Evaluation Fp6 of the impact of the in the RTD public system in Spain

Evaluation

Fp6

of the impact

of the in the RTD

public system in Spain

Concept and directi on of the study: Rocío Castrillo Cancela (coordinator)Carlos Marti nez RieraEvelina SantaEuropean Offi ce - Ministry of Science and Innovati on

Executi on: Zabala Innovati on Consulti ng SAPreliminary phases of the study carried out by Deloitt e.

FINAL Report drawn up by Zabala Innovati on Consulti ng SA

Design, layout and printi ng:Madridcolor I.D.S.L.

NIPO:470-10-020-0

Legal Deposit:M-24964-2010

May 2010

3Evaluati on of the impact of the 6th european framework programme of research and development in the public system in Spain

INDEX

INDEX 3

FOREWORD 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

1. PARTICIPATION OF SPANISH UNIVERSITIES AND PUBLIC RESEARCH BODIES IN FP6 15

2. METHODOLOGY 192.1 DESIGN AND STAGES OF THE STUDY 19

2.2 STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF RESEARCHER QUESTIONNAIRE 26

2.3 STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF INTERVIEWS WITH INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS 26

2.4 SELECTION OF INTERVIEWEES AMONG UNIVERSITIES AND PUBLIC RESEARCH ENTITIES 27

2.5 SELECTION OF WORKSHOPS 29

3. MAIN RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE TO RESEARCHERS 313.1 REPRESENTATIVENESS OF SAMPLE OF RESEARCHERS RESPONDING TO QUESTIONNAIRE 31

3.2 ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES OBTAINED 36

4. FP6 IMPACT AT INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL 474.1 MAIN RESULTS OF INTERVIEWS WITH INSTITUTIONAL REPRESENTATIVES 47

4.2 CASE STUDIES 59

5. RESULTS OF THE OPINION PANELS 655.1 PANEL ON THE IMPACT OF FP6 ON THE SPANISH PRODUCTION SECTOR 66

5.2 PANEL ON THE IMPACT OF FP6 ON THE RESEARCH STRUCTURES RELATED TO THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT

OF THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME 67

5.3 PANEL ON THE IMPACT OF FP6 ON THE INTERNATIONALISATION OF RESEARCH 68

5.4 PANEL ON THE IMPACT OF THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME ON NATIONAL AND REGIONAL R&D POLICIES 69

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 716.1 CONCLUSIONS 71

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 76

I. APPENDIX I. TEMPLATES OF QUESTIONNAIRES AND INTERVIEWS 817.1 TEMPLATE OF RESEARCHER’S QUESTIONNAIRE 81

7.2 TEMPLATE OF SCRIPT FOR INSTITUTIONAL INTERVIEW 93

II. APPENDIX II. CHART OF CASE STUDIES IDENTIFIED IN THE INTERVIEWS 107

III. APPENDIX III. INDEX OF INITIALS AND TERMS 111

IV. APPENDIX IV. INDEX OF GRAPHS AND TABLES 113

V. APPENDIX V. GRATITUDE 117V.1 RESEARCHERS SURVEYED 117

V.2 PERSONS INTERVIEWED AT AN INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL 122

V.3 PERSONS PARTICIPATING IN OPINION PANELS WORK SHOPS 124

4


FOREWORD

It is not by chance that this study is being presented during the Spanish Presidency of the EU Council. Spain has supportedthe emphasis put by prior presidencies, parti cularly that of the Czech Republic, on the need to promote impact assessment of European RTD+I programmes, especially Framework Programmes, and to embrace this commitment throughout its own presidency. One of the overall prioriti es is to place society at the heart of the RTD+I acti viti es, to root RTD+I strongly at the core of society, to be responsive to its needs and to contribute in facing the grand challenges of the future. Doing so means also accounti ng for the investment undertaken in RTD+I and hence assessing the impact of this investment on the RTD+I landscape of Spain and its society at large. Thus, it is only by assessing the results of RTD+I investment that we can determine teh degree of fulfi lment of these objecti ves.

Since their introducti on in 1984, European Framework Programmes for Research and Technologi-cal Development (FPs) have played a fundamental part in collaborati ve multi disciplinary research acti viti es, both within Europe and beyond its borders. Spain, which joined the European Union—and, hence, this programme—shortly thereaft er, has experienced the widescale transformati on of its science and technology system during this ti me. This was due both to domesti c eff orts and to internati onal infl uences, which called for a change in the way research was conducted towards a multi disciplinary model undertaken by internati onal research groups, thereby leaving behind the fi gure of the lone researcher in an ivory tower.

The way in which policies are designed has also evolved over the years. It now focuses on open methods of coordinati on and on the use of evidence to support politi cal decisions. In this context, assessing the impact of public policy is now considered an important tool to analyse the results of R+D+i policies and programmes in terms of their eff ect on research and innovati on systems, the economy and society as a whole. In summary, such assessments deliver a factual basis on which decisions can be made, and contributes to the development, improvement and implementati on of appropriate research and innovati on policies.

In October 2007, the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovati on launched fi rst feasibility study, the general aim of which was to design and implement a method to assess impact of the EU RTD Fra-mework Programme on the public R+D+i sector, and to compare it with that of other EU Member States. Once this fi rst step was completed and an eff ecti ve methodology had been designed, the study got under way. It took 18 months and involved external consultancy fi rms, over 600 resear-chers, and 30 directors of public research centres and universiti es in Spain. The fi nal results are contained in this report.

For the Ministry of Science and Innovati on, this initi ati ve represents the cornerstone for future improvements to existi ng policies to aid the researchers, universiti es, public research centres and public and private insti tuti ons who parti cipate in the EU Framework Programmes for R+D+i. Un-doubtedly, it provides a source of informati on for politi cal deliberati ons on the Eighth Framework Programme, within the acti viti es of the Spanish Presidency in 2010.

On a European scale, the Ministry of Science and Innovati on, through its European Offi ce, is also working on the CIA4OPM project, the aim of which is to exchange experiences and good practi ce guidelines for impact assessment of public R+D+i policies, in order to improve coordinati on of Eu-ropean, state and regional policies. This group is comprised of experts from 15 insti tuti ons from 11 diff erent European Member States.

6Foreword

The Ministry, through its Nati onal Agency for Assessment and Prospecti on, also parti cipates in the European Network for R+D Impact Assessment (EUEvalnet), a platf orm that was set up by the Eu-ropean Commission in 1997 to allow the exchange of informati on and good practi ce guidelines on assessment methodologies, research indicators and R+D+i impact measurement.

All of the above experiences allow us to join other EU countries in moving forward from a positi on of leadership towards a culture of assessment of public policy. It is therefore necessary to point out that this exercise has also allowed us to explore and analyse the use of impact assessment techni-ques, in order to converge towards a strategic assessment system that may, in the long run, become an internati onal benchmark.

We realise that this report is only the starti ng point towards developing, improving and implemen-ti ng appropriate policies backed up by evidence. It represents a point of departure for future acti vi-ti es that will no doubt allow us to build up a track record in research and development over a longer period of ti me.

This scheme refl ects the fi rm commitment of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovati on to embark along a path where politi cal decisions are supported by evidence. We believe that this is the most eff ecti ve way of improving politi cal proposals and ensuring that public resources are put to the best possible use. To quote the Minister of Science and Innovati on, “one cannot always spend more, but one can always spend more wisely” (Barcelona, 28/09/2009).

Montserrat Torné i EscasanyDirector General for Internati onal Cooperati on and Insti tuti onal Relati onsSecretary of State for ResearchSpanish Ministry of Science and Innovati on


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AIM OF THE STUDY

The overall aim of this study was to make a quanti tati ve and qualitati ve assessment of the impact of parti cipati on in the Sixth EU RTD Framework Programme (FP6) of Spanish universiti es and pu-blic research enti ti es (organismos públicos de investi gación - OPIs). It employs several assessment criteria such as consolidati on of researchers’ careers, reinforcement of their research, publicati ons, internati onalisati on of research projects, cooperati on with the corporate sector, improvement in research infrastructure, etc.

METHODOLOGY

Our study to assess the impact on Spanish universiti es and OPIs of FP6 was carried out in three stages.

GRAPH 1. LEVELS OF ASSESSMENT

Level 3: Economicand social impact

Level 2: Institutional impact

Level 1: Impact onresearch groups themselves

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1

The fi rst stage of the assessment was based on quanti tati ve analyses obtained by means of ques-ti onnaires sent to parti cipati ng researchers. The second stage of assessment focused on more quali-tati ve analyses by means of interviews with insti tuti onal representati ves (university vice-chancellors and OPI directors). The third stage of assessment took the form of workshops with experts from universiti es, OPIs and public administrati ons with a global view of Spain’s role in FP6. The workshops allowed us to debate and validate the results of the preceding assessments and to expand our work into those areas where the relati onship between acti ons and their impact is more diff use.

The following diagram sets out the stages to assess the impact of FP6 acti viti es on Spanish public R+D.

8Executi ve summary

GRAPH 2. STAGES OF ASSESSMENT

Definition of Assessment

Methodology

Information

Gathering

Conclusive

Analysis

Diagnosisof CurrentSituation

Definitionof the

Assessment

Analysisof

AssessabilitySurvey Interviews Workshops

ConclusiveAnalysis

Draw UpFinal

Document

Review ofavailable

information

Determinationof scope ofassessment

based on7 factors

Analysis ofinformationavailability

Selection ofdistributionmedium andidentification

of participants

Selection ofinterviewees

and schedulingof interviews

Selectthemes andparticipants

Analysisof results

Definition ofstructure

and content

Comparativestudy of similar

initiativesand personal

interviews withexperts

Ranking ofassessment

criteria

Selection ofvalue ranges

and indicators

Definition ofprioritiesregarding

techniquesand methods

Launchof

questionnaire

Collectionand analysis

of data.Conclusions

Interviews

Analysis ofinformation.Conclusions

Organiselogistics andexecution ofworkshops


Drawing upof

conclusions

Finalconclusions

Preparation ofdraft report,

review ofinterim versions

Release offinal report

The fi rst step when undertaking the study was to design the assessment methodology. To do so, we analysed twelve existi ng Framework Programmes (FP) impact assessment studies carried out in other European countries. We analysed the various methodologies that had been used to obtain quanti tati ve and qualitati ve assessments in these studies, identi fi ed them and selected various cri-teria and indicators to measure the impact of FP6 on researchers from universiti es and OPIs.

During the design stage of the study, we defi ned the scope of the assessment, based on the fo-llowing aspects:

Geographical scope of assessment, was restricted to fi ve Autonomous Regions (Comunida-- des Autonomas - CCAA) of Spain which together make up 80% of Spain’s parti cipants in FP6: Andalusia, Catalonia, Madrid, the Basque Country and Valencia.

FP6 themati c prioriti es: life sciences, genomics and biotechnology applied to health care; - nanotechnology and nanosciences; food quality and safety; sustainable development, glo-bal change and ecosystems; and citi zens and governance.

FP6 instruments: Integrated Projects (IP), Networks of Excellence (NOE), Specifi c targeted - research projects (STREP), Coordinated Acti ons (CA), Specifi c Support Acti ons (SSA).

Areas Assessed-

Assessment criteria for each of the chosen areas-

Indicators for the assessment criteria-

The survey was made amongst participants in all FP6 projects that met the chosen criteria. Although the group was initially composed of 827 potential interviewees, the sample was re-duced to 647 researchers after filtering out erroneous data and duplicates. sentThe return rate was 51%. The researchers who participated in the study make up a representative sample in terms of distribution both by themes and by FP6 financing instruments.


Of all the researchers who answered the survey, 85% participated in FP6 projects as partners, while 15% participated as coordinators of European projects. This is fairly representative of the current situation in Spanish universities and OPIs.

Researchers’ Views:

For the researchers surveyed, the main impact of participation in FP6 was to increase the knowledge base and to extend interdisciplinary knowledge.

The main areas in which the results of the projects exceeded expectations were those relating to development of a collaborative culture, creation of stable research networks, and production of scientific knowledge.

The main areas in which the results of the projects fell below the participants’ expectations were those relating to professionalization of R+D management, and com-mercial or industrial use of generated knowledge.

For 55% of researchers surveyed, the benefits of participating exceeded the costs; for 34% of researchers surveyed, the benefit of participating equalled the cost; and for 11%, the benefits were outweighed by the costs of participation. In other words, 89% of those surveyed said that the benefits of their participation were equal to or greater than the costs thereof. If we compare the views of participants who were partners with those of coordinators, the latter were more optimistic in their as-sessment of their participation.

Scientific Impact:

The most common forms of subsequent collaboration with project partners are pu- blication of scientific articles, attendance of conferences, new collaboration pro-jects, and exchange visits by researchers.

In 52% of researchers surveyed, their participation in FP6 helped to consolidate their research groups, largely as a result of the scientific excellence generated by the capabilities and abilities acquired in the course of projects.

The main beneficiaries of the results of FP6 projects are members of the scientific community, either within the same field or in a different discipline, far outnumbe-ring other possible beneficiaries such as public administrations, the industrial sector or citizens.

Knowledge Transfer and Industrial Property:

Only 40% of researchers believe that they need to protect the industrial property of the results of FP6 projects, mainly through patents. The other 60% believe that they have not and will not obtain results that would require measures to protect their industrial property rights.

Among the researchers, 70% believe that the knowledge obtained or obtainable is transferable. The percentage of transferable knowledge is considerably higher than the per-centage of results that require protecti on, which would appear to indicate that a signifi -cant proporti on of unprotected knowledge is transferred.

10Executi ve summary

Over half (51%) of researchers surveyed consider that the results obtained or sti ll to be obtained will have a commercial applicati on. The main channel for commercial use is through technical cooperati on. The least-used channels for commercial use are licences and new technology-based companies or spin-off s.

Complementarity of policies:

The value added and the need to fi nance from the FP, in order to carry out collaborati ve R+D • projects with an internati onal dimension and ambiti ous in scope, are evident. In 97% of cases, projects would not have been carried out in the same manner had FP fi nancing not been obtai-ned. In 74% of cases, projects would not have been carried out at all without FP fi nancing, and only in 23% would projects have gone ahead with nati onal or regional funding, although with less ambiti ous objecti ves and with a more limited scope.

Only 25% of the researchers surveyed (parti cipati ng in the FP6) used the services provided by the • Nati onal Contact Points that provide support during the preparati on of European projects.

RESULTS OF INTERVIEWS WITH INSTITUTIONAL REPRESENTATIVES

Thirty interviews were held with insti tuti onal representati ves from 18 universiti es (those most ac-ti ve in FP6), four OPIs and eight CSIC (Spanish Nati onal Research Council) insti tutes. The trajectory or intensity of involvement by universiti es and OPIs has gradually increased during the course of the various Framework Programmes. The number of projects in FP6 was lower than in previous projects, but economic returns were higher for several universiti es because the projects were larger in scope. FP6 fostered focused research, something that is diffi cult for OPIs with a highly specialised research focus to undertake. OPIs with a highly focused research portf olio found it diffi cult to fi t into the specifi c call themes in FP6.

FP6 had a signifi cant impact in terms of providing universiti es and OPIs with new channels of ac-cess to internati onal environments and aff ording greater mobility among researchers, enhancing the presti ge of the research groups present in Spanish universiti es. Interviewees oft en menti oned that collaborati on in FP6 had helped to consolidate a hard core within numerous consorti a and had resulted in conti nuing cooperati on in FP7. The impact of FP6 in terms of increasing collaborati on with other European research groups was greater among the universiti es interviewed than among the OPIs. This was due to higher parti cipati on of the former in FP6, and to the fact that several OPIs already have strong internati onal links established apart from the FPs.

Interviewees believe that FP6 has had a limited impact in terms of professionalizati on of R+D ma-nagement, stable job creati on, collaborati on with the private sector, knowledge transfer to the Spanish industrial sector and improvements in R+D infrastructure.

The researcher questi onnaire revealed that European fi nancing added value, a fact that was con-fi rmed during the insti tuti onal interviews. The overwhelming majority indicated that the projects would not have been carried out without FP6 fi nancing, or that they would have had to be scaled down to less ambiti ous objecti ves and more limited resources.

FP6 has had a signifi cant impact in reinforcing the already established areas of research, but we observed a limited impact with regard to exploring new areas.

FP6 has had a signifi cant infl uence on the strategies and prioriti es of the universiti es when defi ning their internati onal relati ons and their support structures for R+D management, and it has had a li-mited infl uence on the design of educati on strategies (some impact on postgraduate courses, none

10


on undergraduate degree courses). The infl uence of FP6 on the strategies and prioriti es of the OPIs interviewed was more limited.

Although FP6 placed signifi cant emphasis on the disseminati on of scienti fi c knowledge in society, most interviewees were of the opinion that eff orts to circulate knowledge from FP projects were not aimed at the public at large. Most of the universiti es create channels to disseminate the results of research among society through websites or specifi c publicati ons aimed at circulati ng knowled-ge, but such eff orts oft en go unnoti ced by society.

RESULTS OF WORKSHOPS

1. ON THE IMPACT OF FP6 ON THE PUBLIC SECTOR COOPERATION WITH THE SPANISH

INDUSTRIAL SECTOR

The main aim of universiti es or OPIs when they embark on an FP project is not generally to transfer technology to Spanish fi rms. They have other aims such as internati onalising their R+D, greater collaborati on or networking. Universiti es and OPIs use other channels of cooperati on with fi rms, oft en signing collaborati on agreements. It appears that the aim of FP6 is not to foster cooperati on between universiti es and OPIs and private enterprise, so it is not the most appropriate instrument for this. In this regard, knowledge transfer to the producti ve sector should not be used as an as-sessment criterion for FP6.

2. ON THE IMPACT OF FP6 ON THE RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS MOST DIRECTLY INVOLVED

IN MANAGING THE FP

Hiring managers for each project barely has any impact on the professionalizati on of R+D mana-gement. A need is seen for long-term managers who are linked to the insti tuti on rather than to a temporary project. However, the current administrati ve regime of most OPIs makes it very diffi cult to hire, train and keep R+D project managers. The nati onal Euroscience programme may provide some sti mulus but cannot replace co-fi nancing of R+D managers by the universiti es.

As for the FP support structures, workshop parti cipants disti nguished two basic tasks: to promote and draw up proposals (prior to winning a project) and to support project management (during and aft er the project). The opti mal structure would be one in which projects were managed in their enti rety (“researchers should not be assisted in managing their projects; they should have their projects managed for them”). A lack of advisory assistance regarding industrial property rights was also noted.

It was also pointed out that, unlike other European insti tuti ons, Spanish insti tuti ons have sti ll not developed clear FP parti cipati on strategies that will allow them to att end internati onal meeti ngs and speak with a single voice when discussing European R+D programmes and projects.

3. ON THE IMPACT OF FP6 ON THE INTERNATIONALISATION OF RESEARCH

Workshop parti cipants maintained that the internati onalisati on created through parti cipati on in FP projects serves as a springboard towards higher levels of internati onalisati on. However, they also pointed out that few insti tuti ons in Spain appear to take advantage of the opportuniti es associated with, for instance, taking an acti ve role in committ ee meeti ngs of the European Technology Pla-tf orms, joining European expert groups (advisory boards), etc.

11


Although the repeated presence of a hard core of members from a consorti um in successive Euro-pean R+D projects is oft en used as a counter-argument against FP collaborati on, workshop parti ci-pants believe that this model is not something negati ve, if the result of a defi ned medium-to-long term R+D strategy is conti nuity, and if the consorti um fi ts in with this strategy in a natural way. FP6 collaborati on instruments sti ll off er considerable potenti al.

4. ON THE IMPACT OF FP6 ON REGIONAL R+D POLICIES

Regional R+D programmes generally include FP parti cipati on goals based on previous indicators. There are signifi cant diff erences among CCAA regarding the degree of detail and the breakdown of these goals.

FP6 has had an impact on regional R+D policies, especially when defi ning measures and implemen-ti ng mechanisms and structures to help regional R+D agents parti cipate in FP6 (regional informati on structures, promoti on and advice on FPs, fi nancial support to prepare proposals, etc.). Furthermo-re, regional insti tuti ons have become involved in the process of drawing up draft work programmes, accompanying Spanish representati ves to FP committ ee meeti ngs, and gathering preliminary infor-mati on on regional interests.

Although European Structural Funds are generally perceived as a mechanism to support positi ons vis-à-vis the FP, there have also been comments pointi ng out the disincenti ve eff ect of fi nancing from Structural Funds in R+D cooperati ve projects (Spanish Technology Fund), given that regions who have large sources of fi nancing from these sources do not feel an urgent need to apply for FPs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Among our summary conclusions, we highlight the following aspects:

The Framework Programme (FP) has had a signifi cant infl uence on aspects such as scienti fi c knowledge creati on, and cultural change towards more cooperati ve, more inter-nati onal research. FP6 has tended to expand the horizons of the Spanish public R+D system. However, FP6 does seem to be of limited use in promoti ng public-private coo-perati on and in appropriati ng and transferring the results to market.

The general opinion of FP6 parti cipants is positi ve, especially that of researchers who parti cipated as coordinators compared to those who parti cipated only as partners.

The value added of FP6 becomes evident in comparison with other regional and nati o- nal programmes. That is to say, researchers and insti tuti ons make a clear disti ncti on between programmes, applying for one or another depending on the nature of the pro-posal in questi on.

At the insti tuti onal level, the experience of parti cipants and the results obtained in FP6 clearly point to the need to make progress in establishing and consolidati ng support structures that will serve the demands, expectati ons and needs of researchers who wish to parti cipate in the FP. Although the universiti es and OPIs have gone to considerable lengths to using resources to support parti cipati on in the FP, these do not yet seem to be suffi cient to fi ll this demand.

12


Based on the above conclusions, we make the following recommendati ons:

Need for adequate, stable staff , not simply to provide support for researchers, but also to 1. manage their parti cipati on in the FP. It is essenti al for researchers to be able to count on this help automati cally when they become involved in FP projects, rather than have to seek help acti vely.

Reinforcement of insti tuti onal legal support and help in commercialising project results.2.

Insti tuti onal commitment to permanently foster parti cipati on in the FPs. Support for FPs 3. must be insti tuti onal, and must be seen as an inherent task of universiti es and OPIs. This stability can be ensured by using analyti cal cost accounti ng systems on FP projects, which would bring signifi cant fi nancing to universiti es and OPIs.

Strategic refl ecti on by public administrati ons regarding the type of impact they seek, and 4. the aims of parti cipati ng in FPs, in order to draw up coherent support policies.

Promoti on of ongoing work and assessment of the distance to market of FP results in order 5. to provide the necessary support. This requires research results to be assessed, in additi on to the fi nancial assessment.

Extension of insti tuti onal coordinati on among public research organisati ons and greater 6. stability, with a view to att ending internati onal conferences to discuss European R+D pro-grammes or projects, exchanging informati on and collecti ve preparati on for conferences in order to speak with a single voice.

Promoti on of FPs as a springboard towards other levels of internati onalisati on: Technology 7. Platf orms, Large Infrastructures, internati onal cooperati on with third parti es (non-EU), par-ti cipati on in acti viti es of internati onal organisati ons (e.g., the Internati onal Energy Agency), etc.

Greater coordinati on of acti ons and objecti ves among nati onal and regional administra-8. ti ons in order to promote greater parti cipati on in European research policy.



