100 likes | 177 Views
Assessment of Expressions of Interest Attributed to Priority 3. NCP, 23rd October 2002. Data and statistical results. Data and statistical results. Of the 1670 EoIs received, 3 groups: 396 (24%) are cl early relevant for Priority 3; Demonstrate clear or potential breakthrough ;
E N D
Assessment of Expressions of Interest Attributed to Priority 3 NCP, 23rd October 2002
Data and statistical results Of the 1670 EoIs received, 3 groups: • 396 (24%)are clearly relevant for Priority 3; • Demonstrate clear or potential breakthrough; • Instrument is adequate and well understood • 882 EoIs (52.5%) are considered “not mature” • The final group of 392 EoIs (23.5%) contains proposals which were not relevant for Priority 3 (out of scope) or EoI exercise was not understood
Data and statistical results The 396 relevant EoIs (24%) may be considered “mature and promising”, but... • Weak participation of Industry (11 %) as co-ordinator • The number of IP is almost the same as NoE (51 % IP, 49 % NoE) • As far the country of origin of the EoIs, Germany scored the highest value (20%), followed by UK (15%), France (13%), Italy (8%), Spain (7%), …, Poland (3%). • SME participation (mentioned in EoIs): 51% • INCO participation (mentioned in EoIs): 27%
General comments on statistical results • There is a high level of dispersion among research topics • The opportunities of the new IP and NoE instruments were not well exploited, especially: • the integrating aspect of IP (SME technology transfer, Spin-off, benchmarking, risk analysis, policy awareness, market studies…) • the structuring necessity of NoE (lasting integration of researchers for joint research programs…) • Only 1/4 of EoIs refer to overall costs. The average costs are: 25 M€ for IP (range from 8 to 80 M€); 34 M€ for NoE (range from 15 to 60 M€)
Qualitative approach • All research topics should address the following: • knowledge-based economy (competitiveness) • sustainable development • stimulating of paradigm shift • We can use the criteria of Policy awareness (Societal/Economic needs) in order to regroup research topics. • In this case, 6 families of strategic topics can be found: • Health • Security, safety, quality of Life • New concepts of production: factory of the future. • Sustainable development • Nano-science/technology and new materials might be considered as generic technology areas.
Societal/Economic needs Societal Clustering Competitiveness Eco-Design / sustainable processes Towards Nano-world Safety / Security Quality of life Factory of the future Health Enabling Material Technology Structuring ERA
Large response, good coverage of research topics Fragmentation of research topics Lack of industry leadership Long-term and breakthrough research quite well understood (for IPs) Objectives for “lasting integration” in NoEs often lacking Conclusions (I)
Conclusions (II) • Technical (“vertical”) integration well covered, but issues on standardisation, environmental impact, science-society often lacking • Co-ordination with other funding sources appears not to have been taken up by proposers yet • Societal problems and gender issues are very rarely addressed • Need to better target research objectives: the “societal approach” seems a good way to focus on strategic R & D topics