Day 1: Writing competitive proposals: How to proceed in FP7 Day 2: Building and Managing a successful consortium Contact Details: Lotte Jaspers [email protected] Mette Skraastad [email protected] Course 18 and 19 December Bilbao: CONTENTS Chapter 1 Handout Presentation Day 1: Writing Competitive Proposal: How to succeed in FP7’ Chapter 2 Handout Presentation Day 2: Building and Managing A Successful Consortium Chapter 3 Guide - Handling the EU evaluation criteria: Impact and implementation Chapter 4 Gantt and Pert Charts Chapter 5 Checklist for researchers: How to start? CHAPTER 1 Competitive Proposals How to succeed in FP7 1 Presenters yellowresearch.nl Lotte Jaspers: Mette Skraastad: [email protected] [email protected] +31-20-422.1115 +31-20-422.1801 In co-development with Richard Tomlin, Bluebell Research 22 Programme Part I Part II FP7 structure Writing Your FP7 Proposal z Part III Part VI Exploitation Effective dissemination plans z Part V Proposal structure z Part VI Part VII Project budgeting FP7 agreements z z z z 33 1 Part I: FP7 structure 4 Relationships legal and other texts TREATY TREATY FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME RULES for PARTICIPATION RULES for PARTICIPATION Negotiation Negotiation Guidance Notes Guidance Notes SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES Rules for Rules for evaluation evaluation Guide to IP Guide to IP rules rules EC – Grant EC – Grant Agreement Agreement Guides for Guides for applicants applicants WORK PROGRAMMES WORK PROGRAMMES Call Call Guide to fin. Guide to fin. issues issues Consortium Consortium Agreement Agreement Checklist for a Checklist for a CA CA 55 EU Framework Programmes 60 € Billion 50,5 50 40 30 17,5 14,96 20 10 3,27 5,36 6,6 13,12 0 (FP1) FP2 FP3 FP4 Cooperation FP5 Coor. FP6 FP7 Integr. Comp. 66 2 Diagram of FP 7 Cooperation Ideas People Initial training 1. Health 2. Food, Agr. Biotech. Life long training IndustryAcademia International dimension 3. ICT 4. Nano 5. Energy ERA-NET 6. Environment 7. Transport 8. Socio-econ 9 Space 10 Security 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 JTI 77 Technology platforms Budget breakdown Cooperation Ideas People Capacities JRC 88 Cooperation budget breakdown Health KBBE ICT NMP Enery Environment Transport SSH Space Security 99 3 Policy Background FP7 The overriding aim for FP7 is to become the world's leading research area by establishing excellent research projects and networks 2000 - Lisbon: European Research Area (ERA) 2001 - Stockholm: Stimulating jobs 2002 - Gothenburg: Entrepreneurship and a well-functioning internal market as key to growth and job creation. 2002- Barcelona: The Sustainable Development Strategy. 2005 The renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy. 2005 Renewed Lisbon Partnership for Growth & Jobs 2007 Green Paper the European Research Area: New Perspectives 10 10 Employment Full employment Sustained growth Lisbon Innovation Stockholm Knowledge Gothenburg Competitiveness Barcelona Economic sustainibility The EU policies 11 11 Research charter z z z z z Enlargement of research employability Voluntary basis 27 countries have undersigned the Charter Perhaps a regulation DG mobility passport (track record for pensions etc) 12 12 4 Influencing calls z European Commission z European Commission z Programme Committee members z Expert groups z Stakeholders z Interest groups z Call for interest z Programme Committee 13 13 FP7 Specific Programmes Activities: Funding Schemes: Cooperation z z z Collaborative Research: Large Scale IP and Small/Medium Scaled Focussed Projects (including specific groups), Network of Excellence, Coordination and Support Actions. Ideas European Research Council People Marie Curie Capacities Research Capacities 14 14 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 Impact Relevance Science & Technology Relevance 3-4 & 3-4 Implementation Quality & efficiency & 3-4 FP7 = Maximum 15 and a Threshold of 10 to 12 15 15 5 Evaluation criteria Cooperation z Scientific and/or technological excellence + Relevance z The potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results + Relevance z Quality and efficiency of the implementation and management The workprogramme may specify and add additional requirements, weightings and tresholds 16 16 Selection criteria ICT and NMP z Quality of science and technology ● Soundness of concept and quality objectives ● Contribution to knowledge ● Quality and effectiveness workplan z Impact of project ● Contribution to EU challenges ● Measures for dissemination and/or exploitation ● Broader beneficial impacts (large scale) z Implementation ● Management structures and procedures ● Quality of consortium and balance ● Quality and expertise of individuals ● Resources allocation and justification 17 17 Gender aspects (Part B4) z When addressed in the call, gender might be an evaluation criterion which is assessed and negotiated by the EC z Good to include anyway z Practical actions: ● ● ● ● Collect gender statics Establish Gender Awareness Group Organise outreach activities Create incentives 18 18 6 Ethics (Part B5) RESEARCH INVOLVING: Human beings, -biological material, -embryo's & -genetic information RESEARCH FIELD Medical Research Personal data including data about a person's health, sexual lifestyle, ethnicity, etc. Animals Social sciences (questionnaires), medical research Developing countries Social Sciences other…………. Plants Food and Agriculture. Dual use Security and Space. Medical, Veterinarian, biology and some social sciences 19 19 Evaluation score values z 0 - The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information z 1 - Very poor. The criterion is addressed in a cursory and unsatisfactory manner. z 2 - Poor. There are serious inherent weaknesses in relation to the criterion in question. z 3 - Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses that would need correcting. z 4 - Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although certain improvements are possible. z 5 - Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor. 20 20 Evaluation procedure – step 1 z 3 evaluators per proposal (5 for NoE) z Briefing by EC z Evaluation in Brussels or remote z Each evaluator gives scores and comments for each criterion z Each evaluator indicates whether the proposal falls ● inside the scope of the call, ● deals with sensitive ethical issues or/and security considerations Æ Outcome Individual Assessment 21 21 7 Evaluation procedure – step 2 The next phase is to reach consensus, based on the individual assessments z Consensus meeting (in Brussels or electronic) to discuss scores and comments z EC appoints rapporteur z EC is monitor Æ Outcome Consensus Report with scores and comments 22 22 Evaluation procedure – step 3 Review panels have the tasks: z To examine the consensus reports, to check consistency of scores, and, where necessary, to propose a new set of scores. z If applicable, ● Hearings with the applicants; ● Resolving cases with a minority view; ● Recommending a priority order for proposals with the same score; ● Making recommendations on possible clustering or combination Æ Outcome Evaluation Summary Report and listings with priority 23 23 Part II: Writing Your FP7 Proposal 24 8 Exploration phase: Is FP7 the right instrument ? z National Funding z Charities, national or international z EU: Marie Curie, European Research Council z Industry Be honest and dare to abandon an idea 25 25 How to write a proposal z Call Fiche z List of Topics, Funding Schemes, Deadline and budget, evaluation procedure and timeline, minimum conditions (number of partners) z Workprogramme z Policy context, approach, other activities, content of calls (description area and topics) and call fiche z Guide z Description funding scheme, how to apply, check list, administrative procedure, glossary, timetable, evaluation criteria and procedure, instructions part A and part B http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html 26 26 Part III – Exploitation strategies 27 9 Proposal Writing is an incremental process and needs Business Development expertise Impact Relevance Science & Technology Relevance B1 & Implementation Quality & efficiency & B3 B2 28 28 FP7 Core Proposal Structure z B1 – Scientific and/or technical quality (concept and objectives, progress, workplan including work packages, deliverables and milestones) z B2 – Implementation (management structure, individuals, consortium, resources) z B3 – Impact (expected impact, D&E plan, management IPR) z B4 – Ethical issues (if applicable) z B5 – Gender 29 29 B1-Deliverables could be anything Data or Human Material Publications, Repositories Software: Technical, Business, Application License, Open Source Public domain Policy Recommendations: Workshops, websites Some forms of Project Results Inventions (New matter or new process) : License / sale Database and Repositories: Research Tool 30 30 10 B3-Use GA: II-1.8 z Further research z Exploitation (direct or indirect): ● Product or process ● Service z For every result the possible use and exploitation route need to be considered. 31 31 B3-Results z Deliverables, those tangible results necessary to fullfill your contractual obligation to the commission during the duration of the project. z Results could be the deliverables or other tangible results of the project and need to be addressed in the Dissemination and Use plan 32 32 B1-Deliverables and milestones z Deliverable is a tangible result: a concrete output and evidence of the work . The nature of the deliverable may be a report, product, patent, prototype etc. z 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 33 33 11 B1 - Objectives Demonstrate impact through addressing one or more topics (the EU challenges) described in Specific and Work Programmes in a measurable and verifiable way. The topics are EU challenges, not national challenges, only achievable by: ● Pooling European resources ● Comparative research ● Standardisation 34 34 Concepts • • Value model 1 invention ► 1 product ► 1-3 licensees • • Open innovation 100-1000 inventions ► 1 product ► 10-100 licensees 35 35 Development drug value model Chemistry COSTS 10,000 compounds Pharmacology and safety assessment 100 compounds Clinical phase 10 compounds Market 1 compound 36 36 12 Development consumer electronics Open Innovation Research 1 invention Development 10 ideas Prototype COSTS 1000 prototypes Market 500-2000 products 37 37 Public domain z No IP protection ● ‘No market’ ● No tool to detect breach of patent right ● For specific sector z Free for everyone to be used for further research and/or exploitation z Examples: material, research tools etc 38 38 ‘Open Source’ z License is freely obtained, provided improvements are made available to all z Right to file patent on products 39 39 13 Part IV - Dissemination 40 What is Dissemination z Spread and transfer of knowledge – z in multiple forms and via multiple mediums. 41 41 Use (exploitation) Dissemination Societal engaged actors: Exploitation Stakeholders: Target Audiences: - Experts (peers) - Business sector - Academics - Information providers - Information - Public Sector - Public, societal actors providers Science & Tech - End-users - End-users - Public - Other sectors 42 42 14 Dissemination Objectives 1. Awareness raising 2. Interest raising or Persuasion about the relevance and applicability of something (the impact) 3. State of the Art – the more traditional tools of the academic community 4. Decision- tools that provide in depth understanding of the project or innovation 5. Action or Sustaining the changed practice Jeffrey Froyd, Texas A&M University, 2001 43 43 Effective dissemination z Needs careful planning which ensures that activities: ● Feed into objectives ● Create the desired impact ● are timely and comprehensive z Is far more than the traditional academic dissemination of the results to their peers or exploitation of results as is common practice for the business sector. z Must be an integral part of your project and can be either a separate work package or be combined with Use. 44 44 Dissemination strategy State of the art Decision Action: using Tools: Results Awareness Interest Strategy 45 45 15 Tools Example of tools per objective Awareness Interest State-of-theArt Decision Action-Using 1-page summary Longer summaries Publications 2-4 hrs workshops 1-2 day workshops Flyers Multi-media tools; CD-roms Conference publications CD-rom containing entire web-site Course manuscripts Short films Website containing project descriptions, instructional materials, assessment and results Brochures Project descriptions Sample lessons 46 46 Simple Dissemination Plan z Who are the Target Audiences z What is the content (message) to be disseminated per target audience and in what form (type or result) z How, through which medium or media is the message disseminated z When has the dissemination action to take place 47 47 Elaborate Dissemination Plan adds: 1. Goals 1. Access 2. Objectives 2. Availability 3. Source 4. Success 5. Barriers 6. Sustainability 48 48 16 Target Audience 1. Academic users ( i.e. Educational/ research Institutions, Corporate/ research Universities) 2. Business sector (i.e. Large Companies, SMEs or SME Networks) Networks 3. Public Sector (i.e. Public Sector Organisations) 4. SemiSemi- public sector (i.e. workers unions… unions….. 5. Market specific sectors for example: cultural sector, Edutainment Industry etc 6. Public in general 49 49 Goals Key Goal: Ensure that generated knowledge is used. The target audience must be able to reach decisions, learn from experience, and take specific actions to use the knowledge 50 50 OBJECTIVES – India Reach Project 1. Collaborate to share good practices and exchange knowledge and tools 2. Impact on policy, through advocacy and awareness campaigns (including forums, networks, website discussions, action research etc) 3. Raising community and public awareness about EFA and UEE Goals. 4. Individual objectives per partner, that may be more specific for example raising funds etc. 51 51 17 How and what to disseminate z Same objective may require different approaches (mediums) and content depending on target audience (since audiences differ in needs, exposure, socio-cultural patterns etc.) 52 52 SAMPLE MATRIX Target Audience Objectives Tools Media and their Enablers Timeline Academics: - Researchers - PhD students State-of-the-art Action-Using Scientific publications; Methods, techniques Publishers Journals; Teaching materials, SOPs End of Project Public Sector users: - Awareness; Interest; Decision; Action-using Film, video Broadcasters, film distributors 53 53 Overcoming Barriers z Language z Contextualised situations z Localised media z Presentation is attractive and sensitive to regional/local sentiments 54 54 18 Tools/results and IPR protection z Most results of dissemination activities will be subject to copyright, some might be subject to database protection rights z You need to consider what you personally want to do with the results and what the ‘public’ use is going to be. 55 55 Personal Benefit for a researcher z The right to publish results in peer reviewed journals. z The right to present results on a congress or in a meeting. z The right to use the results for further research, preferable world wide. 56 56 From Dissemination to Use z Tools/results developed to raise awareness or to be used in the action stage may have a (commercial) value as well z the short films about medical research projects made for secondary eduction, may be of interest to broadcast stations for their educational shows……… 57 57 19 To summarise: Key Elements: z Outline your dissemination objectives (based on needs assessment of target audience) z Based on your objectives, plot out a matrix that maps specific approaches (or communication channels) for the target audience and identify the enablers to reach to target audience z Matrix should be a comprehensive tool for implementation with timelines. 58 58 Helpfull websites GOOGLE! z Openaccess-berlin z RUSH z CHSRF z Athenaweb (audiovisual communication of european research) z European Research - A guide to successful communication => “dissemination plan”, “dissemination plan ppt” 59 59 Part V – Project Plan 60 20 Proposal Part B-1 z Concept and objectives ● Explain your concept ● Describe in detail the S&T objectives z Progress beyond the state of the art z S/T methodology and associated workplan ● Describe the strategy ● Show the timing of WPs and tasks (e.g. Gantt chart) ● Provide a description of work packages ● Summary effort table ● List of milestones ● Provide a Pert diagram or similar 61 61 FP7 proposal structure EPSS – electronic proposal submission system 62 62 Work package description W ork package no. W ork package title Activity type Partic. No. Partic. Short nam e Start date or starting event 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Person-m onths per partic. Objectives Description of work (possibly broken down into tasks), and role of participants Deliverables (brief description and month of delivery) 63 63 21 B1 – Work packages z Type and number of work packages z Interactions and dependencies causes by deadlines of Deliverables and accompanying Milestones 64 64 B1 – Number of WPs z RTD and Demonstration: ● Logical clustering of work ● Greater # of partners require greater clustering skills z 1 WP for management z 1 WP for Dissemination & Use z Other: e.g. Gender and/or ethical? 65 65 How to write a work package Element Description Objective Describe the outcome of the activity. For example: To set up a central repository with high quality material of 10.000 patients from three different countries in 1 year time for proteomics research. To harmonise the clinical data of these patients in 1,5 year. To obtain informed consent from all patients within 1 year time. Description of work Describe the tasks. The samples will be collected in 3 months time. For this purpose a material transfer agreement between the providers Partner 2, 3 and 7 and recipient Partner 4 will be signed Deliverables Describe deliverables and milestones. M1 = Collection of 10.000 samples. D1 = report on the sample collection. D2 = Database with harmonised data. D3 = Report on the repository 66 66 22 List of deliverables Del no Deliverable name WP no Nature Dissemination level R = report PU = public P = Prototype PP = restricted to partners D = Demonstrator RE = restricted to a specific group O = Other CO = confidential Delivery Date 67 67 List of milestones Milestone no Milestone name WPs involved Expected Date Means of verification E.g. Lab prototype completed and running flawless Softeware released and validated by a user group 68 68 Part V – Project Costing 69 23 Eligible Costs Art. II-14 z Actual z Incurred by the beneficiary during the project (except reporting costs) z Determined according to usual accounting and management principles/practices z Used only to achieve project objectives consistent with principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness z Recorded in accounts (or the accounts of third parties) z Indicated in the estimated overall budget in Annex I 70 70 Non-eligible Costs Art. II-14.3 z Identifiable indirect taxes including V.A.T. z Duties z Interest owed z Provisions for possible future losses or charges z Exchange losses, cost related to return on capital z Costs declared or incurred, or reimbursed in respect to another Community project z Debt and debt service charges, excessive or reckless expenditure 71 71 Proposal preparation z Coordinator assembles and submits the proposal z Partners provide information for section A3: ● Their method of calculating indirect costs ● For each Activity: • Personnel costs • Sub-contracts • Other direct costs (This is where you put the audit costs from the management section) • Indirect costs ● Total requested Community contribution 72 72 24 Coordinator: Postman and Banker ? Art. II.2.3 z Administer, keep record of Community financial contribution and inform Commission z Distribution of pre-financing/payments in accordance with Consortium decisions z Review the financial statements to verify consistency with the project tasks before transmitting them to the Commission; z Monitor the compliance by beneficiaries with their obligations under this Grant Agreement. 73 73 Beneficiary Responsibilities Art. II-3.4 z To maintain proper records z To prepare and submit Financial Statements and Certificates z To agree financial arrangements with Consortium re. pre-financing and cost limits z To carry out the work of the project 74 74 The FP7 Cost Model One cost model for all applicants: ● Real direct and indirect costs on beneficiary’s ‘normal’ management and accounting principles ● Can be combined with a flat rate for indirect costs ● Provision to combine with lump sums and other flat rates in the future 75 75 25 Costs categories to be calculated As in FP6: z Direct eligible costs – temporary researchers, consumables, minor equipment purchases, technical infrastructure and travel and subsistence. New in FP7: z Time of permanent researchers. z Indirect costs: real indirect or flat rate 76 76 Reimbursement rates Collaborative research Entity Type Direct Elig. Costs Indirect Elig. Costs Non profit 75% 75% of real indirect costs or of flat rate SME 75% 75% Others 50% 50% 77 77 Reimbursement rates Collaborative Projects Activities Direct Elig. Costs Indirect Elig. Costs RTD 50% or 75% 50% or 75% Demonstration 50% 50% Other(dissemination, networking, coordination, IP, studies, promotion, certificates, training. 100% 100% Management 100% 100% 78 78 26 One activity per work package z RTD = Research and technological development (including any activities to prepare for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and coordination activities); z DEM = Demonstration; z MGT = Management of the consortium; z OTHER = Other specific activities, if applicable (training, networking etc). 