Interview with Heleen Rouw: 'At the Table with the Sector: A Year of CIIIC in Highlights and Choices'
It's the end of the year. Looking back: what were your highlights of 2025—and what do you definitely want to mention (and what preferably not)?
“There were highlights on different levels. First and foremost: the massive turnout at our first-year event. That showed how many people feel involved in this field and have an interest in the program—while we were still really at the beginning, just opened, and there was still a lot of uncertainty.
Another highlight was my visit to Venice Immersive: personally incredibly inspiring, but also directly connected to an important task in my role—ensuring that our program aligns well with the international field. The strength and ambitions of the Netherlands in the artistic area, but also concerning distribution, were clearly noticeable there.
And last but not least: the moment the permanent team started on June 1. We are now a well-oiled team of six.
Where we have worked hard, especially in the last few months—and where there's also an important challenge—is the accessibility of the program. For example, the connection of the gaming sector with CIIIC. That's why it was important that we were so extensively present at Dutch Game Week. You see that the serious games world already knows how to find our program very well. At the same time, we are still in talks with the media and entertainment side of the games sector: to what extent can they also connect?”
We'll zoom in on the year as a whole in a moment, but first practically: where does CIIIC stand now, at the end of the year?
“The program has started forming consortia in the area of Artistic & Design Research (ADRIE) and challenges in urban development and safety, but it's not yet fully complete. The IX Labs still need to be formed, and we are still working out the talent development part.
The programme is truly about innovation, for us as well: it's learning by doing. We improve the arrangements where possible and necessary, and stimulate collaboration between researchers, creators, and public and private organizations.”
You started this year as program director. How do you look back on that early period?
“‘I really needed that first month to get clear on where things stood. I knew it would be pioneering. And I thought: we're going into the program's execution. But very quickly, I realized we weren't there yet. My role in the beginning was to make it very clear—and really articulate—the steps we still needed to take before we could properly roll out the program.’
‘There was also unrest in the field because not everyone fully agreed with the concrete program. I found it especially important to spend a lot of time on conversations with people in the field: understanding where it stood for them, gathering sentiment, and seeing what we could do with it—and what not.”
It's learning by doing, going as we go
What was needed to make the program more understandable for all those different groups?
“The narrative wasn't sharp enough yet. It wasn't clear: what exactly is this program, which part is relevant for whom, and how do you make it understandable for all those different groups? We are still working on that. It is a priority for next year.”
So from the perspective of the program participants: “I am a creator—what is there for me?” And: what kind of creator am I? We are almost thinking it out like a flowchart, from different perspectives: creator, researcher, but also, for example, a presentation venue that you are, or a foundation.
In the beginning, we simply couldn't say: when does something open, when does something start? We can communicate much more about that now.
And it's not just about what we communicate, but also about what the community experiences:
‘That people feel: this is cool, I want to be part of this—that hadn't really happened at all in the beginning. If you don't embrace it as a field, you can't move it forward together. At a certain point, I also turned it around. I said: we can try to do a lot for you, but I also need you to move it forward—to see the possibilities and help each other.”
What was personally the most difficult balance for you this year?
“Finding the balance between creating progress—sometimes really, like: come on, guys—and on the other hand, ensuring it is done carefully. That balance is sometimes quite challenging. And I also learned to have even more patience this year.”
What is the status of the IX Labs?
“On the front end, 19 parties have been selected to enter a dialogue phase. This runs until February 6th. After that, the plan and the custom provision need to be developed. Ultimately, five parties should emerge from this. They will then create a custom provision together with OCW and TNO; this will result in a partnership that can start. Currently, there are still nineteen: ten consortia and nine individual parties. They still need to find each other. And if they don't naturally become five, then a selection will be applied.”
What is a major challenge for the program?
“A major challenge for the coming period is the demand side: better connecting the parties where it needs to be applied to our program. You need use cases to help people understand what it is and how it works. We need to pay a lot of attention to this. So that you not only help people become better at being and making but also teach the other side skills for good commissioning. We also see how important it is to help people understand each other so that collaboration becomes possible. Because almost everything in the program has to happen in collaboration—makers with researchers, with institutions. And they don't all speak the same language. So we really have to help them understand each other.”
What will happen in the area of human capital / talent development next year?
“In terms of content, it’s about the missing learning forms in the field that are needed to advance the community. Think, for example, of distribution challenges. Or about business operations and entrepreneurship: it’s not just about being able to create a business model, but also about how to set up a healthy company. And you have people who are very strong in R&D but less so in user experience and scaling up—then the question is: what do you need to be able to scale up?
We have gathered the issues and will further explore and evaluate them with our Advisory Board in the coming months.”
What are important next steps for CIIIC?
“We are constantly switching between short, medium, and long-term. We now see a lot of attention and interest in all the calls we have, so that's good. At the same time, we want to focus more and more. We start quite broadly—essentially an entire innovation agenda is open—but we want to increasingly focus on areas where it is most promising.
In 2026, we will also work on this. We use data from the first calls and input from the Advisory Board. And we further develop the tools to properly embed public values in the program.
And when to expect visible results? Not until 2027 – in early 2027, the first calls will see actual output.”
What gives you energy?
“What gives me the most energy throughout the year is speaking to a few makers every week, visiting studios, talking to researchers, going to places where our community is—and hearing what drives them. Then I think: oh yes, that's what we do it for. We really want to help these people move forward. This is so important.”
Finally: what would you like to convey to the field for the new year?
“First of all, happy holidays with loved ones, and then, in the new year: with fresh energy, let's get the best out of the program together.”