“Currently research is funded according to many input oriented indicators.
At present the financial regulation – the relevant legal funding framework – treats research in similar way as procurement processes for any goods.
This condition is unsatisfying for researchers, research organisations and the European Community as a whole. It hinders the development of ground-breaking results through ineffective research funding.
The funding of European research should be based on trust. Today European researchers face many red tape and cumbersome financial regulations. We are not against rules. Rules are important and accountability is essential. However, research has to be funded in recognition of the nature of research, thus, the financial regulation and associated rules have to be adapted to primarily output oriented objectives and to conditions creating a transparent justification of costs.
What we need is a change in philosophy! ”
Interestingly, Austria currently leads with respect to the number of signees: see the excerpt form the official web site (http://www.trust-researchers.eu/index.php?file=background.htm) as of today (March 2nd, 2010) on the left. The right figure displays the list of countries in descending order:
At present, 3767 people have signed (March 2nd, 2010).
I happened to participate in a discussion organised by FFG (Andrea Höglinger and Sabine Herlitschka) on the evaluation of the European Framework Programmes. The (excellent) presentation was given by Peter Fisch (head of unit A3 Evaluation and monitoring of programmes in directorate Inter-institutional and legal matters – Framework programme). The powerpoints are available here (only the first slide is in German).
Interestingly, previous framework programmes (i.e., before FP7) were characterised by “ad hoc” evaluations, i.e., did not really have a systematic monitoring. Then, some impressive figures about the size were presented:
25.000 proposals (!) have been received for the years 2007 and 2008 with 160.000 applicants
5.500 proposals where retained, 35.000 participants
SME participation is down to 15.5% (side issue here: in FP7 SME participation is measured after the financial viability check. As a consequence SME participation rate went down one third compared to previous evaluations where SME participation has been measured on the basis of the data provided by participants themselves when submitting the proposal).
FP7 is a mass business!
Some key findings were presented concerning the ex-post evaluation of FP6 (report of Feb. 2009 available). The core message: the achievements overall had a positive balance (i.e., network building was good, project results were good, etc.), the design of FP6 was “mixed” and finally, in the implementation there was “room for improvement”. Recommendations (amongst others): more bottom-up funding, administrative overhaul, etc.
For FP8 this means that there could be new lines of action (Grand challenges = top down, and Great Ideas = bottom up), a significantly higher budget as well as European excellence through global collaboration and competition.
The following figure (taken from the presentation) shows that the IST programme is the only part with a significant role for industry (the blue bubbles):
The following slide shows the central actors: it’s mostly universities, industry is only at the bottom of the list (Telefonica and France Telecom, both big players):
There is many more other interesting figures and data in the presentation!
Finally, the interim evaluation of FP7 will be available by Oct. 2010.
To me, FP6 (at least) was not for industry but mainly for universities and RTOs. In general, networks effects, publications, etc. seem to be well achieved. So let’s hope (and contribute) for a less-administrative and more industry-oriented FP8 (perhaps also with closer links between research programme and innovation-related activities)!
The image above shows the average yearly funding in Mrd. EUR (2.5 for FP5, 3.4 for FP6 and 7 for FP7 sofar) vs. number of projects funded.
There is a short, well written article in research eu, issue June 2009 (unfortunately it is not yet available online at http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-eu/index_de.html). The article is about the development of the European Framework Programms, it is written by Didier Buysse.
The main findings are:
Over the years, the average annual funding was steadily increased. In FP5 (1998-2002) we talk about 2.5 Mrd. EUR per year, in FP6 (2002-2006) 3.4 Mrd. EUR and in FP7 (2007-2013) sofar 5.7 Mrd. EUR.
At the same time the competition has heavily increased, we are now talking acceptance rates of about 20-25% across the whole programme (depending on the subject this may even be lower, e.g. ICT in Austria on average has an acceptance rate of 17% in FP7).
The ambition of the Commission in FP6 and FP7 is to “think big”, i.e., have most of the money being spent in a few projects (this is what integrated projects do/should be doing; actually they cover about for instance 40% of the FP6 budget); also networks of excellence aim at clustering European research expertise to get higher critical masses; at the same time the smaller initiatives should not be neglected.
The highest competition is in the human mobility programme (less than 20% on average)
The biggest group amongst the players (about 50000) are the universities and public research labs (they build 2/3 of all participating parties).
Public-private partnership is strengthened in FP7 with the Joint-technology-initiatives
On a personal note I believe that European research programmes (and the participation therein) are an established method/tool in doing (excellent) applied research. On the negative side, competition on the hand but also auditing on the other hand have increased dramatically, which overall makes the European research programmes less attractive than the used to be. Note on that: the issue in increased competition ist not the competition as such: this is a “healthy” element to ensure quality. However, if the acceptance rates go under 10% the gambling factor simply is too high.
