Tomáš Sabol Faculty of EconomicsTechnical University of Košice

Experience with European R&D Projects

Tomas.Sabol@tuke.sk

2

Content

• EU R&D projects – some advices, health check

• FP7 instruments• Some aspects of R&D projects – partners,

project team, role of PhD students, dissemination, budget,

• Is there any “Success story” and how to measure it?

• Our R&D projects – what were they about?

• EU tenders

3

Why Experience & Advice?

• Experience is simply the name we give to our mistakes.

Oscar Wilde

• Those who are already old enough to serve as bad examples are giving good advices.

Anonymous

4

European R&D projects - Basics

• Long-term preparation needed (do not expect results in 3 months), it is a strategic decision/investment

• Support of top management needed• It has to be a part of organisational culture• It is a team activity, put emphasis on team

building• Build the credit of your team

Keep all promises Deliver quality (reports, SW etc.) and on time

Bad reputation travels 7 times faster than good reputation (multiple by factor of 10 on the Internet)

• Develop and cultivate contacts with partners abroad and at home on personal and institutional level (Networking!)

• It is an entrepreneurial activity – you have to invest up front (your time, effort, money) and the result is uncertain (success rate in FP7 IST - 11%)

5

FP7 project proposal – Health check

• Is your project scientifically and technically excellent? Relevant to the topics addressed by the Call, „User/problem driven approach“ (clearly define the

problem/users needs) Progress beyond the state-of-the-art clearly defined, etc.?

• Well-worked out project management plan?• Will your project have a significant impact (through

development, dissemination, use of project results)?• Is your consortium competent and complete

(balanced - universities, companies, user partners, …)?

• Is the budget adequate (corresponding to project activities). Do you have all the resources you need?

6

Applied research

Good to have on the country level:• Defined national strategies, e.g. of:

• Knowledge economy (National Lisbon strategy)• Information Society development, …

• Defined priorities of R&D • Innovation Strategy • Working links between Fundamental

research & Applied research• Efficient Technology transfer mechanisms• Efficient University-Industry cooperation• Advisory services, NCPs, …

7

Choose the right instrument for your idea

• Integrated Project (IP)

• Specific Targeted Research Project (STREP)

• Network of Excellence

• Coordination Action• Specific Support Action

FP7 instruments

8

Purpose: Ambitious objective-driven research with a ‘programme’ approach

Target audience: Industry (incl. SMEs), Research institutions, Universities, and in some cases potential end-users

Typical duration: 36-60 months

Optimum consortium: 10-20 participants

Total EU contribution: €4-25m (average €10m)

Flexibility in implementation: Yearly update of Workplan

Integrated project (IP)

9

Scale of ambition is limited, reflected in limited

activities, duration, size of consortium more typical of a STREP

Goals are ambitious. The proposers include key

industry players. A full range of activities covering a substantial part of the development chain is envisaged. Broad industry sector impact is foreseen. SME participation has been sought/achieved. Effective project management plans are in place

Integrated project

10

Purpose: Objective-driven research more limited in scope than an IP

Target audience: Industry, including SMEs, research institutes, universities

Typical duration: 18-36 monthsOptimum consortium: 6-15 participantsTotal EU contribution: €0.8-3m (average

€1.9m)Fixed Workplan and fixed partnership for the

duration

Specific targeted research project (STREP)

11

The work is unoriginal, not scientifically

and technically excellent

A well-focused and well-planned

research project by capable partners which will extend the state-of-the-art

Specific targeted research project

12

Roles in EU R&D projects

• Project coordinator• Project partners – development vs. user

partners (representatives of end users)• Project officer (PO) – representative of the

European Commission• Reviewers of the project• Other project teams (project clusters)• Target groups regarding dissemination &

exploitation of the project results• Management of your organisation

13

Partners in EU R&D projects

• How to find them? You know them from previous projects (e.g. educational –

we used it, but did not work very well) Personal references Conferences, EU events, reviews, etc.

Pareto’s rule applies also here: 20% of organisations has 80% of EU projects

Different categories of institutions:• Universities:

Usually open for cooperation, but – track record is important the quality “speaks” (applies to the both parties)

• Knowledge Media Institute, Open University, UK• University of Regensburg, DE• University of Aarhus, DK• National Technical University of Athens, ICCS, GR • University of Reading, UK

14

Partners in EU R&D projects

• Large companies May be suspicious towards “unknown institutions”, their

legal departments have an important say Sometimes frequent changes - people are leaving and

joining, more anonymous– British Aerospace, UK– Siemens, DE– Telefonica, Spain– SYGNITY S.A., PL

