COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
VOLUME II COM(94) 548 final 
^ Brussels, 05.12.1994 
ANNEX : 
only existes in English 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL. 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
concerning the mid-term review of the action on the dissemination and 
exploitation of knowledge resulting from the specific programmes 
of RTD of the Community 
(VALUE II) 
Jp 
VALUE II Programme 
Mid-Term Review 
25 May 1994 
Report prepared by a Review Panel at the request of the European 
Commission's Directorate General XIII : Telecommunications, Information 
Market and Exploitation of Research. 
A 
VALUE II Programme 
Mid-Term Review 
A mid-term review of the Community's Centralised Action for the 
Dissemination and Exploitation of Knowledge Resulting from the Specific 
Programmes of Research and Technological Development (VALUE II). 
REVIEW PANEL: K.P. Friebe (Chairman) 
Mr. P. Cordsen 
Dr. L. Crespo 
Prof. T. Durand 
Prof. N. Gangas 
Prof. A. Mathis 
Ir. A. Vyverman 
EDITORIAL SUPPORT: Mrs. M. Victor 
25 May 1994 
Report prepared at the request of the European Commission's Directorate 
General XIII : Telecommunications, Information Market and Exploitation of 
Research. 
-4 fch 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
The VALUE Review Panel would like to express their sincere 
appreciation to all those interviewed throughout the Commission 
and elsewhere. The assistance of the VALUE Team, particularly 
Dr. Albert Strub, Director of DG XIIM), Mr. Jean-Noel Durvy, 
and Mr. Constant Gitzinger, is gratefully acknowledged. The 
views and recommendations contained in the report are, however, 
the responsibility of the authors alone. 
CONTENTS 
Page No. 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 
H. BACKGROUND TO THE MID-TERM REVIEW OF VALUE H 8 
1. The Review Mandate 8 
2. The Review Approach and Criteria 8 
m. STRATEGIC AND POLICY ISSUES CONCERNING VALUE 11 
1. Strategic Perspective 11 
2. Strategic Constraints 13 
3. Strategy and Policy Issues 14 
IV. INTRODUCTION : THE VALUE H PROGRAMME 19 
1. VALUE H Background and Objectives 19 
2. Overview of Activities and Expenditure 20 
V. REVIEW OF INTERFACE I : RESEARCH - INDUSTRY 24 
1. Introduction 24 
2. Action Line I.la : Value Relay Centres Network 25 
3. Action Line Lib : Basic Service (Cordis/Publications) 31 
4. Action Line 1.2 : Utilisation of Results 36 
5. Action Line 1.3 : Legal Protection of Results 41 
6. Action Line 1.4 : Promotional Activities 43 
VI. REVIEW OF INTERFACES H AND m : 
RESEARCH - SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, AND 
RESEARCH - SOCIETY 45 
1. Overall Comments 45 
2. Findings 46 
3. Recommendations 46 
ANNEXES 
Annex I The Council Decision of 29 April, 1992 
Annex H Review Terms of Reference 
Annex HI Acronyms and Abbreviations 
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
VALUE IN CONTEXT 
Economic development in the whole of Europe will depend greatly in future on the 
application of well-defined R&D strategies, the promotion of successful innovations 
and the availability of appropriate technologies. These will be a pre-requisite to 
creating jobs and ensuring the well-being of all European citizens. R&D and the 
promotion of innovation are therefore essential activities in fulfilling these aims. 
The RTD culture is fairly well-established in Europe : EC-funded RTD currently 
represents about 5 % of all R & D conducted within the European Union. In contrast, 
however, the culture of utilising the results of this RTD, i.e. the exploitation and 
dissemination of the outcome of RTD, is not that widespread. The VALUE 
Programme, which should play a decisive role in promoting the utilisation of RTD 
and hence in aiding the dynamic economic development of Europe in future, has a 
budget allocation of only 1% of all EC-funded RTD - far too small to have any real 
impact. 
VALUE I (1989-1993) and VALUE II (1992-1994) were pilot programmes during the 
Second and Third RTD Framework Programmes. They made it possible to design 
relevant methodologies and tools to help transform R & D results into real economic 
activities. 
A global policy to ensure these essential activities should now be formulated, adopting 
a broader strategic vision to include a far greater effort and political commitment. A 
major initiative, targeted at the promotion of innovation for which the funding would 
be clearly distinct from the funding of R & D and thus from the Fourth Framework 
Programme, should be considered in the medium term. 
In the meantime, the specific programmes should be invited to work closer with 
VALUE in order to improve the effectiveness of the promotion of RTD results. In 
"addition, VALUE should concentrate more on SMEs via a more "demand pull" or 
"bottom-up" approach. Indeed, VALUE'S main task is to design appropriate 
processes to assist SMEs solve the technical problems that they face by calling upon 
the technical capabilities of R & D labs, wherever these are located in Europe. 
STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES 
1. The major issue behind VALUE concerns the very nature of the results of RTD 
programmes, given the overall objective of promoting innovation throughout Europe. 
Conventional wisdom assumes that RTD yields results which may be directly or 
indirectly exploitable through some adaptation and development processes. However, 
this is unfortunately seldom the case. It must be recognised clearly that RTD 
programmes essentially contribute to strengthening the "existing knowledge base" in 
the teams conducting the work. Making the best use of RTD results thus primarily 
means exploiting the enriched "existing knowledge base" in order to solve problems 
encountered throughout the many loops of the innovation processes taking place within 
and among companies and R&D centres. 
2. Both VALUE I and VALUE II were designed with a big agenda without adequate 
political and financial support. It must be emphasised that the exploitation of RTD 
results, technology transfer and more generally the promotion of innovation are 
essential to European economic competitiveness and as such require significant 
funding, not just a small percent of RTD budgets. 
3. VALUE may be considered a back-up initiative, should the participants of an RTD 
programme not exploit their results in the usual way. However, little or no attention 
was paid in VALUE to "upstream" or "ex ante" integration of business perspectives 
into the RTD programmes, i.e. before the RTD project was funded and launched. Is 
it normal or inevitable that over 50% of RTD projects fall in the "Candidates for 
Value" category while only about 20% lead to "Autonomous" exploitation by the 
consortia which conducted the RTD? 
4. VALUE fulfils a function which is directly related to other existing activities. 
• National policies, methodologies and tools exist to promote technology transfer 
and innovation within most countries and at regional level. This includes 
exploitation of publicly funded R&D. 
• SPRINT aims at promoting "cross-border" technology transfer and innovation. 
• VALUE addresses community funded RTD only. 
VALUE might thus have been designed around existing tools stemming from national 
or SPRINT initiatives, as a communication action towards: 
• existing technology transfer agents and their networks; 
• existing value added networks of information providers; 
• the management team of the specific programmes (ESPRIT, BRITE-EURAM, 
....) in the Commission. 
The integration of SPRINT and VALUE into a single programme should strengthen 
the effectiveness of both the VALUE and SPRINT initiatives. More co-operation 
between the specific programmes and VALUE would be appropriate. 
5. VRCs were created as a decentralised tool for VALUE. They offer a unique 
opportunity to promote innovation and technology transfer towards SMEs, adopting 
a bottom-up approach and taking into account the diversity of national and regional 
cultures encountered in Europe. VRCs should thus be both strengthened and 
optimised. Along these lines, an in-depth evaluation of the VRCs is recommended. 
6. VALUE should be extended to include not only Community funded RTD results but 
also relevant technologies requiring transfer/exploitation throughout the multiple and 
complex loops of the innovation process. This would therefore require VALUE to 
deal also with all other types of RTD results e.g. nationally funded. 
7. SMEs should be a definite priority for Community programmes and especially for the 
promotion of exploitation via the VALUE Programme. VRCs have an important role 
to play in this process. The Panel recommends that the Commission halt the continual 
creation of new offices, guichets or similar entities. Decentralisation is clearly 
appropriate but without co-ordination it leads to wasteful overlaps and duplication. 
8. The VALUE approach, initially created in a "technology push" type of mode, should 
become more demand-oriented or "market pull" based. From that perspective, the 
concepts behind the experiment currently under way between VALUE and the 
Structural Funds to satisfy SME needs would seem appropriate. This clearly relates 
to the "ex ante-upstream" type of reasoning mentioned above. 
9. VALUE has been involved directly in exploitation projects covering activities such as 
marketing studies, business plans, search for industrial partners, tests under industrial 
conditions, prototyping, patent support, licensing, participation in exhibitions, etc. 
Shouldn't VALUE'S role focus on organising/integrating/promoting/linking, helping 
to match needs and skills, working more as a catalyst and designer of processes than 
as a direct player? 
Undertaking specific projects may, however, be useful to: 
• demonstrate the exploitation mechanisms as well as utilise outstanding R&D 
results in Member States or Community regions having little experience in 
exploitation/insufficient pertinent national schemes; 
• serve as examples of concrete outputs of the VALUE Programme whenever 
an illustration is required by the public (displaying function); 
• keep the VALUE team up-to-date with respect to the difficulties of real life 
innovation processes; 
• analyse across these projects, to learn from such experiments. 
10. How do VALUE/SPRINT/the Fourth Framework Programme/Structural Funds relate 
to one another from the above viewpoint? More specifically, should not VALUE and 
VALUE/SPRINT be related increasingly to the structural initiatives of DG XVI, or 
even to the Industrial Policy of DG III or the SME actions of DG XXIII? The current 
pilot initiatives, e.g. with DG XVI, hint clearly in this direction. 
11. From such a perspective, the purely administrative funding approach adopted recently 
of 1 % of the specific RTD programmes supposedly devoted to dissemination activities 
may only be effective if co-ordinated by VALUE. 
12. There is a clear need, in parallel to the RTD action, to develop an effective strategy 
for the promotion of innovation, technology transfer and the exploitation and 
dissemination of RTD results and knowledge. 
PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES 
13. Under this action line scientific information arising from Community RTD activities 
was disseminated by means of publications, information sheets and articles. 
14. The FLAIR-FLOW project, a co-ordinated action supported jointly by VALUE and 
FLAIR, was particularly effective in aiding dissemination of results from European 
Food R & D. Dissemination took place using various means, the most important 
being the one-page technical documents in layman's language which were widely 
circulated. 
15. Other important activities under this action were the publication of "Innovation & 
Technology Transfer News-Letter", "Euro-abstract Catalogues" and "CORDIS Up­
date". 
16. Horizontal activities which proved very helpful are the RTD Help Desk and the 
establishment of Cooperation Network, representing a very good synergistic initiative 
between VALUE and other EC initiatives and funding sources, e.g., regional funds 
handled by DG XVI. 
UTILISATION OF RESULTS 
17. Exploitation of results is a major action, lying at the heart of the VALUE Programme. 
84 projects out of 373 proposals were selected for financial support of actions such 
as marketing studies, business plans, search for industrial partners, tests under 
industrial conditions, prototyping, patent support, licensing, participation in 
exhibitions, etc. Around 40% of the contracts are concluded with SME companies. 
18. Although exploitation is a lengthy process, it is clear by now that a substantial 
proportion of the projects essentially supported during VALUE I could lead to 
significant results in the near future. The various instruments of assistance available 
enable VALUE to accommodate better proposers' needs. 
19. The source of the VALUE exploitation scheme is only a fraction of what is produced 
in the individual Member States of the European Union. The exploitation action 
therefore should not be limited to Community RTD alone but should be expanded to 
include all available European RTD results. 
20. In order for VALUE to have a major impact on the exploitation of RTD results, the 
budget needs to be of a different order to magnitude. Ilowever, even then, 
collaboration should be sought with national and international exploitation schemes 
and potential financing bodies (DG XVI, DG XXIII, EUREKA, CRAFT, national and 
regional supporting organisations, etc.). 
21. The delay caused by the Commission procedures for selection and conclusion of 
project proposals is too long, hence inefficient and needs to be reviewed in future. 
METHODS AND TOOLS 
Value Relay Centres 
22. The network of VALUE Relay Centres is an interesting initiative that might become 
the necessary bridge between the European specific RTD programmes and users' 
needs, especially those of SMEs. It could have important synergistic effects with the 
national RTD programmes and could act as a transnational European platform for 
effective dissemination and cross-fertilisation of RTD efforts. 
23. Its short operational history indicates a non-homogeneous situation among the different 
VRCs, some already producing good results while others appearing to lack clear 
action plans. A revision of the current situation is recommended in order to improve 
the performance of VRCs in some countries. 
Cordis 
24. CORDIS is now in its full pilot operational phase and is quite a well known EC 
initiative, valued by RTD people within the EC and abroad. Together with its success 
emerges also the need for further improvements, e.g. higher speed in data collection, 
-continuous data updating, more coherent abstracting of primary information in order 
to obtain more accurate record characterisation (e.g. SIC codes) and better data 
quality and consistency. 
25. These improvements in data presentation and consistency in both on-line and off-line 
CORDIS products, combined with the VALUE Management Team policy to utilise 
new technological options, present an opportunity for CORDIS to become very 
attractive also to Risers inexperienced with on-line searches and to satisfy 
simultaneously the increasing demand for well-presented, easily accessible and 
manageable information. Multi-media CD-ROMs and Context Driven Applications 
are examples of future technological options within the reach of CORDIS. 
26. The recently launched software interface "Watch-CORDIS" demonstrates the above 
VALUE team policy. The merits of this new product could be enhanced significantly 
by enabling access through it to the CORDIS CD-ROM data as well. 
27. Much should be done in training intermediaries and end users in using CORDIS fully. 
A better training policy and practice is needed, given that promotion and training 
should be envisaged as complementary push-pull activities. 
28. Publication of sub-sets of CORDIS data should not be considered an indispensable but 
redundant system. In fact, there is a need for re-formulating the strategy for CORDIS 
publications from the viewpoint of their actual usefulness and promotion of CORDIS 
and its products. 
29. Promotion of CORDIS should be increased but within an overall marketing strategy. 
Such a strategy should be formulated before the end of VALUE II, so as to provide 
a clear direction for CORDIS promotion during the next Framework Programme. 
30. The usefulness of CORDIS would be increased greatly by substantially upgrading the 
content and quality of information on the RTD programmes, RTD projects and other 
pertinent databases and by incorporating additional EC documentation, e.g. synopses 
of submitted RTD proposals, abstracts of European Parliament papers dealing with 
RTD and more general issues of science and technology. Such an upgrading would 
give it an EC-encyclopaedic character which would have many multi-faceted beneficial 
effects across the EC. 
31. CORDIS is already accessible via several Wide Area Networks, while there is also 
interest by intermediary organisations in distributing electronically sub-sets of 
CORDIS. However, before using new options for a more dynamic penetration of 
CORDIS by distributing sub-sets of CORDIS to other hosts, or even relocating 
CORDIS from ECHO, a multitude of major policy and technical issues require 
clarification. 
32. In conclusion, a clear overall CORDIS strategy is urgently required, particularly given 
the limited funds envisaged for VALUE and SPRINT initiatives within the Third 
Activity of the next Framework Programme. This is needed not only for optimising 
the service but also for securing its future. The issue of decentralisation or 
commercialisation of CORDIS should be the cardinal consideration in such a strategy. 
