catalysing_european_competitiveness_v3

8/7/2019 catalysing_european_competitiveness_v3

1/44


2/44

LEGAL NOTICE

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on its behal is responsible or the use which mightbe made o the inormation contained in the present publication.

The European Commission is not responsible or the external web sites reerred to in the present

publication.

The views expressed in this publication are those o the authors and do not necessarily relect the oicial

European Commissions view on the subject.

Publications Oice o the European Union - Luxembourg, 2010

ISBN 978-92-79-16570-2

doi:10.2759/36008

European Union 2010

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answersto your questions about the European Union

New freephone number *00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

In certain cases, these calls may be chargeable rom telephone boxes or hotels.


3/44

EuropeanCommission

Informat

ionSocietyandMedia

Members o the Evaluation Panel

Alain Bravo (France) Chairman

Gonzalo Len (Spain)

erttu Luukkonen (Finland)

Hartmut Raer (Germany)

Staan ruv (Sweden)

iga urk (Slovenia)

Steve Wright (UK)

Rapporteur: Erik Arnold

June 2010

Catalysing EuropeanCompetitiveness in a

Globalising WorldP a n e l r e P o r t o f f P - I C t I n t e r I m e v a l uat I o n


4/44

4

Members of the Evaluation PanelAlain Bravo (Chairman o the Expert Group) - Director General o Suplec, Ecole Suprieure

dElectricit; Member o the French Academy o echnology

Gonzalo Len Proessor o elematics Engineering and Vice-Rector or Research at the UniversidadPolitcnica de Madrid; ormer secretary general o science policy at the Ministry oScience and echnology

Terttu Luukkonen Head o Unit at the Research Institute o Finish Economy; Former Chie ResearchScientist and Director o V Group or echnology Studies at the echnicalResearch Centre o Finland

Hartmut Raer Head o the Inormation & Communications Division at Siemens Corporateechnology; Honorary Proessor o the U Munich

Staan Truv CEO o the Swedish Institute o Computer Science (SICS); Co-ounder o CR&(Carlstedt Research and echnology)

iga Turk Proessor and Chair in Construction Inormatics in the Faculty o Civil and GeodeticEngineering at the University o Ljubljana; Former Minister or growth in thegovernment o Slovenia

Steve Wright Head o Strategic Research, B Innovate

RappoRteuR

Erik Arnold Chairman o echnopolis Group, Brighton

AcknowledgementsTe Panel would like to acknowledge the support and valuable input or this evaluation providedby several senior experts rom industry and rom research who were interviewed by the Panel,as well as the large number o programme participants and other stakeholders who respondedto the survey carried out on behal o the Panel.

A special tribute is paid to the Commission ocials, especially o Unit C3 Evaluation andMonitoring, DG Inormation Society and Media, who contributed signicantly to the under-standing by the Panel.

Te Panel beneted rom the support o a team o evaluation experts rom echnopolis Group,who assisted in the collection and analysis o evidence and draing o the report.


5/44

5

tb Cs

1 Overview of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2 Interim Evaluation of the ICT Programme in FP7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.2 The importance o the ICT Programme or Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.3 The ICT Programme and the New ERA Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.4 Promoting radical innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.5 The Global Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.6 The ICT Programme and Joined Up Policymaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.7 Integrating the Demand Side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.8 The ICT Programme and Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.9 Implementation o the ICT Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.10 Simplifcation o participation in the ICT Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.11 Reducing the Costs o Participating in the Framework Programme . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3 Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.1 Appendix A: Tasks o the Evaluation Panel and Working Method . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.2 Appendix B: Summary o Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.2.1 Strengthening European ICT research in a globalising world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3.2.2 Exploiting the Pervasiveness o ICT via Integrated Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.2.3 Sharing Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38


6/44

6


7/44

1rcdisoiw

In the view o the current panel, while the ICProgramme retains its ull relevance and itssolid and largely well-implemented character,the current review stresses the need or threeessential sets o action

Strengthening European IC research in aglobalizing world,

Exploiting the pervasiveness o IC via inte-grated policies

Sharing risk

StReNGtHeNING euRopeaN ICt

ReSeaRCH IN a GLoBaLISING WoRLD

o support the use o IC and the com-1.petitiveness o European industry, theCommission should continue the IC Pro-gramme in a urther strengthened ormthrough the rest o FP7 and into FP8 whileensuring it has the fexibility and interdis-ciplinarity needed or dynamic and radicalIC innovation.

o continue to build a European Research2.Area that combines the needs and assets o

national and European programmes, theCommission should clariy and more clearlycommunicate how the portolio o instru-ments at its disposal is intended to supportboth IC Programme and ERA goals. Itshould, with the Member States, especiallyaddress issues o dual management, separatereporting and lack o coordination.

o ensure that the IC Programme contains3.a good balance between consensus-based

R&D and longer-term, more disruptiveR&D, the Commission should expand theresources o FE during the second part

o FP7 and the scheme should be extendedinto FP8.

o respond to the globalisation o R&D4.and to make best use o potential glo-

bal partnerships, the Commission shouldcontinue to extend the global reach o theIC Programme. It should develop a morenuanced strategy that takes account o thediering characteristics and capabilitieso various parts o the world. Tis mustbe complemented by a proactive policy toensure EU presence at the leading edge opre-normalisation and ormal standardisa-tion processes.

eXpLoItING tHe peRVaSIVeNeSS oF ICt

VIa INteGRateD poLICIeS

o develop IC policies and programmes5.that respond to ICs pervasiveness acrossall parts o society and the economy, theCommission should take the lead by estab-lishing an IC ask Force with membersspanning appropriate Directorates General,to coordinate IC-relevant policy develop-

ment.

o take adequate account o the needs o6.

the demand side, and the potential inno-

vation and policy stimuli it provides, the

Commission should ensure that the work o

the ask Force is complemented by activi-

ties that connect IC Programme design

with wider (especially societal) oresights.

It should explore the opportunities to cre-

ate demand-based measures that open new

arenas or innovation and growth by group-ing and making visible user needs. DG-Inso

should also aim or better coordination with


8/44

8

other Directorates General and with IC

user communities in order to deepen the

role o the demand side both public and

private in dening and implementing the

Programme and its links to take-up and

practice.

o make best use o the power o the Higher7.Education system in spreading innovationand providing the skills and competenciesneeded or competitiveness, the Commis-sion should incorporate elements in utureCalls that encourage participants to developcurricula in new and emerging areas as parto the activities unded.

o improve the structure o the IC8.Programme, to reach the Programmesimmediate IC objectives and the widerobjectives o FP7, the Commission shouldtake two major actions (a) to make greatereorts to reverse the downward trend inindustry participation; (b) to incorpo-rate plans or large-scale IC test beds oradvanced services.

SHaRING RISK

o enable the continued participation o9.key European players and to make the pro-gramme suciently attractive to global

participants, the Commission must reducethe damaging administrative burden andthe growing arbitrariness o auditing prac-tices. It can address this by undertaking aradical overhaul o the nancial regulationsand their implementation, and ensuring thatthe underlying principle is one o shared riskand mutual trust.

o increase SME participation, in particular,10.

and simpliy and reduce the burdens o their

participation, the Commission should createa fexible, lightweight and well-dened orm

o sub-contracting or associate partnership.

o reduce the current massive waste o11.eort in writing good-quality but neverthe-less ruitless proposals and to make it moreattractive to participate in the Programme,the Commission should test a more sophis-ticated two-stage application process in parto the Programme. Proposals proceeding

to the second stage should have a 30-50%chance o obtaining unding.


9/44

9

Inormation and Communications echnolo-gies (IC) are inextricably woven into almostevery aspect o our working and private lives.

Mastering their development, production anduse are central to Europes competitiveness andthereore many aspects o our quality o lie.

Tis Interim Evaluation o the IC Pro-gramme is an input to the Interim Evaluationo FP7 as a whole, which is mandated by theFinancial Regulation1 (Articles 27 and 60)and its Implementing Rules2 (Article 21).Tis evaluation serves two major purposes:to provide guidance and steering or the fnal

part o FP7 and to provide input to the designo any successor programme to FP7, since thepreparations or this will begin beore theend o the current programme. Te evalua-tion builds on the corresponding evaluationo FP63 by a panel o experts chaired by EskoAho. It tackles three broad issues: the extentto which conditions are in place that canlead the programme to produce high qualityresearch; its progress towards its objectives;and the quality o its implementation espe-

cially with respect to simplifcation o itsinstruments and procedures.

With a budget o just over 9 billion overseven years, the IC Programme is thelargest single component o the European

Unions 50 billion Seventh Framework Pro-gramme o Research and echnologicalDevelopment (FP7). Te IC Programme is

intended to contribute to building a singleEuropean Research Area (ERA), through theimplementation o the i2010 vision o Europeas a single, research-intensive and inclusiveinormation space, and can contribute to theEurope 2020 strategy or emerging rom thecurrent economic crisis.

