Post-Commencement Analysis of The Dutch Mission-Oriented Topsector and Innovation Policy' Strategy

Post-commencement analysis
of the Dutch ‘Mission-oriented

Topsector and Innovation
Policy’ strategy
Dr. Matthijs Janssen
Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy Observatory (MIPO)
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development
Utrecht University
09-11-2020
Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 5
1.1. Background of the study ........................................................................... 5
1.2. Research questions .................................................................................. 6
1.3. Methodology ............................................................................................ 7
1.4. Reading guide .......................................................................................... 8
2. The ‘mission-oriented innovation policy’ concepts ....................................... 9

2.1. Missions .................................................................................................. 9
2.2. Mission-oriented innovation policy ............................................................ 10
3. Mission-oriented innovation policy in the Netherlands .............................. 13

3.1. Evolution of Dutch innovation policy ......................................................... 13
3.2. Overview of missions .............................................................................. 15
3.3. Governance structure ............................................................................. 17
3.4. Funding ................................................................................................ 20
3.5. Instruments .......................................................................................... 22
4. Mission ‘Carbon-free built environment’ .................................................... 23

4.1. Origins and place in other agendas and structures ...................................... 23
4.2. Governance ........................................................................................... 25
4.3. Relevant policy instruments ..................................................................... 26
4.4. Monitoring and learning .......................................................................... 31
4.5. Impressions so far .................................................................................. 34
5. Discussion (Synthesis) .............................................................................. 39

5.1. Governance ........................................................................................... 39
5.2. Guidance............................................................................................... 41
5.3. Instruments .......................................................................................... 43
5.4. Directions for improvement ..................................................................... 45
5.5. Monitoring ............................................................................................. 47
6. Conclusions................................................................................................ 51
Appendix: List of interviewees ......................................................................... 55

The Dutch ‘Mission-oriented Topsector and Innovation Policy’ approach MIPO, Utrecht University
Preface
Much in line with the rising international interest for mission-oriented innovation policy (MIP), the
Netherlands has recently begun to transform its ‘Topsector approach’ into a ‘Mission-oriented
Topsector and Innovation Policy’ (MTIP) strategy. Over the course of 2019, different ministries have
put forward a total of 25 missions belonging to 4 central themes. In their latest Knowledge and
Innovation Agendas, the Topsectors have specified how they plan to contribute to the development
of innovations that address these missions. Moreover, by signing the Knowledge and Innovation
Covenants 2020-2023 in November 2019, around 30 stakeholders have committed themselves and
their budgets (totalling to €4.9bln for 2020) to supporting these development efforts.
What remains unclear at this point is how exactly the shift to mission-oriented innovation and
Topsector policy has an actual impact on the processes leading to the development and
implementation of potential solutions. The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy
(EZK) has expressed an interest in an analysis of the governance arrangements and monitoring
possibilities that are being developed for the new policy approach. Such an analysis should provide
a better understanding of how missions are being coordinated, and on what accounts (measurable)
impact may be expected.
The post-commencement analysis provided in this report offers a first scan of how the Dutch MTIP
is currently unfolding. Apart from describing the outlines of the MTIP as such, it presents some early
findings on policy designs and associated challenges for the particular mission on ‘a carbon-free built
environment by 2050’. The analysis covers the origins of the mission, how it is embedded in a wider
policy and institutional landscape, what governance structures have been deployed, which policy
instruments are being mobilized, and how progress is intended to be monitored. The report concludes
with a synthesis based on findings from studying the overall MTIP strategy, the built environment
mission, and additional interviews on the mission for ‘a sustainable, fully circular economy by 2050’.
Acknowledgements
Resources for conducting this study were provided by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate
Policy. Additionally, the ministry’s policy officials Koen de Pater, Bas Warmenhoven, Ed Buddenbaum
and Luuk Klomp offered valuable guidance and input during the research process. Of extreme
importance were also the reflections and perspectives shared by the 19 interviewees consulted for
this report. Tomas Rep, Sanne de Boer and Joeri Wesseling (Utrecht University) provided highly
appreciated support in conducting the interviews and reflecting on the results. The author takes full
responsibility for any errors and all interpretations presented in this report.
4
1. Introduction
1.1. Background of the study
The view that innovation policies can help to address societal challenges has been gaining popularity
rapidly over the past few years. Instead of only spurring the search for novelty, innovation policies
may also be designed to provide and diffuse novel solutions for urgent societal problems related to
topics like sustainability, health, safety, or demographic change.1 One way of linking innovation
policies to battling societal challenges, largely popularized by the economist Mariana Mazzucato, is
by prioritizing a mission. The notion of ‘mission-oriented innovation policy’ (MIP) refers to innovation
policies that aim to mobilize public and private innovative capacities in order to pursue an ambitious
and concrete societal goal.2 A typical example of such a goal would be “a 25% reduction of CO2
emissions in aviation by 2030”.
While the idea of uniting innovation efforts around a clear societal goal is very concrete, it is far from
straightforward which policies may support the pursuit of that goal. At this point not much is known
about the specific forms appropriate policies can take, nor under which circumstances they can be
effective. Despite ample policy interest for the notion of MIPs, so far very few empirical studies have
looked into how MIP-related governance arrangements and policy instruments have been designed,
and how they are working out. In order to start filling that gap, this report presents a case study on
one of the few examples of a national innovation strategy explicitly focused on completing missions.
The Dutch ‘Mission-oriented Topsector and Innovation Policy’ (MTIP) succeeds the national
Topsector-based research and innovation strategy established in 2012. After announcing the shift
towards a mission approach in 2018, in fall 2019 the ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy
(‘EZK’) announced which 25 missions would feature centrally in the updated policy approach. 3
The pivot towards missions has implications for how innovation governance and the innovation policy
mix are organized. Transitioning from a Topsector-focused strategy to a mission-oriented innovation
approach (still also involving Topsectors) is at this moment – and maybe permanently - an ongoing
process. For some missions, new governance structures have been designed and implemented
already. The actors involved in these structures have also started to propose ideas or even to
undertake actions regarding the creation of a policy mix suitable for pursuing missions.
As the first steps towards a national MIP strategy have been taken, with many more still on their
way, the case of the Dutch MTIP presents an opportunity to study what an actual instance of MIP
might look like. A priori there are very different approaches that could be followed here (see section
2.2), which begs the question which specific choices have been made in the Dutch case, and why.
An early stage or ‘post-commencement’ investigation of the emerging policy strategy allows for in-
depth analysis of the questions and tensions that arise when designing governance structures and
policy instruments. Of particular interest at this point is the relation between those designs, and the
impacts they have (or are supposed to have) when it comes to engaging and mobilizing different
types of stakeholders in processes of solution development and application.
In the case of the MTIP, studying the governance and instruments already developed for a ‘mature’
mission can be particularly helpful as for some other missions only a few concrete steps have been
made so far. Moreover, reporting on decisions and challenges may also be of relevance for other
governments currently considering whether and how to respond to the rise of MIPs.
1
Boon, W., & Edler, J. (2018). Demand, challenges, and innovation. Making sense of new trends in innovation
policy. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 435-447.
2
Mazzucato, M. (2018) Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 27(5), 803-815.
3
Ministry of EZK (26-04-2019). Missies voor het topsectoren- en innovatiebeleid.
5
1.2. Research questions
When commissioning this report, the ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy has proposed
the following questions for guiding the nature and scope of the case study:
1. Governance: What is the current form of governance? Does the mission actually guide the
various activities? Do the governing arrangements offer a suitable range of instruments for
researchers and innovators? Does it offer them a seamless and efficient continuum of support,
covering all TRLs and the investment stages, and including also supporting policies like helpful
regulation and procurement? What could be next steps for further improvement?
2. Monitoring: What are the (planned) arrangements to monitor inputs, activities, outputs and
impacts? What would be next steps to improve monitoring and feed resulting information back
into the governance?”
To obtain maximally relevant information in terms of comparability and maturity of investigated

missions, the requested research focuses on two missions belonging to the ‘Energy transitions &
Sustainability’ theme of the Dutch MTIP strategy (see box below, and chapter 3):
• A carbon-free built environment by 2050. This mission is drawn up by the Ministries of
the Interior (BZK) and EZK, and supported by the Topsector Energy.
• A sustainable, fully circular economy by 2050. The goal for 2030 is halving the use of
natural (fossil) resources. This mission is drawn up by the Ministries of Infrastructure and
Water Management (I&W) and EZK, and supported (primarily) by the Topsector Chemistry.
While both missions have been investigated, this particular report only contains an in-depth case
study on the Carbon-free Built Environment mission (chapter 4). Findings on the Circular Economy
mission are documented in a separate policy memo, but have been used also for the synthesis
presented in chapter 5.
Box 1: Energy transition and sustainability (Source: EZK, 2019, p. 3-4)3

“Our society is sustained by what the planet and the economy can offer us. In order to ensure that we have a
habitable and sustainable planet in 2050, we need to take action now on the climate issues facing us. We aim to
cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions by 49% in 2030, rising to 95% in 2050, compared with 1990. In
addition, we need to be more inventive with the raw materials that we now have. We currently waste many of
these raw materials, without giving them a second life. Premised on reuse and recycling of raw materials, a
circular economy knows no waste.
As a result, we will commit to improving the sustainability of the electricity system and the built environment,
eliminating reliance on natural gas, as well as achieving a carbon-neutral and competitive industry, zero-emission
mobility, a fully circular economy and carbon-neutral agriculture, among other things. Two missions have been
formulated under this theme. The first mission is directly linked, one-on-one, to the national Climate Agreement;
this mission is further elaborated in the Integrated Knowledge and Innovation Agenda (IKIA) for Climate and
Energy. In addition, the underlying document contains several additions to this mission outside the scope of the
IKIA, relating to sustainable mobility in respect of smart mobility, sustainable aviation and a sustainable maritime
sector. The second mission is linked to the government-wide programme A Circular Economy in the Netherlands
by 2050 and the Raw Materials Agreement.
The missions are:

- To cut national greenhouse gas emissions by 49% in 2030, increasing to 95% in 2050, compared with 1990.
This mission breaks down into: an entirely carbon-free electricity system in 2050; a carbon-free built environment
in 2050; a carbon-neutral industry based on the re-use of raw materials and products in 2050; zero-emission
mobility for people and goods in 2050; a net carbon-neutral agricultural and nature system in 2050;
- A sustainably driven, fully circular economy in 2050. The objective for 2030 is to achieve a 50% reduction in
resource use.”
6
1.3. Methodology
Desk research
Various types of documents were consulted to get an accurate understanding of what goals are
pursued and which government arrangements, policies and funding streams this involves. These
documents include letters sent to parliament, publicly available descriptions of the missions, and the
knowledge and innovation agendas and covenant associated with these missions. In addition, the
ministry of EZK and various stakeholders shared internal documents and public presentations
providing details on the governance arrangements.
Interviewees
Over the course of July 2020 till September 2020, a total of 19 interviews were conducted.
Conversations lasted over one hour on average. The list of interviewees (see Appendix) includes two
policy makers with expert knowledge on the MTIP and ‘Energy transition & Sustainability’ theme as
such, and seventeen interviewees with knowledge about either the Carbon-free Built Environment
mission and/or the Circular Economy mission. The interviewees for the two missions were roughly
equally divided over people with a background in policy, science, industry, or some type of
representation of societal interests (e.g. NGO). With a few exceptions, most interviewees had in-
depth knowledge about the unfolding MTIP approach due to their own involvement in the governance
structures. This underlines that this study is not a critical assessment, but rather an orienting
investigation of how the MTIP is being designed and which challenges are being encountered.
Box 2: Overview of interview topics

How has the mission been formulated?
- What are the main events/documents on the timeline leading up to the mission formulation; which
consultations, negotiations, strategic deliberations preceded the mission statement?
- Who were involved in formulating the mission? What are their interests?
- What were the main considerations when framing and scoping the mission?
- What types of (un)certainties characterize the nature of the targeted problems – and, if applicable,
the solution directions that regarded as promising for solving the problem?
How is the governance organized?

- Who carries what responsibilities?
- What coordination structures are in place; which information is used for what decisions?
- How is the mission being translated in manageable (sub)goals?
- What instruments are being developed/adapted to ensure mission progress?
- How does the mission approach add to existing structures/policies like the Topsector approach or an
industries/Ministries’ own strategic agenda?
- Which resources have been committed to the mission; under what conditions?
- Are there checks and balances when it comes to decisions on the mission itself, the use of particular
policy instruments, and the support for potential solutions?
What substantive actions are being considered / designed / implemented?

- Which strategies, policies, events, etc.? What change dynamics should they engender?
- How do the goals of these actions align with each other, and with the overall mission?
- What actors/networks should the actions engage? Which solution paths do they target?
- What determines the success of each action?
What effects (different orders of outcomes) are being pursued; overall and per action?
- Is there already an official monitoring framework? Is there a structure of KPIs? Is there a strategy
for conducting contribution and/or attribution analyses?
- How do the substantive actions (and envisaged change dynamics) relate to those KPIs?
What tensions emerge when engaging stakeholders and deploying actions?

- What sources of resistance (or acceleration) influence the mission direction / governance?
- Are there any bottlenecks in relation to managing/choosing solutions, losers and winners, etc.?
What governance and monitoring improvements should be considered?

- Which ones on the short term, which ones on the long term?
7
1.4. Reading guide
The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

• Chapter 2 briefly lays out the theoretical concepts on which the empirical analysis in the
subsequent chapters will draw.
• Chapter 3 describes how the Dutch MTIP strategy builds on the original Topsector
approach, as well as other policy developments outside the domain of research and
innovation. Besides listing the 25 missions that were proposed in 2019, the chapter also
discusses the overall governance structure, funding arrangements and policy instruments
associated with the MTIP.
• Chapter 4 provides the in-depth empirical analysis of the Carbon-free Built Environment
mission.
• Chapter 5 offers a synthesis of findings retrieved from studying the overall setup, the
Carbon-free Built Environment mission analysed in chapter 4, and the Circular Economy
that was investigated but not documented in more detail in the current report.
• Chapter 6 finalizes with the conclusions.
8
2. The ‘mission-oriented innovation policy’ concepts
2.1. Missions
The current debate on MIPs emphasizes how ambitious and measurable missions launched by bold
governments can provide the directionality that is needed to activate and align the innovation efforts
of broad ranges of stakeholders.4 Especially for ‘wicked’ societal challenges, it is expected that they
often require multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral solutions drawing on technological as well as non-
technological (e.g. behavioural, institutional) changes.5
As reaching the stated societal goal is the final objective, policies focused on completing a mission
should be concerned with both the development as well as the actual use of suitable solutions. This
implies that missions affect significantly more stakeholders than just the ones engaged in developing
and applying new knowledge. Moreover, as the adoption of innovative solutions for societal problems
can have important socio-economic consequences in turn, it is likely that some of these stakeholders
may have an active role in determining which directions for change are being considered when
pursuing a mission. The Mission-oriented Innovation Policy Observatory has described the nature of
missions as follows (2020, p.6)6:
“We regard missions as always embedded in and in tension with the structures of different systems
of provision and the science, technology and innovation systems. Missions emerge as a negotiated
outcome between different interests, concerns and imperatives. This implies that in our view, they
are neither apolitical in their formulation, nor neutral in their conduct. Moreover, they are not fixed
but rather dynamic engagements, whose conduct is (desirably) adaptive and iterative, responsive to
changing circumstances. Even if the headline goals remain unchanged, how they are interpreted,
structured into intermediary goals, and evaluated is often up for (re)negotiation. In this respect it
should be noted that missions interact with other approaches, structures and policies in complex
ways, which may undermine their execution and have negative impacts elsewhere. Missions always
address challenges partially, engaging some systems and sectors and publics but not others, and
therefore always exclude particular paths, possibilities and concerns.”
Building on this interpretation, Figure 1 positions missions in between the various systems they are
influencing (and originating from). These are the socio-economic system relevant for a social domain
dealing with a challenge (like traffic safety or clean industry), and the innovation system that may
be mobilized for solving that challenge. While the socio-economic system entails the overall set of
technologies, infrastructures, behaviours and values relevant for production and consumption
patterns in a social domain, the innovation system consists of the actors and structures relevant for
the acts of developing new knowledge and applying them in novel products, processes and services.
As the figure shows, missions may operate as an interface for aligning coordination and investment
activities in both the aforementioned systems. Additionally, they can also help to establish a bridge
between governments on the one hand, and markets parties and societal organisations (including
firms, universities and citizen representatives) on the other hand. One can expect that the
involvement of such actors might change over time, thereby also influencing which directions are
being pursued and which actual changes this causes in the socio-economic and innovation system.
Rather than static phenomena, missions are to be regarded as embedded and evolving.
4
Mazzucato, M. (2016). From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy.
Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 140–156.
5
Wanzenböck, I., Wesseling, J., Frenken, K., Hekkert, M., & Weber, M. (2020). A framework for mission-
oriented innovation policy: Alternative pathways through the problem-solution space. Science and Public Policy.
6
Janssen, M., Torrens, J., Wesseling, J., Wanzenböck, I. Patterson, J., Hekkert, M. (2020). Position paper
‘Mission-oriented innovation policy observatory’, v. 12-02-2020. Utrecht University.
9
Socio-economic system (in a social domain)
Problem-based Mission impacts

governance (mobilizing, aligning, …)
MISSIONS
Goals / frames, Markets &
Government Actors, Networks, Society
Institutions, Paths
Innovation
governance
Innovation system
Figure 1: Missions as embedded and evolving phenomena (MIPO, 20206).
2.2. Mission-oriented innovation policy
When it comes to concrete policy strategies for engaging actors in the pursuit of missions, the
academic debate so far has proposed different approaches. Often implicitly, studies on MIPs tend to
emphasize the importance of either scientific research, entrepreneurial experimentation by firms, or
changes stemming from societal stakeholders themselves (like civil-society organisations). These
focal topics are typically associated with policy approaches like, respectively, challenge-led R&D
policy, industrial policy, and transformative innovation policy based on transition thinking. This is
reflected in the figure below, plotting the three archetypical approaches against the axes of
‘knowledge/technology push – demand pull’ and ‘innovation focused – diffusion focused’. Actual MIP
strategies, including the processes for mission formulation as well as the specific governance
arrangements and policy instruments deployed for pursuing missions, can be designed according to
any of these archetypical approaches.
Attention for Regular policies in a Attention for

