How to succeed in FP7

How to succeed in FP7 Contact Details: Mette Skraastad [email protected] Lotte Jaspers [email protected] Page 1 of 1 ‘Workshop:...
3 downloads 1 Views 682KB Size
How to succeed in FP7

Contact Details: Mette Skraastad [email protected]

Lotte Jaspers [email protected]

Page 1 of 1

‘Workshop: How to succeed in FP7’

CONTENTS Chapter 1

Handout presentation

Chapter 2

Guide: Handling the evaluation criteria – Impact and Implementation

Chapter 3

Checklist: Drafting a FP7 proposal

Chapter 1

Building and Managing a Competitive Proposal

BBR and YR, slide 1

Building and managing a successful consortium Presenters: • Mette Skraastad and Lotte Jaspers, Yellow Research • Developed in close collaboration with Richard Tomlin (Bluebell Research) BBR and YR, slide 2

Programme • • • • •

Part I: Part II: Part II: Part III: Part IV:

Evaluation Criteria Impact and IPRs Implementation basics Implementation: Events/risks Critical Success Factors

BBR and YR, slide 3

1

PART I FP7 Evaluation Criteria

BBR and YR, slide 4

Relevance to the Programme

Potential Impact

&

S&T Excellence

&

3

Consortium Quality

&

4

3

Management Quality

&

3

Mobilisation of Resources

&

3

3

FP6 = Maximum 30 and a Threshold of 19

Science & Technology Relevance

3-4

Impact Relevance

&

3-4

Implementation Quality & efficiency

&

3-4

FP7 = Maximum 15 and a Threshold of 10 to 12 BBR and YR, slide 5

Evaluation criteria Cooperation ●





Scientific and/or technological excellence + Relevance The potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results + Relevance Quality and efficiency of the implementation and management The workprogramme may specify and add additional requirements, weightings and tresholds. BBR and YR, slide 6

2

Selection criteria ICTand SSH • Quality of science and technology • • • •

Clarity objectives and concept quality Innovation Contribution to knowledge Quality and effectiveness workplan

• Impact of project

• Contribution to EU challenges • Broader beneficial impacts • Measures for dissemination and/or exploitation

• Implementation

• Management structures and procedures • Quality of consortium • Resources allocation and justification BBR and YR, slide 7

FP7 Core Proposal Structure • B1 – Scientific and/or technical quality (concept and objectives, progress, workplan including work packages, deliverables and milestones) • B2 – Implementation (management structure, individuals, consortium, resources) • B3 – Impact (expected impact, D&E plan, management IPR) • B4 and B5– Other Issues (Gender / Ethical)

BBR and YR, slide 8

PART II Impact and IPRs

BBR and YR, slide 9

3

Impact

Science & Technology Relevance

3-4

Implementation Quality & efficiency

Impact Relevance

&

3-4

&

3-4

Total award: maximum 15 and a threshold of 10-12

BBR and YR, slide 10

FP7 Core Proposal Structure • B1 – Scientific and/or technical quality (concept and objectives, progress , workplan including work packages, deliverables and milestones) • B2 – Implementation (management structure, individuals, consortium, resources) • B3 – Impact (expected impact, D&E plan, management IPR) • B4 – Other Issues (Gender / Ethical)

BBR and YR, slide 11

Deliverables and milestones • Deliverable is a tangible result. The nature of the deliverable may be a report, product, patent, prototype etc. • Milestone is a point in time. A control point at which a decision is needed. Example: adoption of a technology as a basis for the next phase of the project

BBR and YR, slide 12

4

Deliverables could be anything • Products:Reports, publications, patents, new or improved products, data, software, databases

• Methods: Reports on SOP’s, processes, methodologies

• Experience: Reports on increased knowledge, spreading of excellence, experience

• Policy lessons BBR and YR, slide 13

Results • Deliverables, those tangible results necessary to fullfill your contractual obligation to the commission during the duration of the project.

• Results could be the deliverables or other tangible results of the project and need to be addressed in the Dissemination and Use plan BBR and YR, slide 14

Impact of Collaboration Demonstrate impact through addressing one or more EU challenges described in Specific and Work Programmes: • Pooling resources • Comparative research • Standardisation

Demonstrate dissemination and use strategies with regard to results BBR and YR, slide 15

5

EU challenge, Deliverables and Results Project challenge:

D. Project results:

Pooling resources

New matter or process - freedom to operate

Comparative research

Improved matter or process - dependent

Standardisation

Technology platform BBR and YR, slide 16

Group Task Consider the benefits of an EU project • Select a theme within Cooperation • Think of a project and the possible results • Consider the possible benefits of the project results for: • EU • Consortium = partners of the project • Yourself BBR and YR, slide 17

Balancing interests and impact Individual interests • Publications • Exploitation results • Further research with the results • Protection own interests

Consortium interests • Open “use” • Joint venture • Proving to be leading • .....

Leading BBR and YR, slide 18

6

Access Rights for using Foreground Foreground P. 4

P. 5

Background Background

P. 3

P. 1

P. 2

Affiliates = project BBR and YR, slide 19

Collaboration aims New product

Standards

Health - Biotech ICT – Transport • Technology platform • Single product – one producer – multiple producers • Further research • Further research

BBR and YR, slide 20

Exploitation impact Describe deliverables:

Describe contribution to competitiveness as e.g. New market:

•New product

•For one partner

•Improved product

•Consortium

•Standards

•Third party

•......... BBR and YR, slide 21

7

Dissemination • The planned process of providing information to key actors via: • • • • •

Scientific publications Reports Conferences Websites Brokerage events

Think about: building it into the project as a Workpackage “Think holistic” BBR and YR, slide 22

PART III Implementation basics

BBR and YR, slide 23

FP7 Core Proposal Structure • B1 – Scientific and/or technical quality (concept and objectives, progress , workplan including work packages, deliverables and milestones) • B2 – Implementation (management structure, individuals, consortium, resources) • B3 – Impact (expected impact, D&E plan, management IPR) • B4 – Other Issues (Gender / Ethical)

BBR and YR, slide 24

8

Impact of the evaluation criteria

Impact Relevance

Science & Technology Relevance

&

3-4

Implementation Quality & efficiency

&

3-4

3-4

Total award: maximum 15 and a threshold of 10-12 BBR and YR, slide 25

Two contracts Two structures B B

B

P B

B

C

P

B

B

P

P

B

P

P

P P

BBR and YR, slide 26

Contractual Structure Commission Model Grant Agreement (MGA) • ‘Hub and spoke’ • Collective responsibility: management of the project and delivery of the results • Individual responsibility: financial management • MGA says NOTHING about how the project is to be implemented BBR and YR, slide 27

9

Contractual Structure Consortium Agreement • ‘Network’ – connects each partner to every other partner • Deals with consequences of collective obligations to the Commission • Defines obligations of partners to one another • Says how the project is managed and implemented BBR and YR, slide 28

PART IV Implementation: Events / risks

BBR and YR, slide 29

Implementation issues • Challenges of complexity and scale • Communication modalities • Communication barriers => Solutions BBR and YR, slide 30

10

Challenges of Scale:

Large Scale Projects Small to Medium Scale projects Deciding on: • Budget • Number of participants • Duration • Other BBR and YR, slide 31

What did FP6 consortia look like? Instrument

No. Contracts

# Participants

# CEC Contribution

NoE

137

29

7,3

IP

399

25

10

Streps

1165

9

1,9

BBR and YR, slide 32

Challenges of Complexity • Scale of project and number of partners • Number of work packages and/or programmes • Interactions and dependencies • Deadlines created by Deliverables and Milestones • Communication flow, form and frequency BBR and YR, slide 33

11

Potential risks • • • • •

Management Financial change Technical change Change of partners Change in dissemination and exploitation Possible outcome: Amendment of MGA / CA BBR and YR, slide 34

Risks

COMMUNICATION

# partners

Technical risks Alignment

RISKS

Financial risks

Management risks

years BBR and YR, slide 35

Communication modalities

Proposal – Consortium Agreement • • • •

Day to day communication Use of email Telephone conferencing Web based application tools (google! Project management) • Video-conferencing => Decision making BBR and YR, slide 36

12

Decision making • Voting: • • • • • •

Qualified Majority Simple Majority Veto Limited Veto’s Unanimous Quorum

BBR and YR, slide 37

Management Structure • Workpackage leaders • Partners of a WP

• Coordinator • Beneficiaries B B

B

P B

B

C

P

B

B

P

P

P

P

P

B

P BBR and YR, slide 38

Different Consortium Models for FP7 Coordinator

Core group

All Parties

Postman, Banker and Monitor of implementation

Board

General Assembly

DESCA

Last in hierarchal order of governing bodies; largely administrative role.

Intermediary between sub project committees and GA. Monitors progress

The decision making body.

IPCA

Direct relation to the ‘owners’ of the project. Informs the Board and EC about the implementation

‘Owners’ of the project: -Strategic decisionmaking. - Market orientation.

Marginal role it is the safety valve in case of serious dissent within the Board.

BBR and YR, slide 39

13

Roles to be divided • Contractually: Coordinator, Contractors and Subcontractors • Project support roles: project manager, exploitation manager and other support • Local contractor support roles: financial administrators and legal etc. BBR and YR, slide 40

BBR and YR, slide 41

Communication Barriers • Language • Costs of translation • IT – firewalls • Culture

BBR and YR, slide 42

14

BBR and YR, slide 43

PART IV Critical Success Factors

BBR and YR, slide 44

Bringing together different interests • Identify the Individual Interests of partners: common and differences • Align these interests • • • •

Clear objectives and goals Committed people Effective project management Create win-win situation

• Take into account cultural differences BBR and YR, slide 45

15

How good is your Consortium? Consortium Assessment Tool: • 12 success factors identified • Scores strength and stability of a Consortium • Useful when building a consortium BBR and YR, slide 46

Key Success factors Structure • History of working together • Sufficient flexibility • Open and clear communication • Project plan reflects vision and goals of the partners • Right mix of partners – no conflicts of interest • Quality of Management Management: • Management structure fits the consortium dynamics • Efficient administrative systems and support • Transparency in project finances and accounting • Research and Evaluation • Clear set of rules on intellectual property • Dispute avoidance and dispute resolution BBR and YR, slide 47

Part IV Financial management

BBR and YR, slide 48

16

Financial Structure MGA: • Maximum budget • Fixed price • Prefinancing system • Deliverable based • Budget allocation in accordane with DoW • Financial statements

Consortium Agreement: • Changes of budget allocation • Allocation of work to another partner • Financial reponsibility

BBR and YR, slide 49

Coordinator Responsibilities • To distribute received pre-financing and other Commission payments in accordance with Consortium decisions • To forward to Commission Financial Statements and Certificates but does not verify them

BBR and YR, slide 50

Contractor Responsibilities • To maintain proper records • To prepare and submit Financial Statements and Certificates – no guarantee of payments by the Commission • To agree financial arrangements with Consortium re. pre-financing and cost limits • To carry out the work of the project BBR and YR, slide 51

17

Relationships legal and other texts TREATY TREATY

FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PROGRAMME

RULES for PARTICIPATION RULES for PARTICIPATION

SPECIFIC SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES PROGRAMMES

Guides for Guides for Applicants Applicants

WORK WORK PROGRAMMES PROGRAMMES

MGA MGA

Evaluation Evaluation Guidelines Guidelines

Call Call BBR and YR, slide 52

Diagram of FP 7 Cooperation

1. Health 2. Food, Agr. Biotech. 3. ICT 4. Nano 5. Energy

Ideas

People

Initial training Life long training IndustryAcademia International dimension ERA-NET

6. Environment 7. Transport 8. Socio 9 Security, Space

Capacities

Research Infrastructures Research for benefit of SMEs Regions of knowledge Research potential Science in society International cooperation

JRC

Prosperity Solidarity Security and freedom Europe as world partner

Emerging needs International cooperation BBR and YR, slide Technology 53 JTI platforms

Time recording and reimbursement ‹Time recording of staff • Method of recording; fair allocation method • One or more projects • One or more activities • Effect of fixed price per deliverable • Planned time = planned costs => money • Actual time < planned costs => less money • Actual time > planned costs => gap money

BBR and YR, slide 54

18

Indirect costs * 75%

Flat rate of 60% * 75%

AC – 20%

Perm.

Temp.

Staff

Staff

Consumables

Travel &

Technical

Subs.

Infrastr.

Time, mouse, run

P = Cost driver BBR and YR, slide 55

Conclusion • Building and managing a consortium is a continuous process • Therefore: Talk every step through and repeat

BBR and YR, slide 56

How to start ? • See our checklist • Think about Impact + Dissemination & Exploitation • Who do you need to create that impact • Discuss the ideas and write a plan on 2-4 A4’s • Identify and ask other partners • Look for well seasoned people • Discuss the draft plan and write a plan on 8-15 pages using a proposal guideline • Discuss the plan again with partners and advisors • Ask the missing partners • Write a first proposal draft and discuss it BBR and YR, slide 57

19

Chapter 2

GUIDE:

Handling the Evaluation Criteria: Impact and Implementation

Authors: Lotte Jaspers, Mette Skraastad, Jet van Dijk and Margot Spaargaren

Version 6.0

Page 1 of 64

Table of Content

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

The Legal Documents of FP7 ....................................................................... 3 FP7 Consortium Agreement Models............................................................. 3 Open Innovation ........................................................................................... 3 The Value Model .......................................................................................... 3 Individual Benefit and Mutual Interest........................................................... 3

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

FP7 - The Competitive and Dynamic knowledge economy ........................ 16 Impact of the FP7 evaluation criteria ............................................................ 3 Results and Project Deliverables .................................................................. 3 Exploitation and Research Activity Strategies .............................................. 3 The project spin-out company ...................................................................... 3 Software ....................................................................................................... 3 Dissemination - Publications......................................................................... 3

3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3

Governance - Introduction ............................................................................ 3 Management Structures, drawing the consortium organogram ................. 36 Governing bodies ....................................................................................... 40 Decision-making and voting ....................................................................... 42

4.0 Barometer for EU Consortia ....................................................................... 45 4.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 45 4.2 Consortium Score Card .............................................................................. 46 Schedule 1: Scoring a Starting Consortium........................................................... 47 Schedule 2: Scoring a Running Consortium.......................................................... 48 Schedule 3: Reading the Scores ........................................................................... 49 Annex 1: Annex 2: Annex 3: Annex 4: Annex 5: Annex 6:

Dissemination and Exploitation strategies – checklist ............................. 51 Ethical issues in EU research proposals – checklist ............................... 55 Glossary – Dissemination and Exploitation ................................................. 57 Glossary – Project Management ................................................................ 59 Glossary – Ethical Issues........................................................................ 62 Glossary – Gender ................................................................................... 64

Page 2 of 64

1.0 The Legal Documents of FP71

The picture below shows the relationships of the different legal and other documents pertaining to the seventh framework programme. TREATY

Parliament & Council

FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

RULES for PARTICIPATION

Council SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES

Commission CALLS

WORK PROGRAMMES

GUIDES for APPLICANTS

MGA

EVALUATION GUIDELINES

& Comitology

Treaty Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Three: Community policies - Title XVIII: Research and technological development Article 163 - Article 130f - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) Articles 163 up 173 lay down the framework for the EU policies with regard to: - a multi annual framework programme for RTD - setting up structures for the execution of such programmes (art 169) - setting up community joint undertakings (art 171). The structure and relationship of the legal documents as discussed below regard obligation of the commisison to set up a mulit annual framework for RTD. The structure of the Euratom framework is almost similar as FP7 but is not discussed here.