Based on an OECD analysis, two sectors merit investment (for future prospects): “green, low carbon economy” and the “networked economy”
Why is ICT important for recovery? Because there is a direct link between investment in IT and economic performance; because IT is a key driver for efficiency (and effectiveness)
The PP Partnerships will be cross-thematic involving five FP7 themes (energy, environment, nmp, transport and ICT)
Three PPPs will be directly supported by ICT: factories of the future; energy-efficient buildings; and green cars
Finally: there is a definition of “Future Internet”: the Future Internet will feature almost unlimited bandwidth capacity, wireless access everywhere, potentially trillions of devices interconnected, integrated security and trust for all parties, and adaptive and personalised services and tools. It will open the door to a wide range of new business opportunities and will help us address even better our key societal challenges.
Overall: good to see that Europe (and its politicians) are investing heavily in ICT!
Today, in a big event at the University of Linz, 326 people celebrated the fact, that 40 years ago at the University of Linz the first study course in “Informatik” (computer science) was introduced.
Johann Eder from the Alpe Adria University in Klagenfurt presented one of two keynote talks. The theme was on the “Great Challenges of computer science”. He selected some studies, e.g. the U.K. study, the ISTAG-Challenges (a nice PPT can be found here) and others. He reflected these with Austrian’s strengths (see Austria’s ICT-strategy).
It is often important to distinguish between the various types of research. These are defined in the Frascati (and also Oslo) Manuals of the OECD and the European Commission takes them for their definitions in their legal frameworks for RTD and Innovation concerning funding options (especially maximum funding rates):
‘fundamental research’ means experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts, without any direct practical application or use in view;
„Grundlagenforschung“ bezeichnet experimentelle oder theoretische Arbeiten, die in erster Linie dem Erwerb neuen Grundlagenwissens ohne erkennbare direkte praktische Anwendungsmöglichkeiten dienen.
industrial research/ Industrielle Entwicklung
industrial research’ means the planned research or critical investigation aimed at the acquisition of new knowledge and skills for developing new products, processes or services or for bringing about a significant improvement in existing products, processes or services. It comprises the creation of components of complex systems, which is necessary for the industrial research, notably for generic technology validation, to the exclusion of prototypes as covered by point(g);
„Industrielle Forschung“ bezeichnet planmäßiges Forschen oder kritisches Erforschen zur Gewinnung neuer Kenntnisse und Fertigkeiten mit dem Ziel, neue Produkte, Verfahren oder Dienstleistungen zu entwickeln oder zur Verwirklichung erheblicher Verbesserungen bei bestehenden Produkten, Verfahren oder Dienstleistungen nutzen zu können. Hierzu zählt auch die Schöpfung von Teilen komplexer Systeme, die für die industrielle Forschung und insbesondere die Validierung von technologischen Grundlagen notwendig sind, mit Ausnahme von Prototypen, die unter den Buchstaben g fallen.
experimental development/Experimentelle Entwicklung
‘experimental development’ means the acquiring, combining, shaping and using of existing scientific, technological, business and other relevant knowledge and skills for the purpose of producing plans and arrangements or designs for new, altered or improved products, processes or services. These may also include, for example, other activities aiming at the conceptual definition, planning and documentation of new products, processes and services. The activities may comprise producing drafts, drawings, plans and other documentation, provided that they are not intended for commercial use.
The development of commercially usable prototypes and pilot projects is also included where the prototype is necessarily the final commercial product and where it is too expensive to produce for it to be used only for demonstration and validation purposes. In case of a subsequent commercial use of demonstration or pilot projects, any revenue generated from such use must be deducted from the eligible costs.
The experimental production and testing of products, processes and services are also eligible, provided that these cannot be used or transformed to be used in industrial applications or commercially. Experimental development does not include the routine or periodic changes made to products, production lines, manufacturing processes, existing services and other operations in progress, even if such changes may represent improvements;
„Experimentelle Entwicklung“ bezeichnet den Erwerb,
die Kombination, die Formung und die Verwendung vorhandener wissenschaftlicher, technischer, wirtschaftlicher und sonstiger einschlägiger Kenntnisse und Fertigkeiten zur Erarbeitung von Plänen und Vorkehrungen oder Konzepten für neue, veränderte oder verbesserte Produkte, Verfahren oder Dienstleistungen. Dazu zählen zum Beispiel auch andere Tätigkeiten zur Definition, Planung und Dokumentation neuer Produkte, Verfahren und Dienstleistungen sowie auch die Erstellung von Entwürfen, Zeichnungen, Plänen und anderem Dokumentationsmaterial, soweit dieses nicht für gewerbliche Zwecke bestimmt
ist.
