COOPERATION! THEME3! …COOPERATION! THEME3! ICT!–!INFORMATION!AND!COMMUNICATIONS!TECHNOLOGIES!!!! !!!!! ! Proposalfulltitle:! FutureInternet!Impact!Assurance! Proposal!acronym:!FIMPACT

COOPERATION THEME 3 ICT – INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES

Proposal full title: Future Internet Impact Assurance Proposal acronym: FIMPACT Project number: 632840

Type of Funding Scheme: Support Action (SA) Work programme objective addressed: FI.ICT-‐2013.1.9

Title: D3.2 Data collection requirements and format

Contractors: Part No.

Participant Organisation Name Part. Short Name

Country

1(Co) International Data Corporation Italia IDC IT 2 International Data Group UK IDG UK 3 Bluegreen Strategy BGS IT 4 Sustainable Finance Consulting SFC DE 5 IIMC International Information

Management Corporation Ltd IIMC IRL

6 Jozef Stefan Institute JSI SLO

FIMPACT— Future Internet Impact Assurance -‐ Project number 632840

Deliverable D3.2 Data collection requirements and format

07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 2 of 72

Executive Summary This document describes the scope and the activities of the Deliverable D3.2 – Data collection requirements and format, in relation with the Deliverables of WP2 and WP4. The document contains a description of the data collection requirements and the organization of the Accelerators procedures and of their submitted and selected proposals. It describes the internal FI-‐Impact allocation of a number of Accelerators to each partner and the planning and harmonization of the relationship the FI-‐Impact partner was expected to have with the Accelerator. It describes the direct and indirect methods of communication, the identification of data sources and the mapping of Accelerators and their proposals. All questionnaires and templates for reports and documents used or to be used by FI-‐Impact are available in this Deliverable as a guide for the data collection phase. Finally, it shows the current status of data collection, the different approaches used by Accelerators, the upcoming FI-‐Impact activities to complete the global database, the KPIs to calculate the proposals’ impact and the monitoring actions.

Disclaimer

This document may contain material, which is the intellectual property of a FI-‐Impact contractor. It cannot be reproduced or copied without permission. All FI-‐Impact consortium partners have agreed to the full publication of this document. The commercial use of any information contained in this document may require a license from the owner of that information. The information in this document is provided “as is” and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at their sole risk and liability.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 3 of 72

Index 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 5

1.1. Scope of the Deliverable ................................................................................................................. 5 1.2. Intended Audience and Reading Suggestions ....................................................................... 5

1.3. Interaction with other Deliverable ............................................................................................ 6

2. Data collection requirements and Accelerator information formats .................................. 8 2.1. Allocation of Accelerators to FI-‐Impact partners ................................................................ 8

2.2. Identification of accelerators data sources ......................................................................... 12

2.3. Accelerators’ call schedules and funnel approach ........................................................... 13 2.4. Mapping template for Accelerator call processes ............................................................ 15

3. Coordination with Accelerators projects: direct and indirect methods .......................... 19 3.1. Suggested Indicators ..................................................................................................................... 20

3.2. Validation questionnaire ............................................................................................................. 21

3.3. Communication on Basecamp ................................................................................................... 22 3.4. Letters/formal communications and NDAs ........................................................................ 23

3.5. FI-‐Impact presentation and partecipation to Accelerators events ........................... 31 3.6. Direct contacts ................................................................................................................................. 32

4. Data collection requirements and format of proposals .......................................................... 33

4.1. Proposals template on F6S/FundingBox platform .......................................................... 33 4.2. Identification of proposals data sources .............................................................................. 34

4.3. Mapping template of submitted and selected proposals .............................................. 34

5. Current status of Data collection ...................................................................................................... 36 5.1. Current status of Data collection of proposals ................................................................... 36

5.2. Overview of results: Infographic and duplicates .............................................................. 39 6. Information collection for Impact Analysis ................................................................................. 40

6.1. The Self Assessment Tool and KPI Questionnaire ............................................................ 40

6.2. The Accelerators’ Questionnaire ............................................................................................. 56 7. Data collection methodology ............................................................................................................. 61

7.1. Process for Data collection ......................................................................................................... 61

7.2. Planning of the FI-‐Impact future activities of Data collection ..................................... 63 8. Monitoring the progress ...................................................................................................................... 69

9. Conclusions and next steps ................................................................................................................. 70



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 4 of 72

List of Figure Figure 1: Relationship between Deliverables ........................................................................................ 6

Figure 2: Accelerator allocation to FI-‐Impact partners ..................................................................... 8 Figure 3: Coordination with Accelerators – direct and indirect methods .............................. 19

Figure 4: Mapping template of proposals ............................................................................................. 36

List of Tables

Table 1: Accelerators’ contact details ..................................................................................................... 12

Table 2: Accelerator number of calls ..................................................................................................... 13 Table 3: Accelerator call schedule ............................................................................................................ 14

Table 4: Accelerators’ data collected and the data sources ........................................................... 16 Table 5: Mapping template of Accelerators’ calls roadmap ......................................................... 18

Table 6: Suggested indicators .................................................................................................................... 21

Table 7: Validation questionnaire ............................................................................................................ 22 Table 8: NDAs requested by Accelerators ............................................................................................. 31

Table 9: Current status of WP .................................................................................................................... 37 Table 10: Open and close date of the first Call .................................................................................... 38

Table 11: Current status of Accelerators’ proposals sent to FI-‐Impact Coordinator ......... 39

Table 12: Accelerators’ Questionnaire ................................................................................................... 57 Table 13: Timing of Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 63



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 5 of 72

1. Introduction In the context of Work Package Three, this deliverable is an initial step to describe FI-‐Impact’s interaction with Accelerators. It describes our approach to characterizing their procedures and to ensuring Accelerators have and will provide us with information regarding their calls, their proposal evaluation process and the results they are achieving. This deliverable additionally attests to our commitment in providing continuous support and feedback regarding the results of the data collection. Finally it describes the key elements we used in building the data collection methodology and proposal database.

1.1. Scope of the Deliverable The main objectives of the Deliverable 3.2 are:

-‐ To gather relevant data and information for the assessment of IA Framework Indicators, as defined in WP2;

-‐ To manage the communication with the Accelerator projects, maintaining contact and collecting data and information;

-‐ To create a data collection format to harmonize information coming from the Accelerators calls and organization as well as providing a unique data collection format to record information regarding submitted and selected proposals;

-‐ To elaborate and describe the data collected, describing the distribution of the proposals by type and characteristics, their market segment, their main business ideas, their geographical distribution across the EU and the FI-‐WARE technologies they intend to use;

-‐ To check the progress, results and impact achieved throughout the lifetime of the selected projects, carrying out a more in-‐depth statistical analysis of selected funded proposals.

The data collection methodology will be assessed and modified where necessary, interacting with WP2 and WP4.

1.2. Intended Audience and Reading Suggestions This document is mainly intended for two categories of users:

-‐ FI-‐Impact partners, who should find a reference about the data collection methodology. This deliverable is useful to understand how to interact with the accelerators allocated, which information to request to them, when to collect data, how to monitor the Accelerators’ progress and plan future activities.

-‐ Accelerators, to have a complete view of all the accelerators' call program. The first step of FI-‐Impact was active engagement with the 16 Accelerators projects and with the other Coordination and Support Measures to coordinate monitoring of their main plans and activities. The main goal of this activity is to organise an ongoing flow of data and information from all the Accelerators to FI-‐Impact to collect the evidence needed for our assessments. It is not FI-‐Impact’s responsibility to benchmark the Accelerators or to judge their comparative performance. Our goal is to cooperate with them and provide support in order to better assess the results of their calls for proposals.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 6 of 72

1.3. Interaction with other Deliverable The figure below shows the deliverables already presented (M6-‐december 2014) and the deliverables to be presented soon (M9-‐march 2015 and M10-‐april 2015). The arrows indicate the relationship between deliverables and the red boxes the WP activities, before and after the deliverable.

Figure 1: Relationship between Deliverables

The deliverables D3.1, D2.1 and D4.1 were completed in December 2014. D2.1 provided a description of the analytical methodology and tools, which will be used to perform the ex ante Socio Economic Impact Analysis and market forecast during the course of the project. It described how to use and apply the methodology, processes and tools and will be available to all Phase III stakeholders with an interest in understanding the relationship between particular FI PPP actions and wider ICT market trends and potential in Europe. Moreover it described the Methodological Framework including the Key Performance Indicators used during the course of the project to measure economic, social and scientific and knowledge impact, as well as potential end-‐user benefits. The other sections of the Deliverable have described how the Impact Assessment Methodology is implemented, how quality control validation and risk management issues are addressed. Finally it describes the Self Assessment Tools that any internal or external initiative can use to measure their performance, benchmark against industry standards or monitor their own performance over time. D3.1 provided an explanation of the motivations, mapping and assessment templates, which are required to demonstrate qualitative and quantitative assessment to identify the potential technological, deployment and business practices that could lead to the highest potential impact of the FI-‐PPP program. The main activity has been gather relevant data and information on Accelerators. WP4, in D4.1, provided an online library to collect information relative to the project and for involved Accelerators to offer services and documentation which is



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 7 of 72

standardised, well recognized, and comparable. The results of these three deliverables are the inputs for the deliverable D2.2, D3.2 and D4.2, currently in progress. The overall mapping of Accelerators about number of calls, thematic domain, geographical area, FI-‐WARE technology, number of proposal selected, size of funding, timing and a draft of KPI indicators are at the basis of the following deliverables. The deliverable D2.2 will focus on the KPIs indicators: innovation focus, market focus, feasibility and potential benefits, based on a semantic scale (low, medium, high). WP2 for each KPI indicator will define the segmentation and elaboration criteria and the mapping questions, useful also for D3.2 and D4.2. Based on this deliverable D3.2 WP3 will define the data sources and will plan a standard data collection methodology. If some indicators are not available in call texts, templates, DoWs or other Accelerator documents, the information will be asked directly to Accelerators. Deliverable D4.2 will make a set of web-‐based instruments available for definition and validation of Future Internet products and business models available to target users, starting from the online library.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 8 of 72

2. Data collection requirements and Accelerator information formats

The Accelerators’ data collection is useful to plan and quantify the FI-‐Impact activities in particular the timing and the resources to be dedicated to the data collection activity. Knowing the number of the expected proposals, the number of the started, submitted and selected proposals, the timing and funding for each step of selection and monitoring, allows FI-‐Impact to define a standard approach of data collection.

2.1. Allocation of Accelerators to FI-‐Impact partners

As a first step WP3 allocated the 16 Accelerators to different FI-‐Impact partners according to thematic domain, nationality of coordinator and knowledge of the contacts. In this way the FI-‐Impact partners became the supervisors of the Accelerators’ activities and their point of contact for the data collection. Each partner has provided and will provide to WP3 all the information collected from their Accelerators according to the defined data collection methodology.

Figure 2: Accelerator allocation to FI-‐Impact partners

•  SmartAgriFood2-•  EuropeanPioneers-

•  FI6C3-•  CEED6Tech-•  FInish-•  SpeedUp-Europe-

•  FICHe-•  INCENSe-•  IMPACT-•  CREABFI-

•  Fi6Adopt-•  FRACTALS-

•  SOUL6FI-•  FABulous-•  FronBerCiBes-•  FINODEX-



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 9 of 72

Accelerators Project Coordinator

Nationality Coordinator contact details

Second contact person

Second contact person details

CEED Tech Grete Gutmann

Estonian [email protected]

Riivo Anton [email protected]

CreatiFi Pieter Ballon

Belgian [email protected]

Ingrid Willems [email protected]

EuropeanPioneers Laura Kohler

German [email protected]

Christian Lüdke

[email protected]

FABulous Francisco Buján

Spanish [email protected] Lena Arndal; Leonardo Ronald Satria

[email protected]; [email protected]

FI-‐Adopt Antonis Ramfos

Belgian antonis.ramfos@intrasoft-‐intl.com

Raimund Broechler; Theodore Zahariadis

Raimund.broechler@intrasoft-‐intl.com; [email protected]

FI-‐C3 Gaël Maugis

France gmaugis@images-‐et-‐reseaux.com

Pierre François pfrancois@images-‐et-‐reseaux.com

FICHe Satu Väinämö

Finnish [email protected]

Paul Pelsmaeker

[email protected]

FInish Harald Sundmaeker

German sundmaeker@atb-‐bremen.de

Robert Reiche [email protected]

FINODEX Miguel García González

Spanish [email protected]

Myrna Rodriguez

myrna@e-‐unlimited.com

FRACTALS Goran Hodoba

Serbian [email protected]

Grigoris Chatzikostas

[email protected]

frontierCities Seán J. Burke

Belgian [email protected]

INCENSe Luciano Tommasi

Italian [email protected]

IMpaCT Simona Torre

Italian [email protected]

Pilar Anadon Marco

[email protected]

SmartAgriFood2 Sjaak Wolfert

Dutch [email protected]

Siobhan McQuaid

[email protected]

SOUL-‐FI Nuno Varandas

Portugese [email protected]

SpeedUp_Europe Olaf-‐Gerd Gemein

German [email protected]

Stefan Stengel [email protected]



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 10 of 72

Accelerators Consortium Members All points of contact

CEED Tech Advisio Ou, Startup Yard Limited, Digital Factory, The Spot, Wise Guys, OCC.

