1 / 24

“FP6 Networks of excellence”

“FP6 Networks of excellence”. An instrument for tackling the fragmentation of European research (as of October 2002) europa.eu.int/comm/research/nfp/networks-ip.html. Objectives. Designed to strengthen Europe’s excellence on a particular research topic

kristy
Download Presentation

“FP6 Networks of excellence”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. “FP6 Networks of excellence” An instrument for tackling the fragmentation of European research (as of October 2002)europa.eu.int/comm/research/nfp/networks-ip.html

  2. Objectives • Designed to strengthen Europe’s excellence on a particular research topic • by integrating the critical mass of expertise needed to provide European leadership and be a world force • around a joint programme of activities • An instrument for tackling thefragmentation of European research • where the main deliverable is a durable structuring and shaping of how research is carried out in Europe • Each NoE has a mission to spread excellence beyond its partners

  3. The joint programme of activities (1) • A range of “new or re-oriented” activities • integrating activities • coordinated programming of the partners’ activities • sharing of research platforms/tools/facilities • joint management of the knowledge portfolio • staff mobility and exchanges • relocation of staff, teams and equipment • reinforced electronic communication systems

  4. The joint programme of activities(2) • joint research activities : a programme of joint research to support the network’s goals • development of new research tools and platforms for common use • generating new knowledge to fill gaps in or to extend the collective knowledge portfolio

  5. The joint programme of activity(3) • Activities to spread excellence • training researchers and other key staff • dissemination and communication activities • networking activities to help transfer knowledge to teams external to the network • where appropriate, promoting the exploitation of the results generated within the network • where appropriate, innovation-related activities: protection of knowledge generated, assessment of the socio-economic impact of the knowledge and technologies generated, developing a plan for use and dissemination of the knowledge, take-up activities (especially for SMEs)

  6. The joint programme of activity(4) • Network management: • overall coordination of the joint activities • communication with the Commission, reporting • activities linked to consortium-level financing and accounting management and legal issues • coordination of the knowledge management activities, and where appropriate, other innovation-related activities • promotion of gender equality • science and society issues related to the topics of the network • supporting the governing board and other network bodies All activities within a unified management structure

  7. Critical mass • Expertise: assembling of the critical mass needed to achieve the ambitious goals of the network • variable from topic to topic • larger networks may involve several hundreds of researchers • but may be smaller, provided the necessary ambition and critical mass are achieved • Partnership: in general at least six (legal minimum: 3 from 3 different countries) • Duration of Community support:typically 5 years • more if necessary to create durable integration BUT no more than 7 years

  8. Financial regime (1) • Community support targeted at overcoming the barriers to a durable integration • these barriers are mainly organisational, cultural and human  cannot be quantified in normal accounting terms • Has led to the concept of an incentive, taking the form of a global “fixed grant for integration”

  9. Financial regime (2) • A fixed grant for integration acting as an incentive, calculated on basis • of the degree of integration • of the total number of researchers • that make up the research capacities of the partners on the topic of the network • where a researcher has a PhD or at least four years research experience • with a bonus for registered doctoral students • of the characteristics of the field of research • of the joint programme of activities

  10. Financial regime (3) • The average annual grant to a network could vary with the number of researchers as follows: • In this illustration, a network of 200 researchers supported over 5 years would therefore receive a fixed grant of €17.5 million (plus bonus for registered doctoral students)

  11. Payments regime • Annual payments of the grant will be paid on the basis of results • i.e. will depend on a progressive advance towards a durable integration • with an additional check that costs of at least the value of the grant were incurred in implementing the joint programme of activity

  12. Evaluation process (1) • Calls for proposals normally preceded by expressions of interest • Simplified proposal-making • reflecting evolutionary nature of the network • Evaluation by a strengthened peer review system • in stages, possibly involving individual reviews, panel sessions, hearings of applicants...

  13. Evaluation process (2) • Key issues to be addressed during evaluation • potential impact on strengthening Europe’s excellence • collective excellence of the network’s members • extent, depth and lasting nature of the integration • contribution to spreading excellence • management and governance of the network

  14. Measuring integration • In the proposal, participants will include possible qualitative and quantitative indicators for measuring progress towards integration • The main factors to be examined: • extent of mutual specialisation and mutual complementarity • sharing and development for common use of research infrastructure, equipment, tools and platforms • regular joint execution of research projects • interactive working through electronic communication systems • joint management of the knowledge portfolio • joint training programme (researchers-other key staff) • coherent management framework

  15. Initial contract and advance payment (1) • The contract will specify the maximum Community contribution, but not its distribution among participants • consortium autonomy • elimination of major source of micro-management • An annex contains • overall description of the network • detailed joint programme of activity only for first 18 months • Advance payment: equal to 85% of the Community contribution anticipated for the first 18 months

  16. Initial contract and advance payment (2) • Simplified signature procedure • faster entry into force • The consortium designates a ‘coordinator’ • liaison with Commission, • receives and distributes the grant • Consortium agreement is a prerequisite

  17. Reporting and payments schedule • The consortium will submit to the Commission for its approval an annual report containing: • an outline of previous 12 months’ activities • financial documents on the costs incurred in implementing the JPA (including cost certificates and management-level justification) • a detailed joint programme of activities for the following 18 months • Upon acceptance of above, the outstanding advance will be supplemented up to 85% of the anticipated Community contribution for following 18 months

  18. Governance and monitoring (1) • A network’s governance must ensure institutional engagement by the partner organisations • through e.g. a “governing board” of senior representatives from the partners • to oversee integration of the partners’ activities

  19. Governance and monitoring (2) • Robust output monitoring by the Commission, involving external experts at all stages • annual reviews • basis for payment by results • triggering a yellow flag/red flag, if a review is failed • end-of-term review • to assess impact of network on strengthening and spreading excellence

  20. Flexibility and autonomy of implementation • For the joint programme of activities, each year, the network • proposes a detailed JPA for the coming 18 months • and may propose to update the overall JPA • both need approval of the Commission to enter into force • For the allocation of the Community grant • the partnership will have freedom to distribute it between partners and activities • For changes in the network partnership • the partnership may itself decide to take in new partners (without additional funding) • the Commission may decide to launch calls to add partners (with additional funding)

  21. Elements to be particularly looked at (1) • Demonstrated need for structuring • description of fragmentation in the topic • existence of excellent capacities in Europe in the topic  a network of excellence could constitute an answer to the fragmentation problem identified

  22. Elements to be particularly looked at (2) • Features of the network planned • composition of the partnership: presence of key excellent actors • potential synergies/complementarity/specialisation among the members • quality /degree of integration proposed

  23. Elements to be particularly looked at (3) • Viability of the network beyond the period • awareness of high-decision level representatives of the participating organisations : strong commitment • security regarding network’s funding, particularly beyond the period

  24. More information • Regularly updated website on the instruments europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html • brochures and leaflets on the new instruments: available at Heysel conference and on Europa as above • Presentation slides: on Europa as above • Networks of excellence: colette.renier@cec.eu.int

More Related