Die Entwicklung von kommerziell nutzbaren Prototypen und Pilotprojekten ist ebenfalls eingeschlossen, wenn es sich bei dem Prototyp notwendigerweise um das kommerzielle Endprodukt handelt und seine Herstellung allein für Demonstrations- und Auswertungszwecke zu teuer wäre. Bei einer anschließenden kommerziellen Nutzung von Demonstrations- oder Pilotprojekten sind die daraus erzielten Einnahmen von den förderbaren Kosten abzuziehen.
Die experimentelle Produktion und Erprobung von Produkten, Verfahren und Dienstleistungen ist ebenfalls beihilfefähig, soweit sie nicht in industriellen Anwendungen oder kommerziell genutzt oder für solche Zwecke umgewandelt werden können. Experimentelle Entwicklung umfasst keine routinemäßigen oder regelmäßigen Änderungen an Produkten, Produktionslinien, Produktionsverfahren, bestehenden Dienstleistungen oder anderen laufenden betrieblichen Prozessen, selbst wenn diese Änderungen Verbesserungen darstellen sollten.
Other definitions include “process innovation”, “organisational innovation”, “highly qualified personnel”, etc.
In the Frascati Manual (on page 30) the following quite similar definition can be found (applied research can be compared to “industrial research”):
The term R&D covers three activities: basic research, applied research and experimental development; these are described in detail in Chapter 4. Basic research is experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundation of phenomena and observable facts, without any particular application or use in view. Applied research is also original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new knowledge. It is, however, directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective. Experimental development is systematic work, drawing on existing knowledge gained from research and/or practical experience, which is directed to producing new materials, products or devices, to installing new processes, systems and services, or to improving substantially those already produced or installed. R&D covers both formal R&D in R&D units and informal or occasional R&D in other units.
eGovernment is meanwhile really high up on the political agenda (i2010, national initiatives, etc.)
hand in hand with the increasing integration of eGovernment applications goes an increase in complexity: besides technical interoperability issues there are various cultural issues (in the EU of 27 countries also with varying standards concerning encryption, etc)
finally, eGovernment is not just about a more efficient state (or the management thereof). It really is about a new type of interaction between citizens and state. With respect to this we must not forget that still 30% of the population are not online (and due to facts such as age, etc. most probably will never be online).
… The sixth conference on alpine space, orientation and navigation took place November 20-21, 2008, in Salzburg. FFG (Dr. Klaffenböck) and Salzburg Research were the organisers. Some 60 people attended the event.
One of the issues is to define the scope of “future”, i.e., are we talking 10 years, 20 years, etc.? IMHO I believe that for applied research already 5 years is a pretty long period.
Anyway, there is a nice publication (in German only) by the Feldafinger-Kreis: “Trends, Technologies and Applications”. They argue for the following trends
Peer-to-Peer Networking
Embedded Software-intensive Systems
Security and Safety / Privacy / Self-Defending
Semantic Technologies
Knowledge Management
Intelligent Software-Agents
Service Grids in the Internet of Services
Intelligent Resource Management
Self-Managed Systems
e-Processes
Internet of Things
Mobility / Networked Vehicles
Ambient Assisted Living
Human-Computer Interaction
As far as our own work is concerned, I think that the following items are of particular interest to our research
the Internet of things (we were talking about all-Ip building infrastructure)
ambient assistance
realtime geography/mobile systems
semantic technologies
Also, in March 2008 the European Commission hosted an event in Slovenia on the Future Internet, see the following URL http://www.fi-bled.eu/ and a short video:
The other one was in “research eu” (No. 56, June 2008) on the “Finnish model tops the ranking”.
The first article argues that Austria has substantially intensified its research activities and has come from an innovation follower to the position of an innovation leader. The research quote was increased form 1,7 % (in 1997) to 2,63 % in 2008. The increase has been achieved by more spending from the public as well as from industry (fostered by tax incentives and programmes).
The second article argues in a similar fashion about Finland (albeit with a longer historical perspective).
The interesting thing to me is, that in a short period – we are only talking about 10+ years in both cases – a country can be reshaped concerning its FTI-policy. I think this is amazing, I would not have thought that this is possible in such short timeframes (even one might argue that for a sustainable impact including a change of culture this will take at least 25 years …).
