ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (85) 616 
 
 
 
Vol. 1985/0 222 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Communit y and the European Atom ic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), t his file is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februa r 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen  
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983,  
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003  
(ABI. L 243 v om 27.9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit  
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5  
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
C0M185) 616 final
Brussels, 19 November 1985
Communication from the Cimmission to the Council  
and the Parliament
concerning a review to assess the i n i t i a l  results  
of the Programme  
ESPRIT
C0MC85) 616 fin a l

-  1 -
* * *
ESPRIT
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament  
concerning a review to assess the initial results of the Programme
I. THE REVIEW OF THE PROGRAMME
1. In  its  Decision 84/130/EEC o f 28 February 1984 the Council adopted the  
European Programme fo r research and development in inform ation  
technologies (ESPRIT). A r tic le  8 o f the Decision requires the Commission  
to review the Programme e ith e r a fte r  30 months or as soon as 60% of the  
budget foreseen fo r the f i r s t  phase of the Programme has been committed.  
Due to the e x tra o rd in a rily  good response of industry and science to the  
f i r s t  two c a lls  fo r proposals in 1984 and 1985, the p ro je cts  which have  
already been selected a fte r  these c a lls  w ill req u ire fo r th e ir  completion  
almost a l l  the amount which had been estim ated fo r the f i r s t  5 year phase  
o f the programme. However, and fo r sound management reasons, contracts  
fo r these p ro je cts  have g e n e ra lly  been signed fo r a duration of 2 to  3  
years o n ly , covering the f i r s t  phase of these p ro je c ts . Consequently, the  
amount c o n tra c tu a lly  committed is about to reach, w ith in  the coming  
months, 60% of the budget foreseen fo r the f i r s t  5 year phase of the  
Programme.

-  2 -
2. The Commission th e re fo re  set up an independent high Level body, known as  
the ESPRIT Review Board, to assess the progress of the Programme.
The Board comprised
Dr. A.E. Pannenborg, Eindhoven -  Chairman
Mr. A. Danzin, Paris
P ro f. Dr. H .J. Warnecke, S tu ttg a rt
The Review was c a rrie d  out by a series of fa c e -to -fa c e  interview s and by a  
mailed q uestionnaire. A  to ta l of 131 organisations provided input at  
fa c e -to -fa c e  meetings. Q uestionnaire responses were obtained from 238  
p a rtic ip a n ts  in ESPRIT. The views expressed and opinions of the  
organisations interview ed were c o lle c te d , c o lla te d  and used as the basis  
o f the conclusions derived by the Review Board and the recommendations  
submitted to the Commission.
3. The Board assessed in p a rtic u la r:
0 the extent to which ESPRIT was achieving it s  o rig in a l o b je c tiv e s ;
0 the m odalities of the programme a d m in is tra tio n ;
0 the m odalities of communication between p a rtic ip a n ts  and inform ation  
dissem ination;
° the re la tio n s h ip  with n a tio n a l programmes.
Furthermore, the Board provided recommendations on:
0 a consolidation of the research areas;
0 the in clu sio n  of demonstrator p ro je cts  in to  the Programme;
0 funding requirements and a llo c a tio n ;
° the ro le  of centres of excellen ce;
\t

-  3 -
0 the ro le  o f academic in s titu tio n s .
4 . The report of the Board, submitted to  the Commission on 15th October 1985,  
is  annexed ( 1 ) . The report was submitted to  the ESPRIT Management  
Committee fo r consu ltation at it s  meeting in Brussels of 17th October  
1985.
5. The main conclusions and recommendation’s o f the report can be summarized  
in the fo llo w in g  way:
( i )  ESPRIT has been successfully established and is w ell on it s  way to  
meeting it s  o rig in a l o b je c tiv e s .
( i i )  C ertain changes in proposal e v a lu a tio n , p ro je c t management and .  
communications between p a rtic ip a n ts  are suggested.
C iii)  ESPRIT and n a tio n a l programm*s are regarded as being complementary,  
and no major c o n flic ts  have l een id e n tifie d .
( iv )  For the fu tu re  development o ESPRIT the Board recommends th a t the  
emphasis should continue to  i  e on precom petitive R&D, the research  
areas be consolidated and restru ctu red  and th a t focussed  
demonstration p ro je cts  should be added to the programme.
The Commission considers each of these points in g re ater d e ta il below.