Te Aho panels FP6 evaluation ound that the

Programme was in many respects well imple-

mented but that more progress was needed

in simplifcation and achieving greater globalimpacts rom the Programme. It said there

were opportunities to improve the linkage o

the Programme with venture capital, regional

innovation and public procurement. It called

or a more strategic approach to European

standardisation, lead market development

and the mobilisation o public-private part-

nerships.

In the view o the current panel, while the IC

Programme retains its relevance and its solidand largely well-implemented character, the

amount o progress made at FP level on the

wide-ranging issues raised by the Aho panel in

2008 is at best modest. While there has been

some progress in the internal administrative

ICt Pg i fP72

Ii ei h

1 Council Regulation no 1605/2002 o June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general Budget o the European

Communities. (OJ L248/1 16.9.2002)

2 Commission Regulation no 2342/2002 o 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules or the implementation o Council Regulationon the Financial regulation applicable to the general budget o the European Communities (OJ L357/1 31.12.2002)

3 Esko Aho (Chair), Inormation Society Research and Innovation: Delivering Results with Sustained Impact, Evaluation o the eectiveness

o Inormation Society Research in the 6th Framework Programme 2003-2006, European Commission, Brussels: May 2008

Introduction


10/44

0

eciency o DG INFSO, as regards simpli-

cation and the audit burdens placed upon

participants the Commission has taken signi-

cant backwards steps that undermine the long

term viability o the Framework Programme.

Te number o instruments has increased and

inconsistencies in governance and adminis-tration make it hard to grasp or participate in

several at a time. Lack o clear, understanda-

ble and, above all, coherently interpreted rules

have resulted in a dysunctional approach to the

nancial management o EU-unded research.

Indeed, post-project auditing practices intro-

duced in the wake o FP6 impose arbitrary and

retroactive changes to costing rules resulting in

unexpected nancial penalties or participants.

Tis negative lottery is reducing the willingness

o key players to participate in the Programme

and is making more global participation unat-

tractive. It is not merely a matter o imperect

implementation: it is an existential challenge tothe Programme itsel. Te current review o the

nancial regulations provides a unique oppor-

tunity to address the most urgent aspects o

simplication, which the Commission should

seize with both hands.

tHe ImpoRtaNCe oF tHe ICt

pRoGRamme FoR euRope

IC is a uniquely pervasive set o technologies,

aecting every part o the economy, society

and our lives. It is vital or the uture prosperity

o Europe to maintain and strengthen our posi-

tion at the leading edge o global competition.Continuous, dynamic and radical innovation

in IC production and use is a precondition or

continued social and economic development.

IC is not only important in the high-volume

products increasingly produced in low-income

countries but is also crucial in the complex sys-

tems industries in which Europe continues to

excel. Its convergence with other technologies,

or example in biology, energy and health, not

only underlines its importance but also providescontinuing opportunities or European industry

and society.

Europe collectively has to maintain the R&Dinvestments needed to operate at the leadingedge o IC development and use.

Te FP7 IC Programme is strongly aligned

with current worldwide IC R&D priorities and

refects technology and market trends in IC

globally. It comprises a mixture o bottom-up

and top-down design, responding to European

needs or technological and economic devel-

opment, areas o industrial and technological

strength and policy objectives. It ocuses on the

exploration o new technology paths, targeting

areas with high growth potential, and is rooted

in a continent-wide consensus-building process

with stakeholders.

echnologies and markets change rapidly, soit is crucial or industry, researchers and theProgramme itsel to be agile. For example,the challenge o creating the uture internetrequires the ability to develop knowledgeand create uture standards, and to developand adopt new technologies. Te currentreorientation o the Work Programmes4 illus-trates at this interim stage the ability o the

Commission to make these kinds o neededadjustments during the second part o FP7and to keep pace with such changing needs.

Partly because it is dicult in such a Pro-gramme to respond to short-term changesin needs, it aimed to und mid-to-long-termresearch. Tis longer-term ocus has beenaided by changes in procedures or adaptingwork plans and consortium composition andthereore help sustain longer-term projects.

STRENGTHENING EUROPEAN ICT RESEARCH INA GLOBALISING WORLD

4 FP7 IC Work Programme 2011-12 Orientations, Overview, Brussels: DG-INFSO, 21/01/2010


11/44

tHe ICt pRoGRamme aND tHe NeW

eRa INStRumeNtS

Te idea o a European Research Area (ERA)has constantly been evolving since it waslaunched in 2000. Initially, it involved buildingcritical masses within and between Europeanresearch organisations in order to be able tocompete better at global scale, and creating acommon market in knowledge and knowledge

services. oday, the idea is much more ambi-tious in eect to build a globally competitiveResearch and Innovation System optimisedat the European level, aligning regional andnational policies and institutions to this newscale. Te EU ERA 2020 Vision thereore hasve major components5

Knowledge Activities: Volume and Quality1.- Te ERA defnes the European way toexcellence in research and is a major driver

o EU competitiveness in a globalisedworld

Knowledge riangle: Flows and dynamics -2.Strong interactions within the knowledgetriangle (education, research and innova-tion) are promoted at all levels

Fih reedom: intra and extra-EU openness3.

and circulation - Te ERA provides a seam-

less area o reedom and opportunities or

dialogue, exchange and interaction, open tothe world

Te Societal Dimension - Te ERA is rmly4.rooted in society and responsive to its needsand ambitions

Sustainable development and Grand chal-5.lenges - Te ERA is rmly rooted in societyin pursuit o sustainable development

World-class production and use o IC sup-ported by advanced IC inrastructure is a keyoundation o such a systemic ERA vision.

Since the start o FP6, when it became possibleto use the Framework Programme as one o thetools or implementing ERA, the Commissionhas experimented with a succession o newapproaches starting with the launch o Inte-grated Projects and Networks o Excellence, and

the promotion o echnology Platorms, andculminating inter alia in the Joint echnologyInitiatives (JI), Article 1696 undertakings, theSE-Plan, the Recovery Plan and the EuropeanInstitute o echnology. Tese go well beyondthe Framework Programmes traditional ocuson collaborative R&D to the promotion o crit-ical mass, consensus-building, agenda-settingand supra-national coordination o researchand innovation eorts across Europe. Te pro-lieration o instruments has increased the

complexity o developing and implementingthe ERA, but on the positive side, means thata large toolkit can be used in a strategic way toimplement the vision o ERA and o IC withinERA. However, it should not be orgotten thatthe traditional R&D collaboration tools in theIC Programme have greatly restructured theIC research landscape over the nearly thirtyyears o IC Programmes and continue to bethe backbone o the Programme.

Te IC Programme has promoted a widermobilisation o resources by involving nationalprogrammes in the JIs7 and in the Ambi-ent Assisted Living (AAL) Article 169 JointProgramme. Tis is a powerul complementto national eorts, sometimes lling gaps innational programmes, adding research areasthat may be lacking at national level andproviding access to researchers not able to par-ticipate in nationally unded programmes.

5 2020 Vision or the European Research Area, Brussels: European Council Conclusions, December 2008

6 Now Article 185, since the Lisbon reaty entered into orce

7 Unlike in other parts o FP7, the IC JIs include national public authorities.

Rcondaion 1:

to suor h us o ICt and h coiivnss o euroan indusry, h Cois-

sion should coninu h ICt progra in a urhr srnghnd or hrough h rs

o Fp7 and ino Fp8 whil nsuring i has h xibiliy and inrdiscilinariy ndd or

dynaic and radical ICt innovaion.


12/44

A key aspect o these new approaches is theintended delegation o administration, projectselection and aspects o unding (especiallywhen obtaining complementary unding romMember States) to the new ERA instruments(PPPs, JIs, Article 169s ). Core FP partici-

pants, who take part in successive FPs, oenconstitute the backbone or the research inthe new initiatives, which allow researchers tostrengthen and broaden their R&D allianceswith industry participants. Incentives or par-ticipation in the JIs include the ability toinfuence the research agenda, the opportunityor more horizontal research links (as opposedto vertical supply chain links in traditionalcooperative research), more market ocusedresearch and, when compared to Eureka, a

complementary participant base.

Te governance o these joint actions, how-ever, involves undamental problems. Teseare mainly related to the dual managementstructures, the separate reporting require-ments o the national and European levels,lack o coordination in the timing o und-ing decisions between EU and Member Statelevels and Member States unwillingness to

extend their budget contributions during thelie o the JIs, or example i national partici-pants win a greater-than-expected proportiono the activity in the JI. Te so-called SherpaGroup report8 on JIs highlights the diversityo practice among them, the issues they raise

about incompatibilities between national- andEU-level unding regulations, processes andpractices and the need or a special legal statusor the JIs both in dening them as legalpersons and recognise them in the FinancialRegulations.