79 79 Management Art. II-16.5 No longer limited to 7% (but justify when more) z Management activities include: ● the maintenance of the consortium agreement, if it is obligatory ● the overall legal, ethical, financial and administrative management including all types of required certificates ● the implementation of competitive calls for new participants ● any other management activities foreseen in the proposal except coordination of research and technological development activities 80 80 Part VII - FP7 Agreements 81 27 Terminology changes • Contract Grant Agreement • Contractor Beneficiary • Proposor Applicant • Instrument Funding Scheme • Financial guideline Financial Rules • Audit Certificate Certificate on FS • INCO ICPC • Knowledge Foreground • PEKH Background 82 82 Diagram of FP 7 and the main Grant Agreement Cooperation: MGA Ideas People Capacities JRC Core Agreement III – Infrastructures II – General conditions III – III – SME actions III – Civil Society Org. IV – Accession V – Accession new beneficiary VI – Form C VII – Form D III - ERA-NET plus VII – Form E Special clauses 83 83 Collaborative Grant Agreement Guide: 1.0 • GA • CA B B B P B B C P B B P P P P P B P 84 84 28 Development of FP7 CA-s Guide: 1.1 DESCA DESCAFP7 FP7 IPCA IPCAFP7 FP7 IPCA IPCAFP6 FP6 FP6 FP6Network NetworkofofExcellence ExcellenceConsortium ConsortiumAgreement Agreement Collective CollectiveFP6 FP6Consortium ConsortiumAgreement AgreementMemory Memory EICTA/UNIT EICTA/UNIT EE ANRT ANRT Fr. Fr.Res. Res.Org. Org. HELMHOLZ HELMHOLZ UNITE UNITE 85 85 Minimum conditions for participation z In general 3 independent legal entities from 3 different Member States (MS) or Associated Countries (AC) z Additional conditions can be established by the specific programme and work programme (i.e. number of participants, place of establishment, type of participant) z Deadline, funding scheme and maximum requested EU budget 86 86 Definitions GA: II-1 Background: all IPR/information generated before the project which is needed Foreground: all results from the project Sideground (IPCA): all IPR/information generated during the project but not resulting therefrom, limited to scope 87 87 29 Definitions: Background GA: II-31; Guide : 2.3 Negative List: z The right to exclude specific background Positive List*: The right to define the background needed for the project z z z No access to other Background Access to all background as long as needed * Stated in the RfP, therefore no longer in conflict with competition law 88 88 Definition: Use GA: II-1.8, II-29, II-32, II-34 Direct or indirect utilisation of Foreground: z In further research activities z For developing, creating and marketing a product or process or service Therefore read all Use clauses twice; once for the purpose of further research and once for exploitation! 89 89 Access rights GA II-33, II-34 Foreground For the project Background If needed to carry out the project Royalty Free unless otherwise agreed Royalty Free If a participant needs them for using its own Foreground For Use On fair and reasonable conditions or royalty free – to be agreed 90 90 30 Access rights for Use: DESCA Art. 9.4 Foreground Background If a participant needs them for using its own Foreground reasonable conditions a: Fair/reasonable for further research but royalty free for internal research b: Royalty free 91 91 Access rights for Use: IPCA Art. 4.4 Foreground Background To all Foreground is deemed granted If needed to use Foreground Royalty Free Fair and reasonable conditions 92 92 IP models Principle Value model Securing own investment Mutual benefit Open Innovation Use Access only when “Needed” and limited access for affiliates All participants have Access for Use as well as their affiliates. (Joint) Ownership When used then remuneration to co-owner No remuneration DESCA IPCA 93 93 31 Dissemination: Publications Subjects to be covered: ● Right to publish and present your results ● Right to authorship ● Procedure for using data from others ● Procedure for review: right to rais objections, mMaximum period of delay ● Thesis, degree 94 94 FP7 proposal structure EPSS – electronic proposal submission system 95 95 Last topic In the EPSS do not forget the key buttons: 2 page A4 Save form Upload Submit 96 96 32 Data Suppliers Multinational Partners Data Users Multinational Clients TeamRoom Partner 2 Partner 3 Online Data Entry System Data bases Reg. TT Reg. Internet Server Q Partner 1 Reg. Online HelpDesk Partner n Q Q == Quality Quality Control Control Reg. TT 97 97 98 98 99 99 33 100 100 http://www.oceanlab.abdn.ac.uk/esonet/esonim.php 101 101 SPECIFIC TARGETED RESEARCH PROJECT Retrieval Of Figurative Images www.cs.uu.nl/profi Perceptually-relevant 102 102 34 CHAPTER 2 Building and Managing a Successful Consortium 1 Building and managing a successful consortium Presenter: ● Mette Skraastad, Yellow Research ● Lotte Jaspers, Yellow Research ● Developed in close collaboration with Richard Tomlin (Bluebell Research) 22 Programme z Evaluation criteria Events and Risks Governance structures Balancing interests z Lunch z Tool Problem solving Finances and audit Closure z z z z z z 33 1 Evaluation criteria Part I 4 Relevance to the Programme Potential Impact & S&T Excellence & 3 3 Consortium Quality & 4 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 55 Impact of the evaluation criteria Impact Relevance Science & Technology Relevance 3-4 & 3-4 Implementation Quality & efficiency & 3-4 Total award: maximum 15 and a threshold of 10-12 66 2 FP7 Core Proposal Structure z B1 – Scientific and/or technical quality (concept and objectives, progress, workplan including work packages, deliverables and milestones) z B2 – Implementation (management structure, individuals, consortium, resources) z B3 – Impact (expected impact, D&E plan, management IPR) z B4 – Gender z B5 – Ethical or other issues 77 Implementation Events and risks Part III 8 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 99 3 Implementation issues z Challenges of complexity and scale z Communication modalities z Communication Barriers => Solutions 10 10 Challenges of Scale: Large Scale Projects Small to medium scale projects Deciding on: • Budget • Number of participants • Duration • Other 11 11 Management work packages z Type and number of work packages z Interactions and dependencies in relation to deadlines of Deliverables and accompanying Milestones 12 12 4 Potential risks • • • • • Management Financial change Technical change Change of partners Change in dissemination and exploitation Possible outcome: Amendment of EC-GA / CA 13 13 Risks COMMUNICATION # partners Technical risks Alignment RISKS Financial risks Management risks years 14 14 Communication modalities Proposal – Consortium Agreement z z z z z Day to day communication Use of email Telephone conferencing Web based application tools (google! Project management) Video-conferecing => Decision making 15 15 5 Communication Barriers z Language z Costs of translation z IT – firewalls z Culture 16 16 17 17 Formal or Informal Collaboration Formal Informal z Project with goals Contract z More than 2 partners z Structural collaboration running > several months z Technical and financial risks z z z Not well defined project No contract z 2 partners z Ad hoc collaboration z No technical or financial risk 18 18 6 Governance structure Efficiency and involvement 19 TREATY TREATY FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PROGRAMME RULES for PARTICIPATION RULES for PARTICIPATION Negotiation Negotiation Guidance Guidance Notes Notes SPECIFIC SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES PROGRAMMES Evaluation Evaluation Guidelines Guidelines WORK WORK PROGRAMMES PROGRAMMES Guide to IP Guide to IP Rules Rules EC – Grant EC – Grant Agreement Agreement Guides for Guides for applicants applicants Call Call Consortium Consortium Agreement Agreement Guide to fin. Guide to fin. issues issues Checklist Checklist for a CA for a CA 20 20 Two contracts Two structures B B B P B B C P P P P B B P P B P 21 21 7 Contractual Structure EC-Grant Agreement ● ‘Hub and spoke’ ● Collective responsibility for management of the project and delivery of the results ● Individual responsibility for financial management ● EC-GA says NOTHING about how the project is to be implemented 22 22 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 23 23 Roles to be divided z Contractually: Coordinator, Contractors and Subcontractors z Project support roles: project manager, exploitation manager and other support z Local contractor support roles: financial administrators and legal etc. 24 24 8 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. 25 25 26 26 Controlling Tasks z z z z z z z z Science Internal information and communication Administration Finance Legal aspects Ethics Exploitation Dissemination Who and at which level ? 27 27 9 Control versus mandate z Unclear project and tasks z Heavy management Well defined project, goals and tasks z Lean management z Permission for every step z Delegated mandate and report z ??? z Trust z Time consuming z Efficient z 28 28 Balancing interests PART IV 29 Personal Benefit – Mutual Benefit WHAT WHO ● ● ● ● Yourself Project members Affiliates Others ● Project ● Future research ● Exploitation ● Publications 30 30 10 Important to researchers z The right to publish results in peer reviewed journals. z The right to present results on a congress or in a meeting. z The right to use the results for further research, preferable world wide. 31 31 Important for research groups z The right to collaborate with third parties, including further research. z The right to receive reimbursement via license agreements for developing and/or selling the invention. z Precise labelling of pre-existing know how and knowledge 32 32 Important to Industry Interest is sector specific: z Exclusive patent rights when one patent means one product; reimbursement is open for negotiation z Access to all knowledge including patents when aim is developement of a new standard; no reimbursements 33 33 11 Results could be anything Data or Human Material Publications, Repositories Software: Technical, Business, Application License, Open Source Public domain Policy Recommendations: Workshops, websites Some forms of Project Results Inventions (New matter or new process) : License / sale Database and Repositories: Research Tool 34 34 Collaboration aims Standardisation New product ICT – Transport z Technology platform – multiple producers z Further research Health - Biotech z Single product – one producer z Further research 35 35 Access rights for partners z What are the results z Who owns the results z What are the access rights for partners for: z Who pays for the patent costs z Who is responsible for exploitation z Which parties need to be involved, directly or indirectly ● further research ● exploitation ● dissemination z What are the exploitation and dissemination strategies 36 36 12 Access Rights z Choose a model: Value model, Open Innovation or another model z Define the terms for access to Background z Define the terms for Use of Foreground z Use for further research z How is access provided? Written request ‘deemed’? 37 37 IP Models in IPCA and DESCA Principle Value Model Use (Joint) Ownership Securing own Access only when “Needed” investment When used than remuneratio n to coowner DESCA All participants have Access for Use as well as their affiliates. No remuneratio n IPCA and limited access for affiliates Open Mutual Innovation benefit 38 38 Assessment Tool PART V 39 13 Bringing together different interests z Identify the Individual Interests of partners: common and differences z Align these interests ● ● ● ● z Clear objectives and goals Committed people Effective project management Create win-win situation Take into account cultural differences 40 40 How good is your Consortium? Consortium Assessment Tool: z 12 success factors identified z Scores strength and stability of a Consortium z Useful when building a consortium 41 41 Key Success factors Structure z History of working together z Sufficient flexibility z Open and clear communication z Project plan reflects vision and goals of the partners z Right mix of partners – no conflicts of interest z Quality of Management Management: Management structure fits the consortium dynamics z Efficient administrative systems and support z Transparency in project finances and accounting z Research and Evaluation z Clear set of rules on intellectual property z Dispute avoidance and dispute resolution z 42 42 14 Problem solving Avoiding and resolving conflicts 43 Avoiding conflicts z z z z z z z z Clear project, goals and tasks Risk assessment Minimising interdependencies Open communication Possibility to address issues in a meeting Clear management structure Clear decision making structure Clear voting 44 44 Decision making z Voting: ● Qualified Majority ● Simple Majority ● Veto ● Limited Veto’s ● Unanimous ● Quorum 45 45 15 Decision making 2 How to make decision z z z z In writing and/or hand raising In a meeting Electronic ???? 46 46 Decision making 3 Level of decision and mandate z Who prepares decision z All decisions at highest level z Decisions on highest level and lower level ● Categorising topics ● Impact of decisions ● Safety valve 47 47 Resolving conflicts z Informal discussion within work package z Formal discussion at Board level z Formal decision z Safety valve ? z Legal steps 48 48 16 Finances and Audit Achieving transparency and control 49 Financial Structure Third party contract: z Maximum budget z Fixed price per task z Budget allocation in accordance with project plan Consortium Agreement: • Financial management • Changes of budget allocation • Allocation of work to another partner • Financial reponsibility 50 50 Coordinator Responsibilities z To distribute payments in accordance with Consortium decisions z To inform partners about budget, costs etc z Monitor compliance with contracts (EC-GA) and verify reports 51 51 17 Contractor Responsibilities z To maintain proper records z To prepare and submit financial statements and – if necessary - certificates z To agree financial arrangements with Consortium re. pre-financing and cost limits z To carry out the work of the project 52 52 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 53 53 Audit z z z z Right to conduct audit Access rights Type of audit: financial and/or technical Auditor selection 54 54 18 Conclusion z Building and managing a consortium is a continuous process z Therefore: Talk every step through and repeat 55 55 How to start ? z z z z z z z z Identify one or more partners Discuss ideas and write a plan on 2-4 A4’s Identify and ask other partners Talk with experienced people and support management. Use guidelines. 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 56 56 19 How to bridge gaps? State agencies Customs, Police, etc. Ministries of trade, transport, etc. Big companies and associations in various sectors Exporters, importers, freight forwarders, software companies banks, SMEs etc. Business BBR and YR, slide 75 Possible structure BBR and YR, slide 76 1 Data Users Multinational Clients Data Suppliers Multinational Partners Partner 1 Partner 2 Partner 3 Online Data Entry System Data bases Reg. Internet Server Q TeamRoom Reg. TT Reg. Online HelpDesk Partner n Reg. TT Q Q == Quality Quality Control Control BBR and YR, slide 77 BBR and YR, slide 78 2 BBR and YR, slide 79 BBR and YR, slide 80 3 BBR and YR, slide 81 BBR and YR, slide 82 4 BBR and YR, slide 83 BBR and YR, slide 84 5 National / international Partners - BPS Consortium • • • • • • • Attorney Heyland (Brüssel and Königswinter/Bonn) useConsult (Bornheim/ Bonn) QM Strategem (Manchester) Arttic France (Paris, Marseille) Nexture Consulting srl (Ivrea) Comase (Charleroi) German-Greek Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Athens) • German-Swedish Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Stockholm) • Inmark (Madrid) BBR and YR, slide 85 BBR and YR, slide 86 6 BBR and YR, slide 87 BBR and YR, slide 88 7 BBR and YR, slide 89 BBR and YR, slide 90 8 BBR and YR, slide 91 BBR and YR, slide 92 9 CHAPTER 3 GUIDE: Handling the Evaluation Criteria: Impact and Implementation Version 7.0 8.0 9.0 Changes made Conceptual Framework: new chapter introduced on interrelation of impact on B1 and B3 proposal incorporated, Chapter “Results and Deliverables” rewritten Impact: new chapters introduced on dissemination, confidentiality, commitment letter and database. Rewritten the discussion on internal research in further research. Governance: completely rewritten chapter with regard to other parties influencing research, dissemination and exploitation Governance: 3.2 management structure DESCA, 3.3 terminology changes Publication: annotation regarding publication in DESCA and IPCA Edited: Sarah Jones editing Authors: Lotte Jaspers, Mette Skraastad, Jet van Dijk Contributors: Richard Tomlin, Bluebell Research Margot Spaargaren, TTLegal Page 1 of 108 Table of Content Conceptual Framework 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 The Legal Documents of FP7................................................................................... 4 FP7 Consortium Agreement Models ...................................................................... 11 Open Innovation ..................................................................................................... 13 The Value Model .................................................................................................... 15 Individual Benefit and Mutual Interest .................................................................... 17 FP7 - The Competitive and Dynamic Knowledge Economy................................... 18 Impact of the FP7 evaluation criteria ...................................................................... 19 Impact – Policies and Strategies IPR ..................................................................... 21 Generating Impact through Dissemination and Exploitation................................... 26 Results and Project Deliverables............................................................................ 28 Impact 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 Exploitation and Research Activity Strategies ........................................................ 31 Dissemination ......................................................................................................... 34 Negotiation conclusions ........................................................................................ 36 The project spin-out company ................................................................................ 38 Software ................................................................................................................. 41 Access rights to software ....................................................................................... 44 Open source........................................................................................................... 47 Databases .............................................................................................................. 48 Confidentiality ......................................................................................................... 51 Letter of Commitment ............................................................................................. 54 Dissemination - Publications .................................................................................. 56 Further Research ................................................................................................... 60 Governance 3.0 Governance - Introduction ...................................................................................... 63 3.1 Management Structures, drawing the Consortium organogram ............................ 66 3.2 Governing bodies ................................................................................................... 68 3.3 Societal & Stakeholder Involvement ...................................................................... 70 3.4 Decision-making and voting .................................................................................. 75 4.0 Barometer for EU Consortia ................................................................................ 78 4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 78 4.2 Consortium Score Card .......................................................................................... 79 Schedule 1: Scoring a Starting Consortium ........................................................................... 80 Schedule 2: Scoring a Running Consortium .......................................................................... 81 Schedule 3: Reading the Scores............................................................................................ 83 Financial Basics 5.1 5.2 5.3 Framework Eligible Costs....................................................................................... 85 The Financial Structure .......................................................................................... 87 Financial Provisions Desca .................................................................................... 92 Annexes Annex 1: Annex 2: Annex 3: Annex 4: Annex 5: Annex 6: Dissemination and Exploitation Strategies – checklist ....................................... 84 Ethical Issues in EU Research Proposals – checklist ........................................ 86 Glossary – Dissemination and Exploitation ........................................................ 90 Glossary – Project Management ........................................................................ 92 Glossary – Ethical Issues ................................................................................... 95 Glossary – Gender ............................................................................................. 96 Page 2 of 108 Part I : Conceptual Framework Page 3 of 108 1.0 The Documents of FP71 The picture below shows the relationships of the different legal and other documents pertaining to the Seventh Framework Programme. TREATY FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME RULES for PARTICIPATION Negotiation Guidance Notes SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES Rules for evaluation WORK PROGRAMMES Guides for applicants Call Guide to IP rules EC – Grant Agreement Consortium Agreement Guide to fin. issues Checklist for a CA 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 to173 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 (Article 169) - setting up community joint undertakings (Article 171). The structure and relationship of the legal documents as discussed below regard obligation of the Commission to set up a multi annual framework for RTD. The structure of the Euratom framework is almost similar as FP7 but is not discussed here. Framework Programme 1 Version 4_0 Page 4 of 108 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 (specific 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 specific programme Annex IV Selection criteria for the implementation of the specific 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 and other stakeholders. The work programme comprises detailed descriptions of the activities ~ detailed thematic priorities and research topics, funding schemes used, indicative budget (plus budget breakdown), deadlines, and the evaluation procedure. 