1

Version 2.0

Page 3 of 64

Framework Programme Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme Annex I Criteria for selecting the themes and objectives of community activities Annex II General outlines of community activities, scientific and technological objectives and related priorities Annex III Seventh Framework Programme (2007 to 2013) amounts and breakdown Annex IV Rules for financial participation by the community Explanation: This decision is the foundation upon which the Commission is allowed to support RTD activities. It concerns the thematic programmes, budget and the basic requirements for FP7 projects. The annexes work out the criteria in more detail.

Specific Programmes Council Decision on adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on (programme name) Annex I Indicative breakdown of the amount deemed necessary Annex II The general outlines, the scientific and technological objectives and the priorities Annex III Specific rules for implementing the programme Annex IV Selection criteria for the implementation of the programme The specific programme contains the key themes and priorities as agreed by the Council and the European Parliament. Each specific programme has a specification of the budget allocated for each theme and the funding schemes. The specific programme provides the Background information with regard to the aim and objectives of each theme.

Work Programmes The work programme is drafted by the Commission and specifies the implementation of the specific programmes. The Commission consults the Programme Management Committees, European research community via expert groups, and members of the Technology Platforms. The Work Programme comprises detailed descriptions of the activities (detailed thematic priorities, funding schemes used, evaluation criteria, deadlines, roadmaps). It provides all information necessary to launch calls for proposals. The extent to which a proposal addresses the objectives of the work programme is an evaluation criterion (i.e. in order to prepare a successful proposal, one has to read carefully the work programme related to the call addressed).

Calls The official invitation to submit proposals for funding to the European Commission is issued by calls for proposals. To the call belongs a so called call fiche which will detail the topics covered, budget and deadlines. The cal fiche will comprise all details necessary for submitting a proposal.

Page 4 of 64

Rules for Participation Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programme and for the dissemination of research results (2007-2013). This document contains the basic requirements for participation in FP7 projects. The legal framework of the RfP is subject to: 1. State Aid Framework for Research, Development and Innovation; 2. Financial Regulation 3. Political needs The RfP regulate: - Partner eligibility - Proposal, submission, Evaluation and negotiation - Legal and Financial rules - Community Financial Contribution - Maximum funding Rates - Implementation and Grant Agreement - Cost Reporting - Intellectual Property Rights - Procedures for appointment of experts

Model Grant Agreement (MGA) The model grant agreement may specify some or most of the requirements as laid down in the RfP. It consists of several parts. The core grant agreement. Annex I Description of Work; Annex II General conditions; Annex III Specific provisions related to the specific instrument Form A Accession of beneficiaries to the grant agreement (annex IV) Form B Request for accession of a new beneficiary (annex V) Form C Financial statement per funding scheme (annex VI) Form D Terms of reference for the certification of financial statements (Annex VII) Form E Terms of reference for the certification on the methodology

MGA Generally speaking, the MGA for collaborative research projects regulates the relationship that the Commission has or wants to have with the members of the consortium. The Commission is not concerned with matters related to how the project is implemented by the consortium, how deadlines are kept, access rights are provided etc. The MGA is a contract designed to protect the interests of the European Community, these interests are of a political (Lisbon agenda etc), legal and very much of a

Fig. 1: the Hub and spoke relation of the Commission with the Beneficiaries

Page 5 of 64

financial nature, e.g with regard to recovery of amount to be retrieved by the Commission from one or more beneficiaries. Considering that the Commission contract is designed as a hub with spokes. The Commission is the hub; the commission has a contractual relation with all Beneficiaries. The Beneficiaries, the spokes, are only linked to the other Beneficiaries via the hub. A direct relationship of the Beneficiaries is drawn hereunder.

Beneficiary Beneficiary

Beneficiary

Cie

Beneficiary

Beneficiary

Beneficiary

Beneficiary

Beneficiary

Consortium agreement With regard to collaborative projects the call can make the conclusion of a consortium agreement mandatory. The beneficiaries are free in the design of their consortium agreement. The main purpose of a consortium agreement is to specify the relationship of the members of the consortium towards each other regarding the implementation of the project. The MGA makes in article II.4 some suggestions of issues to address in the consortium agreement: - Internal organization and dispute resolution - Distribution of CEC contribution; - Settlement of disputes - Access rights - Liability, indemnification and confidentiality

Fig. 2: Nodal linkage of consortium parties to each other

Party Party

Party

Party

Page 6 of 64

Part y

Part y

Party

Party

Flow chart of the conclusion of contracts When the call stipulates that a consortium agreement is mandatory, the consortium agreement is signed before the grant agreement is concluded. The accession forms can only be signed after the grant agreement has been signed; one can only accede to an agreement when there is an agreement in place. Most consortium agreements oblige the parties to sign the accession form within the period mentioned in the grant agreement, to prevent last minute changes which might jeopardise the start of the project. 1 Conclusion consortium agreement time 2 Conclusion MGA Within 45 days

3 Signature and submission to commission of accession forms

2: MGA between European Commission and the Coordinator

European Commission

Coordinator = Beneficiary 1

Beneficiary 2

Beneficiary 3

3: Accession Forms to the MGA

Beneficiary 4

Beneficiary n

Subcontract Subcontractor

Page 7 of 64

1.1 FP7 Consortium Agreement Models2 At the start of FP7 participants will be presented with several models for consortium agreements. The models are all based on FP6 predecessors3. Different sectoral interest groups of industry, academia and research organizations have developed the following models: - IPCA by ICT and Telecom industries; - DESCA by academia and research organizations; - EU-Car by the automotive industries - IMG by the aerospace industries

IPCA The IPCA model is developed by the European Information & Communications Technology Industry Association (EICTA). This group of ICT and telecom industries have a long standing tradition of developing sector specific consortium agreement models. They have done so since the beginning of the Framework Programmes. The procedure for the development of such consortium agreement is well organized and strict. It is necessary to have such strict procedures because all members of EICTA must feel comfortable using the end result of their negotiations for their own participation in FP7 consortia. For FP7, just as in the previous Framework Programmes, EICTA has made use of the IPCA model developed for FP6, making sure that the FP6 model fitted the objectives and legalities of FP7. Some serious redesigning has been undertaken: - Rights for affiliates; - Joint ownership rights; - Open access structure to Foreground; - Clauses for using open source software have been developed - The integrated programme structure with subprojects has been abandoned for the mainstream projects of FP7.

DESCA For the development of the DESCA model an ad-hoc collaboration was formed between the ‘owners’ of several FP6 consortium agreement models. The DESCA core group consists of members of ANRT, Helmholz and Unite and several sectoral interest groups like EARTO and KOWI. The members of DESCA are either research organisations (majority) or universities. The broader consultation group installed, consisted besides the members of the core group of members of EICTA, EU-car, and individual organizations. The initiators of DESCA aimed for the DEvelopment of a Simple Consortium Agreement.. The initiators are representatives of the ‘owners’ of different FP6 consortium agreements: - Helmholz consortium agreement, - ANRT consortium agreement, 2 3

Version 1.0 See annex II of this Folder.

Page 8 of 64

- French Research Organisation consortium agreement, - Unite–IPCA. In order to develop a new consortium agreement for FP7 which would be truly simple it was decided that the DESCA should be based not on one of the collaborative consortium agreements made by one of the initiating groups but on the consortium agreement for Networks of Excellence (‘NoE’). This consortium agreement has been made in collaboration with some or all of the DESCA initiators and was the last consortium agreement developed in FP6 and had as such represented the collective wisdom of FP6 consortium agreement development. The fact that the starting basis has been the FP6 NoE consortium agreement provides DESCA with a different basis than the IPCA.

EUCAR EUCAR, representatives of the EU automotive industry shall present in FP7 their own model just as they have done in the previous framework programme.

IMG The IMG consortium agreement is a model developed to address the needs of the aerospace industrial sector. The FP6 model was based upon the FP6 ANRT model and is now under discussion for FP7. For the moment it seems that this consortium agreement is a direct continuum with their FP6 model. At present, there are just these four consortium agreements that we have knowledge of, we do not doubt that there will be developed other consortium agreements as well by other sectoral interest groups addressing their particular interests. For this Folder we will only take into consideration the IPCA and DESCA consortium agreements. This is for very practical reasons, we have seen them, we have been consulted on the DESCA model and more importantly the two models have different approaches to IPR. Hereunder you find a schematic drawing of the interrelation of the consortium agreements and their initiators.

Page 9 of 64

IPCA FP7 By EICTA

DESCA FP7

IPCA FP6

FP6 NoE CA

Collective FP6 CA memory Eicta/Unite

ANRT

Fr. RO

Page 10 of 64

Helmholz

Unite

1.3 Open Innovation4 Open innovation is a method of open collaboration between companies to pool their technologies to develop new standards upon which they can set their own products. All contributors to the new standard have a royalty-free, world wide access to the end-result to the standard. In the past the companies thought they could set the standards of new technologies and develop high tech products alone by merging and acquisition. Different affiliates of a multinational contribute with knowledge and technology to the development of a new product. But quite often, due to amongst others the need and/or obligation to set standards, contributions are required from different companies. In other words, a single (multinational) company is nowadays not strong enough to set major standards by itself (e.g. the video recorder system standard in the eighties or the toxicity tests for drugs in the field of pharma) and needs therefore to collaborate with third parties. To tackle these technical hurdles companies need to collaborate. This kind of collaboration is described by Chesborough5 as Open Innovation. Open Innovation combines the internal company resources with external ideas as well as their own path to the market in combination with other paths to advance the development of new technologies6. In the past as well as in the present, the EU Framework programmes, have proved to be an excellent way for industry to diminish their risk while collaborating on standard development. In the early FP’s, collaboration on standards was considered to be pre-competitive research. A better description might have been Extra Competitive because the created standards technology, is a technology that can expand their market (it is not necessarily a new market.) upon which each company can compete. The exploitation strategy for a standards technology, enabling all contributors to benefit, is often based on the concept of (limited) open source access; those who have contributed to the standard can freely use the technology. Once the standard is developed, the companies will incorporate the standard technology in their products. The products put on the market involve, besides the standard technology, quite often multiple technologies for one single product. For example a TV incorporates technologies like: software, electronics, circuitry, optics, hardware etc. Each of these technologies may be subject to one or more patents. Therefore these products are based on technologies covered by numerous patents, which are often owned by different companies or several companies hold patents in the same area. For reasons of simplicity, major competitors practice cross-licensing, but ad hoc arrangements are also common7. The number of patents involved in cross-licenses might run up to thousands per cross-license. To limit the bureaucracy, it is not common practice to pay royalties, this industry is more comfortable with one

4 5

6 7

Version 1.0 Chesbrough, H. (2003), "Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology", Harvard Business School Press. http://www.openinnovation.eu/openinnovatie.php Tony Tangena, Head of UK Department Philips corporate Intellectual Property, 15/16 June 2000-Berlin, EIRMA Special Interest Group.

Page 11 of 64

time lump sums. This practice has its effect on the access rights regime and reimbursement payments in EU projects. The need for standardisation via (limited) open source in combination with the multiple technology driven products based upon a practice of cross licenses creates a very sector specific view on technology ownership, protection and access rights. A complication of collaboration with large companies is their complex organisational structure and their tendency to buy and sell business units. Very often multinational concerns show a complicated structure of different business units organised in separate legal entities and some central units among which quite often a research unit. Most of the time the research unit has to provide the business units with research capacity. Over the years is seems that the authority to conclude research collaborations changes from business units to the central research unit and vice versa, see Annex I EICTA position paper with regard to affiliates.

The industry driven consortium agreement – IPCA The IPCA is written with a clear focus on the needs of industry. Some characteristics of the IPCA: Intellectual Property Regime: All participants, industry, benefit from the standard that is the desired outcome of the project. In order for everyone to be able to use the standard, it is necessary to have free access to the result. Free in this context means licence without restriction with regard to use and without royalties or other remunerations. Product related research results are in the view of the EICTA industries seen as results of the project to which all participants should have royalty free access. This open approach fits with the common practice that one product contains many different technologies. So one patent in itself does not contain an independent economic value. Strong Leadership Because the standard is such an important result of the project, strong leadership is seen as mandatory. The coordinator together with a small group of participants may take decisions which impact the implementation of the project. The participants can insert their influence when decisions directly affect their resources; more time, more Background IPR, more money etc.

Page 12 of 64

1.4 The Value Model8 The Value model is based on the notion that one single research results represent a value to the organisation and access is provided on fair and reasonable remuneration. This model is mostly practised by universities, research organisations and life science industry. The Value Model is the counterpart of the Open Innovation model with regard to: - Access rights to IPR and - Project management. The Value Model serves the interests of two different sectors, on the one hand the research organisations and universities and on the other the biomedicalpharmaceutical industries. Built into the Value Model is the scientific reality that in order to achieve a significant innovation it is often necessary to bring together research capacities of more than one scientific team. By working together, creating critical mass and pooling of resources, breakthroughs can be created. In the collaboration is a strong paradox between the individual interest of a participant in terms of scientific recognition and mutual benefit in finding a product that solves the ‘problem’. The second dimension of the Value Model is the effect of university and research organisation patent policies. In Europe (following the example of the US universities) many universities as well as research organisations, have patent policies and knowledge transfer offices in place. It is recognised that in order to create competitive advantage protection of the underlying research results can be important. At the same time researchers require continuing access to the results of their research for use in future projects and in universities for teaching9. The third dimension built in to the Value Model is that the created technologies (which solve the ‘problem’) can lead directly to a new niche/domain in the market competitive space10; these technologies are not Extra Competitive as described in the Open Innovation model. To state it rather boldly: One patent may lead directly to one product.