Legal Protection of Results 
33. Because of its importance and relatively low cost, the protection of RTD results is an 
essential part of the VALUE scheme. Patent evaluation of all JRC and some selected 
Framework Programme research results is executed by the VALUE patent team. 
Drafting of patent claims, writing patent specifications and patent filing applications 
are undertaken by professional patent lawyers. 
34. Very few patents until now have been granted on patent applications under VALUE. 
72 cases have been filed, essentially from BRTTE/EURAM and the Life Sciences 
programmes. Exploitation of RTD results takes years and although no patents taken 
by the Commission under the VALUE programme have yet been commercialised, 
several cases of exploitation are under way. 
35. The work of the VALUE patent team could be improved through greater involvement 
by the programme project officers and RTD project partners. 
INTERFACES II AND III 
36. The activities of Interfaces II and III are new to VALUE and could have a significant 
impact. However, the importance attached to them by the Commission is insufficient 
with respect to the magnitude of the tasks involved. 
37, The Commission's strategic approach and planning have bcaefital the in\plemçatatioa 
of the actions. Nevertheless, a clear administrative identity is required urgently for 
the management team of these tasks, to facilitate its work in approaching the target 
groups and in developing their activities, not only outside but inside the Commission. 
38. Since there is a general lack of awareness about the new issues (Research-Scientific 
Community/Research-Society Interfaces), the Commission should place greater 
emphasis on promoting these through campaigns aimed at target groups in the 
Commission itself as well as in the Member States. 
This could involve synergy with Interface I activities, e.g. using VALUE Relay 
Centres as "distribution networks" for various Interfaces II and III activities. 
39. The Commission should consider merging Interfaces II and III, directing more effort 
and resources, particularly human resources, towards Interface III, " Research -Society" 
actions. 
II. BACKGROUND TO THE MIDTERM REVIEW OF VALUE II 
1. THE REVIEW MANDATE 
On 29 April, 1992 the European Council adopted the Decision (See Annex I) on the 
Centralised Action or VALUE II for the dissemination and exploitation of knowledge 
resulting from the specific programmes of research and technological development of 
the Community. 
According to Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Council Decision, "in the course of the 
second year of the implementation of the action, the Commission shall review it and 
shall send a report on the results of its Review to the European Parliament, the 
Council and the Economic and Social Committee; the report shall be accompanied, 
where necessary, by proposals for amendment of the action ". In accordance with 
these statements, the VALUE Programme Committee established the methods and 
terms of reference for conducting a mid-term review of VALUE II (see Annex II). 
The requirements include that: 
• the Panel will review the extent to which the results achieved contribute to the 
objectives of the Centralised Action (VALUE II) and to that of the Third 
Framework Programme; 
• this Panel will also assess the efficiency and the effectiveness with which the 
programme has been managed and promoted. 
The Mid-Term Review reference period is May 1992 - April 1994. 
2. THE REVIEW APPROACH AND CRITERIA 
The present Mid-Term Review as well as the Final Evaluation of VALUE I have been 
.conducted at the same time and by the same Panel of independent experts. This fact 
necessitated common review criteria and provided a better view of the continuity of 
actions across these programmes. These criteria, presented briefly below, as well as 
the comments given in the next section on strategic issues, have been incorporated 
also in the final Evaluation of VALUE I, to form a conceptual bridge between the two 
reports. This may assist the reader to assess limitations and achievements of both 
programmes and to deduce what would be needed for devising more effective EC 
activities to facilitate the utilisation of RTD results. 
The approach followed by the Panel included steps such as: 
• review of pertinent EC documentation and activity reports; 
• ~ interviews with members of the VALUE Management Team, managers of the 
VALUE Relay Centres (VRCs) and leaders of a few VALUE demonstration 
projects; and 
8 
• extensive discussions in four plenary meetings as well as in several meetings 
of the working groups that focused on each particular action line of the 
programme. 
With respect to the global review criteria employed, it is to be noted that: 
• No quantitative assessment of VALUE-type activities was undertaken as this 
would be highly unreliable for at least three principal reasons: 
the promotion of RTD results and the facilitation of their utilisation are 
complex social processes characterised by "relaxation'1 times ranging 
from several years to a few decades. The "life time" of VALUE I, 
like that of its successor VALUE II, however, is only 3 or 4 years; 
general experience shows that the probability of successful exploitation 
of research results is very low, thus requiring quite a large number of 
RTD results to achieve a statistically meaningful number of 
"successes", i.e. the placement of products in the markets; 
the real potential resulting from Community RTD programme lies in 
the competence, expertise, capabilities and new knowledge created, 
reinforced or developed by the RTD projects in the R & D teams 
which conducted the work. 
This competence development represents a much greater potential than 
any directly or indirectly exploitable research results expected to stem 
from the projects. 
Exploitation and transfer of RTD results is always welcome and useful 
but tends to be the exception rather than the rule. The main challenge 
is in connecting the relevant skills of researchers and scientists to 
demand needs. 
In fact a separate qualitative assessment of the results in each RTD sector 
would be similarly unrewarding. 
• Consequently and in view of the pilot character and catalytic role of both 
VALUE Programmes, their overall performance can be reviewed only from 
such perspectives as, e.g.: 
were the initiatives designed by the Commission sound and in line with 
the mandates for this programme? 
did the VALUE Management Team develop, within the given 
budgetary and other operational constraints, a coherent workplan of 
activities for demonstrating new tools and mechanisms facilitating 
critical stages in the utilisation of scientific and technological 
knowledge in the EC? 
did these tools and mechanisms prove operative or adequate, even in 
the limited areas and contexts in which they were tested? 
is the experience from the VALUE exercise useful for designing better 
EC programmes and activities with a view to exploitation of RTD 
results? 
Finally, the criteria employed for reviewing specific activities were mainly: 
• how well an activity was prepared and implemented in proportion to the means 
available; and 
• how useful that activity was for the end users or in relation to the aims 
targeted. 
Since the definition of the programme was strictly formulated and rather detailed, the 
Panel considered it useful and necessary to discuss the strategy behind the programme 
even though this meant enlarging the scope of the evaluation of VALUE. 
10 
III. STRATEGIC AND POLICY ISSUES CONCERNING VALUE 
1. STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE 
In order to evaluate this programme, as well as VALUE II, the strategic goals of 
these programmes need to be viewed from the perspective of the overall process of 
utilisation of RTD and of the Existing Knowledge Base (EKB)(1), i.e. of RTD 
results, scientific and technological competence and technical skills. Such a 
perspective will also illuminate more clearly the differences in the goals of VALUE 
and SPRINT. Such a differentiation is needed for the purposes of this Review, since 
these programmes overlap to a certain extent and in the forthcoming Fourth 
Framework Programme-both will be implemented under the same scheme, i.e. the 
Third Activity. 
In a crude approximation, this process is depicted in the diagram below as a synthesis 
of EKB and of additional RTD activity in order to transform an idea into an invention 
arid finally into a novel technological process or product that is industrially 
exploitable. 
Diagram 1 
A crude presentation of the process of utilisation of EKB and RTD 7 X 
RTD 
programmes 
and 
projects Building up 
the Existing Knowledge Base K r Technology 
Transfer 
New Ideas H Invention New technological 
Process/Products • 
Existing 
Technological 
Base 
.... and Needs 
- In the above diagram, Tl denotes: 
the transformation of an idea into an invention by utilising the EKB and carrying 
out additional research and development 
while T2 denotes: 
the transformation of an invention into a novel exploitable technological process 
or product by utilising the EKB and carrying out additional research 
and development 
(1) Scientific and technological competence as well as technical skills that built up over a very 
long period of time. The exploitation potential of EKB is increasing rapidly nowadays since 
RTD and technology feed into it continuously primary knowledge and technical means. 
11 
It is clear that feedback loops and additional loops operate among all the blocks. 
Furthermore, the above transformations are influenced by assessments of economic 
parameters and marketing requirements, which are not shown in this diagram. 
Therefore, the above simplified presentation of the process of utilisation of EKB and 
RTD is rarely valid. 
In these transformations, technological uncertainty diminishes while costs increase 
significantly as one moves away from the left side of the diagram. Both these trends 
are due mainly to the following facts: 
• the exploitation potential of an idea or of a research result can never be 
estimated immediately with great confidence; 
• the demonstration of an invention is a synthesis of the EKB and of a multitude 
of additional RTD results that have to be achieved; 
• the exploitation of an idea or invention does not cease with the development 
of one particular industrial process or product. For a considerable time after 
the operation of the novel process or the launch of the first product, market 
forces and new RTD results create the conditions for recognising new uses for 
the original idea or invention; 
• market and general public reactions to a novel product or technological process 
is in many cases unpredictable. This response depends in a quite complicated 
way not only on economic conditions but also on real or perceived needs as 
well as on ideas prevailing in the public consciousness about science and 
technology and their social role. 
Within the limits of the above illustration of the utilisation process, the main aims of 
VALUE are to assist the transformations Tl and T2. Within the same format, 
SPRINT targets the promotion of innovation by transfer of technology, i.e. it seeks 
to help: 
• primarily, diffusion of a novel technology; and 
• secondarily, the facilitation of T2 transformation. 
Thus, the second main target of VALUE overlaps with the target of SPRINT. Since 
only VALUE addresses the first transformation, it is obvious that this programme 
should focus in particular on its first main target and complement SPRINT in the 
second main target. 
12 
Diagram 2 
Main targets of programmes VALUE and SPRINT 
/ 
Building up 
the. Existing Knowledge Base 
RTD 
programmes 
and 
projects RTD 
"results" 9 Technology 
I TrWer 
New technological, r\ 
Process/Products / 
Domain of VALUE Existing 
Technological 
Base 
fSeds 
This process of utilisation of RTD and EKB is characterised by deleterious 
complexity, due also to underlying economic and other social phenomena. This 
complexity requires both a top-down and bottom-up approach in the rationale, strategy 
and implementation of these programmes. For VALUE in particular a bottom-up 
approach is necessary since the ambiguities in RTD work are many and the 
technological success rate is very small. In addition, the diversity in the RTD 
infrastructure in the Member States and the time-dependence of this infrastructure 
make a bottom-up approach indispensable for achieving the goals of VALUE. 
In view of thé above-mentioned features of the utilisation process, and of the 
importance of VALUE as a catalyst of the whole process and of the limited means 
made available to both VALUE programmes, their role could be only that of a 
"designer", "demonstrator" and "co-ordinator" of EC activities, shaping and test-
modelling tools and mechanisms to facilitate the utilisation of research results. 
Although such instruments are to some extent present in technologically advanced 
Member States, the role of VALUE is to release the synergy hidden in the EU by 
advancing pertinent cross-border collaborations for increasing the industrial 
competitivity of the Community and its cohesion. 
2. STRATEGIC CONSTRAINTS 
-Against the above background, it is clear that the Council Decision about VALUE I 
reveals mainly a mono-directional, top-down rationale. This is based on the 
hypothesis that technology push is the only primary driving force in the utilisation 
process. In this hypothesis, market trends, users' needs and public perceptions of the 
goals of European society are all considered secondary, weak forces. 
Thus, this programme had a priori a strategic handicap. The Council Decision 
implicitly providedjiowever, for tools that could serve a bottom-up approach. These 
tools are the Relay Centres mentioned in action line 1.4 and the measures foreseen in 
action line 1.5 "utilisation of results"a). However, a true bottom-up, complementing 
the top-down, strategy is absent from in the Council Decision. 
a) The corresponding action lines in VALUE II are I. la and 1.2, respectively. 
13 
Furthermore, VALUE I included strategic goals that were at the time novel for the 
EC and the Commission. In addition, the programme objectives were very ambitious, 
since they addressed all EC RTD activities and specified several diverse activities. 
The objectives of Subprogramme n exemplify this diversity. Thus, the efforts were 
ex ante fragmented. The resources allocated were, however, very modest with respect 
both to the goal and to the corresponding needs in the EC. These needs cover a 
spectrum starting from the diffusion of information on Community RTD programmes 
and results, via awareness and advice on how to valorise research results, etc. and 
ending with the introduction of a pan-European electronic communication praxis. 
Finally, an additional crucial factor for programme implementation was the limited 
management freedom granted to the Commission by the Council Decision (see section 
IV). The design and management of such a multi-faceted and exploratory programme 
as VALUE ought to be very flexible. 
The launch of VALUE I created expectations, therefore, that could not be fulfilled 
because of such initial constraints. 
In view of the above, there was not much room for the Commission, and in particular 
for the VALUE Management Team, either to re-design the programme strategy, or 
to develop a strategy based also on a bottom-up approach, or to focus only on a few 
of the action lines stipulated in the Council Decision, in order to become more 
effective. Hence the VALUE Management Team aimed primarily at the management 
of a pre-defined programme i.e. utilising as best as possible the quite modest 
resources in order to achieve an optimum and smooth programme implementation 
through the labyrinth of EC modalities and of specific national needs. 
In the opinion of the Panel, as will be detailed in the rest of this Evaluation, the 
management strategy followed has proved to be operative and successful. 
Conversely, the context of the VALUE Programme and its constraints raise major 
strategic and policy questions, as addressed in the next paragraphs. 
3. STRATEGY AND POLICY ISSUES 
• Both VALUE I and VALUE II represent big agendas without adequate 
financial support. 
It must be emphasised that exploitation of RTD results, technology transfer 
and more generally the promotion of innovation are essential to European 
economic competitiveness and as such require significant funding, not just a 
small percent of RTD budgets. 
RTD is one thing; proving that some results in terms of competence or new 
ideas may work is another thing; putting such competence or creative ideas 
to work through industrialisation is yet a third thing. All three are essential. 
At present VALUE is only able to demonstrate partially the second of these 
activities through specific case studies. 
14 
When exploratory pilot programmes such as VALUE are launched, there 
should be greater flexibility in their use of the resources available. The strict 
pre-definition of the budget allocated for each action line obviously limited 
optimisation of the programme by the VALUE Management Team and Co­
ordination Committee. 
VALUE may be regarded as a back-up initiative, should the participants of an 
RTD programme not exploit their results in the usual way. 
However, little or no attention was paid in VALUE to "upstream" or "ex ante" 
integration of business perspectives Into the RTD programmes, i.e. before (he 
RTD project was funded and launched. Is it normal or inevitable that over 
50% of RTD projects fall in the "Candidates for Value" category while only 
about 20% lead to "Autonomous" exploitation by the consortia which 
conducted the RTD? 
It has to be taken into account, however, that VALUE and more specifically 
VALUE I was designed at a time and in an overall context where "technology 
push" stemming from "pre-competitive" R&D projects was still the dominant 
viewpoint. In addition, the Second Framework Programme essentially 
promoted scientific consortia. It was not until the Third Framework 
Programme that potential users of RTD project results were more 
systematically associated with the consortia. 
VALUE fulfils a function which is directly related toother existing activities. 
National policies, methodologies and tools exist to promote technology 
transfer and innovation within most countries and at regional level. 
This includes exploitation of publicly funded R&D; 
SPRINT aims at promoting "cross-border" technology transfer and 
innovation; 
VALUE addresses Community funded RTD only. 
