech  Republic  was  in  16th  place.  The  average  size  of  the  allocation  per 
Czech  partner  in  the  FP6  project  was  significantly  lower  than  the  average  for  EU-15 
participants.9 The position of the Czech Republic in FP7 did not improve significantly. The 
Czech  Republic  still  lagged  behind  in  the  indicators  of  submitted  proposals  and  the 
number  of  teams  in  FP7  (24th  among  the  EU  countries).  The  total  number  of  registered 
projects increased slightly compared to the FP6; however, in financial terms, comparable 
countries  in  terms  of  population  (e.g.  Austria,  Belgium,  Portugal,  Hungary)  were  still 
more successful. Consequently, the support from FP7 has played only a marginal role in 
the funding of the Czech R&D system10. The following main reasons for low participation 
of  Czech  teams  were  identified11:  lower  awareness  of  the  possibilities  and  strategic 
importance  of  participation  in  FP  among  Czech  R&D  organisations  as  well  as  a  lack  of 
systematic  support  of  R&D  teams  in  this  area,  and  a  lack  of  key,  internationally 
recognised and above-standard equipped R&D workplaces, which would regularly become 
sought-after partners in international R&D consortia. 

Linkages between the ERDF support for RTD and Horizon 2020 (H2020) and Framework 
Programmes were explicitly considered. In particular, projects supported from the Priority 
Axis  1  "Centers  of  excellence"  of  the  OP  RDI  were  supposed  to  develop  strong 
international partnerships with leaders of European research infrastructure and to ensure 
a substantial part of their future funding from the FP7 and Horizon2020 contribution. The 
R&D  thematic  priorities  of  the  Czech  Republic  fully  corresponded  to  the  FP7's  priorities 
that were one of the prerequisites of tighter interlinking of projects supported by the OP 
RDI and FP7.  

Nevertheless,  no  specific  coordination  mechanisms  were  put  in  place  during  the 
implementation  to  interlink  the  ERDF  support  in  the  Czech  Republic  with  FP7/H2020. 
Interestingly,  as  a  result  of  efforts  to  succeed  in  the  international  competition  for 
research  grants,  specialised  grant  offices  were  established  within  most  supported  RTD 
centres and thus improved management of research fundraising. 

To  illustrate  the  situation,  from  the  total  number  of  ERDF  RTD  beneficiaries,  34% 
participated  in  FP7  projects,  and  40%  participated  in  H2020  projects.  In  both 
programmes, the participation rate was higher for beneficiaries in the Prague area (40% 
vs 30%, resp. 48% vs 40%). Nevertheless, this evaluation cannot prove the connection 
between the degree of involvement of beneficiaries in these programmes and the support 
obtained from the ERDF. The ex-post evaluation of the R&D support in 2007-2013 (EACE 
2018) suggests that "the overall success rate in 2014-2017 in H2020 calls for institutions 

9  MŠMT  (2008):  Operační  program  Výzkum  a  vývoj  pro  inovace,  p.  34,  https://www.opvavpi.cz/cs/siroka-
verejnost/zakladni-dokumenty-programu/operacni-program-vyzkum-a-vyvoj-pro-inovace/operacni-program-
vyzkum-a-vyvoj-pro-inovace.html 

10  Úřad  vlády  České  republiky  (2013):  Analýza  stavu  výzkumu,  vývoje  a  inovací  v  České  republice  a  jejich 
srovnání  se  zahraničním  v  roce  2012,  p.  132,  file:///C:/Users/Worker/Downloads/Analyza_VaVaI_2013.pdf 
(Accessed 28 October 2020). 

11 MŠMT (2008) Ibid., p. 35. 

24 

 
                                           
that were beneficiaries of the OP RDI project was significantly higher (on average 15.1%) 
than  for  institutions  without  an  OP  RDI  project  (average  3.7%).  Concerning  the  size  of 
parent  organisations,  however,  the  higher  success  in  the  calls  of  the  H2020  program 
cannot  be  attributed  only  to  the  centres  established  in  the  OP  RDI.  Nevertheless,  this 
indicates  at  least  that  the  interventions  of  the  OP  RDI  managed  to  support  institutions 
with higher scientific performance, which had the prerequisites for the establishment of a 
successful research centre. This hypothesis is also supported by the fact that universities 
with an OP RDI project applied to framework programs on average five times more often 
than  universities  where  the  OP  RDI  centres  were  not  established,  even  before  the 
support from the OP RDI" (pp. 24-25).  

2.3.  Implementation  of  ERDF  funds  for  the  2007-2013  period  in  the 

Czech Republic 

The  National  Coordination  Authority  at  the  Ministry  of  Regional  Development  was  newly 
established  as  the  main  coordinating  body  for  the  2007-2013  programming  period, 
ensuring  overall  preparation  and  implementation  of  European  Structural  Funds  in  the 
Czech  Republic.  The  Managing  Authorities  (MA)  for  the  thematic  (national,  multi-
regional)  ERDF  OPs  were  located  at  relevant  ministries  while  the  Regional  Councils 
became  the  MAs  of  regional  OPs.  The  Prague  ERDF  OP  Prague-Competitiveness  was 
entrusted to the Capital City of Prague. 

The  Operational  Programme  Research  and  Development  for  Innovations  (OP  RDI), 
analysed  in  this  CS,  was  overseen  by  the  Ministry  of  Education,  Youth  and  Sports.  No 
intermediate  body  was  set  up.  This  arrangement  led  to  a  simple  implementation 
structure  enabling  direct  contact  between  the  MA  and  beneficiaries.  For  the  Operational 
Programme Enterprise and Innovation (OP EI), the Ministry of Industry and Trade played 
the  role  of  MA.  This  MA  delegated  certain  activities  (for  example,  receiving  applications 
for  support  and  organising  calls  for  proposals,  assessing  formalities  of  the  submitted 
project  applications)  to  an  intermediate  body,  more  specifically  to  the  CzechInvest  – 
Business  and  Investment  Development  Agency.  Both  OPs  were  national  programmes, 
and  eligibility  for  the  support  was  for  entities  settled  in  convergence  regions  (i.e.  all 
regions  without  the  capital  of  Prague).  For  certain  measures,  entities  with  headquarters 
in  Prague  were  supported;  however,  the  project's  effects  had  to  take  place  in 
convergence regions. The Operational Programme Prague – Competitiveness (OP PC) was 
designed for infrastructural investments in the competitiveness region. 

A  Coordinating  Committee  "Competitive  Czech  economy"  was  set  up  to  ensure  proper 
coordination mechanisms in managing and implementing the OP RDI and the OP EI, also 
supporting  the  RTD  area.  However,  this  platform  did  not  prove  effective,  and  the 
coordination  (including  synergies)  was  addressed  mainly  in  practice  at  the  level  of 
particular calls and individual projects. 

2.3.1. 
OPs 

Volume  of  ERDF  financing  for  RTD-related  activities  and  supported 

Almost  EUR  26.7  billion  (increased  by  EUR  237  million  in  connection  with  the 
Interinstitutional Agreement on the 2007-2013 financial framework and economic growth 
higher than forecasted for the Czech Republic) was allocated to the country to implement 
the  Cohesion  Policy.  The  ERDF  allocation  for  the  Convergence  Objective  and  Regional 
Competitiveness and Employment Objective's realisation was EUR 13.7 billion.  

RTD infrastructures and activities were supported through the following ERDF OPs: 

  2007CZ161PO012:  Operational  Programme  Research  and  Development  for 

Innovations (OP RDI); 

  2007CZ161PO004: Operational Programme Enterprise and Innovation (OP EI); 

  2007CZ162PO001: Operational Programme Prague – Competitiveness (OP PC). 

"Hard" investments and activities for the RTD area were complemented by support from 
ESF, specifically from these OPs: 

25 

 
  2007CZ05UPO002:  Operational  Programme  Education  for  Competitiveness  (OP 

EC); 

  2007CZ052PO001: Operational Programme Prague Adaptability (OP PA). 

Together with the OP EI and OP EC, the OP RDI represented an interconnected system of 
interventions to ensure the long-term sustainable competitiveness of the Czech economy 
and target regions under the Convergence  Objective. The OP PC and OP PA were aimed 
at supporting the territory of the Capital City of Prague. 

Across  all  Czech  ERDF  operational  programmes,  a  total  of  EUR  1.9  billion  was 
invested  in  RTD-related  infrastructures  and  activities.  This  amount  ranked  the 
Czech  Republic,  after  Poland  and  Germany,  among  the  countries  that  concentrated  the 
highest amount of the ERDF contribution on RTD-related activities and infrastructures. 

The following figure provides an overview of the distribution of the ERDF funding to RTD 
support  by  OPs.  The  highest  amount  of  the  ERDF  contribution  (88%)  was  delivered 
through the OP RDI, which is the subject of deeper analysis in this study.  

Distribution of ERDF funding for RTD in the Czech Republic by OPs 

Source: Authors based on CSIL calculations. 

The  largest  amount  of  the  ERDF  contribution  was  spent  on  projects  funded  under  the 
category  02  –  RTD  infrastructure  (almost  52%  of  ERDF  funding),  while  37%  was 
allocated  to  projects  that  fell  into  categories  01–  RTD  activities  and  02  –  RTD 
infrastructure at the same time. The rest (i.e., only 11.6% of the ERDF contribution) was 
implemented  through  projects  falling  only  into  category  01.  This  distribution  is 
determined  by  the  allocation  of  funds  within  the  OP  RDI,  which  makes  up  88%  of  the 
ERDF  funding  to  the  RTD  support  in  the  country.  The  RTD  infrastructure  preference  is 
also  evident  in  other  OPs;  for  example,  the  OP  EI  did  not  allocate  even  any  funding  to 
category 01 – RTD activities.  

Share of themes in ERDF funding for RTD in the Czech Republic by OP, % on total ERDF 
contribution to RTD themes 

Source: Authors based on CSIL calculations. 

26 

 
 
 
2.3.2. 
selection 

The ERDF RTD support policy mix: key instruments and rationale for 

As previously mentioned, the ERDF RTD policy mix put a strong emphasis on the RTD 
infrastructures in the Czech Republic: the infrastructure investments for research 
account  for  the  highest  share  of  RTD  interventions  from  the  ERDF  funding  (almost 
69.5%),  followed  by  the  infrastructure  investments  for  research  and  education 
(19.8%)12.  At  the  level  of  the  OPs,  nearly  the  same  distribution  applies  for  the  OP  RDI 
(66.6% for infrastructure investments for research, 22.3% for infrastructure investments 
for  research  and  education).  The  RTD  infrastructure's  focus  follows  the  hypothesis  that 
an  essential  prerequisite  for  ensuring  the  continuous  production  of  quality  and  relevant 
R&D  results  is  achieving  a  sufficient  critical  size  of  research  infrastructure  and  research 
teams. In the Czech Republic, however, the infrastructure for research (and subsequent 
production  of  cutting-edge  knowledge,  the  consistent  co-operation  of  the  research  and 
application spheres) and for education (and the subsequent production of the necessary 
quality  and  quantity  of  adequate  human  resources)  was  considerably  underfinanced  in 
the  past  and  did  not  match  the  existing  needs  at  the  time.  In  addition,  other  (cross-
cutting)  policy  instruments  were  implemented  within  this  OP  (the  highest  share  for 
science dissemination to the general public – 4.8%).  

The  infrastructure  investments  for  research  played  a  dominant  role  in  the  OP  EI  RTD-
related  investments.  They  were  intended  to  support  cooperation  between  enterprises, 
scientific research and educational institutions at regional and national levels by creating 
technology parks, scientific-technological parks and clusters organisations. 

The infrastructure investments for research also held a leading position within the OP PC 
ERDF funding to support RTD. It was complementary support to the OP RDI and OP EI in 
the  territory  of  the  Capital  City  of  Prague.  This  support  was  focused  on  developing  an 
innovative environment and partnership between the  R&D and organisations of practical 
application. 

Overview of ERDF funding by policy instrument in the Czech Republic 

Source: Authors based on CSIL calculations. 

The  overall  goal  of  the  set  of  policy  instruments  was  to  create  an  environment 
stimulating research, development and innovation. This RTD support policy mix was the 
result  of  a  combination  of  three  main  analytical  inputs13  and  reflected  the  main  R&D 
needs of the country.  

The  chosen  set  of  policy  instruments  was  created  as  a  combination  of  bottom-up  and 
top-down  approaches.  The  RTD  interventions  were  designed  to  support  the  supply  of 
research and development activities,  ensure the production of quality and relevant R&D 
results,  and  provide  graduates  with  specialization  relevant  to  the  needs  of  the  labour 
market.  At  the  same  time,  the  planned  interventions  should  have  strengthened  the 
consistency of the supply with increasing demand on the side of the recipients of the R&D 
outputs  and  contributed  to  the  successful  transfer  of  knowledge  to  the  application 

12 The case study applies a typology of RTD policy instruments developed for the purpose of the evaluation and 

presented in the First Intermediate Report (2020). 

13  (i)  analysis  of problematic  areas  in RTD,  (ii)  SWOT  analysis  prepared  for  the NSRF  and  particular  OPs,  (iii) 

analysis of the relationship between research, technology transfer, innovation and competitiveness. 

27 

 
 
                                           
sphere.  In  practice,  however,  based  on  the  interviews  with  practitioners,  the  top-down 
approach eventually prevailed.  

Within  all  RTD-focused  ERDF  OPs,  the  support  in  RTD  was  addressed  through  non-
repayable  aid  (grants).  Most  RTD  interventions  were  provided  as  a  measure  not 
constituting the State Aid14 because most RTD activities were financed from the OP RDI 
providing  support  to  non-profit  public  R&D  organizations  in  particular  (see  for  details 
section 3.1). However, the EU State Aid rules applied both to the OP EI (focused on the 
enterprises)  and  the  OP  PC  (using  the  different  State  Aid  schemes  according  to  the 
beneficiary type). 

The analysis of beneficiary types shows that the largest recipients  of the  RTD ERDF 
were public higher education institutions (HEIs, 40.6% of total analysed RTD ERDF 
support)  concentrating  on  the  infrastructure  investments  for  research/  research  and 
education.  The  second  most  important  targets  were  centres  of  excellence  and 
competence  centres  (29.1%  RTD  ERDF  funding)  implemented  via  the  infrastructure 
investments for research. 

However,  there  is  a  difference  at  the  level  of  the  OPs  undermined  by  the  setting  of 
particular  OPs.  In  convergence  regions,  the  OP  RDI  addressed  funds  mainly  to  support 
HEIs  and  centres  of  excellence  and  competence  centres,  while  the  OP  EI  focused  on 
supporting science and technology parks (88.3%). Concerning the specific characteristics 
of the Prague region, the OP PC allocated more than half of the RTD ERDF funding to the 
support  of  research  and  technology  organizations  (RTOs).  Within  the  OP  PC, 
approximately a quarter of RTD ERDF funding was directed to support of HEIs. Moreover, 
it  is  important  to  underline  that  the  Czech  Republic  negotiated  an  exception  for  the  OP 
RDI, thanks to which Prague public universities could have been supported by this OP at 
the end of the programming period.  

  Overview  of  the  ERDF  funding  by  target  beneficiary  in  the  Czech 

Republic 

Source: Authors based on CSIL calculations. 

More  than  one-third  of  the  RTD  ERDF  funding  was  concentrated  on  a  combination 
of  applied/industrial  research  and  experimental  development.  The  activities 
focused  on  fundamental  RTD,  and  a  combination  of  fundamental  and  applied/industrial 
type  of  RTD  also  achieved  a  significant  share  (24.5%,  resp.  24.6%).  However,  the 
distribution differs within the individual OPs. RTD funding within the OP RDI  was almost 
evenly  distributed  between  the  three  groups  of  RTD  types  mentioned  above.  Similarly, 
these  three  groups  are  significantly  represented  within  the  OP  PC,  although  the 
combination  of  applied/industrial  research  and  experimental  development  is  the  most 
important.  Almost  all  RTD  projects  supported  under  the  OP  EI  can  be  included  in  the 
group using applied/industrial research and experimental development. 

14 I.e. outside the Article 107, paragraph 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

28 

OP RDIOP EIOP PCTotala. In higher education institution € 766,80 m€ 16,13 m€ 782,93 mb. In Research and Technology Organisation€ 180,51 m€ 32,25 m€ 212,75 mc. In centres of excellence or competence centres€ 559,34 m€ 1,28 m€ 560,62 mf. In science and technology parks€ 149,59 m€ 149,59 mg. In training centres€ 4,93 m€ 4,93 mh. Others€ 91,22 m€ 15,14 m€ 106,36 mi. In enterprises€ 0,19 m€ 0,19 mN/A€ 92,15 m€ 18,32 m€ 110,47 mTotal€ 1 694,95 m€ 169,38 m€ 63,51 m€ 1 927,84 m 
 
                                           
Overview of ERDF funding by type of RTD in the Czech Republic 

Source: Authors based on CSIL calculations. 

In  terms  of  science,  the  Multidisciplinary  field  with  EUR  783.2  million  accounted  for  the 
largest  share  (40.1%)  in  the  RTD  funding.  A  significant  part  of  the  RTD  ERDF  funding 
also  went  to  the  Engineering  and  Technology  (28.5%)  and  Medical  and  health  sciences 
(15.8%).  On  the  contrary,  the  smallest  share  of  funds  went  to  the  Social  Sciences 
(0.8%) and the Humanities and the Art (0.4%). In the convergence regions, through the 
OP RDI and OP EI, the ERDF funding was allocated primarily to the Multidisciplinary field 
and the Engineering and Technology. Within the OP PC,  the Medical and health sciences 
precede these two categories. This thematic distribution was in line with the aimed ERDF 
policy mix to concentrate  on  the life sciences,  technological and medical fields, and line 
with the national RTD policy and specified thematic priorities (see section 2).  

Overview of ERDF funding by field of science in the Czech Republic 

Source: Authors based on CSIL calculations. 

During  the  preparation  of  the  relevant  programming  period,  the  support  of  the  RTD 
infrastructures  and  activities  was  divided  between  the  two  OPs  designed  to  support  the 
convergence  regions  (i.e.  the  OP  RTD  and  the  OP  EI)  and  one  OP  under  the 
Competitiveness Objective intended to support activities in the Capital City of Prague (the 
OP PC). Initially, the dominant share of the ERDF funds under the codes 01 and 02 was 
allocated  to  the  convergence  regions,  specifically  for  the  Jihomoravský  kraj  (NUTS3 
region; EUR 630 million) and the Středočeský kraj (NUTS3 region under CZ02; EUR 429 
m). For Prague, only EUR 15.2 million belonging to these categories of expenditure were 
allocated under the OP  PC.  Nevertheless, the analysis of the  geographical concentration 
of  actual  ERDF  RTD  expenditures  based  on  the  location  of  the  direct  beneficiary 
shows  that  the  highest  share  of  funds  was  concentrated  in  the  Jihovýchod  region 
(including  Brno,  the  second-largest  city  in  the  Czech  Republic)  and  Prague  region  (i.e. 
the  competitiveness  region)  mainly  due  to  the  headquarters  of  two  major  projects 
beneficiaries.  

29 

 
 
 
Regional concentration of the RTD investments in the Czech Republic based on beneficiary's 
headquarters 

Source: Authors based on CSIL calculations. 

However, the picture of the regional distribution of funds based on the beneficiary 
location is distorted by the following main factors: 

  When assessing the eligibility of project applications within the OP RDI and OP EI, 
the  decisive  factor  within  some  calls  was  not  the  applicant's  headquarter 
(beneficiary) but the place of project implementation.15 Therefore, the beneficiary 
based in Prague could receive the ERDF contribution, although the project had to 
be implemented in an eligible region/regions (i.e. convergence region/s) to ensure 
the main territorial objective of the interventions. 

  During  the  analysed  period,  the  OP  RDI  was  revised,  and  the  support  of 
infrastructure  projects  in  Prague  was  enabled  (under  the  Priority  Axis  4).  One  of 
the main arguments was that the Prague region is an educational centre of super-
regional  importance  with  benefits  for  the  whole  country.  Consequently,  it  was 
possible to  support  the Prague higher  education institutions, the impact of which 
was on the regions included under the Convergence Objective. 

Consequently, the picture  of  regional distribution of  the RTD ERDF funds based on the 
location of project implementation is completely different. Only projects falling under 
the OP PC and projects for which an exception was negotiated within the OP RDI (under 
the  PA  4,  see  above)  were  implemented  in  Prague's  territory  (EUR  107.63  million 
together, i.e. 5.6% of the total RTD allocation). Other projects (i.e. those having project 
applicants  headquarter  in  Prague)  were  implemented  in  Convergence  regions,  which  is 
fully  in  line  with  the  purpose  of  the  ERDF  support.  In  addition,  the  comparison  of  both 
perspectives shows that the largest part (79.6%) of the ERDF allocation for RTD support 
entrusted  to  the  beneficiaries  based  in  Prague  was  implemented  in  the  convergence 
regions. 

15  For  example,  in  call  no.  2.1  in  Priority  Axis  1  the  headquarters  of  project  applicants  must  had  been  in  a 
convergence  region  (see  https://www.opvavpi.cz/filemanager/files/file.php?file=31927)  contrary  to  call  no. 
(see 
requirement 
1.1 
https://www.opvavpi.cz/filemanager/files/file.php?file=25642). 

which 

apply 

this 

not 

did 

for 

30 

 
 
                                           
Regional concentration of RTD investments in the Czech Republic based on project location 

Source: Authors based on CSIL calculations. 

When it comes to the types of direct beneficiaries, the highest ERDF contribution received 
the  HEIs  (EUR  1035.3  million,  53.7%  of  the  total  ERDF  contribution)  and  RTOs  (EUR 
490.2 m, 25.4 %). An in-depth analysis revealed that ten institutions got together 59% 
of the total RTD ERDF contribution in the Czech Republic. 

This  concentration  of  funds  shows  the  initial  efforts  of  the  OP  RDI  to  support  a  limited 
number of high-level research facilities. However, as evidenced by the previously carried 
out ex-post evaluation of R&D16, this goal has not been achieved, and interventions have 
contributed  to  a  significant  increase  in  the  number  of  research  centres  in  the  Czech 
Republic, which varies in terms of quality and brings problems in financial sustainability. 

The  available  information  and  the  evaluations  carried  out  show  that  the  selected  policy 
mix and the emphasis on infrastructure investments have only partly led to the intended 
effects.  The  overall  effects  of  the  chosen  policy  mix  are  influenced  by  many  external 
factors, e.g. by the system of rules for cooperation with the application sphere is missing, 
the R&D financing system in the Czech Republic is inappropriate.  

A  total  of  the  new  eight  centres  of  excellence  and  new  forty  regional  research  centres 
were established (under the OP RDI, Priority Axes 1 and 2) and (as evidenced by Ex-post 
evaluation of the programming period 2007 – 2013 in the field of research) some of them 
manifested  themselves  on  the  European  and  international  stage  and  are  currently 
engaged in prestigious international projects. However, the sustainability of the  centres’ 
top  position  in  infrastructure  and  equipment  is  threatened  by  the  inability  to  generate 
enough funds for reinvestments. Cooperation with the private sector  takes place mainly 
based  on  collaborative  and  contractual  research.  However,  the  commercialization  of  the 
results,  i.e.  their  transfer  into  practice,  is  limited  (partly  caused,  for  example,  by  a 
possible conflict with the State Aid rules). Thanks to this infrastructure, students' access 
to  the  top  equipment  has  increased,  giving  them  unique  opportunities  not  previously 
available.  Some  of  the  OP  RDI  centres  increased  the  number  of  doctoral  students  or 
influenced university teaching.17  

16  EACE  -  Evaluation  Advisory  Central  Europe  (2018):  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  programming  period  2007  – 

2013 in the field of research and development. 

17 EACE - Evaluation Advisory Central Europe (2018): Ibid. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
3.  CONTRIBUTION  ANALYSIS  OF  SELECTED  POLICY  INSTRUMENTS  / 

MAJOR PROJECT 

For the in-depth contribution analysis, two policy instruments and one major project, all 
financed from the OP RDI have been selected, namely:  

  Research-related  teaching  infrastructure  in  higher  education  institutions, 
measure  under  “IV.  Research-related  teaching  infrastructure  in  higher 
education” (Priority Axis 4); 

 

ICT-based 
popularization of R&D” (a minor part of Priority Axis 3); 

infrastructures,  measure  under  “III.  Commercialization  and 

  Major  Project  “ELI:  Extreme  Light  Infrastructure”  in  measure  “I.1  European 

Centres of Excellence” (Priority Axis 1). 

The analysis of these policy instruments was conducted  based on a CA approach,  which 
in turn has been developed on the basis of a ToC defined for each policy instrument. The 
aim of this chapter is threefold:  

  To present the OP under which the three policy instruments were funded; 

  To  present  an  overview  of  the  policy  instrument  ToC  developed  for  this 
evaluation  then  used  as  the  basis  to  carry  out  the  CA  presented  in  this 
section;  

  To  describe  the  observed  effects  of  the  policy  instrument  based  on  the 
expected effects identified in the ToC, and based on the data collected by the 
evaluation team (primary and secondary) and to provide an assessment of the 
observed  effects  as  direct  results  of  the  ERDF  funding  and  support  for  the 
policy  instruments,  as  well  as  an  analysis  of  the  extent  to  which  the  overall 
ToC materialised as initially expected.  

Section 3.1 below presents the national OP RDI, outlines the rationale of the OP and the 
policy  instruments,  and  links  to  other  measures  and  ambitions  established  by  the 
programme. The subsequent sections (3.2,3.3,3.4) provide a comprehensive analysis of 
each of the selected policy instruments for Czechia. Each section includes the subsections 
outlined below. 

  The  first  subsection  presents  the  ToC  of  the  policy  instrument.  The  case  study 
team developed theories of Change to conduct the contribution analysis. As such, 
Theories  of  Change  are  an  ex-post  reconstruction  of  the  intended  goals  and 
purpose  of  the  policy  instrument  and  the  causal  package  intended  to  generate 
such  goals.  However,  it  is  worth  mentioning  that  the  ToCs  presented  in  each 
chapter  provide  a  snapshot  of  policy-makers  intentions  at  a  given  point  in  time. 
ToCs  generally adapt to the realities of specific territories and the acting agents. 
As  such,  the  ToCs  presented  here  often  underwent  gradual  changes,  which  the 
case  study  team  tried  to  reflect  both  in  the  design  of  the  ToCs  and  the  final 
depiction of the ToC testing.  

  The  second  subsection  introduces  the  results  of  the  contribution  analysis.  This 
section explains what happened when the policy instrument was implemented and 
why  and  how  this  happened.  The  contribution  analysis  was  carried  out  by 
assessing the extent to which the different components identified in the ToC took 
place  or  to  which  there  were  conditions  for  the  desired  change  and  how  they 
influenced  the  instrument's  effectiveness.  As  such,  the  contribution  analysis 
assessed each of the elements given below:  

o  The  extent  to  which  expected  result  thresholds  were  achieved:  this 
involved identifying specific ambitions for each type of result (e.g. outputs, 
immediate outcomes, intermediate outcomes, final outcomes and impacts) 
and  assessing  whether  these  thresholds  were  reached  based  on  the 
available  data.  This  section  also  presents  any  identified  intended  or 
unintended results.  

o  The extent to which activities were implemented according to the intended 

plans, rules and procedures. 

32 

 
o  The  extent  to  which  identified  pre-conditions  took  place:  this  involved 
assessing  whether  the  necessary  pre-conditions  existed  in  reality,  as  well 
as the extent to which their existence or absence played a role in achieving 
intended results.  

o  The  extent  to  which  supporting  factors  took  place  and  their  role  in 

achieving the instruments' intended goals.  

o  The  extent  to  which  identified  risks  materialized,  and  whether  these  were 
effectively managed or mitigated, or limited the instrument's effectiveness.  