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, ie: in order to prepare a successful proposal, one has to carefully read 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, indicative budget and deadlines. This document is virtually identical to the annex of a work programme. Guide for Applicants Page 5 of 108 For each call the EC provides a guide describing how to apply for funding. This guide contains general information about the funding scheme, how to apply, checklist and procedure. The general information may vary slightly per call or work programme. This guide contains also call-specific information such as timetable, evaluation criteria, procedure and instructions to fill in Part A (administrative section) and Part B (the proposal itself). This is the most important document for scientists writing a project proposal. This guide is updated for every new call. Rules for Submission, Evaluation, Selection and Award This document describes the rules for proposal submission and the procedure for evaluating, selecting and awarding proposals. The EC publishes electronically a call for proposals for each work programme and funding scheme. After the closing date, the EC checks whether the proposal is eligible according to the Rules for Participation and the scope of the call. Individual Assessment: For each project proposal, 3 evaluators are assigned, 5 for Network of Excellence. These evaluators have been carefully selected, based on their knowledge and expertise in, eg: the scientific field, management or exploitation of results. Each evaluator marks the proposals according to the evaluation criteria and gives written comments. The outcome is an Individual Assessment. Consensus Assessment: In the next phase these individual assessments are discussed in a consensus meeting to reach a consensus on the scores and comments. The evaluators also consider whether the proposal falls within the scope of the call and deals with ethical or security issues. This process is monitored by the EC (Monitor). The outcome is a Consensus Report written by a Rapporteur, one of the evaluators. Final Assessment: In the next phase a Review Panel examines and compares the Consensus Reports and gives, if necessary, new scores. If applicable, the Review Panel organises hearings with the Applicants who have passed the thresholds. If applicable, the Review Panel resolves minority reviews, prioritises proposals with the same scores and recommends clustering or combining proposals. The outcome is an Evaluation Summary Report which contains lists of selected, prioritised, rejected and ineligible proposals. The EC notifies the Coordinator of selected proposals and, depending upon the negotiation, the proposal may be awarded. Page 6 of 108 Rules for Participation Regulation No EC/1906/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 laying down the Rules for Participation of 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 regulates: 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 Grant Agreement (GA) The 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 of the Methodology Page 7 of 108 EC-Grant Agreement Fig. 1: the Hub and spoke relation of the Generally speaking, the Grant Commission with the Beneficiaries Agreement 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 Beneficiary matters related to how the project is Beneficiary Beneficiary implemented by the Consortium, how deadlines are kept, access rights are provided etc. The Grant Agreement is a contract designed to protect the interests of the European Community. These Cie interests are of a political (Lisbon agenda BeneBeneficiary ficiary etc), legal and very much of a financial nature, eg: with regard to recovery of amount to be retrieved by the Commission from one or more beneficiaries. Consider that the Beneficiary Beneficiary Commission contract is designed as a hub with spokes. The Commission is the Beneficiary 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 shown right. 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 organisation 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 8 of 108 Party Part y Party Party FP7 Negotiation Guidance Notes When you are invited to Brussels to negotiate your project, this guide outlines the information and procedures of the negotiation process. Guide to Financial Issues The guide to financial issues is a comprehensive guide explaining all the financial issues related to the European Commission Grant Agreement. This Guide treats each topic in the order as presented in the Grant Agreement. Guide to Intellectual Property Rules This document provides an overview to the Intellectual Property Rights as presented in the legal documents of FP7: Rules for Participation and the Grant Agreement. It is a guide to the various issues and potential pitfalls regarding IPR that participants may encounter when preparing and participating in an FP7 project. Checklist Consortium Agreements This document provides non-binding guidance to FP7 participants regarding the issues they may wish to address in their Consortium Agreement. Flowchart of the conclusion of contracts The call may stipulate that a Consortium Agreement is mandatory. For most Large Scale Integrated Projects (Funding Scheme for large collaborative projects) a Consortium Agreement will be required. The Grant Agreement specifies in Article 1.4 that a Consortium Agreement is deemed to be concluded. Therefore the Commission assumes that such a Consortium Agreement is in place before the Commission itself signs the Grant Agreement. This assumption affects the timing of the conclusion of the Consortium Agreement, the Grant Agreement and the Accession Forms. The sequence for signing the documents: The Accession Forms can only be signed after the Grant Agreement has been signed because one can only accede to an Agreement when there is an Agreement in place! Therefore the Grant Agreement is signed by Coordinator and Commission. The Grant Agreement gives the Coordinator 45 days to have the Accession Forms signed by the other members of the Consortium. Between signing the Grant Agreement and the Accession Form, the Consortium Agreement could/should be signed. Some model Consortium Agreements are drafted to be signed already in the project preparation phase and require parties, when the project is selected for funding, to sign the Accession Form as swiftly as possible. When taking the point of view that the Consortium Agreement should at least be in place before the Accession Forms have to be signed, the following flowchart unfolds: Page 9 of 108 1 Conclusion Consortium Agreement time 2 Conclusion EC-GA Within 45 days 3 Signature and submission to Commission of Accession Forms European Commission 1. – EC-GA: Coordinator concludes MGA with EC on behalf of the Consortium 3. - Accession Forms binding the Beneficiaries to MGA Coordinator = Beneficiary 1 2. – CA: Between Beneficiaries Beneficiary 2 Beneficiary 3 Beneficiary 4 Subcontract Subcontractor Page 10 of 108 Beneficiary n 1.1 FP7 Model Consortium Agreements2 At the start of FP7, several models for Consortium Agreements have been presented. The models are all based on FP6 predecessors3. Different sectoral interest groups of industry, academia and research organisations 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 longstanding 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 Agreements is well-organised 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 majority of members of DESCA are either research organisations or universities. The broader consultation group consisted, in addition to the core group, of members of EICTA, EU-car, and individual organisations. 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, - French Research Organisation Consortium Agreement, - Unite–IPCA. 2 3 Version 2.0 See Annex II of this Folder. Page 11 of 108 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 NoE 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 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 to the IPCA. EUCAR EUCAR, representatives of the EU automotive industry will 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 for FP7 DESCA is used as the basic model. At present, there are just these four Consortium Agreements that we know of. We do not doubt that other Consortium Agreements will be developed 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. A schematic drawing of the interrelation of the Consortium Agreements and their initiators. IPCA FP7 By EICTA DESCA FP7 IPCA FP6 FP6 NoE CA Collective FP6 CA memory Eicta/Unite ANRT Fr. RO Page 12 of 108 Helmholz Unite 1.2 Open Innovation4 Open Innovation is a method of open collaboration between companies to pool their technologies, to develop new standards against which they can set their own products. All contributors to the new standard have a royalty-free, worldwide access to the resulting standard. In the past, companies thought they could set the standards of new technologies alone and develop high-tech products 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. A single (multinational) company is nowadays not strong enough to set major standards by itself (eg: the video recorder system standard in the 1980s, or the toxicity tests for drugs in the field of pharma) and therefore needs 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 development of standards. In the early FPs, 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. Standardisation of technology platforms is a strategy to implement the EU ambition of creating one commercial market within the EU where each company can compete. The exploitation strategy for a standard 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. One product and multiple patents: the strategy of cross-licensing The products put on the market often involve, besides the standard technology, multiple technologies and components for one single product. For example, a TV incorporates technologies and components including software, electronics, circuitry, optics and hardware. 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. 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, the companies swap license-packages or the licensee pays a one-off 4 5 6 7 Version 2.0 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 13 of 108 lump sum. This practice has affected the access rights regime and reimbursement payments in EU projects. Exploitation strategy for open innovation and cross-licensing The need for standardisation via limited open access, in combination with the multiple technology and components 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 a research unit is often included. Very often the research unit conducts research by order of a business unit. Over the years it 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 include: Intellectual Property Regime: All participants, and 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, 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 have an impact on the implementation of the project. The participants can exert their influence when decisions directly affect their resources, eg: more time, more background IPR, more money etc. Page 14 of 108 1.3 The Value Model8 The Value Model is based on the notion that one single research result represents a value to the organisation and access is provided for fair and reasonable remuneration. This model is mostly practised by universities, research organisations and the life science industry. The Value Model is the counterpart of the Open Innovation Model with regard to: - Access rights to IPR - Project management. The Value Model serves the interests of two different sectors; on one hand the research organisations and universities and on the other the biotechnologicalpharmaceutical 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 achieved. Within 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 further research and in universities for teaching9. The third dimension of 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. Put simply: 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 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. 8 Version 2.0 The Guide to Strategic Decision-making in Universities, Higher Education 14, 10 Market competitive space doesn’t mean that one has a product directly for sale but that once the product can be introduced a new domain can be claimed 9 Page 15 of 108 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 their 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 all 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, the question is 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 Euros11. In most cases the lead product will never reach the market, but if it does, it will create a valuable return on the investment. Calculating and valuating the contribution of the invention to the end product in such a case is much easier than in the case described under Open Innovation. Therefore royalty percentages of 5% for a breakthrough patent are not uncommon in this sector. 11 Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, November 2006 Page 16 of 108 1.4 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 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 - 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 be maintained during the implementation of the project phase, as well as when carrying out dissemination and exploitation activities. A few beneficiaries expressing unease 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. 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 of overall success. 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 achieved after completion of the project. Simultaneously, personal interests have to be realised in a way that works across the whole project. Reviewing or designing a Consortium Agreement means aligning all personal and mutual interests with regard to the project results. In ideal situations the partners have already taken these interests into account 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 2.0 Page 17 of 108 1.5 FP7 - The Competitive and Dynamic Knowledge Economy13 The European Framework Programmes have been in place for 27 years, since FP1 1982 – 1986. In order to understand the context of FP7, it is useful to review how Framework Programmes have developed. Funding has only been made available for the humanities and the social sciences in the last 13 years. The European Framework Programmes started as Europe’s answer to the ’economic challenges’ presented by the USA and Japan and were focused on cooperation on a pre-competitive level to solve the industries’ problems. This remained the focus up to FP4 (1994-1998). FP5 (1999-2002) 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. During FP5 the concept to establish a genuine European Research Area was presented. It was the ideal of the Research Commissioner Busquin. The European Research Area aimed to create a knowledge-based economy. At the March 2000 EU Lisbon Summit, 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 which was the focus up to FP6 (2002-2006). But it wasn’t until FP7 (2007-2013) that the combined challenges of European economic progress and social cohesion of the Lisbon Strategy became the central strategic thinking. 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 to FP6. The focus on integration has enabled a strategy where it is not the intention to integrate all science in one project, but to create fierce competition in order to select the best projects for funding. For the relatively new disciplines of social sciences and humanities, their role in FP7 is seen as transformative; economic development balanced with the social good14. - 13 14 Tackle under-investment by exerting leverage on national and private investment Tackle fragmentation of research effort in the EU and enhance its efficiency and effectiveness Strengthen and broaden the scope of the FP Help to meet new S&T challenges Reinvigorate the Lisbon strategy Version 2.0 Report of the Expert Group on Humanities, Positioning Humanities Research in the 7th Framework Programme Page 18 of 108 1.6 Impact of the FP7 Evaluation Criteria15 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 similar scorings. Relevance to the Programme Potential Impact & S&T Excellence & 3 3 Consortium Quality & 4 Management Quality & 3 Mobilisation of Resources & 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 the weighting of the criteria is different to 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. 15 Version 1_0 Page 19 of 108 3 The FP7 criteria in more detail: 1. Science and technology quality – relevance to the topic of the call a. the concept 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 resources 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 influence the management structure of the Consortium. Page 20 of 108 1.7 Impact – Policies and Strategies and IPR Consequences16 The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate that addressing Evaluation Criterion 3, Impact, interrelates with Paragraphs B1, Scientific and/or Technical Quality, and with Paragraph B3, Impact. 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, Dissemination & Use Plan, Management IPR) • B4 – Ethical Issues or Security • B5 – Gender 1.7.1 Impact - Policies Each call describes the impact that the Commission desires for a funded project. The desired impact is an important part related to the political strategies as concluded at several European summits. Projects will be evaluated on their likelihood of achieving the desired impact. This means that the Dissemination and Use paragraphs of the project need to contain a detailed Impact Statement with the aim of outranking other sound and solid excellent scientific proposals. The difficulty is capturing the political discussions and statements in terms that are relevant to your project proposal Below, we present a short summary on the EU strategies from Lisbon to Barcelona and the recently published Green Paper on the European Research Area. In the following paragraphs we will discuss in practical terms what strategies you can follow in your project with regard to the Dissemination and Use paragraphs of your proposal. 16 Version 1-0 Page 21 of 108 The Economic Dimension EMU (Maastricht) Lisbon Strategy Stockholm The Social Dimension Amsterdam Nice Fundamental Rights Gothenburg Barcelona • 2000 - Lisbon Strategy To become the most dynamic and most competitive Knowledge-Based Economy, the European Council endorsed the objective of creating a European Research Area (ERA). Under the Lisbon strategy, economic policy, employment policy and social inclusion policy interact and work together in a mutually supportive way. • 2001 – Stockholm In order to achieve the Lisbon Strategy, the Stockholm summit discussed how to create more and better jobs, accelerate economic reform, modernise the European social model and harness new technologies. • 2002 - Gothenburg The key issue was the enlargement of the EU with ten new member states. The discussion with regard to the Lisbon Strategy focused on Entrepreneurship and a well-functioning internal market as the key to growth and job creation. • 2002- Barcelona: Growth today must in no way jeopardise the growth possibilities of future generations. The Sustainable Development Strategy means that the various policies should be consistent with the Union's long-term objectives. Economic, social and environmental considerations must receive equal attention in policymaking and decision taking processes. - 2005: renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy (environment, economy, employment) for the next 5 years. • 2005 - Renewed Lisbon Partnership for Growth & Jobs On 22-23 March 2005, the Spring Council discussed the Commission's mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy for economic, social and environmental renewal. The key elements to relaunch the Lisbon reforms agenda are more focus on growth and employment, simplification and national ownership via national action plans. Page 22 of 108 Employment Lisbon Strategy Full employment Sustained growth Innovation Knowledge Competitiveness Stockholm Gothenburg Barcelona Economic Sustainability • Green Paper: The European Research Area: New Perspectives. - 2008 - Next 3-year phase The Green Paper addresses a sense of urgency in revisiting the European Research Area. The urgency stems from the fact that globalisation of research and technology is accelerating and new scientific and technological powers – China, India and other emerging economies – are attracting considerable and increasing amounts of R&D investment. These developments bring new opportunities for Europe and the world. At the same time, they raise the question of Europe's ability to sustain a competitive edge in knowledge and innovation, which is at the core of the renewed Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs. Addressing this question will be a major issue for the next three-year cycle of the Strategy, to be initiated in 2008. The Green Paper addresses the so-called Knowledge Triangle: Science and Technology contribute to the Lisbon objectives of economic growth, employment creation, environmental protection and social challenges, to fight poverty, improve human health and quality of life (GSM, remote working, safe roads, etc). The Knowledge Triangle encompasses Innovation, Education and Research: Research Growth and Jobs Education Innovation Source: Leonidas Karapiperis, European Commission Research DGIFTM - Istanbul, 23 September 2005 Page 23 of 108 1.7.2 Impact and answering “why research at EU level?” In parallel to answering how the project contributes to the desired Impact, the project should also answer the rather (unasked) question: why your research project should be carried out and be co-financed by the EU. This should be answered by a combination of one of the following: Pooling of resources - Critical mass of researchers and finances - Interdisciplinary - Expertise, knowledge and technology - Excellent research infrastructures Leverage effect on private investment - Expertise beyond national level - Improved commercial opportunities - Development of pan-European and world standards - Diminishing hurdles in exploitation Fostering human capacity and excellence in S&T - International mobility and training of researchers - Improved S&T capabilities - EU-wide competition for research grants Better integration of European R&D - Create scientific base for pan-European policy challenges - Coordination of national programmes and policies - Efficient dissemination of research results Source: Leonidas Karapiperis, Research DG European Commission, HUMANE Seminar, Barcelona, 14 October 2006, and the European Research Area: New Perspectives ~ Green Paper dated 04-04-2007 1.7.3 Impact – Linkage between EU level and IPR Strategies 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 then hands his results 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: One of the main EU challenges is to improve the well-being of the citizens in all countries and to open up the EU markets for new products. Very often results of a first pilot project need to be validated in other populations, cultures etc. An example is the efficacy of a drug in other populations, of a detergent in other Page 24 of 108 agricultures etc. 