Information Society Technologies in the 6th Framework Programme Instruments in IST

1
Information Society Technologiesin the 6th
Framework ProgrammeInstruments in IST

• Call 4
• Information Days
• Athens 13 December 2004
• Thessaloniki 14 December 2004

2
Instruments in IST

• The IST Priority funds five sorts of project
• Integrated Projects (IPs) and Specific Targeted
  Research Projects (STREPs) are aimed at
  generating, demonstrating and validating new
  knowledge by means of research and development
• Networks of Excellence (NoEs) are aimed at the
  durable integration of the participants
  activities/capacities
• Coordination Actions (CAs) and Specific Support
  Actions (SSAs) are aimed at supporting
  collaboration and coordination, and other
  activities such as conferences and studies

3
Instruments in IST

• Integrated Projects
• IPs

4
Integrated projects

• IPs are designed to generate the knowledge
  required to implement the priority thematic areas
  of FP6
• by integrating the critical mass of activities
  and resources needed
• to achieve ambitious, clearly defined scientific
  and technological objectives of a European
  dimension
• Each IP should
• integrate the types of activities needed to
  obtain the goals
• integrate the critical mass of resources needed
  to obtain the goals
• integrate elements of the development chain to
  attain high-impact goals
• support industry-academia collaboration including
  SMEs

5
Integrated projects - activities

• Activities in an Integrated project may cover a
  broad spectrum e.g.
• research and technology development activities
• demonstration activities
• technology transfer or take-up activities
• training activities
• dissemination activities
• knowledge management and exploitation
• consortium management activities
• cooperation with other programmes (e.g.
  Eureka)...
• An Integrated Project comprises
• a coherent set of activities
• and an appropriate management structure

6
Integrated Project - financial regime

• Community support will be in the form of a grant
  to the budget
• Paid as a contribution to actual costs
• that are necessary and economic for the project
• that are recorded in the accounts of the
  participants
• or, when provided for in the contract, in the
  accounts of third parties
• that exclude indirect taxes, duties, interest
• Annually, each participant to provide a summary
  cost statement supported by
• certification of total costs by an independent
  auditor
• management-level justification of costs
• corresponding activity report
• Rolling advance scheme throughout duration

7
Integrated Projects - Cost models

• A single family of three closely related cost
  models
• FC all actual direct and indirect costs
• FCFall actual direct costs plus 20 of these
  direct costs (excluding subcontracting) to cover
  related indirect costs and
• AC additional actual direct costs plus 20 of
  these direct costs (excluding subcontracting) to
  cover related indirect costs
• Each organisation may use only one of the models
  for all its FP6 participations, where they are
  relevant
• The same cost methodologies will be used for all
  instruments implemented through grant to the
  budget

8
IPs - Rates of Community Support

• Maximum rates of support for FC and FCF
  participants
• 50 for RTD and innovation-related components
• 35 for any demonstration component
• 100 for any training activities
• 100 for consortium management
• AC participants supported at up to 100 for all
  components of the project (except for consortium
  management which will be supported as under FCF)
• For IPs, no more than 7 of the Community
  contribution can be used to support consortium
  management costs reimbursed at up to 100

9
Integrated Project - evaluation process

• Evaluation by a strengthened peer-review system
• involving one step written submission. 5
  individual evaluators, panel sessions with
  hearings of proposals that pass all thresholds
• Key issues to be addressed during evaluation
• relevance to the objectives of the specific work
  programme
• scale of ambition and potential impact
• ST excellence
• quality of the consortium
• quality of the project and knowledge management
• critical mass in terms of activities and resources

10
Integrated Projects - contractual aspects

• Participants share
• Joint several technical responsibility
• Joint several financial liability (exemption
  for public entities)
• integral part of internal flexibility and
  autonomy
• applied by Commission at last resort
• Model contract will specify general conditions
• Consortium agreement
• mandatory - except if other wise specified in the
  call
• should cover
• Internal organisation of consortium (settlement
  of internal disputes)
• IPR arrangements
• to be signed as early as possible

11
Integrated Projects - payment report schedule
Example of 4 year contract
12
Integrated Projects - two possible implementations

