“FP6 Networks of excellence”

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