08 Finns in the EU 6th Framework Programme...Finns in the EU 6th Framework Programme Evaluation of Participation and Networks Evaluation Report Soile Kuitunen, Katri Haila, Ilpo Kauppinen,

September 2008

T

Tekes• Finns in the E

U 6th Fram

ework P

rogramm

e – Evaluation of P

articipation and

Netw

orksE

valuation Rep

ort

6

08

Evaluation ReportTekes Programme Report 6/2008

Finns in the EU 6th Framework ProgrammeEvaluation of Participation and Networks


Evaluation Report

Soile Kuitunen, Katri Haila, Ilpo Kauppinen,Mikko Syrjänen, Juha Vanhanen,Paavo-Petri Ahonen, Ilkka Tuomi,

Pekka Kettunen & Teemu Paavola

Tekes Programme Report 6/2008Helsinki 2008

Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation

Tekes is the main public funding organisation for research and develop-ment (R&D) in Finland. Tekes funds industrial projects as well as projectsin research organisations, and especially promotes innovative, risk-in-tensive projects. Tekes offers partners from abroad a gateway to the keytechnology players in Finland.

Tekes programmes – Tekes´ choices for the greatest impact ofR&D funding

Tekes uses programmes to allocate its financing, networking and expertservices to areas that are important for business and society.Programmes are launched in areas of application and technology thatare in line with the focus areas in Tekes’ strategy. Tekes allocates abouthalf the financing granted to companies, universities and research insti-tutes through the programmes. Tekes programmes have been contribut-ing to changes in the Finnish innovation environment for twenty years.

Copyright Tekes 2008. All rights reserved.This publication includes materials protected under copyright law, thecopyright for which is held by Tekes or a third party. The materialsappearing in publications may not be used for commercial purposes. Thecontents of publications are the opinion of the writers and do not representthe official position of Tekes. Tekes bears no responsibility for any possibledamages arising from their use. The original source must be mentionedwhen quoting from the materials.

ISSN 1797-7347ISBN 978-952-457-430-3

Cover: Oddball Graphics OyPage layout: DTPage OyPrinters: Libris Oy, 2008

www.dtpage.fi

Foreword

The EU Framework Programmes (FPs) aim at strengthening the scientific andtechnological basis of European Industry and enhancing competitiveness at theinternational level. Besides, they promote socio-economic targets: sustainabledevelopment, increased cohesion and enhanced employment prospects. Thus,the FPs have both supported the science and technology base and covered otherpolicy objectives as well.

The Sixth Framework programme (FP6) was carried out 2002–06. Especially, itaimed at promoting the creation of the European Research Area, since the Euro-pean R&D landscape has been quite fragmented. Like the earlier generations ofFPs, FP6 has targeted research in areas which strengthen the competitiveness of theEuropean economy, solve societal problems and implement other EU policies.

The goal of this evaluation study has been to evaluate the status of Finnish partici-pation in FP6 and to propose recommendations for the future. The main objec-tives of the evaluation were: to evaluate the participation of Finnish partners inFP6, to analyse and collect information on the key-figures related to the partici-pation, to analyse Finnish participation in three thematic sectors (ICT, energyand environment, the forest-based field) and, to give recommendations for theimplementation of FP7 and beyond.

The key evaluation questions focused on the following topics:1. Effectiveness and results of participating in FP62. Added value of FP funding and its connection to national funding3. Match with Finnish needs and ability to influence in EU level4. Interaction of national and EU level innovation policy5. Communication and information services

The evaluation was carried out by a consortium led by Net Effect Ltd. We wish toexpress our warmest thanks to the Evaluation Team: Soile Kuitunen, Katri Haila,Ilpo Kauppinen, Mikko Syrjänen, Juha Vanhanen, Paavo-Petri Ahonen, IlkkaTuomi, Pekka Kettunen and Teemu Paavola. We also like to present our gratitudeto the Steering Committee members for providing a supportive and discussive in-teraction forum for the evaluation. Finally, we thank all the survey respondents, in-terviewees and workshop participants for their time and views that made the evalu-ation possible. We hope to see the results to be utilised both in national strategicwork and at EU level in their forthcoming evaluation activities.

Helsinki, August 2008

Tekes, Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation

Abstract

This study reports the evaluation of Finnish partic-ipation in the EU Sixth Framework Programme(2002–2006) (hereafter referred to as FP6). Threethematic fields, energy and environment, forest,and ICT have been analysed in more detail.

In FP6, the number of Finnish participations was1, 440. Since FP5, both the total number of Finn-ish projects and participations has declined andthe FP consortia have become larger according tothe aim of the Framework Programmes. Most sig-nificant thematic priority areas in terms of thenumber of projects and participations and interms of the funding received have been Priority 2(Information society technologies), Priority 6(Sustainable development, global change andecosystems), Priority 1 (Life sciences, genomicsand biotechnology for health), and Priority 3(Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowl-edge-based multifunctional materials and newproduction processes and devices), while corre-sponding shares of other areas remained smaller.

The declined number of Finnish participationtends to be associated with the enhanced successand satisfaction among the project partners. TheFPs have become commonplace for Finnish or-ganisations performing and utilizing research.The expectations related to FPs have becomemore realistic and Finns are now better equippedto take part in the international collaboration andconstitution of multinational partnerships. Be-sides providing R&D&I actors with relevant fi-nancial resources to carry out projects in interna-tional consortia, FPs are considered highly im-portant expedients of fostering internationalisa-tion and globalisation of R&D&I networks andvalue chains.

The three thematic fields analyzed in more detailindicate well established networks that in manycases could be called strategic partnerships. Theresults also suggest that project benefits would bebiggest when the project partners know eachother from previous projects. Networking bene-fits from FP projects are most important for re-search organisations, because companies haveother types of business networks as well. In theforest-based field Finnish industry and research-ers were to some extent unaware of the possibili-ties that FP6 offered for the forest-based sector.On the other hand the interviewees shared a viewthat the actors in the sector were not very active intheir own efforts either. Better national orchestra-tion and strategy work would have provided morepossibilities for influencing the calls and sharinginformation on the possibilities. In the ICT sec-tor, large IP projects with strong mobile commu-nications components form one of the cores ofFinnish IST projects. In health care ICT the Finn-ish participation was unexpectedly low and itclearly indicates that Finnish partners have notbeen able to link to the core networks within thefield. A key difference between the three the-matic fields is in the role of EU and national poli-cies in the development of the sector. In the en-ergy and environment sector, EU level policy is ina central position and hence there are also jointresearch interests.

In general, EU FPs are an excellent means forpromoting multi-level governance in the realmof R&D&I by bringing knowledge producersand users together and influencing the condi-tions and functions of them at various levels ofthe governance system. Furthermore, morecomplex linkages between various actors and in-

stitutions within the multi-level governance sys-tem should be recognised. The regional and lo-cal actors need to be involved and their opinionsheard in order to assure the legitimacy and at-tractiveness of the FPs.

The work by the staff of the Finnish Secretariatfor EU R&D, National Contact Points, adminis-

trative personnel at the universities and researchinstitutes is of high quality. However, there is aneed to further develop communication tools tofoster the participation of companies in the FPs.The Finnish Secretariat for EU R&D could alsowork more strategically with other organisa-tions and the media to encourage increased visi-bility of FPs.

Contents

Foreword

Abstract

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Objectives of the evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.3 Evaluation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.4 The report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Evolution of Finnish participation in the EU FrameworkProgrammes / Features of Finnish participation in the SixthFramework Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1 Finnish participation in EU Framework Programmes . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.2 Finnish participation in the EU Sixth Framework Programme . . . . . 5

2.3 Networks under Priority area 1 (life sciences, genomics andbiotechnology for health) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3 Goals, successfulness and outcomes of the projects . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.1 Assessment of the significance of various goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.2 Most significant results and outcomes of the projects . . . . . . . . . 14

3.3 Challenges and strengths in the networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.4 Additionality and added value of the Framework Programmesand projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4 Assessment of the communication and diffusion of knowledge . . . 23

5 Framework Programmes in the multi-level governance ofscience and technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

6 Thematic analyses: energy and environment, forest, and ICT . . . . . 29

6.1 Introduction to thematic analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6.2 Energy and environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

6.3 The forest-based field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

6.4 IST projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

6.5 ICT applications in health care products and services . . . . . . . . . 68

6.6 Case: ARTEMIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

7 Conclusions and policy recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Tekes’ Programme Reports in English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

So far, the increased Finnish participation in theEuropean Framework Programme has played akey role in the internationalisation of FinnishR&D. This study reports the evaluation of Finn-ish participation in the EU Sixth FrameworkProgramme (2002-2006) (hereafter referred to asFP6). The main purpose of the evaluation was toexamine the results of Finnish participation inFP6. Furthermore, the added value of FrameworkProgramme funding, communication, and the in-teraction of national and EU level innovation pol-icy have been evaluated.

Three thematic fields, energy and environment,forest, and ICT have been analysed in more detailand are reported separately in Chapter 6. Thesethematic fields were selected by Tekes as inter-esting and important topics for Finland. In thefield of energy and environment, the BioenergyNetwork of Excellence (NoE) was a case to studythe effects of NoEs on the Finnish R&D environ-ment. The forest-based field was chosen as a the-matic field from the viewpoint of how this indus-trial sector, which is one of the most important forFinland, is fostered by FP6. However, in FP6, theforest-based field was not represented as a sepa-rate priority thematic area. The forest sector,which has strong traditions in Finland, is cur-rently renewing and is more active towards Euro-pean dimension. ICT was selected as an exampleof a field, which is both a strong sector in Finlandand has strong EU networks. In FP6, informationsociety technologies (IST) was one of the prioritythematic areas. ARTEMIS (Advanced Researchon Technology for Embedded Intelligence andSystems) was chosen as an example of EuropeanJoint Technology Initiatives.

The evaluation also depicts the development ofFinnish participation in the FrameworkProgrammes from 1987. As reported in the evalu-

ation of Finnish participation in the EU FifthFramework Programme (Uotila et al. 2004),Finnish participation increased substantiallyfrom FP2 to FP4. In FP5, both the total number ofprojects and participations declined. Instead, thetotal amount of funding increased from FP2 toFP5. This trend in Finland has been similar to theEuropean trend. It should be noted that the Euro-pean Commission has put emphasis on financinglarger projects since FP4. On the other hand,there is an increasing number of nations partici-pating in the FPs.

The evaluation was arranged and funded byTekes. The organisation of the evaluation com-prised the evaluation team and the steering com-mittee. The evaluation was conducted under thesupervision of a steering committee. The Steer-ing Committee members were Pekka Pesonen(Tekes), Mikko Pitkänen (Tekes), Mirja Arajärvi(Ministry of Education), Antti Joensuu / PaulaNybergh (Ministry of Trade and Industry) andHeikki Holopainen / Saara Leppinen (Academyof Finland).

1.2 Objectives of the evaluation

The purpose of this assessment was to evaluatethe status of Finnish participation in FP6, and topropose recommendations as appropriate. Themain objectives of the evaluation were:• to evaluate the participation of Finnish part-

ners in the Sixth Framework Programme,• to analyse and collect information on the

key-figures related to the participation,• to give recommendations for the implementa-

tion of the Seventh Framework Programmeand for preparation of the forthcoming EighthFramework Programme, and

• to analyse Finnish participation in three the-matic sectors: ICT, energy and environment,and the forest-based field.

1

The key evaluation questions focused on the fol-lowing topics:1. Effectiveness and results of participating in

the Sixth Framework Programme2. Added value of Framework Programme fund-

ing and its connection to national funding3. Match with Finnish needs and ability to influ-

ence in EU level4. Interaction of national and EU level innova-

tion policy5. Communication and information services.

The results of the evaluation – conclusions andrecommendations – will be used by Tekes andother public organisations to develop national ef-forts to utilise the EU Framework Programme.

1.3 Evaluation process

The evaluation was carried out by a consortiumled by Net Effect Ltd. The evaluation team mem-bers were Soile Kuitunen, Katri Haila and IlpoKauppinen (Net Effect Ltd), Mikko Syrjänen,Juha Vanhanen and Paavo-Petri Ahonen (GaiaConsulting Ltd), Ilkka Tuomi (Meaning Pro-cessing Ltd), Pekka Kettunen (University ofTampere) and Teemu Paavola (LifeIT Plc).

The evaluation was based on information derivedfrom desk research, surveys, workshops and in-terviews. Tekes provided different sources of dataon FP6 contracts. The database used in this analy-sis contained information and data on more than74,000 participants in some 10,100 FP6 con-tracts. The data consisted of information on the1,008 FP6 funded projects participated in or co-ordinated by Finnish organisations. The databasealso described the types of organisations thathave received funding, the eligible costs and theprojects. Information on the different types of or-ganisations that received funding and the type offunding sorted by the key elements: specificprogramme, funding instrument and priority areaare covered in the analysis.

The survey was sent to 956 contact persons ofFP6 funded projects. A total of 316 answers werereceived (33%). The workshops focused mainlyon recommendations for the next FrameworkProgrammes as well as on producing ideas ofhow to better integrate EU and national level in-novation policy. Workshops were organized inthe three thematic fields (ICT, energy and envi-ronment and forest) as well as for the develop-ment of Finnish strategic work as a whole.

Interviews were conducted with FP6 partici-pants, officials who were involved in FP6 admin-istration, representatives of ministries, fundingorganisations, universities, research institutesand companies. The interviews, in turn, focusedon how to get more detailed information on thepractical experiences such as networking andEU-level cooperation. The evaluation team inter-viewed a total of 28 people.

1.4 The report

The present report begins with an Introduction,which describes the background, objectives andthe process of the evaluation. The following fivechapters describe the outcome of the evaluation:(2) Evolution of Finnish participation in the EUFramework Programmes, (3) Goals, successful-ness and outcomes of the projects, (4) Assess-ment of the communication and diffusion ofknowledge, and (5) Framework Programmes inthe multi-level governance of science and tech-nology. The thematic analyses are reported sepa-rately in Chapter 6. This chapter is based on Finn-ish participation in ICT, energy and environment,and forest. The concluding chapter (7) summa-rizes the conclusions and recommendations ofthe whole evaluation process.

2

2 Evolution of Finnish participationin the EU Framework Programmes /Features of Finnish participationin the EU Sixth Framework Programme

2.1 Finnish participation in EUFramework Programmes

Finnish involvement in the FPs

Finland has been involved in EU FrameworkProgrammes since 1987, and participation has in-creased substantially after Finland joined the Eu-ropean Union as a full member state in 1995.However, the years of growth in Finnish partici-pation came to a halt during FP5, and both the to-tal number of projects and the number ofparticipations has declined during FP5 and FP6(Figure 1).

Although both the number of projects and thenumber of participations have been declining, the

total amount of funding received from the Frame-work Programmes shows an increasing trend,which indicates a growth in project size (Figure2). In April 2008, Finnish organisations partici-pated in a total of 1,008 FP6 projects. The totalamount of funding received by Finland from FP6is about 342 million euros. There are usually nu-merous Finnish participants in projects, and thenumber of Finnish participations in the FP6 was1, 440.

Figure 3 below shows Finnish participation in theEU Framework Programmes by type of organiza-tion until April 2008. Research centres and uni-versities have been among the most active Finn-ish participants, although the share of research in-stitutes has gradually declined since FP2. In FP6,

3

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 FP6

Number of projects

Number ofparticipations

Figure 1. Finnish participation in EU Framework Programmes.

the relative share of small and medium-sized en-terprises (SMEs) had declined after FP5. Previ-ously, the relative share of SMEs had shown anincreasing trend from FP2 to FP5. The share oflarge companies declined rapidly after FP2 andhas been relatively low since. As shown in Figure3, the share of SMEs is even lower than the share

of large companies. Instead, the share of the cate-gory “other” shows an increasing trend. This cat-egory primarily consists of public and private ad-ministration organisations such as hospital asso-ciations, local authorities, foundations and indus-trial associations.

4

2003

2004

2005

0Firms Higher

Educationsector

Public sectorincludingnon-profit

organizations

Total

20

40

60

80

100

120

Figure 2. EU R&D expenditure by type of research sector in Finland in 2003–2005, million Euros (Source: Statistics Finland).

Large firms

SMEs

Research institutes

Higher education

Other

FP3 FP4 FP5 FP60

20

10

5

30

40

45%

35

25

15

FP2

Figure 3. The evolution of Finnish participation in EU Framework Programmesby type of organisation, % of total number of participants.

2.2 Finnish participation inthe EU Sixth FrameworkProgramme

Finnish participation and fundingreceived by thematic priority areas

Table 1 presents Finnish participation in FP6 bythematic priority areas. Most significant of thethematic areas both in terms of the number of pro-jects and participations and in terms of the fund-ing received has been Priority 2 (Information so-ciety technologies). The priority covered 21 per-cent of all projects participated in by Finnish or-ganisations, 23 percent of all Finnish partici-pations and 25 percent of the funding contributedto Finnish partners. Other significant thematicpriority areas were Priority 6 (Sustainable devel-opment, global change and ecosystems), Priority1 (Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology forhealth), and Priority 3 (Nanotechnologies andnanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctionalmaterials and new production processes and de-vices), while corresponding shares of other areasremained smaller.

Industry participation was most active under thepriority of active horizontal research activities in-volving SMEs. Under the priority, participationsby businesses amounted to 55 percent of allparticipations. Other priority areas with rela-tively active industry participation were Priority3 (Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowl-edge-based multifunctional materials and newproduction processes and devices) and Priority 2(Information society technologies), under whichbusinesses accounted of 33 percent and 30 per-cent of all participations.

Table 3 presents the Finnish participation in FP6by the types of participating organisations. Thelargest share of the funding received by Finnishorganisations was spent by higher education or-ganisations (universities) and research institutes,37.4 percent, and 26.3 percent of the total contri-bution to all Finnish partners. The correspondingfigures for large firms and SMEs were 10.6 per-cent and 16.3 percent.

Universities and research institutes were also themost active participants in terms of participationswith shares of 40 percent and 23 percent of allFinnish participations.

2.3 Networks under Priority area 1(life sciences, genomics andbiotechnology for health)

In this section, we review Finnish participation inPriority area 1, life sciences, genomics and bio-technology for health. The purpose of the reviewis to give an example of what kind of networkscan be generated as an outcome of the pro-gramme, while more profound analysis is out ofthe scope of the evaluation at hand. Moreover,networks generated under Priority area 2 (Infor-mation society technologies) are examined insection 6.

There were 127 Finnish participations and 96separate projects with Finnish participants underPriority area 1, and the priority covered roughly10 percent of all Finnish projects and 9 percent ofFinnish participations. Overall, the 96 Finnishprojects under the priority area created a networkof 1,695 participations from approximately 830distinct organisations, as project partners oftenparticipated in several projects.

The overall participant network structure of Pri-ority 1 projects involving Finnish participantscan be seen from Figure 4. The figure presentsblocks of participants with two or more Finnishprojects under Priority 1 by country and type oforganisation. The organisation category re-search refers to both universities and researchinstitutes.

To examine the activity of the organisations indifferent blocks of actors, the concept of degreecentrality is useful. Simply put, degree centralityrefers to the number of direct connections a nodehas with other nodes in a network. A node is inthis case an organisation with two or more Finn-ish projects under priority 1. In the figure, the sizeof a block refers to the centrality of the particular

5

6

Priority area Number ofFinnish projects

% of all Finnishprojects

Number ofparticipations

% of all Finnishparticipations

1. Life sciences, genomics andbiotechnology for health

96 10% 127 9%

2. Information societytechnologies

211 21% 330 23%

3. Nanotechnologies and nano-sciences, knowledge-basedmultifunctional materials andnew production processesand devices

91 9% 156 11%

4. Aeronautics and space 13 1% 15 1%

5. Food quality and safety 40 4% 51 4%

6. Sustainable development,global change and ecosystems

128 13% 201 14%

7. Citizens and governance ina knowledge-based society

33 3% 36 3%

Policy support and anticipatingscientific and technologicalneeds

83 8% 96 7%

Horizontal research activitiesinvolving SMEs

60 6% 104 7%

Specific measures in supportof international cooperation

12 1% 16 1%

Support for the coordinationof activities

45 4% 57 4%

Support for the coherentdevelopment of research &innovation policies

1 0% 1 0%

Research and innovation 28 3% 45 3%

Human resources and mobility 97 10% 109 8%

Research infrastructures 24 2% 31 2%

Science and society 15 1% 19 1%

Euratom 31 3% 46 3%

Undefined 0 0% 0 0%

Total 1008 100% 1440 100%

Table 1. Finnish participation by Priority Areas (Source: EU Commission database for FP6 contractsand participants).

7

Priority area EC financialcontribution to

Finnish partners(‘000 euros)

Finnish share ofcontribution to

Finnish partnersunder all priority

areas (%)

Finnish share ofcontribution topartners in all

countries underthe particular

priority area (%)

1. Life sciences, genomics andbiotechnology for health

45 446.9 13.3% 1.9%

2. Information society technologies 86 369.5 25.2% 2.3%

3. Nanotechnologies and nanosciences,knowledge-based multifunctionalmaterials and new productionprocesses and devices

46 186.9 13.5% 3.0%

4. Aeronautics and space 3 329.7 1.0% 0.3%

5. Food quality and safety 15 001.7 4.4% 2.0%

6. Sustainable development,global change and ecosystems

58 516.6 17.1% 2.6%

7. Citizens and governance ina knowledge-based society

4 163.6 1.2% 1.7%

Policy support and anticipatingscientific and technological needs

12 275.6 3,6% 2.0%

Horizontal research activities involvingSMEs

8 492.1 2.5% 1.8%

Specific measures in support ofinternational cooperation

3 131.5 0.9% 0.9%

Support for the coordinationof activities

11 305.9 3.3% 3.9%

Support for the coherent developmentof research & innovation policies

93.8 0.0% 0.7%

Research and innovation 4 287.4 1.3% 1.9%

Human resources and mobility 27 977.6 8.2% 1.7%

Research infrastructures 7 520.2 2.2% 1.0%

Science and society 1 436.0 0.4% 1.8%

Euratom 6 851.6 2.0% 3.7%

Undefined 0.0 0.0%

Total 342 386.6 100% 2.1%

Table 2. The amount of funding to Finnish partners by thematic priority areas (Source: EU-commis-sion database for FP6 contracts and participants).

8

Type of organisation Number ofparticipations

% ofparticipations

EC financialcontribution to

Finnish partners(‘000 euros)

% of contributionto all Finnish

partners

Higher education 539 37.4% 146 485.9 42.8%

Large firms 152 10.6% 48 570.5 14.2%

Research institutes 378 26.3% 94 692.8 27.7%

SMEs 235 16.3% 31 103.2 9.1%

Other 126 8.8% 20 182.8 5.9%

Undefined 10 0.7% 1 351.4 0.4%

Total 1440 100% 342 386,6 100%

Table 3. Finnish participation and the amount of funding by the type of the participating organiza-tion (Source: EU Commission database for FP6 contracts and participants as well as database forthe Finnish Secretariat for EU R&D).

Austria research

Austria other

Australia research

Belgium researchBelgium industry

Belgiumother

Canada research

Switzerland research

Switzerland industry

Switzerland other

Czech research

Germany research

Germanyindustry

Germany other

Denmark research

Denmark industry

Estonia research

Estonia other

Greece research

Spain research

Spain other

European Union research

Finland research

Finland industry

Finland other

France research

France industry

France other

Hungary research

Hungary other

Ireland research

Israel research

Israel other

Italy research

Italyother

Luxembourg research

Netherlands research

Netherlands industry

Netherlandsother

Norway research

Polandresearch

Poland other

Portugal research RussianresearchSweden research

Sweden industry

Sweden other

UK research

UK industry

UK other

Figure 4. Participants of Priority area 1 (life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health)projects involving Finnish participants.

block; the bigger the block, the more central itsposition in the network.1 As can be seen from thepicture, the organisations with high centrality aremostly research institutes and universities,whereas organisations in the categories industryand other are usually less central. Finnish univer-sities and research institutes are among the mostcentral blocks. It should be noted however thatonly projects with Finnish participants are in-cluded in the analysis, and the position of Finnishorganisations would be less central if all the pro-jects under the priority area would be concerned.

To get a more precise picture of the central actorsunder the priority, the blocks presented in Figure4 were divided into five clusters based on thenumber of common projects between the organi-sations in the blocks. The blocks in the clusterwith the largest share of common projects arepresented in Figure 5. As can be seen from the

picture, Finnish research institutes and universi-ties have been mostly partnering in projects withcorresponding organisations from other EUmember countries.

In order to find the most central organisations,Freemans degree centrality measure was calcu-lated for independent organisations in the cluster.Figure 6 presents the measure for the ten mostcentral organisations. As can be seen from thefigure, the most central were the KarolinskaInstitutet from Sweden, the Institut National de laSante Médicale (INSERM) from France and theUniversity of Helsinki. The same three organisa-tions are the most central ones also when it comesto the number of projects under Priority 1. Inter-estingly, the order is opposite as the University ofHelsinki participated in a total of 37 projects, theKarolinska Institutet in 30 and the Institut Na-tional de la Sante Médicale in 30 projects.

9

Austria research

Belgium research

Switzerland research

Germany research

Denmark research

Spain research

Finland research

France research

France other

Israel research

Italy research

Sweden research

Netherlands research

UK research

Figure 5. Blocks with the most dense cooperation (Priority area 1; life sciences, genomicsand biotechnology for health) projects involving Finnish participants.

1 The measure of centrality used was Freemans degree centrality measure calculated from the data.

10

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Max-P , GERMANYlanck-Gesellschaft

Universitaet Basel, SWITZERLAND

Universiteit Leiden, NETHERLANDS

Universite Catholique de Louvain, BELGIUM

Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine,UNITED KINGDOM

University College London, UNITED KINGDOM

Lund University, SWEDEN

University of Helsinki, FINLAND

Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale,FRANCE

Karolinska institutet, SWEDEN

Figure 6. The most central organisations in projects involving Finnish participants (Priority area 1;life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health).

3 Goals, successfulness and outcomes ofthe projects

3.1 Assessment of the signifi-cance of various goals

In the EU Framework Programmes, the generalaim, as defined by the Single European Act in1986 and the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, is tostrengthen the scientific and technological basisof European Industry and enhance competitive-ness at the international level. Besides these aims,the FPs are to promote a wide variety of socio-economic targets, encompassing a healthier envi-ronment, reduction of energy consumption andenhancement of sustainable development, in-creased cohesion, and enhanced employmentprospects. R&D activities co-funded by the FPsare thus not limited to supporting the science andtechnology base of the industries but cover otherpolicy objectives as well, with particular focus onthe aims related to societal and economic cohe-sion and the well-being of European citizens.2

In FP6, the main objective is to promote the cre-ation of the European Research Area (ERA). Instriving for the aim, the FP is to improve the inte-gration and co-ordination of research in Europe,which currently remains too fragmented. The sec-ond major aim is to target research in such areasand thematics which contribute to strengtheningthe competitiveness of the European economy, tosolving societal problems and to the formulationand implementation of other EU policies.3

In charting the transformation of the FrameworkProgrammes over a longer time-span, it becomes

obvious that the programmes have moved to-wards a greater technology-orientation that ismore market-oriented. This observation is con-firmed by the study which assessed Finnish par-ticipation in FP5. It was observed in the evalua-tion of FP5 that firms reported more commer-cially significant results compared to previousprogrammes4.

In this section our intention is to chart the signifi-cance of various objectives among the projectparticipants involved in FP6 and match these withthe more general aims of the programmes. Table4 shows the number of applications and the num-ber of funded projects under different pro-grammes. The success rate (i.e. the ratio of thenumber of funded projects to the number of appli-cations) was 28 percent. Finnish applicants weremost successful in following programmes:

• COORDINATION (success rate 70 percent)• FISSION (success rate 78 percent)• POLICY SUPPORT (success rate 46 percent).

whereas applications under following programmeshad success rates that were significantly lower thanaverage:

• INCO (success rate 16 percent)• NEST (success rate 14 percent).

Applications for projects with a Finnish organi-zation as a coordinator had a success rate of 22per cent, and were thus slightly less successfulthan applications in general.