Grete Gutmann ([email protected]), Riivo Anton ([email protected]), Age Laine ([email protected]), Nikola Rafaj ([email protected]), Szabolcs Valner ([email protected]), Eva Havašova ([email protected]), Maris Prii ([email protected]), Rokas Tamosiunas ([email protected])

CreatiFi iMinds, FVH, i2CAT, CREATE-‐NET, Trentino Sviluppo Spa, EBN, ENoLL IVZW, ICUB.

Pieter Ballon ([email protected]), Ingrid Willems ([email protected]), Hanna Niemi Hugaerts (hanna.niemi-‐[email protected]), Sergi Fernandez ([email protected]), Fabio Antonelli (fabio.antonelli@create-‐net.org)

EuropeanPioneers

ETV, FhG, TB, WL, FS. Laura Kohler ([email protected]), Christian Lüdtke ([email protected]),Thomas Winkler ([email protected]), Cristina Luminea ([email protected]), Lukasz Luczak ([email protected]), Perttu Tynkkynen (perttu.tynkkynen@f-‐secure.com)

FABulous CKO, INNOVALIA, bwcon, Bizkaia talent, Engineering, CARSA.

Francisco Buján ([email protected]), Lena Arndal ([email protected]), Leonardo Ronald Satria ([email protected]), Silvia de la Maza ([email protected]), Ilse Roelants ([email protected]), Corinna Voss ([email protected]), Usua Arriola ([email protected]), Stefano De Panfilis

FI-‐Adopt ISOFT, ISOFT-‐LU, EMC2, ATOS, UPM, SYN, EAI, EUN, PLAYGEN.

Antonis Ramfos (antonis.ramfos@intrasoft-‐intl.com), Raimund Broechler (raimund.broechler@intrasoft-‐intl.com), Paul Moore (john-‐[email protected]), Federico Alvarez ([email protected]), Assaf Mendelson ([email protected]), Stevens William (william@e-‐unlimited.com), Theodore Zahariadis ([email protected]), Kam Star ([email protected]), Qianni Zhang (gianni.zhang@emc-‐square.org)

FI-‐C3 I&R, IMINDS, MAC, GAR, YMLP.

Gaël Maugis (gmaugis@images-‐et-‐reseaux.com), Pierre François (pfrancois@images-‐et-‐reseaux.com), Jan Coppens ([email protected]), Ciro Acedo Boria ([email protected]), Carmen Mac Williams (carmen@grassroots-‐arts.eu), Yves-‐Marie Le Pannérer (yves-‐marie.le-‐[email protected])

FICHe OUL, DEH, TBM, SMS, BOU, SDZ, ZIC, AEB, TNO.

Satu Väinämö ([email protected]), Paul Pelsmaeker ([email protected]), Oscar van Dijk, Myriam Martin, Gorka Sanchez, Mari Koskinen, Gijs van Rijn, Saskia Müller, Marian Schoone

FInish ATB, DLO, EPS, CentMa, IMINDS, CBHU,

Harald Sundmaeker (sundmaeker@atb-‐bremen.de), Robert Reiche ([email protected]), Davor



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 11 of 72

Democenter, EBILTEM. Meersman ([email protected]), Katalin Viola ([email protected]), Gerhard Schiefer (schiefer@uni-‐bonn.de), Massimo Garuti ([email protected]), Cor Verdouw ([email protected]), Reha S. Şentürk ([email protected]).

FINODEX Zabala, TRISE, CBS, ENG, ASOLIF, EUN.

Miguel García González ([email protected] ), Myrna Rodriguez (myrna@e-‐unlimited.com), Codrina Lauth ([email protected]), Albert Alonso ([email protected]), Rasmus Pedersen ([email protected]), Paolo Lombardi ([email protected]), Youssef Sabbah (youssef@e-‐unlimited.com), Francesca de Chiara ([email protected]), Stefano de Panfilis ([email protected]), Manrique López de la Fuente ([email protected])

FRACTALS Razvojni Fond Vojvodine D.O.O, ATOS, UoA, DLO, Univerzitet U Novom Sadu, SEPVE, VOICT, YASAD, BASCOM.

Goran Hodoba ([email protected]), Grigoris Chatzikostas ([email protected]), Mladen Radisic ([email protected]), Spyros Ignatiadis ([email protected]), Bulent Erbas ([email protected]), Verka Ilieva ([email protected])

frontierCities NFS, Engineering -‐ Ingegneria Informatica SPA, University of Surrey, EBN, INNOVA BIC, ENERGAP, Università degli studi di Messina.

Seán J. Burke ([email protected]), Bernardita Cárdenas ([email protected]), Robbie Stakelum ([email protected]), Roberto di Bernardo ([email protected]), Klaus Moessner ([email protected]), Bill Headley ([email protected]), Robert Sanders ([email protected]), Ronan Breen ([email protected]), Chiara Davalli ([email protected]), Alberto Soraci ([email protected]), Andreana Casaramona ([email protected]), Vlasta Kremjl (Vlasta.kremlj.gosak@energap. si), Petra Gosak ([email protected]), Massimo Villari ([email protected])

INCENSe ENEL, ENDESA, Accelerace, FBOX.

Luciano Tommasi ([email protected]), Adrian Ferrero Fernandez (adrian.ferrero@econet-‐consultants.com), Sandoval Cuervo Fernando ([email protected]), Brian List ([email protected]).

IMpaCT Buongiorno Spa, ISDI, Seaya, Teknologiudvikling ApS

Simona Torre ([email protected]), Ignacio Pinedo ([email protected]), Michael Kleindl ([email protected]), Pilar Anadón ([email protected])

SmartAgriFood2

DLO, EBN, DASTI, PSNC, AU, PULS, TV, Bic Euronova, S.A., SEBIC.

Sjaak Wolfert ([email protected]), Siobhan McQuaid ([email protected]), Iver Thysen ([email protected]), Cezary Mazurek ([email protected]), Claus Aage Grøn Sørensen ([email protected]), Jerzy Weres ([email protected]), Charlotte Blottiere ([email protected]; [email protected]), Sandra García Torres ([email protected]),



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 12 of 72

Carole Thurston ([email protected])

SOUL-‐FI IPN, FRI, Mymicroinvest, ADE, TU, Deft, TII

Nuno Varandas ([email protected] ), Carlos Cerqueira ([email protected]), Carlos Bento ([email protected]), Alessandro Monti ([email protected]), Roland Nobels ([email protected]), Jorge Izquierdo ([email protected]), Frank van der Hoeven ([email protected]), Christine Robison ([email protected]).

SpeedUp_Europe

Glocal consult e.K., Accelerace Management AS, WEBclusive, ECN, EU, ABP, Social Impact GGMBH, Fachhochschule Lubeck, Universiteit Van Amsterdam, StockholmInnovation&GrowthAB

Olaf-‐Gerd Gemein ([email protected] or olaf-‐[email protected]), Stefan Stengel ([email protected]), Youssef Sabbah (youssef@e-‐unlimited.com)

Table 1: Accelerators’ contact details

Source: Basecamp and Accelerators’ documents

2.2. Identification of accelerators data sources Each of the Accelerators’ information was initially collected by examining their Descriptions of Work which included the concept and objectives of the project, the list of members of consortium, their roles, the implementation of the project, the resources to be committed and the strategic impact they expected to have. This was the first document analyzed and used by FI-‐Impact partners to understand the Accelerators’ scopes and implementation plans. Further information became available when the Accelerators created their websites, with the most important information about their projects, the investors, the participation requisites, the funding available, the timing, the service offered to applicants and where applicable the link to the funding proposal submission service (like the application template on the F6S / FundingBox platforms). From the website the applicants were in most cases able to download the call documents, more comprehensive and useful for the submission of proposals than the other documents because they describe all call details, the requirements to participate and to submit the proposals.

Summarizing, the sources identified to find and collect the data are:

-‐ Accelerators’ DoWs; -‐ Accelerators’ websites; -‐ Accelerators’ Call documents: Call text, Guide for applicant, FAQ document, etc.

If some information was not available in these sources, they were collected through direct contact with the accelerator including email, skype call, interview, questionnaires etc.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 13 of 72

2.3. Accelerators’ call schedules and funnel approach The Accelerators distribute a portion of their total resources to Start-‐ups, Web-‐entrepreneurs, SMEs and others actors through an open call procedure. Each of the Accelerators has its own timing and planned number of open calls.

The tables below shows the number of calls for each Accelerator and their opening and closing time (that can change over time): Number of calls List of Accelerators

1 Call FICHe, FRACTALS, frontierCities, SmartAgriFood2, SpeedUp_Europe

2 Calls Ceed Tech, CREAtiFi, EuropeanPioneers, FABulous, Finish, FINODEX, INCENSe, SOUL-‐FI

3 Calls FI-‐Adopt, FI-‐C3, ImpaCT

Table 2: Accelerator number of calls

1st Call 2nd Call 3rd Call Accelerators open close open close open close CEED Tech Septeber

16, 2014 December 15, 2014

July 2015 October 2015

-‐ -‐

CreatiFi October 01, 2014

November 30, 2014

August 01, 2015

September 30, 2015

-‐ -‐

EuropeanPioneers September 01, 2014

October 31, 2014

March 30, 2015

June 22, 2015

-‐ -‐

FABulous November 03, 2014

December 17, 2014

June 02, 2015

August 2015

-‐ -‐

FI-‐Adopt September 15, 2014

October 30, 2014

December 15, 2014

January 30, 2015

March 15, 2015

April 30, 2015

FI-‐C3 November 02, 2014

November 30, 2014

June 01, 2015

June 30, 2015

January 01, 2016

January 30, 2016

FICHe September 15 , 2014

October 31, 2014

-‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

FInish October 29, 2014

December 10, 2014

March 17, 2015

May 12, 2015

-‐ -‐

FINODEX October 07, 2014

December 19, 2014

April 08, 2015

June 17, 2015

-‐ -‐

FRACTALS November 30, 2014

February 28, 2015

-‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

FrontierCities November 20, 2014

February 16, 2015 (Concept note); April 30, 2015 (Full

application)

-‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

INCENSe October 14, January 15, June 15, September -‐ -‐



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 14 of 72

2014 2015 2015 15, 2015 IMpaCT September

29, 2014 November 07, 2014

April 01, 2015

April 30, 2015

September 2015

October 2015

SmartAgriFood2 September 15, 2014

November 15, 2014

-‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

SOUL-‐FI RA1, RB1: September 04, 2014

RA1: October 31, 2014; RB1: April 30, 2015

RA2: January 01, 2015; RB2: June 01, 2015

RA2: March 31, 2015; RB2: August 31, 2015

-‐ -‐

SpeedUp_Europe September 10, 2014

December 10, 2014

-‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Table 3: Accelerator call schedule

Source: Basecamp and Accelerators’ website

After the submission deadline, Accelerators take a period (generally one or two months) for the first step of proposals selection. After the selected proposals sign the contract the program starts. However, once the program starts not all Accelerators proceed in the same way. The exact procedure is performed differently in each Accelerator, however we have defined two macro-‐types:

I. Several steps of selection, restricting the group step by step II. one step of selection, same group reviewed step by step.

Several steps of selection -‐ restricted group step by step: Some Accelerators (as CEED Tech, FINODEX, FABulous, SmartAgriFood2 and FICHe) have planned a base funding with a distribution of additional resources if the funded initiative completes successive milestone monitoring steps. It means that Accelerators give a fixed amount for each milestone achieved and the number of successful initiatives is reduced step by step. One step of selection – same group reviewed step by step: All other Accelerators instead have only one step of selection and several steps of review based on the milestones defined before. It means that the winning projects selected at the beginning generally arrive at the end of the process. Parts of the total funding are given at each step of review (at the start, when milestones are achieved, and at the end). In both process, the Accelerators support their applicants in different ways: with acceleration programs, FIWARE technologies support, Business innovation support, business development, financial support, matchmaking and networking, mentoring, training and coaching. Each of the Accelerators is organizing workshops, bootcamps, Testing infrastructures and living labs spaces. Some Accelerators are providing financial services and Introduction to investment and venture capital funds. Since Accelerators have different timing, different approaches to selection and different ways to support the initiatives, the knowledge of these data is essential to plan how and when collect data. FI-‐Impact has dedicated significant resources to standardising and harmonize the data for aggregation so as to ensure comparability where possible.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 15 of 72

2.4. Mapping template for Accelerator call processes

Accelerator data collection includes three main types of information:

1. Generic Information, which includes: o Description of Accelerators; o Scope of Accelerator; o Criteria for applying; o Selection criteria; o Services offered; o Consortium members; o Main point of contact; o Accelerator websites.

2. Value Proposition and Main Objectives, which includes: o Target markets; o FIWARE technologies addressed; o Expected benefits.

3. Call Monitoring, which includes: o Number of calls planned; o Total funding expected; o Funding per proposal; o Opening and closing date of calls; o Proposals expected; o Number of step of selection; o Review process; o Timing of intermediate steps; o Number of selected proposals.