  The  combination  of  the  results  obtained  for  each  of  the  previously  described 
assessments  led  to  establishing  a  contribution  claim  for  the  different  results 
observed  and  verified  by  the  case  study  team.  On  this  basis,  in  the  third 
subsection, it was possible to establish one of the following contribution claims for 
each type of intended result:  

o  The intended threshold was achieved, and the policy instrument was likely 

to be the main contributor to this result 

o  The  intended  threshold  was  achieved,  and  the  policy  instrument  was  only 

one of the factors which contributed to this result 

o  The intended threshold was not achieved or only partially achieved for one 

of the reasons below: 

−  The activities were not implemented as originally foreseen, or there 

were flaws in the design of the activities 

−  The necessary pre-conditions did not take place 

−  The necessary supporting factors did not take place 

−  Some  risks  materialized  effectively  hampering  the  effectiveness  of 

the instrument 

The third sub-section is thus structured around each of these elements and the results of 
their assessment. A final conclusion is provided on each policy instrument  that presents 
the overall contribution analysis results and the underlying explanation of this result. 

3.1.  Overview  of 

the  Operational  Programme  Research  and 

Development for Innovations (OP RDI) 

The  OP  RDI  was  one  of  the  OPs  aimed  to  contribute  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  Lisbon 
Strategy's  objectives  and  balanced  regional  development  of  the  Czech  Republic.  At  the 
same  time,  it  can  be  considered  one  of  the  key  tools  contributing  to  implementing  the 
Reform of the research, development, and innovation system in the Czech Republic.  

The OP RDI covered the RTD needs of the Czech Republic implicitly via the necessity to 
address the following problematic areas of R&D and innovation systems:  

 

 

(i) to tackle insufficient cooperation between public and private sectors in RTD and 
innovations  by  supporting  mutual  trust  between  both  sectors,  motivating  for 
mutual  cooperation, 
in  RTD  sphere  and 
increasing  mutual  awareness 
communication,  and  importantly  to  support  direct  involvement  of  the  application 
sphere in R&D activities of the public sector.  

(ii)  to  significantly  improve  capacity  and  material  equipment  of  public  R&D 
organisations  that  was  obsolete  and  not  corresponding  to  the  need  to  perform 
high-quality  research  producing  applicable  research  outputs.  The  Czech  Republic 
needed to establish a limited number of R&D excellence centres and develop their 
infrastructural  and  human  capacities  to  mitigate  the  high  fragmentation  of  R&D 
capacities  to  produce  top  research  outcomes  competitive  in  the  international 
arena. Also, public R&D organizations needed to urgently modernise equipment to 
deliver top research results, to ensure quality teaching of the new generation and 
cooperation conditions, especially in applied research. Moreover, higher education 

33 

 
 

 

 

 

institutions  had  to  solve  limited  capacity  for  R&D  activities  related  to  teaching 
(e.g.  equipping  with  modern  devices,  adequate  software  equipment,  limited 
capacities  of  libraries),  especially  in  more  expensive  fields  (technical  and 
scientific). 

(iii) the need to address the lack of qualified human resources (mainly specialized 
R&D  employees,  R&D  managers),  the  adverse  structure  of  current  human  R&D 
capacities  (ageing  human-resources  R&D  base,  low  engagement  of  woman  in 
R&D),  unfavourable  remuneration  of  researchers  in  some  regions/teams  and 
shortage  in  universities  graduates  (including  doctoral  studies)  with  adequate 
practical skills and soft competences.  

(iv)  there  was  a  strong  need  to  support  internationalisation  and  international 
cooperation in R&D to improve a low level of internationalisation of the Czech R&D 
system,  to  increase  foreign  funding  of  R&D  activities  in  the  Czech  Republic,  to 
open the Czech R&D system towards international competition and to  participate 
in the international division of R&D labour to a maximum extent.  

(v) there was an immediate need to address network failures, namely insufficient 
capacity  and  quality  of  services  in  technology  transfer  centres  in  research 
institutions  and  universities  that  resulted  in  insufficient  contact  and  insufficient 
joint  activities  between  these  two  spheres.  Lack  of  incentives  and  insufficient 
motivation of public R&D institutions to cooperate with enterprises, together with 
the  insufficient  orientation  to  the  application  sphere's  needs,  resulting  in  low 
application  relevance  of  R&D  results  and  low  expenditure  efficiency  and  limited 
exchange and circulation of knowledge and new ideas. 

(vi)  Furthermore,  the  OP  RDI  aimed  to  address  institutional  failures  in  terms  of 
insufficient  support  for  commercialization  of  R&D  results,  low  level  of  awareness 
and  experience  with  intellectual  property  protection,  absence  of  a  system  of 
protection  and  use  of  intellectual  property  in  most  research  organizations  and 
universities.  Insufficient  awareness  about  R&D  results  and  their  use  among 
academic and business entities and the general public also caused overall adverse 
impacts for the R&D sector (e.g. low interest of young generation in science, low 
prestige of scientists, rigid views across different R&D entities, low cooperation). 

The  OP  RDI  fell  within  the  framework  laid  out  for  the  Convergence  Objective  with  the 
allocation  of  EUR  2.4  billion  (of  which  EUR  2.1  billion  from  ERDF).  During  the 
programming  period,  this  amount  was  adjusted,  the  final  allocation  reached  EUR  2.2 
billion (of which 1.8 billion from ERDF). Support was provided to regions throughout the 
Czech  Republic  outside  the  Capital  City  of  Prague,  which  did  not  fall  under  the 
Convergence  Objective.  Projects  implemented  by  beneficiaries  from  Prague's  territory 
were supported only if their effects were demonstrably directed to the eligible regions of 
the  Convergence  Objective.  Consequently,  the  OP  had  to  consider  pronounced  regional 
disparities  in  R&D  capacities  and  production  between  the  Prague  region  and  the  rest  of 
the  country  and  adequately  balance  the  need  between  the  concentration  on  top-class 
RTD  and  the  obligations  to  comply  with  eligibility  rules.  This  trade-off  has  proved  to  be 
one of the key OP's challenges. As in most countries, Prague has played a central role in 
the R&D sector, and higher education and 2/3 of the R&D capacities of the country were 
concentrated  there.  Although  the  Czech  Republic  tried  to  negotiate  with  the  EC  support 
also for Prague from the OP RDI because of the unique position of the Czech R&D system 
from the very beginning of the OP’s design preparation, the OP negotiators succeeded to 
agree with the EC on an exception for Prague only at the end of programming period for 
one policy instrument. 

The OP RDI was focused on strengthening the RDI potential of universities and research 
institutions and increasing their cooperation with the private sector. For this purpose, the 
OP  RDI  supported  the  supply  of  equipment  of  research  institutes  with  modern 
technology, the construction of new research institutes, the creation of a system for the 
commercialization  of  R&D  results  and  the  increase  of  the  capacity  of  tertiary  education 
for R&D. The global objective of the OP RDI was to strengthen the research, development 
and  innovation  potential  of  the  Czech  Republic  which  shall  contribute  to  economic 
growth,  competitiveness  and  the  creation  of  highly  qualified  workplaces.  The  global 

34 

 
objective  was  concretised  through  four  specific  objectives  aligned  to  the  particular 
priority axis of the OP. 

The  majority  of  the  total  allocation  (EU  funding  and  national  resources  together)  of  the 
OP RDI (EUR 1.4 million) was allocated to R&D infrastructure supported from the Priority 
Axis  1  “European  Centres  of  Excellence”  (EUR  686.4  million;  31.9%  of  the  OP  RDI 
allocated budget) and Priority Axis 2 “Regional R&D Centres” (EUR 751.8 million; 35.0% 
of  the  total  allocation).  The  support  was  aimed  at  the  creation  and  development  of 
technology  transfer  centres  from  research  organizations  and  investment  projects  aimed 
at  popularization  (e.g.  science  parks)  in  the  Priority  Axis  3  “Commercialization  and 
popularization  of  R&D”  (EUR  195.8  million;  9.1%  of  the  allocated  budget).  The 
development  of  infrastructure  for  teaching  at  universities  related  to  research  and  direct 
impact on the increase of human resources for  R&D activities were supported under the 
Priority  Axis  4  “Infrastructure  for  university  education  related  to  research”  (EUR  444.8 
million; 20.7% of the total allocation).  

Synergies and complementarities 

The OP RDI explicitly conceived synergies with the other two ERDF OPs (one thematic – 
OP  EI,  one  regional  –  OP  PC).  Together  with  another  thematic  ESF-OP,  these 
programmes were ex-ante designed to jointly address  challenges identified for RTD  and 
innovation  systems  in  the  Czech  Republic.  Consequently,  a  mix  of  mutually  interlinked 
priority axes and OP's measures was proposed and implemented. The OP  RDI supported 
public R&D organizations/academic sphere while the OP EI supported enterprises. The OP 
PC supported both segments, but in the Prague region, that was not eligible for the two 
listed  OPs.  The  analysed  OP  covers  all  convergence  regions  that  are  the  entire  Czech 
Republic except for Prague's region demarked for the Objective Regional Competitiveness 
and  Employment.  Hence,  the  actions  under  3.1.  OP  PC  measures  were  envisaged  to  be 
complementary  to  all  actions  undertaken  in  national  OP  RDI,  even  though  with  much 
lower financial sources. 

Further,  an  agreement  between  the  analysed  OP  and  the  OP  EI  about  synergic 
mechanisms  outlined  mutual  complementarities,  and  two  types  of  synergies  were 
anticipated.  First,  horizontal  synergies,  expected  by  subsequent  projects  (projects  were 
prepared at different times, projects submitted to the OP EI followed-up outputs funded 
from  OP  RDI),  and  simultaneously  prepared  projects.  Second,  vertical  synergies 
emerging  while  projects  from  OP  RDI  were  prepared  in  partnership  with  the  application 
sphere.  Examples  of  mechanisms  ensuring  synergies  include  a  bonus  for  project 
proposals  during  the  appraisal  process  that  manifested  synergies,  the  common  project 
calls  for  the  two  OPs,  institutional  coordination  via  a  joint  implementing  agency, 
informing  applicants  about  the  benefits  of  complementary  actions  from  both  OPs. 
However,  in  practice,  synergies  were  rare  and  very  difficult  to  be  achieved  due  to  the 
following reasons: (i) sectoral departmentalism of MAs (both at Czech and the EC side), 
(ii) huge delay with the launch of the OP RDI (due to some insufficiently resolved issues 
mistakes on both sides - Czech and the EC), (iii) changes in a  regulatory framework for 
State Aid posed by the EC in 2013, (iv) absence of know-how to ensure interconnections 
between research organizations and companies. 

The  OP  Education  for  Competitiveness  (OP  EC)  was  designed  to  complement 
infrastructural  investments  from  the  analysed  OP  by  ESF-financed  activities  such  as 
training, education and other "soft" activities in both research and educative sphere. The 
synergies/complementarities  stemmed  in  support  of  the  development  of  international 
relations  and  networks,  establishment  and  support  of  top-quality  research  teams, 
development  of  networking  partnerships  between  public  and  private  sector/industry, 
improvement of the management of R&D organisations and universities. Further, training 
in  technology  transfer,  intellectual  property  protection,  and  popularising  research  and 
networking  were  designed.  In  relation  also  to  the  national  White  Paper  of  Tertiary 
Education,  the  ESF  OP  aimed  at  upgrading  of  study  programmes,  study/research 
fellowships,  the  involvement  of  experts  from  industry  and  from  abroad,  development  of 
cross-sectoral  mobility,  support  of  entrepreneurial  spirit  and  the  overall  support  of 
modernization of higher education to reflect the RTD challenges in human capacities. 

35 

 
The most important complementary aspect is perceived so-called “start-up grants” within 
the  projects  of  PA  1  and  2  up  to  20%  of  the  entire  ERDF  project  budget.  These  grants 
allowed to support  the  establishment of new research groups and  operation  of  research 
teams  (i.e.  coverage  of  operating  costs)  without  the  necessity  to  apply  for  a 
complementarity ESF project with the uncertainty of funding.  

State Aid rules 

State Aid rules were one of the key challenges in the OP's implementation and one of the 
main barriers for the private sector's involvement and thus achievements of programme 
intentions for increased cooperation with the application sphere.  

During  the  OP's  preparation,  there  was  no  capacity  at  the  MA  and  even  in  the  country 
(e.g.  via  the  Office  for  Protection  of  Competition  of  the  Czech  Republic)  about  ensuring 
compliance with the State Aid rules and understanding potential implications on the OP's 
implementation. The EC provided very little support in this regard. Eventually, the MA of 
OP  RDI  decided,  based  on  the  available  knowledge  and  information,  that  the  OP  would 
have been implemented outside the state aid regime to avoid the notification process and 
benefit  from  a  possibility  to  provide  100%  grant  support.  This  choice  implied  that  only 
public  research  organizations  without  economic  activity  were  enabled  to  be  eligible 
beneficiaries.  

During the OP's negotiations, DG REGIO stressed the importance to focus on cooperation 
between  R&D  centres  and  the  private  sector.  To  reflect  this  indication,  the  OP  RDI 
required  in  the  Priority  Axis  1  and  2  that  supported  research  centres  of  excellence  and 
regional  R&D  centres  would  have  ensured  at  least  30%  of  their  income  from  contract 
research.  The  intended  achievements  of  cooperation  between  the  academic  and  private 
sectors  were  translated  into  projects'  and  OP's  explicit  targets.  At  the  same  time, 
however, DG COMP had been tightening the State Aid rules over the 2007-2013 period. 
Overall, there was a contradiction between the desired objectives of ERDF support in the 
R&D sector emphasized by DG REGIO and the interpretation of the State Aid rules for the 
R&D sector by DG COMPET, exacerbated by  a strict interpretation of the State Aid rules 
by  the  Czech  authorities  in  comparison  to  the  other  EU  MSs.  The  situation  was  further 
complicated in 2013 when the EC amended the rules and decreased the limit for contract 
research at 20%, which had seriously disrupted a part of the OP's intervention logic and 
had devasting impacts for a number of research centres that had ambitions and potential 
to  perform  a  higher  share  of  contract  research  than  those  eventually  requested  by  the 
amended compliance with State Aid in 2013. 

Moreover, this change had brought about legal uncertainty for beneficiaries in particular 
in  the  Priority  Axes  2  and  1  (and  to  a  more  limited  extent  also  projects  on  R&D 
popularization  under  the  Priority  Axis  3,  i.e.  life  science  centres),  undermining  the 
sustainability of supported R&D centres and consequently negatively influenced the entire 
R&D environment and mutual trust. The final responsibility for compliance with the State 
Aid  rules  was  transferred  to  beneficiaries  (in  the  form  of  declarations  of  honour  and 
amendments  in  project  contracts).  The  unpleasant  situation  had  to  be  solved  ex-post 
extensively.  

As  concerns  the  policy  instruments  analysed  in-depth,  while  for  investments  into 
research-related 
ICT-based 
infrastructures,  the  State  Aid  rules  had  no  serious  consequences.  For  the  major  project 
ELI, the State Aid rules were of particular importance (see section 3.4).  

in  higher  education  and 

infrastructure 

teaching 

Implementation 

The  implementation  of  the  OP  RDI  was  influenced  by  the  substantial  delay  in  the  OP's 
preparation.  During the investigated period, the MA experienced political and managerial 
instability and, consequently, high staff fluctuation leading to a low expert capacity of the 
OP's  implementation  structure  in  some  periods  of  implementation.  However,  there  is  a 
wide consensus that the key OP setting of intervention logic and policy instruments was 
done when a highly-expert team operated at the MA.   

36 

 
In the 2007–2013 programming period, 20 calls for applications for support (in the form 
of  non-reimbursable  grants)  in  the  total  amount  of  EUR  2.34  billion  were  announced 
within  the  OP  RDI.  Before  the  decisive  date  of  the  end  of  the  2007-2013  programming 
period  (i.e.  December  31,  2015),  222  projects  were  successfully  completed.  The 
implementation of the OP supported over 6,000 jobs in the field of R&D (almost a third of 
them were women's jobs), there was an increase in the number of employees employed 
in  the  field  of  R&D.  Furthermore,  over  22,000  officially  recognized  R&D  results 
(publications,  patents,  prototypes,  etc.)  were  produced  by  the  supported  centres  in  the 
PAs  1  and  2.  On  the  other  hand,  the  growth  in  the  number  of  doctoral  graduates  was 
insufficient  when  only  80%  of  the  set  target  value  was  reached  during  the 
implementation of the OP RDI. 

With  regard  to  the  material  and  financial  importance  of  the  OP  RDI  within  the  overall 
support  of  RTD  in  the  Czech  Republic18,  the  main  general  conclusions  stated  in  Chapter 
2.3 pay also for this OP. 

Thanks  to  the  projects  implemented  under  this  OP,  priority  themes  01–  RTD  activities 
and 02 – RTD infrastructure reached, for example19: 

  4,158  new  jobs  –  researchers  were  created  (monitored  within  48  projects  of 

which 92% achieved the target value); 

  752,239.4  m2  of  capacity  were  reconstructed,  extended  or  newly  built 
(monitored within 106 projects of which 86% achieved their target value); 

  130 cooperation projects of application sphere with centres of excellence were 
realized  (monitored  within  eight  projects  of  which  88%  achieved  their  target 
value); 

  1,123  cooperation  projects  of  application  sphere  with  regional  R&D  centres 
were  realized  (monitored  within  59  projects  of  which  85%  achieved  their 
target value); 

  214,538 students benefited from new/reconstructed infrastructure (monitored 

within 62 projects, of which 50% achieved their target value). 

Six Major Projects were implemented within the OP RDI under both 01 and 02 categories. 
The  initial  programme  document  listed  an  indicative  overview  of  12  potentially  suitable 
major  projects  under  Priority  Axes  1  and  2.  Based  on  a  relatively  strict  and  multi-stage 
project  appraisal  system  and  selection20,  six  major  projects  were  eventually  granted 
support.  

18 The OP RDI represents 88% of the ERDF funding to RTD support in the Czech Republic during the period in 

question. 

19 The values are valid for the end of sustainability period of particular project, the initial dataset was provided 
by the National Coordination Authority, Ministry of Regional Development. The target values were not set for 
particular policy instruments but for the entire OP. Here, only achieved values by projects under the codes 
01 and 02 are included.  

20 The appraisal process was set up in the same way for Priority axes 1 and 2. Given the size and focus of the 
projects,  it  was  a  multi-stage  appraisal  system  using  domestic  experts  and  foreign  experts  and  three 
selection  committees.  Based  on  an  overview  of  Projects  appraisal  and  selection  in  the  OP  RDI  (HOPE-E.S., 
divize  EU  Service  2010)  the  system  had  the  following  stages:  1)  Check  of  formal  requirements  criteria  – 
performed  internally  by  the  MA;  2)  Checking  of  eligibility  criteria  –  performed  internally  by  the  MA;  3) 
Assessment of application potential, financial sustainability and synergies with other operational programs – 
3a)  Assessment  of  project  application  with  experts  with  experience  from  cooperation  with  the  application 
sphere (individual assessments) – assessment of 3 external evaluators, 5 in the case of major projects (MP); 
3b) Commission of experts with relevant experience from cooperation with the application sphere (so-called 
Consensus  meeting)  –  2  external  evaluators;  3c)  Construction-technical  assessment  (level  1)  -  2  external 
evaluators; 3d) Applications panel – selection committee of external evaluators who had relevant experience 
in  cooperation  with  the  application  sphere;  4)  Evaluation  of  the  overall  quality  of  the  project  plan  –  4a) 
Evaluation  of  the  project  application  by  expert  evaluators  /  experts  (individual  assessments)  –3  foreign 
external  evaluators  /  experts,  5  in  the  case  of  the  MP;  4b)  Commission  of  expert  evaluators  (so-called 
Consensus  meeting)  –  evaluation  committee-foreign  external  evaluators/  experts  4c)  Building  technical 
assessment  (level  2)  –  2  external  evaluators;  4d)  Panel  of  experts  (International  panel)  –  selection 
committee-foreign external evaluators/experts; 5) Selection commission of the MA OP RDI; 6) Specification 

37 

 
                                           
 
All  (except  one  project  -  SUSEN)  represent  centres  of  excellence.  With  their  impact, 
equipment, unique structure and size should have contributed to the interconnection and 
greater integration of leading Czech R&D teams with international teams.  

The implementation of these Major Projects followed one of the objectives of the OP RDI, 
namely  the  goal  of  creating  a  limited  number  of  top  centres  ideally  with  a  unique 
infrastructure  and  technologies  (i.e.  flagships  of  Czech  R&D)  and  with  high-quality  R&D 
infrastructure  capable  of  participating  in  international  cooperation  and  creating 
knowledge  usable  in  the  application  sphere.  One  of  the  major  projects,  ELI,  is  under 
scrutiny  in  Chapter  3.4.  The  interviewed  stakeholders  within  this  evaluation,  more  or 
less,  agreed  that  the  final  number  of  six  major  projects  is  adequate.  However,  in 
conjunction with the other developed R&D infrastructures in the 2007-2013 period under 
the  Priority  Axis  2  have  created  enormous  demands  for  financial  sustainability  for  the 
future. The OP RDI anticipated explicitly that existing capacities in the regions had to be 
taken  into  account  to  avoid  duplication  and  make  the  operation  of  the  built  capacity 
economically sustainable and that there could have been no fragmentation of funds into 
less significant small, unrelated projects. However, “the Ex-post impact evaluation of SF 
2007-2013  spending  into  the  R&D  sector”  (EACE  2018)  found  that  these  assumptions 
have not been fully met. One of the reasons for this situation is that the construction and 
modernization of the research infrastructure in the form of RDI centres were not followed 
by a certain inventory and consolidation of publicly funded R&D infrastructure to reach a 
limited  number  of  top  workplaces  in  the  medium-term,  where  both  instrumental  and 
human  capacities  would  be  concentrated  –  i.e.  critical  mass  in  selected  fields. 
Furthermore,  a  very  significant  volume  of  the  total  allocation,  delayed  withdrawing,  all 
accompanied by political turbulence and frequent personnel changes in the management 
of the MEYS and the MA of the OP RDI, supplemented by regional pressure and originally 
unsuccessful  projects,  had  a  negative  impact  on  the  originally  expected  limited  number 
of supported projects. 

3.2.  Policy  instrument:  Research-related  teaching  infrastructure  at 
higher  education  institutions  under  the  Operational  Programme 
OP Research and Development for Innovations  

3.2.1. 

Theory of Change of the policy instrument 

As  a  part  of  the  OP  RDI  policy  mix,  the  assessed  PI  was  a  part  of  the  Priority  Axis  4 
(hereinafter  PA  4)  that  covered  the  infrastructure  investments  into  research-related 
higher  education  to  eliminate  the  negative  heritage  from  the  past  when  investments  in 
RTD  infrastructure  were  very  limited.  As  a  result,  the infrastructure  at  higher  education 
institutions  (HEIs)  was  underfunded,  not  providing  sufficient  capacity  and  quality  for 
students,  academics  and  researchers,  with  outdated  research  equipment,  and  not  in 
accordance  with  the  modern  education  and  research  standards.  Consequently,  the 
infrastructure  burdens  at  the  institutions  providing  tertiary  education  prevented  the 
Czech Republic from disposing of highly-educated and skilled human resources necessary 
to develop a knowledge-based economy. Simultaneously, the Czech system did not have 
adequate financial sources to upgrade the necessary infrastructure itself.    

Therefore, the PA 4 (i.e. the policy instrument) focused predominantly on the support of: 

  Newly  built  or  reconstructed  infrastructure  for  research-related  education 
(buildings, lecture halls, classrooms, laboratories, offices for doctoral students); 
  Modernization  and  improved  quality  of  equipment  for  research-related  education 
ICT 

lab  equipment,  highly  specialized  apparatuses, 

(instruments  and 

of parameters (“negotiations”) -only for projects, for which the Selection Committee - MA recommended for 
this phase.  

38 

 
                                                                                                                                    
 
infrastructure,  improvement  of  material  and  technical  provision,  new  information 
technologies and systems, facilities for university libraries).21 

The instrument targeted public  HEIs predominantly in  natural, technical and  life-science 
fields, even though the support was also allowed for other fields (e.g. social sciences and 
humanities)  that  manifested  the  ability  to  produce  highly  qualified  graduates  with 
relevance  to  increase  the  competitiveness  of  the  Czech  economy.  By  all  means,  the 
applicant  had  to  prove  demand  for  its  graduates  and  the  insufficient  state-of-art  of  the 
then infrastructure. 

For  the  demographic  trend  and  the  expected  decrease  in  the  total  number  of  higher 
education students in future (risk 5), the support was distributed selectively among the 
most  prosperous  research-oriented  HEIs  to  avoid  a  blanket  increase  of  HEIs  capacities 
also at the universities of lower quality (pre-condition 7). The assessment of HEIs quality 
was based on the previous RDI  results, the number of doctoral students/graduates,  the 
state-of-art  of  doctoral  study  programmes  and  the  level  of  cooperation  with  application 
sectors.  The  prominent  emphasis  was  put  on  the  HEIs'  infrastructure  enabling  an 
interconnection  of  tertiary  education  and  R&D  leading  to  innovations.  The  Managing 
Authority (MA), the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) used a procedure to 
calculate  preliminary  allocations  of  entire  PA  4  among  particular  relevant  HEIs  to 
guarantee  somehow  that  the  capacities  invested  into  the  demanding  project  proposals 
would not have been lost. The preliminary pre-allocations were announced and reflected 
the  previous  quality  of  HEIs  (the  higher  quality  of  HEI,  the  higher  pre-allocation 
received).  Thus,  each  HEI had to agree on investment priorities within its structure and 
submit  a  limited  number  maximum  of  five  project  proposals  meeting  the  given  quality 
criteria  posed  by  the  MA  (pre-condition  1).  As  a  result,  this  PI  did  not  suffer  from  low-
quality  project  proposals  or  low  absorb  capacity.  Of  course,  the  PI  assumed  that 
adequate  capacity  for  the  preparation  and  implementation  of  projects  at  the  side  of 
universities existed or could have been established (pre-condition 2).  

Neither  the  MA  nor  the  relevant  ministry  had  in  their  possession  a  master  investment 
plan for HEIs in Czechia or a systemic overview of the HEIs' needs. Thus, the investment 
prioritization  in  this  segment  was  not  driven  by  a  top-down  strategic  approach.  On  the 
other hand, all supported projects had to be included in a long-term development plan of 
particular  HEI,  and  thus,  the  prioritization  took  place  at  the  university  level.  This 
approach  was  pushed  by  the  MA,  which  issued  “the  Theses  for  support  targeting”22 
specifying expected conditions for project proposals, namely: 

 

 

Investments  in  the  educational  infrastructure  necessary  for  future  researchers' 
education  (especially  PhD  students)  are  more  expensive  than  investments  in  the 
infrastructure  needed  for  education  at  the  bachelor's  and  master's  level.  For  this 
reason,  support  under  PA  4  focuses  primarily  on  eliminating  the  infrastructure 
deficit in research-oriented schools and their bodies, or more precisely, to support 
projects that address the shortcomings of research-oriented faculties. 
It  is  impossible  to  anticipate  further  extensive  growth  of  higher  education 
institutions,  especially  about  demographic  trends  and  the  existing  share  of  the 
population in the relevant age category entering tertiary education.  

  Requirements for a jump in capacity or a comprehensive modernization of tertiary 

education capacity will generally not be reflected. 

  Further  improvement  of  the  educational  infrastructure  and  material  provision  for 
research-related  education  should  not  be  widespread  but  differentiated  between 
and  within  universities.  The  differentiation  should  reflect  individual  universities' 
strategic intentions, not only the strategy of further investments but especially the 
long-term strategy of the further direction of research and educational activities of 
a particular university and its faculties. 

21 The support included also costs for preparation and management of projects. 
22 These Theses were included in the calls for project proposals. 

