1. EUROPEAN COMMISSION Horizon 2020 - Research and Innovation Framework Programme H2020-MG-2015_TwoStages The PHARAO project “Proactive, Technology-Assisted Infrastructure Asset Management and Ownership”

2.  To introduce new, innovative technologies, such as 3D laser scanning, and novel lifecycle analysis tools to provide a step change in road network asset management.  To demonstrate the impacts of pro-active asset management strategies through real-life case studies and pilots.  To deliver more benefits to networks at lower cost. PHARAO project aim: TSD, Greenwood Engineering Point cloud mapping + roughness Asset management strategies

3. Participant NoParticipant organisation nameCountry 1 (Coordinator)VTT Ltd.Finland 2 Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment Finland 3Roadscanners Ltd. (SME)Finland 4Heriot-Watt UniversityUK 5Transport ScotlandUK 6TRT Transporti e TerritorioItaly 7Sineco S.p.A.Italy 8 The Lombardy Regional Development – Infrastructure and Mobility General Directorate Italy 9University of ZilinaSlovakia 10Transport Research Institute, JSCSlovakia 11Slovak Road AdministrationSlovakia 12DAQE Slovakia Ltd. (SME)Slovakia 13Greenwood Engineering A/S (SME)Denmark 14Fraunhofer-Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISIGermany PHARAO project: 14 Partners

4. PHARAO project: Pilot areas Lapland & Central Finland pilot areas Slovakia pilot area West Highland pilot area Lombardy pilot area X X X X X

5. PHARAO project – proposal history 1 st Stage PHARAO proposal submitted to EU on 21 April 2015 23 April 2015: 1 st stage call closed 16 July 2015: Proposal accepted for entry into 2 nd Stage. Acceptance sent to the unmonitored VTT email address of Prof Pekka Leviäkangas and not acted upon. 9 September 2015: Partners query status of proposal and are informed of 2 nd Stage acceptance 2 nd Stage project proposal submitted 5 weeks later on stage call deadline of 15 October 2015

6. PHARAO project – evaluation Criterion 1 – Excellence: The objectives of the proposal are clear and respond well to the topic. The proposed approach is credible and is supported by previous relevant experience in similar projects. The proposal shows a strong emphasis on the end-user and its needs. The concept is sound in terms of the suggested components and the intention to validate its usefulness by relevant pilots is commendable. Score 2.5/5.0  It is unclear how the proposal will improve the asset management processes and which specific guidelines or recommendations will be provided.  The suggested concept of "smart service contracts" is not sufficiently developed.  The proposal does not sufficiently explain how close to market the proposed improvements are.

7. PHARAO project – evaluation Criterion 2 – Impact: The fourteen partner consortium is balanced and includes partners from research organisations, SMEs and the end-users. A straightforward management structure and management procedures are planned. The creation of Executive and Scientific Panels is commendable. Score 2.0/5.0  The proposal claims to address several impacts. It does not however demonstrate a clear relation to the expected impacts listed in the work programme.  It is unclear which specific outcomes will be delivered and how the specific outcomes are articulated with the envisaged deliverables.  The expected work package outcomes are unclear and have weaknesses.  The resources are not well justified. WP1, WP2 and WP4 resources are over- estimated by at least 30% when considered in relation to the work load.  The need to involve several different universities and research institutes is not adequately demonstrated.

8. PHARAO project – evaluation Criterion 3 – Quality and efficiency of the implementation The proposal takes the infrastructure asset management process aspects into consideration with regard to climate change. Score 1.5/5.0  The interrelationships between work packages do not allow for an iterative approach.  The use of proof-of concepts for validation is interesting but insufficient for securing adoption of innovation.  The proposal fails to provide the specific exploitation intentions of the partners.  The proposal does not adequately identify the way in which the proposed approach will stimulate the related market opportunities.  The communication and dissemination plans are only described in general terms.

9. PHARAO project evaluation summary PHARAO total score: 6.0/15.0 Threshold score: 10.0 Result: REJECTED

10. Lessons learned:  Be more critical of submission  Fully check the project against the Evaluation Criteria  Do not assume that the evaluator will imply things that are not written down  Justify all statements made  If in doubt give greater detail  Explain all impacts fully ……