1PARTICIPATION OF SPANISH UNIVERSITIES AND PUBLIC RESEARCH BODIES IN FP61

According to data published by the Ministry of Science and Innovati on through the Spanish Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology (Centro de Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial - CDTI), annual subsidies to Spain through the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) amounted to €939.1M, an increase of 35% with respect to the annual average for the Fift h Framework Programme (FP5). However, returns dropped to 6.0% of the total amount awarded ( 0.5 points vis-à-vis FP5), whereas they amounted to 6.6% of returns among EU-25 Member States. Once again, this confi rms that research carried out through Framework Programmes conti nued to be one of the main sources of project fi nancing among Spanish insti tuti ons.

These data underline the importance of analysing the impact of FP funding on researchers. First of all, in order to help us to remember the situati on at the outset of the study, it is worth reviewing some of the ways in which Spanish universiti es and public research insti tuti ons have played a role in FP6.

Looking at returns on FP6, broken down by Autonomous Region (AR), the fi ve top spots went to Ma-drid (35.7%), which nevertheless lost ground vis-à-vis FP5, Catalonia (24.4%), which made signifi cant progress, the Basque Country (12.5%), Andalusia (5.8%), which also increased its share, and Valencia (8.8%), which lost share. Overall, these fi ve CCAA were the recipients of 87.2% of Spanish returns.

Spanish universiti es obtained 27.2% of Spanish returns from FP6, and Public Research Enti ti es (OPIs), 17.5%. Together, these two parti cipant profi les accounted for 44.7% of returns.

However, since FP3, Spanish universiti es have not performed as well as their European peers. Although returns to Spanish universiti es over the period have increased in absolute terms (millions of Euros), they have diminished substanti ally in percentage terms compared to returns to EU uni-versiti es as a whole, as can be seen in the following chart.

1 This summary is based on the document “VI Programa Marco de I+D (2003-2006). Análisis y resultados de la parti cipación española” (htt p://www.cdti .es/recursos/doc/Programas/Cooperacion_internacional/P.Marco_I%20D_de_la_UE/40982_17101710200794412.pdf).

16Parti cipati on of spanish universiti es and public research bodies in fp6

GRAPH 3. FINANCE OBTAINED BY SPANISH UNIVERSITIES IN THE LAST FOUR FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES FP IN M€,

AND SHARE OF TOTAL RETURN ON EACH FP % SPANISH UNIVERSITIES/TOTAL EU UNIVERSITIES .

Source: The Spanish Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology (CDTI)

Overall, 3,959 Spanish insti tuti ons presented a total of 11,137 proposals under FP6, of which a ma-jority (48.40%) were from fi rms, followed by universiti es (36.13%) and OPIs (17.97%). The following table sets out the number of Spanish proposals that were presented and the number of projects that were approved under FP6, broken down by type of insti tuti on. Some proposals may envisage simultaneous parti cipati on by more than one type of insti tuti on. In this case, this table shows each parti cipati on separately.

TABLE 1. BREAKDOWN OF PROPOSALS PRESENTED AND PROJECTS APPROVED UNDER FP6 AS PER TYPE OF SPANISH

INSTITUTION

Type of insti tuti on

Proposals presented Projects approved Success rate of

proposals presented (%)

Success rate of projects led (%)

No. Projects led No. Projects

led

Firms 5,390 968 1.070 135 19.85% 13.95%

of which, SMEs 4,359 661 818 80 18.77% 12.10%

Technology Centres 1,838 354 355 50 19.31% 14.12%

Associati ons 903 108 201 18 22.26% 16.67%OPIs 2,001 207 539 51 26.94% 24.64%Universiti es 4,024 496 825 66 20.50% 13.31%TOTAL 11,137 2,133


47,1

89,8

165,9

253,1

10,4%

6,0% 5,9%

5,0%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

III PM IV PM V PM VI PM

% ES

vs EUM€


This means that 54.1% of proposals presented under FP6 by Spanish parti cipants came from univer-siti es and OPIs. However, universiti es and OPIs acted as project leaders in only 32.9% of the 2,133 projects that were presented.

The success rates on the previous table are for the proposals presented (whether or not as coordi-nators) as a whole, indicati ng the percentage of those approved. Nevertheless, it makes more sense to look at success rates for proposals presented as coordinators, given that the insti tuti ons involved have a more direct responsibility for the quality of the proposal. Here, Spanish universiti es obtai-ned a success rate of 13.3% on proposals they led, while OPIs showed 24.63%, technology centres 14.12%, and fi rms 13.94%.

Analysing the breakdown by insti tuti on, the following table sets out those that had the most rele-vant roles in FP6:

TABLE 2. PUBLIC RESEARCH ENTITIES AND UNIVERSITIES FROM THE FIVE AUTONOMOUS REGIONS UNDER STUDY,

SHOWN BY CUMULATIVE RETURN UNDER FP6.

Enti dadActi viti es

NO. COORD

CSIC (Spanish Nati onal Research Council) 306 34

Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña 117 15

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 127 7

Universidad de Barcelona 82 5

Universidad Pompeu Fabra 49 7

Universidad Politécnica de Valencia 67 8

Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona 59 2

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid 37 0

Universidad de Valencia 46 5


Looking at the above ranking within a European context, it should be remembered that of the 7 universiti es that make up the top 20 European insti tuti ons ranked by return on FP6, none is Spa-nish. The CSIC, however, is one of the top 5 European OPIs, ranked by FP6 return. According to data from CDTI, only 34.6% of projects carried out by Spanish universiti es and OPIs under FP6 are in conjuncti on with Spanish fi rms, applying the knowledge in Spain.

18Parti cipati on of spanish universiti es and public research bodies in fp6


2METHODOLOGY

2.1 DESIGN AND STAGES OF THE STUDY

The overall aim of this study was to make a quanti tati ve and qualitati ve assessment of the im-

pact of the parti cipati on in FP6 of Spanish universiti es and public research enti ti es (OPIs), based

on several assessment criteria such as consolidati on of researchers’ careers, reinforcement of their

research, publicati ons, internati onalisati on of research projects, cooperati on with the corporate

sector, improvement in research infrastructure, etc.

The following diagram shows a detailed breakdown of the various stages that were developed to

assess the impact of FP6 acti viti es on the nati onal public R+D:

GRAPH 4. ASSESSMENT STAGES

Definition of Assessment

Methodology

Information

Gathering

Conclusive

Analysis

Diagnosisof CurrentSituation

Definitionof the

Assessment

Analysisof

AssessabilitySurvey Interviews Workshops

ConclusiveAnalysis

Draw UpFinal

Document

Review ofavailable

information

Determinationof scope ofassessment

based on7 factors

Analysis ofinformationavailability

Selection ofdistributionmedium andidentification

of participants

Selection ofinterviewees

and schedulingof interviews

Selectthemes andparticipants

Analysisof results

Definition ofstructure

and content

Comparativestudy of similar

initiativesand personal

interviews withexperts

Ranking ofassessment

criteria

Selection ofvalue ranges

and indicators

Definition ofprioritiesregarding

techniquesand methods

Launchof

questionnaire

Collectionand analysis

of data.Conclusions

Interviews


Organiselogistics andexecution ofworkshops


Drawing upof

conclusions

Finalconclusions

Preparation ofdraft report,

review ofinterim versions

Release offinal report

20Methodology

We therefore designed a preliminary stage of the study to create an ad hoc methodology for asses-sing the impact of FP6 on the fabric of Spanish public research.

The methodology for impact assessment was as follows:

Analysis of best practi ces that have been drawn up in recent years with regard to public acti vity impact assessment within a European context. This was done using a benchmarking study ba-sed on twelve internati onal assessment projects.


TABLE 3. REFERENCE STUDIES USED TO DESIGN OUR OWN METHODOLOGY FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT RELATING TO FP6.

Name of the study Author Year Object ScopeEuropäische Forschungsrahmenprogramme in Deutschland - Studie zur deutschen Beteiligung und deren Eff ekte im 4. Rahmenprogramm im Auft rag des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung

Insti tut für Sozialfors-chung und Gesellschaft s-politi k (ISG)

2001 FP IV Germany

Evaluati on of Austrian parti cipati on in the 4th EU Framework Programme for research, technologi-cal development and demonstrati on

Insti tute for Technolo-gy and Regional Policy (Joanneum Research) together with Technopo-lis Ltd. and VTT (Technical Research Centre of Fin-land).

2001 FP IV Austria

Danish research co-operati on in EU: Extent, return and parti cipati on – An analysis of co-operati on in the 4th EU Framework Programme

The Danish Insti tute for Studies in Research and Research Policy

2000 FP IV Denmark

Finnish Parti cipati on in the EU Fift h Framework Programme and Beyond

VTT Group for Technolo-gy Studies 2004 FP V Finland

Finnish universiti es and the EU Framework Progra-mme – Towards a new phase

VTT Group for Technolo-gy Studies 2001 FP IV Finland

Knowledge Creati on and Knowledge Diff usion Networks - Impacts in Finland of the EU's forth Framework Programme for Research and Develo-pment

VTT Group for Technolo-gy Studies 2000 FP IV Finland

The Fourth Framework Programme in Ireland: An Evaluati on of the Operati on and Impacts in Ireland of the EU’s Fourth Framework Programme for Research and Development

Technopolis Limited 2001 FP IV Ireland

Evaluati on of Norway’s parti cipati on in the EU’s 5th Framework Programme

NIFU - Norwegian Insti tu-te for Studies in Research and Higher Educati on; STEP - Centre for Innova-ti on Research and Tech-nopolis Ltd

2004 FP V Norway

The impact of the EU framework programmes in the UK Technopolis Limited 2004 FP IV / V United Kingdom

Qualitati ve aspects of Swedish parti cipati on in EU research programmes

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Royal Swe-dish Academy of Engi-neering Sciences

1999 FP IV Sweden

Framework Programme 5 (FP5) impact as-sessment: a survey conducted as part of the fi ve-year assessment of European Union research acti viti es (1999–2003).

Wise Guys Ltd., Atlanti s Research 2005 FP V European

Union

Assessment of the impact of the acti ons comple-ted under the 3rd and 4th Community Framework Programmes for Research; survey for the Five-year Assessment of Community research acti viti es

Decisia, HLP Développe-ment and Euroquality 2004 European

Union

22Methodology

Personal interviews with nati onal experts on impact assessment of R+D+i programmes and projects.

Victoria Ley Agencia Nacional de Evaluación y Prospectiva Diego Moñux

Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia – Secretaría de

Estado de UniversidadesVictoria Ley Agencia Nacional de

Evaluación y Prospectiva Diego MoñuxMinisterio de Educación y Ciencia – Secretaría de

Estado de Universidades

Elena HuergoUniversidad Complutense

de Madrid - Asesora técnica de CDTI

Ascensión BarajasCentro para el Desarrollo

Tecnológico Industrial (CDTI)

Elena HuergoUniversidad Complutense

de Madrid - Asesora técnica de CDTI

Ascensión BarajasCentro para el Desarrollo

Tecnológico Industrial (CDTI)

Contrasti ng proposed methodology with internati onal experts on public initi ati ves to promote R+D and on assessing the socioeconomic impact of these initi ati ves.

Peter Teirlinck Belgian Federal Science Policy Office (BELSPO) Michel Gaillard French Ministry of Higher

Education and ResearchPeter Teirlinck Belgian Federal Science Policy Office (BELSPO) Michel Gaillard French Ministry of Higher

Education and Research

Vladimir Albrecht TechCenter AS CR Jiri Vanecek TechCenter AS CRVladimir Albrecht TechCenter AS CR Jiri Vanecek TechCenter AS CR

Gunnel DreborgSwedish Governmental Agency for Innovation

Systems (Vinnova)Lennart Norgren

Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation

Systems (Vinnova)Gunnel Dreborg


Systems (Vinnova)Lennart Norgren


Systems (Vinnova)

Based on a generic organisati onal model, we defi ned a methodology to carry out the impact as-sessment study based on fi ve elements:

Relati ons between research groups and their environment

Group collaborati ve culture

Group research strategy

Internal management of resources and consolidati on of groups

Research project results

Relations

Results

CULTURE

STRATEGY

MANAGEMENT

PE

OP

LE

AN

DO

RG

AN

ISA

TIO

N

KN

OW

LE

DG

E

PR

OC

ES

SE

S

EQ

UIP

ME

NT

AN

DIN

STA

LL

AT

ION

S

FIN

AN

CIA

LC

AP

ITA

L


In order to assess the impact of FP6 on the Spanish public R+D system, it was considered necessary to undertake several levels of analysis each of which require the use of diff erent informati on-gathe-ring techniques.

Level 3: Economicand social impact

Level 2: Institutional impact

Level 1: Impact onresearch groups themselves

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1

The next step was to defi ne the techniques that would be used to gather informati on. The following techniques were selected, using each technique for one of the three levels or stages of impact as-sessment for FP6:

- Level 1: Questi onnaire. A questi onnaire that was adapted to the geographical scope and theme was sent to researchers at Spanish universiti es and OPIs who parti cipated in FP6 in order to obtain individual assessments and quanti tati ve data.

- Level 2: Personal interviews and case studies. Personal interviews were carried out with university vice-chancellors for research and directors of OPIs involved in FP6 from the fi ve chosen CCAA, in order to obtain qualitati ve assessments at the insti tuti onal level. In addi-ti on, case studies were developed on areas of interest that had been revealed during the interviews with vice-chancellors and OPI directors. These allowed us to assess the impact of FP6 at the insti tuti onal level in greater detail by using examples.

- Level 3: Themati c workshops. These workshops were carried out with the aim of gaining a deeper understanding of the impact of FP6 at a more generic level of the R+D system with a view to reaching a consensus on the assessment results obtained in the preceding stages.

Within this framework, we chose various sub-areas of interest within the fi ve main secti ons defi ned earlier. In additi on, we defi ned the criteria for measuring the various areas of interest and establis-hed the level of assessment where impact would be measured.

24Methodology

Area Sub-area Criteria Assessment level

CULTURE

Collaborati on / Inter-nati onalisati on

• Collaborati on with other domesti c groups or industries

• Collaborati on with European groups or industries

• Cooperati on

• Level 1

• Level 2

Entrepreneurial aspects

• Creati on of fi rms

• Leadership in new areas of research• Level 1

STRATEGY Focus • Strategic Orientati on • Level 2

MANAGE-MENT

People

• Training

• Mobility

• Presti ge

• Level 1

• Level 2

Organisati on• Professional management

• Consolidati on

• Level 1

• Level 2

Capital • Att racti ng other sources of fi nancing • Level 1

RESULTS Knowledge

• New knowledge creati on

• Knowledge Transfer

• Scienti fi c Culture

• Nivel 1

RELATIONAdditi onality • Additi onality with nati onal policy • Level 3

Relevance • Relevance of these objecti ves for society • Level 1

Once the object of the study had been defi ned, we proceeded to decide its scope. The process for selecti ng parti cipants was limited to three fundamental aspects:

Geographic Scope

FP6 Themati c Prioriti es

FP6 Instruments

Regarding the geographic scope, we decided to limit the study to the following CCAA because to-gether they account for 77% of R+D spending, 74% of R+D employment and 83% of Spain’s contri-buti on to FP6.

Geographic scope

• Andalusia • Basque Country

• Catalonia • Valencia

• Madrid


GRAPH 5. BREAKDOWN OF SPANISH RETURNS BY AUTONOMOUS REGION.

Madrid36%

Cataluña24%

País Vasco12%

C. Valenciana9%

Andalucía6%

Rest13%


Assessment was focused on the following themati c prioriti es of FP6 – also refl ecti ng the strongest areas of publicly funded RTD in Spain:

Fp6 theme areas

• Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology applied to health care

• Nanotechnologies and nanosciences

• Food quality and safety

• Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems

• Citi zens and governance in a knowledge-based society

• Technologies and the Informati on Society

Projects, which were fi nanced under following FP6 instruments, were assessed:

Fp6 instruments

• Integrated Projects (IP)

• Networks of Excellence (NOE)

• Specifi c targeted research projects (STREP)

• Coordinated acti ons (CA)

• Specifi c Support Acti ons (SSA)

2.2 STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF RESEARCHER QUESTIONNAIRE

The questi onnaire was distributed by email. The response rate obtained was 51%, which is good compared to most other similar studies.

Out of a total of 815 projects, aft er fi ltering out erroneous data and duplicates, the sample com-prised 627 researchers. It should be noted that even if researchers were involved in more than one

26Methodology

project, they answered only one questi onnaire. In that event, they were asked to answer the ques-ti onnaire based on the informati on for the project they considered most appropriate.

The questi onnaire for researchers parti cipati ng in FP6 projects addressed the following aspects:

Identi fi cati on of the project (Main theme and funding instrument)

General impact assessment

Protecti on of project results

Transfer of knowledge

Commercial exploitati on

Additi onal funding resulti ng from the project

Impact on research group personnel

Project management support received

Future collaborati ons

Value added from European funding

Publicati on of results

Cost/Benefi t analysis of project parti cipati on

Support from Nati onal Contact Points (NCPs)

Appendix I to this report sets out the questi onnaire that was used for the researcher survey.

2.3 STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF INTERVIEWS WITH INSTITUTIONAL ACTORS

Thirty interviews were held with university vice-chancellors for research and OPI directors using a

common script that had previously been sent to interviewees so that they might be bett er prepared

for the interview. The interview script addressed the following aspects, some of which had already

been dealt with from an individual perspecti ve during the researcher surveys:

Background on the parti cipati on of the insti tuti ons interviewed for the Framework Program- mes, and specifi cally for FP6.

Comparati ve assessment of impact of FP6 with respect to other nati onal and regional programmes that fi nance these insti tuti ons’ R+D.

Identi fi cati on of common patt ern or profi le among FP6 parti cipati ng researchers.

Additi onality or value added by European fi nancing of R+D projects.


Nature and scope of impact of parti cipati on in FP6 on the insti tuti ons interviewed.

Infl uence of FP6 on the defi niti on of strategy and prioriti es of the insti tuti ons interviewed.

Mechanisms used by the insti tuti ons interviewed to promote parti cipati on in FP6 among their research staff .

Success rate in FP6, measured as the number of projects approved as a percentage of total proposals presented, and possible learning curve faced while drawing up proposals.

Transfer of knowledge acquired during FP6 to industrial fabric, and disseminati on of the knowledge among society as a whole.

Assessment of acti ons taken by nati onal and regional administrati ons with regard to European science and research policies.

Possible adopti on by the insti tuti ons interviewed of new support mechanisms in order to achieve a greater and bett er impact by the future parti cipati on of its researchers in the Framework Programme.

Assessment and possibility of achieving greater coordinati on or leadership of European R+D projects by researchers at the insti tuti ons interviewed.

Appendix I of this report includes the interview script that was used with university vice-chancellors for research and OPI directors.

2.4 SELECTION OF INTERVIEWEES AMONG UNIVERSITIES AND PUBLIC RESEARCH ENTITIES

Within the fi ve chosen Autonomous Regions (CCAA), we chose the public universiti es that parti ci-pated most heavily in FP6 on the assumpti on that these were bett er placed to voice their opinion regarding the impact of parti cipati ng in the programme. To do so, we used the ranking by parti cipa-ti on in FP6 cooperati ve projects (excluding parti cipati on by means of ‘Marie Curie’ scholarships) by the public universiti es of these fi ve CCAA, choosing the top 18. The ranking, which was provided by the CDTI, is shown below.

28Methodology

TABLE 4.DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION IN FP6 BY UNIVERSITIES IN THE FIVE CHOSEN AUTONOMOUS REGIONS SOURCE:

CDTI

Insti tuti on No. Parti cipants Projects led

UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE CATALUÑA 114 15

UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRID 125 7

UNIVERSIDAD DE BARCELONA 79 5

UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA 60 3

UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE VALENCIA 56 5

UNIVERSIDAD DE VALENCIA / ESTUDI GENERAL 50 6

UNIVERSIDAD POMPEU FABRA 38 3

UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE MADRID 37 0

UNIVERSIDAD ROVIRA I VIRGILI 33 6

UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID 39 3

UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID 32 2

UNIVERSIDAD DEL PAIS VASCO 28 2

UNIVERSIDAD DE ALICANTE 20 2

UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADA 21 1

UNIVERSIDAD DE MALAGA 20 1

UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA 17 2

UNIVERSIDAD DE CORDOBA 13 2

UNIVERSIDAD MIGUEL HERNANDEZ 13 1


With regard to OPIs, the sample mainly comprised OPIs that belong to the Ministry of Science and Innovati on itself: The Spanish Nati onal Research Council (CSIC), The Spanish Research Centre for Energy, Environment and Technology (CIEMAT), The Spanish Nati onal Insti tute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA), and The Spanish Insti tute of Oceanography (IEO), whose sta-ti sti cs regarding their parti cipati on in FP6 R+D collaborati ve projects are as follows:

TABLE 5. PARTICIPATION IN FP6 BY PUBLIC RESEARCH BODIES BELONGING TO THE MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND

INNOVATION IN THE FIVE CHOSEN AUTONOMOUS REGIONS

Insti tuti on No. Parti cipants Projects led

The Spanish Nati onal Research Council (CSIC) 269 31

The Spanish Research Centre for Energy, Environment and Technology (CIEMAT) 34 5

The Spanish Nati onal Insti tute for Agricultural and Food Research and Techno-logy (INIA) 19 1

The Spanish Insti tute of Oceanography (IEO) 14 0

Source: The Spanish Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology (CDTI).


In the specifi c case of the CSIC, given that it comprises a very large number of insti tutes and research centres in various scienti fi c and technological fi elds, we thought it is advisable to obtain not only the assessments and opinions of CSIC management and central services but also the fi rst-hand views of the directors of the most acti ve insti tutes parti cipati ng in FP6.

We therefore also interviewed the directors of the eight most acti ve CSIC insti tutes located in the fi ve chosen CCAA, in terms of their parti cipati on in FP6 collaborati ve projects, the stati sti cs for which are shown in the following table.

TABLE 6. PARTICIPATION IN FP6 OF CSIC RESEARCH INSTITUTES OR CENTRES LOCATED IN THE FIVE CHOSEN

AUTONOMOUS REGIONS.

Insti tuti on Project parti cipants Projects led

Nati onal Centre for Biotechnology 36 2

Alberto Sols Insti tute for Biomedical Research 7 0

Centre for Biological Research 5 1

Insti tute for Catalysis and Petrochemicals 4 1

Severo Ochoa Centre for Molecular Biology 4 0

Insti tute for Cold Research 4 0

Insti tute of Science and Technology on Polymers 3 0

Insti tute of Natural Resources 2 1

Source: The Spanish Nati onal Research Council (CSIC).

2.5 SELECTION OF WORKSHOPS

The themes chosen for the expert workshops were as follows:

a) Impact of FP6 on Spanish industrial fabric.

The workshop dealt with the impact that parti cipati on by universiti es and OPIs has had on the Spanish manufacturing system. Given the focus of this study, the eff ects of direct parti cipati on by fi rms and other insti tuti ons have not been considered.

b) Impact of FP6 on management-related research structures.

This workshop sought to determine how far FP6 has infl uenced management structures at uni-versiti es and OPIs.

c) Impact of FP6 on regional R+D+i policies.

This FP has coexisted with Spanish nati onal and regional policies and programmes. We believe that this coexistence over a total of 24 years has had an infl uence on nati onal and regional policies, which have had to adjust, in one way or another, to the characteristi cs of the R+D+i Framework Programmes. This workshop focused on how and in what way this adjustment has taken place.