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, then widespread dissemination seems the 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 pros and cons about several exploitation routes. Requirement to Exploitation route address EU challenges Advantages Disadvantages Pooling resources Negotiation about distribution of royalties is decided before Foreground is generated Influence of owners of Foreground diminished. Joint Exploitation vehicle has to be financed Inventions via a joint exploitation vehicle One party negotiates on behalf of the others with potential licensees Comparative Research License on Foreground is often dependent on Background Value of Background increases. Often no freedom to operate Standardisation Broad dissemination and exploitation Available for every licensee. Royalty rate is low and distribution complex. In ICT sector the licenses are mostly royalty-free. Page 25 of 108 1.8 Generating Impact through Dissemination and Exploitation17 The purpose of this paper is to provide a well-balanced input to the Dissemination and Use Paragraph, Paragraph B3 of a project proposal, with the ultimate goal to increase the success of your proposal for funding and at the same time to raise awareness for the consequences of the selected strategies. 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, Dissemination & Use Plan, Management IPR) • B4 – Ethical Aspects or Security • B5 - Gender The `Dissemination and Use’ concept, in particular “Use,” derives originally from the French term, "valorisation". In English the official translation of valorisation is “Use”18. Use can be described as the process of disseminating and exploiting the results of projects with a view to optimising their value, strengthening their impact, transferring them, integrating them in a sustainable way and using them actively in systems and practices at local, regional, national and European levels19. The term Use is defined in FP7 as, “The direct and indirect utilisation of foreground in further research activities other than those covered by the action, or for developing, creating and marketing a product or process, or for creating and providing a service.” The term Use describes the process of further research activities and of exploitation on equal footing. Therefore whenever this term is used in legal documents such as the Grant Agreement or the Consortium Agreement it is advisable to read the article twice: once while considering the implications for further research and than another time for the implications with regard to exploitation. Of course the proposal, which becomes Annex I of the Grant Agreement, is Step 1 while considering the consequences of the project. 17 18 19 Version 6_0 The fact that the term valorisation is French was found out the hard way when the experts of the Irdac/Esta Committee negotiated the Rules of Participation for FP5. All experts were happy with the term valorisation until the legal linguistics of the Commission’s translation services pointed out that in English the correct translation is use. Dissemination and Exploitation of Results, (European Commission, DG Education and Culture, Directorate Communication and Culture, Unit C3) Page 26 of 108 This is most probably reasonably clear for most RTD projects, but when you are involved in socio-economic research you will probably benefit more from the following interpretation: Use involves disseminating and piloting the most innovative practices, exploiting them, developing them in different contexts and gradually incorporating them into formal and informal systems of training, into the methods used by businesses and associations, and into the learning experience of every individual. Dissemination20 activities are activities geared to advance knowledge; knowledge between researchers and stakeholders as well as with the public. A new trend in the EU is open access to publications, which stimulates broader dissemination. The EC has embraced this idea. Consider therefore carefully in which journal and the publisher’s rules. You have at least to acquire the right to publish the results in accordance with FP7 rules. The term 'open access' is used in different ways by different persons. One widely used definition is given in the 2003 Berlin Declaration (http://oa.mpg.de/openaccessberlin/berlindeclaration.html). According to this declaration, open access publication requires that authors grant free access to their scientific contributions, as well as the possibility to use them, subject to proper attribution of authorship. Moreover, a complete version of the work and supplemental materials should be deposited in at least one online repository21. Experiments and models aiming at the online accessibility of scientific articles for all have followed two basic paths: 1) Open access publishing, in which the author of the article (usually the funding body that supports the author) pays for the publication instead of the user; 2) Self-archiving, in which the author deposits the peer-reviewed version of the article in an open archive, sometimes after an embargo period to allow the publisher to get a return on investment. It is advisable to build separate work packages for the EU requirements. One of the reasons is that the reimbursement rate for Dissemination and Use activities is 100%: 20 The Commission has published a very helpful guide: ”European Research - A Guide to Successful Communication” 21 Memo 07-57 EN, downloadable from: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/57 Page 27 of 108 1.9 Results and Project Deliverables22 The Model Grant Agreement requires the participants to actively “Use” the project’s results. Results Results could be the deliverables or other tangible results of the project and need to be addressed in the Dissemination and Use Plan Deliverables Deliverables are those tangible results necessary to fulfil your contractual obligation to the Commission during the duration of the project. In the Guide for Applicants a definition is given for deliverable, milestone and work package but not for results. We would like to emphasize the importance of distinguishing between results and deliverables. Results could take any form, however deliverables constitute a contractual obligation to be fulfilled towards the Commission. Each significant element of the project should be described as a deliverable, which is the tangible output and evidence of the delivered work. Therefore the deliverables should be limited in number, planned regularly (linked to the reporting moments) and be specific and verifiable. The EC will use the deliverables to measure the progress of the project. It is advisable to consider whether or not to label something as a deliverable or as a result. When you foresee that it is necessary to label a result as a deliverable you could consider making it a milestone. There are two forms of deliverables: deliverables and compulsory deliverables. In the Grant Agreement, the EC specifies the compulsory deliverables as periodic and final reports on the progress of the work, the “Final plan for the use and dissemination of foreground.” The report on horizontal issues, including gender and science & society is also compulsory. The nature and the confidentiality level of each deliverables have to be indicated. The EC has a list for coding the nature and dissemination level, which can be found in the Guide for Applicants or Negotiation Guide. Milestones are intangible, control points in the projects when a decision has to be taken or a major achievement has been obtained. These control points are important for the next phase of the project, being an adoption of a technology or proceeding with the project. Each milestone has to be described as expected results and achievement. Deliverables are evidence of delivered work. Therefore the EC will pay the Consortium based on the achieved deliverables. It is therefore advisable to consider carefully whether a result is a deliverable or a milestone. If a certain technology is important for the project and is for example necessary for other partners to conduct their research it is advisable to describe the implementation of the technology as a milestone. The implementation of the technology would be a major achievement and a control point in the project. The report on the technology will be a deliverable. In the event the milestone has been reached, the outcome of using the technology will be a deliverable in the next phase of the project. Having said that, there is a catch in this example. In the event that the project can not proceed without the implementation of the technology, a failure of achieving the milestone will lead to termination of the project. Our advice is to look carefully at all crucial deliverables and milestones and 22 Version 6_0 Page 28 of 108 try to have an alternative should a crucial milestone not be achieved, for example another technology. EC Definitions in the Guide for Applicants: Deliverable: A deliverable represents a verifiable output of the project. Normally, each work package will produce one or more deliverables during its lifetime. Deliverables are often written reports but can also take another form, for example, the completion of a prototype etc. Milestones: Milestones are control points where decisions are needed with regard to the next stage of the project. Work package: A work package is a major sub-division of the proposed project with a verifiable end-point – normally a deliverable or a milestone in the overall project Page 29 of 108 Part 2 Impact and Use Page 30 of 108 2.1 Exploitation and Research Activity Strategies23 As described in 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: : 23 Version 1.0 Page 31 of 108 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 research but is bound to the interest of the industry Subsidised Research: Research is subsidised through competitive governmental funding; national, EU, World Bank etc • Funds to conduct research with • Non-compliance with uncertain outcomes bureaucratic demands can lead to repayment of grant (EU) 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 • Intellectual Property Rights are always an issue • 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 32 of 108 • 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 33 of 108 2.2 Dissemination24 Dissemination is all about utilising the knowledge; “utilising” in terms of making use of the knowledge but not in the terms of exploitation or further research activities. Three main ways of dissemination can be distinguished25: 1. Dissemination for Awareness: you wish people to be aware of the work of the project; it is helpful for them to be aware of the activities and outcomes; 2. Dissemination for Understanding: people will directly benefit from the results of the project and therefore these audiences may need a deeper understanding of the results. 3. Dissemination for Action: action refers to a change of practice resulting from the adoption of projects, materials, or approaches resulting from the projects. These audiences will be those people that are in a position to influence and bring about change within their organisations. They need to be equipped with the right skills, knowledge and understanding of the results in order to achieve real change. 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. Advancement of knowledge26 follows several routes: - between researchers; - between researchers and those stakeholders, businesses as well as end-users that can transfer the results into products and/or services (Exploitation is dealt with in the previous paragraph); - target audience (see the Governance chapter for more detailed information). Developing a dissemination plan is a key part of the science and technology work (research) planning process. Although the applicants of a project working together won’t know the results of the research until it’s completed, working through an initial dissemination plan can help the Consortium to focus the project and identify target audiences. When the research results come in, the Consortium is ready to flesh out the key message, review and finalise the plan, and then implement it. Target audience, in terms of users of research results, is any entity or person who may make use of the research results other than through exploitation or further research: ie: policy-makers, decision-makers, professionals, practitioners from the public, private and not-for-profit sector and the general public. The target audience could be as diverse as governments, patients, consumers, farmers, culture heritage organisations, tourism industry, publishers and the entertainment industry. Depending on the impact that one aims to generate with the research carried out, different target audiences could be identified: 24 Version 1.0 Creating an Effective Dissemination Strategy, Sally Harmsworth, Sarah Turpin, July 2000 26 The Commission has published a very helpful guide: ”European Research - A Guide to Successful Communication” 25 Page 34 of 108 Dissemination27 activities are geared to advance knowledge between researchers and their target audience, which may include: - online repositories for research results for the general public, - new modes of research training, - web-based discussions and an increasing variety of special events, conferences and symposia designed to bring together those who produce knowledge with those who need it. - broadcasts and films - trade fairs and seminars Along with these emerging forms of communication and interaction, established forms of research dissemination (ie: journals, books, academic conferences and workshops) remain particularly important for scholarly communication, education and the verification of research results. Another dimension of dissemination is drawing the attention of national governments, regional authorities and other public and private funding sources to the need for and eventual benefits of the research. Other results suitable for dissemination activities: - Data(sets), eg: off-line or online repositories for research results for the general or expert public - Protocols - Proposals for laws and regulations Dissemination activities include: Established forms of research dissemination scholarly communication, education and the verification of research results - journals, - books, - academic conferences and workshops Emerging forms of communication and interaction with the target audiences - - 27 online repositories for research results for the general public, new modes of research training, web-based discussions and a variety of special events, conferences and symposia designed to bring together those who produce knowledge with those who need it broadcasts; audiovisual communications (films) trade fairs The Commission has published a very helpful guide: ”European Research - A Guide to Successful Communication” Page 35 of 108 2.3 Negotiating Conclusions – What to consider and when28? Every partner has to formulate his or her individual interests in the expected results (What use do I want to make of the results that I or others have generated?) The individual benefit should be clearly stated and expressed, just as the mutual interest need to be clearly voiced. When it is clear what is optimal for the project and what is workable for any given partner, then the partners can discuss what right of access they need from one another or what rights they can’t provide. The result will be a practical Consortium Agreement Bringing the individual and mutual interests together requires mutual understanding, constructive negotiation, fair compromises, and clear Agreements. (eg. Under what conditions can I use the results of others and how can I avoid that others publish my data before me?) A strong and competitive project demonstrates that the use of the results is consistent throughout the proposals from the work packages and the deliverables, the governing principles and management structure up to Dissemination and Exploitation. Consistency means that at every level of the project proposal, the concepts are intertwined. Then and only then is it possible for evaluators to pick up the concept and positively evaluate it. Strategies to be discussed The EC Grant Agreement sets out the basic principles for Ownership, Protection and Use of results. The EC Grant Agreement leaves participants the freedom to make their own arrangements fitting the needs of the project. To maximise the freedom and therefore to create strong proposals strategies potential partners need to negotiate the best strategy for exploitation. The Consortium has to set up mechanisms to decide how results will be exploited and/or disseminated by all partners of the Consortium, or by a single partner of the Consortium, by obtaining research assignments from third parties etc. In most beta-oriented EU RTD projects the industrial partners, as most important stakeholder, will take the lead in the exploitation of the results but a Consortium could involve other stakeholders, eg: external specialists or end-users in the discussion. These strategies need to be reflected in the management structure of the project: In order to provide evaluators with a clear understanding of the project’s strategies you need to be consistent throughout the proposal in how to realise said dissemination and exploitation objectives. This requires optimum use of the capacities of the Consortium members, stakeholders and representatives of target audience or their enablers. In Annex 2 the elements for writing a strategy for dissemination and use are described, which need to be further elaborated in the Dissemination and Exploitation Plan when the project is running. 28 Version 6_0 Page 36 of 108 Protection: the responsibility for the protection of inventions, the payment of the costs, where to file a patent application etc. The strategy needs to reflect the expected results of the project, the (industrial) sector and the best way to exploit them. Options are: - the employer(s) of the inventors is/are 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. Dissemination: The Consortium has to decide and describe how the results will be disseminated. Dissemination of results is a contractual obligation. The specific aims of this provision are to promote knowledge sharing, greater public awareness, transparency, and education. Consortia are required to provide tangible proof that collaborative research not only exists, but also pays dividends in terms of academic excellence, industrial competitiveness, employment opportunities, environmental improvements and enhanced quality of life for all. The dissemination may comprise publications, websites, conferences and communication via ‘mass’ media29. In most projects the academic institutes take the lead in the dissemination of the results in peerreviewed journals. Exploitation: The Consortium has to set up mechanisms to decide how results will be exploited by all partners of the Consortium, or by a single partner of the Consortium, by licensing (a part of the results) to a third party etc. In most projects the industrial partners take the lead in the exploitation of the results but a Consortium could also have external specialists or potential users involved in the discussion. These strategies need to be reflected in the management structure of the project: In order to provide evaluators with a clear understanding of the projects strategies you need to be consistent throughout the proposal in how to realise said dissemination and exploitation objectives. This requires optimum use of the capacities of the Consortium members and of stakeholders not being a member of the Consortium. In the Annex ‘Strategies for Dissemination and Use,” certain elements are described which can be helpful for developing the Dissemination and Exploitation Plan when the project is running. 29 European Commission, European Research - A Guide to Successful Communication, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities Page 37 of 108 2.4 The Project Spin-Out Company30 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 its advantages and disadvantages. Legal Entity under European Law 31 The EEIG32 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 European Economic Area member 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 an 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 UK33 is a well known example of how this might work. Limited liability companies. Every Member State has national laws for the establishment of 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. 30 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 32 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. 33 www.cancerresearchuk.org 31 Page 38 of 108 The table hereunder shows different forms of legal entities that can be used for the exploitation of the results from an EU project. Type of legal entity Advantages Disadvantages EU law European Economic Interest Grouping governed by European law, equality between partners easier for different kinds of organisations to participate members have unlimited joint and several liability (although specific exclusions might apply National law Foundations suitable for the participation of non-commercial contractors governed by a national law, a fact that can adversely affect equality between partners easier to create and administrate Limited liability Company under national law liability normally limited to capital of company the different legal forms under national law permit certain flexibility 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. 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. 