39 

 
                                           
In addition to the compulsory alignment of proposals with a long-term development plan, 
the  projects  had  to  be  logically  interlinked  to  the  main  premises  of  the  White  Paper  of 
Tertiary Education in the Czech Republic (2009), namely to: 

 

  Cooperation with practice, increasing of  the relevance of education, employability 
of  graduates  (involvement  of  practicians  into  teaching,  practical  training, 
internships  at  employees,  cooperation  with  users  of  R&D  results, 
the 
interconnection of teaching students with research and innovation activities); 
Improvement of internal management of public HEIs (measures to professionalize 
managerial  processes, 
introduction  of  strategic  planning  principles, 
improvement  in  the  management  of  cooperation  with  application  sphere, 
enhancement  of  the  third  role  of  universities,  engagement 
in  regional 
development); 
International  cooperation  (involvement  of  lecturers  from  abroad,  international 
international  PhD 
internships  of  students  and  researchers, 
candidates); 

increase  of 

the 

 

  Lifelong learning (offer of courses, increase in the number of graduates). 

The project proposals were appraised for the extent to which they meet the above-listed 
premises  that  were  considered  as  the  long-term  effects  of  the  PI.  However,  it  was  also 
clear  that  supported  projects  alone  could  not  provide  those  achievements.  Still,  a 
complex  of  interventions  and  actions  was  expected  for  the  full  materialization  of  these 
achievements  (supporting  factor  1,  2,  4,  5).  In  other  words,  the  PI  intended  to  achieve 
through the ERDF support for the newly built/reconstructed infrastructure of HEIs and for 
the modernization of equipment for research-related education the expected main effects 
of  the  instrument,  i.e.  to  increase  the  capacity  of  tertiary  education  (i.e.  to  allow  more 
(PhD)  students  to  study  at  high-quality  universities)  and  to  create  conditions  for  a 
qualitative  change  in  tertiary  education  and  teaching  (by  the  profound  improvement  of 
conditions for research-related teaching and research itself). Students were  expected to 
obtain  improved  skillsets  enabling  them  to  be  engaged  in  R&D  activities  at  university. 
The PI should have ensured the conditions for the increased number of PhD graduates. In 
investments  were  anticipated  to  contribute  to  broader 
the 
involvement  of  supported  HEIs  into  the  international  R&D  arena  and  to  accelerated 
cooperation  with  the  application  sector.  The  ultimate  objective  was  to  ensure  the 
increase in quantity and quality of RDI human resources as a fundamental pre-condition 
for the Czech economy's long-term competitiveness. 

longer-term,  these 

Due  to  the  rules  for  regional  eligibility  of  the  support,  the  PI  concentrated  on  HEIs 
located in convergence regions that allowed to follow the balanced development objective 
within  Czechia  (defined  in  the  NSFR  2007-2013)  and  the  increased  attractiveness  of 
regional  universities.  Although  the  Czech  Republic  endeavoured  to  include  among  the 
eligible  regions  also  the  region  of  Prague  (i.e.  a  region  under  the  Competitiveness 
Objective) because of its central position in the Czech R&D system (risk 2), an exception 
to support also the HEIs based in Prague was negotiated with the EC only in 2013 (pre-
condition  4).  Consequently,  the  first  two  round  of  calls  for  proposals  (of  EUR  366.3 
million  and  EUR  48.1  million) targeted  only  the  HEIs  based  in  the  convergence  regions. 
The  third  round  call  opened  in  November  2013  focused  on  Prague  and  eventually 
included projects for  EUR 54.4 million. The supported projects in Prague aimed to bring 
about spillover effects for the convergence regions as more than two-thirds of students of 
Prague HEIs came to study in Prague from convergence regions. The MA selected a round 
type of calls to stimulate applicants to prepare their proposals rather quickly. 

All  the  support  took  the  form  of  non-reimbursable  grants,  providing  85%  funding  from 
the ERDF and 15% of national co-financing for the convergence regions withdrawn as ex-
post payments from the state budget. However, the national co-financing was taken from 
a bulk of institutional funding for a particular HEI and thus, consequently, from the own 
sources of universities.  

The  policy  instrument's  design  foresaw  strong  complementary  effects  with  the  support 
provided  from  the  OP  Education  for  Competitiveness  (OP  EC,  financed  by  the  ESF)  in 
terms of the increased quality and relevancy of tertiary education  (supporting factor 1). 
Therefore,  in  the  selection  process,  project  applicants  realizing  a  synergic  project  from 

40 

 
the  complementary  ESF  OP  to  update  study  (doctoral)  programmes  and  realize  reform 
steps to interconnect education with research activities were favoured. 

The instrument's design emphasised the energy demands of the newly built/modernized 
infrastructure. Project proposals that included energy savings solutions were substantially 
favoured  during  the  appraisal  process.  This  element  was  a  rather  novelty  in  the  Czech 
environment at that time. 

State  Aid  rules  were  very  marginal  in  the  design  of  this  policy  instrument  due  to  the 
nature of investments.23 

The  following  figure  presents  the  ToC  of  the  infrastructure  investments  for  research-
related  education.  It  is  meant  to  illustrate  the  intended  results  of  the  policy  instrument 
them
and 

underpinning 

linkages 

among 

the 

23  The  only  issue  evolving  in  a  later  stage  of  project  implementation/sustainability  related  to  a  possibility  to 
for 
infrastructures  canteens/buffets 

the  new/modernized 

locate 
students/employees. Due to the State Aid rule this was not allowed. 

refreshment 

to  ensure 

the 

in 

41 

 
                                           
Theory of change of Research-related teaching infrastructure at higher education institutions  

42 

 
 
Source: Own elaboration based on primary and secondary data collected. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
3.2.2. 
related education  

Contribution  analysis  of  Infrastructure  investments  into  research-

Verification of intended intervention implementation 

The PI was designed under time pressure, and the details of the support were prepared 
“at last minute”, and thus there was practically no time-space for any significant changes 
at the level of PI over the programming period.  

However, a noted change was an additionally negotiated exception for the eligibility 
of  HEIs  from  Prague  coming  into  force  in  September  2013.  At  least  to  some  extent, 
this  funding  opportunity  saturated  the  fact  that  in  the  OP's  preparatory  phase,  planned 
investment  funding  for  Prague  HEIs  from  the  state  budget  as  compensation  of  non-
eligibility for the ERDF support was not eventually realized. 

The positive spillover effects of support for Prague`s HEIs for the convergence regions 
were  anticipated  to  be  realized  through  the  number  of  university  graduates  who  would 
bring  benefits  to  these  regions  and  also  in  the  form  of  innovative  technology  and 
knowledge  transfers  that  Prague-based  universities  implement  in  the  cooperation  with 
companies  from  the  convergence  regions.  Graduates  of  Prague  universities  would  have 
also  been  suitable  candidates  for  work  in  scientific  research  centres,  implemented  with 
the  different  OP's  priority  axes'  support.  These  centres  were  bound  by  the  condition  of 
employing  at  least  50%  of  new  researchers.  It  was  assumed  that  a  significant  part  of 
these  employees  would  have  been  found  among  graduates  of  Prague  universities.  The 
impact of implemented Prague projects on convergence regions was calculated24 and set 
at 68% of the eligible project expenditures, of which 85% was from the ERDF and 15% 
from the national public resources. The remaining part of the project budget was covered 
by the national investment programme funding called ISPROFIN25.   

The shift of part of the ERDF funds from convergence regions to Prague was more or less 
well accepted by all stakeholders, especially because regional universities were saturated 
enough by the other ERDF sources. 

Furthermore, the possibility to purchase equipment and instruments was enlarged during 
the period; in the first two calls, this activity was allowed only as additional. In addition, 
these  activities  were  also  enabled  within  the  rules  for  the  exploitation  of  savings  in 
projects; however, issued with a delay that undermined in some cases a lower efficiency 
of used funds.    

The  PI  support  was  based  on  a  mix  of  top-down  (the  set  requirements  on  research 
excellence  and  quality,  necessary  to  prove  research  track  record  of  particular  HEI)  and 
of bottom-up approach (concrete projects thought up from the “terrain”).  

Changes in projects took place quite often; however, they were related to the nature of 
projects – that of re/construction of real estate – which always brings about the necessity 
to  adjust  the  project  to  actual  circumstances  (e.g.  changes  in  the  schedule  of 
construction  works  or  used  construction  materials).  Furthermore,  as  will  be  discussed 
further  below,  most  projects  experienced  savings,  and  new  utilization  of  these  was  a 
subject of projects changes, too.  

The overall implementation struggled with the instability of rules for public tendering (see 
more details below). 

24  The  level  of  ERDF  support  was  calculated  based  on  a  weighted  average  of  the  number  of  graduates  (as  of 
31.12.2012) who came to study at public HEIs in Prague from the convergence regions. The weight was the 
total number of students of individual universities. 

25 ISPROFIN= information system of programming financing used to fund national investment projects requiring 
more than one year of funding and ensuring sources across the different fiscal years. Later on, the name was 
changed for EDS/SMVS.  

44 

 
                                           
Achievement  of  intended  and  unintended  effects  at  the  level  of  the  expected 
threshold 

The  policy  instrument  covered  62  supported  projects  counting  for  EUR  375.7 
million  of  ERDF  contribution26  and  the  total  project  costs  for  EUR  442  million.  The 
average  duration  of  project  was  3.5  years;  however,  for  the  last  call  targeting  HEIs  in 
Prague,  the  time  for  complete  preparation  and  realization  was  short  (2  years).  At  the 
beginning  of  the  implementation,  there  were  rather  limited  capacity  and  experience  of 
beneficiaries  in  dealing  with  such  large  investment  projects.  The  projects  were  of  a 
significant financial scale in most cases; the median value of project was EUR 3 million of 
ERDF contribution, ten projects disposed with the ERDF budgets over EUR 10 million.     

  Financial scale of RTD projects funded under the policy instrument 

Total ERDF 
contribution 

Min ERDF 
contribution 

Max ERDF 
contribution 

Average ERDF 
contribution 

375,695,182 € 

448,474 € 

33,065,604 € 

6,059,600 € 

Source: CSIL elaboration based on Task 1 DB Projects and Beneficiaries. 

The  ERDF  funds  concentrated  in  convergence  regions,  especially  in  the  Jihovýchod 
region, with 37.5% of PI's funds. Ten institutions with the highest concentration of funds 
accumulated  78%  ERDF  budget  for  this  PI  (out  of  which  three  institutions  from  the 
Jihovýchod  region  gained  29%  of  ERDF  sources),  and  it  can  be  claimed  that  a  certain 
level of concentration was achieved.   

As  anticipated  by  the  MA,  most  ERDF  contribution  was  used  for  projects  in  engineering 
and  technology  sectors,  natural  sciences  and  medical  and  health  sciences  (in  total, 
63.6%).  Also,  27%  of  projects  ERDF  contribution  was  invested  in  multi-disciplinary 
projects in which the previously listed sectors dominated. All projects were implemented 
in  public  higher  education  institutions,  apart  from  two  projects  implemented  by  the 
Ministry of Defence in training centres.   

Regional concentration of RTD investments in the context of policy instrument 1 based on project 
location 

Source: CSIL elaboration based on Task 1 DB Projects and Beneficiaries. 
Note: Data are retrieved from the location of the projects receiving ERDF financing. 

The expected outputs in terms of supported projects were substantially exceeded for 
this  PI;  the  same  pays  for  the  output  “area  capacity  designated  to  R&D  teaching  and 

26  For  the  purpose  of  in-depth  analysis  of  this  PI,  beneficiaries  of  six  projects  from  the  different  universities 
across  the  various  regions  of  the  country  were  interviewed.  In  total,  the  interviewed  projects  represent 
almost 25% of the ERDF contribution for this policy instrument. 

45 

3.62 M€6.58 M€40.03 M€42.08 M€43.14 M€44.71 M€54.50 M€141.03 M€CZ02 - Střední ČechyCZ04 - SeverozápadCZ03 - JihozápadCZ05 - SeverovýchodCZ01 - PrahaCZ08 - MoravskoslezskoCZ07 - Střední MoravaCZ06 - Jihovýchod 
 
                                           
activities”  that  was  renovated  or  newly  built  (see  Table  4).  In  some  cases,  projects 
funded  a  completely  new  building  for  a  faculty  whose  capacities  were  scattered  across 
the  city  or  did  not  dispose  of  sufficient  capacities  (e.g.  at  universities  in  Brno,  Ostrava, 
Liberec, Ústí nad Labem). All interviewees agreed that the policy instrument enabled 
to  upgrade  research-related  education  infrastructure  and  to  shift,  especially 
regional  public  HEIs  to  a  new  qualitative  level  (see  also,  e.g.  Růžička,  Voráček 
2019).  Similarly,  substantial  improvements  in  research-related  teaching  and  research 
conditions were reached: supported projects purchased needed equipment and created a 
comfortable and respectable environment for teaching and studying related to research. 
These achievements were confirmed by all interviewees with knowledge of this PI. Rather 
than  massively  newly  created  capacities,  the  PI  contributed  to  eliminating  handicaps  in 
the  insufficient  environment  at  selected  HEIs.  In  many  cases,  old  and  inconvenient 
faculties  were  substituted  by  newly  established  infrastructure.  Information  from 
interviews  also  suggests  that  modernized  infrastructure  strengthened  “the  third  role”  of 
universities in some cases. 

The  main  goal  of  the  PI  at  the  level  of  immediate  outcomes  was  to  increase  the 
capacity  of  tertiary  education  infrastructure  related  to  research.  The  goal  was 
fulfilled  to  a  full  extent  at  the  PI  level;  the  monitoring  indicators  covering  (PhD) 
students benefiting from the new/reconstructed infrastructure were exceeded more than 
twice (see Table 4). The reason behind this is attributable to a sufficient number of high-
quality  projects  prepared  for  realization  and  the  high  budget  for  the  PI  (including 
considerable  savings  in  construction  parts  of  projects  used  for  further  improvements  at 
particular  HEIs)  (Ministry  of  Education,  Youth  and  Sports  2017).  However,  for  some 
projects,  meeting  monitoring  indicators  related  to  (PhD)  students  benefiting  from 
supported  infrastructure  was  challenging  because  the  original  commitments  did  not 
reflect  sufficiently  (i)  the  anticipated  negative  demographic  decline  in  the  number  of 
students  and  (ii)  changes  in  students'  interests  in  particular  study  fields.  Consequently, 
the target values of selected projects, which provided adequate argumentation, had to be 
lowered.  This  was  the  case  of  about  a  half  number  of  projects  not  achieving  the  initial 
targets (see Table 5). It is important to highlight that for half of the projects that did not 
achieve  the  targets,  the  difference  between  achieved  and  targeted  values  were  only 
marginal.  On  the  other  hand,  projects  with  achieved  targets  exceeded  them  in  most 
cases significantly.   

  Overview  of  relevant  monitoring  indicators  at  the  level  of  policy 

instrument 1 

Type 

Monitoring 
indicator 

Unit 

Initial 
value  

Target  value  (1st 
version of OP) 

Target  value  (last 
version of OP) 

Achieved  value 
(as of 2017) 

Supported  projects  – 
R&D teaching-related 
infrastructure  

Reconstructed, 
expanded  and  newly 
built capacity 

Students  benefiting 
from 
new/reconstructed 
infrastructure  

number 

0 

20 

20 

m2 

0 

70,000 

270,000 

number 

0 

50,000 

100,000 

number 

students 
from 

PhD 
benefiting 
new/reconstructed 
infrastructure 

0 

 5,000 

8,000 

t
u
p
t
u
O

e
m
o
c
t
u
O

e
m
o
c
t
u
O

62 

419,099 

213,481 

21,044 

Source: MEYS (2017). 
Note: The total number of realized projects in PA 4 was 65, but three projects were not included in the PI 
analysis. 

46 

 
 
 
 
Projects  funded  by  the  policy  instrument  1  by  indicator  and  level  of 

achievement 

Indicator 

Achieved 

Not 
achieved 

Total number 
of projects 

Capacity  of  reconstructed,  extended  and  newly  built 
infrastructures (in m2) 

82% 

18% 

Capacity of newly built infrastructures (in m2) 

95% 

5% 

Capacity 
infrastructures (in m2) 

of 

expanded 

or 

renovated 

78% 

23% 

Number 
new/reconstructed infrastructure 

students 

of 

benefiting 

from 

48% 

52% 

of 

Number 
new/reconstructed 
candidates) 

students 

benefiting 

infrastructure 

from 
(doctoral 

48% 

52% 

55 

19 

40 

62 

62 

Source: CSIL elaboration based on monitoring data provided by the MA. 

In  quantitative  terms,  the  intermediate  outcome  of  the  increased  number  of  post-
level graduates at supported universities was not fully met according to the respective 
monitoring  indicator.  The  target  was  1,700  PhD  graduates,  while  the  achieved  value  in 
2017  was  1,387.  All  consulted  interviewees  agreed  that  apart  from  demographic 
development, the more fundamental reason for not reaching this outcome has been a low 
rate  of  PhD  study  completion27  undermined  by  constantly  unfavourable  systemic 
conditions  for  doctoral  study  in  the  Czech  Republic28    and  the  opportunities  to  study 
abroad. Besides, the other newly R&D infrastructure created with the help of the OP RDI 
(in  the  PA1  and  PA2)  could  have  even  more  attracted  potential  talented  PhD  students 
(EACE  2018).  On  the  other  hand,  the  interviewees  highlighted  that  without  the 
infrastructural investments at HEIs, a decrease in PhD graduates would  have been even 
more  profound  (see  also  EACE  2018).  Unfortunately,  the  severe  lack  of  adequately 
qualified human resources for RDI still has persisted (Ernst&Young 2020). Consequently, 
the  expected  final  outcome  has  not  been  achieved,  but  the  PI  has  contributed  to 
maintaining at least a certain level of PhD graduates.  

The qualitative data from interviewees confirmed that the ERDF investments, to the full 
extent,  contributed  to  the  increased  attractiveness  of  supported  (predominantly 
regional)  HEIs.  New  infrastructure,  modern  equipment,  and  top-class  instruments  were 
the  necessary  conditions  for  attracting  students,  top  lecturers,  and  researchers,  both 
from  abroad  and  other  Czechia  territories.29  Afterwards,  more  natural  contacts  among 
academicians have been developed, and international/interdisciplinary cooperation could 
have  emerged.  For  example,  thanks  to  the  numerous  OPs  investments  (not  only  from 
this  PI),  the  City  of  Brno  became  an  antipole  to  the  capital  of  Prague  in  terms  of 
opportunities  to  gain  high-quality  tertiary  education,  especially  in  certain  fields. 
Furthermore,  the  PI's  investments  helped  transform  the  facelifts  of  HEIs  dramatically in 
some  regional  university  cities  with  positive  effects  spread  to  the  local  community  (e.g. 
further upgrade of the physical environment of particular city parts).  

27 The rate of PhD study accomplishment rank between 43%-47% in 2010-2016 (Ernst&Young 2020). 
28  For  example,  non-competitive  financial  conditions,  persisting  rigidity  of  academic  sector,  poor  prospects  in 
academic  career,  desire  of  students  to  work  on  issues  with  practical  application,  systemic  barriers  in 
contractual research with applied sector as regards to State Aid rules. 

29  For  example,  in  the  South  Moravian  region,  the  share  of  international  students  increased  since  2007  from 
8,5% up to 20,4% in 2016. The share of domestic students with permanent place of living outside the South 
Moravian region studying at the three biggest universities in the region reached over 56% in 2016 that was 
one  of  the  highest  figures  among  the  Czech  universities  (see  Technology  Centre  of  Czech  Academy  of 
Science at al 2018).  

47 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
All  qualitative  evidence  direct  to  a  confirmation  that  improved  infrastructure  impacted 
“quality  of  life  at  supported  universities”.  Implicitly,  to  a  certain  extent,  the 
infrastructure investments might have positively influenced  the mobility of students and 
researchers,  the  production  of  R&D  results,  the  cooperation  in  prestigious  research 
projects  etc.  However,  these  chaining  effects  can  be  only  confirmed  though  anecdotal 
evidence or partial qualitative statements from interviews.  

Similarly,  the  outcome  of  increased  quality  of  tertiary  education  and  improved 
graduates'  skillsets  can  also  be  confirmed  by  only  anecdotal  evidence  from  the 
conducted interviews. All interviewed representatives of beneficiaries confirmed that that 
modernized infrastructure  to the full extent enabled to increase the quality of education 
(e.g. increased capacity and improved instrumental equipment is widely used in practical 
training,  students  can  work  with  high-quality  equipment  that  is  used  in  companies  and 
eventually  they  are  better  prepared  for  the  needs  of  the  labour  market,  mostly  PhD 
students  are  more  involved  in  the  realization  of  research  projects).  Other  interviewees 
provided positive examples where the evaluated investment projects contributed to these 
qualitative change. Some interviewees also confirmed that students' final thesis's quality 
had  been  significantly increased  thanks  to  the  new  equipment,  and interesting  research 
topics  with  practical  relevance  have  occurred.  Nevertheless,  no  systemic  analysis  of  the 
state-of-art of graduates' competencies is at disposal for the supported HEIs.  

The  achievement  of  final  outcomes  thanks  to  the  PI  can  be  confirmed  to  only  a  limited 
extent as the number of interviewed beneficiaries and experts were scanty to deliver firm 
evidence,  and  relevant  data-based  analyses  are  not  at  disposal.  Nevertheless,  all 
beneficiaries  stated  the  ERDF  investments  from  this  PI  had  brought  technological 
upgrade  that  created  the  competitive  conditions  for  the  Czech  HEIs  in  the 
international R&D arena  and  the space for cooperation  with  the private  sector. 
For example, one of the supported interviewed universities indicated that modernized up-
to-date  equipment  had  deepened  cooperation  with  the  chemistry  and  technology 
companies  through,  e.g.  (i)  regular  conferences  at  which  graduates  present  their 
research to representatives of the application sector or (ii) excursions at new laboratories 
for  alumni  (usually  employed  in  application  sectors)  and  practical  training  fellowships. 
Moreover,  this  university  is  an  excellent  example  of  producing  spillover  effects  from 
Prague  as  most  cooperating  companies  are  based  in  the  convergence  regions.  Another 
supported  HEI  confirmed  to  increase  its  attractiveness  and  competitiveness  for 
international  research  partners  and  programmes.  The  growth  of  projects  receiving  the 
Horizon2020  funding  and  other  prestigious  grant  schemes  was  noted  there.  In 
conjunction  with  the  other  ERDF  investments  in  the  region,  the  supported  faculty  has 
reached  a  profound  change  of  its  climate  and  even  a  global  effect  for  innovative 
research. Also, smaller beneficiaries verified that infrastructural projects undermined the 
chaining effects resulting in their increased involvement in R&D projects, however, rather 
of  a  national  scale.  However,  this  is  in  line  with  the  PI's  intention  as  infrastructure  for 
excellent research was channelled through the different priority axes.  

On the other hand, the final outcome, “Improvements in internal management of public 
HEIs  (incl.  third  role  of  universities)”,  was  confirmed  at  all  interviewed  supported 
universities. The most frequently mentioned elements of this outcome on the beneficiary 
side were: 

  Development managerial, organizational and communication processes within the 
supported organizations and changes in process management of public tenders; 
  Establishment/enlargement  of  professional  project  management  teams  at 

faculty/university levels;  

  Acquirement  of  know-how  of  project  thinking,  know-how  to  prepare,  realize  and 

successfully accomplish large investment projects; 

  Development  of  a  strategic  approach  to  prioritization  of  investment  intentions  at 

 

HEIs (e.g. via passportization of investment needs); 
Increased  thinking  about  the  energetic  demands  of  university  real  estate  at 
supported HEIs. 

48 

 
The  implicitly  awaited  effect  of  influencing  the  management  of  public  HEIs  that  was 
addressed through the calls' settings and “the Theses for support targeting” was at least 
partially met at the interviewed universities.  

No  contribution  claim  can  be  provided  for  the  PI's  impact  on  the  development  of  a 
knowledge-based economy because this long-term effect has not been achieved yet. 

As  concerns  positive  unintended  effects,  with  the  evolution  of  specialised  project 
teams  at  universities,  these  teams'  informal  platform  was  created  to  share  experience 
and cooperate. Gradually, this platform  ensured communication towards the MA  of joint 
statements of supported HEIs. Interestingly, the platform has also been operating in the 
2014-2020 period.  

At  a  systemic  level,  the  PI  contributed  to  a  changed  approach  at  the  MEYS  to  prioritise 
HEIs'  investment  intentions.  Eventually,  the  systemic  passportization  of  the  HEIs' 
investment needs became an integral part of ministerial planning. Moreover, cooperation 
at  the  MEYS  between  the  section  of  national  investments  and  the  section  of  European 
funds investments has been improved.     

On the contrary, systemic recognized unintended negative effect was a slow down of 
development  at  Prague’s  HEIs  and,  in  contrast,  dynamic  development  of  regional  HEIs 
(see  also  EACE  2018).  This  situation  negatively  affected  the  national  higher  education 
system and the R&D system and had unpleasant consequences for R&D terrain (e.g. pull 
over  R&D  human  capacities  from  Prague  to  regional  facilities,  uneven  competition  for 
talents). Further, Prague’s organizations did not gain practically any experience with the 
engagement into the EU Structural funds support in comparison to the regional HEIs and 
thus, they were disadvantaged in the next period 2014-2020 in the national competition 
for EU sources as regional HEIs had their capacities to prepare and oversee such projects 
already fully established.  

Verification of assumed pre-conditions 

The most of pre-conditions were confirmed as materialized, namely “proper prioritization 
of  investment  needs  of  universities”  (pre-condition  1)  and  “well-established  framework 
rules for allocation of support to individual HEIs by the MA to ensure high-quality project 
proposals”  (pre-condition  7).  Thanks  to  these  pre-conditions  explicitly  taking  place  via 
the  setting  of  rules  for  PI’s  implementation  (cf.  Section  3.1),  the  PI  did  not  suffer  from 
low  absorption  capacity  or  low-quality  projects.  The  applicants/beneficiaries  either  have 
had  sufficient  capacities  or  have  them  established  to  ensure  the  preparation  and 
implementation of supported projects (pre-conditions 2). The supported HEIs were keen 
to successfully realized investments; they experienced a learning process, adjusted their 
procedures  and  flexibly  responded  to  actual  projects'  needs.  The  materialization  of  this 
pre-condition  was  crucial  for  the  successful  accomplishment  of  the  projects.  Similarly, 
according to the interviewed stakeholders, the funded infrastructure/equipment in this PI 
is widely used/shared (pre-condition 6).  

The  most  critical  issue  represented  the  rules  for  public  tendering  and  its 
interpretation  (pre-condition  3).  The  relevant  national  act  was  modified  during  the 
programming  period  twice,  and  beneficiaries  were  challenged  to  the  instability  of 
interpretation  of  adjusted  rules  from  the  side  of  the  MA.  This  fact  undermined  the 
effectiveness  of  project  management  processes  and  the  uncertainty  and  frustration  of 
beneficiaries.  The  reason  for  that  is  reckoned  to  the  low  expert  capacity  at  the  MA  side 
during  the  OP’s  implementation  phase  (also  found  by  RegioPartner  2011).  Even  more, 
the  rules  for  public  tendering  proved  to  be  hardly  applicable  when  unique  instrumental 
equipment (e.g. produced only by one company in the world) was intended to purchase. 
To set the requirements and parameters for such particular tenders to be  under the Act 
on  Public  Tendering  was  extremely  demanding,  requiring  expert  consultations  and 
intensive  communications  with  potential  suppliers  in  all  phases  of  tenders.  In  many 
cases,  the  challenges  in  realising  public  tenders  prolonged  the  overall  realization  of 
projects; however, all of them were eventually finalized within the eligible period (Annual 
Implementation  Report  of  the  OP  RDI  2014).  All  the  interviewed  representatives  of 

49 

 
supported HEIs highlighted that pre-condition no 3 related to the rules' stability was not 
materialized.   

