FR

Digital

Single Market

Interim Evaluation of the

ECSEL Joint Undertaking (2014-2016) Operating

under Horizon 2020

ANNEXES A report prepared for the European Commission

DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology by

Haydn Thompson, Rapporteur

Expert group Emilio Lora-Tamayo, Chairman

Werner Damm

Jean-Luc Dormoy Leonard Hobbs

Margriet Jansz Tomasz Kosmider

Wolfgang Pribyl

June 2017

2

DISCLAIMER

By the European Commission, Directorate-General of Communications Networks, Content & Technology.

The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the

official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this

study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for

the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

ISBN 978-92-79-69620-6 doi:10.2759/337045

Copyright © 2017 – European Union. All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to the EU.

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

3

4

Table of Contents

ANNEX 1 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 5

ANNEX 2 EXPERT PANEL COMPOSITION ...................................................................... 8

ANNEX 3 ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................... 12

ANNEX 4 INFORMATION SOURCES USED ................................................................... 14

ANNEX 5 EVALUATION QUESTIONS ............................................................................. 15

ANNEX 6 ANALYSIS OF ECSEL IMPLEMENTATION ................................................. 19

ANNEX 7 INTERVIEWEES .................................................................................................. 31

ANNEX 8 ANALYSIS DATA OF PROJECT DOMAINS: CPS, SEMICONDUCTOR AND

SMART SYSTEMS INTEGRATION .................................................................................... 32

5

ANNEXES

Annex 1 References

[1] James Manyika, Michael Chui, Peter Bisson, Jonathan Woetzel, Richard Dobbs, Jacques Bughin, Dan Aharon, “The Internet of Things: Mapping the value Beyond the Hype”, McKinsey Global Institute, June 2015.

[2] H. Thompson, “Market Opportunities for CPS”, THHINK, 2017.

[3] Peter Evans and Marco Annunziata, “Industrial Internet: Pushing the Boundaries of Minds and Machines”, GE, November 26, 2012.

[4] Henning Kagermann, Wolfgang Wahlster and Johannes Helbig, “Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0”, ACATECH Report, National Academy of Science and Engineering, Germany, April 2013.

[5] https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/digitising-european-industry

[6] http://www.semi.org/en/fab-investment-surge-china-0 [7]https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_ensurin

g_long-term_us_leadership_in_semiconductors.pdf [8] www.ecsel-ju.eu

[9]http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/legal_basis/fp/h2020-eu-establact_en.pdf

[10] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LSU/?uri=CELEX:32013R1291

[11] https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/

[12] https://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm

[13] Council Regulation 561/2014

[14] Council Regulation 74/2008

[15] Council Regulation 72/2008

[16] http://www.eurekanetwork.org/

[17] 2015 ECSEL Annual Report

[18] http://www.aeneas-office.eu/

[19] http://www.eniac.eu/

[20] https://www.artemis-ju.eu/

[21] http://www.smart-systems-integration.org/

6

[22] Terms of Reference for an Expert Group on the Final Evaluation of the ENIAC and ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking (2008-2016) operating under the Seventh Framework Programme and the Interim Evaluation of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking (2014-2016) operating under Horizon 2020 [Ares(2016)4919318 - 01/09/2016]

[23] http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/intm/142505.pdf

[24] Support study for the Evaluation of ENIAC/ARTEMIS/ECSEL JU, CARSA, Feb. 2017.

[25] Final Evaluation of ARTEMIS and ENIAC Joint Undertaking (2008-2013), June 2017

[26] 2015 ECSEL Activity Report

[27] ECSEL JU Book of Projects Volume 1

[28] DRAFT-SWD-Interim Evaluation-RSB (PPP-JU only), 2017.

[29] https://itea3.org/

[30] http://www.euripides-eureka.eu/

[31] http://www.catrene.org/

[32] http://www.penta-eureka.eu/

[33] http://www.silicon-europe.eu/home/

[34] http://www.silicon-saxony.de/en/home/

[35] http://www.minalogic.com/en

[36] http://www.dspvalley.com/

[37] https://nmi.org.uk/

[38] http://www.gaia.es/english.html

[39] http://www.hightechnl.nl/international

[40] http://www.semi.org/eu/

[41] https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/digitising-european-industry

[42]http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2016_2017/main/h2020-wp1617-intro_en.pdf

[43] http://ertico.com/projects/c-its/

[44] https://www.fiware.org/

[45] https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/big-data-value-public-private-partnership

[46] http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/factories-of-the-future_en.html

[47] http://www.spire2030.eu/

7

[48] http://www.cleansky.eu/

Other Relevant References

[a] Report “First Interim Evaluation of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC Joint Technology Initiatives”, 30/7/2010 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/information_society/evaluation/rtd/jti/

[b] Report “Second Interim Evaluation of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC Joint Technology Initiatives”, 30/5/2013 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/information_society/evaluation/rtd/jti/

[c]http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/key-enabling-technologies/european-strategy/high-level-group/

[d] http://www.acatech.de/de/projekte/abgeschlossene-projekte/industrie-40.html

[e] http://www.theinternetofthings.eu/

[f] http://ec.europa.eu/research/jti/

[g] http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union-and-comments/part-3-union-policies-and-internal-actions/title-xix-research-and-technological-development-and-space/475-article-187.html

[h] https://openlaws.com/detail/54897238-5d33-4796-88f1-428fed0cbc7c/en/SINGLE

[i]https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d18360b6-5a8e-4c70-8692-cac0d3e5346e/language-en

[j] http://cordis.europa.eu/pub/ist/docs/artemis/june_sra.pdf

[k]http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/image/document/2016-19/sra2016_15445.pdf

[l] Decision of the Governing Board of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking Approving the Multiannual Strategic Plan and Research Agenda for 2013, ARTEMIS-GB-2012-D.46, 2013.

[m] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm

[n] https://ec.europa.eu/research/jti/pdf/councilreg_eniac.pdf

[o] http://www.aeneas-office.eu/web/documents/SRA.php

[p] http://www.eniac.eu/web/downloads/SRA2007.pdf

8

Annex 2 Expert Panel Composition

Emilio Lora-Tamayo, Chair

PhD degree in Physics by the UCM. He has been a researcher at different centers in France and visiting professor at UC Berkeley. Professor at the UAB. At CSIC he has been Director of the Centro Nacional de Microelectrónica, vicepresident and also President of CSIC between 1996-2002 and 2002-2004.