11

2 European Commission (2003): Third European Report on Science and Technology Indicators 2003. Towardsa Knowledge-Based Economy. Brussels: European Commission.

3 The Sixth Framework Programme in brief. December 2002 Edition. European Commission.

4 Kutinlahti, Pirjo (2006): Universities Approaching Market. Intertwining scientific and entrepreneurial goals.VTT Publications 589.

Table 4. Success rates per each programme5.

For enterprises, the business-related goals werethe most significant, whereas for research organi-sations the aims attached to knowledge creationwere considered most important. We are not ableto assess the possible changes in the assessmentof the importance of single targets due to the factthat the classifications used in the studies con-cerning Finnish participation in FPs differ fromeach other somewhat. In any case, it is interesting

to notice that there are significant differences be-tween the important targets set by SMEs and bigcompanies. SMEs most highly value the creationof new products, whereas the most important tar-get for large enterprises is gaining prestige andvisibility for the organisation (66% and 73%).The three most important aims are neverthelessthe same for both big and small enterprises, as thetable below demonstrates.

12

Programme Number ofapplications

Number offunded projects

Number ofapplications for

projects witha Finnish coordinator

Number of fundedprojects with

a Finnish coordinator

LIFESCIHEALTH 306 97 44 10

IST 1007 222 131 22

NMP 501 107 75 14

AERO 36 14 4 0

FOOD 129 43 12 6

ENERGY 143 59 15 8

TRANSPORT 111 47 11 6

ECOSYSTEMS 200 50 29 4

CITIZENS 207 36 26 1

POLICY SUPPORT 164 75 18 7

NEST 112 16 21 3

SME 418 164 72 32

INCO 84 13 29 3

COORDINATION 64 45 11 8

INNOVATION 84 29 8 3

MOBILITY 529 96 239 42

INFRASTRUCTURES 83 25 17 2

SCIENCE & SOCIETY 94 27 24 2

FISSION 49 38 3 3

Total 4321 1203 789 176

5 NB. The figures presented in Table 1 are preliminary. Source: Tekes.

13

Type of organisation FP6 % FP5 % FP4 %

Small andmedium-sizedenterprises

New contacts 79% Monitoring S&Tdevelopment

89% New contacts 61%

Internationalcooperation

76% Europeancooperation


58%

New product ornew feature intoexisting product

67% New contacts 65% Monitoring S&Tdevelopment

58%

Research funding 55%

Big companies Monitoring S&Tdevelopment

93% Monitoring S&Tdevelopment


62%


93% New contacts 59% New contacts 53%

Deepening ofcollaboration



43%

Research centres Internationalcooperation

95% Research funding 86% New scientificknowledge

69%

New scientificknowledge

90% New scientificknowledge




71% Added visibility orprestige

59%

Europeancooperation

71%

Universities Internationalcooperation


77%

New contacts 88% New scientificknowledge


60%




New scientificknowledge

86%

Non-profitorganisations


95% Dissemination ofresearch results


58%

New contacts 89% Europeancooperation


Gettinginternationalknowledge intoFinland



38%

Table 5. The evolution of the three most important objectives related to FP participation since FP4(share of those respondents who consider the objective important, %).

The tendency towards business-related goalsamong firms may indicate that the firms takingpart in the projects are increasingly expectingmore straightforward returns from the Frame-work Programmes.

3.2 Most significant results andoutcomes of the projects

The impact of research collaboration in the EUFPs has been intensively studied6. Finnish partic-ipation has been assessed more thoroughly sinceFP4 because it was the first programme Finnishorganisations were fully eligible to participate indue to Finland’s accession to the EU.

Achievement of goals

In the survey addressed to FP6 participants, weassessed to what extent projects are expected toreach their targets. The respondents were asked toestimate the achievements they had already ob-tained and are still expecting to achieve. Whencompared to the results of the evaluation of FP4and FP3 concerning Finnish participation we areable to notice some differences between the FPs.

The most often obtained objectives for big com-panies as well as for SMEs were internationalco-operation, new contacts and monitoring S&Tdevelopment. The same observation held true for

the most part for FP5, although added visibilityand prestige were no longer among the three mostoften achieved targets. Patents, licenses and newbusiness activities are among those business-re-lated objectives that SMEs most often reportwere not reached at all. For large enterprises, newbusiness activities and licenses are considered themost difficult to reach.

The most important benefitsgained through participation

In the survey, the respondents were asked to iden-tify the single most important advantage theygained through the participation in the FP project.Our analysis shows interesting but not very sur-prising results. A clear majority, 60 percent, ofthe project participants conceived networkingand collaboration being the major benefit which aresult is in conformity with the other observationsgathered in the survey. In the survey, respondentsreferred stressed the role of the new contacts anddeepening of the existing networks.

Other important benefits attained were access to fi-nancial resources and internationalization of the re-searchers and organisations alike. Approximately10 percent of the respondents having identified ben-efits mentioned financial resources as one of themajor advantages FPs have brought about.

Successfulness of the projects

The project participants were asked to assess thesuccessfulness of their projects from two differ-ent angles. First, we asked the participants toevaluate the successfulness of the collaborationbetween the project partners, and second, weasked the respondents to evaluate the successful-ness of their project from the viewpoint of theirown organisation.

Survey results show that the majority of the par-ticipants considered their projects and the collab-oration between partners successful. Almost 70percent of the respondents (67%) answered that

14

Big SME

Gaining prestige and visibilityfor the organisation

73% 64%

Enlargement of the market 64% 51%

New product 60% 60%

Table 6. The three most important business-related goals for big and small companies(share of those respondents consideringthe target rather or highly significant).

6 See e.g. Montgolfier & Husson 1995; Kutinlahti 2006; Luukkonen & Niskanen 1998; Ohler et. Al. 1998; Niskanen2001; Luukkonen & Hälikkä 2000; Uotila et. Al. 2004.

15

Type of organisation FP6 % FP5 % FP4 %

Small andmedium-sizedenterprises

N = 26-33

N=24 N=111

New contacts 79 % Added visibility orprestige

88 % Monitoring S&Tdevelopment

83 %


76 % Europeancooperation

80 % New contacts 78 %

Monitoring S&Tdevelopment

62 % Monitoring S&Tdevelopment

80 % Added visibility orprestige

77 %

Research funding 77 %

Big companies N=20-22 N=55 N=164


85% New contacts 93% Monitoring S&Tdevelopment

77%

New contacts 81% Monitoring S&Tdevelopment

89% Research funding 72%




Research centres N=68-77 N=138 N=223

New contacts 88% Added visibility orprestige


89%




83%




Universities N=99-107 N=115 N=200



94% Publications 92%

New contacts 87% Added visibility orprestige


86%



84%


85% Publications 91% Monitoring S&Tdevelopment

83%

Non-profitorganisations

N=11-16 N=16 N=77

New contacts 94% Dissemination ofresearch results


83%




New modes ofaction

85% New orsubstantiallyimprovedresearch methodsor equipment


70%

Table 7. The evolution of the three most often achieved targets since FP4 (percentages of thoserespondents who considered the objective was achieved or can be achieved).

the project was successful from the organisa-tion’s viewpoint. 61 percent of the respondentsconsidered that the collaboration between thepartners went well.

Quite surprisingly, previous participation experi-ences did not explain the project success to a largeextent, although respondents from organisationswith previous experience of participation were alittle more positive when evaluating the success-fulness of their projects than those from organisa-tions without previous experience at all. The ob-servation held true also in the evaluation of FP4.In addition, some international evaluations pin-point that there is no direct connection betweenprevious involvement in the Framework Pro-grammes and project success (Ohler et al. 1997,85). Nevertheless, our study, as well as the studyconducted concerning the Finnish participationin FP4, shows that involvement in previousprogramme helps in the planning of the project,in the formulation of the application and in net-working with the partners (See, Luukkonen &Hälikkä 2000, 37-38).

Our study confirms the previous findings (Luuk-konen & Hälikkä 2000, 37) in the respect thatknowing at least some of the partners before-hand is related to project success. As the surveyresults gathered from Finnish participation inFP6 indicate, most of the participants knew theirpartners beforehand. Only 2 percent of the re-spondents had not had collaboration at all withthe partners before starting the project, whereas73 percent of participants had had a significantamount of collaboration with the project part-ners. Finnish participants consider themselvesrelatively influential in the collaboration in therespect that they are able to adjust the content ofthe project plan in line with the aims and objec-tives of their own organisation.

The ability to influence the content is related toproject success as well. Those participants whocan exert most influence consider their projectsmore successful. Finnish participants are not

however necessarily the initiators of the projects.Less than half of the respondents (43%) answeredthat they were active at the initiation stage. Al-most 15 percent were not active at all. Being ac-tive in initiation also seems to affect the success-fulness of the project, as those respondents whohad been active in the initiation phase consideredtheir project as being slightly more successfulthan others.

3.3 Challenges and strengthsin the networking

The FP6 projects are explicitly partnerships ornetworks. This is a typical organisational formfor projects, and also used more and more in gen-eral. Yet, a network is not an easy form of organi-sation. The recent literature on network gover-nance highlights a number of factors either en-hancing or constraining the functioning of net-works. Below is a delineation of the survey re-sults interpreted from the viewpoint of networkgovernance.

According to our survey, the factors most disturb-ing to the survey respondents (either greatly orwith some disadvantage) are:• Different objectives / interests of the project

partners (43%)• Differences in the level of commitment of

the project partners (43%)• The lack of clarity between partners’ own

objectives and targets (42%)• Inadequacy of funding (41%).

Seen from another angle, the single most severeproblem was “too large a consortium” (15% ofthe respondents considered this as a great disad-vantage). We can compare this problem with theprevious framework program evaluations. In theevaluation reports of the FP4 “too large a consor-tium” is also amongst the most mentioned prob-lems, and in the evaluation of the FP5 there is anextensive discussion on the benefits and disad-vantages of large consortiums7. The conclusion

16

7 Luukkonen, Terttu & Sasu Hälikkä. 2000. Knowledge Creation and Knowledge Diffusion Networks. FinnishSecretariat for EU R&D 1/2000.

in the latter, however, is that excessive projectsize has not been seen to be problematic in FP5.The size as such is not a mechanical variable,rather it is dependent on other factors like spatialdistance, variance in interests such as disciplinesand so forth. However, the fact that the question israised gives reason to consider whether large con-sortiums are always good. We seem to underesti-mate the potential tension between the membersof the network. The larger the network, the morelikely these kinds of problems will occur. An-other question is whether the problems withmaintaining the order in a network pose a solv-able challenge or not.

The first problem, “different objectives / inter-ests of the project partners” is interesting. Afterall, networks are established in order to aggre-gate the expertise of its members. If this causes aproblem, it implies that the working plan and theoverall management of the project have not fo-cused sufficiently on this basic issue. The sec-ond problem, commitments, overlaps the firstone. Members who do not get sufficient re-sponse for their preferences do not becomestrongly committed to the project goals. Thethird most common problem is not particular fornetworks. Additional funding is always wel-comed. Compared to the evaluation results ofFP48 it is important to note that the “reliability ofthe project partners in carrying out differenttasks”, which then is considered to cause prob-lems by over 60 percent of the respondents in thesurvey at hand is considered to be a disadvantageby only 21 percent of the respondents. The resultprobably reflects the fact that FPs have become acommon place for R&D&I actors to collaboratewith each other and a large share of the partnersknow each other. A common history and experi-ences gathered through successful co-operationconstitute a good basis for future collaborationin FPs. The slow trust builds upon experiences

gathered through a number of collaborative pro-jects and activities.

Organisations, including projects and networks,differ and the differences usually reflect the spe-cific environment they are situated in. Hence bu-reaucracies differ from advertising enterprises.Scientific projects are closer to a turbulent worldthan to a stable world. Innovations and scientificresults usually demand some level of conflict.The proper level is a delicate matter. Some recentinnovation paradigms argue that innovation is thecombining of previously unfamiliar elements. Inany case, the crucial factor for the internal effec-tiveness of the network may be the capacity tocreate a common commitment toward the contentof the network, even if the actual approaches tothat content may be substantially different9.

Scientific communities (epistemic communities)have typically strong integration, given thatmembers have already been socialized into a pro-fession that defines the important questions, atthe same time, they may have difficulties interact-ing with other networks. Even internal networksshould manage variety rather than downplay it.Heterogenic interests may indicate that the net-work has difficulties finding mutual solutions.But, a high degree of consensus may mean thatthere is no room for deviating perceptions, prefer-ences and interests, no room for innovation andno room for competition and excellence. Conflictmay fulfill a number of positive functions, too10.

The issues having no effect for most of the FPproject representatives were the following:• Changes in your organization’s own objects

and targets (66%)• The different technological solutions and stan-

dards undertaken by the partners (64%)• Poor / unsuitable instruments for transferring

information and “know-how” (62%).

17

8 Luukkonen, Terttu & Sasu Hälikkä. 2000. Knowledge Creation and Knowledge Diffusion Networks. FinnishSecretariat for EU R&D 1/2000.

9 Peters, Guy B. 2007. Virtuous and Vicious Circles in Democratic Network Governance. In Eva Sorensen & JacobTorfing, editors, Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan,p. 61-91.

10 Koppenjan, Joop. 2007. Consensus and Conflict in Policy Networks: Too Much or Too Little. In Eva Sorensen &Jacob Torfing, editors, Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan,p. 133-152.

According to our survey, “poor or unsuitable in-struments for transferring information andknow-how” are not causing difficulties, as it isalso with “different technological solutions” and“immaterial rights”. These issues were mostlyseen as not causing problems. There were otherissues in which the response was more mixed. Forexample, the issue of collaborating with the com-mission was an advantage for 27 percent, a disad-vantage for 21 percent and the majority (44%) re-plied that this relationship had no effect. In a sim-ilar vein, the issue of commitment was seen as anadvantage by 62 percent, whereas 18 percent sawit as a problem and 19 percent thought that it doesnot play a role.

Finally, issues bringing along some or great ad-vantage were the following:• Project partners’ commitment to the common

targets of the project (62%)• The reliability of the project partners in carry-

ing out different tasks (58%)• The differing level of skills and know-how of

the project partners (28%).

As we see, differing levels of skills and know-how can constitute both a constraint and an ad-vantage. The point is how these differences areturned into a mutual strength of the project andconsortium. “Commitment” came up in the sur-vey both as a problem and as a strength. As a re-cent analysis11 of the networks of excellence pin-points, the building up of an NoE requires thatthere are, at least, a certain number of activestakeholders who are willing and able to work forthe joint endeavor. In this respect, again taking alook at earlier FP evaluations, the problem ofmanaging and leading the project was, in this sur-vey a reasonable problem. About one third con-sidered it a disadvantage whereas in the survey ofFP4 this very issue was a problem for about everyother project.

Collaboration is not easy business and difficultiesbelong to the nature of the game. Although therewere differences in the way the project represen-tatives perceived problems, in all dimensions thesurvey revealed some discontent. This confirmsthe more general finding that network gover-nance is potentially demanding. But, problemscan be dealt with. Although networks, as well ashierarchies, pose demands for the well-function-ing collaboration, not all the problems are inevi-table. Below we discuss some ways to either di-minish or even remove the problems of collabora-tion. The management of networks, or meta-gov-ernance, as an issue is controversial as networksoften are deliberately given autonomy in order toenhance their innovativeness. But, networks dofail, and hence some understanding of meta-gov-ernance is emerging too.

The above problems imply that networks alsoneed good management. The literature onceagain offers plenty of advice on how to improvethe management of networks. The Dutch re-searchers12 divide the management tools intoprocess and design tools, where the first containsfor example goal-achieving strategies and jointknowledge production, and the latter has for ex-ample strategies to change or influence the com-position of a network, and to change or influencethe rules that regulate the process in a network.Finally, as L. O’Toole13 reminds us, realismshould counsel public authorities to forsake strat-egies of control for more nuanced and sometimesindirect approaches based on an understanding ofhow government networks actually operate.

As tensions between the project members and oc-casional problems of project management stillconstrain the effectiveness of the projects, in-creasing and intensive concern should be put onproject management skills. To better manage theeternal network-related problem of differing in-

18

11 Luukkonen, Terttu. 2007. Network of Excellence – Participants’ view. Finnish Secretariat for EU R&D 1/2007

12 Klijn, Erik-Hans and Jurian Edelenbos. 2007. Meta-governance as Network Management. In Eva Sorensen & JacobTorfing, editors, Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan,p. 199-214.

13 O’Toole, Laurence. 2007. Governing Outputs and Outcomes of Governance Networks. In Eva Sorensen & JacobTorfing, editors, Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan,p. 215-230.

terests, embryonic project constellations shouldbe required to take extra care when selecting pro-ject partners and designing the working plan forthe project. Although autonomous, networks canbe steered too. A selective usage of meta-gover-nance tools could be used in order to safeguardthe cohesiveness of a project.

3.4 Additionality and addedvalue of the FrameworkProgrammes and projects

In the 1980s, the impact studies of R&D pro-grammes incorporated the notion of additionalityin assessing the worth and value of public supportto technological advancement in companies. Ithad clear and evident links to the concepts of im-pacts and effectiveness due to the fact that all thevarious impacts of an initative in reality consti-tute the additionality it has brought about.(Luukkonen 2000, 713, see also, Kuitunen 2007)

The concept of ‘additionality’ quite rapidly de-veloped into a dominant framework offered forthe evaluation of R&D&I programmes within theEuropean Union, providing an expedient politi-cal rationale for public programme support, notonly supporting company R&D but also R&D atthe EU level in general (Luukkonen 2000, 711-712, see, also, Kuitunen 2007).

Several dimensions have been identified in theconcept of additionality. In its most traditionalform, the four major aspects have been defined:input additionality, output additionality, behav-ioral additionality and overall additionality. Inputadditionality assesses whether or not the publicaction adds to, or substitutes for the agents (usu-ally in financial terms). Output additionalityhighlights the fact that the outcomes and end re-sults of R&D projects are different due to the sub-sidy. Behavioural additionality refers to a situa-tion in which public support changes the scale orscope of R&D&I projects. Overall additionalitycan be seen for example in the EU FrameworkProgrammes, where the main question concern-ing overall additionality is whether R&D projects

would have been carried out at all without thesupport drawn from the Framework Pro-grammes. (Georghiou et al. 1993; Kuitunen &Oksanen 2002; Luukkonen & Hälikkä 2000;Luukkonen & Niskanen 1998).

During the late 1990s and in early 2000, signifi-cant modifications have been made to the conceptof additionality especially by introducing a strate-gic element in the elaboration of the additionalvalue. Luukkonen was first to combine addition-ality and strategic value thus providing the evalua-tors with a cross-tabulation in which four types ofadditional value of the projects were identified.Georghiou and Clarysse (2006) have developedthe concept of behavioral additionality further bymaking the distinction between operative andstrategic changes on the one hand and changes inthe results of the organisations on the other:• Operative and strategic changes in the behav-

ior and modes of actions and their effects onthe firms and PROs affected by the public in-tervention (e.g. Framework Programme)

• Changes in the results of the organisations af-fected by the public intervention (e.g. Frame-work Programme).

Interesting questions arise as to whether or notpublic intervention and support have changed thestrategies of the PROs, universities and firms andif so, in what respect. Has involvement in theFramework Programmes resulted in changes inthe IPR, internationalising or R&D strategies ofthe participating organisations? In the followingsections, we are able to chart the additionality andadded value of the Framework Programmes onthe basis of the survey results gathered concern-ing the Sixth Framework Programme. Besidespresenting the survey results, we are able to chartthe possible changes in the additionality of theFPs since FP4.

The figures indicate a significant increase in theadditionality of the Framework Programmes inall respects assessed. The survey results and theircomparison with the results gathered in the previ-ous evaluations of FPs shows that the overalladditionality of the Framework Programmes has

19

increased quite dramatically during the past de-cades. In FP4, half of the surveyed respondentsagreed that project would not have been carriedout without EU funding, whereas the equivalentfigure for FP5 was 70 percent and for FP6 ap-proximately 80 percent.

As to behavioral additionality, there is a signifi-cant positive trend discernible as well. In FP4 20percent of the respondents agreed that the projectwas implemented on a larger scale due to the in-volvement in the programme, while the equiva-lent figures for FP5 and FP6 were doubled ormore than doubled: 40 percent in the former and53 percent in the latter case.

The significance of Framework Programmes re-garding changes in the time-scales of the projectimplementation has also grown. The projects areimplemented faster because of public supportfrom the FP. Furthermore, the comparisons be-tween FP4, FP5 and FP6 also demonstrate that theimpact of FPs on the changes in the implementa-tion of projects has become considerably larger.The share of project participants that agrees withthe statement that FP involvement has facilitated

a faster realisation of their project has almostdoubled: from 20 percent to 39 percent.

In addition, it is worth mentioning the alterationin the figures indicating the change in the objec-tives of the projects due to the participation in theEU funded project. In FP4 less than 20 percent ofthe project participants considered their projectfocus was changed because involvement in theFP, whereas the figure for the FP5 declined to 15percent but grew to 40 percent in FP6. One shouldhowever be cautious about drawing far reachingconclusions on the basis of the results since thequestions assessing the change in the focus of theprojects were not identical but differed somewhatin different points in time.

The additional value of the FPs is somewhat dif-ferent for different organisations. For big compa-nies, as our analysis shows, the most importantimpacts of FP involvement deal with the changesin the implementation of the project. This impliesthat the projects in which large enterprises are in-volved are implemented on a larger scale or fasterdue to EU funding. For SMEs, in turn, the sameimpact categories apply, but in addition, the over-

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

Project would not have beencarried out without EU funding

Project was carried outon a larger scale

Project was carried out fasterwith EU funding

Project would have been carriedout with other funding if available

Project would have been carriedout with different objectives

without EU funding

% of respondents Fp6



Figure 7. Additionality in FP4, FP5 and FP6 (share of respondents who agreed with thestatement).

all additionality of FPs is more significant if com-pared to large firms. The SMEs report more oftenthat their projects would not have been imple-mented if EU funding had not been available.

For higher education organisations and researchinstitutes the most significant impacts focus onchanges in project implementation. Interestinglyenough, as our analysis indicates, for large com-panies and governmental organisations the over-all significance of EU projects appears to behigher than for others. The value added for non-profit organisations differs from the profiles of

other organisations. For non-profit organisations,the single most often mentioned aspect ofadditionality was that no other funding was avail-able. One should be cautious however aboutdrawing too far-reaching conclusions on the basisof these results since the number of respondentsrepresenting non-profit organisations was low(less than 5 respondents).

In order to shed light on the importance of the EUFPs for Finnish organisations and individualsalike we employed a set of questions encompass-ing eight items (table 8):

21

Big companies

• National R&D activities increase success rate in FP: 50%• The focus areas of FPs match with the needs and focus areas of own organization: 40%• The FP project has been strategically important for the own organization: 35%

SMEs

• The project has been strategically important for the organisation: 45%• National R&D activities increase success rate in FP: 43%• The focus areas of FPs match with the needs and focus areas of the organization: 41%

Higher education

• The focus areas of FPs match with the needs and focus areas of the organisation: 71%• The FP6 has had a significant impact on the organisation’s R&D: 70%• The FP project excludes resources from other parts of the organisation: 43%

Research institutes

• The focus areas of FPs match with the needs and focus areas of the organisation: 72%• The FP6 has had a significant impact on the organisation’s R&D: 66%• The organisation often exploits both national and EU funding: 46%

Governmental organisations

• The FP project has been strategically important for the organisation: 60%• EU projects are of greater importance than national projects: 54%• The focus areas of FPs match with the needs and focus areas of the organisation: 50%

Table 8. The most frequently mentioned aspects of relevance and significance of EUFunding for participants according to their organisational background (percentages ofthose respondents who totally or to a large extent agree on the assumption).

4 Assessment of the communication anddiffusion of knowledge

The Finnish Secretariat for EU R&D is the keyorganisation responsible for promoting informa-tion about the EU Framework Programmes. Inaddition, the National Contact Points (NCPs) andofficials at universities and research institutes areworking on communication in this field (Figure8). The Finnish secretariat for EU R&D, which islocated at Tekes, offers services to all stake-holders in companies, universities, research insti-tutes, governmental agencies and municipalitiesfree of charge. The Secretariat has a staff of sixpeople. One of their main functions is to give gen-eral information and advice on EU R&D Frame-work Programmes. The office also coordinatesthe Finnish NCP system and monitors Finnishparticipation in the EU R&D programmes.

As shown in Figure 9, Finnish participants preferto use services by their organisation during the

preparation of applications. According to the sur-vey majority (63%) of the respondents used theservices of their own organisation. For example,these services are offered by officials and lawyersat the universities, research institutes and compa-nies. Instead, 89 percent of the respondents didnot use the services of the Finnish Secretariat forEU R&D during the preparation of the applica-tion or during the project. In other words, only 11percent of the respondents used the services ofthe Secretariat.

Furthermore, 22 percent of the respondents hadbeen in touch with NCPs during the preparationof the application. This shows that the NCP net-work supplements the work by the Finnish Secre-tariat for EU R&D. In other words, the Secretar-iat’s communications seem to support the workby NCPs and administrative personnel at univer-

23

FinnishSecretariatfor EU R&D

●

●

of NationalContact PointSystemInformationand advice

Coordination

GovernmentMinisterial Committee

EU CommitteeSecretaries general of the ministries

R&D SubdivisionRepresentatives of relevant ministries,

Tekes, Academy of Finland

UniversitiesIndustry ResearchCentres

Otherorganisations

TekesIST, NMP, AEROSPACE, FOOD,ENERGY, SME, INNOVATION,

COORD., POLICIES, EURATOM

Academy of FinlandLSH, ENVIRONMENT, CITIZENS,POLICY SUPPORT, NEST, INCO,

HRM, INFRA, SCIENCE & SOCIETY,COORD.

Ministryof Trade

and Industry

FISSION

National Contact PointsProgramme support groupsCommittee representatives

The SixthFrameworkProgramme

National Contact PointsProgramme support groupsCommittee representatives

NCPSupport groupCommittee rep.

Ministry ofTransport and

Communications

TRANSPORT

NCPSupport groupCommittee rep.

Figure 8. Organization of EU R&D in Finland.

sities and research institutes. On the other hand,only 4 percent of the respondents had used theservices by the consultant companies. Some ofthe interviewees brought up the variable qualityof the services provided by commercial consul-tants. This may be one reason for the relativelylow interest in the commercial services.

In general, the EU Framework Programmes arecriticized for the bureaucracy. The workloadneeded to prepare applications is known to be ex-cessive. A majority (70%) of the user group wassatisfied with the services provided by the Finn-ish Secretariat for EU R&D, whereas about onefifth (21%) was dissatisfied with the services.However, knowledge about the Finnish Secretar-iat for EU R&D varied a lot among the inter-viewed. Those organisations that had used its ser-vices seemed to be satisfied. Currently the Finn-ish Secretariat for EU R&D publishes a magazineand organises seminars, courses and informationdays. The quality of these services is good. Thepublications and the homepages are informativeand professionally presented.

In the future, the services both by the Finnish Sec-retariat for EU R&D and NCPs should be furtherdeveloped so that communication would be moreproactive. Currently, the communication bye-mails is rather reactive. A major challenge is thatthe amount of e-mails is excessive. Instead, theFinnish Secretariat for EU R&D and NCPs shouldplay a role in filtering EU communication. Also,

overlapping communication should be avoidedbetween different players in the field. Further-more, there is a clear need to develop communica-tion aimed at a variety of different communities.

A key challenge is how to activate companies toparticipate in EU R&D Framework Programmes.For example, it should be considered if technologycentres around the country could also play a rolein promoting knowledge about the EU Frame-work Programmes. Further efforts are needed es-pecially to activate SMEs. For example, co-oper-ation between the Finnish Secretariat for EU R&Dand EnterpriseFinland should be developed.EnterpriseFinland is a free public portal for enter-prises, entrepreneurs and future entrepreneurs.

