ex-post evaluation of fp6 nmp at project level
Post on 08-Dec-2016
224 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Ex Post Evaluation of FP6 (NMP)Project Level
Research &Innovation
Industrial technologies
E U R O P E A NCOMMISSION
EUR 24935 ENStudies and reports
Research &Innovation
Industrial technologies
E U R O P E A NCOMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Research and InnovationDirectorate G - Industrial TechnologiesUnit G.1 - Horizontal Aspects
Contact: Jesús Alquézar Sabadie
European CommissionOffice CDMA 06/112B-1049 Brussels
Tel. (32-2) 29-51167Fax (32-2) 29-67023
E-mail: Jesus-Maria.Alquezar-Sabadie@ec.europa.eu
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Ex Post Evaluation of FP6 (NMP)
Project Level
2011 EUR 24935 ENDirectorate-General for Research and Innovation
Cooperation/ Industrial Technologies
Authors:Inno AG and Atlantis Research S.A.
Edited bythe European Commission
Directorate-General for Research and InnovationDirectorate Industrial Technologies
EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers
or these calls may be billed
LEGAL NOTICE:
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.
The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011
ISBN 978-92-79-21152-2doi 10.2777/74830
© European Union, 2011Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Pictures © Fotolia, 2011 (unless otherwise specified)
EX-POST EVALUATION OF FP6-NMP
LOT 1: PROJECT LEVEL
Study N°2008/S 209-277161
Final report – June 2011
This report constitutes the ex-post evaluation of FP6-NMP, conducted at
project level from June 2009 to June 2011. On the basis of the outputs and
outcomes of the funded projects, it evaluates the effectiveness of the
thematic area "Nano-technologies and nano-sciences, knowledge based
multifunctional materials, and new production processes and devices"
within the specific programme for research, technological development
and demonstration "Integrating and strengthening the European
Research Area (2002-2006)"
DISCLAIMER
The opinions expressed in this
document represent the
authors’ points of view which
are not necessarily shared by
the European Commission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This analysis is commissioned by the European Commission, Directorate General for research
and Innovation and carried out by inno AG and Atlantis Research, with the support of their
subcontractor PNO. The team is led by Dr Franck Le Gall (inno group) with the assistance of Ms
Foteini Psarra (Atlantis Research S.A.).
The analysis has been managed by unit G1 (Industrial technologies - Horizontal aspects).
Contact person are Mr Michel POIREAU and Mr Jesus ALQUEZAR-SABADIE.
inno AG and Atlantis Research would like to express their appreciation to all of the people,
experts, and organisations that have participated in the study during the various meetings,
surveys and interviews. Without those contributions, the findings of the study would not have
been as complete as they are.
Special thanks are addressed to the Expert Advisory Board created for the study: Dr Peter M.
Nagy, Prof. Benoit Gailly, Dr. David Zaruk, Ms. Neelina Hermina (Ineke) Malsch, Mr. Ken Guy,
Mrs Effie Amanatidou, Dr Marco Falzetti, Dr Jean-Claude Charbonnier, Dr Markus Dickerhof
and Prof. Andreas Gerdes.
FOREWORD
Europe’s sustainable competitiveness and thus its welfare depend on the intensity,
effectiveness and efficiency of its innovation processes. Innovation demands strategic
investment. Investors in general and investors of tax payers’ money in particular need to
ensure that they invest into the most relevant fields and ensure that the return on investment
is maximised. Evaluations are highly instrumental to serving this responsibility.
Consequently, DG Research and Innovation mandated inno group and Atlantis Research to
evaluate the FP6-NMP Programme and to prepare a sound basis for proposing alterations,
adjustments and new mechanisms for the design and elaboration of the FP7 NMP successor.
This report documents the findings from an Ex-post evaluation of the FP6 NMP programme
focussing on the impact generated at the micro-project level. The FP6 NMP Programme has
proven to be a powerful tool to stimulate and enable novel RTD activities that would not have
been performed otherwise at all or only substantially later and less comprehensively. In
parallel to this study, a second evaluation was performed at the macro-strategic level [8].
The main strength of the NMP programme has been its unique capability to bring together the
best European, and in many cases also international, research groups jointly generating
innovation success concretised in many cases by direct commercial returns. The NMP
programme has promoted excellence in industrial technologies research and value generation
throughout all industrial sectors, including nanosciences and nanotechnologies, materials and
new production technologies.
On behalf of the full evaluation team, we want to express our gratitude to the more than three
thousand representatives from business, research and policy areas who spent substantial time
in sharing their experiences and views in personal discussions and in writing with us. We
warmly thank the ten leading experts in NMP areas as well as the specialists in evaluation and
impact assessment of research policy who formed our Expert Advisory Board. We are grateful
to the team of DG Research and Innovation which entrusted us with the mandate of the
evaluation, provided highly valuable input to the study and ensured access to crucial
information.
We hope that this report may inspire and be beneficial in decision processes to boost Europe’s
innovation success and wish you an enjoyable reading.
Peter Heydebreck
Managing Director, inno group
Angelos Manglis
Managing Director, Atlantis
Research
9
CONTENTS
List of figures ................................................................................................................................................................. 13
Part A - Executive summary ............................................................................................................................... 17
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 19
2 characteristics of participating organisations and projects .............................................................. 20
3 motivation for participation and outputs, outcomes and results achieved ................................ 21
4 impacts and achievements of the FP6 NMP Programme ................................................................... 22
5 Programme implementation and monitoring ......................................................................................... 23
6 Recommendations for policy and programme management ........................................................... 24
6.1 Recommendations at NMP Policy Level ............................................................................................. 24
6.2 Recommendations at Projects Selection and Implementation Level ..................................... 25
Part B - Detailed report ......................................................................................................................................... 27
1 The NMP Environment In FP6 ....................................................................................................................... 29
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 29
1.2 FP6 NMP Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 31
1.2.1 FP6 NMP Objectives hierarchy .................................................................................................... 31
1.2.2 NMP and international cooperation .......................................................................................... 34
1.2.3 NMP and SMEs .................................................................................................................................... 35
1.2.4 European Technology Platforms ................................................................................................ 35
1.3 FP6 NMP implementation context ........................................................................................................ 36
1.3.1 Instruments ......................................................................................................................................... 36
1.3.2 FP6 NMP Calls ..................................................................................................................................... 37
1.4 Evaluation Issues ......................................................................................................................................... 38
1.5 Objectives of the study ............................................................................................................................... 39
2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................... 40
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 40
2.2 Evaluation Framework .............................................................................................................................. 41
2.3 Data Sources................................................................................................................................................... 41
2.3.1 EC Database ......................................................................................................................................... 41
2.3.2 NMP FP6 Participants survey ....................................................................................................... 41
2.3.3 Online Survey for the non-selected applicant proposals .................................................. 44
2.3.4 Selection of Case Studies ................................................................................................................ 44
10
2.3.5 Additional Sources............................................................................................................................. 45
2.4 Statistical Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 45
2.4.1 Preparation of databases ................................................................................................................ 45
2.4.2 First level analysis ............................................................................................................................. 45
2.4.3 Second level analysis ........................................................................................................................ 46
2.4.4 Selection of criteria and indicators ............................................................................................. 46
2.5 Limitations of the study ............................................................................................................................. 47
2.5.1 Attribution ............................................................................................................................................ 47
2.5.2 Subjectivity of results ....................................................................................................................... 47
2.5.3 Modelling limitations ....................................................................................................................... 47
2.5.4 Classification of institutions .......................................................................................................... 48
3 FP6 NMP Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 49
3.1 Overall participation to FP6 NMP .......................................................................................................... 49
3.1.1 Time to contract ................................................................................................................................. 49
3.1.2 Overview of participating organisations .................................................................................. 50
3.1.3 Geographical coverage ..................................................................................................................... 57
3.2 Project overview ........................................................................................................................................... 63
4 Motivation and Outputs .................................................................................................................................... 65
4.1 The FP6 NMP Project Portfolio ............................................................................................................... 65
4.2 Assessment of NMP Participant Motivation ...................................................................................... 72
4.2.1 Industrial organisation perspective ........................................................................................... 76
4.2.2 SME and Large Enterprise perspective ..................................................................................... 77
4.2.3 Higher education and research institute perspective ......................................................... 79
4.3 Assessment of Achieved Outputs, Outcomes and Results ........................................................... 82
4.3.1 Scientific and Technological Outputs......................................................................................... 82
4.3.2 Commercial Return on Investment ............................................................................................ 83
4.3.3 Assessment of Dissemination & Communication Channels ............................................. 85
4.3.4 Strengths and weaknesses of FP6 NMP .................................................................................... 89
5.1 Costs vs. Achievements .............................................................................................................................. 91
5.2 European Additionality .............................................................................................................................. 93
5.3 Impacts on RTD Capabilities .................................................................................................................... 95
5.3.1 Impacts on the Participating RTD Teams ................................................................................ 95
5.3.2 Impacts on the Participating Organisations ........................................................................... 97
5.4 Impacts in the Social Sphere and the Broader Environment ..................................................... 98
5.5 Impacts on the European Research Area......................................................................................... 102
11
5.6 Transience of Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 104
5.7 Success Factors and Obstacles.............................................................................................................. 107
6 Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................................................... 111
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 111
6.2 Conclusions on the appropriateness of the project mix ............................................................ 112
6.3 Conclusions on outputs, outcomes and results achieved .......................................................... 113
6.4 Conclusions on the efficacy of implementation and monitoring procedures ................... 114
6.5 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 119
6.5.1 Recommendations at NMP Policy level .................................................................................. 119
6.5.2 Recommendations at the implementation level ................................................................. 123
7 References ............................................................................................................................................................ 127
Part C - Annexes..................................................................................................................................................... 129
Annex I - Criteria and indicators ......................................................................................................................... 131
Annex II - FP6 NMP Calls ........................................................................................................................................ 140
Annex III - Projects analysed as case studies ................................................................................................. 142
Annex IV - Case study template ........................................................................................................................... 150
Annex V - Survey aggregated level analysis .................................................................................................... 153
V.1 - General Info ............................................................................................................................................. 153
V.2 - Your Experience with Project .......................................................................................................... 158
V.3 - Projects Outputs .................................................................................................................................... 161
V.4 - Project Goals and Added Value ....................................................................................................... 166
V.5 - Project Impacts ...................................................................................................................................... 169
V.6 - Commercialization of Results .......................................................................................................... 174
V.7 - Additionality ........................................................................................................................................... 175
V.8 - Success Factors and Obstacles ........................................................................................................ 179
Annex VI - Survey: industry level analysis ...................................................................................................... 184
VI.1 - General Information ............................................................................................................................ 184
VI.2 - Your Experience with Project .......................................................................................................... 193
VI.3 - Projects Outputs .................................................................................................................................... 200
VI.4 - Project Impacts ...................................................................................................................................... 219
VI.5 - Commercialization of Results .......................................................................................................... 232
VI.6 - Additionality ........................................................................................................................................... 234
VI.7 - Success Factors and Obstacles ........................................................................................................ 243
Annex VII - Detailed analysis of project outputs........................................................................................... 254
VII.1 - Organisation type= Higher education (HE) .......................................................................... 254
12
VII.2 - Organisation type= Research (RES) ........................................................................................ 254
VII.3 - Organisation type= Industry (IND) ......................................................................................... 255
VII.4 - Organisation type= Large enterprises (LE) ......................................................................... 255
VII.5 - Organisation type= SMEs (SME) ............................................................................................... 255
Annex VIII - Survey factorial analysis ............................................................................................................... 257
VIII.1 - Results of factorial analysis of impacts on participant organisations ....................... 261
VIII.2 - Results of factorial analysis of impacts on the broader environment ...................... 265
VIII.3 - Results of factorial analysis of impacts on success factors and obstacles ............... 271
13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Budget growth of the Framework Programmes. ........................................................................ 29
Figure 2: EU research: evolution of funded thematic areas over Framework Programmes [6]. 30
Figure 3: Structure of FP6-NMP Programme ................................................................................................... 34
Figure 4: Repartition of allocated EC contribution over FP6 NMP pillars (Source: EC database)
............................................................................................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 5: Repartition of funded projects over instruments and pillars (Source: EC database) .. 38
Figure 6: Comparison of country representation in EC database and survey population ............ 42
Figure 7: Comparison of organisations representation in EC database and survey population 43
Figure 8: Comparison of project instruments representation in EC database and survey
population ....................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 9: Time to contract of FP6 NMP projects (average=455 days, min=237 days, max=918
days) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 10: Profile of participating organisations, (Source: EC database, n= 2798 Organisations)
............................................................................................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 11: Gender repartition, (Source: EC Database, n= 5497 Participants).................................... 51
Figure 12: Participants profiles (Source: EC Database, n= 2798 Organisations) .............................. 52
Figure 13: Repartition of the participants regarding their adhesion to the European Union,
(Source: EC database, n =5497 Participants) ................................................................................................... 52
Figure 14: Comparison of coordinators organisation type with participants organisation type
(Source: EC database, n=389 Coordinators, n= 5497 Participants) ....................................................... 53
Figure 15: Participation of SMEs in FP6 NMP projects as partners and coordinators per call,
(Source: Corda database) ......................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 16: EC contribution to EU27 SMEs per call, (Source: Corda database) ................................... 54
Figure 17: Number of participants per EU27 country, (Source: EC Database: n=5497
participants) .................................................................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 18: Participation rate and population per country, with regression line (R²=0.898),
(Source: EC database) ................................................................................................................................................ 58
Figure 19: correlation between GDP and EC contribution, with regression line (R²=0.936),
(Source: EC database) ................................................................................................................................................ 59
Figure 20: Correlation between EC contribution and EU27 GERD, with regression line
(R²=0.9198), (Source: EC database) .................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 21: EC contribution return on EU27 GDP share and GERD comparison, (Source: OECD)
............................................................................................................................................................................................. 60
Figure 22: Evolution of participants, (Source: Corda database) .............................................................. 61
14
Figure 23: Time line of EC contribution to Member States, (Source: Corda database) ................... 61
Figure 24: FP6 Collaborative links for NMP (Source: European Commission, extracted from
Corda)................................................................................................................................................................................ 62
Figure 25: Start and end date of the 389 FP6 NMP projects, (Source: EC database; n=389
projects) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 26: NMP average Project duration, (Source: EC database; n=389 projects) ......................... 64
Figure 27: Sectorial repartition of FP6 NMP participants, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants
survey, n=1181) ............................................................................................................................................................ 66
Figure 28: Dimensions of research activities conducted in FP6NMP projects as perceived by
survey respondents (Percentage of total respondents, source: FP6 NMP Participants survey,
n=1181) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 70
Figure 29: Continuation of R&D in the area, (Percentage of total respondents, Source: FP6 NMP
Participants survey, n=1181) .................................................................................................................................. 70
Figure 30: Importance of Goals for Participants in RTD projects, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants
survey, n=1.181) ........................................................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 31: FP6 NMP on the innovation pathway ............................................................................................ 74
Figure 32: Importance of Goals for Industrial Participants in RTD projects, (Source: FP6 NMP
Participants survey – selection of Very Important and Important responses, n= 453) ................. 76
Figure 33: Important Outputs for Industrial Participants in RTD projects, (Source: FP6 NMP
Participants – selection of Very Important and Important responses, n=453) ................................. 77
Figure 34: Importance of Outputs for SME Participants in RTD projects, (Source: FP6 NMP
Participants survey- selection of Very Important and Important responses, n=106) .................... 78
Figure 35: Importance of Outputs for large enterprises in RTD projects, (Source: FP6 NMP
Participants survey- selection of Very Important and Important responses, n=145) .................... 79
Figure 36: Importance of goals for HE and RES participants of RTD projects, (Source: FP6 NMP
Participants survey – selection of Very Important and Important responses, n=657)................... 79
Figure 37: Importance of Outputs for higher education institutions in RTD projects, (Source:
FP6 NMP Participants survey – selection of Very Important and Important responses, n= 353)
.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 81
Figure 38: Importance of Outputs for research institutions in RTD projects, (Source: FP6 NMP
Participants survey – selection of Very Important and Important responses, n= 353) ................. 81
Figure 39: Possibility of Commercial Returns (source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=1181)
.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 83
Figure 40: Levels of expected Commercial Returns (source: FP6 NMP Participants survey,
n=202) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 83
Figure 41: Visibility of RTD NMP projects in different media channels, (Source: FP6 NMP
Participants survey, n=1181) .................................................................................................................................. 86
Figure 42: Importance of communication of project results to society, (Source: FP6 NMP
Participants survey, n=1181) .................................................................................................................................. 89
Figure 43: The BioMine wiki main page
(http://wiki.biomine.skelleftea.se/wiki/index.php/Main_Page) ............................................................ 89
Figure 44: Benefits vs. Costs of participation, (Percentage of respondents, source: FP6 NMP
Participants survey, n=1181) .................................................................................................................................. 92
Figure 45: Achievement of goals - Repartition of total number of respondents per percentage of
15
responses on the different goals (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=1181) ........................ 92
Figure 46: Project characteristics of those FP6 NMP participants who claimed that would
continue performing their NMP project in case of absence of EU funding, (Percentage of total
respondents, source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=395) .................................................................... 93
Figure 47: Repartition of non-selected applicants per type of organisation, (Source: FP6 NMP
non-successful participants survey, n= 1336) ................................................................................................. 94
Figure 48: Conditions under which projects have been resubmitted, (Source: FP6 NMP non-
successful participants survey, n= 1336) .......................................................................................................... 94
Figure 49: Impacts on R&D team capabilities, Percentage of Respondents, (Source: FP6 NMP
Participants survey, n=1181) ................................................................................................................................. 96
Figure 50: Impacts on participating organisations, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey,
n=1181) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 97
Figure 51: Impacts of FP6 NMP projects on broader environment, (Source: FP6 NMP
Participants survey, n = 1181) ............................................................................................................................... 99
Figure 52: FP6 contribution to societal and sustainability challenges, (Source: Ex-post
evaluation of FP6 NMP: Strategic level report [8]) ...................................................................................... 102
Figure 53 : Success factors and obstacles (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=1181)..... 109
Part A - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
19
1 INTRODUCTION Over the last decade the European Union has been paving the way for the transformation of
Europe into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge economy in the world. But these
efforts have been impeded by the current economic crisis that has affected all European
countries. Stronger efforts are needed to ensure that the EU becomes an Innovation Union,
with European industry producing innovative products and services that will boost national
economies and ensure sustainable development across the entire continent. But how can the
EU ensure that it supports appropriate innovative areas, i.e. those with the potential to become
economic engines that allow it to compete successfully at a global level? What is the
appropriate policy mix at an EU level that needs to be designed and implemented? Which
policies would complement national policies, minimise overlaps and maximise outputs and
related benefits?
European Commission programmes have helped consolidate the knowledge base in industrial
technologies for many years. At the start of FP6, however, further actions were needed to both
strengthen and translate this knowledge base into viable and sustainable products and
services. The reformation of European industry from resource-based to knowledge-intensive
was one of the major objectives of the 6th Framework Programme. The creation of a European
Research Area (ERA) for industrial technologies was considered to be the most effective and
efficient way to help all Member States meet the interlinked challenges of competitiveness,
environmental sustainability and employment. In this context, a complete and novel thematic
area that focused upon nanotechnologies, nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional
materials and new production processes and devices was pursued within FP6: the NMP
programme. This programme was the main research and innovation-related instrument of the
EU in an area that could have significant scientific and technological outputs and economic
impacts on global scale in the long run. A total of €1,429 billion was allocated for the funding
of projects in the area over a period of 4 years (2002-2006), constituting 8% of the total FP6
budget.
The current report presents the main findings of a wide-ranging, two-year ex-post evaluation
exercise based on surveys of both FP6 NMP participants and unsuccessful applicants to the
programme. In addition, 100 FP6 NMP projects were selected as case studies and closely
reviewed via personal interviews and the examination of other relevant information in order
to get further in-depth information and insight into:
- the factors that affected the extent and range of impacts of NMP projects at individual,
organisational, societal, economic and environmental levels across both Europe and more
globally;
- the programme aspects and policy angles that should be retained (or altered) in future
NMP programmes.
The analysis took into consideration two unique factors that affected the course of the
programme:
1) The first one was the initiation of NMP as a separate, broad-based RTD funding programme.
Although disparate NMP activities had been long supported by the EC via various programmes
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
20
(such as Quality of Life and Brite/Euram in FP5), in FP6 it was decided that all NMP-related
activities would be pursued within their own programme.
2) The second important aspect of the FP6 NMP programme was the historic enlargement of
the European Union from 15 to 25 Member States in 2004 – right in the middle of the NMP
programming period.
The results, conclusions and recommendations produced during the study – and most
importantly during the elaboration of the case studies – were discussed thoroughly with an
Expert Advisory Board, composed of prominent NMP experts and evaluation and research
policy specialists, as well as with the European Commission in order to distil lessons learned
from the successes and failures of the programme. In addition, a workshop with prominent
experts was organised in Brussels by the EC, in order to discuss the findings of this study. This
highly consultative and participatory process ensured transparency and facilitated the
integration of a wide variety of views into the current report, which will hopefully help the
Commission shape future NMP programmes. Overall, we have tried to produce a report that
will allow all readers – irrespective of their degree of familiarity with the NMP area – to gain
insight into the accomplishments of this highly innovative research support programme.
2 CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPATING ORGANISATIONS AND
PROJECTS In total, 5.497 participations from 2.798 organisations were registered in 449 NMP projects
during FP6. The programme was characterised by the strong participation of
business/industry organisations complemented by an almost equal share of education
and research organisations (35%, 32% and 26% respectively), similar to the overall 6th
Framework Programme. The strong presence of commercial (45%) and private (61%)
organisations was coherent with the importance attached in current innovation policy theory
to public-private partnerships and the crucial role played by ‘intermediary organisations’.
SMEs, the backbone of the European economy, received significant support from the
Programme – with higher than average SME participation than for FP6 as a whole – although
in absolute figures their participation was slightly lower than the foreseen objective1.
In emerging areas, such as nano-biotechnologies, Integrated Projects and Networks of
Excellence were built at European level and many of them are still active today. The specific
calls for SMEs allowed many small and medium sized enterprises from all over Europe to
collaborate with highly reputable research establishments, to gain new knowledge, to expand
their skills and knowledge bases and to provide real-life perspectives on problems to their
more academic and theoretical counterparts. This helped counteract the ‘European paradox’,
which claims that while the EU is very good in producing knowledge at the universities and
research institutes, it is extremely poor in connecting this knowledge with value creation.
The enlargement of the European Union from 15 to 25 Member States also significantly
impacted the Programme. Prior to enlargement in 2004, a large number of organisations from
candidate countries participated in the programme but with low EC funding in comparison to
1 The FP6 NMP objective was 15% while in total the SMEs that participated mounted to 13% of the overall population
Executive Summary
21
the other participants. After enlargement, the proportion of organisations from new
Member States decreased, but at the same time the share of the EC contribution they
received increased to a level comparable to that of other EU countries.
Overall, the NMP Programme attracted most of the top EU research institutions and
companies (i.e. R&D performing institutions and companies with headquarters in the EU).
Without the participation of these organisations, the NMP programme could not have hoped to
make a significant impact on either the quality of research undertaken or the subsequent
diffusion, adoption and commercial exploitation of research outputs and results. The
involvement of leading non-EU research organisations (i.e. those perhaps performing research
within the EU as well as elsewhere, but with headquarters located outside of the EU) was less
marked, largely due to issues such as lack of conformity between EU and third country grant
agreements, but the NMP Programme still managed to allocate 100 million Euros, or 35%
of the overall FP6 target (285 million in total), to international cooperation between
European and non-EU organisations.
3 MOTIVATION FOR PARTICIPATION AND OUTPUTS, OUTCOMES AND
RESULTS ACHIEVED The vast majority of participants underlined that the FP6 NMP Programme was a strategic
tool to elaborate novel RTD activities that they would not have been able to perform
otherwise. The main players in the NMP Programme participated mostly for strategic reasons
and the strong long-term market orientation of research organisations complemented the
shorter-term business perspective of industry and SMEs in particular, with many of these
associations identified as very productive. In general, the main strength of the programme was
its unique ability to bring together the best European, and in many cases, international
research groups, raising the visibility of individual participants and improving trans-European
networking via the provision – for the most part – of adequate funding levels.
As specified in its programming documents, the underlying objective of the FP6 NMP
Programme was to move towards a knowledge-based and more environmentally friendly
industry through an integrated approach combining materials science, nanotechnology,
production technologies, information technologies, biotechnologies, and so forth so as to effect
an efficient transformation from resource-based to knowledge-based European industries. In
these terms, the goals of the participating organisations were in line with the objectives of
the programme since scientific and technological goals were considered the most
important reason for participating in NMP projects followed by economic and
health/environmental goals. The participants mainly aimed to explore whether their
innovative ideas – from a scientific and technological point of view – could be conceptually
proved; or whether they could make an innovative scientific or technological breakthrough at a
later point, usually after the end of the project, that could be commercially exploited. This
finding is in line with the pre-competitive nature of FP6, of which NMP was a part, and also
with the fact that NMP participants stated that in the future they would attempt to access
funding from national/regional programmes, as such programmes usually allow a focus on the
‘practical aspects’ of innovation and the market exploitation of ideas.
The FP6 NMP programme performed well in that the immediate outputs generated by
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
22
projects were in line with the strategic objectives of the programme, i.e. to foster
‘innovation’ and to promote the ‘transformation of industry’. From a scientific point of view,
the programme improved the EU science base. Although few, if any, projects produced
results that had visibly radical impacts on the global course or direction of scientific
theory or practice, the programme as a whole nevertheless produced strong scientific and
technological outputs and enhanced the knowledge bases and skills of participants. The
Programme also improved the operational processes of many organisations and led to product
and process innovations that are likely to lead to economic outputs for a significant proportion
of the total population. In more detail, a quarter of the FP6 NMP population surveyed stated
that they had realised or expect to realise in the near future commercial returns through
the exploitation of their FP6 NMP project results, with around half of these expecting
commercial returns of more than €100,000 on an annual basis.
4 IMPACTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE FP6 NMP PROGRAMME The FP6 NMP programme produced significant scientific spill-over effects across Europe
that would not have been attainable in the absence of EU funding even with national or
regional funding programmes. The high additional value of the collaborative and multi-
disciplinary approach of EC-funded research as well as the critical importance of research co-
operation at the European level was highly appreciated by all NMP project participants,
particularly SMEs. Knowledge cross-fertilisation and competence integration at the European
level became the cornerstone for significant impacts in the scientific and technological sphere,
to the benefit of participating organisations and the scientific and technological community as
a whole. Co-operation at European level was also critical for the improved alignment of RTD
outputs with the needs and requirements of users in the European Internal Market.
The programme contributed to the research efforts needed to tackle the so-called ‘Grand
Challenges’ ("global warming, tightening supplies of energy, water and food, ageing societies,
public health, pandemics and security", according to the Lund Declaration). In spite of the
absence of many highly visible or concrete impacts of the NMP programme on society and
environment, some participants rated their work as highly relevant to the ‘Grand Challenges’,
with the impacts produced considered significant by around one fifth of the total population.
But as pointed by members of the Expert Advisory Group, discoveries occurring during EU
funded projects may take a while before being able to be provided as innovations to society or
applied to the environment. Overall, opinions collected during the interviews showed that EU
research policy in these spheres has facilitated trans-border initiatives and led to the
harmonisation of strategic objectives, helping to create a real focus within the European
Research Area on the research needed to tackle ‘Global Challenges’.
Individual researchers in FP6 NMP projects gained important personal benefits such as
enhancement of their knowledge and skills, new R&D partnerships, improved access to
complementary expertise and joint international research actions. At an organisational
level, the NMP programme improved the economic sustainability of the participating
organisations while allowing them to consolidate their competitive position, form new
partnerships and networks and enhance their reputation and image. A significant outcome
of the NMP programme was also its contribution to the future financial sustainability of many
SMEs. In addition to gains in prestige and visibility, almost one quarter of SMEs considered
Executive Summary
23
that their NMP projects had increased their turnover significantly, while one fifth felt that
it had improved their market share and productivity.
Overall, the success of the FP6 NMP in terms of building capacity and creating the basis for
further research and innovation in Europe is appreciated by all participants. But there is still a
potential problem in terms of the transformation from research to innovation. Projects with
exploitable results frequently continue their research through other research-oriented projects
rather than taking the risk of going to the market. Often this is perfectly justifiable in terms of
the stage of maturity that projects have reached along development trajectories, with the
outputs of any single research project often needing to be combined with the results of other
projects – past and future – before further progress can be made in terms of realising
innovation potential. But on occasion there was the suspicion that some NMP participants
were reluctant to emerge from the “comfort zone” that public funding provides, preferring to
seek additional funding for further research rather than pushing ahead along the innovative
trail. Additional incentives may thus be needed to reduce levels of risk-averseness in the
EU.
Factors that have positively impacted FP6 NMP projects should be preserved, e.g. the
flexibility that allowed projects to change direction in response to external events and the
high level of funding allocated per project - compared to national schemes that usually do not
support large-scale, international, collaborative research projects. This latter aspect is
considered of primary importance in the current economic environment, where Member States
significantly affected by the economic recession in recent years may not be able to maintain or
expand funding levels for research projects. Finally, the multidisciplinary approach pursued
within the FP6 NMP projects proved an excellent vehicle for getting to know and work with
SMEs.
Nevertheless, policy issues have impeded the course of NMP projects that need to be
addressed in the next programming period. First of all, more transparent consultation with
stakeholder communities and a more explicit ‘programme logic’ can produce a programme
that is more robust as well as adjusted to market and business needs and requirements.
Perhaps such a transformation would allow the programme to exploit its added value in a
more strategic way, setting a European agenda that would attract a rich set of regional and
national actors as well as reputable international institutions. In addition, external factors
such as the lack of European-wide intellectual property right regimes and regulations are
barriers to research exploitation and should be further addressed by subsequent NMP
programmes. Overall, R&D policies around Europe are still fragmented, despite the catalytic
role played by EU initiatives, and further coordination amongst policy areas is necessary.
5 PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING In many cases, the supportive role played by the EC was much appreciated, particularly the
demanding role played by Project Officers. However, a number of issues were recorded where
improvements are needed in future.
One of the commonest topics identified as an issue during personal interviews with project
participants involved the appointment of new Project Officers during projects. Such changes
affected the course of the projects and caused unnecessary delays. Another issue, discussed
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
24
quite often during the meetings of the evaluation team with the Expert Advisory Board, was
the time lag between idea formulation and contract signature date (i.e. time to contract).
NMP is an area with significant and continuous changes and evolutions on a global scale. So
within the observed average time to contract of 1.25 years (455 days), the external context of a
project evolves and may have significant implications for project expectations. Project
objectives, for example, need to become much more adventurous when developments
elsewhere shift technological frontiers rapidly forward). Changes need to be made to improve
flexibility, e.g. via the adoption of open, continuous call project selection processes, or via
procedures that allow projects to change direction more easily, to adjust levels of funding, to
make adjustments to expected time horizons etc. Changes are also needed to improve the time
to contract and to enhance the attractiveness of the programme to non-EU based organisations
that may be more accustomed to fast-track selection processes.
Another important issue that requires further attention is the administrative burden imposed
on participants, regarded as ‘heavy’ in FP6 and still ponderous in FP7, though some
progress had been made. This parameter was also identified by a number of SMEs as an
important obstacle to their participation in the FP6 NMP programme. Overly bureaucratic
procedures constitute an obstacle to innovation and prevent potential innovators from
presenting proposals.
6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY AND PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT The recommendations of this report have emerged from the review of all collected primary
and secondary information, complemented by discussions held between the evaluation team,
the Expert Advisory Board and the European Commission, and informed by ideas and
proposals generated during the conduct of the case studies. They have been classified into
three distinct and interlinked areas, according to the wider policy or implementation level they
address. In some cases they address issues outside the boundaries of the Programme, but they
are included because of their relevance to the future development of the Programme.
6.1 Recommendations at NMP Policy Level
1. Support for SMEs: The EC should retain instruments specifically involving calls for
SMEs in the forthcoming Horizon 2020 Framework, but it should encourage smaller
consortia (with a maximum of 15 partners) in line with the developments in FP7.
2. End-User Participation: Project consortia should encourage end-user participation in
project planning in order to enhance short to medium-term market impacts. In projects
with longer market potential, mechanisms providing participants with access to
comprehensive market outlook assessments would help them assess potential
exploitation pathways.
3. Standards and Regulations: Coordination of the standardisation activities conducted
within NMP, possibly via Support Actions, could help maintain close link between
projects and standards development even beyond the normal lifetime of projects. This
should be attempted at an international level and in collaboration with ETPs.
4. Visibility through Dissemination: Apart from international peer-reviewed publications,
the focus of dissemination activities should include reports and other material aimed at
the ‘first circle’ of support for SMEs (development agencies, local customers and
investors). The production of such material should not then be neglected.
Executive Summary
25
5. Improvement of Public Dialogue: Projects should aim not only to produce material for
publications, conferences, etc., but also to plan activities that communicate research
results to the public, thus informing local/regional schools, universities, communities
etc. about developments of interest.
6. Market Exploitation Seminars: In order to ensure the timely consideration of market
opportunities, Market Exploitation seminars should be held early in the lifetime of
projects and organised according to the needs of different project consortia. In general,
projects should include marketing plans within their proposals to ensure that some
thought is given to market needs in the medium-term.
6.2 Recommendations at Projects Selection and Implementation
Level
1. Project Selection Process: The EC should tie project evaluation (project monitoring and
review) closer to the proposal selection process. For example, the Proposal Evaluation
Report (ESR) could be made available to project reviewers.
2. Time to Contract: A usual plea of FP participants is the minimisation of time to contract.
Especially in the case of NMP this is of imperative importance. A new mechanism could
be developed which would allow novel ideas twith clear market outputs to be funded
as projects though a more flexible and short evaluation process.
3. Scientific and Technical Monitoring: Having regular inspections of projects (even small
ones) by external experts, perhaps with a periodicity of one year between reviews,
would facilitate rapid reactions to problems arising during the course of a project or to
deviations from project plans.
4. Output Monitoring: Recording project outputs in a centralised system should be an
obligation for beneficiaries, with the contents of this system feeding into the technical
review of projects. Although the recording of outputs has already been implemented
within FP7, the registration of outputs is currently independent of the review process.
5. Impact Monitoring: The impact section of project proposals could identify expected
short-term impacts (e.g. six months after project termination). This would then be
revised at the final evaluation of projects (conducted within the first two months after
project conclusion). A proportion of project budget could be reserved for dissemination
and exploitation to support the realisation of these short-term impacts, with payment
occurring after a simple review of dissemination and exploitation results by the project
officer.
6. Market Analysis: A milestone-based market analysis should be performed at project
start, estimating not only market growth but also looking at competing technologies
and positioning industry partners vis-à-vis their competition. This would lead to the
better alignment of projects with market requirements.
Part B - DETAILED REPORT
Detailed report
29
1 THE NMP ENVIRONMENT IN FP6
1.1 Introduction
Since 1984, the European Union has been supporting research and development activities with
an instrument called the ‘Framework Programme’ (FP). It is a multi-annual plan proposed by
the European Commission and adopted by the Council and the European Parliament following
a co-decision procedure. The FP of interest within this report is FP6 which ran from 2002 to
2006. Framework programme activities are organised in thematic areas covering almost all
scientific disciplines. The major share of available funding is allocated to collaborative research
and technological development projects through open ‘Calls for proposals following
transparent procedures.
Since FP1, the overall proportional funds provided by the Framework Programmes, as
compared to national R&D funding, have become more and more important (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Budget growth of the Framework Programmes.
FP6 stood in a row of previous Framework Programmes and built upon the achievements
reached and the lessons learned. Within the course of FP5, three major political objectives and
strategies were launched and served as a background for the definition of FP6:
The Lisbon economic objective: the Lisbon European Council Summit held in March
2000 set an objective to ‘make the European Union the most competitive and dynamic
knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010 [1].
The European Research Area: the European Research Area (ERA) was proposed by
the Commission in January 2000. It has since been endorsed by the Heads of State and
Government, and is now the major research policy nexus in Europe [2]. It is described
as “an area for the coherent and coordinated pursuit of research activities and policies,
and an area in which researchers and knowledge move freely”
The Barcelona Summit: EU Heads of State and Government, when they met in
Barcelona in March 2002, agreed that ”overall spending on R&D and innovation in the
EU should be increased with the aim of approaching 3% of GDP by 2010, where two-
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014
Bu
dg
et
(bil
lio
ns €
)
FP1FP2 FP3
FP4 FP5 FP6
FP7
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
30
thirds of this new investment should come from the private sector”.
The FP6 programme was structured around three headings:
- focusing and integrating Community research on seven thematic areas;
- structuring the European Research Area considering research & innovation, human
resources & mobility, research infrastructures and science & society;
- strengthening the foundations of the European Research Area, through coherent
development of research and innovation-stimulation policies and activities in Europe.
The intention of the European Union during the 6th Programme period has then been to create
the appropriate foundations so as to establish a European Research Area that would transform
Europe into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge economy in the world. As a
founding part of the competitiveness objective, the manufacturing capability of Europe has
attracted much attention with the requirements to maintain both its competitiveness and
sustainable development. The manufacturing industry makes use of a wide variety of
technologies which need to be mastered at a pace at least equal to the one of the evolution of
the products being manufactured. This increasing complexity implies first mastering lower
scales, down to the nanometre size but also the development of new materials demonstrating
more and more extreme and even “smart” properties which are able to adapt to a changing
environment.
These considerations led to the creation by the European Commission, under the Industrial
Technologies umbrella, of the NMP (Nanotechnology and nanosciences, knowledge-based
multifunctional Materials and new Production processes and devices) thematic area within the
6th Framework Programme (FP6). As stated in the Expert Advisory Group on NMP report [3]
“the importance of the NMP industrial programme as a major engine for Europe’s growth,
sustaining employment and creating new jobs and providing solutions to its grand challenges has
been confirmed and is likely to grow as the major global trading blocs increasingly focus on the
concepts of the physical economy”. Actions towards such investments are further pursued
during the present Programme period (2007-2013) [4].
Figure 2: EU research: evolution of funded thematic areas over Framework Programmes [6].
