How innovation systems can better address participation to ... · schemes(less bureaucracy, less...

MIRRIS Webinar 22nd October 2015

How innovation systems can better

address participation to the

ERA

October 22, 2015

MIRRIS Webinar


1 MIRRIS 2 Main findings and barriers

3 Common challenges 4 Roadmaps

5 Conclusions


Support action aiming at: 1) Profiling R&I performance in ERA and

Framework Programmes of New Member States;

2) Proposing actionable solutions to improve performances and participation to H2020.

MIRRIS is funded under FP7 SSH and is implemented by a consortium of 11 leading organizations under the coordination of

META Group.

More at www.mirris.eu

updated Reports on EU13 participation to ERA

http://www.mirris.eu/


1st Policy Dialogue:

GAP

analysis of the

participation of the countries

in EU research programmes

2st Policy Dialogue:

Identify and select

most appropriate intervention

schemes

Collection of

experiences

be used

in the next step

3rd Policy Dialogue

Aim: To translate the portfolio

and the SWOT into a Roadmap

for intervention

A portfolio of

tailored actions

for prioritization

Road Map for

mobilising reforms


Pre-Preparation

TIMING: 1- 2 years before the bi-annual working Plan is out

till 6 months before the deadline

Pre-call intelligence:

Access to prior information;

Meeting with key national stakeholders.

Awareness raising:

Call screening;

Checking requirements;

Participation to info-days;

Exchange of targeted info.

Application readiness:

• Checking requirements;

• Accessing potential partners; • Discussion with potential partners;

Project conceptualization;

• Positioning in the consortium and definition of roles;

• Check the concept note.

Project preparation

TIMING: 6 months before the deadline

Project coordinator

Finalizing partnership;

Update of the concept note;

Check of the concept note with relevant contacts.

Project Partner

To identify USP and profile the organization;

To search consortia for potential partnership;

Contact potential partners.

Proposal drafting

Internal Resources

External experts

Finalization of the DoW

Pre-Preparation

TIMING: 1- 2 years before the bi-annual working Plan is out

till 6 months before the deadline

Priority and strategy setting

Meeting with stakeholders at country level;

Setting strategies and agree on priorities;

Define a road map.

Pre-call intelligence:

Participation to working group committees;

Meeting with the EU Officers.

Organization of info-days:

• EU networks engagement;

• Diffusion of target information;

• Organization of workshops;

• Meeting with key stakeholders.

Application readiness:

• .Provision of check ups about requirements;

• Support on definition of concept notes;

• Support for partnerships’ profiling

Project preparation

TIMING: 6 months before the deadline

Project coordinator

Matchmaking with partnerships

Support in drafting proposals;

Grant for proposals development;

Legal advice.

Project Partner

Support on managing administrative;

Support in engaging consortia;

Partner information check up and input requesting.

Participation value chains


The devil is in the detail

Coaching to a specific actor on one intervention from the priority list.

The format is based on a 2 days peer to peer mutual learning activity.

To close the circle, MIRRIS will provide the selected organisation with one of the key people involved in the implementation of the intervention.

Action oriented


Main findings from dialogues


FP7: EU 13 & EU 15

Whatever criteria taken into consideration, EU12 (and Croatia) Member States are less performing than

EU15

&

huge disparities between EU12 (and Croatia) Member States


Benchmark of EU 13 and EU 28


Barriers personal level

organisational level structural level


PERSONAL/MOTIVATIONAL

Low Economic reward/wages/incentives of researchers;

Lack of attractiveness of FP7 funding in comparison to ERDF funding and/or, when available, to other national or bilateral schemes(less bureaucracy, less selection criteria, no or less international dimension);

No willingness in taking responsibility of administrative management (lack of time, little or no access to a project office support), project leadership.


ORGANIZATIONAL

Weak involvement in European networks which very often play a role

in generating ideas for projects and facilitating partnerships;

Difficulty to join (and remain) existing EU15 excellence consortia;

Difficulty to maximize information and experience to influence and address the participation to the working committees;

No sectorial focus/strategy to support FP7 stakeholders;

Lack of cooperation between ministries.