The communication tends to be focused on directcommunication, telling others, for example, whatkind of Framework Programme calls are avail-able. On the other hand, FP projects and the re-sults of FP projects should be more stronglypopularised in different media to increase the vis-ibility of FPs. If Finland was to enlarge its focus toencompass the development of programmes thatinvolved the wider community more intimately inits planning processes, it would need a communi-cation strategy that reflected this greater willing-ness to encourage dialogue between society andthe EU Framework Programmes. Therefore, bothscience in society, as well as society in science is-sues should be taken into account in communica-tion services.

24

63%

4%

22%

11%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Services of ones own organization

Commercial consultancy services

Communication with the nationalcontact point (NCP)

The services of the Finnish Secretariatof EU R&D

%

Figure 9. Services used during the drafting the FP6 project.

5 Framework Programmes in the Multi-levelGovernance of Technology and Science:how to strengthen their role

Technology, science and innovation policy issuesare increasingly dealt with in a wide variety ofarenas. These arenas are not only nationally butalso locally, regionally and supranationally em-bedded. In the research literature and also in pol-icy-making the concept of “multi-level gover-nance” has become popular to refer to the link-ages and interconnectedness between the variouslevels, actors and institutions in the governancesystem.

Governance has become widely used in technol-ogy, science and innovation policy, both in Fin-land and elsewhere, to illustrate the transforma-tion into a more open and flexible system, withhorizontal networks blurring the boundaries be-tween public and private spheres and restructur-ing the interaction between these.14 Within theemerging system, it is claimed, technology andinnovation issues no longer remain under thecontrol of a closed and internally cohesive “tech-nology-elite”.

The transformation can be seen as being part of abroader development encapsulated in the notion ofmoving from government to governance. The newgovernance system, as opposed to traditional sys-tems of government15, implies that decisions con-cerning technology and innovation are initiated,prepared and decided upon by a larger group of ac-tors representing a broad array of socio-political

sectors, incorporating even the political spherewith popularly elected politicians at its core.

Societal questions are becoming increasinglycomplicated and “wicked”, and as a result a sin-gle authority is not able to answer them to a full-est degree. There is an inevitable need for moreintegrated and coherent policies to meet the needsof the stakeholders to retain or strengthen theircompetitiveness, development and renewal. Gov-ernance implies the coordination and control ofautonomous but independent actors either by ex-ternal authority or by internal mechanisms ofself-regulation and self-control. Policy-makingin governance encompasses many challenges. Itis shaped by the rules of interaction, action orien-tations, conflicts of interests or the distribution ofpower, but also by the rules entrenched in the or-ganisational context actors come from16.

Regarding governance of technology, innovationand science, the national authorities and na-tion-states no longer hold the main responsibilityfor the preparation, design and implementation ofthe R&D&I issues. The actors at different levelsare interrelated and also interdependent. Further-more, the local and regional entities sometimeseven hold power which goes beyond the formalpowers of the nation-states. It implies that somedecisions are taken at local and regional levels innegotiations in which nation-states are not repre-

25

14 See, for example, Caracostas & Muldur 1998; Edler et al. 2003; Lähteenmäki-Smith & Kuitunen 2008 Benz 2007“Governance in Connected Arenas – Political Science Analysis of Coordination and Control in Complex RuleSystems. In Jansen Dorothea (ed.): New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations. Dordrecht, Springer.

15 For an overview of the contents of the two concepts, government and governance, see, for example, Tiihonen (2004)and Kjær (2004).

16 Benz 2007 “Governance in Connected Arenas – Political Science Analysis of Coordination and Control in ComplexRule Systems. In Jansen Dorothea (ed.): New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations. Dordrecht, Springer.

sented or do not in other respects hold any power-ful position.

The FPs are implemented in a multi-level gover-nance system. Nevertheless, in the FPs two ap-proaches are intertwined. The programmes aretop down research programmes in the sense that itis the EU Commission which is in charge of theoverall design and implementation of theprogrammes although the nation-states and na-tional actors do play a role in the design processof the progamme. National authorities and pol-icy-makers alike are able to affect the content andpriorities of the FPs through involvement in re-ciprocal negotiations in which the focus of theFPs is decided upon. Evidently, the results and fi-nal outcomes of the FPs are strongly associatedwith the grass-root activities carried out at theproject level.

In this section, our aim is to shed light on the roleplayed by FPs in the multi-governance system.By doing so, we elaborate on three closely inter-related questions:1. How and by what means can Finland get more

out of the FPs? How can the added value ofFPs for Finland be strengthened?

2. How can the internationalization of Finnishscience and innovation activities through par-ticipation in the FPs be reinforced?

3. How can the role and position of FPs in themulti-level governance system be strength-ened?

In the following, the three questions are assessedon the basis of the empirical material gathered inthe study.

The benefits of FPs for Finland – how toget more out of the programmes

It is evident that Finland aspires to, and, indeedhas succeeded in getting more than its share of theFramework budget. For example, in 2003 Finlandreceived about 2.1 percent of the EU money forFP6. Finland is paying about 1.4 percent of theEU’s total budget. Our study on FP6 confirms theobservation on the additional value of EU pro-grammes. As the study indicates the additionalityof FPs for Finnish R&D&I activities has grown

significantly since FP4. The added value of theFPs is considerable for the Finnish science andinnovation. The results indicating the increase inthe overall additionality designates that otherpublic R&D&I interventions have not compen-sated the EU funding. Quite the contrary, FPfunding is in most cases considered essential forthe projects to be carried out.

In the workshop organised to assess the strategicvalue and significance of FPs for Finland, theadditionality was discussed and the recommen-dations to enhance additional value for Finnishscience and innovation were formulated. On thebasis of the discussion two sets of policy recom-mendations can be formed. The first group of ar-guments put forward in the workshop discussionstressed the role played by projects and individ-ual organisations in the promotion of addedvalue for Finnish science and innovation. It wasstressed that it is essential that the projects car-ried out in the FPs are able to achieve results andoutcomes which are of great importance for Fin-land. The success stories in FP collaborationshould be made visible and communicated to so-cietal groups and society at large.

In striving towards the best possible outcomesand added value for Finland, maximising thenumber of projects is not to be prioritised. In con-trast, securing the best possible quality of pro-jects and activities should be among the most im-portant goals. Besides the quality of the projects,Finland should also promote the aim of maximis-ing the number of coordinators positions in theEU projects due to the fact that it is the co-ordinator who can significantly affect the contentand aims of the whole project. The coordinatorcan also exert power on the concrete results theconsortium produces.

Regarding the changes in the implementation ofprojects, it was assessed positively that projectsare carried out on a larger scale due to EU fund-ing. It enhances the attractiveness of the projectsalso at the global level. It is however important toenable and enhance the birth of strategic partner-ships built upon common values, interests andtrust. Nevertheless, it is not only promotion ofstrategic partnerships between projects partici-

26

pants that is essential. Equally important is to en-hance the evolution of a strategic approach in theorganisations carrying out EU funded projects.The role and impact of EU funding on the strate-gies of organisations involved in the FP projectsshould be assessed and discussed in the organisa-tion. Ultimately, it is in the hands of the manage-ment to decide upon the strategic position of FPsfor the organisation in question.

The second group of recommendations dealswith the entire innovation and science environ-ment. It was considered important that Finlandstrives for development of the technology and in-novation environment through the participation inFPs. When aiming at enhancing the added value ofFPs for Finland, it is indispensable to first settle onthe Finnish priorities for R&D&I. It entails the factthat the strategic aims are discussed and deter-mined through a dialogue between relevant stake-holders. The national priorities should be madevisible and communicated to all those individualsand organisations which take part in the prepara-tion and design of the FPs, too.

How to reinforce the internationali-sation of Finland and Finnish scienceand innovation activities throughthe involvement in FPs

As our study indicates, the FPs still hold an im-portant position in advancing the internationali-sation of Finnish science and innovation activi-ties. The FP projects provide the participants withexcellent possibilities for concrete, in-depth col-laboration in multinational consortia. Each andevery member is to sign the research contractwhich implies that participants are bound to exe-cute the project.

It is worth stressing however that FPs are not asuitable instrument for internationalisation ofthose organisations that do not possess any trackrecord or experience in international collabora-tion. To become an internationally recognisedpartner is a process which encompasses severalphases. There are some other instruments avail-able for newcomers to start their internationalis-ing process. The FPs are not intended for thosewho just take their first steps in internationalR&D collaboration.

It is highly important that several internationalcollaboration arenas and forums are available es-pecially for young people aiming at fosteringtheir international research career. Therefore theEU should put effort into promoting the develop-ment of instruments which enable young re-searchers to become part of the European re-searchers’ community.

To enhance the internationalisation of FinnishR&D&I the highest priority should be put on thepromotion of the effectiveness of interventions,not on the absolute increase of financial and otherresources per se. Communications play an impor-tant part in delivering information and raising theinterest of the various organisations and individu-als to take part in the FP projects. The SMEsshould particularly be activated and informedmore efficiently in the future.

How to strengthen the role and positionof FPs in the multi-level governancesystem

It is questionable whether Finns are activeenough in influencing the preparation and designof the FPs. In the final workshop organised to as-sess the Finnish participation in FP6, opinionswere clearly polarised on this issue. On the onehand, some of the workshop participants agreedthat Finns are not active enough and have not af-fected efficiently the content and design of theFPs. Among those who considered Finns to betoo passive it was claimed that the attitude of theFinns is somewhat biased. Finns do not think thatit is “we who make the FPs” but instead stress thatit is up to others to deliver FPs to Finns and Fin-land. This mental attitude was considered notonly wrong but also dangerous regarding the pos-sibilities to affect the development of FPs cur-rently and especially in the future.

On the other hand, some workshop participantsthought that Finns have been active enough in in-fluencing the preparation and content of FPs. Thepower exercised by Finns is however for the mostpart hidden and the impacts are not easy to iden-tify or concretise. Finns are considered to be pow-erful in international arenas especially becausethey have good knowledge of R&D&I issues and

27

the Finnish innovation environment and policyare internationally recognised and valued. Due tohigh-ranking expertise the opinions put forwardby Finns are heard and taken into consideration.

In the workshop it was however considered ele-mentary that more influential persons are re-cruited to powerful positions in the EU Commis-sion to affect R&D&I issues. Those who areworking in the EU Commission should also seethat they do not loose their connections to Fin-land. They should keep their Finnish networksalike. It was also stressed that “puffing” is ahighly important means for promoting the na-tional interests and sustaining the links betweensupranational level and national level deci-sion-making bodies.

It is clear that national interests can not be pro-moted if the national priorities are unclear or arein contradiction with each other. National priori-ties are to be established through a process whichempowers and involves all the relevant stake-holders representing not only the policy-makingsphere but also the research community and busi-nesses. In the workshop several such forums wererecognized which promote the identification ofnational priorities. In Finland, the preparation ofthe national strategy by the Science and Technol-ogy Policy Council of Finland (2006), Strategiccentres for science, technology and innovation,national IPR strategy and national innovationstrategy were mentioned as being the most im-portant means for establishing the national priori-ties for R&D&I, and therefore also for FPs.

28

6 Thematic analyses: energy and environment,forest and ICT

6.1 Introduction to thematicanalyses

One of the objectives of this evaluation was toprovide more detailed sector or industry specificanalyses. The three sectors were 1) energy andenvironment, 2) forest-based field and 3) ICTboth as a whole and specifically ICT applicationsin health care. These three sectors are all of spe-cific interest to Finland and they also representdifferent kinds of perspectives to the FrameworkProgrammes.

The energy and environment sector was selectedprimarily to analyse the impact of FP6 on net-working. Energy and environment represents asector that is rising and a number of new players –especially in renewable energy – have entered thesector. The Bioenergy NoE project was analysedas a more specific case of a networking structure.

The forest-based field represents a sector that hasa long research and business tradition in Finland.At the same time the industry is not very R&D in-tensive, although the interest has been increasingduring recent years on the European level. Thisraises questions related to the match betweenFinnish national goals and the goals of Frame-work Programmes as well as the ability to influ-ence goal setting on the European level. Concern-ing networking structures the European For-est-Based Sector Technology Platform (FTP)provides an interesting case.

The ICT sector is an active R&D theme both inFinland and at the European level, and it has had astrong role in the Framework Programmes. It pro-vides an example of a sector where strong na-tional activities are linked to active EU policy.

Within this theme the development of the ARTE-MIS Joint Technology Initiative was selected as acase. Another focus area in the ICT sector was theuse of ICT in health care. This represents a casewhere innovation policy has a close link to otherpolicy areas.

The thematic analyses also aimed at answeringthree more general research questions. First theanalysis aims at answering how FP6 has corre-sponded with the goals of Finnish research andbusiness organisations within these sectors. Sec-ond, what kinds of networks has the participationin FP6 created among Finnish research and busi-ness organisations and what kind of informationexchange has the participation supported. Andthird, what kind of networks the participation hascreated between Finnish and other partners.

The sectors specific analyses provide differentperspectives to FP6. In the ICT sector, or morespecifically IST priority, the participation andnetworking have been analysed using networkanalysis approaches. This provides a broad butmore quantitative view of the network structures.In the other sectors the projects do not directlycorrespond to any single priority of FP6. Hencethe focus has been more on the qualitative analy-sis of networks and the benefits. In these casesalso the survey data has been used as a basis foranalyses. Finally, the ARTEMIS case as well asthe development of the FTP provides a view onthe early development that took place during FP6.

The text in section 6 is structured as follows. Theanalysis of the energy and environment sector ispresented in chapter 6.2 and the analysis of theforest-based field in chapter 6.3. The analysesconcerning the ICT sector is presented in three

29

separate chapters: 6.4 presents an overall analysisof the Finnish participation in FP6 projects in ISTpriority. 6.5 analyses the Finnish projects linkedto health care ICT and finally 6.6 presents thecase study on ARTEMIS.

6.2 Energy and environment

Introduction

Background

In the Sixth Framework Programme, energy andenvironmental research was mainly under thethematic priority “Sustainable development,global change and ecosystems”. The main objec-tives of this priority area was to strengthen theS&T capacities needed for Europe to be able toimplement a sustainable development model inthe short and in the long term, integrating its so-cial, economic and environmental dimensions;contributing to international efforts mitigatingadverse trends in global change. 17 The main the-matic areas of this priority area were1. Sustainable energy systems,2. Sustainable surface transport, and3. Global change and ecosystems.

Under the sustainable energy systems there wereboth short and long term impact projects. Theshort term impact projects focused on clean en-ergy sources, savings and efficiency and alterna-tive motor fuels; while the long term impact pro-jects focused on fuel cells, carriers/transport stor-age, renewable energy technologies and the cap-ture and sequestration of CO2. The sustainablesurface transport consists of several areas, such asenvironmentally friendly and competitive trans-port systems and means of transport, new tech-nologies and concepts for all surface transportmodes (road, rail, waterborne) and advanced de-sign and production techniques. Furthermore,safer, more effective and competitive rail andmaritime transport, rebalancing and integratingdifferent transport modes as well as increasingroad, rail and waterborne safety and avoiding

traffic congestion were included in priority areas.The global change and ecosystems area coveredgreenhouse gases, water cycle, biodiversity, de-sertification, sustainable land management, oper-ational forecasting and modelling.

The indicative budget allocated to this thematicpriority for the duration of the Sixth FrameworkProgramme was 2,329 million euros distributedas follows: sustainable energy systems 890 mil-lion euros, sustainable surface transport 670 mil-lion euros and global change and ecosystems 769million euros. In the Fifth Framework Pro-gramme the budget of “energy, environment andsustainable development” was 2,125 million eu-ros, 1,083 million euros of which was for the En-vironment and Sustainable Development sub-programme and 1,042 million euros for the En-ergy sub-programme (not including nuclear en-ergy), for the period 1998–2002.18

Finnish participation

In the energy and environmental sectors, dozensof Finnish universities, research institutes andcompanies have participated in the Sixth Frame-work Programmes. The total number of projectswith Finnish involvement in energy and environ-mental sector was about 150. These projects weremainly under the calls of ENERGY, GLOBAL,TREN AND TRANSPORT. The energy and en-vironmental part of this evaluation was focusedon these 150 projects of which about 30 answeredthe survey or were interviewed. The most activeorganisations in these 150 energy and environ-ment related projects were VTT (28 projects), theFinnish Meteorological Institute (15 projects)Helsinki University (13 projects) and the FinnishEnvironmental Institute (13 projects). The mostactive company was Wärtsilä Corporation withfive projects, mostly focusing on hydrogen andfuel cells.

In the environmental sector, Finnish organisa-tions mainly participated in projects that relatedto climate change, biodiversity and marine re-search. Due to the high interest in environmental

30

17 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/sustdev.htm

18 http://cordis.europa.eu/eesd/

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/sustdev.htm

http://cordis.europa.eu/eesd

research only 15 percent of the proposals of the IPand NoE projects were funded in the first round.19

In the energy sector, Finnish organisations wereespecially active in bioenergy related projects aswell as in hydrogen and fuel cells projects. As anexample, VTT was the coordinator of the Bio-energy Network of Excellence.

Objectives and methods

The objective of the study, both on a general leveland also in the energy and environment sector,was to evaluate the participation of Finnish part-ners in the Sixth Framework Programme, analyseand collect information on the key-figures relatedto the participation, and generate recommenda-tions for the implementation of the SeventhFramework Programme and preparation of theforthcoming Eighth Framework Programme. Theresults of the evaluations will be also utilised forthe development of communication and activa-tion of the Framework Programmes. The mainquestions of the evaluation focused on the follow-ing areas:• Effectiveness and results of participating in the

Sixth Framework Programme• Added value of Framework Programme fund-

ing and its connection to national funding• Match with Finnish needs and ability to influ-

ence in EU level• Interaction of national and EU level innovation

policy• Communication and information services.

The focus of the energy and environmental sec-tors was especially on the effectiveness of excel-lence and networks for Finnish research, devel-opment and innovation environment as well as itsmajor stakeholders. Special emphasis was put onthe Bioenergy Network of Excellence and its ef-fects on the Finnish bioenergy community.

The analysis was based on 1) a survey for the con-tact persons of energy and environmental relatedprojects in the Sixth Framework Programme, 2)interviews of three selected projects and a Tekesexpert in the field of bioenergy as well as 3) a

workshop for researchers and Tekes representa-tives. The number of companies that answeredthe survey was about 25 – varying slightly fromquestion to question. The main focus of the inter-view was on the results and effectiveness of theproject from the participant’s point of view. Theinterviews focused on how to get more detailedinformation on the practical experiences of net-working and EU-level cooperation. The work-shop, in turn, focused mainly on recommenda-tions for the next Framework Programmes as wellas on producing ideas about how to better inte-grate EU and national level innovation policy. Asthe number of interviewed project leaders (three)and the number of persons who participated in theworkshop (five) was quite small, the results ofthis phase are more or less tentative suggestionsfor future actions rather than a comprehensiveanalysis of the situation.

Results of evaluation

Participation and networking

Energy and environmental issues have played asignificant role already in previous FrameworkProgrammes. This has helped organisations inthis field to create solid networks. About twothirds of the organisations in the field of energyand environment had cooperation with other pro-ject partners before the project (see Figure 10).Although Finnish organisations have not beenvery active in starting up projects, 17 of 27 re-spondents, corresponding to more than 60 per-cent, indicated that they have had a remarkableeffect (grade 4 or 5) on the content of the projectin order to ensure that it is in line with their ownobjectives and needs (see Figure 10).

The opinions on the success of the networking inthe Sixth Framework Programmes are generallyvery positive. The projects have lead to new con-tacts and deeper cooperation with already exist-ing contacts in most of the cases (see Figure 11).It is not surprising that the EU projects have im-proved networking especially on an international

31

19 Suomen EU T&K sihteeristö, Katsaus Suomen kannalta merkittäviksi arvioituihin integroituihin hankkeisiin (IP) jahuippuosaamisen verkostoihin (NoE), maaliskuu 2006.

level while national networking has played a mi-nor role (see Figure 11).

In the energy and environmental sectors, Finnishorganisations have been very satisfied with theproject partners and are willing to continue coop-eration in the future (see Figure 12). In many

cases, same project partners have had severalcommon projects before the Sixth FrameworkProgramme and this may be the main reason forthe satisfaction in cooperation.

According to interviews and results of the survey(see Figure 11), the Framework Programmes are

32

9

2

4

6

7

6

4

9

13

5

9

4

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

To what extent did your organisationact as an initiator when

starting the project?

To what extent had there beencollaboration between the partners

before the project?

To what extent was your organisationable to adjust the content of the project plan

in accordance with the aims andobjectives of your organisation?

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 10. Opinions of Finnish organisations on the start up phase of the project, N=27.

6

2

1

8

2

1

5

4

12

14

11

4

11

8

8

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Nationalnetworks

Internationalnetworks

New contacts


1

2

3

4

5

Figure 11. Opinions on the networking in the Sixth Framework Programmes, N=26.

an important platform for Finnish organisationsfor networking with other European organisa-tions. According to the interviews, research insti-tutes and universities mainly build up networkswith other similar kinds of research institutes anduniversities. The Framework Programmes playsmaller role in networking for companies than re-search institutes because companies inherentlyhave other kinds of business oriented networks.Companies mainly use the Framework Pro-grammes to open new contacts and update re-search knowledge.

According to the interviews, one advantage ofFramework Programme cooperation is that EUlevel cooperation occurs on a regular basis and italso enables the creation of long-term partner-ships. Especially, it was mentioned that at least inthe energy and environmental sector cooperationhas been most valuable in cases in which partnersknew each other from previous projects. In thesecases, partners can utilise the knowledge of eachpartner most efficiently. On the other hand thismay lead to rigid consortiums, i.e., it may be diffi-cult for new partners to enter to new project con-sortiums.

Effectiveness of European networks:Case Bioenergy Network ofExcellence

The objective of the Bioenergy Network of Ex-cellence was to build up a virtual joint Europeanresearch institute in the field of bioenergy; the fi-nal target was to build up a legal entity. The mainsteps of the work plan were (see Figure 13):20

1. Mapping of NoE capabilities2. Identifying and analysing main barriers to

bioenergy development3. Formulating R&D goals to overcome barriers4. Undertaking joint research to find optimal

solutions5. Developing joint research into a Virtual

Bioenergy R&D Centre for Europe.

Another objective of the Bioenergy Network ofExcellence was to identify barriers for the wideruse of bioenergy. The joint plan of activities cov-ered all processes, components and methods nec-essary to establish successful “bioenergy chains”to produce heat, electricity and biofuels for theenergy end-use market.

33

0 13

6

16

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 12. Willingness to continue cooperation with project partners in the future, N=26.

20 http://www.bioenergy-noe.org

http://www.bioenergy-noe.org

The network was coordinated by Finnish VTT,which is the major European research institute inthis field. The final Network of Excellence con-sisted of eight organisations:• VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

– VTT, Finland• Joanneum Research, Institute of Energy

Research – JR, Austria• Netherlands Energy Research Foundation

– ECN, the Netherlands• Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe – FZK,

Germany• International Institute for Industrial Environ-

mental Economics – IIIEE, Sweden• Aston University – AU, United Kingdom• EC Baltic Renewable Energy Centre

– EC BREC, Poland• National Institute for Agricultural Research

– INRA, France.

In the original plan the number of organisations wasabout double but the Commission asked to restruc-ture the consortium to be more manageable.

As the main objective of the Bioenergy Networkof Excellence was to build up a joint European re-search institute, the core of cooperation was lim-ited to research organisations. However, duringthe Network of Excellence project, the partners

developed several other projects, in which severalcompanies were also involved. Furthermore VTTintermediated information to other research insti-tutes in Finland – for example MTT got informa-tion about agricultural based bioenergy.

An advantage of the Bioenergy Network of Ex-cellence was its good reputation that helped indiscussions with the Commission. They listenedmore carefully to the representatives of the net-work than the representative of a single partner,such as VTT. Also the network had good visibil-ity in the bioenergy sector,which helped network-ing with other players in the field.

The network demonstrated that on the Europeanlevel it was be possible that different organisa-tions could focus on their own strengths and thusavoid unnecessary overlapping. Also it was pos-sible for the network to utilise the common re-search infrastructure of the partners. Together thepartners had the most extensive biomass andbioenergy research infrastucture of any bio-energy R&D institute in the world. The network’sexperimental facilities covered a wide range ofequipment for pretreatment and conversion ofbiomass through end use of products for biofuels,biopower and waste to energy.21

34

Jointactivities

European Bioenergymarkets and RTD

opportunies

IPsSTREP’s

Bilateralprojectsetc.

PartnersMapping

Areas

CoreCompetences

Jointactivities

Mapping

Joint interest &Recommendation

12 months 22 months 36 months

Barries &RTD-goals

Figure 13. Main steps of the Bioenergy Network of Excellence.

21 http://www.bioenergy-noe.org

http://www.bioenergy-noe.org

On the other hand the interests of parties on jointEuropean research varied significantly. Perhapsthe most important reason was the funding baseof institutes. Some organisations, such as VTT,have only little direct government funding whilesome organisations were almost totally funded bynational governments. In the case of high nationalfunding, the importance of EU level funding isnot so important for such organisations, and thusthe incentives for joint European level funded re-search are not so high. Therefore it is obvious thatthese kinds of instruments cannot flourish if thereis not European wide consensus that these kind oflarge joint European research networks areneeded. In practise, it is hard to change the fund-ing base of national institutes; therefore the onlypractical way to enhance joint European researchnetworks is to provide solid and long term finan-cial incentives for this kind of cooperation.

Match of the focus areas withFinnish needs

Most of the 22 organisations that responded to thesurvey indicated that the Framework Programmehad a significant impact on the research and de-velopment of the organisation (grade 4 or 5).More than half of the organisations indicated thatthe Framework Programme project they partici-

pated in had significant strategic importance(grade 4 or 5). However there were more doubtsabout how well the focus areas of the FrameworkProgramme met the requirements and needs ofthe organisations (see Figure 14).

Generally, the focus areas in the energy and envi-ronmental sectors have met Finnish needs fairlywell. In the interviews, it was pointed out that al-though the focus areas have matched well, the in-struments and practical rules are not optimal. Es-pecially, the requirement to have organisation allaround Europe (north-south as well as east-west)got criticism – especially in the environmentalsector some research topics, such as artic issues,are not interesting in the whole Europe. Com-panies also indicated that in Framework Pro-grammes there are often too many other objec-tives besides business-oriented objectives, whichare the most important for them.

In order to influence the focus areas and contentof Sixth Framework Programme several differentmethods have been used. First, the Ministry ofEmployment and the Economy (TEM) has influ-enced focus areas in the very early phase of plan-ning. Second, Tekes has its own connectionsthrough various bodies. Third, major research in-stitutes, such as VTT, have their own contacts in

35

1

2

3

4

5

3

1

1

2

3

4

1

4

9

14

10

7

2

2

1

0 5 10 15 20 25

EU's 6th framework programme hashad a significant imact on the R&D

actions of our organisation.

Strategically, this frameworkprogramme project has been

significant for our organization.

The focus areas of the EU's 6th frameworkprogramme have been very compatible with

the needs and focus areas of ourorganisation's R&D actions.

Figure 14. Opinions on the importance of the Framework Programmes to organisations, N=22.

various bodies that can affect focus areas. Fourth,large companies have the possibility to influencetechnology platforms and joint technology initia-tives. And fifth, some Finnish individuals havebeen listened to directly by the Commission.

In the energy and environment sectors, politicaldecisions – such as targets to mitigate climatechange and to increase renewable energy produc-tion – create general guidelines for EU level re-search and innovation policy. Therefore theremight be less possibility to influence researchtopics in these fields than in other sectors. How-ever, according to interviews, Finnish organisa-tions indicated that in some technology areas,such as bioenergy and fuel cells, they have alsosuccessfully included system level research top-ics into the research agenda.

Interaction of EU and nationalinnovation policy

In the energy and environmental sectors, EU levelpolicy decisions have a remarkable effect on in-novation and technology policy – both on EU andnational levels. This includes, for example, thedirective that sets an overall binding target for theEuropean Union of 20 percent renewable energyby 2020 and a 10 percent minimum target for themarket share of biofuels by 2020, to be observedby all Member States. Companies have alreadymade this observation and they know that recentpolitical decisions have created a huge market forexample, for renewable energy and energy effi-ciency technology.