Due  to  the  political  instability  and  high  staff  turnover  (see  details  below  in  risks),  the 
expert  capacity  at  the  MA  of  OP  RDI  (pre-condition  no  5)  was  limited  during  the 
implementation, based on information obtained from  the beneficiaries at top managerial 
positions. Furthermore, the project administration load posed by the MA on beneficiaries 
was perceived as inappropriate. 

Verification of supporting factors 

All  identified  supporting  factors  were  confirmed  as  playing  a  role  for  the  policy 
instrument. Moreover, several additional supporting factors that positively influenced the 
policy instruments were identified during the fieldwork.   

Synergies with projects supported by the ESF-funded OPs (supporting factor no 1 in the 
ToC)  were  confirmed  to  a  full  extent.  All  interviewed  organisations  implemented 
simultaneously  with  the  ERDF  project  also  an  ESF-funded  intervention,  the  most  often 
aimed  at  adapting  doctoral  study  programmes.  This  finding  was  also  proved  by  the 
evaluation of synergies of the OP RDI (Hope Group 2015), stating that the most synergic 
links were operationalised between this policy instrument and the policy measure “Higher 
education” under the OP EC (ESF-funded). However, this supporting factor occurred to be 
more  vital  in  the  following  programming  period  when  infrastructure  projects  were 
finished, and more effort could have been devoted to “soft” projects.  

Similarly,  complementarities  with  projects 
funded  through  the  other  sources 
(supporting  factor  no  2  in  the  ToC)  was  demonstrated  at  interviewed  HEIs  to  a  full 
extent.  At  some  interviewed  HEIs,  regional  research  centres  financed  from  the  Priority 
Axis  2  of  the  OP  RDI  (at  some  HEIs  even  research  centre  of  excellence  by  the  Priority 
Axis  1)  were  established,  and  the  evaluated  infrastructure  has  been  proved  as  a 
necessary  component  to  educate  the  needed  human  resources  for  the  new  research 
facilities.  Furthermore,  a  range  of  supported  HEIs  invested  their  resources  to  acquire 
additional  instrumental  and  other  equipment;  in  some  cases,  local  authorities  funded 
needed  a  complementary  transport  infrastructure  to  the  new  tertiary  facilities  (e.g.  in 
Brno).  Moreover,  the  policy  instrument  was  complementary  to  the  national  programme 
financing  of  HEIs  development  (so-called  ISPROFIN).  In  the  2014-2020  programming 
period,  all  interviewed  HEIs  implemented  projects  supported  by  both  the  ERDF  and  the 
ESF to complement the initial infrastructure investments by further components for their 
R&D  activities  and  tertiary  education  (e.g.  purchase  of  top  instruments,  support  of 
internationalisation,  mobility  programmes  to  attract  researchers  with  an  international 
reputation to establish research teams). Nevertheless, the interviewees' findings suggest 
that  both  the  complementarities  and  the  synergies  with  projects  from  alternative  fund 
sources were successful, particularly at larger more-experienced universities. 

As  discussed  above,  the  anticipated  supporting  factor  of  sufficient  demand  for  post-
graduate  education  (supporting  factor  no  3)  did  not  take  place  that  negatively  affected 
the expected results.      

The supporting factor no 4 “Complementary actions taken by the supported HEIs” shown 
to  be  present  in  particular  at  larger  well-established  supported  HEIs,  and  actions  have 
included the internal grant programmes for PhD students, the cross-faculties cooperation, 
the  increased  support  of  international  mobility  or  the  enhanced  support  of  cooperation 
with  firms  on  students'  final  theses.  On  the  other  hand,  at  smaller  regional  supported 
universities,  the  investigated  projects  represented  rather  the  initial  key  step  of 
materialization of the new faculty and complementary actions had been belated.  

The  interconnection  of  investments  with  a  regional  development  strategy 
(supporting  factor  no  5)  and  dedicated  regional/local  stakeholders  proved  to  be  a  vital 
supporting factor that enabled multiplying the effects of invested sources not only within 
the  investigated  projects  under  this  evaluation.  Namely,  the  South  Moravian  region  is 
highlighted to be the best example of doing so as the first region disposing of a coherent 

50 

 
regional innovation strategy in that time in the Czech Republic (confirmed by all relevant 
interviewees). For example, the three greatest universities in the region coordinated  the 
preparation  of  project  proposals  (not  only  within  this  PI)  to  eliminate  overlaps  in  the 
development  of  thematically  similar  oriented  faculties  and  to  jointly  work  on  the 
development  of  regional  innovation  system  (for  more,  please  see  Technology  Centre  of 
Czech Academy of Science et al. 2018). 

As a factor that positively influenced the PI (and the entire OP), a highly qualified team 
at  MA  that  led  and  finalized  the  OP’s  design  process  was  stressed  by  the  interviewees, 
although the further implementation was  to a large extent cumbersome and affected by 
staff  fluctuation  and  the  low  capacity  of  MA,  thanks  to  the  thoughtful  setting  of  the 
OP RDI within the given EU conditions, the OP is perceived to be successful. Further, 
the then low demand at the construction market undermined the tenders' considerable 
savings  for  the  building  parts  of  projects.  Although  the  rules  for  the  exploitation  of 
savings  endorsed  by  the  MA  were  delayed,  savings  enabled  the  purchase  of  additional 
equipment  for  some  projects.  Moreover,  the  interviewed  project  managers  of  supported 
HEIs  stated  as  an  important  factor  a  supporting  dedication  of  HEIs  management 
(see also the analysis of RegioPartner 2011). 

Verification of risks and threats 

The  risks  of  political  instability  and  high  staff  turnover  at  the  MA  (risk  no  1)  and 
the  uncertainty  of  interpretation  of  public  procurements  rules  (risk  no  2) 
unfortunately materialised to a full extent (see also RegioPartner 2011) and negatively 
influenced  the  implementation  of  projects.  The  beneficiaries  had  to  comply  with 
enormous  administrative  load  and  burdens  related  to  public  tenders  and  the  application 
of the relevant legislation. The application of rules for public tendering caused substantial 
delays  in  the  majority  of  realized  projects.  Moreover,  legislative  changes  in  the 
associated  act  within  the  programming  period  implied  that  all  construction-sites  were 
practically  stopped  in  2013  for  one  year  due  to  the  different  interpretation  of  rules 
related to “extra-works”, almost always present in construction investments. Altogether, 
these  burdens  created  an  unfavourable  environment  between  the  MA  and  beneficiaries 
for a certain time and complicated the realization of projects.  

Apart from one interviewee, all interviewees stressed that the ineligibility of Prague was a 
major  challenge  (risk  2)  (see  also  EACE  2018)  as  the  targeting  did  not  fully  reflect 
the  regional  differentiation  in  the  distribution  of  tertiary  education  capacities 
(and in the RDI potential) in the Czech Republic. The negative impact on achieved effects 
has  been  materialized,  particularly  in  the  negative  consequences  for  the  entire  R&D 
system  and  structure  in  the  Czech  Republic  (e.g.  formation  of  dualism  between  Prague 
and regions in the R&D area) (also confirmed in the evaluation of EACE 2018).  

The  threat  of  decline  in  the  number  of  students  due  to  the  demographic  development 
(risk no 5) materialized and to a larger extent than expected by the MA and beneficiaries. 
In addition, the other systemic issues related to the overall approach to doctoral study in 
the  Czech  Republic  played  a  very  important  role  (see  the  previous  section).  The 
interviewed supported universities did not confirm a lack of staff and resources capacities 
to oversee the new/modernized equipment (risks no 4).   

The  relevant  interviewees  agreed  that  a  risky  factor  influencing  strategic  decisions  on 
infrastructure  investments  from  the  entire  OP  was  a  double-track  in  decision-making 
within  the  responsible  MEYS:  first,  there  has  been  the  management  of  national  R&D 
policy  and  second,  the  management  of  EU  Structural  funds,  and  the  coordination 
between 
investigated 
programming period. 

these  managerial  segments  was  dysfunctional 

the 

in 

An external factor of the changed system of HEIs financing influenced the approach of 
HEIs  to  their  development.  Until  2010  the  system  was  based  predominantly  on  the 
number  of  students;  hence,  the  beneficiaries  committed  to  the  increasing  number  of 
students  with  the  supported  infrastructure's  help.  However,  the  systemic  change  in 
funding  and  strategy  of  HEIs'  development  coming  into  force  in  2011  undermined  that 

51 

 
R&D  results  were  more  important  in  the  coming  years  in  the  financing  system.  The 
pressure  on  the  increase  of  student  numbers  was  diminished.  Consequently,  the  reality 
of projects was different, and the HEIs could not have mirrored the changed rules. 

Finally,  the  Czech  National  Bank's  currency  intervention  in  2013  at  financial  markets 
caused  an  increase  of  disposable  funds  in  the  OP  due  to  the  changed  exchange  rate 
EUR/CZK, and the MA had to solve the usage of additional resources quickly.  

3.2.3. 

General assessment of the policy instrument 

Overall,  the  ToC  for  the  research-related  infrastructure  for  HEIs  was  largely  confirmed. 
The PI achieved its outputs and immediate outcomes, and in these cases, the PI was the 
main  cause  behind  their  materialization.  Besides,  some  of  the  intermediate  outcomes 
were  achieved  thanks  to  the  PI  and  simultaneously  thanks  to  a  contribution  of 
materialization  of  some  supporting  factors  and  pre-conditions.  On  the  contrary,  one  of 
the  desired  intermediate  outcomes  was  achieved  only  to  a  limited  extent  as  some  risks 
prevailed to play a more important role. The outcomes and impacts could not have been 
undoubtedly confirmed, as it was possible to collect only anecdotal evidence. 

There  is  a  wide  consensus  and  evidence  that  the  policy  instrument  succeeded  in 
fulfilling its prime intention to eliminate the abysmal difference in the quantity and, in 
particular,  quality  of  infrastructure  for  research-related  education  as  compared  to  the 
standards of developed countries. In total, the policy instrument included 62 investment 
projects  (more  than  three  times  more  than  anticipated)  predominantly  in  the 
convergence regions with  an amount of EUR 375.7 million. In combination with a range 
of  complementary  actions,  the  policy  instrument  made  possible  the  technological 
upgrade of higher education institutions up to European and international standards. 
For  some  regional  institutions,  the  support  implied  increased  competitiveness  within 
Czechia  only.  The  majority  of  supported  institutions  acquired  the  high-standard  new  or 
upgraded  capacities  for  research-related  education  and  top-class  research  equipment; 
thus,  the  expected  outputs  were  achieved  to  a  full  extent.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the 
intended  outcome  of  the  increased  tertiary  education  capacity  and  the  significant 
improvement of conditions for research-related teaching and research itself was achieved 
through  the  supported  HEIs.  Overall,  “quality  of  life”  at  supported  universities  was 
increased. It is believed that jointly with other policy instruments and actions, the quality 
of  tertiary  education  was  improved  at  least  to  a  significant  extent  alongside  graduates' 
enhanced skillsets. The intended outcome of the increased number of PhD graduates, 
however, has not been achieved. Nevertheless, the reasons for that lie beyond the 
scope  of PI (demographic decline, framework and conditions for PhD study in Czechia, 
the  interest  of  young  people  in  research  career),  and  the  qualitative  evidence  suggests 
that  the  PI  contributed  at  least  to  some  extent  to  maintain  a  certain  level  of  post-
graduate students.  

The  intervention's  contribution  to  the  long-term  effect  of  increased  quantity  and  quality 
human  resource  for  R&D  is  less  evident  as  Czechia  still  crucially  lacks  sufficient 
human  capital  for  research  and  innovation.  Nevertheless,  collected  evidence 
suggests  that  the  instrument  contributed  to  mitigating  the  decline  of  R&D  human 
resources.  Concerning  the  final  outcomes,  only  limited  anecdotal  evidence  on  the 
contribution  of  PI  to  these  was  possible  to  collect,  even  though  the  infrastructure 
investments  are  considered  the  necessary  prerequisites  for  the  involvement  of  HEIs  in 
the international RDI arena and the cooperation between universities and the application 
sector.  

Although  some  statements  from  the  interviewees  indicated  a  partial  materialization  of 
anticipated  spillover  effects  from  the  supported  Prague's  HEIs,  this  effect  cannot  be 
firmly  confirmed  within  this  evaluation's  scope,  and  a  self-contained  study  would  be 
necessary to prove these. 

The PI's key limitation was that Prague's HEIs were not  eligible for the support 
being from a competitiveness region. However, Prague's HEIs was in a unique position in 
the  tertiary  education  system/R&D  structure  of  Czechia.  The  HEIs  in  Prague  suffered 

52 

 
from  severe  infrastructural  problems  and  institutions  from  lagging  regions.  Although  at 
the  end  of  the  programming  period,  an  exception  for  support  in  Prague  was  negotiated 
with  the  European  Commission,  the  initial  regional  setting  of  support  limited  the 
instrument's potential to generate positive impacts and, on the contrary, brought about 
a series of negative systemic consequences. While  the RDI capacities  of  HEIs located in 
lagging regions were dynamically developing, Prague's capacity and infrastructural deficit 
persisted  in  the  absence  of  national  funds  compensating  for  the  missed  ERDF 
investments. 

While  the  focus  on  the  territorial  cohesion  objective  of  convergence  regions  may 
have  undermined  the  PI's  potential  (and  the  OP  as  a  whole)  to  support  excellence  in 
science,  it,  however,  contributed  to  reducing  the  gap  in  Czech  regions'  scientific 
capacities.  

It  was  confirmed  that  without  the  ERDF  support,  the  evaluated  investments  into  HEIs 
would  have  never  been  realized  in  this  scale  and  time-space.  A  minimum  of  these 
investment projects and within much longer time period would have been supported from 
the  national  sources.  Therefore,  the  role  of  ERDF  was  irreplaceable.  The  level  of 
funding  allocated  to  the  PI  was  sufficient  to  “move  the  needle”  regarding  the  key 
challenges faced by the HEIs. The nature and setting of PI “helped” in particular to high-
ranked  HEIs  with  the  prepared  investment  project  intentions.  There  was  practically  no 
further  space  for  prospective  ERDF  sources  for  efficient  spending  unless  Prague's  HEIs 
could have been engaged in the support.  

The policy instrument's main logic did not undergo any important changes apart from the 
above-outlined enlargement of eligible regions. Experienced  changes  related particularly 
to  the  associated  legislation  (the  Act  on  Public  Procurement)  and  methodological 
instructions, and they had to be dealt with in practice mainly by beneficiaries.  However, 
the  instability  of  rules  and  their  interpretation  brought  inefficiency  in  the 
implementation  and  even  distrust  among  beneficiaries  and  the  MA.  Moreover,  the 
political instability and high staff turnover at the MA over the period  negatively affected 
the implementation of PI.  

The  sustainability  of  invested  infrastructure  within  the  PI  throughout  compulsory 
sustainability  was  ensured  with  the  internal  sources  of  supported  HEIs.  However, 
questions  arise  as  concerns  the  sustainability  of  acquired  technological  competitiveness 
and  thus  related  to  the  needed  sources  for  a  gradual  upgrade  of  the  purchased 
equipment. The HEIs would not be able to cover all sources required for modernization. 

53 

 
 
Presentation of the results of the contribution analysis for the Infrastructure investments into research-related education  

Source: Own elaboration based on primary and secondary data collected. 

54 

 
 
3.3.  Policy  Instrument:  ICT  Infrastructure  Investments  under  the 
Operational  Programme  Research  and  Development 
for 
Innovations  

3.3.1. 

Theory of the policy instrument  

The  policy  instrument  ICT  Infrastructure  Investments  was  supported  within  the  Priority 
Axis  3  Commercialization  and  popularization  of  R&D,  measure  3.2  Promotion  and 
awareness  of  R&D  results.  The  overall  aim  was  to  create  or  improve  conditions  for 
producing  quality  scientific  research  results  from  the  two  points  of  view:  1)  information 
infrastructure  and  2)  electronic  information  resources.  Both  these  pathways  were 
supposed  to  shift  existing  conditions  for  R&D  to  higher  standards  available  for  Czech 
researchers  and  thus  create  an  environment  for  more  effective  R&D  and  better 
applicability  of  Czech  science  in  the  world  (for  a  more  detailed  anticipated  causal 
mechanism, please see the Theory of Change, figure 15). 

Following  these  logical pathways,  the  ICT  infrastructure  investments  were  supported  by 
two calls for projects. The call for projects for information infrastructure for R&D (No 2.3) 
was  intended  mainly  to  address  information  infrastructure  for  R&D,  investments  in 
material and technical ensuring, and software (hereinafter SW) and licenses, databases, 
etc. It was open between December 2009 and April 2010 with an allocation of EUR 29.6 
million. Call for projects (No 4.3) to fund equipment of professional scientific and branch 
libraries  was  intended  to  address  mainly  acquisition  of  electronic  information  resources, 
licenses,  renewal  of  HW,  SW  and  networks,  equipment  of  libraries  and  study  rooms 
(furniture,  security  systems,  special  technologies),  minor  reconstructions  and  other 
related activities. It was open between August 2011 and January 2012 with an allocation 
of EUR 25.9 million. Only convergence regions were eligible in both cases.  

Both calls for projects  were underpinned by  so-called theses, i.e.  starting points for the 
respective  topic,  defining  basic  ideas,  assumptions  and  conditions  for  the  prospective 
support.  The  majority  of  these  factors  concern  the  implementation  phases,  i.e.  the 
sphere  of  control  of  the  Theory  of  Change  (ToC),  as  the  theses  co-designed  the 
environment  for  calls  for  projects  and  launching  activities.  Supporting  effects  and  risks 
are presumed to be in the causal relationship between activities and outputs. This points 
to  the  realization  phases  of  projects.  Other  factors  were  grouped  around  the 
sustainability  topic.  The  call  for  projects  No  4.3  assumed  that  “availability  of  scientific 
information  sources  is  a  basic  prerequisite  for  the  production  of  quality  results  by  R&D 
institutions”.  […]  It  is  also  supposed  that  “failure  to  ensure  or  limit  availability  has  a 
negative  impact  on  Czech  science  and  its  involvement  in  European,  or  world  research 
area  and  application  sphere”30.  The  call  for  projects  No  2.3  assumed  that  the  research 
and  development  community  is  increasingly  dependent  on  the  ability  to  process  and 
transfer large volumes of electronic data quickly. Appropriate infrastructure for R&D and 
for  conducting  research  and 
its  optimal 
development  with  significant  results  for  developing  human  knowledge,  for  industrial 
innovation and economic development, for society's overall development31. 

functionality  are  necessary  conditions 

Several  preconditions  were  identified,  common  for  the  whole  policy  instrument.  In 
general,  these  preconditions  can  be  grouped  into  the  following  categories  –  managerial 
preconditions (e.g. absorption capacity, necessary resources and capacities in general at 
the  side  of  the  applicants,  partners  and  the  managing  authority  as  well),  thematic  and 
technological  preconditions  (e.g.  technology  readiness  and  use  of  infrastructure),  and 
context preconditions (i.e. stability of rules). 

30  MŠMT  (undated):  Teze  výzvy  4.3  –  Vybavení  odborných  vědeckých  a  oborových  knihoven,  p.  1, 

https://www.opvavpi.cz/cs/siroka-verejnost/prehled-ukoncenych-vyzev/vyzvy-v-ramci-prioritni-osy-
3/vyzva-cislo-4-3-vybaveni-odbornych-vedeckych-a-oborovych-knihoven-po-3-op-vavpi.html  (accessed  20 
October 2020). 

31  MŠMT  (undated):  Teze  výzvy  2.3  –  Vybavení  odborných  vědeckých  a  oborových  knihoven,  p.  1, 

https://www.opvavpi.cz/cs/siroka-verejnost/prehled-ukoncenych-vyzev/vyzvy-v-ramci-prioritni-osy-
3/vyzva-cislo-2-3-informacni-infrastruktury-pro-vav-po-3-op-vavpi.html (accessed 20 October 2020). 

55 

 
                                           
Call  for  projects  No  2.3  reflected  insufficient  capacity  of  information  infrastructure  from 
the point of view of the needs at that time and the expected increase of demand of newly 
established  R&D  capacities  of  Priority  Axis  1  and  2.  In  this  perspective,  the  call  for 
proposals  was  thus  complementary  to  these  interventions.  The  call  also  reflected  the 
limited possibility to join international computer networks, which influences international 
cooperation  and  integration  to  the  European  Research  Area.  According  to  the  complex 
needs  of  the  R&D  institutions,  the  call  for  projects  4.3  focused  on  the  insufficient 
availability  of  scientific  information  resources  for  a  wider  professional  public.  Even  if 
some multidisciplinary databases used to be partially available and most disciplines used 
to have ensured basic key top-level information resources in general, especially regional 
R&D libraries operated in unsatisfactory conditions. 

The  eligibility  of  support  was  limited,  especially  to  research  organisations  (Call  for 
projects  No  2.3),  universities,  public  research  institutions  elaborating  research  and 
development, professional and scientific libraries (Call for projects No 4.3), exclusively in 
convergence regions.  

The policy instrument's effects can be traced per each pathway (however, both pathways 
are  mutually  supporting).  Both  lines  are  interlinked  at  a  more  complex  level 
(intermediate and final outcomes and impacts). 

1)  Information infrastructure 

The  first  pathway  focused  on  information  infrastructure  for  R&D  to  strengthen  and 
intensify  the  connection  of  a  larger  number  of  research  and  development  organizations 
and their computing, storage and information capacities. Outputs of supported activities, 
i.e.  new,  modernized  or  developed  repositories,  optical  network,  network  optical 
elements,  storage  capacities,  SW,  licenses  or  databases,  should  ensure  higher  storage, 
computational and information capacities of R&D institutions.  

New systems were planned to be distributed and managed under  a shared management 
that  was  considered  more  effective  and  rational.  This  should  enable  and  require  more 
intensive cooperation at the national level among R&D institutions and the international 
level in integrating the Czech R&D institutions into the European Research Area.  

The  planned  measure  was  underpinned  by  the  Roadmap  for  Large  Research, 
Development  and  Innovation  Infrastructures  in  the  Czech  Republic  that  has  outlined 
Czech priorities and large infrastructure systems since 2010.  

2)  Electronic information resources 

The  second  pathway  concentrated  on  electronic  information  resources  (hereinafter  also 
EIR)  for  R&D  institutions.  The  aim  was  to  ensure  these  resources'  availability,  their 
effective use, and thus  create  conditions for producing quality scientific research  results 
through investments in scientific information resources and related infrastructure. Among 
outputs, EIR or licenses are the most important; however, the support was also available 
to  the  renewal  of  HW,  SW  and  networks,  and  marginally  to  libraries'  equipment.  These 
investments were accompanied by training for researchers and other users of information 
resources to be able to use new systems. Once all these outputs were installed and used, 
this  should  improve  the  availability  of  scientific  information  resources  and  create  an 
efficient,  modern  and  user-friendly  R&D  environment  at  the  European  level.  The 
experience  with  new  databases  and  discovery  systems  was  expected  to  increase  the 
information literacy of users. 

Both  pathways  were  intended  to  contribute  to  the  strengthening  of  efficiency  of  Czech 
R&D (i.e. successful implementation of R&D activities culminating in significant / quality 
results)  and  to  better  applicability  of  the  Czech  science  in  the  world.  As  the  seat  of 
majority of the Czech R&D institutions and universities, Prague was excluded might have 
been  quite  threatening.  It  would  be  difficult  to  imagine  that  Prague  institutions  would 
further 
have  worked  with  other  (lower-level)  systems 
(convergence) regions. Thus, the Czech Republic allocated national resources to support 
some  complementary  actions  of  ICT  infrastructure  to  maximize  the  expected  outcomes 
and logic interconnection of networks for the whole country.  

institutions 

from 

than 

56 

 
The  ICT  infrastructure,  as  well  as  the  EIR,  require  further  investments  to  keep  the 
attained  level.  It  concerns  new  ICT  technologies  or  the  renewal  of  purchased  licences. 
The  interviewed  beneficiaries  seriously  considered  their  financial  capacity  to  sustain  all 
outputs in the sustainability period before entering into projects. 

57 

 
ToC for ICT Infrastructure Investments 

Source: Own elaboration based on primary and secondary data collected.  

58 

 
 
 
 
 Source: Own elaboration based on primary and secondary data collected.  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3.2. 

Contribution analysis of the policy instrument 

Verification of intended intervention implementation 

The  logic  of  the  policy  instrument  of  the  ICT  Infrastructure  Investments  remained 
unchanged.  It  was  supported  by  only  two  time-limited  calls  for  projects,  with  the  total 
allocated budget of EUR 55.5 m.  

Within  the  call  2.3  Information  Infrastructure  for  R&D,  five  projects  were  submitted  in 
the total amount of EUR 40.8 million. Three out of five project applications for funding of 
EUR 31.7 million were  supported. Under the call 4.3 Equipment of Specialized Research 
and  Department  Libraries,  closed  in  2012,  14  project  applications  were  submitted.  Ten 
projects were in the total amount of EUR 25 million32. 

Some beneficiaries described the whole appraisal process as very long. The length of the 
appraisal was determined not only by the process itself but also by capacity issues on the 
Managing  Authority's  side.  In  2010,  significant  personal  changes  resulted  in  a  new 
concept for the organisational structure of the OP RDI33 that affected the call for proposal 
2.3.  Moreover,  call  4.3  was  affected  by  the  concurrence  of  appraisal  processes  of  two 
calls for proposals that placed high demands on project and financial managers34. 

Achievement  of  intended  and  unintended  effects  at  the  level  of  the  expected 
threshold 

The ICT Infrastructure Investments policy instrument covered one point of the indicative 
list of operations of measure 3.2. According to the Managing Authority, it was a relatively 
marginal  part  of  the  operational  programme  with  a  predominantly  supporting  character 
for the Priority Axes 1 and 2.  

The  allocated  budget  for  projects  selected  for  this  policy  instrument  represents 
approximately 34% of the measure 3.2 Promotion and awareness of R&D results (part of 
Priority  axis  3  Commercialization  and  popularization  of  R&D)  budget.  Given  that 
allocation  on  this  measure  (the  ERDF  contribution)  was  EUR  127.6  million,  the  ERDF 
contribution  for  selected  projects  cut  off  only  2.3%  of  the  OP  budget.  This  perspective 
illustrates  the  possibility  of  assessing  this  policy  instrument's  effects  at  the  OP  level  as 
these effects are rather incommensurable with other measures in financial terms and the 
potential  use  of  monitoring  indicators.  The  latter  aspect  is  even  more  complicated 
because  this  policy  instrument's  projects  are  not  uniform  and  grouped  two  distinctive 
categories of projects. 

As  it  was  already  explained,  this  policy  instrument's  heterogeneity  made  us  look  at 
assessed  projects  as  two  logical  pathways,  separately  according  to  calls  for  projects; 
however, a more complex level of the intervention logic is described together for both of 
them.  

1)  Information infrastructure 

32 MŠMT (2013): Annual Report on the Operational Programme Research and Development for Innovations for 
2012,  98  p.,  https://www.opvavpi.cz/cs/siroka-verejnost/zakladni-dokumenty-programu/vyrocni-zpravy-op-
vavpi.html (accessed 24 October 2020). 

MŠMT  (2014):  Annual  Report  on  the  Operational  Programme  Research  and  Development  for  Innovations  for 
2013,  117  p.,  https://www.opvavpi.cz/cs/siroka-verejnost/zakladni-dokumenty-programu/vyrocni-zpravy-
op-vavpi.html (accessed 24 October 2020). 

33 MŠMT (2011) Ibid. (p. 35). 
34 MŠMT (2013): Ibid (p. 70). 

60 

 
                                           
At  the  level  of  measure  3.2  (see  the  following  table  for  an  overview  of  supported 
projects),  two  indicators  were  directly  relevant  for  this  group  of  projects  and  planned 
targets of both of them were exceeded. The number of supported projects - two projects 
were  planned,  three  supported  -  and  the  number  of  entities  using  information 
infrastructure services for R&D – 65 entities were planned and 113 institutions achieved. 
These indicators, however, enable only a very limited view on the implementation of this 
group of projects.  

