First Interim Evaluation
of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC
Joint Technology Initiatives
Wulf H. Bernotat (Chairman)
Christian de Prost
Elke Eckstein
Luke Georghiou
Terttu Luukkonen
Bob Malcolm (Rapporteur)
Dominique Potier
Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli
30 July 2010
European Commission
I nforma ti on S oc iet y a nd M ed i a
••• Members of the Evaluation Panel
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
New freephone number *
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00800 numbers or these calls may be billed.
In certain cases, these calls may be chargeable from telephone boxes or hotels.
LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on its behalf is responsible for the use which might
be made of the information contained in the present publication.
The European Commission is not responsible for the external web sites referred to in the present
publication.
The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official
European Commission’s view on the subject.
Publications Office of the European Union - Luxembourg, 2010
ISBN 978-92-79-16551-1
doi:10.2759/35741
© European Union 2010
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
First Interim Evaluation
of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC
Joint Technology Initiatives
Wulf H. Bernotat (Chairman)
Christian de Prost
Elke Eckstein
Luke Georghiou
Terttu Luukkonen
Bob Malcolm (Rapporteur)
Dominique Potier
Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli
30 July 2010
European Commission
I nfor mat ion S oc i et y a nd M edi a
••• Members of the Evaluation Panel
••• 4
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
2.2. Strategic Research Agendas
2.3. JTIs Budget Objectives
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
3. Implementation of the ARTEMIS And ENIAC JTIs
3.1. JTI plans
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
3.2. Operational organisation .
3.3. Activities (2008-2010) .
4. Progress toward the Objectives
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
4.1. Contribution to the European Research Area .
4.2. Increased overall investment .
4.3. Innovation ecosystem
4.4. Efficiency
5. Conclusions .
11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Objectives of the Joint Technology Initiatives
2.1. Council Regulations
7
6. Recommendations
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1. General recommendations .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2. Recommendations for Member States .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
28
28
6.3. Recommendations for the Industrial Associations .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
6.4. Recommendations for the European Commission .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
6.5. Recommendations for the Joint Undertakings
6.6. Co-ordination with Eureka clusters
Annex 1: Options for the Way Forward
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
Annex 2: Evaluation Questions Addressed by the Panel .
Annex 3: Composition of the Evaluation Panel
Annex 4: Evidence Base
5 •••
••• 6
Executive Summary
The Evaluation Panel that performed this
interim evaluation of the Joint Technology
Initiatives in embedded computing systems
(ARTEMIS) and nanoelectronics (ENIAC)
finds that the original motivations for their
establishment are still valid:
• they
benefit Member States and Europe as a
whole by enabling all parties to share costs
and gain leverage on their own investments
in strategic R&D;
• they
enable industrial companies in the
participating countries to accelerate their
innovation and become more productive,
so enhancing their competitiveness in a fast
moving, globally competitive market.
The Strategic Research Agendas that focus
the activities of the JTIs have for the first time
established a coherent view across industry,
Member States and the European Commission
of Europe’s priorities in these areas. Having a
joint strategy with shared implementation is
good for industry, good for Member States,
and good for Europe.
The establishment of these industry-led tripartite industry-national-EU PPPs is a major
achievement and they validate the general
concept of the JTI. The panel therefore recommends that research and technology
initiatives in the fields of embedded computing systems and nanoelectronics should
continue to be co-ordinated on the European level.
nanoelectronics has not increased as much
as expected;
• the funding commitment by Member States is
significantly below that which was expected,
jeopardising the JTIs’ ability to establish a
critical mass of activity and severely constraining the construction of appropriate
portfolios of projects;
• the
process for selection of projects gives
insufficient consideration to the JTIs’ European strategic objectives;
• the
JTIs have not so far implemented activities specifically targeted at improving the
innovation environment in Europe;
• the
anticipated coordination and synergy
with R&D supported by the Eureka intergovernmental scheme has not been achieved;
• the
improvements in efficiency to be gained
by harmonisation of Member States processes and potential integration of the JTIs
with the related Eureka clusters ITEA2 and
CATRENE have not been achieved;
• certain
features of the Council Regulations
that govern ARTEMIS and ENIAC inhibit
realisation of their aims. For instance:
▶
▶
However the strategic objectives of the JTIs
are not being realised to the extent expected:
• overall
investments from Member States,
industry and the EU into research and technology development in the technological
areas of embedded computing systems and
▶
the JTIs are not able to accept funding
for R&D from all possible sources;
the JTIs are not able to support activities other than R&D that would
contribute to their objectives to
enhance the innovation environment;
the JTIs are impeded by very burdensome Financial Regulations and Staff
Regulations.
7 •••
But these are early days in an experiment with
an entirely new form of European integration.
The Evaluation Panel recommends that the
experiment should be continued. Moreover,
the Evaluation Panel recommends that in 2013
the JTIs in these two sectors be renewed in
their present tripartite form.
The Industrial Associations should also demonstrate their recommitment to a European
strategic programme that is not a collection
of opportunistic ‘bottom up’ projects (which
is more appropriate to Eureka).
In order to enable the JTIs to overcome the
difficulties experienced so far, and to achieve
the desired outcomes, the panel makes a range
of recommendations.
• re-engage
Most importantly, all parties should recommit to the strategic aims of the JTIs. The JTIs
should re-focus on evolving and implementing their strategic agendas and re-engage with
the thought leaders in industry, government,
and the scientific community that led the original drive to establish the JTIs.
• review
In particular, Member States should accept
that each JTI should pursue a European
strategic programme rather than an assemblage of national interests and should work
together to support the JTIs in their implementation of their strategic programmes.
Member States should:
• commit funding on a multi-annual basis;
• co-operate
with the Industrial Associations
and the European Commission in building
a portfolio of projects that, in combination,
best addresses the strategic needs;
• comply with both the letter and, more impor-
tantly, the spirit of the Council Regulations
concerning acceptance of proposal selection
without imposition of additional national
criteria;
with the Council Regulations to
undertake best efforts to synchronise their
procedures;
The Industrial Associations should:
with the top level ‘thought leaders’
in industry, governments and the scientific
community to provide direction and monitoring of the JTIs;
and refresh the Strategic Research
Agendas for their sectors;
• install
monitoring processes to assess
progress toward their strategic aims,
including enhancement of the innovation
ecosystem, and to guide implementation of
their programmes and revision of their strategies;
• more actively engage with their constituencies
to promote broad participation in the JTIs and
to provide guidance on their programmes.
There is insufficient time during the life of the
present JTIs to amend the Council Regulations that govern their operation, but for JTIs
beyond 2013, including renewal of ARTEMIS
and ENIAC, new Council Regulations should
be formulated:
• the
new Council Regulations should invoke
less burdensome Financial Regulations and
Staff Regulations than those applicable to a
Community Body (while still satisfying the
need for the highest standards of probity);
• they
should enable support of projects and
other activities to enhance the innovation
ecosystem in addition to R&D;
• comply
• work
with the Industrial Associations and
the European Commission to coordinate the
JTI programmes with Eureka, national programmes, and the Framework Programme.
••• 8
• they
should enable the European Commission to make financial contributions,
in addition to any matched funding contribution, in order to support activities and
participants that are critical to achievement
of the strategic objectives and that could not
be supported otherwise.
The Evaluation Panel recommends greater
coordination of the JTIs and the related
Eureka clusters, but does not recommend
integration of the clusters into the JTIs for the
present or for 2013 renewal of the JTIs. Such
integration should, nevertheless, remain a
long-term aim.
The table below summarises the full set of
recommendations, indicating those which
could and should be implemented during
the life of the present JTIs, and those which
require changes to the Council Regulations for
JTIs beyond 2013.
No.
Summary of recommendation
Time-frame
1
Future JTIs in these domains to continue the tripartite JTI Next generation JTIs
model
Recommendations for Member States
2
Make multi-annual budgetary commitments
Now
3
Comply with the JTI Council Regulations
Now
4
Undertake benchmarking & alignment study on national prac- Now
tices
Give early annual indication of support for specific topics
Now
5
Recommendations for Industrial Associations
6
7
8
Lead the establishment of processes to monitor progress toward Now
JTI objectives
Lead the preparation of action plans for achievement of innova- Now
tion ecosystem aims
Engage better with the JTI constituencies
Now
Recommendations for the European Commission
9
10
11
12
13
14
Lead the drafting of new Council Regulations with alternative
Financial Regulations and Staff Regulations
Regulations should allow JTIs to support innovation-related
activities other than R&D
Regulations should allow JTIs to accept funding from other
sources
Regulations should allow the EU to make additional financial
contributions for strategic purposes
Regulations should allow the Joint Undertakings to claim some
of their operational costs from non-members
The Commission should establish data gathering to support
assessment of the benefits of these JTIs
Next generation JTIs
Next generation JTIs
Next generation JTIs
Next generation JTIs
Next generation JTIs
Now
Recommendations for the Joint Undertakings
15
16
17
Establish a mechanism for recovering some of their operation Next generation JTIs
costs from non-member beneficiaries of the JTIs
Place greater emphasis on strategic, European aims in proposal Now
evaluation & selection processes
Establish processes to give early feedback to proposers
Now
Recommendation for JTI - EUREKA co-ordination
18
ARTEMIS & ENIAC should continue their initiatives to dif- Now
ferentiate from and coordinate with ITEA2 and CATRENE,
respectively
9 •••
••• 10
1
Introduction
This document comprises the report by an
independent Evaluation Panel of experts on
the First Interim Evaluation of the ARTEMIS
and ENIAC Joint Technology Initiatives1.
The objective of this first interim evaluation is
to assess these JTIs with respect to their:
• Relevance: whether the assumptions underly-
ing their establishment are still valid;
These particular JTIs are tripartite Public Private
Partnerships to integrate, in a pan-European
strategic programme, research and technology
development in the fields of Embedded Systems
(ARTEMIS) and Nanoelectronics (ENIAC).
ARTEMIS and ENIAC are among the first five
JTIs2 to attempt to implement such Public-Private Partnerships. Such PPPs in research are
intended to go beyond merely contractual relationships (as in many early PPPs) by having an
institutionalised structure with active engagement of all partners.
ARTEMIS and ENIAC differ from the three
other JTIs in that they are tripartite PPPs
comprising industry, Member States, and the
European Commission. This tripartite model
was adopted because of the existence in the
ARTEMIS and ENIAC technical fields of the
transnational ‘Eureka Clusters’ ITEA2 and
CATRENE. These Eureka clusters have been
operating for some years.
However, the Eureka programme is ‘bottom
up’ rather than strategic, and it has had the
problem that there was no requirement for
Member States to harmonise their processes.