Emilio Lora-Tamayo (Madrid, 1950) has worked in CSIC since 1975. In 2003, being President, Emilio Lora-Tamayo initiated the change on the legal structure of CSIC, formerly a Public Research Organism, that ended on the creation of the Agencia Estatal de Investigación CSIC. On January 13th 2012 the Spanish Council of Ministers designated him once again as CSIC President, where he remains as for 2017.

After achieving his graduation in Physics in 1972, he was awarded the Diplôme d’Études Approfondies at the Université Paul Sabatier (Toulouse, 1973). He obtained the PhD degree in Physics by the Universidad Complutense (Madrid, 1977). Since 1989, he is Full Professor of Electronics at the Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona. He has been researcher at the Ècole Nationale Supérieure d’Aéronautique et de l’Espace (Toulouse, France), at the ENSAE and the Laboratoire d’Automatique et ses Aplications Spatiales (Toulouse, France) and at the Laboratoire d’Electronique et de l’Informatique (CEA-Grenoble, France). He has been visiting professor at the Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences Department at UC Berkeley (United States).

He has been Director of the Instituto de Microelectrónica de Barcelona-Centro Nacional de Microelectrónica (IMB-CNM) and of the associated “Integrated Micro and Nanofabrication Clean Room”. He has also coordinated the Barcelona Nanocluster at Bellaterra (BCN-b).

His expertise is Microelectronics and Nanotechnology covering aspects of Physics and technology of semiconductors and microchips, simulation and design of silicon microdevices and chips, Micro and Nanosystems (MEMS & NEMS), nanofabrication and CNTs. He is the author of more than 100 research articles in peer reviewed scientific journals, and more than 150 communications at scientific meetings. He is coauthor of 7 patents and has written 12 books on this subject. He has been the coordinator or participated in more than 50 national or international research projects. He was the president of the scientific committee to assess and repair the damages caused by the “Prestige” oil spill (2002-2003).

He is a full member of the Real Academia de Ciencias y Artes de Barcelona, a corresponding member of the Real Academia de Medicina y Cirugía de Cádiz and of the Real Academia de San Dionisio de Artes y Ciencias de Jerez de la Frontera. He has been awarded with the Encomienda de número de la Orden del Mérito Civil and several CSIC awards.

Haydn Thompson, Rapporteur

Professor Haydn Thompson, BSc, PhD. CEng has over 30 years’ experience working in a mixture of senior industrial research and development roles in flight control systems, space programmes and signal processing applications for leading companies. For nearly 20 years he was the Programme Manager of the Rolls-Royce Control and Systems University Technology Centre. Currently he is CEO and Owner of the THHINK Group of Companies: THHINK Wireless Technologies Ltd. (UK), THHINK B.V. (NL), THHINK Autonomous Systems Pty. (Aus) and is a Director of THHINK Wireless Technologies

9

Japan Ltd. as well as being Managing Director and Owner of Haydn Consulting Ltd. He is recognised and used by the European Commission and European Parliament as an expert in many fields and is a consultant to a range of companies and government bodies including Rolls-Royce Aerospace, Rolls-Royce Marine, Rolls-Royce Nuclear Submarines, Rolls-Royce Civil Nuclear, the MoD, the TSB and Formula 1 Racing. He defines strategic technology roadmaps across Europe. He is Chair of a Working Group on Cyber Physical Systems of Systems for Transport and Logistics covering aerospace, automotive, rail, maritime and logistics. He has run many research programmes with Rolls-Royce (400+), was the co-ordinator of the EU FLEXICON project, led work on the More Electric Aircraft in the Airbus/EU MOET project, led consortia in the Airbus WICAS and SWIFT projects and has also run research programmes with Network Rail on remote infrastructure monitoring.

He has over 100 publications on applications of smart distributed systems, multi-disciplinary multi-objective optimisation, gas turbine engine control, fault diagnosis and health monitoring, wireless communications, smart sensors, energy harvesting, rapid prototyping and co-simulation. He has also written two books on gas turbine engine control. He is, or has been, a member of the International Federation of Automatic Control’s (IFAC) International Aerospace Control, Mechatronics and Real-Time Computing and Control Committees being chair of Embedded Systems, the Institution of Electronic and Electrical Engineers Aerospace Committee, and IET representative on the Learned Society Board of the Royal Aeronautical Society. He is a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Werner Damm

Prof. Werner Damm holds the Chair for Safety Critical Embedded Systems at the Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg. He is the Director of the Interdisciplinary Research Center on Critical Systems Engineering for Socio-Technical Systems. He is a member of acatech, the German National Academy of Science and Engineering. Currently he is engaged as a director in the working group “highly automated systems” and, in the framework of acatech pushing on autonomous driving. As a member of the steering board he contributed similarly to the Automotive Roadmap Embedded Systems and to the acatech-survey “New autoMobility – the future World of Automated Road Traffic” published by the end of 2015. Since the beginning of this year he is part of the EU Expert group carrying out the evaluation of the Public-Private-Partnerships funded by the European Union: the Joint Undertakings ECSEL, Artemis and ENIAC.

He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Applied Research Institute OFFIS – Institute for Information Technology and there in his function as a group executive manager responsible for the R&D Division Transportation. Furthermore he is the Chairman of the German competence cluster SafeTRANS, integrating leading companies and research institutes in the transportation domain, the co-founder and member of the steering board of the European Institute for Complex Safety Critical Engineering EICOSE, the Chairman of the Artemis Working Group Tool Platforms.

Werner Damm has been a member of various expert groups of the European Commission and the US National Science Foundation, notably on the topics of future strategies for Systems-of-Systems in Europe, and on Cyber-Physical Systems in the Transportation domain in the US.

His recent foundational research addresses mathematical models of embedded systems, systems-of-systems, and cyber physical systems, specification languages, hybrid systems, formal verification methods, formal synthesis, and real-time and safety analysis. This is complemented by applied research with industrial partners in avionics, automotive, space, and medical systems on system-and-safety development processes for safety related systems, where he pioneered contract-based systems engineering for functional requirements, safety and timeliness requirements, and stability requirements, the use of patterns for capturing such contracts, and tools for automatic test generation, consistency checking, and virtual integration testing based on formalized contracts.