30Methodology

d) Impact of FP6 on internati onalisati on of research.

This workshop sought to gain a deeper understanding of how FP6 has fuelled internati onali-sati on of Spanish public research stakeholders and whether proper use is being made of the opportuniti es off ered by this programme.

The selecti on of experts was done on the basis of their experience with the FP6. For this reason, also Nati onal Contact Points, Programme Committ ee representati ves, regional R+D representati ves in Brussels, etc. also took part in the workshops. Overall, parti cipants were not chosen on the basis of their insti tuti onal affi liati on but on the basis of their experience in the themes of the workshops.

A validati on workshop was subsequently held for directors from various insti tuti ons and departments within the Ministry of Science and Innovati on to carry out an overall analysis of the informati on pre-viously gathered.


3MAIN RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE TO RESEARCHERS

3.1 REPRESENTATIVENESS OF SAMPLE OF RESEARCHERS RESPONDING TO QUESTIONNAIRE

The online questi onnaire was sent to a sample of 627 researchers out of a group of 815 potenti al parti cipants from universiti es and OPIs from the fi ve selected CCAAs, aft er having fi ltered out inco-rrect and duplicated data. In the event that a researcher parti cipated in more than one project, that researcher was sent just one questi onnaire, specifying that their responses should apply to only one project of the researcher’s choice.

The second launching of the survey refers to the questi onnaire being sent to parti cipants in the area of Informati on Society Technologies (Tecnologías para la Sociedad de la Información - IST), which, due to unavailability of data, could not be sent simultaneously with the fi rst lot.

TABLE 7. SCOPE OF SAMPLE OF RESEARCHERS RECEIVING THE SURVEY

Details of contacts made1st launch of

survey2nd launch of

survey

Total number of projects.1. 636 179

Number of parti cipants duplicated in the database. 1. Number of parti cipants with invalid contact details. 117 43

Number of parti cipants contacted. 1. 519 136

Number of parti cipants with incorrect contact details.1. 20 10

Number of parti cipants receiving the survey1. 500 127

Total parti cipants receiving the survey. 627

As shown in the following graphics, the sample of 627 researchers was fully representati ve and ba-lanced with regard to FP6 themati c prioriti es parti cipati on and to the funding instruments used for their projects (IP, STREP, NOE, CA, SA).

Main results of questi onnaire to researchers32

GRAPH 6. DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS CONTACTED FP6 SUBJECT AREA

Technologies for the

information society

148

23%

Life, genomic and

biotechnological sciences

applied to health

118

18%

Nanotechnologies and

nanosciences, materials

and production processes

107

16%

Food quality and safety

69

11%Citizens and Governance

in a knowledge society

56

9%

Sustainable development,

climate change and

ecosystems

148

23%

GRAPH 7. POPULATION VS. SAMPLE FP6 SUBJECT AREAS

152

126

79

61

195202

118107

69

56

148 148

0

50

100

150

200

250

Life, genomic and

biotechnological

sciences applied to

health



and production

processes

Food quality and safety Citizens and governance


Sustainable

development, climate

change and ecosystems


information society

Population Sample


Parti cipati on of over 45% was obtained for all themati c areas, except in the area of IST, which failed to reach 30%. In this regard it should be noted that this themati c area was included for the second round of survey, for which parti cipants had approximately 3 weeks less to respond to the questi ons. In any event, the sample is representati ve enough to carry out a robust stati sti cal analysis. An area that stands out is that of Citi zens and governance in the knowledge society, with 73% parti cipa-ti on.

GRAPH 8. DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS CONTACTED FP6 INSTRUMENT

Coordination

activities

40; 6%

Integrated

projects

249

38%

Support

activities

30

5%

Specific

research projects

243

38%

Networks

of excellence

84

13%

GRAPH 9. POPULATION VS. SAMPLE FP6 INSTRUMENTS

305

38

298

128

46

249

30

243

84

40

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Integrated Projects Support Acticity Specific Research Networks of Excellence Coordination Activities

Population Sample


Of the 646 researchers to whom the survey was sent, 327 responded, that is, 51%, representi ng a high level of parti cipati on.

The 327 researchers parti cipati ng in the survey also represented a fairly balanced and homogenous sample in terms of FP6 subject area distributi on.

GRAPH 10. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES OBTAINED FP SUBJECT AREAS


information society

58

18%

Life, genomic and

biotechnological sciences

applied to health

53

16%



and production processes

58

18%

Food quality

and safety

40

12%

Sustainable development,

climate change and

ecosystems

79

24%

Citizens and Governance


39

12%

GRAPH 11. PERCENTAGE COMPARISON BETWEEN CONTACTS AND RESPONSES OBTAINED SUBJECT AREAS

18%

16%

11%

9%

23% 23%

16%

18%

12% 12%

24%

18%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Life, genomic and

biotechnological

sciences applied to

health



and production

processes

Food quality and safety Citizens and governance


Sustainable

development, climate

change and ecosystems


information society

Contacts Participation


With regard to FP6 funding instruments, the majority of researchers responding to the survey (80%) were from integrated projects (IP) and specifi c targeted research projects (STREP), this being fairly representati ve of the FP6 funding instruments mainly used by the global populati on of potenti al survey parti cipants.

With respect to the percentage of responses obtained for total number of parti cipants contacted per instrument, it was observed that parti cipati on of over 45% was obtained for all FP6 instruments except that of STREPs, where parti cipati on was about 42%.

GRAPH 12. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES OBTAINED FP6 INSTRUMENTS

Integrated

projects

137

42%

Support activities

18

5%

Specific

research

projects

118

36%

Networds of

excellence

38

12%

Coordination activities

16

5%

GRAPH 13. PERCENTAGE COMPARISON BETWEEN CONTACTS AND RESPONSES FP6 INSTRUMENTS

38%

13%

38%

6%5%

42%

12%

36%

5% 5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Integrated Projects Networks of Excellence Specific Research Coordination Activities Support Acticity

Contacts Participation


Thus 85% of researchers who responded to the survey parti cipated as partners in FP6 projects, with only 15% parti cipati ng as project coordinators. This result is consistent with the general distributi on of Spanish parti cipati on in FP6, as demonstrated by the offi cial stati sti cal data on FP parti cipati on and leadership of Spanish universiti es and public bodies.

GRAPH 14. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES OBTAINED BY TYPE OF PARTICIPATION IN THE PROJECT

Integrated

projects

137

42%

Partner

273

85%

Type of participation in the project

Finally, regarding the degree of project completi on, 60% of the 327 responding researchers, had not fi nished the project; a factor infl uencing evaluati on of the impact of their parti cipati on in the FP6. In any event, researchers not responding to the survey were of similar percentages with regard to fi nished projects and projects sti ll in progress.

3.2 ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES OBTAINED

In the analysis of responses obtained we take into account, as a base percentage, the number of parti cipants who responded to the questi onnaire, the 327 responses being the 100% base for quan-ti tati ve data presented below.

Responses obtained are presented using the following structure:

Main eff ects of FP6 parti cipati on

Scienti fi c and Technological Knowledge of parti cipants

Commercialisati on of research project results

Ownership of research project results

Collaborati on and networking with project partners

Research team internal management

Research teams’ direct and indirect environment

Evaluati on of FP6 parti cipati on


Additi onality of FP6 with nati onal and regional programmes promoti ng R+D+i

Nati onal Points of Contact

MAIN EFFECTS OF FP6 PARTICIPATION

At this point it is of utmost importance to remember that a signifi cant percentage of projects (around 60%) had not been completed at the ti me of fi lling in the questi onnaire. Therefore, the data relati ng to the eff ects of FP6 parti cipati on should be interpreted with cauti on.

Scienti fi c and Technological Knowledge of parti cipants

The main impact of FP6 parti cipati on on the surveyed researchers is growth of knowledge base and broadening of interdisciplinary knowledge. These are two rather intangible impacts that rank above other possible impacts such as creati ng stable long term net-works of researchers, or increasing the number and quality of scienti fi c publicati ons.

GRAPH 15. MAIN EFFECTS OF FP6 PARTICIPATION ON RESEARCH GROUPS1

3,11

3,02

2,91

2,79

2,67

2,62

2,30

2,40

2,50

2,60

2,70

2,80

2,90

3,00

3,10

3,20

Strengthen knowledge

base

Broaden

interdisciplinary

knowledge base

Explore new avenues

for knowledge base

application

Develop techniques

and technologies

Broaden areas of

complementary

technical knowledge

Create long-term

stable research

networks

Commercialisati on of research project results

Need to protect project results : 40% of the researchers think the results should be pro-tected. 60% believe they have not obtained, nor will obtain, results needing protecti on measures for industrial property rights.

The previous percentage decreases when referring to results of projects that have been protected to date, by means of patents, uti lity models, copyright, etc.: 15% of the re-searchers protected the results of their FP6 projects. These results should be interpre-ted taking into account that many projects had not been completed at the ti me the questi onnaire was fi lled in. In this context, another 36% foresee using some form of industrial property rights protecti on for project results. Such protecti on of project re-sults took the form, or is predicted to take the form, mainly of patents.

1 With regard to the assessment system considered, a scale of 0 to 4 was established whereby (0=No impact; 4=Very high impact).


GRAPH 16. MEASURES ADOPTED FOR KNOWLEDGE PROTECTION

62

14 11 94 4 3 2 1

19

8 11

4

42 3 3 1 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Patents Utility Model Copyright Others Industrial

Secrets

Industrial

Model

Copyleft TradeMark Industrial

Drawing

Trade Name

In progress/forecast Attained

70% of those surveyed think that knowledge obtained, or to be obtained, is transferable. This is a high percentage that falls to 37% when questi oned on knowledge eff ecti vely transferred to date. This is perhaps due to the percentage of researchers surveyed who-se projects were not yet fi nished. In any case, the percentage of transferable knowledge is notably higher than the percentage of results needing protecti on, which seems to indicate there is an important percentage of unprotected knowledge transfer.

51% of the researchers surveyed consider that they have obtained, or will obtain, results suscepti ble to commercial use. To date, only 24% of the researchers have achieved commercial use of their projects’ results, technical cooperati on being the main means of use. The lesser used avenues to commercial use are licences and the creati on of techno-logically based new companies or spin-off s. The percentage of commercial use att ained is 13 points lower than the percentage of knowledge eff ecti vely transferred; leading one to think that a signifi cant part of knowledge transfer is done altruisti cally, probably between academic researchers.

Those parti cipants who answered affi rmati vely to questi ons on whether they had obtained, or would obtain, results requiring knowledge protecti on measures, that give rise to knowledge trans-fer, or that will be suscepti ble to commercial or industrial use, were presented with a series of additi onal questi ons:

66% of those surveyed indicated having parti cipated, in some form, in negoti ati on of intellectual property rights derived from project results. On the other hand, 34% confi r-med not having parti cipated in such negoti ati ons.

In the case of transfer of project results to the market, 85% of those surveyed have had more or less acti ve parti cipati on, while only 15% indicate not having parti cipated in transfer of the knowledge generated.


The level of parti cipati on of those surveyed changes radically in the phase of commercial or industrial use of project results: only 42% of those surveyed indicate having parti cipa-ted in the use of knowledge, while 58% have had no parti cipati on at all

GRAPH 17. AVENUES TO COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL EXPLOITATION OF KNOWLEDGE GENERATED

40

9 6 7 4 6 3

60

40

22 2118 9 11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Technical

Cooperation

Joint Venture

Agreement

Manufacturing

Agreement

Comercial

Agreement with

Technical Assistance

License Agreement Creation of a New

Technology-Based

Company

Others

In progress/forecast Attained

The most common subsequent collaborati ons with project partners take the form of scienti fi c publicati ons, conference invitati ons, new collaborati on projects, and resear-cher exchange.

GRAPH 18. TYPES OF COLLABORATION WITH PROJECT PARTNERS

231

208 207

169

0

50

100

150

200

250

Scientific

publications

Mutual invitations to conference

seminars

Formalisation of new

collaboration projects

Mobility/Exchange

of scientists


For 52% of the surveyed researchers, parti cipati on in the FP6 contributed to strengthening their research teams, above all due to the scienti fi c excellence off ered by the acquisiti on of capabiliti es and abiliti es during the project. For 34% of researchers surveyed, the research team remained the same aft er parti cipati on.

GRAPH 19. STRENGTHENING OF RESEARCH TEAMS

Dissolved

3

Remains

the same

111

Strengthened

169

Split up

27

On terminating group Project...

GRAPH 20. MAIN REASONS FOR STRENGTHENING OF RESEARCH TEAMS

142

112

56

9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Scientific excellence via

acquisition of capacities,

abilities and infrastructire

Size via incorporation of

additional scientific/technical

personnel

Stability via

regularising work

contracts

Others

Principal means of strengthening


The main internal contributi ons of the FP6 to the surveyed researchers’ research teams are thesis supervision and internati onal research positi ons. This demonstrates the FP6’s importance with regard to encouraging European scienti fi c collaborati on.

GRAPH 21. PARTICIPANT EVALUATION OF SOME INTERNAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TEAM2

2,39 2,39 2,382,35

1,5

1,6

1,7

1,8

1,9

2

2,1

2,2

2,3

2,4

2,5

Supervise doctoral or post -

doctoral theses

International intradisciplinary

research internships

International interdisciplinary

research internships

Improvement of research team

professional career

FP6 parti cipati on has helped, to some degree, with access to additi onal public sources of competi ti ve fi nancing, and has had no impact with regard to access of researchers to additi onal private fi nancing.

GRAPH 22. PARTICIPANT EVALUATION OF ACCESS TO NEW FORMS OF FINANCING VIA THE …

2,17

2

1,77

1,6

1,1

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

…public budget increase in number of

projects awared

…budget provision of

existing projects

…base budget …private budget

2 Regarding the assessment system considered, a scale of 0 to 4 was established (0=No Impact; 4=Very High Impact).


For 83% of the surveyed researchers the main benefi ciaries of results obtained in the FP6 projects are members of the scienti fi c community. 38% consider public bodies to be the main benefi ciaries; 35% indicate that the industrial sector is main benefi ciary; 30% consider citi zens to be the main benefi ciaries. These percentages demonstrate that the main benefi ciary of university and OPI researchers is clearly the scienti fi c community.

GRAPH 23. MAIN USERS / BENEFICIARIES OF THE RESEARCH PROJECTS AND THEIR RESULTS

271

144

124114

10398

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Same discipline

scientific community

Other discipline


Governments

European

Commission

Industrial sector


National

governments

Citizenry

For 55% of the surveyed researchers the benefi t of parti cipati on exceeds the cost; for 34% of the surveyed researchers the benefi t of parti cipati on is equal to the cost, and for 11% the benefi t of parti cipati on is less than the cost. In other words, for 89% of those surveyed the benefi t of parti cipati on is equal to or greater than its cost.

GRAPH 24. COST / BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP OF PARTICIPATION IN THE RESEARCH PROJECT

Benefit < Cost

33

Benefit = Cost

101

Benefit > Cost

161


A further depth analysis of project balance by typology of FP6 parti cipati on shows that:

FP6 research project coordinators are the ones who most positi vely value the benefi t »obtained. 63% of them consider the benefi ts obtained superior to the investment cost, while only 2.35% feel the contrary.

FP6 research project partners value the results obtained less positi vely, in 54% of »cases they consider the benefi ts obtained are greater than the costs, while 13% think the contrary.

Comparing the results of projects with parti cipant expectati ons, the main areas where project results were superior to expectati ons are in the development of a culture of collaborati on, the creati on of stable research networks and the generati on of scienti fi c knowledge. At the extreme opposite, the main areas where project results were infe-rior to parti cipants’ expectati ons are in the professionalisati on of R+D management, and in the commercial or industrial use of knowledge generated.

GRAPH 25. RESULTS SUPERIOR TO EXPECTATIONS

92

46

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Knowledge generation Access to additional sources of funding Commercial and/or industrial use of

knowledge generated

Results > Expectations


GRAPH 26. RESULTS INFERIOR TO EXPECTATIONS

119

79

66

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Professionalisation of research

management

Commercial and/or industrial use of

knowledge generated

Access to additional sources of funding

Results < Expectations

In the following graph one can see researcher percepti ons in the diff erent areas on which they were consulted in the questi onnaire:

GRAPH 27. RESULTS VS. EXPECTATIONS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Generation

of scientific

knowledge

Commercial and/or

industrial exploitation

of knowledge

generated

The development of

their professional

career

The development

of a culture of

cooperation

The creation of

networks of stable

researchers in the

long-term

Rdos > Expect

Rdos = Expect

Rdos < Expect

ADDITIONALITY OF FP6 WITH NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMMES PROMOTING R+D+I

In relati on to additi onal fi nancing from the FP6 with regard to nati onal and regional R+D programmes, 74% of the surveyed researchers would not have carried out the project, 23% would have carried out the project with nati onal or regional fi nancing, but in a


manner that was less ambiti ous in terms of aims and resources. Only 3% indicate that the project would have been fi nanced with nati onal or regional programmes and with the same scope in terms of aims and resources. Therefore, the added value of, and the need for, FP fi nancing in order to carry out collaborati ve R+D projects of internati onal dimension and ambiti ous aim is clear to see.

GRAPH 28. ADDITIONALITY OF FP6

The project would havebeen funded by otherregional or na�onal

sources but with reducedscope6823%

The project would havebeen Funded by otherregional or na�onal

sources with the samescope103%

None of the partnerswould have carried out

the project21774%

Among the reasons expressed for justi fying this opinion, two predominate, being repeated in most of the parti cipants’ comments. On one hand, 51% of the comments refer to the fact that the necessary amount of fi nance exceeds the nati onal R+D esti mates. On the other hand, 38% of parti cipants consider that, with the projects being of internati onal scope, it makes no sense to fi nance them at the nati onal level.

NATIONAL CONTACT POINTS

Although it is not a central aim of the study, the fi nal questi ons in the survey tried to evaluate the opinion of parti cipants on the Nati onal Contact Points (NCPs). The purpose of these points is full con-sultati on for parti cipants and the provision of individualised support.

70% of the parti cipants know about the NCP but less than half of these know what NCP services consist of. Only 25% of the parti cipants indicate having made use of NCP services in the six subject areas upon which the study focuses.

With regard to the services off ered by the NCPs, the researchers’ evaluati on of those they have used is positi ve for the proposal preparati on phases and the negoti ati on of project terms. It is negati ve for the project executi on phases and the evaluati on of project results.


GRAPH 29. EVALUATION OF NCP SERVICES

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

Prepara�on of project proposal Nego�a�on of project terms Project execu�on Evalua�on of project results


4 FP6 IMPACT AT INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL

4.1 MAIN RESULTS OF INTERVIEWS WITH INSTITUTIONAL REPRESENTATIVES

HISTORY OF PARTICIPATION IN FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES

In general terms, it is confi rmed that the history or intensity of university and OPI parti cipati on has been increasing throughout the various Framework Programmes, especially from the fourth and fi ft h framework programmes.

GRAPH 30. HISTORY OF PARTICIPATION IN FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES

INCREASING STABLE DECREASING VARIABLE

HISTORY OF PARTICIPATION IN FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES -

UNIVERSITIES

INCREASING STABLE DECREASING VARIABLE

HISTORY OF PARTICIPATION IN FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES -

PUBLIC RESEARCH ENTITIES

Regarding FP6, various universiti es agree that, although the number of approved projects has been reduced in comparison to earlier Framework Programmes, the return obtained has been greater, with higher calibre projects, and therefore they consider that the history of parti cipati on is also growing during FP6. Some of the reasons expressed to explain this fall in the number of approved projects with FP6 have to do with project typology (of higher calibre), and greater competi ti veness. This percepti on only goes to demonstrate the trend in FP6 towards reducti on of number of projects, thus enabling projects to have greater funding.

48Fp6 impact at insti tuti onal level

Historical data for the interviewed OPIs’ parti cipati on in FPs cannot be extrapolated to discussion of FP6, since a signifi cant number of centres think that in FP6 they have parti cipated less in European projects than during earlier versions.

FP6 awarded a research aimed at specifi c topics of diffi cult fi t for OPIs of highly specialised research acti vity of litt le horizontality. In the opinion of those interviewed in the insti tuti ons, this demonstra-tes the importance of lobbying to ensure that the scheduled work programmes include funding for the centre along its usual lines.

GRAPH 31. HISTORY OF PARTICIPATION IN 6TH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

HISTORY OF PARTICIPATION IN 6TH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME -

UNIVERSITIES

INCREASING STABLE DECREASING

HISTORY OF PARTICIPATION IN 6TH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME -

PUBLIC RESEARCH ENTITIES

INCREASING STABLE DECREASING

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF FP6 WITH RESPECT TO NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAM- MES

In the opinion of those interviewed, the areas in which FP6 has clearly had a greater impact than nati onal and regional R+D programmes are:

The exposure of universiti es and OPIs to the internati onal stage, this being something intrinsic to the FP. Collaborati on has oft en been strengthened with a hard core within the teams and this creates conti nuity for FP7.

Mobility of researchers , to a greater extent than in nati onal programmes due, in good mea-sure, to initi ati ves such as the Marie Curie programme. The most important exchange is that of att racti ng European researchers to Spain, since otherwise there are more avenues within the Nati onal Plan for sending researchers abroad.

Enhancement of research team presti ge, especially for universiti es since they get to com-pete at the European level, and European projects are viewed as bett er. Also, the fact that the FP6 projects boosted disseminati on contributed decisively to research team presti ge. On the other hand, the majority of OPIs interviewed consider that the impact of FP6 has been similar to that of nati onal programmes vis-a-vis research team presti ge, perhaps due to their limited parti cipati on in FP6 (in comparison to the universiti es interviewed).

With regard to securing funding, we see two diverging views for universiti es and OPIs. The majority of the universiti es interviewed consider that the impact FP6 has had on securing funding has been greater than or equal to that of other nati onal and/or regional program-mes. This positi ve evaluati on is due to the fact that, although in absolute terms community funding does not amount to more than a third of the total funding each university receives for its research acti vity, it is no less true that the EU funding per project is greater, except in the case of CENIT type nati onal cooperati ve projects, Singular Projects, etc. Also, European


funding is more fl exibly applied than funding from nati onal programmes. The funding ob-tained via nati onal programmes is greater but is also more ti ghtly supervised or more rigid. The OPIs interviewed have a less positi ve view on this point. They consider that the Euro-pean programmes att ract less funding than nati onal and/or regional programmes. Also, their researchers are more predisposed to parti cipati ng in nati onal and regional program-mes because they see them as more att ainable prospects.

GRAPH 32: CAPACITY TO ATTRACT FUNDING

CAPACITY TO ATTRACT FUNDING-UNIVERSITIES

Greater impact than national/

regional programmes

Similar impact to national/

regional programmes

Less impact than national/

regional programmes

CAPACITY TO ATTRACT FUNDING - PUBLIC RESEARCH ENTITIES


regional programmes


regional programmes


regional programmes

With respect to professionalisati on of R+D+i management, we again observe two diff e-rent and diverging opinions between the universiti es and the OPIs. In the universiti es, FP6 has notably helped - more than the nati onal programmes - to professionalise R+D+i ma-nagement due to the fact that FP6 has demonstrated shortcomings and necessiti es in R+D management and in many cases has favoured the creati on of a European projects offi ce and the contracti ng of technicians for the managing of European projects. The FP dynamic itself, with more complex and superior management demands to those of the Nati onal Plan, demand a more professionalised management structure. In the case of the OPIs the FP6 has helped equally or less than the nati onal and/or regional programmes to professio-nalise R+D+i management. For these insti tuti ons, the impact on professionalisati on of R+D management in OPIs is normally very limited, given that OPIs are used to having one person dealing with project management for a project’s durati on.