Most o the new ERA tools are still in an exper-imental phase. Tere are inevitably lessonsto be learnt with regard to their design andimplementation and what can realistically be

expected. It is important that the existing mixo instruments be ully utilised and modiedwhen necessary - beore the launch o yet newones. For example, in the IC Programmethe Networks o Excellence have proved to bemuch more useul than is generally thought.

pRomotING RaDICaL INNoVatIoN

Te change rom FP6 to FP7 involved taking a

longer-term perspective and thereore enabling

more radical as well as more routine innovation.

Te Commissions process o experimentation

and innovation in instruments has ocused on

its mission to structure the ERA building

consensus and reducing the technical and com-

mercial risks o innovation by agreeing road

maps and R&D trajectories. Inevitably, the

established, major stakeholders on the Euro-

pean stage dominate these large instruments

and the involvement o these usual suspects

greatly increases the likelihood that resultswill be implemented. However, Framework

Programme contains limited countervailing

activity that would stimulate disequilibrating,

disruptive technologies and innovations that

can unseat the established players and unleash

the development o new industries.

Te Programme tackles high levels o techni-cal and commercial risk together with industryand the research community. As in FP6, the

level o risk in the projects is high in particular

Rcndin 2:

t cnin bild ern Rsrch ar h cbins h nds nd sss

ninl nd ern rgrs, h Cissin shld clri nd r clrlcnic hw h rli insrns is dissl is inndd sr

bh ICt prgr nd eRa gls. I shld, wih h mbr Ss, scillddrss isss dl ngn, sr rring nd lck crdinin.

4 JI Sherpas Group, Designing ogether the Ideal House or Public-Private Partnerships in European Research, (mimeo), January 2010


13/44

or research exploring new technology paths,such as photonics, nano-electronics, cognitivesystems and robotics. However, technical riskis perceived to be lower where the consensus-based strategic agendas have dened the pathor development. Te Programme thereore

needs to be rebalanced by taking on longer-term technology risk in emerging areas.

Te recently established European ResearchCouncil (ERC) promotes excellent, rontierresearch, which can, in the longer run, lead toradical innovation. However, the promotion oradical innovation is not its major aim and itis too early to assess the degree to which thatwill occur. Wider experience o researcher-driven basic research is that there can be links

to use but that these can neither be predictednor planned.

Te Future Emerging echnologies (FE)scheme within IC promotes interdisciplinary,use-orientated research that is undamen-tal in character. Its combination o open andproactive Calls is unique. FE has served as

a pathnder or uture directions o the ICProgramme. Temes developed in FE andnow included in the IC Programme includenanotechnology inormation devices and nano-electronics, quantum inormation processingand communications, computer vision, bio-

neuro-IC, beyond robotics, complex systems,and presence research. FE Flagships are anew development in the scheme: ambitious,large-scale science-driven and goal-orientedinitiatives to promote scientic discoveries andtechnological innovation by ederating eortsat the EU, member state and business partnerlevels. Such Flagships would serve as ocusingdevices and mobilise eorts in promising andchallenging areas using the existing repertoireo instruments.

FE is an ambitious and dynamic part o theIC Programme and o high importance orits renewal. Not least in the context o thereducing riskiness o the work undertakenelsewhere in the Programme, its role shouldincrease.

tHe GLoBaL DImeNSIoN

Te Programme oen involves entire supplychains, though the role o end-users (especiallyrom the public sector) is sometimes too lim-

ited. Increasingly, it reaches out beyond Europein order to complete supply chains that wouldotherwise be incomplete and to promote thedevelopment and agreement o advantageoustechnical standards. However, it does so in aragmented way, without overall strategy andwithout suciently considering the interplayamong globalisation o R&D, regulation, theinternal market and standardisation.

Expert panels have repeatedly stressed the

need or European research to open the Euro-pean Research Area to the rest o the world.Te approach taken by the Programme o a

targeted opening to global players and therelatively limited investment in the specicInternational Cooperation instruments impliesthat in mainstream IC, a very limited numbero projects involve collaboration with industry

and research leaders at global level. In someareas, this has led to the absence o key compe-tences or links in the value chain because thenecessary partner was not present.

Closely related to the enhancement o Euro-

pean competitive advantage at a global scale

as well as to the value o research at European

level is the reinorcement o the European

Single Market. Research in the Programme

contributes to pre-normalisation and standard-

isation. In some areas, strong attention is paidto providing contributions or the development

o (global) standards. Much o the research

Rcondaion 3:

to nsur ha h ICt progra conains a good balanc bwn consnsus-basd R&D and longr-r, or disruiv R&D, h Coission should xand h

rsourcs o Fet during h scond ar o Fp7 and h sch should b xndd inoFp8.


14/44

4

ocus is currently on the development o new

systems and processes with too little regard

or integration and interoperability/backward

compatibility.

More Commission support is needed to create

coherence among regulations, in particular inrelation to the links between the Programmeand other policy or regulatory activities atEuropean levels (such as in Ambient AssistedLiving or Web-based services). Te more pro-nounced ocus on R&D in FP7 compared toFP6 implied a reduction o the unding oractions that targeted knowledge or regulatoryactivities relevant to market developments, orexample in the new societal challenges (notablythe Co-ordination and Supporting Actions).

Unlike in the past, today individual nationstates have little real power to infuence thedevelopment o IC standards. Standardsremain extremely important in IC markets,but they are largely made de acto or in inor-mal standardisation ora on a global basis and

only later ratied by ormal standards bodies.Standards dene the arenas in which the indus-try competes. Infuence over standardisationthereore provides large potential competitiveadvantages and conversely, lack o infuence leaves suppliers trailing behind, trying tocatch up with market-leading technology andoen carrying an additional burden o licenceees.

tHe ICt pRoGRamme aND JoINeD up

poLICymaKING

Te increasing pervasiveness o IC means that

it must be linked to policymaking, both hori-

zontally across dierent sectors o society andvertically through better connection between

user needs and communities including the

so-called grand challenges and the produc-

tion o IC. Te capacity o the IC Programme

adequately to bridge research and innovation is

not wholly clear. Institutional separation at the

level o the European Commission between

research and innovation militates against this.

Within the European Commission, there is

great value in ocusing the IC Programmein a single Directorate General (DG-INFSO)with the specialist capabilities and knowledge

to tackle IC technologies and markets. At thesame time, the sectoral expertise o the otherDirectorates General is vital or the wider useo IC applications. It ollows that the way toget the best rom IC is to use their respective

expertise, as could be the case in computer-aided medicine or smart grids. Tis requirescoordination.

In FP7, the Commission has made eorts toimprove coordination and reduce duplicationwith other Community Programmes. How-ever, Europe needs at a higher level to maintaina coherent set o IC-related policies that spanHigher Education, R&D, production, use andthe hard and so inrastructures needed i it

is to remain a signicant global player. oday,such a coherent set o policies is not in place atany level: regional; national; or European.

Rcndin 4:

t rsnd h glblisin R&D nd k bs s nil glblrnrshis, h Cissin shld cnin xnd h glbl rch h ICt

prgr. I shld dvl r nncd srg h ks ccn hdiring chrcrisics nd cbiliis vris rs h wrld. this s b

clnd b rciv lic nsr eu rsnc h lding dg r-nrlisin nd rl sndrdisin rcsss.

EXPLOITING THE PERVASIVENESS OF ICT VIA

INTEGRATED POLICIES


15/44

5

INteGRatING tHe DemaND SIDe

Historically, the IC Programme and its prede-

cessors have tended to have a technology push

character. Currently, the IC Programme is

well linked to needs and market opportunities

in those places where it involves strong stake-

holder groups spanning the knowledge triangle

and markets. Links to demand are weaker in

other areas. Compared with FP6, there is lessinvolvement by actors rom non-IC manuac-

turing sectors, posing a potential threat to the

Programmes relevance to wider applications

and end-user communities. Further, the Pro-

gramme has not adopted other demand-side

innovation policies, such as pre-commercial

public procurement or ostering the adoption o

new standards and regulations (like in environ-

ment and energy issues), which are under-used

in European IC policy although they provide

signicant opportunities.

Te Programme also lacks mechanisms toaddress the much-discussed grand challenges.Te Framework programme as a whole needseective ways to connect its own design to

wider processes o oresight, demand analysisor even o demand-based innovation wheredemand-side analysis and policy can createnew market and innovation opportunities.

Establishing and maintaining European lead

markets in new and developing areas o IC is

a necessity i Europe is to remain an attractive

location or the production o IC-related prod-

ucts and services and a motor o innovation.Use, as well as production, o advanced systems

based on IC must be a key European policy

objective.

Tese reservations support the Commissionsconclusion in its 2009 Communication AStrategy or Leadership9, where it recognisedthe need to improve the balance in supply-demand ocus, arguing that To reinorce itsstrengths and seize new opportunities in ICT,

Europe needs to raise its game. A more ecientand systemic strategy or ICT R&D&I mustaddress both supply and demand, cutting acrossthe innovation cycle and knowledge trianglewith more user-producer interactions.