Other
Basic research
Coordination and development
Space
Science and Society
Training of researchers
Disseminationand exploitation
International Cooperation
Socio-economic
Transport
Energy
Life sciences
Industrial and materials technology
Environment
IT and Communications
FP
1
FP
2
FP
3
FP
4
FP
5
FP
6
FP
7
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
FP
budget
repart
itio
n(%
)
Detailed Report
31
Industrial and material technologies appeared in the course of FP5 (Figure 2) and NMP
appeared for the first time as an independent and concrete axis for EU research in FP6. The
programme intended to promote "a structuring effect on research and technological
development in Europe, including the Member States, associated candidate countries and other
associated countries and make a significant contribution to the establishment of the European
Research Area and to innovation" [5]. In other words, the transformation of European industry
from a resource-based into a knowledge-intensive one that produces high value products and
the relevance for European competitiveness has been one of the major objectives in FP6. This
implies a closer link between research and industry and enhances the role of innovation.
The budget allocated to the NMP thematic area was €1 429 M, representing 1O% of the FP6
budget earmarked to focus and strengthen Community research (Table 1).
1. Focusing and integrating Community research 14 682 Thematic priorities2 12 438
• 1. Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health 2514 • 2. Information society technologies 3 984 • 3. Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-based
multifunctional materials and new production processes and devices 1 429 • 4. Aeronautics and space 1 182 • 5. Food quality and safety 753 • 6. Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems 2 329 • 7. Citizens and governance in a knowledge-based society 247
Specific activities covering a wider field of research 1 409 • Policy support and anticipating scientific and technological needs 590 • Horizontal research activities involving SMEs 473 • Specific measures in support of international cooperation3 346
Non-nuclear activities of the Joint Research Centre 835
2. Structuring the European Research Area 2 854
3. Strengthening the foundations of the European Research Area 347
TOTAL 17 883 Table 1: FP6 budget repartition (EUR million) (source Cordis)
1.2 FP6 NMP Objectives
1.2.1 FP6 NMP Objectives hierarchy
As stated in the FP6 NMP Work Programme, the underlying objective of the NMP thematic area
is to move from a resource based industry towards a knowledge-based and more
environmentally friendly one through an integrated approach combining materials sciences,
nanotechnology, production technologies, information technologies, biotechnologies, etc.
2 Of which at least 15 % for SMEs. 3 The amount of EUR 346 million aimed at funding specific measures in support of international cooperation involving developing countries, Mediterranean countries (including the Western Balkans), and Russia and the New Independent States (NIS). Another EUR 312 million was earmarked to finance the participation of third-country organisations in the Thematic Priorities and in the
specific activities covering a wider field of research, thus bringing the total amount devoted to international cooperation to EUR 658 million. Additional resources were made available under section 2.2 “Human resources and mobility” to fund research training for third-country researchers in Europe.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
32
This means having the capacity to move towards knowledge-based products and processes:
- breakthrough in new applicable knowledge and long-term RTD [(Research and
Technological Development)]
- wider scope for industrial research (environment, health, energy, employment, education
and training, legal and financial aspects, science and society)
- ensuring multi-disciplinarity, cross-sectoral and life-cycle approaches
- integration of actors, sectors, expertise, disciplines, technologies, activities, funds.
The overall mission of the programme for the period 2002-2006 has been to translate the
advantages of European excellence into a real competitive advantage for industry. To
contribute to this process, the FP6 NMP was organised into three research pillars and a fourth
one dealing with integrating actions4:
Pillar 1: Nanotechnologies and nanosciences
Nanotechnologies and nanosciences represent a new approach to materials science and
engineering, as well as for design of new devices and processes. Europe enjoys a strong position in
the nanosciences that needs to be translated into a real competitive advantage for
European industry. The objective is twofold:
1. to promote the creation of an RTD-intensive European nanotechnology related industry,
2. to promote the uptake of nanotechnologies in existing industrial sectors.
Research may be long-term and high risk, but will be oriented towards industrial
application and/or co-ordination of efforts at EU level. An active policy of encouraging industrial
companies and SMEs, including start-ups, will be pursued through the promotion of strong
industry/research interactions in consortia undertaking projects with substantial critical mass.
Research and development activities should also promote development of new professional skills.
Whenever appropriate, societal, health, ethical and regulatory issues, and in particular metrology
aspects, should be addressed.
Pillar 2: Knowledge-based multifunctional materials
New, high knowledge-content materials, providing new functionalities and improved
performance, will be critical drivers of innovation in technologies, devices and systems, benefiting
sustainable development and competitiveness through multi-sectoral applications. Since these
applications have a strong impact on individuals and on society as a whole, a new research
culture will be required. RTD activities are expected to be high risk, inter and
multidisciplinary, long term and generic, with potential benefits in material, maintenance and
energy savings as well as on health, safety and the environment. Breakthroughs will come not
only from the new materials developed but also from new processing and from the new
approaches taken for example using renewable raw materials. To assure Europe's strong position
in emerging technology markets the various actors need to be mobilised through leading edge
RTD partnerships and high-risk research.
Pillar 3: New Production Processes and Devices
New production concepts need to be designed, based on breakthrough organisational, quality and
technological developments, supporting new products, processes and services. The goal is to
support the transformation of European industry towards more knowledge-based and value-
4 http://cordis.europa.eu/nmp/whatis.htm
Detailed Report
33
added industries and improved competitiveness and sustainability. To this end it is vital to
provide the industrial systems of the future with the necessary tools for efficient life-cycle
design, production, use and recovery, decreasing at the same time internal and external
costs and reducing major accident hazards. Appropriate organisational models and improved
knowledge management should support technological developments and innovation routes.
Flagship research projects need to be carried out, highlighting the importance of collaboration
between research and industry, the major outcome of which would be a framework for
"manufacturing in 2010" based on improved co-ordination and integration of research efforts at
the European level.
Pillar 4: Integration of nanotechnologies, new materials, and new production
technologies for improved security and quality of life
This area was added to the first three areas, as defined in the specific programme, due to the
"integrating" challenge of the expected output and due also to the number of expressions of
interest received on the subject. A specific target should indeed be to put materials science and
advanced industrial technologies at the service of health. In this context, integration of
technological developments, and in particular of the new generation of smart and hybrid
materials interacting with their surrounding and related manufacturing equipment, is bringing
huge potential for the development of sensors, actuators and devices, leading to a greater
security and safety of people and the environment.
Pillar 5: Cross-cutting activities
A reference to this 5th pillar appears in the 2nd edition of the FP6 NMP Work Programme5.
Coordinated actions ran under this pillar were intended to improve synergies between
Member States (current and new) and Associated States’ research activities as well as with
other research actions.
Figure 3 shows the graphic representation of the structure of the NMP programme and its
respective objectives hierarchy.
The general principles and objectives of the NMP Programme, outlined in the introduction,
have been translated by the Lot 2 Study [8] into a number of Strategic Objectives identified as
follows:
o Transformation of industry,
o Strong presence and interaction of innovative enterprises, universities and
research organisations in research actions,
o Integration of education and skills development with research activities,
o Creation of Europe wide networks and projects providing access to new
technologies,
o New approaches implemented in particularly in SME intensive sectors,
o Sustainability assured in RTD activities,
o Enthusiasm for science assured
5 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/sp1_wp.htm#nmp
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
34
Figure 3: Structure of FP6-NMP Programme
1.2.2 NMP and international cooperation
International cooperation embraces participation of organisations from non-EU countries
(third countries6 as well as with countries with which the EU has bilateral agreements7) in
standard projects and specific activities stimulated by the EC and by the authorities of third
countries in the framework of the bilateral political dialogues. A budget of 285 million Euros
was foreseen for funding third country participation in RTD actions across all thematic
priorities [9].
In NMP, the basic premises of international cooperation are mutual and public benefit for all
stakeholders, a balance between cooperation and competition and a prior consent from
industry to start cooperation by guaranteeing an appropriate management of IPR issues.
6 Third countries : “INCO" countries - developing countries; Mediterranean partner countries; Western Balkan countries, Russia and other newly independent states 7 Countries with which the EU has bilateral agreements for research and technology development: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, India, Russia, South Africa and USA
Detailed Report
35
Another instrument for international cooperation in the field of NMP is the Intelligent
Manufacturing Systems (IMS), an industry-led, international business innovation and R&D
programme established to develop the next generation of manufacturing and processing
technologies. It includes companies and research institutions from the European Union,
Mexico, Korea, Switzerland, and the United States. Its renewal in 2007 aimed at providing a
new impetus to stimulate cooperation among the main industrial regions of the world, but
Japan abandoned the scheme in April 2010. Nevertheless, in parallel, the new membership of
Mexico has been welcomed.
1.2.3 NMP and SMEs
SMEs represent more than 99% of European industry and employ about two-thirds of the
European workforce. Because of this recognised role in the European economy, supporting the
innovation potential of SMEs is one of the few quantified objectives of FP6 which states that at
least 15% of the FP6 budget should be allocated to SMEs participating in FP6 research projects.
This target was set at the NMP thematic area level as well and new opportunities were opened
up for SMEs, which could either participate in the specific activities to be carried out by and for
the SMEs within Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence or that could play a leading
role in Integrated Projects specifically dedicated for SMEs. As stated in the FP6 NMP Work
Programme 2002-2003, “In order to reach this objective, special actions are foreseen such as
SME specific calls for proposals in the context of the new instruments, reinforcement of National
Contact Points, and specific training and take-up measures. In addition, the involvement of SMEs
is taken into account in the evaluation criteria particularly for the new instruments. Also the fact
that enterprise groupings which represent large communities of SMEs may play an active role in
the new instruments will contribute to reaching the above-mentioned objective.”
1.2.4 European Technology Platforms
European Technology Platforms (ETP) first appeared in the 2002 Communication on Industrial
Policy in an Enlarged Europe with the proposed objective to work out a long term strategic plan
for R&D for specific technologies involving major economic or societal challenges by ensuring
synergy among public authorities, users, regulators, industry, consumers and pole of excellence.
ETPs then emerged as industry led fora working on the development and maintenance of
agendas of research priorities for their particular sector. ETPs provide valuable input to the
European Commission to increase effectiveness and efficiency of its research funding
programs. In June 2011, 36 ETPs were in existence and nine of them were related to
production and processes following the classification provided by the European Commission
(see Table 2).
While not being in their strict sense FP6 instruments, the development of European
Technology Platforms was done in symbiosis with the FP6 programme: FP6 projects provided
resources and data to the Platforms, the Platforms fed back into the FP6 with long term
strategic research agenda based on stakeholder consultation.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
36
Table 2: Individual ETPs as of June 2011 (source; http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/individual_en.html)
1.3 FP6 NMP implementation context
1.3.1 Instruments
The NMP programme utilised a combination of traditional and new instruments for its
elaboration.
With respect to new instruments, Integrated Projects (IPs) were intended to promote
breakthrough-driven research and thus were foreseen to contain a coherent set of activities
including RTD, innovation-related activities, training, knowledge management and last but not
least, dialogue with the public. Networks of Excellence (NoEs) aimed at strengthening
European S&T excellence by means of the progressive and long-lasting integration of a critical
mass of research capacities in selected areas. They should have long-term objectives and
contribute to advancing knowledge for sustainability, competitiveness and dynamism of EU
industry.
The traditional instruments utilised, providing continuity with the past, were: Specific
Targeted Research Projects (STREPs), Coordination actions (CAs) and Specific Support Actions
(SSAs).
STREPs in FP6 evolved from the shared-cost RTD and demonstration projects of FP5,
addressing ambitious and highly creative research and targeted at exploring frontiers of
knowledge or innovation-driven projects for SMEs. CAs were a continuation of the Concerted
Actions/Thematic Networks used in FP5 and intended to strengthen the links between
different research initiatives, such as Eureka, COST, ESF, national and Commission RTD
activities. Finally, SSAs aimed at supporting the implementation of NMP priorities, by funding
activities such as studies, benchmarks, foresight, elaboration of technology roadmaps and
promotion and dissemination of knowledge and good practices.
Detailed Report
37
As derived from the information provided by the EC at the beginning of the study, the
distribution of the 389 NMP FP6 projects considered in the ex-post evaluation, across the
aforementioned axes is shown in Table 3. It should be noted that at the launch of the study, the
FP6 NMP was not completely finished so not all projects are included in the analysis. An extract
made from the Corda database on December, 2nd 2010 shows that a total of 444 projects were
funded under FP6 NMP [11].
NoEs 22 projects 5,66%
IPs 95 projects 24,42%
CAs 16 projects 4,11%
SSAs 36 projects 9,25%
STREPs 220 projects 56,56%
TOTAL 389 projects 100%
Table 3: Repartition of the FP6 NMP projects screened during the ex-post evaluation of FP6 NMP (Source: European
Commission database)
1.3.2 FP6 NMP Calls
The FP6 NMP calls were described in the FP6 NMP Work Programme. As far as visible within
the work programme, no budget pre-allocation was made within the pillars.
Figure 4 and Figure 5 show that the highest part of the EC funds (56%) went to pillar 2, with a
high proportion of STREPs and to the pillar 3 with a high proportion of Integrated Projects.
Figure 4: Repartition of allocated EC contribution over FP6 NMP pillars (Source: EC database)
Nano-technologies
and
nanosciences17%
Knowledge-based
multifunctional
materials29%
New Production Processes and
Devices
27%
Integration23%
Cross-cutting activities
4%
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
38
Figure 5: Repartition of funded projects over instruments and pillars (Source: EC database)
1.4 Evaluation Issues
Despite Europe’s research excellence, the translation of research outputs into commercial
products has not yet fully been attained. An example is provided by the Nanotechnologies and
Nanoscience pillar of NMP. EU nanotech patenting lags significantly behind the US: 26% of
nanotech related patents are filed by the EU25 while 40% by the US8. This is due to a number
of reasons, such as the fragmentation of EU market and the lack of critical mass which
consequently reduces the effectiveness of the commercialisation of nanotechnology.
Environmental, health and safety concerns, standardisation and public opinion issues also
hinder market acceptance and the effective deployment of nanotechnology9 while lack of
engineering expertise seems to be holding back adoption in EU Member States [16].
It is expected in the years to come that further developments in nanotechnology, materials
technology, biotechnology and information technology will continue to incorporate
innovations from multiple scientific disciplines in a “convergence” that is expected to have
profound effects on society [17]. In order for Europe to benefit from Nanosciences,
Nanotechnologies, Materials and new Production Technologies (NMP), industrial
developments need to be based on a combination of traditional manufacturing processes and
technologies with innovative processes that will allow the creation, manipulation and
8 OECD Patents database, 2007
9 The European Commission adopted in February 2008 the Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and
Nanotechnologies research.
Nano-technologies and
nanosciences
Knowledge-based
multifunctional
materials
New Production Processes and
DevicesIntegration
Cross-cutting activities
STP 65 86 22 37 10
SSA 10 6 11 9
NOE 6 11 3 2
IP 6 14 39 32 4
CA 1 3 11 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140Fu
nd
ed
pro
ject
s
Detailed Report
39
integration of new ingredients, platforms, products, etc., so as to achieve an increase of
revenues and at the same time significant reduction of costs.
A thorough understanding of the trajectory of industrial developments so far and the
identification of key drivers and trends as well as ‘wild cards’ that can affect the course of
tomorrow’s industrial (r)evolution should be the thorough input for the development of future
scenarios that will reflect the possible developmental trajectories of industry and
nanotechnologies in particular. Such scenarios are considered important for all involved
stakeholders, at European and national levels, and more specifically for all sectors of the
industry likely to benefit from the pervasive characteristics of the NMP technologies. Such a
forward looking perspective is indispensable if Europe wishes to lead the changes in the
market benefiting from NMP at the global level.
These are some of the key challenges of the FP6-NMP programme being evaluated at project
level within this study.
1.5 Objectives of the study
This study is complementing the one conducted at the strategic level [8] and aims at
evaluating, on the basis of the outputs and outcomes of the funded projects, the effectiveness of
the thematic area "Nano-technologies and nano-sciences, knowledge based multifunctional
materials, and new production processes and devices" within the specific programme for
research, technological development and demonstration "Integrating and strengthening the
European Research Area (2002-2006)".
Building upon the analysis of the information on individual projects projects collected via
online surveys, personal interviews, project reports, etc., the study then draws conclusions on
the effectiveness and efficiency of the NMP activity in achieving its stated objectives, and
makes recommendations on ways to enhance the effectiveness of current and future similar
RTD funding activities. Overall, the study addresses the following questions:
o Did the programme attract and select the right sort of projects to achieve its objectives?
o Have the projects been monitored, reviewed, and steered in such a manner as to
contribute optimally to the objectives of the programme?
o Can measures be taken in order to enhance the performance, success, and impact of the
projects?
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
40
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Introduction
The Lot 1 study of the project “Ex-post evaluation of the NMP programme (FP6)” focuses on the
micro-project level and thus its main aim is to acquire information from the participating and
non-participating (applicant) organisations about the added value of the programme, its
impacts on the researchers and organisations that took part in the programme as well as its
impacts on the broader EU socio-economic level. Moreover, this study is aiming to identify the
factors that are related to effectiveness and efficiency of the NMP programme. The collected
information has allowed the identification of the thresholds of the programme, its main
competencies and obstacles and thus, this study, has developed and proposed appropriate
policy recommendations. The results of this study, when combined with the results of the Lot 2
study (macro-strategic level) [19], will provide DG RTD with a sound basis for proposing
alterations, adjustments and new mechanisms for the design and elaboration of NMP projects
in the FP7 successor.
The Ex-post Evaluation of FP6 NMP at project level, was a two-year evaluation based on a
defined methodology composed of several steps.
- A preliminary source of information was taken from the European Commission
databases, which were collected, cleaned, and analysed so to build the basis for the
overall evaluation. The provided EC databases contained a total of 389 projects
having been co-financed under the FP6 NMP and taken into consideration in this
evaluation. While these databases were complete regarding administrative and
financial information of the projects, the database related to project outputs and review
results were largely incomplete and incoherent. It thus has not been exploited in this
study. It appears that other projects were later on added in the database. In an extract
made from Corda in April 2011, 444 projects were mentioned as funded under
NMP10. Due to the late addition of these extra projects, and if not otherwise stated,
these additional projects have not been taken into account in the analysis.
- Moreover, a list of relevant evaluation criteria and their associated indicators was built.
These criteria and indicators were estimated during the evaluation procedure so as to
ensure that they were the most appropriate ones.
- An Experts group composed of ten experts was also created specifically for the
evaluation and was consulted at each step of the evaluation. Experts were selected for
their competencies in NMP related technologies, socio-economic impact studies and
innovation policies.
To reach the final objective of the evaluation and to cover the whole process, several steps
were followed:
- After having selected the relevant criteria and indicators (section 2) and after having
analysed the European Commission databases (section 3), a web survey dedicated to
the FP6 NMP participants enabled a large collection of significant data.
10 Including projects funded under joint-programme actions.
Detailed Report
41
- A methodological approach was developed to select 100 of the 389 co-financed projects
in order to create case studies for each of the projects selected (sections 4and 5).
- All of these steps were developed whilst taking into consideration the making of the
correct recommendations for future NMP framework programmes (section 6).
2.2 Evaluation Framework
The impact evaluation used both qualitative and quantitative methods. Data on calls, proposals,
thematic, participants and projects, as well as quantitative data from samples surveyed were
collected, treated and crossed with qualitative data. In addition, factual data related to projects
and partners as well as to the innovation support measures were gathered. Moreover, in order
to gather relevant and reliable data and information, individual evaluation of 100 completed
projects was conducted answering evaluation questions regarding the goals and objectives,
the outputs and achievements, the impacts, and the success factors and obstacles of the
projects (see Annex IV).
The information gathered from the evaluation of the 100 individual projects provided sound
and evidence based answers to strategic questions which were important for the evaluation of
the strategic impact of the NMP programme as a whole.
Using these complementary methods in this evaluation framework, the working team managed
to reduce the uncertainties that arose during the interpretation phase and to build upon the
analysis and the synthesis of the programme allowing to draw conclusions on the effectiveness
of the NMP activity in achieving its stated objectives, and to make recommendations about the
ways in which to enhance the effectiveness of current and future similar RTD funding activities.
In the following sections, the methods used to perform the assessment of the FP6 NMP
programme during this evaluation are further analysed.
2.3 Data Sources
2.3.1 EC Database
The EC Database allows access to detailed information on concluded FP6 calls for proposals,
including statistics on participants, aggregated statistics on proposals by applicants ID, country
and thematic and a number of other criteria.
2.3.2 NMP FP6 Participants survey
As part of the data collection step, a web-survey was carried out to the 5.497 participants of
the 389 FP6 NMP projects.
The survey was divided in 8 distinct sections, dealing with basic details about the
respondents, the experience of the respondent within the project, the project outputs, the
project goals and the added value given by the NMP project, the analyses of project impacts,
the potential commercialisation of results, the addition of the NMP programme and the success
factors and obstacles met during the project.
A campaign with the aim of receiving responses to this survey was organised, invitations were
sent, and a return rate of 33% was obtained.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
42
To ensure a true representation of the collected responses against the original NMP
population, several calculations and comparisons were made: an initial outlook and finalisation
of the responses database, representativeness, comparison to the countries’ repartition,
comparison on the organisations’ types, comparison to the project instrument repartition and
statistical validity (²). These analyses demonstrated a slight under-representation of industry
across the respondents. To compensate for this, weighting factors have been applied for
analysis pursued at an aggregated level.
279 (72%) of the overall 389 NMP projects were represented in the results of the web survey.
For the purpose of this evaluation, only the projects finished before the 31st August 2009
(when the web survey was completed) were taken into consideration. Thus the total response
rate on project level was 94% as 279 of the 294 NMP projects finished before the 31st August
2009 were represented in the results database of this survey. From the 279 projects, 150 NMP
project coordinators participated in the survey, therefore the coordinators’ response rate was
53%.
Below (Figure 6) is the “Top 15 Participant countries” comparison between the EC database
data and the survey results. As indicated, the survey results population reflects the initial
overall NMP programme population.
Figure 6: Comparison of country representation in EC database and survey population
Figure 7 shows the comparison between the EC database and the survey results in terms of
organisation type. It can be seen that the responses collected from the web survey also reflect
the repartition of the overall population.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Pe
rce
nta
ge in
th
e p
op
ula
tio
n
EC database
Survey results
Detailed Report
43
Figure 7: Comparison of organisations representation in EC database and survey population
Finally, the comparison of project instrument repartition between the participants of the
survey (279 projects) and all participants to the FP6 NMP programme (389 projects), as
indicated in Figure 8 below, shows once more that the responses collected from the web
survey reflect the repartition of the overall population. The slight discrepancy on STREP and IP
representation is mostly linked to the under representation of industry representatives, as
stated earlier.
Figure 8: Comparison of project instruments representation in EC database and survey population
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f an
swe
rs
Organisation Type
Survey Results
EC Database
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
STREP IP NOE CA SSA
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Project Instrument
EC Database
Survey results
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
44
2.3.3 Online Survey for the non-selected applicant proposals
In order to examine the whole participation in the FP6 NMP in detail, another web-survey was
conducted and launched, dedicated to all of the organisations who made a proposal under this
programme but who were not selected for co-funding. This aimed to evaluate the reasons of
proposal failure and the impact that not being selected had on the organisations that submitted
a project.
The invitations to participate in the survey were sent to 20.135 persons and 13.246 invitations
reached their addressees. The return rate was 10%, having received 1.386 responses. This
return rate is much lower than the one obtained but this is explained by the facts that:
- there is no contractual link between the organisation and the European Commission for
non selected proposals,
- there are more errors in the database as it has not been checked during the project
negotiation stage,
- and finally, no reminder was launched for this survey, the 10% rate was obtained with
only one invitation to fill out the survey.
The questionnaire was made up of about 40 questions related to basic details of the
respondents, to their application for the project (the evaluation they received), the envisaged
outputs and impacts, and a section on the potential recommendations they may have.
2.3.4 Selection of Case Studies
In order to select 100 of the 389 projects co-financed under FP6 NMP, a methodological
approach was followed based on the three following main points:
A stratified sampling approach was preferred to limit bias,
The stratification process started during the definition of criteria and revised regularly
during the profiling process. Stratum was chosen based on reliable data so no further
bias was brought into the results due to inaccurate information. The stratification
variables were project instrument, coordinator profile and project thematic area.
The sample size within strata was defined making use of proportionate stratification.
The first selection step aimed at selecting the projects taking into account the project
instruments, the coordinator profiles and the project thematic area. The selected population
followed closely the initial repartition of the population on these three dimensions. This step
enabled the selection of 36 projects.
A second selection step was used to pursue the selection process for including three
additional selection methods:
Use of results obtained in the web survey about project results and successes (The
results of 5 questions were used related to project outputs, benefits and impacts)
Use of known facts related to projects, leading to an interesting viewpoint
Use of random allocation
This allowed the further selection of 43 projects. Then the 21 remaining case studies were
selected by the evaluation teams following recommendations made by other project
Detailed Report
45
participants and European Commission officers as well as project news available on the web
which showed interesting success stories.
The selection of the projects was also refined with regards to unpredictable facts linked to the
projects. Thanks to the results of the selection, 100 projects were selected (see Annex III) and
100 case studies were realised.
The process was built upon three to five interviews per project, following an interview
guideline deeply detailed and based on the criteria and indicators previously defined. The
analysis of project documents received both from the European Commission and the project
coordinators was a precious source of information.
2.3.5 Additional Sources
Other sources used for this evaluation were Eurostat and OECD databases, providing reliable
macroeconomic data on countries. Furthermore, communications and publications from the
European Commission as well as expert group reports and analysis of the nanotechnology field
have been used for this study.
2.4 Statistical Analysis
2.4.1 Preparation of databases
As part of the study, the European Commission made their databases available which contain
the details of projects and participants of FP6 NMP projects. The databases included project
details, such as organisation type, organisation contacts, overall budget and EC contribution
information, starting and finishing dates, etc.
All the databases received by the EC have been cleaned and data has been aggregated into one
unique database.
Once the “cleaning” was done, the new database on which the whole analysis has been built
represented a total of 389 FP6 NMP projects.
Project profiles (based on project instrument characteristics and time-scale dimension) and
partner profiles (Geographical dimension, single participants, coordinators) were extracted
and detailed.
On the basis of 5.497 participations in the 389 NMP projects, the total cost of the project was
€2.348.775.880,47. The total EC contribution was of €1.442.682.656,38, representing 61,42%
of the total cost of the 389 projects.
2.4.2 First level analysis
Firstly, there was an initial statistical analysis (averages, percentage, etc.) that allowed the
working team to extract all possible information from the data collected and present the
findings of the study. Specifically, information was obtained and charts were presented to
demonstrate the data gathered on an aggregated level as well as on organisation size (in
particular SMEs and large enterprises) level, sectorial level, NMP programme pillar level and
type of organisation (higher education, research institute, industry or other) level.
Additionally, cross-tabulations between certain questions in order for further information to
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
46
be extracted on specific aspects of the surveys conducted were also performed (e.g., how many
SMEs that had high R&D capacity produced economically related outputs).
2.4.3 Second level analysis
The hypothesis underlying the methodology framework was that relationships exist between
“input variables” characterising the structure, organisation, scale and content of projects and
“output variables” (or “performance variables”) characterising project outputs, outcomes and
impacts. The second level of statistical analysis focused on the analysis of the frequency
distributions in relation to the ‘performance variables’ as well as on the cross-correlations
between these variables and the various ‘input variables’. Data analysis techniques, including
multivariate methods capable of identifying groups of results and types of
stakeholders/projects (cluster analysis) and searching for correlations between them, as well
as variable reduction techniques such as the Principal Component Factor analysis were utilised
so as to identify meaningful clusters and groups of projects or relationships among the
different variables. In particular:
- Principal Component Factor analyses were utilised so as to group similar types of
variables together under e.g., specific categories describing the nature of projects, the
obstacles and success factors, the impacts and the importance of goals/ achievements;
- Correlation analyses were executed in order to examine the associations of these sets
of variables among them.
2.4.4 Selection of criteria and indicators
The selection and listing of evaluation indicators was a key step in our evaluation procedure, as
one of their main attributes is to ensure that during the data gathering stage all the information
required to answer the evaluation questions will be collected providing the necessary
information for the statistical analysis. For this reason and prior to selecting any indicator, our
study team, based on the relevant policy documents built the objectives hierarchy of the
programme (see section 1.2.1). The objectives hierarchy identified and defined the categories
of objectives targeted by the NMP thematic area (e.g. scientific, economic, social, etc.). This step
allowed our team to comprehend the quintessence of the NMP programme, its purpose and
objectives and also to statistically extrapolate the interlinkages between the different parts and
components of the programme by developing the appropriate indicators. (The final list of
criteria and indicators of the study is available in Annex I).
Overall, the indicators identified were measured having as reference the following four axes:
relevance of the Objectives set by the project with the Programme objectives
relevance of the Results achieved with the overall objectives of the NMP Programme
Impacts on the researchers that elaborated the projects, the organisations that
participated in the projects and the third outer circle referring to project partners and
the broader socio-economic environment.
Finally, it should be mentioned that in order to allow for a comparison with other
programmes, some of the criteria and indicators used were similar to the criteria and
indicators used in other evaluations.
Detailed Report
47
2.5 Limitations of the study
During the elaboration of the study a number of issues had been encountered that affected the
collection and interpretation of information as well as the elaboration of relevant conclusions
and recommendations. This section summarises the key issues that need to be taken into
account in understanding the results presented in the report.
2.5.1 Attribution
Analyses have been performed to identify statistical relationships. However, a statistical
relationship does not always imply causality. From what it has been possible to gather, the
evaluators cannot always claim that the reported changes, e.g., numbers of jobs created, can be
entirely attributed to the NMP project itself rather than to external factors, e.g., other projects
carried out internally, past experience of partners, etc. Moreover, ambiguity regarding
outcomes arose for some projects as it was not always possible to identify the drivers of, for
example, an increased number of jobs, or to state whether they were the result of the project or
broader contextual changes. Such information has been obtained through the conduct of the
Case Studies, however generalisations or aggregations were not always feasible to perform.
2.5.2 Subjectivity of results
The main input for this report has been the perceptions of participants or applicants of the
NMP programme on its added value, its success factors and obstacles and the impacts that have
been achieved or not due to its funding. Whether collected online or personal interviews, in
essence the same target group has been used: the persons (researchers, managers, directors,
etc.) that have been involved directly or indirectly in the projects. Although the collection of so
many judgemental perceptions can be considered - which deliver a potential hazard for the
study - it should also be noted that the evaluators approached a high number of participants
and applicants during the conducting of the study. The collection of a large number of samples
allowed them to consider the aggregation of judgemental values as a lead to an objective
conclusion.
2.5.3 Modelling limitations
Causal modelling has been limited by the absence of appropriate baseline measures (i.e.,
similar projects without FP5 funding or FP5 NMP funded projects). It is possible that any
changes over the course of the project may reflect other external variables, such as specific
market changes, rather than be attributable specifically to the project success or its funding. It
is assumed here that measures of success represent success due to the project rather than
other drivers such as market forces.
Furthermore, both the survey and the case studies were focused on RTD related activities
which imply that answers from coordination and support actions (CSA) are of less relevance:
Most of the respondents from CSA recognised the inappropriateness of the survey and
commented on that point in the free text area available at the end of the survey
CSAs were removed from first round of project selection of case studies as the focus of
case studies was on RTD activities. Only one coordination action (µSAPIENT) and 2
Support Actions (NANOFOREST and SMART) were selected as case studies to evaluate
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
48
the extent to which these instruments are understood by the participants and their
contribution to the creation of a global and coherent framework within FP6 NMP.
2.5.4 Classification of institutions
In the report, many references are made to industry. These organisations are classified as IND
within the EC database. This classification does not give any indication on the size of the
companies (it can be either a large multinational, or a 10 person organisation, etc.), the field of
activity (it can be a manufacturer, a consultancy company, etc.) or the sector activity. Some
further indication is given in other fields of the database: is the company an SME (Yes/No) and
NACE code but these fields are not always filled in which can induce inaccuracy in the
calculations. Whenever feasible, data has been completed with further information from the
survey so as to increase the accuracy of the results.
Detailed Report
49
3 FP6 NMP OVERVIEW
3.1 Overall participation to FP6 NMP
The FP6 NMP programme included projects that started between 2002 and 2006. Table 4
below gives the overview of the total number of participations (partners), of projects and of
organisations within the NMP FP6. As it can be seen, 5.497 participations from 2.798
Organisations11 were registered in selected projects under FP6 NMP. A total number of 449
NMP projects were retained for negotiation with a success rate of 16%.
Total number of
proposals
Total number of
projects retained
for negotiation
Total number of
partners
Total number of
organisations
2343 44912 5497
2798
Success rate of project awarded
16 % (21 %)13
Table 4: Overview of FP6 NMP participation, (Source: EC database, basis: 389 projects)
Also, these 389 NMP projects had a total cost of around €2,35 billion. The total EC contribution
was approximately €1,44 billion, representing 61% of the 389 projects total cost.
3.1.1 Time to contract
The ‘Time to Contract’ (delay between the project submission and the contract signature date)
is an important indicator as it provides information on the ability of the administration to
provide timely support to research and innovation. The time to contract of FP6 NMP projects
has been calculated by comparing the call deadlines, indicated within the FP6-NMP annual
work programmes14 with the effective dates of contract signatures (Figure 9) as available in
the EC database for the 389 projects. The calculated average time to contract is 455 days with a
minimum of 237 days and a maximum of 918 days. This average is higher than the one
reported in the final evaluation of FP6 (384 days) [20]. A time to contract of more than one
year questions the ability of the programme to provide projects at the technological state of the
art and to answer the market needs. Moreover, adjustment of project objectives in the
negotiation phase, to align with the evolution of external contexts, is rarely observed. Reducing
the time to contract should be one of the primary objectives of administrative burden
reduction.
11 Some organisations participated in several projects, as discussed in Table 5. 12 Including the one retained under the FP6 IST thematic, for joint call programmes. 13 Lowest percentage including proposals submitted in the 1st stage. Highest percentage calculated taking into account only the 2nd stage 14 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/dc/index.cfm?fuseaction=UserSite.NMPCallsPage
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
50
Figure 9: Time to contract of FP6 NMP projects (average=455 days, min=237 days, max=918 days)
3.1.2 Overview of participating organisations
As indicated in Figure 10 below, out of the 2.798 participating organisations identified, 18%
were higher education institutes, 55% were industrial organisations, 17% research institutes
and 10% other types of organisations.
Figure 10: Profile of participating organisations, (Source: EC database, n= 2798 Organisations)
Also, as it can be seen in Table 5 below, the majority (75%) of the 2.798 organisations
participated only once in the NMP projects within the FP6, while one organisation participated
in 79 NMP projects! According to the statistics performed, a significant number of
organisations participated in two NMP projects on average, throughout FP6.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Nu
mb
er
of
pro
ject
s
Time to contract (Day)
Detailed Report
51
Number of participations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Organisations 2082 342 121 57 36 31 30 13 16 11 9 8 3 7 3 1
Number of participations
17 18 20 21 23 25 27 31 32 35 45 66 67 79
Organisations 8 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
Table 5: Number of participations to FP6 NMP projects, (Source: EC database, n= 2798 Organisations)
With regards to the gender of the participants, 81% of the participants were men, whilst 17%
of them were women. No data was in the EC database for 2% of the participants. This ratio is
equivalent to the one observed at the whole FP6 level but lower than the overall percentage of
female researchers recorded in Europe in 2003 (29%) [20].
Figure 11: Gender repartition, (Source: EC Database, n= 5497 Participants)
Moreover, it is worth noticing in Figure 12 that although SMEs represent 65% of the EU’s gross
domestic product, the “backbone” of the economy is weakly represented in the FP6 NMP
projects. Nevertheless, the strong presence of commercial (45%) and private (61%)
organisations was coherent with the importance attached in current innovation policy theory
to public-private partnerships and the crucial role played by ‘intermediary organisations’. In
further detail, among the 5.497 participants, 13% were SMEs, 38% national / governmental
and 15% public organisations.
Male81%
Female16%
No answer
3%
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
52
Figure 12: Participants profiles (Source: EC Database, n= 2798 Organisations)
Figure 13 below shows the repartition of the 5.497 participants with regards to their country
of location: 90% of the participants are located in the European Union region, 6% were from
countries associated with the European Union, 2% were from EU candidate countries, and 2%
were non European participants.
Figure 13: Repartition of the participants regarding their adhesion to the European Union, (Source: EC database, n =5497 Participants)
3.1.2.1 Overview of Coordinator profiles
As it is noticed in Figure 10, the repartition of the coordinators is analogous to the total
number of participants per organisation type.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
EU (90,07%)
Associated countries to EU
(5,62%)
Associated candidate
countries (2,04%)
Countries with
coop agreement (0,25%)
Under agreement
with the EU
(0,02%)
Non European
Union (2%)
Detailed Report
53
Figure 14: Comparison of coordinators organisation type with participants organisation type (Source: EC database, n=389 Coordinators, n= 5497 Participants)
However, there is a significant difference between the percentage of coordinators (7,5% ) who
came from SMEs compared to the 13% of the total number of partners that came from this type
of organisation. Also, there is a significant difference between the percentage of coordinators
(32%) and the percentage of total number of partners (45%) who came from commercial
organisations. Moreover, it is noticeable that 46% of the coordinators were from governmental
organisations, a higher percentage compared to the 38% of the total number of participants
coming from this type of organisation and that 23% of the coordinators were from public
organisations, when only 15% of the total number of participants were from this type of
organisation as well.
Finally it is worth mentioning that the majority of the coordinators came from private
organisations as well as the vast number of participants.
3.1.2.2 Overview of participating SMEs
The FP6 NMP Work Programme quantifies very few objectives but it is at least clear on its
target for the funding of SMEs: Particularly, it is stated that “at least 15% of the funding
allocated to the Priority Thematic Areas of research is foreseen for SMEs”.
On the basis of the 389 projects, the FP6 NMP Work Programme did not reach this target as the
only 9% of total EC contribution was distributed to SMEs.
With regards to the participants from SMEs in FP6 NMP, 13% of the total number of
participants were from SMEs (see Section 3.1.2 above).
Nevertheless as it is indicated in Table 6 below , the SMEs participate in 11% of the total
project expenditures of FP6 NMP and receive 9% of the EC funding, which is above the 6.1%
estimated for FP6 [21].
13%
45%38%
61%
38%
15%8%
32%
46%
59%
40%
23%
All participants Coordinators
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
54
Participant Total Cost
Participant EC Contribution
Total 2 348 775 880 € 1 442 682 656 €
SMEs 262 082 296 € 135 072 415 €
Ratios 11% 9%
Table 6: SMEs participation ratios, (Source: EC Database, n= 389 projects)
Compared to other thematic areas, the NMP one launched specific calls targeting SMEs (see list
of the FP6 NMP calls in Annex II). These calls indicated as an eligibility criterion that the
project should be clearly led by SMEs. The charts below (Figure 15) show that on three SME-
oriented calls, two have supported the SMEs participation as well as the project coordination
by SMEs.