systems / societal domain systems /
diffusion diffusion
Transformative
innovation
Systemic policy
innovation
/ industrial Mission-
policy oriented
innovation
policy
Challenge-led
R&D policy R&D policy
Innovation Policy
Fundamental research
Degree of demand pull
Figure 2: Different approaches to mission-oriented innovation policy (adapted from Janssen 20197)
7
Janssen, M. 2019. Legitimation and effects of mission-oriented innovation policies: A spillover perspective.
10
Figure 3 shows an alternative way of interpreting MIPs, based on the combination of the perspectives
captured by the previous figures. MIPs consist in the first place of governance arrangements for
organizing the tasks and responsibilities associated with prioritizing and pursuing a mission goal.
Secondly, a government launching a mission and the MIP governance structure it puts in place will
both have a role in creating a policy mix suitable for the creation and application of promising
solutions. As MIPs by definition draw on driving changes by mobilizing innovative capacities, many
of the policies they can build on will be related to some parts of the spectrum ranging from knowledge
development to innovation and diffusion. It is possible to launch new policy instruments explicitly
dedicated to supporting the pursuit of missions, or to adjust exiting instruments. Hybrid forms may
be possible as well, in which some new instruments complement the ones that were already present.
It is unlikely that merely having well-balanced policies for different stages of innovation is already
sufficient for completing a mission. Recent writings on MIPs emphasize that the policies and the
mission itself should create the circumstances in which actors in the innovation system (researchers,
innovators) and in the socio-economic system (those affected by a societal problem) are driven into
each others arms, so that they can ensure that they properly inform each other and co-create when
searching for suitable solutions.6 This implies that MIPs are to be seen as coordination mechanisms
just as much as ‘policy packages’. Moreover, the actual uptake of resulting solutions is believed to
be also a matter of initiatives not typically associated with innovation policies, including for example
the modification of regulation or awareness campaigns informing people about the role they can play
in dealing with a given societal challenge. Finally, completing a mission entails more than consistently
nurturing the solution pathways that are being explored in so-called ‘mission-oriented innovation
systems’; it might also require active managing of which paths to pursue, combine, or drop.8
Government
MISSION
Governance arrangements Resources

for pursuing the mission for funding the governance and
(e.g. steering, coordinating) instruments
Mission-oriented
Innovation Policy Programming
MIP instrument MIP instrument MIP instrument

e.g. challenge-led R&D policy e.g. industrial policy e.g. transformative policy
Innovation policy Innovation policy Innovation policy Innovation policy
Knowledge development Solution application
Mobilizing/
Aligning
Innovation system
Socio-economic system
Complementary
Regulation Procurement Awareness Etc.
initiatives/policies
Figure 3: Conceptualization of what mission-oriented innovation policy is composed of.
The conceptualization presented here provides the MIP interpretation and vocabulary that will be
used throughout this study. In line with the research questions listed in section 1.2, the empirical
analysis focuses particularly on how the governance arrangements are designed, how they affect the
mobilization of resources and the lining up of policy instruments, and how this is being monitored.
8
M. Hekkert, M. Janssen, J. Wesseling, S.O. Negro (2020). Mission oriented innovation systems. Environmental
Innovation & Social Transitions, 34, pp. 76-79.
11
3. Mission-oriented innovation policy in the Netherlands
3.1. Evolution of Dutch innovation policy9
Already with the introduction of the Topsector approach, around 2012, the Dutch government
(notably the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Ministry of Education, Science and Culture) started to
develop a research and innovation strategy focused on coordination and collaboration. The
nine Topsectors that were selected pertain to R&D and export-intensive domains like AgriFood
Logistics, Life Sciences and Health, and High-Tech Systems and Materials. At least originally, the
primary goal of Topsectors was to improve the match between the knowledge demands of innovative
firms and the activities of research institutes.
Brief description of the Topsector approach

Each Topsector consists of a Topteam of high-level representatives from science, industry and policy. Additionally,
the Topsectors have one or more TKI; the ‘Topconsortia for Knowledge and Innovation’. Together, the Topteam
and TKI are responsible for creating and implementing the Knowledge and Innovation Agendas (KIAs) in which
stakeholders active in the respective Topsector domains articulate their visions on the directions in which they
want to develop. Although important decisions are mostly taken by the Topteam members than The TKI have a
staff of multiple people (usually also active still in their main jobs), which leaves them the capacity to engage
with stakeholders and coordinate the writing of the KIAs. Moreover, they also organize networking activities and
other supporting initiatives to help stakeholders in their domain with moving forward in developing and applying
innovations. Taking a rather systemic perspective on innovation, the Topsectors deploy initiatives also for
supporting human capital development (e.g. by regularly updating Human Capital Agendas reflecting skill
demands), export activities, and reconsideration of regulatory barriers.
Importantly, the experimental way of engaging in ‘modern’ industrial policy involved relatively little funding.
While financially the bulk of innovation support in the Netherlands is still allocated through fiscal schemes like
the WBSO and the Innovatiebox (Patent Box), the Topsectors mostly operate by influencing the scope of other
policy instruments. Two major exceptions are the TKI or PPP allowance and the MIT. The TKI allowance for
subsidizing public-private R&D projects serves to identify which research domains were of high importance for
firms, and to encourage firms to make private research investments as well. In order to ensure also the
involvement of SMEs, the MIT instrument subsidizes activities like prototyping and feasibility studies. Finally,
some ministries have devoted some of their own budgets to activities or instruments coordinated (programmed,
not executed) by the Topsectors. This concerns for instance EZK for energy innovation, and the ministry of
Infrastructure and Water management for the development and especially uptake of innovations in the field of
logistics. Apart from also programming a substantial amount of earmarked funding from the National Science
Foundation (NWO), the Topsectors have mobilized many other – often domain-specific – funding streams and
policy initiatives in order to execute the plans laid out in the KIAs.
Over the years the Topsectors have become prominent coordination platforms in the Dutch research
and innovation system. Despite their name, the Topsectors are hardly to be seen as purely sectoral
structures. The triple helix composition, and the focus on developing and realizing new
innovation paths, implies that considerable attention is paid to engaging very diverse
stakeholders in the recombination and application of knowledge. For instance, as the
networks in the various Topsectors were formed, priority gradually shifted to connecting also actors
from different ‘silos’. Generally, this would still mostly involve organisations relatively inclined to
engage in R&D. Engaging also less innovative firms has remained a challenge for many of the
Topsectors.
9
For an extensive description and assessment, see: Janssen (2019). What bangs for your buck?: Assessing the
design and impact of Dutch transformative policy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 138, 78–94.
13
On the positive side, a remarkable feature of the Topsector approach was that it provided a basis for
involving also more public stakeholders in innovation processes. The overall impression is that by
being represented in thematic Topsectors related to e.g. healthcare and mobility, many line
ministries steadily became more acquainted with interacting with industry and science.
Jointly exploring options to exploit promising innovations fits with the view that driving innovation is
not so much a matter of economic policies, but rather also of accommodating a wide range of changes
needed to make an innovation succeed (or to avert undesired effects).
At the time of the evaluation of the Topsector approach, in 2017, there were signals that the
Topsector approach was ready to go beyond the initial goal of reinforcing innovation systems by
encouraging private R&D. With the governance structures, policies and (partially)
reconfigured R&D networks in place, the moment came to respond to the internationally
growing interest for targeting innovation policies at societal challenges. In the Netherlands
this ambition was not only sparked by the rising interest for an ‘entrepreneurial state’ and the
promises of missions, but also by the line ministries that got on board of the ministries of EZK and
OCW’s Topsector approach in the preceding five years. Because those line ministries faced pressures
to address difficult challenges, and because they became more deeply involved in steering
innovation, momentum was building for increasingly sharing (or even shifting) the responsibility for
driving innovation-based socio-economic change.
This momentum to transition towards pursuing missions also came from within the
Ministry of EZK, as in 2017 the (then) Ministry of Economic Affairs obtained the Climate Policy
dossier. Carrying responsibility over growth and innovation as well as climate policy implies the
ministry was no longer only the architect of the overall Topsector (and now MTIP) strategy, but at
the same time also one of the line ministries with responsibility for a particular societal domain:
climate and energy. With this came also the obligation to formulate an answer to the challenges
posed by the Paris Agreement (2015) and the Dutch Climate Act this resulted in (September 2019).10
Note that even before EZK obtained the climate dossier, it was already the principle ministry involved
in the Topsector Energy. Exceptional about this Topsector was that it did not have the objective to
enhance the innovation system for actors concerned with energy topics, but that it also had a
mandate to steer several policy instruments in order to improve energy innovation and sustainability.
In sum, there were many ways in which the shift towards a mission-orientation started
long before it became official.
In July 2018, the Dutch ministry of EZK announced that the Topsector approach would be continued,
albeit with a different focus.11 By upgrading it into the ‘Mission-oriented Topsector and Innovation
Policy’ (MTIP) strategy, the ministry chose “to challenge the top sectors to produce concrete
solutions, while also calling for a commitment from the government to create the right framework
conditions for innovation” (EZK, 2019, p. 3). The fact that this decision was endorsed by the
entire cabinet in April 2019 effectively makes it a truly national policy, rather than just a
departmental one.
The missions featuring centrally in the MTIP were not developed by the ministry of EZK
itself. Instead, it organized a process which invited also the line ministries to propose ambitious and
measurable societal goals. In many cases extensive consultations took place to formulate those goals
together with knowledge institutes, business, civil-society organisations and regional authorities.
Some of these consultations were in fact already happening outside of the context of developing
missions. For the mission theme ‘Energy transition & Sustainability’ (ET&S), for instance, the
objectives set in the Climate Agreement were of major importance for switching to a challenge based
10
See: https://www.raadvanstate.nl/climate/.
11
Ministry of EZK (13-07-2018). Kamerbrief over innovatiebeleid en de bevordering van innovatie: naar
missiegedreven innovatiebeleid met impact.
14
innovation policy strategy (see box 1 in section 1.2). In the case of the ET&S mission on Circular
Economy, (sub)goals for the mission were obtained directly from the Transition Agendas and
associated Execution Agendas that quadruple helix consortia already developed on behalf of the
Ministry of Infrastructure and Water management (I&W). Generally, we see for many missions
that both existing as well as new ideas and agendas fed into the process of setting
ambitious but realistic mission goals.
3.2. Overview of missions
In April 2019, the Ministry of EZK (on behalf of the entire cabinet) presented 25 missions grouped
according to 4 mission themes.12 An overview of these themes and missions is provided in table 1:
Table 1: Overview of missions (Ministry of EZK, 2019)13.

Themes Missions
Energy - 49% reduction of national greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, aiming for 95% lower
transition emissions by 2050 compared to 1990.
and - An entirely carbon-free electricity system by 2050.
sustainability - A carbon-free built environment by 2050.
- Carbon-neutral industry with reuse of raw materials and products by 2050.
- Zero-emission mobility of people and goods by 2050.
- A sustainable and completely circular economy by 2050, with resource use halved by 2030.
Agriculture, - Reduction of the use of raw and auxiliary materials in agriculture and horticulture by 2030
water and and creating the maximum possible value from all end products and residuals by utilising them
food as fully as possible (circular agriculture).
- By 2050, the agricultural and nature system will be net carbon-neutral.
- The Netherlands will be climate-proof and water-resilient by 2050.
- By 2030, we will produce and consume healthy, safe and sustainable food, while supply chain
partners and farmers get a fair price for their produce.
- A sustainable balance between ecological capacity and water management vs. renewable
energy, food, fishing and other economic activities, where this balance must be achieved by
2030 for marine waters and by 2050 for rivers, lakes and estuaries.
- The Netherlands is and will remain the best-protected and most viable delta in the world,
with timely future-proof measures implemented at a manageable cost.
Health and - By 2040, all Dutch citizens will live at least five years longer in good health, while the health
health care inequalities between lowest and highest socio-economic groups will have decreased by 30%.
- By 2040, the burden of disease resulting from an unhealthy lifestyle and living environment
will have decreased by 30%.
- By 2030, the extent of care provided to people within their own living environment (rather
than in health-care institutions) will be 50% more than today or such care will be provided
50% more frequently than at present.
- By 2030, the proportion of people with a chronic disease or lifelong disability who can play
an active role in society according to their wishes and capabilities will have increased by 25%.
- By 2030, quality of life for people with dementia will have improved by 25%.
Security - By 2030, organised crime in the Netherlands will have become an excessively high-risk and
low-return enterprise, thanks to a better insight into illegal activities and cash flows.
- By 2035, the Netherlands will have a navy fit for the future, which will be able to respond
flexibly to unpredictable and unforeseen developments.
- By 2030, the Netherlands will have operationally deployable space-based capabilities for
defence and security.
- Cyber security: the Netherlands will be in a position to capitalise, in a secure manner, on the
economic and social opportunities offered by digitisation.
- By 2030, the armed forces will be fully networked with other services and through the
integration of new technologies, so that they can act faster and more effectively than the
opponent.
- Supply and demand will come together more quickly to implement successful short-cycle
innovations.
- By 2030, security organisations will be capable of collecting new and better data, so that
they are always one step ahead of the threat.
- By 2030, the role of security professional will be among the 10 most attractive professions
in the Netherlands.
12
Ministry of EZK (26-04-2019). Missies voor het topsectoren- en innovatiebeleid.
13
Ministry of EZK (26-04-2019). Dutch missions for grand challenges: Mission-driven Top Sector and
Innovation Policy.
15
To articulate on what accounts the missions rely on innovation, a ‘Knowledge and Innovation Agenda’
(KIA) was developed for each of the four mission themes. While representatives from
Topsectors occasionally had a role already in formulating the missions themselves, the
Topsectors especially contributed to the KIAs (as they have been doing so since 2012).
The overview depicted in figure 4 shows which Topsectors are most clearly associated with the
various mission themes. It also reveals that the missions themes were proposed by always at least
one line ministry carrying responsibility for the societal domain in which one can find the problems
addressed by the missions. Apart from the four mission themes, the MTIP has two more pillars. One
of them is support for Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) and Key Enabling Methodologies (KEMs),
the other one concerns building ‘public earning capacity’ in a regional context.
4 Themes x 5-8 Missions KIAs Ministries Topsectors
Energy, Chemistry, Water, Creative

EZK
Energy transition & Sustainability (I)KIA industries, Horticulture, Agri-Food, High
I&W - BZK tech Systems & Materials, Logistics
Agri-Food & Horticulture, HTSM/ICT, Life

LNV
Agriculture, Water and Food KIA Sciences & Health, Chemistry, Energy,
I&W - VWS Water, Logistics, Creative Industries
Life Sciences & Health, Agri-Food,

VWS
Health and Health care KIA Horticulture, HTSM/ICT, Chemistry,
LNV – OCW - SZW Energy, Water, Logistics, Creative Ind.
DEF – J&V – I&W Hightech Systems & Materials, Water,

Security KIA
EZK – BZK - OCW Logistics, Creative Industries
Hightech Systems and Materials & all

KIA: Key enabling technologies/methods EZK + topsectors
KIA: Public earning capacity EZK + Creative Industries & all topsectors
Figure 4: Overview of Themes/Missions, KIAs, and the associated ministries and Topsectors (adapted
from: ClickNL, 202014).
As the KIAs are still fairly broad agendas, a few additional translation steps have been taken in order
to guide actual innovation activities. This is depicted in Figure 5. For each KIA, the Topsectors and
their partners have proposed several more specifically targeted ‘multi-annual innovation programs’
(MMIPs). In some cases these MMIPs are tied to sub-goals underling the overall mission goal. The
MMIPs differ from previous KIA roadmaps in the sense that they are said to be more comprehensive;
instead of only listing a set of technologies or topics research and innovation should be focus on, the
multi-annual plans also articulate how these focal points link together in order to form a promising
solution path. This also implies that besides presenting a research element, the MMIPs devote
attention to issues like the integration of sub-solutions and institutional aspects with relevance for
diffusion. The observation that the MMIPs contain comprehensive strategies for combining
various innovation-related developments, however, does not automatically imply they are
also more selective in terms of the total number of technologies or innovation topics they
address. The main difference is that now these topics are clustered into coherent paths.
Multi-annual
Knowledge Programming
Theme Mission-based
& Innovation of policies
with Innovation Projects
Agenda (e.g. NWO call,
Missions Programs
(KIA) RVO tender)
(MMIPs)
Figure 5: Chain from Missions to research and innovation projects.
14
https://www.clicknl.nl/en/themes/mission-driven-innovation/
16
For the sake of illustration, the figure below shows which MMIPs correspond with the various Energy
transition and Sustainability missions (‘A-E’) on reducing national greenhouse emissions. As noted
in box 1 in section 1.2, this theme also contains a mission ‘CE’ on establishing a fully circular economy
by 2050. This latter mission does not originate from the Integrated Knowledge and Innovation
Agenda (IKIA) for the Energy transition and Sustainability theme, but from the five Transition
Agendas that are tied to the so-called Raw Materials Agreement of 2017 (see also Figure 11 in section
4.1). The three MMIPs cutting across these five Transition Agendas, or Transition Domains, are:
Design for Circularity, Circular material chains and processes, and Trust, behaviour and acceptation.
Figure 6: MMIPs for the Energy transition and Sustainability missions ‘A-E’ on reducing national
greenhouse emissions (Source: EZK, 2019).
3.3. Governance structure
3.3.1. Governance layers
When designing the governance structure for the MTIP, or at least the mission theme ‘Energy
transition and Sustainability’ (ET&S), the following principles were leading15:
• The structure should be appropriate for optimally supporting the objectives/goals of the
missions;
• Coordination and scoping of innovation activities is a triple helix responsibility;
• the governance is based on existing processes and mandates with respect to funding;
• the governance needs to be consistent with the Topsector approach;
• the governance should maximally build on existing and successful structures (TKIs and their
ecosystems) as well as policy instruments.
15
Ministry of EZK (2019). Governance of the KIA and Innovation agendas of the societal theme ‘Energy
transition and Sustainability’, version 085.
17
The governance structure devised for the MTIP in general contains a significant amount of layers.
Figure 7 shows how these layers relate to the strategic elements discussed so far.
Figure 7: Layers and elements in the MTIP governance structure (Source: Larrue, 2020).
As discussed earlier, the Topsectors (Topteams and TKIs) have a large role in deciding on which
topics are covered by the Knowledge and Innovation Agendas.16 With the shift to the MTIP, an
extra governance structure was woven into the existing configuration of arrangements. In
figure 7 this has been labelled as Societal challenge areas’ governance, made up by high level
themateams (for making decisions at the level of the mission themes) and mission teams (operating
at the level of missions and MMIPs). Mission teams are often also referred to as ‘MI teams’, for
‘mission-oriented innovation teams’. The Topconsortia for innovation (TKIs) from the original
Topsector approach have remained in place, but now also provide input to the mission teams. Just
like the Topsectors and TKI, the representatives active in the mission themes originate
from all parts of the triple or even quadruple helix.
An alternative way of interpreting how the MTIP is organized, is shown in figure 8. The overview
focuses on the mission-part of the MTIP governance, which (as figure 8 already showed) blends in
also the pre-existing Topsector structures. The overall outlines of the mission-part of the MTIP are
directed in the ‘Regieoverleg MTIP’; a high level executive meeting taking place twice per year. At
this overarching level, high ranked policy officials, captains from Topteams and executives from
‘knowledge partners’ (NWO and TNO) agree on fundamental issues related to funding and
governance. Additionally, there are also executive meetings at the level of themateams. These
16
Note that only the one for the theme ‘Energy transition and sustainability’ is referred to as an Integrated
Knowledge and Innovation Agenda (IKIA); see chapter 4.
18
meetings, taking place roughly four times per year, are of a strategic nature and concern the planning
and funding (e.g. targeted NWO calls) for specific themes. Also the mission teams unite several times
per year, in their case to make decisions on programming issues related to the various MMIPs they
oversee. The collecting of information for feeding into the programming activities and decision
processes is mostly done by the ‘program teams’ associated with particular MMIPs. Often there is
one program leader appointed for a MMIP. Additional support is provided by the TKIs.
I. Overall administrative/strategic coordination