Recommendaion 5:

to develop ICt policies and programmes ha respond o ICts pervasiveness across

all pars of sociey and he economy, he Commission should ake he lead by esab-lishing an ICt task Force wih members spanning appropriae Direcoraes General,

o coordinae ICt-relevan policy developmen.

Rcndin 6:

t k dq ccn h nds h dnd sid, nd h nil inn-

vin nd lic sili i rvids, h Cissin shld nsr h h wrk

h tsk Frc is clnd b civiis h cnnc ICt prgr dsign wihwidr (scill scil) rsighs. I shld xlr h rniis crdnd-bsd srs h n nw rns r innvin nd grwh b gr-

ing nd king visibl sr nds. DG-Ins shld ls i r br crdinin

wih hr Dircrs Gnrl nd wih ICt sr cniis in rdr dn hrl h dnd sid bh blic nd riv in dning nd ilning h

prgr nd is links k- nd rcic.

9 A strategy or IC R&D and Innovation in Europe: Raising the Game, Communication rom the Commission to the European

Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee o the Regions, COM (2009) 116 inal,

European Commission, 2009


16/44

6

tHe ICt pRoGRamme aND HIGHeR

eDuCatIoN

Te Higher Education dimension is requently

orgotten in research and innovation policy and

is under-emphasised in the IC programme.

Human capital translates new ideas into reality.Research agendas at the interace between soci-

ety and the Higher Education system provide

ocusing devices that inorm researchers and

educators alike about knowledge needs. Higher

Education also provides a key dissemination

channel or IC research.

Te EIs KICs are intended to provide oneavenue to connect research and innovationwith higher education but are limited in the

number o participating organisations. In theuture, more KIC-like activities will be neededin IC, linked to key societal and technicalchallenges. Opening up the Network o Excel-lence model to global participation would

provide an additional way to strengthenthe participation o Europes higher educa-tion institutions at the global leading edge oresearch and education and strengthen theknowledge triangle.

In parallel, the European Higher Educationsystem must be able to satisy, in close coop-

eration with industry, needs or new IC skills

and multidisciplinary competences and con-

stantly to update the contents o its curricula.

While it would be inappropriate or the IC

Programme to stray ar into Higher Education

policy, there is high potential value in including

activities in relevant projects that bootstrap

changes in Higher Education. Tis occurs not

only at PhD level but also at the level o Bach-

elors and Masters so that important changes inknowledge introduced via university research

become incorporated over time into all sylla-

buses.

ImpLemeNtatIoN oF tHe ICt

pRoGRamme

In a broad sense, FP7-IC has been wellimplemented. Te participants and projectsare o high quality and include leaders in theirrespective elds. Participants generally achieve

their own goals and regard the benets o par-ticipation as bigger than the costs and otherdrawbacks. Plans or the second part o FP7refect socio-economic, business and technol-ogy developments.

Te Programme has succeeded in creatingor strengthening longer-term strategic R&Dalliances, contributing to the integration oEuropean research. Projects provide high levelso European added value, ostering coherence

among research policies, enabling partici-pants to explore new technologies and marketsand obtaining rapid access to expertise. Te

Programme has been particularly useul ordoing research on issues with a pan-Europeandimension.

As in many other parts o the Framework, theIC programme involves a strong core o par-ticipants that remains rather stable across FPs.

Tey tend to play a gatekeeper role, bring-ing new research actors into the Programmeas well as sustaining existing collaborations inR&D.

Te IC Programme in FP7 involved a broadrange o key actors in both scientic elds andthe industry sector. European research leaderswere well represented. While the Programmestill attracted many strong industrial teams,the involvement o product/technology users

in the manuacturing sectors declined. Tistrend is a cause or concern.

Rcndin 7:

t k bs s h wr h Highr edcin ss in srding inn-vin nd rviding h skills nd cncis ndd r ciivnss, h

Cissin shld incrr lns in r Clls h ncrg ricins

dvl crricl in nw nd rging rs s r h civiis ndd.


17/44

Tere were slightly more SMEs participations especially by high-tech SMEs but also SMEsacting as advanced users than in FP6. Teincrease in SME participation was caused bymore intensive participation rather than anincrease in the number o SMEs involved. SME

participation, like that o industry overall, var-ies signicantly among the IC ProgrammeChallenges. Close to 30% o the SMEs involvedin FP7 mainstream IC participated also inFP5 and FP6. Tese organisations are oenleaders in their niche markets.

SMEs are signifcant participants and con-tributors to the IC Programme. Specifcallytailored risk-sharing fnance instrumentsshould be created or advanced users and

high-tech SMEs, addressing their small-scale unding needs. While the Risk SharingFinancial Facility (RSFF) may play a useulrole in enabling larger organisations to takeinnovation risk, it is not well adapted to theneeds o smaller organisations because theminimum size o loans involved is too large.

Te Programme is helping to shape theresearch community, or example by creatinga new highly multidisciplinary research com-

munity in the eld o the Virtual PhysiologicalHuman. During FP6, Networks o Excellencemade important contributions to reinorcingthe European Research Area in IC10. Terewere also important examples o support and

coordination actions ocusing attention on theneed or strategic research roadmaps in eldsnot yet tackled by the European echnologyPlatorms. It may have been a mistake to de-emphasise these instruments in FP7. Anotherdrawback o FP7 was a less strategic approach

to internal exchange and dissemination oinormation as a result o reduced coordina-tion between projects. For example, so-calledconcertation meetings between projects insimilar areas have largely been discontinued.

An important component o the FrameworkProgramme is eInrastructures, equivalent toapproximately 7% o the FP7 budget managedby DG-Inso and including inrastructuressuch as the extension and development o

the pan-European research network GAN;deployment and evolution o e-Science Gridinrastructures, meeting the needs o newscientic and engineering communities(including in social sciences and humanities),scientic digital repositories and developingcommon cooperation with similar initiativesin other continents. Recently, positive deci-sions have been made to extend GEAN andto launch the PRACE supercomputing project.However, neither the major eort by the

European Strategic Forum on Research Inra-structures (ESFRI) to dene an inrastructureroad map or the ERA nor FP7 itsel involvessignicant new, large-scale IC test beds oradvanced services.

Rcndin 8:

t irv h srcr h ICt prgr, rch h prgrs idiICt bjcivs nd h widr bjcivs Fp7, h Cissin shld k w jr

cins () k grr rs rvrs h dwnwrd rnd in indsr rici-

in; (b) incrr lns r lrg-scl ICt s bds r dvncd srvics.

10 WING FP6 Impact Analysis Final report, DG Inormation Society, 2009


18/44

8

SImpLIFICatIoN oF paRtICIpatIoN IN

tHe ICt pRoGRamme

Simplication, including reduction o the

complexity and cost involved in participatingin the FP, has been a key demand o almostevery evaluation since the Framework began.

Te administrative rules associated with the

application process, monitoring, reporting and

payment o the Commissions contribution

to projects are similarly subject to continuous

evolution and continue to vary among instru-

ments, making compliance dicult or any

organisation that lacks specialised personnel

to deal with the problems. As a result, the FPis or many participants a under o last resort

whose administrative burdens are tolerated

only because it is, or certain types o project,

the only under available. Core participants

acting as attractors or new participants and

key network nodes or existing players, increas-

ingly regard the administrative burdens o the

FP as intolerable and are discussing a reduction

in their participation.

While the panel strongly endorses the needor accountability and legality, the ECs post-project auditing campaign against FP6 projectshas involved retroactive rule setting that under-mines condence in the Framework and theviability o participation. Te auditing processallows wide discretion to produce individualand conficting interpretations o the cost rulesand invokes a degree o precision that is simplyspurious in the costing o risky activities withuncertain outcomes. Te Financial Regulations

involved may well be appropriate or some othe other activities o the European Commis-sion but are grossly inadequate or researchand innovation unding.

Simplication o administration is not justa matter o nuisance. In the light o the slug-

gishness o both the Commission and theCourt o Auditors in relation to the need orchange, the panel insists that radical reorm isurgently needed. Change is a strategic neces-

sity, to ensure the involvement o all the playersneeded to make the programme a success. Tisis also o especial importance i Europe wantsto attract organisations rom outside the EUto participate. Te new initiatives such as JIsand Joint Programming are jeopardised bythe complexities and uncertainties imposedthrough the audit culture associated with theRegulations. Unless radical action is taken sim-ilar problems will appear in implementing newPPPs. Similarly, administrative complexity and

burdens particularly threaten the participationo SMEs. I complexity excludes key, neededplayers, the programme will not succeed.