The academia driven consortium agreement – DESCA The DESCA consortium agreement covers two of the three of the above mentioned dimensions: - The paradox between individual interests and mutual interests - The public responsibility with regard to patent protecting on research results This consortium agreement has been written for those technological fields in which the open innovation model creates a larger impact. The reason is that the writers of the DESCA consortium agreement represent research organisations conducting

8

Version 1.0 The Guide to strategic decision-making in Universities, Higher Education 14, 10 Market competitive space doesn’t mean that one has a directly a product for sale but that once the product can be introduced a new domain can be claimed 9

Page 13 of 64

research in the field of transport, space, ICT etc., and not the life sciences. Currently a consortium agreement model for the life sciences has not been developed. Based on the Value Model principle, the individual interests are an important denominator for the structure of the intellectual property regime and the management of the project: Intellectual Property Regime The owner of the patent will decide on the specifications of access rights to its patent for the particular project and royalty reimbursement is a recognised practise. Management Because the individual interests are so important the democratic management principle is the more important. Decisions are taken by all participants and the coordinator and the Executive Board implement these decisions. The third dimension, one patent = one product is not addressed in the DESCA model. Additional structures should be developed in order to address this dimension in the DESCA. When developing structures that can capture the importance of the competitive advantage it is the question whether one invention can lead to one product In the medical field, especially when new drugs and diagnostic tools are developed, one or perhaps two inventions can lead to a new product. The way from invention to market is long, risky and expensive. The costs for putting a new drug on the market can run up to more than one billion Euro's11. In most cases the lead product will never reach the market but if it does it will create a nice return on the investment. Calculating and valuating the value of the contribution of the invention to the end product is such a case is much easier than in the case as described under Open Innovation. Therefore royalty percentages of 5% are not uncommon in this sector.

11

Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, November 2006

Page 14 of 64

1.5 Individual Benefit and Mutual Interest12 The ‘individual or personal’ benefit of a participant or his/her organisation from the project determines his or her commitment to the project. The level of commitment comes from the (potential) results delivered by the project and the possibility of the individual to capture this. Each partner has other research and/or business projects and other ambitions into which the project has to be seen to fit. All these personal interests need to be aligned. But EU projects are not by their nature designed to only fulfil `individual benefits and mutual interests’ of participants, EU RTD projects are an instrument in achieving political goals and ambitions. An EU RTD project needs to: - Be scientifically excellent; - create an impact on the objectives of the EU and - Be of excellent quality with regard to the implementation of the project. A project can only create the desired impact on the EU objectives when the implementation of the project as well as the dissemination and exploitation phase is successful. When writing a project proposal, all partners need to have the feeling that their contribution to the project is essential, giving them the basis of trust and security for collaborating fully in a highly competitive field. This shared feeling is not only necessary when starting the project but needs to remain in place during the implementation of the project phase as well as when carrying out dissemination and exploitation activities. A “dis-ease” of a few beneficiaries may lead to minor or major problems in implementing the project which has a negative impact on the dissemination and exploitation as well as on the EU objectives. Therefore aligning the personal and mutual benefits of parties is of great importance to achieve all objectives. Clear communication and transparency throughout the project will greatly enhance the chances on overall success. . Therefore, when drafting or reviewing a consortium agreement, it is essential to have a good understanding of the personal benefits that a researcher wants to have captured after the project has finished. At the same time the personal interests have to be realised in a way that works across the project as a whole. Therefore, reviewing or designing a consortium agreement means aligning all personal interests as well as the mutual interests with regard to the project results. In ideal situations the partners have already taken into account these interests in the implementation and impact sections of the project proposal. Examples of personal interests that need to be balanced in the consortium agreement are: - The right to publish, - The right to perform further research - The right to be represented in the relevant governance structures; - The right to veto a decision of the General Assembly or the Board

12

Version 1.0

Page 15 of 64

2.0 FP7 - The Competitive and Dynamic knowledge economy13 The historic background of FP7 can be found in looking at the development of the Framework programmes. The European Framework Programmes started out as Europe’s answer to the ’economic challenges’ presented by the USA and Japan. The programmes focused in FP4 on cooperation on a pre-competitive level to solve the industries’ problems. FP5 was driven by a desire for a dynamic Community RTD policy to optimise the advantage of the Single European Market by combining research resources in certain key areas and priority technologies. It was the ideal of research commissioner Busquin to establish a genuine European Research Area. The European Research Area aimed to create a knowledge based economy. At the EU Lisbon Summit March 2000, the EU embarked on a strategy to make the EU the most Competitive and Dynamic Knowledge based Economy in the world by 2010. This introduced a clear break with the notion of pre-competitive research as was the focus up to framework programme 6. FP6 can be described as peculiar side-step with regard to the aim to integrate all and everything: -

Collecting all stakeholders (Academia and Industry) in a particular field; this created projects in which 25 participants and sometimes more than 100 participants tried to collaborate.

-

Programme financing instead of project financing; Integrated Projects would themselves file calls for new participants The FP7 focus can be characterised as the opposite from FP6. The focus on integration has made place for a strategy where it is not the intention to integrate all science in one project but to creating fierce competition in order to select the best projects for funding.

13

Version 1.0

Page 16 of 64

2.1 Impact of the FP7 evaluation criteria14 Why is good science not enough to be selected for funding by the EU? FP7 is designed to create maximum impact on the European Union’s Challenges. The evaluation criteria have been redesigned to enforce this. The number of selection criteria and the points, or marks, to be gained differ significantly between FP6 and FP7: FP6 has 6 selection criteria with 30 points to be gained, FP7 has only 3 criteria and 15 points. In FP7, half points may be given. This may result that many projects end up with the similar scorings.

Relevance to the Programme

Potential Impact

&

S&T Excellence

&

3

3

Consortium Quality

&

4

Management Quality

&

Mobilisation of Resources

&

3

3

FP6 = Maximum 30 and a Threshold of 19

Science & Technology Relevance

3-4

Impact Relevance

&

3-4

Implementation Quality & efficiency

&

3-4

FP7 = Maximum 15 and a Threshold of 10 to 12 Furthermore, in FP7 is the weighting of the criteria different from FP6. Weightings may vary from call to call. For each of the criteria a maximum of 5 points may be awarded. Per criterion there is a threshold of 3 points and there is an overall threshold of 10 to 12 points depending on the work programme.

The FP7 criteria in more detail: 1. Science and technology quality – relevance to the topic of the call a. the concept 14

Version 1_0

Page 17 of 64

3

b. objective c. work plan 2. Implementation of the project - quality and efficiency a. individual participants and the consortium as a whole b. management structure and procedures c. allocation of recourses 3. Impact a. contribution to expected impacts listed in work programme b. plans for dissemination/exploitation

• •

In conclusion In comparison to FP6 your FP7 proposal should, besides being scientifically excellent, also be equally excellent in; management – read ‘Implementation’ plans for Use and Dissemination – read ‘Impact’ Therefore, we emphasize during the workshop the importance of demonstrating in your proposal how your project will generate a grand impact on the EU Challenges by making better use of Dissemination and Exploitation strategies as explained in Chapter 2. In chapter 3 we will demonstrate how Dissemination and Exploitation influences the management structure of the consortium.

Page 18 of 64

2.2 Results and Project Deliverables15 The hereunder listed results have their own logical technology transfer routes. But before you can think of technology transfer routes you need to take into consideration the EU challenge addressed by your project. The EU challenges for a Beta-project16 could be described in terms of:





Pooling and leveraging of resources Different types of resources can be pooled: technology and methodology resources, knowledge resources, human resources and budget resources. At the start of the project you can already envision the ownership of the results. Joint inventions: If your project is structured as a flowchart, where partner A hands his results to partner B for additional work, who hand his result to partner C for additional work the results of this project will most likely be joint inventions. A way of exploitation is to set up a joint exploitation vehicle to avoid negotiation with too many partners. “Sole” inventions: If a sole invention can be exploited without too many other licenses the owner of the invention will prefer to exploit the invention alone. If a sole invention is a part of an envisioned result of the project (part of a diagnostic kit, a chip etc) it might be interesting to bundle the exploitation of the sole inventions. Comparative research: If your project is focussed on comparing the results of different experiments you will be confronted with set IPR claims of parties to certain background. The results of the comparative research will most likely lead to dependent patents and limit the number of potential licensees. Standardisation: When looking at standardisation as main purpose for the project, than wide spread dissemination seems to most logical way of making everyone aware of the new standard developed. The foreground will be licensed nonexclusively to interested parties. It might very well be that your project entails several of these approaches and that you have the possibility to combine several different technology routes. To help you we have put together in schedule 1 some pro’s and con’s about several exploitation routes.

EU challenges Pooling resources

Exploitation route

Pros

Cons

Inventions via a joint Negotiation about distribution of exploitation vehicle royalties is decided before Foreground is generated

Influence of owners of foreground diminished. Joint Exploitation vehicle has to be financed

One party

15 16

Version 5_0 If you want to submit a proposal for the SSH workprogramme, see annex Results and deliverables SSH projects

Page 19 of 64

EU challenges

Exploitation route

Pros

Cons

negotiates on behalf of the others with potential licensees Comparative Research

Standardisation

License on Foreground is often dependent on Background

Value of Background increases.

Broad dissemination Available for every and exploitation licensee.

Often no Freedom to Operate

Royalty rate is low and distribution complex. In ICT sector the licenses are mostly royalty free.

The Model Grant Agreement requires the participants to actively “Use” the project’s deliverables. Deliverables are tangible and verifiable results of the project. The different deliverables groups as listed hereunder have different exploitation and dissemination routes. 1) ‘Products’ are tangible durable outputs in the form of • a new or improved product as e.g. drug, material, software, databases • guidance material to new standard operating procedures and methodologies; • information laid down in reports, (comparative) studies and website; • handbooks and other training tools; • events such as conferences, public awareness campaigns, seminars, debates and symposia. 2) 'Methods’ are partly intangible and often written in a tangible form and include: standard operating procedures, processes and methodologies; managerial lessons learned and know-how; and exchange of ideas and good practice. 3) ‘Experiences’ are intangible and perhaps even less durable than products and methods and therefore as such not a deliverable of the project unless when written down in a report; (report on) increased knowledge of the participants within a certain field and topic; spreading of excellence by exchanging experience and best practice through the establishment of networks; (report on) experience gained by the project partners in the management and undertaking of (transnational) partnerships; (report on) experience gained by individuals, for example, experience gained from mobility periods within. 4) 'Policy Lessons’ usually emerge from the overall experience of projects within a programme or initiative (or group of programmes or initiatives) or from individual projects that are particularly innovative or effective. They are applied more widely at ‘systems’ level by multiplier agents. The generation of policy lessons is unlikely to be the primary consideration of project promoters or coordinators (and partners) and their reason for participating in an EU programme or initiative.

Page 20 of 64

2.3

Exploitation and Research Activity Strategies17

As described in the paragraph 2.1, Personal Benefit and Mutual Benefit, the consortium agreement needs to align the different interests of the parties which of course should be in line with the project proposal. The consortium agreement should: •

Cover what right of access they need from one another or what rights they cannot provide. Examples are the right to perform further research, the right to veto a license, the right to sharing royalties etc. In some cases a separate legal entity is established to ensure that the exploitation of the IPR is done effectively and continues after the ending of the project. The result will be a practical consortium agreement.



Bring together the individual and mutual interests together, which requires mutual understanding, constructive negotiation and fair compromises. This should be consistent throughout the consortium agreement from the governing principles and management structure up to the Dissemination and Exploitation.

Strategies to be discussed The MGA sets out the basic principles for Ownership, Protection and Use of results. The MGA leaves Beneficiaries a lot of freedom to make their own arrangements fitting the needs of the project. The table on the next page provides some examples with regard to Exploitation and Research Activity Strategies:

17

Version 1.0

Page 21 of 64

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ROUTES Route

Description

Pros

Cons

Contract Research Activities

FURTHER RESEARCH

Sponsored Research:

A company directly funds university research

• provides funds to conduct more • Intellectual property rights are research but is bound to the interest always an issue of the industry

Subsidised Research:

Research is subsidised through competitive governmental funding; national, EU, world bank etc

• funds to conduct research with uncertain outcomes

Consultancy

The provision of expert assistance or • Strong relationships can the development of a solution in return develop for fees. • Lower market risk route • Control over University research results not necessarily being intellectual property

Micelleaneou Clinical Trials, Material Transfer, Confidentiality etc s issues

• Non-compliance with bureaucratic demands can lead to repayment of grant (EU) • Potential for liabilities to arise, particularly for the public sector • Complexities of Foreground IP and ownership • Requires specialised skills

Managing Intellectual Property Option

EXPLOITATION

Licensing

Sale

The mechanism by which the owner of • Can provide funds to enable IP sells rights to subsequent further development purchase/licence etc of the IP on predefined terms The mechanism by which the owner of • Considered to be the most IP gives permission for a third party to cost effective way of pursuing engage in an activity which would technology transfer otherwise infringe the IP protection, • Flexible mechanism usually in return for a royalty. The assignment of ownership of IP in return for a fee.