-  4 -
II. CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING INITIAL RESULTS
6. The Review is regarded as an ambitious and highly useful o p eratio n . I t  is
the f i r s t  in-depth review of a major Community R&D programme. The work of
the independent Board deserves the fu lle s t a p p re c ia tio n . The methodology  
used fo r obtaining inputs from the in d u s tria l and academic spheres ensures  
th a t the conclusions and recommend3tions reached by the Review Board  
accu rately r e fle c t the preoccupati ns and p r io r it ie s  id e n tifie d  by ESPRIT  
p a rtic ip a n ts .
7. The re su lts  of the Review show that ESPRIT is  w ell on it s  way to meeting
its  ob jectives and i t  is progressirg even fa s te r than i n i t i a l l y  expected.
Despite i n i t i a l  reservations on th'.* part o f many IT  companies, there is  
now unanimous agreement as to the i n i t i a l  success o f ESPRIT, p a rtic u la rly  
w ith respect to the promotion of trans-European cooperation between IT  
o rg an isatio n s. A ll the i n i t i a l  in d ic a tio n s  are th a t cooperation is  
working extrem ely w ell w ith very few problems. Partners are responding to  
the challenge presented by cross-border c o lla b o ra tio n .
ESPRIT has in itia te d  trans-European cooperation at a l l  le v e ls , has enabled  
more ambitious research p ro je c ts  of broader scope to, be in s titu te d  and has  
accelerated the execution of these p ro je c ts . Despite c e rta in  overheads,  
mainly due to the s e ttin g  up of cooperations, the o v e ra ll cost  
e ffe c tive n e ss  is increased because of the work sharing between p a rtn e rs.  
ESPRIT has assembled high q u a lity  researchers, w ith an estim ated 1,300  
working fu ll-tim e  by year end 1985, reaching a to ta l of 2,000 in the

course of 1986. ESPRIT is  being considered as an element in company  
s tra te g y , and has already contributed to  a growing self-co n fid en ce w ith in  
the Inform ation Technology in d u s try .
8. There is  unanimous agreement th a t ESPRIT has enabled the size  and scope of
research p ro je cts  to be increased. More am bitious research ta rg e ts  have  
been set than would have been otherw ise p o s sib le . The resources applied  
to in d iv id u a l research p ro je cts  have been e n larg ed , both in  terms of  
manpower and the d iv e rs ity  of s k ills  a p p lie d . C o lle c tiv e  Community s k ills  
are being focussed and concentrated in to  s tra te g ic a lly  important areas,  
w hile in d iv id u a l research p ro je c ts  have been accelerated and are moving  
more ra p id ly  towards the achievement of th e ir  o b je c tiv e s . .
9. ESPRIT has led to in te ra c tio n  between companies and an exchange o f know­
how and ideas at a ll  le v e ls . Of p a rtic u la r s ig n ific a n c e , th is  in te ra c tio n  
is  occuring at board and at management le v e ls  as w ell as at the tech n ical  
and research le v e l. This is re s u ltin g  in increasing cohesiveness w ith in  
the IT  industry which was previously la c k in g , and th is  cooperation is  in  
no way in h ib itin g  the a b ilit y  of commercial concerns to compete w ith one  
another in the market place.
10. In  the case of a considerable numb r of sm aller companies and academic  
in s titu tio n s , ESPRIT has made poss ble research programmes th a t could not  
otherwise have been a ffo rd e d . Smal and medium sized companies, defined as  
those having less than 500 employe s , are present in 53% of the p ro je c ts ,