Te panel notes that a number o organisationshave made useul contributions in deningprinciples o robust unding, to which theCommission should adhere. It agrees with thethrust o many o these principles and under-lines that nancing should at least have theollowing characteristics

Stability and consistency o rules within andbetween Framework Programmes

Simplicity and practicality o administrationand accounting

Consistency between the degree o risk anduncertainty inherent in R&D and the granu-larity o monitoring and auditing

Flexibility to make binding changes to con-tracts in response to emerging research

results

A deault assumption o mutual trust amongunders and beneciaries, recognising thatthe contributions o the beneciaries tend toconstrain moral hazard

SHARING RISK

Rcndin 9:

t nbl h cnind riciin k ern lrs nd k h r-gr sfcinl rciv glbl ricins, h Cissin s rdc h

dging dinisriv brdn nd h grwing rbirrinss diing rcics.I cn ddrss his b ndrking rdicl vrhl h nncil rglins nd

hir ilnin, nd nsring h h ndrling rincil is n shrd risknd l rs.


19/44

9

Te application o the nancial regulationsand over-zealous auditing has a particularlynegative eect on SMEs, whose involvement

in the programme is oen crucial but who areill equipped to tackle the administrative bur-dens involved.

ReDuCING tHe CoStS oF

paRtICIpatING IN tHe FRameWoRK

pRoGRamme

Tere is considerable variation in successrates among the dierent lines o IC-FP7, but

overall the proportion o proposals unded islow. In Calls 1-3, the proportion o proposalsthat led to contracts was about 15% almostexactly the same as in FP6 (14.2%). Tis meansthat a little over 3,000 proposals were rejected

at a cost to the proposers o around 175 million(equivalent to about 14% o the ICProgrammes almost 1.3 bn annual spend).

Tis panel is not equipped with the tech-nical expertise to make detailed proposals

or improvement, but recommends that theCommission review the matter, based on theollowing starting suggestions.

Rcondaion 10:

to incras Sme ariciaion, in aricular, and siliy and rduc h burdns o hirariciaion, h Coission should cra a xibl, lighwigh and wll-dfndor o sub-conracing or associa arnrshi.

Rcndin 11:

t rdc h crrn ssiv ws r in wriing gd-qli b nvrhlssrilss rsls nd k i r rciv rici in h prgr, h

Cissin shld s r shisicd w-sg licin rcss in r

h prgr. prsls rcding h scnd sg shld hv 30-50%chnc bining nding.


20/44

0


21/44

Appendix A: Tasks of

the Evaluation Panel

and Working Method

Mandate of the Evaluation

PanelTe interim evaluation o IC research inthe 7th Framework Programme is part o the

evidence-based interim evaluation o the

7th Framework Programme and its specifc

programmes building upon the ex-post eval-

uation o the 6th Framework Programme.

Scope o the evaluation was the research

activities unded by DG Inormation Society

and Media in FP7. Tese include the IC-

related research activities in the Cooperation

programme (mainstream IC research, theJIs Artemis and Eniac, and the AAL JP) and

the eInrastructures activities in the Capaci-

ties programme.

Tis interim evaluation serves two major pur-poses: to provide guidance and steering or thenal part o FP7 in particular to assist withthe design o the work programme or the nextperiod, and to provide input to the design orany successor programme to FP7, since the

preparations or this will begin shortly and thenal evaluation will be carried out only aerthe start o the new programme.

o satisy the regulatory requirements, theevaluation must cover three main issues:

Te quality o the research activities underway

Te progress towards the objectives set

Te quality o implementation and manage-ment

Tere is an additional requirement to assessthe eectiveness o the eorts made on simpli-cation looking beyond the implementationat aspects o the programme design.

In order to make these issues operational, aseries o specic questions or the panel havebeen identied:

1. QuaLIty oF tHe ReSeaRCH

Is FP7 IC exploiting areas o competi-.tive advantage and at the same time ableto adapt to a changing environment and toidentiy and explore new opportunities?

Does the programme attract the bestb.research teams in Europe? How many othese are recognised as world leaders in

their domains?

2. pRoGReSS toWaRDS tHe oBJeCtIVeS

oF tHe ICt SpeCIFIC pRoGRamme

How does FP7 IC contribute to improve.the positioning o Europe on the global ICRD map?

How is the programme contributing to real-b.

ise the ERA objectives and its 2020 Vision?

How is FP7 IC positioned within the over-c.all European innovation system, and how isit expected to contribute to the system?

Is FP7 IC employing the right mechanismsd.to help translate research results into inno-vative products, processes and services?

How does the programme link with other.

European or national initiatives address-ing the knowledge triangle o education,research and innovation?

3aPPenDIXeS


22/44

Is FP7 IC resulting in a better support o.the broader EU policy agenda, notably eco-nomic growth, sustainable development,health, and meeting the challenges o anageing society?

Have the eInrastructures activities eec-g.tively contributed to optimise the use anddevelopment o the best research inrastruc-tures in Europe? o which extent has theeInrastructures approach been expandedto more application-oriented and user-ori-ented platorms in other sectors?

3. QuaLIty oF ImpLemeNtatIoN

Is the process o ormulating and revising.the Work Programmes able to accommo-date the dynamic nature o the researchpriorities in IC and o new political priori-ties (e.g. Recovery Package)?

Is the mix o instruments used and partic-b.ipants involved (industry, public research,academia, SMEs) adequate to achieve theobjectives pursued in the various researchareas? What eect has the introduction

o the JIs and the Article 169 action andthe opportunities oered by the EuropeanResearch Council and RSFF had on theparticipation in the co-operative researchactivities?

o what extent can changes in the patternc.o participation be linked to the changesin implementation methods introducedwithin FP7? As an example, what is the per-ceived impact o the changes in the unding

models as compared to FP6 (particularlyor SMEs)?

Have sucient eorts been made to ensured.that support or SMEs and or large rmsis not compartmentalised into dierentmeasures or tools?

o what extent have the changes introduced.in FP7, notably the rules or participation,and their implementation in the IC pro-

gramme simplied the application, selectionand contract management processes? Whatis the budgetary impact o these changes?

o what extent have FP7 management.requirements, such as resulted in reducingcosts and lowering burdens o participationin the programme? Has the Commissionadvanced in developing a more trust-basedapproach towards the participants? I the

Commission has not advanced suciently,which actors are hindering it?

What urther improvements o the pro-g.gramme implementation and simplicationmeasures should be considered?

WoRKING metHoD

Te Evaluation Panel started its activities in

September 2009. Te rst phase o the evalua-tion was ocused on the collection o evidenceby means o interviews with Commissionocials and stakeholders and the analysis oCommission documents and monitoring orevaluation reports. Tis was done at an indi-vidual basis as well as collectively during themonthly meetings.

Te second phase o the activities was ded-icated to the drawing o the conclusions and

the ormulation o the recommendations.

Evaluation experts rom echnopolis Groupsupported the Evaluation Panel in its activitiesby providing the needed background inor-mation and setting up a large-scale evidencecollection exercise, resulting in the EvidenceReport (see Appendix C, separate report).


23/44

Apart o the Evidence Report developed bythe support team to the Experts Panel, keydocuments and reports that were taken intoconsideration or the evaluation are:

A public-private partnership on the Future

Internet, Communication rom the Com-mission to the European Parliament, theCouncil, Te European Economic and SocialCommittee and the Committee o Regions,COM (2009) 479 nal, European Commis-sion, October 2009

A strategy or IC R&D and Innovation inEurope: Raising the Game, Communicationrom the Commission to the European Par-liament, the Council, the European Economic

and Social Committee, and the Committeeo the Regions, COM (2009) 116 nal, Euro-pean Commission, 2009

Esko Aho (Chair), Inormation SocietyResearch and Innovation: Delivering Results

with Sustained Impact, Evaluation o the efec-

tiveness o Inormation Society Research in the

6th Framework Programme 2003-2006, Euro-

pean Commission, Brussels: May 2008

FP7 IC Interim Evaluation - DG-INFSOSel-Assessment, European Commission,DG Inormation Society and Media, Novem-ber 2009

Integrated Programme Portolio Analysis2009, European Commission, DG Inorma-tion Society and Media, September 2009

JTI SherpasGroup,Designing Together the

Ideal House or Public-Private Partnerships inEuropean Research, (mimeo), January 2010

Commission Ofcials

Dirk Beernaert Head o Unit INFSO G1 Nanoelectronics

Mario Campolargo Director INFSO-F - Emerging echnologies and Inrastructures

Jose Cotta Head o Unit INFSO G3 - Embedded Systems and Control

Peter Diry Deputy Head o Unit INFSO C5 Operations or IC Research andInnovation

Ken Ducatel Head o Unit INFSO C1 - Lisbon Strategy and i2010

Detle Eckert Director INFSO C Lisbon Strategy and Policies or the InormationSociety

Konstatinos Glinos Head o Unit INFSO F3 Gant and eInrastructures

Khalil Rouhana Head o Unit INFSO C2 - Strategy or IC Research and Innovation

Paul immers Head o Unit INFSO H3 - IC or Inclusion

Tierry Van der Pyl Director INFSO G - Components and Systems

Peter Wintlev-Jensen Head o Sector, IC and Ageing INFSO H3

Stakeholders

Monika Dietl Director, European Aairs Oce, CNRS

Lutz Heuser Chairman, ISAG and Vice President, SAP Research

Eddy Roelandts Vice President echnology &. Environmental Policy, Siemens

Andraz ori Founder and Director or echnology, Zemanta Ltd

Jan van den Biesen Vice President Public R&D Programs, Philips Research

Walter Weigel Director General, ESI

Michael Wiesmller Federal Ministry or ransport, Innovation and echnology, Austria

Commission ocials and stakeholders collectively interviewed by the evaluation panel members are:


24/44

4

Appendix B: Summary

of Evidence

Tis annex provides an overview o the evi-dence collected in the course o the study

that was to support the panel o experts inits interim evaluation o IC research in the7th FP.

