1. No category

Day 1:
Writing competitive proposals:
How to proceed in FP7
Day 2:
Building and Managing
a successful consortium
Contact Details:
Lotte Jaspers
jaspers@yellowresearch.nl
Mette Skraastad
skraastad@yellowresearch.nl
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:
jaspers@yellowresearch.nl
skraastad@yellowresearch.nl
+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
ƒSPECIFIC
TARGETED RESEARCH PROJECT
Retrieval Of Figurative Images
ƒwww.cs.uu.nl/profi
ƒPerceptually-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
ƒ governed by European law,
equality between partners
ƒ easier for different kinds of
organisations to participate
ƒ members have unlimited joint and
several liability (although specific
exclusions might apply
National law
Foundations
ƒ suitable for the participation of
non-commercial contractors
ƒ 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
ƒ 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.
ƒ governed by a national law, a fact
that can adversely affect equality
between partners
according to some national laws, it
is not allowed for universities to
own shares in a spin-off company.
ƒ more extensive reporting and
administrative obligations
In a Consortium Agreement one needs to address lots of issues when a legal entity will
be set up during or after the project for the exploitation of the research results.
Hereunder is a far from complete list of issues that might have to be addressed:
Ownership
Does the legal entity become the owner of the inventions or is it granted
and exclusive licence?
Protection
Does the inventor’s organisation pay for the patent protection or is this a
cost for the new entity?
Access rights
Who decides on access rights to third parties and how?
Use of results for
further
Is it allowed for the project members to conduct further research or has
this to be undertaken by the new entity?
Will the new entity involve the contributing parties by providing research
assignments to them?
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:
ƒ justify the use of banked or isolated human embryonic stem cells in culture;
ƒ give full details about the source of hES cells;
ƒ specify and justify the number of any foetuses to be used and why the use of
such material is necessary;
ƒ specify the source of human foetal tissue;
ƒ describe the procedure for obtaining informed consent;
ƒ describe the arrangements for protecting the confidentiality of personal data of
individuals concerned.
o
Use of other human biological samples
The applicant should:
ƒ specify and justify the type, amount and source of human biological samples to
be used;
ƒ describe the procedure for obtaining informed consent of the person(s) from
whom the material is obtained;
ƒ describe the arrangements for protecting the confidentiality of donors' personal
data.
The applicants should also clarify the handling and storage of the samples: duration
of the storage, access, ownership, and possible commercial exploitation.
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:
ƒ provide justification for such research in terms of the potential benefits of the
research in relation to the possible risks to persons;
ƒ indicate the number of persons involved and describe the selection criteria;
ƒ provide details of the arrangements made for providing information to persons
and for obtaining informed consent;
ƒ specify any payments, inducements or other benefits to be given to the
persons concerned;
ƒ describe the compensation and treatment available to subjects for trial-related
injuries.
For persons unable to give a valid consent, applicants should, in addition to the
above:
ƒ indicate the degree of risk and burden involved for the subject;
ƒ whether and how the persons might benefit from the procedures envisaged;
ƒ indicate why it is necessary to involve persons unable to give a valid consent;
ƒ describe what arrangements are made to seek the agreement of the person's
parent, guardian or other representative.
A copy of both the informed consent form and the subject information sheet
should be provided.
o
Protection of Personal Data.
Applicants should describe the procedure for obtaining informed consent of
persons and describe the procedures for protecting the confidentiality of such
personal data. Where data 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.