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? Page 39 of 108 Publication: Procedures Confidentiality Is there a need for protocols? Idem. Page 40 of 108 2.5 Software34 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 RTD activities in EU projects comprise many facets of software development, eg:35. - Pure basic research includes the development of software for algebraic manipulations and numerical analysis. - Oriented basic research includes investigation into the formalisation of human speech and of specific tasks (eg: work in the field of man/machine communication using direct speech input and output, research into basic algorithms for possible information processing applications, and investigation into the possibility of formalising programming procedures). - Applied research includes investigation into the application of information processing in new fields or in new ways (eg: developing a new programming language, new operating systems, programme generators, etc) and investigation into the application of information processing to develop such tools as geographical information and expert systems. - Experimental development is the development of new applications software, substantial improvements to operating systems and application programmes, etc. Exploitation of Software The results of software development are, for the purpose of exploitation, divided into three different types of results: Non- technical “business application” software We mean by 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 34 35 Version 2.0 OECD, Frascati manual Page 41 of 108 is to refine or upgrade the software into a commercially marketable product, to use it for its own internal operations or as a base for a further development36. 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, these kinds 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 eg: an extranet site, but the project does not depend on it. Applying the access rights system as laid down in the Grant Agreement would mean that in most cases 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 (eg: an Excel spreadsheet or an Access database), everybody should have the necessary license to the appropriate 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 system37. 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 manual38 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 without substantial revision or a complete rewrite of the code. Therefore, component software codes normally will not be licensed independently of their 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 36 Summary from the Association of University Technology Managers Manual, part II, IV-3.5 Protecting and Commercializing University Developed software 37 Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_componentry 38 See footnote 1 Page 42 of 108 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 user-interfaces. Technological software also differs from business method applications software in that it tends to be experimental in nature, as opposed to usable “productized” software39. 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 emphasises the sharing of the results generated in the project. 39 See footnote 1 Page 43 of 108 2.6 Access rights to software in EU projects40 The MGA does not distinguish between software as a sui generis category of rights with regard to Foreground or Background. Therefore the access rights are equally applicable to software. Access rights to software are in the Grant Agreement only to be provided when “needed”. The question therefore is, when is access needed? This brings us to the following –simplified- table: Access Rights to Source Code Non-technological software Not needed. Embedded software Most probably not needed. Technological software Needed if software must be modified or understood. Object Code Needed. License should be granted if not already included in device. Needed if source code is not delivered, and use of software is necessary. API In most cases not needed. Not needed. Needed if software must be combined with other software. CONSORTIUM AGREEMENTS The Consortium Agreement models treat software as a sui generis category of Intellectual Property Rights. IPCA has integrated the provisions for software in the IPR section, because of the nature of the parties that have drafted IPCA: the telecom industry. DESCA addresses software marginally, but there is a separate module which can be used when software plays a substantial role in the project. There is a major difference between how IPCA and DESCA address access rights to software. According to: - IPCA, all parties are granted access rights to all object-codes and APIs resulting from the project (Foreground). Sublicensing to third parties is allowed. - DESCA, a party can only receive access rights if he needs the software to use its own Foreground and he is only allowed to sublicense it, if it is connected with his own Foreground. In other words, the IPCA has an open access right regime, Open Innovation, while the DESCA regime is a more restricted, Value Model. The difference in approach is understandable because the IPCA partners, digital industries, are mostly in projects that generate technological software (including consumer electronics) in which environment 40 Version 2.0 Page 44 of 108 they need the access rights as described above. The DESCA partners however, are more diverse and feel therefore greater need to control the use of developed software. In the table hereunder differences are set out in greater detail. IPCA DESCA Definitions Software A software program being sequences of instructions to carry out a process in, or convertible into, a form executable by a computer, and fixed in any tangible medium of expression. API Sufficient interface materials and related documentation allow skilled Software developers to create Software interfaces that interface or interact with other specified Software. Object code Software in machine-readable compiled and/or executable form including, but not limited to, byte code form and in form of machine-readable libraries used for linking procedures and functions to other Software. Source code Software in human-readable form normally used to make modifications to it, including, but not limited to, comments and procedural code such as job control language and scripts to control compilation and installation. Limited source code access (a) access to Object Code; or, where normal use of such Object Code requires an API, access to such Object Code and such API; Or (b), if (a) is not available, access to Source Code. Source Code Access Means access to Source Code as necessary for a Party for execution of its part of the Project or for a Party's Use of Foreground. General principles Provisions of MGA and CA concerning Access Rights apply to Software but in the case of inconsistency the software Section prevails. Porting to particular hardware Access rights to software An interface or other means provided for by a software application, for the purpose of interfacing or interaction of other Software with such application, component or library and related documentation. Term is not defined in DESCA, but content is same as IPCA. If a Party can show that the execution of its tasks under the Project or the Use of its own Foreground is technically or legally impossible without access to the Source Code, access to the Source Code to the extent necessary Access rights Access Rights are to Software as available from the Party granting the Access Rights. There is no right to require software to be ported to a particular hardware platform. Source Code Access (option 1) to Foreground or Limited Source Code Access (option 2) to Foreground for all Use. Only limited source code access to Foreground and Background and only when needed to Use own Foreground. Page 45 of 108 No particular arrangement for Background. What is included in access rights Object code/API Worldwide right to Object code/API which is Background or Foreground if needed for Use of Foreground. Right to object code/API which is Foreground and only if needed for Use of own Foreground. Rights of a To use them in research, to use them to create/market any product/process, and to party use them to create/provide any service; Distribute, market, sell etc. Object Code Distribute, market, sell etc. Object code only in connection with products or alone or as part of or in connection with own products or services. services of the Party having the Access rights. Rights to end-users Make and have made an unlimited number of copies of Object Code if necessary for exercising the rights of a party or the rights to end-users. Make and have made an unlimited number of copies of Object Code; To use Object Code alone or as part of or in connection with any products/services of the Party having the Access rights; To Use Object Code only in connection with or integrated into, products and services of the Party having the Accessrights and, as technically essential, - to use such Object Code to maintain such products/services; and - to use such Object Code to create for its own end-use interacting interoperable Software. Source code Includes right to modify, copy and use, but does not include rights to sublicense. What is included in access to source code is not specified. Written Agreement If practical and then only for sublicenses. Option in Desca that access to all software is only granted upon bilateral Agreement. Page 46 of 108 2.7 Open Source Software Open Source software is computer software of which the source code is available and is provided under a licence that permits users to modify the software, and to redistribute it in modified or unmodified form. A lot of Open Source software can be downloaded free of charge. Using Open Source software in the project Although provided free of charge and often easily downloadable, Open Source software comes with a license. There are quite a few standard Open Source licenses. Some of these (eg: the GNU license) obliges the user to provide to third parties the software s/he developed using Open Source software, under the same Open Source conditions as the original software. There are also (more and more) standard Open Source licenses that do not require to disclose the source code of own developments and allow to keep own developments “closed”. In DESCA the provision stating that the Parties must inform the Consortium of any restriction which might substantially affect the granting of Access Rights, is also applicable to Open Source. IPCA contains an almost similar provision. Without permission of all other parties, a party is not allowed to use (be aware of the difference between use in IPCA and development in DESCA) Open Source software if there is a requirement in the open source license that the modified software must also be provided as Open Source. The bottom line is that it is always important to check the conditions that are attached to the use of Open Source software. Providing the Results of the Project as Open Source Software The release of Foreground upon Open Source licence terms may have benefits for the conduct of the project and promote the Use and Dissemination of the resulting Foreground. IPCA has not made a provision to use open source as an option for exploitation the Foreground. In DESCA it is stated that the development of Open Source software is subject to the approval of the General Assembly. When the IPR regime of the project is designed as Open Source, care has to be taken at the choice of the appropriate Open Source license. As explained above, there are Open Source licenses that impose so many obligations to the users of the software, that the chances that the software will be further (commercially) developed are diminished. Other licenses take the interests of industry into account; these licenses do not provide open access to further developments. An overview of all Open Source licenses can be found at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/. Page 47 of 108 2.8 Databases41 Scientists obtain databases by creating, purchasing, exchanging them, or through donations. Several reasons why databases form a fact of life in EU projects42: • Shared databases are essential to large, complex scientific investigations such as the Human Genome Project, global climate modelling and eg: AIDS research. • Scientific use of databases requires access to all applicable data to seek patterns, unusual features, and possible data errors. What is a database? A database is a collection of facts, in which facts are individually accessible. Most databases in EU projects will be of an electronic nature, but it isn’t necessarily so. A paper database, for example the telephone book, or microfiches are all forms in which a database could exist. Who owns a database? The creator of the database is the owner of the database according to the EU Directive 96/9/EG. In order to be called owner one has to have put a qualitatively and/or quantitatively substantial investment (time and/or money) in generating the database. The investment can refer to the collection of the data itself or, which will be more often the case in an EU project, the creation of an interface. Ownership of a database is a so called “sui genesis” right. The mere fact that one has put in substantial investment in creating the database is enough for establishing ownership. Therefore within an EU project, the legal entity that generates the project’s database will be the owner of such a database. When the database is also subject to the creativity norm under copyright, then besides database protection, the collection of facts is also protected by copyright. The owner of the copyright in an EU project is then the legal entity which generated the database. Who owns the data and how may it be used? The data is owned by the Consortium members who contributed their data for the creation of the database. The database owner cannot, under the database protection direction, exploit his database without the permission of the owners of the data. "Extraction" means the permanent or temporary transfer of all or a substantial part of the contents of a database to another medium by any means or in any form. This means downloading, copying, printing or any other reproduction in any form, electronic or not, temporary or not. In other words, also copying the database itself is "extraction" of the database. 41 42 Version 1_0 http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/database/dbstate.htm Page 48 of 108 "Re-utilization" means any form of making available to the public all or a substantial part of the contents of a database by the distribution of copies, by renting, by on-line or other forms of transmission. This basically covers putting up a search and retrieval interface to the database, so that others can extract information from it. Public lending of a database is not a re-utilization of that database (article 7 §2(b)). Grant Agreement: The Grant Agreement stipulates that a beneficiary43 is the owner and remains the owner of data that he possesses prior to start of the project and of data generated during the project. The Beneficiary generating the database is entitled to use the data when s/he needs that data for carrying out the project. If the owner of the data wants to have a financial reimbursement for the use of this data, the owner has to state this before the Grant Agreement enters into force. The owner of the database may have an access right to the data when he needs the data in order to use44 his own Foreground which is in casu the database. Such use can be royalty free or on fair and reasonable condition. Consortium Agreements The Beneficiaries have the freedom to make their own arrangement with regard to ownership and access rights in a Consortium Agreement. If one would use any of the existing Consortium Agreements as have been developed for FP7 the following access rights are defined. Ownership The party generating the database is the owner of the database. Access Rights for Use 9.4 Foreground Background DESCA Only access when Needed to use own Foreground a) Fair/reasonable for exploitation b) Royalty free for internal research45 Reasonable conditions 43 IPCA 4.2.4 Access to all Foreground – royalty free Access when needed for use of (all) Foreground on fair and reasonable conditions Beneficiary is the term used in the Grant Agreement for the legal entity that signed the Grant Agreement with the Commission to carry out research. 44 Definition of Use Annex II, 1.8 Grant Agreement means exploitation and further research 45 Internal research has more limitation than further research. Therefore DESCA suggests that it might be necessary to negotiation for further research might eg: include the following aspects: Allowing production of research results which are available to the third party but which contain hermetically-sealed Foreground from the Project; using Foreground from the Project for in-house testing or diagnosis purposes in doing research. Page 49 of 108 Checklist for database in Consortium Agreements The question is whether this is acceptable for researchers, because in most cases it would mean loss of control over one’s data. If it is desired the keep control over one’s data than one should consider designing a separate clause addressing the following issues: - - definition of the database (define the collection of data) ownership - joint ownership of the database or only the party generating the database; access rights (extraction and re-utilization rights) of the (joint) owners to all data or only to those data that each party has made available themselves? Access for others: other scientists, public, etc. termination of the participation of an party to the project because of default or other reasons whether termination of the Grant Agreement will mean destruction of the database and its data or not express declaration with regard to the ownership and title to use (patient material, personal data etc) the data for the database from restricted access to more open access in time Page 50 of 108 2.9 Confidentiality46 Preparing an EU project or collaborating in an awarded project may require disclosure, receipt or exchange of confidential information. The reports submitted to the Commission can contain confidential information. To protect the confidential nature of such information, the MGA and the Consortium Agreements contain provisions concerning the handling of confidential information. EC-GA The ECGA obliges the beneficiaries to maintain certain exchanged information as confidential insofar as possible to their national laws. In a footnote this is explained as necessary because some national laws may require the disclosure of information. This footnote refers to the Swedish law regarding the freedom of information. Under this law it is almost impossible for a public body to deny requests for information47. The obligation of confidentiality also affects the Commission. The Commission has to preserve the confidentiality of received confidential information until five years after the project's completion. This period may be extended for specific confidential information, upon request by a beneficiary. Consortium Agreements There are not many differences between the DESCA and the IPCA provisions with respect to confidentiality. The notable differences are: the period to keep information confidential is in IPCA shorter than in DESCA; the fact that IPCA contains a specific provision that if “residual information” is disclosed or used the recipient is not liable. Residual information refers to anything that an employee can remember in his/her head that he/she can use. This is based on the presumption that it is impossible to keep entirely straight in their minds what information came from where; IPCA contains an option that also information that is not identified as such must be kept confidential; IPCA permits the disclosure of confidential information to affiliates. In most cases, confidential information is disclosed even before the proposal is submitted. At that moment no Consortium Agreement or Grant Agreement is in place. It is recommended to conclude a non-disclosure Agreement before exchanging information. 46 47 Version 2_0 This law is due to serious change per July 1st 2007. Page 51 of 108 EC-GA Undertake to Preserve the confidentiality. 4.3.1.3 IPCA At least the same degree of care as it applies for the security of its own Confidential Information (but in any case shall apply not less than reasonable care) not to disclose Confidential Information to any third party, excluding Affiliates, without the prior written consent of the Disclosing Party. 10, 2nd par Desca • not to disclose to any third party without the prior written consent; • internal distribution on a strict need-to-know basis; and • to return and to delete information on request of disclosing party. Obligation II.9.1 Period of confidentiality II.9.1 During the project and five years after its completion or any other period as established in the CA. 4.3.2 2 years greater than the term of the MGA, or 5 years from start of CA, whichever is the longer. In case no MGA is signed, 5 years from the date of CA. 10, 2nd par Five years after the end of the project. Marking of confidential information II.9.1 Information must be identified as confidential. 4.3.1.1. Two options: 1: all information is confidential; 2: information must be marked. 10, 1st par Information must be marked as confidential. Written confirmation of oral information No confidentiality if: II.9.1 Within 15 days after oral communication. 4.3.1.1 Option 2: within 30 days after oral disclosure 10, 1st par Within 30 days after oral disclosure II.9.2 • Information becomes publicly available; • Disclosing party informs that information is not confidential; • Recipient receives information from other source; • Disclosure is required by national law or by MGA or CA. 4.3.3 IPCA and 10 3rd par DESCA • was publicly available at the time of disclosure; • was obtained from third party without obligation of confidentiality; • was developed independently; • was in the possession of the Receiving Party or one of its Affiliates without confidentiality obligation at the time of disclosure. Page 52 of 108 National Law or Court Order requires disclosure II.9.2 If disclosure is required by national law there will be no obligation of confidentiality. Information to Commission Use of confidential information II.9.3 Only in relation to the execution of the project. Disclosure to affiliates Classified information II.9.4 IPCA: 4.3.4 DESCA: 10, 4th par If any Party becomes aware that it will be required, or is likely to be required, to disclose Confidential Information in order to comply with applicable laws or regulations or with a court or administrative order, it shall, to the extent it is lawfully able to do so, prior to any such disclosure notify the Disclosing Party, and comply with the Disclosing Party’s reasonable instructions to protect the confidentiality of the information. IPCA: 4.3.4 DESCA: 10, 4th par 4.3.1.2 The confidentiality obligations under the CA and the MGA shall not prevent the communication of Confidential Information to the Commission. 