  Breakdown of funded projects – Information infrastructure 

Title of the project 
Extension  of  the  National  R&D 
Information 
in 
Regions (eIGeR) 

Infrastructure 

Type of direct beneficiary 
Consortium 
industry)  

(science  and/or 

ERDF contribution (€) 
17,501,077.41 

CERIT Scientific Cloud 

Higher education institution 

4,249,516.21 

VAVINET 
Infrastructure R & D centres 

Information 

Higher education institution 

2,295,912.76 

Source: own elaboration based on Task 1 data. 

Through  the  creation,  development  and  modernization  of  information  infrastructure  for 
R&D,  the  overall  aim  of  this  call  was  to  strengthen  and  intensify  the  connection  of  a 
larger number  of R&D  workplaces in the Czech Republic and research organizations and 
their computing, working and information capacities to contribute to their integration into 
the  European  Research  Area35.  The  sum  of  more  than  EUR  24  million  as  the  ERDF 
contribution  for  all  three  supported  projects  was  directed  at  new,  developed,  or 
modernised  ICT  information  infrastructure  for  R&D.  This  means  supportive  technical 
infrastructure  for  R&D  institutions  as  repositories/storage  capacities,  optical  network, 
network optical elements, SW, licenses or database. These outputs ensured a qualitative 
shift  of  existing  or  establishment  of  new  services  (storage  capacities).  The  evidence 
gathered to support this claim is underpinned by existing reports, interviews with diverse 
stakeholders, and some indicators. 

The  Final  report  on  the  OP  RDI  summed  up:  “Through  these  projects,  the  backbone 
transmission  network  was  strengthened,  a  cloud  storage  shared  by  R&D  workers  was 
created  and  high-quality  computing  capacity  was  created.  […]  the  goal  of  the 
intervention,  which  was  a  significant  strengthening  of  the  information  infrastructure  for 
R&D in the Czech Republic, was met36”. 

Interviewees  confirmed that these goals were  met, too. The analysed project brought  a 
profound shift in the quality of provided services, as capacities of the network had been 
insufficient,  new  demand  for  capacities  from  newly  developed  large  infrastructure  had 
been expected, and need for data storage was identified.  

This supported project operated and developed the national e-infrastructure for science, 
research  and  education,  which  encompasses  a  computer  network,  computational  grids, 
data storage and collaborative environment in a radical way. Thanks to it, the beneficiary 
could have offered a rich set of services to tens of connected organisations. That enabled 
a significant qualitative change in network area (important strengthening of the original 
capacity), an extension of the metacentre computing power, development of a network of 
data storages, strengthening the environment for cooperation, and web conferencing.  

35  https://www.opvavpi.cz/cs/siroka-verejnost/prehled-ukoncenych-vyzev/vyzvy-v-ramci-prioritni-osy-3/vyzva-

cislo-2-3-informacni-infrastruktury-pro-vav-po-3-op-vavpi.html (accessed 20 October 2020) 

36  MŠMT  (2017):  Závěrečná  zpráva  o  provádění  operačního  programu  Výzkum  a  vývoj  pro  inovace,  p.  146, 
https://www.opvavpi.cz/cs/siroka-verejnost/zakladni-dokumenty-programu/vyrocni-zpravy-op-vavpi.html 
(accessed 19 October 2020) 

61 

 
                                           
The needed capacity of developed solutions was estimated based on the actual situation, 
estimations of the needs of newly built large infrastructures, and ICT trends monitored by 
the beneficiaries. According to the interviewees, however, some aspects at the time could 
have  seemed  to  be  rather  oversized,  as  some  opponents  criticized  –  e.g.  data  storage. 
Nevertheless, once implemented, estimations made showed to be adequate, and already 
during  the  sustainability  period,  some  potential  users  had  to  be  refused  due  to 
insufficient  capacity.  Data  storage  was  a  new  service,  not  provided  by  the  beneficiary 
until then.  

Web conferencing was a new service stemming from the project, as well. Its importance 
is growing even now in the period of the Covid 19 pandemic. This service was  originally 
developed  on  this  project's  platform;  however,  after  the  sustainability  period,  a 
technological shift was reported. According to the Fifth ongoing evaluation, this improved 
communication between workplaces37. 

Communication  and  cooperation  of  R&D  institutions  in  the  Czech  Republic  were  also 
strengthened  in  general.  The  interviewees  from  the  side  of  the  project's  beneficiaries 
confirmed  more  intensive  cooperation,  not  really  in  terms  of  the  number  of  institutions 
but  rather  from  the  perspective  of  demanded  capacity.  The  newly  developed  large 
projects in the Czech Republic were integrated as a part of already existing institutions; 
they thus have not become new members.  

The Newly developed infrastructure  shifted the Czech system at the European level and 
opened a gateway to European cooperation. Although the interviewed beneficiary did not 
become  a  member  of  the  European  Research  Area  directly  thanks  to  the  project  (it  is 
rather  attributable  to  another  project,  according  to  the  analysed  organisation's  annual 
report),  the  analysed  project,  however,  enabled  fully-fledged  cooperation.  According  to 
interviewees,  the  European  community  took  a  lively  interest  in  results,  and  the  project 
was  presented  among  others  at  the  GÉANT  meeting.  Important,  but  hardly  measurable 
within this rather superficial sonde, is the quality of this cooperation. This brings a lot of 
benefits  and  opportunities  for  Czech  organizations:  from  the  representation  of  foreign 
researchers in advisory bodies, joint projects with international participation, cooperation 
agreements at the level of organizations, employment and posting of workers, potentially 
foreign  suppliers,  higher  quality  of  publications  realized  based  on  international 
cooperation, focus on cooperation with industry as an international practice.  

The relevant evaluations and interviews pointed out some unintended effects: 

  Savings of electricity at universities - thanks to a high-quality connection and high 
computing  and  storage  capacity,  university  employees  began  to  use  virtual 
desktops, which save up to 90% of electricity;38  

  Effects  on  higher  quality  of  organisations  management,  as  the  management  was 

obliged to ensure administratively complicated projects.  

2)  Electronic information resources 

This logical pathway had a supportive character for Czech  R&D. Nine supported projects 
(see  the  following  table)  from  the  call  for  projects  no  4.3  received  the  overall  ERDF 
contribution  of  nearly  EUR  20  million.  Two  indicators  were  relevant  for  this  group  of 
projects, and targets of both of them were exceeded. The number of supported projects 
of  professional  scientific  and  branch  libraries  -  four  projects  were  planned  and  ten 
supported;  and  the  number  of  involved  partners  /  cooperating  organizations  of 
professional  scientific  and  branch  libraries  –  60  organisations  were  planned  and  84 
organisations achieved.  

37 MŠMT (2014) Průběžná evaluace OP VaVpI, 6 Hloubková analýza  – Detailní zhodnocení výsledků, výstupů a 

dosavadních dopadů projektů realizovaných v rámci OP 3.2 a 4.1, 5. Průběžná zpráva 

38 MŠMT (2014) Průběžná evaluace, p. 8, Ibid. 

62 

 
                                           
  Breakdown of funded projects – Electronic information resources 

Title of the project 

Type of direct beneficiary 

ERDF 
(€) 

contribution 

Information 
medicine and related fields 

sources 

for 

Higher education institution 

3,367,240.57 

Research 
Information 
Infrastructure for Technology 

Higher education institution 

1,755,831.23 

MENDELU 
LIBRARY 

RESEARCH 

Higher education institution 

1,762,029.12 

Natura: 
scientific 
the 
resources of natural sciences 

SCI-INFO: 
scientific 
information  sources  for  the 
Czech Republic 

STMFull:  full  text  databases 
for research and development 

RELICEO 

Chemical 
information sources for R&D 

electronic 

Higher education institution 

3,019,448.62 

Higher education institution 

2,196,722.94 

Higher education institution 

1,702,002.60 

Hospital  (inc.  university  hospital) 
or treatment centre 

644,883.96 

The University of Pardubice 

3,670,005.55 

Library 
Applied Research 

of 

Agricultural 

Agrovýzkum Rapotín  

1,551,801.57 

Source: own elaboration based on Task 1 data. 

The  projects  supported  within  this  call  for  projects  should  ensure  the  availability  of 
electronic  information  resources  and  their  effective  use  and  thus  create  conditions  for 
producing quality scientific research results through investments in scientific information 
resources  and  related  infrastructure39.  All  interviewees  (reaction  reported  from  four 
projects)  confirmed  that  the  ERDF  support  brought  clear  progress  compared  to  the 
previous situation (before the OP RDI was implemented).  

Electronic  information  resources,  licences,  SW  for  discovery  system  were  predominant 
output  (also  in  terms  of  share  of  projects’  budgets).  Renewal  of  HW  and  networks, 
equipment  of  libraries,  trained  researchers  and  other  users  of  information  resources 
completed  effects  at  this  level  according  to  circumstances  of  a  specific  project.  It  does 
not  mean  that  electronic  information  resources  were  completely  unavailable  until  then, 
though  the  qualitative  change  was  evident  in  all  interviewed  projects.  The  change 
concerned  Science,  Technology  and  Medicine  area  only;  social  sciences  were  not 
included.  

The projects enabled the purchase of new electronic resources, crucial for research in the 
respective  scientific  area  and  filling  missing  fonds  (e.g.  older  volumes  of  journals). 
Complemented by an effective discovery system, it provided efficient, modern and user-
friendly use of acquired information sources. It was agreed by all interviews and also by 
available  evaluations.  Using  new  discovery  systems  (and  necessary  training  as  other 
activities of supported projects) increased partly also information literacy of users. Some 
interviewees noted that the training was in some cases rather over-sized, as the systems 

39  https://www.opvavpi.cz/cs/siroka-verejnost/prehled-ukoncenych-vyzev/vyzvy-v-ramci-prioritni-osy-3/vyzva-
cislo-4-3-vybaveni-odbornych-vedeckych-a-oborovych-knihoven-po-3-op-vavpi.html  (accessed  20  October 
2020) 

63 

 
                                           
of  using  these  resources  are  quite  similar  and  general  training  should  have  been 
sufficient.  All  interviewees  agreed  on  the  improved  availability  of  scientific  information 
resources,  including  for  the  general  professional  public,  in  long-term  guaranteed 
availability. 

The  projects  were  designed  on  a  significant  partnership  basis.  Because  Prague 
universities were excluded from the measure, regional universities/libraries were obliged 
to  take  the  place  of  respective  Prague  institutions,  which  up  to  that  year  ensured 
electronic  databases  for  the  whole  country.  According  to  professional  orientation,  some 
libraries (typically from bigger universities) agreed to take responsibility for certain topics 
and  submitted  projects  covering  relevant  databases  for  themselves  and  other  partner 
universities.  Such  a  partnership  covered  even  21  partners  (example  from  one  specific 
project),  partners  together  selected  resources  in  a  specific  branch  and  ensured 
sustainability.  Undoubtedly,  libraries'  cooperation  was  strengthened  and  intensified; 
however,  it  cannot  be  generalised  for  all  R&D  institutions,  especially  at  the  universities' 
level40.  

The  quality  shift  of  available  resources  in  the  supported  regions  was  evident.  However, 
without state intervention, which covered later Prague universities, not convergence but 
divergence would have  happened.  The area of  R&D was  seriously and  long-term under-
funded  in  the  whole  country,  and  the  situation  was  the  same  in  Prague  and  out  of  the 
capital.  Neither  universities  nor  other  R&D  institutions  are  established  by  the  regional 
administration; they are part of a national system that deals with the issue of the whole 
country,  dominantly  convergence  regions.  National  resources  open  for  R&D  institutions, 
including  Prague,  prevented  regional  disparities  in  the  availability  of  electronic 
information  sources.  Because  the  dominant  share  of  universities  and  other  R&D 
institutions  is  settled  in  Prague,  this  could  have  endangered  the  overall  quality  of  the 
Czech higher education system and the R&D structure. 

Availability  of  necessary  resources  is  a  crucial  precondition  for  contemporary  science 
(however,  not  the  only  one).  The  interviewees  were  rather  sceptical  about  the 
contribution  of  these  projects  on  stimulation  of  interest  in  R&D  or  popularization  of 
science  and  raising  awareness  of  its  results.  Even  if  activities  towards  popularization  of 
science are a common component of library mission, it was not an unambiguous effect of 
analysed projects. 

The  evaluations and the interviews pointed out an  unintended effect  related to  a higher 
quality  of  management  of  organisations,  as  the  management  was  obliged  to  ensure 
administratively complicated projects.  

At  the  level  of  final  outcomes,  both  pathways  concur.  Both  of  them  had  a  supportive 
character and made an important precondition for research.  

The  interviewees  from  some  beneficiaries  were  very  optimistic  about  their  project's 
positive  effects  on  a  more  complex  level.  Their  main  argument  was  that  most  Czech 
research results had used the infrastructure of this project or its followers (however, in a 
diverse  manner).  There  are  approximately  450  thousand  users,  but  it  is  impossible  to 
assess  the  developed  infrastructure's  influence  on  each  produced  article  or  any  other 
R&D  results.  Nevertheless,  it  can  be  confirmed  that  ICT  infrastructure  created 
appropriate conditions for R&D, at least in terms of technological parameters.  

The same can be summed up as for electronic information resources. Again, high-quality 
electronic resources are a precondition for research as it keeps researches informed and 

40 MŠMT (2014): Průběžná evaluace OP VaVpI, 6 Hloubková analýza – Detailní zhodnocení výsledků, výstupů a 

dosavadních dopadů projektů realizovaných v rámci OP 3.2 a 4.1, 5. Průběžná zpráva 

64 

 
                                           
connected to the top scientists in the world. Without such resources, it is unimaginable to 
conduct science at all. An on-going evaluation also pointed out that electronic information 
resources,  available  directly  in  the  user's  computer,  spare  time  that  can  be  devoted  to 
the research. Even if the interviewees were very careful concerning these projects' direct 
contribution,  an  on-going  evaluation  argues,  based  on  the  interviewees  with  some 
researchers that thanks to electronic resources, they can produce impacted articles more 
easily41.  Another  evaluation  was  though  more  cautious  in  such  a  claim  when  arguing: 
“The longer-term intended impact in the form of a higher number of published scientific 
articles in impact journals has not yet been demonstrated, but can be expected”42. 

Contemporary  science  does  not  operate  on  an  individual  basis,  and  the  analysed  policy 
instrument  has  supported  connectivity  among  workplaces  and  scientific  teams.  This  can 
contribute  to  strengthening  the  efficiency  of  Czech  R&D  and  positive  effects  on 
applicability  in  the  world,  however  not  as  self-standing  intervention.  Therefore,  it  could 
not  have  been  confirmed  that  this  policy  instrument  supported  the  development, 
competitiveness, innovation and excellent research capacities of the territory. 

Verification of assumed pre-conditions 

The  interviews  proved  good  knowledge  of  needs  and  trends  that  designed  supported 
projects (pre-condition 1). All interviewees underlined it, but it should be highlighted that 
the policy instrument's objectives can be difficult to contradict, as electronic information 
resources and ICT infrastructure is, in reality, absolutely fundamental and without them, 
science cannot be conducted nowadays.  

The projects brought  a  higher technological level for discovery systems in libraries; this 
new approach was supported by its users’ training. Even in the case of ICT infrastructure, 
there was no doubt that the change was revolutionary. Again, again, the new technology 
readiness  level  (pre-condition  3)  was  adequate,  as  no  problems  in  this  sense  were 
reported.  The  same  is  true  concerning  the  absorption  capacity  (pre-condition  2).  As 
regards  libraries  (beneficiaries  as  well  as  partners),  demands  for  electronic  resources 
could  have  been  probably  even  more  ambitious;  nevertheless,  the  obligation  to  sustain 
purchased  databases  kept  all  beneficiaries 
feasible  measures.  All 
interviewees,  the  available  internal  documentation  and  some  indicators  confirmed  that 
ICT  infrastructure  and  information  resources  were  used  by  a  wide  range  of  users  (pre-
condition 8). 

in  relatively 

The pre-conditions that were not fully verified concern the administration system on the 
side  of  applicants/beneficiaries  (pre-condition  4)  and  the  Managing  Authority  to 
administer and manage supported projects (pre-condition 6) successfully. There were no 
unresolved issues that would endanger any project, but on the side of beneficiaries, the 
administrative  burden  was  unanimously  considered  very  high.  One  beneficiary  reported 
that the extreme burden was behind the premature retirement of a crucial library worker. 
Even if this is rather anecdotal evidence, also other beneficiaries described the excessive 
amount  of  documentation  archived  due  to  their  projects.  They  considered  this  as 
incomparable with any other grant system.  A  part of identified problems was caused by 
high  staff  fluctuation  at  the  Managing  Authority.  Another  cause  could  be  seen  in  the 
previous system when typically, Prague institutions used to ensure electronic information 
resources  for  its  regional  counterparts,  however  not  from  EU  funds,  and  the  EIR 
beneficiaries were thus inexperienced.  

No issue was reported concerning the necessary resources to ensure sustainability for the 
partners'  side  (pre-condition  7).  To  the  point  “Well-designed  and  stable  rules  and 

41 Ibid 
42  MŠMT  (2015)  Průběžná  evaluace  OP  VaVpI,  7.  Hloubková  analýza  –  Zhodnocení  očekávaných  dopadů  OP 

VaVpI, 6. Průběžná zpráva, version 1.1. 

65 

 
                                           
requirements for providing support” (pre-condition 5), rather negative experiences were 
collected. Of course, it is necessary to underline that in general terms, rules, as laws and 
other  standards,  are  stable  in  the  Czech  Republic  as  in  a  sound  democracy.  In  more 
detail,  at  least  the  public  procurements  system  and  some  cases  of  unclear  methodical 
guidance were mentioned by the interviewed  beneficiaries as  factors  corroding this pre-
condition.  Another  frequently  mentioned  issue  was  the  inflexibility  of  the  system  that 
disabled reaction to rapidly evolving technologies. As there were long delays between the 
preparation  of  a  project  and  its  selection,  it  would  be  useful  to  modify  certain  aspects, 
but the system did not allow it.  

Verification of supporting factors 

All identified  points  were  verified  as  factors  supporting  the  policy  instrument’s  expected 
results.  The  Roadmap  for  Large  Research,  Development  and  Innovation  Infrastructure 
(supporting factor 1) in the Czech Republic was prepared for the first time in 2010. Since 
then, it has been regularly updated and assessed. The strategy is important as it sets up 
a  continuous  approach  aiming  to  grasp  the  situation  and  significance  of  large  research, 
development and innovation infrastructures within the Czech Republic and the European 
Research  Area.  This  factor  was  not  relevant  to  the  pathway  of  electronic  information 
resources.  

All  other  factors  were  valid  for  both  identified  pathways.  Complementary  actions  in 
Prague (supporting factor 2) and continuous public support over time enabled to ensure 
effects  for  the  whole  Czech  R&D  system.  In  2017,  a  project  to  ensure  electronic 
information resources centrally followed (CzechELib43) (supporting factor 3). 

Demand for ICT infrastructure and EIR is obvious, as an above-discussed precondition for 
R&D  in  general.  However,  such  demand  needs  to  be  correctly  anticipated.  Demand  for 
ICT infrastructure was estimated in the preparatory phases of projects. The interviewees 
of  electronic  information  resources  reacted  on  demand  among  scientists  in  respective 
institutions.  They  pointed  out  that  no  one  can  imagine  any  comeback  to  unsatisfactory 
conditions before the realized projects. The difference between what is and what used to 
be considered a standard in these libraries grew significantly.  

However, an interesting view is on “demand” in ICT infrastructure (supporting factor 4). 
The representatives of the analysed project described the preparatory process reflecting 
not  only  perceived  needs  but  also  expected  demand  and  trends.  Demand  for  ICT 
infrastructure  was  significantly  increasing,  and  it  even  exceeded  estimations.  For 
example, the interviewed beneficiary was obliged to deny some institutions interested in 
data storage services during the sustainability period due to the full capacity. However, it 
is  interesting  that  an  opponent  of  the  project  criticised  that  planned  storage  size  as 
excessive.  

Verification of risks and threats 

None  of  the  identified  risks  and  threats  materialised  to  the  extent  that  they  would 
negatively  influence  expected  results.  Uncertainty,  instability  of  the  interpretation  of 
rules,  long-lasting  and  complex  public  procurements  process  control  was  the  most 
threatening  for  all  projects  (risk  3).  Even  if  this  is  a  typical  risk  of  all  projects  in  the 
Czech  Republic,  within  the  R&D  area,  this  was  even  more  strengthened  as  unique 
investments  or  services  are  often  purchased.  These  services  first  have  to  be  made-to-
measure  frequently;  second,  they  can  be  supplied  by  only  a  few  (or  even  by  only  one) 
provider  and  cannot  be  substituted  by  anything  less  expensive  (e.g.  by  a  collection  of 
cheaper  journals).  Considering  modifications  of  the  respective  law,  inexperience  of  the 
majority  of  beneficiaries  and  high  pressure  from  the  Managing  Authority  (similarly 

43 https://www.czechelib.cz/en/56-about-czechelib (accessed 23 October 2020). 

66 

 
                                           
inexperienced)  and  other  Czech  institutions  led  to  delays,  repeating  of  tenders  and 
important strain. 

No interviewee reported problems with  the sustainability of projects’  results (risk 4). As 
far as electronic information resources, the only issue for beneficiaries was the number of 
fees  of  purchased  databases.  Partnerships  resolved  this  issue  among  universities,  with 
reduced  fees  for  each  of  them.  Acquired  services  were  so  important  for  all  workplaces 
that were sustained even after the period of sustainability, even though the system was 
centralized into the National Centre for Electronic Information Resources CzechELib.  

Nevertheless,  another  point  of  view  on  sustainability  has  to  be  applied  within  ICT 
infrastructure.  Everything  was  sustained  during  the  sustainability  period,  but  after  it, 
some devices purchased within the respective project have been already replaced by new 
ones  (e.g.  data  storages)  due  to  technological  changes.  From  the  perspective  of  newly 
developed services, this has been sustained up to now (risk 1). 

The  exclusion of Prague from the support for  convergence  regions was compensated by 
the  national  resources  (risk  2).  Thus,  this  risk  was  mitigated,  though,  without  the  state 
intervention, this would completely pervert the problem that the intervention should have 
resolved.  The  result  would  be  not  the  convergent  situation  that  all  regions,  including 
Prague,  have  the  same  conditions,  but  the  divergent  situation  when  Prague  institutions 
and the majority of Czech students could not have attained the same conditions. This risk 
was confirmed by the interviewees as well as some evaluations44. 

The  risk  of  bad  interconnectivity  of  ICT  infrastructure  between  supported  regions  and 
unsupported Prague has not been unequivocally confirmed – some interviewees admitted 
this  hypothetical  option.  In  any  case,  thanks  to  the  national  intervention,  this  had  not 
happened. 

3.3.3.  General assessment of the policy instrument 

The  policy  instrument  successfully  achieved  expected  effects  at  the  level  that  the 
supported  projects  could  directly  influence  (especially  the  outputs  and  the  immediate 
outcomes). The relevant monitoring indicators were even exceeded. Slightly questionable 
is  the  outcome  “Increasing  information  literacy”  –  the  policy  instrument  strengthened 
information  literacy  but  only  to  limits  defined  by  the  calls  for  projects,  definitely  not  in 
more  general  terms.  Starting  with  the  intermediate  outcomes,  the  influence  is  not  as 
evident; however, it contributed to the environment enabling them. 

On the more complex level, some effects were verified to a limited extent (“Integration of 
Czech  R&D  institutions  into  the  European  Research  Area”,  “Strengthened  and  more 
intensive cooperation of R&D institutions!). In case of some outcomes, no evidence was 
(could be) reported and remain unknown (“Stimulating of interest in R&D, Popularization 
of  science  and  raising  awareness  of  its  results”).  This  does  not  mean  that  the  policy 
instrument was not successful. This policy instrument has a supporting character for the 
R&D area, and more complex effects can be attained only with  the concurrence of other 
activities  and  causal  links.  Therefore,  having  achieved  the  intermediate  or  the  final 
outcomes to a limited extent should be considered a success.  

Preventing  the  emergence  of  deepening  of  educational  differences  in  society  between 
regions  was  the  only  intermediate  outcome  that  was  not  achieved.  First,  the  calls  for 
proposals'  setting-up  could  have  divergent  effects,  i.e.  if  not  compensated  by  the 

44  MŠMT  (2017):  Závěrečná  zpráva  o  provádění  operačního  programu  Výzkum  a  vývoj  pro  inovace,  p.  146, 
https://www.opvavpi.cz/cs/siroka-verejnost/zakladni-dokumenty-programu/vyrocni-zpravy-op-vavpi.html 
(accessed 19 October 2020). 

67 

 
                                           
national  resources  for  Prague  institutions,  disparities  would  rather  grow  in  analysed 
aspects. Second, once reflecting both the ERDF and the national resources, there was an 
equalization effect (the same conditions  before and after the intervention; however, the 
overall situation improved). 

Some  pre-conditions  were  verified  only  to  a  limited  extent,  but  it  was  not  proved  that 
this  fact  would  threaten  planned  effects.  According  to  collected  evidence,  the  risks  and 
the  threats  were  managed  or  mitigated,  and  the  supporting  effects  were  verified  – 
according to collected evidence, these existed and positively influenced effectiveness. 

68 

 
 
Representation of the results of the contribution analysis for the ICT Infrastructure Investments policy instrument 

Source: Own elaboration based on primary and secondary data collected.

69 

 
3.4.  Policy 

Instrument: 

Infrastructure 
implemented  under  the  Operational  Program  Research  and 
Development for Innovation  

Extreme 

Light 

ELI: 

3.4.1. 

Theory of Change of the major project 

This section focuses on the case study’s major project, ELI: Extreme Light Infrastructure 
(hereinafter  ELI),  financed  under  the  Priority  Axis  1  (PA  1  -  European  Centres  of 
Excellence) in the OP RDI.  

Overview and rationale of the investment 

The  PA  1  under  the  OP  RDI  was  designed  to  support  a  critical  mass  concentration  in 
excellent  and  quality  research  activities  around  existing  institutions.  It  represented  the 
key  part  of  the  OP  RDI  in  financial  terms.  In  many  research  domains  (i.a.  Physics, 
Photonics  and  Lasers),  there  was  an  existing  tradition  and  relevance  in  the  Czech 
Republic; however, a significant upgrade was needed to be competitive on the European 
and global level. The call for projects  for  European R&D Centres  of  Excellence (No 1.1.) 
was  intended  to  support  the  state-of-art  of  R&D  infrastructure  in  fundamental  and 
applied research. Therefore, this call's main goal was to develop new research capacities 
that aimed to match the top level of quality and research excellence on the European and 
global level.  

The main rationale behind the target of investment in  the PA 1 (and partially also in PA 
2)  was  to  support  excellent  and  internationally  reputable  research  infrastructures.  It 
should  have  provided  the  national  research  ecosystem  with  significant  enlargement  of 
mission-oriented academic research and applied research. These were the expected main 
effects  of  the  planned  investments  in  PA  1  of  the  OP  RDI,  and  the  ELI  project  was 
supposed  to  play  a  key  role  in  this  task.  In  the  longer  term,  these  investments  were 
anticipated  to  boost  the  competitiveness  of  the  Czech  economy  and  contribute  to 
developing  new  technologies  and  solutions  to  benefit  society  (not  only  in  the  Czech 
Republic but worldwide).  

The ELI project was bottom-up designed, as history and the achieved level of excellence 
of  the  Institute  of  Physics  of  the  Czech  Academy  of  Sciences  (hereinafter  IoP)  were 
important  factors.  The  project  reacted  to  the  international  research  demand  in  many 
European  countries,  and  thus  beneficiaries  created  an  alliance  among  those  countries 
already  in  the  preparatory  phase  of  the  project.  This  phase  was  supported  by  a  project 
from the Framework programme – the project put together partners from future the ELI 
consortium and created a platform for the development of the ELI network infrastructure. 