10

Jean-Luc Dormoy

Jean-Luc Dormoy has worked in research institutions, large companies and startups. He is a co-founder of Kalray (http://www.kalrayinc.com), of VESTA-SYSTEM (http://www.vesta-system.fr/?lang=en), was director for “Smart Electric Systems” for the EDF Group in Europe, and was in charge of software programmes at CEA Tech. He is involved in initiatives for startups and cyber physical systems in the EU, worked with China, and spent some time at Stanford University.

Leonard Hobbs

Leonard graduated from University College Cork Ireland in 1986 with a 1st class honours degree in Electrical Engineering and was awarded the title of ‘graduate of the year’ by the college. He completed a Master's degree at the NMRC (now called Tyndall), at UCC in 1988.

He has been one of Ireland’s leading technologists in the ICT sector with close to 30 years of experience, mostly with Intel, spanning leading edge research to technology transfer to advanced manufacturing and high volume operations in the US, Europe and Ireland.

His last role at Intel was Director of Public Affairs with responsibility for driving Intel Ireland’s policy, communications, education and community agendas. He is currently at Trinity College Dublin where he is Director of Research and Innovation

Margriet Jansz

Margriet Jansz (NL) has over 30 years of experience in monitoring and evaluating research programmes, both in an academic setting and in industrial collaborations.

She is Program Director at the NWO Domain Applied and Technical Sciences (NWO-TTW), which funds technological research projects and programmes. Over the years she has been responsible for different fields of science, including mathematics, computer science, information technology, micro-electronics and civil engineering.

Margriet studied physics and mathematics at Leiden University to the Bachelor level. She then went to Bonn, Germany, where she obtained her Master degree in Astrophysics. After working for some years at the Max-Planck-Institute for Radio Astronomy, she returned to The Netherlands and joined Technology Foundation STW, now part of NWO-TTW, in 1985.

At STW she has been involved in monitoring and evaluating large-scale programmes in micro-electronics from the start and later also in information technology. When the first four Leading Technological Institutes were founded in The Netherlands, she was asked to monitor these during the first four years of their existence and then conduct a mid-term evaluation. In 2012-2013 she took part in both the evaluation of EUREKA porogramme CATRENE and the JTIs ARTEMIS and ENIAC.

Invited to represent STW in the Dutch ICT Research and Innovation Authority (ICTRegie) she was involved in creating a coherent ICT research and innovation ecosystem for The Netherlands.

As a result of her evaluation activities, Margriet has developed an interest in more fundamental science studies, in particular related to collaboration and to science and technology indicators. In this context she has coordinated two INTAS projects with Russian, British and French partners.

Tomasz Kosmider

President and Founder of Fundacja Partnerstwa Technologicznego TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS. Managing Director of the TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS Consortium and Centre of Advanced Technology.

11

His professional carrier (over 45 years) included management positions at large industrial and services companies. He had a deep experience in the organisation and management of multidisciplinary large scale RTD projects. He successfully managed RTD projects for industrial clients, within EU Framework Programmes, as well as within Polish Operational Programmes. The projects managed by Dr. Kosmider related mainly to such fields as aeronautics, transport, innovation and communication.

Leader and International Expert in EU-funded SCI TECH Reform Programme for Science & Technology Sector projects. Proposals Evaluator under the EU FP 5, 6 and 7, as well the H2020 Programme. Member of the European Research Advisory Board (EURAB 2), European Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO) Board (Vice-President since 2014), and Knowledge 4 Innovation Board. Participant/speaker of many EU, OECD, EIRMA, ISPIM, RADMA and other international conferences on S&T co-operation and R&D management. Cofounder of an Insead Alumni Association.

Mr. Kosmider held an MA degree from Warsaw School of Economics in transport economics, a Ph.D. degree from Warsaw University, Poland, and an MBA diploma from INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.

Wolfgang Pribyl

Professor Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Wolfgang Pribyl, MBA has over 35 years of experience in senior industrial research and academic positions working in the fields of electronics, microelectronics on chip and system level. For 12 years he was serving in leading positions within the Siemens Semiconductor Division in Austria, Germany and California (later spun-off as Infineon Technologies AG) and several years as CTO for austriamicrosystems AG (Austria). Besides his own consulting business he was 6 years full professor and head of the Institute of Electronics at the Graz University of Technology and since 2011 is part time professor at this institute. In 2011 he took over his current position as CEO of JOANNEUM RESEARCH, an independent RTO with a staff of 450, active in several fields, among those microelectronics, ICT, satellite communications, material science, robotics, health technology and aspects of IOT and I4.0.

He is serving the European Commission since the late 1990ies as expert in many related fields doing reviews and evaluations for the framework programs starting with FP4 and continuing till H2020, ENIAC and ECSEL. He was and is very active in IEEE conferences as ISSCC, ESSCIRC, Austrochip, PRIME and issued over 80 publications on semiconductor design and technology, microelectronics, electronics design and applications and contributed to three books. He has also been involved in the Austrian ENIAC activities from the beginning and has contributed to the opinion building process through a study on ENIAC’s potential for the Austrian industry. He was also active in setting up the new ECSEL Austria initiative after the merge of ENIAC and ARTEMIS and the recently established Silicon Alps Microelectronics Cluster in the southern region of Austria. He also serves as member of technical or advisory boards of a few, mostly start-up companies, mainly located in Austria.