The areas in which the interviewees view FP impact as less than that of the nati onal program-mes are the following:

For that relati ng to driving collaborati on with the private sector, this has been favoured more by nati onal calls like CENIT, AVANZA, PROFIT, etc. The European groups are usually involved with foreign companies with whom it is diffi cult aft erwards to maintain close and direct collaborati on.

Related to the above, the majority of interviewees consider that FP6 has had less impact than the nati onal and regional programmes with regard to knowledge transfer to the business sector. It is thought that FP6 has been focused on research distant from the market. In this regard, it is stated that the history of the successive FPs has not been unambiguous in this matt er: while in FP5 there was an important focus on end user fi nal applicati on, in FP6 this does not seem to be a priority aim. It appears that currently, at the latt er end of FP7, knowledge transfer to the business sector has returned to being a priority aim.


GRAPH 33. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER TO ENTREPRENEURIAL FABRIC

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER TO ENTREPRENEURIAL FABRIC OR TO OTHER AREAS

OF KNOWLEDGE - UNIVERSITIES


regional programmes


regional programmes


regional programmes

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER TO ENTREPRENEURIAL FABRIC OR TO OTHER AREAS

OF KNOWLEDGE - PUBLIC RESEARCH ORGANISMS


regional programmes


regional programmes


regional programmes

The impact of FP6 has been less than that of nati onal programmes in the generati on of stable employment positi ons, since the contracti ng was temporary and for the life of the project. One can say that the creati on of stable employment positi ons is an aspect quite separate from European projects, owing to the fact that the mechanism for secu-ring staff positi ons is as complicated in the universiti es as it is in the OPIs. Nati onal pro-grammes that contribute more to securing staff positi ons for teachers and researchers include I3 and Ramón y Cajal.

GRAPH 34. GENERATE NEW WORK POSTS

GENERATE NEW WORK POSTS - UNIVERSITIES


regional programmes


regional programmes


regional programmes

GENERATE NEW WORK POSTS – PUBLIC RESEARCH ORGANISMS

PATTERNS OF PARTICIPATION IN FP6

There is not necessarily any correlati on between research teams considered to be excellent (in terms of publicati ons, company collaborati ons, parti cipati on in other projects, etc.) and FP parti cipati on. The interviewees perceive that normally those who parti cipate in the FP are ex-cellent research teams, but there are universiti es and OPIs that point out the existence of ex-cellent, very powerful research teams at the nati onal level, that have litt le or no parti cipati on in European projects.

Generally, we observe two extreme patt erns of parti cipati on: the sole researcher, seen to have litt le future in FP7, and the very large and acti ve teams which create research insti tutes and draw many researchers together. The teams that parti cipate more are the biggest and the stron-gest.


Some universiti es agree in saying that in order to parti cipate in FP projects one requires prior specialisati on. For this reason it is common to fi rst cooperati vely parti cipate in nati onal projects (Consolider, CENIT, etc.), in order to then subsequently move on to internati onal projects.

A shared opinion is that the research teams that present a European project and have it appro-ved, once they know what parti cipati on involves, see such an opti on as more att ainable, try it again and repeat their parti cipati on in subsequent European projects. This percepti on is in line with the researcher questi onnaire results in which the majority of parti cipants consider that the results obtained from parti cipati on outweigh the costs; something which appears to suggest the creati on of a parti cipati on routi ne.

ADDITIONALITY OR VALUE ADDED BY EUROPEAN FUNDING

The majority of universiti es and OPIs interviewed consider that the FP6 projects in which they have parti cipated would not have been carried out without European funding, since the scope and approach fi t to the topics of each FP6 call, or they would have been carried out but with less ambiti ous aims and more limited resources, for which reasons the added value of European funding is a positi vely valued aspect. This result is in line with the opinions the researchers gave in the questi onnaire on the initi al phase.

SCOPE OF IMPACT IN DIFFERENT AREAS

The impact of FP6 with regard to improvement of professional career prospects is more signifi cant in the universiti es interviewed than the OPIs, parti cularly if the university includes that parti cipati on in their internal reports on evaluati on of research acti vity.

The impact of FP6 regarding increasing scienti fi c staff is limited. Temporary contracts are applied in the majority of cases and staff numbers increase no longer than during the project’s two year durati on.

The impact with regard to training in aspects of R+D management has been more signifi cant in the universiti es than the OPIs. The majority of the universiti es interviewed consider that FP6 has greatly contributed to improving training in R+D management. On more than one occasion, due to initi al lack of knowledge on R+D management, Internati onal Project Offi ces were created and contracti ng of European project managers was strengthened. In some universiti es, training courses have been created, introducing postgraduate courses in Internati onal R+D Programme Management. Howe-ver, it is also perceived that there is a long way to go in this matt er.

The picture is not so positi ve in the case of the OPIs. A large proporti on of the OPIs interviewed consider FP6 to have barely contributed to access to training in R+D management. Thanks to project parti cipati on, funds are available for R+D manager the OPIs fund contracti ng of a manager who, in the end, does not remain at the insti tuti on, due to the contract ending with the project.


GRAPH 35. ACCESS TO TRAINING IN MANAGEMENT ASPECTS

ACCESS TO TRAINING IN MANAGEMENT ASPECTS (CONTRIBUTION OF FP6) -

UNIVERSITIES

NOTHING VERY LITTLE SOMETHING A LOT

ACCESS TO TRAINING IN MANAGEMENT ASPECTS (CONTRIBUTION OF FP6) -

PUBLIC RESEARCH ORGANISMS


The interviewees consider that FP6 has had a signifi cant impact in strengthening normal lines of research and on the other hand has had a limited impact on exploring the viability of new lines of research. The researchers have real opportuniti es to parti cipate in the FP to the extent that research teams are already acti ve and have a track record and references in a few determined lines of research. Parti cipati on in European projects occurs in lines of work strongly related to existi ng acti vity, and insti tuti ons perceive that researchers of excellence tend not to vary their lines of research.

GRAPH 36. REINFORME USUAL LINES OF RESEARCH

33,33%

5,56%

16,67%

44,44%

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

35,00%

40,00%

45,00%

50,00%


REINFORCE USUAL LINES OF RESEARCH (CONTRIBUTION OF FP6) -UNIVERSITIES

8,33%

16,67%

33,33%

41,67%

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

35,00%

40,00%

45,00%


REINFORCE USUAL LINES OF RESEARCH (CONTRIBUTION OF FP6) -

PUBLIC RESEARCH ORGANISMS

GRAPH 37. EXPLORE THE FEASIBILITY OF NEW LINES OF RESEARCH

50,00%

0,00%

27,78%

22,22%

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%


EXPLORE THE FEASIBILITY OF NEW LINES OF RESEARCH

(CONTRIBUTION OF 6TH FP) - UNIVERSITIES

33,33%

16,67%

33,33%

16,67%

0,00%

5,00%

10,00%

15,00%

20,00%

25,00%

30,00%

35,00%


EXPLORE THE FEASIBILITY OF NEW LINES OF RESEARCH

(CONTRIBUTION OF 6TH FP) - PUBLIC RESEARCH ENTITIES

0,00%


The impact of FP6 in relati on to increasing number and quality of scienti fi c publicati ons is signifi cant, above all in the universiti es interviewed, for the excellence of the research teams parti cipati ng in the projects. There is also an acknowledgment of FP6’s impact on the growth and improvement of thesis supervision. In many cases the thesis subjects lay within the research areas of FP6 projects in such a way that, via these European projects, support staff were contracted who, in turn, carried out a thesis.

As foreseen, the interviewees perceive that parti cipati on in FP6 has a very signifi cant impact on increased collaborati on with internati onal research teams. This FP6 impact on greater collaborati on with other European research teams is more pronounced in the universiti es interviewed than in the OPIs, probably due on one hand to the greater intensity of parti ci-pati on on the universiti es’ part, and on the other hand due to the strong internati onal re-lati ons of some OPIs out of the FP. The FP6 has also promoted the internati onal mobility of researchers via specifi c programmes such as that of Marie Curie. Likewise, it has sti mulated European theses and integrati on into European research networks.

Conversely, the perceived impact regarding a greater subsequent R+D collaborati on with business is slight, especially in the case of the OPIs interviewed. This might be att ributed to the fact that FP6 does not encourage projects close to the market. Also menti oned as a decisive factor is the divergence between academic and business interests, and that rela-ti ons are more comfortable with the academic world than with the business world. Some OPIs interviewed menti on the secreti veness required when working with businesses, and the problems of sharing patents in such projects. In some cases the FP6 has favoured sub-sequent collaborati on, above all with foreign companies with whom they collaborated on European projects, or if the group included a large Spanish company.

In line with the above, the perceived impact of the FP6 with regard to knowledge transfer to the Spanish business sector is limited. The polytechnic universiti es are highly acti ve in technology transfer and for this reason they have seen litt le impact from FP6 in this area. Generally, FP6 knowledge transfer to business is limited to companies parti cipati ng in the projects during the projects’ lifespan. As there are few Spanish businesses involved in those European projects in which universiti es/OPIs parti cipate, knowledge transfer to the Spa-nish business sector is scarce, or happens via channels at the FP margin, mainly by means of nati onal programmes or bilateral contracts. Passing on the results of European projects is more complicated since the consorti um agreements are generally very restricti ve in this regard. On the other hand, many FP projects in which Spanish universiti es and OPIs parti -cipate consist of basic research, and their results are sti ll quite remote from the market. In this regard, the interviewees generally perceive that if, from the start, there is no interest from a company, it is not easy to produce such knowledge transfer.

Except for isolated occasions, the interviewees do not believe that FP6 had a big eff ect on patent registrati on. At the insti tuti onal level there is a noted diffi culty in measuring the direct correlati on between FP6 parti cipati on and the generati on of patents. The weak im-pact on patents is occasionally due to consorti um structures which make the request for or sharing of patents diffi cult. Similarly, there is no signifi cant FP6 impact on prototype deve-lopment for the interviewed universiti es and OPIs; demonstrati ng that the majority of their FP6 projects are far from the market research projects.


The perceived FP6 impact on improvement of R+D infrastructure is slight. The FP only funds depreciati on payments during the project’s lifeti me. In the majority of universiti es, improvement of internal infrastructure takes place via nati onal programmes (the funding tends to be more att ainable) or via the university’s own funding. Parti cipati on in certain European projects has obliged the interviewed universiti es and OPIs to acquire infrastructu-re beforehand, turning to other sources of funding (nati onal programmes, own resources, etc.). In this regard, FP6 parti cipati on has occasionally acted as a catalyst for investment in R+D infrastructure.

FP6 impact on improving access to additi onal sources of funding has been moderate. On one hand, certain Nati onal Plan R+D internati onalisati on sub-programmes require previous FP parti cipati on. On the other hand, FP parti cipati on can trigger a need for complemen-tary equipment funding. Also, parti cipati on in European projects confers presti ge on the research team, improves its excellence and makes it more competi ti ve for securing funding from additi onal sources.

GRAPH 38. IMPROVE ACCESS TO ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF PUBLIC FINANCE

IMPROVE ACCESS TO ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF PUBLIC FINANCE

(CONTRIBUTION OF FP6) - UNIVERSITIES


IMPROVE ACCESS TO ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF PUBLIC FINANCE

(CONTRIBUTION OF FP6) - OPIs


IMPACT OF THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME ON STRATEGIES AND PRIORITIES OF INTERVIEWED INSTITUTIONS

The 6th Framework Programme has had litt le eff ect on the universiti es’ training and educati on strategy. Although a certain infl uence was noti ced on the creati on and modifi cati on of Masters Degrees and on some specifi c postgraduate courses, it did not manage to aff ect graduate de-grees.

In the universiti es only 20% of those interviewed consider that FP6 has had much infl uence on research strategies, although it has had some infl uence to the extent that certain lines of research have had to restrict themselves to the FP6 calls’ prioriti es. Nevertheless, it is also highlighted that the initi ati ve and freedom of researchers to fi x their own research prioriti es is respected. Furthermore, there are universiti es that emphasise their generalist approach, remaining open to any line of research independent of whether or not it is funded by the FP.

The majority of OPIs interviewed have not modifi ed their research prioriti es for the FP. In fact, there are OPIs whose principal lines of research are not seen as prioriti es in European research policy. On the other hand, Nati onal Plan and framework programmes are fairly well-aligned, hence some OPIs do not noti ce a disti nct FP infl uence on their research prio-riti es.


GRAPH 39. INFLUENCE ON RESEARCH STRATEGIES

INFLUENCE ON RESEARCH STRATEGIES - UNIVERSITIES


INFLUENCE ON RESEARCH STRATEGIES - OPIs


Almost half of universiti es interviewed consider that FP6 has had a lot of infl uence on their internati onalisati on prioriti es and strategies. In some cases it has had an infl uence on pro-moti ng an important volume of internati onal publicati ons, programmes and post-doctora-tes. In other cases it has led to the creati on or access to networks of universiti es with similar aims. It has also helped in insti tuti onally recognising the importance of a research presence in Europe. Conversely, there are universiti es that say it triggers its research teams’ interna-ti onal relati ons, but without directi ng or insti tuti onally fi xing prioriti es in the fi eld. There are also universiti es that att ribute very litt le impact to FP6 in this aspect because they already have intense internati onal acti vity at the insti tuti onal level on the margins of the FP.

With the OPIs interviewed there are two opposing positi ons: on one hand there are those that believe that the infl uence of the FP on their internati onal strategies has been very signifi cant due to the FP’s inherently internati onal character. On the other hand there are those that report having strong internati onal relati ons prior to their FP parti cipati on, for which reason the FP6 has not modifi ed their internati onal strategies.

GRAPH 40. INFLUENCE ON STRATEGIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

INFLUENCE ON STRATEGIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS -

UNIVERSITIES


INFLUENCE ON STRATEGIES OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS -

OPIs

NOTHING VERY LITTLE SOMETHING A LOTNOTHING VERY LITTLE SOMETHING A LOT

For half of the universiti es interviewed, FP6 has had a lot of infl uence on their strategies and prioriti es with respect to parti cipati on support structures. In these cases, reference is made to the fact that FP6 has demonstrated the necessiti es and shortf alls that the universiti es have in this area, and the importance of provision of adequate means. When FP6 was completed, and occasionally with the help of the Euroscience Programme, this brought about an increase in the contracti ng of technicians for the management of Euro-


pean projects, and the subsequent creati on of European Project Offi ces. In some cases, even, there was the creati on of support structures shared by various universiti es, as is the case with the joint offi ce opened in Brussels by various universiti es (UAB, UPF, UAM, Univ. Carlos III). In the case of the OPIs, FP6 also served to identi fy the need to create parti cipati on support structures, but the majority of centres interviewed have not had the capacity or resources to create these structures.

It is interesti ng to observe the contrary trend shown by the universiti es and OPIs in relati on to the parti cipati on of support structures. These answers undoubtedly appear to be infl uenced by the research centres interviewed belonging to the CSIC, and them being ensconced in this orga-nisati on has meant they have not had a specifi c parti cipati on support structure for their unit.

GRAPH 41. INFLUENCE ON STRATEGIES OF PARTICIPATION SUPPORT STRUCTURES

INFLUENCE ON STRATEGIES OF PARTICIPATION SUPPORT STRUCTURES -

UNIVERSITIES


INFLUENCE ON STRATEGIES OF PARTICIPATION SUPPORT STRUCTURES -

OPIs


The majority of interviewees consider FP6 to have had very litt le impact on their technical infrastructure strategies and prioriti es, because European funding is limited in this aspect (depreciati on payment being limited to the life of the project).

INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR FP6 PARTICIPATION SUPPORT

Organising FP6 disseminati on conferences was one of the most commonly used tools among the universiti es interviewed, followed by training courses on aspects of European project management.

In the great majority of universiti es interviewed, FP6 parti cipati on required strengthening or broadening their project administrati ve management support staff , in many cases crea-ti ng specifi c administrati ve units for European projects.

A very signifi cant majority of universiti es strengthened their contracti ng of professional R+D project managers, as support for administrati ve units. In some cases these managers were directly contracted by the university, and worked simultaneously on various projects. In other cases they were directly contracted by the researchers for management of parti cu-lar European projects, working in charge of these projects’ budgets.

The creati on of European project offi ces grew strongly towards the end of FP6, sponsored by the nati onal “Eurociencia” Programme, and due to the universiti es themselves seeing the limitati ons of their own European project support services, which oft en has very redu-ced resources that were focused mainly on administrati ve aspects. These European project


offi ces strengthen, specialise, and individualise their services: parti cipati on promoti on ser-vices, calls informati on, consultati on on preparati on of proposals, partner search, justi fi ca-ti on of costs incurred, etc.

Some universiti es off er their researchers economic incenti ves for parti cipati ng in European projects, for example by means of internal economic calls in order to help researchers pre-pare their proposals (including the external consultati on costs), direct incenti ves for appro-ved projects, and a half reducti on of university fees applied to FP projects in comparison to those of nati onal/regional projects.

In the specifi c case of the CSIC, in FP6 the central services had available a research parti - cipati on support structure given the task of providing its services to all CSIC insti tutes and centres. However, the majority of CSIC insti tutes interviewed consider that unless there is a specifi c and stable unit for such purposes in each centre, eff ecti ve support for encouraging FP parti cipati on will not be achieved.

In a large majority of insti tutes and centres interviewed, specifi c administrati ve personnel has not been contracted. Instead, they have used their own administrati ve structures for tasks such as fi nancial management of the European R+D projects, this oft en being a limited form of support due to the lack of specializati on in management of internati onal collabora-ti ve projects.

PROJECT COORDINATION IN THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

The majority of interviewees believe it would be very positi ve to increase the number of projects led or coordinated by their respecti ve insti tuti ons, and there is a generalised consensus regarding the advantages of coordinati on: it provides the insti tuti on with greater visibility and internati onal presti ge; fosters a closer relati onship with European Commission services and access to informati on that does not normally reach other partners; it broadens internati onal contacts and relati ons for future collaborati on; it enables access to greater funding, controls project aims and bett er aligns them with the interests of the lead resear-cher, bett er controls the project’s day to day development, etc. However, the management workload involved in the coordinati on of a proposal is signifi cantly greater.

The majority of those interviewed consider that the sti mulati on or increase of coordinati on is related to offl oading management tasks, using appropriate support mechanisms and specialised human resources, for the researcher leading the proposal and the subsequent project. So again the need was expressed for specially trained staff , engagement of profes-sional project managers and the reinforcement of insti tuti onal support structures.

To complement this, there is a need to use the parti cipati on in European projects as a criteria in internal staff evaluati on systems assigning corresponding incenti ves to those resear-chers who take on the coordinati on work, giving priority in the provision of internal grants to leaders of European projects, reimbursing a greater quanti ty of the project’s indirect costs to European project leaders, reducing teaching workloads, etc.

Also, various interviewees recall the convenience of a learning curve as prior training for project leadership: initi ally att ending as partners is necessary for broadening contact net-works with the aim of being able to access future projects, as well as training that provides parti cipati on as task leaders, and as leaders of work-packages of projects.


Menti oned as added coordinati on diffi culti es are: the reluctance of companies to parti cipate as partners in European projects led by a university, and the more applied nature of research in some FP work programmes when compared to the more basic or fundamental research approach of universiti es and OPIs.

SCIENTIFIC DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS TO SOCIETY

The general opinion is that scienti fi c disseminati on of FP6 results to society is very limited or non-existent. In general, it is unknown how the FP aff ects society. There is no diff erenti ated or specifi c disseminati on of FP results. It is also pointed out that FP6 results disseminati on eff orts are not aimed at the general public. This conclusion is in line with the impression given from the questi onnaire to researchers, which shows that results are generally spread only to the scienti fi c community.

EVALUATION OF ACTIVITY OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS WITH RESPECT TO EU- ROPEAN SCIENCE AND RESEARCH POLICY

The majority of interviewees consider there is an alignment between the aims and appro- aches of the Nati onal Plan and the European research policy. However, from the operati onal point of view, it is thought that the nati onal/regional and European policies are only aligned in specifi c cases (for example, in Technology Platf orms, or ERA-Nets). In some cases there are even perceived nati onal incompati biliti es in the executi on or practi cal implementati on of processes of the European policies (for example, the salary supplements authorised by the ERC/Ideas Programme and made problemati c by university regulati ons).

Also menti oned is the need for greater coordinati on of acti vity and aims between nati o-nal and regional governments when promoti ng parti cipati on in the European science and research policy.

There is a need for bett er defi niti on of research policies at the regional level, and greater alignment of research subject areas funded by the autonomous regions (Comunidades au-tónomas - CCAA) with those of the FP, allowing complementary funding.

FP6 saw the start-up of the “Eurociencia” Programme, which has been very positi vely eva-luated, although there are doubts about the subsequent absorpti on of support structures on the side of insti tuti ons.

4.2 CASE STUDIES

In this chapter seven case studies are set out that demonstrate in greater detail some of the good practi ces identi fi ed among the insti tuti ons interviewed which encourage a greater impact in terms of their parti cipati on in the 6th EU RTD Framework Programme (FP6). These describe the parti cular mechanisms and/or acti ons in fi ve universiti es and two Public Research Enti ti es (Organismos Públicos de Investi gación – OPIs), covering the fi ve autonomous regions that make up the geographic scope of this study.

In additi on to the descripti on of the seven cases, Annex II includes a table with a wider range of possi-ble case studies and a variety of good practi ces identi fi ed in the interviews.


4.2.1. UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE VALENCIA

SCALE AND CONTEXT DATA

• No. of FP6 projects (excluding Marie Curie) according to UPV data:61 projects, out of which 6 as coordinator.

• The UPV has 2,100 academic staff members involved in some sort of research or transfer acti vity.

• Year the OTRI was created (or in the case of the UPV, the Support Centre for Innovati on, Research and Technology Transfer (El Centro de Apoyo a la Innovación, la Investi gación y la Transferencia de Tecnología (CTT)): 1999

PARTICIPATION IN THE FP AS A CRITERION FOR THE INTERNAL EVALUATION OF RESEARCH ACTIVITY BY THE UPV.

FP6 has signifi cantly contributed to the professional promoti on of the teaching and research per-sonnel at the UPV because parti cipati on in the FP has been included in the scales and indices for internal evaluati on of research acti vity, disti nguishing and valuing diff erent levels of parti cipati on in European projects. With this objecti ve, the Personalised Index of Research Acti vity (Índice de la Acti vidad Investi gadora Personalizado - IAI ) is designed to measure research using a system of points for all the items (arti cles in indexed publicati ons, obtaining projects in competi ti ve public programmes, private R&D contracts, patents, creati on of technology based fi rms, etc.) that make up the research acti vity of the teaching and research personnel at the UPV.

For FP programmes, the principal researcher (Investi gador Principal –IP), or work package leader, receives 6 points and one point is awarded to each of the remaining researchers taking part. This is double the level of points awarded for Nati onal Plan programmes and one point less than the 7 po-ints awarded for an arti cle in an indexable level 2 publicati on [i.e. belonging to a database accepted by the Nati onal Commission for the Evaluati on of Research Acti vity (Comisión Nacional Evaluadora de la Acti vidad Investi gadora -CNEAI) or the Nati onal Agency for Quality Assessment and Accredi-tati on (Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación- ANECA) and which is between 33% and 66% of the impact ranking in a specifi ed fi eldThis evaluati on takes place each year.