Policy instrument and ToC description 

The  ELI  Beamlines  was  planned  as  a  part  of  the  European  roadmap  of  next-generation 
major  research  facilities  identified  by  the  European  Strategic  Forum  for  Research 
Infrastructures (ESFRI). ELI is an international research facility using new and emerging 
laser technologies to generate the world's most intense light pulses. The whole Extreme 
Light  Infrastructure  can  be  described  as  a  distributed  facility  including  three  nodes 
located  in  three  different  countries45:  the  ELI-Beamlines,  which  was  built  in  the  Czech 
Republic  and  became  a  major  component  of  the  whole  ELI  infrastructure,  the  ELI-ALPS 
(in Hungary) and the ELI-Nuclear-Physics (in Romania).  

During  the  preparatory  phase,  the  IoP  managed  the  national  Consortium  ELI-CZ, 
involving 14 major universities and research institutions. The proposed ELI project's main 
goal was to establish an internationally recognized excellent research infrastructure as a 
part of the pan-European ELI network and ESFRI.  

The main expected objectives of the ELI project were: 

45 In future, it should be more as a network connecting also other partners. 

70 

 
                                           
  To enable world-class research in the field of interaction of laser light with matter 
at the intensities exceeding about 100 times the values achieved at that time; 
  To  establish  an  environment  for  the  development  of  advanced  cutting-edge 
technologies  and  strengthen  the  research,  development  and  innovation  potential 
of  the  Czech  Republic  able  to  contribute  to  its  competitiveness  and  future 
economic  growth,  to  contribute  to  the  creation  of  highly  qualified  workplaces,  so 
that  the  Czech  regions  can  become  locations  for  major  high-level  research 
activities within Europe. 

The project was designed to  cover the construction of a modern  specialized building (of 
about  30,000  m2),  its  equipment  with  laser  systems,  compressors  of  optical  pulses, 
vacuum systems, computing facility, and data storage. It also included start-up activities 
such  as  setting  up  a  technology  transfer  centre,  library  services  and  other  general 
services required for the operation of a European Centre of Excellence. 

This new research infrastructure with a state-of-art research facility should have enabled 
using  new  and  emerging  ultra-high  intensity  laser  technologies  to  generate  the  most 
intense  light  pulses  in  the  world.  It  should  have  established  international  excellent 
research teams providing the global laser community with expertise and background for 
fundamental research and capacities for  cooperation with application partners.  It should 
have  helped  the  IoP  (and  other  partners,  too)  to  boost  the  quality  and  quantity  of 
research  outputs  (scientific  publications,  patents),  improved  the  possibilities  to  educate 
and  train  young  scientists  and,  in  the  long  run,  bring  economic  development  and 
competitiveness built on new technologies, knowledge and high added value. 

Before the project proposal was submitted, the MA organized a pre-call for projects in the 
PA 1. The reason was to motivate applicants to prepare complex and bottom-up projects 
that reflected the research environment's needs. The project proposal ideas' assessment 
was  based  on  international  relevance  and  excellence,  practical  needs,  readiness  and 
quality, and experience of the management team. The ELI project went through this pre-
call successfully, and the process helped the management team design the final proposal. 

The  strong  position  of  the  IoP,  a  tradition  in  lasers  and  photonics  domain,  and  planned 
synergic  projects  played  an  important  role.  The  IoP  was  “on  the  map”  of  the  European 
research  community  thanks  to  the  PALS46  ,  and  there  was  long-time  cooperation  with 
other  foreign  partners.  International  relevance  and  respectable  position  among  the 
European  community  enabled  the  IoP  to  agree  with  research  institutes  from  other 
countries to set up a flagship project in the Czech Republic. The fact that two other  ELI 
infrastructures  (in  Hungary  and  Romania)  were  established  in  the  same  period  (and 
provided  by  the  ERDF  financing)  was  also  an  important  factor.  It  was  necessary  to 
convince  other  international  partners  to  provide  financing  once  the  infrastructure  was 
fully operational and under the ELI-ERIC pan-European consortium. ELI was also included 
in the European ESFRI  Roadmap (the only project in the Czech Republic), which helped 
to all these steps. 

The key rationale behind the project and also the proposed outputs were (i) construction 
of the new  ELI  site with  the ability to accommodate the planned research infrastructure 
and R&D personnel; (ii) development and acquisition of high-end laser technologies and 
related  laboratory  equipment.  These  outputs  were  indispensable  for  achieving  the 
proposed  results.  Once  the  ELI  facility  was  in  full  operation,  the  project  supposed  to  a 
gradual  increase  in  numbers  of  scientific  outputs47.  That  was  reflected  in  monitoring 
indicators. The development of research activities and projects should have also resulted 
in  a  broader  cooperation  with  the  applied  sphere.  Technology  transfer  and  collaboration 
with industry was a key focus of the projects in PA 2, but also the projects in PA 1 were 
asked  to  bring  some  results  in  that  area.  Considering  the  specialization  of  ELI  and  the 

46 Prague Asterix Laser System co-developed by the IoP and partners during previous decade. 
47 Patents, scientific publications and other applied research outputs. 

71 

 
                                           
nature of its research activities, the development in that area was expected to reach the 
full potential several years after completion. 

The proposed short, medium and long-term intended results of the ELI project complied 
with anticipated outcomes of the OP RDI (and the PA 1). Project realization should have 
contributed  to  establishing  internationally  experienced  research  teams  that  would  have 
enabled  to  start  six  proposed  research  activities  within  the  ELI  facility  (see  the  figure 
below). The international constitution of research teams helped to establish international 
partnerships  with  the  top  foreign  R&D  infrastructures  worldwide.  This  process 
significantly increased the capacity for excellent research in photonics and lasers because 
the facility should concentrate on world-class technologies and experts. 

Research activities in the ELI Beamlines facility 

Source: Project proposal for OP RDI (ELI: Extreme Light Infrastructure). 

72 

 
 
 
 
Theory of change of the ELI: Extreme Light Infrastructure policy instrument 

Source: own elaboration based on project proposal documentation and secondary data. 

73 

 
 
  
74 

 
 
 
 
Source: own elaboration based on project proposal documentation and secondary data. 

75 

 
 
 
3.4.2. 

Contribution analysis of the major project 

Verification of intended intervention implementation 

The project was implemented by a management team of the IoP between 2011 – 2016. 
The  gross  total  ELI  project  costs  were  EUR  206.6  million,  including  EUR  206.6  million 
eligible costs, with EUR 175,6 million ERDF contribution. The national public contribution 
was EUR 30.9 million. The ELI project represented more than 11% of the investment  of 
the whole OP RDI and almost 19% of funds invested in the PA 1 and the PA 2. Moreover, 
in  the  second  phase  of  the  project,48  funded  by  the  following  OP,  ELI  received  the 
support  of  EUR  74,4  million.  The  preparatory  phase  was  supported  by  EUR  0.04  million 
from  the  7FP.  The  ELI  project's  financial  support  took  the  form  of  non-reimbursable 
grants,  providing  85%  funding  from  the  ERDF  and  15%  of  national  co-financing. 
According to interviews with stakeholders, without  the financial support provided by  the 
ERDF,  such  a  major  project  would  have  never  been  realized  in  the  Czech  Republic. 
Achieving the critical mass of financing from the national resources would not have been 
possible. 

There  were  some  delays  regarding  construction  permission  and  public  tenders,  but  the 
local  authority,  the  management  team  and  the  managing  authority  helped  solve  the 
situation. Significant delays continued in constructing the infrastructure (buildings) and in 
the  assembly  part  of  the  project.  Therefore,  some  intended  effects  were  postponed  in 
time. 

Non-eligibility of the Prague region directed the project out of the capital's borders, and 
specific  requirements  on  land  and  space  only  underlined  this  direction.  Once  the  site's 
construction  was  nearing  completion,  project  leaders  and  research  teams  were 
established and already started to work. Their salaries were supported not only by the OP 
RDI  but  also  by  the  OP  Education  for  Competitiveness,  which  helped  bring  excellent 
full 
senior  researchers 
operationalization  enabled  ELI  to  be  active  and  successful  in  international  proposals  for 
grants  (Framework  Programme,  Horizon  2020).  The  production  of  research  outputs 
significantly  increased  (see  figures  in  3.3.3.),  which  led  to  higher  relevance  and 
cooperation  in  the  international  scientific  community.  It  also  contributed  to  additional 
financing for ELI, and they can build on it for the future. 

from  abroad.  Setting-up  of  research  teams  and  their 

The development of laser technologies and other special and laboratory equipment was a 
big  issue  because  they  were  supposed  to  be  state-of-art.  And  thus,  the  best  suppliers 
and  researchers  (not  only  from  the  ELI  consortium)  were  put  together  to  develop  the 
solution that was not on the market yet. In the preparatory phase of the project (before 
the call for projects was published), the MA planned to motivate potential applicants into 
broader cooperation with industry partners and incorporate this into the call parameters. 
But there was no such a threshold in the end, and the projects were asked to be focused 
dominantly  on  fundamental  and  mission-oriented  research.  In  the  case  of  ELI,  the  plan 
was  to  cover  about  12%  of  its  operational  costs  with  its  operational  revenues  in  the 
operational  phase  (from  2016  onwards).  Those  revenues  include  contract  research, 
royalties and patent revenues. 

The ELI was the first project of that size and complexity prepared and realized 
by  the  Czech  academic  institutions  in  history,  with  a  very  ambitious  goal  to 
develop the world's most powerful lasers in their specific categories. Management of such 
complex  projects  is  extremely  demanding,  and  some  budget  or  time-schedule 
modifications can be necessary. Nor did the ELI avoid the prolonged realization.  The ELI 
project  was  divided  into  two  subsequent  phases49.  Therefore,  some  of  the  ELI  project's 

48 ELI was divided to phases because of delays during the constructions. 
49 Project in the second phase was funded by the OP Research, Development and Education (OP RDE) within the 
2014-2020 programming period, No. EF15_008/0000162 - ELI - EXTREME LIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE - FÁZE 
2. Eligible costs of this project were 1.859 million EUR.  

76 

 
                                           
proposed activities were postponed to the next programming period (2014 – 2020) – ELI 
–  Extreme  Light  Infrastructure  Phase  II50.  The  subsequent  project  was  focused  on 
completing the highest intensity laser equipment in the world (in that category), testing 
the  facilities  and  became  fully  operational.  This  exception  was  negotiated  and  approved 
by the EC before 201351. Especially the outcomes and impact had to be postponed in the 
time.  

ELI represented a significant share of the funding within the OP RDI. Because of 
delays  in  the  realization,  the  MA  was  under  pressure  for  the  EU  funds 
absorptions when nearing the end of the programming period 2007-2013. Construction 
works  had  negligible  delays  caused  by  certification  of  allocated  funds,  which  led  to 
complications  on  the  side  of  the  MA  with  their  monitoring  indicators.  Moreover,  state 
administration  came  up  with  changing  regulation  in  public  procurement.  Therefore,  the 
beneficiary was under the pressure of time (forced to speed up with their proceedings  - 
acquisition  of  land,  public  tenders  for  construction  works,  technology  equipment),  too. 
Despite  these  troubles,  the  beneficiary  fulfilled  all  indicators  and  successfully  launched 
globally  unique  infrastructure,  inspiring  leading  economies  in  the  world  like  the  USA  or 
South Korea.  

Achievement  of  intended  and  unintended  effects  at  the  level  of  the  expected 
threshold 

The  main  intended  effects,  especially  all  immediate,  intermediate  and  final 
outcomes,  of  the  ELI  project  were  in  general  achieved  (see  Figure  21).  However, 
many  of  them  later  than  expected,  mostly  due  to  the  delays  described  in  the  previous 
section and the character of fundamental research in lasers. These effects represent fully 
operational  state-of-the-art  laser  research  infrastructure  with  international  science 
teams,  established  cooperation  with  other  institutions  in  the  ELI-ERIC  consortium  and 
volume of scientific outputs.  
All  monitoring  indicators  (see  table  8)  reflect  most  of  the  intended  effects  and 
were  successfully  fulfilled.  Most  of  them  are  connected  to  the  immediate  or 
intermediate  outcomes,  like  newly  created  jobs  (in  the  ToC,  the  IMO1  Established 
research  teams  and  leaders  of  research  programmes  or  the  INO4  Training  of  young 
scientists  with  more  international  experience).  Moreover,  some  of  them  were  more 
than 20% above the target value, as the ”Increase in the total number of recognized 
R&D  results  for  supported  workplaces”  as  an  intermediate  outcome  (INO2)  or,  more 
importantly,  “Newly  created  R&D  jobs  for  women”  (Number  of  newly  created  jobs,  R&D 
employees – women), relevant for as both immediate (IMO1) and intermediate outcomes 
(INO4). Key intended outcomes were the construction of the facility and the operation of 
a  high-performance  laser.  Therefore,  it  is  important  that  the  indicator  “Number  of 
researchers  using  the  built  infrastructure”  exceeded  the  target  value  of  20%.  Based  on 
the  successfully  achieved  indicators  and  the  character  of  some  intended  effects  -  jobs 
creation  and  young  researchers  training,  it  can  be  presumed  that  ELI  set  conditions  for 
the beneficiary's behavioural change and its collaborating partners in the Czech Republic 
and in the EU. 

  Overview  of  relevant  monitoring  indicators  at  the  level  of  policy 

instrument  

Monitoring indicator 

ToC element 

Number of newly created jobs, total researchers (PM - 
Number of jobs) 
Number of newly created jobs, researchers – women (PM - 
women - Number of jobs – women) 
Number of newly created jobs, researchers under 35 (PM - 

Immediate outcome: IMO1 
- Established research 
teams and leaders of 
research programmes; 
Intermediate outcome: INO 

Target 
value 

Achieved 
value 
(2015) 

101 

109,99 

0 

54 

14,11 

77,48 

50  Investments  were  made  not  only  from  the  OP  RDI  (2007-13)  but  also  from  the  subsequent  OP  Research, 
Development, Education, prepared for the period 2014-20.  
51 According to interview with former representative of the OP RDI. 

77 

 
                                           
Number of jobs) 
Number of newly created jobs, researchers under 35 – 
women (PM - women - Number of jobs - women) 
Number of newly created jobs, R&D employees – total (PM 
- Number of jobs) 
Number of newly created jobs, R&D employees – women 
(PM - women - Number of jobs - women) 
Number of researchers using the built infrastructure 
(Number of persons - Number of persons) 
Number of successful graduates of master's and doctoral 
study programmes (Number of persons - Number of 
persons) 
Number of successful graduates of doctoral study 
programmes (Number of persons - Number of persons) 
Increase in the total number of recognized R&D results for 
supported workplaces (Number) 
Professional publications (according to the RVV 
methodology) (Number) 
Research results protected based on a special legal 
regulation (according to the RVV methodology) (Number) 
Applied research results (according to RVV methodology) 
(Number) 
Reconstructed, expanded and newly built capacities (m2 - 
Area in m2) 

Newly built capacities (m2 - Area in m2) 

Volume of funds for R&D obtained from foreign sources 

(EUR

52

) 

4 - Training of young 
scientists with more 
international experience 

0 

11,81 

229 

250,15 

0 

51,62 

101 

123 

Intermediate outcome: INO 
4 - Training of young 
scientists with more 
international experience 

7 

7 

7 

7 

Intermediate outcome: 
INO2 - Publications, patents 
and participation in national 
and international research 
project. 

Output: O1 - Building new 
research facility; O2 - 
Purchase and development 
of new technologies, 
instrumentation and 
laboratory equipment 
Immediate outcome: IMO3 
- Established strategic 
international partnership 
with top research 
institutions; Intermediate 
outcome: INO1 - 
International open-calls for 
proposal for using the ELI 
Beamlines research facility. 

132 

167,65 

121 

156,65 

0 

11 

11 

30.887 

30.887 

30.887 

30.887 

120.000 

236.743,1
8 

Source: National Coordination Authority, CSIL calculations. 

For  validating  the  intended  effects,  it  is  important  to  go  beyond  the  indicators 
themselves,  and  therefore,  the  specific  results  were  analysed.  Figure  19  and  figure  20 
demonstrate  the  split  of  the  project  type  of  results.  Phase  I  produced  more 
theoretical outputs, like treatise or papers. On the other hand, during Phase II, 
the ELI researchers produced more applied results - several patents and utility 
models  (8%  of  results  in  the  Phase  II  –  in  the  Phase  I,  no  patents  and  utility 
models  were  produced).  Comparing  the  results  of  Phase  I  and  Phase  II,  we  can  also 
observe a growth of applied results from 6 to 9%. This trend is key for fulfilling the initial 
idea  of  the  PA  1  of  the  OP  RDI,  i.e.  the  support  of  applicants  into  broader  cooperation 
with industry partners.  

52 Amount of the investment was converted from CZK to EUR (1 EUR=25 CZK). 

78 

 
 
 
                                           
Direct results of the ELI project Phase I and their types  

Source: Technology Agency of the Czech Republic, Starfos database, downloaded 15/10/2020. 

Results of the ELI project Phase II (following project from the OP RDI) and their types  

Source: Technology Agency of the Czech Republic, Starfos database, downloaded 15/10/2020.  

One of the expected main effects was full involvement in international research activities 
and  projects.  ELI  became  a  firm  and  respected  part  of  the  pan-European  laser 
community, and after the full completion following results were achieved:  

  There were nine submitted projects for the FP7 and two project proposals for the 
Horizon  2020  prepared  by  ELI  already  by  the  end  of  201553.  And  this  number 
increased  in  the  following  years,  once  the  infrastructure  was  nearing  its  full 
operation. 

  A lot of senior and junior researchers from abroad have joined  the ELI team. The 
share of foreign researchers and R&D personnel is more than 50% today, unique 

53 According to the document: Průběžná evaluace OP VaVpI, 7. Hloubková analýza  – Zhodnocení očekávaných 

dopadů OP VaVpI, 6. Průběžná zpráva, MEYS (2015). 

79 

 
 
 
                                           
in  the  Czech  context.  At  the  end  of  the  realization  phase  (in  2015),  there  were 
330 new employees54. 

Several  important  unintended  effects  occurred.  First,  the  core  management  team 
gained  new  experience  and  skills  during  the  project's  preparatory  and  realisation 
phases. Skills like the orchestration of the development of a new research facility, hiring 
the  top  talents  and  construction  of  the  most  powerful  lasers  are  important  prerequisite 
for the consortium's success. Moreover, some of the key managers are still active in ELI, 
ensuring  the  continuity  and  increased  self-confidence  of  the  whole  academic 
community that such a large project can be implemented.  

Second,  ELI  brought  significant  development  in  the  whole  locality  of  Dolní 
Břežany,  e.g.  public  services  (education,  leisure  and  cultural  activities,  level  of  well-
being) or housing facilities. At a general level, this improvement is important for ELI itself 
because  the  high-quality  environment  for  living  is  one  of  the  pull  factors,  attracting  the 
top researchers from the world to the locality of the ELI site.  

The  realisation of  ELI also brought to this locality a  smaller research centre, HiLASE 
(also  financed  from  OP  the  RDI),  focused  more  on  the  applied  research.  Both 
institutions closely cooperate, and scientists and innovators' local buzz was a key factor 
behind  the  establishment  of  a  regional  science  and  innovation  cluster  called 
STAR  (Science,  Technology  Advanced  Region).  Concertation  of  these  two  laser  facilities 
into the locality attracted several companies like Rigaku or Cardam and other companies 
that sat up long-term collaborations with them. This was a seed for creating the milieu, 
potentially  replicable  in  other  ELI  localities  or  translated  into  the  virtual  milieu,  so 
important  in  the  current  pandemic  situation.  These  effects  are  outcomes  of  synergies 
with other investments  made in the locality. They are prerequisites for a long-term and 
continual  collaboration  with  both  research  and  application  partners  and  general  impacts 
on  economic  development  in  general.  However,  a  global  pandemic  has  impacted  the 
whole ELI-ERIC consortium, mostly by limitations of international travelling (international 
experiments) and goods delivery (components for testing from  the client). On the other 
hand,  the  pandemic  impacts  only  a  part  of  the  ELI-ERIC  activities,  which  should  not 
dramatically affect the ELI itself. Moreover, because of the  facility's uniqueness, there is 
a need among the partners in the milieu to “go back to the normal” as soon as possible.   

Verification of assumed pre-conditions 

Long-term  specialisation  and  experience  of  the  IoP  on  lasers  (pre-condition  1) 
took  place  and  played  a  critical  role.  The  previous  generation  of  the  internationally 
renowned laser system PALS helped to gain the attention of foreign scientists and put the 
Czech  laser  research  on  the  map  of  Europe.  There  was  a  need  to  upgrade  the 
infrastructure  (in  fact,  build  a  brand  new  one)  to  stay  at  a  leading  global 
position in related fields of research (pre-condition 2). This was recognised by all 
stakeholders  around  the  ELI  project  (and  the  ELI-ERIC  consortium)  and  the  EC  and 
domestic politics level. This condition played an important role in all negotiations and also 
in the implementation of the project. Moreover, due to the international network and 
brand arranged by the IoP thanks to the PALS, the IoP was capable of ensuring 
the  interest  of  the  international  research  community  (pre-condition  3)  before  the 
setting of conditions of calls from the OP RDI. 

On  the  MA  level,  a  strong  need  for  sufficient  organisational,  staff  and  expert 
capacity  (pre-condition  9)  was  an  important  enabling  condition  to  support  the 
realization of the project successfully. Especially regarding the changes and phasing 
of  the  project  (the  second  phase  was  prolonged  to  the  2014-20  period),  this  was  also 
supported  by  the  EC's  attitude.  It  influenced  the  possibility  to  change  the  schedule 
flexibly  and  enabled  to  generate  of  necessary  outputs  (infrastructure  and  technology 
equipment) that served for achieving outcomes and results in the following years.  
The  ELI  project  attracted  skilled  people  with  strong  managerial  and 
international  experience  (pre-condition  6).  Several  of  those  people  are  still  working 

54  According  to  the  monitoring  indicators  of  the  ELI  project  and  interview  with  the  representatives  of  the  ELI 

management. 

80 

 
                                           
for  ELI  and  ensure  the  continuum  of  the  project.  These  skills  and  network  of  key 
people  beyond  ELI  helped  prepare  the  development  and  construction  of  the 
physical infrastructure (pre-condition 4). Without the network and capability to ensure 
support  from  the  Czech  governments,  ELI  would  have  never  achieved  the  planned 
results.  

Nowadays,  ELI  is  one  of  the  most  internationalized  academic  workplaces  in  the  Czech 
Republic.  The  high-quality  and  experienced  researchers  attracted  by  the  vision  of 
ELI  and  experience  with  the  PALS  played  an  important  role  in  attracting  talents 
from around the world. Only the top talents could build the globally unique and 
the  most  effective  lasers  globally  and  be  able  to  receive  national  and 
international  prestigious  funding  (pre-condition  5).  This  initiated  a  snowball  effect 
and  started  to  attract  other  talents  and  new  partners.  ELI  became  relevant  to many 
industrial  and  science  use  cases  (pre-condition  7)  and  could  build  a  strong 
collaboration with external partners (pre-condition 8).  

Verification of supporting factors 

It  was  verified  that  synergies  with  other  interventions  from  the  ESIF  represented  an 
important supporting factor (supporting factor 2), and they also contributed to intended 
effects.  The  IoP  received  another  support  from  the  OP  RDI  (PA  2)  for  the  project  of 
HiLASE, a new infrastructure for applied research and industry collaboration based in the 
same locality. And at the same place, the Centre for Technology Transfer of the IoP was 
established, also thanks to the OP RDI. These two projects had their individual own goals 
and  intervention  logic.  Still,  in  synergy  with  ELI,  they  offered  a  unique  possibility  to 
strengthen  the  capacity  for  technology  transfer  and  collaboration  with industry.  The  ELI 
management  team  also  aimed  for  synergies  with  the  OP  Education  for  Competitiveness 
to  provide  additional  financing  for  attracting  senior  foreign  researchers  that  should 
represent the core scientific team. 

The  IoP  was  a  respected  partner  in  laser  research  from  the  PALS  acquisition  time  and 
running the first project. On the PALS, the IoP built the brand in the laser research 
community,  which  significantly  helped  the  IoP  attract  ELI  into  the  Czech 
Republic  and  received  support  from  other  partners  in  the  community  (like  the 
UK) (supporting factor 1).  
Laser  research  received  significant  support  from  the  EU  level,  which  enabled 
ELI  to  apply  for  several  projects  in  the  FP7  and  the  H2020  and  fulfil  public 
policy  goals  in  R&D  (supporting  factor  4  a  6).  In  the  FP7  and  the  H2020,  almost  19 
thousand  research  projects  somehow  connected  to  laser  were  supported.  This  is  a 
significant change compared to previous Framework programs 5 and 6 (only 2 thousand 
research project were connected to the lasers). Moreover, research in laser technology is 
in alignment with the National innovation strategy. 

Moreover, continuous support by government bodies, the Academy of Science in 
the  Czech  Republic  and  in  some  periods  also  a  local  authority  in Dolní 
Břežany played a key role in the process (supporting factor 2 and 7). Their support 
contributed  to  the  successful  negotiation  process  with  the  EC,  funding  from  national 
funds,  and  solving  construction  works  and  legal  proceedings  with  public  tenders.  This 
supporting  factor  had  a  positive  effect  on  the  fact  that  the  total  budget  was  not 
exceeded55. Without this strong support, delays would have been much more significant. 
These  stakeholders'  support  was important because the project was “too big to fail”, as 
many of them mentioned. Importantly, the ELI project always had political support 
from  the  Czech  government  (across  the  parties), which  is  not  common  in  the 
Czech Republic. 

The  additional  infrastructure,  especially  HiLASE,  a  research  centre  for  applied 
laser research, was critical for the success of ELI. These centres create the core for 
the  laser  milieu  and  attract  researchers  and  private  companies  like  Rigaku,  which 

55 Delays during the project implementation (in comparison with the project timetable) are mentioned in other 

parts of this report. 

81 

 
                                           
built their R&D centre on the campus in Dolní Břežany, or Cardam (supporting factor 2). 
Next  to  the  ambitions  of  ELI  to  build  a  globally  unique  laser,  the  locality  in  Dolní 
Břežany  represented  an  important  supporting  factor  for  attracting  the  best 
world  talents  in  lasers.  Modern  physical  infrastructure  and  very  good  public  services 
like  schools,  parks  or  cafés  were  important  for  satisfying  high-quality  well-being  for 
incomers (supporting factor 3).  

One  of  the  issues  was  the  availability  and  skills  of  specialised  suppliers  and 
developers  of  laser  technologies  (supporting  factor  5)  planned  to  be  built  as 
equipment  of  this  new  infrastructure.  Because  these  technologies  were  state-of-the-art, 
suppliers  had  to  develop  them  together  with  scientists  in  ELI  and  other  academic 
institutions around the world. Several delays and issues occurred during the development 
and  installation.  For  example,  one  of  the  planned  lasers  will  start  its  operations  at  the 
end of 2020. 

Verification of risks and threats 

Failure to meet the deadline for completion of the construction was the biggest 
risk  known  before  realising  the  project.  And  during  the  implementation  phase, 
this  factor  even  gained  importance.  Some  delays  were  reported  due  to  long 
processes  of  the  land  acquisition,  obtaining  a  construction  permit  and  development  and 
purchase  of  laser  systems  (risk  6),  caused  by  public  procurements  and  legal  issues, 
because  there  was  a  limited  number  of  potential  suppliers  of  such  a  technology.  That 
affected the scheduled timetable and realization of outputs and impacts of the project. 