12

Annex 3 Abbreviations

AAR Annual Activity Report AENEAS Association for European Nanoelectronics Activities AI Artificial Intelligence AIPP ARTEMIS Innovation Pilot Projects ARTEMIS Advanced Research & Technology for EMbedded Intelligent Systems ARTEMIS-IA ARTEMIS Industry Association AWP Annual Work Program CATRENE Cluster for Application and Technology Research in Europe on NanoElectronics

(EUREKA Cluster) CEO Chief Executive Officer CoIE Centre of Innovation Excellence CP Collaborative Project CPS Cyber-Physical Systems CSA Co-ordination and Support Action DEI Digitising European Industry DG Directorate General (of the EC) DSP Digital Signal Processing EC European Commission ECS Electronic Components and Systems ECSEL Electronic Components and Systems for European Leadership ECU Electronic Control Units ED Executive Director EIP European Innovation Partnership ENIAC European Nanoelectronics Initiative Advisory Council EPoSS European Technology Platform on Smart Systems Integration EPS ECSEL Participating States ERA European Research Area ESIA European Semiconductor Industry Association ETP European Technology Platform EU European Union FDSOI Fully Depleted Silicon on Insulator FP7 Seventh Framework Programme (of the EC) FTE Full Time Equivalent GB Governing Board HEI Higher Education Institution IA Innovation Action (but also Industry Association) ICT Information and Communication Technology IoT Internet of Things IT Information Technology ITEA Information Technology for European Advancement (EUREKA Cluster) JTI Joint Technology Initiative JU Joint Undertaking KEI Key European Industries KET Key Enabling Technologies KPI Key Performance Indicator LE Large Enterprise LEIT Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies LSP Large-Scale Pilot MASP Multi-Annual Strategic Plan MASRIA Multi-Annual Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda MS Member State

13

OEMs Original Equipment Manufacturers PA Public Authority PAB Public Authorities Board PCAST Presidential Council Advisors on Science and Technology PENTA EUREKA Cluster to follow CATRENE PL Pilot Line PPP Public Private Partnership R&D Research and Development R&I Research and Innovation RES Research Organisation RIA Research and Innovation Action RO Research Organisation RTO Research and Technology Organisation SMEs Small or Medium-sized Enterprises SoC System on Chip SOI Silicon on Insulator SR(I)A Strategic Research (and Innovation) Agenda TEN Trans European Network TRL Technology Readiness Level TTP Time Triggered Protocol WP Work Plan

14

Annex 4 Information Sources Used

Impact assessments on the establishment of the JUs under FP7 and H2020

Council regulations establishing the JUs

Council regulation establishing FP7 / Horizon 2020

1st and 2nd Interim Evaluations of ENIAC & ARTEMIS

Annual Activity Reports (AARs)

Fact-finding study report by CARSA et. al

EU databases

Court of Auditors (CoA) and European Parliament recommendations

Other evaluation studies, such as FP7 ex-post evaluation, etc.

15

Annex 5 Evaluation Questions

The evaluation has been configured to address 7 key evaluation questions that were defined in the Terms of Reference for an Expert Group on the Final Evaluation of the ENIAC and ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking (2008-2016) operating under the Seventh Framework Programme and the Interim Evaluation of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking (2014-2016) operating under Horizon 2020 [22] provided to the evaluation panel. Evaluation Question 1: Background to the initiative, objectives and relevance The public-private partnerships are one of the Horizon 2020 implementation modalities, where all involved partners commit to support the development and implementation of industrial research and innovation activities of strategic importance to the Union's competitiveness and industrial leadership or to addressing specific societal challenges. As a first step, the Expert Group will study the regulatory framework and provide context and background information concerning the setting up of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking. The Expert Group will present a brief description of the initiative, its objectives and the problems it intends to solve. If possible, the Expert Group will summarise this information in an Intervention Logic diagram as presented in the evaluation guidelines of the Better Regulation package, showing how different measures were expected to interact with each other. Evaluation Question 2: Implementation of ECSEL Joint Technology Initiative The Expert Group shall focus on understanding how the programme is being implemented and assess whether the public-private partnership made public funds accessible through transparent processes and through competitive calls. Information about different participation patterns and the distribution of funds among beneficiaries should provide the necessary evidence in assessing whether the ECSEL JU has reached the main actors in European research. As a minimum, the Expert Group should address the following list of topics:

Presentation of an overview of calls launched during the period 2014-2016;

Participation patterns broken down by country and region where possible; what trends and specificities can be identified (for example participation trends of specific country groups like EU12)?

Participation patterns per specific thematic topic broken down by type of beneficiary organisations (universities, research organisations, industrial participation (large companies and SME).

Competition for funding; What were the success rates in terms of successful proposals, activity types of applicants and budget share – identification of areas/research topics where proposal success rates are above or below average?- are there any types of applicants showing significantly higher or lower success rates?

EU contribution – what has been the distribution of funds, broken down by country and region where possible, activity type of beneficiaries, and thematic area?

What is the average grant size in terms of budget and number of beneficiaries (overall and by call and research topic)?

How do these trends compare with the respective JU under the Seventh Framework Programme?

Evaluation Question 3: Main achievements and effectiveness of implementation Main achievements Direct achievements focus on concrete outcomes of ECSEL JU interventions (“what is produced through this intervention”). Information on different forms of the direct achievements is crucial to assess whether ECSEL JU funded research projects reached their scientific goals. It also represents the core of an evidence-based analysis of the funded projects. Considering that only a very limited number of projects will be completed by the end of 2016 it is acknowledged that this is a particularly challenging task. As a minimum, the Expert Group shall present, examine and assess outputs and

16

results to be produced by ECSEL JU funded research based on the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that include the Horizon 2020 Key Performance Indicators common to all JUs, the Indicators for monitoring Horizon 2020 Cross-Cutting Issues common to all JUs and the Key Performance Indicators specific for each JU. The Expert Group will examine and assess the expected outputs and results if there are no completed projects by the time of the interim evaluation. Effectiveness of implementation The Expert Group should analyse and assess the progress towards meeting the objectives set by the ECSEL JU, including how all parties in the public-private partnerships live up to their financial and managerial responsibilities and keep an open non-discriminatory attitude towards a wide community of stakeholders. As a minimum, the Expert Group should address the following non-exhaustive list of topics: To what extent is the ECSEL JU achieving its objectives set in the Article 2 of the Council Regulation establishing ECSEL JU?

Assessment of the programme administration lifecycle and setting up an research agenda- from definition of the work programme and publication of Calls, to evaluation, selection, negotiation, contract/budget engagement?

Are all stakeholders relevant to the specific area of ECSEL JU involved (industry, research organisations, academia, public authorities, users, regulators, consumers etc.)?

Have the actions attracted and allowed a satisfactory level of participation of the best European player’s active in their specific areas?