Topsector captains, ministries, regions, High-level executive meeting MTIP
Topsectors
executives of knowledge partners Knowledge and Innovation Covenant
II.a Coordination per KIA Theme team Theme team Theme team Theme team Theme team Theme team
Topsector captains, ministries, Energy transition Agriculture, Health care Safety Key Enabling Public earning
10
knowledge partners Topteams
& Sustainability Water & Food and care Techs/Methods capacity
II. b Programming per KIA

15
TKI directors, ministries, other Core team Core team Core team Core team
Core
stakeholders teams
III. Coordination / programming 9

7 6 4 8 8 Programme TKI
TKI directors, ministries, scientists, Mission Missions Mission office
Missions KET clusters boards
entrepreneurs, industry captains, teams (MMIP’s) (ClickNL)
(MMIP’s)
corporations
15
TKI
offices
IV. Execution of programmes Programme Programme Programmmes 50 KETs Programme
33
RVO, TKI offices, companies, teams teams (14) (51 MJP’s) managers
(strategic PPPs) Sub- … Programmes
educational institutes, regions, 13 MMIP’s 30 MMIP’s programmes 3 tracks
NGOs, scientists
Figure 8: Layers and elements in the MTIP governance structure (adapted from: NWO, 2020).
Slight discrepancies between figures 7, 8 and other texts can be explained by the fact that some
details may vary from one theme/mission to the other. Moreover, differences can emerge due to the
evolving nature of the policy approach. The transition from Topsector approach to MTIP is regarded
as a gradual process that might turn out to move through different phases, possibly also effecting to
what extent either the Topsectors or the mission-part of the overall structure are in the lead (or
integrated) when it comes to coordinating innovation activities. Governance structures that were so
far put in place are intended to be for the middle-long term, but perhaps not definitive. Finally, as
the number of governance elements and involved stakeholders are both rather high, with
some stakeholders participating in very distinct parts of the structure (see e.g. the regional
representatives at both the overall administrative level as well as the execution of programs), it is
understandable that stakeholders have different interpretations of how the governance is
designed exactly.
3.3.2. The mission teams17
Probably the most MTIP-specific parts of the new (or rather: extended) governance structure are the
mission teams. They are positioned as the engines for driving changes, as formally their tasks
include the developing, executing and organizing - through engaging various ecosystem
actors - of both the Missions and the MMIPs. This also includes ensuring consistency between
the missions as well as the actual realisation of the final goals. Within MI teams, specific members
are appointed as contact persons for cross-cutting themes like human capital or responsible and
inclusive innovation. In case of the theme Energy and Innovation, there is also a MMIP that links to
all the five missions (MMIP13 for ‘a robust and societally accepted energy system’; see figure 6).
The actual programming of knowledge and innovation (e.g. in research calls) takes place in the
programme teams tied to mission teams. These programme teams might be closely linked to a TKI.
The structure around the mission teams belonging to a theme team also contains two additional
governance elements, as shown in figure 9. One of them is the Innovation Advice Committee (IAC);
17
This entire section is based on: Ministry of EZK (2019). Governance of the KIA and Innovation agendas of the
societal theme ‘Energy transition and Sustainability’, version 085.
19
a group of independent advisors overseeing the activities of the mission teams in order to ensure
consistency and progress with respect to the long term goals as captured by the mission statements.
With respect to developments on the shorter term, an independent Innovation Monitoring Unit (IMU)
collects and analyses information on activities and output of the mission teams and the MMIPs. It
also monitors the ‘maturity’ of the ecosystems involved in pursuing a mission, and to what
extent desired societal outcomes are achieved (and can be attributed to innovation).
Innovation Advice
Committee (IAC)
Theme team
Innovation Monitoring
Unit (IMU)
Mission Mission
team team
MI team TKI
support office
Programme Programme
teams teams
MMIP’s MMIP’s
Figure 9: Governance structure around the mission teams and theme team.
The four main tasks of the MI-teams are:

1. Learning and connecting. This role of chairman is typically fulfilled by a representative of
the Topteam belonging to the Topsector that is supporting a mission. He or she is the liaison
towards executive meetings at theme level as well as to the Topsectors.
2. Securing coordination of the MMIPs and corresponding subprograms, and alignment with
other MI-teams. This is mostly in the hands of triple helix representatives active in the
supporting TKIs, line ministries, and research/educational institutes. The mandate of the MI
teams concerns making decisions on the programming of research calls and tenders in a
policy schemes, adjusting MMIP objectives (possibly informed by the input of the IAC or
IMU), the annual plan of the MI team, and the balance of activities focused on various MMIPs.
3. Organizing programme/agenda development activities. This task is mostly executed
by the TKIs and the program managers. Their assignment includes to develop and regularly
update the MMIPs and subprograms, the formulation of Key Performance Indicators,
engaging in community building to create ecosystems suitable for developing and diffusing
innovative solutions, creating commitment from relevant partners and stakeholders, and
other operational and advisory activities.
4. Development and execution of initiatives and instruments for delivering the support
to research and innovation activities. The actual execution is likely to be mostly in the hands
of funding organisations like NWO, policy execution agencies like RVO.nl, or regional
authorities that contribute to the MMIPs as well. These organisations typically monitor their
own activities, while the MI team itself is also responsible for collecting data and sharing it
with the IMU and theme team.
3.4. Funding
After the 25 missions were formulated, a process emerged in which the ministries, knowledge
partners (incl. NWO, the Royal Dutch Academy of Arts and Sciences KNAW, and representatives of
universities and universities of applied sciences) and other organizations started negotiating about
the financial aspect of the MTIP. This practice already existed in the Topsector approach, in the form
of those stakeholders signing Knowledge and Innovation Contracts in which they committed a certain
amount of funding for particular knowledge and innovation programs and/or instruments.
20
In November 2019, by signing the Knowledge and Innovation Covenant 2020-2023, 30 stakeholders
pledged to spend a total of almost €4.9 billion per year.18 Around 58% concerns funding from public
sources, which is matched with the 42% invested by private companies as well as sources like charity
funds (e.g. patient organizations). The columns in Figure 10 show the distribution of the amounts
over the 4 missions themes, the KETs and the Societal Earning Capacity theme. The rows give an
indication of the various sources of the budgets, which are grouped into private investments through
the Topsectors and public investments from knowledge institutes and departments.
Figure 10: Overview of distribution and origin of KIC budgets for the year 2020 (Source: MinEZK18)
18
Ministry of EZK (12-11-2019). Kennis- en Innovatieconvenant 2020-2023.
21
The overview shown in Figure 10 reveals that the envisaged budgets for the various MTIP themes
differ in orders of magnitude. For instance, the missions on Safety have a 2020 budget of only
€122mln (in which public investments are more than twice as high as private investments), while
the envisaged budget for the Health and Care mission is over €1bln. Also within the Energy transition
and Sustainability mission there are stark contrasts.19 The ‘A-E’ missions on reducing greenhouse
gas emissions have a budget of over €900mln, while the CE mission stands at a budget of only
€50mln. This difference is partially due to the €441mln of expected co-funding stemming from
climate policies (other than the ones administrated through the Topsector Energy).
The budgets presented above are sometimes estimates, but not real commitments yet (hence the
label ‘covenant’ instead ‘contract’ this time). Still, compared to the preceding four-year contracts for
knowledge and innovation, the amount of almost €5 billion / year is roughly twice as high. This is
mostly due to the fact that the shift towards MTIP implies a greater role for an increased
amount of partners. Out of the 30 signatures, twelve stem from ministers and state secretaries,
with a few more coming from local authorities. The fact that so many funding streams are being
brought together in the KIC reflects the ambition to create both momentum and consistency in the
MTIP approach towards supporting innovation for societal challenges. It also testifies of a strategy
to do this systematically, as the funding streams do not just stem from an increasing range of public
stakeholders but (almost automatically) also stretch over a broadening range of support measures.
This would in particularly concern the line ministries’ and regional authorities’ policy initiatives
regarding the implementation of innovative ways to address societal challenges. As indicated earlier,
the MTIP governance structure contains various committees and activities for monitoring and
periodically discussing how the budgets and deployed activities meet the overall goals.
3.5. Instruments
From the outset, the launch of the MTIP was not associated with the implementation of new MTIP-
wide policy instruments. As a matter of fact, the strategy to change objectives while maintaining the
same set of policies was one of the principles proposed when designing the MTIP governance
structure (see section 3.3). Rather than on adding more instruments to the policy mix, the
emphasis in implementing a national MIP has been put on setting up the coordination
mechanisms that allow organizations to make better use of available instruments. In this
case, ‘better’ would refer to innovation capacities being mobilized for contributing to solving societal
challenges (as prioritized in missions) rather than for yielding innovative output per se.
Instruments that are of relevance for coordinating entities like the Topsectors, TKIs and now MI
teams are for instance some NWO calls, the PPP allowance for collaborative R&D projects, and the
MIT for SME’s working on innovation projects fitting a KIA. Over the years the Topsectors have also
broadened their reach by influencing the use of funding programs offered by the European
Commission and Dutch regional authorities such as the regional development agencies (‘ROMs’).
Recently, the ministries of Finance and EZK launched two major policy initiatives targeted at
economic growth. The national promotional bank InvestNL has a budget of €1.7 bln for risk capital
investments in innovative scale-ups contributing to the energy transition (and in the future possibly
other challenges).20 Furthermore, the ‘National Growth fund’ announced in September 2020 aims to
invest €20 bln (in the next 5 years) in education, infrastructure and R&D / innovation.21 Also actors
pursuing missions, including the MI teams, might formulate strategies for utilizing these new policies.
19
In this overview the ET&S theme also mentions a third subtheme; this is mission D (‘Zero-emission mobility
of people and goods by 2050’) of the ‘A-E’ missions on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
20
https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2020/01/16/invest-nl-launches-with-focus-on-financing-the-energy-
transition-and-innovative-scale-ups
21
https://www.government.nl/government/the-government-s-plans-for-2021
22
4. Mission ‘Carbon-free built environment’
4.1. Origins and place in other agendas and structures
The statement and subgoals for the specific mission highlighted in this case study report is as follows:
• Missions statement: “A carbon-free built environment in 2050”.

• Subgoals:
o Disconnecting 30.000-50.000 existing houses per year from the natural gas
infrastructure by 2021, and 200.000 existing houses per year before 2030.
o 1,5 million houses and 15% of utility buildings and societal real estate natural gas
free by 2030;
o at least 20% of local energy consumption (incl. EV) within the built environment
should concern sustainable energy production.
The mission for a carbon-free built environment in 2050 is Mission B under the theme ‘Energy
transition and sustainability’ (ET&S), which has the overall ambition of reducing national greenhouse
gas emissions by 49% in 2030, increasing to 95% in 2050, as compared to emission levels in 1990.
Like the other missions under this theme, it follows directly from the targets that were proposed in
the Climate Agreement of 2017. This means that also the goals attached to this mission are quite
literally adopted from the Climate Agreements concerning the built environment.
Figure 11 illustrates how the mission relates to underlying agendas and other ET&S missions. The
mission is also linked to the ‘Construction Agenda’ for driving public and private investments needed
for innovation and cost reduction in the construction sector.22 This Construction Agenda, backed by
the ministries of BZK and I&W, is the platform tasked with Circular Economy transition agenda on
construction. Similar interlinkages exist also for e.g. mission CE on carbon-neutral industry and the
Manufacturing Industry transition agenda. Indeed, distinct missions can touch upon each other in
different ways.
MISSION THEMES
Agriculture, Energy Public
Health and
water and transition and Security KETs earning
Care
Cabinet food Sustainability capacity
Agreement
(2017)
MISSIONS A-E MISSION CE
Climate Integrated “Reducing national greenhouse gas emissions “A sustainably driven, fully circular economy
Agreement Knowledge and by 49% in 2030, increasing to 95% in 2050, in 2050. The objective for 2030 is to achieve a
(2019) Innovation Agenda compared with 1990.” 50% reduction in resource use.”
A: an entirely carbon-free electricity
oriented Innovation Programs
Energy 5 Transition CE MMIP 1: Design

system in 2050
13 Multi-annual Mission-
Knowledge & Innovation
Construction domains: for Circularity

per transition domain
Agreement B: a carbon-free built environment in 2050

(2017) agenda • Construction
C: a carbon-neutral industry based on the CE MMIP 2: Circular
Questions
• Biomass & Food

re-use of raw materials and products in material chains and
Paris • Consumption
2050 processes
Agreement goods
D: zero-emission mobility for people and
(2015) • Plastics CE MMIP 3: Trust,
goods in 2050
• Manufacturing behavior and
E: a net carbon-neutral agricultural and
industry acceptation
nature system in 2050
MISSION OWNERS MISSION OWNERS

Min. Economic Min. of Infra- Min. Economic
Ministry of the
Affairs + Climate structure + Affairs + Climate
Interior (BZK)
Policy (EZK) Water mgmt Policy (EZK)
Topsector
Energy
Science (+TKIs) Industry
Figure 11: Positioning of the mission in the broader landscape of agendas and governance structures.
22
https://www.debouwagenda.com/themas/nieuws+thema+circulair/1149542.aspx
23
4.1.1. The Climate Agreement
To understand how the mission has come about, it is essential to have some insight in the processes
leading up to the Climate Agreement of 2019. The Climate Law of June 2017 provided a legal basis
for the national government to make arrangements in order to succeed in achieving the targets set
in the Paris Agreement of December 2015. In order to determine how these targets may best be met
through a collective efforts of government, industry, science and society, the government organized
talks around Sector Tables focused on a particular part the system of energy production and
consumption (e.g. ‘Industry’, or ‘Built environment’). The talks at these tables needed to result in
plans for how to realize CO2 emission reductions. A starting point for these talks were the cost-
effectiveness calculations by the Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), which helped also to
determine how much emission reductions should be achieved in each sector. Principles that guided
the development of plans and agreements included: the focus on a single CO2 target (no sub-targets
on renewables or energy efficiency), a preference for cost-efficient solutions (national costs limited
to 0,5% GDP through tentative, cost-effective sectoral targets), a just transition (keeping energy
bills for households in check), minimizing leakage for businesses (safeguarding a level playing field),
and maximizing economic opportunities (new export products and innovation).23
Characteristic for the processes deployed to arrive at a Climate Agreement, and thus the goals now
prioritized in the mission, was that it relied on broad and intense stakeholder involvement. During
the roughly 1,5 years of consultations and negotiations, over 100 parties got involved. The process
of organizing these talks was facilitated by the Social Economic Council and led by independent
chairs. Stakeholders were engaged if they were in the position to reduce emissions or enhance
societal support for the transition, if they possessed relevant knowledge regarding how to realize the
transition, or if they had a mandate to express commitment and make deals.23
As it was realized that ambitious climate goals might require innovative solutions, the process for
writing the Climate Agreement was paralleled by with the development of the ‘Integrale Kennis- en
Innovatie Agenda’ (IKIA; comprehensive knowledge and innovation agenda). While the IKIA is
sometimes presented as a derivative of the Climate Agreement (i.e. its goals would have been
translated into innovation ambitions), some interviewees consulted for this report stress that the
IKIA development took place relatively disconnected from the Climate Tables at which the Climate
Agreement was written. That is, they perceive that it is not so much a derivative of the Climate
Agreement but rather a agenda that was written simultaneously and iteratively (based also, but not
exclusively, on debates taking place at the Sector Tables). The IKIA was created by a temporal
project group involving representatives of, amongst others, the applied research institutes ECN and
TNO, two TKI directors, and the dean of the TU Delft university.
In line with the logic presented in section 3.2, and especially figure 5, the IKIA served as a basis for
developing MMIPs. For the overarching mission of cutting national greenhouse gas emissions by 49%
in 2030, a total of 13 missions have been developed – see figure 6. The MMIPs specifically for the
mission on the built environment are the following ones24:
• MMIP 3: Acceleration of energy renovations in the built environment. This MMIP stimulates
technical, process and social innovations that can accelerate the energy transition in the built
environment. It pursues the realization of integrated solutions by focusing on:
o development of integral renovation concepts;
o industrialization and digitization of the renovation process;
o building owners and users at the center of energy renovations.
23
This paragraph contains texts adapted from a presentation by Ed Buddenbaum (February 2020): “The Dutch
climate agreement and mission oriented innovation”. Presented at the ‘Governance of missions’ seminar
organized by the Mission-oriented Innovation Policy Observatory (Utrecht University) and ISI Frauenhofer.
24
See website of Topsector Energy for the detailed descriptions from which the summaries here were retrieved.
24
• MMIP 4: Sustainable heat and cold in the built environment (including greenhouse
horticulture). The mission of this MMIP is aimed at developing an attractive alternative to
natural gas, with the intermediate objectives in 2030 being:
o 1.5 million existing homes disconnected from fossil natural gas;
o 15% of non-residential and public buildings disconnected from fossil natural gas;
o making heat demand in greenhouse horticulture more sustainable through
geothermal energy, seasonal storage and low temperature heat sources (1 Mton CO2
savings in 2030).
• MMIP 5: Electrification of the energy system in the built environment. Focal areas here are:
o Smart energy usage in/between buildings by its users;
o Flexibility of/for the energy system (in the built environment);
o System design for the electricity system in the built environment;
o Local flexibility to the benefit of the entire electricity system.
Each of the MMIPs has its own sub-programs. Apart from the 3 MMIPs mentioned above, also the
ET&S-wide MMIP 13 (a robust and socially supported energy system) is aimed at contributing to
achieving the mission goal. As part of the Climate Agreement, the government reserved a budget of
€250 million for those 3 MMIPs.25
4.2. Governance
Within the framework for the overall MTIP governance structure (see section 3.3), the
aforementioned temporal ‘IKIA guidance group’ has refined the governance arrangements for the
ET&S missions on greenhouse reduction.
MI teams for ET&S consist of the chairman (a Topteam captain), one or multiple TKI directors (to
ensure the link to the TKI offices with capacity for programming and networking activities), one or
multiple direction-level representatives of relevant line ministries, one science representative, and
one industry representative. In the case of the mission for the Built Environment, it is the Ministry
of the Interior (BZK) that is actively engaging in the MI team. As this ministry has committed itself
to the goals like making large amounts of houses natural gas-free and sustainable already within a
few years, the ministry is eager to support the search and application of novel solutions for renovating
(e.g. insulating) houses and deploying sustainable heating. How exactly the ministry is pursuing the
fulfilment of its goals is explained in the Letters to Parliament on ‘Cost reduction and innovation in
the construction sector’25 and on ‘Implementation of the Climate Agreements on the built
environment’.26
In between the launch of the MTIP and September 2020, the MI team for the mission built
environment mission had met three times. The first served for the members to get to know each
other and discuss their assignment. The second was dedicated to deepening the mutual
understanding of how the MI team is positioned with respect to the other elements in the MTIP
governance structure. Allegedly this involved a fierce debate over the relative responsibilities and
mandates of these other elements. The third meeting concerned a more focused debate on how the
MI team relates to the policy execution agency RVO.nl.
The current state of developments implies that up till now much of the work to transition from the
Topsector approach to the MTIP was in the hands of the TKI. In this case this concerns the TKI ‘Urban
Energy’, which already for a few years has a scope very similar to the one of the Built environment
mission. The TKI office uses its network and capacity to obtain information from scientists,
firms, and increasingly also civil society organisations. The programme managers
25
Ministry of BZK (17-12-2019). Kamerbrief over kostenreductie en innovatie in de bouw;
26
Ministry of BZK (17-12-2019). Kamerbrief over uitwerking Klimaatakkoord gebouwde omgeving.
25
responsible for developing and updating the MMIPs are employed by the TKIs. The TKIs
receive the base funding for their organising, networking and agenda development activities from
the Ministry of EZK. Actual programming takes place in so-called ‘programme advice committees’
(PACs). These PACs, supported by the program manager, gather information and prepare directions
for the MMIPs and associated programs that are used for setting the scope and criteria for calls and
funding programs. Decisions following on the advice prepared by the PAC are to be taken by the MI
team, implying that the development of programs and deciding upon it is allocated in the separate
part of the governance structure (in order to warrant a critical view). The latter is novel, as previously
the TKI made more of the decisions by themselves. The cycle of preparing and deciding upon program
proposals is designed to be repeated annually.
4.3. Relevant policy instruments
Existing innovation policy instruments