The UPV uses the IAI as the fundamental basis for the enti re distributi on of research resources.For example, the distributi on for the following acti viti es can be highlighted:

a) The UPV´s own programmes (Its own grants for Training Research Personnel (Formación de personal investi gador - FPI), initi al projects, interdisciplinary acti ons, conference att endan-ce allowances, stays in presti gious R&D centres, etc.) worth around €4-5m a year.

b) Distributi on of research space in the Scienti fi c Park.

c) Allocati on of support personnel and administrati on personnel to research.

d) Allocati on of annual budgets for operati ng costs to the research structures (insti tutes) (around €11,000 a year for the largest).


STRUCTURE OF PROJECT MANAGERS ASSIGNED TO RESEARCH GROUPS

In the UPV the support for the management of approved projects is organised internally in a radial form. The UPV has over the last 4-5 years invested in managers for research groups, both technical staff for managing R&D and administrati ve personnel, who are responsible for the management of not only European projects, but also nati onal ones. In concrete, there are eleven managers and eleven administrators, paid for out of the university’s budget and distributed among research groups. The allocati on is decided on the basis of the producti on of the research groups or, in other words, on the basis of the sum of the IAI for all the members of the group.

The R&D managers report directly to the vice-chancellor of research, which guarantees a strong relati onship between these mangers and the Research Results Transfer Offi ce (Ofi cina de Transfe-rencia de Resultados de Investi gación - OTRI) technical staff and aids the monitoring of the acti vity of the researchers. This radial system of managers is perceived as positi ve by the insti tuti on; the researchers are happy because the managers are close to them and specialised in research areas.

The system allows a “shared culture” of research management to be created among the managers of the structures and the OTRI personnel, which allows for bett er mutual awareness, greater unders-tanding of the functi ons of each and the sharing of certain resources (databases, methodologies, protocols for acti ons, etc.) as well as the opti on for certain functi ons of the OTRI to be delegated to R&D mangers at ti mes and vice versa.

SCIENTIFIC DISSEMINATION THROUGH THE UPV TV CHANNEL

In terms of disseminati on, the UPV has its own television channel which broadcasts daily on Digital Terrestrial Television in the city of Valencia. The use of a widely available channel for a non-specialist audience is new. The Universidad Politécnica de Valencia was the fi rst Spanish university to have its own university TV stati on. Without doubt, it is a pioneering initi ati ve that allows science to be disseminated not only among the university community, but also to the general public, specialists and non-specialists.

UPV Television began broadcasti ng in 2004. Since then, 6 years of uninterrupted broadcasti ng demonstrates the development of this television channel with a clear public service vocati on, off ering programmes based on scienti fi c and technological, educati onal and cultural dissemi-nati on. UPV Television broadcasts 24 hours a day on the digital service provided by the cable company Ono, channel number 989, and through the internet at the address: htt p://www.upv.es/rtv/. UPV Television will shortly broadcast on Digital Terrestrial Television (televisión digital terrestre - TDT), once the formal-legal phase has been completed. At the moment, UPV TV con-ti nues broadcasti ng in analogue (Channel 45 UHF) for the enti re province of Valencia and the district of l’Alcoià (Alicante).

A total of 21 people work in this area (including contracted personnel and civil servants):three journalist-presenters and 15 technicians and producers, working under the supervision of two technical directors and the head of Communicati ons at the UPV. UPV Television also has the su-pport of the journalist from the Scienti fi c and Innovati on Communicati on Unit at the UPV.


4.2.2 UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE CATALUÑA


• No. of FP6 projects: 114 projects in total, of which 15 as coordinator.

• No. of researchers in the UPC: according to data available for the 2008/2009 academic year, there are a total of 2,713 teaching researchers, as well as 103 researchers through national and regional programmes such as the Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies (La Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats - ICREA) and 399 fellows from various programmes such as FPI (Training of Research Personnel), etc..

• Date of creation and number of employees in the European Research Projects Office (Oficina de Proyectos Europeos – OPE): created in 2006, although at the end of the 1980s support managers for projects had already started to appear, their presence was increased in 2003 with the launch of a project support group and in 2006 OPE was officially created.

• There are 8 employees working in the organisation, of which 5 are multi-area managers. These members of staff operate at the national, regional and European levels, supporting the different schools belonging to the UPC.

SCIENTIFIC DISSEMINATION: CHANNELS AVAILABLE FOR USE BY RESEARCHERS

In terms of disseminati on, one route exists which is controlled by the university itself. This is called CANAL UPC. It provides a communicati on service for the university, shared with the department that manages the internal communicati on network “UPC net” and which establishes controls over access, visits, frequencies and areas most visited, among other aspects. The main objecti ve is scienti fi c disseminati on, through themed reports for a varied audience, to bring science closer to the public at large.

There is also uncontrolled disseminati on through Internet platf orms such as YouTube. In this case the researchers place their experiments on their own initi ati ve, providing informati on about the projects and the discoveries they make.

COORDINATION OF FP PROJECTS

Internally, the Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña is using a credits system to encourage researchers to choose a coordinati ng role. Since July 2009 an agreement from the governing body of the university has been in place which regulates and encourages the coordinati on of European projects by researchers. This agreement includes a reducti on in teaching hours, of approximately two and a half hours a week.

There are two programmes , where researchers can earn credits, which encourage parti cipati on:

Teaching acti vity credit points (puntos de acti vidad docente - PAD) where points are received for coordinati ng European projects which in turn allows a reducti on in the num-ber of teaching hours

Research acti vity credit points (puntos de acti vidad de investi gación - PAR) where points are received for research acti vity in European programmes, publicati ons, etc. The points are taken into account when researchers improve their Curriculum Vitae and apply for positi ons and jobs within the university.


4.2.3. UNIVERSIDAD DEL PAÍS VASCO


• No. of FP6 (excluding Marie Curie) according to data from the Spanish Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology (Centro de Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial – CDTI):28 projects, 2 as coordinators.

• Teaching and research personnel: approximately 4,500 people.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM THE EHU/UPV FOR THE PARTICIPATION OF ITS RESEARCHERS IN THE COMMUNITY R&D FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME.

Over the last few years the European Projects Offi ce (Ofi cina de Proyectos Europeos - OPE) has also managed a system of allocati ng funds to researchers to cover the travel expenses incurred in preparing FP proposals, or simply linked to their att endance at offi cial events which help the researchers to understand the work programmes and evaluati on criteria for proposals, as well as meet possible partners for consorti ums.

4.2.4. UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID


• Number of FP6 projects: 148 projects, of which 7 as coordinators.

• The European Projects Offi ce (Eurociencia) was created in February 2007 to promote and support parti ci-pati on in European RTD programmes (6 staff members). This adds resources to the existi ng structure in the internati onal project unit of the Research Service, which has been providing support since FP3 in terms of the management of European projects (4 staff members).

IMPACT OF THE REDUCTION OF THE RETENTION PER PROJECT

In the UPM, as in other universiti es, the university retains a percentage of the fi nancing for the projects of the research groups to cover the indirect costs of the insti tuti ons. This retenti on is a fi xed percentage applied to projects forming part of the Nati onal Plan, projects with companies and projects in the Framework Programme. The retenti on established by the UPM is 13%. As a way of providing an incenti ve for the parti cipati on of research groups in the Framework Programmes, this retenti on has been halved (6.5%) for FP projects. The insti tuti on considers that the results of this initi ati ve are very positi ve because it acts as an incenti ve for parti cipati on in European projects. For the university, the impact of reducing the retenti on on the overall budget is small, and this reducti on in income can therefore be off set simply by reducing some of the budget items for general costs or by obtaining more sources of fi nance (projects) to cover the general costs.

4.2.5. UNIVERSIDAD DE CÓRDOBA


• Number of FP6 projects: 13, out of which two (2) as coordinator.

• Overall number of research staff in the Universidad de Córdoba: 1,430

• Year in which the OTRI at the Universidad de Córdoba was created: 1990

• Number of employees in the OTRI at the Universidad de Córdoba: 9


INTERNAL ECONOMIC GRANTS FOR PREPARING EUROPEAN PROPOSALS

Since 2004, there has been fi nancial support for the preparati on phase of proposal, (e.g. co-fi nan-cing of the travel expenses involved in preparing proposals), but also grants for att ending courses or training events related to the theoreti cal-practi cal aspects of parti cipati on in internati onal projects; the translati on of projects; and other costs that are not covered by the programme in questi on and are required to complete the project. Since this programme began, grants have been awarded to 26 research groups for a total of €37,000.

The fi nancial impact of the amount awarded in grants is hard to quanti fy, since the fact of awarding the grant is not connected to whether the project is obtained or not. Of the 26 projects for which grants were requested, 10 were fi nally successful, which is a higher success rate than generally in FP6.

4.2.6. THE SPANISH RESEARCH CENTRE FOR ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND TECHNOLOGY (CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIONES ENERGÉTICAS, MEDIOAMBIENTALES Y TECNOLÓGICAS – CIEMAT)


• Number of FP6 projects: 34 + 21 (EURATOM), out of which 5 as coordinator.

• Overall number of researchers in the CIEMAT: approximately 800.

• The OPE at CIEMAT has been operati ve since February 2009 and has one qualifi ed researcher, a contracted junior and an administrati ve assistant. The OTRI at CIEMAT began operati ng as such in 1986 and now has 15 staff members, including those with higher qualifi cati ons and administrati ve staff .

HIGH PROPORTION OF PROJECTS LED

The high proporti on of projects led by CIEMAT in FP6 (in relati ve terms, with respect to the total number of projects presented by CIEMAT) led to an investi gati on into the reasons behind this fact, examining the support and incenti ves for researchers to take on the leadership role.

The conclusion reached is that the groups take part in projects as coordinators or leaders due to their experience, knowledge and internati onal status in the area of research. In relati on to support and incenti ves, at the moment there are none available from the insti tuti onal perspecti ve. While there was no specifi c administrati ve support, the in-house administrati ve organisati on helped with the management of the coordinati on to some degree through the administrati on department draft ing the statement of costs.

4.2.7. SPANISH NATIONAL CENTRE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY (CENTRO NACIONAL DE BIOTECNOLOGÍA – CNB)

SCALE AND CONTEXT DATAO

• Number of FP6 R&D projects taken part in: 48, of which 2 were lead roles

• Overall number of researchers in the CNB: 67

• The Project Offi ce was created in 2005. It has a manager and four other members of staff . In total, three work on nati onal projects and two on European projects


COST OF MAINTAINING A SPECIFIC PROJECT OFFICE IN A CENTRE BELONGING TO THE SPANISH NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS CSIC

In 2005 the CNB, which belongs to the Spanish Nati onal Research Council, published the plan “CNB-10: A Proposal for Reorganising the Scienti fi c Structure of the Nati onal Centre of Biotechnology”, which focuses on providing a stable support structure for parti cipati on in projects. As a direct result, in creati ng the Projects Offi ce the cost of the organisati onal proposal was esti mated and weighed up in the light of the resources available to the CNB. The Project Offi ce does not have a set budget, but instead reports to the Management. There are a total of 5 staff members, two civil servants and a further three people paid from budget coming from the indirect costs obtained for project “overheads”.


5RESULTS OF THE OPINION PANELS

Once the results of the researcher surveys and interviews and the case studies had been analysed, fi ve opinion panels and workshops were organised. The aim of these panels was to debate the areas of interest from a more general point of view, so that overall trends and conclusions could be iden-ti fi ed. Likewise, the panels sought to debate the results arising from the previous evaluati on exer-cises, seeking consensus between the representati ves of the nati onal and regional administrati on, the universiti es and the OPIs with a great deal of experience and an overview of the Community Framework Programme.

As has already been menti oned in Chapter 2, fi ve workshops were organised dealing with the im-portant areas of impact in relati on to the parti cipati on of universiti es and OPIs in FP6 from diff erent perspecti ves. The areas selected for the themati c workshops of experts were as follows:

a. Impact of FP6 on the Spanish producti on sector.

The working group had a general discussion and shared opinions about the impact that the parti cipati on of universiti es and OPIs has had on the Spanish producti on sector. Given the focus of this study, the impact of the direct parti cipati on of companies and other insti tuti ons has not been taken into account.

b. The impact of FP6 on structures related to project management.

This workshop sought to go into greater depth on the extent to which FP6 has infl uenced the project management structures of universiti es and OPIs.

c. The impact of FP6 on regional R&D policies.

The objecti ve of this panel was to analyse how FP6 has infl uenced nati onal and regional poli-cies, which have been adjusted in one way or another as a result of the characteristi cs of the R&D Framework Programmes.

d. The impact of FP6 on the internati onalisati on of research.

This workshop looked in depth at how FP6 has driven internati onalisati on, and if the opportuni-ti es that this programme off ers are being taken advantage of.

66Results of the opinion panels

A validati on workshop was subsequently held with managers from various insti tuti ons and Departments within the Ministry of Science and Innovati on. This involved a high-level analysis of all the informati on gathered, and the comments arising from this have been included in the conclusions chapter.

This chapter contains the most important results and conclusions reached by each panel.

5.1 PANEL ON THE IMPACT OF FP6 ON THE SPANISH PRODUCTION SECTOR

The opinion was that universiti es are much more likely to use their own research contract model for the transfer of technology. Universiti es do not normally use the license model to transfer knowledge, instead favouring the use of direct contracts which, in accordance with arti cle 83 of the Organic University Act, allows researchers to charge for their collaborati on with the company, while a license is granted to the university, which holds the corresponding industrial property rights (not the researcher).

The focus of the projects and their subject areas, whether they are more or less entrepreneurial, more or less academic, infl uences the potenti al impact of the project on the business sec-tor. For example, projects in the ITC area are normally closer to the market and are more fa-vourable in terms of transferring technology than other subject areas. In turn, the instrument used for fi nancing a project (for example, Network of Excellence in comparison to Integrated Project) also infl uences its proximity to the market and the transfer of technology.

It has been noted that when researchers have projects that are very close to the market, they do not go to the FP because this will restrict their ability to negoti ate over the Industrial Pro-perty Rights (due to the compositi on of the consorti um, through the constraints imposed by the consorti um agreement, etc,).

When considering the minimal impact of the parti cipati on of universiti es and OPIs in relati on to the transfer of technology to the Spanish business sector, one must take into account that few European projects were led by Spanish companies in FP6 and the subject areas for those universiti es and OPIs projects were normally removed from the market.

Offi cially, FP6 has the formal objecti ve of transferring technology to the business sector, although the subsequent selecti on of priority topics limits this possibility.

The experts ask whether it is appropriate to measure the number of projects that the Spanish universiti es and OPIs lead, since in many cases their administrati ve structures are not prepa-red for this role. The key could well be Spanish companies taking on the leadership role in projects that include the Spanish universiti es and OPIs.

On occasions, it has been observed that researchers agree to enter a consorti um in return for permission to publish, rather than negoti ati ng about the ownership of the results. The FP appears to have sti ll not changed the culture among researchers in terms of the use of the re-sultsThe culture that exists in this area is an internal matt er for each university and ulti mately depends on the individual moti vati ons of researchers.

Those taking part in the workshop highlighted the need to dedicate the same amount of resources to auditi ng the results of projects as are dedicated to auditi ng accounts: exercises to evaluate the results would help to judge the distance of the results from the market, and


therefore to defi ne a clear European support instrument/programme for the transfer of tech-nology, the development of prototypes and how to move closer to the market.

5.2 PANEL ON THE IMPACT OF FP6 ON THE RESEARCH STRUCTURES RELATED TO THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT OF THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

The greatest impact of FP6 in terms of managing European projects is that it has “set off alarm bells” in this area and highlighted the need to create or strengthen European project offi ces.

In the OPIs, people are conscious that contracti ng temporary managers for projects hardly generates an impact on the professionalisati on of R&D management, and they consider the in-creasing numbers of managers with permanent contracts are required, linked to the insti tuti on rather than temporarily to a project.

One fundamental problem identi fi ed is the use of temporary staff and the high rotati on of ma-nagers, largely due to the poor contract conditi ons. The universiti es with the most success are those that have decided to use permanent staff (permanent R&D managers) who can take ad-vantage of the learning curve within the insti tuti on.

However, the administrati ve regime governing the OPIs makes it diffi cult for them to contract, train and retain this type of staff member. In the OPIs, managers are not allowed to be contrac-ted except in the case of a foundati on or if they are going to coordinate an FP project with a budget of over €10m. The draft of the new Spanish Law of Science, Technology and Innovati on opens the door for changes in this aspect, which will undoubtedly aid the task of managing projects.

Both the CDTI and the universiti es have made great eff orts to sti mulate and promote parti cipati on, but litt le eff ort to support the day to day management of European projects. In the case of the CDTI, it considers that this task must fall to the support structures in the universiti es. Some universiti es have European project offi ces that fail to assist on management and only involve themselves in the promoti on and draft ing of proposals. At the other extreme, there are univer-siti es that also have scienti fi c managers that help with the preparati on of the proposals and ad-ministrati ve staff who help with the fi nancial management of European projects. A general lack of specialist legal units in Spanish insti tuti ons that can deal with FP topics has been identi fi ed.

Eff orts should be focussed on the need to train managers for European projects. The new instruments for fi nancing European R&D projects (Joint Programming, JTIs, ERANets, Public Private Partnerships, etc.) add a further layer of complicati on to the R&D area around FP7 and make it even more necessary to have R&D managers who are familiar with all of these new mecha-nisms.

The nati onal “Eurociencia” programme, which promoted the creati on of Project Offi ces in the insti tuti ons, can sti mulate but not replace the investment within universiti es on R&D managers. If the fi nancial support it off ers is not met with a commitment from the insti tuti on to improve the management of R&D, there is a great risk that the offi ces will disappear when the fi nancing ends. It has been noted that there are few universiti es benefi ti ng from Eurociencia that have focused on the co-fi nancing of signifi cant complementary resources for their European project offi ces.


A scheme consisti ng of decreasing fi nancial support to encourage the permanent contracti ng of managers could be proposed, so that over the years the fi nancing received from the Ministry is gradually replaced by the insti tuti ons.

The universiti es and OPIs have a pressing need to adapt their accounti ng to real cost methods. Several parti cipants commented that the insti tuti ons are failing to receive huge amounts of funding because of the use of marginal costs. These additi onal funds coud be used to allow for bett er support for researchers through the contracti ng of managers.

The partcipants generally observe the need for greater insti tuti onal coordinati on when it comes to att ending internati onal meeti ngs to discuss European R&D programmes and projects. In other countries, the informati on channels appear to be bett er defi ned, allowing all the informa-ti on obtained by the researchers to be passed to the insti tuti on, with joint communicati on and working between the OPIs and universiti es involved.

For the purposes of opti mising the use of resources, the use of permanent platf orms or wor-king groups is proposed, in which experts from diff erent insti tuti ons (for example, the nati onal technology platf orms, the Centre of Biomedical Investi gati on Network (Centro de Investi gación Biomédica en Red - CIBER), the OTRI network, etc.) will take part.

5.3 PANEL ON THE IMPACT OF FP6 ON THE INTERNATIONALISATION OF RESEARCH.

It is very positi ve that approximately three quarters of the universiti es and OPIs recognise and value the impact that the FP has had on the internati onalisati on of their R&D.

The parti cipants highlight the fact that the FP projects are a “springboard” for entering other internati onal areas: Technology Platf orms, Large Infrastructures, internati onal collaborati on with third countries (outside the EU), parti cipati on in acti viti es run by internati onal bodies (such as, for example, in the Internati onal Energy Agency), etc. Few Spanish insti tuti ons exploit this po-tenti al, with some acti vely parti cipati ng in the meeti ngs of the European Technology Platf orm committ ees, becoming members of the various advisory boards, etc.

In many cases, when a European project fi nishes, the potenti al benefi t is not fully realised. In other words, there is no conti nuity resulti ng in the creati on of new collaborati ve networks on new topics, which would create opportuniti es for new specialists involved in the initi al project. The evaluati on of the results would be an important step in opening up channels of conti nuity for projects.

Conti nuity in collaborati on mostly results in new R&D projects. Other aspects, such as publicati ons, invitati ons to conferences, European theses, etc. are more secondary in nature. The most desirable outcome would be for researchers to conti nue, aft er the project has been completed, to work with the research groups from other countries involved in the initi al project, which basi-cally means working on new European R&D projects. For this situati on to arise, the programmes must have a clear long-term strategy, something which, for example, did not occur in FP5 (when the projects were more “bott om-up”).FP6 more clearly defi ned the long-term R&D strategy area, and FP7 has been even clearer about these priority areas.

In this context, the repeated involvement of a “hard core” of consorti um members in successive European R&D projects should not be seen as something negati ve if this conti nuity is ensured


bu a defi ned medium to long-term R&D strategy and if the consorti um naturally fi ts within this strategy.

Parti cipati on in the FP generates a “cultural” eff ect: it introduces researchers to the European scene, involving them in European platf orms and forums, and helps them understand how to align individual strategies and European prioriti es.

5.4 PANEL ON THE IMPACT OF THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME ON NATIONAL AND REGIONAL R&D POLICIES

The FP has, above all, led to the defi niti on of regional policies to support parti cipati on which are focused on:

Being more aware of the regional R&D competencies, identi fying groups of excellence, considering who is best placed to go to the FP and defi ning prioriti es and objecti ves to increase parti cipati on.

Creati ng structures for promoti on, informati on, advice and support in preparing proposals, within the regional intermediary agents.

Personnel specialising in the FP in the regional delegati ons in Brussels.

Financial support for preparing proposals.

Subsidising and training of R&D managers.

Coordinati on between regional government departments in defi ning the regional parti cipati on strategy.

Encouraging cooperati ve regional projects (habit of R&D cooperati on).

Recogniti on awards, which bring with them a greater level of regional fi nancing.

The adopti on of analyti cal accounti ng in universiti es to adapt to the new European fi nance regulati ons.

Another impact of the FP has been on the parti cipati on of the regions in the decision making process involved in drawing up draft work programmes, accompanying the representati ves of the Spanish delegati on in the FP committ ees and representi ng the regional interests.

Some Autonomous Regions have used Structural Funds to bett er identi fy groups of excellence and defi ne trans-regional R&D strategies, which have generated FP projects. On the other hand, it is also perceived that in some cases Structural Funds reduce the incenti ve to parti cipate in the FP, since the benefi ciaries do not feel an urgent need to go to take part in the FP.

The regional R&D plans normally include objecti ves for parti cipati on in the FP, based on previous indicators. There are signifi cant diff erences between the Autonomous Regions in relati on to the degree of detail and the breakdown of these objecti ves. In the future, observatories on regional parti cipati on in the FP are considered a very interesti ng tool for arriving at a more pre-cise defi niti on of the regional objecti ves and policies for supporti ng parti cipati on in the FP.



6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 CONCLUSIONS

The fi nal conclusions are based around the evaluati on areas and sub-areas defi ned at the beginning of the study (See the Methodology chapter).