The consequence has been that in some cases
the funding for some partners in ‘Eurekalabelled’ projects has been extremely slow or
not forthcoming at all. The ARTEMIS and
ENIAC JTIs had hoped to avoid or overcome
these problems with Eureka.
• Effectiveness: progress towards their objectives;
• Efficiency: of their management and operation;
• Research Quality: the extent to which the JTIs
sponsor world-class research that helps propel Europe to a leadership position globally.3
The Objectives of JTIs in general and the
ARTEMIS and ENIAC JTIs in particular, and
the present status of their Implementation, are
described in the next two sections.
This is followed by a major section that summarises the finding of the Evaluation Panel
with respect to the extent to which the JTIs are
making Progress toward their Objectives: this
was the main focus of the Evaluation Panel’s
investigations.
The findings of the Evaluation Panel are summarised in the Conclusions section, which is
followed by Recommendations for both the
present JTIs to enhance the achievement of
their strategic objectives and future JTIs that
may be established after 2013.
The Evaluation Panel comprised a mix of
experts, including some with deep knowledge
of the embedded systems and nanoelectronics fields and specific familiarity with the
ARTEMIS and ENIAC JTIs, and some with
1 See section 2.1
2 The others being: “Aeronautics and Air Transport” (Clean Sky); “Innovative Medicines Initiative” (IMI); and the “Hydrogen and
Fuel Cells Initiative” (FCH).
3 Annex 2 sets out some of the specific questions addressed by the panel in their consideration of these issues.
11 •••
general expertise in R&D strategy and management but no association with either JTI.
(See Annex 3)
The Evaluation Panel drew upon both published information and a wide range of
••• 12
interviews with representatives of the two JTI
communities including industrial participants,
representatives of national public authorities,
and staff of the European Commission. (See
Annex 4)
2
Objectives of the Joint
Technology Initiatives
There are multiple layers of aims and objectives for the JTIs.
evaluation and selection of proposals; and the
funding of selected projects.
The economic case for Joint Technology Initiatives4 contains expectations that in appropriate
technological fields they will:
However, while the Evaluation Panel has
assessed the achievement of these operational
objectives, the main focus of the Evaluation
Panel is on the extent to which the desired
outcomes are being achieved. In summary, the
outcome-oriented objectives are to:
• ensure
coherent implementation of European research efforts;
[...] innovation [to] enhance productivity and competitiveness;
• accelerate
technology [validation] to remove
obstacles to market penetration;
• enhance
• coordinate
resources and funding from all
sources in order to:
▶
• pool user requirements to guide research and
make a significant contribution to the
European Research Area by achieving greater coherence of R&D across
Europe, and
development towards marketable solutions.
▶
2.1. Council Regulations
The formal ‘specifications’ for the ARTEMIS and
ENIAC JTIs are contained in the Council Regulations that provide the legal basis for each5,6.
These regulations contain two types of objective.
Operational objectives include the formation of
the Public Private Partnerships and the establishment of processes for the operation of the
PPPs, such as regular review and updating of
the research agenda and a Multi-Annual Strategic Plan; the preparation and implementation
of an Annual Work Programme; the calling,
achieve higher efficiency by harmonising procedures and removing
uncertainty as to the availability of
national budgets (as has been experienced in Eureka) and (“when added
value can be created”) integrating
related Eureka activities into the JTIs ;
• increase
overall private and public investment in the two sectors;
• contribute
beyond Research & Technology
Development to the research and innovation
ecosystem - encompassing the participation
of SMEs, the enhancement of education and
training, and contribution to standards7.
4 European Commission (2005): Report on European Technology Platforms and Joint Technology Initiatives: Fostering PublicPrivate R&D Partnerships to Boost Europe’s Industrial Competitiveness. SEC(2005) 800
5 Council Regulation No 74/2008 of 20 December 2007 on the establishment of the ‘ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking’ to implement a
Joint Technology Initiative in Embedded computing Systems
6 Council Regulation No 72/2008 of 20 December 2007 setting up the ENIAC Joint Undertaking
7 See footnote to section 4.3 concerning ‘innovation ecosystem’
13 •••
In addition, the regulations contain many
administrative requirements that are intended
to ensure the probity of the operation of the
JTIs. While these are not objectives in their
own right, they do have significant impact on
the achievement of the higher level objectives,
as discussed in section 4.
2.2. Strategic Research
Agendas
Each JTI has then adopted a Strategic Research
Agenda (SRA) that had originally been created by the European Technology Platforms
that preceded the formation of the JTIs:
the case of ARTEMIS the basis of the
SRA is to maintain a strong technological
capability in both supply and application of
embedded systems by overcoming fragmentation in the Embedded Systems supply base
for components and tools;
The ambition of these SRAs is to encompass
all R&D desired in the sector (the 7th Framework Programme, national programmes, and
the programmes of the multi-national Eureka
clusters ITEA2 and CATRENE) - not just that
within the scope of the JTIs.
2.3. JTIs Budget Objectives
The overall contributions for ARTEMIS were
anticipated to be €2.6Bn, comprising:
• Member States: €745Mn
• EC: €410Mn
• Private
sector (industry): more than the sum
of contributions of EC and MS.
• in
The overall contributions for ENIAC were
anticipated to be €2.8Bn, comprising:
• Member States: €800M
• EC: €440M
• Private
• in
the case of ENIAC the basis of the SRA is
to enable European industry to remain competitive in the global market, by maintaining
a strong technological capability even though
there are few semiconductor manufacturers.
••• 14
sector (industry): more than the sum
of contributions of EC and MS.
3
Implementation of the
ARTEMIS and ENIAC JTIs
The ARTEMIS and ENIAC European Technology Platforms, that preceded the JTIs, were
launched in 2004. For the next two years they
developed their Strategic Research Agendas
and, working with the European Commission
and Member States, planned the governance
arrangements for the JTIs.
more upstream R&D of the Framework Programme and the more downstream R&D of
the Eureka clusters;
•a
Multi-Annual Strategic Plan, for implementation of the Research Agenda (that is
reviewed and revised annually);
• an
Annual Work Programme, that sets out
the scope of calls for proposals in a particular year.
3.1. JTI plans
Each JTI devised its own plans for the evolution and implementation of the SRA for its
sector. In accordance with their Council Regulations, each has prepared, in addition to the
SRA:
Research Agenda that is, in effect, a subset
of their SRA that is appropriate to the scope
of each JTI. It lies somewhere between the
3.2. Operational
organisation
•a
The diagram below indicates the structure of
each JTI:
Governing Board
General Assembly
Steering Board
Working Groups
Industry
(incl. SME)
Strategy and rules of operation, supervision
(Votes: 50% industrial ass. & 50% PA’s)
Industry and
Research
Committee
Strategic planning
Public Authorities
Board
Calls and project selection
(Voting rights proportional
to € commitments)
EC
Member States
&
Associated
Countries
Executive Director
Research
Operations and finances
15 •••
Industrial membership of the JTIs is by means
of an Industrial Association8.
The Commission and Member States are represented in a Public Authorities Board that
approves the Annual Work Programme and
calls for proposals, and that approves grants.
Each JTI has a Governing Board with representatives of both their Public Authorities
Board and their Industrial Association. The
Governing Board approves the Multi Annual
Strategic Plan and the Annual Implementation Plan (the selection of projects each year)
and the rules of procedure.
Evolution of the Strategic Research Agenda
on behalf of the wider community is managed
by the Industry and Research Committee and
updates to the SRA are approved by the Governing Board.
The operating costs for each JTI are of the
order of 1% of the R&D costs - employing
around 10 staff - which the Evaluation Panel
notes is a low overhead.
••• 16
3.3. Activities (2008-2010)
The Joint Undertakings were formally established in 2008 for a period up to 2017.
Calls for proposals were launched in 2008,
2009 and 2010. The last calls for proposals will
take place in 2013 and supported projects will
run until the end of 2017.
Public Authorities, including the Commission,
have committed €288M of funding for the first
three years of ARTEMIS (actual figures for
2008 and 2009, and budgetary commitment
for 2010), compared with an expected commitment of €376M, while €279M has been
committed to ENIAC compared with €465M
expected.
From the first two calls (2008 and 2009),
there are 25 running projects supported by
ARTEMIS, and 18 by ENIAC. The 2010 calls
are still on-going.
8 ARTEMISIA in the case of ARTEMIS, and AENEAS in the case of ENIAC
4
Progress tow a rd t h e
Objectives
Most of the operational objectives set out in
the Council Regulations have been achieved:
• the
legal entities of the Joint Undertakings
have been established;
• the Governing Boards have been formed;
• the offices have been set up;
• staff,
including Executive Directors, have
been appointed;
• Research
Agendas, Multi-Annual Strategic
Plans, Annual Work Programmes and Calls
for Proposals have been published;
have been evaluated and projects
selected and launched;
not only in the execution of R&D but before
that in the creation of their Strategic Research
Agendas. This helped to establish a coherent view across Europe (and, in ARTEMIS,
across application sectors) of the present state
of the art and the best way forward for European industry. They have provided a focus for
all stakeholders. Some Member States even
established national initiatives or re-oriented
existing programmes to gain synergy with the
JTI programme.9
However, there is now a risk of losing that early
impetus and the initial focus on the strategic
ambitions of the JTIs.
• proposals
4.1.1. STRATEGY AND ITS
IMPLEMENTATION
• the JTIs have achieved autonomy.
The Strategic Research Agendas play a critically important role. They provide the
foundation for agreement on the purpose and
direction of the programmes of work.
These are very significant achievements,
involving a huge amount of time and effort.
Nevertheless, they are only enabling: their
achievement does not guarantee that the
desired outcomes are being achieved. The
remainder of this section addresses the extent
to which the outcome-oriented objectives have
been achieved.
4.1. Contribution to the
European Research Area
These JTIs have succeeded in bringing together
a wider spread of the industrial community,
The fundamental ARTEMIS ambition to overcome fragmentation in the market remains
valid, even though the timescales of the technological developments required, as set out in
the original SRA, were perhaps optimistic.
In the case of ENIAC, the semiconductor
industry has increasingly stratified since the
SRA was first prepared, with design separating
from manufacturing and much manufacturing now being performed outside Europe. In
parallel there has been growth in Europe of
an ecosystem of niche design capabilities and
9 For example, Spain’s PROMETEO initiative that is a national mirror of ARTEMIS (Plataforma Tecnológica Española en el área de
los Sistemas con Inteligencia Integrada; www.prometeo-office.org)
17 •••
in some cases (e.g. MEMS) manufacturing
capabilities that are differentiated from commodity product design and manufacturing.
The case for ENIAC is therefore still valid, but
the specific targets for R&D are undergoing
change.
However, the Evaluation Panel found that there
are many obstacles to realisation of their strategies, some of which are summarised here.