Evaluation Question 4: ECSEL Joint Undertaking's performance in 2014 - 2016 ECSEL JU mission and governance The Expert Group will review and take stock of the legal basis to address the key issues in the context of this evaluation. As a minimum, the following issues need to be analysed:

What is the regulatory framework of setting up the ECSEL JU and main changes observed between different programming periods (FP7 and Horizon 2020)?

What is the ECSEL JU mission?

Does the JU operate in accordance with its intended governance structure? The analysis shall include an assessment of the following issues:

o What are the contractual arrangements between all partners and their respective commitments?

o Are the definitions of roles and responsibilities clear for each of the partners? o Do the partners share the same visions and have clearly defined objectives? o Do long-term commitments exist from all partners, including a balanced contribution

from all partners? Operational effectiveness In this task the expert group will evaluate the actual operations of the ECSEL JU and assess if they are in line with the respective Council regulation establishing it. The overall approach in answering this evaluation question should focus on assessing the link between the Joint Undertaking's mandate/responsibilities and objectives set in the Article 2 of its legal basis, its governance and the actual activities and performance. As a minimum, the following questions should be addressed:

To what extent does the JU operate according to the legal framework establishing it?

17

To what extent has the JU led to improved management of the programme and better services to the stakeholders and addressees as compared to the alternative options?

What is the overall satisfaction of beneficiaries with the services provided by the JU?

To what extent does the JU ensure the visibility of the EU as part of programme promoter? Operational efficiency Efficiency will consider the relationship between the resources used and changes generated. The Expert Group will evaluate the operational efficiency of the ECSEL JU based on an analysis and interpretation of the Key Performance Indicators related to:

Timely execution of the functions. The Expert Group will have to analyse management performance indicators, such as time to grant, time to pay and average evaluation cost per proposal.

Cost-efficiency of the management and control arrangements. Management efficiency for this purpose is defined as the ratio between inputs (staff) and outputs (the budget managed by the Joint Undertaking). The analysis will cover i) the ratio between the administrative and operational budget (%) and ii) budget “per head” (million €). In addition, calculation of the average project management cost per running project (staff FTE * standard staff cost) has to be calculated.

Budget execution of commitment and payment appropriations during the reference period.

Simplification and reduction of the administrative burden for participants. Evaluation Question 5: EU added value The EU-added value relates to changes that can be reasonably attributed to an EU intervention, rather than other factors. A full analysis and evidence in response to this evaluation question will be addressed centrally by the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation (at the central level). To answer this question at the JU level, the Expert Group should, among others, analyse the leverage effect and assess the scale of resources involved and the ECSEL JU's ability to leverage additional investments in research and innovation. By leverage effect we refer to the ECSEL JU ability to attract additional financing and multiply Horizon 2020 budget resources, including additional activities (if applicable) which are activities of the industry outside the work plan of ECSEL JU. The leverage effect is defined as the total amount of funds leveraged through an Art.187 initiative, including additional activities, divided by the respective EU contribution to this initiative. The Expert Group should be aware that the full leverage effect will be assessed by the end of the programming period and that there are no annual targets set except the final targets/commitments from the partners. The first full year of implementation of the calls launched by ECSEL JU was in 2015 and the respective Annual Activity Reports merely provide an early snap-shot of the leverage. Evaluation Question 6: Coherence The question of “coherence” is mainly relevant at programme/general objectives level, i.e. Horizon 2020 and will be fully addressed in the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation. However, information at specific action level could valuably feed into the overall analysis. Taking into account the specificities of the public-private partnership, the Expert Group should look at how well the intervention works: i) internally within Horizon 2020 and ii) with other EU policies and interventions. The Council regulation establishing Horizon 2020 states that the research priorities covered by public-private partnerships may, where appropriate, be included in regular calls of Horizon 2020 work programmes, in order to

18

develop new synergies with research and innovation activities of strategic importance. The Expert Group should analyse the potential of this possibility. As regards external coherence, the Expert group should look at the following aspects:

To what extent is the ECSEL JU coherent with other interventions such as the ICT part of the Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies of Horizon that have related objectives?

What is the relation with other Union funding programmes? (i) Complementarity, (ii) synergies or (iii) potential overlaps?

If applicable and feasible, examine whether synergies with similar international, national or intergovernmental programmes have been sought and/or developed to encourage optimal use of resources and avoid unnecessary duplication?

Evaluation Question 7: Synthesis, conclusions and recommendations The Expert Group shall synthesise the work done under the previous tasks, draw conclusions and provide recommendations. The Expert Group must make judgements based on the evidence and analysis available. These judgements should be as specific as possible and based on clearly defined criteria. The evaluation shall draw conclusions on:

The continued relevance of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking. The Expert Group shall analyse and conclude whether the initial identification of tasks entrusted to the Joint Undertaking is still valid for justifying the existence of this public-private partnership (as set out in Art.25.2 (a) of Regulation 1291/2013). The Expert Group should also conclude on whether the (original) policy rationale underlying ECSEL JU still in line with today’s challenges faced in their specific industrial area.

The Expert Group shall draw conclusions on the overall progress towards the objectives set in the Council Regulation establishing ECSEL JU.

The Expert group shall analyse, assess and draw conclusions on whether the public-private partnership is implemented in an open, transparent, effective and efficient way.

The Expert group shall analyse, assess and draw conclusions on whether the public-private partnership demonstrated the added value and generated the necessary leverage.

The Expert group shall make suggestions for improving the future implementation of ECSEL JU taking into account the specific governance structure of this public-private partnership.

Recommendations shall be operational and assigning clear implementation responsibilities and indicating, whether they can be realised within the existing legal framework or revisions of the legal framework would be required.

19

Annex 6 Analysis of ECSEL Implementation

In this Annex an analysis is provided of the implementation of ECSEL. As ECSEL was formed from the combination of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC JUs with the EPoSS ETP, particular attention has been paid into any differences that can be noted that have been brought about by the transition. As the EPoSS ETP did not fund projects the analysis concentrates on differences that can be observed from the previous ARTEMIS and ENIAC JUs which funded altogether 119 projects. What this highlights is the differences in the embedded systems and the nanoelectronics communities, the fundamental differences in the levels of funding for the two communities prior to integration, the levels of stakeholder participation from the communities, the approaches to funding projects and differences in proposal success rates. This information has been used to assess how well the communities have been brought together under ECSEL and to identify if there is a need for any corrective actions.