No leverage on diaspora and on successful applicants to coach the other potential participant;


STRUCTURAL Geographical disadvantages (far away from Brussels);

Limited national R&D budget, and in many countries in particular the private investment in R&D;

Uncertainty of national funding mechanism of Uuniversity and National Research Centres;

Lack of “systemic” support to applicants; Limited resources to NCP (often voluntary ); Weak capacity of drafting proposals; (cost of paying a consultant is often prohibitive);

Brain drain (less excellent researchers in EU13 than in EU15 due to diaspora) and weak presence of foreign researchers (key to mobilise partnerships).


1. «we cannot do anything because we have no money!»

2. «you tell us solutions»

3. “we need updated figures”

COMMON HEADLINES


WHAT IS BEHIND THESE ARGUMENTS?


FP7 Projects are seen just as an opportunity to increase salaries

(tactical, shorterm);

The strategic elements (international visibility, access to knowledge, better positioning in the scientific community, income from R&D results exploitation etc…) are not considered at all both by researchers and organizations;

The quest for excellence is not taken into consideration. ERA is not seen as an opportunity for the best actors in the country to remain competitive or improve their profile at international level (and attract more funding, including private ones);

“Information driven” and “unidirectional” type of support lack of marketing of excellence abroad.

WHAT IS BEHIND THESE ARGUMENTS (1/2)?


No proactive, systemic approach to exploit opportunity before the call is out (most activities can be done at zero cost);

No strategic approach to tackle the challenge of the global dimension of R&D.

Attractiveness (talent circulation) is a complex matter that goes beyond participation to EU Research programmes or level of salary.

WHAT IS BEHIND THESE ARGUMENTS (2/2)?


Challenges &

Roadmaps


COMMON CHALLENGES

1. Understanding benefits for participation to FP7/H2020

2. ESIF/H2020 Synergy

3. Research Excellence Promotion

4. Brain drain

5. Mobility of reserchers, talent circulation

6. Skilled human capacity

7. Evaluation system

8. Involvement of private sector in ERA

9. Innovation drive and market oriented research


Prioritised CHALLENGES

Poland 1. Brain drain

2. Understanding of added value

for participation to FP7/H2020

3. Polish Research Excellence

Promotion

4. Involvement of the private

sector into ERA

5. An effective evaluation system

6. Openness to the international

dimension

7. Market oriented approach of

RTD community

8. ESIF/H2020 Synergy

Cyprus

1. Market oriented approach of RTD

2. Promotion of the Cypriot research

excellence, visibility and the

recognition; openness to the

international dimension

3. Involvement of the private sector

into the ERA

4. An effective evaluation system

5. Brain drain

MALTA

1. Brain drain of doc and post-doc;

2. To leverage funding from ESIF;

3. Skills of research managers to

support the research and innovation

process;

4. Innovation process in the Research

organisations (ROs)


Roadmaps


• How to leverage on brain drain Challenge

• Engagement of diaspora making Poland attractive for researchers. Country priority

• Events abroad targeting Polish diaspora community to showcase excellence of the Polish research;

• Grants for inviting diaspora members in the country;

• Incentives for attracting foreign researchers to the country, with a proven track record of successful applications and awarded projects.

Actions

• Ministry of Science and Higher Education;

• Ministry of Economy,

• Ministry of Labour and Social Policy;

• The National Centre for Research and Development.

Implementing body/bodies

• Use ESIF (TO1) to finance proposed measures Current policy trends

• 2014-2020 Timing

• Number of diaspora member engaged;

• Number of new partnerships established and mobilised;

• Number of H2020 projects awarded in cooperation with the newly established international partners.

KPIs


• Understanding of added value for participation to FP7/H2020

Challenge

• Remuneration of Polish researchers Country priority

• Communication to promote added value of participation in EU programmes, (Successful scientists as a role models to the newcomers and as coaches);

• Establishment of a reward scheme for researchers that participate to EU programmes (different incentive scheme for those that were successfully awarded by EC and those that have passed the threshold but were not awarded in the final selection);

• Incentives for Proof of Concept and use of R&D results.