For all the ET&S missions, including the one on Built Environment, there is a wide set of relevant
policy instruments. These include relatively generic innovation policies for low technological readiness
levels (TRL), up to ‘energy innovation’ specific instruments for higher TRLs. Figure 12 provides an
overview. The vast majority of these instruments is provided by the Ministry of EZK (and executed
by RVO.nl), as it is in charge of both innovation as well as energy and climate. The NWO instruments
targeted at the lowest TRL belong to the domain of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.
Figure 12: Overview of policy instruments with relevance for energy innovation (Source: see
footnote 18).
Across the board of all E&S missions, the shift from Topsector approach to the MTIP at this stage
primarily holds implications for how these existing measures are targeted and implemented. The
influence of the governance structures discussed earlier primarily concerns setting the scoping and
criteria project proposals should adhere to.
Raising the bar on performance requirements for e.g. heating solutions or insulation is a common
way of challenging the field. One concern is to make sure this involves functional specifications.
26
Currently there are indications that some programs and tenders exclude technologies and materials
that might actually offer better performance perspectives. This might be due to the ambition of
making the tenders as clear as possible, in order to maintain focus and help the field with
understanding what types of solutions are looked for in the MMIPs.
Another issue is to make sure criteria are informed by proper development scenarios. A technology
like heat pumps might appear attractive at this point in time, but one can doubt whether it is likely
that investing more in this technology truly has the potential to make prices drop significantly in the
near future. It has been argued that prices might even rise due to regulation imposing citizens to
adopt this particular solution, which potentially might undermine societal willingness to move along
in realizing a carbon-free environment.
With the shift towards the MTIP, the programming bodies (so far mostly TKI/PAC) have started to
extend their attempts for also including non-technical issues in tender criteria and key
performance indicators. This would for instance concern topics related to the societal acceptation
of technologies. While some features can be expressed in technical terms (e.g. the noise level of
heat pumps), features related to e.g. aesthetics or usability are harder to measure. As a
consequence, some calls challenge proposal writers to articulate how they expect to address certain
KPI, without attaching strict criteria to it. Besides that this still allows juries to award extra points
for plans with convincing arguments regarding their probabilities of having an actual impact, this
practice also gives insight in the types of dynamics and indicators that proposal writers deem relevant
for the success of their projects.
A recurrent topic of debate concerns alignment in the scoping and working mechanisms of relevant
instruments in the policy mix the mission teams can work with. Parties trying to take their solutions
from low to high stages of development and deployment typically need to make use of a series of
instruments all targeted to some specific development level. While the budgets of many of these
instruments were counted into funding amounts for which the KIC 2020-2023 was signed, the
existence of a comprehensive covenant does by no means guarantee that all the
instruments work well together. Interviewees have expressed mixed views on this account, which
partially has to do with differences for various linkages along the spectrum between discovery and
deployment:
• When it comes to the link between the NWO and the MMIP plans and priorities, consulted
stakeholders generally are content with the possibilities to use NWO’s earmarked budgets
for setting up calls that correspond with the MMIP. As it is still very early stage, and progress
is hampered due to the COVID crisis, not much experience has been gained with how these
calls are working out. One interviewee stresses that NWO appeared a bit hesitant in the use
of sandpit models. In sandpit models organisations with an interest for a call are invited to
form large consortia submitting one or a few integrated plans, instead of NWO running a
competition in which many alternative proposals are being submitted. Allegedly, sandpits
fit rather well with ensuring that researchers look for synergies between their
competences, and with the idea of mobilizing research and innovation capacities
around shared societal goals.
• For the range of instruments concerning TRLs 4-6, i.e. the various generic and targeted
innovation policy schemes, it is mostly the PPP allowance that matters when it comes to the
capacity of the mission teams to provide guidance. Ideally creating an ecosystem around
promising solution paths also results in individual business using firm-level instruments like
the WBSO for innovations fitting with those solution paths, but this is not something the MI
teams can directly influence (e.g. in terms of targeting the WBSO). Thus, in the eyes of
interviewees active in a MI team or TKI it mostly comes down to utilizing the PPP allowance
when trying to accommodate innovation activities fitting the MMIPs. Here the impression is
that the experience gained during the Topsector approach period is very helpful as now
27
routines have been established that the field can work with. As it took many organisations
some years to work with the allowance scheme, having the PPP allowance scheme
continues to be a suitable way for setting up collective R&D projects that are
consistent with an agenda (in this case the MMIPs). This also involves the possibilities
for the public research organisations to adjust their research agendas based on what has
been outlined in the MMIPs.
• Finally, for the link between demonstration and deployment, several new initiatives have
been deployed (see later on in this section). While some of them are an extension of the
activities of the TKI, there are also initiatives coming from organisations with deep
involvement in the domain of the built environment. The question whether actors can easily
participate in initiatives from both the demonstration and deployment stage is hard to
answer, as interviewees mainly feel it are very different organisations that would be
interested in those initiatives. They deem it welcome that there are increasing
possibilities for less-innovative actors to also explore how they can use novel
solutions, precisely because e.g. in the construction context there are many firms
that wouldn’t participate in the innovation policy schemes. At this point little is known
about possibilities for innovative firms to make steps towards policies supporting
experimentation. However, there are some concerns over the possibility of the MI team to
actually ensure alignment. More on this is discussed in section 4.5, under ‘Layering of
coordination structures and mandates’.
New innovation policy instrument: MOOI

Special about the mission for Built Environment is that the shift to MTIP has also led to the creation
of a new policy instrument: the MOOI (mission-oriented research, development and innovation).
Distinctive is that it asks consortia of minimally 3 organisations to submit plans proposing integrated
solutions rather than individual technologies. So far, in many (energy) innovation schemes it was
common practice that projects would focus on individual technologies or diffusion elements. The
MOOI encourages multidisciplinary consortia to create proposals in which various
technological and non-technological sub-solutions are combined, including also activities
concerning the commercialisation and societal acceptance of the projects. Project partners
should therefore also include SMEs and stakeholders concerned with (or affected by) usage of the
solution. Research organisations can only account for 65% of the subsidized costs. With a minimum
of €2 million of subsidized costs, the projects are substantially bigger than the regular energy
innovation projects of about €200k-€300k. As usual, the percentage of projects costs eligible for
subsidies depends on the nature of the innovation activities associated with these costs; R&D can be
subsidized for 80%, industrial research for 50%, and experimental development for 25%. The
percentages are higher when the activities are conducted by medium or small firms.
The initial version of the MOOI, not yet called as such, was dedicated to MMIP 3 and 4 only. A budget
of €39m was provided by the ministry of BZK, with the help of the Ministry of EZK. For this novel
policy scheme it was mostly the Ministry of BZK that acted as an important driver. Despite some
parties being reluctant about the idea of demanding organisations to team up in pretty large projects,
the ministry of BZK and RVO.nl continued their attempt to realize an instrument very much in keeping
with the goal of supporting projects with a clear outlook on implementation and upscaling. Funding
just a few projects, but with a large amount of stakeholders, has been received remarkably well. For
firms, the projects are appealing because they have to contribute relatively small parts to be part of
projects with considerable budgets (combining private funding from different firms increases the
amount of public funding that can be allocated to the projects). The positive ratio between own
contributions and total project volume make it also appealing for smaller firms to participate. Another
advantage is that the MOOI really supports various actors to explore how they can complement each
other, and to ensure all pieces of knowledge, technology etc. are available for realizing a solution.
28
After the successful pilot, the first official call of the MOOI (now for MMIP 3-5) took place in 2020.
Originally there was a budget of €68 million for the respective tracks on various MMIPs. In the pre-
registration phase of the two-stage call, however, the subsidy budget of €30 million for the track on
Built Environment attracted over 70 proposals with a project volume of €4m-7m each. This amounts
to a subsidy request for €193 million. In response, the ministry of BZK recently added €27m to the
track for Built Environment, raising this track’s share to €57 million out of the total €95m budget.27
Interviewees remark that the high number of proposals for the MOOI-track on Built Environment
might be seen as a success indicator, in particular because the MMIP do not necessarily just reflect
business interests. After all, the governance structure contains various checks and balances (in the
form of e.g. advisory committees) to ensure that the programs are in line with the societal challenges
that has been leading for the mission formulation. Secondly, the large number of applicants renders
the possibility (for the selection committee appointed by RVO.nl) to be selective when it comes to
which proposals to award. The oversubscription thus implies that it is possible to use the
MMIPs for truly providing guidance. In case only a few proposals were submitted, there would
have been less possibilities to pick the ones best in line with the MMIPs.
The scarce critical remarks on the MOOI mostly point at the fact that the policy instrument and its
budget were tied so strictly to just MMIP 3-5, and that it was hard for consortia working on other
types of energy innovation to make use of it. This underlines that apparently there is more demand
for this type of policy scheme, which is also mentioned explicitly by several interviewees from the
mission on Circular Economy.
Other policy initiatives (examples)

Besides the introduction of the MOOI, also several other new initiatives have been created in order
to enhance the likelihood of suitable innovative solutions to emerge (and to be applied). A small yet
relevant initiative for making the step towards implementation of new findings is the Uptempo!
Program.28 The program consists of a multidisciplinary research team’s investigation, based on
learning-by-doing, into how to accelerate the upscaling of energy innovations for the built
environment. The program is funded by BZK, and executed by the TKI Urban Energy and the
Topsector Creative Industries’ TKI ClickNL. As the TKIs are deeply embedded in networks of scientists
and firms working on relevant innovations, they are in the position to scan which ones are promising
but might not make it through the ‘valley of death’. The TKI bring innovators and possible users
together in order to explore whether a first demonstration can be realized, in order to pave the way
for further market introduction. Moreover, to overcome the valley of death, the TKIs of the Topsector
Energy run a Financing Desk that offers assistance to particularly SME entrepreneurs in search of
grants or equity capital.29 The provided activities include masterclasses, matchmaking events with
investors, 1-on-1 consultation, and innovation broker subsidies for hiring specialist support.
To really boost the transformation of existing housing, the national government reserved €500mln
(2019-2023) of the so-called ‘Climate Envelope’ for a programme called ‘Startmotor’.30 The program,
administered by BZK, aims to disconnect at least 100.000 housing corporation dwellings from the
natural gas grid before the end of 2022. The combination of this time-bound goal and the
significant amount of funding serves to kick-start changes by providing promising market
perspectives to the construction sector. Creating demand might entice innovation, scaling and
standardization, which could in turn lead to cost reductions needed to reach the overall mission goal.
27
https://www.rvo.nl/subsidie-en-financieringswijzer/mooi
28
https://www.topsectorenergie.nl/urban-energy/innovatieprogramma/uptempo
29
https://www.topsectorenergie.nl/en/financing-desk
30
https://www.klimaatakkoord.nl/gebouwde-omgeving
29
One specific action line within Startmotor is the ‘Renovation accelerator’ program for uniting housing
corporations and firms specialized in improving the sustainability of buildings. 31 The program is an
initiative from BZK, RVO.nl and several other societal partners. It builds on a subsidy scheme with a
budget of €100m for four years, while it also contains a program for offering process support. This
support program, running for six years, is designed to spread knowledge and finding originating from
innovation programs (e.g. the results of the Uptempo! Program). As such, it presents a clear link
between the innovation domain and the built environment ecosystem.
Links like these are also being forged via the BTIC (Building and Technology Innovation Centre), an
initiative that brings together the Dutch ministries EZK, BZK en IenW as well as various knowledge
partners, industry organisations from the construction sector, the TKI Urban Energy, and a housing
corporation.32 The BTIC, originating from the Construction Agenda, aims to act as an initiator and
connector driving the application of novel solutions in the design, construction and engineering
sector. This domain is considered to be relatively conservative and, also because it lacks the
‘organizational capacity’ of a Topsector, rather fragmented. The BTIC supports the creation of
consortia that run research projects on comprehensive renovation concepts, covering topics like
energy transition, digitalisation, circularity, infrastructure replacement and climate adaptation. The
BTIC also focuses on involving educational institutes, to ensure that sufficient suitably trained
students enter the labour market.
Highly relevant for the success of new solutions is not just the support of innovation, but also the
existence of actual demands for change. Amongst the relevant policy initiatives in this respect we
can find several developments targeting both the financial aspect of market creation as well as the
legal aspect. For instance, the SEEH scheme RVO.nl runs has a budget of €90m for encouraging
people to apply energy saving solutions in their houses.33 Another €93m program for providing advise
on which solutions to pick is currently on its way. When it comes to legal interventions
supporting the energy transition in the built environment, the recent regulations
prohibiting new buildings to be connected to the natural gas distribution network are of
major importance. It is perceived to operate as a strong driver as it gives market parties a clear
signal that new solutions are needed. This, in turn, adds to the willingness of firms to collaborate
and seek for new approaches. In order to further drive the potential of solutions that help to meet
the mission, the ministry of BZK and EZK also engage with the TKIs for collecting information
regarding which regulations are hampering promising developments. One study concerns for instance
the bottlenecks associated with flexible energy consumption (combining different renewable energy
sources, like solar and wind). Although the issue of regulatory barriers was an element of the
Topsector approach already, the closer involvement of BZK is perceived to be important for the
magnitude and impact of TKIs’ activities with respect to studying the market potential and legal
restrictions for innovation.
The various examples of relevant policy instruments mentioned above are far from exhaustive.
Besides other national policies on topics like e.g. sustainability, circularity and digitisation in the
construction sector, there are also plenty of regional initiatives that contribute to the mission goal of
realizing a carbon-free built environment. Important in this respect are the initiatives deployed as
part of the ‘Regional Energy Strategies’ (RES) through which Dutch regions experiment with
combinations of innovative solutions for sustainable housing. At the moment the regional plans are
being translated to more concrete visions at the municipality and even district level, which is leading
to the Transition Vision Heating foreseen for the end of 2021. 34 Meanwhile, extensive learning and
local experimentation activities have started already as part of the Programme Natural Gas
31
https://derenovatieversneller.nl/
32
https://www.tudelft.nl/en/2019/citg/btic-combines-knowledge-and-innovation-strengths-for-building-sector/
33
https://www.klimaatakkoord.nl/gebouwde-omgeving/vraag-en-antwoord/subsidieregelingen
34
https://www.rvo.nl/onderwerpen/duurzaam-ondernemen/duurzame-energie-opwekken/aardgasvrij/aan-de-
slag-met-aardgasvrij/transitievisie-warmte-en-wijkuitvoeringsplan
30
Free Districts (Programma Aardgasvrije Wijken; PAW).35 Through this programme, the ministries of
BZK and EZK as well as sub-national structures like the Association of Dutch Municipalities (VNG)
support municipalities and other stakeholders with their respective assignments in the realizing
districts with sustainable heating. Of key importance are the now 46 local testing grounds for
implementing potentially scalable solutions. Also via the associated knowledge and learning program,
the PAW contributes to the implementation of practices fitting the Built Environment mission.36
4.4. Monitoring and learning
In the context of many of the energy innovation policy instruments shown in figure 12, the TKIs
(responsible for programming, based on the Topsector Energy’s KIA) and RVO.nl (executing the
actual policy programs) have gained extensive experience with keeping track of what is being done
in subsidized projects. While the shift towards the MTIP has led to changes in the governance and
policy setup, much of the available experience and mechanisms appears to remain relevant for
learning and monitoring.
Monitoring of project information at RVO.nl