-  6 -
and do more than 25% of the work in over h a lf of these. U n iv e rs itie s  and  
research in s titu te s  are present in 81% o f the p ro je c ts , and do more than  
25% of the work in h a lf of them.
11. O rganisations and in d iv id u a l research workers involved in ESPRIT are  
perceived to have increased confidence and m o tiv atio n . Community IT  
companies have more confidence in th e ir  c o lle c tiv e  a b ilit y  to  become more  
com petitive in te rn a tio n a lly , and there are p o s itiv e  signs th a t industry in  
Europe is already becoming more dynamic and is moving onto the o ffe n s iv e .
12. By the involvement of users, p a r tic u la r ly  ir the area of Computer  
In te g rated  M anufacturing, the re la tio n s h ip  between suppliers and users Is  
being strengthened. P rojects with a m u lti-d is c ip lin a ry  aspect are  
improving the tra n s fe r o f know-how throughout the IT sec to r.
13. The implementation of ESPRIT has allowed the breaking of the geographical  
is o la tio n  of c e rta in  in s titu tio n s , p a r tic u la r ly  in some of the sm aller  
Member States p e rip h e ra lly  located.
14. A c tiv itie s  re la tin g  to standards c o n s titu te  an area o f s p ecial importance  
and b e n e fit to the European IT  in d u s try . P rojects w ith a standards  
component are preparing the European p o s itio n  w ith respect to newly  
emerging standards in O ffic e  Systems and in Computer In te g ra te d  
M anufacturing, and are enabling Europe to begin to show a united fro n t at  
in te rn a tio n a l standards meetings.

-  7 -
IH. CONSEQUENCES OF THE REVIEW FOR MANAGEMENT ASPECTS OF THE PROGRAMME
15. The re s u lts  of the Review show th a t c e rta in  improvements can be made to  
the programme as i t  now stands, and th a t the i n i t i a l  b e n e fits  need to be  
consolidated w ith respect to c e rta in  aspects o f programme management, both  
on the part o f the Commission and by the contractors^
16. At the proposal submission stag e, the Commission has, on several occasions  
in the p a st, corrsidered a two-stage process fo r subm itting proposals, by  
which o u tlin e  proposals would be f ilt e r e d  out in the f i r s t  stage. I t  was  
decided not to adopt th is  procedure e s s e n tia lly  because the p o te n tia l  
advantages (e s s e n tia lly  sparing some proposers the burden o f preparing  
f u l l  proposals) did not seem to outweigh the disadvantages (lo n g er o v e ra ll  
procedure and d if f ic u lt y  of making a proper s e le c tio n  on the basis of  
o u tlin e  proposals o n ly ). The Commission may, however, reconsider th is  
question in the context of the major focussed p ro je c ts , where the burden  
of subm itting f u l l  proposals could be p a r tic u la r ly  heavy.
17. The Commission welcomes the suggestion o f p ro v id in g , more than i t  has been  
able to in the p a s t, increased dialogue p o s s ib ilitie s  w ith proposers, fo r  
.example through o ra l presentations )f proposals supplementing the w ritte n  
submissions. The Commission would Like to be able to  make more system atic  
use o f th is  p o s s ib ility , depending on the a v a ila b ilit y  of s u ffic ie n t s ta ff  
w ith in  the Commission serv ice s .

-  8 -
18. The Commission has been a c tiv e ly  seeking inputs from experts with  
in d u s tria l experience fo r the p ro je ct e valu atio n  process, and is  now  
s a tis fie d  th a t i t  has achieved reasonable balance between evaluators with  
in d u s tria l and academic backgrounds, since there are now tw ice the number  
o f experts w ith in d u s tria l as opposed to academic background.
19. The Commission shares the opinion th a t i t  is  im portant to keep proposers  
informed of the status o f th e ir  proposals during the evaluation phase.
The Commission is w illin g  to acc e le ra te  the procedure fo r inform ing  
proposers, in so far as i t  can assure th a t everybody is tre a te d  on equal  
terms and th a t adequate provisions be taken to  prevent any one proposer  
being given u n fa ir advantage.
20. At the contract award stage, the (ommission is aware th a t the current  
procedures have led to some b o ttle n e c ks , due to the large number of  
p a rtic ip a n ts , and the long periods required fo r a l l  p a rtie s  to a contract  
to proceed s e q u e n tia lly  to s ig n atu re. This in turn has i n i t i a l l y  caused  
some delays in commitments, which are now being caught up w ith .
The Commission, in agreement w ith its  partners in industry and science, Is  
now introducing a procedure fo r si ining contracts in p a r a lle l ra th e r than  
s e q u e n tia lly . This should cut dow i these delays^

