Transcript Internationaal

Internationaal
Practical guidelines for Polish
companies and researchers based on
experiences of the FP 6 first call
Dr ir Matthijs Soede
Poznan, 9 June 2003
Internationaal
Content





SWOT Analysis Framework Programme
Type of projects – Instruments
Experiences with FP6
Conclusions
Recommendations
Internationaal
Strengths







Funding for core R&D that we were going to do
anyway
Helps to focus R&D strategy on what is needed by
supply chain and customers
Access to partner's facilities and technologies
‘Soft' money (think of how much T/O would be
needed to generate this amount of profit)
Positive cash flow
Total budget of $XM far beyond what could be
achieved alone
Prestige of being in an International project
Internationaal
Weaknesses








Deadline too short to do a proper job
Increasingly complex system, more Euro-speak
(easier to get national funding)
High cost to prepare & low chance of success 15%?
Can’t justify cost of preparing proposal but.....
Not very flexible - 3-5 year contract/programme
Involvement of competitors
Inhibits N America/Pacific Rim collaborations
Too much non-core activity compared to in-house
project
Internationaal
Opportunities







Networking with supply chain and customers
Interactions with new people and technologies
leading to new ideas
Access to the EC and possible input to future
strategic planning
Staff development
Develop ideas and partnerships for new proposals
Use as background to speed up other technology
developments
Separate projects with some of the partners
Internationaal
Threats








Liability due to non/bad performance of other
partners (especially for a $50M project?)
Changing economic circumstances
Changing technical priorities eg need to
troubleshoot production rather than R&D
Impact of £-$ exchange rate
Project has to be very large and ambitious.
Perhaps too large/complex to work and too
ambitious
1 year delay in starting work eg others have filed
new patents
Confidentiality amongst consortium
Internationaal
Type of projects - Instruments

Integrated Projects
-to achieve ambitious, clearly defined scientific and
technological objectives by integration of different areas,
competences, and resources

Network of Excellence
-to tackle the fragmentation in research society by
integrating the critical mass of expertise

STREPS
-new breakthrough projects


CRAFT/Collective research
…
Internationaal
The “priority 3” IPs
Clear and
Quantified
Deliverables and
Integration...
Objectives
Real breakthroughs,
Support to Industry,
Sustain. Development
… across Activities
from basic research
Support to SMEs
Technology transfer
to dissemination and
training…
… across Technical Areas
Design, life-cycle aspects,
50%
EC Funds
Materials,
Processes,
Maintenance, repair, etc...
… among Participants … among funding bodies
governments, contractors, industry, universities, research institutes, etc.
Internationaal
Integration in IPs



Each IP should comprise a coherent set of
components
Internal architecture may vary depending on
topic, scope and managerial approach
Forms of integration:




“vertical” - full value chain of stakeholders
“horizontal” - multidisciplinarity
“sectoral” - private/public
“financial” - synergy with other schemes (EIB,
national or regional funds)
Internationaal
Evaluation Criteria IP
Relevance to Call
Potential Impact
S&T Excellence
Quality of the Consortium
Quality of the Management
Mobilisation of Resources
3/5
3/5
4/5
3/5
3/5
3/5
24/30
Internationaal
Network of Excellence
Strengthening Europe’s excellence on a particular
research topic

by integrating the critical mass of expertise needed
to provide European leadership and be a world force

around a joint programme of activities
Tackling the fragmentation of European research

where the main deliverable is a durable structuring
and shaping of how research is carried out in Europe
Spreading excellence beyond its partners
Internationaal
Joint programme of Activities in NoE

Joint Programme of Research


Joint Programme of Integration


Clear research strategy for 10-15 year
Financial, legal
Joint Programme of Spreading of Excellence

Workshops, training,…
Internationaal
Joint programme of Activities in NoE

Joint Programme of Research


Joint Programme of Integration


Clear research strategy for 10-15 year
Financial, legal
Joint Programme of Spreading of Excellence

Workshops, training,…
Internationaal
Evaluation criteria NoE

Relevance to call
3/5

Potential impact
3/5

Excellence of the participants
3/5

The JPA & Degree of integration
4/5

Organisation and management
3/5
20/25
Internationaal
Experiences in FP6




Too many proposals
Type of instruments not clearly understood
Not enough industry involved
Broad variety of research topics also for not
high-tech industry
Internationaal
Av. Nbre Partners: 34
Internationaal
FP6 and Poland
Internationaal
Country N Industry N Partners
AT
32
80
DK
19
48
FI
25
65
NL
41
117
DE
157
485
IT
81
255
UK
89
301
GR
19
67
SE
31
111
BE
30
125
FR
67
291
CH
17
74
ES
39
195
PT
5
43
PL
5
81
%
40,0%
39,6%
38,5%
35,0%
32,4%
31,8%
29,6%
28,4%
27,9%
24,0%
23,0%
23,0%
20,0%
11,6%
6,2%
Internationaal
Retained for 2nd Stage!!
Internationaal
Proposal Title Adaptive Landing Gears for
Improved Impact Absorption
Aircraft safety
and security
STREP
Acronym: ADLAND
Internationaal
FP6 and Poland

Degree of participation is increasing
compared to FP5
Participation of Industry should increase

Polish researchers are taking initiatives

Internationaal
Conclusions

FP6 is giving opportunities

Industry is still underperforming

Poland is improving
Internationaal
Recommendations

Make your own strategy plan

Use your (inter-)national network

Be patient

Ask your regional or national contact point
for advice!