As for RVO.nl, the information it discloses stems from the administration of policy schemes it offers.
Apart from units that execute the policy instruments, RVO.nl has a unit concerned with monitoring
and evaluation. This unit gathers project data in a dashboard and periodic reports providing
aggregate accounts of which actors are working on which topics, and with whom.
The figure below shows the various angles that are used for studying project data associated with
the KIA and policy instruments for the Topsector Energy. The upper part of the figure concerns the
sphere of policy and administration, while the lower part reflects activities and outcomes in relevant
socio-economic systems (i.e. in industries and society). Concrete innovation projects, positioned
in the centre of the figure, are the vehicles through which policies impact those systems.
Producten monitoring KIA Opdracht Terugblik in

Opgave
2020-2024 cijfers
Energie (2012-2019
Terugblik TSE Programma O&O-Regeling
O&O-regeling
en per TKI Regeling
rapportages
Aanvraag
O&O-Thema
O&O -Thema (Zaak)
Projectendatabase Project(Activiteit)
Project (Activiteit)
Publiek
gefinancierd Resultaat
Functie/Element Actor
Actor
energieonderzoek Beleidsevaluatie IAE
Productdossiers Beleidsevaluatie
Functie/Element
Product Organisatie
Organisatie
Topsectorenbeleid
CBS Monitor
E-Systeem Sector Topsectoren
Figure 13: Dimensions and levels on which (I)KIA monitoring takes place at RVO.nl (RVO.nl, 2020).
The blue axis is the one for the perspective of innovation policy. Starting in the left upper corner,
there is a societal objective that provides guidance to innovation policy instruments. In this case that
35
https://www.aardgasvrijewijken.nl/default.aspx
36
Van Wijk (2020). Experimentation in Mission-oriented Innovation policy: natural gas free districts. Utrecht
University / Dialogic.
31
would be the mission. As discussed earlier, this mission has been translated into programs like the
MMIPs with their respective subprograms. Within these programs we find certain research topics
associated with, in this case, ET&S-related innovation for the built environment. These topics are
addressed by projects, executed by actors with a certain organisation type (large firm, SME, research
institute, NGO, …) and belonging to a certain sector, place, etcetera. Monitoring along this axis
involves checking to what extent granted projects are consistent with the innovation programs and
objectives to which they should contribute, as well as following to what extent these projects are
associated with desirable innovation and collaboration patterns (e.g. more links between universities
and industries, more SME involvement, cross-sectoral collaboration, interregional collaboration).
The green axis reflects the logic of following the actual changes that should be brought about
(regardless of whether this involves innovation). Here those changes would have the form of new or
better solutions for the built environment. In the case of the theme ET&S, it is possible to map which
part of the energy system the project would affect (e.g. energy production, storage, transport,
usage), or which kind of technology the project is associated with (e.g. PV, grids, heat pumps,
insulation). Indeed, this part of the framework is highly domain specific.
The sketched approach to monitoring deviates on one important account from a very linear view on
the chain of inputs, throughputs, outputs and outcomes: it recognizes that there are multiple axis or
dimensions along which such a logical framework could be constructed. The essence of mission-
oriented innovation policies is that they bring together innovation governance and
problem-based governance (see figure 1), each of them having their own logic when it
comes to driving changes. The monitoring approach developed by RVO.nl reports on both
these logics, as indicated by the various monitoring ‘products’ (documents and websites) depicted
at the end of the axes in Figure 13. Together, these products provide a basis for evaluating the
process as well as the impact of the deployed policies. Process questions typically concern the upper
part of the figure (were the procedures for programming properly organised, e.g. in terms of
transparency, openness and clarity), while impact questions would address the lower part of the
figure (have collaboration patterns changed; did the targeted impetus to innovation projects
contribute to increased application of novel technologies?).
This approach to monitoring remains relevant for the ET&S MTIP strategy, as it largely builds on
existing instruments (with possibly an adjusted scope) and the MOOI instrument also executed by
RVO.nl. Note, however, that RVO.nl does not monitor all of the policy initiatives deployed by the line
ministries responsible for a mission. For the mission on Built Environment the ministry of BZK has
designed initiatives involving the TKI Urban Energy and RVO, just the TKI, just RVO, or none of them
at all. This poses a challenge with respect to creating a comprehensive view on all
innovation activities associated with pursuing the mission, especially when it comes to
linking development activities to deployment activities. See section 5.5 for more discussion
on this challenge.
Monitoring and learning activities at the TKI

In order to inform and update their programs, the TKIs engage in monitoring (and learning) activities
as well. Besides collecting and analysing data from RVO.nl, the TKI develop or commission their own
reports. This involves for instance portfolio analyses to study the composition and outputs of granted
projects. Those studies aim to give insights into how the projects relate to the programs, and what
actual progress is being made (e.g.: are heat pumps really getting more silent?). Besides reporting
on technological issues, the reports also contain information on other type of key performance
indicators (see section 4.3). To track what is being achieved on the recently established MMIPs, the
TKI plans to publish annual portfolio analyses (reporting on new projects) as well as a
‘permanent’ monitor for giving a cumulative account of all projects granted so far
(including new, ongoing and completed projects). The first annual portfolio analysis, looking
back on 2019, is intended to serve as a baseline measurement.
32
Having ongoing monitoring practices in place feeds into the demand for more reflexivity regarding
what was needed, what is being done, and what is being achieved. For running a subsequent
series of calls for tender addressing the same MMIP, it is crucial to have sufficient
continuous feedback loops. This starts with the information regarding how many projects are
being submitted. If the appeal for a given call is very high, this might have implications for a future
call (that could either support neglected projects or focus on further development of granted
projects). At a more refined level, detailed information on the content and progress of the
portfolio of granted projects provides a basis to identify common needs or ‘knowledge
gaps’ that are being overlooked in the existing projects. Importantly, learning-oriented efforts
should also search for explanations why some calls are more successful than others; this might be
due to the topic and timing, or to design parameters in the call for tender (e.g. the time for writing
and submitting proposals, the minimum and maximum project size).
Coming from a policy approach focused on competitive bidding, it is relatively natural to focus
programming and monitoring mostly on the scoping and criteria of tenders, and less on how awarded
(and rejected) projects evolve over time. However, many interviewees stress the desire to move
even more towards using policy instruments that offer room to support a few large multi-
annual projects rather than many smaller projects. The MOOI scheme discussed in section 4.3
is one example of such a ‘programmatic’ approach, while some stakeholders would prefer
instruments that are even less competitive (see next section). An essential part of adhering to a
programmatic approach, in line with the multi-annual and targeted MMIPs, is to be able
to terminate trajectories that turn out to be less successful. Obviously, such decisions
require detailed up-to-date info on project progress (as well as insights into why projects have
failed to deliver on their promises).
At this moment, part of the learning on what happens in projects or what intentions possible
submitters have occurs informally. As the TKIs are deeply imbedded in the networks from which
projects emerge, they are in the position to directly collect input from firms and institutes working
on promising developments fitting the MMIPs. Because legally RVO.nl can not just share project data
with the TKIs, parties submitting a proposal are given the possibility to grant RVO.nl permission to
share information with the TKIs. This features helps to ensure that the TKIs have detailed information
when advising on programming activities.
Link between innovation development and adoption

Overall, there are several ways in which signals about knowledge and innovation developments also
reach actors operating at the ‘problem governance’ side of the system the mission aims to link (in
this case the part of the Climate Agreement concerned with the built environment). Beyond the TKIs,
that formally only support the PACs that in turn advise the MI-teams, there are various other
governance structure elements that reflect and base decisions on innovation project progress
information. This would include for instance the ‘Execution tables’ for realizing the Climate
Agreement, as they are involved in discussing topics like what solutions to integrate at the level of
neighbourhoods. Information about ET&S innovation projects is also an important input for the
‘progress meetings’ of the Climate Agreement, as well as the Climate Monitor. It is acknowledged
that information feeding into processes related to coordinating the mission as such is still
relatively static. Consistent time series showing a trend on topics related to performance, price
and adoption would be more helpful. Moreover, much of the available information is mostly
focused on the ‘input’ aspect of monitoring, indicating for instance how many investments and
actors were involved in setting up projects. While such descriptions are helpful already for
programming future calls for innovation projects, it is regarded to be of limited value for decision
processes concerned with achieving mission goals on the short term. At this point, also the
ministry of BZK is not entirely certain about how much they will learn about the potential
of innovative solutions, and when these can be implemented. Clearly, this is also due to the
fact that the joint governance approach (and its monitoring procedures) are still in development.
33
4.5. Impressions so far
The previous sections occasionally already contained some remarks obtained from interviewees.
Additionally there are also a couple of additional issues that emerged, often repeatedly, from
conversations with stakeholders closely involved in running parts of the MTIP governance and
policies. These are discussed below.
Involvement of different partners and stakeholders

So far, stakeholders perceive positive developments regarding the level of involvement of authorities
with a stake in completing the mission. Allegedly, the amount and depth of interaction between
the ministries of EZK and BZK has improved with the shift from the Topsector approach (already
containing action lines and even an entire TKI for the built environment). EZK has laid the foundations
for new collaborations, while BZK has stepped up in terms of being closely involved and taking
responsibility for ensuring the diffusion of innovations. BZK appears to take the potential of
innovative solutions seriously, as evidenced by the range of policy initiatives implemented
as part of the MMIP. Some of them are integrated into the existing structures (like the MOOI
scheme and the Uptempo! Programme), while other activities focus on the uptake of novel solutions
emerging from the innovation system (e.g. the Renovation Accelerator). Highly important are also
demand side policy interventions like regulation and subsidies for households, which are
generally believed to be consistent with the activities prioritized in the MMIPs (probably
also because these MMIPs might simply still cover many topics; see below).
One possible tension that might occur in the inter-departmental mission strategy relates to the
acclaimed preference of the ministry of BZK to focus on improving the cost efficiency of mission-
related solutions already on a very short term (ready for commercialisation within a few years). A
reason for doing so is, besides showing actual progress in completing the mission, is that it would
allow the ministry to save on subsidies for energy saving in neighbourhoods. Prioritizing short
term gains might be at odds with supporting solution paths that on the longer term might
be more beneficial. Generally, however, the ministry of BZK seems increasingly acquainted with
thinking in terms of nurturing many early stage innovation projects in order to later have the
possibility to scale up the ones that turn out to be most promising. Moreover, for the overall
balance in the MTIP governance structure it important that the ministry ensures that
innovation is truly targeted at completing the mission.
A second warning issued in the interviews is that establishing close links between various ministries
as well as regional authorities does not only have upsides. The risk of bringing so many different
parts of the government on board is that there is an illusion of a common goal, while each
individual government then sticks close to its own objectives. This wouldn’t pose a problem
for projects clearly fitting in just one national/regional innovation policy instrument, or an accelerator
program. For projects that cut across policy spheres, for instance when they progress from innovation
to local deployment (or when experimental projects yield questions for more basic R&D), the
differences between various governments and their policies might be more complex. Combining
agendas could lead to more consistency in jointly pursuing a mission goal, but also in more
fragmentation due to every government still adhering to its own logics and routines. Important is
therefore also how the MTIP strategy continues to evolve; will ever closer involvement of different
authorities lead to a larger set of policy instruments that may better serve but also confuse the field,
or will it lead to more resources being combined in a few main instruments? It is not evident what is
more desirable, as for e.g. small firms a scattered set of smaller instruments might be just as
hard to navigate in as a landscape with fewer but more complex instruments. Especially
research institutes and large firms have learned how to participate in the PPPs allowance scheme for
collaborative R&D projects, whereas for SMEs this remains either challenging or sufficiently
attractive. Streamlining of policy instruments is regarded to be an issue of major concern.
34
In line with the previous point, there are also some doubts regarding the observation that
occasionally missions have been ‘adopted’ by multiple rather than one Topsector. When supporting
the search for original cross-sectoral and multidisciplinary solutions this setup might be beneficial,
but again it could also cause coordination difficulties and protection of vested interests.
This risk appears to be not much of an issue for the mission on the built environment, as here one
single Topsector (for Energy) and TKI (Urban Energy) are clearly best positioned for steering
innovation towards mission goals. In fact, it is hypothesized that this starting point creates more
possibilities for the MI-team to neutrally compare and weigh different solution paths, as for other
missions there might be a risk that the various influential Topteams of different Topsectors would all
try to push their own solutions. Obviously, the fact that the mission for the Built Environment is so
closely linked to the scope of one TKI also introduces other challenges. It is often emphasized that
the availability of existing structures and networks is valuable for quicky making speed in
running projects fitting the MMIPs (and therefore mission), while actual adoption of these
projects is likely to demand other initiatives and perhaps even the involvement of very
different ecosystems. This would concern e.g. the construction sector and housing organisations,
typically no so widely active in innovation activities. New initiatives like the BTIC are regarded as
important for creating channels to link up with parties and consortia more closely involved in adopting
the solutions the innovation system is bringing forward.
Ownership of the mission

When it comes to missions being the interface between the innovation system and the built
environment socio-economic system (including industries and users), a question is who is really
in charge of ensuring that productive two-way interactions emerge. Within the ET&S theme
the TKIs seem to take a lot of responsibility for making sure the mission goals are met. This might
be a positive finding when it comes to question how seriously the innovation field is really responding
to the shift towards societal challenges. However, it also obscures the task distribution within
the governance and policy framework that was established. Formally the TKIs should primarily
focus on generating the right sets of knowledge and innovations (and facilitating their diffusion),
while the MI teams carry more responsibility over indeed making sure the resulting novelty gets
adopted and creates an impact. This discrepancy in perceived mandates does not create major
inconsistencies (and might even have benefits in terms of alignment), but interviewees note it leads
the TKIs to prioritize discussions about ‘how to solve a mission’ over ‘what knowledge is needed’.
Leaving the debate on finding solutions very much in the hands of TKIs might result in
technocratic approaches, focusing on uncertain innovative solutions that are still in
development, whereas potentially more impact can be achieved by altering the behaviour
of a broad set of non-innovation oriented actors. An ensuing fear is that these other actors (like
construction companies, installers, and engineering firms) might perceive they are not so much part
of the mission, and therefore also refrain from investing and engaging in processes related to
determining how to make progress. That having said, it is clear to many that there are merits in at
least having science and industry representatives actively involved in comparing solution directions.
According to parties closely involved in programming activities for the Built Environment mission,
the checks and balances for getting different perspectives on what to prioritize seem to work well.
One remark is that more attention now should be paid to ensuring that the various solution
paths in MMIP 4-6 converge further. This integration is believed to be a matter of time, as it
requires insights in which development within the individual MMIPs really take off.
Layering of coordination structures and mandates

Taking a closer look at the issue of responsibilities and mandates, concerns have raised over the
complexity and sheer size of the coordination structures that have been put in place. Developing
coordination and alignment mechanisms lies at the very core of the Dutch approach to mission-
oriented innovation policy, but there are some worries that it is currently overdone. The amount of
structures, processes, meetings etc. for advising what to focus on seem disproportionate
to the energy spent on actually working on promising projects. Although there are probably
35
good reasons for the governance structure to be so extensive (e.g. the challenge is urgent and
massive, there are many stakeholders involved, and especially when increasing the directionality of
innovation activities it is important many perspectives are heard before making sharp decisions), it
might be wise not to ignore the sentiment that there are too many layers and governance elements.
After all, this might result in important stakeholders to drop out if they don’t see what contributions
they can make.
The question that automatically follows is to what extent the structures can be simplified. Relevant
answers might be found by looking at where there is most confusion over who does what. In the
case of the Built Environment mission this appears to concern the role of the MI team, which is
supposed to have a central role in driving the mission. To what extent the MI team is truly in the
position is at this point unclear. While formally everyone in the MI team is equal, there are concerns
that representatives of the authorities that provide funding can overrule the MI team. This might
cause difficulties for issues like the aforementioned tension between investing in very novel solution
directions versus experimenting with the ones that are already further developed (but that might
have less potential). Also the relation between the MI team and the Topteam and TKI is not entirely
obvious for many of the stakeholders active in one of these governance elements. The MI teams
seem in charge of making decisions based on advices by the PACs (that were supported by the TKI),
but because the existing mandates of the Topteams has not been altered now there appear to be
two structures that exert influence on what is included in the MMIPs. So far the MI team for the
Built Environment mission has not been able to fulfil a very decisive role in providing
guidance to innovation activities. The outlines of the MOOI scheme were already written before
the MI team became active, and for other decisions the influence of parallel governance structures
was experienced to be limiting the freedom for making own choices. As a result, it remains to be
seen to what extent the MI team is truly the hub from which effective coordination takes place, or
rather a (another) advising body.
Apart from worries over how the MI teams are positioned with respect to the Topsectors and the
ministries providing funding, there are also internal dynamics that could hamper the effectiveness of
the MI teams. This mostly relates to the balancing of interests, in particular when it comes to the
influence of research institutes. While there are sound reasons for giving research institutes a strong
voice in reflecting on possible solution directions, a governance setup based on connecting
innovation-push and demand-pull would typically put research institutes in the innovation part of the
dialogue (here: the TKIs rather than the MI-teams). How the research institutes position themselves
evidently also has to do with other factors, like how they obtain their funding. Due to necessities of
obtaining co-funding, for instance for NWO goals, they have a larger incentive to exert control on
the directions that are being selected as promising solution paths in need of support. An adverse
effect of the need for co-funding is that also when it comes to submitting project proposals, research
institutes might take a competitive stance rather than a cooperative one that promotes desirable
knowledge diffusion throughout the innovation system.
Level of guidance provided by the MMIPs

An important question to reflect upon when considering the Dutch MTIP strategy, encompassing so
many governance structures and stakeholders, really lends itself to provide guidance to knowledge
and innovation activities. The A-E missions for the theme ET&S, including the one for the built
environment, are generally regarded as clear, to the point, and legitimate (due to
originating from the Climate Agreement). However, in the translation from IKIA to MMIP, which
was mostly in the hands of established structures for innovation governance - the MI teams didn’t
exist yet -, the amount of focal topics has grown considerably. Stakeholders with in-depth knowledge
of the MMIPs and earlier programs are critical of how selective these topics really are. The
impression is that with drawing up the MMIPs existing priority topics are regrouped into
more coherent paths, without becoming more selective.
36
The claim that MMIPs are not so new is not necessarily problematic, as long as it would be because
there were already longer attempts to make comprehensive knowledge and innovation agendas
targeting societal goals like a sustainable built environment. Nevertheless, several interviewees make
a plea for more critical analysis of how promising competing alternatives really are, e.g. in terms of
scalability and export chances. From an innovation perspective it is preferred if Dutch solutions are
not simply in line with where are other leading countries are going, but truly leverage unique local
capabilities and knowledge. On the other hand, from a challenge perspective, alternative criteria (like
cost-effectiveness and time to market) may matter more - which is probably one of the reasons why
the MMIPs still stretch over so many topics. Engaging end users and departments responsible
for a mission might safeguard technocratic push of solutions society might dislike, but at
the same time it could prevent systemic and long term thinking needed to support those
innovative solutions that also have economic importance (thereby potentially making it
possible to obtain resources needed to invest in other welfare issues). This debate underlines that
apart from strategic and operational dimensions for aligning innovation and adoption, there is also
a political economy and ideological dimension that should be acknowledged when
considering how innovation and mission goals can be interlinked.
Leadership, choices and solution directionality