4.3.5 Allowed after making suitable arrangements. In accordance with the terms of the MGA and this CA; and for the purpose of perform obligations or as Necessary for exercising rights granted by or pursuant to either such Agreement. According to applicable rules. Page 53 of 108 10, 2nd par Use Confidential Information for the purpose for which it was disclosed. 2.10 Letter of Commitment48 When you are preparing an FP7 proposal, how can you: - make sure that your partners will actually participate in the project when the project is awarded? - prevent your information being used by partners for another proposal, competing with yours? First of all, work with partners you trust, besides that, let every partner sign a letter of commitment. In the commitment letter each participant commits themselves to carry out the project when the project is selected for funding and that during the proposal phase and perhaps thereafter will not disclose or use the received information for another purpose. Such commitment letter must be signed by your partners’ authorised official. In this way you make sure that not only the researcher, but also its organisation, is committed. In the commitment letter issues, for example the model Consortium Agreement to be used, or the manner in which the negotiation with the Commission takes place, could be arranged. However, the more complicated the letter, the more difficult it will be to have it signed by all partners at short notice. A template of a simple letter of commitment is attached hereunder. Please note that this letter is provided to you as an example only and that you may have to consult your legal department or EU-officer before using it. Template: The grey parts are filled in by the coordinator. The coordinator sends the draft letter by e-mail to all participants Each participant fills in the yellow parts, prints the letter on its own letterhead, signs and returns the letter to the Coordinator. To: [Coordinator] Attn. [representative Coordinator] [Address Coordinator] [Fax Coordinator] Dear [representative Coordinator], [Organisation Participant] participates in the preparation of a proposal for a Project entitled [Title] in response to the call [Call identifier] under the Seventh Framework Programme and declares the following: - [Organisation Participant] will not disclose to any third party information received related to the preparation of the proposal if such information is marked confidential. [Organisation Participant] shall not use such confidential information for any other purpose than for the purpose of preparing the proposal. 48 Published on our CA-Helpdesk.eu website as News-Alert, Number 3. The Letter of Commitment template can be downloaded from this website. Page 54 of 108 - [Organisation Participant] has not made and will not make another commitment to any third party to prepare a proposal for a project for the call [Call identifier] in activity [name and number activity] on topic [name and number topic]. - [Organisation Participant] shall support and assist the Coordinator in finalising the proposal and shall provide to the Coordinator all data necessary for the preparation of the proposal. In the event the proposal is selected by the Commission, and the technical and cost data that [Organisation Participant] supplied have not been substantially modified, [Organisation Participant] commits itself to participate in the project as foreseen in the proposal. We look forward to a successful cooperation. (The undersigned is the official authorised representative of [Organisation Participant]) Organisation Name Title Signature Date Page 55 of 108 2.11 Dissemination - Publications49 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 procedures50 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 EC-GA 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 EC-GA 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. The consortium agreements IPCA and DESCA are both not very publication friendly. In principal both consortium agreements embrace the Grant Agreement and only allow you to publish on your own results. Quite often it will be the case that data, biological or human material of others will be used in the publication and that such contributors are acknowledged for making such contribution. The IPCA consortium agreement is aware of such scientific custom and has a procedure which safeguards industrial interest and respects the scientific need for publication. This procedure offers all parties to the project the possibility to review a proposed publication and to object to such publication to certain grounds. If no objection has been received the publication may take place; exemption of the obligation not to publish other party’s Foreground or Background has been granted. 49 50 Version 1.0 Richard Tomlin, FP5 position paper Unite, and adjusted by Lotte Jaspers to fit the new rules and regulation of FP7 Page 56 of 108 The Desca consortium agreement has no publication procedure other than publication of one’s own Foreground. Dissemination (including publications II.30 EC-GA 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 suffer disproportionately great harm. 4.4.1 4.4.2 IPCA No right to use Foreground, Background or Sideground from another party without permission Exemption procedure in place which may overcome the restriction of the above paragraph EC-GA art 4.6 jo 42) disclaimer + further disclaimers have to be added 8.3.2 DESCA No right to use Foreground, Background or Sideground from another party without permission No exemption procedure like IPCA has been incorporated Only EC-GA disclaimer (II.4.6 jo. 42) Publication, who can claim to be the 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. For the original text, see 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 Page 57 of 108 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, eg: 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. 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 among 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. Page 58 of 108 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, eg: 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, eg: it is alphabetical. 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, eg: 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, eg: under the heading of 'Clinical researchers' or 'Assistant researchers', stating their positions or contributions, eg: '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 (eg: 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 59 of 108 2.12 Further Research51 It is obvious that a beneficiary should be free to use its own results in any way it sees fit. It is also clear, by analogy with rights to exploitation, that a beneficiary should be able to use the whole of the knowledge generated in the project for its own RTD purposes; the beneficiary should have rights for further research. The EC Grant Agreement puts an obligation on the beneficiaries to use the knowledge arising from their RTD Project ('Foreground'). 'Use' is defined in EC Grant Agreement as use in research activities OR for the purpose of exploitation, thereby placing further research, just as in FP5 and FP6, alongside exploitation as the intended outcome of FP7 projects. Right for Further Research is a very specific form of Individual Benefit52. However, many participants in FP projects - not only universities – engage in diverse research collaborations, both within the Framework Programme and outside it. These collaborations could be joint work (with both parties active in the research) or contract research (where the sponsor only provides funding or other resources). Such collaborations perform a vital role in the innovation process, enabling the transfer of generic knowledge arising in one context to find specific application in another. It is therefore essential that a beneficiary should be able to use all knowledge acquired generated during the project in subsequent research collaborations. To make sure that these personal benefits can be utilised within the scope of a Consortium Agreement, it is necessary for the beneficiary to hold on to his intellectual property rights as set out in the EC Grant Agreement: The EC Grant Agreement states that: a) “beneficiaries shall use the Foreground which they own or ensure that it is used”53. b) “beneficiaries shall enjoy access rights to Foreground, if it is needed to use their own Foreground. Subject to agreement, such access rights shall be granted either under fair and reasonable conditions or be royalty-free”54. c) “beneficiaries shall enjoy access rights to Background, if it is needed to use their own Foreground provided that the beneficiary concerned is entitled to grant them. Subject to Agreement, such access rights shall be granted either under fair and reasonable conditions or be royalty-free”55. In other words: 1) A beneficiary is free to use the Foreground it solely owns as it wishes, subject only to the beneficiary continuing to be in a position to comply with the requirements in the EC Grant Agreement regarding granting access rights to other beneficiaries. 2) Concerning future research including research collaborations, whether in the Framework Programme or otherwise, the following can be stated. The beneficiary wishing to use Foreground and/or Background generated by another beneficiary to use its own Foreground may require a licence or other permission for the purpose of carrying out further research with or on behalf of a third party. These access 51 Version 1.0 See chapter 2.1 53 Article II 4.1, EC Grant Agreement version 15 December 2006 54 Article II 9.1, EC Grant Agreement version 15 December 2006 55 Article II 9.2, EC Grant Agreement version 15 December 2006 52 Page 60 of 108 rights shall be granted either under fair and reasonable conditions or be royalty-free. Many companies are of the opinion that non-profit research organisations do not need a license for conducting further research, alone or with or on behalf of a third party, provided the third party is informed about a possible pre-obligated license. The reason is that further research should be possible without any legal or economic hurdles. In the event that a licence is needed from another beneficiary to produce or sell the invention, the patent law will kick in and a license has to be negotiated with the owner of the knowledge. In view of this opinion, it might be interesting lay down in the CA that a licence is not needed for further research or is granted royalty-free, especially when the FP7 project is carried out based on the open innovation model. The DESCA Consortium Agreement56 distinguishes in clause 9.4 between third party research and internal research57. DESCA suggests in its explanations that it might be necessary to negotiate licenses for further research. These negotiations might include the following aspects: Allowing production of research results which are available to the third party, but which contain hermetically-sealed Foreground from the Project; using Foreground from the Project for in-house testing or diagnosis purposes in doing research. This distinction between third-party research and internal research represents a major shift in thinking between this version of the DESCA Consortium Agreement and its previous draft versions. Previously both types of research (internal research and third-party research) were granted on a royalty-free basis. With the present line of reasoning, DESCA dissociates itself from the line of thinking within the Commission and the universities as set out from FP5. It is interesting to consider the definition in the Frascati Manual for Further Research: Further Research is the activity of which the primary objective is to make further technical improvements on the product or process. When the product, process or approach is substantially set and the primary objective is to develop markets, to do preproduction planning, or to get a production or control system working smoothly, then the work should be treated as exploitation. The EC uses the definitions for research and commercial activities given in the Frascasti Manual to define the level of reimbursement for different types of research and for the different types of entities. The maximum level of reimbursement for fundamental research is higher than for industrial research. The level of reimbursement is higher for legal entities not conducting commercial activities. The EC defines further research by a research organisation funded by non-commercial or commercial third parties as a non-commercial activity. With other words the financial rules are the same. The question is whether it is necessary to apply different IP rules to research funded by a non-commercial and commercial third party as laid down in the DESCA Consortium Agreement. In the Block Exemption article 81 it is stated that the restrictive provisions in an R&D collaboration agreement on the freedom to perform R&D, are not allowed. The question which pops up is whether collaborators according to DESCA Consortium Agreement are allowed to restrict further research with third parties. We will dig into this in more detail in further publications or news alert, see www.CA-helpdesk.eu 56 DESCA version VI – May 1st 2007. DESCA has the option in article 9.4 that access rights to Foreground, including for third-party research shall be granted on fair and reasonable conditions. Foreground for internal research shall be granted on a royalty-free basis. Because in the IPCA all access rights to Foreground are royalty free, the IPCA has no such clause. 57 Page 61 of 108 Part 3 and 4 Governance Page 62 of 108 3.0 Introduction Governance58 In the work programme and call fiche, it is stated whether a Consortium Agreement is mandatory. Mostly, the Consortium Agreement will be mandatory for Large Scale Integrated Projects. In which other cases 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 Project-specific exploitation strategy 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; eg: 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 58 Version 2.0 Page 63 of 108 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 NoEs and IPs, this number was reduced to a more modest scale after the midterm review was published. For IST (Information Society and Technology) 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 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. These entail 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 project59. 59 http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/newsletter/issue6/article_6005_en.htm Page 64 of 108 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 modalities60: • 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! 60 Framework 6 projects: Communication and Planning, Professor Peter Ryan, Brussels, 8\9th June 2006 Page 65 of 108 3.1 Management Structures, drawing the Consortium Organogram61 The EC grant agreement is relatively silent on the topic of project management. The EC grant agreement 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. Governing bodies: − 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 and; − The Coordinator is the party entrusted with this role in the MGA. − 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 project proposals can be improved when taking the trouble to tailor the organisational structure to the purposes of the 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 1 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, then the common goal for all participants (the standard) justifies that a limited number of partners exercises more power than others. The ‘Value Model’ contrasts with Open Innovation in that no partner can afford to have lesser control over the project and its results, because each result obtained represents value to the partner generating the result. Good examples are projects 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. 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 a different structure, in order to be understood correctly. 61 Version 6_0 Page 66 of 108 In the presented organograms we adopted the following basic rules: - vertically aligned are the different levels of responsibility identified; - horizontally aligned units indicate the same hierarchic level but with different recognized tasks. Because the focus of this chapter is on reaching the output objectives, results/deliverables, it is important to engage third parties. Page 67 of 108 3.2 Governing bodies62 A Consortium under FP7 has, as in FP663, 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 another 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. The model Consortium Agreements for FP764, display two main management bodies; a board and the General Assembly: The General Assembly is the body where all the parties are represented; The Board is represented by a limited number of parties. The question is whether the coordinator should be seen as a managing body, fact is that the EC Grant Agreement requires every Consortium to have a coordinator. Therefore we include the coordinator (the institute, not only the scientist) in the management bodies. 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 role is to inform the Board about the implementation of the project and the compliance by the parties of its obligations. In annex II of the MGA, the Coordinator has the role to monitor and verify whether the parties comply with their obligations under the MGA and the Consortium Agreement 65; 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 partners, because then it can cast a decisive vote. But only after the Coordinator and Board have not been able to find satisfying solutions, do 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, 62 63 64 65 Version 2.0 See, Decision Making in FP6 Consortia by Richard Tomlin and Lotte Jaspers, published in the IPR Helpdesk Bulletin, No.26, March-April 2006. See chapter 1, the legal documents of FP7 IPCA, article 3.1.1.1.a Page 68 of 108 continuing 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 above mentioned; 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 IPCA model. The Coordinator is a postman and banker and even though the Coordinator has an obligation to monitor the parties’ 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 Coordinator Core group All Parties Postman, Banker and Monitor of implementation Board/Executive Board General Assembly DESCA 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 IPCA Direct relation to the ‘owners’ of the project: - inform the Board about the implementation and of course the EC. Intermediary between the sub project committees and the General Assembly and has the responsibility for monitoring the project progress ‘owners’ of the project: - strategic decisionmaking - market oriented Page 69 of 108 Marginal role, it is the safety valve in case of serious dissent within the Board 3.3 Societal Engaged Actors, Exploitation Stakeholders and Target Audiences66 The purpose of this Guide is to create successful projects. In this paragraph we will dig into the advantages of incorporating other parties who hold independent views on the results the project is about to generate ( the research), the use to which the results are put (the exploitation of results) and the dissemination activities to be undertaken. In this way we hope to provide you with a framework, however shaky, for organising the third parties to your project and therefore to create stronger project proposals which will receive funding. The role of the third party is to create in all stages of the project a self-correcting feedback loop; this increases the chances on successful and timely delivery of the project’s deliverables. The main characteristic of the distinguished third parties in this paragraph is that it 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. For each stage (Science and Technology and Impact which incorporates Use and Dissemination) we use a different term to categorise the third parties involved in each stage. See also chapter 1, the evaluation criteria: Science & Technology Relevance 3-4 3.3.1 Impact Relevance 3-4 Implementation Quality & Efficiency & 3-4 Science and Technology & Societal Engaged Actors The science and technology (research) carried out in the project does not automatically lead to innovation, nor is it progression linear. Innovation is an outcome of complex transformation processes involving a wide range of actors. For research to make the transition to innovation, societal needs and interests should be accounted for. If researchers are not attuned to the public’s concerns, expressed for example through stakeholders and societal actors, their results might not be sufficiently socially relevant, putting at risk any potential innovations that could be developed. For the European Union to meet its Lisbon targets67, increasing research funding is but one aspect; researchers should also better integrate the societal dimension into their objectives, and target their work toward the public interests. Another possible role of the societal actor is to build confidence in the quality of the end result and therefore the acceptance with the end-user. 66 67 Version 7_0 Research and Societal Engagement – EURAB, June 2007 – P6. Page 70 of 108 3.3.2 Impact – Use: Exploitation Stakeholders Use is narrowed to exploitation in this paragraph, because further research activities might very well be scrutinised by the societal actors engaged in the science and technology stage of the project. The Exploitation Stakeholder is a party who holds an interest in the exploitation of the results. This might be businesses but also end-users who are affected, or can be affected by the successful exploitation of the results. Involvement of Exploitation Stakeholder 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 Exploitation Stakeholder is to create in all phases of the project a self-correcting feedback loop; this increases the chances on successful Use of the deliverables. Another possible role of the Exploitation Stakeholder is to build confidence in the quality of the end result and therefore the acceptance with the target group. An Exploitation 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 Exploitation Stakeholders? Depending on the nature of the project, different types of Exploitation Stakeholder can help to disseminate and exploit the Foreground. When developing new standards for mobile telephone communication the Exploitation Stakeholders would be telecom network operators as well as mobile phone manufacturers. When taking an example from the environmental field, the Exploitation Stakeholders could be the policy makers, environmental pressure groups. Sometimes Exploitation Stakeholders can provide crucial information. (ANSP - flight info, consumer organisations - user info). This - and of course the willingness of those Exploitation Stakeholders to provide the information - can also be taken into account when forming the Exploitation Stakeholders group. Concluding different types of Exploitation Stakeholders are to be distinguished: - Experts, for example, your scientific colleague from the USA. - Information providers - Public – societal actors: public tends to refer to societal actors, which includes representatives from patient groups, consumer associations, non-profit and civil society organisations (NGOs and CSOs), media representatives from industry trade associations and trade unions, and other special interest groups that may form in response to a particular research technique or political activity68. - End-User, the Exploitation Stakeholder that will use the deliverables of the projects Impact- Dissemination: Target Audiences In many ways the ultimate impact of your planned project rests in the effectiveness of your dissemination strategy, how you involve representatives of the target audiences and how much influence they have on the project, will largely affect your impact. 