First, the personal engagement and especially the leadership of the executive ‘thought
leaders’ in the founding companies of the
JTIs (typically their CEOs and CTOs) was
significantly reduced once the JTIs were
established.
Then the annually updated Multi-Annual Strategic Plans and the Annual Work-Programmes
are not clearly derived from an assessment of
what is necessary to progress the over-arching
Strategic Research Agenda. The process for
their generation has been, instead, to aggregate ‘bottom-up’ wishes, in a short space of
time without, in general, the participation of
those original ‘thought leaders’.
Next, one would expect the latest Annual
Work Programmes to take into account the
results of the calls so far and be more focused
on technological and application priorities.
This has been achieved in ENIAC, with complementary application topics being called in
2008 and 2009 and a re-iteration of some 2008
topics in 2010. In ARTEMIS, however, Member States and industry have been unable to
agree to such focussing, with the consequence
that the MASP and the AWP remain similar
from year to year.
For the evaluation of proposals that respond
to the calls, teams of expert evaluators rank
all proposals in a call in order of the quality of
their response to the requirements of the call10.
The Evaluation Panel finds this process to be
fundamentally fair, but has a concern that it
gives insufficient weight to the requirements
for a European, strategic programme. There is
also a risk that some evaluators familiar with
the Framework Programme assess proposals
••• 18
as if they were proposals in the Framework
Programme and give insufficient attention
to the specific strategic aims of the JTIs. The
Evaluation Panel is also concerned that there
appears to be a difficulty in finding sufficient
numbers of evaluators who are not just ‘from
industry’ but have the up-to-date and specific
knowledge needed to assess the market and
business impact of proposed projects.
While the evaluation process is fair, the simple
ranking of proposals leaves very little scope for
the JTIs to build portfolios of complementary
projects that in combination best support the
strategic aims.
In practice, some Member States are selective,
either by means of application of national
eligibility criteria in which, for instance,
‘contribution to national priorities’ may be a
barrier, or through selection or not of participants’ applications for national funding.
This last hurdle - the need for participants from
some countries in ‘selected’ projects to make a
subsequent application for national funding
- puts the applicants and the projects in a situation of ‘double jeopardy’. Even projects that
would support the strategy well and are of high
quality can either fail or lose key participants
because of incompatible national priorities
and processes. Moreover it adds significant
additional delays and additional bureaucracy
(such as the requirement of some Member
States for submissions to be in the national
language). The time from announcement of a
Call for Proposals to selection of projects is of
the order of 6 months (shorter for 1-step submission and longer for 2-step). But the time for
Member States to sign national contracts can
be a further 6 months, usually longer, and even
as much as 2 years.
10 The JTI evaluation processes are based upon those of the Framework Programme: these have been refined over many years.
4.1.2. QUALITY
For instance:
The JTIs have demonstrated that their processes
have led to the launch of major, high quality
projects in support of their Research Agendas.
• many
Moreover, apart from delays incurred by the
processes of Member States, their procedures
are much quicker than those of the Framework Programme.
The JTIs have led to new collaborations and the
participation in projects of new organisations,
and they have enhanced European integration
through the increased scale and reach of some
projects.
However, many of the projects that have been
supported so far are not significantly differentiated from Framework Programme or EUREKA
projects. They are mainly explorations and
developments with very few large-scale demonstrations or deployments. Most have sketchy
exploitation plans and several lack evidence of
any strong industry drive.
Member States disallow cross-border
support where the main benefits accrue to
another country. While this is understandable from a national perspective it inhibits, for
instance, collaboration between a technology user in one country and a research centre
in another if the Intellectual Property Rights
accrue to the technology supplier. In this case,
the technology user would not receive support
from its own Member State. Other examples
arise where internationally recognised Centres
of Excellence that cannot access funding from
their own country cannot be supported by
subcontract from a technology user in another
Member State;
• The
Council Regulations allow for the JTIs to
support only ‘R&D’ activities. Anything else
can only be supported within the running
costs of the Joint Undertakings. This seriously
inhibits the JTIs from meeting their innovation
ecosystem objectives (see section 4.3 below);
• some
Larger projects are often built by the addition
of the objectives and technologies of each partner, with weak overall integration, so that the
increased scale of some projects has led to an
increased number of different objectives and
increased complexity without enhancing their
contribution to the JTI’s aims.
Unfortunately, projects are harmed by delays
and difficulties in synchronisation of their
starting time due to late contract approval in
some countries.
4.1.3. FUNDING OBSTACLES
regional funding bodies (for instance,
the Belgian provinces and German Länder)
have been unable to contribute funding
- contrary to the spirit of the JTIs to pool
and leverage all sources of funding. In some
cases this is due to state aid rules, where the
regions wish to use, for instance, EU Structural Funds, and in some cases it has been
difficult to agree on representation on the
JTI Governing Boards. The present Council
Regulations are unclear about such matters11;
• inflexibility
in the conditions for release of
funds (especially given the delays and uncertainties discussed in section 4.4 below) means
that projects are slow to start in a fast moving
world.
The combination of the present financial regulations and national rules inhibit rather than
enable realisation of the strategic aims for JTIs
to enhance the European Research Area.
11 The Council Regulations allow for ‘legal entities’ to make contributions to the Joint Undertakings, but it is not clear to what
purposes such contributions might be put. Also, the relationship between ‘regions’ and Member States is not clear with regard
to Member State representation on the JTI Governing Boards.
19 •••
4.2.Increased overall
investment
• Considering
each JTI and its associated
Eureka cluster together, there has been an
overall increase in investment in these sectors
by Member States, including the EU contribution. However, this increase is much less
than anticipated (see charts below)12.
ARTEMIS Actual v Target PA investment (€Mn)
450
MS: ITEA/ITEA2
400
MS: ARTEMIS
EU: ARTEMIS
Total PA target ARTEMIS+ITEA2
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2003
2004
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2011
2012
2013
ENIAC Actual v Target PA investment (€Mn)
450
400
2006
MS: MEDEA/CATRENE
MS: ENIAC
EU: ENIAC
Total PA target MEDEA/CATRENE+ENIAC
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2003
••• 20
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
12 Target figures are based on assumed approximately linear growth in annual funding for the JTIs and steady funding of the
EUREKA clusters by Member States based on their overall commitment for the duration of each cluster. This does not take
account of any expected switch in funding between CATRENE and ENIAC (see below).
State funding levels are not rising annually at
the anticipated rate, the present projection is
that neither JTI will achieve even half of their
planned total funding.
The lower than expected increase in investment is primarily because contributions by the
larger Member States, for both ARTEMIS and
ENIAC, are significantly below their anticipated levels. This has the knock-on effect
that the contributions from the private sector and the Community are also fractions of
their expected levels, despite evident industrial demand shown by the oversubscription
to calls for proposals13. Since, also, Member
In parallel, funding for the EUREKA clusters
by the major Member State contributors has,
in some countries, declined significantly since
the establishment of the JTIs14. (See charts
below)
ARTEMIS: average annual funding by Member States in €Mn
30,0
ITEA/ITEA2
ARTEMIS
ITEA/ITEA2 Member countries (based on ITEA2 figures 2006-2008 and ARTEMIS 2008-2010)
25,0
20,0
15,0
ARTEMIS-only Member countries
10,0
5,0
ep s
u
D e b li c
nm
a
Es rk
to n
G r ia
ee
Hu ce
ng
a
Ir e r y
l an
d
It
P o aly
r tu
ga
Un
S
i te lo v e l
dK
n
i ng ia
do
m
y
Tu
pr u
rke
nd
r la
Cz
ec
Ne
kR
th e
Cy
s
en
ed
Sw
Sp
rw
No
Is r
ain
ay
l
ae
y
Ge
F in
F ra
rm
nc
an
e
d
la n
um
Be
Au
l gi
s tr
ia
0,0
ENIAC: average annual funding by Member States in €Mn
70,0
MEDEA/CATRENE Countries based on 2005-2007 and 2008-2010 figures
MEDEA/CATRENE
ENIAC
60,0
50,0
40,0
30,0
20,0
ENIAC-only countries based on
2008-2010 figures
10,0
ec
kR
ep
ub
l
E s ic
ton
i
F in a
la n
Gr d
ee
Hu ce
ng
ar
Ir e y
lan
No d
rw
a
Po y
la
P o nd
r tu
g
S lo R o m a l
va
k R a n ia
Un
e
p
i te
d K ublic
in g
do
m
y
r ke
Tu
Cz
Ne
t he
rla
nd
s
en
ed
Sw
a in
Sp
ly
I ta
y
an
rm
Ge
e
nc
F ra
um
lg i
Be
Au
s tr
ia
0,0
13 Oversubscription levels are generally lower than typically reached in the Framework Programme, but rising.
14 The specific technological nature of the ENIAC Research Agenda is such that it might be expected that some funding would be
switched from CATRENE to ENIAC.
21 •••
The Evaluation Panel was not able to assess
how the existence of the JTIs has affected funding of related areas in national programmes, in
the Framework Programme, or wholly private
investment.
gramme. The Work Programme does ‘require’
proposals to make clear their contributions to
these topics, but the Evaluation Panel could
find no evidence of serious commitment of
projects to such objectives.
Even where Member States have committed
funds, if projects that they could have supported cannot be supported because of lack
of support by other Member States for other
partners, then their budgets can remain
unspent. So there is a risk that the total ‘committed budget’ is not entirely accessible.
Moreover, as explained in section 4.1.3 above,
the JTIs are not able to use their funds for purposes other than R&D. This is a significant
obstacle to either support of projects, or even
components of R&D projects, specifically
aimed at these objectives. (By contrast, the
Framework Programme does have the means
to support such activities.)
Furthermore, the very low effective funding
rate of some countries has the consequence
that their budget cannot be fully utilised
because there cannot be sufficient participation of organisations from that country to
absorb the ‘committed’ budget.
In the current climate for public finances,
unspent budgets are unlikely to be renewed. So
where budgeted funds are not spent by either
Member States or the Commission, there is a
risk of a permanent loss of resources available
for R&D support.
4.3. Innovation ecosystem15
There is a general consensus that the JTIs have
not fulfilled this aspect of their original mission – undertaking activities complementary
to research and technological development in
support of innovation, such as work on standards or identification of skills needs. Some
such activities have existed inside projects but
not at the level of the sector.
The non-R&D aspects of the JTIs’ strategies are
addressed in outline in the Strategic Research
Agendas but have not actively been pursued. In
ARTEMIS, for example, the MASP addresses
topics such as SME Integration, Collaborative Innovation, Standards, Education, Tool
Platforms, and Business Models. But these are
not addressed in the Contents or Objectives
sections of the ARTEMIS Annual Work Pro-
••• 22
Finally, the fragmentation of R&D and innovation actions over many small, uncoordinated
projects in a variety of European and national
programmes is itself a hindrance to the formation of lasting, well-integrated ecosystems of
companies, academic institutions and public
bodies.