According to the interviews and the workshop, itis obvious that Tekes programmes are mainly fo-cused on areas where the interest of Finnish com-panies is high. Also the funding of the Academyof Finland is focused on areas where there is aninternational level of scientific excellence in Fin-land. These are done independently. However thematch of national focus areas with EU level focusareas in the energy and environmental sectors iscurrently fairly good; Finnish companies believethat they and Finnish public organisations can in-fluence EU level innovation policy and also thefocus areas and contents of the Framework Pro-grammes.

One observation in the interviews was that inFramework Programmes the subsidy percentageis almost independent of the challenge level of theproject, while in national Tekes projects the sub-sidy percentage depends on the challenge level,networking with SMEs and research organisa-tions and other factors. This may lead to a situa-tion in which more challenging projects are car-ried out on the national level, while pilot-typeprojects and also projects that are closer to marketentry are carried out in Framework Programmes.

According to interviews and discussions in theworkshop, companies and research institutes are alittle bit confused about the large number of vari-ous instruments – both at the EU and the nationallevel. Instruments within Framework Programmesare changing all the time – new instruments areintroduced (e.g. IP and NoE in the Sixth Frame-work Programmes) and sometimes instrumentsare buried pretty soon after introduction. Also atthe national level new instruments and structures,such as strategic centres for science, technologyand innovation, are currently introduced; somestakeholders are asking what their role is andwhat value is added compared to Tekes pro-grammes as well as to EU level instruments.Large companies especially see the whole worldas a platform for their R&D&I work, and some-times it may be difficult to select the correct in-strument from this wide palette.

Communication and informationservices

The knowledge about the Finnish Secretariat forEU R&D varied a lot among the interviewed.Those organisations that had used its servicesseemed to be satisfied. Especially in large re-search institutes the knowledge of these serviceswas better than in companies. In the early years ofEU membership the value of the Secretariat hasbeen remarkable for research institutions. Nowa-days their knowledge on these issues is muchbetter and the need for advice is less than previ-ously. However, it can be assumed that there isstill a need for advice especially in SMEs andsmaller research organisations, even though suchevidence was not directly gained in this study inthe energy and environmental sectors.

36

Observations and recommendations

Influencing targets for the nextFramework Programmes

In the workshop, special attention was put on theissue of how Finnish participants can have astronger influence on the next Framework Pro-grammes. The first observation was that the basicstructures for influencing the targets, focus areasand contents of the Framework Programmes arein pretty good shape – influencing occurs in manyways: at the innovation and technology policylevel (TEM and Tekes), at the research organisa-tion level (VTT representatives in many groups),at the company level (e.g. Finnish representativesin Technology Platforms) and at an individuallevel (personal contacts to the Commission).Also Finnish representatives in the Commissionmay help to promote issues that are important toFinland.

Second, it was discovered that there are still areasthat must be developed. One observation was thatthe cooperation of the energy and innovation de-partments in TEM could be enhanced in order tobetter take into account the interest of Finnish en-ergy technology research and development. Alsocompanies should take a more active role in influ-encing EU targets directly or through, for exam-ple, technology platforms. One observation wasthat in almost all organisations, there are notenough resources for influencing or lobbying be-forehand because it is not considered to be “pro-ductive” work. Thus it is crucial to have good andworking channels for influencing – in this waythe limited time resources can be utilised effec-tively.

In the workshop, the need to create new ways ofinfluencing the Framework Programmes was alsodiscussed. An idea was to create a national strategyin the programme level because in many researchorganisations and universities there is currently noEU level research strategy; neighbouring researchgroups do not know what the other is doing. Somehope was put on the new strategic centres for sci-ence, technology and innovation as they might bethe instrument that could help to create nationalcooperation and R&D strategies with EU Frame-

work Programmes and to create a more focusedoverall picture.

Discussions in the workshop validated the hy-pothesis that currently research organisations andcompanies think that the national and EU level in-struments build an “instrument jungle” that or-ganisations cannot perceive clearly. New instru-ments are introduced to remove gaps in innova-tion systems but similarly the overlapping of vari-ous instruments is huge. Sometimes an instru-ment is used only a short time (e.g. during oneFramework Programme). This causes confusionamong the organisations.

How much effort should be put on instrumentsand how much to content was also discussed. It isimportant to notice that typically the instrumentsare decided first and thereafter the content. Thus,if we want to have influence on instruments wehave to do it early enough and be part of the groupthat make decisions on these issues.

Development of interaction of EU andnational innovation policies

The possibility for interaction between EU andnational innovation policies in the energy and en-vironmental sectors is more obvious than in manyother sectors because EU energy and environ-mental policy leaves very small playground fornational policies. Thus the national and EU levelinnovation and technology targets are prettycommon in these sectors. Currently, there aresome good examples of Tekes technologyprogrammes, focus areas of Academy of Finlandand EU focus areas that have common interests.For example Tekes has technology programmesin fuel cells and biorefineries, and Academy ofFinland has put remarkable efforts on sustainableenergy research.

Nowadays there is, in practice, no division ofwork that is done on a national level and anEU-level – and this is a good situation. Com-panies especially do not see domestic and EUmarkets as separate; also their R&D networks areinternational. However, it should be noted thatcompared to many other European countries, theFinnish innovation system lacks domestic market

37

incentives, for example, for renewable energytechnology. This has lead to the situation thatFinnish technology lags behind its Europeancompetitors in many areas (such as in solar en-ergy, biogas, and agricultural biomass), althoughwe have very good knowledge on these issues.Thus it is important to build up national incen-tives to enhance the domestic technology base,and at the same time, carefully consider the addedvalue of EU level cooperation.

One observation from the workshop was that itshould be carefully considered how various na-tional and EU instruments build up a sensible andwell-functioning overall system. And it is alsoimportant to notice that although the creators ofthese instruments understand how the whole sys-tem works it must be communicated to all theplayers in the field. Currently the interaction be-tween national and EU level instruments is notobvious for companies and research organisa-tions. It is also important to notice that a well-functioning innovation system requires that theregulation environment and legislation is favour-able for new innovations. Especially in the envi-ronmental and renewable energy sectors puremarket mechanisms are not sufficient to commer-cialise new innovations. There is clear evidencethat countries (e.g. Germany22) that have intro-duced stronger market incentives than EU direc-tives require for sustainable energy technologyhave also gained a technology advantage on theinternational market.

Summary

General conclusions on the energy andenvironmental sectors

1. Energy and environmental issues have alreadyplayed a significant role in previous Frame-work Programmes. Therefore organisations inthis field have had time to create solid andfunctioning networks. About two thirds of the

organisations in the field of energy and envi-ronment have had cooperation with other pro-ject partners before the project. The organisa-tions have been very satisfied with the projectpartners and almost all the organisations arewilling to continue cooperation with projectpartners also in the future.

2. In the energy and environmental sector EUlevel policy decisions have a remarkable effecton innovation and technology policy – both atEU and national levels. As the policy targets,e.g. for increasing renewable energy, reducinggreenhouse gas emission and increasingbiofuel utilisation, are common for all EU na-tions, it is natural that technological targets arepretty similar all around the EU. Companieshave already noticed this and they know thatrecent political decisions have created a hugemarket potential, for example, for renewableenergy and energy efficiency technology.

3. According to interviews, the FrameworkProgrammes make EU level cooperation occuron a regular basis and it also enables the cre-ation long-term partnerships. In the energyand environmental sectors, cooperation wasmost valuable in cases in which partners kneweach other from previous projects. In thesecases, partners utilised knowledge from eachother most efficiently. On the other hand, thismay lead to rigid consortiums, i.e., it may bedifficult for new partners to enter new projectconsortiums.

4. Several complementary ways have been uti-lised to influence the focus areas and contentof Sixth Framework Programme – the overallresult is a sum of many different efforts. First,the Ministry of Employment and the Economy(TEM) has influenced focus areas in the veryearly phase of the planning. Second, Tekes hasits own connections though various bodies.Third, major research institutes, such as VTT,have their own contacts in various bodies thatcan affect focus areas. Fourth, large compa-nies have the possibility to influence through

38

22 Erfahrungsbericht 2007 zum Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG-Erfahrungsbericht), Bundesministerium für Umwelt,Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit im Einvernehmen mit Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft undVerbraucherschutz und Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie, November 2007.

technology platforms and joint technology ini-tiatives. And fifth, some Finnish individualshave been listened to directly by the Commis-sion.

5. The basic structures for influencing the tar-gets, focus areas and contents of the Frame-work Programmes are in pretty good shape –influencing occurs currently in many ways(see above). However, there are still areas thatmust be developed. One observation was thatthe cooperation of the energy and innovationdepartments in TEM could be enhanced in or-der to better take into account the interests ofFinnish research and development. Also com-panies should take a more active role in influ-encing EU targets directly and through e.g.technology platforms.

6. According to interviews, it was pointed outthat in the Framework Programmes subsidypercentage is almost independent on the chal-lenge level of the project, while in Tekes pro-jects the subsidy percentage depends on thechallenge level as well as networking withSMEs and research organisations and otherfactors. This may lead to a situation in whichmore challenging projects are carried out on anational level, while pilot-type projects andalso projects that are closer to market entry arecarried out in Framework Programmes.

7. According to interviews and discussions in theworkshop, companies and research institutesare a little bit confused about the large numberof various instruments – both at EU and na-tional levels. Instruments within FrameworkProgrammes are changing rapidly – new in-struments are introduced (e.g. IP and NoE inthe Sixth Framework Programmes) and some-times instruments are buried pretty soon afterintroduction. On the national level, new instru-ments, such as strategic centres for science,technology and innovation, are also currentlyintroduced and some stakeholders are askingwhat their role is and what is the added valuecompared to existing Tekes programmes aswell as to EU level instruments.

8. It is important to notice that a well-functioninginnovation system also requires that the regu-lation environment and legislation is favour-able for new innovations. Especially in the en-vironmental and renewable energy sector puremarket mechanisms are not sufficient to com-mercialise new innovations. There is clear evi-dence that countries (e.g. Germany) that haveintroduced stronger market incentives than EUdirectives require for sustainable energy tech-nology have also gained a technology advan-tage on the international market.

Aspects specifically related to theBioenergy Network of Excellence

1. The Bioenergy Network of Excellence dem-onstrated that on a European level it could bepossible for different organisations to focus ontheir own strengths and thus avoid unneces-sary overlapping. Also it was discovered thatis possible for the network to utilise the com-mon research infrastructure of the partners.

2. From the Finnish point of view, an advantageof the Bioenergy Network of Excellence wasthat it helped in discussions with the Commis-sion. The Commission listened more carefullyto the representatives of the network than therepresentative of a single partner, in this caseVTT. Also the network had good visibility inthe whole bioenergy sector, which helped net-working with other players in the field.

3. In the Bioenergy Network of Excellence, theinterests of parties in joint European researchvaried significantly. Perhaps the most impor-tant reason was the funding base of institutes.Some organisations, such as VTT, have onlylittle direct government funding while someorganisations were almost totally funded bynational governments. Incentives for joint Eu-ropean level funded research are naturallyhigher, if the national funding base is limited.

39

6.3 The forest-based field

Introduction

The forest-based and related industries form oneof the EU’s most important industrial sectors rep-resenting some 10 percent of EU manufacturingindustries.23 Despite its large socio-economicimpact in the EU, in the Sixth Framework Pro-gramme for Research and Technological Devel-opment of the European Union (FP6) the forest-based R&D field was not a specific Thematic Pri-ority, nor was it strongly included in any Prior-ity.24 This may seem somewhat surprising, espe-cially when noted that the situation was similar inthe earlier FP5, and is similar in the present FP7.Probably the overall R&D intensity in this field inEurope had not reached a critical level to make abreak-through in Framework Programmes (FP),and more important, the concentration level in theforest-based industry is generally low25. Only inpulp and paper industries (where Finland andSweden are the most important players) is the in-dustry concentration significant. These industriesare essentially producing for local and nationalneeds and the companies are mostly small andmedium sized enterprises.

However, for Finland the forest-based field isvery important as an industrial area and subse-quently in policy making. It is therefore interest-ing to evaluate the Finnish participation in theforest-based R&D projects in FP6 even thoughthere was not specific thematic priority. More-over, the policy- and decision making in the pres-ent and upcoming activities require informationas background knowledge. But because of theabove reason, even when there were several pro-ject participations in FP6 funded forest sector re-lated projects by Finnish universities, research in-stitutes, and companies, these projects were scat-tered in several priorities’ calls. There actually

was not systematically collected information ofthe forest-based calls and projects. An estimatedtotal number of forest cluster projects within FP6is 20, of which half had Finnish participation.And the total number of Finnish participants wasabout 30. These projects were funded under thecalls of Priority 2 (IST), Priority 3 (NMP), Prior-ity 6 (Global change and ecosystems), and Prior-ity 8 (Research for policy support). Also the Spe-cific SME Activities, the International Co-opera-tion Activities, and the ERA-NET Scheme hadforest-based projects. The following analysis isbased on the experiences of these projects.

An additional interest to evaluate the forest-basedfield in FP6 is the present European Forest-BasedSector Technology Platform (FTP). In 2004, theEuropean Confederation of Woodworking Indus-tries, the Confederation of European ForestOwners, and the Confederation of European Pa-per Industries took the initiative to set up a Tech-nology Platform for the forest-based sector. TheForest Technology Platform aims at defining andimplementing the sector’s R&D roadmap for thefuture and is supported by a wide range of stake-holders. The FTP is anticipated to have an effecton the importance of the forest-based field in theEU’s Framework Programmes and its calls.

The present chapter on Finnish participation inthe forest-based R&D projects in FP6 is a part of alarger national FP6 evaluation, which had the fol-lowing objectives:• To evaluate the participation of Finnish part-

ners in FP6,• To analyse and collect information on the

key-figures related to the participation, and• To generate recommendations for the imple-

mentation of the Seventh Framework Pro-gramme and preparation of the forthcomingEighth Framework Programme.

40

23 The main features of the EU manufacturing industry, Eurostat: Statistics in Focus 37/20008; See also EuropeanCommission, e.g. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/forest_based .

24 For a picture of FP6 Activity Areas and Thematic Priorities see e.g. http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/activities.htm

25 Wood, paper and printing – Forest-based and Related Industries in the EU. European Commission, 2006.

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/forest_based

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/activities.htm

The results of the national FP6 evaluation will beutilised for the development of communication andactivation of the Framework Programmes. Themain questions focused on the following areas:• Effectiveness and results of participating in

FP6• Added value of Framework Programme fund-

ing and its connection to national funding• Match with Finnish needs and ability to influ-

ence at the EU level• Interaction of national and EU level innovation

policy• Communication and information services

The viewpoints in this specific forest-based fieldpart of the evaluation were, first, how Finland af-fected at the EU level and, second, the creation ofnew European initiatives based on Finnish view-points and goals. A special emphasis was put onthe connections between the European For-est-Based Sector Technology Platform (FTP) andthe Finnish national networks.

The analysis was based on 1) a survey for the con-tact persons of forest-based projects in FP6, 2) in-terviews of three selected specialists in the field,and 3) a workshop for researchers and otherstakeholders. As the total number of Finnish pro-ject participants in the forest-based field is fairlylimited (appr. 30), also the number of survey an-swers (7–9, varying from question to question)was very modest. Therefore the survey resultsmust be considered with care when drawing con-clusions from the survey alone. The survey ques-tions were largely targeted to project related ex-periences. On the other hand, the focus of the in-terviews was to gain deeper understanding in theabove viewpoints of the evaluation and especiallyin the FTP connections. Finally, the workshop fo-cused mainly on recommendations for the ongo-ing and future Framework Programmes as well ason ideas of how to better integrate EU and na-tional level innovation policy.

Evaluation study results

Participation and networking

Regarding the forest-based projects and based onthe Finnish participants’general opinion, the FP6has overall been a good platform to participate inthe European collaborative R&D activities. Thisstatement follows what has been represented inan earlier study of Finnish FP5 overall participa-tion.26 For FP6 forest-based projects it appearsthat the motivation of researchers and companiesto participate differs from each other. A ratherstrong opinion that was extracted from the ex-perts was that the low visibility of the for-est-based field in the FP6 agenda as well as thescattered nature of the forest-related calls haslowered FP6 importance in this business sectorand research field. It was even brought up in aninterview that the forest-based industry at largedid not follow the FP6 information because of itslow information density in the forest sector.

The motivation of the researchers of the FP6 for-est-based projects for participating has beenseemingly in the resources (i.e. money), new col-laboration partners, and benchmarking ofknow-how. These fairly well follow what wasfound for FP5 where research organisations’overall objectives were new knowledge, contactsand research funding. The new Integrated Project(IP)27 instrument in FP6 to support objec-tive-driven research, where the primary deliver-able was new knowledge, was especially men-tioned as a very good way to participate, althoughsome disappointments were known. Europeancollaboration has been built in the projects by uti-lising the readily available national networks,which seems to have given benefit in this area.

Based on the interviews, for the forest-sectorcompanies the FP6 projects have often been asuitable way to do networking. However, it isworth remembering that also challenges remain

41

26 Finnish Participation in the EU Fifth Framework Programme and Beyond, Finnish Secretariat for EU R&D, 2004.

27 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/instr_ip.htm

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/instr_ip.htm

as for example in intellectual property rights(IPR) questions. But as the best knowledge is be-ing sought without national borders (especiallyby large companies) the European funding andnetworking instruments are appropriate. It wasindicated that for enterprises money alone is notthe main reason to participate. But it is rather thelong-term support to business and the knowledgeinvestments that are the drivers. Small and me-dium-sized enterprises (SMEs) were not largelyrepresented in the projects. But it was stated thatsome SMEs have had fast knowledge increments.A major problem for companies in the FP6 pro-jects has been the slow start-up of projects. Thiswas believed to be a result of the ineffectivenessof EU bureaucracy.

The above analysis is partly based on the for-est-related projects’survey results in which sevenout of eight responding organisations had previ-ous cooperation with other project partners. Thisis more than for example, for organisations in thefield of energy and environment. The results alsoindicated that Finnish organisations taking part inforest projects have been active in starting up theprojects as five out of seven responding organisa-tions have been among the initiators. Also thisseems to be higher than in the energy and envi-ronment field. Overall the high activity on theforest side is interesting and our conclusion inthat it shows the strength of Finnish forest-basedR&D in Europe. Furthermore, there were five outof eight organisations that indicated that they hadmuch or very much influence on the content ofthe project in order to ensure that it was in linewith their own objectives and needs.

The survey results on the success of the projectsare, however, not so positive. Only four out ofnine of the organisations feel that the collabora-tion was successful or very successful. And simi-larly, four out of nine feel that a project overallwas successful or very successful. The conclu-sion therefore is that a high level of initiation andprior collaboration did not ensure a perfect result.Reasons and explanations for this could not befound, however.

It is worth remembering, as stated in the Introduc-tion, that the survey results must be considered

with care when drawing conclusions because thenumber of survey answers was very modest (7–9,varying from question to question).

The survey also probed forest-based projects’partners opinions on the importance of certainnetworking goals prior to an FP6 project as wellas on reaching the networking goals (see Figure15a,b). Clearly the results have been positive.More than half of the organisations reached thegoals well or very well. And especially, makingnew contacts and international networking wassuccessful. On the other hand, the expectationswere overall even higher than the results. Theexception is national networking among the re-sponding organisations that was more success-ful than anticipated. Therefore, in the forest-based field both international and national net-working seems to have been fostered by the EUprojects.

When compared to the energy and environmentprojects, however, the forest-field networking re-sults are not quite as good. In the matters of deep-ening co-operation, new contacts, and interna-tional networking, the organisations in the energyand environment projects seem to have been moresuccessful. Only in the matter of national network-ing did the forest-field show higher values.

Contradictory to the relatively successful net-working results of the forest-based projects, thewillingness to continue collaboration with theFP6 project partners is relatively modest. In thesurvey, opinions on the continuation of the col-laborations were answered (see Figure 16). Lessthan half were interested or very interested incontinuing with the other partners, and a few an-swers even indicated no interest at all. This resultappears to follow the line of the above results onthe success of the projects which was not so posi-tive. It may be that a modest success of a projectdoes not raise great enthusiasm to continue withthe same ensemble. However, in the interviews itwas mentioned that even strategic R&D partner-ships between enterprises can be created in FPprojects.

As a reference, in the energy and environmentalsectors Finnish organisations have been very

42

willing to continue co-operation with the sameproject partners in the future and by far most(over 80%) of the survey answers indicated this tobe very interested or interested. The explanationof the difference when compared to the for-est-field would require additional work.

As a conclusion, for Finnish participants FP6 wasoverall a good platform to participate in the Euro-

pean collaborative R&D activities in the for-est-based field. In addition to the above detailedresults, a repeated comment was that interna-tional cultural know-how must not be underesti-mated. The direct project results and networkingare obvious benefits, but it is actually the long-term knowledge building that is vital for futuresuccess. This includes many dimensions frompersonal skills to enterprise intelligence, and fur-

43

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

3

3

4

4

3

2

2

3

2

0 2 4 6 8 10

Nationalnetworks


New contacts


1

2

3

4

5

Figure 15b. Opinions on reaching the networking goals (number of respondentschoosing each alternative), the scale is from 1 (very poorly) to 5 (very well) (see rightcolumn), N = 9.

2

1

2

1

4

3

3

2

3

3

2

2 1

1

0 2 4 6 8 10

Nationalnetworks


New contacts


1

2

3

4

5

Figure 15a. Opinions on the importance of certain networking goals prior to an FP6project (number of respondents choosing each alternative), the scale is from 1 (not atall important) to 5 (very important) (see right column), N = 7 or 8.

ther on to the European level. The European For-est Technology Platform and its aim at definingand implementing the sector’s R&D roadmap forthe future are considered a strong benefit for Eu-ropean knowledge building in this area.

Of the various FP6 projects there was one thatcontinuously was mentioned in the context ofgood practice: WoodWisdom-Net ERA-NET,which had Finnish coordination, has clearly beena very successful information node of the wholeforest-based field in international strategy workand networking of national programmes of dif-ferent countries. The WoodWisdom-Net projectaimed at developing collaboration between theEuropean forestry sector and forest-based indus-try, the wood material research community, andfunding organisations by integrating research re-sources in different countries. The objectives areconsidered well reached in the WoodWisdom-Net Research Programme for 2006–2011. In Fin-land it has given new opportunities for R&D part-ners from basic research to enterprises to work to-gether. The possibility for bottom-up programmebuilding and for funding organisations’ newco-operation in the forest-based field has beenwelcomed. This positive feature has been broughtup also in many other ERA-NET projects in dif-ferent themes.

Finally, it has generally been known for some timethat participation in an FP project is time consum-ing. Similar opinions were again brought up in thisstudy among the forest-based projects. Usually thebest brains in different organisations carry the re-sponsibilities. And especially for SMEs, one un-successful experience may inhibit further interest.But it is also believed that being an active partnerin a project gives the most benefit. And as a coordi-nator of a project the results are the very best avail-able, including in IPR matters. As it was stated inan interview “the best benefits of the project areavailable for the coordinator”.

Impact on the European level: EuropeanForest-Based Sector TechnologyPlatform

The Sixth Framework Programme, as well as itspredecessors, has naturally been an important in-strument for European level networking in re-search and technological development. From anational point of view it is of utmost importanceto bring the national perspectives into the deci-sion-making process and to be successful in pro-moting one’s targets. At the European level in theforest-based field the initial success in FP6 wasnot good as there was no EU level priority. There-fore, the national voice and combined initiativesof several forest-R&D-intensive countries be-

44

0

1

2

3

4

1 2 3 4 5

Answers: 1 (not at all interested) to 5 (very interested)

Freq

uenc

y of

an

answ

er:

Figure 16. Willingness to continue cooperation with other project part-ners in the future, N = 9.

came more important. Also, to Finnish advan-tage, annual calls of different priorities becamemore important.

An overall opinion among the stakeholders is thatthe Finnish forest-based field succeeded appro-priately to have an impact in various FP6 commit-tees and sub-committees. And it is clear that theNMP Priority was the most important in its an-nual calls for the forest-based industrial sector. Itcould be concluded that Finnish representativesin certain FP6 programme committees took for-est-based field interests seriously and had itsvoice heard. But it is unsure if the researchers hadthe knowledge and channels to approach the rightdirections. Potentially, both industry and acade-mia could have advisor roles in the thematic na-tional support groups of different FP Priorities.

There are many ways to further national interests.But based on the interviews and discussions, Fin-land did not have a coherent way to combine thenational interest of the forest-based field in FP6.Towards the end of FP6 there was the forest- basedsector technology platform that took a role in theEuropean level and, subsequently, also the Finnishnational voice was being formed. The lack of a na-tional voice on the other hand was shown as mod-est national information of the forest-based activi-ties in FP6. It is believed that the Finnish for-est-based field could have had more influence onthe activities and even the launching of FP6, butthere was no common strategy or vision. Therewas not one party to combine forces but also nopressure from the industry and researchers.

A provocative generalisation is that if a re-searcher or a research institute gives feedback tothe Framework Programme, the viewpoint is howto get funding. A funding agency on the otherhand thinks about the industry branch or sciencearea. And industry has mostly its own businessinterests in mind. Ideally, these different opinionsare present in the national voice, for a wider per-spective. Our conclusion is that especially the re-searchers’ opinions were largely not heard andthat Finnish forest-related research could nothave an effect in FP6. Their task was merely tofollow the different calls for suitable topics to ap-ply for funding.

The comments from the forest-based industrysector are similar. The industry did not have thepossibility to influence the initial form of FP6.Neither could it have a proper voice during theFramework Programme. However, they also ad-mit that there was actually no pressure from theindustry. But as the large forest-sector companiesare present in many countries they indeed have agreat potential to channel their needs to differentcountries’ agendas.

It is clear from the above that a clear nationalvoice would have been needed for the forest-based field in FP6. The success to advance vari-ous aspects was only moderate at most. Variousnetworks are available for lobbying or informingdecision makers, but a more focused utilisation ofthese networks would have been desired.

However, it is worth noting that usually a singlenational sector does not have a critical mass foreffective lobbying. There must be national dis-cussion in a larger context and in due time. How-ever, the situation in the forest-based field has im-proved. The Forest-Based Sector TechnologyPlatform (FTP) is now collecting multinationalforces in this field. Based on the discussions withexperts this was already observed in the finalyear’s (2006) Thematic Priorities’ work pro-grammes of FP6.

European Forest-Based SectorTechnology Platform (FTP)

In 2004, the European Confederation of Wood-working Industries, the Confederation of Euro-pean Forest Owners and the Confederation of Eu-ropean Paper Industries took the initiative to setup a technology platform for the forest-based sec-tor. The platform is aiming to define and imple-ment the sector’s R&D roadmap for the future.The Forest-Based Sector Technology Platform(FTP) is an industry-driven partnership for sup-porting the sector’s strategy and it is supported bya wide range of stakeholders. The FTP is open tothe entire sector and national support groups arean important part of the operation. Sweden andFinland have been the early initiators.

The basic idea is to have independent and strongnational support groups. Practically, however, the

45

project leaders have been in a very important roleof the operation. It is a desire to have still more in-fluential industry people aboard. This is a re-sources related aspect. Also under discussion isSME participation and its practical aspects, butthis still remains an open question. If novel func-tions are wanted then the SME sector should bemore actively involved. The FTP operation isopen and SMEs are welcomed but probably thequestion is how to motivate these companies tostep in. Furthermore, it has been slow to build upa project level community. An important task is tolobby suitable themes and there is also potentialfor the collection of new projects as well.

The different groups and committees of the FTPhave a strong Finnish representation. Most of allthe High Level Group and the Advisory Commit-tee board have an experienced representationfrom Finland, but also other parts including theFTP project management (see Figure 17). Ourconclusion is that for Finland and Finnish compa-nies the situation is quite suitable. However, it israther important to promote various Finnish net-works to have direct links to the FTP. The opera-tion of the FTP is transparent and participation istruly open.

The connection of Finnish industry to the FTP ischanneled via Forestcluster Ltd, which is a for-est-cluster related strategic centre for science,technology and innovation. The company’s taskis to initiate research and innovation programmesand to channel research funds to selected focusareas. The bond between Forestcluster Ltd andthe FTP is very strong.