VALUE might thus have been designed around existing tools stemming from 
national or SPRINT initiatives, as a communication action towards: 
existing technology transfer agents and their networks, 
existing value added networks of information providers, 
the management team for the specific programmes (ESPRIT, BRITE 
EURAM,...) in the Commission. 
The integration of SPRINT and VALUE into a single programme as foreseen 
by the Fourth Framework Programme is thus positive and should strengthen 
the effectiveness of both the VALUE and SPRINT initiatives. 
15 
Similarly, more co-operation between the specific programmes and VALUE 
would be appropriate, especially for upstream activities. 
More attention should be devoted to clarifying property rights matters among 
partners before RTD projects are launched, with the specific objective of 
facilitating subsequent valorisation and avoiding its obstruction by any of the 
partners. 
In addition, exploitation can be promoted more readily if progress is monitored 
in real time. 
Systematic screening following project termination is useful but not as 
efficient. Information coming from the projects should be processed 
immediately in a format compatible with CORDIS's architecture and structure. 
A one-page summary in the CORDIS format at least mid-term and atthe end 
of each project should be mandatory for the contractors in order to facilitate 
the acquisition and thus the dissemination of appropriate information through 
CORDIS. 
Specific programme officers could help a great deal in such real time 
monitoring and appropriate processing of information. They could clearly rely 
more on VRCs to conduct part of this work and effect some form of quality 
control/purification of the data as well as to add value to the information 
provided. 
It should be emphasised that the way information is processed currently within 
the specific programmes leads to very high costs for CORDIS in gathering and 
restructuring data. In addition, for the same reasons, the resulting database 
quality is not always wholly satisfactory. The corresponding savings in the 
CORDIS budget could be directed to other action lines. 
Similarly, the Panel recommends that users should pay for the VALUE 
database services: the financial survival of CORDIS, its maintenance and 
future development all point to this necessity. 
The VRCs need to be positioned clearly with respect to existing SPRINT 
networks in charge of technology transfer and the promotion of innovation at 
the Community or national level. 
The tools used by VRCs should draw upon experience from existing packages 
but adapted to specific needs and should include a stronger conceptual 
approach related to the innovation processes, seen from not just the purely 
technical perspective. 
In addition there is a need for these tools to include a clear combination of a 
European integrating spirit and a recognition of the need to adapt the 
technology transfer and innovation processes to local and national 
characteristics. The Panel recommends promotion of personnel exchanges 
among VRCs to build confidence in Europe among younger staff. 
16 
Along similar lines, VALUE should be extended to include not only 
Community funded RTD results but also relevant technologies requiring 
transfer/exploitation throughout the multiple and complex loops of the 
innovation process. This would therefore require VALUE to deal also with 
all other types of RTD results e.g. nationally funded. 
Moreover, it would be appropriate to encourage national governments and 
public bodies progressively to adopt the CORDIS format and organisation of 
information. ~ 
SMEs should be a definite priority for such activities. VRCs have an 
important role to play in helping to exploit the potential of Community RTD 
towards SMEs. 
However, the approach to SMEs by the operators of various programmes 
should be organised as far as possible in such a way as to avoid multiplication 
of channels of information and support. 
The Panel recommends that the Commission halt the continual creation of new 
offices, guichets and similar entities. Decentralisation is clearly appropriate 
but without co-ordination it leads to wasteful overlaps and duplication. 
Experimentation conducted by some VRCs to set up a dialogue with SMEs 
through technical co-operative organisations proved very useful. The Panel 
recommends that such an approach be promoted. 
The VALUE approach, initially created in a "technology push" type of mode, 
should become more demand-oriented or "market pull" based. From that 
perspective, the concepts behind the experiment currently under way between 
VALUE and the Structural Funds to satisfy SME needs would seem 
appropriate. This clearly relates to the "ex ante - upstream" line of reasoning 
mentioned above. 
Along the KLINE & ROSENBERG (1986) chain-link model of innovation, the 
major issue for VALUE would be to link SMEs with a specific technological 
problem to a source of adequate competence in a laboratory which was funded 
by the Commission - or elsewhere. This clearly relates to Diagram 1 
presented earlier in this section. 
Of course exploitation and transfer of RTD results is always welcome and 
useful but tends to be the exception rather than the rule. The art is in 
connecting the relevant skills of researchers and scientists - wherever they are -
to demand needs. 
This again points to the integration of VALUE and SPRINT activities as a 
means of strengthening both initiatives. 
VALUE has been directly involved in exploitation projects covering activities 
such as marketing studies, business plans, search for industrial partners, tests 
under industrial conditions, prototyping, patent support, licensing, participation 
17 
in exhibitions, etc. Shouldn't VALUE'S role focus on organising/ 
integrating/promoting/linking, helping to match needs and skills, working 
more as a catalyst and designer of processes than as a direct player? 
Undertaking specific projects may, however, be useful to: 
demonstrate the exploitation mechanisms as well as utilise outstanding 
R&D results in Member States or Community regions having little 
experience in exploitation/insufficient pertinent national schemes; 
serve as examples of concrete outputs of the VALUE Programme 
whenever an illustration is required by the public (displaying function); 
keep the VALUE team up-to-date with respect to the difficulties of real 
life innovation processes; 
analyse across these projects, to learn from such experiments. 
How do V ALUE/SPRINT/the Fourth Framework Programme/Structural Funds 
relate to one another from the above viewpoint? 
More specifically, should not VALUE and VALUE/SPRINT be related 
increasingly to the structural initiatives of DG XVI or even to the Industrial 
Policy of DG III or the SME actions of DG XXIII? The current pilot 
initiatives, e.g. with DG XVI, hint clearly in this direction. 
From such a perspective, the purely administrative funding approach adopted 
recently of 1% of the specific RTD programmes supposedly devoted to 
dissemination activities may only be effective if co-ordinated by VALUE. 
Furthermore, it could be potentially counter-productive because it would not 
take account of programme-specific needs (cost, duration, barriers, etc.,) and, 
above all, the multidisciplinarity/multitechnological nature of innovation. 
Beyond RTD activities, there is clearly a need for activities to promote 
innovation, technology transfer and the exploitation and dissemination of RTD 
results and knowledge. 
Past experimentation and pilot stages should now lead to the explicit 
formulation of a global policy securing these essential activities into a larger 
strategic vision. 
A major initiative, for which the funding would be clearly distinct from the 
funding of R & D and thus the Fourth Framework Programme and targeted 
at the promotion of innovation, should be considered in the medium-term. 
This recommendation thus clearly goes beyond the scope of VALUE. 
18 
IV. INTRODUCTION : THE VALUE II PROGRAMME 
1. VALUE H - BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES 
The VALUE n Programme or "the Centralised Action for the dissemination and 
exploitation of knowledge resulting from the specific programmes of research and 
technological development (RTD) of the Community" was started in May 1992 during 
the Third Framework Programme and is scheduled to end in December 1994 during 
the initial stages of the Fourth Framework Programme. 
The Third Framework Programme envisaged that the measures for disseminating 
knowledge and results arising from the specific and supplementary programmes shall 
be implemented, on the one hand, by these programmes themselves and, on the other 
hand, by means of the Centralised Action. The general aim of this Action is to give 
specific added value to the whole range of Community RTD activities which are the 
subject of the Third Framework programme (1990-1994), co-ordinating and 
supplementing the measures taken under the specific RTD programmes. More 
specifically, the main objective is to promote the dissemination, utilisation and 
exploitation of research results of EC RTD activities with a view to attaining the 
declared aim of the Framework Programme. Exploitation in the sense of producing 
and marketing new products is not part of the VALUE II objectives. 
The Council Decision (see Annex 1) for the Centralised Action or VALUE II was 
adopted on 29 April 1992 and allocated to this programme a budget of 57 MECU. 
Later, by the Decision 93/167/ Euratom, EEC, of 15 March 1993, this amount was 
revised to 66 MECU. Thus, the funds allocated for VALUE II are higher than those 
for VALUE I, but they still represent only a small fraction (1%) of the total budget 
for the whole Third Framework Programme. Therefore VALUE II was given 
inadequate means for promoting to any great extent RTD results or for facilitating 
effectively their utilisation across the ÊU. 
VALUE II provided continuity for the measures carried out during 1989-1993 under 
"Subprogramme I of VALUE I and also introduced new topics of strategic importance 
for promoting the utilisation of knowledge. These new topics focused on: 
• the interdisciplinarity of research; and 
• the repercussions of RTD activities and of their results on society as a whole. 
More particularly, the Council Decision specified that the Centralised Action should 
be implemented: 
• in accordance with the principles of Horizontality, Complementarity and 
Subsidiarity; and 
• along three Interfaces; those of "Research-Industry", "Research-Scientific 
Community" and "Research-Society". 
19 
The objectives set for each of these Interfaces can be summarised as follows: 
• Interface I. "Research-Industry", for improving the international 
competitiveness of Europe's industry in accordance with the provisions of the 
EC Treaty by means of specific projects designed to maximise the impact of 
Community RTD activities on industry as a whole. 
• Interface IL "Research-Scientific Community", for contributing to an 
interdisciplinary reflection on research, its methods, problems and impact. 
• - Interface m. "Research-Society", for identifying and studying the social 
impact of the new scientific and technological knowledge acquired as a result 
of Community activities as well as for providing information to the public with 
the aim of ensuring that changes in the contemporary approach to science are 
compatible with developments in society. 
It is clear that the overall budget of VALUE II is very modest in relation to its 
objectives. The funds allocated to Interfaces II and III, in particular, were not 
adequate for launching any substantial field initiative. Thus, like its predecessor 
programme, VALUE II created expectations that were impossible to fulfil. 
With respect to procedural matters, a limited management freedom was granted to the 
Commission(1) by the Council Decision. According to Article 5 of this Decision, the 
Commission is responsible for the implementation of the programme, while Articles 
6 and 7 stipulate that a Committee of representatives of the Member States assists the 
Commission with programme implementation by delivering opinion on the measures 
proposed by the latter. The mechanisms for the utilisation of RTD results and for 
technology transfer differ, however, among the Member States. The Commission and 
the Committee obviously had to take into account this diversity. 
Finally, the measures of VALUE had to comply also with the legal and contractual 
conditions governing Community RTD projects. About 90% of these are carried out 
under shared-costs contracts and therefore the contractors are the owners of the results 
and are responsible for exploiting these or otherwise. Only JRC results are owned by 
the Community. 
2. OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES AND EXPENDITURE 
The following tables depict the main activities carried out per action line of the 
programme, and their corresponding costs. 
Within the above-mentioned operational and budgetary limits and with the consent of 
the Committee of national representatives as well as with assistance from experts' 
opinions, the VALUE Management Team devised a workprogramme and formulated 
an operational approach for all three Interfaces of VALUE II. Table 1 
(1) The new term "European Commission" is hot used in this Review so as to avoid confusion 
with the term "European Communities" (EC). 
20 
below indicates the main activities within Interface I and the funds spent until 1 
January 1994. 
Table 1 
LINES OF ACTION OF INTERFACE I Cost (MECU) 
I. la | VALUE Relay Centres ' 13.4 
Lib CORDIS and publications for dissemination 11.6 
1.2 Utilisation of results 11.1 
1.3 Protection of results 0.4 
1.4 Promotional activities 5.3 
Total Expenditure until January 1994 > 41.8 
Above expenditure as percentage of budget > 75 
The connections between the activities within Interface I of VALUE II and those in 
Subprogramme I of VALUE I are illustrated in the following diagram. 
21 
Diagram 1 
Correlation betwen the main action lines of Programmes 
VALUE I/Subprogrammme I and VALUE I I/In ter fa ce I 
( VALUE II action line budgets indicated are those spent by January 1994 only) 
1.1 Dissem. of Progr. 10.2 MECU 
CORDIS & Publications (>1.4) 
1.2 Identifie & Screen 1.3 MECU 
SCREEN & techno-econ. evaluation 
1.3 Legal protection LP MECU 
1.4 Dissem. of results 6.2 MECU 
Publications, Promotion of info, 
targeted disem. of projects and 
Pilot Studies of GR-& P-VRCs 
Promotion of VALUE 
1.5 Promotion of exploit. 10.4 MECU 
Market surveys, exploitation plans, 
prototypes/trials, training, 
promotion, 
HI. Co-operation Network 
HI V-SME Scheme LI New channels of Information 25.0 MECU 
VRCs, CORDIS & Publications 
L2 Utilisation of results 11.3 MECU 
SCREEN, direct assistance, 
training, Co-operation Network 
and V-SME Scheme" 
1.3 Protection of results 0.4 MECU 
L4 Promotional activities 5.3 MECU 
Publications, awareness, fairs 
07/1989 07/1993 
I V:CVV * ;<^>^ VÀLŒH/* ^ 
05/1992 12/1994 
22 
The following two Tables depict the main activities within Interfaces II and HI and 
the corresponding estimated expenditures to around March/April 1994. 
Table 2 
ACTIVITIES WITHIN INTERFACE II Cost (MECU) 
1 Studies, surveys, evaluations 0.6 
2 Promotion, awareness, seminars, etc. 0.4 
3 Directories, databases, documents 0.05 
Total Expenditure until April 1994 > 1.05 
Above expenditure as percentage of budget > 37 
Table 3 
ACTIVITIES WITHIN INTERFACE III Cost (MECU) 
1 Studies, surveys, evaluations 0.4 
2 Promotion, awareness, seminars, etc. 0.3 
3 Directories, databases, documents 0.05 
4 Contribution to TA within the EC 0.3 
i t __________ 
Total Expenditure until April 1994 > 1.05 
Above expenditure as percentage of budget > 41 
23 
V. REVIEW OF INTERFACE I : RESEARCH - INDUSTRY 
1. INTRODUCTION 
In this section the Panel records its views and relevant comments on the initiatives 
undertaken overall and within each activity of Interface I of the VALUE II 
Programme. These comments encompass global issues relating to these activities 
following a detailed examination of the various initiatives involved. 
The Council Decision for VALUE II, as in the case of its predecessor VALUE I, 
specified several diverse activities. Within the limitations outlined earlier of the 
Council Decision, the operational approach of the VALUE Management Team for 
Interface I was based principally on the experience gained from the activities already 
launched in VALUE I. In fact, the Council Decision of VALUE II stipulated 
practically the same action lines as in VALUE I (see Diagram 1 in previous section). 
Therefore, the upgrading of these activities was the main goal of this approach and 
indeed, as shown earlier, the efforts focused on: 
• the setting up of the (VRCs, i.e. action line I. la; 
• the direct facilitation of the utilisation of RTD results; i.e. action line 1.2; 
• the upgrading of CORDIS and dissemination in general, i.e. action line I. lb; 
and 
• promotional activities, i.e. action line 1.4. 
In the case of Interfaces II and III, the operational approach comprised an initial 
diagnostic phase and a follow-up phase of pilot activities. The work programme 
devised for the first phase included a few studies in order to: 
" • gain an overview of pertinent current practice within the EC, the USA and 
Japan; and 
• obtain suggestions for pilot activities. 
This work programme foresaw that during the follow-up phase pilot activities would 
be launched with a view to creating tools that could be useful later in the EC initiative 
during the Fourth Framework Programme, addressing issues similar to those of these 
two Interfaces. 