• Incremental participation
• Tasks identified
• budget known
• not all participants are in

• Monolithic
• Partners known at outset
• Tasks identified
• budget known

13
Integrated projects specific types

• Strategic objective 2.4.1 Nano-electronics
• Assessment actions. These IPs deal with the
  assessment of prototype equipment and materials
  in state-of-the-art manufacturing processes.
• Stimulation actions. These IPs aim at increasing
  the intererst of students in and improving the
  quality of education in SoC design.
• Use actions. These IPs should promote the
  integration and use of micro- and
  nano-technologies (limited to reconfigurable
  systems) in SME products and in application or
  geographic areas where these technologies are
  insufficiently used.

14
Integrated projects specific types

• Strategic objective 2.4.2 Technologies and
  devices for Micro/nanoscale integration
• Service actions These IPs should support academic
  research, feasibility design prototyping,
  training and education through access to advanced
  tools, multi project fabrication and design
  competency.

15
Integrated projects - Main characteristics

• FP6 experience of Integrated projects
• 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 around
  10m)
• Flexibility in implementation Yearly update of
  workplan
• Possibility for competitive calls for enlargement
  of consortium

16
Integrated projects

• ?
• 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

17
Instruments in IST

• Specific Targeted Research Projects
• STREPs

18
Specific targeted research projects

• Designed to generate the knowledge required to
  improve European competitiveness and to meet the
  needs of society or Community policies
• by improving existing or developing new products,
  processes or services and/or
• by proving the viability of new technologies
  offering potential economic advantage
• May combine any of the following types of
  activities
• Targeted, well defined and precisely focused
  research and technological development
• Demonstration component(s) as appropriate
• Project management

19
Specific targeted research projects

• FP6 experience of STREP projects
• Purpose Objective driven research more limited
  in scope than an IP
• Target audience Industry incl. SMEs, research
  institutes, universities
• Typical duration 18-36 months
• Optimum consortium 6-15 participants
• Total EU contribution 0.8-3m (average around
  1.9m)
• Fixed workplan and fixed partnership for duration

20
Specific targeted research projects

• ?
• 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

21
Instruments in IST

• Networks of Excellence
• NoEs

22
Networks of excellence

• NoEs are an instrument to overcome the
  fragmentation of the European research landscape
  in a given area
• Their purpose is to reach a durable
  restructuring/shaping and integration of efforts
  and institutions or parts of institutions
• The success of an NoE is not measured in terms of
  scientific results but by the extent to which the
  social fabric for researchers and research
  institutions in a given field has changed due to
  the project, and the extent to which the existing
  capacities become more competitive as a result of
  this change

23
Networks of excellence

• Degree of integration and the JPA the rationale
• NoEs are expected to remove barriers to
  integration to durably "institutionalise" the
  links between the institutions involved, which
  will imply the restructuring of the research
  portfolios and of the existing organisational
  structures.
• The JPA must provide the actions to implement
  these processes. The JPA must show the serious
  commitment of all partners to organisational
  change.
• Jointly executed research is an important part of
  the JPA. These research activities may aim at
  achieving the purpose of durable integration,
  e.g. by developing common tools, or at filling
  gaps in the collective knowledge portfolio of the
  network

24
Networks of excellence

• The Joint programme of activities contains a
  range of additional activities
• Integrating activities
• coordinated programming of the partners
  activities
• sharing of research platforms/tools/facilities
• joint management of the knowledge portfolio
• staff mobility and exchanges
• relocation of staff, teams, equipment
• reinforced electronic communication systems
• Joint research activities
• a programme of joint research to support the
  networks goals
• Development of new research tools and platforms
  for common use
• Generating new knowledge to fill gaps in or
  extend the collective knowledge portfolio

25
Networks of excellence

• Activities to spread excellence
• training researchers and other key staff
• dissemination and communication activities
• networking activities to help transfer knowledge
  to trams external to the network
• where appropriate, promoting the exploitation of
  the results generated within the network
• where appropriate, innovation-related activities
• Consortium management activities