Figure 15: Participation of SMEs in FP6 NMP projects as partners and coordinators per call, (Source: Corda database)
Similarly, as illustrated in Figure 12, the EC contribution to SMEs on these specific calls has
significantly increased as it followed the SME participation rate.
Figure 16: EC contribution to EU27 SMEs per call, (Source: Corda database)
Among the 100 case studies analysed, 10 were selected from these calls (IPs for SMEs) and are
presented below:
14%
8%
35%
9%
13%
29%
2%
9% 7%10%
16%
N/A
31%
10%
33%
17%
27%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
FP6-NMP calls (in chronological order from left to right)
% of participating SMEs
% of SME coordinatorFP6-2002-NMP-2
FP6-2003-NMP-SME3 FP6-2004-NMP-SME4
11%
4%
25%
13%11%
23%
2%
5%4%
6%
11%
0%
25%
7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
FP6-NMP calls (in chronological order from left to right)
EC contribution to SMEs
FP6-2002-NMP-2FP6-2003-NMP-SME3
FP6-2004-NMP-SME4
Detailed Report
55
Case 1: (26 partners) Objectives were
changed during the project, and some
skipped. The objectives were only
partially realised. A request for project
lifetime extension had been requested and refused.
Reasons of failure were the too large number of
partners, too ambitious objectives, lack of
commitment of some partners and a lack of coherence
within the project plan. Nevertheless, the partners
individually still think that participating in this
project has been a positive experience as it increased
their technological knowledge and allowed for
building a network that is still active today.
Case 2: The project consortium is made of
28 participants across Europe, including
7 universities, 3 research centres and 18
SMEs. The consortium was said to be too
large for efficient management but at the
same time, its multidisciplinarity was described as an
asset. The project had no commercial outcome but
managed to produce two patents within the consortium
and two license agreements which have been signed with
a company external to the consortium. The SMEs
highlighted the scientific and prestige benefits gained
within the project.
Case 3: (16 partners) The scientific
target and project objectives were not
achieved as the whole project was
based on the optimistic technological
assumptions which were not realised. The long term
impacts of the project will be insignificant as it stands
today. Still many of the partner organisations seem
rather satisfied with the project and have gained a lot
of knowledge which they have successfully integrated
into their own processes and indirectly developed new
products and markets. Regarding difficulties, some
SMEs were following their own agenda as they were
restricted to their daily business. This created some
difficulties for the collaboration between SMEs and
research organisations.
Integrating scientific breakthrough and prototyping
in the same project fails if scientific breakthroughs do
not happen. This should have been tackled in the risk
management part of the project. Nevertheless, a
prototype has received praise in Austria even though
its characteristics were not the one aimed at. It later
got nominated for a “Stadt Preiss”.
Case 4: (22 partners linked with a
consortium of 6 Chinese organisations) The
first objective of technology development
and prototyping was achieved but the
second objective dealing with the constitution of a
Network of SME’s that could provide and customize the
tools developed for a wide range of manufacturing
sectors was not achieved. Participation of end-user SMEs
has not been up to the expectations and hindered in a
great extent the potential benefits the partners could
have from the commercialisation of project outputs. SMEs
had the chance to be transformed from less RTD intensive
into more capable and RTD aware ones. From an
economic perspective, some of the partners did mention
economic benefits from the exploitation of results that
ranged from 10% to 30% of their companies’ turnover.
The major mentioned obstacle to project success has been
the limited productivity and devotion of some members of
the consortium and the utilisation of less experienced
researchers in the project. Also, from the interviews, the
collaboration with China did not happen.
Case 5: (25 partners) The project was
able to achieve its objectives and
technical goals. The benefits of the
project can be felt both commercially
and technically by the partners. Long term impacts
are now foreseen from the project: improved and
predictable product life, reduced material content
without downside, innovative materials and processes
and original & cost-effective design solutions. The
project benefited from successful dissemination
activities carried out with a centralised approach
through which three partners coordinated the
dissemination and training activities. 78 documents
were prepared and two different training courses
(level 1 and 2). Contribution to standardisation
activities was made (Organisation for
Standardisation (ISO)). Many of the partners are still
collaborating closely today. The European
Commission has noted that the consortium was very
effective and has encouraged it to present new
proposals.
Case 6: (53 partners) Several products have
been commercialised and are today on the
market. New characterisation methods,
methodologies and tools were developed.
Overall, the project made a significant change in the
textile industry; the economic growth is more stable, the
general know how has been increased, and the services
offered have been improved. Partners are still
collaborating today. 13 innovative products were
commercialised by the partners and eight technologies
transferred from research to industrial partners for
medium term exploitation. The general commercial
outcome is difficult to estimate. As an example, for one of
the organisations, the estimate turnover linked to the
project is about €50 000, with a potential in 2010
estimated of 500 000 growing € 2 million per year in the
coming years. The effective project management system
used in the project and multi-disciplinary and multi-
sector consortium was mentioned as key success factors.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
56
Case 7: (33 partners) The consortium
lacked efficiency due to the creation of
clans and communications difficulties
among such a number of partners. The
project built five pilot lines and allowed the developed
technology to be adopted by end user SMEs in the
consortium. Despite providing higher quality results,
the real market adoption will face a number of
difficulties related to replacement of running
technologies, acceptance of higher cost (process
compatibility with mass production being questioned)
and the dangerousness of the process.
Case 8: (43 partners) The project had the
ambitious objective of reengineering a
whole production chain. Strengths have
been the large creation of networks with
specialists and identification of many
potential spin-offs. Weaknesses have been the number of
partners involved and the disparity in commitment. One
of the SMEs created a new R&D department. The amount
of patents filed by SMEs and universities has been limited
by the cost of patenting. Only a few partners succeeded in
turning results into commercialisation, Three partners
estimated their commercial return per year to be
respectively: € 120 000, € 50 000 and € 100 000. To take
full advantage of the project, the standardisation and
regulatory framework is now being updated to include
more stringent specifications compatible with the
developed technologies
Case 9: (24 partners) The project
developed advanced biocomposite
materials which have been applied in
20 prototypes targeting different
sectors, in-line with the project
objective. The commercialisation of these products is
difficult, as the biocomposite materials are expensive,
while they need further improvement in order to
overcome the technical limitations identified during
the project. Anyway, it was mentioned by the
interviewees that many of the participating SMEs,
managed to get new clients on the field of bio-based
materials thanks to the knowledge and reputation
earned in the project. Size of the consortium has been
an obstacle which has been overcome by a highly
skilled coordinator.
Case 10: (32 partners) Project objectives
have been achieved and involve not only
scientific, prestige and networking
aspects but most importantly economic
aspects as well as more than 20 exploitable services (nine
patents had been filed and gained based on the results of
the project, nine copyrights/ trademarks/ registered
designs have been gained also, two spin-off companies
were created and software packages have been
developed) that have been produced by the organisations
that participated. Some of them are currently ready to be
launched as products in the medical and actuators fields
but for proper commercial exploitation of the products
elaborated, the regulatory framework obstacles need to
be updated.
Table 7: Overview of 10 case studies related to projects from calls IP for SMEs
The main issue appearing in all the case studies from the calls IP
for SMEs is the size of the consortia, ranging from 16 to 53
partners! In all cases, the issues associated with the
management of large consortia have been mentioned as an
obstacle to project success. This has had a critical effect when
objectives of the project appeared to be unclear or too
ambitious. In that case, commitment from organisations, mainly
SMEs, to the projects rapidly decreased.
Regarding the disadvantages, some delegates of SMEs spoke very little or no English. This was
a major limitation to their participation. Moreover, the administrative barrier was hard to
climb for SMEs which had a lot of production to manage in parallel. Additionally, some SMEs
did not have any R&D service identified. Furthermore, in order for an SME to become part of a
consortium participating in a European project, it should have at least two years of experience
and positive balance sheets; this may have posed as a barrier to participation, even if the
elements required were not so important. Moreover, SMEs had to spend resources, (which
were difficult to find), on managing their Intellectual Property Rights, so as to be sure that they
would stay competitive after the project.
Call for SMEs is a key tool to
get SMEs benefiting from the
programme but they should
be limited to consortia of
manageable size
Detailed Report
57
On the other hand, these negative aspects did not darken the picture too much, which is
overall positive, as some of the participating SMEs managed to obtain appreciable benefits,
even if they did not participate in satisfying projects. Specifically, all the aforementioned
disadvantages were counterbalanced by several positive points. SMEs were incontestably more
reactive than big companies. They rapidly carried out the research results in order to exploit
them while they were also trying to get more finance. Moreover, by participating in NMP
projects, SMEs managed to get access to research and market networks, accessible previously
only by big companies, improving their competitive position, as well as their position towards
clients, suppliers, etc. They became actors on the international market, and their participation
in the projects was a starting point towards potential exportation of their products on an
international level. SMEs also gained knowledge on becoming innovative and on generating
ideas for new products.
3.1.2.3 International cooperation
Another NMP FP6 objective was to transform Europe into a more attractive working place for
researchers from outside Europe (Lisbon Agenda), compared with FP5.
As stated in the objectives of FP6 NMP, a budget of 285 million Euros was foreseen for funding
third country participation in RTD actions across all thematic priorities.
Participants Total Cost
Participants EC Contribution
Average co-financing rate
European Union 2 169 232 331 € 1 341 927 624 € 62%
Associated candidate countries 18 798 277 € 12 277 133 €
65%
Associated countries to EU 140 353 221 € 75 337 029 €
54%
Countries with cooperation agreement 1 653 211 € 82 500 €
5%
Other 18 738 838 € 13 058 369 € 70%
TOTAL NON EU 179 543 549 € 100 755 031 € 56%
Table 8: Repartition of FP6 NMP budget over non European Countries, (Source: EC Database: 389 projects)
As shown in the table, the funding of third countries within FP6 NMP has been to the order of
100 million Euros, contributing to 35% of the FP6 overall objective.
During the interviews, the feedback received on international cooperation presented a mixed
opinion. On one hand, there are examples of projects having successful results thanks to the
added valued gained by the participation of non European organisations, while in other
projects, difficulties to cooperate were recorded, mostly due to language and cultural
differences.
3.1.3 Geographical coverage
The graph below (Figure 17) shows the number of participants coming from the EU27
countries. As it can be seen in Figure 18 where it illustrates that the number of the participants
is strongly related to the population of each country
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
58
Figure 17: Number of participants per EU27 country, (Source: EC Database: n=5497 participants)
Figure 18: Participation rate and population per country, with regression line (R²=0.898), (Source:
EC database)
In general, the EC contribution to countries is correlated to the countries’ participation in the
EU27 GDP, as well as with their expenditure in R&D. Thus the Member States with the highest
GDP in the EU27, including Spain, France, United Kingdom, Italy and Germany have received
the biggest part of the EC contribution
However, as it is illustrated in Figure 20 not all countries have exploited their full potential and
they have not received satisfactory benefits in return for their R&D efforts (measured in GERD)
or in relation to their importance in the EU27 economy. The ratio of EC contribution to share
of EU27 GDP shows clearly that some countries received less EC contribution in the NMP
programme compared to what they contribute to the EU27 GDP and their national effort in
R&D. For example, the Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden and Denmark) that have the highest
GERD in the EU, did not get an analogous part from the EC contribution (Figure 21). Also,
France, Italy and the UK did not fully exploit their R&D potential.
962
584 578 570
401
263 250191 165 150 146 132 118 105 73 65 54 54 50 35 28 16 12 10 7 5 3
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
DE IT UK FR ES NL BE SE PL FI AT EL PT DK CZ IE RO SI HU SK BG LV EE LT LU CY MT
DE
ES
FRITUK
R² = 0,899
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
% of EU27 population
participation rate
Detailed Report
59
Figure 19: correlation between GDP and EC contribution, with regression line (R²=0.936), (Source:
EC database)
Figure 20: Correlation between EC contribution and EU27 GERD, with regression line (R²=0.9198),
(Source: EC database)
DE
ES
IT
FR
UK
R² = 0,936
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Share of EU27 GDP
% of total EC contribution to EU27 members states
AT BE
DE
DK
ES
FI
FRIT
NLSE
UK
R² = 0,9198
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0,0% 5,0% 10,0% 15,0% 20,0% 25,0% 30,0% 35,0%
% of total National GERD from EU27
% of total EC contribution to EU27Members states
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
60
Figure 21: EC contribution return on EU27 GDP share and GERD comparison, (Source: OECD)
With regards to the new Member States that have entered the EU community during the FP6
(ten countries joined the EU in 2004 and 2 countries in 2007), it can be observed in the two
graphs below (Figure 22 and Figure 23) that surprisingly, the amount of participation from
organisations from these countries decreased over the FP6 but at the same time, their
respective share of EC contribution increased. A possible explanation from this is the emphasis
put in place in the first FP6 NMP call to integrate organisations from the candidate countries:
“Proposers based in Associated States may take part in this programme on the same footing and
with the same rights and obligations as those based in Member States. In addition, this work
programme underlines the importance of involving associated candidate countries in the
Community's research policy and in the European Research Area. Specific support actions will
also be implemented to stimulate, encourage and facilitate the participation of organisations
from the candidate countries in the activities of the priority thematic areas. These will comprise
information, awareness and training activities, promotion of candidate country competencies,
support to researchers from these countries to participate in conferences and to prepare
proposals, establishment and reinforcement of networks or centres of excellence between Member
States and candidate countries, and between centres of excellence of candidate countries and
within candidate countries, measures in support of SMEs in candidate countries to better
participate, evaluation of RTD systems and policies in a particular field, the screening of research
establishments active in a particular field, and prospective studies aimed at defining research
policies and organisation of research systems in a particular field.”
2.2 1.880.50
0.35
1.25
2.522.58
0.72
0.51.05
3.44
2.17
0.93
1.17
1.11
0.67 1.65
0.38
0.93
1.760.54
0.71 0.393.85
1.27
0.57
1.75
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK
Ratio %of EC contribution to share of EU27 GDP
GERD in % of National GDP
Detailed Report
61
Figure 22: Evolution of participants, (Source: Corda database)
Figure 23: Time line of EC contribution to Member States, (Source: Corda database)
78%93% 94% 96% 94%
22%7% 6% 4% 6%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Participants from new entrant countries(since 2004)
EU15 participants
84%
63%73%
59%
72%
37%27%
41%
28%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
New entrants
EU15
% of EC contribution to EU27 participants % of EC contribution to EU27 participants % of EC contribution to EU27 participants % of EC contribution to EU27 participants % of EC contribution to EU27 participants % of EC contribution to EU27 participants % of EC contribution to EU27 participants % of EC contribution to EU27 participants
16%
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
62
Figure 24: FP6 Collaborative links for NMP (Source: European Commission, extracted from Corda)
AT BE DE DK EL ES FI FR IE IT LU NL PT SE UK BG CY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL RO SI SK EU Total
Member States AT 142 110 615 47 68 292 63 274 25 218 9 138 50 102 258 25 1 42 1 30 1 5 2 92 32 26 42 14 2724
(MEMBER) BE 110 189 855 63 145 345 102 674 56 619 13 267 177 173 525 12 2 34 4 37 13 5 0 155 53 53 16 19 4716
DE 615 855 1914 296 464 1625 472 1980 207 2186 31 928 476 768 1846 94 15 267 13 152 29 18 7 552 166 177 107 59 16319
DK 47 63 296 55 56 115 56 224 20 168 4 94 33 97 244 8 0 32 2 10 10 3 0 40 23 28 11 10 1749
EL 68 145 464 56 78 197 70 268 37 387 2 116 74 122 270 34 6 27 4 13 4 4 2 102 61 28 18 10 2667
ES 292 345 1625 115 197 575 213 765 107 984 6 491 306 320 862 42 4 114 13 73 5 10 3 316 106 78 38 15 8020
FI 63 102 472 56 70 213 132 319 28 268 2 142 54 204 365 14 0 39 15 33 1 4 0 105 20 21 32 7 2781
FR 274 674 1980 224 268 765 319 892 161 1305 27 439 324 414 1222 35 2 119 9 85 14 15 1 361 99 99 63 41 10231
IE 25 56 207 20 37 107 28 161 33 139 1 48 27 49 188 7 0 23 2 15 8 7 1 36 18 9 8 6 1266
IT 218 619 2186 168 387 984 268 1305 139 1108 11 512 378 440 1142 58 9 135 13 118 9 17 3 422 179 83 86 42 11039
LU 9 13 31 4 2 6 2 27 1 11 0 7 3 7 11 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 142
NL 138 267 928 94 116 491 142 439 48 512 7 266 123 213 559 16 7 51 7 51 10 9 1 196 61 47 22 16 4837
PT 50 177 476 33 74 306 54 324 27 378 3 123 118 94 192 13 0 16 3 17 3 3 1 83 30 26 5 5 2634
SE 102 173 768 97 122 320 204 414 49 440 7 213 94 154 414 9 0 30 6 46 4 3 1 111 52 38 23 11 3905
UK 258 525 1846 244 270 862 365 1222 188 1142 11 559 192 414 859 67 7 132 18 119 19 29 6 420 109 119 69 25 10096
BG 25 12 94 8 34 42 14 35 7 58 0 16 13 9 67 11 1 10 2 8 5 4 2 35 17 8 9 2 548
CY 1 2 15 0 6 4 0 2 0 9 0 7 0 0 7 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 65
CZ 42 34 267 32 27 114 39 119 23 135 2 51 16 30 132 10 1 16 4 10 2 2 0 42 9 13 17 7 1196
EE 1 4 13 2 4 13 15 9 2 13 0 7 3 6 18 2 1 4 1 3 1 3 0 4 3 4 3 1 140
HU 30 37 152 10 13 73 33 85 15 118 1 51 17 46 119 8 1 10 3 28 3 11 1 33 11 14 14 2 939
LT 1 13 29 10 4 5 1 14 8 9 0 10 3 4 19 5 1 2 1 3 16 2 0 10 5 8 3 0 186
LV 5 5 18 3 4 10 4 15 7 17 1 9 3 3 29 4 1 2 3 11 2 3 1 8 6 6 3 0 183
MT 2 0 7 0 2 3 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 1 6 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 0 38
PL 92 155 552 40 102 316 105 361 36 422 2 196 83 111 420 35 3 42 4 33 10 8 2 181 51 42 48 6 3458
RO 32 53 166 23 61 106 20 99 18 179 0 61 30 52 109 17 1 9 3 11 5 6 2 51 60 20 14 5 1213
SI 26 53 177 28 28 78 21 99 9 83 1 47 26 38 119 8 1 13 4 14 8 6 1 42 20 10 8 2 970
SK 42 16 107 11 18 38 32 63 8 86 0 22 5 23 69 9 1 17 3 14 3 3 1 48 14 8 23 4 688
EU 14 19 59 10 10 15 7 41 6 42 1 16 5 11 25 2 0 7 1 2 0 0 0 6 5 2 4 0 310
Total 2724 4716 16319 1749 2667 8020 2781 10231 1266 11039 142 4837 2634 3905 10096 548 65 1196 140 939 186 183 38 3458 1213 970 688 310 93060
Candidate Countries HR 1 1 7 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 30
(CANDIDATE) TR 13 36 79 11 14 32 21 61 4 66 0 17 22 19 80 8 0 4 3 13 2 2 1 25 11 15 5 2 566
Total 14 37 86 12 15 34 22 62 4 67 0 19 22 20 83 9 0 4 4 14 2 2 1 26 12 16 6 3 596
Associated Countries CH 127 146 738 62 76 281 99 392 48 415 6 195 91 127 333 20 3 43 2 23 9 6 2 87 55 38 13 10 3447
(ASSOCIATE) IL 38 44 225 17 28 73 9 87 14 156 2 68 23 31 111 13 0 14 0 22 3 6 2 27 18 11 8 2 1052
IS 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 25
LI 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
NO 19 43 182 28 40 71 24 101 9 136 4 79 23 58 96 5 2 12 1 7 1 1 1 31 11 6 8 8 1007
Total 185 233 1150 108 145 426 132 583 73 714 12 344 138 218 542 40 5 70 3 53 13 14 6 146 85 56 30 20 5544
Member States
(MEMBER)
Detailed Report
63
While the share of new entrants increased over time, Figure 24 shows that
collaborations between countries remained mostly located within the EU15.
3.2 Project overview
The 389 NMP FP6 projects in the supplied database were examined having as basis the
project instruments, the EC contribution attributed per project instrument and the
number of participants per project instrument.
As it can be seen in Table 9below, in terms of number of projects, more than half of the
funded projects were STREPs, while in terms of EC contribution the largest share of the
NMP programme budget was obtained by IPs.
Project Instrument
Total number of
projects
% of project instruments
EC contribution % of EC
contribution
Number of
partners
% of partners
Average number of
partners per project
STREP 220 56,56 % 442 641 327,26 € 30,68% 1952 35,51% 8,9
IP 95 24,42 % 812 556 543,14 € 56,32% 2485 45,21% 26,2
NOE 22 5,66 % 157 221 742,96 € 10,90% 441 8,02 % 20
CA 16 4,11 % 15 550 544,90 € 1,08% 372 6,77 % 23,3
SSA 36 9,25 % 14 712 498,12 € 1,02% 247 4,49 % 6,9
Total 389 100,00 % 1 442 682 656,38 € 100,00% 5497 100,00 % 14,1
Table 9: Analysis of FP6 NMP participation over project instruments, (Source: EC Database; n=389 projects)
The graph below (Figure 25) shows the repartition of the projects taking into
consideration the start and end dates. 36% of the NMP projects within the FP6 (139)
were launched in 2004. 33% of them started in 2005. 26% in 2006 and 5% started in
2007. Although FP6 started in 2002, almost all projects were launched between 2004
and 2006 and had an average duration of 3,5 years.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
64
Figure 25: Start and end date of the 389 FP6 NMP projects, (Source: EC database; n=389 projects)
Specifically, as shown in the Figure 26 below, almost half of the total NMP projects
lasted 36 months, 25% lasted 48 months, 31 projects lasted 24 months or less, and 24
lasted more than 48 months.
Figure 26: NMP average Project duration, (Source: EC database; n=389 projects)
Since the scope of this study is to explore the impacts of the NMP projects, it was
decided that only projects finished six months before the interview process would be
taken into consideration. 294 projects were finished before September 2009 and these
were taken into consideration for the survey analysis. 341 of the 389 projects were
finished before 31 December 2009.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2
139
130
100
18
0 0 0 003
8
26
69
130
105
42
6
Num
ber o
f pro
ject
s
Year
Start Date
End date
Detailed Report
65
4 MOTIVATION AND OUTPUTS From this section onwards we discuss the results of the NMP programme across the
main axes of analysis that involve the nature of the research conducted and the impacts
achieved and expected to be achieved. These axes, already described in Section 1.2.1
move away from the administrative nomenclature of RTD programmes towards
concepts and categories that are more relevant to contemporary readers. The
categories, which have been developed based on the quantitative and qualitative
analysis of the information obtained via this study, the results of Lot 2: Strategic Impact
Study [8], the FP8 Ex-ante impact assessment study [10] as well as other relevant
studies in the field, are considered essential tools for the analysis of the impacts of the
NMP programme and central to its understanding.
4.1 The FP6 NMP Project Portfolio
A notable difference between the FP6 programme and the preceding FP5 has been the
shift in emphasis from short to longer-term activities and from incremental to
breakthrough innovation strategies; a change also depicted in the NMP programme. As
stated in the NMP programming documents, the key intention of the EC with the NMP
programme has been the stimulation of major advances in industrial materials and
processes so as to facilitate the shift of the EU to a sustainable, knowledge-based society
[13].
As mentioned in earlier parts of this report, the NMP Programme was characterised by
a strong participation of business / industry organisations (38%) with an almost equal
share of education and research organisations (30% and 26% respectively) following
the participation pattern of the overall FP6 [14]. As depicted in Figure 27, providers of
professional, scientific and technical services (34%), educational institutes (27%) and
manufacturing companies (22%) composed the majority of NMP participants. SMEs
were 14% of the total population, participating mainly in STREPs and IPs and were
typically R&D-intensive organisations, mostly manufacturers or providers of
professional, scientific and technical activities. Large enterprises counted for 12% of
the total population, participating mainly in STREPS, IPs and CAs and belonging mostly
to the same sectors as SMEs.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
66
Figure 27: Sectorial repartition of FP6 NMP participants, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants
survey, n=1181)
The information concerning the organisations that participated in FP6 NMP projects
was cross-referenced with information presented in the EU Industrial Scoreboard of
2010 [10], so as to identify whether the top R&D investing companies of the world
participated in the programme. As depicted in Table 10, a significant number of
European top R&D investment companies have also participated in FP6 NMP
projects, confirming that the programme has attracted the best research
institutions and the most innovative companies of the EU. The importance in the
participation of these organisations is rather considerable as without their
involvement, the NMP Programme could not have hoped for a significant impact in
either the quality of research undertaken nor in the subsequent diffusion, adoption and
commercial exploitation of the research as such organisations are considered ‘hubs’ of
Europe’s national and industrial research networks. Furthermore, the collaboration
with such ‘elite’ organisations allows a strong transfer of knowledge and know-how
and a significant spill-over effect over the whole R&D community.
% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Information and Communication
Real estate activities
Water supply/Sewerage/waste mgmt/etc
Electricity, gas steam and air conditioning supply
Public administration/defence/social security
Wholesale and retail trade, etc.
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
Transportation and storage
Administrative and support service activities
Human health and social work activities
Mining and quarrying
Construction
Other service activities
Other
Manufacturing
Education
Professional, scientific & technical activities
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
8%
22%
27%
34%
Detailed Report
67
MNIBS
A succesful joint EU-US project
The MNIBS project (Multiscale Modelling of Nanostructured
Interfaces for Biological Sensors) was a co-funded project between
the EU and the US, bringing together top researchers15 from both
sides of the Atlantic Ocean, that aimed at developing a fundamental
understanding of the segregation and self-assembly of phospholipids
and polypeptide amphiphiles at interfaces and their interaction with
aqueous phases and liquid crystalline materials.
The joint EU NMP – US NSF Call scheme has proved to be a very
flexible tool for enabling collaboration beyond the borders of the EC.
Although the objectives of the project were considered as highly
ambitious by the project partners, since the project mainly involved
the production of novel knowledge at the international level, the
outcomes of the project could be commercially exploited. As of today,
an American company that was indirectly involved in the project via a
US partner, is commercially exploiting results of the project.
Additionally, a number of EU companies have already expressed their
commercial interest to further utilise outcomes of the project, and a
multinational company is going to collaborate with members of the
consortium in order to further research aspects of MNIBS that could
be commercially exploited in the near future.
Case study 1: MNIBS: a successful EU-US cooperation project.
From the Table 10 we can also identify that the top
international R&D investment companies are not
evident in FP6 overall or in NMP. The CSF Ex-Ante IA
report for NMP [11] has identied a number of issues
that may have resulted in this outcome, such as: the
legal issues that prevent organisations from third
countries participating; the EU grant agreement general conditions that do not fit with
US regulations for the most relevant universities; intellectual property issues, financial
and management concerns and even customs issues seem to hinder the collaboration
between EU and non-EU organisations. As an example, many FP6-NMP projects had
collaboration with Russian organisations, due to their geographical proximity and
strong positioning in nanotechnologies16 but several issues were mentioned such as
difficulties in transfering equipment or payments through the customs. In contrast with
these conclusions, a carefully planned cooperation set-up through a joint call, can prove
to be very succesful (Case study 1).
15 MNIBS project had as partners Northwestern University, University Of Wisconsin-Madison and Purdue University respectively ranked #12, #45 and #56 in the National University Rankings, which consider 262 national universities. 16 Project Istok-Soyuz, “Encouraging EU-RU cooperation in the field of ICT”, http://www.istok-soyuz.eu/index.php/target-eeca-countries/66-russia
The NMP Programme
attracted the best research
institutions and the most
innovative companies
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
68
Case studies demonstate that the main players engage in strategic projects. The
available funding is not the main driver and their strong long term market orientation
complement the shorter business perspective of SMEs and such an association has
proved to be very successful (see Case study 2). So top industrial R&D players can be
attracted by demonstraing to them the high level of research conducted and the
technological potential. As shown in section 4.3.3, dissemination activities are a useful
tool to capture this attention (see Case study 6).
Rank Company
(nationality)
Participation
in FP6 NMP
Rank Company
(nationality)
Participation
in FP6 NMP
1 Toyota (Japan) No 15 GlaxoSmithKline
(UK)
Yes
2 Roche (CH) No 16 Merck (US) No
3 Microsoft (US) No 17 Intel (US) Yes
4 Volkswagen (DE) No 18 Panasonic (Japan) No
5 Pfizer (US) No 19 Sony (Japan) Yes
6 Novartis (CH) No 20 Cisco Systems (US) No
7 Nokia (FI) No 21 Robert Bosch (DE) Yes
8 Johnson & Johnson
(US)
No 22 IBM (US) No
9 Sanofi-Aventis (FR) No 23 Ford (US) No
10 Samsung (South
Korea)
No 24 Nissan (Japan) No
11 Siemens (DE) Yes 25 Takeda (Japan) No
12 General Motors (US) No 27 AstraZeneca (UK) No
13 Honda (Japan) No 29 Bayer (DE) Yes
14 Daimler (DE) Yes 30 EADS (NL) Yes
Table 10: Participation of top R&D companies of 2010 in FP6 NMP, (Source: EU industrial R&D scoreboard 2010 and FP participation data, EC and survey databases)
Detailed Report
69
NEXT
Engaging big players
NEXT was a €21 M IP project gathering 23 partners including large
industry players who had a driving role for market requirements.
The main outcomes of the NEXT project have been six demonstrators
accompanied by guidebooks, methodologies and software tools for
developing new business models. Some of the prototypes developed
were already commercially exploited (e.g., the 2 dof robot) before the
end of the project, while others were on the verge of
commercialisation. Three patents were already registered before the
end of the project, while others were still pending.
Additionally, half of the survey respondents mentioned that their
organisation realised or expects to realise commercial returns as a
result of the exploitation of project outcomes. As stated in the
interviews with selected partners of the project, the NEXT project
created new business opportunities for all partners, from which direct
and commercial benefits are gained. Furthermore, scientific,
networking and prestige benefits were also other important benefits
for the NEXT partnership.
Case study 2: NEXT: Engaging big players
Figure 28 reports the overall views of respondents in response to twelve RTD
dimensions, and these answers are represented as a percentage of the total number of
respondents. In summary “The majority of respondents saw most research
conducted in FP6 NMP programme as highly scientifically and technically complex,
of high strategic significance for their institutions but not involving too high a
commercial or technical risk and certainly not being of high cost for the research
involved”. Around half of the respondents participated in applied research projects and
one fifth in fundamental research projects. The majority of them built on past R&D
conducted in house and funded from national or regional programmes (partially or to a
larger extent). As stated in the Lot 2 study [8] “...many of the national NMP-related
programme,[....] were addressing the issue of national actors’ participation in FP projects.
National funding was often designed in such a way, that it was supplementary to
European financing. In some countries (especially new MS and associated states),
participation in EU projects was made a strategic priority, especially in cases of countries
that struggle with lack of own resources”.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
70
Figure 28: Dimensions of research activities conducted in FP6NMP projects as perceived by survey respondents (Percentage of total respondents, source: FP6 NMP Participants survey,
n=1181)
The majority of the survey participants stated
that they will continue performing R&D in the
area through national (65%) and EU (56%)
funding programmes (Figure 29). According to a
more detailed statistical analysis performed, it was identified that around half of the
participating research institutions (46%) will attempt to retrieve international funds
for the continuation of their future NMP research activities. It would be interesting in
future studies to identify the impact of international partners in opening European
institutions to international projects and sources for research funding.
Figure 29: Continuation of R&D in the area, (Percentage of total respondents, Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=1181)
0%20%
40%60%
80%100%
High Cost
Commercial Risks
Applied Research
Involvement of top researchers (int)
S&T Risks
Core technology area
Links with in-house projects
High Strategic Importance for org
Long-term nature of R&D
Not feasible without external collabs
Involvement of top researchers (EU)
S&T Complexity
33%
42%
52%
52%
55%
61%
61%
67%
68%
70%
79%
83%
Almost 90% of participating
organisations will continue
pursuing research in the area
Detailed Report
71
Nano2Life
Structuring a new EU research
community
The Nano2Life project was one of the very first European nanobiotech
Networks of Excellence, dedicated to establishing and structuring a
Nanobiotech framework in Europe. The consortium consisted of 23
partners from higher education & research institutes. The project
emerged as it was recognised by the EU that there was much
fragmentation in this area and that to make Europe an international
leader in nanobiotechnology, the establishment of a nanobiotech
network was an essential step. The consortium was created by
getting as many multidisciplinary and nanobiotech institutions
involved as possible, noted by the number of German partners who
already benefited from a national network, as well as making sure that
there was strong and adequate geographic coverage.
While the project failed in setting-up a sustainable structure, it
created a strong community which had a structuring effect in Europe
and among its achievements gave birth to 75 complementary
research projects directly or indirectly linked to the project, 51
patents were filed for during and after the project. Interviewees
mentioned that without EC funding, the NoE would not have been
built
Case study 3: Nano2Life: Structuring a new EU research community
The five main European Technology Platforms (ETPs) that attracted most of NMP
participants were EuMaT (35%), ManuFuture (24%), MINAM (17%), NanoMedicine
(14%) and SusChem (10%). According to the interviews performed it was evident that
many of these participations were not only active but also that the FP6 NMP strongly
contributed to the establishment and consolidation of related ETPs such as EuMaT or
ManuFuture. An example, the RI-MACS project built the operational tool of ManuFuture
while the VRL-KCIP project had 18 of it experts joining the 40 participant prospective
group of ManuFuture. Interviewees mentioned that contributing to the ETP’s Strategic
Research Agenda was an excellent opportunity to get involved in the definition of work
programmes and thus getting further projects to fund the area of research.
NMP is a rapidly evolving field and thus an external
environment was expected to affect the course of some
projects: around two thirds of the participants stated
that changes in their projects external environment did
occur but they were either insignificant or even in the
cases where they were significant they did not cause
major changes to the projects. Among those participants
The NMP programme
demonstrated enough
flexibility to accommodate
internal and external
evolutions of context
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
72
where changes in the external environment did require a change of their projects, this
usually involved an alteration of the composition of the consortium, its timing and
nature of the deliverables and more rarely a redefinition of the scientific objectives of
the project. As observed also from the conducted interviews, changes did occur in
consortium composition, project objectives (either due to technological issue or
changes in partners’ plans) and external context but FP6 NMP allowed flexibility that
allowed projects to encompass and integrate alterations and fluctuations of their
external environment within their auspices. The only very limited cases where issues
have been reported were in projects for which a change would have been necessary but
was not implemented due to a coordinator or consortium being afraid to modify the
initial plan.
4.2 Assessment of NMP Participant Motivation
Figure 30 below shows the importance of the various
goals to the different categories of organisations
involved in the FP6 NMP programme. The differences in
the goals are noteworthy, even if somewhat expected.
S&T goals were considered the most important reason
for participating in NMP projects for the majority of the participants to the survey
(88%) followed by economic and health/ environmental goals (considered important
by 46% and 41% of the population respectively). The case studies show that in most of
the cases, the core members of the consortium had collaborations and personal
relations prior to the project set-up and this is recognised as a success factor for the
project execution. The project ideas come mostly from 3 sources:
A coordinator facing a particular challenge that it is not able to solve on its own.
Research conducted within a national project that is needed to be taken up to
the EU level to get the ability to cover the whole lifecycle of a technology or a
product (projects HOLIWOOD or TUNCONSTRUCT are examples of such
situations).
A previous FP (mostly FP5 in the case of FP6 NMP) project.
Scientific & technological
advancements have been
the main target of FP6 NMP
participants
Detailed Report
73
Figure 30: Importance of Goals for Participants in RTD projects, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=1.181)
As stated in Section 1.2, the underlying objective of the FP6 NMP programme was to
move towards a knowledge-based and more environmentally friendly industry through
an integrated approach combining materials science, nanotechnology, production
technologies, information technologies, biotechnologies, and so forth so as to opt for an
efficient transformation from resource-based to knowledge-based European industries. In
this view, the goals of the participating organisations were in line with the objectives of
the programme as the majority the participants stated during the online survey that
they did not have high economic expectations from their projects. However they mainly
wanted to explore whether their innovative ideas – from the scientific and
technological point of view – could be conceptually proved or if they could accomplish
an innovative scientific or technological breakthrough that at a later point, usually after
the end of the project, could be commercially exploited. This is also in line with the pre-
competitive nature of FP6. Perhaps this also justifies why organisations stated in the
survey, and also during the interviews, that in the future they shall address
national/regional programmes for their new NMP projects, as such programmes
usually allow a focus on “practical aspects” of innovation and the market exploration of
their ideas.
An interesting situation shown in some projects is the case where a patent is filled prior
the project and serves as an input to the project (Figure 31). When IPR issues are
clearly and transparently solved within a consortium agreement prior to the project, it
can prove to be very successful to transform an idea into a market opportunity as
shown by project AUTOBONE (see Case study 4).
2
8
18
19
16
1
6
12
13
9
2
14
20
19
15
8
27
27
26
20
30
27
16
16
24
58
19
7
6
16
-100,00% -50,00% 0,00% 50,00% 100,00%
Scientific and technological goals
Commercial and economic goals
Policy-oriented goals
Social goals
Health and environment related goals
Not applicable Very Low importance Low importance Moderate importance High importance Very high importance
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
74
Figure 31: FP6 NMP on the innovation pathway
AUTOBONE
Building proof of concepts
through FP6 projects
The aim of the AUTOBONE STREP project was to combine the
developments in the areas of tissue engineering based on materials
and 3D scaffolds development with large laboratories and a few
commercial activities in the field of bioreactors. It would transpose
the concepts of tissue engineering and regeneration of the frontiers of
new developments: the automated production of autologous bone
replacement materials. One of the goals of this project was to develop
a bioreactor that would be set-up within the confines of a hospital and
which would be used to homogenously activate specially designed
porous matrices with stem cells from harvested bone marrow
aspirates of the patient to produce antilogous hybrid bone graft
materials.
A comparison between the project’s objectives and outcomes
indicates that what was initially planned was actually accomplished to
a high degree. It is very important to state the fact that the concept of
implementing bone reengineering assembling with the
development of biomaterials was a concept that was patented by
an academic partner of the project prior to its elaboration. Since
AUTOBONE was funded, a proof of principle has been
accomplished which was the development of an automotive
bioreactor device. In this sense and as a result, the university started
up a new spin-off company for this device which will be involved,
among others, in the exploitation of the concept following
AUTOBONE’s results. The idea was thus written taken into account
this patent. IPR issues were already discussed prior to its submission
so no problems were encountered in this respect whatsoever.