Interaction of EU and national innovationpolicy

In the forest-based field the Framework Pro-gramme was not recognised to have a direct effecton the Finnish innovation policy work. This fol-lows the overall knowledge that FrameworkProgrammes have not changed Finnish nationalinnovation policy or its instruments. It was how-ever agreed that the EU’s Framework Programmesand their goals to produce new knowledge andutilise it, are indeed at the heart of innovation pol-icy. Also it was agreed that the R&D fundingagencies in Finland are well aware of the Euro-pean funding possibilities and implement suit-able parts in their operations.

Can the Finnish system then suitably utilise theFramework Programmes, especially in the for-

46

Figure 17. Organisation of the Forest-based sector Technology Platform(Courtesy of http://www.forestplatform.org).

http://www.forestplatform.org

est-based field? There have been synchronicitiesas, for example, in the field of nanotechnologywhere the national FinNano programmes andFP6 NMP priority had a clear synergy. Also, theFTP launching and the consequent launching ofFinnish Strategic Centres for Science, Technol-ogy and Innovation have produced an excellentmatch. But the timing window is not always thisideal. In the forest-based field it is important toconcentrate nationally to gain the maximal bene-fits and added value of the FrameworkProgrammes.

The optimal way to nationally have an effect inEuropean level innovation policy is a work ofcontinuous development. A coherent nationalgoal seeking ‘national orchestration’ has beenmentioned by the forest-based field representa-tives as a desired vital tool. The many persons andparties that represent Finland in the various com-mittees and subcommittees are in a most impor-tant position. Thorough preparation for thesetasks as well as suitable and active national sup-port groups has proved to be the best practices.However, it was unsure whether in all cases thenational support groups are active. In addition,enough time resources for the individuals that areserving in the committee representative taskswould be more than desirable. It was mentionedby the experts that in FP6 the Finnish representa-tives had too little working time allocated for themany committee members’ tasks.

As most important theme level actor in the for-est-based field, Forestcluster Ltd in Finland isuniting companies and building a thematic R&Dstrategy. A conclusion from the study results isthat Forestcluster Ltd has a good channel via FTPto affect the Framework Programmes and eventhe European innovation policy.


The Finnish Secretariat for EU R&D has been anactive operator and it has produced a lot of properinformation and material on FP6 and priorFramework Programmes. Its services are fairly

well known and those organisations that haveused its services were satisfied. Especially na-tion-wide stakeholders were content with the sec-retariat. However, it remains unclear whether theresearch and industry field in total knew about theservice. The information flow is huge and impor-tant information is not always observed.

Regarding the forest-based field, the lack of itsown priority in FP6 was also clear in the Secre-tariat information. A party, not necessarily theSecretariat, could have collected forest-relatedcalls and information and published it for thefield. In addition, it would have been stronglydesirable if not only collected but also furtheranalysed information had been available. How-ever, proper resources would be required for thiskind of activity.

The national NCP network has made excellentco-operation with the Secretariat. It is obviousthough that the NCP’s time resources were notlarge enough. They have worked in a motivatedand professional way, but to improve the nationalNCP operation would require more time for NCPtasks by individuals. It is worth discussingfull-time NCPs for certain themes.

Observations and recommendations

Influencing targets for Seventh andEighth Framework Programme

In the workshop, attention was drawn to the issueof how Finland can have a stronger influence onthe present Seventh Framework Programme andthe forthcoming Eighth Framework Programmein the forest-based field.

The present forest technology platform, FTP is astrong flagship also in the near future. But it isalso important to consider further. It was pro-posed that the FTP will be further developed tothe direction of a Joint Article 171-based Joint(European) Technology Initiative (JTI)28. JTIsare long-term Public-Private Partnerships and anew mechanism for performing research at the

47

28 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/jtis/home_en.html

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/jtis/home_en.html

EU level. JTIs will support large-scale multina-tional research activities in areas of major interestto European industrial competitiveness and is-sues of high societal relevance. A new horizon forforest-related European co-operation wouldopen. What is needed is strategic intelligencework on national priorities, i.e. what is reason-able for Finland.

It was well accepted by the forest-field expertsthat for advancing a certain thematic area it is im-portant to keep its keywords on the agenda. Oth-erwise the theme will easily perish. As an exam-ple, the word ‘forest’ (in one form or another)should be present in the FP8 main themes. Thismeans lobbying and sharing information now.And it must be accepted that targeted funding aswell as more funding in the forest-based fieldwould mean less funding in some other area.Having a Thematic Priority for the forest fieldcould be the target but another possible way is tostrongly join with another theme. An optionalway to proceed is to concentrate on joint calls ofvarious themes, as is the present situation in FP7.However, a vision and a strategy are requiredeven if the forest-based field would be scatteredin the future. National programmes and ERA-NETs are excellent information carriers.

The national NCP network should be strongerand better resourced. Motivation and informationto produce better Framework Programme appli-cations is needed. For national interests therewould be a “machine” needed to help write andproof-read applications. This could partly in-volve commercial services. To many companiesand researchers the NCPs are the only boundaryto a Framework Programme. It is worth discuss-ing if NCP services could be tendered from thecommercial field as is done in some other coun-tries.

Foresight activities and national programmes areways to assure national agility. It is good to buildsteps for continuation from the national pro-grammes to European level funding. Nationallybuilt expertise also promotes success at the Euro-pean level. Timing of national activities is impor-tant and therefore national proactivity and fast re-sponses are needed.

A common national vision and strategy that iswidely implemented would be beneficial to theforest-based field. This is a general opinion thatwas brought up for example in the study inter-views. This might lead to the selection of nationallevel needs and priorities and, subsequently, to anagreement about which (programmatic) parts areto be launched nationally and which are to be car-ried out at the FP level. As background informa-tion a coordinated mapping of industry’s and re-search organisation’s interests should be col-lected. Strategic partnerships at various levelsshould be defined. Furthermore, competition be-tween themes is to be avoided.

Development of interaction of EU andnational innovation policies

National agility is something that must be keptand further developed. In addition to EU priori-ties, there must be certain specific national priori-ties. On one hand these should be synchronizedwith Framework Programmes and set in synergywith EU priorities. On the other hand individualnational targets are also needed. Ideally therewould be a maximum preparedness to target na-tional efforts in due time. Networks of differentkinds must be systematically utilised includinghigh political level.

National awareness and involvement in theFramework Programmes should be further devel-oped. For example, the strategic centres for sci-ence, technology and innovation can be utilizedin the better involvement of industry. Overall, theparties that launch national programmes musttake EU level activities in account. These includeministries, funding agencies and other nationalactors. Sweden is proposed as a good example re-garding forest-based field. It was brought up inthe study that Swedish lobbing culture and its ef-fectiveness in EU is very good. Regarding the for-est-based IP projects in FP6, all of them were co-ordinated by Swedish organisations. This issomewhat surprising and might tell of the forestfield national coherence. It might be interestingto study this matter further.

Activation of SMEs is something that must betaken seriously and it is important to understand

48

what it may require on different levels. Strengthsand weaknesses of different levels and themesshould be understood. For example, if a certainthematic EU instrument is not directly suitablefor Finnish companies, a national instrument maybe needed. It was clearly indicated by the expertsthat it may require that by participating in na-tional programmes some industrial partners learnand accept the slower time cycles that is the real-ity in public research. A further step to interna-tional programmatic R&D co-operation wouldthen be shorter.

For SMEs the long time span in FrameworkProgramme R&D may sometimes be a hin-drance. ERA-NETs and EUREKA projects aresaid to be more concrete, and it is worth discuss-ing whether more opportunities for SMEs shouldbe presented by ERA-NET and EUREKA fund-ing. Overall, it is worth mentioning that motivat-ing industry better is the way to bring EU R&Dspillover to Finland.

Summary

1. The Finnish participants’ general opinion isthat the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6)has overall been a suitable platform to partici-pate in European collaborative R&D activitiesin the forest-based field.

2. Forest-based R&D was not a specific thematicpriority in FP6, nor was it strongly included inany priority. The situation was similar in thepreceding FP5 and it further continues in thepresent FP7. In FP6 there have been severalthematic priorities’ annual calls with forest re-lated sub-themes, and it is estimated that therewere around 20 forest related projects ofwhich half had Finnish participation. The totalnumber of Finnish participants in these pro-jects was about 30.

3. It is concluded from the study results thatamong the forest-based projects the Finnishorganisations and stakeholders knew eachother already very well before. The network-ing objectives of the projects appear to be wellreached including success in national net-working. However, regarding the success offorest-related projects, less than half of theparticipating organisations rated the project as

successful and less than half were willing tocontinue cooperation with the same projectpartners in the future.

4. Woodwisdom-Net ERA-NET has been a suc-cessful project and it has brought internationalleadership to the forest-based field both re-search- and development wise. Woodwisdom-Net was an information node regarding fund-ing opportunities and international strategywork. It has networked national programmesof different countries in a meaningful bot-tom-up way. In addition, Woodwisdom-Netlaunched its own research programme for2006–2011. ERA-NET activities in the forestfield should be continued in the future.

5. The forest-based thematic funding opportuni-ties were scattered in different priorities andfor several years. For European as well asFinnish forest-based field research actors theannual calls of different priorities becamemost important. Finnish representatives in cer-tain FP6 programme committees took for-est-based field interests seriously and broughtits benefits ahead in the annual calls, as for ex-ample in the NMP priority. But overall, therewas not coherent FP6 information available onthe forest-based field funding opportunities,i.e. calls. And the actors in common did not re-cognise a channel to give input to FP6. A na-tional forest-based field support group forFramework Programmes is proposed to belaunched for the discussion between researchorganisations and national FP representatives.

6. The above conclusion was found also for theforest-based industry sector. The industry didnot extensively notice the FP6 opportunities.There is also a feeling that it did not have a pos-sibility to affect the initial form of FP6 and nei-ther could it have a proper voice during theFramework Programme. This should not beinterpreted as dissatisfaction towards FP’s. Onthe contrary, the industry is noticing the risingactivity of the forest-based field with content-ment. Presently Forestcluster Ltd is coordinat-ing the industry’s R&D strategy includingFPs. The proposed national forest-based fieldsupport group for Framework Programmesshould include industry participation for thediscussion between industry, research organi-sations and national FP representatives.

49

7. In 2004, a technology platform for the forest-based sector was initiated. The Forest-BasedSector Technology Platform (FTP) is an in-dustry-driven partnership for supporting thesector’s strategy and it is supported by a widerange of stakeholders. The platform is aimingto define and implement the sector’s R&Droadmap for the future. FTP is open to the en-tire sector and national support groups are animportant part of the operation. An importanttask is to lobby suitable themes and there isalso potential for the collection of new projectsas well. It is proposed that the FTP will be fur-ther developed to the direction of a Joint Arti-cle 171-based Joint (European) TechnologyInitiative.

7. Finnish industry’s connection to the FTP ischannelled via Forestcluster Ltd, which is a for-est-cluster related strategic centre for science,technology and innovation. Forestcluster Ltdhas its task to initiate research and innovationprogrammes and to channel research funds toselected focus areas. The bond betweenForestcluster Ltd and the FTP is very strong.SME’s are also encouraged to find their way tobe EU level actors via Forestcluster Ltd andsubsequently via the FTP.

9. The Finnish Secretariat for EU R&D has beenan active operator and it has produced a lot ofproper information and material on FP6 andprior Framework Programmes. For the for-est-based field the building of a specific the-matic Framework Programme informationboard is encouraged. National programmesand ERA-NETs are excellent thematic infor-mation carriers.

10. The national NCP network should be strongerand better resourced. It is worth discussingfull-time NCPs for certain themes or even ten-dered NCP’s from the commercial field. Re-garding the numerous delegates and experts indifferent thematic sub-committees, more re-sources, i.e. working days for the FrameworkProgramme work, should be available.

6.4 IST projects

In the Sixth Framework Programme, Finland wasstrongly present in projects where information andcommunication technologies were in a central po-sition. Of all the 1,008 projects with Finnish par-ticipation in the Sixth Framework Programme,211 were in the IST priority. In addition, informa-tion and communications technology had an im-portant role in many other projects. This is the casefor many projects in the Nanotechnologies andLife Sciences priority areas, as well as in horizon-tal research activities and policy support.

In this section, we review the Finnish participa-tion only in the IST priority area. Although theimpact of ICT can be found in most FP6 projects,the projects in the IST priority represent a clearmajority of projects where ICT was actually de-veloped. The section describes structural charac-teristics of innovation networks generated byFinnish IST projects, as well as their geographiccharacteristics.

Overall Descriptive Statistics

Overall, the 211 Finnish IST projects created anetwork of 4,189 partners. This number repre-sents the actual project-level linkages. In prac-tice, project partners are often partnering in sev-eral projects. Project-level connections are, how-ever, important for knowledge transfer, as at thislevel project members actually collaborate andcoordinate their work.

At the institutional level of organisations, FinnishIST projects created a network of 1898 distinctorganisations. Of these, 1798 came from outsideFinland and 100 from Finland.29 A clear leader inthe participation volume was VTT, with 67 pro-jects, followed by Nokia by 38 projects, and Hel-sinki University of Technology with 35 projects.Overall, Finnish organisations collaborated with38.4 percent of all the organisations that partici-pated in projects in the IST priority.

50

29 The Commission contract data shows 102 distinct Finnish organisations. In the analysis below, we use also public datafrom the EC Cordis database. Both databases have duplicates and missing data, and the Cordis data also tend to besomewhat out of date. The analysis is based on quality controlled data, and the presented numbers, therefore, do notexactly correspond to Commission contract data or data available through Cordis.

The number of distinct Finnish participant or-ganisations represented 5.3 percent of all the1,898 distinct organisations participating in theFinnish IST projects. In total, Finnish organisa-tions participated 330 times in the 211 projects.

In financial terms, the total cost of the projectswas 136 million euros, and the EC contribution tothe projects was 96.1 million euros, or 71 percent.The eligible costs in accepted project proposalswere 146.75 million euros, of which the total costof Finnish participants was 13.28 million euros.The total eligible cost of Finnish participants,therefore, was 9 percent of all eligible costs. TheFinnish participants requested 65 percent of theireligible costs from the Framework Funding.30

In the Finnish IST projects, the ratio of Finnish par-ticipants to all participants was 7.9 percent. As thetotal Finnish eligible costs were 9 percent of all eli-gible costs, the Finnish participants’ share of costswas 1.14 times their share of participation.31

One might assume that collaboration amongFinnish organisations would be an entry point tointernational collaboration. In a simple scenario,experienced Finnish research partners providelow entry barriers for less experienced partners tojoin research consortia, eventually creatinghigh-level collaboration competencies in the lo-cal research and innovation network. Spe-cifically, SMEs are often assumed to benefit fromsuch “piggy-backing.”

Although there was some clustering of Finnishparticipation in the projects, in over two thirds ofthe projects there was only one Finnish partici-pant. This perhaps indicates that many Finnishparticipants are quite mature in their interna-tional collaboration capabilities and do not relyon help from other Finnish partners in formingconsortia. The number of projects with differentcounts of Finnish participants can be seen fromFigure 18.

51

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Number of Finnish Participants

Num

ber o

f Pro

ject

s

Figure 18. Number of Finnish participants in the IST projects.

30 These numbers are based on the EC contract data, as of November 2007. Project proposal normally budget higher thanthe final accepted costs. The Commission data, however, shows that the EC contribution to Finnish IST projectsactually is somewhat higher than the request.

31 If instead of the number of participations we calculate the ratio using distinct organisations, the Finnish share was 1.70times higher. The difference between these two ratios reflects the fact that the Finnish participants had, on average,more participations than non-Finnish participants. Partly this, of course, results from the fact that the data are for thoseIST projects that have Finnish participants.

Some clustering of Finnish participation, how-ever, remains. This clustering could result simplyfrom the size of project consortia, with large pro-jects having also many Finnish participants. This,however, was not the case, as can be seen fromFigure 19. The figure shows the total participantcounts of all Finnish IST projects, sorted in de-scending order, with Finnish participants at thebottom of the columns.

On average, the projects had 19.8 participants,with a maximum of 88. Half of the projects had 14or more participants, the most common participantcount being 11. Of the participants, on average 1.6were Finnish. The maximum number of Finnishparticipants was 7. As all projects had at least oneFinnish participant on average, the projects showlow clustering of Finnish participation.

The Project Network Structure

A basic assumption in the European FrameworkProgrammes is that they create collaboration net-works that lead to improved knowledge transferand knowledge creation. Although knowledgecreation often relies on informal social networks,formal collaboration structures also have an im-portant role. Most important, collaborative re-search projects provide a goal-oriented structurethat simultaneously creates formal and informalnetworks. Structural characteristics of networksgenerated by joint research projects, therefore, areimportant for understanding constraints and capa-bilities of the underlying innovation networks.

In general, the Finnish IST project network istightly connected. Many of the projects were

52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

non-FIFI

Figure 19. Number of Finnish and non-Finnish participants in the Finnish IST projects.

heavily linked with common participants, al-though this linking also frequently occurs throughnon-Finnish partners. Of the 211 projects, each ofthe top 50 linked projects could be directly linkedto more than 120 other Finnish IST projectsthrough common partner organizations. The top50 linked projects are shown in Figure 20, wherethe size of the vertices indicates the total number ofparticipants in the project, and the number inbrackets gives the total number of Finnish IST pro-jects with which the node project has commonproject partners.

For example, in the lower-right corner of Figure20 the ARTIST2 network of excellence on em-

bedded systems design is linked to the INTU-ITION network of excellence on virtual reality.This is because, for example, France Telecomand CNRS participate in both. INTUITION isincluded in the pool of Finnish IST projects be-cause VTT and HUT are its partners.

On the other hand, ARTIST2 is included only be-cause the Finnish software firm Tidorum Oy is aparticipant. One can therefore see that the rathercentral ARTIST2 network is not strongly con-nected to Finnish IST participants. This can beviewed as structural weakness in the Finnish re-search network.32

53

Figure 20. Top 50 linked projects (with more than 120 direct links to Finnish IST projects).

32 Finland has strongly committed to the ARTEMIS Joint Technology Initiative in the embedded systems area.The ARTIST2 network would potentially have been a natural launch pad for software-related projects in this area.The fact that Finnish participation consists of one small firm can therefore be viewed as a structural challenge.

Almost half of all the projects are very tightlyconnected by multiple common partners. It ispossible to extract a sub-network of 100 projectsin which each project is connected to 68 otherprojects of this same sub-network with at leastone common participant.33 Many projects alsohave several common partners, supporting theidea that project collaboration easily leads to fur-ther collaborations. When the number of com-mon partners is used to weight the network links,41 projects emerge as the most connectedsub-network. Each of these projects has partners

that jointly participate in at least 81 times in theother projects of this sub-network. This sub-net-work is shown in Figure 21.34 In the Figure, thelinks are labeled with the number of common par-ticipants between two node projects. For exam-ple, E-NEXT and AMIGO are connected with alink of four common partners, CNRS, INRIA,Telefonica, and Fraunhofer.

The most tightly connected projects form a net-work of organisations that are linked with manyshared projects. This network, in practical terms,

54

Figure 21. Projects with the highest number of common partners.

33 In terms of social network analysis, they form a k-core, where k is 68.

34 In terms of social network analysis, the sub-network is valued core. Instead of simply counting whether a commonpartner exists between two node projects, we count the number of common partners.

could be called the “Finnish dimension of the Eu-ropean IST Research Area.” Not all projects werehighly connected, however. Projects that were di-rectly linked to less than 50 other Finnish ISTprojects are shown in Figure 22. The size of thevertices, again, indicates the total number of par-ticipants in the project, and the number in bracketsgives the number of projects directly linked by acommon partner. The figure also shows linksamong the depicted vertices. For example, one cansee from the figure that CARDITIS was linked tofour other Finnish IST projects. Counting the linesin the figure, one may see that all these links wereto the relatively unconnected projects.

The least connected projects are shown in Figure23. These are all relatively small projects formedby non-central partners, in the context of the Finn-ish IST network. For example, COMET is a Spe-

cific Targeted Research Project that focuses on en-abling technologies for converged messaging be-yond 3G, with seven partners. One of these part-ners is the Finnish Movial Applications Oy.

Although the direct connections in the projectnetwork make COMET quite isolated from theFinnish ICT R&D networks, Movial has been in-volved in, for example, in the development ofNokia’s Linux-based internet tablet. It is thereforeprobable that if useful knowledge and technolo-gies were created in the project35, the results canpropagate first to Nokia and eventually also to therest of the Finnish ICT R&D network. AlthoughMovial only participates in this one STREP pro-ject, the non-Finnish COMET participants are alsoparticipants in nine other Finnish IST projects.This can be seen by looking at the number inbrackets in the project label in Figure 22, above.

55

Figure 22. Bottom 61 linked projects (less than 50 links to Finnish IST projects).

35 COMET finished 30.4.2008.

In principle, knowledge generated in COMETcan therefore also propagate to the Finnish R&Dnetwork through these non-Finnish project part-ners. Although it is possible that such isolatedprojects take longer before their impact is seen inthe Finnish R&D system, it is also possible thatthe non-Finnish intermediaries are able to pack-age the produced knowledge in ways that make iteasier to apply. In general, the outcomes dependon the specific roles of partners in the project con-sortium. If the consortium includes Finnish par-ticipants who are both end-users for the knowl-edge created in the project and representatives ofimportant Finnish industries, such indirect ef-fects may become important.

From the point of view of national innovationpolicy, relatively isolated projects could make di-rect access for potential Finnish technology de-velopers difficult, and weak links to the ICTR&D network could also slow down the rate ofdiffusion of the knowledge and technology gen-erated. It is, however, also possible that isolatedprojects complement the more connected pro-jects in important ways. Although effective inno-vation networks tend to be highly connected,their evolution also depends on new approachesand points of view introduced by new and periph-eral actors. A quick look at the actual FinnishSixth Framework IST projects seems to indicatethat there are two characteristically differenttypes of Finnish participants in the isolated pro-jects: some have been invited to a well-preparedconsortium to complement the consortium struc-ture, perhaps based on reviewer comments in aprevious call; others are core partners with strongstrategic interest in the project. In general, thefirst type of participation is associated with littleinfluence on the project content.

As the projects in the IST priority have a naturalfocus on ICT, it is not surprising that the projectstend to be linked by participant organisations thatare heavy users and developers of ICT. In otherwords: If an organization participates in one ISTproject, it probably also participates in anotherIST project.

More surprising, perhaps, is the fact that there arealso a large number of projects outside this tightly

connected network. As noted above, these seemto include projects were individual Finnish firmswere invited to join a well-prepared consortium.Some of these loosely connected projects are alsoprojects that have a qualitatively different focusfrom the other FP6 IST projects. These include,for example, CALIMERA, which focused on cul-tural applications and local institutions, includ-ing libraries, and MODULINSPEX, which fo-cused on X-ray technology for production pro-cess control and packing quality control.

The project network can also be studied from apurely Finnish point of view, including only linksfor Finnish participants. Such an analysis reveals,for example, those project sub-networks whereFinnish participation is strongly concentrated.Such central projects can be seen in Figure 24. Inthe figure, only projects that have Finnish partici-

56

Figure 23. Bottom 20 least connected projects.

pant links to at least five other Finnish IST pro-jects are retained. The links are drawn only be-tween projects where at least two partners are inboth project nodes. The link widths indicate thenumber of common participants. The size of thenode and the number in brackets both indicate thenumber of Finnish participants.

Participant Network Structure

In the previous section, we described the linkagesamong IST projects that had Finnish participants.The projects are created around shared objectiveswhich create coordination and collaborationstructures through division of labor. The projectstherefore establish a temporary informal organi-zational structure, where actors from differentformal organizations come together to achieve

shared goals. In this process, the actors shareknowledge and technologies, develop social rela-tions and social capital, and improve their innova-tion capabilities.

When the underlying collaboration network isstudied from the point of view of partner organi-sations, instead of projects, we can ask withwhom the partners share work and knowledge.For example, we can ask who the key partners arein the network of Finnish IST projects.

The 50 most connected organisations are shownin Figure 25. Each of these has at least 254 part-nerships with other partner organisations in theFinnish IST network. The figure shows also theconnections among the most connected projectnodes, revealing the fact that these highly con-

57

Figure 24. Projects with at least 5 direct Finnish participant links with other Finnish IST projects.

nected organisations are also connected to eachother. Several leading research institutions are in-cluded, such as INRIA from France, IMEC fromBelgium, KTH from Sweden, ETHZ from Swit-zerland, and TNO from the Netherlands.36

Less obvious key partners include, for example,the University of Cyprus. This has to do with thefact that the University of Cyprus is member offive large Networks of Excellence in the SixthFramework IST area, and also a member of fourrather large Integrated Projects. This, in turn, mayresult from the belief that the inclusion of new

member states and geographical coverage of con-sortia have a positive influence on the rating ofproject proposals. Based on a purely structuralanalysis of the project consortia, it is impossibleto say whether there is a causal link between theinclusion participants of new member states andthe success of project proposals, or whether theparticipants are there simply because the peopleforming consortia believe that the chances of pro-posal success increases when new member statesare included. In the case of Networks of Excel-lence, the geographic extent of the project con-sortium probably has some impact, and in the

58

Figure 25. Top 50 connected organisations (over 254 links to other distinct organisations).

36 The layout algorithm used for the figure locates organisations based on similarity of connections. Although organisationswith similar connections tend to be close to each other, there is no relationship with the “centrality” of a node and itscentrality in the network. A central location is partly an artifact produced by the two-dimensionality of the picture.

case of Integrated Projects there may be somemarginal effect as well. At least in theory, consor-tium structure, however, is evaluated without tak-ing into account the specific countries of partici-pants.

As could be expected, from the Finnish organisa-tions clearly the most connected was VTT. It was

a member in 67 IST projects, and its project port-folio generated 828 links to other participants.Yet, the ratio of Finnish participants to non-Finn-ish participants in VTT’s projects was not veryhigh. This can be seen from Table 9, which liststhe Finnish participants in the rank order by theratio of Finnish participants. In this ranking, VTTis in the 66th position. In contrast to Figure 18,

59

# % # % # %1 33.3 HANSAPAP 34 12.5 ORTIKON 67 4.0 HUT

2 33.3 GENIMAP 35 10.0 DIMES 68 3.8 HELSINKI

3 33.3 MITRON 36 9.9 LMERICSSON 69 3.7 JOENSUUN TP

4 33.3 SISU 37 9.9 ELISA 70 3.6 U HELSINKI

5 31.3 SONERA 38 9.5 EVTEK 71 3.2 UTA

6 31.3 UTU 39 9.5 JAAKKO PÖYRY 72 2.8 STAKES

7 28.6 UPM 40 9.1 ENTERPRIXE 73 2.2 FIOH

8 26.7 LAPPEENR 41 9.1 PULSE FI 74 1.4 JYU

9 26.7 PROJECT BUSINESS OY 42 8.7 HERMIA TP 75 0.0 MDM OY

10 26.7 NORDEA FI 43 8.0 EBT 76 0.0 DELTATRON

11 26.7 VALTIOKONTTORI 44 7.7 ABO AKADEMI 77 0.0 HEUREKA

12 25.0 MODULIGHT 45 7.1 TK HERMIA 78 0.0 SKOY

13 22.2 RAUNIO 46 7.1 FLEXLINK 79 0.0 EMA

14 22.2 IDESCO 47 7.1 ÅBOLAND 80 0.0 LAPPSET

15 22.2 SATAMA 48 6.8 UPM RAFLATAC 81 0.0 SILTANET

16 22.2 LUT 49 6.8 UPM RAFSEC 82 0.0 QPR

17 22.2 TIETOENATOR 50 6.7 MTC FI 83 0.0 EKAHAU

18 22.2 FINPRO 51 6.7 HEPTAGON 84 0.0 TIDORUM

19 21.1 SUUNTO 52 6.7 T TALO 85 0.0 CSC

20 20.0 OKMETIC 53 6.7 U JOENSUU 86 0.0 CONTINUENT

21 20.0 SIP TECH 54 6.3 EADS SN FI 87 0.0 SOT

22 20.0 NOK RE 55 6.2 HSE 88 0.0 PROFIUM

23 20.0 CORELASE 56 6.0 EB 89 0.0 TEKES

24 20.0 MICRO ANALOG 57 5.6 TAMPERE 90 0.0 VISUAL

25 19.4 FINRE 58 5.6 FOGS 91 0.0 DCA-I OY

26 18.9 ICT TURKU 59 5.5 SPORTUM 92 0.0 UWASA

27 16.7 NESTE 60 5.5 HKL 93 0.0 APLAC

28 16.7 SUOMEN POSTI 61 5.3 NOKIA 94 0.0 MOVIAL

29 14.3 MAWELL 62 5.1 TUT 95 0.0 FATMAN

30 13.8 CONFIDEX 63 4.7 UIAH 96 0.0 KOKKOLA

31 13.6 MI FI 64 4.6 U OULU 97 0.0 SOLID

32 13.6 FINNAIR 65 4.3 TRACKWAY 98 0.0 CLOTHING PLUS

33 13.3 GE 66 4.2 VTT 99 0.0 AXEL TECH

100 0.0 SOFIA DIGITAL

Table 9. The percentage ratio of Finnish partners to total number of partners.

which depicted the distribution of projects with aspecific number of Finnish participants (e.g., howmany projects there are with two Finnish partici-pants), Table 9 shows the percentage of Finnishpartners for each Finnish organisation. As can beseen from the table, almost one fourth of the Finn-ish IST organisations had one fifth or more oftheir project partners in Finnish organisations. Inthe context of FP6, one could characterize theseorganisations as “Finland-centric.”

