120 likes | 284 Views
How we learned to participate in EU projects. „We”: the VLSI CAD group Institute of Microelectronics and Optoelectronics Warsaw University of Technology. Research and teaching: microelectronic design, development of EDA tools for integrated circuit design
E N D
How we learned to participate in EU projects „We”: the VLSI CAD group Institute of Microelectronics and Optoelectronics Warsaw University of Technology Research and teaching: microelectronic design, development of EDA tools for integrated circuit design Staff: approx. 15 acad. teachers and PhD students Leader: Prof. Wieslaw Kuzmicz wbk@imio.pw.edu.pl
Overview: 1993 - 2002 FP3 FP4 FP5 (and now: toward FP6) PECO COPERNICUS IST Participation in 7 proposals (one unsuccessful) Participation in 5 projects as one of the partners Coordination of one project (plus two educational TEMPUS projects - one coordinated) Total EU support received: ~ 400 k€ (+ 200 k€ from TEMPUS projects) Additional co-funding from Polish sources: ca. 80 kPLN
We were invited by the organiser of the network - a result of earlier contacts • Goal: networking, establishing links • Main result: basis for future cooperation and projects • What we learned: • Basics of EU financing mechanisms (very useful!) • Legal framework (very useful!) • Good partners and not-so-good partners (useful!) • How NOT to coordinate the project (extremely useful!) 1993 - 1995: EEMCN (PECO 7668)East European Microelectronic Cooperation Network
1994 - 1999: EUROEAST (CP9093) and SYTIC (CP96 0170)Support for development of state-of-the art microelectronic design research centers in CEE • EUROEAST: we were invited; SYTIC: we co-authored the proposal • Our main task: distribution of our IMiOCAD set of EDA tools • Main result: tools delivered to 40+ universities • What we learned: • „Politics” of EU support for microelectronics - why and what is supported (very useful!) • IPR protection problems in software distribution (useful!) • Legal limitations for software distribution (useful!) • Cultural factors (EU vs. CE vs. NIS) (useful!)
1996 - 1999: HARMONY (CP 94 0202) Application of hardware fuzzy logic processor to adaptive heart pacemakers - our first RTD project; a Polish SME involved • We were de factoproposers (but not coordinator) • Our main task: development of an analogue ultra low power fuzzy logic controller • Main results: one international patent, project listed as one of the most successful projects with CEE countries in FP4 • What we learned: • How to build a complementary consortium (very useful!) • How to manage a really challenging multidisciplinary international research project (extremely useful!) • More IPR protection problems (patent!) • How to get a Polish SME involved as project partner
1997 - 2000: VILAB (INCO977133) Creation of an Internet-based „virtual laboratory” • We were co-authors of the proposal • Our main task: development of a set of EDA tools available via Internet • Main results: „Virtual Prototyping” service for microelectronic industry developed and implemented • What we learned: • How to organise Internet-based cooperation • How to cooperate in a RTD project with many parallel subprojects and other activities • An important side effect of our activities: a guidebook explaining FP5, its policies and rules written; published by Ministry of Economy and available in Internet
1999: ADAGIO (IST-1999-10074) an unsuccessful proposalOur first RTD proposal addressed to IST Topic: application of fuzzy logic to implantable heart defibrillators We were the main co-authors of the proposal • Failed: below threshold in “Economic development and S&T prospects”. Comments: “No specific commitment of industrial exploitation, narrow niche opportunity” • What we learned: • Hard realities of industrial participation in a RTD project (useful!) • Differences between EU policy in INCO/Copernicus and in mainstream FP5 projects (very useful !)
2002 - 2004: REASON (IST-2000-30193)Research and Training Action for System on Chip Design • We were proposers and now we coordinate the project • Main task: knowledge exchange and knowledge sharing between partners from EU, EU candidate countries, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine; 22 contractors, more than 40 institutions directly involved • What we already learned: • Lobbying mechanisms (very useful!) • How to write a really good proposal (very useful!) • Contract preparation and negotiations (very useful!) • What we are still learning: • How to be a good coordinator
Additional experience:evaluation of IST proposals • Evaluation is a fair procedure with very precise formal rules • Very little room for lobbying • Understanding of EU policies and true meaning of evaluation criteria is a key for success What we learned:
Summary: main lessons learned (1) • Results of the project, not the financial support, is what really matters • Nothing can replace personal contacts • Always try to know and understand motivations of your partners • “Strong” partners are not always the best ones • Partners interested in getting the EC money only should be avoided
Summary: main lessons learned (2) • Understanding of the “philosophy” and policies behind programs and priorities is the key to successful proposals • Direct contacts with the EC are the best source of information • Financial rules and legal framework must be understood • Final remark: it pays to be active !