The Panel notes that in the case of Interfaces II and III, the Commission followed an 
effective methodology for forging a coherent operational approach and work 
programme. 
24 
2. ACTION LINE I. la : VALUE RELAY CENTRES NETWORK 
2.1 Overall Comments 
The VALUE Relay Centres (VRCs) represent, in principle, a very interesting and 
innovative tool for contributing together with other VALUE and specific programme 
actions to the dissemination and exploitation of Community RTD results. 
Among the whole range' of VALUE activities it is the VRCs which have the closest 
contacts with the potential users of results in terms of both geography and 
requirements and may constitute for many SMEs the sole or main contact point not 
only with the VALUE Programme but also with the complete Framework Programme 
of the European Union. 
Therefore, the role that the VRCs could play is of great importance not only in terms 
of image but also and especially in terms of their ability to act as a bridge between 
SMEs' technological needs and the research efforts of the European programmes and, 
potentially, of the national ones as well. 
VRCs are hence a horizontal network for all Community Programmes, necessitating 
their interactive participation and co-operation in order to achieve project objectives. 
Furthermore, once this VRC network is well established and integrated with the SMEs 
innovation process, VRCs could play a certain monitoring and feedback role on behalf 
of the Commission, through independent staff attached to the management units of the 
specific programmes, since we found it was very important to have on-going 
assessment of the real potential for application of the European research efforts. 
VRCs may also play a significant role in the less technogically advanced countries, 
where the SME innovation environment is poor, to aid assessment of the national 
science and technology programmes and thus obtain maximum synergy with the 
European programmes. Since industry in these regions lacks the maturity to 
participate fully in research programmes but can benefit from RTD results, VRCs can 
help by disseminating transnational results. 
Conceptually, VRCs constitute a significant step forward in the decentralisation 
process. They can act much more efficiently than the centralised units of the 
Commission, promoting innovation awareness among SMEs and filtering to them 
those European technological achievements which could prove useful for their own 
needs. 
In this respect, extending their technological remit to include results other than those 
derived from European projects (national or international) would certainly improve the 
performance of the VRCs. 
The Panel members have visited a large number of VRCs in their own country and 
abroad but a specific evaluation on the overall performance is, at such aninitial stage, 
almost impossible. For example, some VRCs just started a few months ago; and 
while it is relatively easy to obtain information on partnering roles, which in most 
25 
cases have been carried out very well, the valorisation of existing RTD results is a 
long-term and difficult activity. 
The reasons for this diversity stem from differences relating to: 
• the country or region: the existing technological situation, innovation 
awareness, amount and quality of available technological promotion agents; 
• the selected organisation, where the VRC is placed: previous experience, on­
going similar activities, ranking of VALUE goals within their own priorities; 
• the people: specifically contracted or existing staff, devoted full-time or 
sharing activities, young or professionally qualified people; 
• the philosophy and approach in achieving the VALUE objectives. 
It is clear, therefore, that each VRC not only faces differing demands but the initial 
expertise of each VRC host organisation is also non-homogenous. Although such 
plurality of requirements and diversity of expertise are positive features each VRC 
host should define in future its strategy and methodology within an overall 
organisational business plan as well, complementary to its actual workplan. Some 
VRCs have already executed such well-defined plans but others need to do so 
urgently, given their almost one year of operation. 
2.2 Operational Aspects 
The concept and size of VRCs are basically different from those of other existing 
networks. VRCs are focused clearly on RTD activities and have the potential to 
achieve a real networking operational system. Advantage must be taken of this 
singular opportunity, although the VALUE/SPRINT merger provides additional 
possibilities for exploiting synergies with some of the most active SPRINT networks 
as well as with other SPRINT initiatives (venture capital fora, technology transfer 
days, etc.) with which VRCs could be associated. 
The work of the most dynamic VRCs in their first year is encouraging, having yielded 
-some good results and proven the idea's merit. As a result of the existence of a local 
interface between European RTD programmes and projects and local organisations 
interested in them, many companies, mainly SMEs, all over Europe have contacted 
the VRCs. After all, the Relay Centres know the local companies, have direct links 
with them, talk their language and apply a pro-active approach to their work. 
Transnational technical assistance processes, road shows for bringing Community 
results to companies in small villages, dissemination of technological opportunities 
through existing national sectorial organisations, promotion of direct technology 
transfer projects to the less advanced regions using structural funds from DG XVI, 
etc. are good examples of VRC activities to date. 
Nevertheless, not all the initially nominated VRCs performed well during this period 
and therefore an in-depth evaluation and eventually the substitution of some of them 
will be recommended. 
26 
One of the most important and challenging aspects of the VRC system is its 
networking character. Real networking will occur only with the active participation 
of the VRCs themselves and this needs to improve. The VRC central unit must act 
as a catalyst for this process by supporting joint actions between Relay Centres from 
different countries. 
In general terms, the VRCs should be mainly project-oriented, endeavouring to create 
an environment of co-operation with and assistance to the SMEs in the region. 
Simultaneously, they must also provide a continuous service to local companies, 
acting as a help-desk for European technological programmes at local level. 
The VALUE central unit should stimulate the work of the network and provide 
support upon request from the VRCs while controlling and co-ordinating the budget 
and overall operation. 
During discussions with VRCs the phrase "less paper and more information" was 
often mentioned. Some VRCs stated that the evaluation forms and some 
dissemination sheets provide little added value, hence an assessment of this process 
would be useful. VRCs need "real time information" which can come only from the 
project officers and the specific programmes following the RTD contracts. The 
VALUE mandate is to establish and manage the network but information supply is a 
joint effort which needs to be improved. 
The role of CORDIS as supplier of information is very important. Currently VRCs 
use 20% of CORDIS connection time and have proved to be frequent users of the 
system at local level, often following a demand-pull approach, referring to CORDIS 
to satisfy local company needs. 
However, VRCs found a significant amount of out-of-date addresses and other facts 
about the research centres and companies in their regions. Therefore, a simplified 
method for communicating with CORDIS to avoid such errors should be implemented. 
During this initial VRC operating phase the specific programmes had little motivation 
in supplying VRCs with technological results. Moreover, the VALUE central unit 
screening activities became fully operational only very recently. These could be the 
reasons why the results that the VRCs aimed to exploit were probably not the best that 
the specific programmes could supply. 
On the other hand, VRCs are placed in a very difficult position given both the pre-
competitive character to date of Community research and the usual channels of 
exploitation of good results through consortia. 
Once relevant projects have been identified and VRCs have assisted transnational 
exploitation of results, they require as a final step the necessary funding schemes. 
The absence of a supportive financial environment for promoting innovation, 
particulary within VALUE for exploitation projects, has been a major drawback, 
inhibiting larger scale results. 
27 
2.3 Organisational Aspects 
In many cases, mainly due to the nomination procedure followed, the VRCs created 
were centred on national or regional technological official institutions. This can have 
certain advantages, enabling them to offer potential users a whole package of support 
measures which can be applicable to the RTD projects with which the VRCs are 
working and allowing the limited assistance from VALUE to complement national 
measures. 
However, this can become a disadvantage if the institutions aim to do everything by 
themselves, ignoring other technology agencies that could be in some cases potentially 
more suitable for certain actions. 
In this respect, thorough consideration should be given to a merger between VALUE 
and SPRINT in order to obtain as efficient a co-operation as possible with those 
SPRINT networks that are likely to continue operating in future. 
Another potential danger of being centred on an official organisation is the danger of 
being marginalised, with VALUE support being used as an external financial source 
to supplement the organisation's own activities, which is clearly against the 
subsidiarity principle. 
The VRCs' structures are, in most cases, rather generalist while the SMEs want to 
discuss their problems with people who understand the opportunities and situations of 
their own activity sector. 
The first set of VRCs was established using a nomination procedure which took into 
account the current national situation and problems rather than professional criteria. 
As a result of this situation some drawbacks have been identified during the initial 
operating period and the VALUE Management Committee needs to enable the 
VALUE central unit to revise and implement the changes required to improve 
operation of the system. 
In order to accelerate dissemination and exploitation of results, some kind of 
incentives could be offered to those centres which achieve better results or which 
"modify and adapt their methodologies to enable them to deal more dynamically with 
changing industrial and technological situations. 
It could be interesting also to establish a VRC within regional technological 
organisations for a pre-determined period of time and then move it to another one 
provided that the contacts and activities in the first can be sustained. 
The number of VRCs should not be rigidly determined and should allow for a certain 
amount of mobility and change. Nevertheless, if networking is one of the main goals 
the numbers should not be much greater than exist currently. 
2.4 Conclusions 
If the European Union considers that valorisation of research results and an interface 
between user needs and research programmes is important for Europe's future, then 
28 
something like the VRC system must exist. The Commission should recognise the 
high strategic value of this already existing VRC network. 
It is also important that this new VRC tool is established in places where, through the 
complementarity and subsidiarity principles, the synergies with existing organisations 
allow for maximum operational efficiency, provided that VALUE goals are given 
sufficient attention and priority. 
The whole concept of VRCs, if it proves successful in the medium-term, may 
contribute to demonstrating the efficiency of decentralised actions, regionally oriented 
and therefore closer to user needs. 
In view of the direct connections between most VRCs and the national science and 
technology programmes of the Member States and in view of the current limited 
number of centres which can still be managed in a co-ordinated way, real networking 
among all of them is possible and would provide distinctive, qualitative value to this 
new VRC tool. 
The networking character might become one of the most important assets of the 
VALUE Programme in the medium-term and could increase not only the performance 
of the system in terms of concrete deals concerning exploitation of results but also and 
more especially lead to greater indirect effects which may be difficult to measure but 
easy to identify and appreciate. 
Despite the efforts invested, few results can be expected from a top-down basic 
procedure based on the pre-competitive results of Community specific programmes, 
so the trend towards a more balanced situation between offer-push and demand-pull, 
undertaken by some VRCs, are to be highly commended and should be followed by 
other VRCs. 
2.5 Recommendations 
The VRCs' role and objectives need to be adapted to existing financial resources and 
therefore an increase in funds will ensure more ambitious results. Hence the 
compulsory contribution by the specific programmes of 1 % for dissemination and 
exploitation might optimise results if totally or partly channelled through the VRC 
system. This will also have the benefit of integrating more closely the specific 
programmes with the VRCs' work. 
In order to achieve their goals better and be consistent with the decentralised approach 
VRCs should have a higher degree of autonomy, giving them the responsibility over 
decisions concerning VALUE assistance to local proposals such as feasibility awards, 
etc. 
To strengthen the networking structure among all the VRCs cross-training of VRC 
personnel in other centres is highly recommended. This should last a minimum of 
three months and should be based on preference, not reciprocity. Such personnel 
should be fully integrated from the very beginning within the current activities of the 
host VRC, which at the same time would have some of its own personnel working in 
another VRC. 
29 
Clear instructions should be given to the more centralisation-oriented VRCs, 
recommending them to co-operate with other existing agents such as sectorial 
organisations which could amplify greatly the VRCs' actions. 
The existing two-way communication procedures between the VALUE central unit and 
the VRCs must be improved although the supply of information to the VRCs should 
be the joint responsibility of all the Commission services involved in RTD 
programmes. 
Closer contact, if requested, between the officials responsible for the specific projects 
during the development period and the VALUE central unit or directly with the VRCs 
is necessary in order to obtain real time information. Otherwise parts of the results 
become obsolete even before start-up of the exploitation activities. 
VRCs must become a kind of technological agent and must be allowed to work with 
a whole range of European or even non-European technologies, not only those arising 
from the specific Framework Programme projects, in order to increase the penetration 
of new technologies among European SMEs. 
Full-time dedicated personnel must be compulsory; procedures to train VRC 
personnel must be defined and implemented by the VALUE central unit; job profiles 
regarding personnel experience and background must be established. 
The Panel highly recommends a detailed evaluation by external experts of each one 
of the VRCs, not later than the end of 1994. For such an evaluation a set of 
evaluation criteria, specific to each VRC, needs to be defined in order to take into 
account the differences in the overall conditions and the corresponding goals and 
business plans to be accomplished in the near future for each one of these units. 
Continuous monitoring during the initial years might be advisable. 
The VRCs which were not producing satisfactory results according to the specific 
goals and methodologies originally presented to, and approved by VALUE must be 
substituted. The procedure and the requirements for selection of the new centres must 
be studied carefully. A call for proposals (open or restricted?) asking for a business 
plan and methodologies to be applied must be evaluated also by the independent 
"experts who would report according to professional criteria any final decision to 
VALUE. 
30 
ACTION LINE I. lb : BASIC SERVICE : COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND 
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION SERVICE (CORDIS) 
3.1 Findings 
CORDIS was launched in 1990 on an experimental basis under VALUE I and 
currently presents the only provider of a unique collection of correlated information 
on Community RTD activities and results (for details see final evaluation of 
programme VALUE I). Currently, there are about 6,300 users of CORDIS who 
retrieve information from 105,000 records, organised in eight databases. Although 
CORDIS has not been intensively promoted during VALUE I(1), the number of users 
increased since 1992 at the rate of about 500 users/per month. This steady increase 
is most probably due to the fact that currently CORDIS is now the only provider of 
a unique collection of correlated information on EC RTD matters. This collection 
was recognised as having the potential of being Very valuable to many categories of 
users for obtaining information on basic EC RTD initiatives, projects, results and 
acronyms, as well as on organisations seeking partners for RTD activities, on EC 
policy documents, etc. * 
Today, mid-term of VALUE II, one can safely say that CORDIS is a EC product that 
is esteemed by its users and its existence is quite well known within the scientific and 
technological community. In fact, a "Users' Survey Study" conducted between late 
1991 and early 1992 as well as a "Marketing Study" that followed showed that 
CORDIS was, even at that early stage, well accepted. However, the 
recommendations of these studies influenced CORDIS upgrading only during VALUE 
II, i.e. following considerable delay. 
A solid, although approximate, assessment of the importance of CORDIS can be 
obtained by comparing operational features of this Service with those of ECHO which 
offers, in addition to CORDIS, many more databases with diverse information on 
Community and other issues. 
Table 3.1 
(Data of February 1994) 
Operational Feature 
Number of databases 
Number of Host access 
Connect hours CORDIS 
8 
73252 
10470 ECHO 
33 
260571 
46506 CORDIS/ECHO (%) 
24 
28 
23 
(1) The Panel that conducted the Mid-Term Evaluation of VALUE I recommended that "the 
current external promotion of CORDIS aimed at attracting new users should be suspended 
at this point in time until the necessary improvements have been effected" (February 1992). 
31 
Thus, the usage of CORDIS and ECHO is roughly proportional to the number of their 
databases. However, the fact that CORDIS contains very specialised information 
emphasises the significance of this Service. This significance emerges clearly also 
from the data in Table 3.2 given below: 
Table 3.2 
(Data of February 1994) 
Users' Environment % 
Administration 9 
Research 18 
Industry 23 
Education 16 
. I_I___I i_ 
EC 10 
Network Focal Points 14 
Other 10 Users' Category % 
Intermediaries 14 
End users, directly- 86 
The figures above indicate that most CORDIS users are from universities and other 
research institutions as well as from industry i.e. CORDIS has indeed attracted the 
users targeted primarily by VALUE. 