Actions

• Ministry of Science and Higher Education

• The Polish Academy of Science


• Supporting measures implemented by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Grants for Grants scheme)

• Pact for Horizon 2020

Current policy trends

• 2014-2020 Timing

• Increase number of Polish coordinators in H2020;

• Increase of Polish shares of ERC applications.

KPIs


• Promotion of the Polish research excellence

Challenge

• Strengthening of presence in Brussels with a dedicated Unit to promote excellence and support participation.

Country priority

• Establishment of cooperation within the existing offices in Brussels to act as bridgeheads between Poland and Brussels to access pre-information, engage partners; access networks etc.;

• Creation of the “National Agency for Promotion of the Polish Research”;

• Launch of the national research competitions with an international outreach.

Actions


• The National Centre for Research and Development (NCBiR)

• The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy

• The Community Support Framework Managing Authority

• Polish Science Contact Agency "PolSCA" of the Polish Academy of Sciences


• Pact for Horizon 2020

Current policy trends

• 2014-2020

Timing

• Number of organisation signing Memorandum of Understanding (MoU);

• Number of projects promoted and fostered through the Brussels office;

• Number of the new Polish actors into European programmes;

• Number of Polish organisations joining international research networks and associations.

KPIs


Description of the challenge

• Involvement of the private sector into the ERA.

Link to 3rd MIRRIS Policy dialogue outcomes

• Participation of Polish industry and, in general, involvement of the private sector

Proposed actions • Launch of incentives and rewards for researchers aiming at exploitation of their project results;

• Tax incentives for SME’s participating into the ERA.

Proposed implementing

institutions


• NCBiR

KPI’s to be used when monitoring implementation

• Number of industrial research managers engaged into the proposal preparation with the

academia;

• Number of new projects awarded through SME-Academia cooperation.

Policy trends • Bridge programmes implemented by NCBiR

• “Grants for Grants” scheme implemented by PARP

Challenge 4: Involvement of the private sector into the ERA



• Better reward impact and participation to the ERA and H2020.


• Poland is still non- adequately represented in the expert groups or as evaluators.

Proposed actions • Implementation of indicators for allocation of the funds to Research Organisations on basis of the set of indicators including participation to the ERA being one of the variables;

• Implementation of the measures for further building of capacities/competencies for comprehensive RTDI evaluations.


institutions

• Ministry of Science and Higher Education; • Polish Science Contact Agency "PolSCA" of the Polish Academy of Sciences.


• Increase of the international outreach (number of publications, mobility schemes, awarded projects);

• Amount of funding allocated to the research organisations pursuant to their participation to the ERA and H2020;

• Number of evaluators trained; • Increase number of the awarded projects.

Policy trends • To be established

Challenge 5: Effective evaluation system



• Foster mobility of researchers and international partnership.


• Voucher for any kind of assistance, including mobility schemes and networking.

Proposed actions • Grants for mobility actions to further investigate application of R&D results (the mobility scheme shall cover the costs of activities in a third country within or outside the region, fellowships);

• Vouchers for participation in the conferences abroad, presentation of the scientific papers published in the international journals and/or to showcase prototypes at international fairs (vouchers shall cover the costs related to registration at the events and fairs, travel and other);

• Mobility scheme for international mobility of local researchers and attraction of foreign researchers into the country.


institutions

• Ministry of Science and Higher Education • Ministry of Labour and Social Policy


• Number of grants issued to use R&D and testing infrastructures abroad; • Number of the new foreign researchers engaged.

Policy trends • Scheme measures implemented by PARP, NCBiR

Challenge 6: Openness to the international dimension



• Develop a market oriented innovation drive.