Directionality for what solutions to focus on does not only emerge from the scoping of the MMIPs.
Also governments can take a strong role in leading the way. For the built environment mission, the
ministries of EZK and BZK are observed to deploy a broad range of initiatives for mobilizing the
innovation system and facilitating the development and diffusion of novelty. However, by acting as
a partner and facilitator, the ministries are not demonstrating the leadership some
stakeholders deem necessary to make substantial progress in completing the mission. The
reported risk, as noted above, is that (too) many solution directions are being pursued
simultaneously, while actually there might already be signals regarding which directions
are more promising then others. For instance, in comparison to heat networks, a solution like
infrared heating offers better perspectives (in terms of efficiency gains and cost reductions, due to
scalability and learning effects). As stakeholders closely involved in the programming activities of
the TKI perceive that such considerations do not seem to be part of how TKIs reason, they
occasionally argue for the ministries responsible for the mission to install more clarity. At this point,
they claim, too few real choices are being made when it comes to ‘solution directionality’.
The societal problem is clear, but as long as there is no consensus which solution directions and
applications to focus on, many investments and synergies might remain out of reach. Often
mentioned examples of countries showing the desired level of leadership are Denmark and Germany;
there the government did not only set a goal and provide resources (in this case in relation to
renewable energy sources), but also indicated what kind of developments they would like to see. For
the mission on a carbon-neutral built environment this would entail a clear choice for particular
renovation approaches or sustainable heating solutions. The impression is that attention is still
distributed over too many competing solutions, thereby also lacking a strategic view on what kind of
knowledge is still missing. For the mission and MTIP to make a difference, it is argued that joint
efforts should focus precisely on the innovations with the highest potential, and the bottlenecks that
keep them from flourishing. The apparent preference for nurturing diversity might spawn new
solutions, but it is at odds with creating a strategic focus when uniting innovation capabilities for
addressing an urgent challenge.
The tension outlined above is obviously a consequence of the choice to rely on solutions to prove
themselves in the market. Both EZK and BZK have reasons for refraining from taking a strong
leadership role when there are market mechanisms that can automatically point out which
innovations have a large potential. An important assumption there is that there are markets for all
solutions. This is not always the case in the short run, which is the reason why market creation is
considered to be one of the fundamental aspects of mission-oriented innovation policies.4 In the
context of the mission for the built environment, market creation is so far occurring mostly in a
37
technology/solution neutral way, e.g. by promoting diffusion of innovative and sustainable solutions
in general. One observed problem signalled by one interviewee is that the market is going in many
different directions, without achieving the convergence needed to unleash
complementarities between various kinds of investments (in knowledge, infrastructures,
production activities, value chains, etc.). When the interests of different stakeholders are too far
apart, this limits the ability to follow a joint strategy. The interviewee compares this with the
Netherlands having good musicians, but no director that ensures the musicians play in harmony.
The heavily debated question here is to what extent ‘the government’ should and can be the director.
It is acknowledged that the EZK and BZK ministries are increasingly knowledgeable about the built
environment field (including the potential inflow of innovations), which is a prerequisite for
leadership. However, this wouldn’t automatically imply the government itself should therefore also
this knowledge for pointing the way. Giving governments the task of making sharp decisions
would also make it sensitive to politics. This could lead to a lack of stability (due to political
changes) as well as a lack of responsiveness (as it can be politically difficult to change
strategy). Both events are problematic. Learning from advancements is precisely the point of asking
the MI teams and the TKIs to report on the latest insights regarding possible solutions for societal
problems, while for market parties it can be undesirable if strong choices would be made and then
revised. As the issue of choices and clarity is very much about creating promising perspectives for
various stakeholders, it is obvious that variability or inconsistencies in policy strategies can be
detrimental. In that sense the MTIP strategy might also be understood as an ‘arms length
approach’, laying decision making in the hands of public-private structures (formally the
MI-teams) that would respect the interests of different quadruple helix stakeholders. It
has also been pointed out that the governance structure for at least the built environment mission
is not designed to give one governance element or even stakeholder the power to make sharp
decisions. In line with the Dutch tradition of ‘polderen’, the philosophy behind the layered and
comprehensive governance structure is that it would gradually lead to widely backed MMIPs.
To what extent to use or create markets remains a rather fundamental issue when it comes to
governing MIP. A slightly more practical issue concerns the use of comparative analyses that would
be needed for leadership decisions on what directions to pursue. Even if national authorities like BZK
would stick to relatively technology neutral strategies for driving solutions, other stakeholders might
benefit from a better understanding of which solution to rely on under which circumstances.
Comprehensive overviews of what different solutions have to offer might help for instance the local
policy makers charged with regional energy strategies. At this point interviewees have some doubts
regarding the information that has been used when deciding upon solutions for meeting regional
energy production goals. Apart from boosting new innovative solutions, substantial impact might be
realized simply by ensuring that ‘low hanging fruit’ in the form of available techniques (e.g. for
insultation) are being used. The impression so far is that the combination of a well-embedded
governance structure and initiatives like the Renovator accelerator offer good chances of
identifying and communicating which solutions can be considered to be low hanging fruit.
38
5. Discussion (Synthesis)
This post-commencement analysis provides a first scan of how the Dutch MTIP is currently unfolding.
Since to date there are only very few empirical studies giving a detailed account of a fully fledged
MIP strategy, the findings presented here should be regarded as a first step towards more extensive
documentation (and assessment) of possible ways to design and embed such policies, as well as of
the tensions that may occur. The current report pretends by no means to be exhaustive in terms of
highlighting all the dynamics that have come into play, e.g. all the initiatives that are being mobilized
and aligned for ensuring the supply and uptake of suitable innovative solutions. Instead, it merely
offers a tentative description and characterization of the main setup of the MTIP. Rather than already
providing strong statements regarding the quality and potential of the emerging governance design,
this report aims to sketch how the MTIP strategy should be understood in the first place.
As has become clear, the MTIP is building on both the preceding Topsector-based innovation strategy
as well as major developments regarding societal challenges like the energy transition. This
underlines that the policy strategy consists predominantly of installing coordination mechanisms for
interlinking a wide range of agendas, networks, governance structures and policy instruments,
belonging to both the innovation system as well as the sphere of socio-economic systems. Taking a
first glance at how all of these structures and developments are being brought together serves, in
turn, to enable more in-depth reflections on both the overall setup as well as particular features of
the policy design.
5.1. Governance
The Dutch approach to MIP consists of the MTIP for driving innovations, as well as many other
mission/ministry-specific initiatives concerned with the challenges that are to be solved. Figure 14
maps the main components of the overall policy setup on the generic template of section 2.2. The
coloured boxes are the ones that are relatively new.
EZK + other ministries
MISSION
Topteam MI team Knowledge and Innovation

TKI Covenant (KIC)
Mission-oriented
Topsector and
Innovation Policy
KIAs +
MMIPs
MOOI
TO2 research
NWO calls PPS + MIT …?
plans
Innovation system
Socio-economic system
Complementary Innovation Capability Regulation Campaigns

…?
initiatives/policies funding development (e.g. gas-free houses) (e.g. for CE)
Figure 14: Main elements of the Dutch MTIP strategy and complementary initiatives / policies.
39
Origins of the missions and governance structures

What might be striking is that, although the 25 missions feature centrally in the ministry of
EZK’s MTIP strategy, they have in fact been developed outside the MTIP approach. As their
origins lie in extensive consultation and negation processes facilitated but not managed by EZK, nor
any other individual line ministry, the mission statements appear to be relatively uncontested. At
least for the missions studied in this report, the starting point of the MTIP is not to set missions
but to see how the innovation system (and beyond) can be mobilized for completing them.
The Dutch way of using missions as an interface between innovation governance and problem-based
governance (see chapter 2) relies heavily on coordination activities – principally the KIAs/MMIPs and
KIC – for making a variety of mostly existing policy instruments work in tandem with each other.
As the MTIP name already suggest, the ‘new’ mission-oriented innovation policy is closely wedded
to the pre-existing Topsector approach. Diving into the peculiarities of two missions has revealed the
importance of recognizing that this Topsector approach consists of several elements, each of them
having a different place in the MTIP that has succeeded it. Next to the Topteam we now find a MI
team, with both these teams formally having a mandate over deciding over the content of the MMIPs
and therefore the programming of calls for tenders in actual policy instruments. This combination
of teams with similar mandates has raised some concerns, and doesn’t seem to match with
the status of MI teams as central engines of the MTIP – see also section 4.5. The function of
TKIs has remained relatively unaltered, as these offices still serve to engage the field (science,
industry, and increasingly also societal stakeholders) in processes yielding information on what
innovation directions would be feasible when pursuing a shared agenda. Previously the TKI would
also make programming decisions. In the new setup, they support the Program Advisory Committee
(PAC) that in turn advices the MI team on which topics and criteria to prioritize in new programs and
tender calls. Strategic decisions on funding are taken at the level of the theme team.
Variety between missions

Before going into more detail, it should be noted that the MTIP strategy is heavily nested. While
there are overall outlines of how it is designed and operates, idiosyncrasies start to emerge when
descending towards the levels of theme teams, mission teams, and MMIPs. This study attempts to
make some generic statements on the Dutch MTIP, but many of the observations might be specific
for the mission theme Energy transition and Sustainability. Within that theme, already major
differences exist between the missions A-E for reducing greenhouse emissions (all belonging to the
‘IKIA’ associated with the Climate Agreement) and mission ‘CE’ on Circular Economy (having a KIA
based very much on the five Transition Agendas linked to the Raw Materials Agreement). Sources
of differences are not just variety in the agendas for driving changes, but also the fact that
the ministry of EZK invited stakeholders participating in governance structures to be
involved in the experimental design of organisational arrangements and distribution of
task and responsibilities. Within the boundaries of working with KIAs and the KIC, triple helix
representatives in e.g. the MI teams had freedom to arrange governance details amongst
themselves. Whereas the MI team for Built Environment receives abundant support from one single
existing TKI and its PAC, the MI team for Circular Economy (which was studied for this report as well,
but not documented in detail) relies more on a newly installed support group closely tied to the MI
team itself. As there was no clear blueprint available, some governance structures seem to
serve as an example for missions in which actors started out later with configuring their
own arrangements. Also in those cases, building on existing coordination structures seems to be
a prerequisite for having an impact.
Variance in governance approaches also emerges from how the line ministries ‘owning’ the mission
participate in the MTIP and associated endeavours to steer and leverage innovation activities.
Compared to BZK’s mission on the Built Environment, I&W’s mission for Circular Economy
appears to rely somewhat less on innovation as an important basis for achieving the
mission goals. The possible contributions of the MTIP are recognized, but more as just one
40
of many action lines that may be of importance. In the Built Environment context also many
non-innovation specific initiatives have been launched, but overall the possibilities to accelerate
promising novel solutions seem to be more woven into BZK’s strategy for realizing the goals to which
it committed itself.
Commitment of different ‘problem-owning’ ministries

Despite these slight differences, the fact that line ministries carry ownership over the missions
appears to contribute to their general inclination to deploy initiatives geared towards the actual
uptake of innovative solutions. The BZK and I&W ministries are not just lining up agendas on
how to make use of research and innovation, but both also commit themselves to
deploying activities to actually support this. Some of these initiatives are organized as part of
the MTIP strategy, testifying that the innovation domain and the ‘problem’ domain are not managed
in parallel. Illustrative is for instance how the ministry of BZK was involved in the creation and
funding of the MOOI scheme for large collective and integrated innovation projects, but also the
Uptempo! Program (run by two TKIs) for boosting the demonstration of actual solutions and the
Renovation Program for spreading innovations towards the use context of construction companies
and housing corporations. This range of initiatives complements EZK’s existing policy mix for the
stages from knowledge development to innovation. Apart from new policy initiatives in the form of
support measures, there are also examples of new structures that help to bridge the gap between
the innovation system and the socio-economic systems they should impact upon. The BTIC, for
instance, is an enrichment for the mission ecosystem as it complements the TKIs in uniting
actors typically not operating in the innovation networks in which the TKIs are embedded.
While the founding of the BTIC can hardly be attributed to coordination activities explicitly belonging
to MTIP, receiving funding from the MOOI instrument might have been helpful for spurring
interactions between innovation developers, innovation appliers, and innovation users.
To what extent the initiatives from the ‘innovation system’ and from the line ministries truly match
and leverage each other is likely to become clearer in the near feature, once stakeholders have had
sufficient opportunity to identify which gaps exist in attempts of innovators to move from
development to deployment (and reversely: in efforts to address adoption challenges in the
programming of the MMIPs). Interviews conducted with stakeholders closely involved in coordinating
innovation activities indicate that at least in terms of mindsets some convergence is on its way;
the knowledge and innovation agendas and MMIPs are increasingly structured according
to more coherent solution paths also addressing commercialisation and societal
acceptance, whereas line ministries acknowledge the promises of interacting more closely
with the innovation system. The latter might also due to the fact that the ministry of EZK hopes
to provide additional innovation support by tapping into the resources of line ministries (dedicated
to e.g. opening market perspectives), while the line ministries in turn intend to extend their reach
by linking innovation policy instruments to their own agendas. In that sense, the model of signing a
KIC in an early stage is likely to help ministries and knowledge partners understand on what accounts
they can benefit from (and support) each other in terms of synchronizing policy instruments and
funding. A clear indication for some early success of the MTIP is that the ministry of BZK has recently
announced to invest another €30 million in a round of the MOOI scheme for R&D projects tied to
several ET&S MMIPs. As it would also have been possible to invest this amount in BZK’s ‘own’
initiatives for achieving mission goals, one could interpret this joined up funding an indication that
there is confidence in the potential of the MTIP to make meaningful contributions to solving societal
challenges.
5.2. Guidance
Structures and instruments for steering

The MTIP contribution to completing missions still relies very much on guiding knowledge and
innovation projects. Apart from (modest) changes in the scoping of programmes on which subsidy
41
tenders and research calls are based, however, also new additional policy initiatives are being
deployed. The MOOI scheme is a rare example of an actual policy instrument
complementing the already existing set of policies for research innovation, but there are
already many other initiatives (mainly coming from line ministries) for also covering
higher stages of innovation development and deployment. According to some interviewees,
the overall focus on contributing to missions via a package of project-based instruments conflicts
with the logics of line ministries concerned with achieving the goals to which they committed
themselves. Others emphasize that the MTIP is in its very nature about bringing such potential
conflicts to the surface, in order to see where communalities between policy objectives can be found.
In their eyes, the MTIP should blur boundaries between policy domains in order to be able
to exploit complementarities.
Generally speaking, there is confidence that the MTIP setup allows for redirecting policy instruments
– and thereby the content of actual innovation activities. Relying on embedded platforms like TKI is
a way to ensure that topics covered by MMIPs can at the same time contribute to a mission while
also resonating with parties that are supposed to invest in projects fitting these MMIPs. A merit of
the current approach is that the design enables momentum building in individual solution paths, due
to stakeholders understanding better how they can complement each other and due to the
government having more information of the state of the art and challenges in these respective paths.
Actual guidance and alignment should then mostly come from the MI teams, acting as
‘engines’ operating at the centre of the MTIP governance structures. However, so far the MI
team for Circular Economy has just begun, while the one for the built environment spent its first
three meetings on figuring out its own position in the overall landscape. The latter highlights that it
is a rather ambitious endeavour to orchestrate so many activities taking place in the innovation and
socio-economic systems relevant for a mission. While this is precisely what missions and MIPs
supposedly should be about, the available post-commencement observations urge for some
patience with respect to how quickly and smoothly new coordination mechanisms can be
introduced.
Specificity of the missions and agendas

What can already be discussed at this point is the overall impression regarding how selective and
binding the MMIPs for completing the missions are. This guidance is perceived to be relatively ‘open’.
One reason is that the total of 25 missions implies that still many directionalities co-exist. Each
mission individually might help to align stakeholders, and perhaps even to streamline
support instruments, but together they might also raise confusion. For instance, there are
different missions for circular economy, sustainable agriculture and energy reduction, while these
topics interrelate in many respects. See for instance also the position of the Construction Agenda as
a driver for changes in both the Built Environment and Circular Economy missions (figure 11). The
established structures try to cope with this by appointing contact persons and ensuring interaction,
but it remains to be seen how this affects actors in the field. Another reason to cast doubt on how
much guidance is provided concerns the specificity of guidance at the mission level. This is sometimes
believed to be somewhat limited; in the context of Built Environment there are allegedly clear
and coherent directions, but they still ‘focus’ on a high number of topics. For Circular
Economy, steering activities seem to have an even broader scope as they are mostly targeted at
promoting the topic as such (rather than on choosing particular paths).
In principle it is imaginable to have a MIP approach encouraging parties to pursue a mission by

focusing more intensively on fewer paths, which then would be supported throughout various phases
of development. In the MTIP case, however, the dominant approach is to let the innovation system
generate different (competing) paths. As discussed extensively in section 4.5, there is currently a
fierce debate regarding how much of the guidance can be left to the market (industry and science,
as also represented in Topsectors) and how much to the government. The MI teams and the TKI
might be seen as an ‘arms length’ extension of the government, but many conversations
42
point at a demand for the government to provide clearer visions - and market perspectives
- herself. Besides noting that this introduces several risks with respect to stability, other
interviewees have pointed out that it might be easier for governments to ‘step in’ once particular
solution paths have sufficiently proven themselves. This would imply that the level of guidance
and directionality within the MTIP is not a given, but could evolve over time. Note that this
level is not just necessarily a matter of choosing which paths to ‘select’; it can also come down to
aborting the support for paths not progressing sufficiently well. Also, managing a mission is not
necessarily about preferring one solution over the other; it sometimes is also matter of implementing
an intelligent approach to knowing when to deploy a particular solution. Using solutions strategically
requires higher order systems analysis, which is typically something the layered structure of theme
teams, mission teams and their support offices (incl. TKI) should be able to accomplish.
5.3. Instruments
The brief conceptual reflections provided in chapter 2 indicated that in theory there are quite distinct
ways of targeting a MIP strategy. Remarkable about the Dutch MITP approach is that it is not relying
on one major policy scheme belonging to one of the outlined archetypical approaches. Instead, the
novel way of coordinating knowledge and innovation dynamics builds largely on existing
instruments and, importantly, the new domain-specific initiatives a particular mission can
mobilize. It effectively acts as a boundary object for evoking convergence in governance and
support initiatives related to research (e.g. NWO’s KIC calls), entrepreneurial experimentation (e.g.
public-private R&D projects) and transformative deployment activities (e.g. in neighbourhoods
exploring how to disconnect themselves from the natural gas grid by applying various new solutions).
Continuous policy support through competitive policies