4.4. Efficiency
The operational objective of decentralising
management procedures has been achieved:
both JTIs are now, in theory, autonomous and
have their own offices to manage their administration. However, the JTIs are bound by
regulations - including financial regulations
and staff regulations - that seriously constrain
their autonomy and they seem unable autonomously to resolve the disharmony caused by
Member States’ funding policies.
Despite the important part played by SMEs
in high-technology innovation, their participation is hindered by the complexity of the
processes and the complexity (and burdensome nature) of the funding vehicles.
4.4.1. HARMONISATION ACROSS
MEMBER STATES
It was an aim for the JTIs to improve efficiency
by, among other things, removing uncertainty
15 The Council Regulations refer to the role of a JTI in the creation of an ‘open innovation environment’. However, ‘open
innovation’ has acquired a specific meaning in the technological community different from that intended in the Regulations:
‘innovation ecosystem’ is now the preferred term for the intention of the Regulations and it used throughout this report.
as to the availability of national budgets and
getting rid of duplication of procedures. The
intention was to avoid the delays and uncertainty that arise with the diverse priorities and
processes for funding of EUREKA projects.
In principle, national budgets are indeed established before each call for proposals. However,
some Member States are not prepared to give
an early indication of the topics (in the Annual
Work Programme) that they will support.
Sometimes this information is provided only
after the evaluation of full proposals, making
planning and portfolio building extremely difficult and also making it very difficult to advise
potential proposers.
Moreover, not all Member States respect the
Regulations’ requirement that “This decision [on funding] shall also be binding for
[ARTEMIS/ENIAC] Member States without
any further evaluation or selection processes”.
Nor is there any evidence that Member States
have undertaken “best efforts to synchronise the
terms and conditions and the establishment of
grant agreements and to disburse their financial
contributions in a timely manner”.
The JTIs were also expected to “[combine]
national and Community funding within a
clear legal structure and in a harmonised and
synchronous manner”. In practice, the legal
structure is not clear and national processes
are not harmonised either with each other or
with those of the Commission.
The consequence is that there are delays
(sometimes very significant); and uncertainty.
The already complex planning is made more
difficult. The constituency receives ‘mixed
messages’.
as the ITEA2 Office, and the AENEAS Office
being the same as the CATRENE Office, but
both Industrial Associations have made every
effort to share back office functions with those
of the Eureka clusters in order to keep costs
down.
However, the close association of the JTIs with
their related Eureka clusters has its own risk
in that processes similar to those followed in
Eureka might be used in the JTIs, even when
they are not appropriate. This may explain
their ‘bottom up’ approaches to strategy and
programme development. (The Eureka programmes are intended to be ‘bottom up’).
Both JTIs have recognised the confusion and
potential overlap with their associated Eureka
clusters and have begun to address them.
A working group of public authorities has
for some time been developing proposals for
‘delineation’ to clarify the distinctions between
the respective content, role and mission of
ENIAC and CATRENE. There are some difficulties, given that not all Member States are
participants in both ENIAC and CATRENE,
so a sharp distinction that diminished the
scope of ENIAC would not suit some Member
States. Discussions are continuing, and there
are parallel discussions about early allocation
of proposals to either ENIAC or CATRENE
to overcome some of the difficulties of ‘hard’
delineation.
In parallel, ARTEMIS has appointed a highlevel working group across ARTEMIS and
ITEA2 to work on differentiation. Put simply, the difference lies not in their scopes but
in that:
• ARTEMIS
4.4.2. INTEGRATION WITH EUREKA
The parallel operation of EUREKA and the
JTIs adds complexity to the European Research
Area and is confusing for the research community. It is also intrinsically inefficient.
pursues a long-term strategy; it is
top-down; it has a pan-European nature; and
it is (or should be) funded to implement its
programme;
By contrast:
• ITEA2
Some steps have been taken to achieve operational efficiency. Legal constraints prevent the
ARTEMISIA Office being the same legal entity
is shorter term; focused on more
immediate business and market impact;
comprises collaborations of a few companies;
and is funded to implement specific projects.
23 •••
Both ARTEMIS and ENIAC are also working to synchronise their calls for proposals
with those of the Eureka clusters, and to synchronise and even combine their information
events in order to communicate more effectively with their constituencies.
4.4.3. JU ARRANGEMENT AND FINANCE
Being a ‘Community Body’, each Joint Undertaking has to comply with the ‘Staff Regulations
of Officials of the European Communities’ and
the ‘EU Financial Rules’ (slightly modified for
the JUs). These are the regulations of a large
and bureaucratic organisation.
The ARTEMIS office, for instance, has a staff
of only 10 people and yet is expected to have
a Data Protection Officer, a Local Information Security Officer, an External Profile
Manager (for the accrual based accounting
scheme), an Internal Control Coordinator, an
Accounting Officer and .. a back-up for the
Accounting Officer, an Authorising Officer
and back-up, Initiating Agents and back-ups,
Validating Agents and back-ups. In addition, while not actually a requirement of the
••• 24
staff regulations, the staff of the Commission
expect the office to have a full-time Internal
Auditor, an IT Manager and ... a Staff Committee. This is in addition to performing their
operational roles.
For their part, the Industrial Associations
inhibit membership by requiring that members
accept Joint Liability - which some companies
consider an unacceptable risk.
In addition to the difficulties created by the
rules that constrain the JTIs, the Evaluation
Panel found resentment among some of the
stakeholders that the Industrial Associations
are bearing all the operational costs, despite
it being a requirement that the JTIs are open
to participation by any eligible organisation.
In the language of economics this is an anticompetitive ‘free rider’ problem in which
those not contributing are able to ‘ride’ on the
backs of those who are. The present Council
Regulations prohibit the Joint Undertakings
from charging non-members of the Industrial
Associations to cover their costs in providing
a service that supports non-members as well
as members.
5
Conclusions
The Evaluation Panel finds that:
• the original motivations for the establishment
of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC JTIs are still
valid:
▶
▶
they benefit Member States and Europe
as a whole by enabling all parties to
share costs and gain leverage on their
own investments in strategic R&D;
they enable industrial companies in
the participating countries to accelerate their innovation and become more
productive, so enhancing their competitiveness in a fast moving, globally
competitive market;
• notwithstanding
the difficulties that the
Evaluation Panel has identified (see below)
ARTEMIS & ENIAC validate the general
concept of the JTI;
• the
establishment of these particular PPPs
is a major achievement: it is the first time
that Industry, the European Community and
Member States have joined forces in such a
way, and these are the first industry-led initiatives of their kind;
• there
have been other benefits - such as participation of Member States that were not
active in Eureka; participation in projects of
new organisations; new collaborations; and
enhanced European integration through the
increased scale and reach of some projects.
The Evaluation Panel congratulates all those
involved, from industry, from the European Commission, and from Member States
for their considerable achievements in the
design and implementation of these new
instruments.
However the Evaluation Panel also finds that:
• the
funding commitment by Member
States is significantly below that which was
expected, jeopardising the ability to establish a critical mass of activity and severely
constraining the construction of appropriate
portfolios of projects;
• neither
ARTEMIS nor ENIAC are giving
sufficient attention to their European, strategic aims and they are not making sufficient
progress toward their desired strategic outcomes;
•a
• there
is strategic progress: the Strategic
Research Agendas - and the process for their
creation - have established a coherent view
of Europe’s priorities in these areas. Moreover, this is the first time that Member States,
the Commission and industry have jointly
considered industrial strategy. Having a joint
strategy with shared implementation is good
for industry, good for Member States, and
good for Europe;
JTIs have launched some major, high
quality projects in support of their Research
Agendas;
major obstacle to achievement of those
outcomes is that some major Member States
have failed to align their national interests
with the strategic agendas of the JTIs;
• industry,
that asked for and was given leadership of these JTIs, has not maintained its
initial engagement in the strategic direction
and management of the JTIs so that they
achieve all their objectives and specifically
has not engaged effectively with Member
States to address the problems;
• the
25 •••
• the
Governing Boards of ARTEMIS &
ENIAC have not been effective in steering
the JTIs to pursue their strategic objectives;
• funding
• some
• the
• without
In addition to its findings on these specific initiatives, the Evaluation Panel found
it extremely difficult to assess at this stage
whether ARTEMIS and ENIAC are achieving
benefits such as greater coherence of European
research efforts and acceleration of innovation,
that underlie the concept of Joint Technology
Initiatives. In particular, the panel was unable
to find any data collection activity that would
provide an objective basis for an evidencebased evaluation of the socio-economic impact
of JTIs.
Member States are not following the
principles that formed the basis for the establishment of the JTIs and specifically are not
compliant with the Council Regulations for
the JTIs;
a clear, common purpose that differentiates each JTI from related work in
the Framework Programme and the Eureka
clusters, there is no clear message about
the aims of the JTIs to the community researchers, proposers, evaluators, and both
industrial and Member State participants
in the JTIs. So the prospects for a portfolio
of complementary projects that covers the
strategic aims is severely jeopardised. One
consequence is that JTIs are being treated by
many as “just another funding mechanism”;
••• 26
constraints and the evaluation and
selection processes further inhibit the construction of a strategic portfolio of projects;
present financial regulations and other
administrative requirements (such as staff
regulations) are too constraining and they
inhibit rather than enable realisation of the
strategic aims for JTIs.
6
Recommendations
In summary, the Evaluation Panel recommends:
• research
and technology initiatives in the
fields of embedded computing systems and
nanoelectronics should continue to be coordinated on the European level;
• in the short term to continue with the present
JTIs but with strong recommendations for
improvement;
• after
2013 to continue with the same form of
tripartite PPPs but with significant changes
to their governance and an increased EU
contribution for specific purposes to enhance
pursuance of a European programme.
Notwithstanding criticisms, these are early
days in an entirely new approach to the integration of European R&D. The Evaluation
Panel considers that the achievements so far
merit continuing to try to achieve the goals of
the JTIs, and rejects their cancellation.
The Evaluation Panel does not believe that
alternative bipartite configurations would
equally benefit the areas addressed by
ARTEMIS and ENIAC. While bipartite JTIs
might be easier to manage they do not offer
similar rewards for success or resolve the issue
of co-existence with Eureka clusters. With
regard to closer integration of related Eureka
activities into the JTIs, as suggested in the
Council Regulations, the panel considers that
this remains a valid long term ambition but
does not recommend it at the present time nor for any JTIs in these areas to be launched
around 2013. (Annex 1 comprises an analysis
of alternative arrangements for JTIs that were
considered by the Evaluation Panel.) The Panel
recognises the validity of the bipartite model
for the other JTIs and the Recovery Plan
PPPs.
