Framing Collaboration Models

between National Research and

Technological Development

Programmes

August 2005

ISBN 952-457-214-1

TAFTIEThe Association For Technology

Implementation in Europe

www.taftie.org

Page layout: DTPage Oy

Printers: Painotalo Miktor, 2005

Table of Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Executive summar y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Pa r t I PREMISES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1. NEEDReal need provides the real basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYCollaboration in science is easier than in technology . . . . . . . . . 11

3. CONFIDENCECollaboration is based on mutual confidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4. OPTIONSDifferent collaboration models are needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5. INDUSTRIAL COLLABORATIONIndustr y needs to define its own joint activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6. MODULINGCollaborative programme modules are vital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Pa r t I I MODELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

7. FINANCINGDecentralised financing best for time limited actions . . . . . . . . . 18

8. MANAGEMENTRules o f t h e ga m e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

9. FRAMEWORKModels interact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

10. ROAD MAPProcedures base on negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Par t III MESSAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

11. BROAD FLORAMessages to policymakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Attachment The contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3

The definition of “programme” used in this publication is:

A programme is an in some way strategically planned andexecuted constellation of projects.

Preface

Systematic measures to stimulate and encourage collaboration betweenstrategic research, technological development and innovation (RTDI)programmes at national or regional level1 have been initiated by theERA-NET scheme (“Networking of National Programmes”) within theSixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Develop-ment of the European Union.

The ERA-NET scheme is a tool for optimising European researchefforts and for the creation of an internal market for research and tech-nology – the European Research Area (ERA) – as agreed at the EU Lis-bon summit in March 2000.

ERA-NET projects have to tackle the question of how to arrange col-laboration between programmes in practice. Because many of the firstwave of ERA-NET projects involve members of TAFTIE2, the associa-tion launched a Task Force in the first half of the year 2005 with the aimof generating conceptual models for transnational collaboration be-tween national RTDI programmes.

This publication presents the main findings from the Task Force’swork. The focus is on collaboration between strategic industry-relatedresearch and development activities. The publication aims to give im-pulses for planning collaborative actions rather than to give guidelines.

4

1 In order to avoid tedious repetition of “national or regional”, we shall hereafter use “national” torefer to both.

2 TAFTIE and its members took a leading role in preparing and launching many of the firstERA-NET projects accepted for funding by the European Commission.

Executive summary

Collaboration between national programmes can be arranged utilising avery large menu of different models and procedures. The most viableones are guided by values and practices adopted by the participants. Dis-covering the common language is difficult in the beginning: objectives,concepts and procedures differ. Collaboration between programmes istime-limited, though collaboration between programme participants isexpected to continue longer.

Transnational collaboration between national programmes only re-ally works well if there are real, strong, perceived needs for collabora-tion. Where there is a strong will to co-operate, practical ways to co-op-erate can often be found.

Senior management responsible for financing research, technologydevelopment and innovation (RTDI) programmes have to be aware ofthe targets and procedures of the intended collaboration. Transnationalcollaboration always causes some “disturbance” to the usual practicesof national programme management. These disturbances can be moreeasily accepted or accommodated if the reasons for them are known andaccepted in advance.

Intellectual property rights (IPR) issues can complicate indus-try-oriented collaboration, whereas science-oriented international col-laboration is normally easier to arrange. Thus the collaboration betweenindustry-oriented programmes could be best organised by selecting themost science-oriented parts of the programmes for the collective activi-ties.

Building and deepening collaboration needs mutual confidence. In-creasing confidence comes with collaboration “growing by doing”. Sotime is necessary for creating close collaboration.

Collaboration seems to be easier to arrange when there are many dif-ferent parts of programmes from which to choose: different parts ofprogrammes with different characteristics can be combined in differentways.

The most practical way to build collaborative actions is through bi-or tri-lateral consortia using programmes of similar operational charac-ter. The cooperation can then be easier built by the operative personnel

5

of the programme authority. Joint modules of national or regionalprogrammes are often easiest to organise as independent, separate (butco-ordinated) programmes. Industrial participation is often most easilymanaged by getting industry to organise its own involvement accordingto an agreed overall plan.

There are many different procedures for financing collaborative ac-tions. Decentralised financing models (of which there are many kinds)are nevertheless best suited for time-limited collaboration between na-tional programmes.

The procedures for the operational management of programmesvary greatly. In many cases, particular programmes are required by therespective programme authority to follow specific management and de-cision making procedures. Simple generic models of operationalprogramme cooperation cannot be found.