As can be seen from Table 9, one fourth of theFinnish organisations didn’t have any Finnishpartners in the IST projects. These organisationscould be characterized as “Euro-centric.” It is in-

teresting to note that universities such as the Uni-versity of Turku (UTU) and the University ofHelsinki (U HELSINKI) seem to play quite dif-ferent roles in the FP6 IST network. Whereas theformer is mainly involved in projects with otherFinnish partners, the latter is mainly involved inprojects where it is partnering with non-Finnishorganisations.

Graphically, the volume of Finnish partnering isvisible in Figure 26. In the figure, the node sizereflects the number of Finnish co-partners. Thisis also given as the number in brackets. For exam-ple, one can see from the figure that VTT had 65Finnish partners in its projects.

60

Figure 26. Number of Finnish IST co-participants.

The actual project connections among Finnishparticipants are shown in Figure 27. In the figure,the size of the nodes represents the number of ISTprojects the organisation participates in, and thelink label numbers show the number of commonprojects. For example, one can see that there arethree IST projects where both Nokia and HUT areparticipants. Similarly, one can see that, typically,organisations that are the only Finnish partici-pants in the projects are participants in only one

project. An exception here is Tekes, which partic-ipates in five IST projects in the Sixth FrameworkProgramme. As a national coordinator of Frame-work Programmes, its projects are typically sup-port actions, such as the ARTEMIS Joint Tech-nology Initiative mirror group, organised underthe COSINE Specific Support Action, or theCISTRANA Coordinating Action, which aims atcoordinating national and EU IST research initia-tives.

61

Figure 27. Linkages among Finnish participants.

Geography of Participation

On aggregate, most of the partners in the FinnishIST projects came from Germany, followed byFrance, Italy, and the U.K. The top ten participantcountries are shown in Figure 28.

Worldwide, the role of China and India in ICT re-search is growing fast. In the Sixth FrameworkIST projects, Finnish participants had 22 partnersfrom China, five from India, six from Singapore,and one from South Korea. These numbers arestill quite small. In terms of participation, Chinawas somewhat bigger than Estonia or Cyprus,which both had 17 participants in the Finnish ISTprojects, and smaller than Turkey and Romania,with 25 and 23 participants, respectively.

The global map of participations is shown in Fig-ure 29 and the number of European participationsis shown in Figure 30.

At the level of countries, the number of parti-cipations, of course, depends on the size of thecountry. Large countries such as Germany,

France and the U.K. have many research insti-tutes and firms that participate in the FrameworkProgrammes. A simple measure of national “in-tensity of participation” in Finnish IST projectscan be derived by scaling the participation num-bers by population counts. Such “per capita” lev-els are shown in Figure 31.

In population weighted participation counts,Sweden, with 182 participations, emerges as theleading partner. Due to their small populations,Luxembourg and Cyprus also appear on the top ofthe list, with 15 and 17 participations, respec-tively. After these three countries, the high partic-ipation intensity countries include Estonia, Den-mark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland,Austria, Greece, Slovenia, and Israel. In absoluteterms, Israel, with its 49 participations, is close toHungary (50) and Ireland (46).

The Finnish participants come predominantlyfrom a few geographic areas, centred around Hel-sinki, Tampere and Oulu. From the point of viewof IST research in the Sixth Framework Pro-gramme, Finland is a sparsely populated country.

62

DE FR IT UK FI ES SE EL NL BE0

100

200

300

400

Num

ber o

f par

ticip

atio

ns

500

600

700

Figure 28. Top 10 participant countries in Finnish IST projects.

63

Figure 29. Number of participations in Finnish IST projects, worldwide.

Figure 30. Number of participations in Finnish IST projects, Europe.

With the exception of one project partner,Lappset Oy, located in Rovaniemi, the northern-most partners are in Oulu. The regions east fromPorvoo, Jyväskylä and Oulu are also almostempty, with two participations from Joensuu, onefrom Joutseno, and two from Lappeenranta.

The geographic concentration of the Finnish ISTparticipants can be seen in Figure 32. In total,there are 100 distinct organisations mapped.Many of the map markers overlap at this scale inthe areas of high participation. As can be seenfrom the map, many regions are relatively emptywhen IST participation is concerned.

The map locates participating organisations ac-cording to their main location or headquarters.Although at the scale shown in Figure 32 the im-pact is invisible, this somewhat distorts the geo-graphic picture especially in the cases of VTTand Nokia, which have projects located in severalof their Finnish sites.

As can be expected, clearly the highest concen-tration of participant organisations is located inthe Helsinki region. The region is also character-ized by a rich variety of the types of participants,including technology developer and user firms,research institutes, public sector organisations,and universities. A more detailed picture of theHelsinki region is shown in Figure 33.

64

Figure 31. Number of participations in Finnish IST projects, population weighted.

65

Figure 32. Geographic distribution of Finnish IST participants.

Summary

A typical Sixth Framework IST project with aFinnish partner had 11 partners in total, and halfof the 211 projects had over 14 partners. On aver-age, 1.6 participants were Finnish. In two-thirdsof the projects, there was only one Finnish partic-ipant. In other words, the reference group forFinnish participants consisted mainly of partnersfrom abroad. This shows that the Finnish partici-pants in the IST sector are already well interna-tionalised in their research networks.

Although the most active Finnish actors, such asVTT, Nokia and Helsinki University of Technol-ogy, had some halo effect and brought with themsome smaller players to the FP6 networks, manysmall actors also participated without any obvi-ous support from large and experienced Finnishactors. Although further study would be needed,this would seem to support the rather controver-sial view that there are no cluster effects in theICT area in Finland. As the Finnish innovationpolicy is to a large extent based on the assumptionthat technology-specific clusters are important,this possibility might deserve further study.

66

Figure 33. Finnish IST Participants in the Helsinki region.

Given the extremely heavy competition for fund-ing, only very high-quality proposals were suc-cessful in getting funding in the Sixth Frame-work. Typically this means that the proposal writ-ers need to have considerable accumulated expe-rience in developing proposals. It is thereforequite probable that the small newcomers werebrought in by experienced foreign participants,who needed specific competences and partnerprofiles for their consortia. Anecdotal evidenceseems to indicate that newcomer organisationsoften participated in “readymade” consortia,where an important motivation for the Finnishpartner was the prestige gained from workingwith foreign well known firms and research insti-tutions. This poses the question of whether itwould be possible to develop processes andmechanisms that would support Finnish SMEsand other newcomers in promoting their own re-search agenda in the research plans. It might beuseful, for example, for some newcomers to getinformation about typical problems in consor-tium development, or to get support in formulat-ing research plans that would be well alignedwith their strategic interests.

As the study on IST project networks shows,many Finnish IST projects are heavily connectedthrough joint participants, but there are also manyprojects that are relatively unconnected. As couldbe expected, large Integrated Projects with strongmobile communications components formed oneof the main cores of the Finnish IST projects.Similarly, organisations such as VTT, with 67IST projects, and Nokia, with 38 projects, actedas the centres of the Finnish IST network.

Considering the relatively tightly connected pro-ject and organization networks, it is interesting tonote that there also are a large number of rela-tively unconnected projects and organisations. Acloser study of these outliers might generate im-portant policy proposals. An interesting possibil-ity is, for example, that some of these outlierscould represent disruptive innovations from thepoint of view of the Finnish IST network. If thatwould be the case, such outliers could be impor-tant for the renewal of the Finnish innovation sys-tem.

Given the different roles educational institutionsand private enterprises have in knowledge and in-novation networks, the rather dominant role ofNokia in the Finnish IST network might deservefurther study. The most active educational institu-tions, Helsinki University of Technology, Uni-versity of Helsinki, Tampere University of Tech-nology, and University of Oulu all had somewhatless Finnish partners in their projects than Nokia,with its 5.3 percent of all their IST project part-ners. In theory, the diffusion of new knowledge,however, occurs fast through open educationalorganisations where new knowledge is typicallymade publicly available. In the specific Finnishcontext of IST research, it would be interesting tostudy in more detail the mechanisms of knowl-edge diffusion through private enterprises, and inparticular Nokia. As Nokia and other major tech-nology vendors typically participate only inclearly pre-commercial research, it could, for ex-ample, be possible to create low-cost facilitationmechanisms that could “piggy-back” theirFramework projects and promote knowledge dif-fusion at a purely national scale, in effect closingthe knowledge diffusion gap between educa-tional institutions and private enterprises in thisspecific case.

The ratio of Finnish partners in IST projects var-ies greatly among Finnish universities. For exam-ple, the University of Turku is heavily involved inprojects with other Finnish partners. In contrast,the University of Helsinki is mainly involvedwith projects with non-Finnish partners. Thiscould indicate that universities can play differentroles in research networks, some acting as media-tors in the local innovation system, whereas oth-ers link the national innovation system to interna-tional partners. Although we didn’t study this inany detail, it could imply that different policy ap-proaches and support mechanisms are needed forapparently similar institutions.

The geographic study of the IST networks showsthe heavy dominance of three regions in Finland.Although we didn’t study the reasons in any de-tail, it seems that the main factor is simply thepopulation density. Yet, it is also clear that many

67

regions in Finland have only weak or non-exis-tent links to the EU IST research networks.

At a more global level, the pronounced role ofcountries such as Cyprus and Greece in the Finn-ish IST networks may emerge as a surprise. In ab-solute numbers, the Finnish IST projects weremainly built around German, French, Italian andUK networks. In per capita terms, Sweden, how-ever, is the most important IST partner. The roleof China is increasing, but still in absolute termsChina remains only slightly larger than Estoniaand Cyprus.

6.5 ICT applications in healthcare products and services

Introduction

In this section we describe the participation ofFinnish companies and research organisations inthe eHealth projects of the Sixth FrameworkProgramme. There were six separate calls foreHealth (ICT for health) projects in the FP6 andthe European Commission funded 55 of the pro-jects proposed to the calls. The total amount ofEU funding for these projects was EUR202,000,000.

Of these 55 eHealth projects, Finnish partnerswere involved in only three. Because Finnish par-ticipation is so low, we also describe Finnish par-ticipation in other Information Society Technol-ogies (IST) projects that were targeted at devel-oping applications for health care and welfare.

In FP6, the portfolio of eHealth projects is di-vided into three thematic areas, namely 1) Per-sonal health management systems and servicesbased on biosensors, 2) Tools for health profes-sionals, and 3) Biomedical informatics. Finlandhas done extensive research and has businessknow-how in each of these areas and it wouldtherefore be useful to determine the reasons forFinland’s low participation in these projects. Thiswould also allow us to identify the possibilitiesfor expanding the cooperative networks and in-creasing activities in these areas via participationin EU-sponsored Framework Programmes.

Finnish participation in eHealthprojects

Projects including Finns that focused on ICT ap-plications in health care products and services areshown in Table 10. The three projects that suc-cessfully received funding in the FP6 call foreHealth (ICT for health) proposals are included(marked with asterisk), as are seven IST-relatedprojects whose goal was to adapt, research anddevelop ICT applications for health care productsand services.

In the 55 projects that were successful in theeHealth call (see Table 11), Finland was repre-sented by only three organisations: the NationalResearch and Development Centre for Welfareand Health (Stakes), the telecommunicationscompany TeliaSonera, and the University ofTurku. CARDITIS is the only project coordi-nated by Finns. Due to the low number of eHealthprojects with Finnish input — upon wider inspec-tion only ten projects in all — there is limited ma-terial for study.

As Finnish participation in eHealth projects hasevidently been low, there was speculation in theinterviews as to why many project proposals ofFinnish origin failed to make the cut. It was pro-posed that Finnish proposals may be more

68

Project Finnish partner(s)

1. BIOGNOSIS VTT

2. CARDITIS* TeliaSonera Plc,University of Turku

3. CASCOM TeliaSonera Plc, Ema Group Ltd

4. CONTEXT Clothing Plus Ltd

5. DAPHNET University of Oulu

6. DFA STAKES

7. eHealth ERA* STAKES

8. ELDRGAMES Lappset Ltd

9. MINAMI VTT

10. SemanticMining* STAKES

Table 10. Finnish participation in eHealthprojects.

down-to-earth by nature, outlining realistic ex-pectations, as compared to other proposals thatpromise grand results. These proposals were seenas gaining more points and eventually receivingfunding. One person interviewed felt that theFinnish projects tended to seek local results andthat their eventual benefit was not cast on a suit-able ‘pan-European’scale. On the other hand, theEU Framework Programme is not well known incompanies working on eHealth topics. In eHealthprojects, the Finnish participation proved to besporadic.

An example of the participation of a Finnish com-pany in an FP6 project follows. A large, promi-nent German company invited a Finnish com-pany into a project where the cooperative net-work was already in place. The German firm wasrecognised as a key customer, and the invitationto participate in the project was seen as a positivesign. The Finnish company had no experiencewith EU projects, and the person interviewed forthis study was actually recruited into the com-pany from the university for this purpose becauseshe had experience with EU funding. The Ger-man company coordinated the project well, andtherefore reporting on the progress was clear. Forthe Finnish company, however, reporting on theproject required familiarisation with the EU pro-ject regimen for the finance personnel.

The Finnish company was recruited by design.The company was small, working as the only pro-vider of their service in Finland in a narrow fieldof business. The German company had had quitea bit of trouble in finding them, as they did notknow the name of the Finnish company, thoughthey knew of their work. For the Finns, the invita-tion to participate in the EU project was unex-pected. Although the project suits the strategy ofthe company well, the Finns would not have em-barked on such a project without the suggestionof this favoured partner. As a matter of fact, theFinnish company was not familiar with FP6 andwas not aware of activities of the Finnish Secre-tariat for EU R&D. The project is still underway,and the cooperative effort has led to the Finnishcompany’s involvement in yet another EU pro-ject, with the same German firm suggesting theirpartnership.

Another example of a Finnish company joiningan FP6 project resembles the first in origin. Al-though this second Finnish company had hadsome experience with EU projects, the FP6 andthe Finnish Secretariat for EU R&D were not fa-miliar to them before this project began. A Span-ish research organisation requested that the Finnsbecome a partner in a project whereby companyproducts would be used in pilot locations in dif-ferent countries. Although the pilot locationswere customers of the company already, the pro-ject offered the possibility to do research and ex-periments that would not be possible in normalbusiness operations. The Finnish company joinedthe project tentatively; the decision was largelybased on the invitation of the Spanish organisa-tion, which had a good reputation, and the oppor-tunity for product development, which naturallysuited the company strategy. According to therepresentative of the Finnish company that wasinterviewed for this study, there were only someproblems: the IT development component of theproject seemed superfluous, and there was uncer-tainty as to which party was responsible for com-mercial development.

It was apparent in the interviews that small andmedium-sized enterprises in Finland are notaware of EU Framework Programmes and the op-portunities they offer for project funding. Ourbrief enquiry to large-size health care IT compa-nies responded no particular interest in FPs. OneSME manager was of the opinion that R&D fund-ing from the EU could only be used if large com-panies and research organisations acquired itfirst. The interviews also revealed that SMEs donot have the resources to successfully managethese kinds of projects alone. Small companies inparticular must rely on being discovered as a part-ner, rather than taking an active role in creatingpotential networks for cooperation. Alterna-tively, for big research organisations, outside sup-port for the project funding process has accumu-lated over a longer period, and the representativesinterviewed were able to hazard a guess as to thepercentage of successful project proposals intheir organisation.

Compared to other countries, Finland’s participa-tion in eHealth projects is low. Presenting the gap

69

to some more active countries, the disparity is ap-parent when comparing the participation of Finnsand Italians, for example (Table 11). As an exam-ple of a more active country, the Italians act as co-ordinators of several FP6 eHealth projects with,for example, ten different parties from Italy activein the MyHeart project. What is remarkable aboutthe Italian contribution is that they are involved in70% of all EU-sponsored eHealth projects, whilethe corresponding percentage for the Finns is 5%.

In general terms, there seems to be a shortage oflinkages between the less active and the more ac-tive countries. The table below shows that theonly connection between Finland and Italy at themoment is the eHealth ERA project, in whichboth countries act as partners, and in which a Ger-man company is the coordinator. Then, whatcould be the lesson for a less active country to en-hance success with the project proposals? Per-haps one solution is to learn better networkingskills. One interviewee put it in short: “You wantto be friends with those people.”

In the evaluation of Finnish participation in FP6,some of the most interesting data could actuallybe found in other work that did not receive EUfunding, like the ICT for health projects. Whatkinds of projects with Finnish input have notcome to fruition despite project proposals? Interms of numbers, this observation group is in anycase several times larger than that which has suc-cessfully received funding. This study unearthedsome examples, but because the effort to root outrejected project proposals was not completed sys-tematically, any observations about the materialare anecdotal. Some common characteristics existamong those rejected proposals that were exam-ined, however. They were all compiled by Finnishparties and performed well in the rankings, but notquite well enough. In fact, this group of projectsthat was very close to receiving funding makes forvery interesting research material. Examination ofthese rejected projects for the proper instrumentsthat could have better supported their proposalscould significantly strengthen the future role Fin-land plays in projects sponsored by FrameworkProgrammes.

70

Project Finland Italy Project Finland Italy Project Finland Italy Project Finland Italy

1. @Health – � 16. Doc@Hand – � 31. MicroActive – – 46. SemanticMining � –

2. @neurIST – – 17. eHealth ERA � � 32. MULTI-KNOWL. – � 47. SHARE – –

3. ACGT – � 18. EMERGE – – 33. MyHeart – � 48. SIMAP – �

4. ALLADIN – � 19. EuResist – � 34. NEUROWEB – � 49. SmartHEALTH – �

5. ARTEMIS – – 20. HealthAgents – � 35. NOESIS – � 50. STEP – �

6. ASSIST – – 21. Health-e-Child – � 36. OPSETH – – 51. SYMBIOmatics – �

7. AUBADE – � 22. HEALTH PLUS – � 37. OLDES – � 52. TACIT – �

8. BIOPATTERN – � 23. HEARTFAID – � 38. PALLIANET – – 53. TMA-Bridge – –

9. CAALYX – � 24. I-Know – – 39. PIPS – � 54. ViroLab – �

10. CARDITIS � – 25. ImmunoGrid – � 40. Q-REC – – 55. WOUNDMONITOR – �

11. CARE-PATHS – � 26. INFOBIOMED – � 41. RIDE – �

12. CLINICIP – � 27. INTREPID – � 42. RIGHT – �

13. COCOON – � 28. K4CARE – � 43. SAPHIRE – –

14. DESSOS – – 29. LHDL – � 44. SEALIFE – –

15. DICOEMS – � 30. MATCH – � 45. SemanticHEALTH – –

Table 11. Finnish and Italian participation in the portfolio of eHealth projects in FP6.

Conclusions

All in all, Finnish participation in eHealth pro-jects has been low. This is somewhat surprisingsince universities and research institutes have lotof experience with EU projects in general. Frame-work Programmes are familiar there and the staffis self-sufficient in dealing with them. The case isquite the opposite in SMEs. In order for them tosucceed in EU Framework Programmes, compa-nies should be encouraged to more actively net-work with universities and research organisations.The means to support participation need to be es-tablished in order to help Finnish players succeed.So far, SMEs have typically entered as partners ineHealth projects only after an invitation from a for-eign organisation. With their R&D project propos-als, Finnish companies are more accustomed toseek for national funding. In SMEs, the EU Frame-work Programme is not considered very importantand is not well known.

As Tekes has a new programme, “Innovations inSocial and Healthcare Service System”, this couldbe used as an intermediate portal for generatingdesired EU Framework Programme projects. Withthis new programme of Tekes, we are also able toget the involvement of the health care institutessuch as hospitals and health districts themselves tothe projects, something that is necessary in orderto successfully carry out projects working onchanges in health care. In the portfolio of eHealthprojects to come, this could well be a factor thattips the scale towards better success for Finnishproposals and more active participation.

6.6 Case: ARTEMIS

Launch of the ARTEMIS JointTechnology Initiative

One specific focus area for the present evaluationwas to study the impact of Finnish ICT actors onthe evolving EU R&D policies and initiatives.The ARTEMIS Joint Technology Initiative waschosen as a special topic of study, due to its poten-tially high relevance for the Finnish ICT industryand because it also represents a pioneering at-tempt with important knowledge for future Euro-

pean public-private partnerships. Although JointTechnology Initiatives were formally introducedin the context of the Seventh Framework Pro-gramme and will run in parallel with it, importantpreparatory work was done in the Sixth Frame-work.

Since 2003, the Commission has promoted theidea of European Technology Platforms, createdthrough “bottom-up” processes by Europeanstakeholders. The intent has been to increase Eu-rope‘s innovation capacity and to link research tothe needs of European industry. In general, Tech-nology Platforms first create a shared vision ofthe future, endorsed by top executives from lead-ing companies in the sector. The vision is thenelaborated to a strategic research agenda and animplementation plan. The research agendas ofTechnology Platforms provide input, for exam-ple, when research themes are defined for theFramework Programmes.

In most cases, European Technology Platformshave been supported through the regular instru-ments of the Framework Programmes. Joint Tech-nology Initiatives, however, have been set up in alimited number of cases where the potential im-portance of technological advances has been per-ceived to be very high, and the scale and scope ofthe initiative has required setting up long-termpublic-private partnerships and dedicated mecha-nisms to achieve the research objectives and to cre-ate a competitive advantage for European industry.

The ARTEMIS Joint Technology Initiative is anattempt to maintain and develop European com-petitive advantage in the area of embedded ICTsystems. Although embedded systems are bytheir nature less visible to end users as, for exam-ple, desktop computers and office software, some98 percent of all processors are embedded inproducts such as cars, industrial machinery, med-ical equipment, and mobile phones. For example,a typical car today has some 60 embedded pro-cessors. According to industry estimates, therewill be some 16 billion embedded systems in useworldwide in 2010.

Embedded systems is the fastest growing seg-ment of ICT. Due to the extremely fast decline of

71

semiconductor prices, complex processing cannow be integrated into almost all products. Ac-cording to future visions of “ambient intelli-gence” and “ubiquitous computing,” informationprocessing will be embedded in our everyday envi-ronments in an increasingly massive scale. Eco-nomically, these visions are now becoming possi-ble. Major technical challenges, however, remain.The extensive deployment of embedded process-ing in physical environments, products, and pro-duction processes requires, for example, that theprocessors can communicate with each other. Amajor challenge for productive use of embeddedsystems, therefore, is to develop tools and stan-dards that make embedded systems able to ex-change information and coordinate their process-ing. Similarly, as our environments and productswill increasingly rely on embedded systems,these systems need to be reliable and secure.

The main objective of the ARTEMIS initiative isto address the main challenges that limit the wideuse and deployment of embedded systems. Asembedded systems are the core elements in manykey European industries, including aerospace,automotive, and wireless communication, AR-TEMIS is also promoted as a key initiative inmaintaining a European competitive leadershipin these industries. The total funding for the AR-TEMIS Joint Technology Initiative is expected tobe about 2.4 billion euros over ten years. Almosthalf of the funding will be public funding fromMember and Associated States and the EuropeanCommunity. In addition, related research will befunded from the Framework Programmes.

The ARTEMIS Joint Technology Initiative hasbeen in the making for over four years. The firstcall for projects was launched on 8 May 2008. Itis therefore impossible to judge the final successof the initiative. ARTEMIS, however, has alreadybeen very successful. Its development has re-quired major efforts from the industry, the Euro-pean Commission, and by experts and policymakers in the member states. ARTEMIS also haspaved the way for following Joint Technology

Initiatives in the EU. It is therefore useful to un-derstand the challenges and critical success fac-tors in setting up the initiative.

Historical accounts often try to abstract eventsand actors in an attempt to provide histories thatlook objective. Such accounts show the unfoldingof events in a form that looks almost predeter-mined, after we know what actually happened.Innovation researchers know that such abstractand generalized accounts often lose importantdetail. Innovation, by its nature, is almost alwaysidiosyncratic. This is also the case for organisa-tional and institutional innovation. In the follow-ing sections, therefore, we trace the evolution ofARTEMIS in a way that includes some of the his-torically unique and idiosyncratic characteristicsof the history. Although a complete “thick de-scription” of the evolution of ARTEMIS is im-possible in the sociological sense, it is importantto realise that, in this specific case, specific per-sons and events actually had a critical role. Fromthis moderately thick description, we then gener-alise knowledge, trying also to retain the contextthat keeps the generalisations valid.

Origins of ARTEMIS

ARTEMIS (Advanced Research on Technologyfor Embedded Intelligence and Systems) emergedfirst as a European Technology Platform. For-mally, the first milestone in the development ofARTEMIS is a meeting of a High-Level Group onEmbedded Systems, in Brussels in January 2004.For the meeting, the Commissioner invited somekey industry and research institute representa-tives to discuss the possibility to launch a Euro-pean Technology Platform (ETP) in the area ofembedded systems.

The invitees were selected so that the group con-sisted of a representative collection of the majorEuropean industries where embedded systemswere critical components, as well as leading re-search institutions working in the embedded sys-tems area.37 The overall motivation for the Com-

72

37 The list of participants can be found from the Building Artemis report. The report and other relevant documents can befound through the interactive ARTEMIS timeline at: http://www.meaningprocessing.com/ArtemisTimeLine.html

http://www.meaningprocessing.com/ArtemisTimeLine.html

mission was to promote the concept of EuropeanTechnology Platforms in an area that was per-ceived as critical for future European competitiveadvantage in information and communicationstechnology. As embedded systems were used inseveral key European industries, it was also seento offer high synergies if the relatively frag-mented activities in Europe could be integratedwithin a shared European Research Area.

For the industry participants, the idea was easy toaccept. The industry had actively participated increating the vision of large-scale deployment ofnetworked embedded systems, for example,through the commission’s Information SocietyTechnology Advisory Group (ISTAG) and in theITEA cluster38 of EUREKA39. The cost and com-plexity of advanced embedded systems designswas also increasing fast, and collaboration wasthus becoming increasingly attractive. As the fu-ture visions envisaged ambient intelligence net-works where many embedded systems interactedwith each other, it was also clear that the visionscould only be implemented through cross-indus-try standards and shared system architectures.

The actual launch of ARTEMIS, however, startedalready before any formal milestones. The pri-mary driver was a new embedded systems unit inthe Commission, which developed an ambitiousstrategy for what it saw as a major future segmentin the IST domain. In its internal discussions, theunit came up with the idea that embedded sys-tems would need a major new initiative thatwould address the main challenges of developingand deploying embedded systems in Europe. Inlate autumn 2003, the unit head took a couple ofmember state representatives out for a beer afterone of the Commission’s meetings and tested theidea. The response was positive. Armed withsome support from key member states, the unitwas able to take the idea forward.