-  9 -
\
The Commission appreciates th a t attem pts to  impose the merging of  
contracts should be avoided w ithout the express consent of a ll  p o te n tia l  
p a rtn e rs . The Commission is not aware of any cases where merging has been  
imposed against the consent of the p a rtic ip a n ts .
The Commission recognizes th a t delays in payment have presented a re al  
problem to many p a rtic ip a n ts . These delays have in part been caused by  
contractors who have fa ile d  to submit the necessary cost statements in due  
tim e. The Commission has taken immediate steps to improve the speed at  
which payments are made, and is  m onitoring the s itu a tio n  c lo s e ly .  
Contractors have, in many cases, also agreed to speed up th e ir  accounting  
procedures accordingly. «
21. The Commission is analyzing p o s s ib ilitie s  fo r stream lining tech n ical  
reviews of in d iv id u a l p ro je c ts , w hile m aintaining transparency in p ro je ct  
management. A  s im p lific a tio n  group, comprising experts from industry and
. academia, as w e ll as from the Commission, is  c u rre n tly  in v e s tig a tin g  th is  
and other management issues.
22. In  the area of communications, the Commission is  aware o f the fa c t th a t  
the current e le c tro n ic  m ail and conferencing system, EUROKOM, is  not f u lly  
adequate to meet the needs o f the p a rtic ip a n ts . I t  is  encouraging th a t  
the system already has 900 subscribers, but i t  is  a m atter o f p r io r ity  fo r  
the Commission to a ccelerate the a v a ila b ilit y  o f a d d itio n a l and enhanced  
services which are already in the planning stag e. The Commission is

-  10 -
analysing in d e ta il users needs of the system, and w i l l ,  on the basis of  
re su lts  obtained, successively implement new services to extend the  
e ffectiven ess and scope of the system to a l l  ESPRIT p a rtic ip a n ts .
23. The Commission sees no reason to reconsider the basic o b jectives and  
purpose of the ESPRIT Technical Week. The Commission considers the  
Technical Week to be a forum fo r the exchange of re s u lts  between ESPRIT  
p a rtic ip a n ts , and would not wish i t  to become a conference o f a purely  
s c ie n tific  nature.
24. On the subject of p ro je c t continui y , i t  has been and w ill continue to  be  
the Commission's p o lic y  to award si o rt term contracts only in exceptional  
circumstances and fo r sound te c h n ic a l reasons. In the in te re s ts  of  
c o n tin u ity , the Commission also in i ends to communicate decisions on  
contract extension and renewal to roject p a rtic ip a n ts  w ell in advance of  
the expiry of current c o n tra cts.
25. The Commission is o f the opinion t at the in d u s tria l character o f ESPRIT  
and the current s tru c tu re  of indus r i a l  Community R&D, being dispersed in  
many lo c a tio n s , would not favour t e establishm ent of new centres of  
excellence in the s h o rt- and mediu term . The Commission w i l l ,  however,  
c a re fu lly  analyse suggestions brou Tit forward in th is  c o n te xt, w hile  
re a lis in g  th a t such suggestions m a lie  b?yond the scope of a focussed  
Programme o f in d u s tria lly  o rien ted  research such as ESPRIT, and may w ell  
be most useful w ith in  another fram work.