• SMEs One-two persons sometimes doing everything, more

personal– InJet, DK– CNET, Sweden

• Applied research institutes, think tanks Usually of top quality– Fraunhoffer institutes, DE– Danish Technological Institute (DTI), DK– RAND Europe, NL

15

Partners in EU R&D projects

• NGOsUsually good in their area of expertise,

committed people (but also here exist exceptions)

– eISOTIS, GR• User partners (e.g. public administration)

Usually not very experienced in EU projects, research

– PA institutions in UK, PL, HU, SK• Commitment and personal motivation is

important, but not sufficient, • Important: Previous experience in

international projects, project management as a part of the organisational culture

16

Your project team

• Optimal size: 6-8 (depends on the size of project)

• Combination of: professional + project management + interpersonal skills (team players)

Roles:• Project manager• Vision owner – answers the question “What?”• Chief architect - answers the question “How?”• Generator of ideas – producing ideas, …• Critical thinker – constructive criticism• Doers (in IT = coders)• Good communicator (“social glue”) One person can play several roles Categories: Specialist / Generalist / Versatilist

17

PhD students in R&D projects

• Benefits (Pros):Working on real problems, applicationsProfessional growth, improving language skills,

learning principles of project managementPossibility to travelAvailability of resources In frequent contacts with international research

community, …• Cons:

Too busy working on the project(s), do not have time to write PhD thesis ;-)

May be offered jobs by partners from abroad• Some finished here (Jan Hreno, Robert Kende, Karol

Furdik) + Some left for abroad Is it good or bad?

18

Dissemination

• Dissemination towards specified target groups– Specified targets for dissemination

• Target groups: Research community

Conferences, workshops Journals, monographs – in our case much less (BUT depends

on the research area – in IT different than in economy) Business community

Fairs (CeBIT, …), presentations, workshops, End users (e.g. public administration)

Presentations, workshops

• + Press releases, Newsletters,…• Exploitation Plan

– Business plan (definition of the products/services, added value, definition of customer, business model, price policy, licence policy, …)

19

Budget

• Main budget items: Personnel costs – major item

• Month-rates depending on the track-record Travel & subsistence

• More travels in IPs (demanding coordination, integration) than in STREPs

Equipment – limited (in our projects) Consumables (SW, books, …) + Indirect costs (Overheads)

• Travelling– Within EU– Outside EU only with prior approval of the EC (PO)– Project management meetings (twice a year), WP

meetings, project reviews– Conferences, workshops – only where we have

presentations (no “private travel agency”)

20

Project Review

• On average every 12 months (if not request for an additional review)

• Participants:– Project officer (PO) – 3-5 independent experts (from all over the EU) invited by the EC

(company senior managers, developers for private sector, university professors, …)

– All partners represented• One full day exercise (e.g. 9.00-16.00) in Brussels or at one of the

partner’s (e.g. user partner’s) site• Presentations:

– Technical presentations on individual WPs– Live demonstration (preferably online)– Pilot projects– Dissemination & Exploitation (business models, …)– Project Management

• Potential results of the review: Red flag – Pay the money back (for the undelivered work) Yellow flag – You can continue, but have to rework deliverables Dx.x,

Dy.y, … (and reviewers can ask for an additional review) Green flag – Go ahead! See you at the next review• Each project deliverable is accepted or rejected (with impact on

financing – rejected deliverables are not financed)• Tough (to produce good quality code is not enough, if you do not

have a clear idea who and how the project products will be used) - but professional, objective and fair!

21

What do we mean by „Success Story“?

www.google.com: • define: Success story

• … „An example of a successful practice“If we accept the definition:• “… this term is used to distinguish those

that have succeeded with a practice from those that are experimenting …”

• … Then we are experimenting with international R&D projects for 14+ years

22

How to measure success? (1/2)

Management adage: What cannot be measured, cannot be managed.

• What is an indicator of success in applied research projects?

• Approved project? It takes about one year - from starting to work on a

project proposal till starting the project (Writing project proposal, Submitting it, Evaluation of proposals, Negotiation, Signing a contract)

• Amount of funding (grant) / Project total budget?– Different tools in FP7 (STREP, IP, NoE, SA, NoE, …)– STREP: 1.5 – 3 million EUR, IP: 8 – 12 million EUR, NoE: 3

– 6 million EUR• Successfully closed project?

Successful final review, satisfied project officer (PO) About 3-4 years of effort

23

How to measure success? (2/2)

• Project results accepted by the “client” (end users), applied in private/public sector? Somebody is interested in the project results, will use it.

And even willing to pay for it? Additional 1-2 years of effort

• Recognition by international partners? – Awards, prices, invitations, …? About 5+ years of effort

• Satisfaction of members of your project team– Are they willing to work with you on another project?

