Main conclusions concerning the existing set of indicators. The above analysis of the indicators of the different measures points towards a number of key conclusions concerning the development method, the use, characteristics and the appropriateness of the indicators that are currently being used for monitoring EIP performance. First of all, there are rather a lot of indicators; so much so that it is virtually impossible to achieve a consistent overview of performance across the major areas of policy implementation. A useful and fundamental question, therefore, is what purpose does this number of indicators serve? Although guidance at a management level has been provided by the co-ordinating unit, there appears to be no overall set of principles or guidance statement in relation to the development of indicators in DG ENTR, over and above documents relating to the general framework for evaluation and impact assessment. Consequently, although there are common elements, there has not been a consistent approach in the selection of indicators for the measures supported. There is no common reference framework setting the minimum information requirements, characteristics that the indicators should have, the type of questions that should be addressed and the reasons for selecting – or not – one indicator against another. This has given rise to a confusing picture. There are now a large number of indicators in total, their development has been relatively ad-hoc and they appear to change fairly frequently. The main driver of the development of indicators would seem to be the need to report to the EIPC on an annual basis. Naturally, reporting gives rise to comment and refinement and to requests for new and different types of information. In other words a dynamic is established in which the indicator framework is continuously evolving and there is a tendency for information requirements to accumulate. The EIPC has itself commented on this process, asked for simplification and suggested a series of criteria for the selection of good indicators among the current set. The annual reporting cycle has another consequence, which is that it focuses on the operational management of the EIP rather than the broader concerns of the implementation of policy. This is reinforced by institutional arrangements. The definition of the indicators is largely made at the level of an individual desk officer or the Unit responsible for each measure, after internal discussions and consultations. Since there is no common reference framework used for de...