6

Part I

PREMISES

7

8

Reasons for international RTDI collaboration

General reasons for project participants:• to supplement own area of knowledge• to supplement own research and development (R&D) capacity• to increase skilled R&D resources• to ensure unbroken R&D activities within the value chain in international

business processes• to operate with R&D in the vicinity of production in international business

processes• to ensure the priority position in getting knowledge from becoming norms and

standards, or even to act in sketching contents for them• to find partners for production and marketing• to improve market position• to learn about international operations• to launch new products onto the markets• to create business image• …

Specific reasons, in which public authorities have an essential role:• topics which cannot be handled optimally within one nation, e.g.

environmental aspects and very large research and development projectssuch as fusion, space etc.

• topics which need wide acceptance among countries, e.g. large-scaletransportation and logistics systems, telecommunication systems etc.

• topics with a geographic or occupational focus, e.g. Mediterranean researchor fisheries, forestry, viticulture etc.

Knowledge about needs, potentials etc. will tend to be greater, the closer to thesubject or activity in question. According to this subsidiary principle, the main locusshould therefore be regional or national. However, transnational collaborationbetween different levels of RTDI actors is needed for reasons given above that reflectthe globalisation of business environment.

1. NEEDReal need provides the real basis

A real, strong, shared need for transnational collaboration between nationalprogrammes provides the real basis for common activities.

Without a real need, and without an expectation of real benefits from thecollaboration, there will be an essential lack of the driving force necessary foradopting variations to existing national management etc. procedures which of-ten will be absolutely essential for successful programme collaboration.

Many practical aspects in collaboration, like project selection and financ-ing procedures, have to be solved in the early planning phase of a collaborativeaction. Differences of procedure between programmes can easily make agree-ment difficult, but they can be often overcome when the reasons for wantingcollaboration are strong. Therefore the strategic reasons for collaboration mustalways be kept in mind and should be thoroughly discussed within the collabo-ration group from the very beginning.

Collaboration activities will always conflict to some degree with the nor-mal management procedures of public RTDI programmes. Such “anomalies”will be easier to accept and accommodate if the decision-makers accept thestrategic need for collaboration. Therefore the executive officers of the pro-gramme authority must be convinced, and kept continually informed, aboutthe need for the collaboration and the execution of the collaboration.

9

10

European platforms for RTDI collaboration

European collaborative platforms, schemes and instruments have been set up duringthe two, three past decades. The experiences gained through these platforms aregood starting points for creating deeper and more focused transnational collaborationactions. However, most of these platforms are more science- than industry-related.

The Framework Programme of the European Community (www.cordis.lu) is the mostnotable platform for scientific and technological collaboration and includes manyindustry-related pre-competitive sub-areas.

Programmes within the European Space Agency (ESA, www.esa.int) are mainlyscientific though it also has industry-related, pre-competitive research programmes.

The European Science Foundation (ESF, www.esf.org) has scientific EUROCORESprogrammes in which projects are carried out and financed collaboratively. The ESFhas also separate Scientific Programmes. The ESF grants European YoungInvestigators (EURYI) awards. The activities within the ESF are mainly based onfinancing by European national research councils which are its main members.

COST (cost.cordis.lu) is an intergovernmental framework for European co-operation inscientific and technical research, allowing the co-ordination of nationally fundedresearch on a European level. COST Actions cover basic and pre-competitive researchas well as activities of public utility.

Then there are many intergovernmental European scientific collaborative institutionslike CERN (www.cern.ch) in material physics and EMBL (www.embl.org) in molecularbiology with their own research programmes, mandatory for their Member States. TheJRC (www.jrc.cec.eu.int) is a European Community institution active mainly in energyand environmental areas.

There are some market-oriented, industry-related RTDI platforms like the Eurekainitiative (www.eureka.be), activities for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)within the Framework Programmes of the European Community(www.cordis.lu/fp6/sme.htm & www.cordis.lu/fp7/capacities.htm#2) and activities ofthe Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS, www.cordis.lu/coal-steel-rtd).

Some bi- or multinational RTDI-financing institutions like the French – NorwegianFoundation (http://consortium.ifp.fr/FNS/), Nordic Innovation Centre (NICe,www.nordicinnovation.net) and Nordic Energy Research Programme (www.nefp.info)exist.

2. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYCollaboration in science is easier thanin technology

Considerations of national competitiveness and economic competition, differ-ent public financing mechanisms (grants, loans, tax reductions etc.) and differ-ent obligations with respect to auditing – these are all examples of factorswhich tend to make industry-related collaboration more challenging than sci-entific collaboration.

Intellectual property rights (IPR) issues always cause different interpreta-tions and presumptions, which can be difficult to accommodate within na-tional RTDI activities of industrial interest. These difficulties seem to be in-creased when RTDI activities are internationalised.

IPR issues are relatively less problematic in science-related collaboration,because there is generally a presumption that results will be disseminatedwidely through publication in scientific journals.

Collaboration between national programmes is easier the closer to basicscience. Collaboration between industry-oriented programmes can be best or-ganised by selecting science-oriented parts from them to collaborate. This re-duces the possible difficulties that are typical for industry-related collectiveRTDI activities.

3. CONFIDENCECollaboration is based on mutual confidence

Information exchange (e.g. organising joint conferences for researchers) israther easy to arrange. Collaborative research and development activities withmobility of researchers are already much more difficult to organise. Buildingconfidence is best done as “growing by doing” over time. A prudent but deter-mined approach is required. The first steps in practical operations could be

• information exchange• mutual seminars, workshops etc• mutual steering groups• exchange of researchers• …

Such steps should eventually lead to growing understanding on the value of,possibilities for and obstacles to collaboration between programmes. This inturn should increase confidence between the programme authorities and resultin further, more challenging plans for common activities. These plans, too,should be progressive; realistic in their objectives and capable of practical im-plementation.

11

Source: MAP-TN

12

Divergences in rules and procedures in programmeplanning and implementation

Many analyses and studies have identified the difficulties of aligning – not to mentionharmonising – the rules and procedures in national programme planning andimplementation. No simple solution for a universal structure that could be used formanaging transnational collaboration of national programmes can be offered.

The Thematic Network on Multi Actors and Multi Measures Programmes(MAP-TN, www.map-network.net) identified the following main areas of divergence inprogramme planning and implementation:• impact level for an initiation of a national programme• decision level for the initiation of a national programme• programme design (character, funding instruments, budgetary size and

duration, programme autonomies and flexibilities,…)• application procedures (language, variations in types of calls, assessment

types, evaluation criteria, …)• dissemination of results (IPR rules, languages, disseminations

mechanisms, …)• contract negotiations• monitoring and evaluation of projects and programmes

DESIGN(Strategy),

ProgrammeEVALUATION

Policy

Performance Contract

Programme

Users and Stakeholders

Performance Contract

Projects

DESIGN(RefreshStrategy

andObjectives)

DESIGN(Means and

Mechanisms)

SELECTION

PROCEDURES

CONTRACT

NEGO-TIATIONS

MONITORING+

EVALUATIONof projects

Disseminateand

Communicate

DesignProposals

ExecuteProjects

Disseminateand

Communicate

Evaluate, Learn and Communicate

RefineWorkplan

CALL FORPROPOSALS

4. OPTIONSDifferent collaboration models are needed

Collaboration between programmes with similar cultural and institutionalbackgrounds and values is easiest. Therefore collaboration between basic sci-ence programmes or between applied technology programmes is easier thancollaboration between science and applied technology programmes.

Collaboration should as far as possible be based on respecting the existingrules and procedures of programmes and the respective programme authoritiesbecause it is always difficult to vary in adopted procedures.

Shared procedures can be negotiated between two programme authorities.Between three parties, negotiations will be more difficult, and between morethan three parties they will be still more difficult and perhaps impossible. Col-laborative actions should thus be built up from bi- or tri-lateral consortia. Theresulting collaborative programme may contain many sub-themes which na-tional (or regional) programmes join on the basis of interest (“à la carte”, “vari-able geometry”).

13

Sub-themes

multinational collaborative programme module sub-module managed bynational funding authority

source: WoodWisdom.Net

14

European transnational collaborative RTDI programmes

Deufrako (www.deufrako.org) is a collaborative scheme between the French PREDITprogramme (www.predit.prd.fr) and the German programme “Mobilität und Verkehr”(www.tuvpt.de) in land transport research. The Deufrako scheme was established in1978.