The diagram shown overleaf corroborates the importance of CORDIS as an EC tool 
for promoting RTD activities and facilitating the utilisation of RTD results. 
32 
Diagram 3.3 
Number of CORDIS users per million inhabitants and GNP per capita 
for the various Member States(2) 
The above diagram indicates clearly that CORDIS usage is almost independent of 
GNP per capita. CORDIS penetration seems to be controlled by other factors, 
probably linked to effectiveness of national structures in disseminating information on 
EC RTD programmes and results. Such GNP - independence emphasises the strategic 
importance of CORDIS as a "wide-band" EC tool for disseminating information on 
RTD across the European Union. 
During VALUE II, the objective of the Value Management Team has been to upgrade 
CORDIS from its experimental phase under VALUE I to a full operating pilot phase. 
The databases have been enriched further, new CORDIS off-line products are being 
developed and the overall quality of the Service is improving. The strategy behind 
these developments was formulated on the basis also of a "Users' Survey Study" 
delivered in early 1992 and a "Marketing Study" that followed. 
w Luxembourg (with a GNP per capita equal to 19.23 k ECU) is not shown in the diagram, 
since it scores 240 users per million of inhabitants. This huge value falls outside the scale 
used and might be due also to the fact that CORDIS is based in this Member State. 
33 
According to the opinion of the Panel, CORDIS has already entered the afore­
mentioned pilot phase and is nowadays a rather well known EC initiative that is 
esteemed by RTD people within the EU and abroad. These results led to the 
substantial improvement in the quality of data and in the overall operation of the 
service. These improvements are mainly connected with the: 
• collection of information (operation of a CORDIS Data Collection Unit in 
Brussels); and 
• database production (development of a Common Production System). 
Together with the success emerges also the need for further improvements, e.g. 
increased speed for data collection, more uniform abstracting in order to obtain more 
accurate record characterisation (e.g. SIC codes) as well as more homogeneous 
records content. 
3.2 Conclusions and Recommendations 
Against this background, the Panel makes the following more specific comments and 
recommendations: 
• Much better data presentation and consistency in both on-line and off-line 
CORDIS products has already been accomplished. This improvement, 
combined with the VALUE Management Team policy to. utilise new 
technological options, provides CORDIS with an opportunity to become very 
attractive also to those users who are inexperienced with on-line searches and, 
at the same time, to satisfy the increasing demand for well-presented, easily 
accessible and manageable information. Multimedia CD-ROMs and Context 
Driven Applications are examples of future technological options within the 
reach of CORDIS. 
• The recently launched software interface "Watch-CORDIS" bears out this 
VALUE Management Team policy. The performance of the Data Version of 
this interface provides convincing proof that Watch-CORDIS can be a success, 
because it frees both experienced and inexperienced users from the tedious 
steps of on-line connection and from the need to memorise field names, 
commands, etc. It also provides for the first time a platform for a better 
management of the information downloaded from the databases. The merits 
of this new product could be enhanced significantly by enabling access through 
it to the CORDIS CD-ROM data as well. 
• Much should be done in training intermediaries and end-users in obtaining the 
most out of CORDIS. A better training policy and practice is needed, 
particularly now that the availability of user-friendly products, i.e. CD-ROM 
and Watch-CORDIS are expected to minimise the need for merely technical 
training (CCL commands, etc). Training, therefore, should from now on 
focus on issues such as database structure and content, methods for designing 
a query, links between databases, tips for retrieving "hidden" information, etc. 
It is also to be noted that promotion of and training for CORDIS should be 
envisaged as a twin push-pull activity which is of critical importance for 
34 
maintaining a continuous penetration of CORDIS within its target groups and 
for keeping alive the interest of the Service's users. 
Sub-sets of CORDIS data are printed in various forms, e.g. "CORDIS focus", 
catalogues of research projects, of acronyms, etc. These publications assist the 
dissemination of Community RTD data as well as the promotion oif VALUE 
and CORDIS itself. However, publications should not be envisaged as an 
indispensable but redundant system for the data in a database. For example, 
Acronyms publication is useful because it is handy in everyday work. In 
contrast, the "Catalogue of Research Projects in the Third Framework 
Programme" exemplifies a rather unnecessary duplication. Therefore, there 
is a need for reformulating the strategy for CORDIS publications with a view 
to their real usefulness and to promoting CORDIS and its products. 
For increased promotion of CORDIS greater use should be made of techno-
economic journals, pertinent professional or sectorial associations, networks 
of research and industrial societies, organisations of public interest as 
"distribution channels" for CORDIS products and for VALUE activities in 
general. Obviously the VALUE Relay Centres could play also a major role 
in such pro-active promotion. These suggestions and the current promotional 
activities should be formulated as a marketing strategy before the end of 
VALUE II in order to provide a coherent lead for the promotion of CORDIS 
during the next Framework Programme. 
Obviously, CORDIS could be best promoted by itself if it would develop into 
a practical encyclopaedic reference source for information on Community RTD 
activities overall. It would increase greatly the usefulness of CORDIS if both 
the content and quality of information on the RTD-programmes, RTD-projects 
and other pertinent databases would be substantially upgraded and additional 
EC documentation would be included, e.g. synopses of submitted RTD 
proposals, abstracts of European Parliament papers dealing with RTD and 
more general issues of science and technology. Such an upgrading of 
CORDIS would render to it the character of an EC-encyclopaedia, a feature 
that would have many multi-faceted, beneficiary effects across the EU. 
An obvious additional step in expanding the CORDIS databases is the 
incorporation also of national RTD programmes, projects and results. The 
simple idea of collecting and recording such data by the CORDIS team would 
demand funds that are far beyond those which are presently available or 
foreseeable under Activity 3 of the Fourth Fiamework Programme. It would 
also derail this very good EC Service, would be a waste of EC resources and 
would also be against the principle of subsidiarity. The approach under 
consideration by the CORDIS team is realistic and proposes the creation of a 
new CORDIS database that would provide reference data for national sources 
of information on RTD matters within each Member State. 
CORDIS is already accessible via several Wide Area Networks, e.g. EuroNet, 
Internet, PSTN, PSDN. There is also interest by intermediary organisations 
in distributing electronically sub-sets of CORDIS. These facts create new 
options for a more dynamic penetration of information on Community RTD 
35 
in research and industrial organisations. However, before distributing sub-sets 
of CORDIS to other hosts, or even relocating CORDIS from ECHO, a 
multitude of major policy and technical issues should be addressed. 
In conclusion, in view of tjie aforementioned comments and the limited funds 
foreseen for VALUE and SPRINT initiatives within the Third Activity of the 
next Framework Programme, there is an urgent need for devising an overall 
CORDIS strategy. This is required not only for optimising the Service but 
also for securing its future The issue of decentralisation or commercialisation 
of CORDIS should be the cardinal parameter in devising such a strategy since 
on this depend, obviously, strategic perspectives of all other issues e.g. extent 
of data coverage, future CORDIS products and their marketing, publications 
complementing the electronic data, etc. 
4. ACTION LINE 1.2 : UTILISATION OF RESULTS 
4.1 Review of the Activities 
This is the second major line of action of VALUE II. It is the continuation of the 
work started during VALUE I, comprising activities of immediate importance to the 
main objective of this programme, i.e. to facilitate the exploitation of Community 
RTD results. There are three main types of promotional activities: 
• VALUE II support to projects aiming at the valorisation of such results; 
• practical training activities on the issue of exploitation of results and 
technology transfer; 
• presentation of the action line at conferences and of VALUE II project results 
at exhibitions and other public events. 
The importance of this activity is clear, considering that: 
-• although exploitation is expected (as foreseen in the contracts) to be executed 
by the industrial RTD project partners in the first place, this is not always the 
case, for various reasons; 
• a large part of the RTD projects are executed by R & D centres and 
universities which are not set up for own exploitation; 
• industrial partners in general exploit only part of the RTD results (if at all), 
while the actual potential may be much higher and could occur in sectors other 
than those researched (spin-offs), resulting in partial or nil exploitation. Given 
the large number of RTD projects, much more could be exploited. 
Moreover, it should be noted that RTD programmes may not lead directly to 
exploitable results but do help to build and reinforce competence among the RTD 
36 
partners. This competence may in time be used advantageously in various innovation 
processes. 
Promotion of exploitation in the VALUE II Programme is executed mainly through 
the financing of projects following calls for proposals. The procedure of call and 
evaluation is similar to that practised in DG XII and DG XIII, with some slight 
differences. The criteria for selection are very detailed and require an abstract to be 
made of the technological area concerned. This is advisable since the value of the 
individual exploitation should take precedence over that of the technical area alone. 
The time delay between the calls for proposals and the start of the projects is of the 
order of 9-10 months, as in VALUE I, which is far too long in a highly competitive 
field where product lifetimes are generally short. 
As in VALUE I, exploitation projects cover different activities (marketing studies, 
business plans, search for industrial partners, tests under industrial conditions, 
prototyping, patent support, licensing, participation in exhibitions, etc.) and as such 
make it possible to apply a whole series of instruments. 
Two calls were launched during VALUE II for a total of 7.4 MECU, giving rise to 
373 proposals of which only 84 will be funded, or 1 out of 4 to 5 proposals. 
Compared with VALUE I, this is a severe reduction in success rate (over two times 
less) which can only be explained by the low budget available relative to the high 
demand. As in VALUE I, proposals come essentially from ESPRIT, BRITE/EURAM 
and the Life Sciences. Life Science research projects are further away from the 
market and hence there are more requests for exploitation projects from the R & D 
centres. Taking into account the decreased budget, no further calls will be published 
during VALUE II. 
Similarly to VALUE I, the individual budgets range from a few k ECU for 
preparatory expert work to several hundreds of k ECU for prototyping, according to 
estimated needs and means. Compared to the money available for Community RTD 
projects, the financial support available for individual exploitation actions is very 
limited (about 4% of the corresponding RTD project) and can cover only a part of 
what is really required. There is considerable imbalance between the amounts 
allocated by the Commission for RTD and that allocated for valorisation, since it is 
well known that exploitation and industrialisation are several times more expensive 
than R&D. 42% of the exploitation projects involve SME companies. 
Due to budgetary reasons no technology exchange awards for SMEs were launched 
during VALUE II. 
Training for RTD partners covered the same 5 areas as in VALUE I: 
• how to prepare a technology business plan; 
• fundamentals of technology marketing; 
• the VALUE software technology template; 
• the technology venture capital training initiative; 
• from the idea to_the product. 
It was continued and still meets a real need for increasing awareness about several of 
37 
the aspects and stages involved in exploitation and technology transfer processes. The 
training schemes were evolved and presented in 22 seminars in 9 different Member 
States over the period 1991 (1 training), 1992 (10 trainings) and 1993 (10 trainings). 
During 1989 - 1993, the VALUE team also participated in 23 international exhibitions 
all over the European Union with an EC stand showing VALUE exploitation projects 
by the RTD participants. Since 1990, VALUE participates in 4 exhibitions per year. 
4.2 Findings 
Although exploitation is a lengthy process, it is clear from the analysis of a sample 
of exploitation projects supported by VALUE I and II that a significant proportion 
of the projects in the near future could lead to important exploitable results in Europe 
which could have been lost without VALUE. Examples are an AIDS vaccine, based 
on research results from BAP, a workstation for an integrated biomedical laboratory 
for cervical cancer screening, based on research results from AIM, a full remote and 
hands-free access control system, based on research results from ESPRIT. It also 
indicates good judgement in selection of proposals and good management by the 
VALUE team. The use of the various instruments available to VALUE gives an 
opportunity to conform better to the needs of proposers. However, sufficient care 
should be exercised with respect to support for large companies and possible overlaps 
with national support schemes. 
In view of the limited resources placed at the disposal of VALUE no large scale direct 
impact on exploitation of Community research could be expected; another order of 
magnitude would be necessary to achieve such an impact. Although many promising 
exploitation projects were executed, the first phase of this action line should be 
considered as an exploration of tools to stimulate and promote the exploitation of 
results. In this respect, VALUE generated valuable instruments which could be 
successfully applied in the valorisation scheme. 
Valorisation requirements vary depending on the different types of RTD actors. 
Exploitation by industrial companies participating in Community, national or regional 
RTD projects generally means that they make use of existing instruments in the first 
-place. Financial support in most countries can be found for companies wishing to 
develop further their own basic research results towards mature marketable products, 
processes or services. Often companies would perform such further development and 
exploitation using their own means; in such cases, VALUE intervention is of course 
not necessary. 
R&D centres and universities are generally not equipped to exploit research results 
themselves and need additional assistance (marketing studies, business plans, search 
for industrial partners, tests under industrial conditions, prototyping, patent support, 
licensing, participation in exhibitions, etc.) in order to make their developments more 
attractive to industrial companies, especially when transnational transfers are involved. 
This also holds for companies willing to transfer trans-sectorially the know-how they 
have developed although their numbers should not be over-estimated. _ The 
transnational type of activity is not covered normally by specific national government 
aid and can be an interesting path to innovation. Because of the transnational/trans-
38 
sectorial aspect and because of the lack of existing schemes at the national level, 
support from VALUE and SPRINT is to be highly recommended here. 
In the case of international collaboration between companies, R&D centres and 
universities from different countries for the development of mature marketable 
products, processes and services, financial aid, essentially for prototyping and testing 
under industrial conditions, can be found also through the EUREKA system or in 
some cases via the CRAFT programme (essentially for SMEs). However, not all 
participating governments are inclined to finance their own universities or R & D 
centres in EUREKA without at least a partial exploitation in their own country. There 
is no support for most instances of cross-border financing (e.g. financing a university 
in another country) and VALUE could play an important role in such cases. 
The fact that VALUE exists should not be an excuse for the financing of RTD 
projects by the EC through the specific programmes without serious guarantees on 
exploitation whenever industry participates. As valorisation through the non-industrial 
RTD partners concerns actions which are to a large extent different from those 
undertaken in Community RTD programmes and necessitate a specific approach and 
skills, it is best to execute such valorisation using appropriate tools. 
4.3 Conclusions and Recommendations 
In order for VALUE to have a major direct impact on the exploitation of basic and 
fundamental R & D in Europe, budgets allocated need to be of a different order of 
magnitude. Nevertheless, even if more money were available, VALUE would still 
need to increase its endeavours, particularly in the area of collaboration with 
national/regional and international exploitation schemes and financial bodies. In such 
an approach, VALUE should co-operate with initiatives in existing schemes, like the 
near-to-the-market EUREKA action, the CRAFT programme, and actions from DG 
XVI (regional funds)(1) and DG XXIII, all of which would help to extend the 
valorisation operation. EUREKA projects are often executed in several phases, 
mostly starting with a definition phase, which covers among other things market 
research, patent search, exploitation plan, etc. 
(1) VALUE started in Autumn 1993 a pilot project in two objectives 1 regions where the 
VALUE Relay Centres are active and SMEs require new technology. The two projects 
concern the EXTRAMADURA and the APULIA regions. In both cases it is a new concept 
for promoting the uptake of Community RTD results by SMEs. The common rationale 
behind the pilot projects is the enhancement of technology absorption by the SMEs, providing 
them with a full service concept, from the new technology to the innovation product. The 
engineering and the technology adaption is performed using local structures, i.e. laboratories 
and universities. The assessments of the technologies and the search for viable RTD results 
are performed by the VALUE Relay Centres, supported by the VALUE service and experts 
with a proven expertise in the relevant fields. The SMEs are normally in traditional 
industries that need a durable technology push in order to become more competitive. 