Case study 4: AUTOBONE: Building proof of concepts through FP6 projects
IPR issues clarifiedwith the consortium
prior project building
Patent
•Filed by university
Proof of concept
•Done in FP6 NMP project
Spin-off
•Created by the university
Detailed Report
75
The NMP programme responded well to its strategic objectives, i.e., to foster
‘innovation’ on the one hand and promote the ‘transformation of industry’ on the other,
in terms of the immediate outputs generated by the projects. Table 11 below shows
that the programme produced strong S&T outputs, aimed to enhance the knowledge
and skills of participants and to improve the operational processes of the organisations,
as well as significant economic outputs, through product and process innovations.
Very high importance
High importance
Moderate importance
Low importance
Very low importance
Non applicable
Knowledge and Skills Group of Outputs
Publications 28,1% 25,7% 24,6% 11,6% 6,3% 3,8%
PhDs 19,5% 20,4% 16,2% 17,9% 13,7% 12,2%
Training Programmes 13,6% 27,4% 27,7% 17,3% 6,6% 7,4%
Good practices 25,1% 40,7% 22,2% 6,5% 1,8% 3,6%
Product Innovations Group of Outputs
New/improved materials 30,4% 29,0% 15,7% 7,0% 7,0% 10,8%
New/improved services/products/components
29,8% 29,3% 14,9% 8,6% 5,5% 11,9%
New/improved software/simulation models
18,9% 19,2% 17,6% 15,7% 12,6% 16,0%
New/improved manufacturing systems
26,0% 23,5% 18,2% 10,5% 7,8% 14,0%
Prototypes, demonstrators & pilots
27,1% 27,3% 14,9% 10,4% 6,6% 13,6%
Patent applications 14,8% 15,6% 20,5% 16,5% 15,4% 17,2%
Copyrights, trademarks, etc. 7,1% 12,9% 17,5% 18,9% 21,1% 22,4%
Organisational Processes Group of Outputs
New/improved processes 31,7% 30,0% 15,1% 8,4% 4,6% 10,2%
New production concepts 20,7% 26,4% 16,3% 10,7% 9,5% 16,4%
New tools for efficient life-cycle design, etc.
11,3% 19,7% 21,0% 15,3% 13,6% 19,1%
New organisational models 6,6% 10,7% 18,4% 20,0% 20,0% 24,4%
Sustainable processing of multifunctional materials
21,4% 20,5% 16,6% 12,7% 10,4% 18,4%
Quality and safety assurance Group of Outputs
New/improved quality standards
20,7% 23,9% 22,3% 13,7% 7,2% 12,2%
New/improved control devices 15,5% 19,6% 21,1% 16,9% 9,5% 17,4%
New/improved characterisation tools
18,4% 25,0% 22,4% 12,6% 7,4% 14,1%
Safer products 13,4% 17,7% 17,0% 16,5% 14,7% 20,6%
New/improved knowledge management tools
10,6% 15,5% 18,4% 17,4% 17,3% 20,8%
Table 11: FP6 NMP Projects Outputs, (Source: NMP Participants survey, n=1.181))
As observed from the table above, the most important outputs elaborated were
knowledge and skills related (primarily publications and good practices) as well as
product innovations, such as new/improved materials, services/ products/
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
76
components and processes and prototypes, demonstrators and pilots. However, since a
large part of the accomplished outputs did involve economic benefits it was anticipated
that the “registration” of obtained knowledge and created outputs through patenting,
registering, trade-marking procedures, etc., would be considered as important by a
higher portion of the total population than actually observed. From the case studies,
two answers can be provided:
- For one part of the organisations, knowledge registration is not a priority and
procedures to do so are even unknown. Several interviewees underlined the
need to get support on these procedures and the role of ESIC seminars in
getting a more comprehensive vision of registration issues was acknowledged.
- For another part of the organisations, FP6 NMP projects aim at providing an
incremental knowledge, feeding the overall innovation process of the
organisation. Registration and exploitation of knowledge is then not a targeted
output of the project and is generally done, with less visibility, within the
organisation.
4.2.1 Industrial organisation perspective
As observed in Figure 32 the main objectives of the industrial organisations that
participated in the FP6 NMP programme, according to the views collected during the
online survey and respective personal interviews, were similar to the overall
population: the industrial organisations were primarily interested in gaining further
scientific and technological insight in the NMP area, secondarily in economic benefits
and thirdly in environmental and health issues.
Figure 32: Importance of Goals for Industrial Participants in RTD projects, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey – selection of Very Important and Important responses, n= 453)
According to Figure 33, the most important outputs produced by the majority of
industrial organisations were a combination of knowledge and innovation outcomes
that would assist them in enhancing their knowledge basis (good practices) on the one
hand as well as obtaining economic benefits via the commercial exploitation of
innovations produced (new/improved services/ products/ component/processes,
Detailed Report
77
prototypes, demonstrators and pilots) on the other. Whilst patenting and copyrighting
of the obtained knowledge, outputs, results, etc., was of significant importance only to a
small part of the total respective population. As seen from the case study, this trend for
industry is mostly explained by the second explanation given above. FP6 NMP projects
only cover a small part of the industry innovation cost and registration of knowledge is
not an expected output as it is tackled within the company processes. Extracting the
real contribution of one project in the overall innovation process of a company is
indeed difficult, with the exception of small companies for which the ratio between
project knowledge creation and company overall knowledge creation is higher.
Figure 33: Important Outputs for Industrial Participants in RTD projects, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants – selection of Very Important and Important responses, n=453)
4.2.2 SME and Large Enterprise perspective
Around one third of the total population of NMP was composed of SMEs and large
enterprises (LEs) that aimed, as depicted in Figure 32 above, primarily for S&T goals,
similarly to all other participants of the programme. But interestingly SMEs have been
by far more interested in economic benefits and achievements than large enterprises.
This is in line with the vision from the case studies stated previously. The relative
impact of a project is much higher for a small company than for a large one. Large
companies’ main goal of participation was gaining access to scientific and technological
‘windows of opportunity’, sharing technical risks and using the NMP programme as an
extension and consolidation of research collaborations, especially with research
providers.
SMEs as well as large enterprises mainly aimed for innovations close to the market
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
78
through the development/improvement of services/products/components, processes
and materials as well as the elaboration and exchange of good practices. According to
the advanced statistical analyses elaborated on the two populations, the opinions of SMEs
and LEs differed significantly (95% confidence interval) only on the importance of
development/improvement of quality standards: half of the participating SMEs stated
that this was an important output of their project while significantly less - around 1/3 - of
the large enterprises had a similar view.
Figure 34: Importance of Outputs for SME Participants in RTD projects, (Source: FP6 NMP
Participants survey- selection of Very Important and Important responses, n=106)
Detailed Report
79
Figure 35: Importance of Outputs for large enterprises in RTD projects, (Source: FP6 NMP
Participants survey- selection of Very Important and Important responses, n=145)
4.2.3 Higher education and research institute perspective
Higher education establishments and research organisations have been primarily
interested in S&T goals and relatively less on other aspects (economic, policy, health,
environmental and social ones), as shown in Figure 36 below. An interesting
observation concerns the economic ambitions of the two types of organisations: one in
every three research organisations were interested in such goals in comparison to one
in every four higher education institutes. The difference is statistically significant (95%
confidence interval), as are the differences in policy and health and environmental
goals that have been rated higher by research organisations than academia.
Figure 36: Importance of goals for HE and RES participants of RTD projects, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey – selection of Very Important and Important responses, n=657)
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
80
Further differences were observed on the importance of achieved outputs between the
higher education institutes and the research organisations as depicted in Figure 37 &
Figure 38. As anticipated the majority of academics considered as primarily important
outputs of their NMP projects the enhancement of scientific knowledge and skills, via
publications, training programmes and the development and exchange of good
practices, as well as the improvement of materials and processes. As well as the
enhancement of their scientific knowledge and skills, the majority of research
organisations considered as important outputs the enhancement of production
elements via the development/ improvement of materials, processes,
products/components/services. Between the two populations advanced statistical
analyses were conducted so as to identify statistically significant differences on the
importance of their outputs. According to these analyses, the responses of higher
education institutes and research organisations differed significantly about the
importance of knowledge-related outputs (publications, PhDs and other formal
qualifications and training programmes), quality and safety assurance outputs
(development of new or the improvement of processes, characterization tools and
quality standards) as well as of product enhancement outputs (development and or
improvement of components/ products/ services and the creation of prototypes and
demonstrators). Although the difference in the knowledge related outputs was
anticipated, the differences concerning the other outputs are considered captivating.
No clear explanation was obtained from the case studies on this issue despite one
element of explanation could be proposed: as shown earlier, the focus of the industry is
on the development and improvement of news services, products and components. To
gain research contracts from the industry, the higher education institutes and the
research organisations need to provide different and complementary expertise,
necessary for the industry without raising IPR issues. The higher education institutes
and the research organisations provide the underlying knowledge on top of which the
industry is able to develop and improve its products and services.
Detailed Report
81
Figure 37: Importance of Outputs for higher education institutions in RTD projects, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey – selection of Very Important and Important responses, n=
353)
Figure 38: Importance of Outputs for research institutions in RTD projects, (Source: FP6
NMP Participants survey – selection of Very Important and Important responses, n= 353)
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
82
4.3 Assessment of Achieved Outputs, Outcomes and Results
4.3.1 Scientific and Technological Outputs
It has to be underlined at this point that getting a detailed and precise view of project
outcomes is a difficult task when it comes to making an aggregated analysis. Even the
interviews performed during the construction of the case studies did not allow the
evaluation team to get precise information on the selected projects. When looking at
the interviewed partners, retrieval of exhaustive and descriptive lists of outcomes was
nearly impossible: there were always uncertainties such as the number, type and status
of publications or patents produced by the organisations. A general issue encountered
here is that projects contribute to the general RTD activity of the organisations and so
beyond the deliverables due within the project, it is often difficult to estimate the extent
to which the project contribute to an achievement (publication, patent, commercial
project).
The Scientific and Technological outputs produced per partner increased linearly with
the size of the organisation, as anticipated and depicted in Table 12 below: SMEs
produced on average 2 publications and participated in 7 conferences while higher
education, research institutes and large enterprises produced on average at least 6
publications and participated in more than 11 conferences. Detailed statistics related to
project outputs as expressed within the survey are given in Annex VII
Average number of articles
Average number of participation in
conferences
Higher education 12 14 Research institutes 11 15 SMEs 3 7 Large enterprises 6 11 AGGREGATED RESULTS 9 11
Table 12: Average number of articles and participations in conferences per organisation type, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=1181)
With respect to S&T achievements with short-to-medium term economic perspectives,
i.e., patents, software packages, spin-off companies, etc., we observe that larger
organisations (i.e., higher education institutes, research organisations, large
enterprises) tended to produce patents more often than SMEs while SMEs tended to
register more often their knowledge via copyrights, trademarks, etc. With respect to
spin-offs around one in every ten higher education and research institutes as well as
SMEs tended to establish one while one in every twenty large enterprises produced
such an output. Almost twice as many SMEs and large enterprises contributed to
standards/normalisation bodies than higher education and research institutes. This is
in line with expectations as standardisation and normalisation issues are of greater
concern for the industry. Nevertheless, it may be advisable to search for an increased
participation of higher education and research institutes in pre-standardisation
activities. Indeed, definition of standardisation mandates require early information
Detailed Report
83
which can be partly provided by the research activity.
% of project with at
least one patent
% of project with at least
one copyright
% of project with at
least one spin-off
% of project with at least
one developed software
% of project that contributed
to standards
Higher education
21% 4% 8% 24% 9%
Research institutes
26% 7% 9% 23% 11%
SMEs 18% 10% 9% 29% 23% Large enterprises
26% 5% 5% 29% 20%
AGGREGATED RESULTS
20% 8% 7% 23% 12%
Table 13: Economic and quality assurance outputs of FP6 NMP projects, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=1181)
4.3.2 Commercial Return on Investment
24% of the organisations that participated in the survey stated that they have realised
or expect to realise commercial returns through the exploitation of their project results,
while 28% considered such exploitation highly unlikely. Among those that expect
commercial results, around half expect commercial returns of more than €100.000
on an annual basis.
Figure 39: Possibility of Commercial Returns (source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=1181)
Figure 40: Levels of expected Commercial Returns (source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=202)
Around one fourth of industrial participants, 17% of research institutes and only 6% of
higher education organisations expect commercial benefits to be gained from their
participation in NMP projects. Amongst them, almost half of the industrial
organisations, 35% of the research organisations and 19% of the higher education
institutes expect revenues of at least € 100.000 per annum.
One third of the SMEs and 15% of the large enterprises expect to gain commercial
benefits from the exploitation of their NMP results and among them 28% of SMEs and
almost half of the large enterprises expect revenues of more than € 100.000 per
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
84
annum. The case studies show that in most of the cases, the commercial returns are yet
to be realised but are anticipated to be confirmed as expected. A few cases of revenues
gained from patent licensing have been announced.
From a pillar perspective, and according to the case studies, projects under the NMP3
pillars reveal that the technologies developed in the projects allowed for process
improvement and that this, while improving the company efficiency, does not create
commercial returns as such (see Case study 5 and Table 14).
CEC-MADE-SHOE
Increasing EU competitiveness
through process innovation
CEC-MADE-SHOE is an IP gathering 56 partners. It was proposed
under the 3rd NMP pillar in a joint IST-NMP call. To maintain the
European competitiveness on the shoe manufacturing market, the
project aimed at developing radical new manufacturing processes,
new materials with a focus on environmental friendliness, an
actualised relationship between the supply and demand side and the
whole electronic integration of the value chain permitting the optimal
use of nanotechnologies and intelligent materials.
While the project produced limited direct commercial returns and did
not lead to an extensive amount of knowledge registration, it had a
number of outputs contributing to EU competitiveness (see Table 14).
From the interviews it appeared that while not all the research was
ready for the market at the end of the project, 70% of the results were
useful to take it further. This project was an initiator of improvement
and the first results are slowly showing off. All commercial results are
foreseen to become visible within 1 to 5 years after finalisation of the
project: 20% in the first and second year and 10% in the third, fourth
and fifth year. Also, as an economic impact, the one-step production
process developed by the project improved productivity more than
15% for small series production, which is the trend for European
companies
Case study 5: CEC-MADE-SHOE: Increasing EU competitiveness through process innovation
Detailed Report
85
Output Description
New / improved materials New bio and eco-friendly leathers (more than18 materials in 48 different finishings) and glues (3 typologies) for footwear products.
New lining s and soles exploiting advanced formulations/properties New/ improved manufacturing systems
A new last milling process An advanced one step production line, integrating shoe manufacturing
phases Pervasive quality controls as knowledge generators (online monitoring,
process setup definition, knowledge extraction) New/ improved services/ products/ components/ appliances / devices
3 new typologies of advanced shoe product: Bioshoe – totally bio product Active shoe – shoe incorporating new functionalities/properties Seamless-Snap shoe – shoe conceived though new manufacturing
approaches (no sewing, direct manufacturing) Magic Mirror – a tool for virtual try–on of the to-be-manufactured shoe 3D integrated CAD environment
Sustainable processing of multifunctional materials
New bio and eco-friendly leathers, and PU/TPU formulations
New/improved processes Direct manufacturing of shoe products by sintering
New/improved control devices and instruments
IEC 61499 standard based control system design tool
New/improved characterisation tools
CEC co-design concept and tool Virtual shoe test bed – a tool for virtual simulation of physical properties of the to-be-manufactured shoe
New production concepts Instant mould - a faster and quicker alternative to metal mould
New tools for efficient life-cycle design, production, use and recovery of systems
Definition of standards for business interoperability (product codification and business documents like order, delivery note, etc.
Process integration and coordination (PIC-Shoe) – tool supporting integrated B2B functionalities along the production chain, from suppliers to producers to third party manufacturers
Integrated European Retail Platform (IERP) – tool supporting electronic communication between producers and retailers
New organisational models New business models for three shoe typologies Multipurpose process simulation for production evaluation and
organisation New / improved knowledge management tools
Sales forecasting tool
Prototypes, demonstrators and pilots
Several shoe samples produced by exploiting new advanced materials and shoe solutions
One integrated technological demonstrator at CNR-ITIA Integrated pilot plant
Networked demonstrator of ICT solutions for production management (PIC-shoe and IERP), involving different companies - as nodes – across Europe
Demonstrator of the one-step production process, still in real operation in a Portuguese leading company.
Patent applications Patent application on Magic Mirror
Copyrights, trademarks, registered designs, licences etc.
STEP For Green Label
Other outputs Fashion and style guidelines for new shoe concepts
Table 14: Example of project outputs (Source: CEC-MADE-SHOE IP project)
4.3.3 Assessment of Dissemination & Communication
Channels
As depicted in Figure 41 below, the media channels that were mostly utilised by the
NMP projects participants were addressing the scientific community (i.e., S&T journals,
conference papers, etc.) as well as specific target groups mostly through the
participants’ own websites. Around 40% of the respondents stated that they promoted
information about their projects through the Commission’s websites while with respect
to the utilisation of more conventional and broad audience media such as local or
national printed and online newspapers as well as TV and radio programmes, between
14% and 24% of participants used such means. According to further analyses
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
86
performed, it was identified that around one third of respondents considered the mass
media, such as TV, radio programmes and newspapers (online and offline) as non-
applicable means of project dissemination.
Figure 41: Visibility of RTD NMP projects in different media channels, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=1181)
As anticipated a higher percentage of higher education and research institutes
(“academia”) utilised media channels for promoting their research results rather than
SMEs and large enterprises (“Industrial partners”). This result is in line with the finding
of the Lot 2 study, in which it was stated “...the dissemination in NMP FP6 (...was...)
addressed towards academia only and not enough towards the industry and the broad
public” [8]. On the one hand, this result is understandable under the light of the
purposes for dissemination among the two populations: academia mainly aims at
producing publications and articles so as to enhance its academic and departmental
prospects, while industrial partners on the other hand wish to publish information
about their achievements so as to attract new customers and improve their reputation
and visibility. However, one should also take into consideration that NMP project
participants were required to create dissemination strategies (recorded in the Plan for
Using and Disseminating Knowledge (PUDK)) so as to ensure maximisation of
dissemination efforts and provision of information to a large audience. Based on the
qualitative analysis of almost 100 PUDK reports (collected during the assessment of the
case studies) it was evident that these strategies mostly involved the presentation of
information through conferences, project meetings, workshops, publications, etc. and
mainly aimed at reaching the scientific community.
Detailed Report
87
MULTIPROTECT
Dissemination to increase
exploitation
The MULTIPROTECT brought together 31 academic and industrial
researchers from 13 countries. In a period of 51 months, it developed
several nano-structured coating materials, and the most promising
were up-scaled and transferred to the industrial project partners for
application and testing on demonstrator parts comparable to parts
taken from production. From these developments, new market
opportunities are expected in the future for the aerospace and
automotive industries as well as for coatings producers and coatings
end-users.
The technology developed during MULTIPROTECT will eventually
become commercially exploitable as the follow up projects based on
the research results and developments of MULTIPROTECT have
already tackled the problems that occurred regarding the cost and the
technical limitations. For example the MUST project, which is based
on MULTIPROTECT, will release nanocontainers that will be
developed and incorporated in commercial paints, lacquers and
adhesive systems to prepare new products exhibiting self-healing
properties. This will have great economic impact on the members of
the consortium as well as on European industrial competitiveness.
According to the interviewees all dissemination activities
contribute to the project success and put the basis for further
collaboration with big industries in other projects, like MUST.
Case study 6: MULTIPROTECT: dissemination to attract big players..
The case studies show some successful initiatives. As an example, the Nano2Life NoE
wanted to attract industrial interest toward the NoE and developed the following
strategy: no industrial group was present in the consortium so as to leave room for
academics and researchers to create their own community in an emerging field of
research (nanobiotechnologies). But efforts were put on presenting information in a
condensed and professional way so to attract industry attention. Finally, the project
coordinator underlined that the organisation of industry workshops (see Case study 7)
had been very successful: “Companies have successfully participated in knowledge
transfer, information flow, and networking programmes of Nano2Life. Access and
participation to these activities has allowed companies to expand their technology
portfolio and overall researchers to establish connections and acquire know-how which
will hopefully be sustained beyond the life of this NoE”.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
88
Nano2Life
Industry workshops
“Last 6th May Nano2Life organised an INDUSTRY WORKSHOP. This
workshop, being one of the last events of Nano2Life, was an
international event offering a forum for the exchange of innovative
business solutions with the participation of Nano2Life top research
institutions.
28 participants from 17 companies from 5 different European
countries attended this event.
In this event, Nano2Life
1. presented to Industrial nano2Life partners the conclusions of
four scientific research programmes of the network, of key
interest for the audience, and focusing on the state of the art
developments and future trends,
2. showed the key conclusions of the 8 prospective workshops of
Nano2Life carried out at WP5,
3. created a forum for the exchange of opportunities and
cooperation between industry partners and N2L scientific
leaders, specifically focused on the on the forthcoming calls of
FP7 and on how IP should be managed by companies at a
coordinated project,
4. successfully generated a roundtable discussion on how industry
and academia in the nanobio sector should interact in the
future.
Conclusions of this WS are the number of scientific, technical and
strategic exchanges among participants and the feedback of industry
on their relationship with Nano2Life during its life-span.”
Case study 7: Nano2Life Industry Workshops (Source: http://www.nano2life.org/news.php?nid=59)
Interestingly, the importance of communication of project results to the wider society
was rated rather high by all participants as shown in Figure 42 below. Half of the large
enterprises and 55% of the SMEs considered as important the communication of their
project results to society while 72% of higher education institutes and 64% of research
organisations considered the same. However, as seen previously, the use of media
channels targeting the wider public is not seen as a priority which may reduce the
impact on the wider public. This is confirmed by the Lot 2 study previously mentioned:
the broader public barely benefited, according to the views of the coordinators, but this
view was considered rather biased due to the unawareness of the perception that these
user groups developed about the benefits of these NMP projects.
Detailed Report
89
Figure 42: Importance of communication of project results to society, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=1181)
In addition, some projects
mentioned the use of Web2.0 (the
participative web) technologies
which may appear usual as seen
today but were mostly emerging
trends at the time of FP6.
As an example, one can mention the
BioMine wiki which was developed
by the project to offer a free, web-
based, cross-disciplinary
information source on metal
extraction, removal of metal from
effluents, microbes and elemental
cycles and how microbes affect
minerals and metals. Nevertheless,
this wiki has not been maintained
since the end of the project and alternatives have been suggested by other case studies
to have a sustainable information repository such as making use of existing repository
with higher visibility (Wikipedia, etc.) or developing transverse support actions
maintaining such repositories for the project community.
4.3.4 Strengths and weaknesses of FP6 NMP
During case studies, interviewees were questioned about the main strengths and
weaknesses of the FP6 NMP to support the development of industrial technologies in
Europe.
One of the most mentioned strengths is that the programme leaves the flexibility of the
research projects: to change, possibility to be more pertinent than what is proposed.
The programme also aims at validating the existing know-how of all partners. The
presence of demanding and supportive project officers was also mentioned as an asset
for the project to evolve toward success.
Figure 43: The BioMine wiki main page
(http://wiki.biomine.skelleftea.se/wiki/index.php/Main_Page)
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
90
The high level of funding allocated per project compared to national schemes is well
appreciated and its added value is often mentioned as national schemes do not allow
propelling large scale international collaboration projects.
Finally the multidisciplinary approach pursued within these projects imply that these
types of FP6 projects are clearly ideal to come in contact with many interesting
organisations, as well for education, research as industrial organisations. In particular
it is an excellent manner to get to know and work with SMEs.
Regarding the weaknesses of the FP6-NMP programme, the administrative and
financial aspects being hard to manage always comes first. Another weakness raised is
the time that passes between the end of the project and the effective payment by the EC
for the project. In some cases this caused major difficulties for several SMEs
involved in the project. Still on the financial issue, the funding level being limited to
50% for SMEs (raised to 75% in FP7) is mentioned as a limiting factor to foster SME
participation.
Finally, the exploitation part of the programme could be further enhanced. There is no
follow-up on the promised exploitation and impact achievements once the project is
finalised. Several interviewees mentioned the need to have a part of the project budget
be reserved for an exploitation period at the end of the project, so to enforce the
“impacts section” of the project proposals.
Detailed Report
91
5 IMPACTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE FP6 NMP PROGRAMME There are many ways to assess the achievements and impacts accruing to participants
in collaborative R&D programmes, such as NMP. Primarily, it is vital to identify and
comprehend whether the organisations’ participation was beneficial from an overall
perspective, i.e., whether the benefits resulting from their participation outweighed the
costs of involvement and to what extent the resulting success of participants was a
consequence of participation (the issue of attribution). Secondly, it is important to
explore whether or not participation in the FP6 NMP programme allowed participants
to do something that would not have been possible in the absence of programme
funding (i.e., the issue of ‘pure additionality’), or allowed them to do something more
efficiently and effectively than before (the issue of ‘behavioural additionality’).
Moreover, goal attainment needs to be assessed, particularly the attainment of those
goals considered as primarily important by participants. The impacts associated with
these achievements should be examined, for the attainment of important goals does not
always lead to large impacts and, conversely, modest attainments in areas of lesser
importance sometimes turn out to have significant impacts on organisations. While,
finally, the factors that affected the occurrence (or not) of all project achievements and
impacts has to be investigated so as to ensure that future R&D supportive programmes
will further enhance supporting factors and eliminate all obstacles.
5.1 Costs vs. Achievements
As seen in Figure 44, there is little doubt that the benefits of participation in NMP
projects outweighed the costs, as stated by over half of the respondents (53%), while
only 14% of the surveyed population stated otherwise. Interestingly, this repartition
has remained almost the same since the FP3 Impact Assessment17 with the main
difference being a negative shift, as fewer NMP R&D participants – both academics and
industrialists – perceive the benefits as outweighing the costs (53% compared with
69% of FP3 and FP4 participants) and more stating that the benefits equalled the risks
(35% compared with 19% in 2000). This shift is modest but disturbing if it reflects a
genuine lessening of the perceived benefits of participation in European research
programmes. Moreover, benefits exceeded costs for a greater number of academics
(66%) and research institutes (59%) than industrial partners (39%), whereas costs
exceeded benefits for 21% of the industrial respondents compared to less than 10% of
academics and partners from research institutes. From SMEs point of view, one third of
them stated that the benefits of their participation outweighed the respective costs in
comparison to the statements of almost half of large enterprises partners (46%). As
arising from the case study, SMEs can be more affected by the administrative overhead
of European project participation which negatively affects their perception on the
return on investment. Indeed, while large companies have most of the time dedicated
services for the management of administrative issues, SMEs need first to learn the
process of FP6 participation and then provide the reporting without necessarily having
the adequate tools to do it.
17 European Commission, “FP5 Impact Assessment: Survey conducted as part of the Five Year Assessment of EU Research Activities (1999-2003)”, February 2005
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
92
Figure 44: Benefits vs. Costs of participation, (Percentage of respondents, source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=1181)
With respect to achievements in relation to participants’ goals (Figure 45 below),
almost half of the respondents (47%) stated that their S&T achievements exceeded
their initial expectations but less than 15% stated something relevant for any other
goal (economic, social, policy, health/environment).
Figure 45: Achievement of goals - Repartition of total number of respondents per percentage of responses on the different goals (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey,
n=1181)
A similar repartition was observed across higher education, research institutes and
2
17
37
39
32
2
5
3
2
2
12
20
8
7
8
36
46
41
42
43
34
11
8
8
11
13
2
2
2
2
-100,00% -50,00% 0,00% 50,00% 100,00%
Scientific and technological goals
Commercial and economic goals
Policy-oriented goals
Social goals
Health and environment related goals
Not applicable Achievementsmuch lessthan
expectations
Achievementsless thanexpectations
Achievementsequal toexpectations
Achievementsgreater thanexpectations
Achievementsmuch greaterthan
expectations
Detailed Report
93
industrial participants. Moreover, 43% of SMEs and 33% of large enterprises stated
that they achieved significant scientific and technological achievements with only a few
stating significant achievements in any of the other categories, similar to the overall
population.
5.2 European Additionality
The additionality of European funding relates to the probability of NMP programme
participating organisations having attained the same impacts in the absence of
Commission funding. According to the views of the NMP participating organisations,
two in every three (66%) stated that they would not have been able to perform their
NMP R&D project in case of absence of EU funding. Among those who would have
continued in the absence of EU funding (1/3 of participant population), the majority
would elaborate projects that would involve top European researchers, be of high
scientific and technical complexity, apply to a core technology area of their
organisation, have high linkages with other in-house projects, would be of long-term
R&D nature and of high strategic importance for their organisation. These projects
were seen to be important research projects and thus funding from other sources
would have been claimed. The conditions under which these participants would have
continued involved replacement of EU funds with external (54% of participants) or
internal (33%) funds, a smaller consortium (63%), on a similar (52%) to longer (30%)
time scale, with a similar set of objectives (52%) and expectations (56%) and involve
an analogous range of applications (52%).
Figure 46: Project characteristics of those FP6 NMP participants who claimed that would continue performing their NMP project in case of absence of EU funding, (Percentage of
total respondents, source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=395)
A separate survey was conducted amongst those organisations and individuals who
had not attained EU funding for their NMP project in order to identify the course of
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
94
these projects. To get a more in-depth view of the respective population, 18% of them
were SMEs, 42% higher education institutes, 18% industrial organisations, 36%
research institutes and 5% other types of institutes (Figure 47). Moreover, 43% of
them submitted a proposal for a STREP project, 31% for an IP, 19% for a NoE and 7%
for SSAs and CAs.
Figure 47: Repartition of non-selected applicants per type of organisation, (Source: FP6 NMP non-successful participants survey, n= 1336)
According to the responses of the non-selected participants, 14% were encouraged by
EC officials to resubmit their proposal. Amongst the ones that resubmitted a proposal
40% got funded from EU programmes. The resubmitted proposals were very similar
to the original ones in terms of consortium composition (academics, industrial
organisations, national and foreign partners), level of expectations and timing (Figure
48).
Figure 48: Conditions under which projects have been resubmitted, (Source: FP6 NMP non-successful participants survey, n= 1336)
Larger range of applications
Greater expectations
More ambitious objectives
Longer time-scale
More international partners
More national partners
More industrial partners
More academic/research …
More partners
-100,00% -50,00% 0,00% 50,00% 100,00%
Less partners
Less academic/research partners
Less industrial partners
Less national partners
Less international partners
Shorter time-scale
Less ambitious objectives
Lower expectations
Smaller range of applications
Detailed Report
95
Among the proposals not resubmitted, the main reasons were: the lack of a new call in
line with the project idea (31%), the lack of interest from the partner’s side (26%) and
in 20% of the cases the rejection of the proposals deprived the majority of the
applicants the opportunity to achieve scientific and technical achievements (83%), to
gain commercial benefits (63%), to improve their networking with research teams
abroad (62%) and their knowledge of technological trends (54%).
Finally, the five main reasons for which these NMP proposals were not accepted,
according to the opinions of the interviewed applicants were:
1. The high competition (41% of responses)
2. The technical understanding of EU officials and reviewers (35% of responses)
3. The lack of available funding (31% of responses)
4. The clarity of project objectives (30% of responses)
5. The ambition of project goals (26% of responses)
5.3 Impacts on RTD Capabilities
5.3.1 Impacts on the Participating RTD Teams
The impacts of the NMP RTD programme projects upon the different participants were
statistically analysed18 so as to explore whether meaningful clusters of impacts
prevailed in certain categories. According to these analyses, two significant clusters
occurred: one involved impacts concerning the internal development of the R&D
participating teams involving enhancement of knowledge bases, skills, competencies
and critical mass of R&D of the individual researchers participating in the NMP projects,
and the other cluster involved the improvement of extroversion of the researchers,
including impacts upon access to complementary expertise and the formation of new
R&D partnerships and linkages with universities, research and business organisations. In
more detail, the most important impacts on the majority of participating teams were:
the enhancement of knowledge bases (80%) and skills (79%), the formation of new R&D
partnerships (77%), the improvement of access to complementary expertise (74%) and
the enhancement of joint international research actions (61%) highly confirmed also by
the case studies.
18 For further information on the statistical analysis deployed, see section 2.4
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
96
Figure 49: Impacts on R&D team capabilities, Percentage of Respondents, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=1181)
A majority of participants from industrial
organisations, SMEs as well as large enterprises
considered that the most significant impacts on their
teams’ R&D capabilities involved the enhancement of
their knowledge bases, skills and competences, the
improvement of R&D linkages and partnerships with
universities and research institutes and consequently
the improved access to complementary expertise.
Researchers from higher education institutes and research organisations responded
similarly to the overall population, while also considered the international research
activities they performed to be important while in the case of “enhanced career” the
responses of higher education researchers differed significantly from researchers from
research institutes: 58% of researchers from higher education institutes considered it
as a significant impact of their participation in NMP in comparison to 39% from
research institutes.
Table 15: Important and Very Important impacts on participants by type of participant, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey)
n=106 n=145 n=356 n=301 n=453
SMEs Large Enterprises HE RES IND
Enhanced knowledge bases 70% 74% 88% 84% 72%
Enhanced skills 70% 72% 88% 82% 71%
Enhanced career 25% 18% 58% 39% 23%
Establishment of critical mass of R&D 32% 30% 55% 48% 29%
Enhanced ability to manage R&D 37% 29% 46% 44% 36%
Improved access to complementary expertise 68% 71% 78% 78% 69%
Formation of new R&D partnerships 75% 71% 83% 84% 70%
Improved linkages with Unis 72% 81% 87% 84% 71%
Improved linkages with business 53% 43% 46% 51% 46%
Enhanced joint int research actions 53% 50% 74% 68% 49%
Extending knowledge bases
and skills of participants
together with improvement of
networking have been the
major impacts on
participating teams’ R&D
capabilities
Detailed Report
97
5.3.2 Impacts on the Participating Organisations
A similar statistical analysis was conducted on the responses of participants concerning
the impacts of the NMP projects on the organisations (as entities) that participated in
the programme. It was concluded that two main clusters of impacts were formulated:
the first cluster involved impacts on the economic sustainability of the participants,
involving the enhancement of turnover and profitability, productivity, market share,
commercial linkages and access to new markets, while the second cluster involved the
consolidation of participants through improvement of competitive position,
formation of new partnerships and networks and the enhancement of their reputation
and image.
According to the participants’ responses in the web survey, the most important impacts for at least half of the participating organisations were: the enhancement of reputation (63%), the formation of new partnerships and networks (57%) and the improved competitive position (50%) as depicted in
Figure 50 below.
Figure 50: Impacts on participating organisations, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=1181)
Based on the more detailed analyses performed and depicted in Table 16 below, it was
identified that the majority of higher education and research institute participants
enhanced their knowledge bases and their extroversion through the conduct of
international research actions, while similar responses were provided by around half of
the industrial organisation participants.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
98
Table 16: Important and Very Important impacts on participating organisations by type of participant, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey)
More than half of the SMEs that participated in the
online survey stated the most important impacts of
their NMP projects upon their organisations were in
decreasing order of significance the enhancement of
skills (65%) and knowledge (58%), the improvement
of linkages with universities (53%) as well as the
improvement of career prospects (53%). Significantly
fewer representatives of large enterprises identified impacts gained by their
institution: 47% of the respective population stated that their NMP projects enhanced
their international research actions and 44% stated that they improved their knowledge
bases. An interesting and significant difference – from a qualitative as well as statistical
point of view – concerns the importance of increased turnover as a direct impact of
NMP projects upon the participating organisations: 12% of large enterprises
consider that their projects increased their turnover significantly and 9% that it
improved their market share and productivity, while these percentages climb up
to 23%, 20% and 18% respectively for SMEs.
Combining the information obtained from the previous analysis with the results
of this one and the interviews conducted when drafting the case studies, it is
evident that individual researchers tend to participate in FP6 NMP projects in
order to improve their knowledge and skills as well as their networking while
organisations tend to participate in NMP projects so as to improve their
competitive position (long-term goal) and also their economic and networking
aspects (short to long-term goals).
5.4 Impacts in the Social Sphere and the Broader
Environment
As recorded in the NMP web survey addressed to all NMP participating organisations,
at least half of the respondents identified as most significant impacts the production of
S&T results beyond the state-of-the-art (68%), the achievement of innovative
breakthroughs (57%) and the improved coordination between research and industry
(56%). A small fraction of the total respective population identified as significant
impacts of their NMP projects the improved confidence of consumers in N&N products,
the development of new and existing standards and policies or the increase of
n=106 n=145 n=356 n=301 n=453
SMEs Large Enterprises HE RES IND
Enhanced knowledge bases 58% 44% 69% 68% 55%
Enhanced skills 65% 37% 37% 50% 53%
Enhanced career 53% 34% 54% 56% 43%
Establishment of critical mass of R&D 23% 12% 9% 15% 19%
Enhanced ability to manage R&D 18% 9% 14% 16% 17%
Improved access to complementary expertise 22% 9% 4% 10% 18%
Formation of new R&D partnerships 35% 26% 7% 21% 32%
Improved linkages with Unis 42% 24% 15% 23% 36%
Improved linkages with business 16% 6% 8% 10% 12%
Enhanced joint int research actions 50% 47% 67% 65% 42%
It is evident from both survey and
case studies that the NMP
programme did make a significant
difference to a considerable part of
SMEs in terms of future financial
sustainability
Detailed Report
99
employment levels as depicted in Figure 51 below.
Figure 51: Impacts of FP6 NMP projects on broader environment, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n = 1181)
The majority of participants from higher education institutes have considered as
positive impacts at the socio-economic level, in accordance to anticipations, the
production of S&T results beyond the state of the art (80%), the achievement of
innovative breakthroughs (68%) and the development of the education environment
(65%). On the other hand, more than half of Industrial participants considered as
positive impacts the production of S&T results beyond the state of the art (55%) and the
coordination between research and industry (54%) while most of the representatives of
research institutes aimed at a combination of the aforementioned impacts, i.e. the
production of S&T results beyond the state of the art (75%), the achievement of
innovative breakthroughs (62%) and the improved coordination between research and
industry (58%).
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
100
Table 17: Important and Very Important impacts on the broader environment by type of participant, (Source: FP6 NMP participants survey)
Around half of the SMES and large enterprises reported as significant impacts of their
NMP projects for the broader environment the production of S&T results beyond the
state of the art (62% and 57% respectively); the improved coordination between
research and industry (55% and 47% respectively); and the achievement of innovative
breakthroughs (53% and 46% respectively).