68 Research and Societal Engagement – EURAB, June 2007 – P6. Page 71 of 108 Dissemination is undertaking with the goal to utilise the project results. It doesn’t matter whether this is for the purpose of awareness, understanding or action69. Facilitating the utilisation of research-based information is a complex process. Many barriers exist, both in dealing with the steps necessary for implementation and ensuring that recipients have the skills, attitudes, and awareness levels needed to benefit from the research outcomes70. Which target audiences? A target audience may have an overlap with representatives in the other stages, the societal actors and the exploitation stakeholders, but in order to make our framework of possible third parties complete, we have listed them separately. . Table: Feedback loop of third parties in the project planning process: Science & Tech Use (exploitation) Dissemination Societal engaged actors: - Experts (peers) - Information providers - Public, societal actors - End-users Exploitation Stakeholders: - Business sector Target Audiences: - Academics - Information - Public Sector - Public - Other sectors providers - End-users How to involve the different third parties? Each project has its own characteristics, so the boundaries as presented in the drawing above might be different. There are several crucial elements in the successful involvement of Exploitation Stakeholders: • Level of influence of the third party • Level of involvement of the management and/or the carrying out of the project • Frequency of meetings in which the third parties have to participate After having decided which actors are important to involve in the different stages of the 69 70 See the paragraph in this guide related to dissemination. Developing an Effective Dissemination Plan, RUSH, January 2001 Page 72 of 108 project, a decision needs to be taken on how they can effectively contribute to the project. One could consider organising the Exploitation Stakeholders in direct linkage to the project. An approach which is almost like the opposite of the previous one, is to link the Exploitation Stakeholders to certain participants in the Consortium. Direct involvement in the project The third party is actively involved in carrying out the project and has, as co-producer of the result, a direct role in one of the work packages and may also have an active role in the management of the project. As a co-producer of knowledge, the third parties have maximum influence on the project as a whole. The active role of the third party means that they are either a member of the Consortium (maximum influence through standard voting rights) or that the third party has a strong advisory capacity at the meetings of the governing bodies. When the third party is an active member of the project management, it is co-controlling the progress of the project. In this last case be aware that, unless this third party has signed the agreement with the Commission, the third party has no responsibility towards the Commission for carrying out the project. Direct link to the project: The third parties are consulted but do not actively participate in the research. Therefore they do not participate in the work packages or in the governing bodies, but are instead linked to one of the basic governing bodies of the project. Their involvement is mostly organised through a specific committee, task force or forum which has a direct link to one or more of the governing bodies. This direct link to the project creates possibilities for direct interaction with the project management (the co-ordinator and/or board). How much influence the Exploitation Stakeholders have on the progress of the project is an important issue to clarify. Can the committee/task force take binding decisions or is this limited to advice? It seems logical to limit the involvement to an advisory capacity because Exploitation Stakeholders are not participants, and as such they have no responsibility towards the Commission for carrying out the project. Even though this organisational form is less direct as being co-producer, it still creates direct interaction with the project management. The chair of the committee/task force/forum is most of the time fulfilled by the coordinator. Link to the individual participants: To link a third party directly to a participant could be helpful when it is necessary to organise input per country. When linked to a participant, the influence of the third party on the project is less clear than in the previous situations. Rights and Obligations Strategic roles to consider: To provide specialist advice and guidance To agree and monitor the strategic targets of the project To receive reports on the progress of the project and generate and consider ideas for future development Page 73 of 108 To advise on and approve project outputs To maximise potential for implementation and embedding of the Project outcomes at institutional level To support dissemination of Project results through own networks To actively promote the project at institutional and national level To valuate the commercial potential of results; To test the results on user friendliness To make policy observations Administrative roles to consider: To sign-off any agreed changes to the project plan To monitor the budget and approve any proposed changes to budget To consider and sign off annual progress reports for submission to the general assembly To consider and sign off evaluation reports As the third parties in most cases will not be signatories of the EC Grant Agreement, 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 74 of 108 3.4 Decision-making and voting71 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 anticipated 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 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 circulating 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 participants 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 projects72: 1. One vote per partner. No differentiation is made between large and small participants, meaning that every voter's vote should be counted with equal weight. 2. Votes based on project share. Votes are weighted unequally. In this way one can discriminate between large and small partners. A good administration needs to be kept on every beneficiary’s project share, especially when (parts of) deliverables are transferred to other parties within the Consortium. If no good administration is kept, doubt can arise whether or not the decision taken has been taken validly. 3. 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. 4. Votes can also be weighted unequally for other reasons, such as increasing the voting weight of the coordinator when a tie is imminent. In that case the 71 72 Version 2.0 Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system, for more information in general with regard to voting. Page 75 of 108 coordinator has a tie-breaking vote, a privilege to resolve what would otherwise be a tie. Some of the most frequently used decision making methods: Quorum- quorate: A minimum number of the total number of participants needs to be present in order to take a valid decision. When not enough participants 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: In complete agreement by everyone. In effect unanimous decisionmaking resolves or mitigates the objections of the minority in order to achieve the most agreeable decision. In academic run projects where participants have different areas of expertise but are working toward a common goal, it can be a desired decision-making 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 voters73. 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. 73 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making Page 76 of 108 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 Quorum 2/3 of members must be present in order to take valid decision Decision making method Depending on decision, simple majority, Qualified Majority (75%) or Unanimity 2/3 of members must be present in order to take valid decision Depending on decision, Qualified Majority (2/3) or Unanimity Veto Yes, in certain cases, on reasonable grounds Weighted voting Page 77 of 108 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 78 of 108 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 nor 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 79 of 108 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 has been 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 their 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 when you are able to qualify the key persons of the project. Are the proposed work package 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 80 of 108 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 their 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 different skills than managing a normal research project. The managers of a Consortium are the coordinator, board and work package 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 81 of 108 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, has identified impacts, and conducted a needs assessment to establish its goals. Additionally, data is 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 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 82 of 108 SCHEDULE 3: Reading the Scores Reading the scores for a starting Consortium Assuming only Factors 1 to 6 are relevant and scored Scores of 21-30: The Consortium has many components that comprise a successful Consortium. Check the totals for individual factors to ensure that there is not a critical weakness. Scores of 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 of 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 of 41-60 The Consortium has many components that comprise a successful Consortium. Check the totals for individual factors to ensure that there is not a critical weakness. Scores of 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 ongoing Consortium scored in this range because it may not have the capacity to resolve problems successfully and could be at risk of collapsing. Scores of 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 seriously, 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 83 of 108 Part 5 Financial Provisions Page 84 of 108 5.1 FRAMEWORK ELIGIBLE COSTS74 Legal Requirements The framework for eligible costs is based upon the requirements laid down in the Financial Regulation which formed the basis for the Rules for Participation which in turn govern the requirements as laid don in the Model Grant Agreement article 14. The following requirements can be distilled for a cost to be eligible for reimbursement: 74 75 76 • Own management and accounting principles must apply: This means that in principle the same system of cost calculation must be applied to all sponsors. The fact that some sponsors, like the EU, are very specific about which costs they do accept and which not, does not affect the validity of your management or accounting principle. • Actual: Costs must be actually incurred (real costs). That means they must be real and not estimated, budgeted or imputed. They must be recorded in the accounts or tax documents and be identifiable and controllable. This rule ensures that fictitious costs are avoided such as internal invoices, subjective estimations or opportunity costs. To be considered actual, costs must be incurred during the lifetime of the project.75 - Recorded in accounts: All costs needs to be recorded in one's accounts or the accounts of a third party in order to be eligible costs. • The principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness require no longer the consent of the auditor, see appendix 1 for the explanation on certification on financial statements, and will be applied by the commission itself when carrying out technical reviews article 23 EC-GA76: • the principle of economy requires that the resources used by the institution (read Commission) for the pursuit of its activities (in casu the Framework Programme) shall be made available in due time, in appropriate quantity and quality and at the best price. This means that the Commission has the responsibility to select only projects that fulfil these requirements. • the principle of efficiency is concerned with the best relationship between resources employed and results achieved. The effect of this principle is the tremendous focus of each project officer on deliverables and their costs. • the principle of effectiveness is concerned with attaining the specific objectives set and achieving the intended results. Summary from the Yellow Research Guide: Building Blocks for a Full-cost model, version 7.0 Financial Guidelines FP6 Article 27 Financial Regulation (last version) Page 85 of 108 Total Eligible Costs The costs of a project consists of direct and indirect eligible costs. The costing system you use for calculating the cost statements must therefore be equipped to determine the direct and indirect eligible costs of a project. Be aware that the Commission expressly excludes certain costs as eligible, for example interest and VAT. Direct costs are costs that are directly attributable to the project. Direct costs consist of labour costs and non-labour costs and are determined by establishing: • the time spent on a project; • the yearly labour cost of the individual and; • the yearly productive time of that individual. These labour costs are calculated for scientific staff and – in as far as supporting staff is working directly for the project77 – for supporting staff as well. The direct non-labour costs consist of consumables or equipment or travel and subsistence that are dedicated to the project and have no value beyond the project. Indirect costs are costs not attributable directly to the project, but have been incurred in direct relationship with the direct costs attributed to the project. Indirect costs may consist of support staff, estate costs, technical infrastructure and other overhead costs. Apart from technical infrastructure, these indirect costs are calculated either as an amount or a percentage per FTE. Technical infrastructure is a separate issue because one can opt to treat this cost category as direct or as indirect. Support staff and estate costs will usually be determined as a percentage over direct costs or a flat rate. 77 See Building Block 3 – Calculation of Direct Personnel costs. Page 86 of 108 5.2 THE FINANCIAL STRUCTURE EC - Grant Agreement Number of reporting periods: art. 4 The number of reporting periods equals the number of cost statements that need to be submitted. This number of reporting periods affects the calculation of the pre-financing as explained below. A reporting period equals in most project a one year period. Maximum community financial contribution and Budget Transfers: art. 5 The maximum amount of community contribution that shall be made available to the project; In Annex I the table of the estimated breakdown of the budget per activity per beneficiary has to be incorporated. Beneficiaries are allowed to make budget transfers between themselves and between different activities. Pre-financing: art. 6 The pre-financing will be calculated by calculating an average budget for each period (see article 4) by diving the EU contribution by the number of periods. The pre-financing shall than be 160% of the calculated average. At no point shall the received pre-financing and interim payments exceed 90% of the Community financial contribution, art. II.6. Pre-financing = (community financial contribution / # periods) *160 under the condition that: (Pre-financing + ∑ Interim Payments ) < 90% Community financial Contribution ANNEX II Reporting and payment: art II.4.4 Paragraph 4 of this article explains the role and content of a certificate on the financial statement. See Appendix 1 for a more detailed explanation as provided in the Model Grant Consultation group to the Member States by Mr. A. Leader. General Financial principles This section describes the general principles of any Community financial contribution according to the Community financial regulations. Payment modalities: art. II. 6 The cash flow and the payment modalities applicable to a project that runs for 4 years is schematically drawn in the picture below. Page 87 of 108 Received pre-financing: The project is divided in periods, a period equals one year. The pre-financing is in principle 160% of the average as calculated per the first period. From this amount is off-set the sum of 5% of the total Community financial contribution needed for the Guarantee Fund. Interim payments are the payments based on the accepted cost statement for the previous period. The last interim payment will be less than the cost statement of the previous period because than the rule will kick in that at no point the Beneficiary shall receive more than 90% of the Community contribution as pre-financing and/or interim payments. On top of that there is already the 5% for the Guarantee Fund that has been retained. Therefore the last interim payment will only be a small percentage of the costs budgeted for the last period. The final payment shall be based on the accepted costs for the last period and shall include if all obligations are fulfilled the repayment of the retained 5% for the guarantee fund as well as the last 10% and any eligible costs not reimbursed. Final payment + retention + 5% Acceptance 5% Final Report Accepted costs Reporting P3 int.pay. P3 up to max 90% Interim payment Accepted costs Reporting P2 Accepted costs Interim payment Reporting P1 Pre-finance 5% 160% average of # periods Considering the time limits for approval of reports as mentioned in article II-5, the time limits for submission and approval are as followed: Pre-financing: is paid within 45 days after signature of the Grant Agreement. This means after the signature by the Coordinator. The Coordinator will already receive pre-financing for the project while he is still collecting all the accession forms of the other beneficiaries to the grant agreement. They have 45 days to sign their accession form. If not received in time by the coordinator than the non-receipt of the accession form may jeopardise the project. Cost Statements (part of the report on a period) have to be submitted within 60 days after the end of the period. Page 88 of 108 Interim payment after approval from the commission may take up to 105 days after receipt of the cost statement. Cost can be paid in whole or in part. See repairs for payment in part. Repairs: The commission can ask for clarifications etc. If these are not received within the time limit indicated by the commission, the commission will evaluate such document only in the next period. Final payment: Final cost statement: has to be submitted by the coordinator within 60 days after the end of the last period. Decision on final payment: The Commission has 105 days to make its final decision on the payment. Objection: The Coordinator may object within two months after the notification of the decision Final decision on final payment: The commission will within two months after receiving the objection of the commission make its final decision with regard to the final acceptance of the costs. Repairs: The commission can offer one month to Suspension of commission time limits: The commission can suspend the time limits as above stated for example because of incomplete statements or demanded clarifications. At the end of the project the commission may decide not to make the payment in case the commission has not received a report, certificate or any deliverable within month after the beneficiary has been notified to send in this information. Framework of eligible costs: art. II.14 In particular, it covers the general definition of eligible costs (and non-eligible costs). A system based upon average personnel costs is acceptable under the condition that the system for calculating the averages has been certified. Identification of direct and indirect costs: art. II.15 The restrictions introduced by the definitions of direct indirect eligible costs. There are basically three mechanisms for calculating indirect costs: - Real indirect cost for those entities with an analytical accounting system. Real indirect cost is the system that by the universities has been adopted under the term full-cost method78. At present most universities have an analytical accounting system. According to the draft financial guidelines this means that entities which have an accounting system which permit to identify and group their indirect costs (pool of costs) in accordance with the eligibility criteria (e.g. exclude non-eligible costs) must report their real indirect costs. - Simplified method – a simplified method for full-cost calculation. This method may only be used when there is a lack of analytical accounting system or the organisation use cash- based accounting. 