Finnish – Swedish – Norwegian collaborative ICT programme NORDITE(www.tekes.fi/english/programmes/nordite/nordite.htm) (2005–2010) is based onthe good experiences of previous Finnish – Swedish ICT programmes INWITE(1996–99) and EXITE (2000–03). All of these programmes are or have been researchoriented and only research organisations participate in them. Every accepted projectshould have partners from at least two participant countries. The evaluation ofapplications has been common for all, but financing has been based on the principle“each nation pays its own costs”. The programmes are executed separately fromon-going national, more application-oriented programmes for IPR reasons. TheseNordic ICT programmes have been initiated as a result of discussions which havetaken place in the long term information exchange between Nordic RTDI financingauthorities.

Research Programme on Wood Materials Science (2003–06) (www.woodwisdom.fi) isa Finnish – Swedish research programme initiated from the ideas from previousFinnish national research programmes in the same area. The programme isbasic-research-oriented. The applications to the programme are evaluated using thesame principles, but financed separately (“each nation pays its own costs”). Theprogramme was the basis for the WoodWisdom ERA-NET (www.woodwisdom.net). TheFinnish – Swedish programme was based on discussions in the long term informationexchange between Finnish and Swedish financing agencies of basic research andapplied technology.

5. INDUSTRIAL COLLABORATIONIndustry needs to define its own joint activities

Industry should be encouraged to plan its own collaborative RTDI actionswhich will be integrated in collaborative research actions planned by a consor-tium of national (or regional) authorities. This is the best way to include indus-trial R&D activities of high quality in collaborative actions. To achieve this, itis helpful to be able to employ different financing models.

6. MODULINGCollaborative programme modules are vital

In many cases, the collaborative joint modules of national (regional)programmes are easiest to organise as independent, separate collaborative subprogrammes.

15

NationalProgramme Ain Country 1

NationalProgramme Bin Country 2 Collaborative

Sub ProgrammebetweenCountries 1 and 2Source: ERABUILD.net

Industrialcollaboration

module EU7FP-module

Scientificmodule

Applicationmodule

source: WoodWisdom.Net

Part II

MODELS

16

17

References to financial models

aa) Centralised common pot without guaranteed “fair return” (“juste retour”)The funding procedures of the RTD Framework Programmes of the EU (www.cordis.lu),the research programmes of the European Science Foundation (www.esf.org) and theRTDI programmes of the Nordic Innovation Centre (www.nordicinnovation.net) employa common pot procedure without any guaranteed return.

ab) Centralised common pot with adjustment of returnThe space sciences programmes of the European Space Agency, ESA (www.esa.int),are financed by the national members’ contributions(to a common pot) based on GNP shares with an adjustment in relation to nationalRTDI responses in a rather long term.

b) Decentralised common pot with mutual follow-up of separatenational financing

The RTDI funding procedures of the French – Norwegian Foundation(http://consortium.ifp.fr/FNS) and the collaborative German – French researchscheme Deufrako (www.deufrako.org) in land transport are organised according to thedecentralised common pot method with a mutual follow-up of national financing.

The funding of the only transnational programme utilising up till now Article 169 ofthe European Treaty, the EDCTP programme (European & Developing Countries ClinicalTrials Partnership, www.edctp.org), is based on a decentralised common potprocedure with a 100% matching contribution of the European Commission to theeligible costs of the programme and a similar amount of contributions in kind fromthe participating states to the non-eligible costs of the programme.The organisation form of a European Economic Interesting Grouping, EEIG(http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l26015.htm) has been chosen to providea management structure for the time-limited financing scheme of the EDCTPprogramme.

c) Simultaneous national fundingFunding of the Finnish – Swedish – Norwegian collaborative ICT programme NORDITE(http://www.tekes.fi/english/programmes/nordite/nordite.html)(2005–2010) with its Finnish – Swedish predecessors INWITE (1996–99)and EXITE (2000–03) have been based on a simultaneous national fundingprocedure. Also the Swedish – Israeli joint program on telecom applications SIBED(www.sibed.org) is based on this financing model, with a rather lowannual budget.

d) Preferential access fundingA preferential access model has been widely utilised in national funding schemes as away of achieving desired science or technology policy features such as internationalcollaboration in national activities.

7. FINANCINGDecentralised financing best for time-limitedactions

The simplest and most practical way to finance European RTDI collaborationis, in principle, through a European institution with a legal basis.

However, most collaborative schemes between national RTDI programmesare of fixed-term duration. Time-limited, institutionalised, pan-European financ-ing schemes could, of course, be organised, but the effort required for their cre-ation and subsequent closedown would be out of proportion to the advantages.