Scope o this evaluation was the researchactivities unded by DG Inormation Societyand Media in FP7. Tese include the IC-related research activities in the Cooperationprogramme and the eInrastructures activitiesin the Capacities programme. In the rame-work o this study on IC research in FP7,

research unded by DG Inormation Societyin the Cooperation Programme is denomi-nated FP7 IC research; research undedin the context o the Capacities Programme isreerred to as eInrastructures. Wherever rel-evant, within the FP7 IC research activities,a urther distinction is made between FP7

mainstream ICT, i.e. the core o the FP7 ICactivities, and the New Initiatives, includingthe JIs Artemis and Eniac, and the AAL JointProgramming (JP). Te FP7 IC research con-stituted the key ocus or this study.

In the time period 2007-2009, IC researchin FP7 saw the involvement o 3,319 organisa-tions, accounting or 9,607 participations.

Te evidence collected during this studycomes rom our main sources the databaseon projects and participations, a survey o par-ticipants, interviews with key players, and anextensive desk research o Commission doc-uments and external settings. Comparativeanalyses o survey and composition analysis

data related to research in IC in FP5, FP6 andFP7 allowed or the identication o trendsover the Framework Programmes.

Te ndings o the study can be summarisedas depicted in the diagram below.


25/44

5

Te structure o this Summary o Evidenceollows the headings and the fow o analysisin the panel report, providing more detailedevidence-based inormation on the considera-tions leading to each recommendation.

Strengthening European

ICT research in a

globalising world

tHe ImpoRtaNCe oF tHe ICt

pRoGRamme FoR euRope

In this last decade, key priorities in European

policy thinking shied rom a cheaper, secureInternet, investing in people and skills, andstimulating the use o Internet to creatinginnovation riendly markets and a growingattention to the role o demand actors asdrivers or change. Research was increasinglyexpected to take up its societal role and wasultimately called to develop solutions or theemerging societal challenges.

Refecting the evolution in European pol-

icy thinking and the technology and markettrends in the global IC sector, the FP7 ICProgramme applied a mix o technology pushand solution (market) pull to oster R&Dexcellence and innovation. Research in FP7mainstream IC continued and reinorcedthe trend in research ocus that was visiblealready in FP6, dedicating even more than inFP6 attention to research exploring new tech-nology paths. It targeted emerging as well asexisting markets with high growth potentials,

taking into due account the areas o Europeantechnology and industry strengths. Europeskey technology strengths in IC are in theelds o communication and network technol-ogies, micro-nanoelectronics, robotics, andembedded systems. Industry strengths are inthe eld o telecommunication services andnetwork supply. It has also world leadership inIC application markets such as telemedicine,medical equipment, robotics, automotive andaerospace electronics, amongst others.

Te strong push or innovation implementedin FP7 was not limited to an increase in

unding or research in emerging technolo-gies. In the other research areas, ocusing onmore mature technologies, there was a morepronounced ocus on developing innova-tive solutions and applications than in FP6.Stakeholders describe much o the research

conducted in those areas as exploratory andthroughout all Challenges the majority o par-ticipants in the Collaborative Projects (~80%)indicated the exploration o new technologypaths as major goal or their participation.

Te IC programme is characterised by a highlevel balance between bottom-up and top-down design, based upon a broad process oconsensus building around the research prior-ities among and with the research and industry

communities. Bodies involved in the designprocess o the Work Programme include theIS Advisory Group (ISAG), the Europeanechnology Platorms (EP), the Commis-sion directors and internal correspondents,and the broad participants base through con-sultation meetings. Te Work Programme alsobuilds on direct input rom the portolio anal-yses, studies on technology and market trends,evaluation and impact analyses, and monitor-ing reports on the projects.

Participants appreciated the current researchocus in the Programme and stressed therelevance o the exploratory actions to beundertaken at European level. Te Programmeresults also particularly useul or research onissues with a pan-European dimension wherehigh-level complementary expertise is neededand where the national programmes oen didnot have the necessary scope.

In terms o the Programmes ability to adaptto the particularly fast-changing environment

in the IC sector, the Programme has adoptedthe right mechanisms to adapt to changes inthe long-term environment, showing an appre-ciated mix o relative stability in the researchlines unded throughout the Framework Pro-gramme and agility in acting upon changes inthe two-years Work Programmes. Te Pro-grammes capability to respond to short-termchanges is more oen questionable, especially

due to the time rame needed or the entireimplementation process (rom identicationo a need or opportunity to the contracting


26/44

6

o research). In order to overcome this chal-lenge, the Programme set as strategic objectivethe unding o mid-to-long-term research.Compared to FP6, however, a clear shi canbe noted towards more mid-term research,in all research areas and in particular or the

research stakeholders.

In this context, the participants assessed posi-tively the implementation o the new measurethat allows or a more extended fexibility inrelation to the ocus o the research and theconstituency o the project consortia as a toolto adapt to changing environments.

tHe ICt pRoGRamme aND tHe NeW

eRa INStRumeNtS

As in previous FPs, in FP7 the bulk o EUresearch unding goes to collaborativeresearch, with the objective o establishingexcellent research projects and networks ableto attract researchers and investments romEurope and the wider world.

One o the actors that have changed signi-cantly since the introduction o FP7 is the

emphasis on co-ordination with nationalresearch instruments. FP7 has a set oobjectives designed to increase the level oco-operation between and co-ordination oresearch programmes carried out at nationalor regional level in the Member or Associ-ated States, leading to mutual opening up oprogrammes and development and imple-mentation o joint activities. Tis may happenthrough activities within the programme(some CSAs) or in some cases through spe-

cic instruments such as the ERA-NEs, JointProgrammes (Article 169) and Joint ech-nology Initiatives (JIs). Joint echnologyInitiatives combine private sector investmentand/or national and European public undingand support large-scale multinational researchactivities in areas o major interest to Euro-pean industrial competitiveness and issues ohigh societal relevance. FP7 also introducedinitiatives aiming at integrating private andpublic research eforts. Tis is the rst time that

public-private partnerships (PPP), involvingindustry, the research community and publicauthorities, were proposed at European level.

Te two JTIs partly managed by DG INFSO(AREMIS ocusing on Embedded ComputingSystems and ENIAC related to Nanoelectron-ics echnologies) are rooted in the activitieso the European echnology Platorms, set upduring the Sixth Framework Programme. Te

IC Programme also launched the AmbientAssisted Living (AAL) Joint Programme, a newjoint R&D unding activity implemented by20 EU Member States and 3 Associated Stateswith the nancial support o the EuropeanCommunity. Finally, 3 PPPs were launched in2009, in the context o the Recovery Package.

In general the participants approved andappreciated the scope oered by the Pro-gramme rom the more basic research in FE,

through the mainstream o the FP7 coopera-tive research to the more market-ocused workunded under the JIs.

However, the current prolieration o newinitiatives in European Commission undedresearch, most o them ocusing on theSocietal Challenges, constitutes a risk for frag-mentation of European Commission research

unding. Especially participants in FP7 main-stream IC research (~35% o the survey

respondents) ranked the complexity o theprogramme design in terms o variety o instru-ments and initiatives, the diculty in ndingmatching unding issues, and the ragmenta-tion o the research unding across dierentactions among the most important barriersto participation. Tis regarded in particularparticipants in the Healthcare and InclusionChallenges, and research stakeholders morerequently than industry. Stakeholders partici-pating in the JIs did not particularly perceive

it as an issue; they considered these initiativesas clearly complementary to the mainstreamresearch.

In relation to the traditional instruments,the rst 4 calls o FP7 mainstream IC werecharacterised by a more pronounced ocus onthe Collaborative Projects, with a reduction oshares in the budget or all the other undingschemes (compared to FP6).


27/44

Te SREPs became the most unded research

instrument, a position that was taken up inFP6 by the Integrated Projects.