Area Sub-area Criteria

1. CULTURE

1.1 Collaboration/Internatio-nalisation

1.1.1 Collaboration with other national and internationalgroups/industries

1.1.2 Cooperation

1.2 Entrepreneurship1.2.1 Creation of companies

1.2.2 Leadership in new research areas2. STRATEGY 2.1 Focus 2.1.1 Strategic Orientation

3. MANAGEMENT

3.1 People

3.1.1 Training

3.1.2 Mobility

3.1.3 Prestige

3.2 Organisation3.2.1 Professionalisation of project management

3.2.2 Consolidation 3.3 Capital 3.3.1 Attraction of other sources of fi nance

4. RESULTS 4.1 Knowledge

4.1.1 Generation of new knowledge

4.1.2 Transfer of knowledge

4.1.3 Scientifi c Culture

5. RELATIONSHIP5.1 Additionality 5.1.1 Additionality to national policies

5.2 Relevance 5.2.1 Relevance of the objectives for society

72Conclusions and recommendati ons

1. CULTURE

1.1 COLLABORATION/INTERNATIONALISATION

1.1.1 COLLABORATION WITH OTHER NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL GROUPS/INDUSTRIES

Comparing the results of the projects with the expectati ons of the parti cipants, the main areas where the project results exceeded expectati ons related to the development of a culture of collabo-rati on, the creati on of permanent research networks and the generati on of scienti fi c knowledge.

At the insti tuti onal level, FP6 has had a clear impact on the opening up of universiti es and OPIs to the internati onal environment and on the growth in collaborati on with internati onal research groups, this being inherent in the FP.

In general, one can say that the impact of FP6 in driving collaborati on with the private sector has been limited in Spain; as collaborati on with the business sector has come about more through nati onal programmes such as CENIT, AVANZA, PROFIT, etc. The European consorti ums appear to re-gularly involve companies outside Spain and it is diffi cult to maintain a posteriori a close and direct collaborati on with these companies. The fact that Spanish groups normally parti cipate as partners, rather than coordinators, is a factor which could explain this situati on.

1.1.2 COOPERATION

The most common types of subsequent collaborati on with project partners are scienti fi c publica-ti ons, invitati ons to conferences, new collaborati ve projects and the exchange of researchers. Where a project has been successful, it is common for a consorti um to conti nue working with the groups of researchers from other countries involved in the project, largely on other European R&D projects.

The repeated presence of a “hard core” of consorti um members in successive European R&D pro-jects should not be seen as something negati ve if the conti nuity is ensured by a medium to long-term defi ned R&D strategy and if the consorti um naturally fi ts within this strategy.

1.2 ENTREPRENEURSHIP

1.2.1 CREATION OF COMPANIES

The parti cipati on of Spanish universiti es and OPIs in FP6 has so far not lead to the creati on of many spin-off companies. A Royal Decree is expected which will create the opti on for researchers to take a leave of absence to parti cipate in the creati on of new technology-based companies, and this is seen as a fundamental factor in sti mulati ng the creati on of academic spin-off s.

1.2.2 LEADERSHIP IN NEW RESEARCH AREAS

The FP6 has had an important impact in terms of strengthening already existent research areas, but it has had a limited impact in terms of the explorati on of the viability of new research areas. In rea-lity researchers have the opti on of taking part in the FP only to the degree that the research groups are already acti ve and have experience and references in determined research areas.


2. STRATEGY

2.1 FOCUS

2.1.1 STRATEGIC ORIENTATION

It does not appear that the FP has had an impact on the strategic orientati on of research priori-ti es for universiti es and OPIs, although some impact was noti ced on the alignment of determined research areas to the prioriti es set out in the calls for proposals for FP6.

The 6th Framework Programme has had litt le impact on the educati onal strategy of the universiti es. However, some infl uence has been identi fi ed in terms of the creati on and modifi cati on of some Masters courses and in some specifi c post-graduate courses, but this has not reached the degree that would aff ect qualifi cati ons.

3. MANAGEMENT

3.1 PEOPLE

3.1.1 TRAINING

FP6 has had some impact in terms of an increase and improvement in the management of theses. In many cases, theses topics fi t into the research areas for FP6 projects, meaning that, through these European projects, support personnel were contracted who in turn completed a thesis.

The majority of the universiti es interviewed consider that FP6 has contributed greatly to improving the training in R&D management. Some universiti es have created training courses on aspects of managing European projects.

3.1.2 MOBILITY

FP6 has encouraged the mobility of researchers, largely as a result of initi ati ves such as the Marie Curie programme. The most important part of this exchange is att racti ng researchers from Europe to Spain, since fundig possibiliti es for sending Spanish researchers to other countries already exist within the Nati onal Plan. The internati onal mobility of researchers is considered to be very impor-tant because it sets standards and a culture that in turn lead to an increase in the number of R&D collaborati on projects. FP6 has also boosted the area of European theses and the integrati on into university R&D networks with similar objecti ves.

3.1.3 PRESTIGE

Parti cipati on in FP6 has increased the presti ge of the research groups, because they are competi ng on a European level, because European projects are more highly respected, and because in FP6 there is a focus on the disseminati on of results, which is an important contributi ng factor for the presti ge of a research group.


3.2 ORGANISATION

3.2.1 PROFESSIONALISATION OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT

FP6 has highlighted the shortcomings and requirements in terms of R&D management and has in many cases led to the creati on of European project offi ces and the contracti ng of administrati ve and technical staff to manage European projects. The impact on the professionalisati on of the manage-ment of R&D in OPIs has generally been very limited given that they only employ staff to manage a project for its durati on.

Although measures are being taken to improve the situati on, the professionalisati on of manage-ment has been highlighted by researchers as one of the most diffi cult areas in terms of meeti ng expectati ons, and this has a signifi cant impact by creati ng a disincenti ve for the future parti cipati on of groups. This seems to show that, although measures are being undertaken to improve the situa-ti on, researchers do not generally view these as being suffi cient. In additi on, if this problem is not addressed in ti me it could lead to some research groups being disappointed with the process and deciding not to repeat their FP experience .

3.2.1 CONSOLIDATION

Parti cipati on in FP6 has contributed to the consolidati on of research groups in more than 50% of cases, above all due to the scienti fi c excellence that comes from the acquisiti on of new capabiliti es and skills from the project. However, the impact has been very limited in the generati on of new permanent jobs and in increasing the number of scienti fi c personnel, since the contracts have been temporary, only lasti ng for the durati on of the project. It has been noted that although the FP has had no direct impact on employment, i has had an indirect impact in terms of improving the profes-sional career prospects of parti cipants.

For the staff members already established in the insti tuti on, the ability of FP6 to improve their pro-fessional career prospects is obviously greater if the university or OPI includes such parti cipati on in their internal research acti vity evaluati on systems, something which is not standard practi ce in Spanish insti tuti ons

3.3 CAPITAL

3.3.1 ATTRACTION OF OTHER SOURCES OF FINANCE

The impact of FP6 in terms of improving access to additi onal sources of fi nance has been moderate. There are certain regional- and Nati onal Plan programmes that demand prior parti cipati on in FP, and the European project triggers the need for the complementary fi nancing of equipment.

Few universiti es off er researchers fi nancial incenti ves to take part in European projects, such as direct bonuses for approved projects or reducing by half the retenti ons applied by the university for FP projects as compared to retenti ons for nati onal/regional projects.


4. RESULTS

4.1 KNOWLEDGE

4.1.1 GENERATION OF NEW KNOWLEDGE

The main impact for researchers of parti cipati on in FP6 is the increase in their knowledge base and the widening of their inter-disciplinary knowledge. These two factors are more important than other possible eff ects, such as the creati on of permanent long-term networks of researchers or increasing the number and quality of scienti fi c publicati ons.

The impact of FP6 in terms of increasing the number and quality of scienti fi c publicati ons is impor-tant, especially for the universiti es interviewed, in terms of the excellence of the research groups taking part in the projects.

4.1.2 TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE

Generally speaking, the transfer of knowledge from the FP to companies is limited to the compa-nies taking part in the projects and to the durati on of the project. Given that there are few Spanish companies involved in the European projects in which the universiti es/OPIs parti cipate, the transfer of knowledge to the Spanish business sector is very limited.

It is diffi cult to transmit the results of European projects because the consorti um agreements are generally very restricti ve for university and OPIs researchers. FP6 has had litt le impact on the pa-tents owned by the research insti tuti ons due to the fact that at ti mes the consorti um structures make it diffi cult for researchers to request or share patents. There are many examples of resear-chers agreeing to join a consorti um in exchange for the right to publish, rather than negoti ati ng for ownership of the results.

The least popular methods for commercially exploiti ng results are licenses and the creati on of new spin-off technology-based companies. Universiti es are much more likely to use their own research contract model (arti cle 83 of the Organic University Act) for the transfer of technology.

The percentage of commercial exploitati on achieved by the researchers is lower than the percen-tage of knowledge transferred, which leads us to think that part of the transfer of knowledge takes place on a non-profi t basis.

4.1.3 SCIENTIFIC CULTURE

The scienti fi c disseminati on of the results of the FP to society is very limited. In general, there is no informati on about how the FP aff ects society. There is no diff erenti ated or specifi c disseminati on of the FP results. In additi on, the disseminati on eff orts in the FP projects are not directed to the general public.

Most universiti es create channels for disseminati on to society through their website or specifi c dis-seminati on publicati ons, but this type of initi ati ve oft en passes unnoti ced by society. The diff usion is, with some excepti ons, not very related to normal citi zens. This result seems to be in line with the belief of researchers that the members of the scienti fi c community are the main benefi ciaries of the results obtained in the FP.


5. RELATIONSHIP

5.1 ADDITIONALITY

5.1.1 ADDITIONALITY TO THE NATIONAL POLICIES

In the opinion of the researchers, most FP6 projects would not have existed without European fi nancing, or would have been carried out but with less ambiti ous objecti ves and more limited re-sources. This shows that in general European fi nancing has created added value.

There is an alignment between the focuses and objecti ves of the Nati onal Plan and European research policy. However, from an operati onal point of view, it is considered that the nati onal/re-gional and European policies are only aligned in specifi c cases.

The parti cipants observe in general that there is a need for greater insti tuti onal coordinati on when it comes to att ending internati onal meeti ngs to discuss European R&D programmes and projects. In other countries, the informati on channels appear to be bett er defi ned, allowing all the informati on obtained by the researchers to be passed to the insti tuti on, with joint communicati on and working between the OPIs and universiti es aff ected.

5.2 RELEVANCE

5.2.1 RELEVANCE OF THE OBJECTIVES FOR SOCIETY

The main benefi ciaries of the results obtained from FP6 projects are members of the scienti fi c community, working in the same or a diff erent discipline, and the benefi t to these people is much greater than that accruing to the public administrati ons, the industrial sector or the general public. Therefore, the relevance of the FP objecti ves to society cannot be identi fi ed directly, although it is recognised that these results create the seeds for future advances in society.

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

In this secti on eight recommendati ons are set out that have been developed from the results outli-ned in the previous chapter.

1. PERMANENT AND SUITABLE PERSONNEL TO MANAGE PROJECTS.

It is not simply a questi on of providing support for the researcher, but instead it involves the ma-nagement of the researcher’s parti cipati on in the FP. It is fundamental for the researcher to have this assistance guaranteed automati cally when becoming involved in the FP, avoiding the need to go in search of this support.

At the insti tuti onal level, there is recogniti on of the need for permanent integrated promoti on and support structures for managing the parti cipati on of researchers in the FP. The contracti ng of technical and project management staff for European R&D projects by the universiti es and OPIs must be through permanent contracts rather than contracts that are temporary or limited to the durati on of the project. In this context, the administrati ve problems preventi ng perma-nent contracti ng of European project managers in the OPIs must be resolved.


An additi onal problem is the high rotati on of staff with experience in managing European projects. These people are unfortunately not provided with permanent contracts by the universi-ti es and OPIs. One factor contributi ng to this rotati on is the imbalance or inequality between the employment conditi ons off ered to these people by the insti tuti ons and the knowledge and tasks demanded of them in managing European projects.

The permanent contracti ng of European project managers by universiti es and OPIs should largely be fi nanced through income derived from the indirect expenses fi nanced by the FP.

The fact that there are European project offi ces in universiti es that do not assist on project management and that only, or largely, involve themselves in the promoti on of the FP and are only involved up to the draft ing of the proposal, does not help researchers and is counterproducti ve in terms of sti mulati ng future parti cipati on.

2. STRENGTHENING INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL SUPPORT AND THE COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OF PROJECT RESULTS.

One has to avoid researchers joining a consorti um without fi rst negoti ati ng the proposed consorti um agreements. To achieve this, the insti tuti onal legal support for researchers in univer-siti es and OPIs must be strengthened and legal units must be created within the structures supporti ng the parti cipati on of these insti tuti ons in the FP. The researchers must protect them-selves in terms of the possible results they could obtain, however remote the possibility seems to them.

3. COMMITMENT OF THE INSTITUTIONS TO CONTINUOUSLY ENCOURAGING PARTICIPATION IN THE FP.

The support for the FP must be insti tuti onalised and taken on as a task which is inherent in the running of a university or OPI, just as tasks such as providing a library service are.

There is a need for stability and conti nuity in the insti tuti onal support provided by Universiti es and OPIs for the parti cipati on of their researchers in the FP, a support which instead of being short-term is one that allows for insti tuti onal refl ecti on, error correcti on and the design of stra-tegic plans that defi ne the objecti ves for the parti cipati on of the insti tuti on, the support priori-ti es for certain research groups in each insti tuti on, etc.

In this context, a switch by the insti tuti ons from marginal cost accounti ng to real cost accounti ng could bring in the extra income that they need if they are going to make their commitment to parti cipati on in the FP more permanent, without the need to fi nance this through an in-crease in spending or cuts in other areas. At the moment only a few universiti es and OPIs use the analyti cal accounti ng systems which allow the real project costs to be identi fi ed and which result in more fi nancial resources being obtained.

4. STRATEGIC REFLECTION BY THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS ON THE DESIRED IMPACT AND THE OBJECTIVES FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE FP, LEADING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF COHERENT SUPPORT POLICIES.

The public administrati ons must carry out a strategic analysis of the impact that the parti cipati on of Spanish universiti es and OPIs in the FP should have on the transfer of knowledge to the Spanish business sector and of the objecti ves that should be set for this aspect.


Also required is a strategic analysis of the weight that we want the Spanish universiti es and OPIs to account for in terms of parti cipati on in the FP, as compared to the parti cipati on of Spanish companies, with support and subsidies being proporti onal to this.

5. ENCOURAGE CONTINUITY OF WORKS AND EVALUATE HOW CLOSE THE FP RESULTS ARE TO MARKET, ESTABLISHING THE SUPPORT NECESSARY IN EACH CASE. THIS STEP REQUIRES THE EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH, BESIDES THE FINANCIAL EVALUATION.

A need has been identi fi ed for a European programme that fi nances the second phases, or support phases for the commercial exploitati on of the projects, evaluati ng the distance to market of the results obtained in the fi rst phase of the R&D projects and supporti ng the phases requi-red to bring the results to market.

The evaluati on of the project results (ex-post evaluati on) is seen as a necessary step in capitali- sing on the value that the projects bring to society as a whole.

6. EXTEND AND MAKE PERMANENT GREATER INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION BETWEEN THE PUBLIC RESEARCH ENTITIES WHEN IT COMES TO ATTENDING INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS TO DISCUSS EUROPEAN R&D PROGRAMMES AND PROJECTS, ALLOWING THEM TO EXCHANGE INFORMATION, JOINTLY PREPARE FOR MEETINGS AND ATTEND THEM WITH A SINGLE VOICE.

The challenge in this context is to encourage greater insti tuti onal coordinati on among universiti es and public research enti ti es, which will allow them to exchange informati on and jointly prepare for meeti ngs, att ending them with a single voice. This is easier to achieve if groups are very subject-based and have similar research areas.

An appropriate starti ng point for extending and making this insti tuti onal coordinati on more permanent would be the presence of universiti es and OPIs in the preparatory meeti ngs held prior to the European Programme Committ ees, through networking. This greater insti tuti onal coordinati on would also help to provide greater eff ecti veness in infl uencing the inclusion of certain topics in the Work Programmes, although some parti cipants believe that the real work on introducing priority topics into the Working Programmes takes place before the Programme Committ ee stage.

7. USE AND ENCOURAGE THE USE OF THE FP AS A SPRINGBOARD FOR OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

FP projects are the fi rst step towards more advanced initi ati ves: Technology Platf orms, Large In-frastructures, internati onal collaborati on with third countries (outside the EU), parti cipati on in acti viti es run by internati onal bodies (such as, for example, in the Internati onal Energy Agency), etc.

Few Spanish insti tuti ons exploit this potenti al, with some acti vely parti cipati ng in the meeti ngs of the European Technology Platf orm committ ees and others becoming members of the various advisory boards, etc. In many cases, these second levels are used by the European Commission as forums of experts for the design of the fi rst draft s for the Working Programmes.

It is considered that the large Spanish research groups with recognised excellence and internati onal presti ge have an interesti ng multi plying potenti al, through “scienti fi c patronage”, which


they could realise by incorporati ng new researchers into projects. These young researchers would acquire experience of internati onal cooperati on and be ready to take on new European projects.

8. ESTABLISH GREATER COORDINATION BETWEEN THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS FOR THE ACTIONS AND OBJECTIVES INVOLVED IN PROMOTING PARTICIPATION IN EUROPEAN RESEARCH POLICY.

Regional R&D plans oft en include objecti ves relati ng to parti cipati on in the FP, based on previous indicators, although with notable diff erences among the Autonomous Regions in relati on to the degree of detail and the breakdown of these objecti ves. In the future, observatories on regional parti cipati on in the FP are considered a very interesti ng tool for arriving at a more pre-cise defi niti on of the regional objecti ves and policies for supporti ng parti cipati on in the FP.

In this context, the creati on of networks of pemanent project managers with nodes such as the Nati onal Contact Points is an interesti ng way of unifying, on the one hand, the specifi c techni-cal knowledge required to provide integrated support in all areas and, on the other hand, the easy access demanded by researchers to avoid the heavy administrati ve workload involved in parti cipati on in the FP.



IAPPENDIX I. TEMPLATES OF QUESTIONNAIRES AND INTERVIEWS

7.1 TEMPLATE OF RESEARCHER’S QUESTIONNAIRE

1 - Las preguntas de este cuestionario deben hacer referencia a UN ÚNICO PROYECTO en el que Vd. y su grupo de investigación hayan participado.Si prefi ere referir el cuestionario a un proyecto diferente al preseleccionado a continuación, por favor sustituya

el acrónimo en el siguiente campo.Acrónimo del proyecto

2 - Prioridad temática del 6 PM en la que se enmarca el proyecto.

Ciencias de la vida, genómica y biotecnología aplicadas a la salud.

Nanotecnologías y nanociencias, materiales y procesos de producción.

Calidad y seguridad de los alimentos.

Desarrollo sostenible, cambio climático y ecosistemas.

Ciudadanos y gobernanza en una sociedad del conocimiento

Tecnologías para la Sociedad de la Información

3 - Instrumento del 6 PM en el que se enmarca el proyecto

Proyectos Integrados (IP)

Redes de excelencia (NoE)

Specifi c Targeted Research Projects (STREP)

Acciones de coordinación (CA)

Acciones de apoyo (SSA)

4 - Tipo de participación en el proyecto

Coordinador

Socio

82APPENDIX I. Templates of questi onnaires and interviews

B) Resultados e Impacto del Proyecto5 - Valore en qué medida el proyecto ha contribuido a:

0

Nada

1 2 3 4

MuchoAumentar la base del conocimiento

Adquirir/ampliar las áreas de la base de conocimiento interdisciplinar

Explorar nuevas vías de aplicación de la base de conocimiento

Adquirir/ampliar las áreas de conocimiento técnico complementario

Desarrollar / mejorar técnicas y tecnologías

Reorientar las prioridades de investigación para el grupo

Reorientar las prioridades de investigación de su institución

Aumentar el número de publicaciones

Aumentar la calidad de las publicaciones (excelencia científi ca)

Acceder a fuentes de información especializadas

Acceder a datos y material de otros proyectos de investigación

Acceder a formación técnica complementaria

Acceder a infraestructura de investigación

Crear redes de investigadores estables a largo plazo

6 - ¿Se han obtenido / obtendrán resultados del proyecto de investigación que requieran medidas de protección del conocimiento generado?

Sí

No

7 - Por favor especifi que las medidas de protección del conocimiento requeridas.

Conseguido En proceso / previsto

Patente

Modelo de Utilidad

Modelo Industrial

Dibujo Industrial

Secreto Industrial

Marca

Nombre Comercial

CopyRight

CopyLeft

Otros


8 - Especifi que otros

9 - ¿Se han obtenido / obtendrán resultados del proyecto de investigación que den lugar a la transferencia del conocimiento generado hacia el mercado?

Sí

No

10 - Por favor especifi que la transferencia del conocimiento generado hacia el mercado.

Conseguido En proceso / previstoTecnologías

Productos

Servicios

Estándares y Normas

Otros


12 - ¿Se han obtenido / obtendrán resultados del proyecto de investigación que sean susceptibles de explotación comercial o industrial?

Sí

No

13 - Por favor especifi que la explotación comercial o industrial del conocimiento generado

Conseguido En proceso / previstoCooperación técnica

Acuerdo de joint venture

Acuerdo de fabricación

Acuerdo comercial con asistencia técnica

Acuerdo de licencia

Creación de una empresa de base tecnológica

Otros

14- Especifi que otros


15 - En el caso de que a partir de los resultados del proyecto se haya creado una empresa de base tecnológica, por favor indique:

Nombre de la empresa

Año de constitución

Número de empleados

Facturación anual

16 - Valore en qué medida el proyecto ha contribuido a:

0

Nada

1 2 3 4

Mucho

Acceder a nuevas fuentes de fi nanciación base *

Acceder a nuevas fuentes públicas de fi nanciación

competitiva *

Acceder a nuevas fuentes privadas de fi nanciación

competitiva *

Mejorar la fi nanciación mediante un mayor número

de proyectos concedidos

Mejorar la fi nanciación mediante un mayor

presupuesto de los proyectos concedidos

* Financiación base: Financiación básica para el funcionamiento del grupo aportada

institucionalmente.

* Financiación competitiva: Financiación obtenida a través de convocatorias.

17 - En concreto, por favor indique cuál ha sido la participación de su grupo en:

Número de

proyectos

presentado

Número de

proyectos

concedidos

Presupuesto

total concedido

en €

Programas regionales

6 Programa marco (2002-2006)

5 Plan Nacional de I+D+I

(2004-2007)


18 - Valore en qué medida el proyecto ha contribuido a:

0

Nada

1 2 3 4

Mucho

Aumentar el personal científi co del grupo de investigación

Mejorar las perspectivas de carrera profesional personal

científi co del grupo de investigación

Acceder a formación en gestión de la investigación

Dirigir tesis doctorales o postdoctorales dentro del grupo de

investigación en materia directamente ligada al proyecto

Aumentar la posibilidad de realizar estancias internacionales

de investigación interdisciplinares

Aumentar la posibilidad de realizar estancias internacionales

de investigación intradisciplinares

Aumentar la posibilidad de atraer investigadores internacionales

a realizar estancias de investigación interdisciplinares

Aumentar la posibilidad de atraer investigadores internacionales

a realizar estancias de investigación intradisciplinares

19 - En el caso de que haya aumentado la movilidad de los investigadores, por favor indique los 3 países de destino y origen más frecuentes:

País 1 País 2 País 3País de origen de los investigadores

visitantes

País de destino de los

investigadores de su grupo

20 - Indique el tipo de recurso que ha empleado para la gestión administrativa del proyecto(Marque todas las respuestas que correspondan)

Sí No

Contratación de personal de administración exclusivamente para el proyecto

Contratación de servicios externos (asesoría, consultorías, etc.)