Number and Types of Project Funded

The Joint Undertakings have provided funding for two fundamental types of projects: Collaborative Projects (CP) and large-scale innovation pilot projects (AIPP, ECSEL PL, and ENIAC PL). The innovation pilot projects, which were introduced in 2011/2012 shifted the emphasis of ARTEMIS and ENIAC to focus on Higher Technology Readiness Levels (TRL 5-8) deliberately being much closer to market. The aim of this was to address the so called “valley of death” in research and innovation. The High-Level Expert Group (HLG) on Key Enabling Technologies (KET), recognised that “Micro- and nanoelectronics, including semiconductors” is a Key Enabling Technology. It was thus recommended “that the EU and its policy makers ... urgently engage in a radical rebalancing of resources and objectives in order to retain critical capability and capacity in these domains of vital European importance”. As a result, from 2012 separate calls were launched for projects targeting lower and higher TRLs. The share of innovation and collaborative research projects for ARTEMIS, ENIAC and ECSEL are quite different:

In ARTEMIS 3 (5%) out of the 56 Artemis projects were innovation pilots,

In ENIAC 14 (22%) out of 63 projects were pilot projects

In ECSEL at present 17 (44%) out of 39 projects are pilot projects. As ECSEL brings together ARTEMIS, ENIAC and EPoSS it is important to consider how this has affected participation rates, funding and types of projects performed. Since 2008, ARTEMIS, ENIAC and ECSEL have funded 158 projects with a total requested funding volume of €2817.24 million. Considering the number of projects performed ARTEMIS accounts for 56 (35%) of all projects, ENIAC for 63 (40%) and ECSEL for 39 (25%) of the three JUs (although it has only been running for 3 years). Between 2008 and 2013 ARTEMIS launched 6 calls (1 per year) and ENIAC 9 calls (2 per year from 2011-2013). Over the period 2014 and 2016 ECSEL launched 6 calls (2 per year).

20

Figure A6.1 Number of Projects Launched per Year by ARTEMIS, ENIAC and ECSEL (Source: EC Data) Figure A6.1 shows the number of projects funded by each initiative over the period 2008-2016. Within ENIAC there was a steady increase in terms of projects funded as well as funding, whereas in ARTEMIS there had been a change towards fewer larger projects being funded resulting in an overall decrease in projects but with a steady funding volume. With the advent of ECSEL it can be seen that 12-14 projects are being funded per year. The ECSEL Joint Undertaking organises two calls every year based on Horizon 2020 rules for funding and participation. One call is dedicated to Research and Innovation Actions (RIA) and the other to Innovation Actions (IA).

RIAs are R&D&I actions aim to establish new knowledge or explore the feasibility of a new improved technology, product, etc. These projects usually address lower technology readiness levels (TRL).

IAs address higher TRLs and focus on R&D&I actions aiming to bring innovations to market. These projects can take the form of pilot lines or innovation pilot projects that intend to bridge the “valley of death” by ensuring the transfer of promising capabilities and results from lower TRL into key application domains.

Following the merger of ENIAC, ARTEMIS and EPoSS into ECSEL six calls were launched between 2014 and 2016 and 39 projects were selected for funding: 22 Research and Innovation Actions and 17 Innovations Actions.

21

Figure A6.2 Distribution of Effort across the ECSEL Work Areas, Calls 2015 (Source: ECSEL Annual Activity Report 2015)

ECSEL has defined a number of work areas. Currently there is no readily available data on the distribution of funded projects across these work areas, however, Figure A6.2 shows the distribution of project proposals submitted to ECSEL for the 2015 calls (i.e. Both RIAs and IAs). Here a trend can be seen with proposals addressing one of the technology topics, or essential capabilities (Semiconductor Process, Equipment and Material, Smart System Integration, Design Technologies, Cyber-Physical Systems).

Figure A6.3 Share of Different Project Types for ARTEMIS, ENIAC and ECSEL (Source: CARSA [24])

The share of Collaborative Projects (CPs) and Large-Scale Innovation Pilot Projects (AIPP, ENIAC PL, ECSEL PL) for ARTEMIS, ENIAC and ECSEL (2014-2015) are shown in Figure A6.3. This shows that the pilot line projects dominated ENIAC and are now dominating ECSEL. The innovation pilots (introduced in 2011/2012) focus on higher TRL levels (5-8) and operate closer to the market with the objective of bridging the “valley of death“ in R&I.

Proposal Success Rates

The proposal success rates for ARTEMIS were initially about 1 in 2 but this dropped in the years to 2010 to about 1 in 4. The average success rate for ARTEMIS overall was 26%. The success rates for large-scale application projects was slightly better than 1 in 2. For ENIAC the success rates remained consistently high as the pilot lines were introduced. The average success rate for ENIAC overall was 46%. With the change to ECSEL it is clear that proposal success rates have fallen (23%), however, for

22

IAs the average success rate is 45% and for RIAs it is 21%. Notably the success for IAs has remained consistent from 2014 to 2016 whereas the success rate for RIAs dipped in 2016 to 16% and then increased to 29% in 2016 following corrective actions by the ECSEL PAB.

Figure A6.4 Relative Success Rates of Semiconductor and CPS Driven RIA and IA Projects (Source:

EC Data) In Figure A6.4 it can be seen that when compared with the overall success rates, the success rates were lower on average for CPS driven projects, except for IAs in 2015. There were no CPS driven IA proposals in 2014 with a preference for submitting RIAs proposals.

Figure A6.5 Expectation from the Merger of ENAIC and ARTEMIS into ECSEL (Source: ECSEL)

Prior to the combination of ENIAC, ARTEMIS into ECSEL the two JUs had significantly different funding levels as can be seen in Figure A6.5. The ENIAC JU started with an initial level of funding of around €200 million but this increased considerably in 2012 and 2013 reaching a level of nearly €1100 million. ARTEMIS started with a funding level of around €200 million and this remained fairly consistent with a final funding level in 2013 of around €160 million. This equates to around 14% of that of ENIAC. When the two JUs were combined, and the total funding level was set at €600 million per year, if this ratio was maintained then the expectation would be that the ARTEMIS CPS activities would attract around 14% of the budget which would be €84 million and the ENIAC semiconductor

23

conductor activities would attract around 86% of the budget. Activities in the smart systems integration area, the EPoSS domain, would be expected to take a share of the overall budget. An analysis was performed of the projects funded estimating the level of funding going to the microelectronics, CPS with software and smart systems activities. The spreadsheet for this is given in Annex 8. In line with expectations, this indicated that CPS and software activities were attracting around 15% of funding, smart systems activities accounted for approximately 5% of activities and microelectronics activities accounted for the rest.