• Some spin-off?– Business? Another project, … ?

Success factor: Sustainability, repeatibility. Not just a one-off activity

24

So how will we measure it? (1/2)

• Number of projects you participated in?• Amount of money?

Total amount of grants for your institution?Total amount of grants of projects you wrote?Person-month rates for you?

• Economic impact of practical applications of the realised projectsFP7 is applied research – there should be

measurable socio-economic impact• Satisfaction of the project team members

Do you have a stable core team? Is it growing?

25

So how will we measure it? (2/2)

• Recognition by the European Commission Invitation to workshops/conferences organised

by the EC (invited speaker) Invitation by the EC for project proposals

evaluation, to act as project reviewerNomination for the “Project of the Month”…

• Recognition by project partners abroad?How many times were you asked by them to

join projects they initiated?Offers of other types (tenders, individual

expert, …)

26

R&D projects (1/3)

Participation in FP4, FP5, eTEN, FP6, FP7:• Contract No. 217098 „Secure Process-oriented

Integrative Service Infrastructure for Networked Enterprises (SPIKE)”, FP7, STREP, 2008-2010

• FP6-2004-027020 Access to e-Government Services Employing Semantic Technologies (Access-eGov), FP6, STREP, 2006-2008

• FP6-2004-27128 Semantic-enabled Agile Knowledge–based e-Government (SAKE), FP6, STREP, 2006-2008

• IST-2005-034891 Networked Embedded System Middleware for Heterogeneous Physical Devices in a Distributed Architecture (HYDRA), FP6, IP, 2006-2010

• FP6-2004-027219 Democracy Network (DEMO_net), FP6, NoE, 2006-2009

27

R&D projects (2/3)

• 517476 Interoperability Initiative for a European eHealth Area (I2Health), eTEN, SA, 2005-2007

• IST-1999-20364 “Web Technologies Supporting Direct Participation in Democratic Processes (Webocracy)“, FP5, STREP, 2000-2003

• IST-1999-29088 „Providing Innovative Service Models and Assessment (PRISMA)“, FP5, SSA, 2001-2003

• IST-2000-26224 “Best eEurope Practices (BEEP)”, FP5, SSA, 2002-2003

• IST-2000-26393 „European Knowledge Management Forum“, 5RP, Thematic Network, 2000-2003

28

R&D projects (3/3)

• HPSE-CT-2001-00065 „EU Integration and the Prospects for Catch-Up Development in CEECs. The Determinants of the Productivity Gap (Productivity Gap)“, FP5, 2001-2004

• IST-2000-29518 „e-VOTE“, FP5, STREP, 2003-2004 • Esprit 29065 “Web in Support of Knowledge

Management in Company (KnowWeb)”, FP4, 1998-2001

• Esprit 29015 “Enriching Representations of Work to Support Organisational Learning (ENRICH)”, FP4, 1998-2000

• COPERNICUS CIPA-CT94-0149 „Environment for Configuration Design (ENCODE)“, FP3, 1994-1997

29

Research areas (1/2)

• Constraint Satisfaction Problem (ENCODE)• Design problems (predefined components, constraints

between components which have to be satisfied → to choose components in such a manner that the resulted artefact will achieve requested functionality and satisfy all the given constraints

E.g. to design a portfolio of … satisfying pre-defined constraint

• Knowledge management (KnowWeb, ENRICH)• In knowledge economy knowledge is the most important

asset of the organisation Easy access to all knowledge within the organisation Support of organisational learning

• ICT and Knowledge economy (PRISMA) Scenario Planning, technology foresight To identify scenarios of potential future development

• Applications of ICT in service sector – eHealth, eTransport, eLearning, eGovernment (BEEP) Good practice processing, socio-economic assessment of

ICT applications

30

Research areas (2/2)

• Analysis of FDIs in New Member States (ProductivityGap) Realisation of survey, statistical processing of the survey

results + application of artificial intelligence techniques (data mining)

• eGovernment and application of semantic technologies (Webocracy, SAKE, Access-eGov) Efficient government - condition of the country competitiveness Knowledge modelling, semantics (meaning) processing

• Ambient intelligence (HYDRA) Pilot applications: eHealth, Agriculture, Smart house Value modelling, business modelling

• Networked enterprises (SPIKE) Support of virtual enterprise creation (temporary alliances) in

knowledge economy + Business plan, Business models, Risk analysis,

Quality assurance plan (ALL projects)

31

EU tenders

• Call for tenders published by the EC• Average size of EC tenders: 0.5 mil. – 5 mil. EUR• Duration: 6 – 18 months• Bids are evaluated by the EC • Result (survey etc.) of the tender is the property of the

EC• Studies, analyses, benchmarking exercises, best practice

identification, policy evaluation, … - usually in EU27• Process:

– Contacted by an experienced partner from abroad (empirica, DTI, RAND, ECOTEC, …) who knows you from previous project

– Submitting necessary legal documents, short description of organisation, list of previous projects, CV of key personnel

– Signing a subcontract with main contractor• Our subcontract – usually less than 10 000 EUR• Responsible for a given report (survey in SK, policy

analysis, … etc.)