This data is not being used to evaluate the Accelerators and compare them with each other, but simply to guide the elaboration and aggregation of the results. This data is being collected for each Accelerator and then aggregated, providing a map of the Accelerators collective coverage of target markets, geographies, and main selection criteria. According to preliminary elaborations, the 16 Accelerators expected to receive a total of approximately 6700 proposals and plan to fund approximately 1200 projects for all calls (c.18% of total). The first call results show that the number of the submitted proposals has exceeded the number of proposals expected.

The table below shows the Accelerators data collected and the data sources:

Type of information Data collected Sources

Generic information Description of Accelerators DoW, Website, Call Docs

Scope of Accelerator DoW, Website, Call Docs

Criteria for applying DoW, Website, Call Docs



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 16 of 72

Selection criteria DoW, Website, Call Docs

Services offered DoW, Website, Call Docs

Consortium members DoW, Website, Call Docs

Main point of contact DoW, Website, Call Docs, Basecamp

Accelerator websites DoW, Call Docs

Value proposition

Target market DoW, Website, Call Docs, Direct contact

FI-‐WARE technologies addressed Direct contact, Presentations

Expected benefit Guide for applicants, Direct contact

Call roadmap Total number of calls DoW, Website, Call Docs, Direct contact

Total funding DoW, Website, Call Docs, Direct contact

Funding per proposal DoW, Website, Call Docs

Start date and end date of call DoW, Website, Call Docs

Proposals expected Direct contact

N° step of selection Call Docs

N° step of reviews Call Docs

Timing of each step Call Docs

Docs requested Call Docs

N° selected and funded proposals Website, Call Docs

Table 4: Accelerators’ data collected and the data sources

The template to collect Accelerators’ data is composed of two parts: the first with the generic information and the value proposition, the second with the call roadmap and funnel approach. Generic information is being collected in textual or numeric format, while the data regarding value propositions was collected in a multiple choice format.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 17 of 72

As mentioned earlier there was no obliged process that the accelerators were expected to follow when implementing calls. Each accelerator made their own proposal, having a particular process. The tables below highlight the steps carried out by each accelerator, in particular:

-‐ Proposals submission deadline; -‐ First step of selection; -‐ Acceleration program; -‐ First, second, third check points; -‐ Second, third, fourth step of selection.

For each of these steps the following information were collected, periodically updated: -‐ Timing: when the step starts; -‐ Target nr of proposals – Min. and Max : this indicator shows over time if the

number of proposals falls as a result of selection steps, or remains the same as a result of step of review;

-‐ Selection Criteria: criteria to overcome the phase and to get ahead with the Acceleration program;

-‐ Funding for proposal -‐ Min. and Max. -‐ Docs required: each step requires different documents, for example at the

beginning the Pitch is needed while at the end it is required to provide a Business Plan, Business Model etc.

AcceleratorsTotal number of calls

Total Funding

Funding per proposal Timing

Target nr of proposals - Min.

Target nr of proposals - Max.

Selection Criteria

Funding for proposal - Min.

Funding for proposal - Max.

Docs required Timing

Target nr of applications - Min.

Target nr of applications - Max.

Selection Criteria

Funding for application - Min.

Funding for application - Max.

Docs required

Start date

End date

CEED Tech

CREATI-FI

EuropeanPioneers

FABulous

FI-Adopt

FI-C3

FICHe

Finish

FINODEX

FRACTALS

frontierCities

INCENSe

IMpaCT

SmartAgriFood2

SOUL-FI

SpeedUp_Europe

Proposals submission deadline (Call1) First step of selection (Call1) programACCELERATOR CALL 1



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 18 of 72

TimingTarget nr of applications - Min.


Selection Criteria



Docs required TimingTarget nr of applications - Min.


Selection Criteria



Docs required

Second check point (Call1)First check point (Call1)

Table 5: Mapping template of Accelerators’ calls roadmap

The same format is currently being used for Call 2 and will be used in Call 3. Furthermore, several Accelerators have indicated that the acceleration process is not the same even within the single Accelerator. The initiatives do not have the same timing, technology readiness or go to market needs and strategies. The company that needs technology support will take advantage of opportunities available to the program, on the contrary the company that has a good understanding of FIWARE, a well developed technological proposal might only need marketing support and may skip some steps and will go to market faster.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 19 of 72

3. Coordination with Accelerators projects: direct and indirect methods

The overall activities for FI-‐Impact to communicate with Accelerators are represented in the figure below:

Figure 3: Coordination with Accelerators – direct and indirect methods

Communica)ons+on+Basecamp+ Suggested+indicators+ Valida)on+Ques)onnaire+

Le8ers/formal+communica)ons/NDAs+ Accelerators’+events+



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 20 of 72

3.1. Suggested Indicators FI-‐Impact and FI-‐BUSINESS have jointly provided Accelerators with a list of suggested questions that might be included in call templates to evaluate the potential of the proposals. As you can see from the table below, the indicators include measure of the innovation potential and maturity of proposals, the team and the organization proposers, the technology used and technology experience, the market orientation, the financial aspects and the benefits expected based on multiple choice answers. FI-‐Impact and FI-‐BUSINESS have directly contacted the Project Managers of the Accelerators and shared with them these indicators to explore their opinions on the questions and on the multiple choice answers hypothesized. Each Accelerator gave feedback on the usefulness of these questions and on the possibility to use them in their templates. Most of Accelerators have used these indicators, some in the same multiple choice format, others in the free text question format.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 21 of 72

Description Measurement

1 Proposal Originality Is there a baseline or is this a new initiative Choose from the drop down list

2 Proposal Maturity At what stage of readiness is the initiative? Select the highest degree of readiness from the list. Choose from the drop down list

3 Position in the FI-PPP value-chain How does the applicant see its position in the ecosystem Choose from the drop down list

4 Innovation Idea Where do the needs and/or requirements come from. Select all that apply. select all relevant from list

5 Organisation Size Number of people employed in the organisation Choose from the drop down list

6 Patents / Licenses Does the proposer hold patents or licenses in the proposal domain? Choose from the drop down list

7 Types of Staff Select the staff types that are currently present in your organisation select all relevant from list

8 Years of Operation Number of years the proposer's organisation has existed Number

9 Principal Market Focus Orgainsation's current principal market Choose from the drop down list

10 Years of management expertise Indicate the combined number of years of management experience Number

11 Years of technology experience Indicate the combined number of years of technical experience in the target domain of your proposal Number

12 Realistion of technology Are you able to develop and market the technology internally? select all relevant from list

13 Market sector Market sector addressed by the proposal. Select all relevant sectors. Choose from the drop down list

14 Market type Type of customer that will use the product or service. Select all relevant answers. select all relevant from list

15 Geographical Scope Select target geographic areas for the proposed product or service Choose from the drop down list

16 Competition Describe the current competitive situation of your target market. Choose from the drop down list

17 Expected Yearly Growth Rate of Users Please indicate the projected increase in users/clients on a yearly basis Number

18 Business model What is the maturity level of your business model? select all relevant from list

19 Cash Flow Have you prepared a cash flow analysis? Choose from the drop down list

20 NPV, ROI, Breakeven Have you calculated the potential NPV, ROI and breakeven for your initiative? Choose from the drop down list

21 Potential User Benefits Select the most important benefits of your product / service select all relevant from list

22 Potential Economic Benefits Select the most important benefits of your product / service select all relevant from list

23 Potential Societal and Environmental Benefits Select the most important benefits of your product / service select all relevant from list

Financial aspects

Benefits

ElementInnovation Potential and Maturity

Team and Organisation

Technology

Market orientation

Table 6: Suggested indicators

3.2. Validation questionnaire FI-‐Impact created a validation questionnaire to interview face-‐to-‐face the Accelerators at the ECFI Conference in Munich in September. This was the first meeting with Accelerators and was very useful to confirm the data already collected on Accelerators’ target sectors, FI-‐WARE technology privileged, date of calls, funding available per call and benefits for EU, and to collect new data.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 22 of 72

Each FI-‐Impact partner has interviewed its Accelerators with this questionnaire and all data collected have contributed to the current mapping of accelerators.

Interviewed*person: Interviewer:

# Question Description1 Target'sectors

Answer NotesSector'1 pick'from'listSector'2 pick'from'listSector'3 pick'from'list

2 FI'Technologies

Answer NotesTechnology'1 pick'from'listTechnology'2 pick'from'listTechnology'3 pick'from'list

3 CallsAnswer Opening*date Closing*date NotesCall'1Call'2Call'3

4 Call'TargetsAnswer Total*budget Funded*projects NotesCall'1Call'2Call'3

5 Benefits'for'EUAnswer Total*budget Funded*projects NotesBenefit'1 pick'from'listBenefit'2 pick'from'listBenefit'3 pick'from'list

Copy'rows'from'above'if'needed

How'many'funds'will'be'distributed?'To'how'many'applications?

Accelerator*Project:Questions*for*Accelerators'*interviews*G*ECFI*Munich*17/9/2014



Which'sectors'are'targeted'by'the'new'products'and'services'funded'by'the'accelerator?

Which'FIFWARE'technologies'will'be'used'by'the'new'products'and'services'funded'by'the'accelerator?

When'will'Calls'for'Proposals'open'and'close?



Which'benefits'are'expected'on'EU'level'from'the'funded'products'and'services?

Table 7: Validation questionnaire

3.3. Communication on Basecamp

Basecamp is a system for the management of small and large projects that involve numerous people in them, even physically distant, improving the development process. It is, therefore, an online tool that allows to manage a project by creating events, notes, lists, giving a place to store all files of interest, exchange messages between project members and much more. Basecamp allows to:



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 23 of 72

-‐ browse every discussion; -‐ review all open “to do lists”; -‐ see every single file; -‐ read all text documents; -‐ show all forwarded emails; -‐ see event calendar; -‐ see all deleted items.

The Accelerators use this system to: -‐ describe the concept and the objectives of FI-‐WARE; -‐ share all their call information and call documents; -‐ promote their activities and their events; -‐ discuss with other Accelerators to plan common events; -‐ compare the call results and the next steps.

FI-‐Impact partners use it to: -‐ communicate with all Accelerators in the same time; -‐ confirm the data collected directly from them; -‐ update the data already collected and collect new data; -‐ provide to Accelerators aggregate results; -‐ support Accelerators in case of doubts or problems.

3.4. Letters/formal communications and NDAs

Internally, FI-‐Impact partners have planned a skype call per month, supported by written reports of work performed and planned in each Work Package. Moreover, when a partner participates in an event, it is usual to inform and update others via report and planning the future activities and the partners involved.

The letter below was sent at the end of September 2014 by the FI-‐Impact Coordinator to FI-‐Impact partners to inform them about next steps in the FI-‐PPP and FIWARE Phase III evaluation process: As we discussed in our meeting in ECFI 2 and in subsequent conversations, FI-‐Impact is collecting information and mapping the FI-‐PPP / FIWARE ecosystem. We already have a good collection of data-‐points from our interactions with you. So far it looks like everyone is living up to if not exceeding expectations! But that is mainly about you guys, your calls, and your place in the FI-‐PPP ecosystem. Right now there is a wealth of data being generated. A large number of proposals have been generated for a number of different activities to be funded; in many cases far in excess of possible funding. In FI-‐Impact, like in all of your activities, we cannot hope to map potential impact of all of the proposals to growth potential market data and existing IT spending (but that was expected) and will, as you might imagine, focus on the “winners” once the dust settles. However given budget constraints the successful proposals will be a fraction of our potential as a group. It would be a pity to lose the opportunity to map the entire community out there: who is proposing (and maybe double or triple proposing), which communities we have reached and those we might have missed. We think it is important to know which FIWARE technologies and Enablers are most interesting to the larger “business community” around us. We need to do this across all accelerators if it is to be useful. […]



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 24 of 72

Some formal communications were sent also between FI-‐Impact Coordinator and Commission to communicate the progress of FI-‐Impact activities and the interaction with the Accelerators. The letter below was sent by the FI-‐Impact Coordinator to Accelerators to inform them on the FI-‐Impact role and the partner involved:

Dear X,

We are contacting you as representatives of the FI-‐Impact Support Action. As you know, under the FI-‐PPP Phase 3 Programme, FI-‐Impact has the role of measuring for the Commission the impact achieved through the various accelerators.

At this stage of the project, we are launching the data collection of the proposals submitted to the accelerators through the application forms on the F6S/FundingBox platform. The data collected will be used to assess the aggregated potential impact of the proposals.

For this purpose, we kindly request your collaboration by sharing with us the applications you are going to receive after the call submission deadline.

Mr/Mrs X, representing our partner Xx in the consortium, will be your main contact person in this phase, so please expect Mr/Mrs X to directly contact you in the upcoming days.