• IP protection and litigation is no longer the responsibility of the generating organisation

Page 22 of 64

• Can reduce competition

• May not capture the potential value of IP • Immature technology may be difficult to sell • May not capture the potential value

• Low cost, arms length commercialisation

• Likely to have no further rights to, or influence on, the IP

Internal Commercial Activities Internal Commercialisation

Spin-out

Resources are made available to a • The IP can be developed to business unit within the organisation closer to its peak value which generated the IP in order to • Control over IP development develop the technical and commercial aspects of IP. External Commercial Activities The creation of a smaller company • Potentially capture more of the around a core of elements from a value of the IP larger company. • Creates visible demonstration of success

• Funding required • Relatively high risk for the public sector

• Funding required • High risk route • Lack of market knowledge and credibility

An early stage company differentiated from a spin-out (for the purposes of this guidance) by the lack of core elements and hence the requirement for management, facilities and/or technical staff to pursue its strategy. Joint Venture A contractual business collaboration between two or more entities who contribute to, and share control and ownership of, another entity. Start-up

• As spin-out

• As spin-out • Assembly of facilities & staff can be problematic

• Can align goals

• 50% of joint ventures fail to meet their goals

• Can achieve strategic fit

• Expensive & complex mechanism

• Can realise more value Partially based on: table 6 from the Intellectual Property Management Strategy, Guidance Prepared by Partnerships

Page 23 of 64

2.4 The project spin-out company18 Some EU projects establish a new company during or after the project as their way to optimise the exploitation of the project results. There are several legal structures possible and each structure has it advantages and disadvantages. 19

Legal entity under European Law

The EEIG20 is an instrument allowing entities established in various Member States to create synergies and work together to achieve common objectives. It has legal capacity and independence, and thus the right to sue and be sued, enter into agreements in its own name, etc. It offers some major advantages, for example the fact that no start-up capital is required or the fact that its official address can be transferred from one EU Member State or member of the European Economic Area to another. On the other hand, there is an unlimited joint and several liability for the grouping's debts and other liabilities between the EEIG itself and participating organisations. This can be a problem for some participants, especially universities and other research organisations, because they either cannot or do not want to assume such a responsibility. Even though participants have the possibility "to exclude or restrict the liability of one or more of its members in respect of a particular debt or other liability by means of a specific contract between the grouping and a third party" (see recital 10 of the Regulation), universities and the like might still find their participation in a EEIG difficult, as their liability may be restricted only for a specific debt, by means of a specific contract and always with the consent of a third party. Legal entities under national law The foundation. Establishing a foundation might be another solution. In the medical field it is sometimes preferred to have a foundation responsible for the commercialisation of drugs. In such case, the revenues generated will be used to facilitate further research. The Cancer Research UK21 is a well known example of how this might work. Limited liability companies. Every member state has national laws for the establishment such companies. The advantage of such a company is the limited liability of the shareholders of the company and the possibility to generate value. When the value of the company is increased the shareholders can under the conditions permitted by the shareholders agreement sell their shares and so create a cash refund. It is quite cumbersome to set up a company; all kinds of legal documents need to be drafted such as statutes, shareholders agreement, management agreements etc. The table hereunder shows different forms of legal entities that can be used for the exploitation of the results from an EU project.

18

Version 1.0 This text is based on the IPR helpdesk document: How to deal with IPR issues in the context of a legal entity created for the implementation of RTD projects 20 The European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) and the European Stock Company (SE) are introduced and governed by Regulation 2137/8511 and Regulation 2157/200112complemented by Directive 2001/86/EC13, respectively. 21 www.cancerresearchuk.org 19

Page 24 of 64

Type of legal entity

Advantages

Disadvantages

EU law European Economic Interest Grouping

ƒ governed by European law, equality between partners

ƒ members have unlimited joint and several liability (although specific exclusions might apply

ƒ easier for different kinds of organisations to participate

National law Foundations

ƒ suitable for the participation of noncommercial contractors

easier to create and administrate

Limited liability Company under national law

ƒ liability normally limited to capital of company the different legal forms under national law permit certain flexibility

ƒ governed by a national law, a fact that can adversely affect equality between partners inadequate when the founding parties want to make a profit. Foundations can use the profits only for reaching the objectives according to their statutes but not to enrich the founders of the foundation. ƒ governed by a national law, a fact that can adversely affect equality between partners according to some national laws, it is not allowed for universities to own shares in a spin-off company. ƒ more extensive reporting and administrative obligations

In a consortium agreement one needs to address lots of issues when a legal entity will be set up during or after the project for the exploitation of the research results. Hereunder is a far from complete list of issues that might have to be addressed: Ownership

Does the legal entity become the owner of the inventions or is it granted and exclusive licence.

Protection

Does the inventor’s organisation pay for the patent protection or is this a cost for the new entity.

Access rights

Who decides on access rights to third parties and how?

Use of results for further

Is it allowed for the project members to conduct further research or has this to be undertaken by the new entity? Will the new entity involve the contributing parties by providing research assignments to them?

Publication: Procedures Confidentiality

Is there a need for protocols? Idem.

2.5 Software22

22

Version 1.0

Page 25 of 64

Software is treated by the major ICT industries as a sui generis category of intellectual property rights. In order to understand whether the proposed IPR regime in consortium agreements is useful for the software that will be developed in your project, it is useful to make a distinction in types of software: - Non-technical “business application” software; - Embedded software - Technological software Non- technical “business application” software We mean with this software that has been written for non-technological purposes. This type of software runs on standard computer platforms. The value is the actual program itself, and the associated programming know-how, as opposed to the more general or abstract process, method or system that is used in the software. The commercial value is to refine or upgrade the software into a commercially marketable product or to use it for its own internal operations or as a base for a further development23. Examples of this software are: administrative software, software that helps manage a project and software with which the content on an internet page can be managed. In projects regarding humanities, medical projects or policy studies, this kind of software tools are often a deliverable of the project. In such a case the project depends on the software. In technical projects this kind of software is often Background – it is then a tool to manage the project or e.g. an extranet site, but the project does not depend on it. Applying the access rights system as laid down in the MGA to business application software, most of the time there is no need to provide the Foreground in the form of source-code or an API;.the software is used “stand alone”. If the application needs other software to run (e.g. an Excel spreadsheet or an Access database), everybody should have the necessary license to the software (Excel, Access). For non common software, this should be agreed beforehand because it can be costly obtain a license.

Embedded software This type of software, sometimes also referred to as component software, forms part of a technological device, system or method that is developed as an object of a research project, but is not the focus of the project itself. For example, an inventive new heart monitoring device, imaging system, guidance system or solar collection system would likely contain such software as an element or “component” of the overall system24. There is a grey area between embedded software and technological software. If software is embedded in a system we will here – to simplify matters – not regard it as embedded software but as technological software. This subchapter therefore only concerns embedded software that cannot be separated from the device because it is for example burnt on a chip. The AUTM manual25 addresses the value of this type of software as follows: Generally, component software will not have commercial value independent of the system, method or device it is used in. It typically is non-portable, that is to say that the component itself cannot be readily adapted for use in other species of similar systems, methods or device 23

Summary from the Association of University Technology Managers Manual, part II, IV-3.5 Protecting and Commercializing University Developed software 24 Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_componentry 25 See footnote 1

Page 26 of 64

without substantial revision or a complete rewrite of the code. Therefore, component software code normally will not be licensed independently of its corresponding system, method or device. Correspondingly, in most cases the greatest value of component software is not in the code itself but rather in the underlying techniques, methods and algorithms embodied in the code. The invention is the overall system or device incorporating the algorithms and techniques implemented with the component software. If in an EU project embedded software for a device is developed, this software is needed to use the device for which the software was developed. If an existing device including the software is needed for the project, the software to use the device is not separated from the device. There is in that case no need to make separate arrangements for the embedded software, it follows the device. It is also most often not necessary to modify the embedded software. Therefore the source code or an API is not needed.

Technological software The framework programmes have a strong tradition in these types of RTD projects. This category encompasses software of a technological nature, the actual object of technical innovation. For example, operating systems, network software, artificial intelligence, expert systems, memory management programs, electronic spreadsheets, computer languages, computer-aided design systems, language translation programmes, database systems, word processing software, electronic mail software, data compression utilities, or userinterfaces. Technological software also differs from business method applications software in that it tends to be experimental in nature, as opposed to usable “productized” software26. The commercial value is not in computer code, but rather in the methods, algorithms or techniques that are embodied in the software. The commercial value of actual program code to many potential licensees is minimal, either because the code is not up to commercial “product” standards and needs to be rewritten, because it will not work on the platform of interest or because the use of the software requires extensive knowledge. Building standard technological software has always been an important part of the ICT EU projects. The participants of such projects aim to develop own products upon the standard developed as result of the project.. For the ICT industry, it is therefore important that the system that is developed (the Foreground) is accessible for everyone. (see also chapter 1.3, Open Innovation). This is the reason why IPCA emphasizes the sharing the results generated in the project.

26

See footnote 1

Page 27 of 64

2.6 Dissemination - Publications27 The MGA permits a beneficiary to disseminate knowledge which it solely owns. However, to ensure that the mutual interests and personal interests are not jeopardised by (premature) publication it is necessary to have a set of publication procedures and agreement about the right to authorship as well as the procedures to establish the order of listing the authors.

Publication procedures28 It is the mission of universities to enhance the general stock of knowledge. This is done through publishing the research results so that it can be both shared with and tested by other researchers. In many countries this basic principle of university life is enshrined in the laws governing universities; everywhere and in every university it is seen as vital to the very purpose of the institution. It is therefore of special concern to the universities that there should be a clear procedure to facilitate swift dissemination of knowledge resulting from their work. Researchers benefit when the CA lays down clear publications procedures as well as rules for co-authorship. The MGA requires publishers to take account of protection of IPRs, confidentiality and the legitimate (commercial) interests of the beneficiaries; aligning all personal interests. A clear procedure will allow these interests to be balanced in an appropriate and timely way. The MGA permits a beneficiary to disseminate knowledge which it solely owns. However, to ensure that the interests referred to above are not prejudiced by premature publication, beneficiaries should be required in the consortium agreement to provide the other beneficiaries with a copy of the intended publication or other material to be disseminated. If none of them has raised written objection on justified industrial or commercial grounds, including the protection of intellectual property rights, within one month of receipt, dissemination can go ahead. If another beneficiary raises a written objection the beneficiaries can opt to protect the intellectual property rights prior to publication or to revise the publication in such a way that the conclusions of the results are not affected. Please note that researchers may only publish accountable research results and have full responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Dissemination (including publications

27 28

II.30

MGA Prior notice of any dissemination activity must be given only to the participants (unless Foreground is not protected nor transferred). Any of the participants may object if it considers that its legitimate interests in relation to its Foreground could

IPCA No right to use Foreground, Background or Sideground from another party without permission

DESCA The owner of Foreground and Background can only object to publication when his legitimate interest are affected

Strict time limits for objections and adjustments

Version 1.0 Richard Tomlin , FP5 position paper Unite, and adjusted by Lotte Jaspers to fit the new rules and regulation of FP7

Page 28 of 64

suffer disproportionately great harm.

MGA disclaimer + further disclaimers have to be added

Publication, who can claim to be author? This chapter was drawn up by the AMC Research Code Committee and based upon the Guidelines concerning authorship from the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty: Yellow Research has taken the liberty to make adjustments in the paragraphs: Authorship in EU projects, Examples for order of listings and Acknowledgements. See for the original text the amc.nl. Each author must have participated sufficiently in the project to be able to take responsibility for the content of the article. The term 'authorship' refers both to sole and first authorship and to co-authorship.

Authorship The right to authorship is determined based on whether the putative author made a substantial contribution to each of the following: 1. The idea and design of the project, the collection of data, or the analysis and interpretation of data. The contribution was the original idea for a series of experiments or research project, the design of the experiments or the project, the actual conduct of the experiment, the collection of clinical or epidemiological data, or the analysis and interpretation of the data. 2. Drafting or revising the principal intellectual parts of the content. 3. Approving the final version for publication All the authors must have read the initial version of the article and commented upon it, thus having the opportunity to make their intellectual contribution or contribute their experimental expertise. Each author must also have read the final version of the article and agreed to it. Periodicals generally require all the authors to sign a statement confirming their authorship, in some cases setting out the nature and extent of the contribution made by each author. Conditions 1, 2 and 3 must all be met. It follows from the foregoing that: Attracting funds, collecting material or data and generally supervising the research team are not each sufficient in themselves to justify a claim to authorship. Attracting funds in itself does not justify a claim to authorship unless this is based on thinking up the line of research. Only if the applicant thought up the original idea for the research, e.g. in a grant application, and the proposed research is to be done and published by the applicant (with or without others), can the applicant claim authorship. The right to authorship is not linked to particular posts or professions, nor does it depend on paid or voluntary contributions to the research.

Page 29 of 64

All the persons listed as authors must have the right to authorship, and only those with such rights must be listed. Authorship, then, not only needs to be justified, it must not be intentionally withheld from a person who has that right. Each author must have been sufficiently involved in the research to take public responsibility for the respective content. The order in which the authors are listed should be decided by all of them jointly, and they must all be prepared to explain their decision: in other words there must be a consensus between all of them on this subject. Along with the right to authorship goes a duty to accept this right. It is important for the list of authors to represent the creators of the publication correctly, and the inclusion of one or more authors who have not been informed of this intention should be avoided (this practice of 'planting' authors is sometimes used to increase the chances of a manuscript being published).

Authorship in EU projects There are major advantages to agreeing in the consortium agreement on how the list of authors is to be decided and how changes are to be made once the actual contributions made by the co-authors are known. In practice things often turn out differently than anticipated, so it is prudent to start out by designating governing body of the consortium to be responsible for deciding on any problems concerning authorship. Several ways of making authorship arrangements: 1. that the corresponding author indicates the preferred citation and the names of all the authors and the group; 2. Some journals require one or more authors – referred to as guarantors – to be designated as responsible for the integrity of the research as a whole, from idea to publication, and publish this information. Periodicals usually list the names of the other authors in the acknowledgements. The National Library of Medicine for example indexes the name of the group and the names of the persons regarded by the group as directly responsible for the publication. All the members of the consortium joining the publication must meet all the above criteria.

Examples for order of listing 1st author:

It is customary – although there is no international consensus on this – for the researcher who did the majority of the work and prepared the first version of the manuscript to be listed as the first author.

2nd author:

If the first and second authors contributed equally, this should be mentioned in a footnote.

The professor:

The researcher who takes ultimate responsibility for the project – usually the senior researcher. The relationship between supervision and authorship can give rise to problems, e.g. as the supervisor's role can differ greatly, but authorship must comply with the above criteria: in other words a supervisor who meets the criteria can be a co-author.

Remaining authors:

The remaining authors are listed in order of contribution. In some cases, however, the order is based on other principles, e.g. it is alphabetical.