Providing continuous funding for further development and growth of the centre 
was  an  issue  after  the  completion  and  remains  some  threat  for  the  future.  The 
beneficiary prepared a specific scheme in the project proposal  – international open-calls 
for  using  beamtime  and  other  ELI  equipment  and  services.  This  scheme  should  help  to 
broader  cooperation  with  international  scientific  and  industry  partners  and  provide  the 
global  community  with access  to  unique  laser  technologies.  These  special  services  were 
designed  for  ELI  to  remain  financially  sustainable  and,  together  with  the  ELI-ERIC 
consortium,56  should  be  the  important  pillars  of  financial  stability.  Nevertheless,  the 
National sustainability programme, combined with successive financing from the ESIF in 
the  period  2014-2020,57  played  a  key  role.  However,  ELI  is  still  dependent  on  the 
partners' EU financing from the member states in the ELI-ERIC consortium. 

Moreover, EUR 0,5 billion per year is allocated by the national government to secure the 
operation of ELI, which represents approximately 90% of the ELI budget and 5% of the 
government  R&D  expenditures.  The  high  government  subsidies  open  discussion  in  the 
national  R&D  ecosystem  about  long-term  sustainability.  Now,  the  biggest  challenge  for 
ELI  is  a  diversification  of  funding  in  future  years  to  satisfy  relatively  high  operational 
cost. On the one hand, ELI is a strategic EU research infrastructure and will always need 
support  from  the  EU  or  member  states.  On  the  other  hand,  current  research  funding 
trends  create  more  pressure  on  quality  and  competitiveness  which  should  favour  ELI  in 
the next years. 

Risks and threats as a low relevance (risk 1 and risk 3), low excellence (risk 4), or 
rigidity  (risk  2)  have  not  been  proved  to  be  important  or  occurred  in  a  limited 
way.  The  beamtime  is  almost  fully  booked;  the  ELI  research  teams  attract  scientific 
partners around the world. There is an existing strong relevance of research programs to 
global  trends/needs  in  science  and  societal  challenges  (risk  1).  The  risk  (no.  4)  of  low 
international  excellence  and  acceptance  in  the  research  community  proved  not  to  be  in 
place.  Moreover,  the  internationalisation  of  research  teams  was  not  diminished  by  the 
Czech  academic  environment's  rigidity  that  is  still  evident  in  some  other  areas  of 
academia (risk 2). This was proven by the establishment of quality international research 
teams in the case of ELI. However, we could observe that some talented researchers are 

56  ELI-ERIC  consortium  is  a  specific  legal  form  that  enables  the  member  countries  to  govern  the  facilities 
jointly and make them available to the scientific community as a single international organisation. 
57 New international grants gained by the ELI research teams. 

82 

 
 
                                           
ostracized from the Czech environment. Fortunately, in the case of ELI, we observed only 
small numbers of these cases. 

According  to  some  stakeholder  interviews,  there  were  differences  of  opinions  between 
the DG Regio and the DG Competition regarding the State Aid interpretation. This led to 
a changing application of this rule during the period 2007-2013, manifested in changes in 
prioritisation  and  even  of  eligibility  of  supported  activities.  While  in  the  beginning, 
applicants were requested to maximize the volume of intended industry cooperation and 
income from these activities, later this condition was changed, and the EC strictly set the 
maximum level of contract research. According to the interviews, this change resulted in 
many  difficulties  on  beneficiaries'  side  (e.g.  changes  in  proposed  activities,  outputs  and 
outcomes)  and  the  overall  sustainability  strategy.  This  development  also  influenced  the 
management  at  the  OP  level,  as  the  focus  on  industry  collaboration  was  not  as  high  as 
expected at the beginning of OP.    

3.4.3. 

General assessment of the major project 

There  is  a  consensus  that  the  ELI  project  contributed  to  a  significant  enhancement  of 
excellent  research  activities  in  the  Czech  Republic  and  set  up  a  strong  international 
collaboration  with  academia  and  industry  partners.  Collected  evidence  verified  that  ELI 
managed to give a real contribution to the goal of the PA 1 in OP RDI. 

The whole intervention mechanism (and thus also the ToC) was affected by the delays in 
the project realization and the fact that the effects became evident later than expected. 
In general, the whole intervention logic did not change, and the main causal linkages and 
supporting factors were in place.  

The project achieved all outputs. Relevant monitoring indicators for the project were also 
achieved.  The  main  and  evident  effect  was  the  considerable  enlargement  of  research 
capacities  in  the  Czech  Republic  with unique  quality  and  performance  globally.  The  new 
infrastructure  was  slowly  involved  in  the  international  research  community,  and  that 
created a unique testing and research facility for various teams from research institutions 
and other stakeholders.  

The main enabling factors behind these results were: 

  Continuous support from the European, national, and local levels includes financial 
support  by  additional  sources  (other  OP,  national  budget)  and  specific  local 
servicesthat  helped  create  a  functional  local  ecosystem  friendly  to  the  research 
community. The ERDF  support was one of the contributory causes leading to the 
project’s outcomes. 

  Firm  linkages  with  other  laser  and  optics  research  infrastructure  HiLASE  (also 
financed from the OP RDI) focused more on applied research and cooperation with 
companies.  Both  institutions  closely  cooperate  in  projects  and  research  and 
further develop local research and innovation-intensive ecosystem. 

  Management  of  the  project  succeeded  in  incorporating  ELI  as  a  vital  part  of  the 
European laser and optics research network. That helped to attract foreign senior 
and junior researchers and to be part of many international projects. 

Some  specific  intended  effects  were  achieved  later  or  maybe  to  a  lesser  extent  than 
originally  planned,  e.g.  “the  start  of  the  specific  research  projects  and  experiments”. 
While  initially,  this  was  expected  to  be  an  immediate  outcome  straight  after  the  end  of 
the  project,  this  effect  happened  a  couple  of  years  later  because  laboratory  and 
technology  equipment  was  fully  operational  in  this  later  development  of  the  whole  ELI 
site.  Therefore,  this  can  be  viewed  as  an  intermediate  outcome.  Also,  a  broader 
collaboration  with  the  applied  sphere  was  developing  slower  than  expected.  This  was 
influenced by the fact that some projects with external partners from the applied sphere 
started, but the full extent (and potential) will be reached in the coming years. 

The ELI centres' international consortium (ELI-ERIC) was established, but it has not been 
fully  functional  and  operational  yet.  There  are  on-going  discussions  regarding  the  roles 

83 

 
 
and  responsibilities  of  partner  states.  And  the  full  onboarding  of  all  ELI  sites  is  still  in 
process. 

All  preconditions  were  proved  to  be  in  place.  Some  of  them  were  crucial,  and  others 
played a minor role and did not develop to the full extend according to the contribution 
analysis. Risks and threats were managed, but some of them still affected the realization 
phase and were the reasons behind the implementation delays and complications.  

The  sustainability  of  the  ELI  infrastructure  remains  a  key  issue  for  the  future.  The  ELI 
management and the whole ELI-ERIC consortium will have to deal with it in the coming 
years.  The  MA  was  aware  of  that,  and  therefore  they  emphasized  quality,  international 
relevance, and connection to the ESFRI network in the call for projects in the PA1. These 
new  excellent  international  R&D  infrastructures  represented  a  strong  commitment  for 
public  budgets  (on  the  national  and  European  levels)  because  they  will  predominantly 
rely on public financing. ELI management is aware of that, and they work on a concrete 
strategy to mitigate this risk. The strategy will focus on maximizing the diversification of 
financial  sources  for  operation  and  development  of  the  ELI  site,  highlighting  the  EU 
research programmes (e.g., Horizon 2020), generated incomes from  users  of beamtime 
(during open-calls) and expansion of the cooperation with industry. 

84 

 
Presentation of the results of the contribution analysis for the ELI: Extreme Laser Infrastructure major project 

85 

 
 
 
4.  GENERAL FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNT58  

Overall, the ERDF investments from the OP Research and Development for Innovations (OP 
RDI)  2007-2013  represented  the  largest  investment  in  the  R&D  sector  in  the  Czech 
Republic’s contemporary history. The intention of policy-makers was that the OP RDI would 
have  been  a  catalyst  for  the  Czech  R&D  system’s  fundamental  changes  that  suffered  from  a 
range of bottlenecks and difficulties (see section 3.1.) conditioned by a long-term underfunding 
of this sector and the low political priority.  

The  volume  of  financial  support  provided  by  the  ERDF  to  support  RTD  activities  and 
infrastructures  was  sufficiently  high  to  “move  the  needle”  for  the  country’s  research  system. 
The  Czech  Republic  received  the  third-highest  (after  Poland  and  Germany)  volume  of  ERDF 
funding to the R&D sector from the  MSs,  counting to EUR  1.9 billion. The amount represented 
almost  14%  of  the  total  ERDF  contribution  of  the  country.  One  of  the  key  needs  of  the  RTD 
system in the Czech Republic was to significantly improve infrastructure, capacity and material 
equipment  of  public  R&D  organisations  that  were  obsolete  and  not  suitable  to  perform  high-
quality  research  producing  applicable  research  outputs.  The  existing  national  and  regional 
policies in support of RTD were marginal in  comparison to the ERDF RTD investments in 2007-
2013. They would not have been able to provide this amount of funding, moreover within such 
a short time.  

The  thematic  relevance  of  the  support  from  the  OP  RDI  and  all  evaluated  instruments  has 
proved to be high as the ERDF support responded to the infrastructural R&D needs of the Czech 
Republic.  All  evaluated  policy  instruments  achieved  to  full  extent  compliance  with  analytical 
findings prepared for the OP RDI and reflected actual trends in the R&D sector. Thus, the ERDF 
RTD  investment  strategy  focused  on  infrastructural  development  -  more  than  a  half  of  the 
budget concentrated on the expenditure of the 02 category, and an additional 37% was a mix 
of the categories 01 and 02.  

There is a wide consensus that the OP RDI has succeeded in its prime goal – to build, develop 
and modernized R&D infrastructure in the Czech Republic – and it has enabled to shift the R&D 
infrastructural capacities at a qualitatively different level. The OP was less successful in ensuring 
adequate R&D human resources that could have fully exploited all established capacities, even 
though  this  was  the  domain  of  complementary  ESF  OPs.  Unfortunately,  the  OP  investments 
were  not  accompanied  by  any  principal  reform  of  the  R&D  system  and  higher  education  that 
would  have  supported  the  investment  efforts  and  contributed  to  the  needed  systemic  changes 
(e.g., doctoral study).  

The  evaluation  proved  that  the  policy  instrument  1  Infrastructure  investments  into 
research-related  teaching  at  higher  education  institutions  succeeded  to  fulfil  its  prime 
aim  to  eliminate  the  abysmal  difference  in  the  quantity  and,  in  particular,  quality  of 
infrastructure  for  research-related  education  as  compared  to  the  European  standards.  The 
policy  instrument  enabled  in  conjunction  with  a  range  of  complementary  actions  to  improve 
higher education institutions’ technological competitiveness. For some regional institutions, the 
support  implied  increased  competitiveness  rather  within  Czechia.  The  majority  of  supported 
institutions  acquired  the  high-standard  new  or  reconstructed  capacities  for  research-related 
education  and  top-class  research  equipment.  The  increased  tertiary  education  capacity  and 
significant improvement in research-related teaching and research  conditions were achieved at 
supported HEIs. Overall, “quality of life” at supported universities was increased. It is believed 
that tertiary education quality was improved at least to some extent (practical training on high-
standard  research  equipment,  modern  and  pleasant  environment)  jointly  with  other  policy 
instruments and actions. 

Moreover,  the  positive  outcomes  related  to  improvements  in  managerial,  organizational  and 
communication processes at HEIs (and the focus on energetic aspects of university real estate) 
were also detected. However, the intended outcome of the intervention of an increased number 
of PhD graduates has not been fully achieved. Nevertheless, the reasons for that lie beyond the 

58 The evalution was focused on the three policy instruments under the OP RDI and thus the assessment and general 
findings are attached especially to these. Other policy instruments, more important in financial and factual terms, were 
evaluated for example by EACE (2018).  

86 

 
                                           
policy  instrument  (i.e.  in  demographic  decline,  framework  and  conditions  for  PhD  study  in 
Czechia, the low interest of young people in a research career, rigidity in management of HEIs). 
The qualitative evidence nevertheless suggests that the PI contributed at least to some extent 
to the maintenance of  a certain level of  PhD graduates. Consequently, any contribution to  the 
increased quantity and quality of human resource for R&D is less evident as Czechia still lacks 
sufficient human capital for research and innovations. 

The  infrastructure  investments  are  considered  the  necessary  prerequisites  for  the  possible 
involvement of  HEIs into  the international  RDI arena and the cooperation between universities 
and  the  application  sector.  To  a  certain  extent,  the  achievements  of  these  long-term  effects 
were demonstrated at some supported universities by the evaluation, even though these effects 
cannot  be  attributable  only  to  the  investigated  policy  tool  but  to  a  number  of  projects  and 
actions realized at the institutions and in the region. As an important supporting factor for  the 
materialization  of  the  middle  and  long-term  effects,  the  existence  of  a  regional  strategic 
approach to the RDI development was proved. However, a more profound achievement of these 
effects requires more time since the interventions were accomplished.  

The  realization  of  policy  instrument  1  brought  about  a  set  of  not  directly  intended  negative 
effects  related  to  the  polarization  between  the  regional  HEIs  and  Prague's  HEIs  despite  the 
additionally  negotiated  exception  for  Prague  for  this  policy  instrument.  As  far  as  the  policy 
instrument  of  ICT  Infrastructure  investments  is  concerned,  outputs  and  immediate 
outcomes were, in principle, achieved, and relevant monitoring indicators were even exceeded. 
More questionable was the more complex level of the ToC, as some effects were verified only to 
a  limited  extent.  This  does  not  imply  the  policy  instrument  was  not  successful.  This  policy 
instrument had a supporting character for the R&D area, and the more complex effects can be 
attained  only  with  the  concurrence  of  other  activities  and  causal  links.  Therefore,  having 
attained  intermediate  or  final  outcomes  to  a  limited  extent  should  be  considered  for  success. 
The  only  effect  that  was  not  achieved  is  preventing  the  emergence  of  deepening  educational 
differences in society between regions due to the calls for proposals. 

The evaluation proved that the main intended achievements  of the policy instrument  of the 
ELI  major  project  were  achieved  to  a  full  or  important  extent.  The  main  and  evident  result 
was the considerable enlargement of research capacities in  the Czech Republic with the unique 
quality and performance at the global level. 

The  investment  into  the  excellent  R&D  infrastructure  was  a  necessary  precondition  to  the 
involvement  of Czech  research institutions in  the European network and collaboration with  the 
top  research  partners  from  abroad59.  ELI  played  a  key  role  in  this  process  and  became  an 
example for others to follow. 

Important synergies with other investments into R&D in the locality of Dolní Břežany were also 
factors  that  have  supported  the  achievement  of  intended  effects.  This  newly  created  research 
cluster60  concentrated  a  critical  mass  of  fundamental  and  applied  research  activities.  It  helped 
facilitate  a  change  of  the  whole  local  research  ecosystem,  attracting  excellent  foreign 
researchers.  However,  it  is  still  early  to  measure  the  impact  of  ELI  on  the  national  RDI 
ecosystem, and the competitiveness of the Czech economy as this complex investment was fully 
accomplished  only  recently.  This  complex  and  ground-breaking  project  needs  time  to  settle  in 
the ecosystem and fully develop its potential.  

Although  there  were  identified  no  factors  that  would  have  completely  hindered  the 
implementation  of  the  analysed  instruments,  some  of  them  hampered  the  realization  of 
projects,  complicated  the  project  work  of  beneficiaries  and  endangered  the  achievement  of 
objectives  to  a  full  extent.  First,  an  enormous  delay  in  the  launch  of  the  OP  RDI  negatively 
affected  the  entire  implementation  and  the  pressure  on  withdrawing  at  the  end  of  the  period. 
Unfortunately, the political and managerial instability and the vibrant expert capacity in specific 
RDI  support  elements  were  revealed  on  the  Managing  Authority’s  side  during  the  certain 
implementation  phases,  inducing  a  complicated  regulatory  framework  for  applicants  and 

59 Not only from public research sector but also from private. 

60 It is called STAR cluster (Science, Technology Advanced Region). 

87 

 
                                           
beneficiaries.  A  limited  experience  on  beneficiaries'  side  was  also  a  challenge  considering  they 
had to realize the complex investment projects without previous experience with the EU funds. 
The analysed policy instruments' situation was exacerbated by significant financial and content 
demands of supported R&D projects.  
Further,  as  the  character of  RDI  effects  is  typically  long-term,  the  strategic  parameters  of  the 
R&D  system  need  a  certain  degree  of  stability  and  predictability.  Unfortunately,  this  was  not 
fully  met  in  the  Czech  case.  The  criteria  for  the  national  funding  of  research  institutions  and 
universities changed several times over the programming period (from the focus on the number 
of  students,  then  on  the  quality  and  quantity  of  research  results,  and  later  on  the 
internationalization  and  the  third  role  of  universities)  and  affected  the  practical  operation  of 
supported projects mainly in the period of compulsory sustainability. Moreover, the country has 
struggled  from  the  institutional  fragmentation  of  responsibilities  for  the  RDI  management  and 
from  the  low  political  commitment  (e.g.,  as  an  indirect  implication  of  the  economic  crisis,  the 
government did not increase the public R&D expenditure over the period as initially anticipated 
beyond the compulsory co-funding of projects supported by the Structural funds). 

Probably  the  most  severe  practical  issues  concerned  the  system  of  public  procurements  and 
state  aid.  Both  themes  suffered  from  similar  key  problems:  unclear  interpretation  and 
legislation changes over the period; however, the former from the national level (Act on Public 
Tendering), the latter from the EU level.  

The entire OP RDI and anticipated effects were strongly influenced by only very limited  Prague 
R&D  institutions'  eligibility.  Prague's  region  was  not  eligible  for  most  ERDF  RTD  support  as  it 
was delineated for the Competitiveness Objective. Unfortunately, this delineation did not reflect 
Prague's  central  position  in  the  tertiary  education  system  and  in  the  R&D  structure  of  Czechia 
(the  pronounced  share  of  the  country's  R&D  capacities  were  concentrated  in  Prague).  The 
negative consequences of the regional targeting of the ERDF RTD support concern in particular: 

  A distortion of R&D structure of the Czech Republic: while the regional HEIs and regional 
RDI capacities were dynamically developing, Prague's capacity and infrastructural deficit 
pertained over the period; 

  A  more  favourable  position  of  the  supported  HEI’s  in  the  “competition”  for  (talented) 

students due to modernized infrastructure in the regions; 

  As  Prague's  organizations  were  excluded  from  the  national  competition  for  the  OP  RDI 
sources,  it  can  be  assumed  that  to  a  certain  extent,  the  OP  RDI  support  was  also 
provided to projects that would not have succeeded if Prague's R&D organizations would 
have participated. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  excessive  focus  on  the  territorial  cohesion  objective  of  convergence 
regions most probably threatened a potential for positive effects from the OP RDI as a whole for 
Czechia  as  the  whole  country.  Consequently,  the  ERDF  RTD  support  potential  was  most 
probably underutilized (in terms  of territorial cohesion at  a higher level,  i.e., towards the  EU). 
On the other hand, the OP RDI proved to be a qualitative change catalyst for some convergence 
regions. This is apparent in terms of a launch of the new development phase of some regions, 
based on knowledge and innovations. This OP provided adequate sources to “move the needle” 
the  infrastructure  basement  (e.g.,  Jihomoravský,  Olomoucký  and  Moravskoslezský  regions). 
However,  the  proven  achievements  of  cohesion  “catch-up”  of  these  regions  and  the 
macroeconomic  perspective  impacts  can  be  expected  in  the  much  longer-term  than  this 
evaluation  can  provide.  The  important  aspect  is  that  science,  research,  and  development 
demonstrate  the  immense  inertia in  the  cumulation  of  knowledge.  Any  changes  in  the  deeply-
rooted regional patterns will take an indeed long time (generations).   

The sustainability of all analysed policy instruments depends dominantly on public resources. 
The sustainability of invested infrastructure within the PI1 throughout compulsory sustainability 
was  ensured  with  internal  sources  of  supported  HEIs  without  severe  challenges.  However, 
questions  arise  as  concerns  the  sustainability  of  acquired  technological  competitiveness  and 
thus  related  to  the  needed  sources  for  a  gradual  upgrade  of  the  purchased  equipment.  Also, 
HEIs  and  the  state  have  to  systematically  address  the  declining  trend  in  the  number  of  (PhD) 
students to ensure that created capacities will be efficiently used. 

Also,  within  the  policy  instrument  ICT  Infrastructure  investments,  no  issue  was  reported  with 
project  results'  sustainability.  Acquired  services  were  sustained  for  beneficiaries  of  electronic 

88 

 
information  resources  and  ICT  infrastructure  as  well.  After  the  sustainability  period,  for 
electronic  information  resources,  the  system  was  centralized  into  the  National  Centre  for 
Electronic Information Resources CzechELib.  

On  the  other  hand,  the  sustainability  of  the  large  excellence  R&D  infrastructures  newly 
developed  thanks  to  the  OP  RDI  remains  the  key  issue  for  the  future.  The  MA  was  aware  of 
that,  and  therefore  they  emphasized,  quality,  international  relevance,  and  connection  to  the 
European  research  network  during  the  preparatory  phase  of  projects.  These  new  excellent 
international R&D infrastructures have  created a strong commitment to public budgets (on the 
national  and  European  level)  because  they  predominantly  rely  on  public  financing.  The 
overwhelming majority of projects are not sustainable without public financing. This is valid for 
all projects funded under the Priority Axis 1 of the OP RDI, not only the ELI project. In order to 
ensure  the  period  of  compulsory  sustainability,  the  national  programmes  of  sustainability  for 
newly created research centres  were opened and funded from the state budget. However, this 
is not a long-term sustainable solution. The management of these new R&D infrastructures will 
have to focus on the diversification of funds for operation and further development. It will have 
to rapidly increase the volume of industry cooperation, set up their own spin-off companies and 
use  other  ways  how  to  get  financial  resources  from  the  private  resources  and  commercial 
activities.  

The  evaluation  confirmed  that  without  the  ERDF  RTD  support,  the  infrastructure  investments 
into  the  majority  of  supported  institutions  would  have  never  been  realized  in  this  scale  and 
time-space.  Therefore,  the  ERDF  funding  (EU  added  value)  role  was  irreplaceable  in  the 
Czech Republic casa. Some of the supported projects of Centres of excellence (incl. ELI project) 
(and  a  couple  of  regional  competence  research  centres  funded  from  the  Priority  Axis  2) 
significantly improved the added value of science and research capacities at the European level. 
They became an important part of the European network with the high intensity of international 
research activities. For example, ELI successfully overcame the initial issues in  establishing the 
consortium  and  now  attracts  new  countries  like  Germany,  France  or  Lithuania  as  observing 
partners of ELI consortium. 
Further, it can be mentioned that in the USA, new development projects for public research use 
of lasers were stopped due to the already existing ELI infrastructure. Instead of that, they will 
use the ELI facilities for testing and collaborative research. This enabled to rapidly enhance the 
added value of  EU research capacities in the worldwide competition. Besides, investments into 
the  HEIs  infrastructure  undermined  the  enhancement  of  international  R&D  cooperation  and 
production of top-ranked research results, as confirmed by the interviewed universities. 

89 

 
 
 
  OVERVIEW OF EVIDENCE COLLECTED ON EXPECTED EFFECTS OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS INTO 

RESEARCH-RELATED TEACHING AT HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS POLICY INSTRUMENT 

Effect type 

Expected effect 

Targets defined by 
MA 

Summary of evidence collected 

Level of achievement of 
threshold 

Outputs 

Reconstructed or newly 
built infrastructure for 
research-related teaching 
(buildings, classrooms, 
labs) 

Modernised equipment of 
research-related 
infrastructure (instruments 
and lab equipment, ICT 
infra, improvement of 
material and technical 
provision) 

YES 
Supported projects 
– R&D teaching-
related 
infrastructure – 20 
projects 
Area capacity 
designated to R&D 
teaching and 
activities – 70,000 
m² (1st OP version), 
270,000 m² (last OP 
version) 

YES (same as 
above) 
Supported projects 
– R&D teaching-
related 
infrastructure – 20 
projects 
Area capacity 
designated to R&D 
teaching and 
activities – 70,000 
m² (1st OP version), 
270,000 m² (last OP 
version) 

Monitoring indicators: Based on the information in the Final 
report on the realization of the OP RDI, the indicator of 
supported projects in R&D teaching-related infrastructure 
reached 65 out of which 62 projects were under the scrutiny of 
this evaluation. Further, the Area capacity designated to 
research-related teaching built or modernized thanks to this PI 
is 419,099 m². 
Interviews: All interviewees agreed that the policy instrument 
enabled to upgrade underfunded infrastructure from the past 
and shift, especially regional public HEIs at a new qualitative 
level that is internationally competitive. Such massive 
investments would not have been realized without the ERDF 
support.  
Desk research: The paper of Růžička and Voráček (2019) 
assessed the investments into HEIs' infrastructure and 
concluded that thanks to these investments (including support 
from PA1 and PA2), one of the most serious handicaps of Czech 
universities in comparison to the Western countries – that of 
insufficient infrastructure and instrument equipment for R&D – 
was balanced. 
Monitoring indicators: Based on the information in the Final 
report on the realization of the OP RDI, the indicator of 
supported projects in R&D teaching-related infrastructure 
reached 65 out of which 62 projects were under the scrutiny of 
this evaluation. Further, the Area capacity designated to 
research-related teaching built or modernized thanks to this PI 
is 419,099 m². 
Interviews: All interviewees agreed that the policy instrument 
enabled to upgrade underfunded infrastructure from the past 
and shift, especially regional public HEIs at a new qualitative 
level that is internationally competitive. Such massive 
investments would not have been realized without the ERDF 
support.  
Desk  research:  The  paper  of  Růžička  and  Voráček  (2019) 
assessed 
infrastructure  and 
concluded  that  thanks  to  these  investments  (including  support 
from PA1 and PA2), one of the most serious handicaps of Czech 
universities  in  comparison  to  the  Western  countries  –  that  of 
insufficient  infrastructure  and  instrument  equipment  for  R&D  – 
was  balanced.  Purchased  equipment  was  summarized  in  Final 
monitoring reports for projects. 

investments 

into  HEIs' 

the 

TO A FULL EXTENT 

TO A FULL EXTENT 

90 

 
Increased capacity of 
tertiary education 
infrastructure 

Immediate 
outcomes 

YES 
Students benefiting 
from 
new/reconstructed 
infrastructure – 
50,000 (1st OP 
version), 100,000 
(last OP version) 
PhD students 
benefiting from 
new/reconstructed 
infrastructure - 
5,000 (1st OP 
version), 8,000 (last 
OP version) 

Monitoring indicators: The monitoring indicators at the 
Priority Axis level covering students benefiting from 
new/reconstructed infrastructure and PhD students were 
exceeded more than twice – 213,481 students, respectively 
21,044 PhD. 

TO A FULL EXTENT 

Significant improvement of 
conditions for research-
oriented teaching and 
research itself 

Increased attractiveness of 
supported particularly 
regional universities  

NO 

NO 

Interviews:    All  interviewees  agreed  the  policy  instrument 
enabled  to  upgrade  underfunded  infrastructure  from  the  past 
and  shift,  especially  regional  public  HEIs  to  a  new  qualitative 
level.  Similarly,  substantial  improvements  in  research-related 
teaching  and  research  conditions  were  reached:  supported 
projects  purchased  needed  equipment  and  created  a 
comfortable  and  respectable  environment  for  teaching  and 
studying related to research.  
Desk research: Purchased equipment was summarized in  Final 
monitoring reports of projects. The effect is also reported in the 
paper of Růžička and Voráček (2019). 