The impacts that were considered of low significance for the majority of NMP RTD
participants involved
policy level impacts :
o development of new and existing policies: 66%;
o development of new and existing standards: 60%;
o improved public confidence: 64%;
improved working and living conditions
o improved employment levels: 62%;
o improved preservation of the natural heritage: 76%;
o improved living conditions at large: 64%.
Interestingly, although environmental goals were ranked as third most important
among all NMP RTD participants, yet the impacts on improvement of environmental
conditions were considered not so significant by most respondents (Improved
treatment of emissions: 66%; Reduction or prevention of emissions: 58%; Improved
savings of natural resources or reduction of energy consumption: 57%).
The impacts of the NMP RTD programme projects upon the broader environment – as
recorded by the participating organisations in the respective online survey - were
statistically analysed so as to explore whether meaningful clusters of impacts prevailed
in certain categories. According to these analyses, four significant clusters occurred: the
first one involved the enhancement of the scientific excellence of the EU, by
promoting S&T results beyond the state-of-the-art and the achievement of innovative
breakthroughs; the second involved the opening of new horizons through the
n=106 n=145 n=453 n=356 n=301
SMEs Large Entr IND HE RES
Improved educational development 26% 31% 24% 65% 44%
Production of S&T results beyond state-of-the-art 62% 57% 55% 81% 75%
Achievement of innovative breakthroughs 53% 46% 46% 68% 62%
Development of new and existing markets 41% 29% 34% 16% 30%
Development of new and existing standards 24% 15% 19% 13% 11%
Development of new and existing policies 14% 12% 11% 9% 14%
Improved access to information and knowledge in the community at large 37% 33% 35% 45% 45%
Improved public understanding of N&N 24% 20% 23% 40% 34%
Improved confidence of consumers in N&N /products 16% 13% 16% 21% 19%
Improved living conditions at large 11% 9% 13% 15% 17%
Improved employment levels 16% 11% 12% 12% 10%
Reduction or prevention of emissions 21% 24% 24% 22% 23%
Improved treatment of emissions 19% 14% 19% 14% 17%
Improved savings of natural resources or reduction of energy consumption 28% 22% 26% 25% 27%
Improved preservation of the natural heritage 18% 10% 16% 9% 11%
Improved coordination between research and industry 55% 57% 54% 55% 58%
Improved non-EU cooperation 25% 15% 18% 35% 24%
Detailed Report
101
development of new and existing markets, standards and policies; the third involved
the improvement of visibility of nanotechnologies and nanoproducts by the broader
society; and the final one involved the improvement of the environment through the
reduction / prevention / treatment of emissions, improvement of preservation of
natural resources, etc.
Climate change, ageing society, sustainability, food security, energy efficiency, etc. are
already affecting economies and societies in the world; their impact is expected to
further increase within the coming decades, as discussed in the Lund declaration of July
2009, which underlined the role that European research should focus on identifying
new ways and measures to tackle them [22]. These so called Grand Challenges
represent real risks, but they can also provide opportunities for new activities, goods
and services and for moving towards the smart, green and inclusive economy.
The rationale of the FP6 NMP programme itself is aimed at addressing some of these
challenges: “The activities carried out in this area are intended to help Europe achieve a
critical mass of capacities needed to develop and exploit, especially for greater eco-
efficiency and reduction of discharges of hazardous substances to the environment,
leading-edge technologies for the knowledge-based products, services and manufacturing
processes of the years to come” [5].
As depicted in Lot 2 study that focused on the views of the NMP RTD project
coordinators, most of them did not consider (Figure 52) that NMP FP6 had a positive
impact on environmental sustainability. This position is comprehensible if one takes
into account that CO2-neutrality in materials and processes was not high on the agenda
at the beginning of the programme. Advances such as lighter materials and increased
energy efficiency of the industrial production were on the other hand estimated to be
positively affected by NMP FP6 in the long-run. These differences in appreciation may
be related to the fact that it is difficult, for a researcher working in a specialised field to
evaluate the impact of his research on grand challenges such as the global warming.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
102
Figure 52: FP6 contribution to societal and sustainability challenges, (Source: Ex-post evaluation of FP6 NMP: Strategic level report [8])
5.5 Impacts on the European Research Area
The aim of the European Research Area (ERA) has been to "...enable researchers,
research institutions and businesses to increasingly circulate, compete and co-operate
across borders. The aim is to give them access to a Europe-wide open space for knowledge
and technologies in which transnational synergies and complementarities are fully
exploited"19. How did NMP contribute to the formulation of ERA? As explored by the
NMP Lot 2 Study, the main reasons for which project coordinators decided to submit a
proposal under the programme were:
The possibility to co-operate with international partners was the main
motivation to apply to FP6 (by 81% of project coordinators).
The technological ambition is the second principal reason to apply, a factor
linked with the need for funds not available at national level (third block).
According to the conducted interviews with project coordinators [8], the main benefits
of their participation in the programme were: the community/network building (80%),
the improved access to international knowledge (73%), the creation of sustainable
relationships for research (67%) and the possibility to work in big consortia (65%)
that enjoy a high scientific level (58%).
As identified via the relative questions of the participants online survey conducted in the
19 http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/understanding/what/what_is_era_en.htm
Please assess the contribution of the project you coordinate(d) within NMP
FP6 to the following overall objectives of the EU
with regard to societal and sustainability aspects of European R&D
activities:
5
8
8
10
10
13
13
17
19
10
12
11
13
19
19
33
33
37
26
30
28
24
16
28
29
40
26
25
63
50
52
53
56
43
25
14
19
31
9
22
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Increased sustainable transport
Improved conservation and management of
natural resources
Increased sustainable consumption
Containment of climate change / increased
usage of renew able energy sources
Improved handling of threats to public health
Increased aw areness of ethical issues of
NMP related research
Improved (conditions for) gender equality
Increased dialogue w ith the public
Increased aw areness of issues of
sustainability in NMP related research
Increased sustainable production
P ercentage (n=204-209)
major
contribution
medium
contribution
minor
contribution
no contribution
Source: Austrian Institute for SME
Detailed Report
103
Lot 1 study, the programme produced strong knowledge and skills outputs apart from
significant economic outputs, through product and process innovations. Furthermore,
the participating R&D teams also enjoyed significant long-term benefits as participation
in the NMP programme allowed the participating teams to improve the extroversion of
their researchers as well as their knowledge bases and skills, and on an organisational
level they improved their competitiveness and visibility as well as their sustainable
economic progress. Finally, it should not be forgotten that these outputs and impacts
would not have been attainable in the absence of EU funding for two thirds of the NMP
population that participated in the online survey conducted during the Lot 1 study. This
was confirmed during the case studies. Most of the interviewees recognised that they
were already involved in their project field of research through other funds but that the
project would not have happened without EU funding (see FAME example - Case study
8).
The above confirms that the EU funding has produced significant scientific spill-
over effects across Europe that would not have been attainable in the absence of
EU funding and even with national or regional funding programmes.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
104
FAME
Structuring the ERA
The FAME project was the very first worldwide Network of
Excellence dedicated to establishing, structuring and defragmenting
the hybrids and ceramics industry in Europe. The consortium
consisted of 15 partners from higher education & research institutes.
The project achieved most importantly its principal objective of
setting up a sustainable financial and legal institute to take over the
legacy of the project. This institute known as EMMI (European
Multifunctional Materials Institute) was set up as a not-for-profit
organisation in Belgium in January 2008. It acts as a reference and
communication for researchers and industry in the field of hybrids
and ceramics and helps to roadmap European research in objectives
and direction in this field. Two patents were filed during the course of
the FAME project, 144 collaborative publications were drafted, 167
exchange visits spanning over 774 weeks were financed and further
EU projects came about as a direct result of FAME but not the amount
that was hoped for by the FAME project members. They thus hope
that through the additional influence of EMMI, they will have a
greater chance of successfully proposing new projects. Notably one of
the project proposals that the consortium did succeed was IDS-
FunMat, an international joint Doctoral School in Materials Science,
which opened in October 2009. 22 PhDs will be supported under the
programme and each one will be supported by two different
institutions from two different countries of the consortium
12 of the 15 partners are still collaborating today through EMMI and
recognise that without EC funding, the NoE would not have been
built.
Case study 8: FAME project: Structuring the ERA.
5.6 Transience of Impacts
As pointed out during the interviews conducted with participants of selected NMP
projects in the context of the Lot 1 NMP study, the particular added value of the
programme related not simply to the international dimension per se, but that the
bringing together of a variety of interested parties from different backgrounds was
important in achieving many of the impacts reported. Thus an extremely important
source of European added value was the NMP Programme’s general insistence on the
involvement of both researchers and users from across Europe within projects. As an
example, the TUNCONSTRUCT IP project focused on increasing efficiency in tunnel
construction work and was positively evaluated during its final review for its users
involvement: “the consortium includes key stakeholders and a proper involvement of end-
users in evaluating the key results which actually allows the effective translation of the
Detailed Report
105
project achievements in practical applications”. Another example, in the case of a STREP
project, is ISAMCO (Case study 9).
On the other hand, some experts highlighted that the research agenda of most of the
RTD projects was largely set by the developers. As a consequence, major conceptual
and sometimes also prototyping work had already been undertaken before the users
could have their say and the application could therefore not be considered fully
oriented to user needs. In other words, the involvement of end users was good mainly
in quantitative terms, while from a qualitative perspective it did cause a few issues.
Reasons indicated were that in many cases, the end users were too focused on the
market application and not open to accommodate technological uncertainties. This
created tensions in some of the evaluated consortia and nullified the advantage of
having end-users on board.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
106
ISAMCO
Users in the loop
The ISAMCO STREP project was characterised by the study of the
state-of-the-art of Ionic Polymer Metal Composites (IPMCs) and its
fabrication process, followed by the realisation of some IPMC samples
and later by the definition of their electromechanical properties. The
main objective of the work carried out was to create the specimens
which should be used first for the modelling activity and then for the
realisation of the expected devices.
The main outputs of the project involved the definition of state-of-
the-art in the area of IPMCs and the contribution - at an international
level - to this scientific area. Although direct commercial outputs
were not created as part of the ISAMCO project, one patent was
awarded and an application has been made for another one, a spin-off
company was created that aims to further explore the commercial
opportunities of ISAMCO developments and six software packages
were developed. As the partners stated, such cutting-edge
breakthrough research does not often meet the maturity of markets
and thus immediate commercial exploitations are quite hard to
accomplish.
The main success factors of the project involved the scientific
capabilities of the consortium members, their ability to cooperate
efficiently and effectively, the ambitiousness and clarity of project
objectives and the integration of end users in the partnership. The
NMP programme overall was considered as an appropriate
programme for funding such research. Furthermore, the fact that the
programme allowed for SMEs as well as a range of European partners
to be involved in the project gave a more open view while
simultaneously requiring real life applications.
Case study 9: ISAMCO: Users in the loop
Overall, stakeholders interviewed in the framework of both Lot 1 and Lot 2 studies
indicated the high additional value of the collaborative and multi-disciplinary
approach of EC-funded research as well as the critical importance of research co-
operation at the European level was highly appreciated by all NMP project
participants, particularly SMEs. Knowledge cross-fertilisation and competence
integration at the European level became the cornerstone for the significant impacts in
the scientific and technological sphere, to the benefit of the participating organisations
and the scientific and technological community at large. Frequently stressed also, was
the high value of gaining access to expertise and key actors in other countries and
contexts. Co-operation at European level was therefore considered critical (also) for an
improved alignment of the RTD outputs with the needs and requirements of users in
the European Internal Market.
Detailed Report
107
It would be of concern if the impacts of the projects and the associated European added
value were ephemeral – lasting no longer than the duration of the project. Participants’
estimates of the duration of project impacts show (depicted in Table 18 below) that
60% of the NMP survey respondents felt that the impacts of their projects on their RTD
capabilities would have a lifetime greater than three years. Approximately half of the
respondents also thought that impacts on their organisations, on project partners and
immediate users, and on the broader environment would also last for at least three
years. According to more in-depth analyses conducted on participant type level,
although the lifetime of impacts is estimated to be long (>3 years) for the majority of
researchers of higher education institutes and research organisations, the lifetime of
impacts for the majority of researchers working in industrial firms, SMEs and large
enterprises is considered moderate to long (2-3 years or more).
Very
long
lifetime
(greater
than 5
years)
Long
lifetime
(3-5
years)
Modera
te
lifetime
(2-3
years)
Short
lifetime
(1-2
years)
Very
short
lifetime
(less
than 1
year)
Not
applica
ble
No
respons
es
Impacts on
participating teams 25% 34% 24% 10% 3% 4% 6
Impacts on
participating
organisation
17% 28% 30% 13% 5% 7% 7
Impacts on the broader
environment 24% 22% 17% 8% 5% 23% 10
Table 18: The Transience of NMP RTD Project Impacts, (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=1181)
5.7 Success Factors and Obstacles
A critical aspect of the work elaborated under the Lot 1 study was the identification of
factors and variables that affected the course of the projects, according to the
participants’ own views. According to the relevant literature, a project’s progress and
overall performance can be affected by a range of factors, both endogenous and
exogenous to the project. Internal project parameters involve issues such as the quality
of a project’s leadership, the technical capabilities of the partners, the clarity of project
goals and the level of communication between partners. Changes in the external
environment can affect progress or commercial success of a project can, for example,
drastically affect the relevance and utility of project goals and outcomes and undermine
eventual success. These issues were examined in the context of the Lot 1 study, during
both the online survey as well as the personal interviews with selected projects, and
the main results are presented hereunder.
Although the majority of participants in FP6 NMP attained their overall goals and felt
that the impacts and benefits from their participation outweighed the respective costs,
as described in earlier sections of this report, there were significant variations in the
factors that were related to the performance of the projects.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
108
In further detail, the conduct of the Case Studies demonstrated that success of projects
relied primarily on the consortium capabilities, with unsurprisingly the scientific
and technological capability of the individual partners being the most vital criterion.
But this is not enough to move on the road to success. To be turned into a successful
consortium, it was equally underlined that there was a need of complementarity of
goals amongst the consortium. But the complementarity of project goals had to be in
line with the strategic goals of the participating organisations. Indeed several projects
mentioned that overlapping goals did lead to IPR issues, which at minimum slowed
down the project but in some cases even led to project failure in achieving their goals,
especially when it came to commercial exploitation. Then to put the consortium in
efficient motion, the managerial capacity of the coordinators and the capability of
the consortium to set-up reactive and trustworthy communication channels were
highly ranked as success criteria. The “friendly atmosphere” wording was often used to
describe the one prevailing in successful projects. This “friendly atmosphere” concept
indeed refers to the trust and confidence cultivated within these consortia and their
capability to work as a team even when facing difficulties. A parameter that often
influenced the establishment and proper operation of communication channels has
been the prior acquaintance of the partners themselves and also the dedication of a
team of people on the project management of the project, a factor linearly related to the
size of the consortium (the larger the consortium the more people required on the
management of the project). Another important contributor to a project’s success has
been the previous experience of partners with EU projects. This allowed projects to
start faster, limiting the loss of time often occurring at project start.
Having ambitious and clear project objectives was also said to influence the project’s
success. Ambition of objectives is a motivating factor for partners but it also attracts
attention from stakeholders external to the project, thus easing dissemination and
valorisation of project results during and most importantly after the project’s lifecycle.
Clarity of project objectives encourages partners to focus on the key aspects of the
project, not diverting onto unnecessary activities. An additional factor more rarely
mentioned as contributing to the adequate focus of the project was the presence of end
users as they allow better specification of the needs of the target group(s) to be
achieved. Nevertheless, these latest arguments were not always seen as positive
contributors to project success. In more research-oriented projects, presence of end
users is underlined as not adding anything to the R&D process. This holds especially
true when end users were SMEs: they are much more focused on their business issues
and do not manage to align their own objectives with the project’s ones. This can
contribute to partial failure of the project. Also, too ambitious project objectives may
rapidly appear to be (partially) unachievable which in turn may also lead to project
failure.
Finally, a success factor mentioned during the interviews for the Case Studies of the Lot
1 study has been the ESIC seminars organised by the NMP officers. Despite the
issues that were observed in their performance, timing in relation to the project
lifecycles, etc., it was acknowledged by many project participants that it was a helpful
tool and assisted them in considering the possibilities and opportunities and means
they could utilise for the promotion and valorisation of their project results.
Detailed Report
109
All the above are also represented in the results of the web-survey where the most
positive influential factors of the NMP projects, according to the views of the majority
of the participants, were: the scientific and technical competencies of consortium
members (93%); the availability of prior knowledge, technical inputs and state-of-the-art
technological equipment (86%) as well as resources (78%); the ambitiousness (85%),
clarity (84%) and complementarity (79%) of project goals; the project management
skills of the coordinator (79%) and last but not least the effective communication
between partners (78%). According to a more in-depth and advanced statistical analysis
conducted on the obtained responses from the web-survey, six main groups of success
factors were identified:
1. Partners scientific and managerial competencies
2. The proper and adequate formulation of project idea and proposal (setting the
overall framework)
3. The proper assistance and support by the EC
4. The prior knowledge of EU project procedures
5. The exploitation prospects and
6. The integration of market aspects into the RTD projects.
Figure 53 : Success factors and obstacles (Source: FP6 NMP Participants survey, n=1181)
According to the in-depth analysis conducted on the data, the most important success
factors for the vast majority of the participants from higher education and research
institutes were the same as the overall ones; however, among them different weights
were attributed to the significance of certain factors. In more detail, 80% of
representatives from research institutes considered the previous experience of FPs as a
success factor of their project in comparison to 66% of higher education institutes
1
3
11
9
1
1
2
1
13
8
11
8
1
1
1
2
19
5
13
4
4
4
26
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
3
1
4
4
5
6
5
2
2
5
3
7
2
4
2
5
6
5
8
6
5
20
20
33
6
13
15
15
47
35
22
17
14
12
13
12
34
18
26
35
29
46
49
41
49
41
40
44
35
44
44
25
39
40
45
52
51
49
51
29
47
42
38
40
30
14
53
25
26
14
48
45
35
34
8
12
26
27
27
32
29
34
13
28
13
16
21
10
3
-100,00% -50,00% 0,00% 50,00% 100,00%
Internal S&T competencies of your team
Managerial Capabilities of team
Previous experience with FPs
Exploitation capabilities of your organisation
S&T competencies of partners
PM skills of coordinator
Complementarity of partner goals
The effective communication between partners
The Intellectual Property Right arrangements between partners
The exploitation capabilities of partners
The integration of end users in the partnership
The knowledge of industrial processes (source, design, plan, …
The clarity of project objectives, management of the scope …
The ambition of project goals
The availability of adequate resources (manpower, budget and …
The availability of prior knowledge or technical inputs
The availability of additional funding from partners or external …
The availability of state-of-the-art technological equipment
The knowledge of markets (identified existing needs, …
The administrative capabilities of EU officials
The technical understanding of EU officials and EU reviewers
The contractual obligations with the European Commission
The changes in regulatory environment / legislation policies / …
Not applicable Very negative influence Negative influence No or neutral influence Positive influence Very positive influence
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
110
while the integration of end users in partnerships was ranked as a significant success
factor by more research institutes than higher education establishments (73% and
56% respectively).
With respect to SMEs and large enterprises, both populations mentioned the same
success factors with the exception of the importance of the project management skills
of the coordinator: 81% of SMEs considered them of vital importance for the successful
elaboration of their project in comparison to 51% of representatives of large
enterprises.
From an obstacles perspective, information was mainly derived from the Case Study
interviews rather than the web-survey conducted amongst FP6 NMP participants.
According to the conducted interviews, beside the management costs and the
contractual obligations of the project still mentioned has a high obstacle to
participation, two major obstacles are mentioned: firstly the size of the consortium. A
total of 15 to 20 partners appearing to be a maximum for RTD projects. In networking
projects, the maximum manageable size would rather be in the order of 30 partners in
the presence of a capable coordinator. The second major obstacle identified has been
the inadequate management of IPR. This issue can be illustrated by two case studies,
the first one related to a badly managed IPR and the second one showing the same case
of a patent brought into a project but with IPR managed a different way, supporting the
project success:
Case 1: a partner brings a key
patented knowledge in the project,
as a basis of further development in
the project. This partner does not
notify the consortium that a licence to exploit this
patent has also been granted to a third company
prior the project. At the end of the project, it
appeared that the consortium did not manage to
achieve the expected goals while they were
achieved and exploited in a lower amount of time
by the third party.
Case 2: a university brings a patented technology to the project which realises
proofs of concept based on this patent. At the end of the project, a spin-off is created from the university with privileged access to the patent and the ability to exploit it thanks to the work achieved in the project.
Table 19: Examples of failure and success due to IPR management.
It should be noted that in comparison with FP6, FP7 now requests IPR arrangements to
be agreed and signed before the official launch of the project. Whether this alteration
has improved the issues identified and faced in FP6 needs to be further reviewed.
Detailed Report
111
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Introduction
As mentioned in Section 1.4, the current study aims to draw conclusions on the
effectiveness, efficiency and efficacy of the NMP programme in achieving its objectives
and accordingly to make recommendations on ways to enhance the added value and
spill-over effects of future NMP research activities. In particular, the study addressed
the following questions:
Did the programme attract and select the right sort of projects to achieve its
objectives?
Have the projects been monitored, reviewed, and steered in such a manner as to
contribute optimally to the objectives of the programme?
Can measures be taken in order to enhance the performance, success, and impact
of the projects?
The high level objectives of FP6 have been to “...have a structuring effect on research and
technological development in Europe, including the Member States, associated candidate
countries and other associated countries and make a significant contribution to the
establishment of the Europe Research Area and to innovation” [23] and contribute to the
formulation and establishment of the European Research Area. The FP6 NMP
programme has been a real success and a structuring programme for Industrial
Technologies in Europe as it funded a mix of projects implemented by distinct
organisations from Europe as well as all over the world that promoted the scientific
knowledge base of Europe and paved the way for innovations to occur not only during
the programming period (2002-2006) but also afterwards.
Nevertheless, the programme did face several issues that affected the course of the
projects and the programme overall. These involved not only implementation
processes and procedures but also policy level issues that affected the diffusion of NMP
impacts on socio-economic levels. The confrontation of these issues is particularly
important currently in light of the current economic environment that demands rapid,
flexible and targeted research activities aiming at producing innovations with social
and economic benefits on a global scale. The recommendations formulated aim thus to
improve not only the implementation aspects of the programme but also its projects
selection processes so as to reflect the new impetuses put forward by the proposed
Innovation Union [24].
The analysis performed on the outputs, outcomes, results and impacts of FP6 NMP
programme on its participants, their organisations and the overall socio-economic level
has taken into consideration two unique factors that affected various aspects of the
programme:
1) The first one was the initiation of NMP as an individual RTD funding programme.
Although NMP activities have been long supported by the EC via various programmes
(such as Quality of Life in FP5), yet in FP6 it was decided for the first that NMP activities
would be pursued individually with their own programme.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
112
2) The second important aspect of FP6 NMP programme has been the historic moment
that affected the course of the European Union as a whole. In further detail, in 2004 the
largest enlargement of the European Union – up to date – was performed growing the
EU from 15 to 25 Member States, right in the middle of the programming period.
6.2 Conclusions on the appropriateness of the project mix
As depicted in all the analyses performed during the evaluation of the FP6 NMP
programme, the programme achieved the attraction of the best European research and
academic institutions to participate, some of the world’s top R&D spending private
companies and a number of innovative SMEs. A mix of projects was pursued, via its five
pillars of the programme, allowing for applied as well as basic research to take place all
over Europe. The majority of projects would not have happened and would not have
produced their outputs and impacts in the absence of EU funding, although the figures
have shown a relevant decrease since the launch of FP funded research activities.
Although at this phase this issue is not yet alarming, it should be taken into
consideration during the design of future NMP supporting programme.
In emerging areas, such as the nano-biotechnologies, Integrated Projects (IPs) and
Networks of Excellence (NoEs) were built at the European level; some of the NoEs are
still vibrant today as those who were students at the project time and participated in
the project events, are now reaching researcher positions in universities and are still
using the networks they built during their projects. The specific calls for SMEs allowed
many small and medium sized enterprises from all over Europe to collaborate with
highly reputable research establishments, to receive new knowledge and expand their
skills and knowledge basis while providing real-life perspectives and problems to
research theoreticians. This has contributed to the confrontation of the ‘European
paradox’. a term first introduced in the ‘Green Paper on Innovation’ of 1995 [12], which
claims that while the EU is very good in producing knowledge at the universities and
research institutes, it is extremely poor in connecting this knowledge with value
creation. The NMP programme also enhanced international cooperation as it
managed to achieve about 1/3 of the respective overall FP6 objectives.
Nevertheless, although participation from third countries – on total level – was rather
high, the programme still did not manage to attract the best international research
organisations while among the top international R&D investing organisations, NMP
attracted only a small percentage of them. The necessity of international collaborations
with prestigious international institutions and also enterprises is understandable in
light of the rapidness of evolution of the area and the progression of other countries,
such as the US and India, in capitalising the knowledge obtained from research projects.
Thus, further improvement is required so as to ensure that the top European and
international companies collaborate in the coming NMP projects and produce results
that (eventually) will have commercial applications.
As aforementioned, one of the parameters that have affected the course of FP6 NMP
programme has been the historical enlargement the EU from 15 to 25 Member States,
right in the middle of the programming period in 2004. The analysis made on the
participants of the FP6 NMP programme clearly shows two phases in their
participation: prior to the enlargement, a high number of organisations from candidate
Detailed Report
113
countries participated in the programme but with a low EC funding in comparison to
the other participants. After enlargement in 2004, the proportion of organisations
from new Member States decreased (from 22% in 2003, the percentage fell to 6%
in 2007) but at the same time, their share of the EC contribution increased to a
level comparable to other EU countries (from 16% in 2003 to 28% in 2007).
Overall, the NMP Programme attracted most of the top EU research institutions and
companies (i.e. R&D performing institutions and companies with headquarters in
the EU). Without the participation of these organisations, the NMP programme could
not have hoped to make a significant impact on either the quality of research
undertaken or the subsequent diffusion, adoption and commercial exploitation of
research outputs and results. The involvement of leading non-EU research
organisations (i.e. those perhaps performing research within the EU as well as
elsewhere, but with headquarters located outside of the EU) was less marked, largely
due to issues such as lack of conformity between EU and third country grant
agreements, but the NMP Programme still managed to allocate 100 million Euros, or
35% of the overall FP6 target (285 million in total), to international cooperation
between European and non-EU organisations.
6.3 Conclusions on outputs, outcomes and results achieved
NMP in the dawn of the new programme period will have to face an exquisite challenge:
to significantly and effectively contribute to the transformation of Europe into an
Innovation Union [24]. According to the analyses conducted and presented during this
study, it has been identified that the NMP Programme during FP6 achieved the
creation of a sound scientific basis around the EU and promoted industry’s
competitiveness through the support of innovation. The Programme produced
strong S&T outputs, enhanced the knowledge bases and skills of participants and
improved the operational processes of the organisations, while also producing
significant economic outputs, through product and process innovations. In particular
from an innovation / economic exploitation point of view, the participants of the
programme did achieve important benefits as ¼ of the population stated that they have
realised or expect to realise in the near future commercial returns through the
exploitation of their FP6 NMP project results and around half of them expect
commercial returns of more than €100.000 on an annual basis.
Factors that have positively impacted FP6 NMP projects should be preserved, such as
the flexibility that allowed projects to change direction in response to internal or
external events and to be more pertinent than what were proposed to be at the time of
proposal preparation. Another significant positive policy angle was the high level of
funding allocated per project, compared to national schemes that usually do not allow
propelling large scale international collaboration research projects. This aspect is
considered of primary importance in the current economic environment where
Member States, significantly affected by the economic recession in recent years may not
be able to maintain or expand funding levels for research projects. On the other hand,
although the level of funding is considered a significant positive factor, the efficiency of
funding and the returns of investment (cost-benefit of expenditure) are rather difficult
to estimate especially in comparison with national programmes. Overall, the
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
114
multidisciplinary approach pursued within the FP6 NMP projects imply that these
types of projects are promoting the exchange of views and opinions among a range of
interesting organisations and in particular has been an excellent manner to get to know
and work with SMEs.
Nevertheless, several issues have impeded the course of NMP projects which should be
addressed in the next programming period. These issues were mainly related to the
implementation of the programme while at policy level a number of improvements can
also be accomplished. First of all, more transparent consultation with stakeholder
communities and a more explicit ‘programme logic’ can produce a programme that is
more robust as well as adjusted to market and business needs and requirements. Such
an ameliorated, more transparent and, probably also, more detailed (including from a
quantitative point of view) design can enable the programme to act more effectively as
a ‘focusing device’, giving signals and incentives to link RTD activities and outcomes to
needs and opportunities. Such a transformation can allow the programme to use its
added value in a more strategic way, setting European agenda that will attract the
different regional and national actors as well as international reputable institutions.
Also, the design of the programme could also look not only at the
accomplishment and progressions of other leading countries, such as the US and
India, but also identify the means they use for the promotion and exploitation of
this research field’s outcomes and outputs. As stated in the Innovation Union
document [24], low private investments in Europe in the field of industrial
technologies, full of economic potential, as well as a weak presence of European
companies in areas like biotechnology, semiconductors and software and hardware, in
which R&D is a critical competitiveness factor, are significant issues that need to be
dealt with. European companies tend to concentrate their investments in medium-high
R&D intensity sectors (e.g. aerospace and defence, chemicals, automobiles), while the
US puts most efforts in high R&D intensity sectors and a large part of the R&D
investment gap between the EU and the US is explained by the smaller number of
young innovative companies in high R&D-intensity sectors.
On the societal and environmental policy levels, the impacts of FP6 NMP were not
as significant as expected. FP6 NMP contribution to sustainability, health, ethical and
gender issues or management of natural resources was quite or very reduced. This is
an area that needs attention during the design of future NMP programmes, since "...[Key
Enabling Technologies] will be at the forefront of managing the shift to a low carbon,
knowledge-based economy" [25].
6.4 Conclusions on the efficacy of implementation and
monitoring procedures
At the implementation level, as depicted from the analyses conducted in the context of
this study, in many cases the EC played a crucially supportive role and the
demanding Project Officers were appreciated. However, a number of issues were
recorded that should be further improved in the forthcoming years.
One of the commonest topics identified as an issue during the personal interviews with
project participants involved changes in Project Officer. Such changes affected the
Detailed Report
115
course of the projects and caused unnecessary delays. Another issue, discussed quite
often during the meetings of the evaluation team with the Expert Advisory Board, was
the time lag between idea formulation and contract signature date (i.e. “time to
contract”). NMP is an area with significant and continuous changes and evolutions on a
global scale. So within the observed average time to contract of 1,25 years (455 days),
the external context of a project evolves and may have significant implications for
project expectations. Project objectives, for example, need to become much more
adventurous when developments elsewhere shift technological frontiers rapidly
forward). Changes need to be made to improve flexibility, e.g. via the adoption of open,
continuous call project selection processes, or via procedures that allow projects to
change direction more easily, to adjust levels of funding, to make adjustments to
expected time horizons etc. Changes are also needed to improve the time to contract
and to enhance the attractiveness of the programme to non-EU based organisations
that may be more accustomed to fast-track selection processes.
Another important issue that requires further attention is the administrative burden
imposed on participants, regarded as ‘heavy’ in FP6 and still ponderous in FP7, though
some progress had been made. This parameter was also identified by a number of
SMEs as an important obstacle to their participation in the FP6 NMP programme.
Overly bureaucratic procedures constitute an obstacle to innovation and prevent
potential innovators from presenting proposals. R&D policies around Europe are still
fragmented, despite the catalytic role played by EU initiatives, and further coordination
amongst different policy areas is also necessary.
Overall, the success of the FP6 NMP in terms of building capacity and creating the
basis for further research and innovation in Europe is appreciated by all
participants. But there is still a potential problem in terms of the transformation
from research to innovation. Projects with exploitable results frequently continue
their research through other research-oriented projects rather than taking the risk of
going to the market. Often this is perfectly justifiable in terms of the stage of maturity
that projects have reached along development trajectories, with the outputs of any
single research project often needing to be combined with the results of other projects
– past and future – before further progress can be made in terms of realising innovation
potential. But on occasion there was the suspicion that some NMP participants were
reluctant to emerge from the comfort zone that public funding provides, preferring to
seek additional funding for further research rather than pushing ahead along the
innovative trail. This phenomenon can be attributed to some of the factors identified in
the present study: often researchers do not look for other sources of finance than
public ones as they do not always have the necessary (entrepreneurial) skills to do so.
This is demonstrated by the data on NMP participation: in many cases, research
projects were built on previous experiences funded by the public sector and the
intention is to go further, with public funding again, usually via national or regional
programmes. Private funding sources appear to be a (very) secondary option. This
should be further investigated in view of the renewed Europe 2020 Innovation Union
flagship objective of 3% of EU GDP to be devoted to Research and Innovation, with a
large proportion to come from private investments.
Another point that should be further reviewed is the impact of the creation of
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
116
Technology Transfer offices across many European universities on the level of
registered patents. According to statements of participants recorded during the
conducted interviews, these offices assist researchers in obtaining patents, trademarks,
copyrights, etc. and thus release the burden from researchers who usually are less
willing to invest time on the registration of their obtained knowledge. To this end, the
recent Communication of the EC on “Improving knowledge transfer between research
institutions and industry across Europe: embracing open innovation” [26] is reinforcing
this objective through provision of assistance for the enhancement of coordination
between the Member States and the Community to act together in a mutually
reinforcing way in order to overcome some of the existing obstacles in promoting the
trans-national dimension of knowledge transfer between public research institutions
and third parties, including industry and civil society organisations.
Additional incentives may thus be needed to reduce levels of risk-averseness in
the EU.
Detailed Report
117
Overall, and as identified from all the analyses conducted, the vast majority of
participants underlined that the FP6 NMP programme has been a strategic tool to
elaborate novel RTD activities that would not have been able to have been
performed otherwise. The main strength of the programme has been its unique
capability to bring together the best European, and in many cases international,
research groups producing impacts on participant’s visibility and trans-European
networking through adequate – in most cases although with some issues - funding.
Among the weaknesses of the NMP programme, in accordance to the whole of FP6
programme, the administrative complexity and the delays in payments were frequently
mentioned. The low success rate in project proposal selection although mentioned as a
weakness yet it was stated that this highly selective process creates prestige for the
successful proposers. In the particular case of SMEs, being selected in an EU project can
even be a passport to access further national funding or opening to new international
markets.
The programme also contributed to research efforts needed to tackle the so-called
Grand Challenges ("global warming, tightening supplies of energy, water and food,
ageing societies, public health, pandemics and security", according to the Lund
Declaration). In spite of the absence of a number of significant or concrete impacts of
the NMP programme on society and environment (although highly rated as important
by a share of participants, yet the impacts produced were considered significant by
around one fifth of the total population), the EU research policy has facilitated trans-
border initiatives and pushed for a certain harmonisation of strategic objectives,
moving towards a real European Research Area. Furthermore, as pointed by members
of the Expert Advisory Group, discoveries occurring during EU funded projects may
take a while before being able to be provided as innovations to society or applied to the
environment.
Topics like the reinforcement of intellectual property rights at the European level or
standardisation, necessary to the internal market, have a strong research component
that goes beyond national borders, requiring European actions. NMP has contributed to
their evolution and has been affected also by the national frameworks. Coordination at
the EU level of regulations and standardisations is expected to have a significant impact
on the course of the area and an appropriate ‘policy mix’ will be required.
Finally, the NMP programme needs to address directly the ‘European paradox’
phenomenon. As identified in the FP8 Ex-ante impact assessment study [10], the
European gap between research and innovation partly is linked with deficient "soft" or
"generic" skills (e.g. entrepreneurship) of people involved in research. European
researchers often lack a clear vision about market needs and mechanisms. NMP in FP6
played a relevant role to make researchers aware about the necessary
multidisciplinarity, networking, and other generic skills but further actions need to be
established so as to reinforce Europe’s intention to foster entrepreneurship, especially
in the light of the current environment that requires from all Member States and all
people to participate efficiently and willingly in the economic prosperity of their areas.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
118
Detailed Report
119
6.5 Recommendations
The recommendations of this report have emerged from the review of all collected
primary and secondary information, complemented by discussions held between the
evaluation team, the Expert Advisory Board and the European Commission, and
informed by ideas and proposals generated during the conduct of the case studies. They
have been classified into three distinct and interlinked areas, according to the wider
policy or implementation level they address. In some cases they address issues outside
the boundaries of the Programme, but they are included because of their relevance to
the future development of the Programme.
6.5.1 Recommendations at NMP Policy level
6.5.1.1 Support for SMEs
Rationale
While performing better than the overall FP6 average, the FP6 NMP still
underperformed in respect with the SMEs integration objectives. The relative success
of FP6 NMP may be explained by the launch of specific calls such as “IP for SMEs”
favouring the SME leadership in the projects. These projects were appreciated by the
SMEs but at the same time the project performances were reduced by the very large
size of consortia.
Proposition
The EC should retain calls for Integrated Projects specifically involving SMEs (like in
FP6 ‘IP for SMEs’ but it should encourage smaller consortia (with a maximum of 15
partners), in-line with the developments in FP7. Particular attention should be paid
also to the “Research for the benefit of SMEs” scheme of FP7, which focuses on smaller
scale projects dealing with the outsourcing of research activities to a reduced number
of SMEs (approximately 2 to 3). These schemes may be complementary as the IP for
SMEs intends to be more representative of an activity sector.
Possible drawbacks
Reducing the size of the consortia may also reduce the representativeness of the
project in a given sector which could in-turn reduce capabilities to impose solutions on
the market or influence consensus based processes such as standardisation.
6.5.1.2 End-user participation
Rationale
The role of end-users has proved valuable in projects where commercial impacts are
expected but not significantly in other types of projects. As shown in the current
evaluation report, this appeared to be the case mostly for Pillars 3 (New Production
Processes and Devices) and 4 (Integration of nanotechnologies, new materials, and new
production technologies for improved security and quality of life) while in pillars
having a higher focus on research (i.e., pillars 1 and 2), end-users present in the
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
120
consortium felt frustrated when the research did not go on the way initially anticipated.
Proposition
It is recommended to encourage end-user participation in project planning to have a
short to medium term market impact. In these projects, it is advisable to have
exploitation experts that would rather look transversally at potential exploitation
paths. In projects with longer market potential, mechanisms providing participants
with access to comprehensive market outlook assessments would help them assess
potential exploitation pathways. In any case, it is encouraged to associate end-users in
the prototyping and demonstration phases of the consortium, do they belong to the
consortium or not and end-users/partners of the consortium participating throughout
the course of the project so as to ensure market orientation throughout the lifecycle of
the project.