The financial models which can be utilised in collaborations between na-tional programmes can be grouped roughly as follows:

a) centralised common potaa) without guaranteed “fair return” (“juste retour”)ab) with adjustment of return

b) decentralised common potwith mutual follow-up of separate national financing

c) simultaneous national fundingd) preferential access funding

Centralised common-pot financing requires a central organisation with a legalbasis. Funds are gathered by means of taxes, fees, contributions etc., the levelof which may be fixed in relation to, for example, GNP or RTDI investment. Inthe centralised-common-pot-financing-without-fair-return model, there is noadjustment to ensure a guaranteed return to participating countries. In the vari-ant models, the return may be guaranteed or modified by adjustment ex-ante(as agreed beforehand) or ex-post (adapted after hand). Centralised financingmechanisms are suitable mainly for continuous RTDI funding operations.

Decentralised common pot financing is based on a real commitment offunding between national RTDI programmes. A binding agreement betweenprogramme financing authorities is a practical necessity for the use of this fi-nancing procedure. Each national RTDI programme authority must ear-markan agreed amount of funding for the common purpose.

Simultaneous funding is a non-formal procedure which can be utilisedwhen national RTDI financiers have strongly similar interests in RTDI activi-ties in certain areas. The national RTDI authorities handle applications andmake decisions according to commonly decided plans and schedules.

Preferential access financing can be utilised temporarily to activate trans-national RTDI collaborations between projects. Applications offering the de-sired transnational collaboration get some financial preference. This form offinancing is not well suited for collaborations between national programmes.

18

19

References to management models

a) Management through information exchange

The management committees of the COST actions (cost.cordis.lu) form a typicalstructure for the management through information exchange. They follow theexecution of the agreed actions, organise working seminars, and prepare annualprogress reports and a final report. But the committees and their chairpersons haveno power to affect the targeting or execution of the projects.

b) Joint management

Joint management has been used in many bilateral collaborative actions suchas the French – Norwegian Foundation (http://consortium.ifp.fr/FNS) and in thecollaborative German – French research scheme Deufrako (www.deufrako.org) in landtransport. It has been utilised also in some trilateral actions like the Nordiccollaborative programme NORDITE (http://www.tekes.fi/english/programmes/nordite/nordite.html).

Joint management is also used in many institutionalised research activities like theEuropean Young Investigators Awards Scheme, EURYI (www.esf.org/euryi ,www.eurohorcs.org/ifr-downloads.aspx?mid=10), arranged by the European Heads ofResearch Councils (EuroHORCs) under the auspices of the European ScienceFoundation, ESF. Also the Nordic Energy Research Programme (www.nefp.info) hasbeen organised in this manner.

c) Executive management

An executive management model has been the practice used in business-driven RTDI actions like the Eureka project collaboration (www.eureka.be).Also many pan-European institutionalised funding schemes assume theuse of this management structure. For example, Integrated Projects (IP,http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/instr_ip.htm) of the RTD Framework Programme ofthe EU utilise this model as well as the EDCTP programme (www.edctp.org) accordingto Article 169 and the Galileo collaboration (www.galileoju.com) according to Article171 of the European Treaty.

8. MANAGEMENTRules of the game

The procedures adopted for the operational management of programmes bydifferent programme financing authorities vary considerably. In many casesauthorities will require the use of certain management procedure for theirprogrammes. Dissimilar requirements of different authorities have to be rec-onciled in collaboration between national programmes. This will be the mostchallenging task in the collaboration.

The management (or decision making) models for collaborativeprogrammes can be roughly categorised as follows:

a) management through information exchangeb) joint managementc) executive management

The management through information exchange includes practically only fol-low-up activities of a monitoring kind.

Joint management is utilised in cases where there are equal partners withtheir own, separate financing possibilities, and these partners decide proce-dures to operate together without any predetermined formal managementstructure. Practical variations in implementing this model are huge. One com-mon variation of joint management is based on decision-making by unanimity.The consensus model is, however, practicable mainly within bilateral collabo-ration with small budget volumes. In wider collaboration frameworks, a modelis often preferable in which authorities responsible for the execution of na-tional programmes agree among themselves the decision rules which they willuse in the collaboration. Reaching agreement on the decision rules and proce-dures to be used takes time and requires a real commitment to collaboration bythe partners.

Executive management resembles management behaviour in business. Itassumes real decision-making power and objective-driven management. Themodel is practicable in business-driven joint RTDI activities, but it can also beapplied in some institutionalised programme schemes.