Implantación de herramientas informáticas de gestión de proyectos

Dotación / creación de una estructura administrativa desde la institución (OTRI o similar)


21 - Indique su grado de satisfacción para el tipo de recurso que ha empleado para la gestión administrativa del proyecto

Bajo Medio Alto

Personal de administración contratado exclusivamente para el

proyecto

Servicios externos (asesorías, consultorías, etc.)

Herramientas informáticas de gestión administrativa

Estructura administrativa desde la institución (OTRI o similar)

22 - Indique la permanencia en la actualidad del tipo de recurso que ha empleado para la gestión administrativa del proyecto.

Sí No

Personal de administración contratado exclusivamente para el proyecto

Servicios externos (asesorías, consultorías, etc.)

Herramientas informáticas de gestión administrativa

Estructura administrativa desde la institución (OTRI o similar)

23 - Al terminar el proyecto:

Su grupo de investigación permanece igual que al comienzo del proyecto

Su grupo de investigación se ha consolidado

Parte de su grupo de investigación se ha escindido

Su grupo de investigación se ha disuelto

24 - Si ha seleccionado que su grupo se ha consolidado, por favor especifi que si se ha consolidado en:

Tamaño a través de la incorporación de personal científi co / técnico adicional

Estabilidad a través de la regularización de los contratos laborales

Excelencia científi ca a través de la adquisición de capacidades, habilidades e infraestructura

Otro (Especifi que en comentarios)

Comentarios


25 - Si ha seleccionado que parte del grupo de investigación se ha escindido, por favor especifi que si se ha escindido para:(Marque todas las respuestas que correspondan)

Liderar líneas de investigación derivadas del proyecto.

Colaborar en un equipo multidisciplinar

Crear una especia de base tecnológica

Otro (Especifi que en comentarios)

Comentarios

26 - Indique los siguientes datos sobre el consorcio creado por el proyecto(Marque todas las respuestas que correspondan)

Número de

socios que

conocía de

antemano

Número de

colaboraciones

en proyectos de

investigación que

mantiene con los

nuevos socios

Número de

socios en el

proyecto

Universidad

Centro / Instituto Público de

Investigación

Centro Privado de Investigación

Pyme

Gran empresa

Otros



28 - Indique los tipos de colaboración que mantiene su grupo de investigación con los nuevos socios(Marque todas las respuestas que correspondan)

Formalización de otros proyectos de colaboración

Explotación / comercialización de los resultados del proyecto

Participación en foros estables (Plataformas Tecnológicas, Clusters, Foros de normalización, etc.)

Movilidad / Intercambio de científi cos

Publicaciones científi cas

Invitaciones mutuas a seminarios, conferencias, etc.

No mantiene ningún tipo de colaboración con los nuevos socios fuera del marco del proyectoOtras (Especifi que en comentarios)

Comentarios

29 - ¿Ha participado en los 2 últimos años en proyectos distintos a los fi nanciados por el 6 PM?

Sí

No

30 - Indique cómo ha infl uido su participación en el 6 PM con respecto al número de proyectos en colaboración no fi nanciados por el 6 PM

Disminuido Mantenido AumentadoProyectos nacionales públicos

Proyectos nacionales privados

Proyectos internacionales públicos

Proyectos internacionales privados

31 - Indique en qué medida el proyecto se hubiera ejecutado sin la fi nanciación recibida del 6 PM

Ninguno de los socios hubiera realizado el proyecto

El grupo de investigación hubiera realizado el proyecto, fi nanciado por otras fuentes regionales o

nacionales con el mismo alcance

El grupo de investigación hubiera realizado el proyecto, fi nanciado por otras fuentes regionales o

nacionales pero con un alcance reducido


32 - ¿Cree Vd. Que el proyecto podría haber sido fi nanciado por un programa nacional / regional de fi nanciación?

Sí

No

33 - Por favor indique qué programa nacional / regional podría haber fi nanciado el proyecto

34 - Por favor, indique sus razones

Los programas nacionales / regionales no hubieran fi nanciado el enfoque temático del proyecto

Los programas nacionales / regionales no hubieran fi nanciado el tipo de actividad realizada en el

marco del proyecto

Los programas nacionales / regionales no hubieran fi nanciado el carácter aplicado del proyecto

Los programas nacionales / regionales no hubieran fi nanciado la participación de los socios

internacionales en el proyecto

Otra (Especifi que en comentarios)

Comentarios

35 - Indique los medios de comunicación que más ha usado para difundir la existencia o los resultados del proyecto(Marque todas las respuestas que correspondan)

Publicaciones en revistas científi cas

Presentaciones en seminarios, conferencias, congresos, etc.Publicaciones en los canales usuales de difusión de la institución (Gabinete de prensa, Boletines,

Memorias científi cas, etc.)Prensa, Radio, Televisión

Internet

Colaboración en la producción de CDs, Vídeos, TV, Presentaciones, etc.

Otros (Especifi que en comentarios)

Comentarios


36 - Indique los principales usuarios / benefi ciarios del proyecto y de sus resultados(Marque todas las respuestas que correspondan)

Comunidad Científi ca de la misma disciplina

Comunidad Científi ca de otras disciplinas

Sector Económico – Sector Primario

Sector Económico – Sector Industrial

Sector Económico – Sector Servicios

Administraciones Públicas – Regionales

Administraciones Públicas – Nacionales

Administraciones Públicas – Comisión Europea

Ciudadanos

37 - Valore en qué medida los resultados del proyecto contribuirán en los próximos 5 años a:

0

Nada

1 2 3 4

MuchoLa mejora de la calidad de vida de los ciudadanos

La mejora de la nutrición de los ciudadanos

La mejora de la seguridad de los ciudadanos

La igualdad de género

La cohesión social entre los ciudadanos

La mejora del sistema sanitario

La mejora de la protección del medio ambiente

La mejora del sistema educativo

La mejora del mercado laboral

La competitividad industrial

La sostenibilidad del desarrollo socioeconómico

38 - Indique según su percepción cuál ha sido la relación coste / benefi cio de la participación de su grupo en el proyecto

Benefi cio < Coste

Benefi cio = Coste

Benefi cio > Coste


39 - Valore en qué medida el proyecto ha cumplido sus expectativas relacionadas con:

Resultados

<

Expectativas

Resultados

=

Expectativas

Resultados

>

Expectativas

La generación de conocimiento científi co

El acceso a fuentes adicionales de fi nanciación

La explotación comercial y/o industrial del conocimiento generado

La formación de los científi cos

El desarrollo de su carrera profesional

La profesionalización de la gestión de la investigación

El desarrollo de una cultura de colaboración

El desarrollo de una cultura de divulgación de la cienciaLa creación de redes de investigadores estables a largo plazo

40 - Respecto a los Puntos Nacionales de Contacto (PNC), Vd…

Sí NoConoce su existencia

Conoce sus servicios

41 - ¿Ha hecho uso de alguno de los servicios de apoyo de los Puntos Nacionales de contacto?

Sí

No

42 - Indique en qué fase del proyecto se ha hecho uso de los servicios de apoyo de los PNC

Sí NoLa preparación de la propuesta del proyecto

La negociación de los términos del proyecto

La ejecución del proyecto

La evaluación de los resultados del proyecto (feedback)


43 - Indique su grado de satisfacción según la fase en la que recibió apoyo de los Puntos Nacionales de Contacto.

Bajo Medio Alto

La preparación de la propuesta del proyecto

La negociación de los términos del proyecto

La ejecución del proyecto

La evaluación de los resultados del proyecto (feedback)

44 - ¿Qué servicios diferenciales le gustaría recibir por parte de los Puntos Nacionales de Contacto?

45 - ¿Está Vd interesado/a en…

Sí No

Recibir los resultados del estudio?

Ser tenido/a en cuenta para futuros eventos, posibles comités de expertos, etc.?

Ser mencionado como participante del estudio en el Anexo del informe fi nal?

Participar en una entrevista personal para profundizar en el tema de la encuesta?

Formar parte de la lista de distribución de la Ofi cina Europea?

Ver política de privacidad

Muchas gracias por haber participado en la encuesta sobre la Evaluación de Impacto del 6 PM en el Sistema Público español de I+D.

46 - Si desea recibir más información sobre la encuesta o sobre eventos relacionados

con investigación europea, en particular el 7PM, indique sus intereses de investigación

y sus datos de contacto en el siguiente enlace.

Asimismo, para conocer las actualizaciones en materia de investigación europea, en

particular sobre los Programas Marco, le recomendamos que visite la página web de la

Ofi cina Europea y de Cordis.


7.2 TEMPLATE OF SCRIPT FOR INSTITUTIONAL INTERVIEWE

sta

entr

evi

sta

form

a p

art

e d

e la

meto

do

logía

dis

eñada p

ara

eva

luar

el i

mpact

o d

el S

ext

o P

rogra

ma

Marc

o E

uro

peo

en e

l Sis

tem

aP

úblic

o E

spa

ñol d

e Inve

stig

aci

ón y

Desa

rro

lloTe

cno

lógic

o.

Est

á d

irig

ida

a lo

s m

áxi

mos

resp

onsa

ble

sde

los

OP

Is y

Univ

ers

idades

del s

iste

ma

públic

o e

spa

ñol y

tie

ne

com

o o

bje

tivo

reco

ger

las

impre

siones

resp

ect

o a

l efe

cto

de l

apart

icip

aci

ón d

e s

us

gru

pos

en e

l 6P

M s

obre

su in

stitu

ción. La d

ura

ción e

stim

ada

es

de 1

hora

.

Si V

d. lo

dese

a, se

rá m

enci

ona

do

com

o p

art

icip

ante

en e

lAnexo

del i

nfo

rme

fin

al q

ue s

erá

envi

ado

a todas

aquella

s pers

onas

que h

aya

n p

art

icip

ado

en e

l est

udio

.

A)

Dato

s g

en

era

les d

el p

art

icip

an

te

1N

om

bre

y a

pelli

dos

del e

ntr

evi

stado

2P

uest

o

3O

rganiz

aci

ón

4Te

léfo

no d

e c

onta

cto

5D

irecc

ión d

e c

orr

eo

ele

ctró

nic

o

B)

Cu

esti

on

es

a t

rata

r

1a.¿

Cuándo e

mpe

zó s

u in

stitu

ción a

part

icip

ar

en e

l PM

?

b. ¿

Cuál h

a s

ido

la t

rayecto

ria

de s

u in

sti

tució

nen la

part

icip

aci

ón e

n p

roye

ctos

financi

ados

por

los

PM

desd

e e

nto

nce

s?

Cre

ciente

Est

able

Decr

eci

ente

Variable

(exp

licar)

c. ¿

Yen p

art

icu

lar

los

financi

ados

por

el 6

PM

?

Cre

ciente

Esta

ble

Decr

eci

ente

d. ¿

Có

mo c

om

para

ría s

u tra

yect

oria

resp

ect

o d

e la

media

de la

s univ

ers

idades

esp

añola

s?P

or

favo

r, r

azo

ne

las

resp

ue

sta

s.

Gui

ón d

e en

trev

ista

“Ev

alua

ción

del

impa

cto

del 6

PM

en

el s

iste

ma

públ

ico

espa

ñol d

e I+

D+I

”



5V

alo

re e

n q

ué m

edid

a la p

art

icip

ació

n h

a c

ontr

ibuid

o a

cu

mp

lir

co

n lo

s o

bje

tivo

s q

ue

se

pla

nte

a s

u in

sti

tució

n,

por

eje

mp

lo:

(si se d

ispone, apórt

ese

tam

bié

ndato

s c

uantita

tivos s

obre

los o

bje

tivos logra

dos

que s

e cit

en a

continuació

n)

Obje

tivos

¿E

stá

el

obje

tivo

especific

ado

en

el P

lan

Estr

até

gic

o (

o

sim

ilar)

de

su

institu

ció

n?

Gra

do

de

cum

plim

iento

de

obje

tivos

Satisfa

cció

n d

e

expecta

tivas

Ob

serv

acio

nes

5a.A

um

enta

r el pers

ona

l

cie

ntí

fico

de

los g

rupos d

e

investigació

n / c

apta

r m

ayor

núm

ero

de

alu

mnos

Sí

No

0 (

Nada

)

1 (

Muy p

oco

)

2 (

Alg

o)

3 (

Mucho

)

Con

form

e a

lo

pre

vis

to Má

s d

e lo

pre

vis

to

Menos d

e lo

pre

vis

to

5b.

me

jora

r la

s p

ers

pectivas d

e

carr

era

pro

fesio

na

l de

l pers

ona

l

cie

ntí

fico

/ d

e los a

lum

nos

gra

duados

Sí

No

0 (

Nada

)

1 (

Muy p

oco

)

2 (

Alg

o)

3 (

Mucho

)

Con

form

e a

lo

pre

vis

to Má

s d

e lo

pre

vis

to

Menos d

e lo

pre

vis

to

5c.A

cceder

a form

ació

n e

xtr

a e

n

la m

ism

a o

en

otr

as d

iscip

linas

Sí

No

0 (

Nada

)

1 (

Muy p

oco

)

2 (

Alg

o)

3 (

Mucho

)

Con

form

e a

lo

pre

vis

to Má

s d

e lo

pre

vis

to

Menos d

e lo

pre

vis

to











8¿

Có

mo

cre

e q

ue

se

tra

nsm

ite

n lo

se

sfu

erz

os

en

in

ve

sti

ga

ció

nd

el

PM

a l

a s

oc

ied

ad

?

a.T

ran

sfe

ren

cia

de

co

no

cim

ien

to /

re

lació

n u

niv

ers

ida

d–

em

pre

sa

¿E

s a

lgo

qu

e s

e h

ace

bie

n,

de

fo

rma

efica

z,

y h

ab

itu

alm

en

te,

o s

e h

ace

ma

l, d

e f

orm

a in

efica

z,

y e

sca

sa

me

nte

?

b.

Div

ulg

ació

n c

ien

tífica

¿

Se

ha

ce

bie

n,

de

fo

rma

efi

ca

z?

Si /

No

¿S

e m

ue

str

a la

re

leva

ncia

de

lo

s o

bje

tivo

s /

re

su

lta

do

s d

e lo

s p

roye

cto

s p

ara

la

so

cie

da

d?

c.

¿C

óm

o c

ree

qu

e r

ea

ccio

na

la

so

cie

da

d a

lo

s e

sfu

erz

os d

e d

ivu

lga

ció

n?

¿E

stá

se

nsib

iliza

da

so

bre

te

ma

s c

om

o la

cie

ncia

, co

op

era

ció

n,

inte

rna

cio

na

liza

ció

n?

d.

¿C

ree

qu

e h

a h

ab

ido

un

a e

vo

lució

n e

n é

ste

ám

bito

de

la

tra

nsm

isió

n/d

ivu

lga

ció

n d

e c

on

ocim

ien

tos,

de

sd

e o

tro

s P

M a

l 6

PM

?.

No

Sí,

a m

ejo

rS

í, a

pe

or

Po

r fa

vo

r, r

azo

ne

la

re

sp

ue

sta

e.

¿P

od

ría

n m

ejo

rars

e lo

s p

roce

so

s d

e t

ran

sm

isió

n d

e c

on

ocim

ien

to?

, ¿

y la

s v

ías d

e d

ivu

lga

ció

n c

ien

tífica

? ¿

Có

mo

?

f. ¿

Qu

é v

ías p

on

e s

u in

stitu

ció

n a

l se

rvic

io d

el in

ve

stig

ad

or

pa

ra la

div

ulg

ació

n c

ien

tífica

?

9a

. ¿

En

qu

é d

ire

cció

n v

an

la

sa

ctu

ac

ion

es

de

la

s a

dm

inis

tra

cio

ne

s n

ac

ion

ale

s y

re

gio

na

les

resp

ecto

de

la

po

lítica

eu

rop

ea

de

cie

ncia

e in

ve

stig

ació

n?

¿C

ree

qu

e e

stá

n lo

su

ficie

nte

me

nte

alin

ea

da

s?

¿D

ete

cta

so

lap

am

ien

tos e

ntr

e e

llas?

¿C

óm

o v

alo

ra e

n g

en

era

l e

sa

s a

ctu

acio

ne

s?

b.

¿C

óm

o v

alo

ra la

util id

ad

/efe

ctivid

ad

de

lP

rog

ram

a E

uro

cie

ncia

de

l P

lan

Eu

roin

ge

nio

, d

e c

ara

a in

cre

me

nta

r e

l im

pa

cto

de

la

pa

rtic

ipa

ció

n f

utu

ra d

e u

niv

ers

ida

de

s y

OP

IS e

n e

l P

rog

ram

a

Ma

rco

?

0 (

Nin

gu

na

)1

(M

uy p

oca

)2

(M

ed

ia)

3 (

Mu

ch

a)

Po

r fa

vo

r, r

azo

ne

la

re

sp

ue

sta

.

c.

¿C

ree

ne

ce

sa

rio

sn

ue

vo

s p

rog

ram

as

/ m

ed

ida

s d

e a

po

yo

de

la

Ad

min

istr

ac

ión

pa

ra f

acili

tar/

pro

pic

iar

un

ma

yo

r im

pa

cto

de

l P

rog

ram

a M

arc

o e

ntr

e la

s u

niv

ers

ida

de

s y

OP

IS

esp

añ

ola

s?

En

ca

so

afirm

ativo

, se

ña

le c

uá

les.

10

¿C

ree

qu

e s

u e

ntid

ad

de

be

ría

ad

op

tar

nu

ev

os

me

ca

nis

mo

s y

/o m

ed

ida

sp

ara

lo

gra

ru

n m

ayo

r y m

ejo

r im

pa

cto

de

su

s p

art

icip

acio

ne

s f

utu

ras e

n e

l P

rog

ram

a M

arc

o?

En

ca

so

afirm

ativo

, se

ña

le c

uá

les.

11a

. ¿

Cre

e q

ue

se

ría

po

sitiv

o u

na

ma

yo

r p

art

icip

ació

n e

n p

roye

cto

sli

de

rad

os

/c

oo

rdin

ad

os

po

r s

u m

ism

a e

nti

da

d,

fre

nte

a la

pa

rtic

ipa

ció

n c

om

o s

ocio

? P

or

favo

r, r

azo

ne

la

re

sp

ue

sta

.

b.

En

ca

so

afirm

ativo

, ¿

có

mo

se

po

drí

a e

stim

ula

r /

pro

pic

iar

esa

ma

yo

r p

art

icip

ació

n e

n p

roye

cto

s lid

era

do

s?

12

¿E

sta

ría

dis

pu

esto

a a

po

rta

r in

form

ació

n a

dic

ion

al d

e c

ara

a la

ela

bo

ració

nd

e u

ne

stu

dio

de

ca

so

so

bre

te

ma

s p

un

tua

les q

ue

de

sta

qu

en

en

la

en

tre

vis

ta?

13

¿D

ese

a s

er

me

ncio

na

do

co

mo

pa

rtic

ipa

nte

en

el e

stu

dio

en

elA

ne

xo

de

l in

form

e f

ina

l?

Mu

ch

as

gra

cia

s p

or

su

pa

rtic

ipa

ció

n.



IIAPPENDIX II. CHART OF CASE STUDIES IDENTIFIED IN THE INTERVIEWS

Economic incenti ves to parti cipati ng in the fp

Professionalisati on of european project management

Researcher career consolidati on

Scienti fi c disseminati on to society

Patt ern of parti cipati on

Subsequent cooperati on

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Reducti on in the tax which researchers have to pay universiti es on the income from European projects (half the tax of a nati onal project)

Post-graduate course in European R+D project management with students consisti ng of personnel from support offi ces of research enti ti es.

Include parti cipati on in the FP among the indicators to be used in the internal scales of assessment of the research acti vity.

Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

Direct incenti ve to the researcher for presenti ng proposals to the FP. The incenti ve is increased if the project is approved.

Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña

Set up routes at the service of the researcher for the scienti fi c disseminati on to the public in general, through “CanalUPC” in the university website and through “YouTube”.

Coordinati on of research groups and insti tutes related in terms of specifi c themati c area of the FP (ICT), increasing potenti al and achieving signifi cant parti cipati on in the FP.

-High number of publicati ons and internati onal programmes.

-The researchers cooperati ng in the FP projects, once fi nalised, carry out post-doctorates with the members of the consorti um.

108APPENDIX II. Chart of case studies identi fi ed in the interviews







Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona

Creation in Brussels of a link offi ce with the contact points for the FP in the EC, jointly with 3 other Spanish universities (UPF, UAM, UC3).

Creation of the portal ‘UAB DIVULGA” (in the 7th FP) where research groups can display their results.

Universidad de Barcelona

-Development of computerised tools specifi cally for the economic management of European projects.

-Resort to specialised consultants.

-Organisation of seminars of proposals, with a more pro-active focus than the usual information symposiums.

Universidad Rovira i Virgili

-Development and generalised use of a computerised follow-up and control system of the dedication of researchers to European projects.

-Promotion among researchers of courses and stays abroad to improve their English language, something that continues to be an obstacle in the participation in the FP, as one requires a greater knowledge of English than is necessary for publishing.

Carrying out European thesis, as a strategy which has greatly encouraged the exchange of research personnel, international relations and enhances ones capability of participating in the FP.








Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Contract, at the expense of the university, 11 European project managers and 11 administrators, dependent on the vice-chancellor´s offi ce for research, and assigned to research groups.

Include participation in the FP among the indicators to be used in the internal scales of assessment of the research activity, distinguishing different levels of involvement in European projects.

Television belonging to the UPV which broadcasts in TDT in the city of Valencia a daily programme with scientifi c content for the public in general.

Universidad del País Vasco

Qualitative and quantitative leap in participation in the FP derived from the consolidation of the activity and organisation of the European Projects offi ce.

Universidad de Córdoba

Internal economic aid of the university to the preparation and management of European proposals, giving priority to proposals which are coordinated.

110APPENDIX II. Chart of case studies identi fi ed in the interviews







Centro de Investigacio-nes Energé-ticas Medio-ambientales y Tecnológi-cas -ciemat

High percentage of European projects led in relation to the volume of total participation of CIEMAT in the FP, coordinating with the available resources within the research groups themselves.

Centro Nacional de Biotecnolo-gía - CNB

Creation of a specifi c offi ce of support for the preparation and management of European projects of the researchers in the centre, aside from the central services support of CSIC.

Centro de Investigacio-nes Biológi-cas

Creation of a specifi c offi ce of support for the preparation and management of European projects of the researchers in the centre, aside from the central services support of CSIC.


IIIAPPENDIX III. INDEX OF INITIALS AND TERMS

AVANZA Programa de Fomento de la Sociedad de la Información y Comunicación.

CA Coordinated Acti on

CCAA Comunidades Autónomas

CDTI Centro para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial

CE Comisión Europea

CENIT Consorcios Estratégicos Nacionales de Investi gación Técnica

CIEMAT Centro de Investi gaciones Energéti cas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas

Consolider Programa de cooperación, excelencia investi gadora y consolidación de grandes grupos de in-vesti gación.