For projects being more research oriented and in which commercial opportunities are
less identifiable at the project start, a continuous outlook of exploitation paths together
with technology transfer activities could be run as identified tasks within the projects.
Such activities could be closely monitored within the ESIC activity (see
Recommendation 6.5.1.4)
Possible drawbacks
As also discussed in the Conclusions section, European research needs a shift towards
identification and contribution to real problems which are usually identified and
discussed during a project’s lifetime by the end-users that are mostly SMEs or private
companies. A possible drawback would be the marginalisation of these types of
participants to such “partner positions” within consortia and their contribution to be
more minimal and only when required. Additionally, such a marginalisation will hinder
the open communication and cooperation between different types of participants,
significantly impacting upon multi-disciplinarity, a crucial aspect of NMP.
6.5.1.3 Standards and regulation
Rationale
The NMP technologies usage requires close links to the standards and regulation area.
The standards and regulation area prepares a market for favouring a specific
technology. As an example, defining more stringent or more complete
specification on one standard can help increasing the quality of a product while
favouring the companies possessing the technology to reach such specifications.
Some projects related to human beings failed to achieve the expected impacts
due to the lack of anticipation of the necessity of length and complex clinical
trials. Other projects, having considered the issue of clinical trials from the start
and having planned how they would be run after project end, from the proposal
stage, appeared to be more successful. Presence of such plans in the proposal
could be an evaluation criterion for projects requiring clinical trials before
market deployment. It has to be noted that clinical trial time-frames and
complexity are not compatible with existing project instruments and would
required new instruments if they would be supported in the next programme.
Detailed Report
121
The potential adverse effects of NMP technologies on health have to be
addressed. While a number of projects appeared to manage this aspect
successfully, some others were rather simply blocked by the difficult adoption
of nanotechnologies due to the fears inspired by this technology.
Proposition
Contribution to standardisation activities should be encouraged and performed in a
coordinated way: RTD project development and standards creation and maintenance
(which require high industry support) are two parallel tracks with different timeframes
and objectives. It should not be expected that projects would create standards as such
but rather that they will feed into the standardisation process with their results. A
coordination of the standardisation activities conducted within NMP, possibly via
Support Actions could help maintain close link between projects and standards
development, even beyond the normal lifetime of project's. This should be attempted at
an international level and in collaboration with ETPs.
Such coordinated actions could not only look at contribution to standards but could
also support projects in their use of standards, enlarged to the compliance with the
regulatory framework.
Possible drawbacks
The issue of standards and regulations goes beyond the auspices of NMP programme
or even FP. It requires coordination and cooperation of Member States so as to ensure
agreements are reach on standardisation mandates for European Standardisation
Organisations.
6.5.1.4 Visibility
DISSEMINATION
Rationale
Visibility and prestige gained during participation in EU funded projects are highly
appreciated by the participants. It appears to be a key outcome of FP6 NMP in
supporting organisations competitiveness, especially for SMEs that make use of this
international reference to raise further funds.
Proposition
Apart from international peer-reviewed publications, the focus of dissemination efforts
should include activities and other material aimed at the ‘first circle’ of support for
SMEs (development agencies, local customers and investors). The foreseen visibility
actions should be as clearly as possible described in the proposal documentation and
justified by relevant market analysis. As mentioned also earlier in the report, a
drawback of the EU research community is the lack of thorough market research prior
to the conduct of close-to-market research projects.
Possible drawbacks
Distortion of competition: although it is important for organisations participating in EU
funded projects to promote their research results and diffuse the knowledge generated
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
122
so as to accomplish spill-over effects, funding of promotional activities to organisations
with commercial applications could lead to distortion of competition.
Another drawback could be the general description of the promotional activities at the
proposal phase or even the description of more activities that during the project
elaboration – with necessary amendments – will be transformed into research
activities. Perhaps, it would be also appropriate to fund promotional activities near or
after the project end to only those projects with significant innovations.
Finally, a drawback concerns the need for confidentiality especially when marketable
innovations are concerned: industrial organisations wish to register their innovations
prior to their communication to the public while academics and researchers wish to
promote their research work.
PUBLIC DIALOGUE
Rationale
Increase of public understanding of nanotechnologies, nanosciences and nanoproducts
is essential for the furthering of the area at the European level.
Proposition
The projects should not only aim for publications, conferences, etc. but also to plan
activities that open up the research results to the local, regional, national or even
international communities, thus informing local/regional schools, universities,
communities etc. about developments of interest. The teams should organise events so
as to inform local/regional schools, universities, communities, etc., and also use the
public media (radio, television, or even social media such as Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
about the outcomes of their projects. Two-way discussions should be encouraged so to
capture and take into account any counter argument that may be expressed. A number
of spill-over effects are expected to be gained from such activities namely increase of
interest of young people especially towards science and research, improvement of
public understanding, etc.
Possible drawbacks
Again the issue of need for discretion posed by industrial partners wishing to
commercially exploit the results of their NMP project could pose obstacles. Another
potential drawback can be the ethical concerns of people posed by the integration of
new technologies and innovations in our everyday lives. Such concerns will need to be
addressed by the projects with the assistance of relevant experts.
MARKET EXPLOITATION SEMINARS
Rationale
The majority of FP6 participants that participated in Market Exploitation Seminars
(ESIC seminars in FP7) considered them as a positive asset provided by the EC. The
recommendations being made mainly involved the timing of these seminars (too early
or too late in projects lifecycle).
Proposition
Detailed Report
123
In order to ensure the timely consideration of market opportunities, Market
Exploitation Seminars should be held from project start and organised according to the
needs of different project consortia. In general, projects should include marketing
plans within their proposals to ensure that some thought is given to market needs in
the medium-term.
Possible drawbacks
Market Exploitation Seminars, as organised until now, have been quite generic and
were mainly meaningful for organisations not aware or accustomed to the promotion
of their products. Perhaps different seminars should be organised for different types of
participants (industry, academics, etc.) but such a differentiation will impose additional
burden upon Project Officers.
6.5.2 Recommendations at the implementation level
6.5.2.1 Project selection
LINKING PROJECT SELECTION AND EVALUATION
Rationale
Currently, a complete separation between the proposal evaluation and the project
review exists whereas knowing the specific reasons for which a project has been
selected could help in putting the focus on the specific achievements to be looked at
during its execution.
Proposition
The EC could tie project evaluation (project monitoring and review) closer to the
proposal selection process. For example:
Whenever feasible, proposal evaluators could be selected as external project
reviewers
The Proposal Evaluation Report (ESR) could be made available to the project
reviewers so as to allow reviewers to anticipate a list of the expectations and
issues to be looked at during the project execution.
Possible drawbacks
This proposition could involve some additional workload for EC Project Officers as they
should organise and monitor this process of transmission of information between
proposal evaluators and project reviewers.
TIME TO CONTRACT
Rationale
A continuous plea from FP participants over the years is the minimisation of the time to
contract. Especially, in the case of NMP it is of vital importance to choose for funding
and implement projects in the shortest possible time as during partners interviews
there were cases recorded where partners developed a novel output only a little later
than rivals in the US or another competing country.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
124
Proposition
In parallel to the usual evaluation process, a new mechanism can be designed and
implemented which will focus on close to the market novel project ideas. This
mechanism will allow project ideas t o be evaluated whenever they are received by
external independent experts.
Possible drawbacks
Such changes require a holistic FP approach that extends NMP authorisation.
6.5.2.2 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MONITORING
Rationale
A number of researchers felt frustrated of the low level of inspection of the produced
technical deliverables. They have been asking for technical analysis of produced work
with an outlook on the achieved progress beyond the state of the art by peer
scientific/technological experts.
Proposition
Having regular inspections by external experts (a periodicity of one year between
reviews, seems to be a good compromise) even for small projects would permit to react
more rapidly on problems occurring on the project plan. Also, such inspections will
allow Project Officers that take over projects during their lifetime to identify quickly
issues with these projects, their overall scientific and technical progress and thus
minimise adjustment time.
Possible drawbacks
Such a proposition may require further efforts from the Project Officer’s side in
organising these mid-term reviews.
6.5.2.3 Monitoring the outputs
Rationale
Projects outputs related data have been poorly recorded within FP6. Information is not
consistently presented within database and project reports are not always archived as
they should be. Searching for output data at the ex-post evaluation stage is not the
optimum solution as such an ex-post evaluation should rather focus on longer term
impacts. Furthermore, such data will allow the proper and timely monitoring.
Proposition
Recording project outputs in a centralised system should be an obligation for
beneficiaries and provided content could be reviewed during the technical review of
the project. Provided data should contain enough information to evaluate its quality
level and clearly identify the project role.
As an example, recording of publications should include the type of publication, a
reference number such as the DOI, the list of partners who contributed, etc.
This proposition has been implemented within FP7 but registration of outputs is done
independently from the reviewing process.
Detailed Report
125
Possible drawbacks
Increase of administrative burdens upon participants during reporting periods.
6.5.2.4 Reviewing the impacts
Rationale
In project proposals, the section on impacts has a non negligible weight in the proposal
evaluation but is later on not really taken into account during the project’s lifetime as
the impacts are announced to happen after the projects final evaluation is elaborated
when the project is officially terminated.
Proposition
The impact section of project proposals could identify expected short-term
impacts (e.g. six months after project termination). This would then be revised
at the final evaluation of projects (conducted within the first two months after
project conclusion). A proportion of project budget would be reserved for
dissemination and exploitation to support the realisation of these short-term
impacts and corresponding budget payment would occur after a simple review
of dissemination and exploitation results by the project officer
Elements of the project proposal which cannot be evaluated during project
execution should not be part of the project selection criteria as this tends to
lead to false promises in the project proposal.
A part of the budget could be reserved for dissemination and exploitation
during a period of approximately six months after the project end and efforts
done during this period should demonstrate a progress in the impact
achievement plan.
Possible drawbacks
The project evaluation and payment cannot be delayed until these impacts as these
would create cash flow issues for a number of participants, especially SMEs. However, a
part of the final payment could be made after the evaluation of accomplishment of
short term impacts, but again this would put additional burden upon Project Officers.
6.5.2.5 Market analysis
Rationale
A number of projects failed to reach their market impact either because the market
evolution was insufficiently evaluated or because the new technology supposed to
replace an existing one failed in doing so, either because of the changes required to
adopt the new technology (too high cost/benefit ratio) or more often, because the
technology already in place on the market also got improved while the project was
developing so the planned technological advantage was not obtained at project end.
Proposition
A milestone-based market analysis should be performed at project start, estimating not
only market growth but also looking at competing technologies and positioning
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
126
industry partners’ vis-à-vis their competition. This would better alignment to market
requirements.
Possible drawbacks
Although such a requirement seems like additional administrative work for projects, it
is estimated to bring significant positive effects upon project courses. Perhaps, it would
be advisable to have such regular reviews for projects with close to the market
innovations and products and projects with blue-sky long-term results to perform such
reviews in less frequent intervals.
Having a potential project termination at the 6th month could lead to a prolonged
starting time as participants may be reluctant to engage resources in a project that may
be stopped.
Detailed Report
127
7 REFERENCES [1] ‘Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000 – Presidency conclusions’,
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm
[2] ‘Towards a European Research Area ‘, Commission of the European Communities, COM(2000) 6 final
[3] Position paper on future RTD activities of NMP for the period 2010 – 2015, NMP expert advisory group (EAG), November 2009.
[4] ‘Europe 2020, a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’, Communication from the Commission, COM(2010) 2010.
[5] Decision No 1513/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 concerning the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006)
[6] ‘EU contribution to R & D in textiles; Technical textiles as innovative segment of the industry: Perspectives for technical textiles in FP7’, John CLEUREN, European Commission DG research, Directorate for Industrial Technologies, EUROMED conference, 2010, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=5680
[7] Position paper : Mid-term assessment of FP6 TP3, Expert Advisory Group, version 31 January 2005
[8] “Ex-post evaluation of FP6 NMP, Strategic level”, Final report, June 2011
[9] “International Scientific Co-operation (INCO) in the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006)”, European Commission, ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp6/docs/marketing_inco_en.pdf.
[10] European Commission, Monitoring Industrial Research: the 2010 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard
[11] Alquézar J., “CSF Ex-Ante Impact Assessment report for NMP” – draft version, May 2011
[12] ‘Green Paper on Innovation’, 1995, http://europa.eu/documents/comm/green_papers/pdf/com95_688_en.pdf.
[13] European Commission, FP6 Focuses on breakthrough technologies, European Industrial Research Journal, Issue 1, July 2003
[14] European Commission – DG Budget, Participation survey and assessment of the impact of the actions completed under the 6th Framework Programme, Final Report prepared in the context of DG BUDG Framework Service Contracts on Evaluation and Evaluation-related services-Ref. No BUDG 06/PO/01/Lot3, Brussels, April 2009
[15] Commission Communication COM(2002) 714 final of 11.12.2002 - "Industrial Policy in an Enlarged Europe”
[16] Federal Ministry of Education and Research “The High Tech Strategy for Germany”.
[17] NMP Expert Advisory Group (EAG), Position paper on future RTD activities of NMP for the period 2010 – 2015, EUR 24179 EN, November 2009
[18] “RTD Evaluation Toolbox”, IPTS, Joanneum Research, 2002.
[19] Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) at Strategic level (Lot 2), June 2010 http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/nmp-fp6-ex-post-evaluation_en.pdf
[20] "Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development" 2002-2006, Report of the Expert Group, February 2009.
[21] "FP6 participation", Vonortas, 2008
[22] The Lund Declaration, “Europe must focus on the grand challenges of our time”, July 2009.
[23] ‘Europe 2020, a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’, Communication from the Commission, COM(2010) 2020.
[24] ‘Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative - Innovation Union’, Communication from the Commission, COM(2010) 546 final.
[25] ‘Preparing for our future: Developing a common strategy for key enabling technologies in the EU’, COM(2009) 512/3
[26] “Improving knowledge transfer between research institutions and industry across Europe: embracing open innovation”, COM(2007) 182 final
129
Part C - ANNEXES
Annexes
131
Annex I - Criteria and indicators
Topic/Criteria Related evaluation
question Indicators
Main source
EC database
Web survey
Project reports
Interviews/ Case
studies
Analysis
Factual data related to project and partners
Project data NMP project characteristics
Average project duration
Instrument (% of responses)
Topic/thematic area (% of responses)
Average total project cost
Average total EC contribution
Average size of consortium (Number of partners)
Average project funded by EC (combination of all aforementioned indicators)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Partner data NMP participants characteristics
Legal status (% of responses)
Size of organisation (% of responses)
Industrial sector(s) in which the company operates (% of responses)
Average number of participation(s) into FP project(s) prior to the considered one (% of responses)
International cooperation (% of responses concerning non-EU
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
132
Topic/Criteria Related evaluation
question Indicators
Main source
EC database
Web survey
Project reports
Interviews/ Case
studies
Analysis
participants)
Nature of project coordinator: Industrial (large/small) enterprise vs. academic institution (% of responses)
R&D capabilities of organisation (% of responses)
Average participant and average coordinator (combination of all aforementioned indicators)
X
X
X
Project characteristics
Nature of research conducted
Time horizon of project implementation, commercial/technical risk level, inter/multi-disciplinarity of research, etc. (%)
Strategic importance of project (%)
Networking with other organisations (%)
Orientation : application vs. enabling technology (%)
Future continuation of R&D in area (%)
Type of past R&D on which NMP project was built on
Average type of NMP project per instrument
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Annexes
133
Topic/Criteria Related evaluation
question Indicators
Main source
EC database
Web survey
Project reports
Interviews/ Case
studies
Analysis
Project Objectives – Relevance of Programme Objectives
Importance of goals
Relevance of programme objectives
Ranking of importance of scientific, commercial/economic, policy, social and health and environment goals promoted by NMP project participants (%)
X
X X
Project Achievements – Effectiveness of Programme
On research team level
S&T advancements
Sustainability of research
Importance of publications / PhDs/ Training programmes/ Exchange of good practices (%)
Average number of participations (presentations or posters) in conferences
Average number of publications in peer review journals
X
X
X
X
(X)
(X)
X
X
X
On organisation level
Enhanced reputation and image
Ability to carry out new activities or enter new markets
Importance of development of new / improvement of materials, manufacturing systems, services/products/components, processing of multifunctional materials, processes, prototypes, patent applications, copyrights (%)
Average number of patents gained
Average number of copyrights/ trademarks/ registered designs
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
134
Topic/Criteria Related evaluation
question Indicators
Main source
EC database
Web survey
Project reports
Interviews/ Case
studies
Analysis
Average number of spin-off companies created
Average number of software packages developed
X
X
X
X
On broader environment
Improvement of quality of life
Improvement of energy consumption and utilisation of primary resources
Importance of development of new / improvement of quality standards and measurement techniques, control devices and instruments, software/ simulation models, characterisation tools, production concepts, tools for efficient life-cycle design, organisational models, improved knowledge management tools (% of responses)
Importance of development of safer products (% of responses)
Average number of standards/normalisation bodies projects contributed to
X
X
X
X
X
X
Success factors and obstacles – Efficiency
Organisation internal factors (S&T competencies, managerial competences, previous experience, exploitation capabilities)
Organisation external factors (S&T competencies, managerial competences, previous experience,
X
X
X
X
X
X
Annexes
135
Topic/Criteria Related evaluation
question Indicators
Main source
EC database
Web survey
Project reports
Interviews/ Case
studies
Analysis
exploitation capabilities of partners, communication, complementarity of goals, IPR arrangements, integration of end users, knowledge of markets,
Involvement of end users and target groups in project
Changes in external environment requiring transformation of objectives / context of project)
Project related factors (knowledge of industrial processes within consortium, clarity of project objectives, ambition of project goals, adequate resources, prior knowledge/technical inputs, additional funding, equipment, changes in regulatory environment)
EU support (administrative capabilities of EU officials, technical understanding of EU officials, contractual obligations)
X
X
X
X
X
X
Achievements in relation to expectations – Efficiency
Ranking of achievements: much greater than expectations to achievements; much less than expectations (%)
X (X)
Commercialisation % of respondents stating high X
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
136
Topic/Criteria Related evaluation
question Indicators
Main source
EC database
Web survey
Project reports
Interviews/ Case
studies
Analysis
of results likelihood of commercial returns from NMP project results
Average estimated commercial return
Average increase of yearly commercial returns
X
X
Benefits vs. Costs Comparison between benefits obtained via project participation vs. costs involved
% of responses stating higher benefits than costs
X
Communication of results
Importance of communicating project results to society
X X
Impacts
Impacts on research team
S&T advancements
Networking
Enhanced knowledge base and skills (%)
Enhanced career prospects (%)
Improvement of access to expertise and establishment of critical mass of R&D (%)
Formation of new partnerships and R&D linkages (%)
Enhanced joint international research actions (%)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Impacts on own organisation
Economic
Networking
Ability to carry out new activities or enter new areas (%)
X
X
X
Annexes
137
Topic/Criteria Related evaluation
question Indicators
Main source
EC database
Web survey
Project reports
Interviews/ Case
studies
Analysis
Enhanced reputation and image (%)
Improved competitive position (%)
Enhanced ability to produce, deliver or exploit new products, processes or services (%)
Improved commercial performance (Increased turnover, profitability, productivity, market share) (%)
Formation of new partnerships (%)
Formation of new businesses (%)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Impacts on the broader environment
S&T advancements
Economic level
Improvement of public awareness and understanding
Policies
Environment and Health
Networking
Production of S&T results beyond state of the art, achievement of innovative breakthroughs (%)
Improved educational developments (%)
Development of markets (%)
Improvement of employment levels (%)
Development of standards and policies (%)
Improvement of coordination of research (%)
Improved public access to
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
138
Topic/Criteria Related evaluation
question Indicators
Main source
EC database
Web survey
Project reports
Interviews/ Case
studies
Analysis
information, public awareness and understanding and improvement of consumer confidence (%)
Improvement of living conditions and environment (%)
Improved international cooperation (%)
X
X
X
X
X
X
Media visibility impacts
Influence of media visibility to project impacts
X X X
Sustainability
Transience of impacts On R&D capabilities (%)
On overall organisation (%)
On the broader environment (%)
X
X
X
X
X
X
Continuation of research
Continuation of research in area (%)
X X
Additionality
EC additionality EC funding additionality
What is the added value of the execution of the project?
Percentage of projects that would not be further pursued in the absence of EU funding although being in the core strategic area of their organisation
Percentage of projects that did not receive funding from the EC, were in the core business area of their institution and were not further
X
X
X
X
X
X
Annexes
139
Topic/Criteria Related evaluation
question Indicators
Main source
EC database
Web survey
Project reports
Interviews/ Case
studies
Analysis
pursued
Non-participants survey: amount of projects that although not selected by EC for funding have been elaborated with other funds
Characteristics the projects would have in case not selected by the EC for funding
X
Behavioural Additionality
What was the impact from the participation, specifically in the way research is conducted by the organisation and the teams involved.
X
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
140
Annex II - FP6 NMP Calls
The table hereunder provides a list of the call for proposals launched under the NMP
thematic within the FP6.
Identifier Description
FP6-2002-NMP-1
Thematic call in the area of “Nano-technologies and nano-sciences,
knowledge-based multifunctional materials, and new production
processes and devices”
FP6-2002-IST-NMP-1 Thematic call in the area of “manufacturing, products and services
engineering in 2010”
FP6-2002-NMP-2
Dedicated call for SMEs in support to the development of new
knowledge based added value products and services in traditional
less RTD intensive industries
FP6-2003-ACC-SSA-
General Specific Support Actions (SSA) for Associated Candidate Countries
FP6-2003-ACC-SSA-
NMP
Targeted Specific Support Actions (SSA) for Associated Candidate
Countries
FP6-2003-NMP-NI-3
Thematic call in the area of 'Nanotechnologies and nanosciences,
knowledge-based multifunctional materials and new production
processes and devices - NI '
FP6-2003-NMP-SME-3
Dedicated call for IPs for SMEs in the area of 'Nanotechnologies and
nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials and new
production processes and devices'
FP6-2003-NMP-
STEEL-3
Dedicated call in the area of 'Very low CO2 Steel Processes', launched
in co-ordination with the 2003 and 2004 calls of the research Fund for
Coal and Steel, as referred to in the Council Decision 2003/78/EC (O.J.
L29/28 of 05.02.03)
FP6-2003-NMP-TI-3-
main
Thematic call in the area of 'Nanotechnologies and nanosciences,
knowledge-based multifunctional materials and new production
processes and devices'
FP6-2003-NMP-TI-3-
ncp
Thematic call in the area of 'Nanotechnologies and nanosciences,
knowledge-based multifunctional materials and new production
processes and devices'
FP6-2004-NMP-NSF-1
Thematic call in the area of 'Nanotechnologies and nanosciences,
knowledge-based multifunctional materials and new production
processes and devices '
FP6-2004-IST-NMP-2 Second Joint Call between thematic priorities 2 and 3
FP6-2004-NMP-NI-4
Thematic call in the area of 'Nanotechnologies and nanosciences,
knowledge-based multifunctional materials and new production
processes and devices'
FP6-2004-NMP-TI-4
Thematic call in the area of 'Nanotechnologies and nanosciences,
knowledge-based multifunctional materials and new production
processes and devices '
FP6-2004-NMP-SME-4 Dedicated call for IPs for SMEs in the area of 'Nanotechnologies and
nanoscieces, knowledge-based multifunctional materials and new
Annexes
141
production processes and devices'
FP6-2006-TTC-TU-
Priority-3
Specific call to promote the participation of partners from Targeted
Third Countries in projects for which contracts are already signed or
under negotiation in priority thematic areas of research.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
142
Annex III - Projects analysed as case studies
N° ID Acronym Call
Identifier Instrument Title Pillar Pillar description
1 11734 ECOBINDERS FP6-2003-NMP-SME-
3 IP
Furan and lignin based resins as eco-friendly and durable solutions for wood preservation, panel, board and design products
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
2 11783 MULTIPROTEC
T FP6-2003-NMP-NI-3
IP Advanced environmentally friendly multifunctional corrosion protection by nanotechnology
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
3 11799 HOLIWOOD FP6-2003-NMP-SME-
3 IP
Holistic Implementation of European thermal treated hard wood in the sector of construction industry and noise protection by sustainable, knowledge-based and value added products.
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
4 11815 NEXT FP6-2003-NMP-NI-3
IP NEXT GENERATION PRODUCTION SYSTEMS NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
5 11816 IMPULSE FP6-2003-NMP-NI-3
IP Integrated Multiscale Process Units with Locally Structured Elements
NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
6 11817 TUNCONSTRU
CT FP6-2003-NMP-NI-3
IP Technology innovation in underground construction NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
7 11844 NAPOLEON FP6-2003-NMP-NI-3
IP Nanostructured waterborne polymer films with outstanding properties
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
8 13545 NANOSPIN FP6-2003-NMP-TI-3-
MAIN STREP
Self-Organised Complex-Spin Magnetic Nanostructures
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
9 13644 MULTIMATDE
SIGN
FP6-2003-NMP-TI-3-
MAIN STREP
Computer aided molecular design of multifunctional materials with controlled permeability properties
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
10 13683 ALUHEAT FP6-2003-NMP-TI-3-
MAIN STREP High Efficiency Aluminium Billet Induction Heater NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
11 13698 SA-NANO FP6-2003-NMP-TI-3-
MAIN STREP
Self Assembly of Shape Controlled Colloidal Nanocrystals
NMP-1 Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences
Annexes
143
12 13883 FLEXONICS FP6-2003-NMP-TI-3-
MAIN STREP
Ultra-high barrier films for R2R encapsulation of flexible electronics
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
13 13912 SMARTCAP FP6-2003-NMP-TI-3-
MAIN STREP
Injectable macroporous biomaterial based on Calcium Phosphate cement for bone regeneration
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
14 13989 ECOFIT FP6-2003-NMP-TI-3-
MAIN STREP
Eco-efficient machine-tools by means of radical mass and energy needs reduction
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
15 13998 PREDFIRE-
NANO
FP6-2003-NMP-TI-3-
MAIN STREP
Predicting Fire Behaviour of Nanocomposites from Intrinsic Properties
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
16 16375 MNIBS FP6-2004-
NMP-NSF-1 STREP
Multiscale Modeling of Nanostructured Interfaces for Biological Sensors
NMP-5 Cross-cutting activities
17 16433 SINPHONIA FP6-2004-IST-NMP-2
STREP Single-photon nanostructured detectors for advanced optical applications
NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
18 16547 CEGRIS II FP6-2004-IST-NMP-2
STREP Centreless grinding simulation part II NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
19 16626 CELLFORCE FP6-2004-IST-NMP-2
STREP Development of a single cell based biosensor for subcellular on-line monitoring of cell performance for diagnosis and healthcare
NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
20 16710 NANOMESO FP6-2004-
NMP-NSF-1 STREP Size Effects in Mechanical Properties NMP-5 Cross-cutting activities
21 16726 SMMART FP6-2004-IST-NMP-2
IP System for Mobile Maintenance Accessible in Real Time
NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
22 16882 MODULINSPEX FP6-2004-IST-NMP-2
STREP Modular High Speed X-ray Detection and Sorting Systems for Production Process Control and Packaging Quality Control
NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
23 16938 RI-MACS FP6-2004-IST-NMP-2
STREP Radically Innovative Mechatronics and Advanced Control Systems
NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
24 17002 BIODIAGNOSTI
CS FP6-2004-IST-NMP-2
STREP Biological diagnostic tools using microsystems and supersensitive magnetic detection
NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
25 17350 BIO-MEDNANO FP6-2004- STREP Integrating enzymes, mediators and nanostructures NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
144
IST-NMP-2 to provide bio-powered bio-electrochemical sensing systems
26 17498 DYNAMITE FP6-2004-IST-NMP-2
IP Dynamic Decisions in Maintenance NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
27 505724 HIPERMAG FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP
Nano- and micro-scale engineering of higher-performance MgB2 composite superconductors for macro-scale applications
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
28 32202 EMDPA FP6-2004-NMP-TI-4
STREP
New Elemental and Molecular Depth Profiling Analysis of Advanced Materials by Modulated Radio Frequency Glow Discharge Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
29 32378 ECLIPS FP6-2004-NMP-TI-4
STREP Extended Collaborative integrated Life cycle supply chain Planning System
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
30 33191 NANOXIDE FP6-2004-NMP-TI-4
STREP Novel Nanoscale Devices based on functional Oxide Interfaces
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
31 33227 µSAPIENT FP6-2004-NMP-TI-4
CA Synergetic Process Integration for Efficient Micro and Nano Manufacture
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
32 33254 SANTS FP6-2004-NMP-TI-4
STREP Synthesis and nanotechnologial application of tethered silicates
NMP-1 Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences
33 33256 BENATURAL FP6-2004-NMP-TI-4
STREP Bioengineered Nanomaterials for research and Applications
NMP-1 Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences
34 500057 NANO2LIFE FP6-2002-
NMP-1 NOE A network for bringing NANOtechnologies TO LIFE NMP-1 Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences
35 500095 MASMICRO FP6-2002-
NMP-1 IP
INTEGRATION OF MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS FOR MASS-MANUFACTURE OF MINIATURE/MICRO-PRODUCTS
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
36 500096 CANAPE FP6-2002-
NMP-1 IP
Carbon Nanotubes for Applications in Electronics, Catalysis, Composites and Nano-Biology
NMP-1 Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences
37 500120 NAPA FP6-2002-
NMP-1 IP Emerging Nanopatterning Methods NMP-1 Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences
38 500159 FAME FP6-2002-
NMP-1 NOE
FUNCTIONALISED ADVANCED MATERIALS ENGINEERING OF HYBRIDS AND CERAMICS
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
39 500160 AIMS FP6-2002- IP Advanced Interactive Materials by Design NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional
Annexes
145
NMP-1 Materials
40 500198 NANOQUANTA FP6-2002-
NMP-1 NOE
Nanoscale Quantum Simulations for Nanostructures and Advanced Materials
NMP-1 Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences
41 500252 METAMORPHO
SE FP6-2002-
NMP-1 NOE
MetaMaterials ORganized for radio, millimeter wave, and PHOtonic Superlattice Engineering
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
42 500273 I*PROMS FP6-2002-
NMP-1 NOE
Innovative Production Machines and Systems (I* PROMS)
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
43 500274 4M FP6-2002-
NMP-1 NOE
Multi-Material Micro Manufacture: Technologies and Applications
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
44 500283 EXPERTISSUES FP6-2002-
NMP-1 NOE
Novel Therapeutic Strategies for Tissue Engineering of Bone and Cartilage Using Second Generation Biomimetic Scaffolds
NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
45 500328 FRONTIERS FP6-2002-IST-NMP-1
NOE
NoE research and facilities directed at instrumentation for manufacturing and analysis of single molecules and individual nanoclusters, targeted at life sciences
NMP-1 Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences
46 500329 BIOMINE FP6-2002-
NMP-1 IP Biotechnology for Metal bearing materials in Europe NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
47 500345 ECOTARGET FP6-2002-
NMP-1 IP
New and innovative processes for radical changes of the European pulp and paper industry
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
48 500355 NAIMO FP6-2002-
NMP-1 IP
NAnoscale Integrated processing of self-organizing Multifunctional Organic Materials
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
49 500465 STEPS FP6-2002-
NMP-1 IP
A Systems Approach to Tissue Engineering Processes and Products
NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
50 500895 INSIDE_PORES FP6-2002-
NMP-1 NOE
IN Sltu study and DEvelopment of processes involving nanoPORous Solids
NMP-1 Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences
51 501084 INMAR FP6-2002-
NMP-1 IP Intelligent Materials for Active Noise Reduction NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
52 504017 CORNEA
ENGINEERING FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP
THREE-DIMENSIONAL RECONSTRUCTION OF HUMAN CORNEAS BY TISSUE ENGINEERING
NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
53 505206 HYMM FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP
Advanced Hybrid Mechatronic Materials for ultra precise and high performance machining systems design
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
146
54 505247 NANOFOREST FP6-2002-
NMP-1 SSA
A nanotechnology roadmap for the forest products industry
NMP-1 Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences
55 505275 ISAMCO FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP
IONIC POLYMER-METAL COMPOSITE AS SENSOR AND ACTUATOR: APPLICATION IN MOTION CONTROL
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
56 505285 SEMINANO FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP
PHYSICS AND TECHNOLOGY OF ELEMENTAL, ALLOY AND COMPOUND SEMICONDUCTOR NANOCRYSTALS: MATERIALS AND DEVICES
NMP-1 Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences
57 505339 KOBAS FP6-2002-
NMP-2 IP
Knowledge Based Customized Services for Traditional Manufacturing Sectors Provided by a Network of High Tech SMEs
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
58 505463 MACE FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP
Multifunctional Advanced Carbon Aluminium Composite for Electricity Transport
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
59 505466 PROHIPP FP6-2002-
NMP-2 IP
NEW DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES FOR HIGH PRESSURE FLUID POWER PRODUCTS
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
60 505567 BIOCELSOL FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP
Biotechnological Process for Manufacturing Cellulosic Products with Added Value
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
61 505580 DT-CRYS FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP
Double Tungstate Crystals: synthesis, characterization and applications
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
62 505626 DESYGN-IT FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP
DEsign, SYnthesis and Growth of Nanotubes for Industrial Technology
NMP-1 Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences
63 505630 MUSTWIN FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP
Micromachined Ultrasound transducers for wide range application in Medical imaging and Non Destructive Testing
NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
64 505634 X-TIP FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP
Nano-scale chemical mapping and surface structural modification by joined use of X-ray microbeams and tip assisted local detection.
NMP-1 Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences
65 505641 GANANO FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP
New Generation of GaN-based sensor arrays for nano- and pico-fluidic systems for fast and reliable biomedical testing
NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
66 505642 ANSWER FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP
Artificial Nanomaterials for Short Wavelength Emission in the infraRed
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
67 505654 PROFORM FP6-2002- STREP Transforming nano-particles into sustainable NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
Annexes
147
NMP-1 consumer products through advanced product and process formulation
68 505657 MINUET FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP
Miniaturised Ultrasonic, Engineered-Structure and LTCC-Based Devices for Acoustics, Fluidies, Optics and Robotics
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
69 505669 CIDNA FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP
Control of assembly and charge transport properties of immobilized DNA
NMP-1 Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences
70 505711 AUTOBONE FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP
PRODUCTION UNIT FOR THE DECENTRALISED ENGINEERING OF AUTOLOGOUS CELL-BASED OSTEOINDUCTIVE BONE SUBSTITUTES
NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
71 505862 INSERT FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP Integrating Separation and Reaction Technologies NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
72 505864 FLEXIFUNBAR FP6-2002-
NMP-2 IP
MULTIFUNCTIONAL BARRIERS FOR FLEXIBLE STRUCTURES (PAPER, LEATHER, PAPER)
NMP
nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge based multifunctional materials and new production processes and devices
73 505895 NANOCHEMSE
NS FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP Nanostructures for Chemical Sensors NMP-1 Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences
74 505899 SOPHIED FP6-2002-
NMP-2 IP
Novel sustainable bioprocesses for the European colour industries
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
75 505928 MATECO FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP
New Coatings Deposited by PACVD for Corrosion Protection
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
76 505954 RAMATI FP6-2002-
NMP-1 STREP Rapid manufacturing of titanium implants NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
77 507378 CEC-MADE-
SHOE FP6-2002-IST-NMP-1
IP Custom, Environment, and Comfort made shoe NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
78 507437 CUSTOM-FIT FP6-2002-IST-NMP-1
IP
A knowledge-based manufacturing system, established by integrating Rapid Manufacturing, IST and Material Science to improve the Quality of Life of European Citizens through Custom fit Products.
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
79 507487 VRL KCIP FP6-2002-IST-NMP-1
NOE Virtual research Lab for a Knowledge Community in Production
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
80 507978 EUPASS FP6-2002- IP Evolvable Ultra-Precision Assembly Systems IST-1 Applied IST research addressing major
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
148
IST-NMP-1 societal and economic challenges
81 515743 IONMET FP6-2003-NMP-SME-
3 IP
New Ionic Liquid Solvent Technology to Transform Metal Finishing Products and Processes
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
82 515757 MIND FP6-2003-NMP-NI-3
NOE Integrated Piezoelectric Devices NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
83 515762 I-STONE FP6-2003-NMP-SME-
3 IP
Re-engineering of natural stone production chain through knowledge based processes, eco-innovation and new organisational paradigms
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
84 515767 MAGMANET FP6-2003-NMP-NI-3
NOE Molecular Approach to Nanomagnets and Multifunctional Materials
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
85 515769 BIOCOMP FP6-2003-NMP-SME-
3 IP
New Classes of Engineering Composite Materials from Renewable Resources
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
86 515803 CHARPAN FP6-2003-NMP-NI-3
IP CHARGED PARTICLE NANOTECH NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
87 515810 LEAPFROG FP6-2003-NMP-NI-3
IP LEADERSHIP FOR EUROPEAN APPAREL PRODUCTION FROM RESEARCH ALONG ORIGINAL GUIDELINES
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
88 515813 AVALON FP6-2003-NMP-SME-
3 IP
Multifunctional textile structure driving new production and organizational paradigms by textile SME Interoperation Across high-added-VALue SectOrs for knowledge-based product/ service creatioN
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
89 515825 MANUBUILD FP6-2003-NMP-NI-3
IP Open Building Manufacturing NMP-4 Integrating NMP-1, NMP-2 and NMP-3
90 515831 VIRTHUALIS FP6-2003-NMP-NI-3
IP Virtual Reality and Human Factors Applications for Improving Safety
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
91 515844 INNOVATIAL FP6-2003-NMP-NI-3
IP Innovative processes and materials to synthesise knowledge-based ultra-performance nanostructured PVD thin films on gamma titanium aluminides
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
92 515846 NAPOLYDE FP6-2003-NMP-NI-3
IP Control and smart devices NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
Annexes
149
93 515848 SOILCY FP6-2003-NMP-SME-
3 IP
NEW SUSTAINABLE COMPRESSOR OIL PRODUCTION AND USE. TOWARDS A LONG ECO-EFFICIENT LIFE CYCLE
NMP-3 New Production Processes and Devices
94 515960 ULCOS FP6-2003-
NMP-STEEL-3
IP Ultra-Low CO2 Steelmaking NMP-5 Cross-cutting activities
95 516865 TASNANO FP6-2003-NMP-TI-3-
MAIN STREP
Tools and Technologies for the Analysis and Synthesis of Nanostructures
NMP-1 Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences
96 516943 NANOBIOCOM FP6-2003-NMP-TI-3-
MAIN STREP
INTELLIGENT NANOCOMPOSITE FOR BONE TISSUE REPAIR AND REGENERATION
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
97 516961 BASE FP6-2003-NMP-TI-3-
MAIN STREP
Bio-based Functional materials from Engineered Self-Assembling Peptides
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
98 517002 IOLISURF FP6-2003-NMP-TI-3-
MAIN STREP
Ionic Liquids as a novel electrochemical medium for radically innovative, cost effective, and environmentally friendly surface treatment technologies
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
99 517036 PECTICOAT FP6-2003-NMP-TI-3-
MAIN STREP
Nanobiotechnology for the coating of medical devices
NMP-1 Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences
100
517045 SMART FP6-2003-NMP-TI-3-
MAIN SSA
Foresight Action for Knowledge Based Multifunctional Materials Technology
NMP-2 Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
150
Annex IV - Case study template
A template was defined at the project start, together with interview guidelines. This template has been used by the evaluation team for
the drafting of the 100 case studies.