-  11 -
26. In  fu rth e r reviewing the ro le  of u n iv e rs itie s  and academic in s titu te s  
w ith in  ESPRIT, the Commission w ill take in to  account the fa c t th a t they  
are present in a large m a jo rity  of the p ro je c ts , even though ESPRIT is  an  
in d u s tr ia lly  o rien ted  programme.
IV. RELATIONS WITH NATIONAL PROGRAMMES
27. Whereas ESPRIT was found to be complementary to  n a tio n a l programmes in the  
Inform ation Technology s e c to r, i t  is  recognised th a t a continuous need  
e x is ts  to ensure the system atic coordination between such programmes and  
ESPRIT. The Commission w ill continue to o ffe r  a framework and s u ita b le  
fo ra  fo r such coord in atio n . I t  is  also necessary th a t there should be f u ll  
coordination w ith any EUREKA p ro je c ts  in the IT  s ec to r.
V. CONTINUATION OF THE ESPRIT PROGRAMME
28. The Commission has taken the Board's recommendations fo r the second phase  
of the Programme in to  co n sid eratio n .
A fte r consultations with the ESPRIT Advisory Board, the recommendations of  
which coincide to a .la rg e  exten t w ith the recommendations of the ESPRIT  
Review Board, the main c h a ra c te ris tic s  fo r the second phase of the  
Programme could take the fo llo w in g  considerations in to  account:

-  12  -
i )  the p recom petitive, cooperative and in d u s tria l character of the
Programme would be m aintained. In  p ra c tic e , th is  means th a t p ro je cts  
would continue to have at lea s t two independent in d u s tria l partners  
from d iffe re n t c o u n trie s, each making a s ig n ific a n t c o n trib u tio n , and  
th a t proposals would be submitted fo r the conclusion of a contract  
w ith a prime c o n tra cto r;
i i )  c o n tin u ity  in research topics would be assured between the work  
programme as i t  now stands and any work programme fo r the second  
phase. However, c e rta in  research areas should be restru ctu red  and  
rebalanced. This is necessary to take in to  account developments in IT« Î
since the o rig in a l programme was fo rm u lated , and to enhance the  
s tra te g ic  necessities of the Programme.
i i i )  the second phase of ESPRIT would include the s e ttin g  up o f major
focussed technology in te g ra tio n  p ro je c ts . These would act as p ra c tic a l  
m anifestations of the concrete re s u lts  being produced by the  
Programme, e s p e c ia lly  serving as a v e h ic le  fo r technology in te g ra tio n ,  
and would be of a precom petitive n atu re;
iv ) proven methods and instrum ents of programme planning and management,  
such as the y early w orkplan, p ro je cts  o f type A  and B  and consu ltation  
mechanisms would be m aintained wherever p o s sib le .

-  13 -
29. For the second phase of ESPRIT, i t  w ill be necessary to m aintain the  
c r it ic a l mass e ffo rts  c u rre n tly  being made, to  b u ild  on th is  as more  
sp ec ia lis ed  and q u a lifie d  te c h n ic a l personnel become a v a ila b le , and to  
take in to  account a d d itio n a l requirements fo r the technology in te g ra tio n  
p ro je c ts .
VI. RELATIONS WITH ORGANISATIONS IN EFTA COUNTRIES
30. The Commission is aware of the strong in te re s t expressed by government and  
industry in the EFTA countries fo r broadening the base, both tech n ical and  
fin a n c ia l, of European research. O rganisations from EFTA countries can  
c u rre n tly  p a rtic ip a te  in ESPRIT p ro je c ts  as subcontractors i f  th is  is  
judged b e n e fic ia l to the in d iv id u a l p ro je c ts . With a view to  improving  
the c o m p e titiv ity  o f European IT  industry as a whole, the Commission w ill  
s h o rtly  present the m o d alities under which the programme could be opened  
to  p a rtic ip a tio n  from organisations estab lish ed  in EFTA co u n tries.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
31. This Communication is submitted in fu lfillm e n t o f the provisions of  
A r tic le  8 of Council Decision 84/'i30/EEC.
The Commission in v ite s  the Council to hold an o rie n ta tio n  debate on the  
conclusions and the recommendations contained in th is  Communication.

-  14 -
The Commission w ill take these in to  account when form ulating its  proposal  
fo r the implementation of the second phase of ESPRIT to  be submitted to  
the Council e a rly  in 1986.