78 YR has written a complete guide for universities wanting to change to full cost calculation Page 89 of 108 - Flat rate for those entities that can not or will not be able to calculate their real indirect costs, full-costs: o 20% for all entities; o 60% for non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, and research organisations and SMEs, for proposals awarded under calls closing before December 31st 2009. These entities must be unable to calculate their indirect costs due to a lack of analytical accounting. o 40% for non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, and research organisations and SMEs, for proposals selected for funding under calls closing after January 1st 2010; These entities must be unable to calculate their indirect costs due to a lack of analytical accounting. o 7% for coordination and support actions Upper funding limits: art. II. 16 The restrictions introduced by the type of activities proposed per type of funding scheme and the restrictions introduced according to the type of cost reporting model used by the participant This sections describes how the Community financial contribution is calculated and paid according to the type of funding scheme concerned. It covers the notion of maximum reimbursement rates of eligible costs There is no maximum to management costs in FP7 (in FP6 the maximum was 7%, but justify when it is more than the well known 7%). Receipts: art. II. 17 It covers the notion of receipts The definition remains for now the same as in FP6, but some changes in the definition are expected in the revised implementing rules to the financial regulation. Community financial contribution: art. II.18 This article describes how the Community financial contribution shall be defined: - it is calculated in accordance of the upper funding limits as indicated in article 16 - based upon accepted cost statement - it may never give rise to profit Interest: art. II.1979 The pre-financing of an FP project remains the property of the European Community until the final payment. The Coordinator has to report the amount of any interest yielded when the pre-financing is more than 50.000 Euro. The European Community will deduct the amount of interest generated from the EC financial contribution to the project. With other words: the European Commission will only recover the interest from the Coordinator and not from the other Beneficiaries. The Coordinator is obliged to identify the interest on pre-financing payments according to his accounting methods. The identification of interest is easier when there is a separate bank account for EC financial contributions but this is not required as long as you have established a way to identify such interests. 79 Published in News Alert 5 of YR publications Page 90 of 108 The Coordinator distributes the pre-financing to all beneficiaries (including the coordinator) according to the budget break-down in Annex I (Description of Work) or a Consortium decision. The to be reported interest breaks down in two amounts: − Interest on pre-financing prior to the distribution to the beneficiaries. − Interest yielded by the coordinator on its own share of the pre-financing. Example: The Coordinator receives 1,5 M€ in pre-financing. The pre-financing yields amount A in interest. After the Coordinator has distributed 1,2 M€ to the other Beneficiaries, 0,3 M€ retains in pre-financing which may yield interest. This is amount B. The Coordinator has to report amount A and B in each financial statement and the EC shall recover the yielded interest for each reporting period from the coordinator. The other beneficiaries are not obliged to report interest yielded on their share the prefinancing Guarantee Fund: art . II. 20 The new risk avoidance mechanism in the form of a Guarantee Fund should lead to a significant reduction of guarantees required by the Commission. There is a considerable impact on SME specific projects because these projects are considered as high risk projects. Guarantee mechanisms that are considered here are, beside the guarantee fund: - More frequent financing - Reduction of the percentage of pre-financing for high risk participants. The Commission is responsible for the Guarantee fund. From the pre-financing paid to the Beneficiaries the commission will withhold part from this amount; 5% of the Community financial contribution due to the participants. This 5% is the basis for the guarantee fund. Even though the commission withholds 5% of the Commission financial contribution, legally the participants have received the full amount of pre-financing. The interest yielded in the Guarantee fund shall not be beneficial to individual project but to FP7 as a whole. The Guarantee fund works as an insurance policy, which means that there is a premium to be paid. The premium is paid by the industry and SMEs and is applicable as soon as the commission has a need to use the guarantee fund under any of the FP7 agreements concluded by the commisison. The premium is calculated as follows: Contribution of this project X (total of the contributions used/total contributions to the fund). The premium to be paid has a cap of 1% of that Benficiary’s Community financial contribution. Section 3 – Controls, recoveries and sanctions Financial audits and controls: art. II.22 This section describes the different types of control and follow-up that the Commission services may carry out before, during and after the implementation of a FP7 project. In particular, it covers audits carried out by the Commission or it duly authorised Page 91 of 108 representatives. The practise in FP6 verifying the financial capacity of some contractors and asking for bank guarantees is gone due to the introduction of he Guarantee fund. Liquidated damages and financial penalties: art. II. 24 This section describes the recovery modalities and types of sanctions that the Commission may implement, if necessary. It especially covers reimbursement modalities, liquidated damages, financial penalties, exclusions, and the implementation of the beneficiary’s financial liability. Page 92 of 108 5.3 FINANCIAL PROVISIONS DESCA The definitions of section 1 and the financial provisions of section of the DESCA consortium agreement contain provisions which are more suitable for medium to large scale projects than small projects80. The financial section of the DESCA consortium agreements has strong roots in the FP6 consortium agreement for Network of Excellence, UNECA81. UNECA’s financial system consisted of a more detailed Plan of Activities than the Description of Work attached to the EC Contract in Annex 1 and a corresponding detailed Network Budget. In order to calculate the Network Budget all contributions (the community contribution and all own resources) needed to be capitalised. The budgeting of each party’s share was a complicated structure based on differential costs. UNECA had a six monthly budget review. All these elements (more detailed description of work and budget, six monthly review on depletion, the capitalisation of own resources) have found their way, although adapted for cooperation projects in the financial section of the DESCA consortium agreement for FP7. Because the DESCA initiators are of the opinion that large projects in FP7 will struggle as the integrated projects of FP6 with the fact that Annex I of the Grant Agreement, the Description of Work, is not detailed enough to carry out the project successfully. Therefore DESCA has incorporated the financial sections of UNECA in DESCA. DESCA requires to detail Annex I in the form of a Consortium Plan which include more detailed budget breakdowns in the form of a Consortium Budget. The consortium plan and corresponding consortium budget are worked out per period. A period is in most cases equal to one year82. In order to make effective use of the possibility to have annual detailed work plans, the six monthly financial review of budget depletion is recommended. Small consortium: If you have a small consortium you could contemplate to delete the definitions consortium plan and budget and its corresponding paragraphs in section7 as well as 7.2.1 the order of priority in which Other Costs will be paid out : 7.1.1 Distribution of the Financial Contribution 7.1.3 Funding Principles: CHANGE Consortium Plan and Budget in respectively Annex 1 and Breakdown of costs DELETE because these are the general rules for costing according to the Grant Agreement 7.2 Budgeting DELETE 7.2.1 Budgeted costs eligible for 100% DELETE reimbursement 7.2.2 Budgeting of coordination costs DELETE Small, Medium and Large Consortia: Section 7.3 – Two modalities of payment. The wording of this section will be aligned with the terminology of FP7 in the next update of the DESCA consortium agreement.83 80 This was concluded at the DESCA consultation group meeting held in Paris October 31st, 2007. See chapter 1 82 Article 4 Grant Agreement. 83 See footnote 79 81 Page 93 of 108 Annex 1 Dissemination and Exploitation strategies In order to be able to write clearly the objectives of a project, you need to have already considered 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. Working 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 time 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 employer’s representative, a contractor; - from the contractor to a higher management level as eg: 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 peerreviewed 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 Page 94 of 108 Consortium needs to evaluate all potential exploitations of the results and decide which types of exploitation are economically valuable. The next step is 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. 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 has 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 95 of 108 Annex 2: Ethical issues in EU Research Proposals – checklist84 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 (eg: 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. 74 Integral download from the Commission website: http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/page_en.cfm?id=3205 Page 96 of 108 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: justify the use of banked or isolated human embryonic stem cells in culture; give full details about the source of hES cells; specify and justify the number of any foetuses to be used and why the use of such material is necessary; specify the source of human foetal tissue; describe the procedure for obtaining informed consent; describe the arrangements for protecting the confidentiality of personal data of individuals concerned. o Use of other human biological samples The applicant should: specify and justify the type, amount and source of human biological samples to be used; describe the procedure for obtaining informed consent of the person(s) from whom the material is obtained; 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. o 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 is used, adequate security for storage and handling of such data must be shown. Page 97 of 108 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: provide justification for such research in terms of the potential benefits of the research in relation to the possible risks to persons; indicate the number of persons involved and describe the selection criteria; provide details of the arrangements made for providing information to persons and for obtaining informed consent; specify any payments, inducements or other benefits to be given to the persons concerned; 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: indicate the degree of risk and burden involved for the subject; whether and how the persons might benefit from the procedures envisaged; indicate why it is necessary to involve persons unable to give a valid consent; 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 is 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 indicate if the collected data will be used for commercial purposes. Even where only anonymised data is 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 (eg: 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 (eg: 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 98 of 108 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 (ie: 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 (eg: 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 (ie: capacity to assess 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, and protection of the environment, sustainability and animal welfare. Page 99 of 108 Annex 3 Glossary – Dissemination and Exploitation85 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, eg: 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. 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 and results to potentially interested users. They are aimed at increasing knowledge of the projects. In the process, various tools are used: publications, press 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 characteristics, 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. 85 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/valorisation/doc/glossary_en.pdf Page 100 of 108 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 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. 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 Page 101 of 108 Annex 4: Glossary – Project Management Activity In Project Management, task, job, operation or process consuming time 1+2 and possibly other resources; 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 event. 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 people’s understanding of project objectives, procedures and plans, and to begin the team-building and bonding process. 1 Page 102 of 108 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 behavioural outcomes (eg: 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 (eg: a machine, computer system, new drug, building, etc.). The product includes all necessary aspects of the deliverable (eg: 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 103 of 108 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 104 of 108 1+3 2 Annex 5: Glossary – Ethical Issues 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. CONFLICT OF INTEREST A person has a conflict of interest when the person is in a position of trust which requires them 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 their judgment, and which the person is morally required to either avoid or openly acknowledge. 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. ETHICS Ethics is the science of morals in human conduct. 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. Their responsibility 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. At 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. Page 105 of 108 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS Environmental ethics is the ethics of medical, biological and environmental intervention. 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. 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. 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. INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF HARMONISATION This alliance of the European Union, the USA 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 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. Page 106 of 108 Annex 6: Glossary – Gender Concepts86 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 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 redress 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.87 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 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. 86 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 87 http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/gender_equality/gender_mainstreaming/general_overview_ en.html Page 107 of 108 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). 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 108 of 108 CHAPTER 4 Chapter 4 Project planning and timetable (Gantt-chart and PERT-chart) Gantt-chart The project planning chart (also known as a Gantt-chart) is an important element both in presenting the structure and timing of a project and in monitoring (and controlling) the progress of the work. Basically, it is a bar chart showing the duration of each package of work. Gantt-chart is constructed with a horizontal axis representing the total time span of the project, broken down into increments (for example, days, weeks, or months) and a vertical axis representing the tasks that make up the project (for example, if the project is developing new markers for a disease, the major tasks involved might be: identify sources for new markers, screen for new markers, identify the markers correlating with disease, validate the new marker in patients with disease). Horizontal bars of varying lengths represent the sequences, timing, and time span for each task. Using the same example, you would put "identify source for new markers" at the top of the vertical axis and draw a bar on the graph that represents the amount of time you expect to spend on the source identification, and then enter the other tasks below the first one and representative bars at the points in time when you expect to undertake them. The bar spans may overlap, as, for example, you may identify sources and start with screening for new markers in a few sources during the same time span. As the project progresses, secondary bars, arrowheads, or darkened bars may be added to indicate completed tasks, or the portions of tasks that have been completed. A vertical line is used to represent the report date. You may add information as starting and finishing dates of each element or sub-element, the linkage between elements illustrating their inter-dependencies (a PERT-chart feature), and which partner or WP is responsible for the element, the major milestones, deliverables and reports. PERT-chart Gantt-charts give a clear illustration of project status, but one problem with them is that they don't indicate task dependencies - you cannot tell how one task falling behind schedule affects other tasks. The PERT-chart another popular project management charting method, is designed to do this. It is the inter-dependences, a PERT-chart feature, being the linkages between elements, that is of most use in controlling and assessing the progress of the project. When the links are indicated, it is possible to see at a glance the consequences of a task running behind schedule or failing to achieve the expected result. It answers the questions: − is there time in hand to allow this task to catch up; − which other tasks may be delayed − which other elements need to be replanned to accommodate the failure of the task? Remember, this is a research proposal. By its nature, it contains uncertainties and there is a high probability that the unexpected will happen. Evidence of good planning will give the evaluators confidence that the project has been properly thought out and that the partners have given themselves the best chance of coping with the unexpected. A proposal presented in this way is likely to be rated more highly than an over-confident assumption that all will go according to plan. Sources: Wikipedia and Searchsoftwarequality.techtarget.com Relationship between elements (Pert diagram) The Pert diagram presents some of the same information as the project planning chart, but with a different emphasis. It gives more information about the content of each work package (WP), their interactions and the flow of information between them, as well as indicating which partners are involved. It is useful in illustrating the overall working structure of a project. You can add information about crucial steps, timeline, milestones, etc Your Pert diagram should, for consistency and ease of interpretation, use the same titles and notation as your project planning chart. Google to find more information and other examples. Example of a Pert diagram Pert Diagram: see www.wikepedia.org Chapter 5 CHECKLIST: 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/environmental/social/health 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: • • • • the European dimension of the project the Community added-value the economic competitiveness (involvement of SME’s and other companies) Quality of life Start to consider how you are going to disseminate and exploit the project results and who do you need to develop, market and sell these results. 2. Relevance to the Programme Check the Work Programmes. Proposals should NOT be addressing just one or two elements described in the paragraph • • • Solve the problem described in the 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 • 3. Show ambition. Be aware that only presenting the `next (scientific) step’ is not considered to be a demonstration of your ambition Implemenation: 3a Quality of the Management • • • • • • • 3b 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? - Is one of the partners capable to exploit the results? 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. • 3c Mobilisation of Resources • • • • • • • 4 Illustrate a critical mass of resources; Demonstrate that you have the appropriate personnel and expertise; Demonstrate that the appropriate equipment is there or that it is necessary to purchase it; Demonstrate the availability of the technology and the (dis)advantages of this technology compared to other methodologies (or the standard); Demonstrate the availability of data, databases, material etc; 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 (not only in scientific journals but also in patent literature) and address it. • Clearly define the objectives • Clarify whether you aim for improvement or innovation • Describe the methodology and/or technology • Establish clear links between your aims and your methodology • Define clear deliverables and milestones which can be used to monitor the progress of the project and de fulfillment of the project. • Structure the work in well defined workpackages reflecting the work to be carried out, the management of the project, the dissemination and exploitation of the results, if applicable gender and ethical issues.
© Copyright 2024