Project case study
Replace by project logo REPLACE BY PROJECT ACRONYM
Project full title: XXXX
Project instrument: STREP/IP/NoE/CA/SSA
Start date: DD/MM/YY Duration: XX M
Project action: NMP-1/ NMP-2/ NMP-3/ NMP-4/ NMP-5
Project reference:
Project total budget:
Project website: http://www.xxx
Keywords:
Project short abstract (300-600 characters)
Annexes
151
Consortium:
List of partners with their profile
Case study executive summary
Case study analysis
Project emergence and objectives How did the project emerge? Would that project have existed without the EC funding?
Describe here the project objectives at the beginning. Were they ambitious? Realistic? Did they evolve during project course?
Are they still seen as valid objectives?
To what extent have they been achieved?
Project outcomes and impacts Did the activities run smoothly? Were necessary competencies present?
What have been the noticeable benefits gained by the partners?
Did the projects generated or will generate commercial outcomes? Have any patents been filed?
Project long term impacts and sustainability Expand on long-term scientific/socio/economic/environmental impacts of the project
Are these impacts going to be sustainable?
What are/have been the barriers to further exploitation?
Are the individual partners still pursuing RTD in the field?
Is the consortium still cooperating (at least partly) or intend to?
Did the project contribute to ETPs or collaborated with them?
Success factors and obstacles What have been the main success factors and obstacle for the project?
Strengths and weaknesses
What have been the strengths and weaknesses of theFP6-NMP programme for that project?
Communication and dissemination What have been the main dissemination and communication activities of the project?
Did they contribute to the project success?
Monitoring activity Each project evaluation report shall also include an indication of how to check if the project's exploitation and impact develop
as expected (what to look for, when, and where).
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
152
Conclusion
Points of deviation What are the key positive and negative highlights of the case study, that make this project different from other ones?
Interesting points to exploit further What have been the success/failure factors affecting the project?
Are there expected outcomes/impacts in the near future, related to that project, which should be looked at?
Key lessons learnt What are the lessons learnt in that case study which may later on be looked at when drafting the recommendations?
Annexes
153
Annex V - Survey aggregated level analysis
This annex presents the aggregated analysis to all answers of the survey for selected projects.
V.1 - General Info
i) Question: Project Instrument
Participation in Project Instruments – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=1.181
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
154
ii) Question: How many employees are there overall in your organization?
Total Number of Employees in the Organization - Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=1162
Annexes
155
iii) Question: In which Industry/business sector does your organization operate?
Industry / Business Sectors - Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=1152
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
156
iv) Question: How do you rate the R&D capabilities (e.g. expertise of personnel, share of researchers in personnel,
existence of separate R&D department, volume of investment in R&D activities, research infrastructures
available, etc.) of your organization?
R&D Capabilities of Respondents - Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 1166
v) Question: Please choose only one of the following: Research organization, Higher or secondary education
establishment, Industry, Other.
Type of Organizations - Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 1181
Annexes
157
vi) Question: SME Status
SMEs Status – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 1157
vii) Question: In which Pillar of NMP have you participated?
NMP Pillars - Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 1160
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
158
V.2 - Your Experience with Project
i) Question: How would you describe the project along the following dimensions?
Description of projects – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈ 1175
Annexes
159
ii) Question: Did your NMP project build on R&D that your organization did before?
Percentage of Projects Built-on Past R&D – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=1173
iii) Question: On what type of past R&D did your NMP project built?
Type of R&D the NMP project Built On – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈ 900
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
160
vi) Question: Is R&D in this area continuing or likely to continue?
Continuation of R&D - Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=1155
Annexes
161
V.3 - Projects Outputs
vi) Question: From your organization perspective, which of the following were important outputs of the project?
Important Outputs of the Projects – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈1175
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
162
Quantification of project Outputs
vii) If known, please quantify…
a) …the number of peer reviewed journal article/conference papers to which your organization/research tem
contributed
Number of Peer Reviewed Journal Articles/Conference Papers – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=962
b)….the number of participations in conferences by members of your organization
Number of Participations in Conferences – Overall Results
Annexes
163
Total Number of respondents: n=996
c)…the number of patents gained due to research conducted
Number of Patents Gained- Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=906
d)…the number of Copyrights/ Trademarks/ Registers Designs applied for
Number of Copyrights/ Trademarks- Overall Results
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
164
Total Number of respondents: n=866
e)…the number of Spin-offs companies created
Number of Spin-Offs Companies – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=891
f)… the number of software packages developed
Number of Software Packages – Overall Results
Annexes
165
Total Number of respondents: n=894
e)… the number of standards/normalization bodies you contributed to
Number of Standards/Normalization Bodies the NMP Projects Contributed to - Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=866
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
166
V.4 - Project Goals and Added Value
i) Question: How Important were the following goals for your Organization?
Importance of Goals – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈1178
Annexes
167
ii) Question: How did the achievements live up to your organization’s expectations?
Expectations and Achievements – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈1178
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
168
iii) Question: Overall, were the benefits of participation in the project greater or less than the costs involved?
Costs VS Benefits – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=1181
Annexes
169
V.5 - Project Impacts
i) Question: How significant were the impacts of the project on your R&D team capabilities?
Impacts of the Projects on R&D Capabilities – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈1178
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
170
ii) Question: How significant were the impacts of the project on your overall organization?
Impacts of the Projects on Participating Organizations – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈1178
Annexes
171
iii) Question: How significant were the impacts of your NMP project on the broader environment?
Projects Impacts on Broader Environment – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈1178
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
172
iv) Question : To what extent are the following impacts likely to be transient or long-lasting?
Transience of impacts – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈1175
Annexes
173
iv) Question : To which of the following European Technology Platforms did your project contributed to?
Projects Contribution to European Technology Platforms
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
174
V.6 - Commercialization of Results
i: Question : Has your organization realized, or expects to realize, commercial returns as a result of exploitation
of the project results?
Commercialization of Results
Total Number of respondents: n=1181
ii: Question :What is your estimated actual commercial return (in euro per year) from the project?
Estimated actual commercial return (in Euro per year) from the project
Total Number of respondents: n=232
Annexes
175
V.7 - Additionality
i) Question: In case you had not received EU funding, would you have continued with your project?
Percentage of Respondents that would have (not) continued with their projects in case they had not
received EU Funding – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=1181
ii) Question: Source of Funds – In case you had not received EU funding and would have continued with your
project.
Source of Funds – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=391
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
176
iii) Question : Synthesis of Consortium - In case you had not received EU funding and would have continued with
your project
Synthesis of Consortium –Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=390
Annexes
177
iv) Question : Time Scale of Project - In case you had not received EU funding and would have continued with
your project
Time Scale of Project – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 388
v) Question : Project Objectives - In case you had not received EU funding and would have continued with your
project
Project Objectives – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 393
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
178
vi) Question: Project Expectations in terms of net benefits - In case you had not received EU funding and would
have continued with your project
Project Expectations – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 392
vii)Question: Project Applications in terms of net benefits -In case you had not received EU funding and would
have continued with your project
Range of Project Applications – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 390
Annexes
179
V.8 - Success Factors and Obstacles
i) Question: Which of the following factors had an important influence on the project achievements?
Success Factors and Obstacles – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 1180
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
180
ii) Question: To what extent did visibility in any of the media channels listed below affect overall project impacts?
The visibility of Media Channels and their affect in the Projects Impacts – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈1177
Annexes
181
iii) Question: How would you rate the Importance of communicating your project results to the society?
Importance of communicating your project results – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=1175
iv) Question: How would you rate the involvement of end users and target groups in the project?
Significance of the involvement of end users and target groups in the project – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=1177
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
182
v) Question: During project course, did changes in the external environment required transformation of the
objectives and/ or context of your project?
Number of Transformations Occurred – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=1177
vi) Question: Indicate all the changes that occurred (which were significant and did cause transformation of the
project objectives and /or context)?
Changes Occurred – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=131
Annexes
183
vii) Question: How did the project adapt to the changes?
Projects adaptation to changes – Overall Results
Total Number of respondents: n=131
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
184
Annex VI - Survey: industry level analysis
This annex presents the survey results obtained when looking only at answers from the industry.
VI.1 - General Information
i) Question: Project Instrument
Participation in Project Instruments – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=145
Annexes
185
Participation in Project Instruments – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=106
ii) Question: How many employees are there overall in your organization?
Total Number of Employees in the Organization – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=145
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
186
Total Number of Employees in the Organization – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=106
Annexes
187
iii) Question: In which Industry/business sector does your organization operate?
Industry / Business Sectors – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=143
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
188
Industry / Business Sectors – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=158
Annexes
189
iv) Question: How do you rate the R&D capabilities (e.g. expertise of personnel, share of researchers in personnel,
existence of separate R&D department, volume of investment in R&D activities, research infrastructures
available, etc.) of your organization?
R&D Capabilities of Respondents – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 145
R&D Capabilities of Respondents – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=106
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
190
v) Question: Please choose only one of the following: Research organization, Higher or secondary education
establishment, Industry, Other.
Type of Organizations – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=145
Type of Organizations – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 106
Annexes
191
vi) Question: In which Pillar of NMP have you participated?
NMP Pillars – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 145
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
192
NMP Pillars – SMEs Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 106
Annexes
193
VI.2 - Your Experience with Project
i) Question: How would you describe the project along the following dimensions?
Description of projects – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈ 145
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
194
Description of projects – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈ 106
Annexes
195
ii) Question: Did your NMP project build on R&D that your organization did before?
Percentage of Projects Built-on Past R&D – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=145
Percentage of Projects Built-on Past R&D – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=105
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
196
iii) Question: On what type of past R&D did your NMP project built?
Type of R&D the NMP project Built On – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈ 105
Type of R&D the NMP project Built On – SMEs Results
Annexes
197
Total Number of respondents: n≈72
vi) Question: Is R&D in this area continuing or likely to continue?
Continuation of R&D – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈ 145
Continuation of R&D – SMEs Results
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
198
Total Number of respondents: n≈ 102
Comments and significant Statistical differences on “Part 2 - Projects Description”
Both Participants from SMEs and Large Enterprises had the same experience participating in the NMP funded
projects.
Specifically, both consider that the projects were of medium cost but involved high Commercial risk as well as
Technical risk and complexity. Moreover, both participants from SMEs and large Enterprises considered that
the projects involved applied research which had high linkages with other in-house projects as well as with core
technology areas of their organizations. However, it should be mentioned that the 73,1% of respondents from
Long Enterprises consider that their projects included long-term nature of R&D when this percentage is only
59,9% for the participants from SMEs.
Also, the majority of the persons involved in the projects from both SMEs and Large enterprises believe that the
projects were only feasible with external collaborators and required the high involvement of both top European
and international researchers and organizations.
Also, it is worth mentioning, that the majority of the participants from both SMEs and Large enterprises consider
that the NMP project they had participated was of high strategic importance for their organization and that it was
build on R&D that their organization did before. Also, the vast majority of the participants stated that they shall
continue performing R&D in the area
Annexes
199
Large Enterprises
High Cost
Commercial
Risk S&T Risks
S&T
Complexity
Long-term
nature of R&D
Applied
Research
Core
technology
area
High
Strategic
Importance
for org
Not
feasible
with
external
collabs.
Links with
in-house
projects
Involvement
of top
researchers
(EU)
Involvement
of top
researchers
(intl)
Very low 8,3% 13,2% 4,9% 2,8% 3,4% 2,8% 20,7% 6,2% 3,4% 5,5% 2,8% 15,4%
Low 12,5% 20,1% 11,8% ,7% 2,8% 15,9% 31,7% 5,5% 10,3% 15,2% 5,5% 16,1%
Medium 43,8% 23,6% 23,6% 14,5% 20,7% 29,7% 22,1% 13,8% 29,0% 27,6% 15,2% 21,7%
High 27,1% 27,8% 41,7% 46,2% 49,0% 36,6% 17,2% 27,6% 37,9% 35,9% 40,7% 30,8%
Very High 8,3% 15,3% 18,1% 35,9% 24,1% 15,2% 8,3% 46,9% 19,3% 15,9% 35,9% 16,1%
35,4% 43,1% 59,7% 82,1% 73,1% 51,7% 25,5% 74,5% 57,2% 51,7% 76,6% 46,9%
SMEs
High Cost
Commercial
Risk S&T Risks
S&T
Complexity
Long-term
nature of R&D
Applied
Research
Core
technology
area
High
Strategic
Importance
for org
Not
feasible
with
external
collabs.
Links with
in-house
projects
Involvement
of top
researchers
(EU)
Involvement
of top
researchers
(intl)
Very low 3,8% 6,7% 3,8% 1,9% 1,0% 31,1% 4,8% 1,9% 3,8% 2,9% 13,2%
Low 13,5% 20,0% 12,4% 4,7% 4,8% 13,3% 30,2% 10,5% 9,4% 11,3% 4,8% 17,9%
Medium 45,2% 27,6% 27,6% 8,5% 34,3% 28,6% 14,2% 10,5% 22,6% 32,1% 15,2% 23,6%
High 31,7% 32,4% 44,8% 54,7% 37,1% 45,7% 17,0% 29,5% 39,6% 35,8% 39,0% 29,2%
Very High 5,8% 13,3% 11,4% 32,1% 21,9% 11,4% 7,5% 44,8% 26,4% 17,0% 38,1% 16,0%
37,5% 45,7% 56,2% 86,8% 59,0% 57,1% 24,5% 74,3% 66,0% 52,8% 77,1% 45,3%
Statistical
Analysis 0,338 0,419 0,560 - 1,032 2,331 - 0,853 0,179 - 0,035 - 1,426 0,173 0,110 0,247 -
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
200
VI.3 - Projects Outputs
vi) Question: From your organization perspective, which of the following were important outputs of the project?
Important Outputs of the Projects – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈145
Annexes
201
Important Outputs of the Projects – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈145
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
202
Quantification of project Outputs
vii) If known, please quantify…
a) …the number of peer reviewed journal article/conference papers to which your organization/research tem
contributed
Number of Peer Reviewed Journal Articles/Conference Papers – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 113
Number of Peer Reviewed Journal Articles/Conference Papers – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=74
Annexes
203
b)….the number of participations in conferences by members of your organization
Number of Participations in Conferences – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=115
Number of Participations in Conferences – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=79
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
204
c)…the number of patents gained due to research conducted
Number of Patents Gained- Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=110
Number of Patents Gained- SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=78
Annexes
205
d)…the number of Copyrights/ Trademarks/ Registers Designs applied for
Number of Copyrights / Trademarks- Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=103
Number of Copyrights/ Trademarks- SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=74
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
206
e)…the number of Spin-offs companies created
Number of Spin-Offs Companies – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=107
Number of Spin-Offs Companies – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 76
Annexes
207
f)… the number of software packages developed
Number of Software Packages – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=109
Number of Software Packages – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=77
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
208
e)… the number of standards/normalization bodies you contributed to
Number of Standards/Normalization Bodies the NMP Projects Contributed to – Large Enterprises
Results
Total Number of respondents: n=107
Number of Standards/Normalization Bodies the NMP Projects Contributed to – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 71
Annexes
209
Comments and significant Statistical differences on “Part 3 – Project Outputs”
Both participants from SMEs and large Enterprises have also the same views on the importance of the their
projects outputs
The majority of the participants stated that most significant outputs were: the development of new/improved
services, products and components; the development of new / improved processes; the development of good
practices, the development of new improved materials and the development of prototypes, demonstrators and
pilots.
Participants from SMEs and Large Enterprises have also the same views on which were the less important
outputs of the projects they have participated in. Among the low importance outputs were the development of
new organizational models and knowledge management tools; PhD programmes and the development of
copyrights, trademarks, licenses etc.
Moreover, it should be mentioned that almost half (49,5%) of the respondents from SMEs have stated that the
New/Improved Quality Standards and measurement techniques were important outputs of the projects. On the
other hand, the same opinion on the importance of this output was expressed by the 36,1% of the respondents
from Large Enterprises.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
210
Large
Enterprises
Publications
Phds and
other
Qualifications
Training
programmes
Good
Practises
New/Improved
Materials
New/Improved
Manufactoring
Systems
New/Improve
d Sevices/
Products
Sustainable
Processing of
Multifuctonal
Materials
New/Improved
Processes
New/Improved
Quality
Standads and
meaurement
techniques
New/
Improved
control
devices and
instruments
New/Improved
Software
/Simulation
Models
New
Improved
characterisat
ion tools
New
productio
n concepts
New tools for
efficient life-cycle
design, production,
use and recovery of
systems
New
organizati
onal
Models
New/
Improved
knowledge
Manageme
nt tools
Safer
Products
Prototypes,
Demonstra
tors and
Pilots
Patent
Applications
Copyrights,
Trademarks,
registered
Designs,
Licences etc…
Other
Outputs
Not
Applicable
5,5% 15,3% 11,7% 6,2% 13,8% 13,1% 9,0% 19,3% 9,7% 13,2% 15,9% 13,2% 17,9% 14,5% 15,2% 24,1% 22,9% 19,6% 12,5% 18,3% 20,8% 57,0%
Very low 11,7% 22,2% 6,2% 1,4% 9,0% 9,0% 4,1% 10,3% 2,8% 8,3% 11,7% 14,6% 8,3% 11,0% 14,5% 31,0% 25,7% 19,6% 6,9% 14,1% 26,4% 15,6%
Low 20,0% 24,3% 26,2% 11,7% 5,5% 11,7% 11,0% 16,6% 13,1% 16,7% 15,2% 13,9% 14,5% 10,3% 17,2% 17,2% 18,1% 13,3% 9,0% 16,2% 18,8% 3,1%
Moderate 29,7% 20,1% 29,0% 20,0% 14,5% 15,9% 11,0% 17,9% 12,4% 25,7% 25,5% 18,1% 22,1% 18,6% 25,5% 15,9% 13,2% 16,8% 16,0% 21,8% 16,0% 8,6%
High 20,0% 11,8% 19,3% 38,6% 28,3% 20,0% 31,0% 18,6% 33,8% 20,1% 18,6% 22,2% 25,5% 31,0% 17,9% 6,2% 11,8% 14,7% 31,9% 12,7% 11,8% 10,2%
Very High 13,1% 6,3% 7,6% 22,1% 29,0% 30,3% 33,8% 17,2% 28,3% 16,0% 13,1% 18,1% 11,7% 14,5% 9,7% 5,5% 8,3% 16,1% 23,6% 16,9% 6,3% 5,5%
33,1% 18,1% 26,9% 60,7% 57,2% 50,3% 64,8% 35,9% 62,1% 36,1% 31,7% 40,3% 37,2% 45,5% 27,6% 11,7% 20,1% 30,8% 55,6% 29,6% 18,1% 15,6%
SMEs
Publications
Phds and
other
Qualifications
Training
programmes
Good
Practises
New/Improved
Materials
New/Improved
Manufactoring
Systems
New/Improve
d Sevices/
Products
Sustainable
Processing of
Multifuctonal
Materials
New/Improved
Processes
New/Improved
Quality
Standads and
meaurement
techniques
New/
Improved
control
devices and
instruments
New/Improved
Software
/Simulation
Models
New
Improved
characterisat
ion tools
New
productio
n concepts
New tools for
efficient life-cycle
design, production,
use and recovery of
systems
New
organizati
onal
Models
New/
Improved
knowledge
Manageme
nt tools
Safer
Products
Prototypes,
Demonstra
tors and
Pilots
Patent
Applications
Copyrights,
Trademarks,
registered
Designs,
Licences etc…
Other
Outputs
Not
Applicable
2,8% 21,0% 5,7% 2,8% 9,4% 10,4% 8,5% 17,9% 9,5% 10,5% 17,1% 17,1% 18,3% 15,2% 13,3% 24,0% 20,0% 11,4% 9,5% 13,3% 17,1% 61,8%
Very low 13,2% 23,8% 12,3% ,9% 6,6% 4,7% ,9% 13,2% 4,8% 6,7% 9,5% 14,3% 13,5% 7,6% 14,3% 17,3% 18,1% 16,2% 6,7% 13,3% 24,8% 11,8%
Low 21,7% 23,8% 24,5% 9,4% 8,5% 11,3% 5,7% 10,4% 7,6% 11,4% 16,2% 17,1% 16,3% 15,2% 16,2% 25,0% 18,1% 23,8% 15,2% 21,0% 22,9% 4,9%
Moderate 29,2% 19,0% 25,5% 22,6% 19,8% 22,6% 10,4% 17,9% 12,4% 21,9% 19,0% 21,9% 25,0% 19,0% 20,0% 17,3% 21,0% 19,0% 14,3% 20,0% 19,0% 12,7%
High 20,8% 10,5% 25,5% 44,3% 23,6% 26,4% 34,9% 13,2% 29,5% 29,5% 20,0% 17,1% 12,5% 24,8% 23,8% 8,7% 13,3% 19,0% 20,0% 10,5% 9,5% 2,9%
Very High 12,3% 1,9% 6,6% 19,8% 32,1% 24,5% 39,6% 27,4% 36,2% 20,0% 18,1% 12,4% 14,4% 18,1% 12,4% 7,7% 11,4% 10,5% 34,3% 16,2% 6,7% 5,9%
33,0% 12,4% 32,1% 64,2% 55,7% 50,9% 74,5% 40,6% 65,7% 49,5% 38,1% 29,5% 26,9% 42,9% 36,2% 16,3% 24,8% 29,5% 54,3% 26,7% 16,2% 8,8%
Statistical
Analysis -0,014 -1,255 0,887 0,560 -0,249 0,094 1,673 0,757 0,595 2,134 1,045 -1,787 -1,752 -0,420 1,443 1,033 0,863 -0,213 -0,200 -0,508 -0,389 -1,665
Annexes
211
Fourth Part -Project Goals and Added Value
i) Question: How Important were the following goals for your Organization?
Importance of Goals – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈144
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
212
Importance of Goals – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈106
Annexes
213
ii) Question: How did the achievements live up to your organization’s expectations?
Expectations and Achievements – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈146
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
214
Expectations and Achievements – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈105
Annexes
215
iii) Question: Overall, were the benefits of participation in the project greater or less than the costs involved?
Costs VS Benefits – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=145
Costs VS Benefits – Large SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=106
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
216
Comments and significant Statistical differences on “Part 4 - Project Goals”
The vast majority of both participants from SMEs and Large Enterprises stated that the most important goals of
their NMP project were the Scientific and Technological goals. Also, of great importance for the SMEs were the
Commercial and Economic goals of the projects (72,6%), while for Large Enterprises only 51% of the
respondents considered these goals as very important. Moreover, about 40% of the respondents from both
SMEs and Large enterprises consider that the health and environmental goals were of high importance. On the
other hand, the social goals as well as the policy goals were considered to be of low importance for both
participants from SMEs and Large Enterprises.
Annexes
217
Part 4 - Project Achievements
In terms of achievement of goals, a great percentage of both participants from SMEs and Large Enterprises
consider that the scientific and technological achievements, the Commercial & Economic Achievements, the
Policy oriented Achievements, the Social Achievements and the Health and environmental Achievements of
their projects were equal to their expectations.
Large Enterprises
Other Goals S&T goals
Commercial
and Economic
goals
Policy-
Orineted
Goals Social goals
Health and
environmental
goals
Non applicable
78,7% 4,2% 5,6% 16,7% 18,1% 16,7%
Very low importance
5,7% ,7% 3,5% 12,5% 14,6% 6,9%
Low importance
6,6% 2,1% 11,9% 19,4% 28,5% 18,1%
Moderate
importance
1,6% 11,1% 28,0% 23,6% 21,5% 16,0%
High importance
2,5% 41,7% 31,5% 19,4% 12,5% 25,0%
Very high importance
4,9% 40,3% 19,6% 8,3% 4,9% 17,4%
7,4% 81,9% 51,0% 27,8% 17,4% 42,4%
SMEs
Other Goals S&T goals
Commercial
and Economic
goals
Policy-
Orineted
Goals Social goals
Health and
environmental
goals
Non applicable
78,5% ,9% ,9% 16,0% 17,0% 11,3%
Very low importance
7,5% 1,9% 3,8% 11,3% 15,1% 9,4%
Low importance
3,2% 6,6% 10,4% 21,7% 26,4% 21,7%
Moderate
importance
6,5% 11,3% 12,3% 31,1% 21,7% 19,8%
High importance
1,1% 33,0% 33,0% 12,3% 13,2% 20,8%
Very high importance
3,2% 46,2% 39,6% 7,5% 6,6% 17,0%
4,3% 79,2% 72,6% 19,8% 19,8% 37,7%
Statistical Analysis 1,049 - 0,532 - 3,600 1,484 - 0,491 0,741 -
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
218
Part 4 - Benefits Vs Costs
43,4% of SMEs and 36,6% of Large Enterprises considered that the costs equalled benefits. However, 33% of
SMEs considered that benefits exceeded costs while this percentage climbs up to 46,2% for Large Enterprises.
On the other hand, it is worth mentioning that 19,8% of participants from SMEs consider that the costs
exceeded benefits while 15,2% of participants from Large enterprises shared the same opinion.
Large
Enterprises SMEs
Statistical
Analysis
46,2% 33,0% -2,139
No opinion 2,1% 3,8%
Benefits greatly
exceeded costs
11,7% 9,4%
Benefits
exceeded costs
34,5% 23,6%
Costs equalled
benefits
36,6% 43,4%
1,094
Costs exceeded
benefits
9,7% 18,9%
Costs greatly
exceeded
benefits
5,5% ,9%
15,2% 19,8% 0,950
Annexes
219
VI.4 - Project Impacts
i) Question: How significant were the impacts of the project on your R&D team capabilities?
Impacts of the Projects on R&D Capabilities – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈145
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
220
ii) Question: How significant were the impacts of the project on your overall organization?
Impacts of the Projects on R&D Capabilities – SMEs Results
Annexes
221
Total Number of respondents: n≈106
Impacts of the Projects on Participating Organizations – Large Enterprises Results
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
222
Total Number of respondents: n≈145
Impacts of the Projects on Participating Organizations – SMEs Results
Annexes
223
Total Number of respondents: n≈105
iii) Question: How significant were the impacts of your NMP project on the broader environment?
Projects Impacts on Broader Environment – Large Enterprises Results
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
224
Total Number of respondents: n≈145
Projects Impacts on Broader Environment – SMEs Results
Annexes
225
Total Number of respondents: n≈105
iv) Question : To what extent are the following impacts likely to be transient or long-lasting?
Transience of impacts – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=145
Transience of impacts – SMEs Results
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
226
Total Number of respondents: n≈105
iv) Question : To which of the following European Technology Platforms did your project contributed to?
Projects Contribution to European Technology Platforms – Large Enterprises Results
Annexes
227
Projects Contribution to European Technology Platforms – SMEs Results
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
228
Comments and significant Statistical differences on “Part 5 – Projects Impacts”
Part 5 – Impacts on R&D capabilities
Concerning impacts on R&D capabilities the most significant impacts achieved for both the participants from
SMEs and Large Enterprises involve the enhancement of knowledge bases; the enhancement of skills and
competences; the improvement of R&D linkages with Universities and Research Institutes; the formation of
new R&D partnerships; and the improved access to complementary expertise.
Part 5 – Impacts on overall Organizations
According to the responses it can be seen that in general, the NMP projects had a greater impact on the
participating SMEs, than on the participating Large Enterprises respectively.
Specifically, the 58,5% of SMEs consider that their participation in the project significantly enhanced the
reputation and image of their organization, while 44,4% of the participants coming from Large enterprises
think the same about their projects. Furthermore, 65% of SMEs consider that their participation in the project
has significantly enhanced their ability to produce or deliver new products while this was stated only by 37% of
participants from Large Enterprises. Furthermore, 53% of SMEs consider that they have significantly improved
their competitive position, while around one third of participants from large enterprises perceived a similar
impact.
On the other hand, only 12% of large enterprises consider that the projects increased turnover while this
percentage climbs up to 23% for SMEs. Also only 9% of large enterprises consider that their participation in the
projects has enhanced productivity while this percentage is double (18%) for SMEs. Moreover, only 9% of large
enterprises consider that their participation in the projects improved market share while this percentage is
more than 20% for SMEs. In addition, only 24% of large enterprises considered that their organizations has
managed to improve commercial linkages thanks to their participation in the projects while this percentage
reaches 41,5% for SMEs. Moreover, only 5,5% of Large enterprises consider that the projects they have
participated had as an impact the formation of new business entities while this percentage is almost three
times more (16%) for SMEs.
Also, it is worth mentioning that a great percentage of participants from both SMEs and Large Enterprises
consider that the projects had a great impact on the formation of new partnerships and networks.
In general, the least significant impacts on the overall organizations for both SMEs and Large enterprises
involved the formation of new business entities; the access to new markets; the improvement of market share;
the increase of turnover and profitability; and the enhanced productivity.
Annexes
229
Large Enterprises
Enchanced
reputation
and image
Enchanced
ability to
produce or
deliver new
products
Improved
competitive
position
Increased
turnover and
profitability
Enhanced
productivity
Improved
market share
Access to
new markets
Improved
commercial
linkages with
other org.
Formation of
new business
entities
Formation
of new
partnershi
ps and
networks
Other
Impacts
21,5% 24,8% 31,0% 44,1% 45,8% 43,8% 38,6% 36,1% 49,0% 21,5% 10,7%
Not Applicable 2,1% 9,7% 6,2% 16,8% 25,0% 23,6% 20,0% 14,6% 35,2% 9,0% 76,2%
Very low Significance 9,7% 11,0% 15,9% 24,5% 24,3% 25,0% 17,9% 18,8% 29,7% 9,7% 6,6%
Low Significance 11,8% 13,8% 15,2% 19,6% 21,5% 18,8% 20,7% 17,4% 19,3% 11,8% 4,1%
Medium Significance 31,9% 28,3% 29,0% 27,3% 20,1% 23,6% 15,9% 25,0% 10,3% 22,9% 8,2%
High Significance 31,9% 26,2% 24,1% 9,1% 6,9% 6,3% 17,2% 17,4% 3,4% 29,9% 1,6%
Very High Significance 12,5% 11,0% 9,7% 2,8% 2,1% 2,8% 8,3% 6,9% 2,1% 16,7% 3,3%
44,4% 37,2% 33,8% 11,9% 9,0% 9,0% 25,5% 24,3% 5,5% 46,5% 4,9%
SMEs
Enchanced
reputation
and image
Enchanced
ability to
produce or
deliver new
products
Improved
competitive
position
Increased
turnover and
profitability
Enhanced
productivity
Improved
market share
Access to
new markets
Improved
commercial
linkages with
other org.
Formation of
new business
entities
Formation
of new
partnershi
ps and
networks
Other
Impacts
14,2% 13,2% 17,9% 41,0% 45,7% 44,3% 30,2% 25,5% 34,9% 18,9% 5,4%
Not Applicable 0,0% 1,9% 2,8% 4,8% 17,1% 16,0% 10,4% 7,5% 41,5% 7,5% 79,3%
Very low Significance 2,8% 3,8% 7,5% 17,1% 25,7% 21,7% 6,6% 6,6% 24,5% 6,6% 2,2%
Low Significance 11,3% 9,4% 10,4% 23,8% 20,0% 22,6% 23,6% 18,9% 10,4% 12,3% 3,3%
Medium Significance 27,4% 19,8% 26,4% 31,4% 19,0% 17,9% 24,5% 25,5% 7,5% 23,6% 6,5%
High Significance 40,6% 43,4% 35,8% 17,1% 13,3% 17,0% 24,5% 27,4% 10,4% 23,6% 4,3%
Very High Significance 17,9% 21,7% 17,0% 5,7% 4,8% 4,7% 10,4% 14,2% 5,7% 26,4% 4,3%
58,5% 65,1% 52,8% 22,9% 18,1% 21,7% 34,9% 41,5% 16,0% 50,0% 8,7%Statistical Analysis 2,223 4,545 3,051 2,246 2,046 2,720 1,597 2,884 2,606 0,544 1,154
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
230
Part 5 –Impacts on the Broader Environment
Concerning impacts on the broader environment, the most significant for both participants from
SMES and Large Enterprises were reported to be: the production of S&T results beyond the state of
the art; the achievement of innovative breakthroughs; and the improved coordination between
research and industry.
The least significant impacts involve: the development of new and existing policies; the improved
public understanding on N/T; the improved confidence of consumers in N&N/products; the
formation of new entities; and the improvement of living conditions.
Part 5 –Transience of Impacts
In general it can be seen that a great percentage of both participants from SMEs and Large
enterprises consider that impacts on R&D capabilities as well on the overall organizations and the
broader environment are expected to have a long lifetime (3 or more years). However, it worth
mentioning that the percentage of respondents from SMEs (47,6%) who consider that the lifetime of
the impacts on the overall organizations is going to be long, is greater from the percentage of
respondents from Large Enterprises (33,8%).
Annexes
231
Large Enterprises
Impacts on on R&D
capabilities of Staff
Impacts on Overall
Organization
Impacts on the
Broader
Environment
Not Applicable 7,6% 15,2% 29,7%
Very Short Life time 5,5% 6,9% 4,1%
Short Life time 13,1% 11,7% 9,0%
Moderate life time 26,9% 32,4% 19,3%
Long Lifetime 28,3% 20,0% 18,6%
Very Long Life Time 18,6% 13,8% 19,3%
46,9% 33,8% 37,9%
SMEs
Impacts on on R&D
capabilities of Staff
Impacts on Overall
Organization
Impacts on the
Broader
Environment
Not Applicable 5,7% 2,9% 22,9%
Very Short Life time 2,8% 4,8% 5,7%
Short Life time 12,3% 11,4% 6,7%
Moderate life time 25,5% 33,3% 15,2%
Long Lifetime 31,1% 30,5% 18,1%
Very Long Life Time 22,6% 17,1% 31,4%
53,8% 47,6% 49,5%
Statistical Analysis 1,079 2,215 1,837
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
232
VI.5 - Commercialization of Results
i: Question : Has your organization realized, or expects to realize, commercial returns as a result of
exploitation of the project results?
Commercialization of Results - Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=145
Commercialization of Results - SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=106
Annexes
233
ii) Question: What is your estimated actual commercial return (in euro per year) from the project?
Estimated actual commercial return (in Euro per year) from the project – Large Enterprises
Results
Total Number of respondents: n=28
Estimated actual commercial return (in Euro per year) from the project – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=39
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
234
Comments and significant Statistical differences on “Part 6 – Commercialization of Results”
25,5% of respondents from Large enterprises participated in the survey consider that it is likely for
their organization to realize commercial returns as a result of exploitation of the project results while
the percentage of respondents from SMEs climbs up to 40,6%.
VI.6 - Additionality
i) Question: In case you had not received EU funding, would you have continued with your project?
Percentage of Respondents that would have (not) continued with their projects in case they
had not received EU Funding – Large Enterprises Results
Large
Enterprises SMEs Statistical Analysis
20,0% 22,6% 0,503
Not
applicable
14,5% 3,8%
Very
unlikely
11,0% 9,4%
Unlikely 9,0% 13,2%
Neutral 40,0% 33,0%
Likely 18,6% 22,6%
Very likely 6,9% 17,9%
25,5% 40,6% 2,513
Annexes
235
Total Number of respondents: n=145
Percentage of Respondents that would have (not) continued with their projects in case they
had not received EU Funding – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=106
ii) Question: Source of Funds – In case you had not received EU funding and would have continued
with your project.
Source of Funds – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=42
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
236
Source of Funds – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=21
iii) Question : Synthesis of Consortium - In case you had not received EU funding and would have
continued with your project
Synthesis of Consortium – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈42
Annexes
237
Synthesis of Consortium – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈23
iv) Question : Time Scale of Project - In case you had not received EU funding and would have
continued with your project
Time Scale of Project – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 41
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
238
Time Scale of Project – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 23
v) Question : Project Objectives - In case you had not received EU funding and would have continued
with your project
Project Objectives – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 42
Annexes
239
Project Objectives – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=2 3
vi) Question: Project Expectations in terms of net benefits - In case you had not received EU funding
and would have continued with your project
Project Expectations – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 42
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
240
Project Expectations – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=2 3
vii) Question: Project Applications in terms of net benefits -In case you had not received EU funding
and would have continued with your project
Range of Project Applications – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n= 42
Annexes
241
Range of Project Applications – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=2 3
Comments and significant Statistical differences on “Part 7 - Additionality
The majority of the respondents from SMEs (78,3%) stated that they would not proceed with their
NMP project in case of absence of EU funding.
Among the remaining 21,7% of the respondents from SMES that stated that they would proceed
with their project in case of absence of funding,
around half (52,2%) stated that they would continue with internal funds, 39,1% with external
funds and 8,7% with no replacement of EU funds;
around 78,4% with fewer partners in total;
around 56,5% with the same number of academic partners (the other 43,5% with the fewer
number of academic partners);
52,2% with fewer industrial partners, 26,1% with the same number of partners and 21,7%
with more industrial partners;
52,2% with the same number of national partners(but 43,5 with less national partners);
59,1% with the fewer number of international partners
Around half (52,2%) of the respective respondents from SMEs have also stated that they
would elaborate their project in the same time-scale, and 34,8% that they would elaborate it
over a shorter timescale.
43,5% of the respondents from SMEs stated that they would perform it with the same
objectives, 34,8% with less ambitious objectives and 21,7% with more ambitious objectives.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
242
43,5% of the respondents from SMEs stated that they would have similar expectations,
26,1% that they would have greater expectations and 30,4% lower expectations.
Finally, 52,2 % stated that they would expect similar applications from their NMP project and
30,4% that they would expect smaller range of applications.
Similarly, the majority of the respondents from Large Enterprises (69,7%), stated that they would not
proceed with their NMP project in case of absence of EU funding.