Tis shi in budget allocation needs to be setagainst the background o the major concern,voiced during and at the end o FP6 o a riskor compartmentalisation o the SMEs in theSREPs. SMEs showed a clear preerence orthe SREPs in FP6, while Large Enterprisesopted more requently or participation inIPs. It was considered that the IPs with their

large consortia and more strategic long-termresearch ocus were little aligned with theneeds o SMEs.

Interestingly, in FP7 mainstream IC andcompared to FP6, there was a slight increase inthe involvement o SMEs in IPs. Tis changein participation behaviour seems to be relatedto the more intense involvement o high-techSMEs in FP7. Tese organisations are oenleaders in their niche markets and already

in relation to FP6, the high value o involve-ment o such SMEs in IPs was pointed out bythe participants both Large Enterprises andSMEs.

Te Networks o Excellence saw their share inbudget drastically reduced in FP7 (4% in FP7,compared to 8% in FP6). A new instrumentin FP6, the Networks o Excellence had asmission to oster the integration o researchcommunities. During and at the end o the

Sixth Framework Programme, strong doubtsarose on their eectiveness, in particular inrelation to their success in terms o durable

integration. Te latest assessments, however,

draw a more positive picture and consider thatin FP6, Networks o Excellence showed theirvalue as platorms or knowledge exchange,strengthening research communities andintegrating elds o research as well as inte-grating research communities in the NMSwithin the European ones. Te NoEs undedin FP7 show the same (potential) value.

Co-ordination and Support Actions saw their(very small) share o the overall budget slightly

reduced compared to FP6. Te impressionarising is that a strategy o highly ocusedunding was adopted or the Support Actions,i.e. only in areas where they have proven theirrelevance. Te Co-ordination projects seemto be adopted as instrument especially orthe development o strategic research road-maps in elds that are not yet covered by theEuropean echnology Platorms. Participantsconsidered that this implied a less strategicapproach to internal exchange and dissemi-

nation o inormation. Furthermore, part othe budget or the CSA (20%) was devoted toactions explicitly ocusing on internationalcooperation.

In line with the expectations, the New Initia-tives proved particularly valuable in mobilisingindustry stakeholders in the R&D activities andthe development o new products or services.Te JIs succeeded in inverting the research/industry ratio in overall participations that is

visible in mainstream IC research (60/40%);in the AAL JP the research/industry ratio waseven 40/40%, with the remaining ~20% o par-

52%

40%

35%

53%

8%

4%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

0% 50% 100%

FP6 ICT - base: 3,904 ME

FP7 mainstream ICT -

base: 2,842 ME

Distribution of ICT funding over the Funding Schemes - FP6 versus FP7

base: FP6 - all Calls; FP7 mainstream ICT - Calls 1-4, end 2009

Integrated Projects (IP) STREPs

Networks of Excellence (NoE) Support Actions (SA)

Coordination Actions (CA) International Cooperation (INCO)


28/44

8

ticipations taken up by the Public Authoritiesand NGOs. Te New Initiativesy particularlyled to an enhanced involvement o SMEs inresearch at European level, reaching participa-

tion levels o 24% in Artemis, 27 % in Eniac,and 33% in AAL (compared to the 16% in FP7mainstream IC).

Especially in AREMIS and the AAL JP, thestrong user-oriented ocus allowed or a pro-nounced involvement o key immediate orend users o the technologies (in AREMISproduct/technology users active in the manu-acturing sectors, in AAL those active in theservices sectors).

Te overall evaluation o the participants on

the relevance o the New Initiatives was highlypositive. Tis positive assessment was coun-terbalanced by the negative evaluation o thecurrent implementation methods, and moreparticularly the diculties and additionalcosts caused by the current dual governance i.e. European and national. Issues mentionedincluded the dual management structures (intwo languages), separate reporting require-ments, and the lack o coordination in thetiming o unding decisions.

pRomotING RaDICaL INNoVatIoN

Te IC programme is characterised by abroad process o consensus building aroundthe research priorities. Already in relationto the IC Programme in FP6, the WINGFP6 IC Impact analysis came to the conclu-sion that Te Programme has been able tobe eective because it builds upon a shared,

market-ocused vision that derives romparticipants own interests and because itempowers them to implement the vision in the

detail. Such a virtuous circle is to a degree riskybecause it contains a potential or lock-in, butproperly governed it is very powerul.

A actor that may constitute a risk or lock-in is

the infuence and importance o the established

major stakeholders in the Programme. Te

Programme is characterised by a strong core

o participants that took part in successive

FPs. Core participants can be ound in partic-ular among the Higher Education institutions

(~70%), and the research institutes and Large

Enterprises albeit at a slightly lower level

(~50%). Interestingly, it includes also ~30% o

the SMEs, Public Authorities and NGO/Asso-

ciations.

Tese organisations constituted the back-bone also or the research in New Initiativesand especially or research in the JIs, which

illustrates also their strong involvement in theEuropean echnology Platorms upon whichthese JIs were based.

17%

22%

18%

24%

13%

22%

9%

36%

36%

33%

27%

24%

6% 1%

2%

10%

0% 50% 100%

AAL - base: 183 partic.

ARTEMIS - base: 226 partic.

ENIAC - base: 165 partic.

Stakeholder participation in the New Initiatives - Call 1

Higher Education Research Institutes Large Enterprises SME

Public Authorities Associations NGO


29/44

9

Apart o creating critical mass in specic S&

elds at European level and stability over time,this core group o participants resulted instru-mental or the strengthening and expansiono strategic R&D partnership, amongst otherby ostering the involvement o new playerswho in some cases took up important roles inthe projects. Hal o the participating organ-isations are new actors in EC-unded ICresearch, including close to 70% o the SMEs.

Te moderate level o technical risk and

duration o the research indicated by the par-ticipants should be seen as a warning that alock-in may currently be in place in FP7 IC.

Te Commission saw its intervention to be rel-

evant especially or the unding omedium tolong-term collaborative research requiringrisk sharingwith the industry and the researchcommunity. In FP7 IC, however, there wasa clear shi rom the medium to long-termresearch in FP6 towards more mid-termresearch, in all research areas and in particularor the research stakeholders.

Furthermore, while industry participants per-ceived high commercial risks or their research

activities (as was the case in FP6), the technicalrisks o research in FP7 mainstream IC wereoverall considered to be more moderate thanin FP6.

Tis regarded all Research Areas but particu-

larly the research in the echnology/Industry

Strongholds one. Tis may be related to theact that research in these elds o IC targeted

mature technology elds and market sec-

tors where the European research community

is already highly structured amongst others

around the European echnology Platorms and where the Strategic Research Agendas have

already dened the paths or development,

73%

49%

51%

29%

34%

30%

3%

5%

3%

3%

6%

5%

23%

47%

46%

67%

60%

65%

0% 50% 100%

Higher Education - base: 602 org.

Research Institutes - base: 476 org.

Large Enterprises - base: 547 org.

SMEs - base: 932 org.

Public Authorities - base: 173 org.

NGO/ Associations - base: 120 org.

Participation history in ICT-funded research for stakeholders involved in FP7

mainstream ICT

base: 2850 organisations, FP7 mainstream ICT - calls 1-4, end 2009

Core participants - FP6 and FP5 One-time Participants - FP6 or FP5 New in FP7

38%

27%

43%

41%

16%

25%

3%

8%

0% 50% 100%

FP6 - base: 631 resp.

FP7 - base: 532 resp.

Technical Risk of research conducted in the Collaborative Projects - FP6 versus FP7

% of survey responses - FP6 calls 1-3; FP7 calls 1-4, end 2009

(very) High Moderate (very) Low Don't know/NA


30/44

0

based on consensus among the actors in the

eld o S& and industry sectors.

Among the stakeholders, especially the researchorganisations indicated lower technical risksthan in FP6. Tese stakeholders repeatedly

pointed out that too much reliance on industryinput or the denition o the research priori-ties might lead to a ocus on tomorrow andnot suciently on the day aer tomorrow.

In the IC programme, the initiative thatexplicitly ocuses on innovative high-risk ideasis the FET initiative. Troughout the FPs,this initiative has proven its importance asacilitator or the timely identication o newemerging technologies, thus avoiding eventual

lock-ins. It acted as a precious pathnder andguaranteed a counterbalance to the eventuallymore conservative input rom the establishedindustry sector. Tere are numerous exam-ples o current research elds that originatedin previous exploratory work implemented inthe FE programme; these include, amongstothers, research in nanoelectronics, photonics,and robotics/bio-inspired systems.

tHe GLoBaL DImeNSIoN

In this last decade, expert panels and Com-mission documents increasingly stressed theneed or European research to open the Euro-pean Research Area to the rest o the worldandincrease its interaction with research at a glo-bal level in order to create synergies and accesscomplementary expertise. Te stakehold-ers largely agreed with this statement. Teyranked a stronger collaboration with research

centers and key actors in the world among thetop actors where development was needed inorder to reach excellence in R&D and hopedor an extension o the current internationalcollaboration projects.

