ist proposers workshop 24 mar 2003 myer w morron iserd [email protected]

IST Proposers Workshop

24 Mar 2003

Myer W Morron

ISERD

[email protected]

24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 2

Outline• Goals of workshop• Overview of where we stand today• Available documents• Process - what to do and how to decide• STREPs• IPs• NoEs• Proposal differences• SMEs• Eureka/Magnet• How to identify a proposal to join• Financial/IPR/liability aspects• Conclusions


Goals of workshop• Sixth in a planned series of twice a month• Information aimed at IST participants• To bring you up to date with latest situation• To structure your activities• To answer your questions• To get answers for those we cannot handle• To use reactions in planning content for next

workshop on 13 April• Note - official documents are only legal guide


Overview of where we stand today

• Basic call documents available• Some important supplementary guides missing• A great deal of confusion in Europe• Some major players going down blind alleys• In some areas increasing importance of Eureka• New proposal system EPSS/EPT available• EPSS Workshop on 15 April 2003• Several basic questions unanswered


Available documents• Workprogram 2003/2004 available• First call issued • Call correction issued• All Proposers Guides available• Guide correction issued• “Provisions” drafts available• Drafts of evaluation manuals available• Full drafts of model contract available• Only drafts of Financial and IPR manuals• Preliminary consortium agreements• No Memoranda of Understanding


Process - what to do & how to decide• Clarify your own goals for participation

• Identify Strategic Objective

• Identify topic(s)

• Know which call and time frame

• Clarify if you will coordinate or participate

• Key question is to go for an IP or a STREP

• Danger of STREP overlap with an IP

• I suggest the following process -


IP or STREP?Identify if area of interest covered by SO

Can it complement a project in a SO?

Look elsewhere for funding

Find consortium

Does specific topic ask only STREPs?

Consider STREP

STREPs and/or IPs

Identify potential IP proposersIs topic covered?

Allow you to participate?

Join

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

NoNo

No


STREPs• STREP ~ 1-3 MEuro & ~4-6 partners, 2-3 yrs• STREPs are extremely important for Israelis• Opportunity for our high tech industry• In IST Call 1 funding is 1,100 MEuro• 65% to IPs and NoEs (700 MEuro)

– Of which say 150 MEuro for NoEs– and say 550 MEuros for IPs

• Of remaining 35%, say 5% for SSAs and CAs• Leaves 30% ie 330 MEuro for STREPs


STREP possible structure

Management Board with senior representative of each partner

Partners

Chaired by Project Manager

Technical Boardwith technical leaders of each partner/WP

Chaired by Technical Director

WP5WP4WP3WP2WP1Project Management


Financial ManagementThis is manipulation by the Commission of assigned funding An example would be to offer a proposal for say 15MEuro over four years, an initial contract for say 7 MEuro for 2years to be followed by a competative call for final two years.Positive effect is it allows more IPs to be initiated, postpones political conflict, less danger of losing fundingNegative effect is it precommits future funding for second phase, postpones hard decisions


IPs• Size - depends on topic

– Most areas• 6 - 12 MEuro funding with some financial management• 8 - 15 core partners• 4 - 5 years

– Microelectronic, Communications• 10 - 25 MEuro funding with financial management• 8 - 15 core partners• 4 - 5 years

• Now only two types - – Monolithic– Incremental participation


IP Limiting FactorsIt is vital to bear in mind the following -• Management “Span of Control” must be

minimised to 6 - 8 via sub-project mechanism• “Core partners” would each be expected to

allocate several staff full time to the project– Significant work cannot be carried out with part

time staff– Also would show level of commitment– 12 MEuro project over 4 years = ~ 120 manyears/4

= 30 people full time => 15 partners 2 staff each• IT market is too dynamic for longer term

commitments (ie >4 years)


IP possible structure

Management Board with senior representative of each partner

Partners

Chaired by Project Manager

Technical Board withArea leaders

Chaired by Technical Director

Area 4Area 3Area 2Area 1

Project MngmntOffice

Core Team of Core Partners

WP2 WP2 WP1 WP3 WP2 WP1 WP3 WP3 WP2 WP1 WP1

WP1 WP2


NoEs• Networks should consist of a limited number of

major labs/players• Options to add in further participants• Proposals with 90 partners will fail• It is the Department or Institute that joins• Must have high level commitment (Vice