Among the remaining 31,3% of the respondents from Large Enterprises that stated that they would
proceed with their project in case of absence of funding,
45,5% stated that they would continue with internal funds, 35,7% with external funds and
23,8% with no replacement of EU funds;
Around 66,7% with less partners in total;
Around 56,1% with less number of academic partners (the other 43,5% with the same
number of academic partners);
41,5% with the same number of industrial partners, 39,1% with less number of partners and
19,5% with more industrial partners;
65,9% with the same number of national partners and 29,3 with less national partners;
51,2% with the same number of international partners and 43,9 with less international
partners.
58,5% of the respective respondents from Large Enterprises have also stated that they
would elaborate their project in the same time-scale, and 22% that they would elaborate it
over a longer timescale and 19,5% that it would elaborate it over a shorter time scale.
45,2% of the respondents stated that they would perform it with the same objectives, 33,3%
with less ambitious objectives and 21,4% with more ambitious objectives.
52,4% of the respondents stated that they would have similar expectations, 19% that they
would have greater expectations and 28,6% lower expectations.
Finally, 54,8% stated that they would expect similar applications from their NMP project and
31% that they would expect smaller range of applications.
Annexes
243
VI.7 - Success Factors and Obstacles
i) Question: Which of the following factors had an important influence on the project achievements?
Success Factors and Obstacles – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈145
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
244
Success Factors and Obstacles – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈106
Annexes
245
ii) Question: To what extent did visibility in any of the media channels listed below affect overall
project impacts?
The visibility of Media Channels and their affect in the Projects Impacts – Large Enterprises
Results
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
246
Total Number of respondents: n≈145
Annexes
247
The visibility of Media Channels and their affect in the Projects Impacts – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈106
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
248
iii) Question: How would you rate the Importance of communicating your project results to the
society?
Importance of communicating your project results – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=144
Importance of communicating your project results – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=106
Annexes
249
iv) Question: How would you rate the involvement of end users and target groups in the project?
Significance of the involvement of end users and target groups in the project – Large
Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=145
Significance of the involvement of end users and target groups in the project – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=105
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
250
v) Question: During project course, did changes in the external environment required
transformation of the objectives and/ or context of your project?
Number of Transformations Occurred – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=145
Number of Transformations Occurred –SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=106
Annexes
251
vi) Question: Indicate all the changes that occurred (which were significant and did cause
transformation of the project objectives and /or context)?
Changes Occurred – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n=145
Changes Occurred – SMEs Results
Total Number of respondents: n=106
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
252
vii) Question: How did the project adapt to the changes?
Projects adaptation to changes – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈ 7
Projects adaptation to changes – Large Enterprises Results
Total Number of respondents: n≈ 4
Annexes
253
Comments and significant Statistical differences on “Part 8 - Success Factors and Obstacles”
The vast majority of the respondents coming from SMEs and Large Enterprises identified the same
factors as significant for the successful completion of their projects, with just some small differences
in the order of significance.
SMEs Success Factors:
1. The internal Scientific and Technological Competences of the team
2. The S&T competences of Partners
3. The Project Management skills of the Coordinator
4. The availability of Prior Knowledge or technical inputs
5. The complementary of Partners Goals
6. The ambition of Project Goals
7. The clarity of Project objectives, management of the scope and expectations
8. The knowledge of industrial processes (source, design, plan, make) within partnership
9. The effective communication between partners
10. The availability of adequate resources (manpower, budget and equipment)
Large Enterprises Success Factors:
1. The S&T competences of partners
2. The internal S&T competences of the team
3. The availability of Prior Knowledge or technical inputs
4. The knowledge of industrial processes (source, design, plan, make) within partnership
5. The clarity of Project objectives, management of the scope and expectations
6. The complementary of Partners Goals
7. The Project Management skills of the Coordinator
8. The ambition of project goals
9. The effective communication between partners
10. The availability of adequate resources (manpower, budget and equipment)
No significant statistical differences on the success factors and no significant obstacles were
identified by the web survey respondents.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
254
Annex VII - Detailed analysis of project outputs
This annex presents the statistics related to project outputs as declared by the participants
within the survey.
VII.1 - Organisation type= Higher education (HE)
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std. Deviation
Variation Coefficient
Articles 328 ,00 350,00 11,6394 20,916 1,797
Conferences 326 ,00 500,00 13,6420 28,736 2,106
Patents 296 ,00 10,00 ,4074 ,943 2,316
Copyrights, Trademarks 285 ,00 20,00 ,1133 1,016 8,967
Spin-offs 292 ,00 4,00 ,1083 ,374 3,453
Software 293 ,00 18,00 ,6084 1,507 2,477
Standards 285 ,00 5,00 ,1521 ,505 3,317
Valid N (listwise) 269
VII.2 - Organisation type= Research (RES)
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std. Deviation
Variation Coefficient
Articles 263 ,00 400,00 10,9447 27,825 2,542
Conferences 269 ,00 600,00 14,7822 44,142 2,986
Patents 242 ,00 10,00 ,6695 1,362 2,035
Copyrights, Trademarks 229 ,00 8,00 ,2141 ,879 4,105
Spin-offs 235 ,00 5,00 ,1535 ,515 3,355
Software 234 ,00 40,00 ,8524 3,216 3,773
Standards 230 ,00 25,00 ,2981 1,481 4,968
Valid N (listwise) 210
Annexes
255
VII.3 - Organisation type= Industry (IND)
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std. Deviation
Variation Coefficient
Articles 324 ,00 100,00 3,7782 8,575 2,270
Conferences 345 ,00 100,00 4,1671 8,240 1,977
Patents 327 ,00 25,00 ,5747 2,157 3,753
Copyrights, Trademarks 311 ,00 5,00 ,1739 ,705 4,058
Spin-offs 321 ,00 5,00 ,1221 ,528 4,329
Software 324 ,00 10,00 ,6144 1,270 2,068
Standards 312 ,00 19,00 ,3585 1,305 3,639
Valid N (listwise) 286
VII.4 - Organisation type= Large enterprises (LE)
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std. Deviation
Variation Coefficient
Articles 113 0 100 5,46 12,467 2,283
Conferences 115 0 600 10,56 56,548 5,357
Patents 110 0 6 ,55 1,186 2,174
Copyrights, Trademarks 103 0 5 ,13 ,710 5,622
Spin-offs 107 0 2 ,06 ,269 4,795
Software 109 0 40 ,93 4,015 4,334
Standards 107 0 19 ,47 1,959 4,191
Valid N (listwise) 97
VII.5 - Organisation type= SMEs (SME)
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std. Deviation
Variation Coefficient
Articles 112 ,00 32,00 3,3807 5,062 1,497
Conferences 121 ,00 200,00 6,9115 24,876 3,599
Patents 117 ,00 25,00 ,6829 3,306 4,841
Copyrights, Trademarks 109 ,00 3,00 ,1601 ,553 3,451
Spin-offs 113 ,00 5,00 ,2234 ,782 3,497
Software 114 ,00 6,00 ,5579 1,172 2,101
Standards 105 ,00 3,00 ,3481 ,699 2,007
Valid N (listwise) 96
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
256
Annexes
257
Annex VIII - Survey factorial analysis
The following annex presents the results of factorial analysis of impacts on participants R&D capabilities
Correlation Matrixa
Q_5_1a Q_5_1b Q_5_1c Q_5_1d Q_5_1e Q_5_1f Q_5_1g Q_5_1h Q_5_1i Q_5_1j Q_5_1k
Correlation Q_5_1a 1,000 ,759 ,442 ,463 ,345 ,475 ,440 ,471 ,279 ,428 ,026
Q_5_1b ,759 1,000 ,454 ,503 ,411 ,471 ,418 ,453 ,319 ,387 ,063
Q_5_1c ,442 ,454 1,000 ,579 ,521 ,362 ,351 ,342 ,285 ,350 ,059
Q_5_1d ,463 ,503 ,579 1,000 ,643 ,449 ,412 ,421 ,370 ,413 ,173
Q_5_1e ,345 ,411 ,521 ,643 1,000 ,404 ,364 ,375 ,419 ,383 ,185
Q_5_1f ,475 ,471 ,362 ,449 ,404 1,000 ,537 ,573 ,406 ,439 ,084
Q_5_1g ,440 ,418 ,351 ,412 ,364 ,537 1,000 ,727 ,450 ,548 ,044
Q_5_1h ,471 ,453 ,342 ,421 ,375 ,573 ,727 1,000 ,448 ,554 ,071
Q_5_1i ,279 ,319 ,285 ,370 ,419 ,406 ,450 ,448 1,000 ,436 ,107
Q_5_1j ,428 ,387 ,350 ,413 ,383 ,439 ,548 ,554 ,436 1,000 ,145
Q_5_1k ,026 ,063 ,059 ,173 ,185 ,084 ,044 ,071 ,107 ,145 1,000
Sig. (1-tailed) Q_5_1a ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,205
Q_5_1b ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,025
Q_5_1c ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,033
Q_5_1d ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_1e ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_1f ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,004
Q_5_1g ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,086
Q_5_1h ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,013
Q_5_1i ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_1j ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_1k ,205 ,025 ,033 ,000 ,000 ,004 ,086 ,013 ,000 ,000
a. Determinant = ,007
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
258
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,884
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 4748,715
df 55
Sig. ,000
Communalities
Initial Extraction
Q_5_1a 1,000 ,715
Q_5_1b 1,000 ,712
Q_5_1c 1,000 ,631
Q_5_1d 1,000 ,717
Q_5_1e 1,000 ,666
Q_5_1f 1,000 ,563
Q_5_1g 1,000 ,744
Q_5_1h 1,000 ,758
Q_5_1i 1,000 ,512
Q_5_1j 1,000 ,584
Q_5_1k 1,000 ,675
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
%
1 5,056 45,960 45,960 5,056 45,960 45,960 3,155 28,678 28,678
2 1,146 10,414 56,374 1,146 10,414 56,374 2,956 26,870 55,548
3 1,076 9,783 66,157 1,076 9,783 66,157 1,167 10,609 66,157
4 ,836 7,602 73,759
5 ,603 5,482 79,241
6 ,558 5,076 84,317
7 ,449 4,081 88,399
8 ,439 3,991 92,390
9 ,337 3,061 95,450
10 ,269 2,448 97,899
11 ,231 2,101 100,000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Annexes
259
Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
Q_5_1a ,723 -,045 -,437
Q_5_1b ,733 ,052 -,414
Q_5_1c ,654 ,372 -,255
Q_5_1d ,744 ,399 -,066
Q_5_1e ,684 ,439 ,080
Q_5_1f ,725 -,190 ,040
Q_5_1g ,744 -,400 ,175
Q_5_1h ,763 -,386 ,167
Q_5_1i ,611 -,112 ,356
Q_5_1j ,698 -,189 ,248
Q_5_1k ,166 ,508 ,625
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis; a. 3 components extracted
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
Q_5_1a ,379 ,707 -,268
Q_5_1b ,339 ,750 -,186
Q_5_1c ,156 ,768 ,130
Q_5_1d ,277 ,741 ,301
Q_5_1e ,267 ,641 ,429
Q_5_1f ,647 ,381 -,002
Q_5_1g ,834 ,218 -,034
Q_5_1h ,836 ,241 -,029
Q_5_1i ,640 ,171 ,271
Q_5_1j ,706 ,251 ,151
Q_5_1k ,062 ,028 ,819
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization; a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
260
Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2 3
1 ,719 ,684 ,125
2 -,582 ,493 ,647
3 ,381 -,537 ,752
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Annexes
261
VIII.1 - Results of factorial analysis of impacts on participant organisations Correlation Matrix
a
Q_5_2a Q_5_2b Q_5_2c Q_5_2d Q_5_2e Q_5_2f Q_5_2g Q_5_2h Q_5_2i Q_5_2j Q_5_2other
Correlation Q_5_2a 1,000 ,458 ,590 ,303 ,247 ,166 ,216 ,230 ,188 ,484 ,024
Q_5_2b ,458 1,000 ,618 ,573 ,494 ,472 ,495 ,460 ,281 ,313 ,035
Q_5_2c ,590 ,618 1,000 ,531 ,447 ,397 ,380 ,342 ,269 ,405 ,075
Q_5_2d ,303 ,573 ,531 1,000 ,713 ,726 ,687 ,579 ,422 ,215 ,081
Q_5_2e ,247 ,494 ,447 ,713 1,000 ,703 ,582 ,533 ,423 ,174 ,117
Q_5_2f ,166 ,472 ,397 ,726 ,703 1,000 ,781 ,654 ,484 ,121 ,128
Q_5_2g ,216 ,495 ,380 ,687 ,582 ,781 1,000 ,719 ,433 ,191 ,091
Q_5_2h ,230 ,460 ,342 ,579 ,533 ,654 ,719 1,000 ,436 ,272 ,147
Q_5_2i ,188 ,281 ,269 ,422 ,423 ,484 ,433 ,436 1,000 ,282 ,163
Q_5_2j ,484 ,313 ,405 ,215 ,174 ,121 ,191 ,272 ,282 1,000 ,083
Q_5_2other ,024 ,035 ,075 ,081 ,117 ,128 ,091 ,147 ,163 ,083 1,000
Sig. (1-tailed) Q_5_2a ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,232
Q_5_2b ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,139
Q_5_2c ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,010
Q_5_2d ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,006
Q_5_2e ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_2f ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_2g ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,002
Q_5_2h ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_2i ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_2j ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,005
Q_5_2other ,232 ,139 ,010 ,006 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,000 ,005
a. Determinant = ,003
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
262
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,886
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 5421,832
df 55
Sig. ,000
Communalities
Initial Extraction
Q_5_2a 1,000 ,742
Q_5_2b 1,000 ,642
Q_5_2c 1,000 ,707
Q_5_2d 1,000 ,762
Q_5_2e 1,000 ,668
Q_5_2f 1,000 ,833
Q_5_2g 1,000 ,763
Q_5_2h 1,000 ,643
Q_5_2i 1,000 ,474
Q_5_2j 1,000 ,626
Q_5_2other 1,000 ,806
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
%
1 5,068 46,069 46,069 5,068 46,069 46,069 4,204 38,220 38,220
2 1,556 14,143 60,211 1,556 14,143 60,211 2,362 21,472 59,692
3 1,042 9,475 69,687 1,042 9,475 69,687 1,099 9,995 69,687
4 ,790 7,182 76,869
5 ,594 5,403 82,271
6 ,458 4,160 86,431
7 ,426 3,875 90,306
8 ,341 3,104 93,411
9 ,297 2,703 96,114
10 ,248 2,256 98,370
11 ,179 1,630 100,000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Annexes
263
Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
Q_5_2a ,491 ,707 -,014
Q_5_2b ,731 ,264 -,197
Q_5_2c ,684 ,479 -,091
Q_5_2d ,848 -,147 -,147
Q_5_2e ,786 -,208 -,080
Q_5_2f ,827 -,383 -,058
Q_5_2g ,815 -,305 -,074
Q_5_2h ,766 -,227 ,071
Q_5_2i ,591 -,135 ,326
Q_5_2j ,420 ,609 ,279
Q_5_2other ,166 -,101 ,877
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 3 components extracted.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
Q_5_2a ,096 ,856 -,022
Q_5_2b ,540 ,576 -,135
Q_5_2c ,383 ,746 -,056
Q_5_2d ,828 ,273 -,034
Q_5_2e ,794 ,192 ,030
Q_5_2f ,908 ,059 ,072
Q_5_2g ,864 ,121 ,048
Q_5_2h ,763 ,170 ,178
Q_5_2i ,531 ,173 ,403
Q_5_2j ,038 ,743 ,269
Q_5_2other ,065 ,013 ,895
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
264
Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2 3
1 ,870 ,479 ,115
2 -,471 ,877 -,091
3 -,144 ,025 ,989
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Annexes
265
VIII.2 - Results of factorial analysis of impacts on the broader environment
Correlation Matrixa
Q_5_3a
Q_5_3b
Q_5_3c
Q_5_3d
Q_5_3e
Q_5_3f
Q_5_3g
Q_5_3h
Q_5_3i
Q_5_3j
Q_5_3k
Q_5_3l
Q_5_3m
Q_5_3n
Q_5_3o
Q_5_3p
Q_5_3q
Correlation
Q_5_3a 1,000 ,467 ,407 ,092 ,239 ,266 ,336 ,368 ,304 ,274 ,262 ,201 ,227 ,220 ,206 ,298 ,333
Q_5_3b ,467 1,000 ,719 ,204 ,202 ,095 ,286 ,284 ,239 ,220 ,269 ,204 ,148 ,243 ,143 ,380 ,242
Q_5_3c ,407 ,719 1,000 ,320 ,252 ,150 ,274 ,284 ,274 ,235 ,313 ,173 ,138 ,238 ,198 ,362 ,245
Q_5_3d ,092 ,204 ,320 1,000 ,557 ,429 ,259 ,197 ,335 ,349 ,454 ,344 ,314 ,371 ,360 ,339 ,207
Q_5_3e ,239 ,202 ,252 ,557 1,000 ,614 ,357 ,241 ,335 ,422 ,402 ,367 ,384 ,339 ,436 ,318 ,323
Q_5_3f ,266 ,095 ,150 ,429 ,614 1,000 ,441 ,224 ,353 ,421 ,412 ,402 ,446 ,361 ,465 ,303 ,342
Q_5_3g ,336 ,286 ,274 ,259 ,357 ,441 1,000 ,377 ,358 ,343 ,364 ,283 ,309 ,302 ,321 ,401 ,333
Q_5_3h ,368 ,284 ,284 ,197 ,241 ,224 ,377 1,000 ,722 ,331 ,289 ,165 ,205 ,162 ,255 ,250 ,329
Q_5_3i ,304 ,239 ,274 ,335 ,335 ,353 ,358 ,722 1,000 ,476 ,401 ,272 ,321 ,257 ,342 ,334 ,326
Q_5_3j ,274 ,220 ,235 ,349 ,422 ,421 ,343 ,331 ,476 1,000 ,540 ,477 ,470 ,438 ,466 ,364 ,347
Q_5_3k ,262 ,269 ,313 ,454 ,402 ,412 ,364 ,289 ,401 ,540 1,000 ,470 ,446 ,508 ,444 ,412 ,352
Q_5_3l ,201 ,204 ,173 ,344 ,367 ,402 ,283 ,165 ,272 ,477 ,470 1,000 ,755 ,720 ,588 ,399 ,274
Q_5_3m
,227 ,148 ,138 ,314 ,384 ,446 ,309 ,205 ,321 ,470 ,446 ,755 1,000 ,713 ,678 ,349 ,330
Q_5_3n ,220 ,243 ,238 ,371 ,339 ,361 ,302 ,162 ,257 ,438 ,508 ,720 ,713 1,000 ,630 ,410 ,296
Q_5_3o ,206 ,143 ,198 ,360 ,436 ,465 ,321 ,255 ,342 ,466 ,444 ,588 ,678 ,630 1,000 ,305 ,305
Q_5_3p ,298 ,380 ,362 ,339 ,318 ,303 ,401 ,250 ,334 ,364 ,412 ,399 ,349 ,410 ,305 1,000 ,335
Q_5_3q ,333 ,242 ,245 ,207 ,323 ,342 ,333 ,329 ,326 ,347 ,352 ,274 ,330 ,296 ,305 ,335 1,000
Sig. (1-tailed)
Q_5_3a ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_3b ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_3c ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_3d ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_3e ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
266
Q_5_3f ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_3g ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_3h ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_3i ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_3j ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_3k ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_3l ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_3m
,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_3n ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_3o ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_3p ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_5_3q ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
a. Determinant = ,000
Annexes
267
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,887
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 9246,679
df 136
Sig. ,000
Communalities
Initial Extraction
Q_5_3a 1,000 ,510
Q_5_3b 1,000 ,818
Q_5_3c 1,000 ,778
Q_5_3d 1,000 ,685
Q_5_3e 1,000 ,727
Q_5_3f 1,000 ,645
Q_5_3g 1,000 ,417
Q_5_3h 1,000 ,787
Q_5_3i 1,000 ,742
Q_5_3j 1,000 ,519
Q_5_3k 1,000 ,514
Q_5_3l 1,000 ,781
Q_5_3m 1,000 ,808
Q_5_3n 1,000 ,787
Q_5_3o 1,000 ,651
Q_5_3p 1,000 ,446
Q_5_3q 1,000 ,357
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
268
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
%
1 6,587 38,745 38,745 6,587 38,745 38,745 3,618 21,283 21,283
2 1,968 11,576 50,321 1,968 11,576 50,321 2,542 14,955 36,238
3 1,310 7,706 58,027 1,310 7,706 58,027 2,463 14,491 50,729
4 1,109 6,522 64,549 1,109 6,522 64,549 2,349 13,820 64,549
5 ,889 5,232 69,781
6 ,731 4,298 74,079
7 ,686 4,033 78,112
8 ,610 3,587 81,699
9 ,538 3,166 84,866
10 ,477 2,808 87,674
11 ,398 2,343 90,017
12 ,384 2,257 92,274
13 ,345 2,031 94,306
14 ,265 1,560 95,866
15 ,252 1,482 97,348
16 ,240 1,412 98,760
17 ,211 1,240 100,000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4
Q_5_3a ,489 ,472 ,114 -,189
Q_5_3b ,464 ,606 ,479 ,069
Q_5_3c ,490 ,575 ,408 ,205
Q_5_3d ,587 -,087 -,082 ,572
Q_5_3e ,652 -,096 -,224 ,492
Q_5_3f ,653 -,189 -,301 ,304
Q_5_3g ,593 ,191 -,169 ,021
Q_5_3h ,514 ,436 -,457 -,352
Q_5_3i ,621 ,269 -,476 -,239
Q_5_3j ,697 -,083 -,142 -,085
Q_5_3k ,711 -,062 ,011 ,074
Q_5_3l ,705 -,419 ,269 -,190
Q_5_3m ,720 -,443 ,164 -,258
Q_5_3n ,713 -,369 ,337 -,172
Q_5_3o ,706 -,365 ,048 -,134
Q_5_3p ,617 ,152 ,197 ,058
Q_5_3q ,550 ,149 -,123 -,129
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Annexes
269
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
%
1 6,587 38,745 38,745 6,587 38,745 38,745 3,618 21,283 21,283
2 1,968 11,576 50,321 1,968 11,576 50,321 2,542 14,955 36,238
3 1,310 7,706 58,027 1,310 7,706 58,027 2,463 14,491 50,729
4 1,109 6,522 64,549 1,109 6,522 64,549 2,349 13,820 64,549
5 ,889 5,232 69,781
6 ,731 4,298 74,079
7 ,686 4,033 78,112
8 ,610 3,587 81,699
9 ,538 3,166 84,866
10 ,477 2,808 87,674
11 ,398 2,343 90,017
12 ,384 2,257 92,274
13 ,345 2,031 94,306
14 ,265 1,560 95,866
15 ,252 1,482 97,348
16 ,240 1,412 98,760
17 ,211 1,240 100,000
a. 4 components extracted.
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
270
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4
Q_5_3a ,139 ,435 -,018 ,548
Q_5_3b ,080 ,128 ,043 ,890
Q_5_3c ,041 ,110 ,191 ,853
Q_5_3d ,187 ,031 ,784 ,188
Q_5_3e ,212 ,185 ,798 ,108
Q_5_3f ,308 ,282 ,685 -,028
Q_5_3g ,195 ,454 ,331 ,251
Q_5_3h ,035 ,871 ,046 ,161
Q_5_3i ,153 ,814 ,220 ,091
Q_5_3j ,470 ,423 ,330 ,105
Q_5_3k ,463 ,268 ,413 ,240
Q_5_3l ,855 ,077 ,173 ,116
Q_5_3m ,866 ,173 ,162 ,031
Q_5_3n ,848 ,050 ,163 ,197
Q_5_3o ,726 ,215 ,279 ,026
Q_5_3p ,348 ,200 ,265 ,463
Q_5_3q ,263 ,456 ,182 ,214
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2 3 4
1 ,632 ,470 ,490 ,374
2 -,589 ,406 -,151 ,683
3 ,352 -,636 -,310 ,613
4 -,361 -,458 ,801 ,137
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Annexes
271
VIII.3 - Results of factorial analysis of impacts on success factors and obstacles
Q_8_1a Q_8_1b Q_8_1c Q_8_1d Q_8_1e Q_8_1f Q_8_1g Q_8_1h Q_8_1i Q_8_1j Q_8_1k Q_8_1l
Correlation Q_8_1a 1,000 ,292 ,104 ,189 ,349 ,211 ,239 ,261 ,137 ,146 ,085 ,141
Q_8_1b ,292 1,000 ,260 ,327 ,222 ,289 ,231 ,255 ,198 ,216 ,170 ,156
Q_8_1c ,104 ,260 1,000 ,176 ,097 ,088 ,127 ,173 ,100 ,082 ,141 ,071
Q_8_1d ,189 ,327 ,176 1,000 ,193 ,134 ,119 ,157 ,281 ,389 ,211 ,186
Q_8_1e ,349 ,222 ,097 ,193 1,000 ,372 ,524 ,497 ,217 ,275 ,202 ,194
Q_8_1f ,211 ,289 ,088 ,134 ,372 1,000 ,434 ,442 ,264 ,268 ,166 ,161
Q_8_1g ,239 ,231 ,127 ,119 ,524 ,434 1,000 ,572 ,277 ,358 ,249 ,223
Q_8_1h ,261 ,255 ,173 ,157 ,497 ,442 ,572 1,000 ,286 ,328 ,177 ,218
Q_8_1i ,137 ,198 ,100 ,281 ,217 ,264 ,277 ,286 1,000 ,517 ,280 ,245
Q_8_1j ,146 ,216 ,082 ,389 ,275 ,268 ,358 ,328 ,517 1,000 ,341 ,283
Q_8_1k ,085 ,170 ,141 ,211 ,202 ,166 ,249 ,177 ,280 ,341 1,000 ,496
Q_8_1l ,141 ,156 ,071 ,186 ,194 ,161 ,223 ,218 ,245 ,283 ,496 1,000
Q_8_1m ,291 ,294 ,121 ,168 ,394 ,470 ,400 ,437 ,252 ,291 ,296 ,316
Q_8_1n ,346 ,284 ,089 ,189 ,429 ,370 ,415 ,421 ,250 ,282 ,220 ,260
Q_8_1o ,300 ,230 ,063 ,131 ,394 ,361 ,396 ,393 ,253 ,263 ,225 ,215
Q_8_1p ,308 ,207 ,098 ,133 ,408 ,297 ,379 ,326 ,150 ,228 ,158 ,223
Q_8_1q ,205 ,155 ,167 ,111 ,187 ,101 ,189 ,210 ,188 ,209 ,073 ,056
Q_8_1r ,243 ,149 ,034 ,176 ,310 ,211 ,287 ,247 ,274 ,266 ,126 ,133
Q_8_1s ,090 ,264 ,104 ,320 ,159 ,215 ,266 ,220 ,326 ,389 ,361 ,460
Q_8_1t ,174 ,290 ,180 ,232 ,290 ,348 ,331 ,286 ,261 ,257 ,215 ,187
Q_8_1u ,195 ,302 ,208 ,229 ,322 ,364 ,319 ,290 ,252 ,272 ,236 ,222
Q_8_1v ,118 ,233 ,166 ,237 ,233 ,260 ,292 ,256 ,236 ,254 ,230 ,215
Q_8_1w ,009 ,128 ,123 ,251 ,069 ,097 ,115 ,103 ,234 ,238 ,249 ,242
Sig. (1-tailed) Q_8_1a ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,002 ,000
Q_8_1b ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1c ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,003 ,000 ,009
Q_8_1d ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1e ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
272
Q_8_1f ,000 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1g ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1h ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1i ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1j ,000 ,000 ,003 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1k ,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1l ,000 ,000 ,009 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1m ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1n ,000 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1o ,000 ,000 ,018 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1p ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1q ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,008 ,031
Q_8_1r ,000 ,000 ,125 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1s ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1t ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1u ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1v ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1w ,384 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,011 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1m Q_8_1n Q_8_1o Q_8_1p Q_8_1q Q_8_1r Q_8_1s Q_8_1t Q_8_1u Q_8_1v Q_8_1w
Correlation Q_8_1a ,291 ,346 ,300 ,308 ,205 ,243 ,090 ,174 ,195 ,118 ,009
Q_8_1b ,294 ,284 ,230 ,207 ,155 ,149 ,264 ,290 ,302 ,233 ,128
Q_8_1c ,121 ,089 ,063 ,098 ,167 ,034 ,104 ,180 ,208 ,166 ,123
Q_8_1d ,168 ,189 ,131 ,133 ,111 ,176 ,320 ,232 ,229 ,237 ,251
Q_8_1e ,394 ,429 ,394 ,408 ,187 ,310 ,159 ,290 ,322 ,233 ,069
Q_8_1f ,470 ,370 ,361 ,297 ,101 ,211 ,215 ,348 ,364 ,260 ,097
Q_8_1g ,400 ,415 ,396 ,379 ,189 ,287 ,266 ,331 ,319 ,292 ,115
Q_8_1h ,437 ,421 ,393 ,326 ,210 ,247 ,220 ,286 ,290 ,256 ,103
Q_8_1i ,252 ,250 ,253 ,150 ,188 ,274 ,326 ,261 ,252 ,236 ,234
Q_8_1j ,291 ,282 ,263 ,228 ,209 ,266 ,389 ,257 ,272 ,254 ,238
Q_8_1k ,296 ,220 ,225 ,158 ,073 ,126 ,361 ,215 ,236 ,230 ,249
Q_8_1l ,316 ,260 ,215 ,223 ,056 ,133 ,460 ,187 ,222 ,215 ,242
Annexes
273
Q_8_1m 1,000 ,641 ,485 ,406 ,172 ,207 ,252 ,342 ,351 ,308 ,142
Q_8_1n ,641 1,000 ,538 ,411 ,228 ,269 ,228 ,343 ,349 ,275 ,124
Q_8_1o ,485 ,538 1,000 ,481 ,268 ,318 ,219 ,293 ,316 ,287 ,158
Q_8_1p ,406 ,411 ,481 1,000 ,202 ,344 ,200 ,278 ,289 ,261 ,070
Q_8_1q ,172 ,228 ,268 ,202 1,000 ,267 ,153 ,184 ,148 ,113 ,278
Q_8_1r ,207 ,269 ,318 ,344 ,267 1,000 ,228 ,198 ,213 ,180 ,088
Q_8_1s ,252 ,228 ,219 ,200 ,153 ,228 1,000 ,338 ,334 ,305 ,356
Q_8_1t ,342 ,343 ,293 ,278 ,184 ,198 ,338 1,000 ,776 ,624 ,221
Q_8_1u ,351 ,349 ,316 ,289 ,148 ,213 ,334 ,776 1,000 ,575 ,198
Q_8_1v ,308 ,275 ,287 ,261 ,113 ,180 ,305 ,624 ,575 1,000 ,264
Q_8_1w ,142 ,124 ,158 ,070 ,278 ,088 ,356 ,221 ,198 ,264 1,000
Sig. (1-tailed)
Q_8_1a ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,384
Q_8_1b ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1c ,000 ,002 ,018 ,001 ,000 ,125 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1d ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1e ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,011
Q_8_1f ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001
Q_8_1g ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1h ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1i ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1j ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1k ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,008 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1l ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,031 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1m ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1n ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1o ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1p ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,010
Q_8_1q ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1r ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,002
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
274
Q_8_1s ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1t ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1u ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1v ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Q_8_1w ,000 ,000 ,000 ,010 ,000 ,002 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Annexes
275
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. ,895
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 8690,068
df 253
Sig. ,000
Communalities
Initial Extraction
Q_8_1a 1,000 ,480
Q_8_1b 1,000 ,585
Q_8_1c 1,000 ,501
Q_8_1d 1,000 ,528
Q_8_1e 1,000 ,534
Q_8_1f 1,000 ,511
Q_8_1g 1,000 ,576
Q_8_1h 1,000 ,568
Q_8_1i 1,000 ,591
Q_8_1j 1,000 ,663
Q_8_1k 1,000 ,603
Q_8_1l 1,000 ,700
Q_8_1m 1,000 ,616
Q_8_1n 1,000 ,598
Q_8_1o 1,000 ,587
Q_8_1p 1,000 ,506
Q_8_1q 1,000 ,653
Q_8_1r 1,000 ,486
Q_8_1s 1,000 ,555
Q_8_1t 1,000 ,821
Q_8_1u 1,000 ,779
Q_8_1v 1,000 ,673
Q_8_1w 1,000 ,517
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative
%
1 6,799 29,562 29,562 6,799 29,562 29,562 4,184 18,193 18,193
2 1,938 8,427 37,989 1,938 8,427 37,989 2,425 10,543 28,736
3 1,480 6,435 44,425 1,480 6,435 44,425 2,092 9,096 37,833
4 1,257 5,465 49,890 1,257 5,465 49,890 1,947 8,465 46,297
5 1,105 4,806 54,695 1,105 4,806 54,695 1,554 6,756 53,054
6 1,053 4,577 59,272 1,053 4,577 59,272 1,430 6,219 59,272
7 ,966 4,199 63,471
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
276
8 ,854 3,712 67,183
9 ,741 3,221 70,404
10 ,709 3,082 73,487
11 ,694 3,019 76,506
12 ,590 2,565 79,071
13 ,578 2,512 81,583
14 ,571 2,482 84,065
15 ,541 2,351 86,417
16 ,479 2,081 88,497
17 ,473 2,056 90,553
18 ,466 2,025 92,578
19 ,403 1,754 94,332
20 ,394 1,715 96,046
21 ,383 1,667 97,714
22 ,314 1,364 99,078
23 ,212 ,922 100,000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Annexes
277
Component Matrix
a
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
Q_8_1a ,433 -,323 ,070 ,309 ,245 ,168
Q_8_1b ,484 ,063 -,134 ,320 ,474 -,039
Q_8_1c ,259 ,154 -,222 ,401 ,443 ,062
Q_8_1d ,418 ,371 ,093 ,350 ,220 -,191
Q_8_1e ,618 -,357 ,068 -,010 ,020 -,139
Q_8_1f ,587 -,222 -,099 -,163 ,070 -,277
Q_8_1g ,655 -,251 ,075 -,126 -,042 -,248
Q_8_1h ,636 -,283 ,081 -,036 ,064 -,268
Q_8_1i ,516 ,265 ,274 ,089 -,176 -,376
Q_8_1j ,575 ,272 ,328 ,063 -,117 -,364
Q_8_1k ,462 ,377 ,279 -,319 ,203 ,163
Q_8_1l ,466 ,330 ,322 -,384 ,203 ,286
Q_8_1m ,680 -,228 ,030 -,216 ,168 ,160
Q_8_1n ,675 -,298 ,047 -,089 ,067 ,198
Q_8_1o ,638 -,298 ,084 -,043 -,138 ,253
Q_8_1p ,572 -,324 ,037 -,007 -,088 ,254
Q_8_1q ,362 -,027 ,126 ,544 -,339 ,309
Q_8_1r ,461 -,141 ,203 ,252 -,385 -,011
Q_8_1s ,536 ,478 ,156 -,101 -,024 ,069
Q_8_1t ,637 ,188 -,590 -,066 -,167 -,016
Q_8_1u ,646 ,167 -,562 -,083 -,106 -,013
Q_8_1v ,570 ,247 -,494 -,110 -,173 ,026
Q_8_1w ,345 ,495 ,090 ,147 -,215 ,278
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 6 components extracted.
Rotated Component Matrix
a
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
Q_8_1a ,500 -,089 -,016 -,053 ,409 ,228
Q_8_1b ,257 ,147 ,091 ,120 ,689 -,005
Q_8_1c ,016 ,143 ,033 -,021 ,690 ,050
Q_8_1d -,008 ,098 ,194 ,452 ,513 ,119
Q_8_1e ,678 ,099 -,013 ,232 ,093 ,045
Q_8_1f ,572 ,272 ,006 ,271 ,079 -,176
Q_8_1g ,642 ,178 ,052 ,359 ,001 -,031
Q_8_1h ,645 ,113 ,005 ,350 ,121 -,050
Q_8_1i ,158 ,119 ,188 ,704 ,044 ,139
Q_8_1j ,210 ,091 ,262 ,722 ,078 ,120
Q_8_1k ,164 ,074 ,729 ,172 ,083 -,052
Q_8_1l ,219 ,036 ,803 ,072 ,031 -,023
Q_8_1m ,684 ,180 ,317 -,007 ,123 ,001
Q_8_1n ,701 ,150 ,221 -,012 ,112 ,150
Q_8_1o ,655 ,154 ,182 ,000 -,023 ,318
Q_8_1p ,621 ,136 ,123 -,056 ,022 ,287
Q_8_1q ,165 ,046 -,025 ,094 ,151 ,769
Ex-post evaluation of NMP (FP6) - Project level
278
Q_8_1r ,358 ,057 -,043 ,327 -,069 ,491
Q_8_1s ,070 ,263 ,576 ,338 ,106 ,154
Q_8_1t ,238 ,850 ,078 ,108 ,137 ,078
Q_8_1u ,270 ,811 ,103 ,097 ,164 ,042
Q_8_1v ,170 ,771 ,161 ,101 ,082 ,082
Q_8_1w -,133 ,250 ,433 ,174 ,087 ,460
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 10 iterations.
Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 ,685 ,420 ,339 ,359 ,252 ,217
2 -,693 ,294 ,553 ,316 ,159 ,044
3 ,110 -,796 ,386 ,369 -,181 ,190
4 -,175 -,160 -,443 ,155 ,600 ,602
5 ,087 -,278 ,218 -,217 ,720 -,550
6 ,029 -,019 ,431 -,751 ,014 ,499
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
European Commission
EUR 24935 EN - Ex Post Evaluation of FP6 (NMP). Project Level
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
2011 — 272 pp. — 21,0 x 29,7 cm ISBN 978-92-79-21152-2doi 10.2777/74830
HOw tO ObtAIN EU PUblICAtIONS
Free publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• at the European Union’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union):
• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
Over the last decade the European Union has been paving the way for the transformation of Europe into the most competitive and dynamic knowledge economy in the world. In that sense, the European Union’s Framework Programmes on Research (FP) have helped to consolidate the knowledge base in industrial technologies for many years. The reformation of European industry from resource-based to knowledge-intensive was indeed one of the major objectives of the 6th Framework Programme. This report presents the main findings of the Ex-Post Evaluation of FP6 for the ‘nanotechnologies, nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials and new production processes and devices’ (NMP) theme. It is based on a detailed analysis of FP6-funded projects in the area of NMP, aiming at understanding the factors that affected the extent and range their impacts at individual, organisational, societal, economic and environmental levels, as well as the programme aspects and policy angles that should be retained (or altered) in future NMP programmes.
KI-N
A-24935-EN
-N
top related