Three main issues have been discussed:

	Where and why change is likely to occur ?
	Impact of change on management and procedures of the project
	What recommendations in order to implement change in future projects in the best interest of project promoters, end-users, European commission, partners, sponsors ?

 

It is well accepted that the Commission cannot give its consent for a permanent redesigning of projects, and this for different reasons:  

	avoid the risk of "changing for the sake of changing"
	the use of public money must be guaranteed for specific purposes.
	permanent change can be demotivating for people and partners (confidence)
	clear objectives must be fixed at the beginning of the project and that is why the conception phase must be deep and thorough as possible..

 

However, negative impacts of rigidity are numerous:
 

a project may die if it is not adapting to the changes in society. There is an interactive process between society and projects. Projects are started and carried out in order to meet society's objectives. As society is permanently changing, projects must also change and adapt themselves to the new situation. But, in turn, society is also changing because of the impact of projects themselves and this process is non-linear. A project, insofar as it reflects the evolution of society, cannot go straight forward. There are stops and gos and it is more of a chaotic process, also because between two phases of relative stability there are no rules.

 

Time has not the same value for the different actors: the slow decision-making processes of the European Commission constitute a real issue for the projects promoters. Between the moment when a project is presented to the Commission and the moment when the final decision is taken, the money is transferred and the work has started, many changes may have happened: motivations, goals, expectations, funding, technologies, partners, project manager, etc. Besides the classical question of administrative procedures, one difficulty is that decision making is performed in "old structures" for a "new society".

 

Reluctance to change can become a real obstacle to establish an efficient public-private partnership. As concerns more particularly partners coming form the private sector, the time scale of reference is not the same : in many cases it is more in the shorter term than the longer term. There may be a mismatch between the different partners, further aggravated by the fact that private partners do not have the same expectations. Frequently, they hope a rapid spin-off effect of their involvement, notably in terms of commercial interests.

 
Moreover, they are used to work with more efficient planning systems. Another issue is the risk to see the Commission refuse a change in the partners configuration of a consortium. As a result, project promoters tend to restrict the partnership perimeter.
 

There are pros and cons for change in the management of a project. Therefore, the difficulty for all partners is to find the proper balance between good planning and a level of flexibility.

 
What are the main recommendations ? 

Generally speaking, this issue of the "necessity of change" and adaptability should be taken more into consideration in the project management. It is natural and even should be encouraged, in order to avoid obsolescence or ill-adjustment, as regards the evolution of society, technologies, project environment and end-users needs.

 

Therefore, the European Commission should accept, in some cases, the necessity for redesign of a project. In the same way, it should integrate more flexibility in its evaluation systems. In particular, besides the quantitative criteria, it should also take into consideration more qualitative/subjective criteria, such as cultural and social values.

 

EC should speed its procedures. In this perspective, decentralisation of monitoring and evaluation at a regional level should be envisaged.