To the extent that collaboration between national RTDI programmes canoften only be organised effectively by applying different collaboration mod-ules and models, there will frequently be no way to manage the wholeprogramme using just one management model. The overall activity may bebest managed collegially in many cases. The different constituent modulesshould be managed in the way which is the most suitable for their respectivecharacters.

20

9. FRAMEWORKModels interact

The financing and management / decision making models presented above ex-hibit certain interdependences, which can be represented as follows:

21

suitable notapplicable

ManagementthroughInformationExchange

CentralisedCommonPot

DecentralisedCommonPot

SimultaneousNationalFunding

PreferentialAccess

possible

JointManagement

ExecutiveManagement

10. ROAD MAPProcedures base on negotiations

The modalities, financing and management models as well as other proceduresto be used in collaborative actions between national (regional) RTDIprogrammes have to be negotiated and decided, case by case, among the publicRTDI financiers concerned.

The number of possible variations is so enormous that it is not possible togive detailed guidelines or recommendations, not even at the level of generalgood practices.

When planning transnational collaboration between programmes, thesame questions need to be answered as when planning individual programmesor projects. The important questions are: “why?”, “what?”, “when?”, “who?”and “how?”. And in that order.

22

Part III

MESSAGES

23

11. BROAD FLORAMessages to policymakers

Increasing collaboration between national research, technical developmentand innovation (RTDI) activities permits the better utilisation of RTDI re-sources for enhancing welfare in European society and for increasing the com-petitiveness of European business. The “Networking of NationalProgrammes” scheme (ERA-NET) within the Sixth Framework Programmefor Research and Technological Development of the European Union has nota-bly intensified such collaboration.

There are also many other collaboration platforms and procedures in addi-tion to the ERA-NET scheme. They should be carefully adapted and, wherenecessary, revised, so as to increase their attractiveness and to develop theirfunctions.

European firms will find new development opportunities in economicglobalisation. The need for increased international RTDI collaboration willgrow with expanding global possibilities. The existing RDTI collaborationplatforms and procedures will offer a good environment for supporting thesedevelopments. The many existing financing resources and instruments shouldbe skilfully combined for financing collaborative actions.

There are new approaches and experiments for creating different financial,decision and management models to be used in collaboration between strategi-cally planned national (and regional) RDTI activities. There is, however, noreason to prefer some models to others. The best suited models depend on thecircumstances and character of the specific case of collaboration.

Although the financing and management of collaboration using a central-ised common pot budget is the easiest and the most practical, this model ismainly suitable for collaboration activities in basic research, and particularlyfor financing continuous (long-term) schemes. A decentralised common potfinancing seems to be best suited for industry-related RTDI collaboration andparticularly for financing time-limited collaborative actions.

Joint management will be the most utilised management / decision-makingmodel in time-limited collaborative actions between strategically planned na-tional (and regional) RDTI activities. Real possibilities to include additionalfinancing from external sources (e.g. from the Framework Programme of theEU) can substantially facilitate sometimes troublesome negotiations aboutcommon rules and procedures.

24

Attachment

The Contributors

This publication is based on the work done between February and July2005 in a Task Force established by the Association for Technology Im-plementation in Europe, TAFTIE (www.taftie.org).

The persons who participated in the work of the Task Force were:

Ms. Birgit Baumann FFG AustriaMr. Leo Van de Loock IWT BelgiumMr. Bernard de Potter IWT BelgiumMs. Jonna Lehtinen-Salo Tekes FinlandMr. Raimo Pulkkinen Tekes FinlandMs. Françoise Lambert Oséo-ANVAR FranceMr. Peter Hahn VDI/VDE-IT GermanyMr. Michael Huch VDI/VDE-IT GermanyMr. Mario Schneider VDI/VDE-IT GermanyMr. Jeroen Heijs SenterNovem the NetherlandsMs. Lena Endresen RCN NorwayMs. Line Hagen RCN NorwayMs. Maite Boyero Egido CDTI SpainMr. José Manuel Leceta CDTI SpainMr. Anders Hedin VINNOVA SwedenMr. Mete Cakmakci TTGV Turkey

Mr. Christopher Hull (European Affairs Services) contributed as con-sultant to the Task Force. He also participated in the writing of this publi-cation. Ms. Johanna Snellman from Tekes assisted in the finalisation ofthe publication.

25

www.taftie.org