THE MID-TERM REVIEW
O F
ESPRIT
Submitted to the
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
by the ESPRIT REVIEW BOARD
BRUSSELS □  October 15th 1985

ESPRIT NED-TERM REVIEW
FIN\L REPORT
CONI ENTS LIST
0 . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ( i )
1 . INTRODUCTION 1
1 .1  ESPRIT 1
1.2 ESPRIT mid-term review 5
2. T H E  REVIEW  FINDINGS 8
2 .In t r o d u c t io n  8
2.2 Trans-European cooperation 9
2.3 Perceived benefits from ESPRIT 12
2.4 ESPRIT management and control 15
2.4.1 B y  the ITTTF 1 5
2.4.2 B y  Prime Contractors and Partners 22
2.5 The importance of ESPRIT to the R & D  programmes 25
of participating organisations
2.6 Contribution of ESPRIT to the provision of 26
a  technology base for the IT industry
2.7 The programme content and balance of ESPRIT 27
2.8 The future development of ESPRIT 29
2.9 Other possible approaches 32
2.10 The relationship of ESPRIT to the national 33
programmes of research in infornation technology
2.11 The exploitation of the results of ESPRIT 35
2.12 The influence of the 12 members  of the Round Table 38
2.13 The quality of research workers participating 39
in ESPRIT
2.14 Other significant commeits 40

3. T H E  REVIEW  CONCLUSIONS 43
4 . RECOMMENDATIONS 50
4 .1  ESPRIT I I  50
4.2D em onstrationprojects  5 1
4.3 Fu n d in g  requirements and allocation 52
4.4 Project selection and proposal evaluation 52
4.5 Project  management 53
4 .6  Communications 54
4.7 Project continuity 55
4.8 Centres of Excellence 55
4.9 Academic institutions 55
4.10 ESPRIT awards 56
4.11 Prognosis 56
A N N E X  A  ESPRIT STATISTICS A 1
A  1.1 Pilot phase A 1
A  1.2 1984 Commitments A 2
A  1.3 1985 Commitments A 3
A N N E X  B  ORGANISATIONS INTERVIEWED B 1
A N N E X  C  QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS C 1

Terms of reference for the ESPRIT mid-term review:
(i) T o  m ake a  qualitative and quantitative assessment of the  
industrial cooperation established.
( ii)  T o  assess the time-horizon for economic exploitation of  
pre-competitive research and the prospects for  
strengthening competitiveness.
( i i i )  T o  analyse the induced cooperations and degree of know-how  
transfer that has occurred between research institutes,  
universities and industry.
(iv) To analyse the induced indirect effects such as industrial  
cooperation outside ESPRIT. the impact on standardisation  
a c tiv itie s  and communication fa c ilitie s .
(v) T o  assess the interaction with other pre-competitive R & D  
pursued elsewhere including the national programmes and  
other Community programmmes.
(vi) T o  review the research areas, their relative balance and  
their cohesion.
(v ii) T o  analyse the modalities and procedures.
( v i i i )  T o  draw conclusions.
Members of the Review Board:
Dr. A. E. Pannenborg (ex-Philips) - Chairman  
Dr. A.Danzin (ex-Thomson)
Prof.Dr. H.J.Warnecke (Fraunhofer-Institut/IPA)
Members of the Secretariat:
Dr.Ing. V.C.Grandis (Tecnetra)
Dr. P.A.Monseu (COM ASE)
Dr. P.A.Walker (Mackintosh International)

-  1 -
EXECUTIVE S U M M A R Y
The Review Board and Secretariat, appointed as independent  
outsiders to assess the nid tern progress of ESPRIT, have  
completed their findings.
. The objectives of the review were:
- to assess the extent to which ESPRIT w as achieving  
its original objectives;
- to assess the need for any changes affecting the  
future development of ESPRIT.
The Review was carried out by a series of face-to-face interviews  
and by a wailed questionnaire.
. A  total of 131 organisations provided inputs at face-to-  
face meetings.
- These included in d u strial, academic and research  
institute participants and national administrations.
- Questionnaire responses were obtained from 238  
participants.
There is unanimous agreement anong participants in all Nenber  
States that ESPRIT has been highly successful in pronoting  
trans-European cooperation between large and snail organisations  
and between industry, acadenia and research institutes.
. The cooperation achieved to date has been more successful  
than w as originally envisaged and is occurring at all  
levels (e.g. board, management and research worker).
.T h e re  are no w  clear signs that the cooperation is extending  
beyond ESPRIT with the formation of multi-partner joint  
ventures (e.g. the Bull, ICL, Siemens Software Centre) and  
that European Information Technology companies are  
assisting each other when problems arise.
ESPRIT's support for pre­
start for trans-European  
upon.compet i t i ve  
coopérât!onR & D  has provided  
which can no w  bea
built