CSIC Consejo Superior de Investi gaciones Cientí fi cas

EHU/UPV Universidad del País Vasco

ERA-Nets Redes del Espacio Europeo de Investi gación (proyectos internacionales de I+D fi nanciados por administraciones de varios países)

ERC European Research Council

I3 Programa de incenti vación, incorporación e intensifi cación de la acti vidad investi gadora.

IAI Índice (de evaluación) de la Acti vidad Investi gadora

IP Integrated Project

IPR Industrial Property Rights

JTI Joint Technology Initi ati ves

MICINN Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación

112APPENDIX III. Index of initi als and terms

NoE Network of Excellence

OPE Ofi cina d e Proyectos Europeos

OPI Organismo Público de Investi gación

OTRI Ofi cina de Transferencia de Resultados de Investi gación

PDI Personal Docente e Investi gador

PM Programa Marco Comunitario de I+D

PNC Puntos Nacionales de Contacto

PROFIT Programa de Fomento de la Investi gación Técnica

SSA Specifi c Support Acti on

STREP Specifi c Targeted Research Project

UAB Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona

UAM Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

UPC Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña

UPF Universidad Pompeu Fabra

UPM Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

UPV Universidad Politécnica de Valencia


IVAPPENDIX IV. INDEX OF GRAPHS AND TABLES

INDEX OF GRAPHS

No Page

1 Levels of assessment 7

2 Stages of assessment 8

3Finance obtained by spanish universiti es in the last four framework program-mes (fp) in m€, and share of total return on each fp (% spanish universiti es/total eu universiti es).

16

4 Assessment stages 19

5 Breakdown of spanish returns by autonomous region 25

6 Distributi on of parti cipants contacted – fp6 subject area 32

7 Populati on vs. Sample - fp6 subject areas 32

8 Distributi on of parti cipants contacted – fp6 instrument 33

9 Populati on vs. Sample - fp6 instruments 33

114APPENDIX IV. Index of graphs and tables

10 Distributi on of responses obtained - fp subject areas 34

11Percentage comparison between contacts and responses obtained -

subject areas34

12 Distributi on of responses obtained - fp6 instruments 35

13Percentage comparison between contacts and responses - fp6 instru-

ments35

14Distributi on of responses obtained by type of parti cipati on in the pro-

ject36

15 Main eff ects of fp6 parti cipati on on research groups 37

16 Measures adopted for knowledge protecti on 38

17Avenues to commercial or industrial exploitati on of knowledge gene-

rated39

18 Types of collaborati on with project partners 40

19 Strengthening of research teams 40

20 Main reasons for strengthening of research teams 41

21 Parti cipant evaluati on of some internal contributi ons to the team 41

22 Parti cipant evaluati on of access to new forms of fi nancing via the 42

23 Main users / benefi ciaries of the research projects and their results 42

24 Cost / benefi t relati onship of parti cipati on in the research project 43

25 Results superior to expectati ons 44


26 Results inferior to expectati ons 44

27 Results vs. Expectati ons 45

28 Additi onality of fp6 45

29 Evaluati on of ncp services 46

30 History of parti cipati on in framework programmes 47

31 History of parti cipati on in 6th framework programme 48

32 Capacity to att ract funding 49

33 Knowledge transfer to entrepreneurial fabric 50

34 Generate new work posts 50

35 Access to training in management aspects 52

36 Reinforme usual lines of research 52

37 Explore the feasibility of new lines of research 52

38 Improve access to additi onal sources of public fi nance 54

39 Infl uence on research strategies 55

40 Infl uence on strategies of internati onal relati ons 55

41 Infl uence on strategies of parti cipati on support structures 56

116APPENDIX IV. Index of graphs and tables

INDEX OF TABLES

No Page

1 Breakdown of proposals presented and projects approved under fp6 as

per type of spanish insti tuti on

16

2 Public research enti ti es and universiti es from the fi ve autonomous regions

under study, shown by cumulati ve return under fp6

17

3 Reference studies used to design our own methodology for impact as-

sessment relati ng to fp6

21

4 Degree of parti cipati on in fp6 by universiti es in the fi ve chosen autono-

mous regions (source: cdti )

28

5 Parti cipati on in fp6 by public research bodies belonging to the ministry of

science and innovati on in the fi ve chosen autonomous regions

28

6 Parti cipati on in fp6 of csic research insti tutes or centres located in the fi ve

chosen autonomous regions

29

7 Scope of sample of researchers receiving the survey 31


VAPPENDIX V. GRATITUDE

We, in the European Offi ce of MICINN, would like express our most sincere grati tude to all the per-

sons who have contributed with their comments and valuable ti me dedicate to the diff erent stages

of this assessment study, to the researchers who responded to the questi onnaire, to the insti tuti o-

nal representati ves of the universiti es and OPIs that parti cipated in the survey and to all the experts

in insti tuti ons and nati onal and regional administrati on offi ces who contributed with their opinion

and global evaluati on during workshops or on panels.

Included below are three lists with the names and respecti ve insti tuti ons of each and every person

parti cipati ng in each of the three phases of the assessment.

V.1 RESEARCHERS SURVEYED

NAME INSTITUTION

Esteban Abad CSICJuan Carlos Abanades CSICJuan José Alarcon CSICJavier Alba-Tercedor UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADABeatriz Albella CIEMATJose ALBELLA CSICJose Alcami INSTITUTO DE SALUD CARLOS IIIRamon ALEMANY INSTITUT CATALÀ D’ONCOLOGIADurán Alicia CSICGuillermo Alvarez De Toledo UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLAM. Carmen Alvarez Herrero UNIVERSIDAD DE MALAGARamón Aparicio CSICJavier Aracil UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE MADRIDJacint Arnau-Arboix INSTITUT DE RECERCA I TECNOLOGIA AGROALIMENTRIESPedro José Arrazola Arriola MONDRAGON GOI ESKOLA POLITEKNIKOA JMA, S.COOP.María Teresa Arredondo Waldmeyer UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRIDJose Luis Arrue CSICJuan A Ayala CSICAlex Bach INSTITUT DE RECERCA I TECNOLOGIA AGROALIMENTÀRIESCarlos Balaguer UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRIDPaloma Ballesteros Garcia UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE EDUCACION A DISTANCIAMargarita BARANANO UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID.Francisco Barcelo UNIVERSITAT POLITECNICA DE CATALUNYAJoan Bausells CSIC

118APPENDIX V. Grati tude

Felipa Mª BAUTISTA UNIVERSIDAD DE CORDOBAGerardo Benito CSICJosé Mª Benlloch CSICEusebio BERNABEU UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRIDMaria Pilar Bernal CSICJulián Blanco Gálvez CIEMATEnrique Blas Ferrer UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE VALENCIA

Rafael Blasco INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE INVESTIGACION Y TECNOLOGIA AGRA-RIA Y ALIMENTARIA

Slobodan Bojanic UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRIDRafael Borja-Padilla CSICAlbert Bosch UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONAJulián Briz UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRID

Alejandro Brun Torres INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE INVESTIGACION Y TECNOLOGIA AGRA-RIA Y ALIMENTARIA

Julia BUJAN UNIVERSIDAD DE ALCALÁ DE HENARESMaría Bustelo UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID.Carles Cane CSICM. Pilar Cano CSICCarlos Cantero-Martí nez UNIVERSIDAD DE LLEIDAJose María Carazo García CSIC

Amancio Carnero FUNDACION CENTRO NATIONAL DE INVESTIGACIONES ONCOLO-GICAS

Francisco Carranza UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLAEmilio Carreño Herrero CENTRO NACIONAL DE INFORMACION GEOGRAFICAPompeu Casanovas Romeu UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONAJoan Casas UNIVERSITAT POLITECNICA DE CATALUNYAFrancesc Castells Piqué UNIVERSITAT ROVIRA I VIRGILIVíctor Casti llo Sánchez CSICJordi Catalan CSICMaria Jesús Cava Mesa UNIVERSIDAD DE DEUSTO

Miren Jasone Cenoz-Iragui UNIVERSIDAD DEL PAIS VASCO / EUSKAL HERRIKO UNIBERTSITA-TEA

Carlos Closa CENTRO DE ESTUDIOS POLITICOS Y CONSTITUCIONALESRafael Codony UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONAUlises Cortés UNIVERSITAT POLITECNICA DE CATALUNYAXavier Daura Ribera UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONAJose Luis De La Pompa CSICJuan Antonio De La Puente UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRIDVíctor De Lorenzo CSICMiguel A. De Miguel UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRIDSilvia De Sanjosé INSTITUT CATALA D’ONCOLOGIAGunther Dietz UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADAJordi Domingo-Pascual UNIVERSITAT POLITECNICA DE CATALUNYALucas Domínguez UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID.Martí nez Elisa UNIVERSITAT RAMON LLULLRamón Eritja CSICJavier Esparcia UNIVERSITAT DE VALENCIAJoan María Esteban CSICMariano Esteban Riodrígues CSICJuan M. Feliu UNIVERSIDAD DE ALICANTEManuel-Nicolás Fernández UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE MADRIDAlberto Fernández-Teruel UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONAManuel Ferre UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRIDRamón Flecha UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONAGiralt Prat Francesc UNIVERSITAT ROVIRA I VIRGILI


Lidia Fuentes UNIVERSIDAD DE MALAGALidia Fuentes UNIVERSIDAD DE MALAGAJuan Antonio Gallego-Juarez CSICErnesto Gambao UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRIDFrancisco Gamiz UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADAEsther Garces CSICRicardo García CSICCarlos García MONDRAGON GOI ESKOLA POLITEKNIKOA JMA, S.COOP.Ana García Armada UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRIDFrancisco Javier García De Abajo CSICRicardo García Herrera UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID.

Ernesto García Vadillo UNIVERSIDAD DEL PAIS VASCO / EUSKAL HERRIKO UNIBERTSITA-TEA

Asunción García-Escorial CSICCarlos García-Izquierdo CSICWalter García-Fontes UNIVERSITAT POMPEU FABRALuis Miguel García-Segura CSICFrancisco J. GARCIA-VIDAL UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE MADRIDBlas Garrido UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONAPere Garriga UNIVERSITAT POLITECNICA DE CATALUNYAJosep M. Gasol CSICManuel Gil INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE TECNICA AEROESPACIALRafael Gil Salinas UNIVERSITAT DE VALENCIAJulia González UNIVERSIDAD DE DEUSTOMaría Marcela Gonzalez Gross UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRIDFrancisco-Javier Gonzalez Serrano UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRIDAgustí n R. González-Elipe CSICDolores Gonzalez-Pacanowska CSICAngel Guerrero CSICJosep María Guilemany UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONAEmilia Guti érrez UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONAGeorgina Hott er CSICJesús M. Ibáñez UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADAElena IBAÑEZ CSICAna Iglesias UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRIDMiguel J. Jerez Mir UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADAFont Fabregas Joan UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE BARCELONAJacint Jordana UNIVERSITAT POMPEU FABRADavid Larrabeiti UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRIDJose Ignacio Latorre UNIVERSITAD DE BARCELONAPetros Lenas UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRIDDiego Llanes Ruiz UNIVERSIDAD DE CORDOBADiego Llanes Ruiz UNIVERSIDAD DE CORDOBAMaría Carmen Llasat UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONAEduard Llobet UNIVERSIDAD ROVIRA I VIRGILIAntonio Llombart Bosch UNIVERSITAT DE VALENCIA (ESTUDI GENERAL)José López Carrascosa CSICEduardo López González INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE TECNICA AEROESPACIALFernando López-Martí nez UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID.Antonio Luque UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRIDSixto Malato CIEMATAntonio Mana UNIVERSIDAD DE MALAGAAscensión Marcos CSICMar Marcos UNIVERSITAT JAUME I DE CASTELLONAbelardo MARGOLLES CSICOscar Marin CSIC


Rafael MARISCAL CSICAdolfo Marón Loureiro CANAL DE EXPERIENCIAS HIDRODINÁMICAS DE EI PARDOJavier Marti UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE VALENCIAFerran Martí n Antolín UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONAOlga Martí n-Belloso UNIVERSITAT DE LLEIDAManuela Martí nez UNIVERSITAT DE VALENCIA (ESTUDI GENERAL)Ángel T. Martí nez CSICSalvador Martí nez Pérez UNIVERSIDAD MIGUEL HERNANDEZManuel Megias Guijo UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLAGerardo Meil Landwerlin UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE MADRIDJoaquín Melia UNIVERSITAT DE VALENCIA (ESTUDI GENERAL)Juan A. Mesa UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLABlanca MIEDES UGARTE UNIVERSIDAD DE HUELVAFausti no MIGUÉLEZ LOBO UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONAJosé Molero UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRIDDomingo-Miguel Molina UNIVERSIDAD DE LLEIDAFidel Molina Luque UNIVERSIDAT DE LLEIDACristi na MOLINA ROSELL CSIC

Inaki Mondragón UNIVERSIDAD DEL PAIS VASCO / EUSKAL HERRIKO UNIBERTSITA-TEA

Ángel Montoya UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE VALENCIA

Guillermo MONTOYA BLANCO FUNDACION CENTRO NACIONAL DE INVESTIGACIONES ONCOLO-GICAS CARLOS III

José Morales Soto UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADAFrancesc MORATA UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONATeresa Moreno CSICIsabel Munoz Gracia UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONAJosé Ramón Naranjo Orovio CSICSamuel Navarro UNIVERSITAT DE VALENCIABeatriz Novoa CSICXavier OBRADORS CSICNicolás Olea Serrano UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADAGuillermo Orellana UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRIDMarc Palahi CENTRE TECNOLOGIC FORESTAL DE CATALUNYAMontserrat Pareja UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA

Carmen Penafi el Saiz UNIVERSIDAD DEL PAIS VASCO / EUSKAL HERRIKO UNIBERTSITA-TEA

Marta Perez UNIVERSIDAD DE BARCELONAJose Perez Arevalo UNIVERSIDAD DE CÓRDOBAFrancesc Perez-Murano CSICJosé M Pérez-Pomares UNIVERSIDAD DE MALAGARaúl Poler-Escoto UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE VALENCIAJose Luis Pons Rovira CSICM. Auxiliadora Prieto CSICFrancisco I. Pugnaire CSICPere Puigdomènech CSICAntonio Pulido-Bosch UNIVERSIDAD DE ALMERIAXavier Querol CSICDavid Riaño UNIVERSIDAD ROVIRA I VIRGILI

Alia Ricardo INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE INVESTIGACION Y TECNOLOGIA AGRA-RIA Y ALIMENTARIA

Olga Rio CSICCarlos Ripoll Soler UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE VALENCIAJordi Riu UNIVERSITAT ROVIRA I VIRGILIXavier Rodó UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONAMiguel A. Rodríguez CSIC


Julio Rodríguez Banga CSICJavier Rodríguez Fonollosa UNIVERSITAT POLITECNICA DE CATALUNYABelén Rodríguez-Fonseca UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRIDFrancisco Rodríguez-Reinoso UNIVERSIDAD DE ALICANTEElisa ROMAN CSICEduardo Ros UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADADiego Rubiales CSIC

Ángel Rubio UNIVERSIDAD DEL PAIS VASCO / EUSKAL HERRIKO UNIBERTSITA-TEA

Javier Ruiz Segura CSICManuel Ruiz Villareal INSTITUTO ESPANOL DE OCEANOGRAFIASergi Sabater UNIVERSITAT DE GIRONAJuan José Saenz UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE MADRIDCarlos San Juan Mesonada UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID

Agustí n Sánchez-Arcilla CENTRO INTERNACIONAL DE INVESTIGACIÓN DE LOS RECURSOS COSTEROS

Antonio-Jose Sánchez-Salmeron UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE VALENCIAXavier Sanchez-Vila UNIVERSITAT POLITECNICA DE CATALUNYARicardo Sanz UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRIDLuis Sanz-Menéndez CSICJavier Saurina UNIVERSIDAD DE BARCELONAMiguel-Ángel Sicilia UNIVERSIDAD DE ALCALA DE HENARESCarles Sierra García CSICMel SLATER UNIVERSITAT POLITECNICA DE CATALUNYAJoan Sobirats UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONAJosé A. Sobrino UNIVERSITAT DE VALÈNCIATeresa Sordé Martí UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONARamón SORIGUER CSICJuan Luis Suarez De Vivero UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLACristi na Suñol CSICAntonio Tenorio INSTITUTO DE SALUD CARLOS III

Jose L. Tenorio INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE INVESTIGACION Y TECHNOLOGIA AGRA-RIA Y ALIMENTARIA

Joan Tibau Font INSTITUT DE RECERCA TECHNOLOGIA AGROALIMENTARIESJoaquín Tintore Subirana CSICFrancisco Tomas Barberan CSICFrancisco A. TOMAS-BARBERAN CSICMariano Torcal UNIVERSITAT POMPEU FABRARamón Torrecillas CSICJordi Torres CENTRE DE SUPERCOMPUTACIO DE CATALUNYATomas Torres UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE MADRIDLluis Tort UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONAAlfonso VALENCIA CSICAntonio VALLEJO UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRIDConsuelo Varela-Ortega UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRIDJaume VECIANA CSICAnna Veiga Lluch CENTRE DE MEDICINA REGENERATIVA DE BARCELONAFrancisco Javier Velazquez UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID.Miguel Vicente CSICJosep Vidal Manzano UNIVERSITAT POLITECNICA DE CATALUNYAVictor Villagra UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRIDSteve Willmott UNIVERSITAT POLITECNICA DE CATALUNYAClara Zamorano Martí n UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRIDRicard Zapata Barrero UNIVERSITAT POMPEU FABRAMiguel Ángel Zapatero Rodríguez INSTITUTO GEOLOGICO Y MINERO DE ESPANAEduardo Zarza CIEMAT


V.2 PERSONS INTERVIEWED AT AN INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL

ENTITY INTERVIEWEE

UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE CATALUÑADelegado del vicerrector de investi gación e innovación para el VII PM, y gestoras de la Ofi cina de Proyectos Europeos (Centro de Transferencia de Tecnología).

UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRID Vicerrector de Investi gación y Relaciones Insti tucionales. Gonzalo León Serrano.

UNIVERSIDAD DE BARCELONA Jefe de Unidad de la Ofi cina de Proyectos Internacionales de Inves-ti gación. Ignasi Sánchez.

UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA Vicegerente de Investi gación. Iván Martí nez.

UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE VALENCIA La vicerrectora de Investi gación, Amparo Chiralt, y el director de la OTRI, Andrés Moratal.

UNIVERSIDAD DE VALENCIA / ESTUDI GENERAL Directora de la Ofi cina de Proyectos Europeos de Investi gación. Án-geles Sanchis.

UNIVERSIDAD POMPEU FABRA La vicerrectora de Investi gación, Dra. Louise Mc Nally, y la jefa del servicio de investi gación, Eva Martí n García.

UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE MADRID Vicerrector de Investi gación. Rafael Garesse Alarcón.

UNIVERSIDAD ROVIRA I VIRGILI Vicerrectora de Investi gación e Insti tuciones Sanitarias.

UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID La directora de la OTRI, y el coordinador de la Ofi cina Europea de I+D.

UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III DE MADRID Vicerrector de Investi gación. Carlos Balaguer.

UNIVERSIDAD DEL PAIS VASCO Directora de la Ofi cina de Proyectos Europeos de Investi gación. Charo Sánchez.

UNIVERSIDAD DE ALICANTE Adjunto al vicerrector de investi gación. Salvador Palafón.

UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADA Vicerrectora de Políti ca Cientí fi ca e Investi gación. María Dolores Suárez Ortega.

UNIVERSIDAD DE MALAGA Directora de Transferencia y Espacio Europeo de Investi gación, y Jefa de Servicio de la OTRI.

UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA Responsable de Programas Internacionales de la OTRI.

UNIVERSIDAD DE CORDOBA Técnico de Proyectos Internacionales de la OTRI. Mª Elena Fernán-dez-Conde Cuadra.

UNIVERSIDAD MIGUEL HERNANDEZ Vicerrector de Investi gación y Desarrollo Tecnológico. Salvador Vi-niegra.


Enti dad Entrevistado

Consejo Superior de Investi gaciones Cientí fi cas (CSIC)Vocal Asesora de Vicepresidencia de Relacio-nes Internacionales. Marián Gómez Rodrí-guez.

Centro de Investi gaciones Energéti cas, Medioambientales y Tecnoló-gicas (CIEMAT)

Vicesecretaria General. Amparo González Es-partero.

Insti tuto Nacional de Investi gación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA)

Subdirectora General de Prospecti va y Coordi-nación de Programas. Dra. Paloma Melgarejo Nárdiz.

Insti tuto Español de Oceanografí a (IEO) Director. Enrique Tortosa Martorella

Centro Nacional de Biotecnología

Director. José Mª Valpuesta Moraleja, y Direc-tora del Dpto. de Gesti ón de Proyectos, For-mación y Movilidad. Programas Nacionales e Internacionales de I+D+i. Cristi na Ramos.

Insti tuto de Investi gaciones Biomédicas Alberto Sols Director. Dr. Lisardo Boscá.

Centro de Investi gaciones Biológicas Director. Vicente Larraga.

Insti tuto de Catálisis y Petroleoquímica Director. Joaquín Pérez Pariente

Centro de Biología Molecular Severo Ochoa Director. Manuel Fresno Escudero.

Insti tuto del Frio Directora. María Pilar Montero.

Insti tuto de Ciencia y Tecnología de Polímeros Directora. Paula Bosch Sarobe.

Insti tuto de Recursos Naturales Director. José Javier Pueyo.


V.3 PERSONS PARTICIPATING IN OPINION PANELS WORK SHOPS

Almudena Carrero Subdirectora Ofi cina Europea. MICINN

Ana Tardón Agencia Laín Entralgo. Consejería de Salud. Comunidad de Madrid

Carmen Avellaner Fundación Ciudad de la Energía. Delegación en Bruselas

Daniel Ugarte Delegación regional de Madrid en Bruselas

David Sayago MICINN

Elisa Álvarez CDTI

Francisco de Aristegui Zabala Innovati on Consulti ng

Gabriel Mercado Delegación regional de Galicia en Bruselas

Gonzalo Arévalo Ofi cina de Proyectos Europeos. Insti tuto de Salud Carlos III.

Ignacio Baanante Ofi cina Europea. MICINN. Bruselas

Laura Hernández Delegación regional de Murcia en Bruselas

Laura Requejo Delegación regional de Cataluña en Bruselas

Manuel Irún Delegación regional de la Comunidad Valenciana en Bruselas

Mar Martí n Delegación regional de Cantabria en Bruselas

María Ángeles Rodriguez Peña Subdirectora General de Programas Europeos. MICINN

María Lozano Delegación regional de Navarra en Bruselas.

María Vallejo Subdirección General de Programas Europeos. MICINN

Marián Gómez Vicepresidente adjunto Asuntos Europeos. CSIC

Marta MarchInsti tuto Nacional de Técnica Aeroespacial. Ministerio de Defensa. Delegación en Bruselas

Regina García Directora del Servicio de Investi gación. OTRI. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

Rodolfo Piedra CDTI.Bruselas.

Santi ago RomoSubdirector Centro para la Innovación, Transferencia de Tecnología y del Conoci-miento. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos

Serafí n de la Concha CDTI

Victoria Ley ANEP. MICINN

Date post:	02-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nguyenkhuong
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Evaluation Fp6 of the impact of the in the RTD public system in Spain

Documents