Figure A6.6 Overall View of Attractiveness of Different Funding Schemes (Source: CARSA [24])

Applicants to ECSEL were questioned [24] considering the attractiveness of ECSEL compared to different funding schemes. The concern here was that reduced success levels are a barrier to participants. As shown in Figure A6.6 applicants viewed ECSEL as being less attractive than national programmes but more attractive than intergovernmental programmes. Applicants also viewed ECSEL as being similarly attractive to H2020 funding in general. When asked about their preferred second source of funding after ECSEL, then H2020 was viewed as being the most favourable (82%) compared with national funding (62%) schemes. This indicates that cross-border collaboration is a key driver in the proposed projects. When asked about the drivers behind participation, the key driver was to gain an increase in knowledge and experience. The ability to perform new research and development with another company was the next most important driver. Notably continuing or deepening an existing collaboration and keeping up with the state-of-the-art were considered less important.

Lighthouse Initiatives

Lighthouse initiatives are a new initiative that has been included in the Work Plan for 2016. Lighthouse initiatives are targeted at improving and accelerating the impact of the ECSEL JU by engaging actors across the supply/value chain to achieve concrete socio-economic objectives along an agreed approach. The key aim of Lighthouse projects is to give Europe differentiating factors to compete in next generation integrated solutions for Electronic Components and Systems with an emphasis on platforms for “Smart X” markets. This will build on market-pull related to societal needs at the pan-European level. Lighthouse projects have a number of objectives leading to the creation of ecosystems across value and supply chains, by:

Working towards clustering of projects

Having a strategic IP management policy

Establishing a standardisation strategy

Addressing the relevant non-technical aspects (legislative, regulatory, social, ...) Moreover, Lighthouse initiatives will have an important role in implementing an overall strategy for digital industry in Europe across the different market sectors.

24

Participation Levels in ECSEL

Figure A6.7 Stakeholder Participation in ECSEL 2014-2016 (Source: EC Data)

The stakeholder participation in ECSEL is shown in Figure A6.7. In total 1590 organisations participated in ECSEL over the period 2014-2016. Notably there is a good balance of participation between large industry, SME participation and Universities/Institutions/NP participation which is a result of the mixture of high and low TRL projects undertaken. A key aim of setting up ECSEL was to bring the ARTEMIS, ENIAC and EPoSS communities together. Of the 734 organisations that participated in ARTEMIS and the 706 organisations that participated in ENIAC only 65 (5%) participated in both initiatives. As of 2015 62 organisations that participated in ARTEMIS and 82 organisations that participated in ENIAC are now participating in ECSEL. Several of these organisations are also present in EPoSS.

Figure A6.8 Participation Levels by EU-13, EU-15 and by Third Countries (Source: CARSA [24]) The participation by countries can be seen in Figure A6.8 which shows participation in ECSEL compared with participation in the previous ARTEMIS and ENIAC projects. This shows that the participation levels and EU contributions towards the JUs of the EU 15 countries have remained unchanged with the move to the ECSEL JU. The participation levels and contribution of the EU-13 countries has, however, diminished slightly, particularly in terms of EU contributions. Third party

37%

27%

36%

Industry SMEs Other

25

contributions to the three JUs have remained consistent. In the case of ARTEMIS Germany and France dominated participation in terms of funding whereas in ENIAC Germany, France and the Netherlands dominated funding.

Figure A6.9 Number of Participants per Project (Source: CARSA [24])

In Figure A6.9 the average number of participants per project (using ECSEL data up to 2015) is shown on the left with also the minimum and maximum numbers of participants within each JU. This indicates that in general ENIAC had fewer participants per project and in some cases there were very few participants in a project. The average figures for ARTEMIS and ECSEL show a much closer relationship indicating a move to fewer larger projects. Participation of SMEs

Within ECSEL the participation of SMEs has been reducing from 30% initially in 2014 to 24% in 2016. This compares with participation levels of 29% and 19% for ARTEMIS and ENIAC respectively. It should be noted that the embedded systems domain is characterised by a high number of SMEs. The volume of funding awarded to SMEs within ECSEL was 12% in 2014 and 2015, rising to 13.5% in 2016 which is below the target of 20% set for the general H2020 programme.

26

Funding Levels

Allocated National Funding

in €M

Allocated EU Funding in €M

Industry Contributions

Total Cost in €M

2014 138.07 154.09 354.92 647.08

2015 126.27 142.22 322.16 590.65

2016 133.69 163.67 423.04 720.40

Table A.1: Total Project Costs for 2014, 2015 and 2016 calls (Source: EC Data) Following the transition from ENIAC, ARTEMIS and EPoSS into ECSEL the funding levels were €647.08 million in 2014 and €590.65 million in 2015. In 2016 the funding level was €720.4 million. There was a drop in project costs and in public funding from both Member States and the EU in 2015 mainly due to the decrease in the total cost for the IAs which are in general large-scale projects aimed at bringing innovation closer to market. Following initial high-level commitments from ECSEL Participating States´ (EPS) funding levels reduced in 2015. For the 2015 Calls, although the EPS committed to provide €162.4 million in funding, only €126.27 million were eventually allocated according to EC data. The Participating States allocate funding commensurate with the Union´s budget. As this went down in 2015 then the commitment from national funding also went down. This was highlighted as an issue in the ECSEL Annual Activity Report 2015, “The EU budget has become the limiting factor in the selection of projects. A large amount of the ECSEL Participating States budget went unused (25.1% in 2015). The risk that some EPS will divest from ECSEL in view of this is growing. This can be partly explained by the lower committed EU budget” (ECSEL Annual Activity Report 2015, p.18). In 2016 the EU funding increased again to a level higher than 2014 but the Member State funding, although increasing to €133.7 million, was still below 2014 levels. Since 2008, the ARTEMIS and ENIAC JUs, and the successor ECSEL JU have funded 158 projects accounting for a total requested funding volume of €2817.24 million with industry contributions. €2397.18 million was provided by the EU and MS of which €1091.78 million (46%) came from EU contributions and €1305.40 million (54%) came from Member State contributions.