Chancellor)• Area is even fuzzier than IPs• Companies will not get R&D funding -

– Could get funding for - Technology xfer, training, steering committee, NoE Management etc


NoE possible structureNetwork Board with senior representative of each partner(Vice Chancellor level)

Chaired by Network Manager

Joint Activity Boardwith department leaders of each partner

Chaired by Academic Leader

WP5WP4WP3WP2

Network Management

WP1

WP1 WP2 WP3

Scientific and/orIndustrial Advisory Board


Proposal differences• Discussing IST R&D proposals• Only Part A and Part B• Not anonymous• No signatures• New submittal tool EPSS• Modified/new criteria• www.cordis.lu/fp6/pre_registration.htm• Shortlisted NoEs and IPs invited for interview• 7% management at 100% can be divided• “Innovation” is now dissemination, takeup etc


SMEs• More difficult for micro SMEs• Evaluation criterion• Ending of FF means previous FFers should try

to justify higher rates by imaginative use of FC• Opportunity to add in during call 3• Need to differentiate between low and high

tech SMEs• Opportunity for 100% cover of risk insurance


Eureka 1• Several IST Strategic Objectives have directly

corresponding Eureka Activities.• In general Eureka deals with Current Generation

Technology plus one and IST with plus two.• Thus there is encouragement in IST link them, with

IST feeding into Eureka.

MarketEureka project

IST project

CGT +1

CGT+2


Eureka 2• As a consequence I would expect that several

consortia proposing to IST will be based on existing Eureka projects

• A way to identify them and perhaps join (with or without participation in Eureka) is via Eureka

• In Israel Eureka funding is via Chief Scientist rules - at a disadvantage wrt most Europeans, as their financial conditions are better


Eureka 3Following SOs specifically reference Eureka - Pushing limits of CMOS & preparing for post-CMOS Micro and nano systems Broadband for all (shortly) eSafety for Road and Air Transport eHealth Open development Platforms for software and services Embedded systems Product and Service engineering 2010


Eureka 4CMOS MEDEA+

Micro/Nano EURISMUS/PIDEA

Broadband CELTIC

Multimodal MULTIMEDIA

eSafety

eHealth

Software/embedded ITEA

Product engineering FACTORY


Eureka 5Major relevant Eureka activities and leaders -

MEDEA+ (Microelect) ST Microelectronics

EURIMUS (Microsystems) Leta CEA

PIDEA (Packaging) Thomson

MULTIMEDIA Belgian Ministry of Science

ITEA (Software) Philips

CELTIC (Telecomm) Alcatel in planning

FACTORY French Ministry of Industry


Magnet• In FP6 and in IST in particular the linking of

national programs and projects to IST projects is actively encouraged and is part of the evaluation.

• Magnet consortia as legal entities can participate in say IPs in related areas.

• Individual members can also participate in their own right


How to identify a proposal to join• Main goal is to identify potential coordinators• 95% will not be new to IST• Use all info sources to prepare a list of potential

coordinators• Rank according to your business interest• Contact them and ask if they are organising or

involved in a proposal and explain what you could offer


Memorandum of UnderstandingA coordinator should sign with partners when

forming consortium and contain at least -• Non-disclosure agreement• Non-competitive clause ie competing consortium• Status in consortium ie “Core” partner or not• Role in consortium• How to handle financial viability check• Access to the 7%• Notional level of participation• Any relevant IPR issues• Any relevant exploitation issues


How to identify coordinators• Current project partners• Discussions at concertation/cluster meetings• Participation/coordination in FP5 projects• Scan Expression of Interest data base• Participation in related Eureka area projects• From CORDIS partner search• Roadmap projects in your area (if any)• From Idealist partner search• From attendance at related Information Events• Use www.iserd.org.il/ist under Strategic Objectives


Financial aspects• Major changes• Choice of Cost Models

– AC– FC– FCF

• Calculation of overhead• Budget breakdown in Proposal• Financial viability changes• NoE calculation of Grant


Major changes• Project can start when coordinator/CEC sign• Advance payments annually• Annual cost statements final• No imposed financial system• Cost categories eliminated• All cost statements must have audit certificate• Up to 7% of project for PM at 100%• (Funding distribution not in contract)• FF replaced by FCF with 20% overhead• Takeup now at 50% instead of 100%