[…]

FI IMPACT must respect the confidentiality requirements posed by the Accelerators and clarify how the data will be shared and disseminated within the FI PPP community and beyond. A NDA template is available to Accelerators to define the data sharing: when and under what process the Accelerators delivered their datasets, how the confidentiality issues where managed, which were the structure of the datasets and their content (i.e., the type of data collected on proposals and whether it was coherent with the indicators suggested by FI IMPACT). This data will not be used to evaluate the Accelerators, but simply to guide the elaboration and aggregation of the results. NDA template: IDC, Viale Monza, 18 20127 Milano, Italia VAT and Buinsess Registration Number 06541750151 represented by Mr. Robert White and representing the FI-‐Impact Consortium

and

XXXX, Adress, represented by _________, VAT ID Nr. xxxxxx, Reg. Nr. xxxxx

shall conclude following

NON DISCLOSURE AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT

PREAMBLE



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 25 of 72

A. WHEREAS Contracting parties ascertain that a mutual agreement on achieving common goals under the FI-‐PPP Programme, that each has concluded a contract with the European Commission under that contract and that therefore, the parties need to exchange certain information

B. WHEREAS in this Agreement the party disclosing certain information shall be called the »Disclosing Party« and the party receiving information the »Receiving Party«.

The Parties agree to the following:

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Article 1

Under this Agreement confidential information means any information marked by the Disclosing party as confindential of commercial, financial and technical nature as well as any other information the Disclosing Party considers as such (or are to be regarded as such) and is prepared or is recieved by Recieving party in any form (tangible or intangible) including software, analyses, tables, data, studies and other documents or is provided oraly. Furthermore, confidential information also means any other documents the Receiving Party prepares on the basis of foregoing information or documents wholly or partly prepared on the basis of such information.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Article 2

Parties to this Agreement shall agree upon that all confidential information is communicated between them within the scope necessary to achieve their mutual proejct objectivea. The Parties hereby agree that such information shall not be given for any reason or purpose whatsoever to third persons beyond the direct contractors in the respective consortiums and with the European Comission.

The Parties may communicate confidential information to their employees and employees working in the partner companies in their consortiums. Only information relevant to FI-‐PPP line of work on the need-‐to-‐know basis may be communicated to such employees. All employees shall be informed on the Agreement here to and shall be informed and aware that they are subject to its binding legal obligations and consequences.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 26 of 72

In addition, the Parties agree that confidential information may be communicated to the European Commission and their expert advisors, agents and counsellors only under condition that they sign a statement on safeguarding confidential information following the terms defined under the Agreement hereto.

The Parties shall agree that no confidential information received is disclosed without a prior written consent of the Disclosing Party except for purposes of achieving their mutual business objectives.

The Receiving Party shall allow their employees an access to confidential information only on the need-‐to-‐know basis and shall not communicate such information to any other persons unless so explicitly agreed upon by the Agreement hereto.

RIGHTS

Article 3

The Receiving Party shall consent that all confidential information of the Disclosing Party is considered proprietary to the latter. Communicating such information does not in any way grant the Receiving Party any rights relating to such information.

STANDARD OF CARE

Article 4

The Parties shall agree to provide the same standard of care as they use in protection of their own confidential information and to handle and use confidential information under the Agreement hereto in a manner preventing any unauthorised disclosure.

RETURNING OR DESTROYING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Article 5

The Disclosing Party may at any time submit a written request for return of any confidential information, as well as for return of any eventual copies, communicated, prepared or made pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Such return of confidential information shall be accompanied by a written statement of the Receiving Party that no such information has been consciously kept in its possession or under its direct or indirect controll. The Receiving Party shall fulfil its obligation to return confidential information within 7 (seven) days after such request has been received.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 27 of 72

Confidential information consisting of analyses, studies, tables and other documents prepared for the Receiving Party and not returned to the Disclosing Party pursuant to the Agreement hereto shall be destroyed at the request of the latter and the Receiving Party shall inform in writing the Disclosing Party accordingly.

INFORMATION EXCLUDED

Article 6

Obligations provided by the Agreement hereto do not relate to the following confidential information:

§ information possessed by the Receiving Party prior to acceptance of such from the Disclosing Party,

§ information being or becoming public due to any reason except for breach of the Agreement hereto,

§ information independently developed by the Receiving Party on its own, § information communicated by the Receiving Party at the request of the competent

Court or other state authorities. In such cases the Receiving Party shall inform the other party prior to communicating such information as to allow the Disclosing Party to take necessary measures to protect its rights relating to subject confidential information. The Receiving Party shall in any case communicate to state authorities only legally requested information and take maximum effort as to obtain the statement on protection of business information or any other guarantee as to handle such information in a confidential manner from the recipient,

§ information which the Receiving Party may communicate to third persons on the basis of written consent of the Disclosing Party,

§ information received from the third party without similar limitations and without breach of the Agreement hereto.

WARRANTIES

Article 7

Each party confirms and guarantees to the other party that it was established and operates in accordance with the governing rules of the country where it was established. Each party confirms that it enters into and is legally bound by the Agreement hereto and that takes all steps necessary to execute and implement it. The Disclosing Party guarantees that its diclosure of confidential information does not breach any other agreement entered into with third parties.

VALIDITY OF INDIVIDUAL PROVISIONS



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 28 of 72

Article 8

§ This Agreement contains all items referring to subject of this Agreement and replaces any other previous written or oral agreements related to subject of this Agreement concluded between the parties hereto,

§ If any provision in this Agreement is found or held to be invalid or unenforceable or illegal in any way, such illegality, unenforceability or invalidity shall not effect any other provision under this Agreement and shall not be seen as part of this Agreement. The Agreement shall be implemented, to the extent possible, in accordance with its initial terms and purposes.

NOTICES

Article 9

Any notice to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be submitted in writing and handed in person or by registered mail and addressed to the address stated under the heading of the Agreement hereto or communicated by the relevant party by facsimile to the number provided by the parties hereto. The notice thereof is deemed received within seven (7) days after sending through mail and confirmed by postal stamp.

ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

Article 10

Both parties to the Agreement here to shall submit documents and carry out activities necessary for the enforcement of terms, provisions and objective of this Agreement.

Any amendments, modifications and detailed explanations to the Agreement hereto shall be deemed valid only if made in writing and signed by both parties.

In case that provisions of this Agreement shall not be implemented or in case such implementation is not requested such omission of request or implementation will not be interpreted as termination of those provisions and will not in any way effect the validity of this Agreement either in part or as the whole and will not terminate the rights of any party arising out of this Agreement.

Headings and paragraphs used in the Agreement hereto are applied in order of easy reference and do not effect the importance or contents of this Agreement.

LIABILITIES FOR BREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY

Article 11



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 29 of 72

Both parties shall agree upon that the party breaching the Agreement hereto is liable to compensate the other party for any proved damage resulting from the breach of this Agreement . The Disclosing Party shall have a right to issue a statement of damage to be compensated by the other party. The Receiving Party shall be liable to pay such damage within 15 days after such calculations have been issued.

The request for compensations is valid if accompanied by relevant evidence showing that the Receiving Party breached the provisions of the Agreement hereto and that the damage results from such breach..

GOVERNING LAW AND COURT OF COMPETENCE

Article 12

Both parties agree that the provisions of the Agreement hereto are subject to the law of the Republic of Italy and that any disputes arising out of this Agreement shall only be settled by the competent court in Milan.

TERM AND SURVIVAL OF OBLIGATIONS, Confidentiality period

Article 13

This Agreement shall be effective as from the date when signed by both parties shall be valid for indefinite period Each party may, at any time, terminate this Agreement with written notice to the other Party.

Condifentiality period for any Confidential information is five (5) years from the day of disclosure of such Confidential infromation

Notwithstanding possible suspension, expiration or termination of this Agreement, for whatever reason by whichever Party, the Recieving party shall REMAIN bound by obligations set forth in this Agreement – especially by obligations set foth in Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this Agreement until the expiration of the Confidentiality period.

FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 14



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 30 of 72

This Agreement is signed in two (2) identical counterparts of which each Party hereto shall receive one (1) counterpart.

Accelerator

Place, Date,

Declaration of no conflict of interest template:

I undertake to abide by the code of conduct for independent experts acting as evaluators covered in Annex (Code of conduct).

I undertake to inform the evaluation organiser immediately if I discover any disqualifying or potential conflict of interest with any proposal that I am asked to evaluate or which is the subject of discussion in any evaluation meeting in which I participate (Declaration of no conflict of interest).

Please check one of the two boxes below

-‐ In particular, I declare that I have not submitted, nor am I, to my knowledge involved in any proposal currently under evaluation or submitted for evaluation, under the _______ Open Call for Proposals.

-‐ In particular, I declare that my participation in the evaluation of the following proposal(s) could create a conflict of interest:

I undertake not to reveal any detail of the evaluation process and its outcomes or of any proposal submitted for evaluation without the express written approval of the evaluation organiser. In case of evaluations carried out outside evaluation organisers controlled premises, I understand that I will be held personally responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of any documents or electronic files sent and for returning, erasing or destroying all confidential documents or files upon completing the evaluation, unless otherwise instructed

Full Name of the Expert:

Signature: Place, Date:

The table below shows the current situation of the number of NDAs required by



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 31 of 72

Accelerators and the ones signed by IDC for the first Call. FI-‐ADOPT is the only Accelerator that required a Declaration of no conflict of interest. Accelerators NDA Signature Date CEED Tech Yes Signed by IDC on Dec 19, 2014 CreatiFi Yes Signed by IDC on Dec 19, 2014 EuropeanPioneers Yes Signed by IDC on Dec 19, 2014 FABulous Required FI-‐Adopt No NDA required. FI-‐ADOPT has

required only a Declaration of no conflict of interests.

Signed by Richard on Nov 24, 2014

FI-‐C3 Yes Signed by IDC on Dec 19, 2014 FICHe Yes Signed by IDC on Dec 19, 2014 FInish Yes Signed by IDC on Dec 19, 2014 FINODEX No FRACTALS No FrontierCities Template sent to the accelerator

on Feb 24, 2015. Not yet returned.

INCENSe No IMpaCT Yes Signed by IDC on Nov 25, 2014 SmartAgriFood2 Yes Signed by IDC on Feb 6, 2015 SOUL-‐FI No SpeedUp_Europe No

Table 8: NDAs requested by Accelerators

3.5. FI-‐Impact presentation and partecipation to Accelerators events

Why does FI-‐Impact partecipate to Accelerators events? And why do we believe that these events are important? Because for FI-‐Impact these are a way to:

-‐ inform Accelerators on the FI-‐Impact objectives, role and partners involved; -‐ validate information collected and collect new data; -‐ coordinate session groups to plan next activities; -‐ be periodically updated on Accelerators proposals; -‐ support Accelerators in decision making.

Past events:

-‐ IDC participated in the Programme Coordination meeting in Barcelona (Giorgio Micheletti) and in Brussels (Richard Stevens and Gabriella Cattaneo) (July 2014);

-‐ IIMC (Paul Cunningham) represented the consortium in the Accelerator meeting in Berlin (July 2014);

-‐ Programme for joint Workshop with FI-‐Business during ECFI2 agreed (17-‐18 September 2014). Consortium agreed that it would be more productive to undertake direct engagement with each partner during ECFI2 rather than have one group meeting. IDC (Richard Stevens), IIMC (Paul Cunningham), Bluegreen (Paolo Paganelli, Caterina Bissoni), JSI (Gaber Cerle) and SFC (Jens Schumacher)



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 32 of 72

participated in ECFI2 to raise awareness of FI-‐Impact, participate in joint Workshop with FI-‐Business and engage directly with Accelerators. IIMC also interviewed FINESCE, CONCORDE and FI-‐CORE during ECFI2 to identify success stories;

-‐ IIMC represented FI-‐Impact at FINESCE Open Day at Trial Site in Ireland (22 September 2014);

-‐ IDC (Richard Stevens) presented FI-‐PPP and FI-‐Impact during eChallenges (29 -‐ 30 October 2014);

-‐ IIMC (Paul Cunningham) represented FI-‐Impact during Web Summit, Dublin (04 -‐ 07 November 2014);

-‐ Bluegreen (Paolo Paganelli) represented the consortium in the Accelerator meeting in Portugal in November (26-‐28 November 2014);

-‐ JSI (Gaber Cerle) represented FI-‐Impact during Fractals event in Ljubljana (December 2014);

-‐ IDC (Richard Stevens) shared FI-‐Impact results during “Start and grow your business with FIWARE” session. (25-‐26 March 2015).

Upcoming events:

-‐ ESWC2015 -‐ JSI will follow up re presentation to share results and show data visualisation in relevant session in the Programme (May 2015).

3.6. Direct contacts Whenever information were not available from the call documents or data sources, they were collected in another way, for example email, skype call, interviews face by face etc. In this case a good interaction with accelerators and their availability in providing us information are essential.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 33 of 72

4. Data collection requirements and format of proposals

4.1. Proposals template on F6S/FundingBox platform

As previously said, the Accelerators provide to Start-‐ups, Web-‐entrepreneurs, SMEs and others actors a grant fund for the innovative proposals in the Future Internet field. The applications may only be submitted via F6S platform, FundingBox platform or Accelerators Website and have to use the FI-‐WARE technologies. To submit a proposal, the needed steps are:

-‐ Registration of the Applicants in the F6S/FundingBox platform portal which will process the applications and be the central interface for managing the SME projects for the remainder of the open calls;

-‐ Submission of the proposal before the closing deadline. An example proposal template is available on the Accelerators section on the platform, where the participants should detail and justify their projects. The evaluation criteria are different from Accelerator to Accelerator and are properly explained in the call guideline. It is mandatory that applicants carefully complete the cover page, the summary page, the “Declaration of honour on exclusion criteria and absence of conflict of interest” form and the Ethical/Security check list.

