190 likes | 301 Views
International comparison of European NCP systems models, services and tools NCP Benchmarking Workshop Sarajevo, 25 March 2010 Klaus Schuch. Challenges ahead.
E N D
International comparison of European NCP systems models, services and tools NCP Benchmarking Workshop Sarajevo, 25 March 2010 Klaus Schuch
Challenges ahead • BiH is associated to FP; given the political reality a way out of FP association seems unlikely – thus, the issue remains on the agenda! • Financial pressure on BiH will probably increase (fee reduction?) • FP becomes more competitive (15% success rate) • FP oriented towards more excellence, joint programming (which puts pressure on national co-financing budgets), big challenges supposed to need large coordinated approaches to tackle them.
Contributions of a NCP System • NCPs can – maybe more than other distinctive single measures – support successful FP participation of Bosnian-Herzegovinian researchers (up to 20%?) • If NCPs are well embedded in the national ERA governance, than they can take-over intelligence services too (in division of labour with the ministry and government) • FP can be instrumentalized to enhance modernisation agenda in S&T • BUT: NCPs cannot solve structural problems!
BiH NCP-System at first glance • http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/get-support_en.html • Select a country; all NCP functions • The following results were detected: • BiH: 2 contacts (NCP coordinator and INCO NCP) • Albania: 17 contacts Bulgaria: 67 contacts • Croatia: 24 contacts Estonia: 24 contacts • Macedonia: 21 contacts Hungary: 29 contacts • Montenegro: 15 contacts Poland: 47 contacts • Serbia: 30 contacts Slovenia: 22 contacts
BiH NCP-System at first glance (2) • Last News on 1 January 2010 (checked yesterday) • No newsletter received since weeks • Partner search does not work from main site • Last announced workshops in 2008 • Last announced info-days in 2007 • but good webpage structure – potentially powerful tool
Bosnia-Herzegovina should not refrain from a NCP-system! More investment and steady funding is necessary! Clear governance structure, commitment, performance based resource allocation and a cross-cutting quality initiative are in demand! Networking at different European levels is needed!
NCP systems in Europe • France, Germany, UK, Greece, or Russia maintain NCPs in different host organisations – challenge for the NCP coordinator to ensure ongoing flow of information, dialogue and steering. At least, France and Germany maintain a joint web-portal as online entrance point. • Sweden, Austria, The Netherlands, Italy, Poland and Ukraine created central organisations resp. agencies. The NCP coordinator is often the director of the organisation or its respective department.
High diversity • Some countries seek organisation synergies between national funding programmes and NCP activities (e.g. VINNOVA, SENTER-NOVEM, FFG). • Others seek synergies between national RTD organisations and NCP activities and place them in leading national RTD organisations (e.g. Slovenia/JSI; France/CNRS, Russia/Khurtschakov Institute). • In some countries like Sweden, Austria, The Netherlands national funding for the central NCP organisation covers 100% of efforts; others like Italy are partly funded via contributions by members and competitively acquired resources. NCPs in Greece or France are publicly supported through their host organisations (e.g. universities).
Benchmarking of 8 NCP systems • Estonia • Hungary • Poland • Slovenia • Austria • Belgium • France • Macedonia
Size of NCP systems • Around 20 NCPs are covering the majority of FP sub-programmes (plus occasionally other initiatives) • In many countries NCPs are doing other jobs too • Most NCP systems have substantial number of additional support personnel (e.g. Poland, Austria)
Organisation of NCP systems • Some centralised NCP systems are complemented by regional (and thematic) contact points (e.g. Poland) • Private-non-profit status is exception; usually there is public background • In some organisationally decentralised systems a strong “headquarter” exists (e.g. MZ, SL); in others only weak coordination through government (BE, FR)
Budget and Financing • Budgets depend strongly on salary levels • Without salaries additional budget is limited • EU sources can be exceptionally substantial but not reliable • No service fees; NCP services are perceived as public task
National FP Co-funding • Proposal preparation funds are common but rules vary • Top-up for granted FP projects sometimes at regional level (structural funds)
QA • Benchmarking with other NCPs is important (peer reviews) • Twinning with experienced NCP in start-up phase recommended • Often supervisory or monitoring councils are in place • Reporting templates are a common feature (incl. statistics) • More emphasis should be directed on output indicators (FFG), but input indicators are more common • Regular competitive contracting increases competitiveness • QA best practices: TEKES, VINNOVA, FFG, DLR • Initiative proposed by FFG to start a joint QA activity for NCP systems
Success Criteria • Success rate in FP above EU average (EE); impact (hardly attributable) • Feedback questionnaires at promotion events (AT, EE) • Statistics on the use of websites, helpdesks, participants in information days etc. (BE) (input data) • 90% of consulted coordinators should submit project proposal (AT) (output data) • 60% of consulted project partners should submit project proposal (AT) (output data) • Success rate of consulted researchers by factor 2 (AT) (impact)
Relations with national ERA governance • NCPs and PC are usually closely related (often overlaps) • NCPs only occasionally in other strategic bodies (usually GOV NCPs) • Embedding of NCPs in national ERA net governance rather loose (need for coordination mechanism; need for national ERA governance) • … but NCPs can support national ERA governance (PL) in the country and positioning of the country vis-a-vis EC (SL)
The ideal NCP system? • Not in the government, but supervised by it • Selection process is decisive (working culture, service attitude and costumer-orientation) • Centralised; complemented by regional structures • Avoidance of conflict of interest (no research organisation based solution) • Dedicated budget and operational autonomy • Financial sustainability and high allocation from one source • FTE instead of multiple job descriptions • NCP nomination based on professional merits and not political influence • International visibility/accessibility must be secured
Klaus Schuch Zentrum for Soziale Innovation Linke Wienzeile 246 A - 1150 Vienna Tel. ++43.1.4950442-32 Fax. ++43.1.4950442-40 email: schuch@zsi.at http://www.zsi.at