Page 30 of 64

Acknowledgements All those who contributed to the project but do not meet the authorship criteria should be mentioned in the acknowledgements. Examples of people who can be thanked are those who provided only technical support, helped with the writing or offered only general support, e.g. as head of department. Financial and material support should also be mentioned in the acknowledgements. Groups of people who supplied material for the project but whose contributions do not justify a claim to authorship can be mentioned e.g. under the heading of 'Clinical researchers' or 'Assistant researchers', stating their positions or contributions, e.g. 'assisted as scientific adviser', 'provided critical comments on the research proposal', 'assisted with data collection' or 'recruited patients for the study and treated them'. As readers could conclude that they agree to the results and conclusions, all these people need to give written consent to being mentioned in the acknowledgements. It follows that along with the right to be mentioned goes a duty to accept mention, as is the case with authorship. Financial and other substantial material support for the project should always be mentioned in the acknowledgements. In the case of experiments involving humans this is laid down in the Medical Research on Humans Act. This obligation also applies to the sponsorship of journal supplements containing original or review articles. This prevents potential conflicts of interest – which do not occur when publishing in regular peerreviewed issues of periodicals – being obscured. Sponsors and parties with whom sponsorship has been agreed (authors, editors of periodicals and others) have a mutual responsibility to mention this.

Professional considerations when preparing for publication Manuscripts should be prepared for publication by the research team in complete openness and in accordance with the agreements made. In other words, members of the group must not prepare separate publications without the prior consent of the other members. Any proposal to use the results of a project for special publications (e.g. theses) not envisaged at the start of the project should be put to the research team as a whole and its consent obtained. Here again it is prudent to start out by designating a consortium governing body to be responsible for deciding on any conflicts.

Page 31 of 64

3.0 Introduction Governance29 When do you really need a consortium agreement? That will depend amongst other things of the Challenges of Scale and Complexity of the project: The number of parties in the project The duration of the project The number of work packages Problem of complex, multiple, conflicting deadlines Problem of designing a communication system that optimises who needs to communicate with whom, when, for what purpose

The Challenge of Scale A general management rule is that when there are more than six parties to a project, a formal management structure is needed. The complexity of the project increases with more parties and the occurrence of events increases as well; e.g. delays in delivery, key investigator goes job hopping etc. Regarding the matter of duration, there is another common management principle: The longer the duration of the project is the more likely it is that one of the events shall occur. In summary, the more partners you have and the longer duration of the project the higher the chance that you will be confronted with all the possible risks; Murphy’s law will kick in. This is captured in a Boston matrix as presented hereunder:

Short Project – Many Parties

Long project – Many Parties

Moderate risk

High risk: everything that can happen, will happen

Majority

Veto

Short Project – Few Parties (means simple structure)

Long Project – Few Parties (simple to moderate structure)

Low risk

Low to Moderate risk

Unanimity (same as in a bilateral project)

Unanimity – Majority

29

Version 1.0

Page 32 of 64

FP6 Experience of scale At present there is no experience of scale in FP7. In order to have some understanding of what the scale of an FP7 project might be, one could look at the data from the Court of Auditors as presented in November 2006 based upon the concluded FP6 contracts. Instrument

# Contracts

# Participants

# CEC contribution

NoE

137

29

7,3

IP

399

25

10

Streps

1165

9

1,9

Where FP6 started with large numbers of participants for NoE’s and IPs, this number was reduced to a more modest scale after the midterm review was published. For IST this meant, for example: Instrument NoE IP Streps

# Duration 48-60 months (but indefinite integration!) 36-60 months

Optimum # Participants 6-12

# CEC contribution

10-20

€4-25m

6-15

€0.8 - 3 m

18-36 months

€4-15m

The figures in the above tables might indicate a scale for FP7 projects. What it will mean in practise remains to be seen. The Challenge of Complexity The challenge of complexity is the challenge to reduce the events that can have a negative affect on the realisation of the project’s deliverables. A clear managerial structure helps to keep control of the project. Such structure should identity: - Vertically the different levels of responsibility and; - Horizontally the units (sections) at the same hierarchic level but with different recognizable specific tasks. Important tools in the project control are the functional communication modalities. This entails efficient communication tools between different project levels and between the individual partners. This includes making sure that the administrative and managerial level of the project remains in constant touch with the researchers to ensure that both ‘sides’ are aware of the academic as well as the administrative aspects of the project30.

30

http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/newsletter/issue6/article_6005_en.htm

Page 33 of 64

COMMUNICATION

Technical risks

# partners

Management risks

RISKS

Alignment Financial risks

# years

At the same time, the project management should always be in touch with the project officer in the European Commission to avoid procedural problems and to discuss potential changes. Day-to-day communication as well as a well-structured web site and other electronic means of communication are almost always of paramount importance: Communication modalities31: • Email for 1:1 • Telephone conferencing • Share point for small group meetings, discussion threads, chat-rooms, document analysis & commentary • Video-conferencing for 1:1, small and large group meetings, training and dissemination Communication barriers • English, always English (!?) • Translation costs and timing • Diversity of local IT facilities and expertise – overcoming firewalls • Multiplicity of competing, incompatible IT systems locally and pan-European

Solutions: • Quarterly management board (all partners) • Quarterly senior researcher • Monthly researcher (all DS) • Monthly training activity (all training partners) • Bi-monthly dissemination • Email & telephone all the time!

31

Framework 6 projects: Communication and Planning, Professor Peter Ryan, Brussels, 8\9th June 2006

Page 34 of 64

3.1 Management Structures, drawing the consortium organogram32 The MGA is relatively silent on the topic of project management. The MGA recognises individual parties, the consortium and the coordinator. The way the parties organise themselves in terms of responsibilities, hierarchy and tasks is left to the Description of Work and/or the consortium agreement. The FP7 consortium agreements have made the choice to only display two main governing bodies; a board and the general assembly. This is in comparison with most of the FP6 consortium agreements a simplification. The coordinator plays an important but widely varying role in the project control and therefore the project management. It is hard to find detailed information on internet on the possible consortium management structures which are used for EU RTD projects. In this article we want to show that you can improve your project proposal when you take the trouble to tailor make the organisational structure to the purposes of your project and the collaboration mode chosen. We have distinguished for EU RTD collaboration two forms of collaboration: `Open Innovation and the Value Model. In chapter 2 we have described in more detail the implications of these different ways of collaborating in terms of intellectual property regime. With regard to the management structure there is a consequence as well. When collaboration takes place within the scope of open innovation with the intention to generate a new standard than the common goal for all participants (the standard) justifies that a limited number of partners exercises more power than others. The ‘Value Model’ contrast with Open Innovation that no partner can afford to have lesser control over the project and its results because each results has a particular value for this partner. Good examples are project where diagnostic tools or therapies are developed. Here all partners want to have equal representation and democratic voting systems in place. When designing a management structure for a particular project it is important to acknowledge the type of result/deliverables the project wants to achieve because this provides the necessary input about the basic management approach: bottom-up or democratic approach and the top-down or business approach. This is at least the basic picture a reviewer consciously or subconsciously is aware of when reviewing a proposal. Structures that deviate from this basic logic need to explain why they have chosen for a different structure in order to be understood correctly. On the following page we have drawn some standard organograms. In these organogram the following bodies are pictured: - The General Assembly as the body where all the parties are represented; - The Board as the body where a limited number of parties are represented. - The Coordinator is the party entrusted with this role in the MGA.

32

Version 5_0

Page 35 of 64

In the presented organograms we adopted the following basic rules:

a) Vertically aligned are the different levels of responsibility identified; b) Horizontally aligned units (sections) indicate the same hierarchic level but with different recognizable specific tasks. Because the focus of this chapter is on reaching the output objectives (results/deliverables) it is important to engage the end-users or stakeholders. This is presented in the following pages.

Page 36 of 64

Stakeholders involvement Stakeholder involvement will ensure that projects produce results that reach the right target groups in a format and at a time which enables them to benefit and in doing so this will satisfy the demands of European policy-makers– and ultimately society more generally. The role of the stakeholder is to create in all phases of the project a selfcorrecting feedback loop, this increases the chances on successful Use of the deliverables. Another possible role of the stakeholder is to build confidence in the quality of the end result and therefore the acceptance with the target group. A Stakeholder is therefore someone who can use or endorse the use of the results of the project or who can provide useful input for the project. Which stakeholders Depending on the nature of the project different types of stakeholder can help to disseminate and exploit the Foreground. When developing new standards for mobile telephone communication the stakeholders would be telecom network operators as well as mobile phone manufacturers. When taking an example from the environmental field, the stakeholders could be the policy makers, environmental pressure groups. Sometimes stakeholders can provide crucial information. (ANSP-flight info, consumer organisations – user info). This –and of course the willingness of those stakeholders to provide the information- can also be taken into account when forming the stakeholders group. Concluding different types of stakeholders are to be distinguished: - End-User, the stakeholder that will use the deliverables of the projects. - Experts, for example your scientific colleague from the USA. • Information providers.

-

How to involve stakeholders

Because each project has its own characteristics, we can only make suggestions on a more abstract level. To us there are several crucial elements in the successful involvement of stakeholders. After having decided on which stakeholder to involve in your project, you need to take a decision how the stakeholders can effectively contribute to the project. One could consider to organise the stakeholders in direct linkage to the project. An approach which is almost like the opposite of the previous is to link the stakeholders to certain participants in the consortium. Directly linked to the project: The stakeholder engagement is organised through a specific committee, task force or forum at project level. The direct link to the project creates possibilities for direct interaction with the project management; the co-ordinator chairs the committee/task force. The level o f influence the stakeholders might have on the progress of the project; is an important issue to clarify. Can the committee/task force take binding decision or is this limit to advice? It seems logical to limit the involvement to an advisory capacity because stakeholders are not participants and as such they have no responsibility towards the commission for carrying out the project.

Page 37 of 64

Linked to the individual participants: Stakeholders are organised in direct relation to a participant. This could entail an organisation per member state. When organised like this even though there is a direct link to a member of the consortium, the influence of a stakeholder on the project is less than in the previous example.

The standard organisation form of a project could look something similar as drawn up in picture 1: EU consortium management Structure Funding Agency European Commission

Co-ordinator A (Primus inter Pares) Laboratory X

Principal Contractor B Laboratroy Y

Assistant Contractor C Laboratroy Z

Subcontracor Laboratory I

When taken picture 1 as the default situation and than adding the committee/task force/forum directly linked to the consortium picture 2 evolves: -

EU consortium

-

User Committee/Forum/Task Force Co-ordinator (and beneficiaries) Representatives of stakeholders

Manufacturers Pressure groups Experts

Issues to consider: • Level of influence of the stakeholder • Level of involvement of the management of the project • Frequency of meetings Possible Tasks A task description of the committee/Forum/Task Force could for example be: • scientific guiding • valuating the commercial potential of results; • testing the results on user friendliness • making policy observations • etc.

Rights and obligations As the stakeholders are not signatories of the EC contract, nor of the consortium agreement they should sign some kind of declaration which entails confidentiality of received information, reimbursement of costs, relation to the consortium and other rights and obligations.

Page 38 of 64

3.2 Governing bodies A consortium under FP7 has as in FP633 extensive powers, so how decisions are made and by whom - in other words questions of governance - are of central importance. On the one hand, there is a need for effective decision-making at a strategic level; on the other, there is a need for all partners to feel involved and engaged with the day-to-day management and implementation of the project. The different consortium agreements for FP7 distinguish themselves from one and other in the way they have structured the decision making. This paragraph will explain the roles of the Coordinator, Core Group and General Assembly as laid down on the one hand in the FP7 IPCA model and on the other hand the FP7 DESCA model.

IPCA governing bodies The IPCA model emphasises a management model based on strategic decision making. At the heart of the project stands a small Board comprised of representatives of the major players. The Board has the power to change the course of the project. The Coordinator has the role to inform the Board about the implementation of the project and the compliance by the Beneficiaries of its obligations. In annex II of the MGA the Coordinator has the role to monitor and verify whether the Beneficiaries comply with their obligations under the MGA and the consortium agreement 34; which in practise provides the Coordinator with the responsibility to monitor the day to day activities which must lead towards the goals set out by the Board. The General Assembly plays a moderate role in comparison to the Board. The main decisions taken by the General Assembly concern the financial distribution. For all other issues the General Assembly becomes only important as soon as there is serious dissent between the Beneficiaries, because then it can cast a decisive vote. But only after the Coordinator and Board have not been able to find satisfying solutions, decisions have to be taken by the General Assembly.

DESCA governing bodies The DESCA model is developed for the mainstream size projects, which could entail projects roughly of the size between 6 and 20 participants. In the DESCA there is a specific order in which the governing bodies are listed: first the General Assembly, continued with the Executive Board, Sub Project Committees, Sub Project Leaders and last the Coordinator. This is a remarkable order specifically because the MGA only lists 1 of the bodies mentioned above; the coordinator. The governance section clearly carves out the level of management for a work package. In effect this means that there is in DESCA a tendency to minimise the grip of the overall structure (General Assembly, Executive Board and Coordinator) at the level of the work package by compartmentalising the work packages and structuring their responsibilities. Looking at the order in which the governing bodies are presented in the DESCA consortium agreement it might be concluded that the central governing body of the DESCA model is the General Assembly. The Executive Board is operational control oriented and takes here the role of the Coordinator as in the 33

34

See, Decision Making in FP6 Consortia by Richard Tomlin and Lotte Jaspers, published in the IPR Helpdesk Bulletin, No.26, March-April 2006.. IPCA, article 3.1.1.1.a

Page 39 of 64

IPCA model. The Coordinator is a postman and banker and even though the coordinator has an obligation to monitor the Beneficiaries’ obligations under the MGA and the consortium agreement, he seems to have less of an impact due to its ranking in the consortium agreement. Also in this model the role of the General Assembly functions as a safety valve at the central project level. But at the level of the subproject it becomes more operational control minded.