26
Networks of excellence

• Excellence of the participants - the rationale
• The excellence of the participants and their
  research activities is imperative. Proposers have
  to demonstrate that the participants belong to
  the key players in Europe in the area concerned
  and that the work they are doing is world class
• However, just bringing together excellent
  research groups is not enough! Each institution
  involved has to convincingly show its commitment
  to durable integration (beyond the period for
  which the Community support is requested),
  restructuring and organisational change

27
Networks of excellence

• Organisation and management the rationale
• Structural and organisational changes need
  strategic decision making at the highest
  institutional level and sometimes even beyond
  (financing bodies, supervisory boards etc.)
• Proposers have to demonstrate the active
  involvement and commitment of the appropriate
  levels of decision making of each participating
  organisation
• Proposers demonstrate their management plans are
  adequate to this complex task

28
Grant for integration - illustration

• The maximum grant to a network varywith the
  number of researchers as follows

50 researchers . 1 million/year
100 researchers ... 2 million/year
150 researchers ... 3 million/year
250 researchers 4 million/year 500
researchers 5 million/year 1000
researchers above 6million/year for
intermediate numbers the grant would be
calculated by linear interpolation

• In this illustration a network of 100
  researchers and 5 students supported over 4 years
  would therefore receive a fixed grant of 8.08m

29
NoE - aims at integrating shaping research
The NoE field
RTD activities in Europe before the NoE(today)
30
Example

• Situation before the network
• good isolated research teams in Europe
• fragmented effort, redundancy of work,
  multiplication of effort on basic research tools
  such as software libraries etc
• a huge gap with US, Japan in terms of quality of
  deliverables and impact
• links to industry very sparse
• The network
• Brings together between 8 to 15 the best teams in
  Europe
• Between 50 and 150 researchers per year
• EU funds are a small part of the total effort
• Helps emerge common research work between ALL
  team members
• Fosters exchange of knowledge, coordination of
  activities,
• buillds links with the US, Japan,
• Common deliverables, co-written papers and common
  research tools

31
Example

• Main outcomes
• Solid research community with coordinated
  activities
• common software libraries incorporating all
  advances brought by all teams
• agreement on common open standards, methodologies
  for data representations, for visualisation ,
  for problems handling....
• From coordination to common programmes..
• Wider dissemination of activities to SMEs, etc..

32
Networks of excellence

• FP6 experience of NoE projects
• Purpose Durable integration of participants
  research activities
• Target audience research institutions,
  universities, Mainly indirectly industry
  trough governing boards etc
• Typical duration 48-60 months (but indefinite
  integration!)
• Optimum consortium 6-12 participants
• Total EU contribution 4-15m (average around
  7m)
• Flexibility Yearly update of the work plan
• Possibility to add participants through
  competitive calls

33
Networks of excellence

• ?
• Proposal for ad hoc co-operation between
  organisations for a specific purpose - no
  evidence of durable integration. The participants
  are going to continue to work as they have always
  done with no significant changes of structures,
  portfolios and organisations
• ?
• The research area is fragmented and would gain in
  excellence by re-structuring and all the
  participants intend to undertake a major effort
  to re-structure and re-organise the way research
  in the area is carried out in Europe and
  establish durable integration of their research
  capacities

34
Instruments in IST

• Co-ordination Actions
• CAs

35
Coordination actions

• Designed to promote and support the networking
  and co-ordination of research and innovation
  activities at national, regional and European
  level over a fixed period
• by establishing in a coherent way coordinated
  initiatives of a range of research and innovation
  operators, in order to achieve improved
  integration of the European research
• May combine the following two types of activities
  
• Co-ordination activities
• Consortium management activities
• (Coordination actions do not conduct ST research
  !)