39 
Action line 1.2 lies at the heart of the VALUE Programme. What is now included 
in the VALUE exploitation scheme is only a fraction of the R & D results produced 
in the individual Member States. Exploitation should not be limited solely to the 
Community R&D results available but should be extended to all European RTD (for 
an exploiting company it is totally irrelevant where the RTD results come from). 
VALUE should in future concentrate on cross-border valorisation of selected RTD 
results, of whatever origin, while individual states should support transfer of 
technology and know-how in their own country. 
The VALUE action should also focus more on universities and R&D centres and call 
upon the national schemes to finance companies where no transnationality is involved. 
Emphasis should be on the transfer of technology from developer to user (preferably 
an SME) and should not, or only to a much lesser extent, aim to help companies 
already involved (and thus committed and convinced) in the RTD project. 
It is also important that VALUE continues to explore and develop in multi-national 
and multi-lateral directions the valorisation mechanisms and to transfer its findings to 
valorisation bodies in the Member States. Therefore, a certain number of 
valorisation projects should be initiated, each with a budget sufficient to cover all the 
relevant aspects of valorisation. The importance of such projects is presented clearly 
in section III, paragraph 3 (strategic and policy issues). 
The delay caused by the Commission's procedures is of the order of several months. 
This is too long since a quick response is of the utmost importance.^ It will be 
necessary to evolve new schemes e.g. creation of more or less independent agencies, 
in order to improve efficiency. 
With regard to the Community RTD programmes, the following recommendations for 
valorisation could be helpful: 
• In Community RTD projects, due to imbalance among consortia members, 
non-industrial partners sometimes have no other choice than to accept the 
industrial partners' conditions with respect to ownership of RTD results. This 
could hamper future exploitation of the results. 
-• The RTD programmes can improve preparations which could lead to better 
innovation: 
they should instruct the contractors to report regularly on RTD results 
according to a fixed format which can be used immediately in the 
CORDIS RTD Results database; 
on completion of a project the partners should inform the Commission 
about their exploitation and patenting activities, as well as about any 
other relevant opportunities that they do not wish to exploit themselves. 
40 
5. ACTION LINE I. 3 : LEGAL PROTECTION OF RESULTS 
5.1 Findings 
With this action line the Commission had as its main objective: 
• the patenting of Commission owned RTD results stemming from JRC research ; 
and 
• the patenting of results stemming from Commission RTD Programmes, where 
the contractor is the owner and where the partners are not capable or not 
willing to take out patents. For budgetary reasons the latter case is most 
common with R&D centres and SMEs. 
In practice, the VALUE II activities are a continuation of those in VALUE I and there 
is little distinction between the two programmes in respect of protection of results. 
The findings, conclusions and recommendations remain, therefore, the same. 
The patent evaluation - estimating whether a given invention is likely to be patentable 
or not - is executed by the patent staff. About 20 to 30% of the time is spent on JRC 
research. Due to growing activity under VALUE, however, this percentage is 
declining in favour of Community RTD projects. 
All scientific reports from the framework programmes projects (3,000 to 5,000 per 
year) are screened for possible patentable results 20 to 50 potentially patentable 
inventions are selected from these and in about 50% of these cases a patent application 
is filed. 
Drafting of the patent claims, writing a patent specification, filing a patent 
application, etc. is carried out by professional patent lawyers. These services may be 
paid partly by the Commission, partly by the authors. The standard way of financing 
patents stemming from the framework programmes is for the Commission to cover 
the first application through a grant - no reimbursement takes place. 
Increasingly the Commission bears all costs relating to patenting in the countries 
necessary for a period of 3-5 years. The user rights are formally transferred to the 
Commission and, if the patent subsequently results in any production, the client pays 
back a fee to the Commission until a 130% payback has taken place and then all 
rights are transferred to the client. 
The total portfolio of patents handled by the Patent Section and stemming from all 
client types amounts to approximately 2,400. All these patents have to be surveyed 
and in each case follow-up deadlines etc. must be kept. The portfolio is revised each 
year and 20 to 30% of the patents are abandoned as a result of this revision. 
Very few patents have until now been granted on patent applications falling under 
VALUE (both I and II). A total of 72 cases have been filed, of which 33 in the name 
of the contractor and 39 in the name of the Community. They are spread in the 
following way over the different programmes and the JRCs: BRITE/EURAM 48%, 
41 
Life Sciences (ECLAIR, BRIDGE, BAP) 29%; JRC 18%, ESPRIT 5%. 
Since exploitation takes several years, no patents taken by the Commission under the 
VALUE (I and II) Programme have yet been commercialised. In several cases, 
however, exploitation is under way. 
The Patent Team is also involved in the training of RTD partners towards a better 
awareness of legal protection of results and its importance. 
5.2 Conclusions 
Patenting of RTD work is of the highest importance to protect ownership of results 
and hence make valorisation of research results possible. 
The Patent Section's management of legal protection of RTD results within VALUE 
is totally acceptable and leaves little room for comment. 
The cost of the patenting activity is relatively low compared to its importance and 
therefore is considered an ideal tool in the valorisation scheme of the VALUE 
programme. 
5.3 Recommendations 
Because of its specific character, it is clear that legal protection of results is a typical 
VALUE action. 
RTD project participants' awareness of the importance of patenting could have a 
significant impact on European researchers' attitudes and should therefore continue. 
The work of the Patent Section could be improved by a greater involvement on the 
part of the project officers and the RTD partners. It would be advisable to make 
consortia members aware about patent matters at the beginning of a project. This 
would improve awareness about patenting, facilitate screening and a patent strategy 
could be established at an earlier stage. 
-Patenting should be a major item in RTD projects progress reports where indications 
should be given of the partners' own ideas about possible patenting. In addition, as 
there is no information on what happens after a project is completed, it may be 
helpful to oblige project participants to report back to the Commission on this matter. 
42 
6. ACTION LINE 1.4 : PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES 
The objective of this action line was to disseminate as widely as possible all scientific 
information arising from Community RTD activity which does not require protection 
by patents or copyright in order to stimulate both the exploitation of this information 
by industry and its utilisation by the research community. 
Action line 1.4 encompassed three main areas of activity: 
Promotion of information: 
• Publication of brochures, sectoral and general catalogues, etc. that were 
distributed at fairs and other awareness events as well as to multipliers. 
• A very important initiative has been the operation of the V ALUE-information-
press-service (Vips) assisting journalists specialising in scientific and technical 
issues. About 500 science journalists receive each month about 10 one-page 
information sheets (not press-releases) on RTD results. Around 70 articles 
have appeared in various special journals since the launch of this dissemination 
campaign in 1992. 
• The FLAIR-FLOW project, which was initiated during VALUE I, is a co­
ordinated action for dissemination of results from the European Food R&D 
jointly supported by VALUE and FLAIR. Dissemination has taken place 
through various channels, the most important being one-page technical 
documents in layman's language distributed through numerous direct mailings 
and more than 1000 published articles in trade journals, etc. and the 
organisation of more than 50 FLAIR-FLOW workshops. 
Targeted dissemination through publications: 
• "Innovation & Technology Transfer Newsletter", addressed to industrial and 
research partners, consultants on technology transfer, information brokers, 
professional organisations, etc. 
• "CORDIS Update", addressed to intermediaries and multipliers. 
• "Euro-abstract Catalogues", addressed in particular to information scientists 
and librarians. 
Horizontal activities: 
• operation of an RTD Help Desk for responding to queries by the public 
concerning Community research activities; deals with around 25 queries per 
day. 
• establishment of the Cooperation Network, which represents a very good 
synergistic initiative between VALUE and other EC activities and funding 
sources, e.g., Regional Funds handled by DG XVI. The Network was set up 
to support jointly the valorisation of RTD-results projects and thus enabled the 
43 
pursuit of additional valorisation activities which would not have been possible 
otherwise due to VALUE'S limited budget. 
44 
VI. REVIEW OF INTERFACE II : RESEARCH - SCIENTIFIC 
COMMUNITY, AND INTERFACE III : RESEARCH - SOCIETY 
1. OVERALL COMMENTS 
Interfaces II and III are new to the VALUE Programme, having been introduced only 
in VALUE II and addressing new issues: 
• the way science and technology are inter-penetrating each other (Interface II); 
• the public perception of, and demand for the utilisation of existing and future 
scientific and technological knowledge (Interface III). 
Only a very few of the new issues, e.g., technology assessment, had been pursued 
previously in EC programmes, notably FAST. 
Actions under Interfaces II and III clearly serve long-term objectives and promote 
RTD results in a much broader context than actions under Interface I. This fact 
complicates any attempt to assess in detail the activities carried out under these 
Interfaces so soon after their introduction. Therefore, this review has focused on the 
way in which activities have been conceived, planned and implemented; 
The target groups within these new Interfaces differ from those of VALUE I as well 
as of Interface I of VALUE II. The main categories are: 
• politicians and policy makers generally, 
• managers of research policy planning bodies, 
• decision makers within RTD organisations, managers of RTD programmes, 
and 
• the general public. 
The Commission adopted a strategic approach in launching the Interfaces II and III 
activities. Prior to any activity an internal Task Force and an ad hoc Think Tank 
group of external experts were established. The latter assisted the Task Force in 
formulating an overall strategy and a corresponding operational plan for each 
Interface. The plan envisaged an initial diagnostic phase followed by a pilot phase for 
the activities. 
The diagnostic phase, almost completed, comprised several studies on, and reviews 
of the current situation and views on the issues addressed by both these new 
Interfaces. 
The pilot phase foresees initiatives such as workshops, training seminars, networks, 
etc., formulated on the basis of the diagnostic phase results. Some of these pilot 
initiatives have been launched already but the remainder could unfold during the next 
Framework Programme. 
45 
2. FINDINGS 
The strategic approach and planning followed by the Commission in the case of 
Interfaces II and III has been of benefit to the actions. There seems to be a clear line 
of thought through all these various initiatives. The overall approach also provides 
a good example of how to initiate new activities. 
The activities of Interfaces II and III are new and they could have a high impact. 
However, in spite of the clear mandate of the Council, the importance accorded to 
them by Commission officials within the programme appears to be insufficient, taking 
into account the scale of Interfaces II and III which derives from the fact that: 
• the issues are new to the EC; and 
• most members of the Interfaces target group do not realise their direct or 
indirect involvement in the process of increasing the wealth of society via the 
utilisation of scientific and technological knowledge. 
There seems to be a general lack of awareness about these issues, even within the 
Commission. 
It would appear that demand is greater for activities within Interface III than within 
Interface II. 
3. RECOMMENDATIONS 
A clear administrative identity is required urgently for the management team of these 
tasks, to facilitate its work in approaching the target groups and in developing their 
activities not only outside but inside of the Commission. 
The Commission should place greater emphasis on awareness and promotion of 
Interfaces II and III issues. Such a campaign should target groups in the Commission 
itself as well as in the Member States. This could involve, therefore, synergy with 
Interface I activities, e.g. using VALUE Relay Centres as a "distribution network" for 
dissemination of information and activities on themes within Interfaces II and III. 
Better and closer contacts should be established with representatives of the target 
groups, e.g. policy and decision makers, RTD planning bodies, pertinent associations 
and organisations extending across the general public, politicians, etc. and at an 
appropriate and operative level. 
The Commission should consider merging Interfaces II and III and directing more 
effort and resources, particularly human resources, towards the Interface III, 
"Research-Society" actions. 
46 
ANNEXES 
ii¥ 
ANNEX! 
VALUE n 
Council Decision 
29 April 1992 
4î 
23. S. 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No L KlM 
II 
(Acts u/hose publication is not obligatory) 
COUNCIL 
COUNCIL DECISION 
of 29 April 1992 
on the dissemination and exploitation of knowledge resulting from the specific programmes of 
research and technological development of the Community 
(92/272/EEC) 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, and in particular Article 130q (2) 
thereof. out activities in the coal and steel sector which do not form 
part of the Framework Programme for research and 
technological development, the results of which must be 
disseminated and used by means of suitable separate 
activities, using the resources of the ECSC 'operating 
budget'; 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (!), 
In cooperation with the European Parliament (2), 
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Soda] 
Committee (3), ' 
Whereas Article 130g (c) of the Treaty states that the 
Community, complementing the activities carried out in the 
Member States, ts to carry out acrivitics for the 
dissemination and optimization of the results of activities in 
Community research, technological development and 
demonstration; 
Whereas the second paragraph of Article 130k of the 
Treat)- stipulates that the Council shall define the detailed 
arrangements for the dissemination of knowledge resulting 
from the specific programmes; Whereas, by its Decision 90/221/Euratom, EECO, the 
Council adopted a third Framework Programme for 
Community activities in the field of research and 
technological development (1990 to 1994), specifying, 
inter aha, the acrivitics to be pursued for developing the 
scientific knowledge and technical know-how needed br 
the Community and providing that the dctaDcd 
arrangements for the dissemination of the knowledge 
gained, in particular the definition and the implementation 
of the centralized action, should be the subject of a CouncJ 
Decision; 
Whereas, pursuant to Article < and Annex 1 of Decision 
90/221 /Euratom, EEC, the amount deemed necessary ior 
the whole Framework Programme includes an amount of 
ECU 57 million for the exploitation and disscmih3no2 
of knowledge resulting form the specific R & D 
programmes; 
Whereas the Treaty establishing the European Coal and 
Steel Community stipulates that-the Commission is to carry 
(') OJ No C 53, 28. 2 I991,P..,'}.-
(*) OJ No C 1 \ 2C. Î. "o?2. p 75. and Dcciiion of 8 ApfU 1.9.9? 
<n„. f(t puMnhrd in the Official Journal) 
q<j Whc(c-u.;i:.C <F'.",«om Treaty contains detailed provisions 
for. thè>disstTninarioa-of information which apply, mur 
alia, to nu<5ear research progr=mmo. 