FP7 Roles and Functions in different Models and Structures Type of CA

DESCA

IPCA

Coordinator

Core group

All Beneficiaries

Postman, Banker and Board/Executive Monitor of implementation Board

General Assembly

Last in hierarchal order of governing bodies: - administrative role towards the EC and the General Assembly

The decision making body and is free to act on its own initiative to formulate proposals

Intermediary between the sub project committees and the General Assembly and has the responsibility for monitoring the project progress Direct relation to the ‘owners’ of the ‘owners’ of the project: project: - inform the Board about − strategic decisionthe implementation and of making course the EC. − market oriented

Page 40 of 64

Marginal role, it is the safety valve in case of serious dissent within the Board

3.3 Decision-making and voting Knowing how to convene a meeting and knowing how to decide on project events creates transparency for all parties in the consortium. Furthermore, in order to take valid decisions within a consortium it is relevant to know: - the risks (events) that are likely to occur during the life-time of the project; - how decisions are taken and - how votes qualify. To avoid things are going differently than planned or worse, abuse of discretionary powers, it is necessary to establish decision-making conditions. The key decision-making conditions are: • Having routine meetings; • The possibility of having exceptional meetings; • Powers of each governing body; • Decision-making method (unanimously, majority agreement, etc.). Underpinning to all these conditions are open and transparent communication structures between all bodies and therefore between all participants. A tool to diminish risks within a project is to have well functioning communication lines within the project. These communication lines should be designed as a two-way street; bottom-up and bottomdown, vertically as well as horizontally. Furthermore, to ensure trust in the management it is necessary that everyone has the feeling of being well informed. Therefore consider to circulate the information freely to all partners. There are multiple decision-making methods possible. Participating in an EU project consortium means that you give something away in your control. The question is how much is acceptable? What are the legitimate reasons for voicing a veto and therefore not accepting the decision on whatever basis this was taken? Of course, the size of your consortium does play a role. The more Beneficiaries there are, the longer the preparatory negotiations have been and the more fine tuned the voting rules shall be. Different ways of weighing votes can be used within EU projects35: One vote per Beneficiary. No differentiation is made between large and small Beneficiaries. Meaning that every voter's vote should be counted with equal weight. Votes based on project share. Votes are weighted unequally. In this way one can discriminate between large and small Beneficiaries. A good administration needs to be kept on every beneficiary’s project share, especially when (parts of) deliverables are transferred to other Beneficiaries. If no good administration is kept, doubt can arise whether or not the decision taken has been taken validly. Votes are based on a fixed number agreed in advance. This is more or less the same as votes based on project share, but does not have the drawback of having to keep a detailed administration of project share. Votes can also be weighted unequally for other reasons, such as increasing the voting weight of the coordinator when a tie is eminent. In that case the coordinator has a tie-breaking vote, a privilege to resolve what would otherwise be a tie.

35

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system, for more information in general with

regard to voting. Page 41 of 64

Some of the most frequently used decision making methods: Quorum- quorate:

A minimum number of the total number of Beneficiaries need to be present in order to take a valid decision. When not enough Beneficiaries are present, no decision can be taken and nothing will change. A point of attention is that this system can be misused by dissenting voters to refrain from voting entirely in order to prevent a quorum. This can be solved by agreeing that if no quorum is reached, the decision will be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and no quorum is needed then

(Simple) Majority:

this is the simplest system; half of the votes + one are necessary for valid decision making.

Qualified majority:

Valid decision can only be taken when a certain threshold is reached. The threshold exceeds the Simple Majority rule in order to have effect. • Two-thirds majority by itself means simple two-thirds majority. • Absolute majority: It means that more than half of all the members of a group, including those absent and those present but not voting, must vote in favour of a decision in order to take a valid decision.

Unanimity

is complete agreement by everyone. In effect unanimous decisionmaking resolves or mitigates the objections of the minority in order to achieve the most agreeable decision. Especially in academic run projects where Beneficiaries have different areas of expertise but are working toward a common goal it can be a desired decisionmaking method. Minority views must be considered to a greater degree than in circumstances where a majority can take the action and enforce the decision without any further consultation with the minority voters36. In the different FP7 consortium agreements unanimity is reserved for the more complex topics because it might take some time and effort to achieve such a unanimous decision.

Veto:

Underpinning to the decision-making methods could be the right to cast a veto or a limited veto. A single beneficiary can block the decision making by casting its veto. Within EU projects it quite customary that the veto needs to be accompanied by a motivation for the objection. Also customary is that someone may only cast a veto if its legitimate interests are affected. .

36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

Page 42 of 64

Decision-making methods and the weighing of votes Qualified Majority (e.g. 75% or 2/3)

1 beneficiary = 1 vote Votes are based on project share Votes are based on a fixed number

Simple Majority (50% +1)

Unanimous

Quorum

All participants are equal no matter whether they have a small task in the consortium or collaborate in many different work packages. To create leverage for the large work package holders voting can be based on the expected financial contribution. In principle the same as project share but because during the lifetime of a Project one’s share can change a fixed number of votes can be easier.

1 beneficiary See above = 1 vote Votes are based See above on project share Votes are based See above on a fixed number Everybody needs to agree, if someone disagrees no decision has been taken. The non-agreement does not have to be motivated. A certain number of the total number of shares/votes need to be present in order to take a valid decision

Consortium Agreements

IPCA

DESCA

Project share

1 party – 1 vote

2/3 of members must be present in order to take valid decision

2/3 of members must be present in order to take valid decision Depending on decision, Qualified Majority (2/3) or Unanimity

Weighted voting Quorum Decision making method

Depending on decision, simple majority, Qualified Majority (75%) or Unanimity

Veto

Yes, in certain cases, on reasonable grounds

Page 43 of 64

Yes, but only when expressed in a meeting where such decision is scheduled, effort is required of all members to find a solution

4

BAROMETER for EU CONSORTIA

4.1 Introduction The barometer for EU consortia is an assessment tool for building and managing research consortia. Building or managing a Consortium may sometimes feel like riding a roller coaster. In the beginning there is great optimism and you feel that nothing can damage the spirit of this collaboration, but after some discussions about intellectual property rights or finances some doubt may creep in about the chances of ever setting up a viable Consortium or keeping everyone focussed. Whether the Consortium is just beginning to take shape or has already experienced some difficulties, the best advice is to take one step back and look for objective parameters against which to evaluate progress and to highlight the underlying issues that need to be addressed. In the table below, 12 factors are identified which can have a major impact on the success or failure of a Consortium. The tool can be used when you are building a Consortium, or in a later phase of an already running Consortium. By asking the partners to rate how well they feel the Consortium is performing against each of these factors it is possible to highlight the underlying causes of problems, or to identify factors that may give rise to problems in the future. Marked differences in the ratings given by different partners will also help identify partners who may feel they have been marginalised or whose basic approach to the project differs fundamentally from that of the majority. This may give rise to questions as to whether they are in the right project with the right partners. Exposing fundamental differences of approach early in the life of a Consortium can help avoid major problems later on. Factors rated with a 4 or 5 are the strong factors and should be cherished. Factors scoring 3 require attention. Factor scoring 2 or 1 represent threats to the viability of the Consortium and should be addressed as a matter of urgency. Annex 1 addresses the structure of the Consortium; it explains which factors and how these factors influence the building of a Consortium. Annex 2 addresses the structure from a Consortium which is up and running and its management. Therefore Annex 2 takes some of the same factors as described in Annex 1, but from a different perspective. Annex 3 explains the consequences of the scores when building a Consortium or for already established Consortia.

Page 44 of 64

4.2 Consortium Score Card In the building phase of a Consortium the first 6 key success factors are relevant. In the management phase of a Consortium all 12 key success factors are relevant. Rating from 5 to1

Key Success Factors Structure 1

History of working together

2

Sufficient flexibility

3

Open and clear communication

4

Project plan reflects vision and goals of the partners

5

Right mix of partners and no conflicts of interest within the Consortium

6

Quality of management Management:

7

Management structure fits the consortium dynamics

8

Efficient administrative systems and support

9

Transparency in project finances and accounting

10

Research Approach and Evaluation

11

Clear set of rules on intellectual property

12

Dispute avoidance and dispute resolution TOTAL

5 - Strong Agreement that this factor is well embedded in the Consortium; 4 - Agreement that this factor is embedded in the Consortium; 3 - Neither Agreement or Disagreement that this factor is embedded in the Consortium; 2 - Disagreement that this factor is embedded in the Consortium; 1 - Strong Disagreement that this factor is embedded in the Consortium. Read: -

Annex 1 for a Starting Consortium Annex 2 for a Running Consortium Annex 3 for the Scores

Page 45 of 64

SCHEDULE 1: Scoring a Starting Consortium: Descriptions of the Key Success Factors Ad 1 History of Working Together A successful Consortium is built on trust which itself is built on past experiences. Where there is not a strong history of previous collaboration and contact between the partners special efforts need to be made to establish trust. Ad 2 Sufficient Flexibility When building a Consortium: each partner feels that the issues that matter to him/her have been discussed openly and is happy with the agreements that have been reached. Each partner feels that sufficient preparation is undertaken to make the Consortium work. Ad 3 Open and clear Communication The Consortium has open and clear communication. There is willingness to discuss structure and process for communication between partners. Partners convey all necessary information and have easy access to the information they require to write the project proposal and/or to inform other potential partners. All partners feel they can contribute to the project proposal. Ad 4 Project Plan reflects the Vision and Goals The Consortium has developed a compelling vision that is well understood by the partners. This means that there is a common vision and understanding of what the Consortium desires to achieve, with clear agreement on its mission, objectives and strategy. All partners are confident that the aims can be achieved within the agreed timescales and with the resources they have committed. Ad 5 Right Mix of Partners – No Conflicts of Interest Each Consortium member is an expert in its own field and respected by the others for the contribution it will make. The mix of partners is balanced so that for each work package the most appropriate partner has been chosen. This applies both during the research and exploitation and dissemination phases of the project. Where commercial partners are involved they have properly evaluated the benefits of the collaboration against the potential commercial risks of working alongside competitors. Ad 6 Quality of Management At the beginning everyone is positive about the people involved in the project. There comes a moment in the building phase that you are able to qualify the key persons of the project. Are the proposed workpackage leaders and members of the steering committee qualified and of value for the project? Are the proposed managers qualified and do they speak and write the language of the consortium?

Page 46 of 64

SCHEDULE 2: Scoring a Running Consortium Descriptions of the Key Success Factors

Ad 1 History of Working Together A successful Consortium is built on trust which itself is built on past experiences. Where there is not a strong history of previous collaboration and contact between the partners special efforts need to be made to establish trust. Ad 2 Sufficient Flexibility When managing a Consortium: the agreements between the partners allow the Consortium sufficient flexibility in the implementation of the project to take the measures that may be necessary to adapt to changing circumstances. In other words partners’ commitment to the project goals is stronger than their immediate self-interest. Ad 3 Open and clear Communication The Consortium has open and clear communication. There is an established structure and process for communication between partners. Partners convey all necessary information and have easy access to the information they require to carry out their work and to participate effectively in the management of the Consortium. All partners feel they can contribute to the decision-making process and are properly informed about decisions that are taken. The appropriate structures for good communication may be in place, but are they being properly implemented? Ad 4 Project Plan reflects the Vision and Goals The Consortium has developed a compelling vision that is well understood by the partners. The common vision and understanding of what the Consortium desires to achieve, is clearly reflected in the Project Plan (in mission, objectives and strategy). All partners are confident that the aims can be achieved within the agreed timescales and with the resources they have committed. Ad 5 Right Mix of Partners and no Conflicts of Interest Each Consortium member is an expert in its own field and respected by the others for the contribution it will make. The mix of partners is balanced so that for each work package the most appropriate partner has been chosen.This applies both during the research and exploitation and dissemination phases of the project. Where commercial partners are involved they have properly evaluated the benefits of the collaboration against the potential commercial risks of working alongside competitors. Ad 6 Quality of Management Managing an EU Consortium requires other skills than managing a normal research project. The managers of a Consortium are the coordinator, board and workpackage leaders. Is the quality of the management team very good to excellent? Are there no major management issues? Ad 7 Management Structure fits the Consortium Dynamics Depending on the way the project is to be implemented, an appropriate management structure has been adopted. This means that the roles and functions identified are compatible with the consortium dynamics. Each Consortium member has a clear understanding of its role, rights and responsibilities is comfortable with them and is confident of being able to perform its part of the project. Does the management structure ensure so far as possible that there will be no surprises for the partners as the project goes forward? This means openness in the way decisions are prepared and taken, access to

Page 47 of 64

the decision-making process for all partners with an interest in a decision, and clear communication concerning the progress and future direction of the project. Ad 8 Efficient Administrative Systems and Support The Consortium provides high quality organisational support: procedures, functions, resources, expertise, etc to enable all partners to carry out their work as laid down in the project plan. The members of the Consortium receive the necessary support from their own administrative services with regard to financial, commercial, legal and similar issues Ad 9 Transparency in Project Finances and Accounting When writing the project proposal the budget is not a big issue. The budget looks substantial and adequate. However, during budget negotiations and allocations the tension within a Consortium may increase. Does every partner get fairly paid for his research and management obligations? Where does/did all the money go? Is it clear to all partners that the money is well allocated, spent and accounted for? Ad 10 Research Approach and Evaluation The Consortium is focused on its outcomes, identified impacts, and has conducted a needs assessment to establish its goals. Additionally, data are collected to establish that goals have been met. Strategies for sharing data and results are employed to share information with partners. Partners receive feedback on their progress and impact. Ad 11 Clear set of rules on intellectual property The partners feel ownership of the way the Consortium works and how the results of the research are to be exploited and/or disseminated. There is sufficient clarity in the agreements made that all partners are confident that their individual interests have been secured as well as ensuring maximum beneficial and responsible use of the results by the Consortium as a whole. Ad 12 Dispute Avoidance and Dispute Resolution Dispute avoidance is always better than dispute resolution. Are the rules for decisionmaking in the Consortium clear and are all partners confident that they will result in fair decisions? Do they address the possibility that partners may have to accept decisions contrary to their individual interest for the wider good of the Consortium? If problems arise that cannot be resolved through discussion and the normal give and take of a collaboration, are there clear formal procedures for resolving them promptly and effectively and in a manner that will be acceptable to all concerned? If a partner’s fundamental interests mean it can no longer continue in the Consortium are clear procedures in place to allow that partner to leave and to deal with questions of residual rights and obligations?

Page 48 of 64

SCHEDULE 3: Reading the Scores Reading the scores for a starting Consortium

Assuming only Factors 1 to 6 are relevant and scored Scores from 21-30: The Consortium has many components that comprise a successful consortium. But check the totals for individual factors to ensure that there is not a critical weakness. Scores between 11-20: The Consortium has some good features; however, there is a serious need to face the challenges. The Consortium may need to come up with a new project plan and vision. There is real cause for concern if a starting Consortium scored in this range because it may not have the capacity to resolve problems successfully and could be at risk of collapsing in the event of something going seriously wrong. Scores between 0-11: The Consortium should go back to the drawing board and refocus its goals and membership. There may be enough goodwill to successfully present a project proposal, but the chances of the project being implemented without major difficulties are remote. This is a disaster waiting to happen for all concerned!