The Evaluation Panel does not support
requests by Member States for more influence
on the selection of projects to support national
priorities. The Panel heard evidence that after
the ranking by expert evaluators, some Member States wish for flexibility in funding and
project selection to support their own national
interests. However, this is contrary to the principle that they should commit funding on the
basis of joint agreement on the strategy, the
research and innovation programme, and the
regulations for and processes of the JTIs. The
commitment should be to the programme, not
specific projects (apart from considerations of
national eligibility criteria).
The changes to the governance proposed for
JTIs beyond 2013 will require that the JTIs be
governed by different Council Regulations
from those governing ARTEMIS and ENIAC
at present. However, the process for changing
the Council Regulations is too lengthy to consider such changes for the present ARTEMIS
and ENIAC JTIs.
The specific recommendations of the Evaluation Panel focus primarily on the need for
Member States and industry, as the principal stakeholders in the JTIs, to recommit to
their responsibilities for the European strategic
aspects of the JTIs. The main recommendations
for the Commission concern its role in the creation of conditions for the success of future JTIs.
There are also recommendations to the Joint
Undertakings, that are not addressed to specific
stakeholders, to adjust their operational practices. Finally the Evaluation Panel recommends
continued effort to achieve better coordination
between the JTIs and the Eureka clusters.
27 •••
6.1. General
recommendations
Recommendation 1: future JTIs in the fields
of ARTEMIS and ENIAC should follow a tripartite model similar to the existing model.
The Evaluation Panel believes that the original justification for participation of industry,
Member States, and the European Commission
in a PPP is still valid in the technology fields of
Embedded Systems and Nanoelectronics. The
Panel believes that this approach should not be
abandoned because of early difficulties in their
implementation during this first experiment
with such PPPs,
However, to make the ARTEMIS and ENIAC
tripartite JTIs a success, all the stakeholders
must make a clear recommitment to the strategic aims of these JTIs and, operationally, the
Governing Boards should refocus on strategic
concerns rather than administrative issues16.
6.2.Recommendations
for Member States
Member States should demonstrate clear recommitment to the pursuit of a European
strategic programme rather than an assemblage of national interests, and recognition
of the intention that the JTIs should reach
beyond R&D to contribute to enrichment of
the innovation ecosystem in their sectors. In
particular ...
Recommendation 2: each participating
Member State should agree a multi-annual
budgetary contribution for the remainder
of the present JTIs and at the outset of any
future JTI. The present approach, based upon
no more than a hope for the total Member
State contribution, raises unrealistic expectations, creates considerable uncertainty, and
makes management of the programmes very
difficult.
Recommendation 3: Member States should
accept and fulfil the requirements of the
Council Regulations17. The Panel recognises that some of these requirements may be
incompatible with the present procedures of
some Member States, but does not accept that
this is necessary.
Recommendation 4: Member States should
jointly undertake a benchmarking and alignment study. The focus of this study should be
to reduce bureaucracy, speed up their processes, overcome obstacles posed by national
legislation and national practices, avoid constraints on consortium composition, and
avoid the requirement in some Member States
for organisations to apply for national funds
after a proposed project in which they are participants has been selected.18
Recommendation 5: Member States should
give an early indication of their likely preparedness (or not) to support specific topics
in each year’s Annual Work Programme. It
is very difficult for the JUs to advise their constituencies without such indications; it is a
major cause of ‘committed’ budget remaining unused; and it is a burden on industry to
waste effort on preparation of proposals that
are unlikely to gain financial support however
excellent they may be technically.
6.3. Recommendations
for the Industrial
Associations
The Industrial Associations that lead the JTIs
should demonstrate clear re-commitment to
the strategic programme rather than support
for opportunistic ‘bottom up’ activities that
are more appropriate to Eureka. They should
re-engage the top level ‘thought leaders’ in
industry, governments and the scientific community to provide direction and monitoring
of the JTIs. In particular…
16 This will require that all parties in the Governing Boards, and especially industry (as the leaders of these PPPs) help the ‘offices’
for the JTIs by taking an active role in ensuring such focus on strategic concerns.
17 See Section 4.4.1 for some examples.
••• 28
18 Denmark and Finland offer good models that other Member States might adopt.
Recommendation 6: the Industrial Associations should lead the establishment of
management processes for implementation
and monitoring of progress toward the strategic objectives of the JTIs. These processes
should include:
• revise their conditions of membership to
▶
▶
• review
and refreshment of the Strategic
Research Agenda for each JTI19;
• incorporation
into the monitoring processes
for supported projects of assessment of both
their individual and combined contribution
to achievement of the European strategic
objectives of the JTIs, including those concerned with the enrichment of the innovation
ecosystem;
• annual
public reporting of progress toward
their European strategic objectives (in all
its aspects, not just R&D) and towards specific targets (such as the numeric targets of
ARTEMIS);
Recommendation 7: the Industrial Associations should lead the JTIs in drawing up
concrete action plans for achievement of the
innovation ecosystem aspect of their strategies. The JTIs should work with competent
organisations outside R&D - such as standardisation forums, education and training
bodies, and trade and business organisations to develop and implement such plans.
Recommendation 8: the Industrial Associations should engage more with their
constituencies. They should:
• more
actively promote and facilitate broad
membership and participation, especially
of SMEs through more concerted effort
to encourage their participation and, for
instance, the establishment of an ‘associated
partner’ status in projects20;
remove the obstacle to membership
posed by the present joint liability
requirements;
modify the requirements for participation in meetings to avoid inhibiting
appropriate representation at meetings;
• be
more interactive with their members in
providing guidance and advice21.
6.4. Recommendations for
the European Commission
The European Commission should, in the near
term, actively facilitate the process of recommitment.
For the future (beyond 2013) the European
Commission should lead the drafting of new
Council Regulations, including associated
financial regulations and staff regulations. In
particular…
Recommendation 9: the Council Regulations
for future JTIs should not invoke the Financial Regulations or the Staff Regulations of a
‘Community Body’.
The Evaluation Panel supports the present initiative of the Commission to establish alternative
‘mixed body’ Financial Regulations based upon
Article 185 TFEU22. The Panel also supports
the presently proposed approach of specifying
high level principles that the JTIs should satisfy rather than mandating specific procedures.
However, the Commission should work with
the Industrial Associations to agree how the
JTIs will demonstrate their compliance with
the principles of any new regulations in order
to avoid reversion to burdensome procedures
in order to demonstrate compliance.
19 Note that the initial SRAs took more than two years to formulate, much of that time being required to gain consensus among
all the stakeholders, with wide consultation among the constituencies. While revision of the SRAs might be easier, it cannot be
achieved effectively by any quick process involving only a subset of each constituency.
20 The ITEA experience shows that concerted effort to involve SMEs can be successful.
21 Examples of best practice in such activities and practices can be found in regional cluster organisations such as the Pôles de
Compétitivité in France.
22 ‘Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’
29 •••
Recommendation 10: the regulations should
enable the JTIs to support activities, including projects and parts of projects, other than
R&D projects, that contribute to achievement
of their innovation ecosystem goals.
6.5. Recommendations
for the Joint
Undertakings
Recommendation 11: the regulations should
enable JTIs to accept financial contributions23, for R&D and innovation ecosystem
actions as well as running costs, by any reputable funding agency. The Council Regulations
should recognise the wide range of possibilities - regions, the European Investment Bank,
charitable foundations - and be clear about
how each class of possible additional support
should be handled, else allow the Governing
Board the flexibility to decide.
6.5.1. FREE-RIDER
Recommendation 12: the regulations should
enable the EU to make financial contributions, in addition to any matched funding
contribution, in order to support projects,
activities and participants that are critical to
achievement of the strategic objectives and
that could not be supported otherwise.
Recommendation 15: to solve the ‘free riding’ problem, the Joint Undertakings should
establish a system where each non-member
beneficiary pays a percentage of its EU contribution as a fee to the costs of the Joint
Undertaking25.
6.5.2. EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF
PROJECTS
Recommendation 16: the evaluation and
selection processes should be modified to
improve the match of the portfolio of supported projects to the strategic European
aims of the programme.
In particular:
Recommendation 13: the regulations should
enable the Joint Undertakings to recover from
non-members of the Industrial Associations
some of their costs for providing a service to
non-members as well as members24.
In addition…
Recommendation 14: the European Commission should establish a mechanism for
gathering data on the extent to which the
introduction of JTIs is realising the macro
socio-economic benefits that justified their
creation. Such data should provide a firm
basis for future evidence-based evaluations
and impact assessments.
• the
evaluation criteria should more clearly
focus on the strategic European aims of the
JTIs. Specifically, the European dimension
should be highlighted as a separate criterion and treated as a threshold criterion for
which a high rating is needed for the proposal’s evaluation to go forward for evaluation
against other criteria;
• the
evaluation criteria should more clearly
focus on the specific requirements of each
call26;
• the
expectations of projects to contribute
to enrichment of the innovation ecosystem
should be more explicit;
23 Not just grants but, for instance, loans by the EIB, using the Risk Sharing Finance Facility, could support market deployment or
infrastructural development (maybe test-beds for ARTEMIS or manufacturing facilities for ENIAC).
24 See section 4.4.3 concerning the ‘free rider’ problem, and Recommendation 15.
25 This recommendation cannot be implemented in the near-term since it would require changes to the Council Regulations (see
Recommendation 13).
••• 30
26 Rather than provide additional guidance which would add to the material that experts must absorb, the example of ARTEMIS,
in which the expectations are clearly identified in the Annual Work Programme and the criteria explicitly linked to them, could
be extended and refined.
• different
criteria should be established for
different types of project (e.g. exploration,
development, deployment or demonstration);
• rather
than rank all proposals by ‘quality’ in
a single set, the evaluation process should
instead assign proposals to different quality
groups27;
• the
evaluation panels should be empowered
to propose a final selection of a portfolio of
projects, taking into account the grouping
by quality (see above), that best matches the
strategic European aims of their JTI, maximises coverage, minimises undesirable overlap,
and optimises use of available funds.
Recommendation 17: Member States and the
Industrial Associations should work together
to establish processes whereby potential
proposers can be given early, constructive
feedback on their prospects for support.
