RATIOS DE ENDEUDAMIENTO

The development of HITs was the first major attempt to harmonise Interreg programme management across a large number of programmes of all strands. Evidence shows that both the development process and the resulting harmonised tools have enhanced capacities for programme management by positively affecting the culture of cooperation among Interreg programmes, the organisational culture in programme authorities, as well as programme management processes and tools.

One of the main pioneering achievements of HIT is that it prepared the ground for a number of ensuing ‘spin-off’ harmonisation efforts. Other harmonisation initiatives were developed in the

‘slipstream’ of the successful development of HITs, as programmes started to gain confidence and recognise the benefits of harmonisation, and notably included the electronic monitoring system (eMS) and the creation of a harmonised Interreg branding. In particular, the development of eMS would be hardly thinkable without the prior development of common application and reporting forms as well as checklists and templates for assessment, monitoring and financial control of projects. In return, eMS also enhanced the uptake of HIT as it provided programmes with an additional argument in favour of using the harmonised tools rather than staying with their established templates. The focus group and survey have shown that programmes often consider HIT and eMS as one and see the fact that HIT

enabled the development of a community monitoring system as the biggest impact of HIT. In

other words, eMS has reinforced the impact of HIT. Given the synergies between HIT and eMS many programmes expressed the wish for the two HIT and eMS development processes to be better

integrated in the coming programming period.

4.3.1 Changes to cooperation and organisational culture

The HIT development has shaken up habits of programme authorities. Programmes which are used to developing programme tools independently, for example, are now compromising and seeking consensus on harmonised tools on a voluntary basis. On the one hand, the consensus-based and voluntary approach meant that all programmes who participated were genuinely committed (and for those that did not participate, the tools were still a useful source of inspiration). On the other hand, the non-binding, flexible nature of the HITs also meant that, ultimately, programmes did not feel compelled to stick to the harmonised templates, but rather saw these as a basis upon which they could develop their programme-specific tools. Nonetheless, HIT clearly enhanced the culture of

inter-programme cooperation. It further strengthened the ties between programmes, built

confidence in programmes that harmonisation was feasible and encouraged capacities in how to approach such a task.

“HIT facilitated a common basis for discussion. Now we understand each other much better.” Participant at HIT focus group

HIT has also meant a shift towards greater user-centricity by focusing on the reduction of the administrative burden of accessing and managing Interreg funding for applicants and beneficiaries. Even though the principle of simplification for programme applicants and beneficiaries was rather marginalised in the complex HIT development process, simplifying the life of applicants/beneficiaries, especially those involved in multiple programmes, was still the primary motivation of programmes to join the HIT development.

Lastly, the development and adoption of HIT changed both the mindset of individuals and

organisations, i.e. organisational culture, as it demanded from programme authorities lateral

thinking, the agility to adapt to changes and readiness to compromise. All of this ultimately contributes to improved change management and, hence, the resilience of organisations or, as is the case with Interreg programmes, the system of organisations that is needed for implementing a programme. Even though programmes reported that they encountered some internal scepticism regarding HIT, the initiative was widely supported. The fact that a large number, or ‘critical mass’, of programmes was on board as well as the fact that programme could take a ‘shopping list’ approach to using the tools and pick out what elements they liked, increased acceptance and helped convince Monitoring Committee members.

4.3.2 Changes to structures and processes

The development of HIT has introduced innovation in both programme management practices and tools. Fundamentally, the HIT development achieved a basic clarification of terminological differences between programmes, and therefore facilitated a common basis for discussion and exchange beyond HIT. It also focused programmes on the similarities they share and provided them with insights into how other programmes approach programme management tasks. This exchange on programme management is also an essential part of other Interact activities, but discussions on HIT forced programmes to go much more into depth in order to understand other programmes’ arguments and proposals.

Even though the harmonisation of programme procedures was outside the scope of HIT, some programmes reported that the templates helped develop and shaped programme management

provisions and procedures. HIT development fostered peer learning and provided an opportunity

for self-reflection on what it really needs to assess and monitor projects. The focus group and survey provided evidence that, in some programmes16_{, this led to a simplification of programme}

processes. The harmonized budget lines were also described as a simplification, even though some

interpretations of the eligibility of expenditure are still open for discussion. And finally, simplifications have to be seen in the light of the complexity introduced by the new regulatory requirements for programmes regarding the assessment and monitoring of the results performance of projects. At programme-level, the collaborative development of programme tools introduced an additional layer of discussion and decision-making, which made decision-making considerably more complex. In this context, programmes underlined the importance of having the freedom to adjust the tools to programme needs. Several programmes stated that the adoption of HIT was conditional upon this freedom.

“The harmonized budget lines were a big simplification, but some interpretations of the eligibility of expenditures are still open for discussion.” Participant at HIT focus group

16 _{E.g. a focus group participant reported that the way travel budgets were calculated in the national system has}

4.3.3 Changes to systems and tools

The set of harmonised tools is built on a thorough analysis of past programme tools and exchange on programme good practice. Feedback shows that most programmes consider HIT as useful,

complete, and coherent. They also consider some harmonised tools, in particular the application

form, as somewhat fragmented and overly complex, as they contain too many questions/fields, some of which yield rather redundant input. Programmes acknowledge that the complexity stems from the fact that the HIT package aimed at accommodating as many programme wishes as possible. In the future, redundancies should be eliminated and more attention paid to the user-friendliness of especially the content-related parts.

As regards applicants/beneficiaries, most programmes report that they generally handle the forms

well, but that some found it challenging to establish, in the application form, a link between their

project’s objectives, expected results and main outputs and the programme's intervention logic. Programme opinions are split on whether the application form helps and guides applicants in following a results-oriented approach or whether results-oriented applications could have been achieved in a simpler way. Evidence from the survey suggests that challenges can be mitigated through clear guidance and training. Thus, there is a potential for exploiting synergies in the next programming period by developing common guidance for applicants/beneficiaries, including real life examples of good project intervention logics.