Reading the scores for a running Consortium

Assuming all 12 Factors are relevant and scored Scores from: 41-60 The Consortium has many components that comprise a successful consortium. But check the totals for individual factors to ensure that there is not a critical weakness. Scores between 21-40: The Consortium has some good features; however, there is a serious need to face the challenges. The Consortium may need to come up with new ways of working together. There is real cause for concern if an on-going Consortium scored in this range because it may not have the capacity to resolve problems successfully and could be at risk of collapsing. Scores between 0-20: The Consortium should go back to the drawing board and refocus its goals and membership. There may be enough goodwill to solve the problems and restructure the Consortium, but the chances of carrying the project successfully are remote. The problems should be taken serious, not only by the Coordinator or Board but also by all partners. With some luck the trust can be restored in order to save (a part of) the project.

Page 49 of 64

Annex 1

Dissemination and exploitation strategies

In order to be able to write clearly the objectives of a project you need to consider already in the proposal phase the elements of a Dissemination and Exploitation Plan. The Dissemination and Exploitation Plan describes the knowledge management of the results of a project. Walking though these elements in the proposal phase helps you to focus on what are your results and deliverables, what are the possible uses and how can these be transferred to possible end-users and stakeholders. There are different elements which need to be described in a Dissemination and Exploitation Plan. Patent search. A patent search needs to be carried out to find patents that may block the rationale of carrying out the project and/or the exploitation of the results of a project. The best moments to carry out a patent search is prior to the writing of the proposal, before the submission of the proposal, before the start of the project, before applying for a patent, during the project and before deciding how to exploit the patent. Normally, the industrial partners carry out these patent searches regularly. Communication. Communication lines within the project need to be described in the plan and functioning. Important communication lines are: - from the work floor of a partner to the employers representative, a contractor; - from the contractor to a higher management level as e.g. the Work Package leader, the Board or a General Assembly; - when applicable, from the contractor to a dedicated body responsible for Dissemination and Exploitation. Strategy for IPR protection. The Consortium has to decide and describe who is responsible for the protection of the inventions, who will pay for the costs, in which countries the patent application will be filed etc. There are different options for IPR protection. The best option depends upon the partners, the results of the project, the sector and the best way to exploit them. Options are: - the employer(s) of the inventors is responsible for the IPR protection; - the industrial partners in the project are responsible for the IPR protection; - the Consortium is responsible for the IPR protection. Strategy for ownership: All partners need to ensure that the inventions are owned by the participating institutes and not by the inventors. This is an obligation of all partners signing the contract with the EC. In some national patent legislation the inventor has a right to a reimbursement. It is the responsibility of the employer to reimburse its inventors for an invention. Strategy for dissemination. The consortium has to decide and describe how the results will be disseminated. In most projects the academic institutes take the lead in the dissemination of the results in peer-reviewed journals. The dissemination comprises also publications, websites and conferences which can be accessed by potential stakeholders and licensees. Strategy for exploitation. The consortium has to decide and describe how the results will be exploited. In most projects the industrial partners take the lead in the exploitation of the results. The consortium needs to evaluate all potential exploitations of the results and decide which type of exploitation are economic valuable. The next step us to decide how the results will be exploited: by all partners of the consortium, by a partner of the consortium, by licensing (a part of the results) to a third party etc.

Page 50 of 64

Strategy for IP transfer. In some cases a license is not the best way of exploitation. A transfer of IP is necessary to give the licensee the full rights to exploit the invention. This may be necessary in the case of law suits. Please note that the IP may not be transferred to a non-EU partner without permission of the EC. An example is that a partner transfers its IP to a mother company in the USA. Strategy for in-licensing. In some cases a strategy for in-licensing is needed in order to carry out the project or to exploit the results. Strategy for IPR management. The consortium had to decide and describe who is responsible for the IPR management and which rights all partners have. The responsible person may be a partner, an exploitation committee or a separate legal entity. It is important to state the rights and the obligations of all partners to IPR to avoid misunderstanding. Examples are the right to perform further research, the right to veto a license, the right to sharing royalties etc. In some cases a separate legal entity is established to ensure that the exploitation of the IPR is done effectively and continues after the ending of the project. The main reason to opt for this construction is joint inventions and invention based on multiple patents. The description of the IPR management depends largely upon the outcome of the project and the best way of exploitation.

Page 51 of 64

Annex 2:

Ethical issues in EU research proposals – checklist37

Crucial information for the Sixth Framework Programme applicants who have identified ethical issues in the Guide for Proposers checklist You identified possible ethical issues in your proposed research project by ticking one or more "yes" in the Guide for Proposers checklist. Please examine carefully the following specifications and explanations and ensure that you give sufficient and clear information in your research proposals on the subject(s) identified. A. Specification of the issues identified: Please indicate whether the proposal involves ·Research on human beings Persons not able to give consent Children Adult healthy volunteers ·Human biological samples Human foetal tissue/cells Human embryonic stem cells ·Human embryos ·Human genetic information ·Other personal data Sensitive data about health, sexual lifestyle, ethnicity, political opinion, religious or philosophical conviction ·Animals (any species) Non- human primates Transgenic small laboratory animals Transgenic farm animals Cloning of farm animals ·Research involving developing countries (e.g. clinical trials, use of human and animal genetic resources…) ·Dual use

Yes

No

Uncertain

B. Applicants are requested to confirm that the proposed research does not involve: Research activity aimed at human cloning for reproductive purposes, o Research activity intended to modify the genetic heritage of human beings which could make such changes heritable * o Research activity intended to create human embryos solely for the purpose of research or for the purpose of stem cell procurement, including by means of somatic cell nuclear transfer.

-

37

Integral download from the commission website: http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/page_en.cfm?id=3205

Page 52 of 64

C. The applicants are requested to address the ethical issues related to the proposed research: o Describe the potential ethical aspects of the proposed research regarding its objectives, the methodology and the possible implications of the results; o Explain and justify the research design; o Indicate the relevant national legislation or requirements of the Member State(s) where the research takes place. D. The applicants are requested to address the questions 1 to 11 where relevant to their research. o National regulations and international codes of conduct The applicants must indicate which national and international rules are applicable to their proposed research and explain how they will conform to these. When appropriate, they should indicate as well whether the proposal contributes to the implementation of EU and international legislation in the specific field and to the fulfilment of its main objectives. In the cases described in (2) applicants must specify any additional national or local regulation with which any or each of the partners must comply in relation to the use of foetal tissue, human embryos or embryonic stem cells in culture. o

Use of banked or isolated human embryonic stem (hES) cells in culture, human foetuses, and human foetal tissue Read the procedural modalities for research activities involving banked or isolated human embryonic stem cells in culture to be funded under Council Decision 2002/834/EC (PDF - 27Kb).

The applicant should: ƒ justify the use of banked or isolated human embryonic stem cells in culture; ƒ give full details about the source of hES cells; ƒ specify and justify the number of any foetuses to be used and why the use of such material is necessary; ƒ specify the source of human foetal tissue; ƒ describe the procedure for obtaining informed consent; ƒ describe the arrangements for protecting the confidentiality of personal data of individuals concerned. o

o

Use of other human biological samples The applicant should: ƒ specify and justify the type, amount and source of human biological samples to be used; ƒ describe the procedure for obtaining informed consent of the person(s) from whom the material is obtained; ƒ describe the arrangements for protecting the confidentiality of donors' personal data. The applicants should also clarify the handling and storage of the samples: duration of the storage, access, ownership, and possible commercial exploitation. Use of personal data in bio-banking (including gene-banking) Applicants should describe the procedure for obtaining informed consent of persons and describe the arrangements for protecting the confidentiality of their personal data. Applicants should describe measures taken to encode or anonymise banked biomaterial (including traceability measures). Even where only anonymised data are used, adequate security for storage and handling of such data must be shown.

Page 53 of 64

o

Research involving persons (individuals or populations) in particular children or persons unable to give consent, pregnant women or healthy volunteers for clinical trials The applicant should: ƒ provide justification for such research in terms of the potential benefits of the research in relation to the possible risks to persons; ƒ indicate the number of persons involved and describe the selection criteria; ƒ provide details of the arrangements made for providing information to persons and for obtaining informed consent; ƒ specify any payments, inducements or other benefits to be given to the persons concerned; ƒ describe the compensation and treatment available to subjects for trial-related injuries. For persons unable to give a valid consent, applicants should, in addition to the above: ƒ indicate the degree of risk and burden involved for the subject; ƒ whether and how the persons might benefit from the procedures envisaged; ƒ indicate why it is necessary to involve persons unable to give a valid consent; ƒ describe what arrangements are made to seek the agreement of the person's parent, guardian or other representative. A copy of both the informed consent form and the subject information sheet should be provided.

o

Protection of personal data. Applicants should describe the procedure for obtaining informed consent of persons and describe the procedures for protecting the confidentiality of such personal data. Where data are to be shared with other stakeholders the persons whose data are collected should give a specific consent. Applicants should also describe the process of encoding or anonymisation used and indicates if the collected data will be used for commercial purposes. Even where only anonymised data are used adequate security measures for storage and handling of such data must be shown.

o

Use of animals Applicants should provide details of the species (and strains where appropriate) of animals to be used and explain why these have been chosen. They should explain why the anticipated benefits justify the use of animals and why methods avoiding the use of living animals cannot be used. They should also give details and justify the numbers of animals proposed with reference to statistical advice if applicable. Applicants should provide a summary of the main adverse effects for the animals, including any adverse effects due to methods of husbandry and supply of animals as well as the effects of the scientific procedures themselves. They should state what will happen to the animals at the end of the procedures (e.g. sacrifice). They should also indicate what steps have been taken to comply with the principles of reduction, refinement and replacement. In particular they should describe the procedures adopted to ensure that the amount of suffering to the animals is minimised and their welfare is protected as far as possible (e.g. improvements in technique, application of humane end-points, environmental enrichment).

o

Transgenic animals Applicants should be aware that the issues and questions relating to the use of animals in general (as above) apply equally to transgenic animals and the same information should be provided. In addition applicants should state what the possible phenotypic effects of transgenesis are and how this may affect animal

Page 54 of 64

welfare and biodiversity. o

Non-human primates In the case of non-human primates the applicants must in addition to the information above, specify not only which species are used, but also their origin (i.e. whether they are wild-caught or captive bred, and which breeding centre they were originally obtained from). Please also state which partner is in charge of the importation or breeding of animals, where the primates are to be housed and which partner is performing the experiments. Additional information and justification on any likely restrictions to the animal husbandry and care (e.g. single housing) and on the numbers of animals to be sacrificed should also be provided.

o

Research in co-operation with developing countries When research is to be performed in developing countries and/or by partners from developing countries or when the results can be potentially applied in these countries, the applicants should also describe the arrangements for: - sharing of benefits and allocation of intellectual property rights; - contribution to capacity building in developing countries (i.e. capacity to asses and use modern technologies while respecting their own choices, needs and local conditions).

o

Local ethics committees opinions and authorisations of competent bodies If the relevant authorisation or opinion of local ethics committees has already been obtained, then it should be clearly mentioned and a copy should be included. Where the opinion or authorisation cannot be obtained at the time of contract signature, (for instance because preliminary results should be first obtained before considering a clinical trial or experiment), the contract will specify that the applicant has to provide it to the Commission services in due course, and in any case before starting the phase of the project concerned by this authorisation. Ethics Committee approval or authorisation of a competent body should also be specified as a project deliverable.

o

Conflict of interest Applicants should declare any potential conflicts of interest that may arise during the project and describe the way they will be addressed.

o

Ethical implication of research results Applicants must consider and describe the possible ethical implications of the research results such as the protection of dignity, autonomy, integrity and privacy of persons, biodiversity, protection of the environment, sustainability and animal welfare.

Page 55 of 64

Annex 3

Glossary – Dissemination and Exploitation38

BENCHMARKING A standardised method for collecting and reporting critical operational data in a way that enables relevant comparison of performances of different organisations or programmes, often with a view to establish good practice. BROKERAGE Brokerage indicates the match between supply of results and demand, e.g. the needs of the users for whom the results are meant. The aim of dissemination and exploitation of results is to facilitate a brokerage action and to make sure that the project provides an adequate answer to the needs of the target group. On the stock exchange, a broker is a party that mediates between a buyer and a seller. WEB BASED BROKERAGE Web based Brokerage is a web-based tool intended to stimulate in a proactive way the match between supply and demand of results, products. A brokerage service will exist to users in order to: - Help them find the most adequate and relevant results and facilitate the match between - Demand and supply - Promote the supply available - Possibly help to tease out latent demand - Ensure the ongoing matching of supply and demand - Provide potential "users" with regular updated information on the results SUSTAINABILITY ACTIVITIES In general the follow up activities take place when the project is finished in administrative terms. Their aim is to keep results alive and sustainable. The activities could imply: - Updating the results after the project has been completed - Recognising/certifying the result - Involvement of policy-makers taking up results - Transfer and exploitation of results by other sectors/target groups/environments - Commercialisation of a project results GOOD PRACTICE A good practice is an exemplary project (including results or processes) which has positively influenced systems and practices throughout its activities and results. Consequently, good practices are worth transferring and exploiting in different contexts and environments by new users or entities. IMPACT Impact is the effect that the project and its results have on various systems and practices. A project with impact contributes to the objectives of programmes and to the development of different European Union policies. The effective transfer and exploitation of results, together with the improvement of systems by innovation, produces positive impact. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION At project level, information and communication concern collecting and presenting project activities, experiences, results to potentially interested users. They are aimed at increasing knowledge of the projects. In the process, various tools are used: publications, press 38

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/valorisation/doc/glossary_en.pdf

Page 56 of 64

releases, documentation, websites, expositions, conferences, videos, Video News Releases. (see also: Promotion and Awareness) INNOVATION Innovative results are those which represent some new and distinctive features, distinguishing them from others with similar characteristic, and adding value in relation to conventional solutions. MONITORING (at project level) The process involves continuous and systematic control of the project’s progress. The intention is to correct any deviation from the operational objectives and thus improve the performance. Every project should be monitored throughout its duration in order to ensure its success. Monitoring consists of supervision of activities, comparison with the work plan and using the information obtained for the improvement of the project. During the monitoring process dissemination and exploitation activities must be carefully checked, verified and, if necessary - reoriented and adapted. SUSTAINABILITY Sustainability is the capacity of the project to continue its existence and functioning beyond its end. The project results are used and exploited continuously. Sustainability of results implies use and exploitation of results in the long term. STAKEHOLDERS Individuals or institutions that may, directly or indirectly, positively or negatively, affect or be affected by a project and/or a programme. TARGET GROUP The target group concerns those who will be directly, positively affected by the project by its activities and its results.