The figure below illustrates the range of policies that is being tweaked for providing a continuum of
support to the mission on the Built Environment.
EZK + BZK
MISSION
Topteam MI team
TKI
IKIA + Knowledge and Innovation

MMIPs Covenant (KIC)
NWO
NWO
KIC calls
Financing
EZK TO2 plans PPS + MIT
Desk
MOOI
Uptempo! Renovation Law on
BZK Accelerator
BTIC Startmotor natural gas
free housing
Regional Energy Transition

Regions Strategies Vision Heating
Program Natural Gas Free Districts
Figure 15: Some of the relevant policy support measures for the Built Environment mission.
As noted, one major change in the policy mix is the introduction of the MOOI. Because it stretches
over a range of development stages at the (for innovation policy) relatively high end of the TRL
ladder, it appears to be a valuable complement to the existing set of instruments. Interviewees are
43
quite unanimously pleased about the availability of a scheme that, also due to its relatively high
project sizes, invites for value chain and end user involvement as well as knowledge dissemination.
At this point, EZK and BZK’s collaboration in establishing this joint policy initiative seems the best
illustration of policy support getting more continues. Additionally, interviewees praise the range of
BZK’s subsequent initiatives for ensuring relevant innovations get picked up and applied. This
includes not just support for (local) experimentation, but also crucial complementary interventions
like legally preventing newly constructed houses to have a natural gas connection.
The current impression for the Circular Economy mission is that the ‘hand-over’-point from
knowledge and innovation to deployment (and thereby from EZK to I&W) occurs in earlier
development stages. Possibly it is also less substantially supported with instruments explicitly
following up on each other, as is the case for the chain devised for Built Environment innovations.
Evidently, stronger statements on how seamless the support measures really are would require
consultation of researchers and innovators themselves. It should be noted that what ultimately
matters is not how easily the innovators can walk through all stages, but rather how easy
it is for particular innovation paths to get traction. After all, it will not always be the same
parties that work on different stages of innovation development and deployment.
A consortium-based alternative
Despite the above indications that there is already progress in creating a conducive policy mix,
ensuring continuous support remains a major issue in the interviews. This is perhaps not surprising,
as many of the interviewees were actively involved in developing coherent programs like the MMIPs.
From that perspective, there is obviously a strong preference for preventing that teams working on
a certain trajectory need to move from one instrument to another as their innovation evolves. As the
policy setup does not allow programming entities to merely ‘select’ projects and project teams, they
perceive it as very challenging to be so dependent on what proposals are submitted to competitive
tenders. Some even fear that the lack of possibilities to drive a coherent portfolio of changes (also
due to limitations in tendering procedures and unclear mandates) might undermine the willingness
of high-level stakeholders to engage in the MTIP. On a more constructive note, ideas have been
proposed for better embodying the programmatic aspect of boosting mission-oriented innovations.
One approach would be to focus more on continuously supporting large multi- or even
trans-disciplinary consortia (also involving parties applying or ‘consuming’ innovations). This
model would draw on these consortia, or centres, as hubs charged with pushing a particular action
line (sub program) for a couple of years, thereby also having the possibility to engage different
stakeholders over time. Getting other parties to invest after a project was started is often difficult in
regular subsidy projects, while it would fit with being responsive to the interest of market parties
willing to experiment with promising solutions. Whereas a model based on competitive bidding is
associated with either making small fragmented steps not necessarily adding up (due to project
teams working independently from each other) or big risky steps, the consortia model would allegedly
allow to more carefully build a coherent development path. This would work especially when having
discipline principles that also allow for terminating consortia support whenever it becomes
clear that the targets of the consortia can not be met. Note that the BTIC, partially funded via
the MOOI scheme, is a concrete example of a centre with an ongoing program and dynamic
involvement of stakeholders.
As with any policy design, both the competitive and the collaborative models have their respective
advantages and disadvantages. One way of going about would be to consider how these can best be
matched. A possible approach is to stick to tenders for lower TRLs, and consider moving to
consortium support for projects and project teams concerned with higher TRLs. Important
is also the question how to respond to the collective knowledge or technology demands encountered
in the more applied stages of solution development, e.g. when it comes to topics like digitalisation.
Right now it is unclear to what extent there are already sufficient possibilities for MI teams to
link demands from high TRL activities back to lower ones. The TKI Urban Energy is currently
44
exploring how incorporate demands from the diffusion side (including SMEs) to programs targeted
at mobilizing the research capacities of the innovation system. As previously highly innovative (and
often larger) firms and research institutes had a big say in programming activities, integrating
specific demand-side issues is regarded to be a substantial shift. The impression is that the more
those demands can be bundled (e.g. because of many firms collaborating in large
consortia), the easier it will be for research institutes to identify how they can contribute.
5.4. Directions for improvement
The MTIP is an evolving policy approach. In various ways the design and implementation of
the governance structures and policies are the results of an experimental process, in which
some steps need to be made first before there is room for other steps. Based on the
discussions so far, the following deliberations and directions for improvement stand out:
1. Streamline the governance

There are serious concerns that the coordination arena is getting too crowded. To a certain
extent it is understandable that the MTIP has a multitude of ways to engage stakeholders, simply
because there are so many of them to deal with when covering both the development and
deployment of innovation. Having different layers for making different types of decisions is generally
appreciated as a way to ensure all entities within the governance structures know what mandates
they have and how that relates to the tasks and responsibilities of others. However, for the MI teams
right at the middle of the MTIP governance structure, this is less clear. As noted in section 4.5, at
least for the Built Environment mission interviewees have the impression that the MI team might
currently be more of an advisory body rather than the central place in which innovation
dynamics (coordinated by e.g. the TKIs) get connected to the mission objectives of line
ministries. Much has to do with confusion over the role of the Topteam, which suggest that attempts
to streamline the governance should look in particular into the respective role of these two teams.
From the perspective of solving missions it might be opportune to phase out the Topteam’s influence
in mission coordination, and perhaps keep them more in the lead for coordination issues related to
the Key Enabling Technologies pillar of the MTIP strategy.
To add some nuance, note that it is hard to immediately take this as a very generic advise. The
situation for the Built Environment mission is hardly comparable with the Circular Economy mission,
as there the MI team has not gathered much and faces multiple Topteams (with the one for Chemistry
in the lead). Designing an appropriate governance structure seems to be a matter of crafting, more
than of offering a generic recipe. The complex field of stakeholders and relevant institutional
landscape differs per mission, but probably it is always a challenge to get actors to represent a
certain part of society (which is inherent to this ‘network’ approach) while also being able to look
beyond their own interests. Checks and balances like a set of boards and committees might help,
but it often is also just a matter of the personalities of people sitting in the various governance
teams. The context specificity of governance tensions might explain why the ministry of EZK has laid
out the overall architecture, while leaving implementation up to the field. Getting buy-in from
different stakeholders is important, but as the first observations now show, it might go at
the costs of transparency and leadership required for setting clear directions. In this
respect, interviewees differ in the type of coordination mechanisms they would like to see. Some
promote a model in which there is one specific place in which decisions on preferential solution
directions are made (e.g. the MI-team), while others regard the entire configuration of governance
structures as a ‘web’ that can exert pressures coming from many places. Still, based on current
information, it seems wise to critically consider streamlining options related to the multitude of
advisors and decision makers.
45
2. Re-orient the TKIs

The fact that the Dutch MIP is rooted in the Topsector approach has positive and negative
consequences. As for the role of the TKIs, it might still be useful to have this type of office
(and capacity) for engaging with the field that is to be guided and facilitated in their
attempts to contribute to a mission. Especially now that they have an even more supportive
rather than decisive role, they appear to have a natural function in the governance structure. At
least, as long as there is a counter-force representing the stakes of the mission owner and the society
on which possible solutions will impact. A suggestion that has risen is to align the TKI even
more with missions, and less with the Topsectors they were originally associated with. The
fact that TKIs previously served very distinct communities should not be an argument to maintain
silo’s; instead, in order to spur cross-sectoral, multidisciplinary and integrated solutions, it seems
relevant to tie the (government funded) TKIs to missions and thereby position them more at the
intersection of the networks that have been established with the Topsector approach. Re-orienting
them might be consistent with the ambition to engage different types of actors or even
ecosystems in innovation trajectories, in particular the ones more concerned with
deploying and using solutions. Perhaps it is not efficient to expect the TKIs to maintain deep
relations with both researcher/innovator networks as well as the communities organized around a
certain problem; in that case it might be more feasible to complement the TKIs with counterparts
that can inform the TKIs (and MI teams) about proceedings in implementation and experimentation
efforts. Relevant for future policy deliberations in this respect is also the finding that right now it is
not obvious how TKI can respond to common knowledge demands emerging from experimentation
with new solutions. Here it might help if at least the TKI are more aware of challenges encountered
by an extended range of actors (also including non-innovators).
3. Intensify guidance
On the other end of the spectrum between innovation supply and innovation demand, we find the
line ministries with responsibility for a mission. Balancing to what extent solution push or challenge
pull is leading for the MMIPs and policy initiatives implies a delicate managing of powers and
interests. Currently there are fears that the ‘pull’ force might still be underdeveloped, giving much
room to the innovation force. It is hard to verify such perceptions, but in any case it is
recommendable to ensure sufficient guidance from the side of mission owners. This goes
back to the issues of MMIPs possibly lacking directionality specificity and the (contested)
urge for government leadership. Generally it is understood that creating structures for making
societal challenges truly leading for innovation policy is more difficult than redirecting innovation
structures and policies. The basic recommendation following from these views is that it seems wise
for EZK to continue the approach of handing over some innovation responsibilities to line ministries.
In the case of the Built Environment and also Circular Economy missions this seems to be working
out well, in terms of getting commitment for driving the uptake of promising solutions. To what
extent the same holds for other missions is less clear, hence the advice to at least highlight good
practices.
4. Extend the ‘programmatic’ consortium model

Looking at policy instruments, there are a few more substantial directions for improvement. A
relatively contested one is the suggestion to work more with continuous support for large
consortia, focusing on a certain program or use context. As noted, this can offer a possibility
to move away from running a pragmatic approach through competitive bidding processes, which
might result in fragmented project portfolios. Another typical problem of competitive bidding is that
the diffusion of knowledge may be limited due to research institutes and firms becoming very
exclusive in their partnerships. Challenging about the suggested alternative, however, is that it would
require not only the selection or creation of consortia, but also a process for determining when to
discontinue financial support. Designing a stage-gate process usually not easy, especially in an
innovation context. Uncertainties inherent to experimenting with novel solutions make it hard to say
46
when something is a failure or a success. Still, moving towards consortia is primarily suggested
for higher development stages, in which adoption and therefore success of innovations
can be measured (acknowledging that this will seldomly follow linear curves). It would therefore
be relevant to inspect what kind of criteria and procedures could be used for determining realistic
performance levels. A possible fear of suddenly having to make sharp choices is not entirely justified.
Also in a consortium-based model it is possible to include market mechanisms that will
help to identify the true potential of some innovations. For instance, if it is assumed that more
market parties will join as innovations mature, this would quite readily present indicators for stage-
gate decisions (e.g. the amount of actors that joined, and the amount of investments they brought).
5. Extend the MOOI scheme

An often mentioned example of a transdisciplinary centre dynamically uniting different innovation
developers and users is the BTIC. Interestingly, this centre was one of the few consortia that got
(substantial) financial support through the first round of the MOOI scheme. This directly points at
the second – and less contested - policy instrument recommendation. The MOOI scheme is broadly
praised for having a design consistent with MIP philosophy. Particularly lauded are the focus on
fewer but larger subsidies for heterogenous project teams, also involving the value chain
and end users relevant for an innovation trajectory. The criteria of the MOOI encourage the
combination of innovation development and application, with special attention for the integration of
complementary sub-solutions (rather than focusing on individual technologies). In a way, the MOOI
presents a way to avoid discrepancies between instruments as it stretches over a broad range of
TRLs already. Moreover, because the MOOI scheme still has a competitive element, it seems
to sit in between a market-based model and a programmatic model. The scheme could
therefore be a nice answer to the bigger question of how to balance freedom and guidance. In sum,
the various advantageous properties make it worthwhile to assess to what extent also ministries
other than BZK (and EZK) are willing to deploy it.
5.5. Monitoring
As the preceding sections have shown, the MTIP comprises various layers of activities. Consequently,
monitoring practices can be deployed at the level of projects belonging to MMIPs, as well as at the
level of the MTIP strategy as such. There are several lessons regarding the proper use of monitoring:
1. Enhance consistency between monitoring procedures for innovation and deployment policies
Section 4.4 described which monitoring practices are currently being conducted for the Built
Environment mission. A large part of this is related to monitoring arrangements for the energy
innovation policy instruments that continue to be of relevance, in fact for all the ET&S missions (A-
E) for reducing carbon emissions. Over the years RVO.nl, the policy execution agency, has devised
an approach for consistently tracking which actors and topics feature in projects that enjoy policy
support. The framework shown in figure 13 indicates that the project database can be utilized
for monitoring exercises on various dimensions and levels. These include analyses on the
innovation dynamics of projects (are new collaborations emerging, e.g. cross-sectoral and
interregional?) as well as on the match between the content of the projects and the parts of the
energy system they should be impacting upon.
Overall it is believed that the resulting reports are useful for understanding in particular the
input side of the logical framework one could draw up for monitoring MMIP progress. Less
information is available on what is being achieved, although this is essential for regularly
updating the programming activities of the TKIs/PACs and MI teams. It seems worthwhile
to expand ongoing efforts to extend data collection (e.g. via project proposal forms) on key
performance indicators regarding, for instance, the societal acceptance and commercialization
potential of projects. Even if such information is not always entirely valid, due to uncertainties
inherent to innovation, it would help advisors and decision makers in the MTIP governance structures
47
to understand better where innovation developments are going. To establish meaningful feedback
loops, it would also help if progress on the project level is recorded and shared regularly. Currently
the impression is that, perhaps in order not to put too much of a burden on project partners, the
information on project outputs is somewhat thin.
In order to later make assessments of how the MTIP strategy is contributing to the fulfilment of
missions, it also seems relevant to improve the consistency and compatibility of monitoring activities
concerning te crucial link between development and deployment. One baseline criterium for
consistent monitoring is usually the availability of uniform information on the organisations
participating in projects. When addressing a societal challenge, however, it is not required that the
organisations inventing a novel solution are also the ones ultimately applying it. What matters is that
the innovation system as such is sufficiently tied to the socio-economic system (in which adoption
takes place) for solutions to make it to the other side – and for demands and knowledge about
problems to reach the innovation system. Ideally, the MTIP monitoring system thus also allows for
tracking the process of the solutions themselves, i.e. the topics (technological and non-technological)
organisations are working on. This would require a careful link between existing monitoring
practices by RVO.nl and the TKIs on the one hand, and monitoring of line ministries’ ‘own’
innovation diffusion policies (and goal progress) on the other hand. Because the spectrum
of relevant policies is so broad, it will be challenging to utilize existing policy administration data for
constructing overviews of how innovations reach applications linked to mission goals. This is also
illustrated in the stylistic figure shown below. One the one hand it is very informative to study how
the budgets and scopes of different types of policies (here: research, development, deployment) of
various authorities are being combined. For the MTIP this would concern in-depth analysis of how
the KIC is unfolding. On the other hand, it seems crucial to follow how actors and projects are
‘flowing’ between policy instruments. While one authority can try to synchronize the monitoring
procedures for its own policies, it is probably more difficult to synchronize the labelling of topics and
identification of actors throughout different policy spheres. In the case of the MTIP it is still difficult
to make the step from connecting innovation policies to deployment policies.
• Are actors proceeding from low to high development stages, or back?