However:
processes for provision of feedback
should be open and transparent: evaluation
and selection must not be (or be seen to be)
influenced by a ‘closed club’;
6.6. Co-ordination with
Eureka clusters
The Evaluation Panel believes that full integration should remain a long-term aim, but does
not recommend integration of the clusters into
the JTIs for the present or for 2013 renewal of
the JTIs. However, the panel does recommend
greater coordination of the JTIs and the related
Eureka clusters. In particular…
Recommendation 18: ARTEMIS and ENIAC
should continue their present initiatives to
more clearly differentiate the JTIs from the
Eureka clusters ITEA2 and CATRENE, and,
in parallel, to establish processes for their
coordination.
The combination of JTIs and Eureka clusters
should enable complementary and objective
coverage of the strategies of the funding programmes and provide for R&D participants
a complementary spectrum of opportunities
and instruments for support:
• the
consideration of proposals should be
based upon an initial evaluation of proposal
quality by independent experts;
• the
relationship between their scopes should
be clarified, while not partitioning the JTIs
and Eureka clusters in a way that diminishes
the scopes of the JTIs;
• early
• in
addition to the assessment of quality by
independent evaluators, the process should
take into account the availability of funds (see
Recommendation 5) in order to maximise the
eventual use of funds;
• the
processes must seek to minimise the
additional delay and cost of a 2-step callselection process.
• processes
should be coordinated and synchronised (recognising that the JTI and EUREKA
processes are different) to maximise technical
synergies; minimise inefficiency for the constituency; and optimise use of available funds;
• differentiation
and coordination should be
reviewed from time to time in the light of the
evolving strategies of the JTIs and the Eureka
clusters;
These processes should be complemented by
co-ordination with related programmes - not
limited to the present Eureka clusters.
However, until an approach to co-ordination is
agreed, closer integration of the clusters with
the JTIs would risk continued and possibly even
greater confusion of the JTIs and the Eureka
27 For example: ‘excellent: should be supported’; ‘good: should be supported unless higher quality proposals in same area’;
‘satisfactory: could be supported if a good fit with other proposals’; ‘poor: should not be supported’.
31 •••
clusters. Moreover, even well-intentioned
co-ordination should not take priority over
the fundamental principles of the JTIs that are
meant to be European, strategic, technological, initiatives.
••• 32
These recommendations are summarised in
a table in the Executive Summary, indicating
those which could and should be implemented
during the life of the present JTIs, and those
which require changes to the Council Regulations for JTIs beyond 2013.
1
Annex 1: Options for the
Way Forward
Considering the difficulties that the JTIs have
experienced, the Evaluation Panel considered a
range of alternative approaches that might alleviate the problems. Apart from the option of
continuing with the present model but seeking
to improve it (Options 1 & 1A), the alternatives
that the panel considered range from:
• discontinuing the JTIs entirely, when present
arrangements expire (Option 2), through...
structures of membership to avoid the
difficulties arising from the different stances
of Member States and the EU (Options 3, 3A
& 4), to ...
• after
2013 to continue with the same form of
tripartite PPPs but with significant changes to
their governance and an increased EU contribution for specific purposes to enhance pursuance
of a European programme.
This annex presents the Evaluation Panel’s
opinion of the advantages and disadvantages
of the various approaches that the panel considered.
• other
• integration
of the JTIs with the associated Eureka clusters either administratively
(Option 5) or completely (Option 6).
ALL of the alternatives, apart from simple
cancelation of the JTIs, assume that the recommendations for immediate improvement,
as detailed in the Recommendations contained
in the body of this report, are implemented.
Several of the alternative structures would
require different Council Regulations from
those governing ARTEMIS and ENIAC at
present so, given the lengthy process required
to agree such different Regulations, they are
only feasible for new JTIs beyond 2013.
As indicated in the main body of this report,
the Evaluation Panel recommends:
• in
the short term to continue with the present
JTIs but with strong recommendations for
improvement;
OPTION 1: PRESENT JTI MODEL WITH
IMPROVEMENT
This option is to continue with the current
industry-MS-EU funding of JTIs, leaving the
Eureka clusters as separate entities, and relying on delineation, co-ordination, renewal of
the strategic vision, and a strategic allocation of
Member State budgets between them.
Advantages
The current approach may not yet have reached
optimum operation, so there is potential for
improvement this allows capitalisation on
learning to date. Industry is already considering ways in which to improve the coexistence
of the JTIs and the Eureka clusters.
We do not lose what has been gained now that
the JTIs are established. Stability is maintained
so there will be continuity and a minimum
of disruption that would divert management
resources from the present ARTEMIS and
ENIAC operations.
Industry has been actively involved in formulating the SRAs of the two JTIs and, at least so
far, is highly committed to them. Three calls
33 •••
have been launched so far and they have produced ambitious projects that would not have
been produced without the JTI instrument.
Some of the total money channelled to the two
fields will be devoted to research of European
strategic importance.
JTIs of this form also have the potential for
broader coverage by a wider range of differentiated instruments.
Researchers like pluralistic funding sources
that increase the possibilities of finding finance
for a proposal.
OPTION 1A: PRESENT JTI MODEL WITH
BOTH IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENT
(AS ABOVE) PLUS ADDITIONAL
IMPROVEMENT BEYOND 2013,
INCLUDING EXTENDING EU FUNDING
FOR STRATEGIC PROJECTS AND
COMPONENTS OF PROJECTS
This is the Evaluation Panel’s preferred
option for JTIs in these fields beyond 2013.
The ‘additional improvements’ - that will
require changes to the Council Regulations are detailed in the recommendations of this
report.
Disadvantages
If the proposed improvements are not successful then:
• the
acceptance of non-harmonised Member
State processes would mean that efficiency
problems inherent in Eureka, arising from
the difficulty to align the decision and the
funding approvals of the national PAs, will
continue in the JTIs, and that the associated
rigidities in funding procedures will continue
to lead to less investment than anticipated
and a loss of potential critical mass to make
the major impact hoped for from JTIs;
• the
present bureaucracy will continue, causing administrative inefficiency and higher
administrative costs;
• industry will be dissatisfied with the JTIs and
their inefficiencies and will ‘walk away’;
• there
will be lock-in to non-strategic behaviour and outdated initial assumptions;
There is also a risk that mixed funding does not
increase total funding and might even reduce
it if Member States use the EU contribution as
an excuse to reduce their contribution. There is
also a risk, especially in the present economic
climate, that cutbacks in Member State funding will cause further disruption.
••• 34
Above all, there is risk of missing the opportunity to establish JTIs as they were intended to
be, and making only limited achievements in
terms of the outcome-oriented objectives.
OPTION 2: NO JTIS AFTER 2013; REVERT
TO FUNDING IN THESE AREAS VIA
ONLY THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
OR EUREKA CLUSTERS
This is, in essence, the pre-JTI model. In short,
the Evaluation Panel considers that this would
be a retrograde step.
Advantages
The two instruments - the EU Framework
Programme and Eureka - are well known and
familiar to all participants in all European
countries. The delineation between them is
easier to define.
The inefficiencies inherent in the present JTIs
would be removed as far as they are related to
fragmentation of Member State funding and
their uneven or different allocations between
schemes.
There would be administrative savings from
the elimination of the Joint Undertakings.
For firms, there could be a higher funding rate
for certain activities.
Disadvantages
The direction of R&D in these fields would
loose their close connection with industry: industry would be only one of the
interest groups trying to influence the workprogramme. There would also be reduction of
awareness of industrial needs and capability,
and of markets, in project selection.
There would be a gap in the range of support
– for collective but nearer market R&D, and
the lack of coordination of upstream & downstream R&D could reduce its strategic impact.
The JTIs have generated considerable interest
in the topics of embedded systems and nanoelectronics. If the JTIs were to be terminated,
these topics would drop off the priority agenda
and out of public and political consciousness.
There would be reduction in the total funding
for these fields.
The funding of really large projects would
probably be more difficult, with projects
becoming much like the more typical Framework Programme projects.
The termination of JTIs would send a bad
message to the community and to politicians
concerning the (in)ability of industry, Member States and the EC to cooperate effectively
in the design and management of such initiatives.
OPTION 3: POST-2013, RESTRUCTURE
ENIAC AND ARTEMIS AS INDUSTRY-EU
ONLY
This would entail more clear delineation from
the Eureka clusters. The clusters would be the
principal vehicle for Member States to pursue
their specific European strategies.
While this might be an option for future JTIs in
other fields, the Evaluation Panel considers that
ARTEMIS and ENIAC would lose the benefit
that has been achieved by building these JTIs
on the Eureka clusters and from the involvement of Member States in these JTIs.
Advantages
The European dimension of the JTIs would be
enhanced and there would be a level playing
field for firms regardless of nationality. Crossborder collaboration, especially between
industry and institutes, would also be easier.
It would maintain a diversity of R&D instruments (one size does not fit all). Big strategic
thematic projects could be launched.
Industry would be actively involved in pursuing a common European research agenda.
The difficulties of the current scheme arising
from the lack of shared EU and Member State
industrial policy would be overcome.
The process of decision-making would be
simplified and the JTIs could be planned and
managed on a more stable basis. The JTIs
would be more efficient.
The fragmentation of Member State funding
across instruments and the problems arising from their uneven or different allocations
between schemes would be avoided.
Disadvantages
Member States funding would not be engaged
in pursuit of a common European strategy.
There would be an increased risk of duplication with the Eureka clusters and lack of
coordination with them.
There is a risk that overall funding for the areas
would be reduced unless a specific budget was
allocated to the JTIs. There is also a risk of
Member State cutbacks to Eureka funding and
less incentive for Member States to contribute
funds to these topics without the EU gearing
of the present scheme.
This option would entail a major change from
the initial objectives of ENIAC and ARTEMIS
that would be difficult to explain and justify to
policy makers.
The acknowledgement of failure of Member States to commit to a common European
agenda and to harmonise their funding practices might have a demoralising effect on the
whole European Research Area project.
35 •••
OPTION 3A: AS OPTION 3 ABOVE,
BUT WITH NATIONAL BUDGETS
TRANSFERRED TO THE EU
OPTION 4: POST-2013, RESTRUCTURE
ENIAC AND ARTEMIS AS INDUSTRYMEMBER STATE ONLY
While this option would recognise the importance of a European strategy, the Evaluation
Panel considers it to be unrealistic.
In this option, the EU would not participate
and only those Member States that harmonise
their project selection and funding practices
would be able to participate. The Evaluation
Panel considers that this option is, in essence,
no more than solving the problems that persist in Eureka, and that it had been hoped the
tripartite JTIs would solve with the encouragement of EU gearing.
Advantages
European and (indirectly) Member State funding would be concerted to promote a joint
European research strategy.
There could be strong involvement of both the
EU and Member States in the definition and
implementation of Member State research
strategy.
It would be easier to launch big projects of
European dimension.
This model would open up a new and more
federalist mode of funding.