(*) Ol No 1 I 17. H "> 17 ?<>. ,, 
NoL Ml/2 Officiai Journal of the European Communities 23. 5. 92 
Whereas the decisions relating to the research and training 
programmes in the fields of controlled thermonuclear 
fusion (1990-1994) and nuclear fission safety (1990-1994), 
together with the activities undertaken by the Joint 
Research Centre in the field of nuclear research, envisage 
that the amount estimated as necessary as the contribution 
of these programmes to the present centralized a a ion for 
the dissemination and exploitation of results is ECU é.57 
milLon; 
Whereas the dissemination of knowledge and exploitation 
of results should be dealt with in a coherent manner; 
Whereas it is necessary to ensure the coherence of scheme, 
lor disseminating die knowledge resulting from specific 
programmes in the Framework Programme; whereas such 
coherence must be based on general rules which guarantee 
the protection of the legitimate interests of the public and 
private contracting parties and of the rights linked to the 
obtaining and exploitation of the results, as well as their 
exploitation in conformity with the Community's interests, 
in particular with respect to iu economic and social 
cohesion; 
Whereas, in order to improve the insertion of Community 
research into a broader context and to optimize the 
utilization of the knowledge which results from '>t, it is 
important that the centralized action should both intensify 
its emphasis on the research-industry,interface and widen 
iu scope to the rcsearch-sacncc and rcsearch-soacry 
interfaces; Whereas Decision 90/221/Euratom, EEC provides that a 
particular aim of Community research must be to 
strengthen the scientific and technological basis of 
European industry and to encourage it to become more 
competitive at international level; whereas it also provides 
that Community action is justified where research 
contributes, inter alia, to -the strengthen of the economic 
and social cohesion of the Community and to oSc 
promotion of its overall harmonious development, wbik 
being consistent with the pursuit of scientific and technical 
excellence; whereas the present action is looked upon as 
contributing to the achievement of these objectives; 
Whereas small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) 
should be involved to the maximum extent possible in this 
action; whereas account should be iaV.cn of their 'sped:' 
requirements, without prejudice to the scientific and 
technical quality'of'the programme. 
Whereas, in accordance with Article 130g of the Trcary, 
the Community's activities aimed at strengthening the 
scientific and technological basis of European industry and 
encouraging it to become more competitive include 
promoting cooperation on research and tcchnologicsJ 
development with third countries and intemarionaJ 
organizations; whereas such cooperation may prove 
particularly beneficial for the development of this action; 
Whereas the Scientific and Technical Research Committee 
(Crest) has delivered its opinion. 
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION. 
Whereas it is desirable to cooperate with existing networks 
for the dissemination and the promotion of innovation and 
to encourage new networks where these do not exist; Article 1 
Whereas links with complementary mechanisms for 
downstream exploitation should also be developed, in 
particular with the Eureka initiative; 
Whereas, in the context of this action, an assessment 
should be made of the economic and social impact as well 
as of any eventual technological risks; 1. The dissemination and exploitation of knowledge shall 
be carried out as part of the specific programmes and by 
means of a centralized action. 
2. The centralized action, as defined in Annex 1, ir.;2j 
ensure overall coordination and coherence in the F.c'iG 
covered by the Framework Programme. It is adopted for 
the period running fiom 29 April 1992 to 31 Deccrr.b<: 
1994. 
Whereas basic research m the field of the dissemination and 
exploitation of R&D knowledge must be encouraged 
throughout the Community; 
^-hc«T3S. in addition to ilic specific programme concerning 
human rcw. rccs" an mobility, u is necessary io cncciagc 
ihc uauun£ ol -.rscatel» woikcts •" ''"•< "*"•»««•*• of ilm Article 2 
1. The amount of Community expenditure deriving from 
the levies on the fc:.'d^ estimated -s nr<~cssary for the 
cxccvtioi. ol the "Specific" "programmes', with a vicv^ «0 the 
implementation of the centralized action established by thu 
Decision, is csiimaicd at ECU 57 million, including 
expendiiurc on M.iff and admuuMr.ition imo^niinp io F.O) 
') milli 
23. 5. 92 Officiai journal of the European Communities No L Ml/3 
2. An. indicative allocation of funds is set out in 
Annex U. 
3. If the Council takes a decision pursuant to'.Article -1 {<) 
of Decision 90/221/Euratom, EEC. this Decision shall be 
adapted accordingly. 
Article 3 
Detailed rules for the implementation of the programme 
and the amout of the Community's financial contribution 
arc set out in Annex 111. The representative of the Commission shall submit to the 
committee a draft of the measures to be taken. The 
committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft within a 
time limit which the chairman may lay down according to 
the urgency of the maner. The opinion shall be delivered 
by the majority laid down in Anidc 148 (2) of the Treaty 
in the case of decisions which the Council is required to 
adopt on a proposal from the Commission. The votes of 
the representatives of the Member States within the 
committee shall be weighted in the manner set out in that 
Article. The Chairman shall not vote. 
The Commission shall adopt the measures envisaged if they 
arc in accordance with the opinion of the comminct. 
Article A 
1. In the course of the second year of the implementation 
of the action, the Commission shall review it and send s 
report on the results of its review ot the European 
Parliament, die Council and the Economic and Socu: 
Committee; the report shall be accompanied, whef. 
necessary, by proposals for amendment of the acrioc. 
2. At the end of the action, an evaluation of the results 
achieved shall be conducted for the Commission by < 
Group of independent experts. The Group's 'report, 
together with the Commission's comments, shall be 
submitted to the European Parliament, the Council and the 
Economic and Social Committee. 
3. The reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be 
established having regard to the objectives set out in Annex 
I to this Decision and in accordance with Artide 2 (4) of 
Deosion 90/221/Euratom, EEC. If the measures envisaged arc not in accordance with the 
opinion of the committee, or if no opinion is delivered, the 
Commission shall, without delay, submit to the Council a 
proposal relating to the measures to be taken. The Council 
shall act by a qualified majority. 
If, on the expiry of a period of three months from referral 
of the maner to the Council, the latter has not acted, the 
proposed mcasutcs shall be adopted by the Commission. 
Article 7 
1. The procedure laid down in Artide 6 shall apply to: 
— the preparation and updating of the work programme 
referred to in Artide 5 (2), 
— the contents of the calls for proposals. 
Article 5 
1. The -Commission shall be responsible for th 
implementation of the action. — the assessment of the projects proposed and the 
estimated amount of the Community's contribution to 
them, where this amount exceeds ECU 150 000, 
— departures from the general rules set out in Annex 111, 
2. A work programme shall be drawn up in accordar.c: 
with the aims set out m Annex 1 and updated wr.er: 
necessary. It shall set out the detailed objectives and ryp-cs 
of projects to be undertaken, and the finance: 
arrangements to be made for them. The Commission sr.;_ 
makc calls for proposals for projects on the basis of tr.c 
work programme. — any adaptation of the indicative breakdown of th 
amount set out in Annex II, 
— the measures to be undertaken to evaluate the acnon 
— measures for implementing the rules laid down 
Article 8. 
Article 6 
•F«--t>.r execution of this action, insofar as it relates to the 
spedfic prc-rimmcs based on Ankle 130q (2) of '".c 
Treaty, Uic Connr.'Ss'ion shall be assisted »«y a comn.mee 
composed of the icpici. .'Mai'vr. ;.', ihr Memb<-t ^' -"<"• •>"° 2. Where, pursuant to the thai rT'^i of oaragraph l.t 
amount of the Community contribution is less ihan 
equal to, ECU 150 000, the Commission shall inform 
committee of the projects and concerted actions and of 
outcome of 'hen assessment. The Commission shall , 
mfoim' '!"" cyimmmrc of «h<- implement a«io:i of 
...'.I.» Ml VIM!' UK' J'.llir'. Ifl'll'vl "1 ••• /••>•>< » l'î 
No L Ml/< Official Journal of the European Communioa 23. S. SI 
Article 8 
For the execution of this action, insofar as it relates to the 
dissemination and exploitation of knowledge resulting 
from the sr>ccific programmes based on Artide 130a (2) of 
the Treaty, hereinafter referred to as 'knowledge*, the 
following rules, while respecting pre-existing rights, shall 
apply: 
(a) the knowledge resulting from work undertaken 
ducctly or the cost of which is wholly supported by 
the Community shall in prindplc be the property of 
the Community. 
The knowledge resulting from work under a 
shsred-cost contract shall be the property of the 
contractors who carry out the work. They shall agree 
between themselves on particular arrangements for 
such ownership; 
(b) knowledge which could be used in an industrial or 
commercial application, if its nature justifies such a 
measure, shall be protected in any appropriate form to 
the extent required in the light of the interests of the 
Community and its co-contractors and in accordance 
with any appbcablc legislation or convention; 
(c) the Community and its co-contractors shall be 
required to exploit the knowledge u\ their possession, 
or have it exploited, in conformity with the 
Community's interests and taking full account of 
the objective of SCTcngthcning the international 
competitiveness of European industry and the 
ccooomic and social cohesion in the Community; 
(d) knowledge belonging to the Community shall be made 
available to its co-coocractors and to interested third 
parties established in the Community who undertake 
to exploit it, or have it exploited, in conformity with the Community's interests. Such provision of 
knowledge may be subject to appropriate conditions, 
particularly concerning the payment of fees. 
All contractors shall make the knowledge in their 
possession, together with any information necessary 
for its use. available to ibc co-contractors and to 
interested third parties under concracruajjy defined 
conditions, provided that the interests of the 
Community and the legitimate ' interests of its 
co-contractors arc safeguarded; 
(c) the Commission shall ensure that knowledge suitable 
for dissemination according to the contractual terms is 
disseminated or published cither by the Commission 
itself or by its co-contractors, without any restriction 
other than those imposed by the nerd -to safeguard 
intellectual and industrial property, confidentiality or 
legitimate commercial interests. 
The Commission shall lay down the arrangements for 
implementing the rules laid down in the first subparagraph 
of this Anidc, in accordance with the procedure described 
m Anidc 6. 
Article 9 
This Decision is addressed to the Member States. 
Done at Luxembourg, 29 April 1992. 
.For the Council 
The President 
• Luis VALENTE DE OLTVEIRA 
5*T 
23. 5. 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No L Hl/5 
ANNEX 1 
OBJECTIVES AMD TECHNICAL CONTENT 
The general Jim o.f the ccnnallied action for ^hc dissemination and exploitation of knowledge rcsulong from 
Community research aeuvines. earned out under dm acuon. is 10 p»c speohc added value 10 the P. 4î D 
aeovuies which arc the subject'of the third Framework Programme for 1950 to 199<. On the on< hand, 11 
provides the necessary cononuiry (or some of the measures earned out unda the Value programme; on the 
other, it inaoduccs new topics concerned pamcularly wuh the repercussions of research and tcchnolospcal 
development activates and ibeir results on society as a whole. 
This centralized loion is to be conducted in accordance «im the following guiding principle* 
(a) 1 foruoniabiy 
Measures to publish and uoJux research results must apply to the whole '^ngc of Coomuuiry P. U. D 
activities, covered by tiie Community Framework Programme, trrcspecuve of the nature of f rogjamrocs. 
die persons involved and the adnuruscraavc authonucs responsible. Tim criterion will be implemented 
through coordination and liaison berwern RTD specific programmes and de crnualucd acuoo. 
(b) Internal complccncoiariry 
Tbc cencrahicd acucm will coordinate and supplement die mcaiurei uia under the spoaiic RTD 
programmes. It will also cooocoaatc on act)vines requiring special uabasrrucrurr and «-i-iiU (coenpeteruxd 
iniormaaon systems, a network of "relay juooos", etc.) or spcoal capabuiuo for a ansf e-rrmg k»ow-how to 
fields of activity in OUSCT disciplines. 
(c) Subsidiarity 
The ccnaaJucd action will build on the synergies berween doocnaalirrd (public and private) and 
Community R 6c D activities and is designed, in conjunction wicb other Community measures and in 
cooperation with the national and regional authorises responsible, 10 establish a coherent mechanism for 
the udluaooo and transfer of the technologies and the know-how obtained bom research and technological 
development, using, wherever possible, the existing nrucnircs in Member States. 
As far as the content of the present action is concerned, those measures already launched to forge closer lmW 
berween research and industry will be supplemented by other new measures designed 10 forge closer links 
between research and socaery and berween research and the scientific cocnrnunity. These arc measures which 
re Oca the new scientific and technological objectives and cooscraioo set by society and 10 uimaroocts, and dsc 
mexcasmg uitcxca ui the mrxrdiscipuntry approach to research 
stage, and now that io activities are more developed, this crnnalued action wùl incorporate these ne»? topics 
into its conceptual and operational framework. 
Detailed obiccuves for the ccncralurd a coon, including measurable targets and milestones, will be described in 
workplans, which will be submincd annually to the committee. 
I. RESEARCH-INDUSTRY INTERFACE 
The aim is to help to improve the internanona! competitiveness ot Europe's industry in accordance with 
the provisions of the Trary by means od specific proiccts designed to maximize the impact of Community 
R &c D acovmes on industry as a whole. 
For this purpose, the networks and partnerships berween companies and laboratories from the different 
countries which result horn the Community R 6c D programmes constitute an un ponant clement of the 
mechanism set up for die dissemination and cxplottanon of their rcsulcs. 
ii is tip 10 couvpaiu; fust and loiemovt. io male good use of «h<- results and 10 pioiea these results as 
t*r*r\\tty. C'«ni|wiaii.Mi » w,<„ iMtiv««*«-« ^.i u.ow^'v-^ ««««>wii|vr,i wiitmi th' hamri-oiV ol s|wofi< 
-Cl, • • ' « • ... I-
No L 1*1/6 Officiai Journal of the European Communities 23. 5. 92 
protect their findings in certain oses where, for example, they lack the necessary expertise and arc unable 
to obtain this through the usual national and commercial channels, and at the tame omc help them to 
exploit and promote such findings. The following meatures ire proposed: 
t.l. New channels of infonnarioo 
(a) Netiuotk of telsy Centres 
A ncrwork of relay ccnucs wJl be set up to promote die disseminauon azd erplouaooo of 
Community R, 6l D rcsulcs, while taking into account, and building on. the exu^rg strucrurcs in 
Member States designed for the same purpose. The relay centres wul have spcoal scccss to 
Community information, under the control of die Commission, and will have as their main task the 
tailoring and interpretation of this information to local needs, espeoaJly in :c!;uor. io companies, 
particularly SMEs. univçrsiucs and research insorutcs. The spcofiç needs of the more peripheral and 
leasifavourcd areas of die Community wUJ also be taken into account 
'w'hiie giving full consideration to local nerds and citcums:ancrs. the follow-,::;-, a~:vino. mi/t cLs 
ma* be undertaken by the relay crnucv 
— the disseminauon of informaoon on Community programmes and calls for proposals, 
— ideniificanon of opponuniucs for pamapanon ui Community R cV. D p r 077 a.-r.rne s. and genera! 
guidance to candidates in the preparation of proposals, 
— facvlitaung the intcrprctaoon and disseminauon of Community programme rc.dts for targci 
audiences *aà local firms. 
— promouoa of the cxploitauon of the research results with potenualjy interesrrC enterprises, 
— assistance to organizations which have produced results in the idenoncaoon of exploitation 
oppominiocs at a European level and market research possibilities, 
— providing in/orxnadon on specialized agencies dealing with intcllccruaj property and legal 
protccoon of results. 
— providing informaoon on possibilities for financial support. 
Competent nadonal authorities and the scientific, technical and industrial community will help the 
Commission to select the relay centres in the Member States and to define thcu specfic tasks. 
The relay ococrcs will, at the outset, analyse current practice on dissémina non and exploitation, 
ider.ufy new approaches, wheje occcisary, and formulate a Plan of Aaaoc with specific targcrs. 
1.1. (b) SCJIC Service 
A user-fnendly computerized information service called Cordis will become available in 1992. After 
1592. and depending on the results of a detailed evaluation, the aim of the ccnrjaJued action will be 
to update and expand the Cordis informaoon service. The service could provide ne* functions izd 
commue to expand using new sources of informaoon, harmonize and/or integrate databases, use 
electronic storage devices (CD-P*OM and video discs) and develop user-fner.c!y systems for clccnooic 
ài'.i exchange in cooperanon with related Community programmes. 