• Exploitation and commercialization of Polish research projects. • The participation of Polish industry and in general, involvement of the private sector (train the

trainer scheme was highlighted as needed). •

Proposed actions • Launch of the business plan competition;

• Launch of incentives and reward measures for fostering the commercialization of projects and

market outreach;

• Launch of measures for simplification of the legal framework and benefits of IPR with regards to

the royalties and ownership.


institutions


• NCBiR

• PARP


• Number of licences appointed (downstream TO1);

• Number of new projects awarded;

• Number of commercialised project with an international market outreach.

Policy trends • Bridge programmes implemented by NCBiR • Use ESIF as a funding source for the proposed measures

Challenge 7: Market oriented approach of RTD community



• Competition between the two funds and boost linkages;


• Synergies between the ESIF and H2020.

Proposed actions • Finalisation of measures within Thematic Objective One in cohesion policy (TO1) in an

upstream (stairway to excellence), and/or downstream Proof of Concept (PoC) logic;

• Monitoring and updating RIS3 to better address creation of synergies with central managed

programmes (draft the action plan for further support measures to foster participation to EU

programmes, based on the lessons learnt from the past).


institutions

• The Community Support Framework Managing Authority


• Ministry of Labour and Social Policy


• Amount of ESIF funds earmarked within the synergistic tool (% of the total budget of ESIF TO1);

• Amounts of funds with ESIF with an aim to improve participation in H2020 (% of the total budget of ESIF TO1).

Policy trends Use ESIF as a funding source for the proposed measures

Challenge 8: Synergies between the ESIF and H2020


To be kept in mind

Aim high (at the international level) and market the excellence of

the EU13 centres and research teams to EU15 consortia leaders;

Establish a rewarding system for researchers or teams winning (not participating) H2020 Grants (down-stream synergies, grant for the use of R&D results);

Involve successful teams and the diaspora as "role models" for first time applicants;

Make a better use of the “Country” presence in Brussels;

Incentivise the establishment of "project offices" in universities and research centres;

Better coordination (between NCPs and EEN) for going beyond information and marketing excellence abroad;

MIRRIS Webinar 22 October 2015

Leverage on previous ERDF investment in R&D infrastructure as

flagships for marketing the capacity to be involved in H2020 projects as staircase to excellence;

Use the opportunities opened up by RIS3 (ex-ante conditionality for TO1)to tackle the challenge of synergies to exploit excellence and international dimension;

Use Article 70 of the common provision regulation in order to build long-term partnerships (Article 70(2) stipulates the possibility to allocate resources to operations located outside the programme area).


For more info:

www.mirris.eu

[email protected]


Background slides


MIRRIS – WHERE WE ARE

More than 350 stakeholders mobilised so far;

3rd cycle of dialogues started with Poland on June 25th and will end in December 2015;

Increasing interest of the European Commission in MIRRIS;

Cooperation with JRC on Stairway to Excellence Pilot Project;

Presented at several national events across EU 13;

More at www.mirris.eu with updated Reports on EU13 participation to ERA

http://www.mirris.eu/


WHAT FIGURES DON’T TELL US?

1. What is the influence of structural factors?

- quality of excellence in R&D

- effectiveness of support ecosystem

- availability of national budget

- preference for ERDF funding - talent to transform an idea into a proposal

2. What influence have subjective factors?

- visibility of the R&D eco-system

- readiness of stakeholders

- willingness for networking- expectations of researchers/organizations

- Strategic attitude

3. What influence have objective factors?

- date of full membership to the EU

- size of population

- number of qualified researchers and middle management staff

- relevance of the services provided by intermediary organisations (NCP, ...)


Support often intended as “Processing information”

Differences in performances are often related to different strategic vision (Tactical v/s strategic attitude “egg” v/s “ chicken”)

H2020 v/s ESIF 2014-2020 competition between instruments rather than co-operation

Perceived effectiveness of support and lack of proactive attitude

Attitude of working in silos v/s capitalizing on “collective intelligence” and understanding of the value chain

local v/s global, focus on national dimension rather than openness to internationalization;

TAKE AWAYS

How innovation systems can better address participation to ... · schemes(less bureaucracy, less...

Documents

Transcript of How innovation systems can better address participation to ... · schemes(less bureaucracy, less...