Disadvantages
It would be extremely difficult to convince the
national public authorities to finalize a common decision for funding. No ‘common pot’
has been achieved on significant scale in any
other context.
Overall resources for these fields could be
reduced if Member States feel that they are not
able to exert sufficient national influence on
the programmes. Member States might well
reserve most of their funds for national pursuit
of their strategies and transfer the minimum
budget to EU.
This option would commit the previously
national funds of smaller and less developed
Member States to the promotion of a joint
strategy which may not benefit them in any
direct way. This could alienate them from the
European project.
••• 36
Advantages
Member State funding would be aligned to
promote a European strategic research agenda
and contribute to the building of the European
Research Area.
The process of selection and funding approval
would be fast and efficient with the present
Eureka problems overcome and without the
restrictions of the present Financial Regulations of the JTIs.
It would be possible to start some key projects
relatively rapidly.
Disadvantages
The European dimension of the programme
would limited. Member States would not
be inclined to pursue a European strategy at
the cost of their national strategies. Member States that would not agree to harmonise
are excluded. There would be continued incoherence between European and transnational
programmes.
Framework Programme resources and European strategy would be disconnected.
There is a risk that Member States would destabilise strategic planning by changing their
positions depending on the topics of a call and
on their specific national situations.
OPTION 5: BRING EACH JTI AND
THE ASSOCIATED EUREKA CLUSTER
UNDER A COMMON ADMINISTRATIVE
ORGANIZATION28
This ‘joint roof ’ option would be more efficient
administratively, but the panel considered that
the risks of over-influence of Eureka priorities and processes on the JTIs out-weighs the
advantages and, moreover, this option does
not address the fundamental lack of focus of
the JTIs on strategic issues.
Proper governance would be jeopardised if
the ‘roof ’ organization was not representative of all the actors. There could actually be
increased complexity of operations and governance to achieve this.
The option is essentially cosmetic with respect
to the real political issues and operational difficulties of the JTIs: it does not address the
need for total funding to be increased.
Member States are likely to oppose it: the pain
is unlikely to be worth the gain.
Advantages
It should be easier to articulate and communicate the European research agenda.
There would be better coordination of the
programmes (especially across themes), calls,
and the orientation of proposals. This option
should eliminate, or at least reduce, conflict
and overlap.
Organisational overheads and operational
costs should be reduced.
A single office would be better able to provide
advice to participants, especially in proposal
preparation and ongoing project management.
Disadvantages
There would be a loss of identity of the two
mechanisms with a possible loss of focus and
concentration on overlaps rather than distinctive elements.
There is a risk of domination by the Eureka
‘bottom up’ ethos and a loss of strategic, European focus. It could move JTI programme
practices closer to those of Eureka and reduce
the differentiation between the schemes in
terms of the JTI being devoted to the promotion of a joint European strategy and Eureka
to the promotion of national policies.
OPTION 6: POST-2013 FULLY
INTEGRATE EUREKA CLUSTERS INTO
NEW JTI SCHEME
Notwithstanding the original ambition to seek
integration of the Eureka clusters, the Evaluation Panel considers that integration by 2013
would be detrimental to the aims of the JTIs.
Moreover, there was no desire for such integration from anyone that had been interviewed by
the panel. Nevertheless, the Evaluation Panel
believes that such integration should remain a
longer term aim.
Advantages
Full integration offers the possibility of a better concerted approach comprising a mix of
both top-down and bottom-up elements, with
clearly focused funding and a seamless strategy across innovation needs.
Fragmentation of Member State funding and
their uneven or different allocations between
schemes could be avoided with more resources
in total for the joint agenda.
The visibility of the joint programmes would
be better and there would be less risk of confusion in their constituencies.
There would be administrative savings.
This option could inhibit the emergence of
new ideas and the participation of new partners.
28 Note that implementation of this option could begin before renewal of the JTIs in 2013
37 •••
Disadvantages
Harmonizing national practices might become
even more difficult than now since all funding
would be channelled through this instrument,
and there might be reduced Member State
commitment if they perceive that it would be
harder to pursue their national strategies.
The pressure from the Member States to pursue national policies and funding priorities in
the JTIs could become stronger than it already
is. The programme could lose its fundamental
characteristic as a promoter of a joint European strategy or worse, the initiative could, in
effect, be killed due to the opposition of Member States.
••• 38
Coalescing the two schemes might reduce
diversity and might be seen as an excuse to
reduce total funding.
There is a risk of domination by the Eureka
‘bottom-up’ ethos and a loss of an ambitious
strategic, European focus. On the other hand,
there is also a risk of losing the ‘bottom-up’
Eureka style, which is appropriate for some
projects.
Both the stakeholders and the R&D constituencies would experience disruption and
perceive more confusion, even though the
intention might be to reduce confusion.
To design and implement such a fully integrated scheme would require expenditure of
considerable time and resources, with questionable returns.
2
Annex 2: Evaluation
Questions Addressed
by the Panel
RELEVANCE
Have the SRAs defined and implemented
activities appropriate to developing key competencies across different areas to strengthen
European competitiveness and sustainability?
What is the relationship between the JTIs and
the EUREKA clusters? Would there be added
value in further integrating the two schemes?
Are the original aims of the SRAs still in line
with the changing market and funding environment?
Have the JTIs made a difference? Did they
induce participants to engage in activities that
would not have been carried out without the
programme, e.g. engaging the entire ‘food
chain’?
EFFICIENCY
Were the overall legal framework and the
modalities for implementation of the JTIs
clear, appropriate and effective?
Were the activities of the JTIs carried out
efficiently and were they cost effective? Are
procedures simple enough?
EFFECTIVENESS
What progress has been made in setting up a
long term, tripartite public-private partnerships, and have all parties lived up to their
financial and managerial responsibilities?
As far as can be seen at this point, have the
JTIs had the envisioned economic impact?29
To what extent have the JTIs succeeded in
• raising
awareness of research challenges in
nanoelectronics and embedded systems?
• bringing about a common framework?
Were the levels of funding and other available
resources adequate?
Have all relevant stakeholders been adequately
involved in the JU governance structures, as
well as in the processes of work programme
formulation and call evaluation?
Were the targeted industrial and research
communities able to respond appropriately?
In particular, was the participation of SMEs
satisfactory?
Has there been progress on implementing
non-research activities including innovation
environments and SME support activities?
• achieving
greater coherence/aligning Europe
behind one common RTD agenda?
29 The panel decided that it is too early to assess this. Also, note observations in the report concerning the lack of availability of
data to make an evidence-based assessment of such impact.
39 •••
Research Quality
Is the quality of research under way satisfactory (as far as can be seen at this early stage)?
••• 40
Has there been progress towards achieving the
technological targets set in the SRAs and the
Council Regulations?
3
Annex 3: Composition of
the Evaluation Panel
Wulf H. Bernotat (Chair) (DE) received a
doctorate degree in law from the University of
Göttingen in 1976. Having specialized in cartel
law, his first employment position was as a corporate attorney in the legal department of Shell
AG in Hamburg. In 1981 Wulf went to England
to become business development manager
for Eastern Europe at Shell’s Headquarter in
London. He remained with Shell until 1996,
working in various European offices with
increasing amounts of responsibility: in London, he became Shell’s coordinator of business
interests in Africa, as well as of coal-business
interests in the entire Southern Hemisphere;
in Lisbon, he was general manager for Shell in
Portugal; and in France, he became a member
of Shell Paris’s Board of Management, responsible for downstream activities.
In 1996 Wulf joined VEBA OEL AG and was
appointed to the Board of Management with
responsibility for supply & marketing, as well as
for refining & distribution and petrochemicals.
From 1998 to 2002, he was the Chairman of the
Board of Management at Stinnes AG, an international provider of transportation and freight
services. At the same time he was appointed to
the Board of Management of VEBA.
Wulf remained in that position until 2000,
the year in which VEBA merged with another
former state-owned industrial enterprise,
VIAG. Three years later, on May 1, 2003, he was
appointed Chairman of the Board of Management and CEO of the company resulting from
that merge, namely E.ON. He resigned from
his position on April 30, 2010.
Wulf is also a member of the Allianz SE,
Bertelsmann AG, Metro AG and Deutsche
Telekom AG Supervisory Boards.
Elke Eckstein (DE) is COO of Osram Opto
Semiconductor with the responsibility for the
word wide operational business. She oversees
LED and Laser chip and assembly manufacturing as well as the overall supply chain
management. From 2006 to 2008 she held the
position of Vice President Manufacturing at
AMD in Dresden where she was responsible
for day-to-day operations at the world’s most
efficient semiconductor factory, F30/38.
Between 2003 and 2006 Elke was CEO of Altis
Semiconductor, a joint venture for Advanced
Logic Semiconductors between IBM and Infineon in the Paris, France area where she had
previously run the operations as the Chief
Operating Officer.
From 1998 to 2001, Elke held a number of
executive roles in technology development
and product engineering at ProMOS, a former
joint venture for Memory Products between
Infineon and Mosel Vitelic in Taiwan.
Elke Eckstein started her career more than
25 years ago with Siemens Semiconductor,
which later became Infineon. From 1990 to
1993, she filled in a variety of engineering
positions first in East Fishkill, NY where Siemens and IBM had established a memory
development alliance. From 1993 to 1996, an
assignment to the Siemens-IBM manufacturing alliance in Corbeil-Essonnes, France,
followed. From 1996 to 1998, she was responsible for Memory development of Siemens’
Dresden-based manufacturing facility named
Simec.
Elke holds a degree from the Munich, Germany-based School of Microelectronics.
41 •••
Luke Georghiou (UK) is Professor of Science
and Technology Policy and Management in the
Manchester Institute of Innovation Research at
Manchester Business School. His public activities include chairing the Strategic Review of the
EUREKA Initiative in 1999 and then returning to chair its Annual Impact Report Panel
in 2005 and 2006. During 1996 he chaired the
evaluation of the European Union’s Framework
Biotechnology Programmes. He previously
chaired committees on the effectiveness of
direct measures for R&D support on behalf of
the European Commission, and the Evaluation
of Futur, the German Foresight programme,
and TEP, the Hungarian Foresight programme.
Other committee memberships include the
Finnish Public Research Funding Evaluation
Committee, the Medical Research Council
Steering Group for the Monitoring and Evaluation of Research Funding Schemes, and the
Steering Committee of the European Industrial
Research Management Association UK Forum.
He was rapporteur of the influential report
to European leaders, Creating an Innovative
Europe, and is currently chairing a High-level
Expert Group on Rationales for the European
Research Area. He is an elected member of the
Board of Governors of the University of Manchester and a member of the Board of Directors
of Manchester Science Park Limited. He is on
the editorial board of eight journals.