So ar, the breadth o these global co-operations

has been very limited: the share in the overall

unding o the Specic International Scientic

Cooperation Activities (SICA) and Interna-

tional Cooperation (INCO) projects was ~1%.

Tese projects predominantly acted as technol-ogy watch activities. Te Commission bases the

cooperation in the Framework programme on

the establishment o bi-lateral S& agreements

with key third countries and the denition o

priority research areas or collaboration. Such

targeted opening implied that in the rst 4

calls in FP7 mainstream IC non-European

partners were involved (only) in 14% o the

projects. In some research areas, this limitedinvolvement o industry and research leaders

at global level caused the absence o key com-

petences or links in the value chain because the

necessary industry is not present or not ade-

quate in Europe.

In the context o globalisation o research, the

reinorcement o the European Single Market

is more than ever a actor o crucial importance.

Te lack o European standards and coher-

ence among national regulations is an ongoingand well-known barrier or the development

and uptake o innovation - and ultimately, or

Europes competitiveness at global level.

One third o the participants (32%) elt thatmore could and should be done in relation toan enhanced coherence among national regula-tions. Commission ocials indicated variousareas in FP7 IC where research ocuses (also)on providing input to policy makers. However,

the limited unding or the Funding Schemesthat in previous Framework Programmesocused on knowledge transer to policy mak-ers (the Co-ordination and Support Actions,accounting or 3% o the budget) leads to theimpression that the eorts were minimal orat the least highly ocused on specic issues. Inthis context one should consider, though, thattrue progress in this eld is depending on thelinks between the Programme and other pol-icy or regulatory activities at European levels

rather than on the contributions by projects.Te attainment o more coherent regulationsis not necessarily an issue or the Programmeitsel, but more an issue o the links betweenthe Programme and other policy or regulatoryactivities at European levels.

Te Programme supports the creation o theSingle Market predominantly by contribut-ing to standards development. Te evaluationo the support delivered by the Programme

or the development o European standardswas variegated depending on the Challengesthe stakeholders were involved in: partici-


31/44

pants involved in the Healthcare and Network& Service Inrastructure Challenges highlyappreciated the support o the Programme tooster standard development; in other areassuch as Digital libraries & content and Inde-pendent living, inclusion & governance,

apparently the situation is more problematic.

Overall, stakeholders considered that much othe research ocus is currently on the devel-opment o systems and processes with toolittle regard or the integration and the inter-operability/backward compatibility. Tey alsostressed the need or the development o glo-bal standards, a consideration that was voicedalready by their peers involved in FP6 IC.

Exploiting the

Pervasiveness of ICT via

Integrated Policies

tHe ICt pRoGRamme aND JoINeD up

poLICymaKING

In the last decades, advances in IC such as

cost-eective computing, miniaturization,ubiquitous communication, and advancedmaterials and sensing devices have led toan increasing embedding o electronics inmanuactured goods and an increasing per-vasiveness o IC in general. A telling exampleo the trends in the market rom this per-spective is the automotive industry where

electronics and embedded soware-intensivesystems are expected to account or almost all(90%) o uture innovation. Some (potential)societal applications o advanced IC can beound in the language technologies and lan-guage-based interactions that will enable an

enhanced multilingual access to online con-tent and services; research in robotics andACS will increase IC support in elds suchas ageing and healthcare; advanced electronicproducts are enabling monitoring environ-mental issues via wireless sensor networks, theInternet o Tings, advanced mobile commu-nication devices and new health applications.

Such increasing pervasiveness o IC impliesalso a broad range o (potential) target markets

and a high diversity o market actors involvedin the production and use o IC. Tis is illus-trated by, e.g., the wide spread o market actorsinvolved in FP7 IC, ranging rom electroniccomponent manuacturers and systems engi-neering companies to entities providing socialservices and NGOs.

Te Framework Programme is only one omany mechanisms in place to support research,development and innovation in Europe. Other

policies and actions have been set up at Euro-pean level (both managed by the Commissionand by Intergovernmental Bodies) and byMember States. Te ICT research landscapeembraces numerous programmes and initia-tives, unded at European or trans-nationallevel. Tis includes other Directorates Generalwhere IC takes up an increasing role, such

OTHER FUNDINGEU FUNDING FOR ICT, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION

FP7

mainstreamICT New

Initiatives

STRUCTURALFUNDS

Media

Safer InternetPluseContent Plus

7th FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMECIPEUREK

A MEMBER

STATES

PROGRAMMES

PRIVATE

RESEARCH

INITIATIVES

ICT use and

development

Research and

Innovation projects

ICTPSP

Other FP7

ENIAC

ARTEMIS

AAL

Network and serviceinfrastructure

Components,systems, engineering

Cognitive systems,interaction, robotics

Digital libraries andcontents

ICT for health

Mobility and

sustainable growth

Independent living,inclusion, governance

Future and emergingtechnologies

JRC

CostActions

Other Co-operationstrands

Ideas (EuropeanResearch Council)

People (Marie CurieActions)

Capacities(Infrastructures,International co-operation)

CATRENE

ITEA2

Eranets (funded as

co-ordination actions)

PPPs


32/44

as DG Enterprise and DG ransport; the CIPIC/PSP, the EU-unded innovation supportprogramme or IC that aims at catalysinginnovation take-up through demonstrationsand pilots; and the EUREKA programmes, ajoint programming o the member states.

Te increasingly broad-ranging importance o

IC implies an enhanced need or collaboration

and coordination. In FP7, the IC Programme

dedicated due attention to an improvement o

the coordination with other Community Pro-

grammes. Tis is illustrated, amongst others,

by the Joint calls in the area o rust & Security

and Energy Eciency. o be mentioned is also

the ENIAC JI that tackled the apparent over-

lap with research conducted in the CARENE

(a Eureka initiative), with as a rst step a jointcall or Expressions o Interest.

An improved collaboration and synergybetween FP7 ICT and the CIP IST/PSP wascalled or in order to enhance the Programmescapacity to bridge research and innovation.An issue that was raised in the evaluation wasthe absence o specic demonstration actionsother than those embedded in IPs, and ademand or the CIP to provide opportunities

or ollow-up activities or research projects.o some extent this refects the development(i.e. the more limited unding compared toFP6) o the Integrated Projects who weresupposed to absorb some o these activities.Furthermore, the number o support actionsin the orm o take-up measures was reduced even though they continued to be undedin specic elds o research where they hadproven to be highly relevant.

Potential synergies with innovation undingactions under the Structural Funds were also

raised as an opportunity, but due to the govern-

ance structures o the Structural Funds this is

more dicult to co-ordinate at European level.

Finally, expert panels and Commission docu-ments increasingly stressed also the need oran improved coherence and synergy betweenEU and national-funded research. Te partici-pants overall agreed with these considerations:

hal o the respondents considered a majorsynergy between EU and national-undedresearch to be a key actor or the achievement

o excellence in R&D; 40% o the participantsthought that more could and should be donerom this perspective.

In FP7, the Programme acted upon a broaderinvolvement o the national programmes in

research at European level, by mobilisingthem or the activities in the JIs (in contrastto common practice in the other DGs) and byostering and supporting the creation o theAAL JP.

It also implemented a broad range o activ-ities at Challenge or WP Objective level,illustrating its commitment in reaching animproved coherence in Europes research poli-cies - between European and national research

policies as well as among the policies in themember states themselves. o cite only a ew,the Commission ostered the creation o mir-ror-groups in specic elds o S& such asPhotonics and National echnology Plat-orms in order to deepen cooperation withand between national unding agencies; set upcoordination activities with national initiativesin elds such as inormation management;liaised with Member States representativeswhich led to the development o common or

complementary actions in the eSaety areaand cooperates with the ERA-NE ransport;unds a supporting action in the eld o ICor environmental sustainability that is likelyto contribute towards an ERA-NE in theeld; an ERA-NE action has been started tolaunch joint calls on FE research topics.

Te general opinion o the stakeholders inter-viewed is that the impact o Programme on theormulation o national programmes is very

high, even though national research policiesare still oen too much inward directed. Someinterviewees however elt that there was a lacko a compelling vision in this FP compared tothe previous programme. Tey called or anIC-centered overarching strategic vision, sim-ilar to the FP5/6 Ambient Intelligence one, thatwould have the capacity to gather research,industry and national policy makers around acommon theme.


33/44

INteGRatING tHe DemaND SIDe

An overall acknowledged critical value ocollaborative research and in particularo the collaborative research implementedin the Framework Programmes lies in its

capacities to enhance the knowledge andtechnology fows between the various com-

ponents o the Innovation System - acrosssectors, disciplines, and regions. Tis is evenmore so in the era o Open Innovation whereindustry increasingly builds on the interac-tions with its network o suppliers, partnersin the research

Documents

catalysing_european_competitiveness_v3