Do new collaboration patterns emerge?
• Do the topics of projects match the MMIP? Are research projects
turning into innovation paths and finally applicable solutions?
Do different projects add up; can they be integrated when moving to
the deployment stage? Are knowledge gaps surfacing in demo
projects leading to new research projects?
Research Policy A
Are
resources and
instruments
becoming Development Policy B Policy C Policy D
more aligned
with each
other?
Deployment Policy E Policy F Policy G
Figure 16: Examples of questions requiring integrated monitoring procedures.
2. Move from producing overviews to actual learning

A practical issue emerging from the interviews is how to utilize monitoring data for learning activities.
As the current approach is very much based on building datasets with overviews of which projects
are initiated and by whom, the most readily available information concerns the content and intended
goals of subsidized projects. Actual learning involves sensemaking, as well as dissemination
of information, knowledge and lessons. A plea has been made to turn monitoring practices more
into ‘learning systems’ providing e.g. early warnings or information prepared for decision processes.
48
This approach could build very much on the already existing close links between RVO.nl and the
offices that are in close touch with both the innovation system as well as the governance layers
ultimately making decisions on programming and funding (like the TKIs or MI team’s own support
offices). Learning systems may work well if there is capacity of field experts to engage sufficiently
with project partners, both to keep track of project developments and to issue feedback. The
foundations of such an integrated approach to producing and interpreting information are already
present. Helpful is also the recent practice of asking parties submitting a project proposal whether
RVO.nl can share the information with a support office like the TKI. This prevents duplication of
efforts and ensures programming entities like the PACs have at least a basic information set to work
with when engaging the field for further interpretation of relevant developments.
Regarding the sharing of information, some interviewees relate this to the importance of focusing
more on support for consortia rather than projects (see previous section). While projects often need
to be executed by the team that originally submitted a proposal, consortia might better be able to
continue engaging stakeholders as their activities (innovations) mature and other parties an gain
interest. Continued openness with respect to which parties contribute to the development and
adoption of innovation would appear to be one way of ensuring knowledge spreads and cumulates.
3. Be cautious and detailed when disentangling progress and additionality

While perhaps less of an immediate concern, ultimately there will also be concerns on what the MTIP
approach as such is achieving. Crucial is again the notion that the MTIP is to a large extent leveraging
existing initiatives, and complementing with new ones where possible. In the case of the mission on
Built Environment there were already many instruments to build on, making it perhaps less clear
what is new on the ‘innovation side’ of the mission (as compared to the diffusion part accelerated by
BZK; note that involving and developing this part further might in fact be one of the biggest
achievements at the overall strategy level). Since the mission on Circular Economy is not so
closely linked to specific pre-existing structures and instruments, the difference of now having a
mission are likely to be more obvious. Still, it might be very hard to tell in which of the two scenarios
(altering/updating existing practices vs. establishing a new ‘mission-oriented innovation system; see
section 2.2) the actual impact will be biggest.
Reasoning from the mission statement itself, one point of departure for following desired impacts is
by conducting attribution-based analyses. This starts with looking at the main development
visible so far, primarily at the outcome level of mission objectives like disconnecting houses from the
natural gas grid. Taking such ‘real progress’ information, the next step would be to determine causal
relations with deployed activities. Doing so would require rather detailed information about the actual
actions that were undertaken. Following a more contribution-based perspective, an assessment
would start reversely, with tracking what range of investments an actions was deployed and how
these might have led to circumstances from which desirable outcomes can emerge. In both cases,
conducting a proper assessment quickly leads to an immense myriad of activities that need to be
investigated in order to understand what difference the MTIP or even a specific mission has been
making. Indeed, rather than driving change via one major policy instrument with clearly
circumscribed boundaries, the MTIP is fundamentally an effort to alter - sometimes even very lightly
- the way distinct policy initiatives complement each other in creating a coherent policy mix, geared
towards supporting innovative solutions throughout a long range of development stages.
Analysist need to be aware that disentangling the relative influence of the MTIP can be a daunting
task, given that it is lies in the very nature of the strategy to involve so many parts of the innovation
and socio-economic systems that matter for completing a mission. Determining what was
mobilized or engaged is even only the first step, which should be followed by an
assessment of how all the various structures and policies were engaged, and what this
had led to. In sum, this type of analysis requires careful deliberation of how abstract or detailed the
to-be investigated mechanisms need to be.
49
It appears recommendable to focus on the main orders of results and effects listed below.
Based on the first findings presented in this report, there are also already a few more specific sub-
questions that have surfaced. These are included, by means of illustration of the type of dynamics
and mechanisms that deserve particular attention. Several of those illustrative sub-questions have
been addressed to some (minor) extent already in earlier sections. However, given that this study
sets out to characterize the MTIP rather than to assess it, all of the provided reflections should be
regarded as preliminary propositions that are still to be scrutinized in more depth.
• “Has the MTIP led to the emergence of governance structures suitable for aligning innovation
and deployment initiatives?” This question requires a process analysis rather than an impact
analysis. It is best to be answered by first defining the principles that are important for
determining what suitable governance structures would look like. Relevant sub-questions:
• Does the structure involve elements equipped for collecting information with respect to
emerging innovation opportunities and mission-related problems?
• Does the structure involve elements able to combine this information and make decisions
on what directionalities to follow? How selective are the programs (e.g. MMIPs) that arise?
• Does the structure contain well-functioning checks and balances for preventing an overly
strong capture of interests?
• …
• “Is there evidence that the MTIP is getting traction in terms of mobilizing partners?” This would
concern the actual buy-in of line ministries, regional authorities, knowledge partners, etcetera.
By signing the KIC, many parties already promised to devote resources to the mission.
• To what extent have those parties listed existing budgets that are deployed relatively
independently of the MTIP and MMIPS? Are there indications that different partners are
truly willing to blend their budgets into a comprehensive and consistent MIP approach (e.g.
as in jointly financed policy schemes like the MOOI?). Are the annual budgets increasing?
• Do line ministries actively monitor MMIP developments, as part of a formalized policy cycle?
• …
• “Does the ‘extended’ MTIP strategy (also involving initiatives from line ministries) rest on a
policy mix and funding streams suitable for supporting the entire spectrum of innovation
development and deployment?”.
• Is the programming of scientific research grants in line with the knowledge needed in (PPP)
R&D projects concerned with particular innovations? Similarly, are innovation policies for
the middle TRLs synchronized with initiatives for supporting deployment?
• To what extent is it problematic if discrepancies exist; does it hamper continuity, and/or
does it ensure critical re-evaluation of the innovation trajectories that are being pursued?
• Are there indications (e.g. from programming and project portfolio data) that the policy
mix also allows to adjust low-TRL instruments in response to bottlenecks experienced in
high-TRL innovation activities?
• …
• “Are activities by actors engaged in the ‘mission-oriented innovation systems’ (more) in line
with the mission objectives?”
• Are there any relevant changes in the composition of actors and collaborations found in
those systems, e.g. in relation to the type of stakeholders involved?
• Are actors showing an (enhanced) willingness to invest in mission-related topics? Note that
a high interest for e.g. MMIP-related subsidy calls is especially telling if the MMIPs truly
focus on mission completion rather than only driving innovation per se.
• …
• “Are the results of innovation activities being adopted in initiatives targeted at deploying them”?
• “Are the innovations being applied, and do they actually contribute to the mission objective
(rather than only ‘being in line’ with it)
50
6. Conclusions
Based on what was found in the desk research and interviews so far, at this stage the research
questions introduced in section 1.2 can be answered as discussed below:
What is the current form of governance?
1. The MTIP strategy consists of installing coordination mechanisms for interlinking a wide range
of agendas, networks, governance structures and policy instruments, belonging to (and
targeting) both the innovation system as well as the socio-economic systems in need of
transformation. The coordination mechanisms rest on a multi-layered governance
configuration, wedding the pre-existing triple helix Topsector structures to the newly
introduced Theme teams, MI teams and the offices (including extant TKIs) that support them.
2. The main task of this configuration is to mobilize and direct policy initiatives in order to
engage highly diverse stakeholders in innovation activities corresponding with the 25
missions (belonging to 4 mission themes) that were launched by various ministries. The
missions are based on extensive consultation rounds preceding implementation of the MTIP.
The uncertainties arising when pursuing the ambitious, specific and time-bound goals
prioritized in these missions form the basis for Knowledge and Innovation Agendas (KIAs).
These have been translated into Multi-annual Mission-oriented Innovation Programs (MMIPs)
now used for programming policy instruments and thereby steering innovation projects.
3. By signing the Knowledge and Innovation Covenant (KIC) 2020-2023, 30 stakeholders

pledged to spend a total of almost €4.9 billion per year on executing the KIAs and MMIPs.
This substantial increase with respect to earlier Topsector KICs testifies of a greater role for
an increased amount of public partners, both at the national and regional level. As the
amounts are merely estimates, mostly based on existing budgets, it still remains to be seen
how eager the signees are to pool their resources into joint or carefully aligned initiatives.
4. In the new governance setup, the MI teams are positioned as the ‘engines’ for driving and
aligning change-oriented activities required for completing the missions. Their support offices
use their networks and capacity to obtain information from (and engage) scientists, firms,
and increasingly also civil society organisations. Various checks and balances in the form of
boards and committees are in place to ensure objectivity in setting directions (e.g. for writing
MMIPs or programming calls).
5. Details of the chosen governance setup vary per mission; not just because of differences in
the KIAs and relevant sectors and institutional landscape, but also due to variance in the
style and involvement level of the ministry ‘owning’ a mission. Moreover, parties participating
in the governance structures had some freedom in shaping the distribution of mandates and
organizational arrangements. As there was no clear blueprint available, some governance
structures serve as an example for missions in which actors started out later with configuring
their own setup. Besides being varied and experimental, the chosen governance is also likely
to be evolving over time.
Does the mission actually guide the various activities?
6. The missions themselves are relatively uncontested societal goals, and serve as reference
point for all actors involved in the extensive governance structures (and beyond). However,
confusion emerges due to the high number of missions sometimes being interrelated (e.g.
circular construction fits in both the Built Environment and Circular Economy mission). Each
mission individually might help to align stakeholders and support instruments, but
complexities arise from the missions and associated governance structures (and ecosystems)
occasionally overlapping each other.
51
7. A limitation of guidance provided by the current MTIP governance is also that the central MI
teams, in as far has they have become operational, experience restrictions in asserting their
mandate. This is mostly due to the mandate of the Topteams still being preserved, and due
to the risk of being overruled by ministries responsible for the mission and providing essential
funding. Furthermore, the MMIPs the MI teams rely on for steering research and innovations
are criticized for lacking selectivity. At the same time, despite still containing many topics,
these MMIPs are at least structured according to coherent solution paths also addressing
commercialisation and societal acceptance. Accordingly, with the shift towards the MTIP, the
MI teams’ programming bodies have started to extend their attempts for also including non-
technical issues in tender criteria and key performance indicators.
8. The line ministries carrying responsibility over a mission are increasingly committed (but still
to very different extents) to incorporating innovation in their strategies for addressing
societal challenges. For instance, The BZK and I&W ministries are not just lining up agendas
on how to make use of research and experimentation, but both also deploy activities to
actually support this. This also raises some tensions, e.g. when they prioritize short term
gains that are at odds with supporting more promising solutions requiring more time. On the
other hand, leaving the search for solutions very much in the hands of the TKIs supporting
the MI teams (and the Topteams) might result in technocratic approaches focusing on
uncertain innovative solutions that are still in development – and perhaps never move
beyond that phase.
9. Getting buy-in from different parties is important, especially when uniting innovation and
diffusion, but it goes at the cost of transparency and leadership required for setting clear
directions. By acting primarily as a partner and facilitator, the line ministries with a mission
are not demonstrating the leadership deemed necessary to make substantial progress. This
points at a still insufficiently fulfilled demand for the government to provide clearer visions
and market perspectives herself. At the moment it seems that the ‘push’ of new technologies
remains dominant (in the pursuit of missions), while the pull for new solutions is so open
that it fails to unite innovators around the MMIP pathways. Regrettably, specificity of solution
directionality decreases when approaching application stages.
Do the governing arrangements offer a suitable range of instruments for researchers and
innovators? Does it offer a seamless and efficient continuum of support, covering all TRLs
and the investment stages, and including also supporting policies like helpful regulation
and procurement?
10. The existence of the comprehensive KIC covenant does by no means guarantee that all
available resources and instruments work well together. Characteristic for the MTIP is that,
instead of adding more instruments to the policy mix, it focuses on coordination mechanisms
allowing organizations to make better use of available instruments. This concerns in the first
place several policies that have been used already, under the Topsector regime, for
programming innovation agendas. Examples are calls by the National Science Foundation
NWO, EZK’s PPP allowance for supporting public-private R&D projects, or various energy
innovation policies administered by the Topsector Energy and RVO.nl. These instruments
continue to be of relevance for realizing the MMIPs by (together) offering continuity for
developments on the lower side of the technology readiness level (TRL) spectrum.
11. An EZK-BZK policy instrument introduced originally for just the mission on the Carbon-free
Built Environment is the MOOI scheme. This scheme offers relatively large subsidies for
heterogenous project teams, also involving the value chain and end users relevant for an
innovation trajectory. The widely praised scheme presents a way to avoid discrepancies
between instruments, as it stretches over a broad range of middle to high TRLs.
52
12. At least in the case of the mission on the Carbon-free Built Environment, the responsible line
ministry (BZK) has implemented many additional policy initiatives for ensuring the actual
uptake of promising innovations. This concerns a plethora of policies and structures for either
experimenting with novel solutions, or diffusing them through communication, advise, and
spurring interaction between the organisations adopting innovations (e.g. constructors) and
their clients (e.g. housing corporations). The policy initiatives of BZK also include substantial
financial schemes (e.g. the Startmotor) for creating market perspectives, in order to kick-
start experimentation and elicit further investments in innovation development and
application. Moreover, recent regulatory changes require potential innovation adopters and
local players to find solutions for sustainable heating of houses disconnected from the natural
gas grid. This presents a clear demand for integrated and market ready solutions.
13. In sum, the MTIP effectively acts as a junction for evoking convergence in governance and
support initiatives related to research, entrepreneurial experimentation, and transformative
deployment activities. More detailed information on how seamless policy support really is
requires consultation of the actors overseeing innovation activities moving through different
development stages. In any case, it is likely that between missions variance exists for
especially the higher TRLs. The Built Environment mission might perhaps be a good example
for a comprehensive array of instruments, but it also risks resulting in an overly complex
patchwork of initiatives.
What could be next steps for further improvement?
The five steps for further improvement that were identified in this post-commencement analysis are:
14. Streamline the governance structure by reducing the overlap between Topteams and MI
teams. The current setup allows for effectively tapping into Dutch innovation capacities, but
has resulted in a complex and extensive configuration of advising and guiding bodies.
Reconsider (strengthen) and clarify the mandate of the MI team so that it can deliver on its
objective of driving change and completing the mission.
15. Reorient the TKIs more towards missions instead of Topsectors. Make sure to leverage their
capacities to engage with especially the science and industry side of solution development,
but give them the position to neutrally compare and nurture development paths. Consider to
either equip them to interact more intensively with also the application side of mission
completion, or to complement them with counterparts overseeing such proceedings.
16. Continue the intensified involvement and perhaps leadership of problem-owning ministries.
When doing so, be aware that enhancing the role of ministries might safeguard technocratic
push of solutions society might dislike, but can prevent systemic and long term thinking
needed to support those innovative solutions that also have economic importance.
17. Consider to experiment more with continuous support for large practice-oriented consortia,
focusing on development and deployment activities (high TRLs) associated with a certain
program or use context. Be sure to allow for participation of new challengers, and design
procedures for terminating consortia not meeting their performance promises.
18. Extend the MOOI scheme to more missions and MMIPs. The instrument lends itself for large
projects integrating partial solutions and covering commercialisation and acceptance issues.
What are the (planned) arrangements to monitor inputs, activities, outputs and impacts?
What would be next steps to improve monitoring?
19. Both the policy execution agency RVO.nl and the TKI offices deploy efforts to regularly report
on the progress of MMIPs. They primarily focus on the administrative data of mobilized
policies, thereby shedding light on the content, development stage and participants involved
in projects fitting the agendas.
53
20. While RVO.nl and the TKIs are increasing feedback loops and extending the range of
indicators that are being tracked (also covering impact-related issues like societal
acceptance), there is not much systemic monitoring of project outcomes and how they add
up. Their reports thereby give insight into how innovation inputs and activities are advancing,
but they provide mission owners limited perspectives on how close certain innovation
pathways are to scalable solutions. Improving this crucial link requires more consistency
between not just monitoring procedures of various innovation policies, but also between
those policies and the many initiatives deployed (sometimes by other administrators) for
supporting the uptake of solutions.
54
Appendix: List of interviewees
Name Organization(s)
Blok, Kornelis TU Delft
Bokhoven, Teun TKI Urban Energy; NVDE
Buddenbaum, Ed Min. EZK

Dortmans, Ardi TNO
Heideveld, Antoine Het Groene Brein
Kirch, Michiel TKI Urban Energy; Univ. Groningen
Kleiboer, Jos Metaalunie
Koch, Joost RVO.nl
Kreiter, Rob TKI Energie & Industrie
Kroon, Machteld de TNO
Leede, Gerard de Solarge; TU/e
Meijer, Emmo Friesland Campina; TS Chemie
Nelissen, Elphi TU/e (now Fontys)
Roos, Murk de Min. IenW
Spijkerboer, Marieke Min. IenW
Van den Brink, Oscar COAST, TKI Chemie
Van der Woude, David Min. BZK
Verbree, Richard Inventum Technologies
Warmenhoven, Bas Min. EZK
Wyfker, Gerard Metaalunie
[Kick-off event KIA-CE] [Diverse]
55

Post-Commencement Analysis of The Dutch Mission-Oriented Topsector and Innovation Policy' Strategy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Post-Commencement Analysis of The Dutch Mission-Oriented Topsector and Innovation Policy' Strategy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Post-commencement analysis

of the Dutch ‘Mission-oriented

2. The ‘mission-oriented innovation policy’ concepts ....................................... 9

3. Mission-oriented innovation policy in the Netherlands .............................. 13

4. Mission ‘Carbon-free built environment’ .................................................... 23

5. Discussion (Synthesis) .............................................................................. 39

Appendix: List of interviewees ......................................................................... 55

1.1. Background of the study

1.2. Research questions

To obtain maximally relevant information in terms of comparability and maturity of investigated

Box 1: Energy transition and sustainability (Source: EZK, 2019, p. 3-4)3

The missions are:

Box 2: Overview of interview topics

How is the governance organized?

What substantive actions are being considered / designed / implemented?

What tensions emerge when engaging stakeholders and deploying actions?

What governance and monitoring improvements should be considered?

1.4. Reading guide

The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

2. The ‘mission-oriented innovation policy’ concepts

Socio-economic system (in a social domain)

Problem-based Mission impacts

2.2. Mission-oriented innovation policy

Attention for Regular policies in a Attention for

Degree of demand pull

Governance arrangements Resources

MIP instrument MIP instrument MIP instrument

Innovation policy Innovation policy Innovation policy Innovation policy

Knowledge development Solution application

Figure 3: Conceptualization of what mission-oriented innovation policy is composed of.

3. Mission-oriented innovation policy in the Netherlands

3.1. Evolution of Dutch innovation policy9

Brief description of the Topsector approach

3.2. Overview of missions

Table 1: Overview of missions (Ministry of EZK, 2019)13.

4 Themes x 5-8 Missions KIAs Ministries Topsectors

Energy, Chemistry, Water, Creative

Agri-Food & Horticulture, HTSM/ICT, Life

Life Sciences & Health, Agri-Food,

DEF – J&V – I&W Hightech Systems & Materials, Water,

Hightech Systems and Materials & all

Figure 5: Chain from Missions to research and innovation projects.

3.3. Governance structure

3.3.1. Governance layers

I. Overall administrative/strategic coordination

II. b Programming per KIA

III. Coordination / programming 9

3.3.2. The mission teams17

The four main tasks of the MI-teams are:

4. Mission ‘Carbon-free built environment’

4.1. Origins and place in other agendas and structures

• Missions statement: “A carbon-free built environment in 2050”.

Energy 5 Transition CE MMIP 1: Design

Knowledge & Innovation

Construction domains: for Circularity

Agreement B: a carbon-free built environment in 2050

• Biomass & Food

MISSION OWNERS MISSION OWNERS

4.1.1. The Climate Agreement

4.3. Relevant policy instruments

Existing innovation policy instruments

New innovation policy instrument: MOOI