Usually the questions asked to applicants on their project cover the following aspects: -‐ Specific objectives; -‐ Applicants’ solution in terms of technology or service; -‐ FI-‐WARE technologies used by applicants; -‐ The target market; -‐ The team.

Each accelerator may require this information to applicants with a number of questions and/or documents to be included in the format they prefer. Some Accelerators have used the indicators suggested by FI-‐Impact and FI-‐BUSINESS in the questionnaire described in Section 4.1, other did not. This aspect on the one hand complicates the data collection because it is not easy to find a standard format, and on the other hand the applicants cannot participate to more calls of the same sector with the same documents but they have to restart or modify the proposal every time. In any case in the documents it is specified that an applicant cannot submit its proposal to more than three accelerators during the same call and cannot be funded by multiple accelerators. When the calls close the next steps are:

-‐ Evaluate the proposals by independent expert evaluators, including experts from technological and financial sector;

-‐ Consolidate the expert evaluations; -‐ Notify the successful applicants, financial and legal validation of the

proposers and signature of a binding agreement for the realisation of the application/related technology.

However, before signing the contract and starting the acceleration program, the Accelerators want to be sure that the proposals have not been selected and/or funded



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 34 of 72

by other Accelerators. In this phase FI-‐Impact collects all the data of the submitted and selected proposals and provide these information.

4.2. Identification of proposals data sources The only data source on the submitted and selected proposals are the Accelerators because all data are legally protected. Provided that all Accelerators were already aware and agreed on FI-‐Impact role and support activity since the Accelerators meeting in Coimbra, each FI-‐Impact partner has contacted its Accelerators, at the close of their call, to inform them about the importance to collect and analyse the proposals data as soon as possible to provide aggregate results. The email below was used as template to contact the Accelerators: Dear X, as agreed in Coimbra FI-‐Impact will receive all data information about the proposals, including the full application texts (not an extraction of data) in whatever format as required to prepare the analytics on the 16 accelerators. You should export the entire lot as a single CSV or other excel format and encrypt with a open /modify password. If you are on the other hand using single files, DOCs, scans, .PPTs or other weird formats just 1) group 2) Zip and 3) password protect the zip file. Send everything to our coordinator, Richard Stevens, cc to this mail. Please have the password sent by text to cell XXX. The sender should ask for confirmation. Each FI-‐Impact partner knows the dates of the several steps of its Accelerators and the progress of the selection process. Based on these information each partner has contacted its Accelerators to receive their full text applications. Most of Accelerators have requested a NDA -‐ Not Disclosure Agreements-‐ before sending the proposals. Once received it and signed by IDC, they have sent to the Coordinator (Richard Stevens) the application texts of submitted proposals (according to the procedure) and after more or less a month the list of selected proposals. This process will be the same for the next calls. WP2 and WP3 have collaborated to collect the proposals information in a standard template.

4.3. Mapping template of submitted and selected proposals

First of all WP2 and WP3 have created a database in MS Excel format where each sheet is dedicated to each single Accelerator and to its proposals. No change has been made and no decision on information to collect was taken before having a significant number of proposals. When most of Accelerators have closed the first call and most of them have sent their submitted proposals in whatever format they prefer, a cross-‐check between Accelerators information was done. The aim was to identify which data they had in common and which data were to be asked again to Accelerators or searched within the abstract or free text questions of proposals.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 35 of 72

The classification of the data received from Accelerators, the identification of the information in common between the proposals and the check of the missing data are very important to complete the database with significant information and to have a good data collection.

Problems found:

-‐ Not all Accelerators have sent the full text applications: some an extraction of data, other only statistical data;

-‐ Not all Accelerators have sent the proposals directly to the Coordinators: some published the data on a google docs linked to Basecamp or on their own website, accessible only by password;

-‐ Data missing: sometimes project name, in other case the company name or coordinators name;

-‐ Unclear names: difficulty in finding selected proposals in the list of the submitted proposals due to unclear names;

-‐ Not homogeneous answers: for example some Accelerators classify the companies as Micro, small, not-‐registered company, instead other as SMEs, Web-‐entrepreneurs, Start-‐up etc.

Solutions:

-‐ The FI-‐Impact coordinator had to contact again the accelerators to have the full text applications and the missing details of proposals;

-‐ The information on the proposals, that have not been sent directly from accelerators but that FI-‐Impact has downloaded from their websites or Basecamp, were confirmed directly by the related Accelerators before being used;

-‐ The unclear names were resolved thanks to a data cleaning; -‐ About the not homogeneous answers, the best way was to extrapolate the

information scratch from the proposals abstract. The information collected and to be collected in the next calls for a good analysis of proposals are the following:

-‐ Country; -‐ Organization name; -‐ Project name; -‐ Address; -‐ Number of team members; -‐ Fund requested; -‐ Verticals Target; -‐ FI-‐WARE Chapter; -‐ FI-‐WARE Enablers; -‐ Selected (YES/NO); -‐ Solution type; -‐ Name of coordinator and name of the team members; -‐ Abstract; -‐ Brief description; -‐ Company years of experience.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 36 of 72

All these information are represented in the following mapping template of submitted proposals. The selected proposals are a sub-‐group of the submitted proposals and are identified with the field “Selected:YES/NO”.

Figure 4: Mapping template of proposals

5. Current status of Data collection 5.1. Current status of Data collection of proposals

The WPs tasks and their current status in the FI-‐Impact project are represented in the table below. It is important to highlight that the Engagement preparation and the Quantitative and qualitative data collection phases of WP3 were started in September



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 37 of 72

and October, before of the timing stated in the table because the relationship with Accelerators has required more time than expected. Each WP has periodically written reports on its own current status of data collection and relationship with Accelerators to inform the other WPs and the Coordinator. Project(Planning(for(FI1MPACT !1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Workpackages

JUN

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

Workpackage(1(Dissemination(and(Community(Engagement

Task01.10Programme0Level0Coordination0and0CommunicationTask01.20FI0Community0EngagementTask01.30FI!MPACT0PortalTask01.40Community0Stakeholder0EngagementTask01.50Identification0and0Dissemination0of0Success0Stories

D1.10Report0on0Communication0and0Dissemination RD1.20Report0on0Communication0and0Dissemination RD1.30Impact0Assessment0and0Success0Stories0Communication OT

Workpackage(2(Impact(Assessment

Task02.10IA0Methodological0Framework0and0GuidebookTask02.20initiatives0Mapping0and0KPIs0AnalysisTask02.30Estimate0of0potential0demand0and0KPI0consistency0checkTask02.40Ex!ante0IA0and0projection0to020200

D2.10Impact0Assessment0Guidebook RD2.20Mapping0and0Initial0KPIs0Measurement RD2.30Ex!ante0Impact0Assessment0and0Forecast RD2.40Update0of0Impact0Assessment0and0Forecast R

Workpackage(3(SME(Accelerator(Engagement

Task03.10Engagement0Preparation0Task03.20Quantitative0and0Qualitative0Data0Collection0Task03.30Project0Specific0Assessment

D3.10Assessment0Approach0Presentation00 OTD3.20Data0Collection0Requirements0and0Format RD3.30Assessment0Report R

Work(Package(4(On1Line(Assessment(and(Analysis(System(

Task04.10FIMPACT0Portal0Analytics0Services0Task04.20Future0Internet0Products0Validation0Instruments0Task04.30Online0assessment0support00

D4.10Initial0Online0Library0of0Templates0and0Services OTD4.20Future0Internet0Validation0Web!Based0Instruments0 OTD4.30Report0on0online0Assessment0environment R

Workpackage(5(Project(Management

Task05.10Supervision0&0SchedulingTask05.20ReportingTask05.30Financial0and0Contractual0CoordinationTask05.40Asembly0and0Meetings0coordination

D5.10Periodic0Progress0report0!0Period01 RD5.20Periodic0Progress0report0!0Period02 RD5.30Final0Report R

2014 2015 2016

Table 9: Current status of WP

Source: FI-‐MPACT activities task level About the Accelerators’ calls, the table below shows that in May 2015 all Accelerators have closed the first call (although not all have evaluated the proposals) and some of them have opened the second call. Only IMPACT has already close the second call and FI-‐ADOPT has closed the second call and the third call.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 38 of 72

1st Call 2nd Call 3rd Call Accelerators open close open close open close CEED Tech CreatiFi EuropeanPioneers FABulous FI-‐Adopt FI-‐C3 FICHe FInish FINODEX FRACTALS FrontierCities INCENSe IMpaCT SmartAgriFood2 SOUL-‐FI SpeedUp_Europe Table 10: Open and close date of the first Call

Legend: Call in progress Call open soon (1 month) Call open late (more than 1 month) Call closed The following table is very useful for the FI-‐Impact partners to know who of their Accelerators has sent the submitted and selected proposals to the FI-‐Impact Coordinator and to plan the next data collection activities. Accelerators Submitted proposals

-‐ Call 1 Selected proposals

-‐ Call 1 Proposals sent to FI-‐Impact Coordinator

CEED Tech Yes Yes Yes/Yes CreatiFi Yes Yes Yes/Yes EuropeanPioneers Yes Yes Yes/Yes FABulous Yes Yes Yes/Yes FI-‐Adopt Yes Yes Yes/Yes FI-‐C3 Yes Yes Yes/Yes FICHe No Yes No/Yes FInish Yes Yes Yes/Yes FINODEX Yes Yes Yes/Yes FRACTALS No (in March the

proposals were No No/No



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 39 of 72

under evaluation) FrontierCities No (in March the

full text of proposals was not available)

No No/No

INCENSe Yes Yes Yes/Yes IMpaCT Yes Yes Yes/Yes SmartAgriFood2 Yes Yes Yes/Yes SOUL-‐FI Yes (only Round

A1) Yes (only Round A1) Yes/Yes

SpeedUp_Europe Yes Yes Yes/Yes Table 11: Current status of Accelerators’ proposals sent to FI-‐Impact Coordinator

In the first call the data information of proposals were collected asking to Accelerators the full application texts of proposals (not an extraction of data) in whatever format they preferred, within the March 31st. In the case of delay in delivery of proposals’ information, the FI-‐Impact partners have contacted again the Accelerators asking them to send at least the following basic data of proposals:

-‐ Country of origin; -‐ Organization name; -‐ Project name; -‐ Organization Address; -‐ Number of team members; -‐ Targeted sector; -‐ FI-‐WARE Chapters; -‐ FI-‐FARE Enablers; -‐ Name of Project Coordinator; -‐ Abstract; -‐ Organization years of experience; -‐ Project website.

5.2. Overview of results: Infographic and duplicates FI-‐Impact has provided overall results to Accelerators in a infographic format, periodically updated. In particular it provides the following data:

- Total expected applications, number of proposals started, number of proposals submitted and number of proposals selected;

- Number of proposals by accelerators and their geographical distribution; - The top 5 Countries of proposals' origin by accelerator; - Team composition: how they team up (one person-‐business, 2 members, 3 to 5

members, >5 members); - Percentage of FI-‐WARE Enablers used; - Market target by proposals: B2B, B2C, B2B/B2C.

These data were obtained aggregating the information of all the proposals coming from Accelerators and the results will be available in the Deliverable 2.2.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 40 of 72

FI-‐Impact has worked and is working also on the duplicates of submitted proposals and selected proposals. The aim is to understand if a proposal is selected from more than one Accelerator because one proposal cannot be financed twice. FI-‐Impact considers for each Accelerator the following three fields:

- Project name; - Company name; - Name of coordinator.

and it provides to Accelerators:

- The name of submitted and selected proposals in different Accelerators during the same call;

- The name of companies that have submitted more than one project (in the same or different Accelerators);

- The name of coordinators involved in different project.

6. Information collection for Impact Analysis

6.1. The Self Assessment Tool and KPI Questionnaire

The online Self Assessment Tool, developed by FI-‐Impact, is a web-‐based instrument mainly dedicated to the SMEs and Web Entrepreneurs with the purpose to determine strengths and weaknesses through assessing their initiative on several key impact parameters and learn about ways to improve and increase their impact. It is also dedicate to the general FI-‐PPP / FI-‐WARE community to generate insights into strengths and weaknesses of Future Internet Public-‐Private-‐ Partnerships (FI PPPs) to detect which aspects of the FIWARE offering offer the highest potential and how initiatives are configured to exploit them. The Self Assessment Tool is made up of four distinct web-‐based sections (registration, questionnaire, scoring and improvement) and will be used in particular by:

-‐ Accelerators acting on behalf of the single initiatives; -‐ single Initiatives already being financed; -‐ new external initiatives willing to complete the questionnaire.

to: -‐ compare their potential performance to successful initiatives based on industry

proven high-‐level indicators; -‐ see how their initiatives are changing and what effect that may have on their

potential; -‐ indicate on any given axis which initiatives have scored the highest in terms of

potential and allow them to share their experiences (if willing) with other projects and interested stakeholders.