TO A FULL EXTENT 

Interviews:  The  effect  of 
supported all relevant interviewees confirmed hEIs.  

increased  attractiveness  od 

TO A FULL EXTENT 

Increased number of post 
level graduates 

YES (at OP level) 
Number of post-
graduate students in 
the convergence 
region – 1,700 

Intermediate 
outcomes 

Increased quality of tertiary 
education leading to 
improved skillsets of 
graduates and young 
researchers 

NO 

Monitoring indicator: The target set at the OP RDI level of 
1,700 PhD graduates was not fully achieved (in 2017, it was 
reached 1,387).  
Interviews:  All  consulted  interviewees  agreed  that  apart  from 
the  reason  of  demographic  decline  in  the  respective  population 
cohort, more fundamental reason for not reaching this outcome 
has  been  the  low  rate  of  PhD  study  completion  undermined  by 
constantly  unfavourable  systemic  conditions  for  doctoral  study 
in  the  Czech  Republic.  Nevertheless,  the  interviews  confirmed 
that without the ERDF support, the decline in the number of PhD 
graduates would have been even greater.  
Interviews:  All  interviewed  representatives  of  beneficiaries 
validated  to  full  extent  that  modernized  infrastructure  enabled 
to increase the quality of education (e.g. increased capacity and 
improved  instrumental  equipment  are  widely  used  in  practical 
training,  students  can work with  high-quality  equipment  that  is 
used in companies, and eventually they are better prepared for 
the  needs  of  the  labour  market,  mostly  PhD  students  are more 
involved 
in  the  realisation  of  research  projects).  Some 
interviewees  also  confirmed  that  thanks  to  new  equipment, 

TO AN LIMITED EXTENT 

TO A FULL EXTENT 

91 

 
 
 
Improvements in internal 
management of public HEIs 
(incl. third role of 
universities) 

NO 

Final outcomes 

Increased quantity and 
quality of RDI human 
resources at labour market 

Partially (at OP 
level) 
Number of post-
graduate students in 
the convergence 
region – 1,700 

Involvement of supported 
HEIs into international R&D 
space increased 

NO 

students'  final  thesis's  quality  has  been  significantly  increased, 
and  interesting  research  topics  with  practical  relevance  have 
occurred.  However,  no  systemic  analysis  of  the  state-of-art  of 
graduates' competencies is at disposal for the supported HEIs. 
Interviews: At all interviewed supported universities (also by 
contextual interviewees), the following aspects of internal 
managerial improvements were confirmed: (i) Development 
managerial, organizational and communication processes within 
the supported organizations and changes in process 
management of public tenders; (ii) Establishment/enlargement 
of professional project management teams at faculty/university 
levels; (iii) Acquirement of know-how of project thinking, know-
how to prepare, realize and accomplish large investment 
projects; (iv) Development of a strategic approach to 
prioritization of investment intentions at HEIs (e.g. via 
passportization of investment needs); (v) Increased thinking 
about energetic demands of university real estate at supported 
HEIs. Furthermore, at some universities, the strengthening of 
the third role of the university was confirmed. 
Monitoring indicator: The target value of PhD graduates at 
supported institutions (not only by this PI) was not fully 
reached. It can be anticipated that the needed human resources 
in the R&D sector are thus missing (also approved by the 
analysis of Ernst&Young 2020). 
Interviews: As pointed out above, interviewees agreed on the 
increased quality of graduates in some fields; however, from a 
wider point of view, it is not possible to confirm the effect. 
Interviews:  All  interviewed  beneficiaries  stated  the  ERDF 
investments from this PI had brought technological upgrade that 
created  competitive  conditions  for  the  Czech  HEIs  in  the 
international  R&D  arena.  Some  of  the  well-ranked  benefited 
its  attractiveness  and 
universities  confirmed  to 
competitiveness 
research  partners  and 
programmes,  the  growth  of  projects  receiving  the  Horizon2020 
funding  and  other  prestigious  grant  schemes.  However,  it  is 
important  to  bear  in  mind  that  these  achievements  were  not 
enabled  by  a  sole  ERDF project  under  this  PI but  with  the help 
of  the  other  ERDF/other  sources  investments  at  particular 
university/in  the  region.  Furthermore,  the  occurrence  of  the 
final  outcome  has  been  achieved  at  a  limited  number  of 
interviewed HEIs. 
Desk research: Overall, the success rate fo the Czech Republic 
in Horizon2020 or other European RDI programmes remains still 
low (Pazour et al., 2018). 

international 

increase 

for 

TO A FULL EXTENT 

TO AN VERY LIMITED EXTENT 

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 

92 

 
Acceleration of cooperation 
between HEIs and 
application sectors 

NO 

Spillover effects from 
Prague's supported HEIs to 
the convergence regions 

Impact 

Development of 
knowledge-based economy 
and society and 
strengthening of the long-
term competitiveness of 
the Czech RTD system and 
economy 

Interviews:  All  interviewed  beneficiaries  stated  the  ERDF 
investments from this PI had brought technological upgrade that 
created  competitive  conditions  and  space  for  cooperation  with 
the private sector at the ERDF supported Czech HEIs. However, 
it  is  important  to  highlight  that  these  achievements  were  not 
enabled  by  a  sole  ERDF project  under  this  PI but  with  the help 
of  the  other  ERDF/other  sources  investments  at  a  particular 
university/in  the  region.  Furthermore,  the  final  outcome  has 
been  achieved  at  the  majority  of  interviewed  HEIs.  Still,  this 
evidence  does  not  provide  a  sufficient  base  for  an  overall 
assessment at the PI’s level. 
Desk  research:  Analysis  of  Růžička  and  Vondrák  (2019) 
indicates  that  at  the  universities  also  supported  by  this  PI,  the 
share  of  income  from  contracting  research  has  increased  at 
regional technical universities in particular between 2012-2017. 
Importantly,  on  this  achievement,  ERDF  investments  from 
another Priority Axes had a much greater impact. 
Interviews: Some interviewees confirmed that in their expert 
views, these spillover effects had been materialized. Similarly, 
in Prague’s interviewed HEI, it was confirmed that spillovers 
effects are present there as the majority of its cooperating 
companies is based in the convergence regions. However, these 
statements are rather a piece of anecdotal evidence and cannot 
provide a sufficient confirmation level.  
Overall, all anticipated aspects of the spillovers could not have 
been verified within this evaluation's scope; thus, the level of 
achievement is unknown. 

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 

UNKNOWN 

NO 

No  evidence  of  the  contribution  of  the  PI  to  this  impact  was 
possible to collect. 

UNKNOWN 

93 

 
 
 
 
  OVERVIEW  OF  EVIDENCE  COLLECTED  ON  EXPECTED  EFFETS  OF  THE  ICT  INFRASTRUCTURE  INVESTMENT 

POLICY INSTRUMENT 

Effect type 

Expected effect 

Targets defined by 
MA 

Summary of evidence collected 

YES/NO 

Text justification 

Level of achievement of 
threshold 

TO A FULL EXTENT/TO AN 
IMPORTANT EXTENT/TO A 
LIMITED EXTENT 

TO A FULL EXTENT 

Task  1  data:  funding  was  distributed  in  three  projects  within 
the respective call for proposal.  
Desk  research:  details  on  projects  and  respective  call  for 
projects in Final Report OP RDI, project documentation of one of 
three projects. 
Interviews:  interviewees  confirmed  that  listed  outputs  were 
purchased. 

Outputs 

New, developed or 
modernised information 
infrastructure for R&D (esp. 
repositories, optical 
network, network optical 
elements, storage 
capacities, SW, licenses, 
database) 

Electronic information 
resources, licenses, 
renewal of HW, SW and 
networks, equipment of 
libraries, trained 
researchers and other 
users of information 
resources 

PARTIALLY - defined 
an indicator: 
132500 Number of 
supported 
information 
infrastructure 
projects for R&D - 
two projects were 
planned, and three 
supported 
Target: 2 projects / 
attained: 3 projects 
PARTIALLY - defined 
an indicator: 
111400 Number of 
supported projects 
of professional 
scientific and branch 
libraries  
Target: 4 projects / 
attained: 10 
projects  

Immediate 
outcomes 

Higher storage, 
computational and 
information capacities of 
R&D institutions 

NO 

Effective and rational 
management of the system 
(distributed system, i.e., 
shared management of 
computational, storage and 
information capacities) 

Improved availability of 

PARTIALLY - defined 
an indicator:  
132400 "Number of 
entities using 
information 
infrastructure 
services for R&D" 
Target: 65 entities / 
attained: 113 
institutions 
NO 

Task  1  data:  funding  was  distributed  in  seven  projects  within 
the respective call for proposal, including this policy instrument.  
Desk  research:  details  on  projects  and  respective  call  for 
projects in Final Report OP RDI, project documentation of two of 
seven projects. 
Interviews: interviewees confirmed that listed outputs were 
purchased. 

TO A FULL EXTENT 

Desk  research:  details  on  projects  and  respective  call  for 
projects in Final Report OP RDI, project documentation of one of 
three projects. 

Interviews: interviewees confirmed that provided services 
were developed or modernized and some new services 
established. 

TO A FULL EXTENT 

Desk  research:  indicators  in  the  Final  Report  OP  RDI,  Final 
Report of one of three projects. 
Interviews: interviewees confirmed distributed system of 
relevant capacities.  

TO A FULL EXTENT 

Desk research: details on projects and respective call for 

TO A FULL EXTENT 

94 

 
 
 
Effect type 

Expected effect 

Targets defined by 
MA 

Summary of evidence collected 

Level of achievement of 
threshold 

scientific information 
resources, including for the 
general professional public 
(long-term guaranteed 
availability) 

Increasing information 
literacy 

NO 

Efficient, modern and user-
friendly use of acquired 
information sources at the 
European level 

Intermediate 
outcomes 

Integration of Czech R&D 
institutions into the 
European Research Area 

NO 

NO 

Strengthened and more 
intensive cooperation of 
R&D institutions 

PARTIALLY - two 
relevant indicators:  
111401 Number of 
involved partners / 
cooperating 
organizations of 
professional 
scientific and branch 
libraries 
Target: 60 
organizations / 
attained: 84 
organizations  
132400 "Number of 
entities using 

projects in Final Report OP RDI, project documentation of two of 
seven projects, web pages of some projects. 
Interviews: interviewees - beneficiaries were unambiguously 
convinced that the availability of scientific information resources 
was improved. Confirmed by an interview with the MA. 
Desk research: details on some projects in project 
documentation of two of seven projects, web pages of some 
projects – some projects followed a number of downloaded full 
texts, number of hits, the figure is in thousands (documentation 
was available for two projects). 
Interviews:  interviewees  pointed  out  to  partly  increased 
information literacy for information literacy focused on resources 
research.  It  is  linked  to  realized  educational  workshops  funded 
by projects.   
Note: projects could have contributed only to a limited extent to 
overall  literacy;  no  activities  supporting  general  literacy  were 
realized. 
Desk research: details on some projects in project 
documentation of two of seven projects, web pages of some 
projects – some projects followed a number of downloaded full 
texts, number of hits, the figure is in thousands (documentation 
was available for two projects). On-going evaluation of the OP 
RDI (2014) 
Interviews:  interviewees  confirmed  the  quality  of  available 
resources,  compared  the  situation  with  the  European  level  and 
described discovery systems, enabling user-friendly use.  
Desk research: confirmed quality of cooperation within the 
ERA in the Annual report of the beneficiary. 
Interviews: interviewees of already integrated institution 
considered the quality of integration of Czech R&D institutions 
into the ERA as a full-fledged, however direct influence on the 
integration of other institutions was not confirmed. 

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 

TO A FULL EXTENT 

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 

Desk research: relevant indicators, Final report on OP RDI. 

Interviews: interviewees confirmed cooperation between 
libraries aimed at the preparation and realization of projects. 
Partly was supported cooperation with the ERA.  

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 

95 

 
Effect type 

Expected effect 

Targets defined by 
MA 

information 
infrastructure 
services for R&D" 
Target: 65 entities / 
attained: 113 
institutions 

Summary of evidence collected 

Level of achievement of 
threshold 

Preventing the emergence 
or deepening of educational 
differences in society 
between regions 

Stimulation of interest in 
R&D 

Popularization of science 
and raising awareness of 
its results 

Higher efficiency of Czech 
R&D (i.e., successful 
implementation of R&D 
activities culminating in 
significant / quality results) 

Final outcomes 

Better applicability of Czech 
science in the world 

Economic development, 
competitiveness, 
innovation and excellent 
research capacities of the 
territory 

Impact 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

No evidence was collected; even more, opposite effects 
threatened without national intervention. 

TO NO EXTENT 

Supported projects improved conditions for Czech science; even 
more ICT infrastructure enables interconnection with the ERA. 
However, there is no direct evidence that these projects directly 
influenced the stimulation of interest in R&D. 
Supported projects improved conditions for Czech science; even 
more ICT infrastructure enables interconnection with the ERA. 
However, there is no direct evidence that these projects directly 
influenced the popularization of science and awareness of its 
results. 
Desk research: on-going evaluation OPRDI (2015) argues, 
based on interviewees with some researches, that thanks to 
electronic resources, they can produce impacted articles more 
easily. 
Interviews: interviewees were rather cautious and were not at 
one.  Some  of  them  pointed  out  to  spared  time  thanks  to 
available  discovery  systems.  In  general,  electronic  information 
resources and ICT were highlighted as fundamental condition for 
science. 
Supported projects improved conditions for Czech science; even 
more ICT infrastructure enables interconnection with the ERA. 
However, there is no direct evidence that these projects directly 
influenced Czech science's applicability in the world. 

UNKNOWN 

UNKNOWN 

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 

UNKNOWN 

NO 

No evidence was collected. 

UNKNOWN 

96 

 
 OVERVIEW  OF  EVIDENCE  COLLECTED  ON  EXPECTED  EFFETS  OF  THE  ELI:  EXTREME  LIGHT  INFRASTRUCTURE 

POLICY INSTRUMENT  

Effect type 

Expected effect 

Targets defined by MA 

Summary of evidence 
collected 

Level of achievement of 
threshold 

YES/NO 

Text justification 

TO A FULL EXTENT/TO AN 
IMPORTANT EXTENT/TO A 
LIMITED EXTENT 

Building new research facility 

YES 
Reconstructed, expanded and 
newly built capacities (30 887 
m2) 
Newly built capacities (30 887 
m2) 

Outputs 

Purchase and development of 
new technologies, 
instrumentation and laboratory 
equipment 

NO 

Immediate outcomes 

Established research teams and 
leaders of research programmes 

YES 
Number of newly created jobs, 
total researchers (101) 

Start of the specific research 
projects and experiments 

YES 
Number of cooperation projects 
of the application sphere with 

Monitoring indicators: Based 
on the MA (MEYS) information 
in the Table of Monitoring 
indicators in projects of OP RDI, 
the proposed area of new and 
reconstructed capacities was 
achieved. 
Interviews: Public stakeholder 
(locality of ELI site) confirmed 
that the ELI facility was built on 
a land that had been an 
agriculture brownfield before. 
Interviews: Based on the 
information from interviews, 
instrumentation, laboratory and 
laser technology equipment 
were co-developed in 
cooperation with suppliers and 
members of the ELI-ERIC 
consortium. Delivery of 
equipment was a bit postponed 
in time, and the full operation 
was delayed. 
Monitoring indicators: Based 
on the MA (MEYS) information 
in the Table of Monitoring 
indicators in projects of OP RDI, 
the number of newly created 
research jobs was 110 (in 
2015). Thus, the value was 
achieved. 
Interviews: Based on the 
information from interviews, ELI 
research teams are well 

TO A FULL EXTENT 

TO AN IMPORTANT EXTENT 

TO A FULL EXTENT 

TO AN IMPORTANT EXTENT 

97 

 
 
Effect type 

Expected effect 

Targets defined by MA 

Summary of evidence 
collected 

Level of achievement of 
threshold 

centres of excellence (no target 
value) 

Established strategic 
international partnership with 
top research institutions 

YES 
Volume of funds for R&D 
obtained from foreign sources 
(EUR 3 m) 

Increased capacity for excellent 
research on a global level 

Intermediate outcomes 

International open-calls for 
proposal for using the ELI 
Beamlines research facility. 

NO 

NO 

connected to international 
research projects and domestic 
ones. 
Desk research: According to 
the MEYS (2015), there were 9 
submitted projects from FP7 
and 2 project proposals from 
Horizon 2020 prepared by ELI 
already by the end of 2015. And 
this number increased in the 
following years once the 
infrastructure was nearing its 
full operation 
Monitoring indicators: Based 
on the MA (MEYS) information 
in the Table of Monitoring 
indicators in projects of OP RDI, 
the volume of funds obtained 
from foreign sources (which 
indicates international 
cooperation on projects with 
other research institutions) was 
achieved to even higher extent. 
Interviews: Based on the 
information from interviews, 
international cooperation is very 
strong and considered one of 
the evident positive results. 
Interviews: Based on the 
information from interviews, the 
capacities for top quality 
international research and 
testing activities in photonics 
and laser area were reasonably 
increased. 
Interviews: Based on the 
information from interviews, the 
international open calls for 
using laser beamtime for the 
scientific and research 
community started a couple of 

TO A FULL EXTENT 

TO A FULL EXTENT 

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 

98 

 
Effect type 

Expected effect 

Targets defined by MA 

Summary of evidence 
collected 

Level of achievement of 
threshold 

years after completing the 
project. During this year, this 
open calls for proposals are 
limited by the situation with 
covid-19. 
Monitoring indicators: Based 
on the information provided by 
the MA (MEYS) in the Table of 
Monitoring indicators in projects 
of OP RDI, Professional 
publications (according to the 
RVV methodology) was 
achieved to an even higher 
extent (151). 
Desk research: According to 
the MEYS (2015), there were 9 
submitted projects from FP7 
and 2 project proposals from 
Horizon 2020 prepared by ELI 
already by the end of 2015. And 
this number increased in the 
following years once the 
infrastructure was nearing its 
full operation 
Moreover, in the 2nd phase 
(which wasn’t part of OP RDI), 
ELI produce patents and utility 
models. 
Collaboration with the applied 
sphere was not the main goal of 
the project. In parallel with the 
ELI project, IoP also worked on 
HiLASE, a laser research centre 
focusing on applied research. 
Monitoring indicators: Based 
on the information provided by 
the MA (MEYS) in the Table of 
Monitoring indicators in projects 
of OP RDI, Number of newly 
created jobs, researchers under 
35 (women) and Number of 

TO AN IMPORTANT EXTENT 

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 

TO A FULL EXTENT 

99 

Publications, patents and 
participation in national and 
international research project. 

YES 
Professional publications 
(according to the RVV 
methodology) - 129 

Collaboration with applied 
sphere. 

NO 

Training of young scientists with 
more international experience 

YES 
Number of newly created jobs, 
researchers under 35 - 54 
Number of newly created jobs, 
researchers under 35 – women 
- 0 
Number of successful graduates 

 
Effect type 

Expected effect 

Targets defined by MA 

Summary of evidence 
collected 

Level of achievement of 
threshold 

of master's and doctoral study 
programs - 7 
Number of successful graduates 
of doctoral study programs. - 7 

Improved knowledge of partner 
organisations and 
increased ability of applicant 
and beneficiary partners 
to cooperate 

NO 

Functional international 
consortium of ELI-ERIC 

NO 

Final outcomes 

Long-term and continual 
collaboration with both research 
and application partners 

YES 
(Proportion of capacities of new 
infrastructures used by other 
entities) 
(Volume of contract research) 
Both indicators with no defined 
target values 

successful graduates of 
master's and doctoral study 
programs (women) were 
achieved to even higher extent 
(all above 20 % over target 
value, women even more 
(target value 0, achieved value 
almost 12) 
Interviews: Interviewers from 
ELI management mentioned 
that ELI (also due to colocation 
with HiLASE) attracted several 
partners from the business and 
public sector. However, due to 
the delays during the 
constructions and laser building, 
the potential of ELI is still not 
fulfilled. 
Interviews: Interviewers from 
ELI management mentioned 
that there are still on-going 
negotiations about the final set-
up of the ELI-ERIC consortium. 
Even though the cooperation 
between the consortium 
members has been intensive 
since the preparatory phase, in 
2020, the Czech Republic, Italy, 
Latvia and Hungary asked EC to 
establish this legal entity 
officially. ELI ERIC will support 
the common management of all 
ELI sites. 
Interviews: Interviewers 
confirmed what has been 
investigated during desk 
research. There are strong 
linkages with both industry and 
academic partners already 
established. Concerning the 
prevailing nature of the 

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 

TO A LIMITED EXTENT 

100 

 
Effect type 

Expected effect 

Targets defined by MA 

Summary of evidence 
collected 

Level of achievement of 
threshold 

Impact 

Economic development, 
competitiveness, innovation and 
excellent research capacities of 
the territory 

NO 

research (fundamental), the 
broader long-term collaboration 
will be crucial for the next 
period 
Due to the limited scale and 
focus of the evaluation, there 
was no evidence collected in 
that area. Only some indices 
that ELI project created good 
possibilities to make such an 
impact in the next decades. 

UNKNOWN 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  INTERVIEW LIST 

Stakeholder category 

Organisation (current) 

MA - implementation structure 

MA - implementation structure 
MA - implementation 
structure/thematic expert/regional 
stakeholder 
Thematic and regional expert 
MA - implementation structure 

Thematic expert/scientist 

Thematic expert 
MA - implementation 
structure/thematic expert 
Beneficiary 
Beneficiary 

Beneficiary 

Beneficiary 
Regional stakeholder 
Beneficiary 
Beneficiary 

Regional stakeholder 
Beneficiary 
Business owner/thematic expert 

Beneficiary 

Beneficiary 
Beneficiary 
Regional stakeholder/thematic 
expert 
Beneficiary 
Beneficiary 
Thematic expert 
Beneficiary 

Beneficiary 
Beneficiary 

Beneficiary 
Beneficiary 
Beneficiary 
Beneficiary 

Beneficiary 

Thematic expert 

Beneficiary 

Ministry of Education, Youth and 
Sports 
Ministry of Education, Youth and 
Sports 

Role in the organization 
(current) 
Director of Department of 
Projects Administration 

Evaluator 

South Moravian Innovation Centre  Director for strategy, CSO 
South Moravian Innovation Centre  Director, CEO 
Ministry of Agriculture 
Technology Agency of the Czech 
Republic 
Technology Centre of Czech 
Academy of Sciences 

Director 
Head of Department of Strategic 
Studies 

Head of unit 

Ministry of Industry and Trade 
CESNET 
CESNET 
Palacký University Olomouc, 
library 
Tomas Bata University in Zlín, 
library 
Municipality of Dolní Břežany 
ELI 
ELI 

Star Region; HiLASE 
Institute of Physics 
Crytur 
The University of Chemistry and 
Technology 
The University of Chemistry and 
Technology 
Brno University of Technology 

Professional staff 
Project manager 
Deputy director 

Director 

Director 
Mayor 
Director 
Transfer technology manager 
Director; Marketing and project 
manager 
Researcher 
Owner, CEO 

Project leader 

Project manager 
Bursar of university 

South Moravian Innovation Centre  Manager of RIS3  
Project manager 
Technical university in Liberec 
Project manager 
University of Ostrava 
Independent thematic expert 
Independent expert 
Director 
Mendel University in Brno 
Head of the Cybersecurity and 
Data Management Division 
NA 
Dean of the Faculty of Mechanical 
Engineering 
Project manager 
Bursar of university 
Dean of the Technological Faculty 

Masaryk University in Brno 
Hospital Ústí nad Labem 
Jan Evangelista Purkyně 
University in Ústí nad Labem 
Tomas Bata University in Zlín 
Tomas Bata University in Zlín 
Tomas Bata University in Zlín 
University of West Bohemia - 
library 
Technologické centrum AVČR 
Národní informační centrum pro 
evropský výzkum 
Masaryk University in Brno, 
library 

Director 

Horizon 2020 National Contact 
Point 

Librarian 

102 

 
  
 
 
  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

  Annual Implementation Reports of the OP Research and Development for 

Innovations 2009-2014. 

  CZSO – Czech Statistical Office (2016): Státní rozpočtové výdaje na výzkum a 

vývoj v ČR, 
https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/46014864/21100117a.pdf/fa60c23c-
24c8-494f-baeb-a8cb73e70311?version=1.2 (accessed 10.10. 2020). 

  EACE – Evaluation Advisory Central Europe (2018):  Ex post evaluation of the 
programming period 2007-2013 in the R&D sector.  Final report (in Czech).  
National Coordination Authority, Ministry of Regional Development.  

  Ernst&Young (2020): Complex analysis of barriers in applied and oriented 

research, experimental development and innovations in the Czech Republic and 
proposal of implementation of set measures in the programming period 2021-
2027 for the National RIS3 Strategy 2021+. Final document, Annex 1: Analytical 
part. 

  HOPE-E.S., divize EU Servis (2010): Evaluace a optimalizace nastavení systému 
hodnocení projektů operačních programů v programovém období 2007–2013. 
Zhodnocení systému hodnocení a výběru projektů OP VaVpI. Accessable here.  

  Hope Group (2015): Evaluation of synergies of OP RDI. Final report (in Czech). 

Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. 

  Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2008): Operační program Výzkum a 
vývoj pro inovace - Operational Programme of Research and Development for 
Innovations 2007-2013. (and other four revised versions). Accessible: 
https://www.opvavpi.cz/cs/siroka-verejnost/zakladni-dokumenty-
programu/operacni-program-vyzkum-a-vyvoj-pro-inovace/operacni-program-
vyzkum-a-vyvoj-pro-inovace.html 

  Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2009): White Paper on Tertiary 

Education.  Accessible here. 

  Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2017): Final report on the realization of 

the OP Research and Development of Innovations 2007-2013. 

  Ministry of Regional Development (2013): Analýza vlivu ekonomické krize na 
implementaci strukturálních fondů a fondu soudržnosti v České republice, 
http://www.eeip.cz/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/140515_Analyza_krize_SF.pdf 
(accessed 10.10. 2020). 

  RegioPartner (2011): Assessment of systemic, administrative and external factors 
for the implementation of the OP Research and Development for Innovations. 
Final report (in Czech). Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports. 

  Růžička, V., Vondrák, T. (2019): Analysis of the investments intervention effect 

from operational programmes upon the R&D infrastructure of the Czech public 
universities. Ergo, autumn 2019. Technology Centre of the Czech Academy of 
Science.  

  TCAV - Technology Centre of Czech Academy of Science (2012): Vznik a rozvoj 

infrastruktur pro VaVaI v ČR, s. 17, 
https://www.tc.cz/cs/publikace/publikace/seznam-publikaci/vznik-a-rozvoj-
infrastruktur-pro-vavai-v-cr (accessed 25 October 2020). 

  Technology Centre of Czech Academy of Science, Technopolis Group, IREAS 
centrum (2018): Results assessment of realization of Regional Innovation 

103 

 
Strategy of South Moravian Region in the period 2003-2016. Analytical final 
report: Assessment of overall effects of the Regional Innovation Strategy of the 
South Moravian Region.  

  Úřad vlády České republiky (2013): Analýza stavu výzkumu, vývoje a inovací v 

České republice a jejich srovnání se zahraničním v roce 2012, p. 132, 
file:///C:/Users/Worker/Downloads/Analyza_VaVaI_2013.pdf (accessed 28 
October 2020). 

Programme documentation for the OP RDI: Relevant calls for proposals, Theses for 
targeting the support, project applications, final implementation project reports 

104 

 
 
 
Getting in touch with the EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address 
of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or  

– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

Finding information about the EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website 
at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You  can  download  or  order  free  and  priced  EU  publications  at:  https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple  copies  of  free  publications  may  be  obtained  by  contacting  Europe  Direct  or  your  local  information 
centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For  access  to  legal  information  from  the  EU,  including  all  EU  law  since  1952  in  all  the  official  language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can be 
downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
N
-
0
6
-
2
1
-
2
1
0
-
E
N
-
N

       ISBN: 978-92-76-45982-8