Information Society Technologies Industrial participation in the programme José C. COTTA Head of Unit - International Aspects of the Programme; Innovation DG Information Society European Commission Head of Unit - International Aspects of the Programme; Innovation DG Information Society European Commission

Slide 2Overview Snapshot of IST’s First Call Snapshot of IST’s First Call Global statistics Global statistics Statistics concerning the NACs Statistics concerning the NACs IST Activities IST Activities “Take-up” actions “Take-up” actions Types of “take-up” Types of “take-up” The procedures The procedures From proposal to project From proposal to project Funding models Funding models IPRs IPRs Some useful www addresses Some useful www addresses

Slide 3 Snapshot of IST’s First Call Initial focus on RTD activities Initial focus on RTD activities Response Response 2494 proposals………………….for 5.32 BEuro funding Retained for Negotiation Retained for Negotiation 536 proposals……………..…….for 928 MEuro funding Selection Ratio Selection Ratio ~1:5 for proposals……….…………….~1:6 for funding

Slide 4 First call – who participated

Slide 5 First call – distribution by activity

Slide 6 First call – some general observations Content (RTD projects) Content (RTD projects) Lack of technological innovation Lack of technological innovation Aims too general, current state of art missing Aims too general, current state of art missing Planning Planning Management structure vague Management structure vague Milestones missing or too general Milestones missing or too general Links missing between objectives & detailed work plan Links missing between objectives & detailed work plan Allocated responsibilities not clear Allocated responsibilities not clear Risks issues not addressed, no contingency plans Risks issues not addressed, no contingency plans Management Management Vague or weak exploitation & dissemination plan Vague or weak exploitation & dissemination plan Consortium not balanced (users, industrial partners) Consortium not balanced (users, industrial partners)

Slide 7 Newly Associated Countries Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus All 11 countries were associated at the time of selection All 11 countries were associated at the time of selection

Slide 8 NACs participations vs success

Slide 9 Retained participations from NACs

Slide 10 Analysis of “non retained” Few rejections on formal grounds Few rejections on formal grounds - formal mechanism is well understood - formal mechanism is well understood Weak on innovation Weak on innovation - proposals have little new - proposals have little new Weak on consortium structure Weak on consortium structure -consortia are unbalanced -consortia are unbalanced Weak exploitation plan Weak exploitation plan - low or no information on exploitation or dissemination - low or no information on exploitation or dissemination Weak end user involvement Weak end user involvement - little involvement of e.g. larger industry - little involvement of e.g. larger industry

Slide 11 Lessons from the First call Don’t artificially adapt a proposal to an Action Line Don’t artificially adapt a proposal to an Action Line Define the actual “centre of gravity” Define the actual “centre of gravity” Carefully look at evaluation criteria Carefully look at evaluation criteria Good scientific quality alone ….. is not enough Good scientific quality alone ….. is not enough Scientific quality is evaluated anonymously Scientific quality is evaluated anonymously Don’t rely on your scientific reputation Don’t rely on your scientific reputation Don’t only read “your” Action Line Don’t only read “your” Action Line Take time to understand the broader IST context Take time to understand the broader IST context Give realistic cost estimates Give realistic cost estimates

Slide 12 Take-up Dissemination and awareness Activities Networks of excellence Networks of excellence RTD Suppliers Users Users from discovery ………………………moving towards market

Slide 13 Types of activities Research and Demonstration Shared cost R&D (50% of eligible cost) Shared cost R&D (50% of eligible cost) Demonstration (35% of eligible cost) Demonstration (35% of eligible cost) Combined R&D/Demonstration (35% - 50% of eligible cost) Combined R&D/Demonstration (35% - 50% of eligible cost) Take up Trial, Best Practice, First Use Trial, Best Practice, First Use (up to 100% of eligible cost) (up to 100% of eligible cost) timing defined in each call timing defined in each call Accompanying Measures Dissemination actions Dissemination actions Fellowships Fellowships SME exploratory awards SME exploratory awards Co-operative Research Co-operative Research Up to 100% of eligible costs Up to 100% of eligible costs Proposals submitted at any time Proposals submitted at any time Concerted Actions / Thematic Networks Coordination/concertation of R&D, Standards Coordination/concertation of R&D, Standards Up to 100% of additional eligible cost for coordination,concertation, information and dissemination Up to 100% of additional eligible cost for coordination,concertation, information and dissemination

Slide 14 “Take-up” “Aimed at transferring leading-edge as well as established but insufficiently deployed methodologies and technologies to industry and other organisations in order to achieve greater efficiency” time innovators early adopters early majority Technology Transfer RTD Commercial Phase “T a k e - u p”

Slide 15 “Take-up types Trials: Trials: evaluation of promising, yet not fully established technologies & solutions evaluation of promising, yet not fully established technologies & solutions Best practice actions: Best practice actions: promote take-up of well established technologies & methods promote take-up of well established technologies & methods Assessments: Assessments: evaluation of innovative products evaluation of innovative products

Slide 16 From Proposal to Project CEC Eligibility Check Consortium building & proposal drafting experts+CEC Consensus Report Independen t Experts’ Evaluation Eligibility Criteria Evaluation Criteria

Slide 17 Funding Models Full Cost Reasonable flat rate overhead: 50% Funding On request for all organisations Actual overhead: 50% Funding If analytical accounting enables actual overhead calculation Additional Cost Additional Cost 20% flat rate overhead: 100% Funding 20% flat rate overhead: 100% Funding If no adequate analytical accounting (EC view) and no request for full cost and flat rate overhead ( in R&D and demo) If no adequate analytical accounting (EC view) and no request for full cost and flat rate overhead ( in R&D and demo) In concerted actions, thematic networks, etc. In concerted actions, thematic networks, etc.

Slide 18 Intellectual property rights (IPR) EU Funding 50% or less: IPR belongs to the contractors IPR belongs to the contractors EU Funding between 50% and 100%: IPR negotiated between Commission and contractors IPR negotiated between Commission and contractors EU Funding 100% of total eligible cost IPR belongs to the Commission as general rule IPR belongs to the Commission as general rule

Slide 19 From proposal to project: phases Contract Negociation (& Commitment Procedure) Contract Negociation (& Commitment Procedure) Project Officer checks scientific value & reasonability of costs Project Officer checks scientific value & reasonability of costs Gestionnaire checks “financial viability” of partners, contractors Gestionnaire checks “financial viability” of partners, contractors Budget Services check overall validity of the budget available Budget Services check overall validity of the budget available Contract Signature (& Advance Payment) Contract Signature (& Advance Payment) Contract Signature = official approval for start project Contract Signature = official approval for start project Advance Payment (normally 40% in FP5) Advance Payment (normally 40% in FP5)

Slide 20 Cash-flow for a project Intermediate payments Intermediate payments submission of Project Progress Reports & Cost Statements submission of Project Progress Reports & Cost Statements payments subject to approval of the PPR & CSs payments subject to approval of the PPR & CSs Ceiling (85%) => retention (15%) from consortium’s funds Ceiling (85%) => retention (15%) from consortium’s funds usually periodicity of 6 or 12 months usually periodicity of 6 or 12 months Final payment Final payment submission of Final Report & Consolidated Cost Statement submission of Final Report & Consolidated Cost Statement upon approval of FR & CCS the retention (15%) is paid by EC upon approval of FR & CCS the retention (15%) is paid by EC Documents justifying the costs should be kept 2 years (audit) Documents justifying the costs should be kept 2 years (audit)

Slide 21 Useful WWW addresses