36
Coordination actions

• Each CA shall consist of a work plan,
  incorporating all or some of the following types
  of mid/long term collaborative activities
• Organisation of conferences, of meetings
• Performance of studies, analysis
• Exchanges of personnel
• Exchange and dissemination of good practice
• Setting up of common information systems
• Setting up of expert groups
• Definition, organisation, management of joint or
  common initiatives

37
Coordination actions

• FP6 experience of CA projects
• Purpose Co-ordination of research activities
• Target Audience Research institutions,
  universities, industry incl. SME
• Typical duration 18-36 months
• Optimum consortium 13-26 participants
• Total EU contribution 0.5-1.8m (average around
  1m)
• Fixed overall workplan and partnership for the
  duration

38
Coordination actions

• ?
• The work is stand alone, it doesnt involve
  real cooperation and networking
• The added value of coordinating the activities
  isnt evident, or it isnt to the benefit of IST
• ?
• Clear added value to the IST Priority.
  Projects/activities to be coordinated are
  ongoing, they are doing quality work and their
  motivation to participate is clear

39
Instruments in IST

• Specific Support Actions
• SSAs

40
Specific support actions

• Designed to
• underpin the implementation of the programme
• complement the other FP6 instruments,
• help in preparations for future Community
  research and technological development policy
  activities and
• stimulate, encourage and facilitate the
  participation of SMEs, small research teams,
  newly developed and remote research centres, as
  well as those organisations from the Candidate
  Countries in the activities of the priority
  thematic areas.
• May combine the following two types of activities
  
• Support activities
• Consortium management activities
• (Specific support actions do not conduct ST
  research !)

41
Specific support actions

• Each SSA shall have a work plan, which may
  consist of one or more (as appropriate on a case
  by case basis) of the following activities
• Conferences, seminars, working groups and expert
  groups
• Studies, analysis
• Fact findings and monitoring
• Trans-national technology transfer and take-up
  related services
• Development of research or innovation strategies
• High level scientific awards and competitions
• Operational support and dissemination,
  information and communication activities.
• SSA proposal may be presented by a consortium or
  a single organisation, from any country or
  countries

42
Specific support actions

• FP6 experience of SSA projects
• Purpose Support to programme implementation,
  preparation of future actions, dissemination of
  results
• Target audience Research organisations,
  universities, industry incl. SME
• Typical duration 9-30 months
• Optimum consortium 1-15 participants
• Total EU contribution 0.03-1m (average around
  0.5m)
• Fixed overall workplan and partnership for the
  duration

43
Specific support actions

• ?
• While it may be worthwhile in many other
  respects, there is no evident benefit to the
  objectives of the IST Priority as described in
  the IST Workprogramme
• The proposal is for research or cooperation
  activity
• ?
• A well-planned support action with clear and
  achievable aims which directly supports the work
  of the IST Priority

44
Cost models for STREPs, CAs and SSAs

• A single family of closely related cost models
• full costs (FC),
• variation of full-costs (FCF), incorporating a
  flat-rate component of 20 of all direct costs
  apart from subcontracting
• additional costs (AC), incorporating a flat-rate
  component of 20 of all direct costs apart from
  subcontracting
• Each organisation may use only one of the models
  for all its FP6 participations, can move from FCF
  to FC but not visa versa
• STREPs, CAs and SSAa Use all three cost models
  FC, FCF, ACF
• CAs and SSAs FC participants are reimbursed as
  FCF participants

45
Rates of EC support for STREPs, CAs and SSAs

• Maximum rates of support for FC and FCF
  participants
• Up to 50 for RTD components (STREPs)
• Up to 35 for any demonstration component
  (STREPs)
• Up to 100 for any co-ordination and/or support
  activities (CAs-SSAs)
• 100 for project management (up to 7 of EC
  contribution all three instruments)
• AC participants supported at up to 100 of
  additional costs for all components of the
  project, irrespectively of instrument type (
  recurring project management costs as above)

46
Instruments in IST

• The Commission does not undertake to re-write
  your proposal - we never change instruments
• A proposal submitted to us as an Integrated
  project is evaluated using the evaluation
  criteria of an Integrated project, and is ranked
  against the other Integrated project proposals
  submitted in the call
• So be sure you are using the right instrument for
  your project idea !

47
Instruments in IST

• For more information on instruments
• http//europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/instruments
  _en.html
• http//www.cordis.lu/fp6/instruments.htm
• Brochure the FP6 in Brief
• The Guides for proposers