32

Participation in EU tenders (1/3)

• eHealth Benchmarking. Subcontract agreement under EC contract No. 30-CE-0160355/00-37, contractor: empirica GmBH, Germany, 2008.

• Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2000 – 2006 co-financed by the ERDF. WP6: Enterprise environment and innovation. Contractor: Danish Technological Institute, Denmark, 2008.

• Multi-channel delivery strategies and sustainable business models for public services addressing socially disadvantaged groups [Contract Number 30-CE-0161843/00-50]. Contractor: ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd, United Kingdom, 2008-2009.

• Benchmarkimg Sectoral Policy Initiatives in Support of eBusiness for SME´s. Contract NO.S12.449074, contractor: empirica GmBH, Germany, 2007.

33

Participation in EU tenders (2/3)

• Benchmarking eSkills Policies on multi-stakeholder partnerships. Contract No. S12.444992, contractor: empirica GmBH, Germany, 2007.

• Measures to increase trust and confidence of consumers in the Information Society (CONSTRUST). Contract No. 30-CE-0033938/00-70, contractor: empirica GmBH, Germany, 2006 - 2007

• MeAc - Measuring Progress of eAccessibility in Europe (eAccessibility). Contract No. 30-CE0039801/00-96, contractor: Empirica GmBH, Germany, 2006 – 2007.

34

Participation in EU tenders (3/3)

• eTEN Study, Contract No. C28955 “Study on trans-European deployment potential, sustainability and exploitation models for public services in the context of an enlarged European Union”. For the eTEN Unit of DG Information Society, European Commission, contractor: Danish Technological Institute, Denmark.

• Study: “eBusiness Market Watch”, for the European Commission, Contract No. FIF 20030224, contractor: empirica Gesellschaft für Kommunikations- und Technologieforschung mbH, Germany.

• ENISA study: “Member States’ Activities in Information and network Security – Inventory and Best Practices Guide”, contractor: Empirica Gesellschaft fur Kommunikations − und Technologieforschung Mbh, Germany

35

Participation in EU tenders

Topics covered: eHealth Evaluation of Structural Funds tools (R&D,

innovation) Inclusive eGovernment eBusiness eSkills Trust and Confidence in Information Society eAccessability eGovernment Information and network security

• Cooperation with external experts if needed• Subcontract is paid after delivering the

work and approval of the EC (no advance payment)

36

Conclusion (or Introduction?) - New concepts, buzz-words, technologies, trends, … appeared:

• Web 2.0 (Social web), Web 3.0 (Semantic web), Web 4.0 (connecting intelligence, people and things reason and communicate together)

• Ambient intelligence, Ubiquitous computing, …, Utility computing• Market-facing company, Enterprise 2.0 (social & networked changes to enterprise, social

SW), … Virtual enterprises, Networked enterprises, …• Knowledge economy Knowledge (the most important company asset) knowledge

management, knowledge technologies, knowledge asset management, …• Networked economy, Service oriented economy (services - intrinsically tradeable & valued

according to some notion of exchange value; technology strengthens labour inputs)

• Creative sector (media, the arts, …), creativity index, …• Business modelling value modelling

• Scenario building, technology foresight, technology assessment, …• Mega trend: Growing complexity/Networking (Complexity science), a-Life, Self-reflective

systems, ..

• So, are we ready for inter-/trans-disciplinary research (besides giving nice presentations/speeches on these topics)?

• Do we have methods/techniques for knowledge assets evaluation/assessment, new value/business models, …

Will there be “Economic Science 2.0”? ☺ • Economics = the social science that studies the production, distribution, and

consumption of goods and services (Wikipedia)• What will NOT change in this? (production, distribution, services, Wikipedia?)

• & … Is anybody out there? (To do this research)

The future is already here. It is just not evenly distributed. (W. Gibson)Zítřek je vždy tak trochu třaskavá směs (V. Nezval)

37

Thank you for attention!

Questions (2.0)? Comments?

Contact: Tomas.Sabol@tuke.sk

Intellectuals … are not original thinkers,

but purveyors of second-hand ideas

(F. Hayek)