- 1i -
The participants agree that ESPRIT is assisting industry,  
academia and the research institutes in the development of a  
technology base for the European Information Technology industry.
-  The programmes of research in Information Technology are  
n o w  more ambitious, have broader scope and are being  
accelerated by the larger resources brought to bear.
. Individual participants are benefiting from the transfer of  
technology that is occuring and an increase in the cost-  
effectiveness of research a c tiv itie s  has been reported.
. Of particular importance are the standards-re lated projects  
within ESPRIT which are enabling the European Information  
Technology industry to prepare a  consensus European  
platform for international standards negotiations.
The work done by the Task Force for Information Technology and  
Telecommunications CITTTF) is appreciated by the participants and  
the existence of the Workplan has led to a greater understanding  
between the Commission and the researchers.
. Prepared by industry, the Workplan has formed the
foundation upon which the programme of pre-competitive  
research has been b u ilt.
There is general satisfaction with the content and balance of the  
ESPRIT programme.
. The mix of enabling and application projects w as considered  
to be satisfactory by most participants.
- The absence of support for consumer electronics,  
optoelectronics and peripheral equipment has been  
highlighted by certain participants and it w as  
suggested that the strategic and commercial  
importance of the areas supported should be more  
clearly reflected in the Workplan.

- iii -
- In the fields where the effects of economy of scale are a  
prominent factor the support given is considered by a  
number of organisations to be too fragmented to be fu lly  
e ffic ie n t.
- Many small projects are being supported.
- In the future it is considered desirable that  
increased attention be paid to cohesion between and  
the focusing of projects.
The criticism s voiced regarding the administration of the  
programme concern mainly:
- Delays in the receipt of contracts and with payment which  
have caused great concern, particularly to the SME's and  
academic institutions.
- The reporting procedures which cause an administrative  
burden to the participants is not alleviated by the  
electronic communications system installed.
- The Information Exchange System, Eurokom, is
considered by m any ESPRIT participants to be in need  
of improvement and enhancement.
In the future development of ESPRIT ( i.e . ESPRIT I I )  it is  
strongly recommended that the emphasis should continue to be on  
pre-competitive R8D.
- The existing 5  areas of a c tiv ity  should be restructured  
into 3  areas, microelectronics, software and applications.
- It has been suggested that these areas could include  
additional a c tiv itie s , and that the present levels of  
funding should be increased.
- A  small portion of the total funding should be used  
for more imaginative projects which can be ted by  
small institutions (academic establishments,  
research in stitu tes, SME's e tc .).

- iv -
A strong recommendation is aade that support should be given to  
focused demonstration projects.
. Such projects would demonstrate the advanced technologies  
developed within ESPRIT, would involve leading-edge users,  
and would act as a  stimulant to the market place.
. Such projects would need a  separate programme to be  
included in the second phase of ESPRIT.
- Such a  programme would need additional budget, and be  
at least one third that of ESPRIT-II proper.
- Small institutions should have a  significant share in  
such projects, say 10%, depending upon the quality  
and the strategic interest of the proposers.
Support is given for the concept of Centres of Excellence with a  
European role and selected existing research institutes should be  
developed in this direction and interlinked internationally by  
networking.
. It is suggested that the C E C  should award fellowships to  
these centres.
In the organisation and administration of ESPRIT II it is  
suggested that attention should be given to the evaluation  
procedures, and to communications within ESPRIT.
. A  two tie r project evaluation procedure is proposed.
. Improved communications across ESPRIT are proposed.
A more visible public image of ESFRIT is recommended:
. Since ESPRIT is working, it should be known inside and  
outside ESPRIT.
. A s  an aid it is suggested tla t annual awards be granted for  
the best projects, the best innovations etc.