EU Contribution

% MS Contribution

% Total

ARTEMIS 181.38 35% 341.84 65% 523.22

ENIAC 450.42 44% 565.52 56% 1015.94

ECSEL 459.98 54% 398.04 46% 858.02

Total 1091.78 46% 1305.40 54% 2397.18

Table A.2: Requested EU and MS Contribution of ARTEMIS, ENIAC and ECSEL (Source: EC data) Table A.2 shows the partition of funding between the EU and Member States for ARTEMIS, ENIAC and ECSEL. The overall level of funding for ARTEMIS was considerably smaller than ENIAC. The EU had a funding share of 35% in ARTEMIS and 44% in ENIAC. The EU funding share for the ECSEL JU, while much less than the combined contributions to ARTEMIS and ECSEL has, as a percentage, increased considerably to 54%.

27

Figure A6.10 Volume and Share of Funding by Type of Instrument (Total Funding)

(Source: European Commission, calculations AIT)

Figure A6.10 shows the volume of requested total funding allocated to Collaborative Projects and Innovation Pilot Lines in the three initiatives up to 2015. This clearly shows that the innovation pilots have been allocated much higher levels of funding:

The 14 ENIAC innovation pilot projects account for 52% of the total requested budget of the JU

The three ARTEMIS innovation pilots account for 21% of the total requested budget of the JU. (It should be noted that there were no CPS driven IA proposals in 2014).

The 11 ECSEL innovation projects funded up to 2016 account for 73% of the total requested budget of the JU.

Figure A6.11 Average Funding per Type of Project (Source: European Commission)

Average funding per project is shown in Figure A6.11 using data up to 2015. This indicates some differences between the three JUs and the type of projects with ARTEMIS funding fewer AIPP projects, but to a greater extent, and ENIAC funding more pilot lines, but with more funding than that allocated under ECSEL.

28

Figure A6.12 Volume of Funding for ARTEMIS, ENIAC and ECSEL (Source CARSA [24])

The overall volume of EC funding requested for ARTEMIS, ENIAC and ECSEL in the period 2008-2015 is shown in Figure A6.12. The totals are €181.4 million for ARTEMIS, €450.42 million for ENIAC, and €297.9 million for ECSEL respectively (up to 2015). The requested funding levels show little change for ARTEMIS but for ENIAC there is a significant increase in requested funding. These higher levels have been maintained under ECSEL. In 2016 the allocated EU funding for selected projects was €163.57 million.

The structure and volume of funding differs considerably between ARTEMIS, ENIAC and ECSEL. ARTEMIS had a much higher share of funding going towards SMEs with 19% of the EU contribution allocated to this. Research organisations (HEIs & RES) also received a higher share of funding in ARTEMIS, than in ENIAC. Currently in ECSEL 36% of funding is allocated to research organisations showing a further strengthening of participation from this sector.

The general levels of participation of Higher Education Institutions & Research Organisations, Industry, SMEs and Other within H2020 ICT and FP7 ICT are:

• H2020 ICT: – 54% (HEI&RO), 20% (IND), 19% (SME), and 7% (OTH) • FP7 ICT: – 64% (HEI&RO), 18% (IND), 15% (SME), and 3% (OTH)

Considering ICT research funded generally under H2020 and FP7 all three JU initiatives have a much higher share of funding allocated to large enterprises. The funding allocation to SMEs is comparable to the general H2020 and FP7 ICT research funding figures although the current level of SME funding in ECSEL (12-13.5%) is below H2020 targets.

29

Average Funding Per Participation

Figure A6.13 Average Funding Levels Considering Project Type (Source CARSA [24])

Figure A6.13 shows the average funding per participation using data up to 2015. Here there are some differences between funding in ENIAC, ARTEMIS and the subsequent ECSEL JU. ENIAC allocated higher amounts of funding to individual project participants, and notably to large industrial partners, than ARTEMIS and ECSEL. This applies to both collaborative projects and also to pilot lines. Differences between ARTEMIS and ENIAC are more pronounced for the innovation pilot lines. This has changed in the ECSEL pilot lines to the average funding per participation being about €200K higher for research organisations than for large enterprises.

Concentration of Funding Per Participant

Figure A6.14 Concentration of Funding Per Participant (Source: CARSA [24])

30

The concentration of funding per participant using data up to 2015 is shown in Figure A6.14. For ENIAC the concentration of funding was high with the first 5% of all participations receiving more than 50% of funding and the first 10% receiving more than 60%. Large shares of ENIAC funding were concentrated among a limited number of actors. For ARTEMIS, the first 10% of participations only accounted for the around 30% of funding. In contrast, within ECSEL the first 10% of participations have received 55% of the funding. It can be concluded that in the move from ENIAC and ARTEMIS to ECSEL there has been little change in the funding allocation compared with ENIAC where a few actors dominated but in the case of ARTEMIS there has been a radical change in the way funding is being allocated.

31

Annex 7 Interviewees

Ben Ruck, ECSEL PAB Chair Khalil Rouhana, DG CNECT, Deputy Director-General Laila Gide, President ARTEMIS-IA Renzo Dal Molin, Vice Chair EPoSS Ina Sebastian, Chair of Management Committee AENEAS

32

Annex 8 Analysis Data of Project Domains: CPS, Semiconductor and Smart Systems Integration

The data in Table A8.1 contains information that is subject to final budget agreement, however, it is not expected that there will be significant changes. Based on this table estimates were made of the shares of funds allocated to CPS, semiconductor and smart systems integration activities. The full original table is available at http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/home_en.html

33

34

European Commission Interim Evaluation of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking (2014-2016) Operating under Horizon

2020 – Annexes

Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union

2017 – 35 pages

ISBN 978-92-79-69620-6

doi:10.2759/337045

35

KK

-01

-17

-61

6-E

N-N

doi:10.2759/337045 ISBN 978-92-79-69620-6