Page 57 of 64

Annex 4: Glossary – Project Management Activity

In Project Management, task, job, operation or process consuming time 1+2 and possibly other resourcers; any work performed on a project. An activity must have duration and will result in one or more deliverables. An activity will generally have cost and resource requirements. See Task. The EU Contract uses the term activities to distinguish between Research and Technological Development, Demonstration, Training, and Management. Each of these activitites has a different funding bases.

3

Decision event

State in the progress of a project when a decision is required before the start of any succeeding activity. Note: the decision determines which of a number of alternative paths is to be followed.

2

Deliverable

Any item produced as the outcome of a project or any part of a project. The project deliverable is differentiated from interim deliverables that result from activities within the project. A deliverable must be tangible and verifiable. Never confuse a deliverable with a Milestone.

Effort

The amount of human resource time necessary to perform an activity (task). Effort is usually expressed in staff-hours, staff-days or staffweeks.

2

Feasibility study

Analysis to determine if a course of action is possible within the terms of reference of the project.

2

Final Report

Post-implementation report. Normally a retrospective report that formally closes the project. In project management terminology this report closes the project having handed over the project deliverables for operational use.

2

1+3

Note: the report should draw attention to experiences that may be of benefit to future projects and may form part of the accountability of the project team Gantt Chart

A bar chart that depicts a schedule of activities and milestones. Generally activities (which may be projects, operational activities, project activities, tasks, etc.) are listed along the left side of the chart and the time line along the top or bottom. The activities are shown as horizontal bars of a length equivalent to the duration of the activity.

1

Impact

The assessment of the adverse effects of an occurring risk.

2

Issue

An immediate problem requiring resolution.

2

Key Events

Major events, the achievement of which that are deemed to be critical to the execution of the project, see also Decision events.

2

Key performance indicators

Measurable indicators that will be used to report progress that are chosen to reflect the critical success factors of the project.

2

Kick-Off Meeting

A meeting at the beginning of the project or at the beginning of a major phase of the project to align peoples' understanding of project objectives, procedures and plans, and to begin the team-building and bonding process.

1

Page 58 of 64

Methodology

Methodology in project terminology in project terms means a documented process for management of projects that contains procedures, definitions, and roles and responsibilities. Do not confuse it with a possible methodology deliverable of a project.

2

Milestone

A point in time when a deliverable or set of deliverables is available. Generally used to denote a significant event such as the completion of a phase of the project or of a set of critical activities. A milestone is an event; it has no duration or effort. It must be preceded by one or more tasks (even the beginning of a project is preceded by a set of tasks, which may be implied).

1

Monitoring

Monitoring is the recording, analysing, and reporting of project performance as compared to the plan.

2

Murphy's Laws -

A set of laws regarding the perverse nature of things. For example: 1. Nothing is as easy as it looks. Everything takes longer than you think. Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. Corollary: If there is a worse time for something to go wrong, it will happen then.

1

2. If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway. Network Diagram

A graphic tool for depicting the sequence and relationships between tasks in a project. PERT Diagram, Critical Path Diagram, Arrow Diagram, Precedence Diagram are all forms of network diagrams.

1

Objective

An objective is something to be achieved. In project management, the objectives are the desired outcomes of the project or any part of the project, both in terms of concrete deliverables and behavioral outcomes (e.g., improved service, more money, etc.).

1

PERT Diagram

Program Evaluation and Review Technique. A type of network diagram deriving its name from the PERT technique. The term is often used as a synonym for network diagram.

1

Planning

The process of identifying the means, resources and actions necessary to accomplish an objective.

2

Product

The project's material outcome. It maybe a service, event or any material object (e.g., a machine, computer system, new drug, building, etc.). The product includes all necessary aspects of the deliverable (e.g., training, documentation, etc.).

1

Project Management

Planning, monitoring and control of all aspects of a project and the motivation of all those involved in it to achieve the project objectives on time and to the specified cost, quality and performance which requires the application of planning, team-building, communicating, controlling, decision-making and closing skills, principles, tools and techniques.

Project Manager

The person responsible and accountable for managing a project's planning and performance. The single point of accountability for a project.

Page 59 of 64

1 +2

1

Resource

Any tangible support such as a person, tool, supply item or facility used in the performance of a project. Human resources are people.

1

Responsibility

The obligation to perform or take care of something (proactive), usually with the liability (determined post facto) to be accountable for loss or failure. Responsibility may be delegated to others but the delegation does not eliminate the responsibility.

1

Risk

The likelihood of the occurrence of an event. Generally, the event is a negative one like project failure, but may also be a positive event, like the early completion of a task.

1

Scope

Scope is defined in terms of three dimensions—product, project and impact. Product scope is the full set of features and functions to be provided as a result of the project. Project scope is the work that has to be done to deliver the product. Impact scope is the depth and breadth of involvement by, and effect on, the performing and client organizations.

1

Scope Change

For an EU project it means any change in the definition of the project scope.

3

Task

A piece of work requiring effort, resources and having a concrete outcome (a deliverable). Activity is synonymous with task.

Work Package

A group of related tasks that are defined at the same level within a work breakdown structure. (In traditional cost/schedule systems, the criteria for defining work packages is as follows: 1) Each work package is clearly distinguishable from all other work packages in the programme. 2) Each work package has a scheduled start and finish date. 3) Each work package has an assigned budget that is time-phased over the duration of the work package. 4) Each work package either has a relatively short duration, or can be divided into a series of milestones whose status can be objectively measured. 5) Each work package has a schedule that is integrated with higher-level schedules). 1 http://www.allpm.com/glossary.php#E 2 http://www.apm.org.uk/AtoC.asp 3 Yellow Research

Page 60 of 64

1+3

2

Annex 5: Glossary – Ethical Issues ETHICS Ethics is the science of morals in human conduct. ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS Environmental ethics is the ethics of medical, biological and environmental intervention. BIOETHICS OR BIOMEDICAL ETHICS The study and/or application of ethics that result from technological scientific advances in the areas of biological sciences, medicine, genetics, healthcare and public policies. BIOTECHNOLOGY Any technique that uses living organisms or substances from organisms, biological systems, or processes to make or modify products, to improve plants and animals, or to develop micro-organisms for specific use. Historically, biotechnology has had an impact in three main areas: health, food/agriculture and environmental protection. INFORMED CONSENT The voluntary verification of an individual’s willingness to participate in research, along with the documentation thereof. This verification is requested only after complete, objective information has been given about the research, including an explanation of the research objectives, potential benefits, risks and inconveniences, available alternatives, and of the individual's rights and responsibilities. HUMAN RIGHTS Human Rights are based on the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all human beings. They are defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. At the European level, Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union reaffirms that the European Union "is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States". In addition the European Convention of Human Rights adopted by the Council of Europe is legally binding in all Member States. Moreover, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights adopted in Nice in December 2000 is the instrument inspiring respect for fundamental rights by the European institutions and the Member States where they act under Union law. LAW, REGULATIONS AND RULES Moral or legal codes of conduct. It can be used to refer to legislation of the Member States, moral guidelines either written in nature or the hearts of all people or simply developed individually as part of a person value system. LEGALISM An ethical system which contains rules for every situation and/or the association of doing good with simply following those rules. DECLARATION OF HELSINKI A series of guidelines adopted by the 18th World Medical Assembly in Helsinki, Finland in 1964. The Declaration addresses ethical issues for physicians conducting biomedical research involving human subjects. Recommendations include the procedures required to ensure subject safety in clinical trials, including informed consent and Ethics Committee reviews.

Page 61 of 64

INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF HARMONISATION This alliance of the European Union, the U.S., and Japan was formed to ensure that goodquality, safe, and effective medicines are developed and registered in the most efficient and cost-effective ways. These activities are pursued to prevent unnecessary duplication of clinical trials and to minimize the use of animal testing without compromising the regulatory obligations of safety and effectiveness GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE International ethical and scientific quality standard for designing, conducting, monitoring, recording, auditing, analyzing and reporting studies. GCP insures that the data reported is credible and accurate, and that subject's rights and confidentiality are protected. ETHICS COMMITTEE OR COMPETENT AUTHORITY An independent body (a review board or a committee, institutional, regional, national, or supranational), constituted of medical/scientific professionals and non-medical/nonscientific members, whose responsibility it is to ensure the protection of the rights, safety and well-being of human subjects involved in research and to provide public assurance of that protection, by, among other things, reviewing and approving/providing favourable opinion on, the research proposal, the suitability of the investigator(s), facilities, and the methods and material to be used in obtaining and documenting informed consent of the research subjects. The legal status, composition, function, operations and regulatory requirements pertaining to Independent Ethics Committees may differ among countries, but should allow the Independent Ethics Committee to act in agreement with GCP. ETHICAL MONITORING AND AUDIT Participants in a project must describe the ethical implications of the research and, must comply with international, European and national legislation, including ethical rules. Reviewing a research project, ensuring conduct, proper records and reports are performed in compliance with the applicable EU requirements, including ethical issues. On commission level: An ethical review will be implemented systematically in the evaluation phase by the Commission for proposals dealing with ethically sensitive issues. The European Commission services will carry out an ethical review of those research projects containing ethically sensitive questions. During the performance of the research project, in some cases, ethical monitoring may take place. At project level: Participants should take regular, complete and documented measurements of compliance with the International, EU and national law, regulations and codes of conduct. CONFLICT OF INTEREST A person has a conflict of interest when the person is in a position of trust which requires her to exercise judgment on behalf of others (people, institutions, etc.) and also has interests or obligations of the sort that might interfere with the exercise of her judgment, and which the person is morally required to either avoid or openly acknowledge.

Page 62 of 64

Annex 6: Glossary – Gender Concepts39 GENDER MAINSTREAMING Gender Mainstreaming is the integration of the gender perspective into every stage of policy processes – design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation – with a view to promoting equality between women and men. It means assessing how policies impact on the life and position of both women and men – and taking responsibility to re-address them if necessary. This is the way to make gender equality a concrete reality in the lives of women and men creating space for everyone within the organisations as well as in communities - to contribute to the process of articulating a shared vision of sustainable human development and translating it into reality.40 SEX AND GENDER DIFFERENCES The existing differences between women and men are of a biological and social nature. Sex refers to the biologically determined differences between women and men. Gender refers to the social differences. These are learned, changeable over time and have wide variations both within and between cultures. For example, while only women can give birth (biologically determined), biology does not determine who will raise the children (gendered behaviour). GENDER BLIND A perspective which completely ignores the gender dimension, or differences between women and men. For instance, policies can be gender blind if the differences between women and men are not considered, although they are relevant for the policies concerned. Gender blind policies often implicitly reproduce the male norm. GENDER EQUALITY Gender equality refers to a situation in which all human beings are free to develop their personal abilities and make choices without limitations set by strict gender roles. The different behaviour, aspirations and needs of women and men are equally valued and favoured. GENDER IMPACT There are substantial differences in the lives of women and men in most fields. These differences may cause apparently neutral policies to impact differently on women and men and reinforce existing inequalities. This is known as a gender impact. GENDER SENSITIVE Policies are gender sensitive if they take into account the particularities pertaining to the lives of both women and men, while aiming at eliminating inequalities and promoting an equal distribution of resources. HORIZONTAL GENDER SEGREGATION Horizontal segregation refers to concentration rates in certain occupational sectors or disciplines. LEAKY PIPELINE

39

Source: Gender in Research – Gender Impact Assessment of the specific programmes of the Fifth Framework Programme, http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/pdf/women_gender_impact_fp5_en.pdf 40

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/gender_equality/gender_mainstreaming/general_overview_ en.html

Page 63 of 64

The term used to describe the gradual loss of women from science throughout the career path, even though women and men go into higher education in equal numbers. POSITIVE/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Agreed unequal treatment or incentive measure to compensate discrimination and improve gender equality. SEX COUNTING Gender is treated as a biological statistical variable only. For example, if the objectives of an equal opportunities policy were based only on a sex counting approach, they would be fulfilled if the balanced participation of women and men were ensured. SEX-DISAGGREGATED STATISTICS Statistics divided by sex. VERTICAL GENDER SEGREGATION Vertical segregation concerns the position of women and men within the hierarchies of science.

Page 64 of 64

Chapter 3

CHECKLIST: DRAFTING A PROPOSAL HOW TO START?

Implementation Quality & efficiency

Impact Relevance

3-4

&

3-4

Science & Technology Relevance

&

3-4

Total award: maximum 15 and a threshold of 10-12 1.

Potential Impact

An impact statement is a brief summary, in lay terms, of the economic/social/ environmental impact of your project. It states accomplishments and their payoff to society by answering the questions: • •

Who cares? So what?

Demonstrate and illustrate `how and who’ the ambitious goals set for the project deliver outcomes that impacts: • • • •

2.

the European dimension of the project the Community added-value the economic competitiveness Quality of life

Relevance to the Programme

Check the Work Programmes. Proposals should NOT be addressing just one or two elements described in the paragraph, Proposals should address all elements. • • • •

Solve the problem described in the call/work programme, not just a part Match the project to the call not to an element described in a paragraph Go further than the text Show ambition. Be aware that only presenting the `next (scientific) step’ is not considered to be a demonstration of your ambition

Page 1 of 2

3.

Implemenation:

3a • • • • • • •

3b •





3c • • • • •

4

Quality of the Management Choose the management role of the co-ordinator that fits the purpose of your project: postman and banker; strong leader; other. Structure the management in accordance to the purpose of the project; The management structure should display the management choices (open innovation, value model, involvement of stakeholders/end-users) Demonstrate relevant management experience Implement communication modalities, choose a strategy that fits your project; Demonstrate that IPR management is embedded in the management structure The management structure should be fitting for the funding scheme: Large Scale or small to medium scale. Consortium Quality Consider the potential impact and than consider whether each partner has a clearly defined role: - Is the expertise of each partner appropriate to the task? - Is there identifiable synergy in the consortium? Prove Commitment of your partners through for example signing up to a consortium agreement, to ask stakeholder for Letters of Commitment/support or similar outings. Can you elaborate on criteria for selecting the team than justify this

Mobilisation of Resources Illustrate a critical mass of resources Demonstrate that you have the appropriate personnel Demonstrate that the appropriate equipment is there or that it is necessary to purchase it. Can you illustrate integrated financial planning? Can you illustrate integrated project planning?

Science and Technology Excellence: • Tell the Commission what the state-of-the-art is and address it • Clearly define the objectives • Clarify whether you aim for improvement or innovation • Describe the methodology • Establish clear links between your aims and your methodology

Page 2 of 2

Suggest Documents