At the same time, the Commission’s DG for Re-search was promoting the idea that Europe wouldneed industry-focused European Technology Plat-forms, where industrial partners would developstrategic research agendas for common technol-ogy domains. For the Commission’s DG Re-search, ETPs were seen as a way both to leveragepublic funding and to improve the relevance ofresearch results for industry, so that strategic high-impact European initiatives could be launched.The embedded systems initiative was relativelyeasily re-packaged into an ETP, which gave theinitiative added momentum and visibility.

After the High-Level Group meeting in January2004, the participating organisations started towork on a plan. Within a short six-month period,this work resulted in the adoption of a documententitled “Building ARTEMIS” by the High-LevelGroup, on 28 June 2004. The final document wasprefaced by the Commissioner, and signed by theCEO’s of several leading European firms. Theadoption of the “Building ARTEMIS” documentwas accompanied by a high-profile announce-ment of a new European Technology Platform bythe Commission.

“Building ARTEMIS” became a cornerstone andreference point in the development of ARTEMIS.Its preface included a strong statement by theCommissioner about the importance of the em-bedded systems for Europe, followed by the pho-tographs and signatures of leading industrialists.This clearly signalled the importance of the newETP, and legitimised it. The idea of prefacing thedocument with the pictures and signatures of theleading industrialists, and calling this group theHigh Level Group, came from the Commission.In fact, this CEO-level group met only virtually,on pages 4 and 5 of the report. The actualhigh-level group was listed as a Steering Group inan annex to the report.

73

38 ITEA, the Information Technology for European Advancement programme, was an eight-year cluster that focused onsoftware-intensive systems. It launched its first call for proposals in November 1998. The project received EUREKAstatus in June 1999. ITEA is now followed by the ITEA 2 cluster in embedded software systems and services.

39 EUREKA is a pan-European network for market-oriented industrial research, mainly funded by the 38 EUREKAfull member Countries.

The report content, itself, was written by teamsthat worked long hours to generate a cross-in-dustry statement of research issues and the pro-posed organisation of ARTEMIS. Given thevery short time in which the report was finished,and the overall quality of the output, it is clearthat the writers were highly committed and ableto collaborate effectively. One factor that helpedin producing a coherent report was earlier workin forums such as the Information Society Tech-nology Group, which had promoted the Euro-pean concept of ambient intelligence alreadyseveral years earlier.40 The report, however,clearly aimed beyond visions, to their actual im-plementation.

Although the “Building ARTEMIS” report didnot present any particularly new scientific ortechnical concepts, it communicated well the im-portance of the topic to various stakeholders. Itspecifically argued that Europe was particularlywell positioned to benefit from the future growthin this domain. It also emphasized new ap-proaches, such as the creation of new innovationecologies based on open source software devel-opment, and pointed out that embedded process-ing may need radically new processing architec-tures. It outlined the challenges in research andtechnology, highlighting, for example, the needfor new cross-disciplinary skills in the design ofembedded and intelligent systems.

To address the challenges, “Building ARTE-MIS” proposed a creation of a European Tech-nology Platform, and a new governance struc-ture that would adopt best practices from theEUREKA programme. EUREKA and its ongo-ing projects such as ITEA and MEDEA+ wereobvious reference points.41 First, the new initia-tive was aimed at producing market-oriented re-

sults that could be immediately applied in the in-dustry for new products and services. As “Build-ing ARTEMIS” put it: “Embedded systems willtransform Ambient Intelligence dreams into re-ality.” This emphasis on implementation chal-lenges meant that research priorities in the ini-tiative should be defined by industry, as in EU-REKA. This was in contrast to FrameworkProgrammes, where the focus was on funda-mental scientific and technical advances, andwhere the research agendas were strongly influ-enced by academic experts.

Although EUREKA was a good model due to itsindustry-led and market-oriented focus, EU-REKA also had well-known problems. In EU-REKA, industrial participants can define theirown project agenda, and get public funding forhigh-quality collaborative projects. Funding de-cisions in EUREKA, however, are made inde-pendently and in parallel by the home countriesof all participants. This means that varying na-tional decision-making delays and priorities cre-ate considerable uncertainties in launching newprojects.

For potential project participants, such a distrib-uted and unpredictable decision process is a prob-lem. A potential benefit of the new ARTEMISinitiative was that it could try to better coordinateMember State funding, using common and uni-fied processes. Furthermore, as the initiativeoriginated from the Commission, funding fromCommission was also involved. “Building AR-TEMIS” therefore noted that the Steering Groupwould examine the possibility of establishing ajoint undertaking as defined under Article 171 ofthe European Treaty or a joint R&D programmeundertaken by several member states with partic-ipation by the Community under article 169 of

74

40 Cf. Ducatel, K., M. Bogdanowicz, F. Scapolo, J. Leiten, and J-C Burgelman (eds.) Scenarios for Ambient Intelligence,IPTS, Seville February 2001.

41 On ITEA, see the previous footnote. MEDEA+ is an industry-driven pan-European programme for advancedco-operative R&D in microelectronics, and one of the EUREKA clusters. It focuses on “system innovation on silicon.”MEDEA+ (2001-2008) continues the earlier MEDEA (Microelectronics Development for European Applications;1997-2000) program. Whereas ITEA’s emphasis is on software, MEDEA+ focuses on the underlying semiconductortechnology.

the EU Treaty.42 Under Article 171, the Commu-nity may set up joint undertakings or any otherstructure necessary for the efficient execution ofCommunity research, technological develop-ment and demonstration programmes. Article169, in turn, enables the Community to partici-pate through its Framework Programmes in re-search programmes undertaken by several Mem-ber States.

The emerging ARTEMIS initiative was closelyrelated with EUREKA‘s ITEA cluster, which fo-cused on software-intensive systems and services.As EUREKA‘s Ministerial Conference had re-quested closer cooperation between FrameworkProgrammes and EUREKA, as well as strongparticipation of EUREKA in shaping the newTechnology Platforms in its June 2004 meeting,the developers of ARTEMIS decided to integrateITEA closely with ARTEMIS. ITEA’s project of-fice was tasked with managing ARTEMIS pro-ject calls. An important aspect of the arrangementwas also to avoid competition between the twoinitiatives that had considerable overlap.43

According to “Building ARTEMIS,” ARTEMISwas to be a public-private partnership. It was to bejointly funded by the industry, the Commission,and the Member States. The research work was tobe based on an industrial vision, implementedthrough a Strategic Agenda. “Building ARTE-MIS” therefore proposed a governance structurethat would consist of six key elements. A SteeringBoard, based on the High-Level Group, wouldoversee the definition and implementation of theStrategic Agenda. An Executive Board was to bea sub-set of the Steering Board, managing opera-tive and executive tasks. A Mirror Group ofmember state representatives was proposed to co-

ordinate national programmes and pool resourcesfor ARTEMIS. A permanent ARTEMIS Plat-form Office was to be set up to execute secretarialand public relations tasks. In addition to thesefour organisational structures, the Steering Boardwas to create either permanent or ad-hoc WorkingGroups to deal with specific pre-defined tasks.Finally, the European stakeholders were invitedthe join the platform through an annual GeneralAssembly. Later the industry and research organi-sation participation was implemented by formingthe ARTEMISIA association as a Belgian inter-national non-profit association.44

The new public-private partnership requiredsome learning by the Commission, member staterepresentatives, and the industry participants.

For the Commission, a public-private partnershipmeans that the Commission can not control theinitiative to the extent it controls, for example,Framework Projects. Although ARTEMIS pro-ject proposals will be evaluated by independentevaluators, the research agenda and the content forproject calls are defined by the members of theARTEMISIA association. In contrast with Frame-work Programmes, the Commission does nothave the last say on the content of research. For apublic bureaucracy, where all actions have to bebased on explicit rules and regulations, lack ofcontrol is fundamentally against the organisa-tional logic. Initiatives like ARTEMIS, therefore,require exceptionally strong drivers and justifica-tion, as well as persons who are able to effectivelywork the bureaucratic system.

Member state representatives have a similar con-trol position in EUREKA projects. Specifically,member state representatives have a relatively

75

42 The use of Articles 169 and 171 was aligned with the communication from the Commission on “Science andtechnology, the key to Europe’s future,” published 16 June 2004. In the Communication, the Commission proposedthat the appropriate way to implement the research agendas of ETPs would be through the joint undertakings of Article171. This approach was suggested for a limited number of large-scale pan-European initiatives that could not beimplemented as integrated projects in the Framework Programme.

43 When the JTI structure was further developed, ITEA’s follow-up ITEA 2 was planned to be gradually assimilated intoARTEMIS. In the words of Jan van den Biesen, Chairman of the working group on the Funding Strategy and JTIStructure, the goal was to: “Make ITEA 2 virtually coincide with JTI, once successful.” In van den Biesen’spresentation to the ARTEMIS Executive Board 12 January 2006, the three main threats for setting up a successful JTIwere lack of sufficient budget, too much red tape, and competition between ITEA 2 and ARTEMIS, instead ofsynergy.

44 The founding members of ARTEMISIA were Philips, STMicroelectronics, Thales, Nokia and DaimlerChrysler.

strong influence on research topics in EUREKA,and they can, for example, promote nationallyimportant industries and national policies. Formember state representatives, a public-privatepartnership means that their ability to promotenational interests and act as gatekeepers is re-duced.45

A critical success factor in the launch of ARTE-MIS, therefore, has also been individual memberstate representatives and their attitudes. In partic-ular, the Head of the Embedded Systems andControl Unit of the Commission notes that he hadimportant support from several member state rep-resentatives who early on were willing to pro-mote a truly European initiative. The sponsorshipof member state representatives also resultedfrom the fact that the Commission organised anumber of informal meetings where the memberstate representatives were able to learn to knoweach other and build trust. Member state repre-sentatives were able to follow the development ofARTEMIS for over a year before they had tomake any commitments regarding it. Followingseveral preparatory meetings with 11 countries46,the Mirror Group was formally established on 17February 2005 in Vienna. Although the MirrorGroup rules of procedure suggest that therewould be annually one joint meeting with the AR-TEMIS Steering Board and one Mirror Groupplenary meeting, the group was a very active one,meeting five times in 2005. The first public com-mitment was by Finland, during the Lahti Sum-mit on 20 October 2006.

After the first draft of “Building ARTEMIS” wasfinished, the report was edited for publication. Inparallel, the participating organisations devel-

oped a proposal for FP6 Strategic Support ActionARTEMISOS.47 The proposal was submitted forthe third IST call in September 2004, and the con-tract was signed on 13 April 2005. ARTEMISOSprovided operational support for the further de-velopment of ARTEMIS. The project started atthe end of April 2004, and continued until the endof 2007. The contract had 11 participant organi-sations, with a total budget of 1.18 million euros,with EC contribution of 750,000 euros.48

The objective of ARTEMISOS was to “bring or-ganisational and operational support to furtherdevelop and subsequently implement the strate-gic vision of the ARTEMIS Technology Plat-form.” The project was to allow stakeholdersacross the EU to join forces and coordinate theiractions for the elaboration and implementation ofthe ARTEMIS Strategic Research Agenda. Thefirst visible outcome was the preliminary Strate-gic Research Agenda that was discussed at thesecond ARTEMIS Annual Conference, organ-ised in Paris at the end of June 2005.49

During the preparation of the preliminary SRA,ARTEMIS had evolved from a European Tech-nology Platform to a new Joint Technology Ini-tiative (JTI). Based on the earlier CommissionCommunication from June 2004, the Council ofthe EU had already in November 2004 encour-aged the Commission to develop the concept ofJoint Technology Initiatives. These were basedon Article 171, which allowed the Community tojoin Member States in R&D undertakings. Fromthis on, the ARTEMIS implementation plan wasclearly focused on forming a JTI. The first meet-ing of the ARTEMIS working group on FundingStrategy and JTI structure was in September

76

45 For this reason, ARTEMIS is now to some extent competing with EUREKA projects such as ITEA 2. The developersof ARTEMIS realised early on that the initiative would potentially compete with ITEA 2 because of overlappingcontent and resources, there is some additional competition because national representatives can allocate funds eitherthrough ITEA 2 or through ARTEMIS. In contrast to countries like Finland and the Netherlands, where there is clearcommitment to support ARTEMIS, some other Member States still appear to be wondering whether they shouldallocate resources in this area to ARTEMIS or ITEA 2. Some national control is also reintroduced in ARTEMISthrough national eligibility criteria, as discussed below.

46 The Mirror Group preparatory meetings were participated by Germany, France, Sweden, Holland, Finland, Austria,Spain, Belgium, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Israel.

47 Advanced Research and Technology for Embedded Intelligence Systems Operational Support.

48 The coordination of national RTD initiatives in the embedded systems area has also been supported by the COSINEStrategic support actions in FP6 and FP7. COSINE also acts as the Secretariat for the Mirror Group.

49 The first early draft of the SRA was released on 8 November 2004.

2005. In December 2006, the European Parlia-ment and the Council of EU decided that the Sev-enth Framework Programme would introduceJTIs, which were to be organisationally imple-mented as Joint Undertakings. The ARTEMISJoint Undertaking was eventually establishedthrough the Council regulation in December 2007,and it formally started its operations in February2008. The Council regulation describes in detailthe organisational structures and procedures thatthe Joint Undertaking must follow. For example,the ARTEMIS JU staff operates under Commis-sion rules and privileges on temporary contracts.The founding members are 18 Member States, theEuropean Community, represented by the Com-mission, and the ARTEMISIA association.

According to the Chairman of ARTEMIS, an im-portant event in the evolution of ARTEMIS wasthe Finnish EU Presidency in 2006. Finland posi-tioned ARTEMIS as one of the key initiativesduring its Presidency. In the informal meeting ofthe Heads of State and Government in Lahti inOctober 2006, the ARTEMIS JTI was discussedand received support. In November, the IST 2006Conference was hosted in Helsinki. In her open-

ing speech, the Commissioner for InformationSociety and Media declared:

I’m glad to announce today that, in line withthe political conclusions of the Lahti Summit,we are now preparing for a pioneer approach inEuropean research. For the first time ever, wewill make use of Article 171 of the EC Treaty topool private, EU and national research invest-ment in the form of a Joint Technology Initiative(JTI). The first such JTI, the ARTEMIS initiative,which will start in early 2007, will focus on em-bedded systems, this means on computer-re-search which is crucial for many industrial sec-tors. Some are telling me that this is quite a dar-ing undertaking. But, ladies and gentlemen,without daring and risk there can be no break-through, neither in research nor in politics. Thebudget of the ARTEMIS initiative will be around3 billion euros over seven years.50

The budget has been squeezed to 2.4 billion € andthe Council regulation defines a ten-year lifetimefor the Joint Undertaking. The Community fund-ing, however, still remains at its original level,around 400 million euros.51

77

NL IT ES FI DE FR AT UK SE CZ HU NO DK BE GR IE PT SI EE RO0

2

4

6

8

10

12

M€

Figure 34. Member and Associated State Funding for the first ARTEMIS call.

50 Reding, V.: “FP7: A new framework for competition, innovation and growth”. Helsinki, 21 November 2006.

51 The Community funding is up to 410 million euros, plus a maximum 10 million for the operations of the JointUndertaking.

In the first call for projects, the participatingMember and Associated States expressed their fi-nancial commitment to the first round of ARTE-MIS. The original 18 founding Member Stateswere joined by Czech Republic and Norway. Es-tonia and Romania declined to make any commit-ments, and the Netherlands and Finland showedthe strongest interest. This can be seen in Figure34, which shows the tentative funding for the fist

call. The actual funding will depend on the pro-jects accepted in the review process.

As this review of the history of ARTEMIS shows,the ARTEMIS JTI emerged through a complex setof events, where industry initiative was combinedwith policy action. The scale of the effort and thecoordinated actions of industry, the Commission,and policy makers can be seen in Figure 35, which

78

Figure 35. ARTEMIS timeline, 2004–2008.

shows a time line of events that have led to thelaunch of the first ARTEMIS call in May 2008.The upper section in the figure shows events re-lated to industry action, whereas the lower sec-tion shows events related to policy action.

Lessons from the history of ARTEMIS

It is clear that the realization of ARTEMIS has re-quired concerted efforts from a large number ofactors. The initiative was developed in industryworking groups that were able to find a consensusvision and deliver concrete proposals on how thisvision could be made real. In the process, the in-dustry partners had to back these plans withstrong financial and resource commitments. Onemay therefore ask how the idea of ARTEMIS wasable to survive in the participating organisations.Was there something uniquely lucky in the caseof ARTEMIS, or can its success be replicated inother contexts?

Critical success factors

One factor that pops up in the evolution of ARTE-MIS is the rather unique combination of charac-teristics that the Chairman of ARTEMIS broughtto the project. First, as he notes, “formal status re-ally seems to be quite important in Brussels.” As amember of the Board of Nokia, the Chairman hada very credible position and his views were takenseriously by policy makers, who often have tojustify their decisions by economic relevance. Hewas not only viewed as a technologist but also asa high-level business manager. Due to his longand well-known career in academic research, theChairman was also a credible partner in discus-sions on future research challenges. Furthermore,his position in Nokia meant that he was able toalso represent the real-world interests and con-straints of the industry, and that he was crediblefrom the industry’s point of view.

In this rather unique combination, the Chairmanbridged three key stakeholder groups. Hislong-term relationships with researchers, policymakers, and industry representatives also meantthat he was well-known and trusted by many keyactors, and that he had excellent access to persons

and resources when needed. This included accessinside Nokia, where good arguments were alsorequired to keep the initiative moving.

The ex-commissioner who was responsible forinviting the first High-Level Group meeting notesthat, “we happened to know that” the Chairman“might be available for the initiative.” It is clearthat the Commission also understood the ratherexceptional combination of characteristics thatwould be required for a successful initiative. Al-though in the beginning, the initiative had themore modest scope of setting up an ETP, whenthe initiative evolved towards a JTI, the character-istics of the Chairman scaled well with the task.

Another factor that had a clear impact on the suc-cess of the initiative was the strong commitmentin the Commission to keep the initiative going. Inall organisations, successful development of in-novative and new ideas requires a rare combina-tion of organisational skills and visionary think-ing. In bureaucratic organisations, the orchestra-tion of change is particularly demanding. As canbe seen in the history of ARTEMIS, the Commis-sion had to prepare background studies and Com-munity regulation, mobilise policy makers andMember State stakeholders, and manage compet-ing interests inside the Commission. It seems thatthe required combination of competences wasbrought in by the Head of Unit for the EmbeddedSystems and Control unit. As an experiencedCommission official with good technical compe-tences, and support from his unit, the unit headseems to have been exceptionally successful inkeeping the initiative moving inside the Commis-sion. It probably helped that the Commissionerwas strongly supporting the initiative. The headof Directorate G on Components and Systemsalso knew the Chairman well from earlier collab-orations, which facilitated efficient communica-tion and reduced perceived risks.

A third important factor was the technical contentof the initiative. Embedded systems are criticalcomponents in many industries, and their devel-opment is becoming increasingly difficult for in-dividual firms. Due to their cross-industry nature,an initiative on embedded systems relatively eas-ily spans several industries, including transport,

79

defence, communications, industrial equipment,and consumer electronics. A more industry spe-cific initiative would easily lead to competitionamong Member States where different industriesdominate.

For industry, the domain of embedded systems isalso a potential area for synergies. Due to thecomplexity of advanced systems and the compet-itive importance of fast product introductions,embedded systems are increasingly built by com-bining design elements and components fromseveral vendors. Furthermore, all the future ICTvisions start from the assumption that heteroge-neous devices are increasingly networked andcombined into systems that are embedded in oureveryday environments. The production pro-cesses are also extensively outsourced. Industry,therefore, is well aware of the importance of col-laboration in this area. Although, in theory, firmsmay create competitive advantage by designingtheir own software and hardware for embeddedsystems from scratch, in practice this is almostimpossible due to system complexity and inter-operability requirements.

A final success factor is that the industry partnerscommitted substantial effort and resources.Partly this seems to have resulted from the indi-vidual enthusiasm of the persons involved. Asubstantial factor was also, however, that the part-ners were large organisations with considerableresources. An initiative where the first actual pro-jects can be launched five years after the start isnot an easy initiative for small industrial partners.For example, one of the key European players,ARM, which is the globally leading provider ofsemiconductor intellectual property and embed-ded processors, apparently dropped out of AR-TEMIS because of the difficulty in negotiatingthe legal details and lack of resources.

Potential risks of ARTEMIS

The launch of ARTEMIS was clearly a demand-ing effort, and successful as a new initiative. Thefinal outcomes of the initiative remain unknownat this point in time, and the research agenda will

evolve during the project. One may however ask,given the objectives, structures, and constraintsof the initiative, what are the expected outcomes.

It is clear that the content of ARTEMIS researchis strongly influenced by large industrial actorsand their interests. Although the ARTEMISIAassociation is supposed to represent the view-points of academic research and SMEs, the for-mal and informal decision making processesemphasise the viewpoints of large-industrialplayers. ARTEMIS is designed for close-to-mar-ket industry relevant research, and more aca-demic and fundamental research is to be con-ducted in the Framework Programmes.

A risk in this approach is that the industry missesessential elements in its future visions. As re-search on organizational innovation shows, es-tablished organisations very often base their vi-sions on the current industry priorities. As a con-sequence, they typically fail to move over techno-logical discontinuities. The reason is not lack ofknowledge, as established organisations typi-cally have excellent information on current andfuture technologies. Instead, the failure followsfrom decision making processes where recentand historical successes influence the perceivedpriorities. When business managers need to allo-cate and commit resources, they often have achoice between what is known to be importantand what potentially could be important. Estab-lished organisations, therefore, tend to vote forthe past, and disruptive and radical innovationtends to emerge from new players and green-fieldoperations.

In developing its research agenda, ARTEMISwill therefore risk voting for history. If that wouldbe the case, the impact of ARTEMIS on Europeancompetitiveness and advances in embedded sys-tems technologies could be negative. ARTEMIScould reduce this risk by carefully designing theinnovation processes that underlie the creation ofits research agenda, for example, by creating pro-cesses that explicitly promote radical innovation.Radical innovation can also be market-oriented,although it rarely directly addresses the currentmarkets of established firms.

80

Another risk is that the ARTEMIS initiative willalso start to dominate research conducted in theFramework Programmes. The Council has ex-plicitly required a close link between JTIs and theFramework Programmes. If the ARTEMIS re-search agenda emphasises the priorities of largeestablished firms, and if these priorities are re-flected in the Framework proposal evaluation,there is a risk that innovation that does not matchwith ARTEMIS visions is inadequately sup-ported. For policy makers, it may therefore be im-portant to consider the possibility that comple-mentary actions and processes are needed to getoptimal benefits from ARTEMIS.

One risk worth discussion is that the fundamentalassumptions that underlie JTIs are wrong. ETPsand JTIs are frequently justified by stating thatimprovements in European research competitive-ness require that Europe has to focus and concen-trate its research efforts and get rid of overlaps.This assumption is not true, and there is actuallylittle evidence for the benefits of concentration ininnovation literature. For example, the South Ko-rean innovation policy model is based on stronggovernment planning and focused industry coor-dination. The model has been very successfulpartly because the Korean industry structure isformed around a small number of very largechaebols, and partly because competition be-tween Korean firms is at least to some extentmanaged by the ministries. In contrast, the Sili-con Valley model is based on extremely highoverlaps, lack of focus, and dynamic competitionamong small firms. Although Europeanpolicymakers often note that SMEs are the keysources of future European innovation and eco-nomic growth, the underlying model in ARTE-MIS might work best in a coordinated policy en-vironment, such as in South Korea or Japan. Itmay also work well in Europe. It might, however,be useful to explicitly develop the underlying in-novation model and related processes so that thebest characteristics of the Silicon Valley modelcould also be supported.

The Head of the Embedded Systems and ControlUnit, who now also acts as the ARTEMIS JU In-terim Executive Director, argues that the ARTE-MIS model could well combine the Korean andSilicon Valley models. In principle, ARTEMIScalls can specify required technologies in a top-down manner, for example, providing standardarchitectures. It is also completely possible, how-ever, that the calls define the objectives in a tech-nology-agnostic way and let the project propos-ers suggest technical approaches and solutionsthat best lead to the expected outcomes. Such atrue bottom-up model would greatly depend onthe industry’s capability to think strategically andpro-actively beyond current generations of tech-nology.52 It is, however, not obvious how true bot-tom-up innovation processes can be combinedwith the consensus approach led by large estab-lished firms. Traditionally, true bottom-up inno-vation models are interesting for venture capital-ists that look for extraordinary returns that mayresult from radical and disruptive innovation. Forestablished industrial players, disruptive changeoften means devaluation of sunken investmentsand destruction of existing knowledge capital. Inthe short term, a top-down model therefore mightlook more attractive for established industrial ac-tors who do not want to make their current tech-nologies obsolete.

It is clear that the structures and processes of AR-TEMIS enable several different innovation mod-els. The actual outcome depends on a complex in-terplay of interests and power, but also on devel-opments outside of ARTEMIS. For both policy-makers and industrial participants it is importantto note that the history of ARTEMIS leads to nat-ural low-resistance development paths. Some ofthese paths may lead to directions that in the lon-ger term are not beneficial for either policy mak-ers or the industry. To avoid such dead-ends, thefirst step is to realise that several possible futuresexist for ARTEMIS.

81

52 The terminology of “top-down” and “bottom-up” is somewhat ambiguous, of course. ARTEMIS is often said to be“bottom-up” because the industry can set research priorities through the SRA. “Top-down” would in this contextmean that external experts would set the priorities.

Contributions to Finnish researchand industry competitiveness

From the point of view of Finnish innovation pol-icy, the success of ARTEMIS will depend on fivekey factors: the focus areas of ARTEMIS SRA,the actual content of proposed projects, absorp-tive capacity, constraints posed by consortium el-igibility criteria, and the perceived costs and ben-efits for potential participants.

First, as noted above, ARTEMIS may or may notfocus on key research questions. The ARTEMISStrategic Research Agenda may miss key devel-opments simply because of lack of vision orknowledge, or it can over-prioritize topics thatnow look important for main industry players.

Second, the interests of Finnish research and in-dustry can be overshadowed by interests in otherEU countries. For example, the first ARTEMISInnovation Cluster, EICOSE, focuses on trans-portation (automotive, aeronautics, space, rail-ways). It was formed by the French AerospaceValley and SYSTEM@TIC Paris-Region, andthe German competence cluster Safe TRANS.Finland has relatively little embedded systemsactivity in the transportation industry, the mainexceptions being EB, VTI Technologies, and per-haps Destia.

Third, innovation requires absorptive capacitythat enables actors to efficiently understand andinternalise new knowledge. This normally meansthat firms need in-house R&D to be able to bene-fit from R&D done elsewhere. Excluding tele-communications, the Finnish manufacturing sec-tor spends relatively little in ICT research. As aconsequence, there may be only few people in the

industry who are able to apply embedded systemstechnology or develop new product conceptsbased on it.53

A related challenge is that there is relatively littleSME activity in embedded systems hardware de-sign in Finland. Finland has made strong commit-ments that make public funding available for AR-TEMIS projects but the funding can only be usedif there is sufficient industry participation. Inprinciple, small and medium sized firms that fo-cus on embedded systems technology could bekey actors here. Through ARTEMIS they couldhave easy and efficient access to potential cus-tomer industries and networks that would behighly valuable in shaping product concepts andcharacteristics. Excluding Nokia, which recentlytransferred much of its hardware-related capabil-ities to STMicroelectronics, there are only fewfirms that specialise in hardware or close-to-hardware design.54

Fourth, although Finland has some good aca-demic research in the embedded systems domain,in particular in embedded software, there is anabundance of potential academic participants.Research institutions have little chance of partici-pating in successful project proposals unless theyhave top-level expertise or close connectionswith the leading industrial players. In this regard,the early involvement of VTT has clearly im-proved its visibility in ARTEMIS. As the initia-tive is strongly geared towards industry partici-pants, academic research could better succeed inspin-off firms. The rules for project participanteconomic and operational capacity, however,mean in practice that the firm has to have existedat least for a year.55

82

53 In theory, there is a potential opportunity for matchmakers, who package new knowledge and technology in ways thatare easily absorbed in the industry. A challenge is that successful participation in ARTEMIS projects requires that theindustry is involved from the start. In this setting, large research organisations with broad industry connections have aclear advantage. In Finland, VTT is an obvious example; it is not easy to find other candidates, however.