••• 42
Terttu Luukkonen (FI) is Head of Unit at the
Research Institute of the Finish Economy. She
has previously held positions with the Technical Research Centre of Finland (Chief Research
Scientist, Director of VTT Group for Technology Studies, 1995-2001) and the Academy of
Finland (1974-1995). She was responsible for
consulting and assessing science and innovation policies for national governments (Finland,
Ireland, Estonia, Austria) and was on expert
boards in France and Sweden. She has consulted international organisations (European
Commission, European Court of Auditors,
OECD, UN ECE, and the Nordic Council of
Ministers). Dr. Luukkonen was, inter alia, on
the Interim Evaluation Panel of ICT Research
in the 7th Framework Programme. Dr. Luukkonen has pursued research on evaluation
of RTD and innovation activities and policies, including European research policy, and
presents an impressive list of publications and
contributions to international conferences
dealing with these questions. She has held visiting fellowships in the UK and France and is
on Editorial (Advisory) Boards of several journals in the area, including Research Policy.
Bob Malcolm (UK) has, since 1989, been the
principal of the consultancy ideo limited, specialising in R&D and innovation strategy and
management. This followed 20 years experience
in systems engineering in the aerospace and
computing services industries during which he
worked as systems engineer, research manager,
quality manager, project manager, and business
manager. Bob has advised industry, universities, and local, national and international
governmental agencies.
Bob has been associated with the EU R&D
Programmes from the mid-1980’s as project
director, reviewer, evaluator, and consultant to
the European Commission. He has managed
national UK industrial and academic research
programmes and helped develop R&D strategies for the UK and the EU. Bob has chaired
and participated in many industrial, academic,
professional, national and international committees and advisory groups. He is a visiting
professor at the University of Surrey and a PastChairman of the Research and Development
Society.
Dominique Potier (FR) is currently Director
for Research and Technology at the Pôle de
Compétitivité SYSTEM@TIC Paris-Région.
He is also active as a consultant with SCSM
Conseil.
Between 1985 and 2003 Dominique held various
positions at Thales, including as Head of Computer Science Research Group, THALES Research
& Technology, and as Vice-President, Software
Research. Prior to that, he worked at INRIA
(Institut National de Recherche en Informatique
et Automatique) as Deputy to the President and
Head of the research project ‘Modelling and
measurement of computer systems’.
Dominique has been involved with both
EUREKA and the Joint Technology Initiatives/European Technology Platforms: For
ITEA2 he served as a member of the Board
of Directors (2004-2007). For ENIAC he was
chairman for the Working Group on the Innovation Environment (2005-2007). In the same
period, he was also chairman of the French
National Research Network on Software Technologies.
From 1977 to 2003 Dominique worked as a
Professor at the École Centrale, Paris. He holds
a PhD in Computer Science from the University of Grenoble.
Christian de Prost (FR) has 30 years of experience in the semiconductor industry. He is
presently Director of the R&D programmes
of ATMEL in Europe. His mission is to identify and to formalize R&D strategies with the
operational divisions of the different sites of
ATMEL, to initiate and to develop cooperative
R&D programmes, and to find partnership
and funding.
Prior to that position, Christian de Prost was
CMOS process development manager at Matra
MHS. He has occupied also different positions
as photolithography engineer at Harris Corporation, Melbourne (USA), and Motorola
semiconductors, Phoenix, Austin (USA) and
Toulouse (France).
Christian de Prost holds a diploma of Engineer
from ENSCT (Ecole Nationale Supérieure de
Chimie de Toulouse) and an MBA from IAE
(Institut d’Administration des Entreprises) from
Toulouse University. He is the author of several
publications on optical lithography and plasma
etching. He is member of the CATRENE steering group technology; AENEAS assembly;
He is expert and evaluator of FP7 and ENIAC
projects for the European Commission and
expert for EUREKA (Eurostars).
Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli (IT/US) holds
the Edgar L. and Harold H. Buttner Chair of
Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences
at the University of California at Berkeley.
Sangiovanni-Vincentelli was a co-founder of
Cadence and Synopsys, the two leading
companies in the area of Electronic Design
Automation. He is the Chief Technology Adviser of Cadence. He is a member of
the Board of Directors of Cadence and the
Chair of its Technology Committee, UPEK,
a company he helped spinning off from
ST Microelectronics, Sonics, and Accent, and
ST Microelectronics-Cadence joint venture he
helped founding.
He was awarded an honorary Doctorate by
the University of Aalborg in Denmark. He
is an author of over 850 papers, 15 books
and 3 patents in the area of design tools and
methodologies, large-scale systems, embedded systems, hybrid systems and innovation.
Dr. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli has been a Member of the National Academy of Engineering,
the highest honour bestowed upon a US engineer, since 1998.
43 •••
••• 44
4
Annex 4: Evidence Base
The Evaluation Panel both reviewed documentary evidence and conducted interviews with a
wide range of stakeholders, participants in the
JTIs and non-participants.
FP7-ICT Interim Evaluation
Final Report of the FP7 Interim Evaluation
Panel, that includes consideration of the
JTIs in the context of the FP
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Report on the Evidence Base for the Interim Evaluation of FP7, including material on the JTI’s
Legal Framework
Views of JTI participants on the success
of the JTI’s (comprising responses of 54
JTI participants surveyed for the FP7-ICT
Interim Evaluation)
ARTEMIS Council Regulation
ARTEMIS ex-ante Impact Assessment - an
accompanying document to the Council
Regulation
ARTEMIS ‘self-assessment’ by the EC
ENIAC Council Regulation
ENIAC ex-ante Impact Assessment - an
accompanying document to the Council
Regulation
ENIAC ‘self-assessment’ by the EC
Statistics on participation in ARTEMIS &
ENIAC
ARTEMIS 2008 Call statistics
ARTEMIS 2009 Call statistics
ARTEMIS + ITEA2 funding summary
ENIAC 2009 Call statistics
ENIAC+MEDEA/CATRENE funding summary
JTI Multi-Annual Strategic Plans and
Annual Workprogrammes
ARTEMIS Multi-annual Strategic Plan &
RA 2009
ARTEMIS Workprogramme 2008
ARTEMIS Workprogramme 2009
ARTEMIS Workprogramme 2010
Draft ARTEMIS Multi-Annual Strategic
Plan 2010
Material arising from the Artemis ‘Summer
Camp’ 2010
ENIAC Multi-annual Work Plan & RA
ENIAC Workprogramme 2008
ENIAC Workprogramme 2009
ENIAC Workprogramme 2010
ARTEMIS and ENIAC in the context of
JTI’s in general
An overview of all 5 of the present JTI’s by
DG-RTD
Presentation on the CleanSky JTI
Report of the ‘Sherpa Group’ (by representatives of the five present JTIs and similar
initatives taking stock of experience so far
with the JTIs.)
45 •••
Benoit Formery, Ministry of the Economy,
Industry and Employment, France
Details of supported projects
ARTEMIS projects 2008
Laila Gide, VP European RTD, Thales
ARTEMIS projects 2009
ARTEMIS Call 1 Projects’ Technical Annexes
ARTEMIS Call 2 Projects’ Technical Annexes
ARTEMIS Projects Review Reports
ENIAC Projects 2009
ENIAC Call 1 & Call 2 Projects’ Technical
Annexes
INTERVIEWEES
Director,
Rudolf Haggenmüller, Chairman, ITEA2
Reiner John, Infineon (concerning the
E3CAR and ENIAC)
Oiva Knuuttila, Finnish Public Authority
representative for Artemis
Erasmus Landvogt, Head of Unit, IT Systems,
BMBF, responsible for ARTEMIS and ITEA2
The Evaluation Panel conducted interviews
with:
Auberton-Hervé,
CEO,
Petri Liuha, Distinguished Architect, Program Coordinator, Strategic Research
Collaboration, Nokia; member of ARTEMISIA Steering Board
Eric Bantegnie, CEO, Esterel Technologies
Gérard Matheron, ST Microelectronics
Dirk Beernaert, DG INFSO, Head of Unit,
Nanoelectronics
Maximilian Metzger, Director, ICT and
New Services, BMBF (German Ministry for
Education & Research)
Alain Béguin, Ministry of the Economy,
Industry and Employment, France
Panayotis Moschopolus, DG-RTD
Jan van den Biesen, Philips, Director Public
R&D Programmes
Erkki Ormala, Vice President, Business
Environment, Nokia
Anne Bucher, DG INFSO, Director for
Resources
Ian Phillips, ARM
Tom Clausen, DG INFSO, Project Officer,
Embedded Systems
Peter Connock, memsstar, SME member of
Governing Body of ENIAC
Aldo Corvello, Italian Public Authority representative for both ARTEMIS and ENIAC
Pasquale Pistorio, formerly STMicroelectronics
Reinhard Ploss, Infineon, president of
AENEAS
Ben Ruck, AgentschapNL and Chair,
ENIAC PAB
José Cotta, DG INFSO, Head of Unit,
Embedded Systems
Peter Schroth, Electronic Systems, eMobility, BMBF, responsible for ENIAC &
CATRENE
Werner Damm, OFFIS
Eric Schutz, Executive Director, ARTEMIS
Eric Dautriat, Executive Director, CleanSKY Joint Undertaking
Immo Seppanen, Tekes, responsible for
CATRENE
Gilbert Declerck, IMEC
Matti Sihto, Finnish Public Authority representative for ITEA2
Cécile Dubarry, ICT Director, Ministry of
the Economy, Industry and Employment,
France
••• 46
Executive
Michel Hordies, DG INFSO, Project Officer,
Nanoelectronics
ENIAC Projects 2008)
André-Jacques
SOITEC
Klauss Grimm,
ARTEMIS
Alain Dutheil, STMicroelectronics
Peter van Staa, Bosch
Franck Tarrier, Ministry of the Economy,
Industry and Employment, France
Kari Tilli, Director, Telecommunications
and Electronics Industries, Tekes
Enrico Villa, Chairman of CATRENE
Michael Wiessmüller, Federal Ministry for
Transport, Technology and Innovation,
Austria
Andreas Wild, Executive Director, ENIAC
Herbert Zeisel, DLR
European Commission
First Interim Evaluation of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC Joint Technology Initiatives
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
2010 — 48 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm
ISBN 978-92-79-16551-1
doi:10.2759/35741
47 •••
KK-32-10-406-EN-C
First Interim Evaluation
of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC
Joint Technology Initiatives
European Commission
Directorate-General Information Society and Media
Unit C3-Evaluation and Monitoring
Tel: +32 2 297 58 20
Fax: +32 2 296 66 13
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/information_society/evaluation/index_en.htm
doi:10.2759/35741
European Commission
I nform ati on S oc iet y a nd M ed i a
E-mail: [email protected]