The Self Assessment Tool is developed on the basis of the KPIs and analysis framework, to analyse and calculate the impact of individual proposals. The KPI questionnaire consists of six indicators:



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 41 of 72

-‐ Profile indicator: quali-‐quantitative description of the profile of the projects selected and funded by the Accelerators

-‐ Innovation Focus: level of innovation and positioning in the go-‐to-‐market process of the suggested solution;

-‐ Market Focus: describing in detail the type of customers, markets and geographies targeted by each project, as well as type of revenue and business models;

-‐ Feasibility: level of development of the business and financial plan of the funded proposals;

-‐ Potential user benefits: potential benefits that the funded project plan to provide to the target user;

-‐ Potential social impacts: potential social impacts potentially achieved by the funded projects.

Each of the six indicators is turned into separate Self Assessment questionnaire, is composed by a list of questions and available answers (that can be free text, one choice or multiple choice) and includes an explanation of how measurement is performed and why the specific parameter is important to achieve impact. The Accelerators will suggest to their selected proposals to complete the questions listed below, of the Self Assessment Tool.

Profile indicator:

1. Which Accelerator is funding you? Choose one:

A. Ceedtech B. Creatifi

C. European Pioneers

D. Fabulous E. FI-‐Adopt

F. FI-‐C3 G. Fiche

H. Finish

I. Finodex J. Fractals

K. FrontierCities

L. Impact M. Incense

N. Smart Agri-‐food O. Soul-‐fi

P. Speedup Europe



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 42 of 72

2. In which country is your organisation headquartered? Choose one (list of countries)

3. What is the name of your organisation? Free text

4. What is the name of your proposal?

Free text 5. What is the mailing address of your organisation?

Free text

6. Type of organisation? Choose one:

A. SME: Enterprises qualify as micro, small and medium-‐sized enterprises (SMEs) if they fulfil the following criteria: headcount <250, turnover ≤ € 50 million or Balance sheet total ≤ € 43 million

B. Large Enterprise: headcount >250, turnover > € 50 million or Balance sheet total > € 43 million

C. Web Entrepreneur: entrepreneur of an Internet-‐based business. Web entrepreneurs constitute a specific category of entrepreneurs, who create new digital services and products that use the web as an indispensable component of their business (source FI-‐PPP call document by EC)

7. How many people are in the proposal team?

Integer

8. How many FTE employees are in your organization? Integer

9. What was the organisation's annual turnover in the last complete financial year? Euro value

10. Does your proposal sell/offer an IT solution or a service?

Choose one: A. Tech provider (you sell or offer a software and/or an IT device -‐ e.g. cloud solutions, apps, IoT sensors and tools, analytics or content management software, etc.) B. Service provider (through an IT solution, you provide a service such as a marketplace or a booking website -‐ e.g. booking.com, netflix, amazon, tripadvisor, etc.)

11. Does your IT solution is purely software or does it include also a hardware component? Choose one:



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 43 of 72

A. Purely software B. Software and Hardware

12. Which FIWARE enablers are being used or planned to be used in the project? Select all appropriate from list:

-‐ Big Data Analysis

-‐ Complex Event Processing (CEP) -‐ Publish/Subscribe Context Broker

-‐ Stream-‐oriented

-‐ Backend Device Management

-‐ Configuration Manager-‐IoT Discovery -‐ Configuration Manager-‐Orion Context Broker

-‐ Gateway Data Handling GE

-‐ IoT Broker -‐ Protocol Adapter

-‐ 2D/3D Capture

-‐ 2D-‐UI

-‐ 3D-‐UI-‐WebTundra -‐ 3D-‐UI-‐XML3D

-‐ Augmented Reality

-‐ Cloud Rendering

-‐ GIS Data Provider -‐ Interface Designer

-‐ POI Data Provider

-‐ Real Virtual Interaction -‐ Synchronization

-‐ Virtual Characters

-‐ Authorization PDP

-‐ Identity Management -‐ PEP Proxy

-‐ Security Monitoring

-‐ Network Information and Control -‐ Repository

-‐ Marketplace



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 44 of 72

-‐ Store -‐ Revenue Settlement and Sharing System

-‐ Application Mashup

-‐ IaaS Resource Management GE -‐ Monitoring GE

-‐ Object Storage GE

-‐ PaaS Manager

-‐ Policy Manager -‐ Self-‐Service Interfaces

-‐ Software Deployment and Configuration

13. How much funding has been received from the accelerator? Euro value

14. What is the name of the coordinator of your proposal?

Free text (Name, Surname…) 15. Please provide up to 300 word abstract of your project?

Free text 16. How many years has your organisation been active?

Integer

The information collected in the Profile section will be aggregated and displayed to the respondent at the end of the self-‐assessment process in the form of a descriptive text.

Innovation Focus:

1. How near is your concept to being commercially exploitable? Choose one:

TRL 1. basic principles observed TRL 2. technology concept formulated

TRL 3. experimental proof of concept

TRL 4. product/service validated in lab TRL 5. product/service validated in operational environment

TRL 6. product/service demonstrated in operational environment TRL 7. product/service prototype demonstration in operational environment to client

TRL 8. product/service market ready TRL 9. product/service sold in marketplace



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 45 of 72

2. Does your concept provide an Incremental Improvement or radically change existing products or services?

Choose one: A. No foreseen improvement: The concept does not involve improvement to existing products and services

B. Incremental improvement: it involves modest changes to existing products and services. These are enhancements that keep a business competitive, such as new product features and service improvements

C. Disruptive improvement: it radically changes existing products and services and creates new markets by discovering new categories of customers. Disruptive improvements do this partly by harnessing new technologies but also by developing new business models and exploiting old technologies in new ways

3. Does a similar solution already exist in the marketplace? Choose one:

A. Yes B. No

4. Is the original concept developed by a single person or is it a group effort

Choose one: A. Single

B. Multiple

5. Is the concept a standalone developement or is it part of a larger organisational strategy?

Choose one: A. Standalone

B. Strategy

6. Have you validated the concept with potential Investors or Customers? Select all appropriate:

A. None

B. Potential Investors C. Potential Clients

The information collected in the Innovation section will be aggregated and displayed to the user as simple five point categories which go from low, to medium low, to medium, to medium high, to high.

Market Focus: 1. Select the Business Model that best reflects your idea?



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 46 of 72

Select all appropriate from list: -‐ Production model (you produce the product/service and you sell it to customers who pay for it on a one-‐time sale -‐ e.g. manufacturing companies)

-‐ Markup model (you buy a product from producers and you re-‐sell it to customers -‐ e.g. retail shops)

-‐ Subscription model (your customers have to pay for your product/service at contracted periods of time -‐ e.g. software-‐as-‐a-‐service, cloud services, but also newspapers, gyms, Netflix, mobile carriers)

-‐ Usage fees model (your customers pay for the amount of product/service they use -‐ e.g. electricity, water, and gas)

-‐ Rental model (you rent your assets to customers -‐ e.g. car sharing)

-‐ License model (you keep copyright of your product/service while selling licenses to customers with an up-‐front cost-‐ e.g. many software but also movie producers)

-‐ Advertising model (you get revenues from advertisements appearing on your product/service -‐ e.g. television, magazines)

-‐ Transactions/Intermediation model (you get a fee being the intermediate in a transaction between two parties -‐ e.g. booking.com)

-‐ Freemium model (you offer your product/service for free, while charging a premium for full/extended version -‐ e.g. many mobile applications)

-‐ Customer analysis model (you get revenues selling aggregated data on your customers/users of your product/service)

2. Where will your revenues come from, in %?

Select all appropriate from list: -‐ Revenues from % licenses

-‐ Revenues from % subscriptions

-‐ Revenues from % project fees

3. In which market sector(s) do you plan to sell your product or service? Select all appropriate from list:

-‐ ACCOMMODATION AND FOOD SERVICE ACTIVITIES (hotels, restaurants, cafès, etc.)

-‐ FINANCIAL SERVICES (banks, insurance, etc.)

-‐ AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING (farms, fishermen, etc.)

-‐ ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION (cinemas, theatres, museums, etc.)

-‐ BUSINESS SERVICES (lawyers, engineers, consultants, software developers, advertising and marketing agencies, etc.)



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 47 of 72

-‐ CONSTRUCTION -‐ CONSUMER

-‐ EDUCATION (schools, universities, etc.)

-‐ UTILITIES (energy, gas, water providers, etc.) -‐ HORIZONTAL (solutions suitable for every verticals)

-‐ HEALTHCARE (hospitals, doctors, practicioners and physicians, etc.)

-‐ MANUFACTURING

-‐ MINING AND QUARRYING -‐ GOVERNMENT (municipalities, local and central institutions, etc.)

-‐ TELECOM AND MEDIA (telco companies, broadcasting, etc.)

-‐ TRANSPORT AND LOGISTICS -‐ RETAIL AND WHOLESALE

4. Through which Channel do you expect to sell your product/service?

Select all appropriate from list: -‐ Sales agents

-‐ Shops

-‐ App-‐stores

-‐ Personal website -‐ Other external websites

-‐ Public tenders notices

-‐ E-‐mail/Phone-‐call marketing 5. In which geographical area you would like to sell your product/service?

Select all appropriate from list:

A. Local B. Regional

C. National (if chosen multiple select EU countries list should open)

D. European E. Global

List of possible answers: Worldwide, Africa, Asia, Europe, North America , South America, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 48 of 72

6. When will (did) your Product/Service enter the open market? Year

7. What is the level of competition in your target market? Choose one:

A. No competition

B. Medium competition C. High competition

8. Have you verified your value proposition with the target customers?

Choose one: A. No, value proposition based on vision and internal discussion

B. Value proposition validated through surveys and market studies C. Value proposition validated through interviews and meetings with customers

9. Have you verified the channels and means you will acquire customers on the market? Choose one:

A. Preparing sales materials and channels B. Sales materials available and channels activated

C. First customers acquired through established channels

10. Have you defined a strategy and plan to create demand on the new market defined by your product?

Choose one:

A. Defining an innovation strategy B. Started promoting the vision

C. Early adopter customers acquired 11. Have you defined a strategy and plan to position your company on the market

where no dominant player has emerged yet?

Choose one: A. Defining the position on the market

B. Company positioned and sales strategy defined

C. Executing sales strategy to gain market share 12. Have you defined a strategy and plan to differentiate and acquire shares from

incumbent competitors? Choose one:

A. Defining a differentiation strategy



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 49 of 72

B. Differentiation and sales strategy defined C. Executing sales strategy to gain market share

The information collected in the Market Focus section will be aggregated and displayed to the user as simple five point categories which go from low, to medium low, to medium, to medium high, to high.

Feasibility: 1. Have you estimated and provided for the capital investments required until

revenues can sustain your business?

Choose one: A. In the process of estimating the investment required

B. Capital requirements estimated and investors contacted C. Capital requirements covered until self-‐sustainable

2. Have you estimated how much your sales will grow on a yearly basis?

Choose one: A. Evaluating what the potential growth rate could be

B. Committed to a growth rate in the business plan C. Validated growth rate with sales and market data

3. What is your average expected growth rate for the next four years

Percentage 4. Have you estimated the cost and time required to acquire a new customer in your

target market?

Choose one: A. Not yet analyzed the customer acquisition process

B. Estimated customer acquisition cost and time C. Verified customer acquisition cost and time through real sales

5. Have you planned for expanding your sales force and marketing activities to match the expected growth rate? Choose one:

A. No plans for sales force hiring and increased marketing activities

B. Scale-‐up plans defined but not yet launched C. Scale-‐up plans launched or set to start at a definite date, including hiring plan

for salespeople 6. % of total funding needed already secured

Percentage



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 50 of 72

The information collected in the Feasibility section will be aggregated and displayed to the user as simple five point categories which go from low, to medium low, to medium, to medium high, to high. Market needs -‐ Business and Public sector (B2B/B2G):

1. Which are the main expected benefits your solution will provide in your target market(s)? When answering this question you should completely distribute a total of exactly 6 points (stars) across the following proposed benefits:

A. Reducing operational costs B. Improving sales performance

C. Improving marketing effectiveness D. Enhancing customer (citizen for public sector, patient for healthcare) care

E. Innovating the product or service companies sell/provide

F. Strenghtening multi-‐channel delivery strategy G. Simplifying regulatory tasks and complying with regulations

H. Improving data protection I. Increasing use and distribution of open data and transparency

J. Improving scalability of existing tools

K. Improving operational efficiency Market needs -‐ Consumer (B2C):

1. Which are the main expected benefits your solution will provide in your target market(s)? When answering this question you should completely distribute a total of exactly 6 points (stars) across the following proposed benefits: A. Answering communication/collaboration needs

B. Providing better entertainment

C. Improving quality of life D. Simplifying daily tasks

E. Reducing/Saving time

F. Having easier and faster access to information/services G. Saving money

For each of the distributed "stars" in the User benefits section, IDC will compare the answers the respondents expressed with IDC’s sources and will apply the weights then will make the sum of them. The final sum that we get will be normalized in order to get a final score in a range that goes from 1 to 10. Social Impact -‐ Citizens involvement in Open Government:



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 51 of 72

1. Do your projects deal with the involvement of citizens in Open Government? (Open Government might concern any tools or services which target citizens of the EU, countries, or municipalities.) Choose one:

A. Yes

B. No If yes:

2. Which projects have open government as their sole background?

Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects 3. Which projects partially deal with Open Government?

Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects Social Impact -‐ Demand and use of green, sustainable people transportation solutions:

1. Does your projects deal with people transportation solutions? Choose one:

A. Yes B. No

If Yes:

2. Which projects have people transportation as their sole background? Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects

3. Which funded projects partially deal with people transportation?

Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects 4. Which projects are dealing with green and sustainable technologies?

Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects Social Impact -‐ Improvement of quality of life via contextualisation and live information:

1. Do your projects deal with contextualisation and live information? Choose one:

C. Yes

D. No If Yes:

2. Which projects have this field as their sole background? Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects

3. Which projects partially deal with this field?



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 52 of 72

Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects 4. Which projects tackle this field for improvement of Quality of Life?

Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects 5. Which projects tackle this field for other purposes (e.g. marketing)?

Please specify which projects tackle this field for other purposes (e.g. marketing)

Social Impact -‐ Acceptance and use of E-‐Learning, innovative learning methodologies and platforms for quality and higher education:

1. Do your projects deal with topics concerning education?

Choose one: A. Yes

B. No If Yes:

2. Which projects have this field as their sole background?

Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects 3. Which projects partially deal with this field?

Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects 4. Which of the beforehand mentioned projects are dealing with E-‐Learning?

Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects

5. Which of the beforehand mentioned projects are dealing with innovative learning methods?


6. Which of the beforehand mentioned projects are dealing with platforms for quality and higher education?

Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects Social Impact -‐ Perceived security of communities, neighbourhoods, and housing:

1. Do your projects deal with tackling security of property?

Choose one: A. Yes

B. No

If Yes: 2. Which projects have this field as their sole background?





07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 53 of 72

4. Which of the beforehand mentioned projects are dealing with security of communities or neighbourhoods?

Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects 5. Which of the beforehand mentioned projects are dealing with security of

housing?

Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects Social Impact -‐ Perceived quality of life in urban areas:

1. Do your projects deal with topics concerning cities or urban areas?

Choose one: A. Yes

B. No If Yes:



Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects 4. Which of the beforehand mentioned projects are directly focusing on the

improvement of citizens in urban areas?

Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects Social Impact -‐ Overall fitness of the European citizen:

1. Do your projects deal with fitness?

Choose one: A. Yes

B. No If Yes:




4. Which of the beforehand mentioned projects are targeting fitness as leisure activity?

Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects 5. Which of the beforehand mentioned projects are targeting fitness with a medical

background?



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 54 of 72

Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects Social Impact -‐ Social inclusion of minorities:

1. Do your projects deal topics concerning minorities? Choose one:

A. Yes

B. No If Yes:



Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects Social Impact-‐ Social inclusion of the elderly:

1. Do your projects deal topics concerning the elderly?

Choose one: C. Yes

D. No If Yes:




Social Impact -‐ Overall healthiness of the European citizen: 1. Do your projects deal with the healthiness of the European citizen?

Choose one: A. Yes

B. No

If Yes: 2. Which projects have this field as their sole background?


3. Which projects partially deal with this field? Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects

4. Which of the beforehand mentioned projects are targeting healthiness with changes in life-‐style (e.g. gamification of sport activities, information apps, etc.)?



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 55 of 72

Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects 5. Which of the beforehand mentioned projects are targeting healthiness with a

medical background? Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects

Social Impact -‐ Impact on families (from Quality of life to single-‐parent households):

1. Do your projects deal with topics concerning families (including single-‐parent households)?

Choose one: A. Yes

B. No If Yes:



Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects 4. Which of the beforehand mentioned projects are potentially targeting single-‐

parents (e.g. childcare, crèches, etc.)?

Multiple choices -‐ Checkboxes on accelerator's projects Social Impact -‐ Number of public community groups addressed:

1. Please specify the public community groups addressed by your funded projects

Multiple choices -‐ Select all appropriate from list: -‐ Elderly

-‐ Children

-‐ Families -‐ Minorities

-‐ Disabled people

-‐ Mentally ill people -‐ Ill people

-‐ Commuters

-‐ Students / Pupils

-‐ <Other: please specify> -‐ <Other: please specify>

-‐ <Other: please specify>



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 56 of 72

Social Impact -‐ Number of private community groups addressed: 1. Please specify the public community groups addressed by your funded projects

Multiple choices -‐ Select all appropriate from list: -‐ NGOs

-‐ Industry

-‐ SMEs

-‐ Service providers -‐ <Other: please specify>

-‐ <Other: please specify>

-‐ <Other: please specify> Social Impact -‐ Number of national social challenges (i.e. on a policy level) addressed:

1. Please specify any national social challenges addressed by your funded projects (i.e. on a policy level, or on a general level if they are country specific)

Free text

The Social benefits section has YES/NO questions. Then, if the respondent selects yes, an additional set of questions is opened. The data retrieved with the measurements will be aggregated into a high – medium – low – none (H-‐M-‐L-‐N) scoring, indicating the potential impact for a specific social impacts group and the overall performance over all groups.

6.2. The Accelerators’ Questionnaire In the first call the Accelerators have sent the full set of application data in whatever format they preferred instead in the next two calls FI-‐Impact Partners will ask their Accelerators to answer a subset of core questions essential to profile and forecast the target market of the Accelerator's sub-‐granted initiatives. They will request also their Accelerators to integrate their first calls data according to the Data Collection Process defined in the next chapter.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 57 of 72

Table 12: Accelerators’ Questionnaire

Subset of Core questions and available answers: Q1: Name of the funded project

Free text Q2: Which FIWARE enablers are being used or planned to be used in the project?

Multiple choises -‐ Please use the drop-‐down list to answer. -‐ BigData Analysis

-‐ Complex Event Processing (CEP) -‐ Publish/Subscribe Context Broker

Date%of%receipt: to#be#precompiled#by#the#sender

Respondent%Name: to#be#compiled#by#the#respondent

Accelerator: to#be#compiled#by#the#respondent

Please%return%to: to#be#precompiled#by#the#sender

Delivery%Date: to#be#precompiled#by#the#sender

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Please&do&not&edit&the&fields&in&this&column

Name&of&the&funded&project

Which&FIWARE&enablers&are&being&used&or&planned&to&be&used&in&the&project?&

Multiple#answers#allowed.#Please#use#the#

drop7down#list#to#answer.#To#undo#a#

selection,#please#click#again#on#the#same#

item#in#the#list.#Please#find#the#complete#

list#of#FIWARE#Chapters#and#FIWARE#

Enablers#also#in#the#next#sheet#"List#of#

answers".#NA#=#Information#Not#Available#

What&is&the&business&model&that&best&reflects&the&project's&idea?

Multiple#answers#allowed.#Please#use#the#

drop7down#list#to#answer.#To#undo#a#

selection,#please#click#again#on#the#same#

item#in#the#list.#Please#find#the#complete#

list#of#Business#Models#and#their#

description#in#the#next#sheet#"List#of#


Which&type&of&customer&does&the&project's&product/service&target?&

Multiple#answers#allowed.#Please#use#the#drop7

down#list#to#answer.#To#undo#a#selection,#please#

click#again#on#the#same#item#in#the#list.#Please#

find#the#complete#list#of#types#of#customer#and#

their#description#in#the#next#sheet#"List#of#


proposal%code%from%IDC%database






Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8In#which#geographical#area#does#the#

project#plan#to#sell#its#product/service?Multiple(answers(allowed.(Please(use(the(drop3down(list(to(answer.(To(undo(a(

selection,(please(click(again(on(the(same(item(in(the(list.(NA(=(Information(Not(

Available(

In#which#year#does#the#project#plan#to#enter#the#open#market?

Please(indicate(the(estimated(year((format(aaaa).(NA(=(Information(Not(Available

What#is#the#average#expected#growth#rate#of#the#project#in#the#next#4#years?

Format(%.(NA(=(Information(Not(Available(

At#this#stage#of#your#acceleration#programme,#do#you#consider#this#project#as#a#potential#success#story?#Why?#Why#

not?#Please(select(up(to(5(potential(success(

stories.(We(are(interested(in(any(additional(information(you(can(share(with(

us(on(the(projects(funded(by(your(accelerator.(Please(use(this(column(as(a(

free(text(space.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 58 of 72

-‐ Stream-‐oriented -‐ Backend Device Management -‐ Configuration Manager -‐ IoT Discovery -‐ Configuration Manager -‐ Orion Context Broker -‐ Gateway Data Handling GE -‐ IoT Broker -‐ Protocol Adapter -‐ 2D/3D Capture -‐ 2D-‐UI -‐ 3D-‐UI-‐ WebTundra -‐ 3D-‐UI-‐XML3D -‐ Augmented Reality -‐ Cloud Rendering -‐ GIS Data Provider -‐ Interface Designer -‐ POI Data Provider -‐ Real Virtual Interaction -‐ Synchronization -‐ Virtual Characters -‐ Authorization PDP -‐ Identity Management -‐ PEP Proxy -‐ Security Monitoring -‐ Network Information and Control -‐ Repository -‐ Marketplace -‐ Store -‐ Revenue Settlement and Sharing System -‐ Application Mashup -‐ IaaS Resource Management GE -‐ Monitoring GE -‐ Object Storage GE -‐ PaaS Manager



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 59 of 72

-‐ Policy Manager -‐ Self-‐Service Interfaces -‐ Software Deployment and Configuration -‐ NA

Q3: What is the business model that best reflects the project's idea? Multiple choises -‐ Please use the drop-‐down list to answer. -‐ Production model

-‐ Markup model -‐ Subscription model -‐ Usage fees model -‐ Rental model -‐ License model -‐ Advertising model -‐ Transactions/Intermediation model -‐ Freemium model -‐ Customer analysis model -‐ NA

Q4: Which type of customer does the project's product/service target? Multiple choises -‐ Please use the drop-‐down list to answer. -‐ Business company

-‐ Consumer -‐ Public sector -‐ NA

Q5: In which geographical area does the project plan to sell its product/service?

Multiple choises -‐ Please use the drop-‐down list to answer. -‐ Worldwide

-‐ Africa -‐ Asia -‐ Europe -‐ North America -‐ South America -‐ Australia -‐ Austria



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 60 of 72

-‐ Belgium -‐ Bulgaria

-‐ Croatia

-‐ Cyprus -‐ CzechRepublic -‐ Denmark -‐ Estonia -‐ Finland -‐ France -‐ Germany

-‐ Greece

-‐ Hungary -‐ Ireland

-‐ Italy

-‐ Latvia

-‐ Lithuania -‐ Luxembourg -‐ Malta -‐ Netherlands -‐ Poland -‐ Portugal -‐ Romania -‐ Slovakia -‐ Slovenia -‐ Spain -‐ Sweden -‐ UnitedKingdom -‐ NA

Q6: In which year does the project plan to enter the open market?

Please indicate the estimated year (format aaaa). NA = Information Not Available Q7: What is the average expected growth rate of the project in the next 4 years?

Format %. NA = Information Not Available



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 61 of 72

Q8: At this stage of your acceleration programme, do you consider this project as a potential success story? Why? Why not?

Please select up to 5 potential success stories (Free text). NA = Information Not Available

7. Data collection methodology

7.1. Process for Data collection FI-‐Impact has defined a Data Collection Methodology to collect information regarding the proposals and selected initiatives. Data collected consists of:

A) Information collected from the Accelerator which is essential to performing market analytics and forecast. Accelerators will be asked to: I. Provide Data from proposals like call 1 from F6S, FundingBox or own

system II. Provide information regarding of each of the single initiatives they are

financing: 1. Business model 2. Geographical target 3. Market entry year 4. Expected revenue growth rate next 4 years

III. Provide opinion and identify Accelerators potential success stories

B) Information needed to calculate the KPIs in the impact analysis framework, for individual proposals. Single funded Initiatives and external entities will be asked to access an on-‐line Survey (self Assessment)

Data in method A is collected from Accelerators as follows:

1. Interview guidelines are prepared by Workpackage III, discussed and distributed to all FI-‐Impact partners.

2. Each Partner contacts the Accelerators for which are responsible (Figure 2: Accelerator allocation to FI-‐Impact partners) by telephone or email and sets up a preliminary interview (to include also the discussion for B1 below);

3. Each Partner contacts the Accelerator at the agreed time/date and describes our intentions and needs and describing value and benefits of market insights they will receive if they participate, and outlines the schedule

4. Send the questionnaire, pre-‐compiled Accelerator data and instructions requesting that the Accelerator completes the questionnaire in two weeks.