Tr.e development of computerized methods docs not exclude the use of more aaC:tional methods 
such as the publication of bullcnns and bibliographies which will provide w;der access to informanon 
scr-ices 
Utilization of results 
This activity, which was already started in the Value programme, should be exie-ndcC io the new fields 
covered bv the framework Programme and developed «n line with the results that become-availablc m th< 
veais ahead. This means utiluing the research and development results of which the Communiry is the 
owne: and. wheie needed, hclpnc •«- «rilue the IOUIIS of research and development proven undertaken 
o« •>«»>*•. :-.c. ~JSIS. in live lat'tei case, ihc ?wi will be io help contractors «-ho do not have .si«<fioeni 
expertise', in particular the. univefs>ue\. «escarcl» n. -..rules and SMF.S. IO take advamar,r of th' «cults ot 
• ilwn ICNCJKI» an.l development «oil and io Ixlp in, «r» io uvr ''"' t c,r.i_.i..\ i< *- !) <^uli% made 
Official Journal of the European Communities . No l_ H W7 
The work to be undertaken could take different forms, depending on each specific case, as (ollowV. 
— identifying, controlling and appraising the results of research in order io develop and target 
utilisation plans, 
— finding licensees, including for tbc JRC and, more generally, pames interested in utilizing results. 
— providing adequate financing support for studies or tests and experimental oevclopmcMS 
Tr.i\ word w-Ji be earned out w\i_h the help of outside experts and competent organuanons in the 
Membe: States. 
13 Protcctioo of results 
Tnc protcCTion of results belonging to rhc Community and nianagcnleni ol the patents portfolio that it 
holds will be connnued. as in the past, through systematic cxanuriaoon oi the final reports and roulis 
obtained by the JRC. The activities described below, winch have alrcao been started m the Value 
programme, will be developed more intensively by the ccnu-aluco1 action 
Those universities, research centres and SMEs which do not have access to patenong expemse will, on 
request, be provided with aid by the cenrralued action, li will supply expertise on patents and finançai 
support limited to the costs of searches for pnor claims to novelty and firs: patent apphcauons. 
Public awareness campaigns may also be organized on the importance of protection results for the 
research scientists participating in community R&D programmes. 
1 4 i'rocDOuooal activities 
Promonon on die results could take the following form: 
— financial support for organizations making an active contribution to the promotion of results and. in 
general, for organizations within a transnational network set up in order to facilitate, promote and 
coordinate arrrss to Community programmes, 
— organizaoon of seminars, conferences and other means of oommuniuooo, including in association 
with the respective bodies in the Member States and, in parbcular, wirh the 'relay centres', 
— anendance of trade fairs. 
Spcafic activities arc planned to provide economic and social cohesion in regjoos where disseminaoon 
and uoluaooo structures do not exist or arc still in their infancy. 
II TNTEPJACE BETWEEN RESEARCH AND THE SCENTITTC COMMUNITY 
The obiecrive of the actividcs under this beading is to contribute to mierdosdplinary rtflccooo in relation 
to research, its methods, problems and impact. Such aetiviocs will be stroenxred around the following 
four areas: 
11.1. General context of research 
The acr: is to study the constraints and/or opporruniocs for the disse mm aeon and erplouaoon of R 6c D 
acnvices applying the disapbnes of law, poliocal sciences, sooal and horr.ac soccers. Examples of topics 
to-be considered could be: 
— history and comparative analysis of public and private research structures. 
— aspects of civil and public law, mainly in respect of intellectual property rights. 
— inicrnanonal rules on socnoJic and technological information. 
11.2. Cocaounicatioo of research 
The ob|eo-«v' ,« T-> v-^p-.c*}. «t»< commu.iicanon of lesearch lowajds us vmout uvr\..by obtain"-;, . 
oeiiei understanding of communication |»"««->v Disciplines of a vKKKuliui •»! mm»' «-i1 pli) ai 
tinpodini KJ'.C m iliov siudirs tlieiefoie. lnxliii, -,n «riiain diviplm<*N •• J"- >'>¥.>•. v iiii.m-\ 
r|><Mei:iiil<i)-.> an.! (.)|-imiv< %.•'•>""•• will !«• jjipl,,.; ... .i ,„,'*•.<•• '"'• '^ w'' '"*'" '" "' ''' 
Mo L l«l/8 Official Journal of the European Corrunuxûcics ^ 23. 5. 92 
11.3. Eoooomia of meau-eh 
Macroeconomic instruments and business sciences must be used to determine rhc optimum use of 
resources to be channelled into research as pan of general economic development objccnvcs and company 
objccovçs. Taking account also of studies conducted in other contcacts. the cost/benefit aspcen of the 
cycle of research and development, and the economic obstacles to its exploitation, will be examined, in 
pamcular wuh a view to main optimal use of the financial resources allocated under the thud Framework 
Programme 
11 .<. Management of research 
The overall objecuve is to promote knowledge of best practice in the management of R oi D in order to 
contribute to bener exploitation of results. Management studies will help with the orgaruzjaoo of 
research and laboratory management. They on make a coorxibutioo to pro|cei management, 
admimsoarjvc procedures and methods of management. Particular ancntion will be paid to subiccxs 
relating to decentralized management and making more efficient use of human resources m the 
departments, which- manage research. Comparative studies will lx conducted on lite Ciffcicm 
nianjp.err.TTii mo-dels used by universities and idustna! research institutes. _ 
1)1 INTEPJ ACE EETwT.EN RESEARCH AND SOCIETY 
This heading covers measures designed to identify and srudy the impact on society of the or*' scientific 
and technological knowledge, acquired as a result of Community activities, especially where the 
micracuon between science and technology, on the one hand, and soacxy, oo the other, is paroculirly 
''critical. The aim is to spread saentiGc know-how wndcly through Europe in order to seek to ensure that 
changes ia the contemporary approach ro soence arc compatible with devdopmenti ia soaery. 
To this cr.d, it should take its plaor in an efficient interactive process cxrasis-cuag of the following stages.-
research, research results, pubbc percepoon and re a crioo,. assessment of social unpaa.-mocUEcaooo of 
research acnv,oes where necessary. In order to ensure that this procedure works effectiveh/, dose link* 
will have to be forged across the board with the specific srudy programmes developed prior to the 
policy-making process. Wherever possible, acuvioes will be based oo the work of, and executed ia dose 
coordination with, existing organizations in the Member States. The centralized acdoa wiJJ be m three 
parts. 
Ul.l. Contribution to assessment of the social impact of science and technology 
In coniuncDoa with the more specific advices provided for in rhc individual specific programmes and 
with the acovmes of the Monitor programme, more general "technology assessmcor' schema will be 
developed. Those areas which will be specially monitored and studied arc not only those whjch relate to 
the exploitation of new technologies affecting health, safcry and the environmen,, but also ethical and 
legal que-ynons relating to the exploitation of results. 
111.2. CommujucaiVoQ wttb the public 
\ -
The cenaalized acnoo will make use of channels of communication, particularly the mass mxiia. to 
provide infonaaoon for the public, building on existing strucrurcs in Member Scares. w"berc appropriate, 
use could be made of the relay ccntics menooned under l.l. (a). 
111.3 Analysing pubbc demaod and new requirements 
In coniuncjon with other programmes concerned. induding the Monitor prograjnmcs ('), the cmcrajiie-d 
action will provide srudics and surveys designee to identify the latest SOOJJ nerds. through ic ducci 
contact with acrual or potential users of the knowledge resulting bom R&D programme 
SS 
23. 5. 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No L Ml/9 
ANNEX 11 
INDICATIVE BREAKDOWN OF EXPENDITURE 
(ECU «n.ii.onl 
I. Research-industry interface 
II. Rc-searchsacnofiC communiry interface 
III. Research •soaery interface 50 
S7(M 
(') Including crp«-a<iirurx oo staff amounting to ECU * mjlion an<l ad.Tuniiuanv< eTt)vn<Jiiuif <<xill'm(; ECU S ciJJiOO 
The breakdown berween different areas does not exdude the possibility that proiccts could cover several 
areas. 
^Y-
Jo L Ml/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 5. 92 
ANNEX 111 
RULES FOR IMPLEK^ENTTNC THE ACTION 
1 The Commission will implement the acoon on the basis of the soenrific and technical content described in 
Annex 1. It will apply the accumulated experience and best practice of both European and imcmaoonaJ 
experts in this field. 
2. The rules for implementing the action, referred to in Arodc 3, compose projects, concerted actions and 
accompanying measures. Sdectioo of projects must take account of the criteria listed in Annex 111 to 
Decision 90/221 /Euratom, EEC and of the objectives set out in Annex I to this progratrunc. 
The proiccis wùi be the subject of sha/cd-cost contracts and Communiry financial participation whidi 
will not normally be more than 50%. Univcrsines and other re-seardi centres participating in 
shared-cost protects will have the opnon of requesting, for each pro|cct. cither 50 % funding of total 
expenditure or 100 "A, funding of the additional marginal COSTS. 
Shared-cost projects must, as a general rule, be earned out by paroapxots estabbshed in the 
Communiry, for example universities, reseach organuaoons and industrial firms, induding small and 
medium-sued enterprises. Contracts relating to shajcd-cosi projects must as a general rule be cooduded 
following a selection procedure based on calls for proposals published in the Official Journal of the 
Lurofxan Communities 
— Cooccrtcd acxiocu; 
Concerted actions consist of action by the Communiry to coordinate the individual activities carried out 
in the Member States. They may benefit from funding of up to 100 % of coordinating cjcpenditurc. 
— Accompanying measures ', 
The accompanying measures referred to in Arodc 7 will in parocular be implemented through: 
— the organization of seminars, workshops and scientific conferences; 
— internal coordination through the crcaooo of inicgraong groups; 
— independent scientific and strategic evaluanon of the operation of the projects and the aczioo; 
— contribution to srudics and enquiries. 
sS 
ANNEXn 
Review 
Terms of Reference 
<r<à 
MED TERM REVIEW OF THE CENTRALIZED ACTION (VALUE II) 
The Council Decision of 29 April 1992 on the dissemination and exploitation of knowledge 
resulting from the specific programmes of research and technological development of the 
Community, foresees in Article 4, paragraph one that "in the course of the second year of the 
implementation of the action, a review of it by the Commission and foresees that a report on 
the results of this review be sent to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic 
and Social Committee". 
Due to the fact that VALUE II is in part a continuation of the VALUE I programme, and that 
the final evaluation of VALUE I takes place during the same period, the Commission services 
suggest that the same panel of independent experts evaluating VALUE I be asked to review 
VALUE II activities. 
In compliance with Article 7, paragraph 1, sixth indent of the aforesaid Council Decision, 
Committee opinion is asked on this suggestion. 
The proposed terms of reference for the mid-term review of Value II are attached (Annex I). 
The Composition of the panel is also attached (Annex II). 
Terms of reference of the mid-term review of the Centralized Action (VALUE il). 
In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Council decision \ the Commission is to 
review the action and send a report on the results of its review to the European parliament, the 
Council and the Economic and Social Committee. This report is to be accompanied, where 
necessary, by proposals for amendment of the action. 
To conduct this mid-term review, the Commission services will be assisted by the same group 
of independent experts who are evaluating the VALUE I programme, hereafter referred to as 
the panel. 
The panel will review the extent to which the results achieved contribute to the objectives of 
the Centralized Action (VALUE II) and that of the third Framework Programme ( 1990-1994 )2 
notably through: 
- strengthening the scientific and technological base of European industry (including 
(SMEs) so that it can become more competitive internationally; 
- contributing to the dissemination and exploitation of results of the Community RTD 
activities (towards SMEs in particular) thus demonstrating the added value of those 
RTD results; 
- contributing to the implementation of the internal market and to the economic and 
social cohesion of the Community; 
- complementarity of the action in comparison with those of the Member States, 
particularly concerning the setting up of a network of relay centres. 
The panel will also assess the efficiency and effectiveness with which the programme has been 
managed and promoted. 
'Official Journal of the European Communities. No. L141. 29/04/92. pp 1-10 
^Official Journal of the European Communities. No. LI 17. 09/05/90. p 28 
6°L 
This evaluation will take into account for each type of activity, the results achieved and their 
relation to the human and financial resources allocated to it. The new activities of VALUE II 
(Relay Centres, interfaces I and II) will be reviewed more in depth.. Qualitative or quantitative 
indicators will be used whenever possible. 
The final evaluation of the Value I progrramme and the conclusions of the global evaluation of 
the second framework programme, which in particular deals with the dissemination and 
exploitation will also constitute important input for the work of the panel. 
The panel is invited to make recommendations to the Commission. 
ANNEX m 
Acronyms and 
Abbreviations 
60 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
BRITE 
CCITT 
CORDIS 
COSINE 
CRAFT 
CRO 
DG 
DGXII 
DG XIII 
DGXVI 
DG XVIII 
DG XXIII 
EC 
ECU 
EFTA 
ESPRIT 
EU 
EURAM 
EUREKA 
Gbit/s 
HEPnet 
IPR 
ISO 
JRC Basic Research in Industrial Technologies for Europe 
Comité Consultatif International de Téléphonie et Télégraphie 
Community R&D Information Service 
Cooperation for Open Systems Interconnection Networking in Europe 
Cooperative Research Action for Technology 
Cooperative Research Organisation 
Directorate-General 
DG for Science, Research and Development 
DG for Telecommunications, Information Industries and Innovation 
DG for Regional Policy 
DG for Credit and Investment 
DG for Enterprise, Trade, Tourism and "Economie Sociale" 
European Community 
European Currency Unit 
European Free Trade Association 
European Strategic Programme for Research and Development in 
Information Technology 
European Union 
European Research on Advanced Materials 
Europe "a la carte" Cooperation in Advanced Technologies 
Giga (IO9) bits per second 
High Energy Physics network 
Intellectual Property Rights 
International Organisation for Standardisation 
Joint Research Centre 
6Y 
kbit/s 
Mbit/s 
MECU 
OJ 
OSI 
R&D 
RACE 
RARE 
RTD 
SCREEN 
SME 
SPRINT 
STRIDE 
TCP 
VALUE I 
VALUE II Kilo (IO3) bits per second 
Mega (IO6) bits per second 
Million ECU 
Officiai Journal (of the European Communities) 
Open Systems Interconnection 
Research and Development 
Research in Advanced Communications in Europe 
Research Associés pour la Recherche Européenne 
Research and Technological Development 
Internal (confidential) DG XIII database on RTD projects 
Small and Medium-sized Enterprise 
Strategic Programme for Innovation and Technology Transfer 
Science and Technology for Regional Innovation and Development 
Transmission'Control Protocol 
Community Programme for the Dissemination and Utilisation of 
Scientific and Technological Research Results 
Community Programme of Centralised Action for the Dissemination 
and Exploitation of Knowledge Resulting from the Specific 
Programmes of Research and Technological Development 
VRC Value Relay Centre 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(94) 548 Vol.11 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 15 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-609-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-83384-X 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
&6 \ks.