AC Cost Model• For academic institute/non profit organisation

• Difference form old AC is that 100% management costs can now cover recurrent costs

• Can choose FC (as per FP5) - NEW

• Maximum funding 100% plus 20% overhead

• Overhead on all costs except subcontracts

• (Also for a physical person)


FC Cost Model• For any industrial/commercial organisation

• Only SME may choose FCF

• Calculated overhead verified by auditor

• Overhead applies to all costs except subcontracts

• Non technical support staff working on project can now be directly charged (but not double counted)


FCF Cost Model• For SMEs only

• Flat rate of 20% overheads on all costs except subcontracts

• Non technical support staff working on project can now be directly charged


Cost of EmploymentBasis of costings:CoE = Salary

+ benefits (car, bituach minhalim, etc, etc) + statuary costs such as bituah leumi + allowance for inflation of say 4% per year

Remember to calculate your rate based on “productive time” ie net of vacation, holidays, company training, sickness, miluim, etc

ie ~< 10 months in a year


Calculation of overhead 1 technical service departments such as QA, design services allocations for internally funded R&D if it is normal practice costs related to general administration and management; costs related to ongoing professional training of staff costs of office or laboratory space, including rent or

depreciation of buildings & equipment, & related expenditure such as water, heating, electricity, maintenance, insurance & safety costs;

communication expenses, network connection charges, postal charges and office supplies;

office equipment such as PC’s, laptops, office software; miscellaneous recurring consumables.


Calculation of overhead 2• In past it was normal practice to calculate

overhead based on R&D headcount

• Now it is probably better to calculate on a cost basis as overhead is added to all project expenses, excluding subcontracts

• Please use an accountant experienced in EU rules


Budget breakdown in Proposal• Must be a general breakdown in the proposal

• More detailed breakdown for the 18 month implementation plan

• Must be split between types of activity as rates can vary:– Project Management 100% up to 7%– Research and innovation 50%– Demonstration 35%– Training costs 100%


NoE calculation of GrantResearchers to be integrated into the average annual grant:• 50 researchers € 1 million/year• 100 researchers € 2 million/year• 150 researchers € 3 million/year• 250 researchers € 4 million/year• 500 researchers € 5 million/year• 1000 researchers and above € 6million/yearThe grant for an intermediate number of researchers would be

calculated by linear interpolation.The bonus for doctoral students engaged on research activities in

the frame of the network will be €4,000/year for each student, up to a maximum of 10 % of the grant for the “researchers”.


“Collective responsibility”• Replaces liability of consortium members• Major differences• None for “public bodies”• Contractor liability limited to his grant• Commission will check financial viability of

Co-ordinator• How will co-ordinator check that of partners?• Need to open their books via independent 3rd

party - who pays?


IPR Aspects 1The rules regarding the protection dissemination and

use of knowledge have been simplified and a larger flexibility is granted to the participants: rules are identical for all participants rules concentrate on the principles and provisions

considered necessary for an efficient cooperation and the appropriate use and dissemination of the results

participants may define among themselves the arrangements that fit them the best within the framework provided in the model contract


IPR Aspects 2


Conclusions• MOU advisable when joining consortium

• Keep in touch with ISERD as things change

• Next Workshop 13 Apr 2003 - online form

• Will hold EPSS/EPT Workshop 15 April

• email questions etc to [email protected]

• Everyone in Europe is confused


Linkswww.iserd.org.il/istwww.iserd.org.il/newISERD/IST/Documents.htmwww.cordis.lu/experts/fp6_candidature.htmeoi.cordis.lu/search_form.cfmwww.ideal-ist.netwww.cordis.lu/ist/projects/projects.htmwww.cordis.lu/ist/KA2/Roadmap www.iserd.org.il/idealist/SO.htmlwww.eureka.be www.eureka.org.ilwww.eurimus.com www.itea-office.orgwww.medea.org www.pidea.com.fr

ist proposers workshop 24 mar 2003 myer w morron iserd [email protected]

Documents

streps slide

documents available

w morron8 streps strep

myer w morron iserd

available documents

w morron7 ip

w morron3 goals of workshop

w morron6 process