5. The partner is responsible to carry out a quality control procedure of the questionnaire. The Partner waits 14 days and checks the completeness and quality of the questionnaire. a) If collaboration is excellent and questionnaire is complete, thank

accelerator and forward to Stefania Aguzzi a IDC; b) If there are problems:



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 62 of 72

i. If after 14 days questionnaire is still missing information send reminder;

ii. If after 7 days from first follow-‐up, collaboration is weak and the questionnaire is not complete, send persuasive reminder asking if there is a problem and if you can be of assistance and recall contractual obligations of article 42 see Annex I;

iii. After a reminder and direct contact via telephone, If collaboration is unsuccessful notify coordinator sending all copies of original communication. Coordinator will notify the European Commission,

iv. Forward any data to Stefania Aguzzi from IDC. 6. Each partner must repeat this process at month 20 to be used in the final

Impact Analysis. All data will be harmonised where necessary and updated by IDC. For Data Collection B 1. A self-‐assessment value proposition and contact/interview guidelines are

prepared by Workpackage III, discussed and distributed to all FI-‐Impact partners.

2. Each Partner contacts the accelerators for which they are responsible if reasonable at the same time as contact for Data Collection A;

3. Each Partner works with the Accelerator at the agreed time/date and requests to either 1) have direct contact with the sub-‐grantees to send them a link to on-‐line self-‐assessment questionnaire and follow up or (checking to see which emails we have and which we need) 2) that the Accelerator himself sends an email urging the sub-‐grantees to fill out the Self –Assessment survey.

4. The Partner will wait two weeks from the date of contacting the Accelerator in Case 2 and from the date of sending the email to the Sub-‐Grantees in Case 1 at which they will check the rate of Sub-‐Grantee replies rate. a) If reply rate is over 90% go to point 5; b) If collaboration is good and significant surveys are complete send gentile

reminder; c) If after 15 days, collaboration is weak and the questionnaire is not

complete, send persuasive reminder asking if there is a problem and if you can be of assistance and recall contractual obligations of article 42 see Annex I.

5. Referring to table (Table 3: Accelerator call schedule) each partner must repeat this process as the Accelerators close their ensuing calls, sending invitations to complete in the self-‐assessment survey to the newly entered Sub-‐Grantees (case 1) or asking the Accelerator to do it for them (case 2).

Alternative Approach:

Each partner attends specific development events organised by the accelerator and makes direct contact with the single initiatives and directly carries out the survey with a significant number of Initiatives (pre notification and appointment at event are suggested).



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 63 of 72

Timing The timing of these actions is planned in table below: Action Who Deadline Self Assessment Tool Set-‐up JSI May 25th 2015 Self Assessment Report Mock-‐up IDC May 20th 2015 Accelerator Questionnaire Template IDC May 21st 2015 Accelerator Interview Guideline IDC May 21st 2015 Self Assessment Value Proposition Description

BlueGreen May 19th 2015

Invitation mail to accelerators/sub-‐grantees

BlueGreen May 21st 2015

Validation of Survey Materials with FI-‐Impact consortium

IDC/BlueGreen to circulate

May 21st 2015

Validation Call all partners May 25th 2015 Finalization Survey Materials IDC May 26th 2015 Data Collection A (to accelerators for the market analysis)

Who Deadline

Contact mail to Accelerators all partners June 1st 2015 Launch of data collection all partners June 1st 2015 1st Followup (after 15 days) all partners June 16th 2015 2nd Followup (after 1 week from first followup)

all partners June 23th 2015

Notification to FI-‐Impact coordinator all partners June 25th 2015 Closing data collection all partners July 4th 2015 Send data to IDC all partners By July 4th 2015 Data Collection B (self-‐assessment) Who Deadline Contact mail to Accelerators all partners June 1st 2015 Launch of data collection all partners June 1st 2015 1st Followup (after 15 days) all partners June 16th 2015 2nd Followup (after 1 week from first followup)

all partners June 23th 2015

Collection of results and data harmonization

IDC Periodically (first round on July 5th)

Table 13: Timing of Data Collection

7.2. Planning of the FI-‐Impact future activities of Data collection

Referring to the Figure 2 page 11, each FI-‐Impact partner have a number of Accelerators assigned.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 64 of 72

Despite the first call is already closed and most accelerators have already sent their selected proposals to the FI-‐Impact Coordinator, the FI-‐Impact partners should ask to their Accelerators to compile the FIWARE Assessment Tool with the proposals selected in the first call. Below the future activities of the FI-‐Impact partners: SFC coordinates the SmartAgriFood and EuropeanPioneers Accelerators. Accelerators’ Name To do list of SFC – Call 1 European Pioneers ASAP – For the selected proposals of the

first call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

SmartAgriFood ASAP – For the selected proposals of the first call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

Accelerators’ Name To do list of SFC – Call 2 European Pioneers End of M13 (July 2015) – For the selected

proposals of the second call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

SmartAgriFood No other call planned Accelerators’ Name To do list of SFC – Call 3 European Pioneers No other call planned SmartAgriFood No other call planned IIMC coordinates the FI-‐C3, CEED-‐Tech, FInish and SpeedUp Europe Accelerators: Accelerators’ Name To do list of SFC – Call 1 FI-‐C3 ASAP – For the selected proposals of the


CEED-‐Tech ASAP – For the selected proposals of the



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 65 of 72


FInish ASAP – For the selected proposals of the first call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

SpeedUp Europe ASAP – For the selected proposals of the first call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

Accelerators’ Name To do list of SFC – Call 2 FI-‐C3 End of M13 (July 2015) – For the selected


CEED-‐Tech M18 (December 2015) – For the selected proposals of the second call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

FInish M14 (August 2015) – For the selected proposals of the second call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

SpeedUp Europe No other call planned Accelerators’ Name To do list of SFC – Call 3 FI-‐C3 End of M20 (February 2016) – For the

selected proposals of the third call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 66 of 72

compile the part B (full questionnaire). CEED-‐Tech No other call planned FInish No other call planned SpeedUp Europe No other call planned JSI coordinates the FI-‐Adopt and FRACTALS Accelerators. Accelerators’ Name To do list of JSI – Call 1 FI-‐Adopt ASAP – For the selected proposals of the


FRACTALS ASAP – For the selected proposals of the first call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

Accelerators’ Name To do list of JSI – Call 2 FI-‐Adopt ASAP – ASAP – For the selected proposals

of the second call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

FRACTALS No other call planned Accelerators’ Name To do list of JSI – Call 3 FI-‐Adopt ASAP – For the selected proposals of the

third call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

FRACTALS No other call planned IDC coordinates the FICHe, INCENSe, IMPACT and CreatiFi Accelerators. Accelerators’ Name To do list of SFC – Call 1 FICHe ASAP – For the selected proposals of the

first call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 67 of 72

Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

INCENSe ASAP – For the selected proposals of the first call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

IMPACT ASAP – For the selected proposals of the first call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

CreatiFi ASAP – For the selected proposals of the first call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

Accelerators’ Name To do list of SFC – Call 2 FICHe No other call planned INCENSe M17 (November 2015) – For the selected


IMPACT M12 (June 2015) – For the selected proposals of the second call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

CreatiFi M16 (October 2015) – For the selected proposals of the second call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

Accelerators’ Name To do list of SFC – Call 3 FICHe No other call planned



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 68 of 72

INCENSe No other call planned IMPACT M18 (December 2015) – For the selected

proposals of the third call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

CreatiFi No other call planned BG coordinates the SOUL-‐FI, FABulous, FrontierCities and FINODEX Accelerators. Accelerators’ Name To do list of SFC – Call 1 SOUL-‐FI ASAP – For the selected proposals of the

first call (Round A1): request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire). M11 (May 2015) -‐ For the selected proposals of the first call (Round B1): request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

FABulous ASAP – For the selected proposals of the first call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

FrontierCities M11 (May 2015) – For the selected proposals of the first call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

FINODEX ASAP – For the selected proposals of the first call: request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

Accelerators’ Name To do list of SFC – Call 2 SOUL-‐FI ASAP – For the selected proposals of the

second call (Round A2): request to



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 69 of 72

Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire). M15 (September 2015) -‐ For the selected proposals of the second call (Round B2): request to Accelerator to compile the part A (core questions) of FIWARE Assessment and ask to their selected proposals to compile the part B (full questionnaire).

FABulous M15 (September 2015) – For the selected


FrontierCities No other call planned FINODEX M14 (August 2015) – For the selected


Accelerators’ Name To do list of SFC – Call 3 SOUL-‐FI No other call planned FABulous No other call planned FrontierCities No other call planned FINODEX No other call planned

8. Monitoring the progress The FI-‐Impact partners’ role in the data collection phase is to contact the Accelerators, manage the communication with them, gather relevant data and information on their call roadmap and on the proposals received, elaborate the data collected and periodically check their progress. The Accelerators role is to provide the information required by FI-‐Impact partners and be available to clarify any questions or doubts about the calls. Both actors are in contact with the FI-‐Impact Coordinator (Richard Stevens) who monitors their relation. If FI-‐Impact partners, responsible for the monitoring of the progress of its Accelerators, and the Accelerators, that have to give feedback and provide data to FI-‐Impact as established in the contract, do not respect the respective roles assigned, the Coordinator



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 70 of 72

intervenes as mediator, speeding the practice and managing the parts to get the data in time. If agreements are not reached also in this way, the coordinator will have to contact the Commission.

9. Conclusions and next steps Deliverable 3.2 has defined the procedures used in FI-‐IMPACT to gather relevant information and to manage the communication with Accelerators, the data collection formats and the process to elaborate the data collected and check the progress of Accelerators. These activities have started in parallel with the FIWARE Accelerators' calls themselves. Therefore, to timely collect and elaborate data from the very first calls, the initial approach has been:

-‐ To propose a set of relevant questions to the Accelerators, to be potentially included as part of the first call application templates;

-‐ To collect the full set of application data in whatever format made available by the Accelerators.

Based on this initial approach, a large amount of data has been collected by FI-‐IMPACT Partners from the Accelerators. Inevitably data were mostly not homogeneous in format and sometimes incomplete, therefore substantial work has bee carried out by FI-‐IMPACT in terms of data cleaning and data analysis.

Nevertheless, FI-‐IMPACT Partners have managed to collect relevant information on the first calls, communicating with the Accelerators successfully and establishing good relations with them.

In the first calls, up to our cut off date of 31/3/2015, the number of the submitted and selected proposals was respectively 4.198 and 538. WP2 and WP3 have harmonized the data coming from the Accelerators producing information in a common format for all proposals. This has allowed FI-‐IMPACT to show aggregate results, documented in WP2, e.g., on the number of expected / started / submitted and selected proposals, the number of proposals by accelerators and their geographical distribution, the top 5 countries of proposals' origin by accelerator, the team composition, the percentage of FI-‐WARE Enablers used, the market target by proposals etc.

WP2 and WP3 have worked also on the duplicates of submitted proposals and selected proposals with the aim of understanding whether the same proposal was selected in two or more different calls, to avoid double funding.

Although this initial approach produced useful results, for the next stage of the project it is necessary to make the communication with Accelerators much clearer, easier and faster, focusing it on data required for market analysis, impact assessment and scoring of the selected activities, according to the methodology defined in WP2. To this purpose:

-‐ Accelerators will be asked to answer a subset of core questions essential to profile and forecast the target market of the Accelerator's sub-‐granted initiatives.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 71 of 72

-‐ Each single initiative will be invited to respond to a larger number of questions in the self-‐assessment tool, available in the FI-‐Impact portal, which also provides them with feedback on their product/service potential and directions for improvement.

The final data collection approach and formats are defined in this Deliverable in the chapter 7, including the assignment of clear roles to all involved FI-‐IMPACT Partners and their actions in the process. The approach will be applied starting from the next two calls, where the expected applications are respectively about 2600 for the second call and 450 for the third call, resulting in about 350 selected proposals for the second call and 50 for the third call. Furthermore, the assigned FI-‐IMPACT partners will request their Accelerators to integrate their first calls data according to the final data collection format.



07/04/2015 Version 1.0 Page 72 of 72

ANNEX I -‐ Special Clause 42

42. FINANCIAL SUPPORT GIVEN BY BENEFICIARIES TO THIRD PARTIES Where the implementation of the action requires giving financial support to third parties, the beneficiaries shall give such financial support in accordance with the co nditions specified in Annex I, which shall at least contain:

(a) the maximum amount of financial support, which shall not exceed EUR 60 000 for

each third party except where the financial s upport is the primary aim of the action as specified in Annex I;

(b) the criteria for determining the ex act amount of the financial support;

(c) the different types of activity that may rece ive financial support, on the basis of a fixed list;

(d) the definition of the persons or categories of persons which may receive financial support;

(e) the criteria for giving the financial support. The beneficiaries shall ensure that the conditions applicable to them under Articles II.3 (n), II.9, II.12, II.22, II.23, II.42, and Part C of Annex II – General conditions are also applicable to the third parties receiving financial support.

Documents

COOPERATION! THEME3! …COOPERATION! THEME3! ICT!–!INFORMATION!AND!COMMUNICATIONS!TECHNOLOGIES!!!! !!!!! ! Proposalfulltitle:! FutureInternet!Impact!Assurance! Proposal!acronym:!FIMPACT