54 In addition to EB, these include Hantro (now part of On2), Bitboys (now AMD Finland), Hybrid Graphics (nowNVIDIA Helsinki Oy), Botnia Hightech (now Sasken Finland Oy), u-Nav Microelectronics Ltd. (now part of AtherosCommunications), Fastrax Oy, VLSI Solutions Oy, and VTI Technologies Oy. The largest concentration of fablesssemiconductor design and intellectual property firms in Europe is in the U.K., with over hundred firms.

55 The ARTEMIS JU eligibility criteria require financial statements from the last year. This is less than the typicalCommission requirement where financial capabilities are evaluated using statements from the last three years. Thenational eligibility requirements are in some cases tighter, and the implementation of the ARTEMIS JU criterion is notclear yet. In principle, if the JU follows Commission procedures, the criterion excludes start-ups.

The Finnish strategy of using the nationalUbicom initiative as a springboard to ARTEMISlooks like a promising approach. It creates com-petences and project ideas, and builds networksthat reduce the effort of creating good consortia.In principle, when Ubicom funding is earmarkedto ARTEMIS projects, the national funding canbe leveraged and complemented by Communityfunding. In practice, the returns depend on sev-eral factors, including the costs of setting up andoperating ARTEMIS projects, the alignment ofproject content with the needs of participants, andthe value of new partnerships in the projects aswell as with ARTEMISIA members also moregenerally. For industrial participants with clearand strategically relevant project objectives andlow costs of setting up eligible consortia, it oftenmakes sense to formulate their Ubicom-relatedproposals as ARTEMIS proposals simply be-cause of the added Community funding. From thepoint of view of Finnish innovation policy thismeans that national funding can be leveraged.

Finland has a very strong industrial base in thetelecommunications sector and it might seemnatural that there is a good match between ARTE-MIS and the interests of Finnish actors if the ini-tiative would emphasise projects in the commu-nications sector.56 In fact, a recognised challengefor the future success of ARTEMIS is that theproposed research projects start to focus on spe-cific industries or application areas. The initiativegained support as a cross-industry initiative withbroad impact on several European key industries,and the research agenda assumes that the projectswill deliver outcomes that have broad relevanceacross industries and application areas. In prac-tice, it is easy to collaborate with people whoshare similar backgrounds, and multi-disciplin-ary projects require extra effort. If ARTEMISfalls back to industry specific silos, much of theoriginal justification of the initiative is lost. Asthe Chairman puts it: “The worst scenario is thatpeople end up doing their own garage projects.”

Eligibility criteria in the firstARTEMIS call

The first call for ARTEMIS projects was pub-lished on 8 May 2008. It reveals an added level ofcomplexity in launching successful projects. Thecall specifies eligibility criteria for project pro-posals and individual participants. The overallcriteria are defined by the ARTEMIS Joint Un-dertaking. These are relatively straightforward,and similar to those used in the FrameworkProgrammes. The basic conditions are that a pro-ject consortium consists of at least three non-af-filiated legal entities in three ARTEMIS MemberStates and that the participants have reasonablefinancial and operational capabilities. The callalso allows for consortia that have natural personsas partners, as well as partners outside ARTEMISMember States.

The consortium structure gets more challengingwhen the Member States impose their national re-quirements on top of the ARTEMIS JU criteria.In general, most Member States require that therehas to be clear industry leadership in the project,and typically they also require that there have tobe enterprises from the Member State involved.Finland and Sweden posit that, to be eligible fornational funding, the participating firms have tohave substantial R&D and industrial activities inthe country. They also require that if a public re-search institution or university participates in theproposal, at least two firms from the country haveto be involved. France, in turn, requires that atleast two thirds of the French eligible costs haveto be from private partners. In Spain, the costs ofindustrial participants have to be more than 50percent of total national funding. Spain also re-quires that at least one Spanish partner has a“leadership role,” either leadership of the wholeproject, or leadership in at least two work pack-ages or four project tasks.

83

56 The ETP initiatives included one that focused on mobile communications. This didn’t proceed to the JTI phase, whichwas seen as a good thing by one industry insider, as this would have led to a too industry-specific JTI.

Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland and the U.K.require that the project has to be aligned withtheir national research and innovation strategies.

In contrast to other Member States, Portugal re-quires that the leading Portuguese partner has tobe a research institution. Companies can partici-pate, but only if accompanied by such a researchinstitution. Spain, for example, requires exactlythe opposite: The national coordinating partnerhas to be an industry partner, and research institu-tions can only accompany Spanish industrialpartners.

An interesting exception is Denmark. In contrastto all the other Member States, Denmark does notput any extra requirements for the eligibility fornational ARTEMIS funding. This approachmeans that Danish participants will have a clearadvantage when consortia will be formed. Inpractice, the national rules increase the difficultyof configuring eligible consortia by adding acomplex set of constraints over the requirementsof the ARTEMIS JU. For example, a consortiumwith Belgian, Portuguese, German, and Finnishpartners would need to fulfill the following addi-tional constraints:• the BE participant has to be from the Flemish

region• the expected outcomes should have an impact

that is at least 15 times the BE funding• if the project results have military or dual-use

applications, BE funding can be restricted• at least two Portuguese partners have to be in-

volved, with a research institution as a nationalcoordinator

• the Principal Investigator in the PT national co-ordinator must dedicate at least 25 percent oftime to the project

• the research project will make a relevant con-tribution to the High-Tech Strategy of the Fed-eral Republic of Germany and to the ICT re-search programme “IKT 2020”

• the project should illustrate the added value ofR&D results on the basis of an appropriatedapplication, e.g. a demonstrator.

• the project has to be a high-risk industrial re-search or development project, which relates tosocietally relevant questions and focuses oncross-border technologies and an applicationoriented approach, meet a sufficiently highlevel of innovation and could not be accom-plished without funding.

• the Finnish industry participants have to haveconsiderable business and R&D&I activities inFinland

• if a Finnish academic or public research insti-tution is involved, the consortium has to haveat least two Finnish industry partners57

• over half of the project eligible costs of theFinnish participants has to be for industry part-ners.58

In economic terms, the search costs for consortiawill be low when the participants include theleading industrial actors from each of the partici-pating countries (except Portugal where a re-search institute is needed). Search costs will alsobe relatively low for large consortia where thenumber or firms clearly exceeds the number of re-search organisations, and the national minimumconditions are easily met. The search costs willbe relatively low also for consortia where onedominant industrial partner is complemented bySMEs and some additional research institutesand universities. As some Member States, such asthe Czech Republic, do not accept academic out-puts as relevant project outputs, it is not clear,however, how universities can be involved inthose countries.

In general, it is clear that the first ARTEMIS callis a learning process for the Member State repre-sentatives. As the member states clearly have todescribe their eligibility criteria, it is possible toharmonize these over time. Furthermore, the

84

57 The conditions are interpreted here, and the interpretation may be wrong. Literally the conditions state that: “a publicresearch institute or a university shall be accompanied in the same project by at least two eligible Finnish companies.”Above, we assume that the intent is to say: “a Finnish public research institute or a Finnish university shall beaccompanied...”

58 The same interpretation is made as in the previous footnote. We also assume that “project volume” can be interpretedas eligible cost. It could also be interpreted as person months.

practical challenges in forming good consortiawill inform the future requirements. Specifically,those Member States that pose complex eligibil-ity criteria will have less opportunity to partici-pate in ARTEMIS than those where the criteriaare simple and easy to understand. Although na-tional authorities probably have considered theircriteria mainly from the national point of view,they are also relevant for participants who try tounderstand the overall impact of all national re-quirements on project eligibility.

A further complication will be added if the pro-ject proposal needs to be modified during the ne-gotiation phase. In Framework Programmes it iscommon that the overall volume is adjusteddownwards during the negotiations. If that couldhappen also in ARTEMIS negotiations, propos-als need to have some margin on volume relatedcriteria. Similarly, changes in the consortiumcomposition during the preparation or after itslaunch could easily lead to a violation of nationalrules. In this regard, large consortia have less risk.

Summary

The development of ARTEMIS has required ex-ceptional effort from industry representatives, theCommission, policy makers, and the MemberStates. At the same time, the effort has paved awell-defined path for similar future initiatives.Much of the effort can be reused. The ARTEMISeffort, for example, has already had a clear influ-ence on the development of the Finnish ICT clus-ter project.

On reason why ARTEMIS has been successful isits focus on the rather unique technology of em-bedded systems. This technology has broad rele-vance and strategic importance across industries.ARTEMIS, therefore, has been supported by sev-eral key EU industries, and it has not got stuck inan industry-specific silo, where it would have hadconsiderably more difficulty in gaining policysupport. Developments in embedded systems arefast, and technical complexity often exceeds thecapabilities of individual firms. This creates po-tential synergies. Furthermore, interoperability

and collaboration are technical requirements forsuccessful product introduction in the future vi-sions of ambient intelligence and ubiquitouscomputing. Although it may be possible to findmarket-oriented research domains with a similarcombination of characteristics, ARTEMIS hasbeen a natural choice for a large European indus-try-led initiative.

ARTEMIS research content and its underlyinginnovation model will evolve during the initia-tive. It is, however, clear that not all interestingand important research on embedded systems canor should be done in the context of ARTEMIS. Inpractice, ARTEMIS constrains both the types ofresearch that can be conducted and the types oforganisations that can effectively participate.Complementary instruments are thereforeneeded both at national and EU levels. SomeMember States, for example, explicitly excludefundamental and academic research from ARTE-MIS. This means that the Framework Programmewill have an increasing role in supporting re-search that aims at radical innovation. One poten-tial risk, however, is that the ARTEMIS SRA willtoo much influence the Framework Programme.That could lead to underinvestment in researchthat addresses topics that the ARTEMIS SRA hasmissed or which contradict its fundamental con-sensus views.

The first ARTEMIS call is a learning process forall participants. Although it still has a rather com-plex layer of national requirements on top the rel-atively straightforward and flexible ARTEMISJU requirements, the national requirements arenow mainly structural and easier to predict thanin EUREKA projects. Although some memberstates still pose eligibility criteria that potentiallyreintroduce the problems of EUREKA, for exam-ple, by requiring that the content of the proposalhas to be aligned with national strategies, it isprobable that the criteria are interpreted looselyin the first call. The only country that fully relieson the criteria set by the ARTEMIS JU is Den-mark. It will be interesting to see whether thispolicy leads to high demand on Danish partici-pants.

85

7 Conclusions and policy recommendations

The evaluation at hand has provided insights intothe benefits, additionality and relevance of theFP6 to Finland and Finnish R&D&I organisa-tions. Besides reporting the participation in theFP6 and the value and relevance of FPs, the reporthas identified several challenges and opportunitiesfor the FPs in the future. The key evaluation ques-tions were as follows: Effectiveness and results inparticipating Sixth Framework Programme,Added value of Framework Programme fundingand its connection to national funding, Matchwith Finnish needs and ability to influence in EUlevel, Interaction of national and EU level inno-vation policy, and Communication and informa-tion services.

Finnish participation in the SixthFramework Programme

According to the aim of the Framework Pro-grammes, the FP consortia have become larger.Although the Finnish participation assessed inabsolute terms shows a declining trend, Finnsnevertheless are able to get more out of the partici-pation in FPs. The quality of the projects as as-sessed by the expected outcomes, satisfaction withthe implementation of the projects and collabora-tion is not endangered. In contrast, the declinednumber of Finnish participation tends to be associ-ated with the enhanced success and satisfactionamong the project partners. This development hasnot resulted in severe problems or increase in theproject implementation bureaucracy.

It is perhaps the learning of the Finnish organisa-tions and individuals which explains to a consid-erable degree the more positive results and out-comes of FP participation. In addition, the re-markable increase in R&D funding in Finland

may have fostered the Finnish success in interna-tional competition. The FPs have become com-monplace for Finnish organisations performingand utilizing research, a result discovered alreadyin the evaluation concerning the Finnish partici-pation in FP4. The expectations related to FPshave become more realistic and Finns are nowbetter equipped to take part in the internationalcollaboration and constitution of multinationalpartnerships. There are nevertheless challengesFinns have to deal with in order to gain the bestpossible outcome from participation in the FPs.In the following section, we put forward the mostimportant challenges and policy recommenda-tions.

Added value of FrameworkProgramme funding

As our study indicates the additionality and addi-tional value FPs bring about have significantlygrown since FP4 up until now. Besides providingR&D&I actors with relevant financial resources tocarry out projects in international consortia, FPsare considered highly important expedients of fos-tering internationalisation and globalisation ofR&D&I networks and value chains. For Finnishactors, FPs have been, and still are, an excellentway of establishing partnerships with interna-tional organisations and individuals. EU collab-oration still entails prestige and value in itselffor the Finnish R&D&I performers. Developinginternational collaboration with well-known in-stitutions also implies establishing a positiveand augmented image and prestige for the insti-tutions involved59. Nevertheless, it is evident thatFPs are first and foremost assessed by the utilityand value they bring about for their participants.One significant observation deals with the out-

87

59 Hakala, J., Niskanen, P. & Kaukonen, E. (2002): Becoming International, Becoming European – EU researchcollaboration at Finnish Universities. The European Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 15, pp. 357-379.

comes of FP participation. As our observationsand several other studies show us directly, com-mercialisable output is not the core objective ofthe FPs but EU collaboration nevertheless con-tributes significantly to the creation of innova-tion.

Conclusions from the thematicanalyses

The first observation from the thematic analysesis that the project volume in the three analysedthemes varied significantly. In the energy and en-vironment theme Finnish participation was iden-tified in a total of about 95 projects and the num-ber of Finnish participations in these projects wasabout 150. The number of projects in FP6 with aclear link to the forest-based sector was in totalabout 20 and the number of projects with Finnishparticipation was only about ten. The number ofFinnish participations in these projects was about30. The ICT sector, or more precisely IST prior-ity, has the highest volume, and it had 211 pro-jects with Finnish participants. The number ofparticipations was 330. As a part of the ICTtheme, the health care ICT part represents thesmallest set of projects. Surprisingly, only 3 pro-jects with Finnish participation were identified inhealthcare ICT and even if the definition is wid-ened to cover also other health related ICT pro-jects, the number is only ten. The three core pro-jects included four Finnish participations.

All the thematic cases indicate well establishednetworks that in many cases could be called stra-tegic partnerships. The results also suggest thatproject benefits would be biggest when the pro-ject partners know each other from previous pro-jects. The tight, well-established networks mayon the other hand lead to rigid consortiums and itmay be difficult for new partners to enter. Net-working benefits from FP projects are most im-portant for research organisations, becausecompanies have other types of business net-works as well. In general, it seems that SMEshave the biggest challenges in getting into thenetworks and especially in influencing the re-search plans.

The results indicate that in the forest-based fieldFinnish industry and also researchers were tosome extent unaware of the possibilities thatFP6 offered for the forest-based sector. This ispartly due to the fact that the calls related to thistheme were scattered under various priorities.On the other hand the interviewees shared a viewthat the actors in the sector were not very activein their own efforts either. For example Swedenseems to have succeeded much better. As an ex-ample, all the forest-based IP projects were co-ordinated by Swedish organisations. Better na-tional orchestration and strategy work wouldhave provided more possibilities for influencingthe calls and sharing information on the possi-bilities. The situation has improved during FP6with the Finnish Strategic Centre for Science,Technology and Innovation (Forestcluster Ltd)and the European Forest-Based Sector Technol-ogy Platform (FTP).

The network analysis of projects in ICT sector re-veals that also in this sector most of the projectsinclude organisations that co-operate in a numberof projects and create a tight and stable network.However, the results show that in this theme thereare also projects that are to lesser degree linked tothe core networks. The Finnish participation isalso in line with this pattern. Large IP projectswith strong mobile communications componentsform one of the cores of Finnish IST projects.Most active Finnish organisations like VTT (with67 projects) and Nokia (with 38 projects) acted ascentres in the Finnish networks and they link alsoother Finnish organisations to the networks.However, most of the projects have only oneFinnish participant and there are number of ex-amples of smaller Finnish companies that haveparticipated also without other Finnish partici-pants. However, it can be supposed these organi-sations have joined “readymade” consortia withlimited possibilities to influence the researchplans. In health care ICT the Finnish participationwas unexpectedly low and it clearly indicates thatFinnish partners have not been able to link to thecore networks within this field.

88

The level of satisfaction and willingness to con-tinue co-operation varies between the energy andenvironment sector and the forest-based sector. Inthe first one the survey results and interviews in-dicate that Finnish participants are satisfied withthe results and are mostly willing to continueco-operation with the project partners in the fu-ture. The results related to the forest-based fieldshow rather similar results concerning the con-tacts to the project partners before the project andalso general networking benefits. However par-ticipants were much less satisfied with the resultsand indicated a much lower interest in futureco-operation with the same partners. Due to thelimited number of survey answers, the results areonly indicative and the reasons behind the lowersatisfaction cannot be directly seen. However, thereasons may be linked to various issues like pro-ject type, partners, cultural differences, projectcontents etc.

The specific co-operation structures that wereanalysed in each of the three cases are very differ-ent and cannot be directly compared. BioenergyNoE was established as an exclusive network oftop research organisations and it provided visibil-ity and more influential position for the partnersand especially for the coordinator VTT. Other na-tional benefits were limited as there were no spe-cific efforts or resources for national networkingthat would connect to the NoE. On the Europeanlevel, the network demonstrated that it would bepossible that different organisations focus on theirown strengths and thus avoid unnecessary overlap-ping. It is also possible that the network can utilisecommon research infrastructure. However differ-ent partners have very different incentives for Eu-ropean co-operation. Most important, the fundingbase varies from almost full direct governmentfunding to mostly competitive funding. This mayprevent more permanent organisational struc-tures for European co-operation.

The development of ARTEMIS during FP6 dem-onstrates the long time lines and level of com-plexity in developing new types of co-operation

structures. Establishing such a public-privatepartnership requires a strong political commit-ment. ARTEMIS was an initiative with clear po-litical drivers and the Commission played a keyrole in initiating the development.

The development of the European Forest-BasedSector Technology Platform (FTP) shows a verydifferent development. The FTP was initiated bythe joint effort of the European Confederation ofWoodworking Industries, The Confederation ofEuropean Forest Owners and the Confederationof European Paper Industries. It has opened a fo-rum for international collaboration and a channelfor discussions between the industry and theCommission. One future possibility is to developthe FTP further towards a Joint Technology Ini-tiative (JTI). When we compare the FTP to AR-TEMIS, we can conclude that such a develop-ment would require close co-operation betweenthe industry, national governments and the Com-mission. As the FTP has primarily been an indus-try driven initiative and the forest industry hasmuch less experience in European level co-oper-ation, developing the FTP towards a Joint Tech-nology Initiative includes a number of chal-lenges, including, for example, the commitmentof national governments. Of course the ARTE-MIS case has acted as a path opener and can pro-vide a number of lessons learned.

One key difference between the themes is in therole of EU and national policies in the develop-ment of the sector. In the energy and environmentsector, EU level policy is in a central position andhence there are also joint research interests. How-ever, the example demonstrates that despite theimportant role of EU level policies, also nationalpolicies, for example, regulation and market in-centives also play an important role in supportingcompetitiveness and the utilisation of innova-tions. Hence full utilisation of FrameworkProgrammes has a clear link to other policy areas.Health care ICT is another example of a themethat has strong links to policy sectors outside in-novation policy.

89

Promotion of collaboration betweenlocal, regional, national andsupranational levels

It is evident that FP collaboration has an impor-tant consequence for reinforcing the internation-alisation and globalisation of R&D&I. The popu-larity of FPs and international collaboration hasnot however resulted in Finns being too selectivein joining EU networks. Quite the contrary, it ap-pears to be the case that Finns are as eager as everto take part in the networks constituted at the EUlevel. The consortia have nevertheless becomelarger and the number of projects has declined.The larger project size has not increased the num-ber of problems associated with project planningand execution. Perhaps it is the experience ofFinns that explains the result indicating a rela-tively stable level of problems associated with FPprojects and collaboration. EU R&D&I collabo-ration is a cumulative process which is also asso-ciated with scientific productivity. The highly se-lective and competitive nature of EU fundingmay send a signal to other potential financiersabout the organization’s quality and confer a haloeffect on winning units and projects, thus boost-ing the chances of an organisation to succeed inattracting funding from national and interna-tional sources for its other R&D&I activities60.

EU FPs are an excellent means for promotingmulti-level governance in the realm of R&D&I.FPs have brought knowledge producers and userstogether and have influenced the conditions andfunctions of them at various levels of the gover-nance system. As the study at hand indicates, atthe local level FPs tend to affect the strategies ofthe organisations taking part in the EU collabora-tion. Due to the lack of appropriate data, it is nothowever possible to trace the development andchange in this respect, nor to compare the situa-tion in Finland to situations in other countries.Our analysis however implies that FP participa-tion tends to extensively affect the whole strategyof the organisation, not so much the specific strat-

egy dealing with the IRP-issues, for example. Ifthis holds true more generally, the FPs are an im-portant means for transforming the governancesystem and connections between local and supra-national entities.

This is part of the more fundamental develop-ment in which the local entities, such as regionsand cities, are no longer strictly enclosed withinnational economies but are more directly embed-ded in and operate as nodes within trans-state net-works61. In Europe, the competition between cit-ies and regions has significantly intensified. Al-though this transformation process does not per-haps directly affect the implementation of FPs, itnevertheless accentuates the need for recognisingthe more complex linkages between various ac-tors and institutions within the multi-level gover-nance system. There is a need to find a well func-tioning balance between top down and bottom upapproaches in the FP’s policy cycle. The regionaland local actors need to be involved and theiropinions heard in order to assure the legitimacyand attractiveness of the FPs.

As to the structure of multi-level governance inthe R&D&I, it is important that Finns hold influ-ential positions in the preparation and implemen-tation of supranational research and innovationpolicies. It is claimed that the good positions arefor the most part gained because of the high-levelexpertise and good track-record in innovation is-sues Finnish authorities possess.

To strengthen the influence of Finland in themulti-governance system, it is also of importancethat Finns further develop their lobbying compe-tencies. Furthermore, Finnish authorities re-cruited into the EU should sustain their linkagesto Finland and Finnish decision-makers andR&D&I performers. Being part of the EU andpromoting interests which are common to allmember states does not imply that national inter-ests are left aside. However, being a small coun-try, it is essential for Finland to constitute alli-

90

60 Kutinlahti, P. (2005), pp. 116-117.

61 Pelkonen (2008); Brenner (1998).

ances with other nationalities to affect suprana-tional decision-making within the EU. It is part ofthe country’s strategic intelligence to be able toidentify those phases in the policy-cycle in whichFinland needs strategic alliances and can be con-tent with constituting compromises, on the onehand, and promote Finland’s own national inter-ests, on the other.

Striving towards better and moreefficient innovation policy – lessonslearned from the evaluation on theSixth Framework Programme

One important result worth considering in the fu-ture is that some problems still exist with the link-ages and coherence between regional, nationaland EU R&D&I interventions. While it is impos-sible to get an absolute coherence between thedifferent programmes it is nevertheless worth-while to strive towards a better division of labourbetween various instruments enhancing theR&D&I. This implies that the roles and addedvalue of the instruments is assessed and made vis-ible. The best possible result of the co-ordinationis that the various programmes and other inter-ventions further both the national and suprana-tional interests at once.

We need more in-depth analysis on the networksand development of strategic partnerships cre-ated through the involvement in the EU Frame-work Programmes.


The current work by the staff of the Finnish Sec-retariat for EU R&D, NCPs, administrative per-sonnel at the universities and research institutes isof high quality. However, there is a clear need tofoster the participation of companies, especiallySMEs, in the FPs. Therefore, communicationtools should be further developed to target SMEs.For example, co-operation between the FinnishSecretariat for EU R&D and EnterpriseFinlandshould be developed. EnterpriseFinland is a freepublic portal for enterprises, entrepreneurs andfuture entrepreneurs.

In addition, we recommend that dialogue be-tween society and the FPs should be encouragedas a whole. In Finland, the Finnish Secretariat forEU R&D could work strategically with other or-ganisations and the media to encourage increasedvisibility of FPs. For example, summaries of pro-jects funded by FPs as well as achievements andimpacts should be popularized both by the re-searchers and companies as well as the FinnishSecretariat for EU R&D and funding organisa-tions.

91

Tekes’ Programme Reports in English

6/2008 Finns in the EU 6th Framework Programme – Evaluation of Participationand Networks. Soile Kuitunen, Katri Haila, Ilpo Kauppinen, Mikko Syrjänen,Juha Vanhanen, Paavo-Petri Ahonen, Ilkka Tuomi, Pekka Kettunen &Teemu Paavola. Evaluation Report. 91 p.

2/2008 Creating Cross-border Competence – Impact Evaluation of the WoodMaterial Science and Engineering Research Programme. Evaluation Report.Kimmo Halme, Sami Kanninen, Kimmo Viljamaa, Erik Arnold, Tomas Åströmand Tommy Jansson. 79 p.

11/2007 DENSY – Distributed Energy Systems 2003–2007. Final Report. 155 p.

2/2007 FENIX – Interactive Computing 2003–2007. Final Report. 136 p.

1/2007 FUSION Technology Programme Report 2003–2006. Final Report. 184 p.Seppo Karttunen and Karin Rantamäki (Eds)

17/2006 PINTA – Clean Surfaces 2002–2006. Final and Evaluation Report. 228 p.

13/2006 Finnish National Evaluation of EUREKA and COST. Evaluation Report. 95 p.Sami Kanninen, Pirjo Kutinlahti, Terttu Luukkonen, Juha Oksanen andTarmo Lemola

11/2006 Competitiveness through Integration in Process Industry Communities.Evaluation of Technology Programme “Process Integration 2000–2004”.Evaluation Report. 17 p.

8/2006 AVALI – Business Opportunities from Space Technology 2002–2005.Final Report. 79 p.

6/2006 New Knowledge and Competence for Technology and Innovation Policies– ProACT Research Programme 2001–2005. Final Report. Edited by PekkaPesonen. 137 p.

3/2006 ELMO – Miniaturising Electronics 2002–2005. Final Report. 238 p.

12/2005 NETS – Networks of the Future 2001–200. Evaluation Report, ExecutiveSummary. 19 p. Mervi Rajahonka and Mikko Valtakari.

1/2005 NETS – Networks of the Future 2001–2005. Final Report. 213 p.

10/2004 Competitiveness through internationalisation – Evaluation of the means andmechanisms for promoting internationalisation in technology programmes.Evaluation Report. 89 p. Kimmo Halme, Sami Kanninen, Tarmo Lemola,Erkko Autio, Erik Arnold, Jesper Deuten.

6/2004 Developing Technology for Large-Scale Production of Forest Chips – WoodEnergy Technology Programme 1999–2003. Final Report. 98 p. Pentti Hakkila.

Subscriptions: www.tekes.fi/english/publications

http://www.tekes.fi/english/publications

September 2008 ISSN 1797-7347ISBN 978-952-457-430-3

The Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and InnovationKyllikinportti 2, P.O. Box 69, FIN-00101 Helsinki, Finland

Tel. +358 1060 55000, Fax +358 9 694 9196, E-mail: [email protected]


Evaluation Report

Further information

Tekes Pekka Pesonen

Tel. +358 10 60 55804 [email protected]

Net Effect Ltd Katri Haila

Tel. +358 9 612 90 50 [email protected]

Tekes• Finns in the E

U 6th Fram

ework P

rogramm

e – Evaluation of P

articipation and

Netw

orksE

valuation Rep

ort

6

08

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.tekes.fi

Documents

08 Finns in the EU 6th Framework Programme...Finns in the EU 6th Framework Programme Evaluation of Participation and Networks Evaluation Report Soile Kuitunen, Katri Haila, Ilpo Kauppinen,