To realise the ultiaate strategic objectives ESPRIT needs to  
continue.
. A  start has been made, but continuing support is required  
from the C E C  to consolidate trans-European cooperation if  
the technologies developed are to be exploited  
commerci a lly .— V/ —

-  1 -
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 ESPRIT
The European Programme for Research In Information Technology  
(ESPRIT) cane about as a result of In itia tiv e s  taken by the  
Commission and the Round Table of 12 representatives of the  
European Infornation Technology Industry. In a «ay it  represents  
the European answer to the evidently successful VLSI Cooperative  
Research Programme of Japan and the counterpart of several recent  
cooperative research ventures in the U.S.A
. The Round Table comprised 3  representatives each from  
France (Bull, CGE, Thomson), the Federal Republic of  
Germany (AEG, Nixdorf, Siemens), and the United Kingdom  
(GEC, ICL, PLessey), 2  from Ita ly  (O liv e tti, STET) and 1  
from the Netherlands (P hilips).
. The motivation behind the Round Table in itia tiv e s  were:
- The undiminished poor competitiveness of the European  
IT industry in the face of increasing market  
penetration from the U S  and Japan.
- The importance of economies of scale and the ensuing  
need for the European IT industry to act together in  
a  collaborative manner in innovative technologies  
without restraining competition.
Following extensive consultations with industry, academia and  
member States' administrations the Commission forwarded a  
proposal to the Council (C om  (83) 258) for the adoption of a  
European Strategic Programme for Research and Development in  
Information Technologies (ESPRIT) dated 25th Hay 1983, that M as  
adopted on the 28th February 1984 (84/130/EEC).

. This proposal called for the establishment of a  programme  
of pre-competitive research undertaken on a  cost-sharing  
collaborative basis am ong the IT companies, academic
institutions and research organisations within the Mem ber  
States.
- The pre-competitive research undertaken w as to  
conform to a  Workplan developed in consultation with  
industry.
- The consortia formed to undertake the research  
projects would contain at least two independent  
industrial partners from different Member States,  
each contributing significantly to the project.
- The work would be carried out within the Community.
. The Community would contribute 50 %  towards the research  
costs involved.
. Within the programme distinctions would be m ade between  
"A" and "B" type projects.
- "A" projects would be of a  strategic character, have  
well defined objectives and account for 75 %  of the  
overall resources.
- "B" projects would be more research oriented, have  
less specific objectives and account for 25 %  of the  
overall resources.
ESPRIT was envisaged as an initial ten year programme starting  
with a pilot phase, followed by a 5 year phase I programme and a  
follow-up phase II programme.
. Resources in itia lly  allocated to ESPRIT phase I would total  
9268 m a n  years of effort over the ten year period. (Ref. O J  
N O  C321,26.11983 p.24)
- The pilot phase would amount to 260 m a n  years.-  2 -

- 3 -
. The overall investment for the fir s t five years would  
amount to som e 1,500 m illion ecu, 50 %  of which would be  
funded by the CEC.
- This is estimated to be 6 %  of the total industrial  
R & D  investment in IT within the Community.
After consultation with IT industry specialists it was agreed  
that the Workplan specifying the research activities would  
concentrate on five areas.
. Advanced Microelectronics
- The basic technology for the design, manufacturing  
and testing of VLSI and high speed circuits.
„  Software Technology
- The theories, methods and tools necessary to put  
software on a  sound engineering basis.
. Advanced Information Processing
Advanced computer architectures including design,  
storage, peripherals, signal processing and knowledge  
engineering.
. Office Systems
- Computer and communication systems for application in  
office environments.
. Computer Integrated Manufacturing
- The application of integrated information processing  
and communication in manufacturing environments.
Three committees comprising members from industry, academia,  
users and the national administrations of the Member States  
cooperate in the development of ESPRIT.

- 4 -
The Steering Committee (SC), comprising representatives  
from the 12 companies on the Round Table who, with  
technical panels of experts took an active part in the  
preparation and planning of ESPRIT.
The ESPRIT Advisory Board (EAB) comprising members from  
industry, users and academia advises on the general
development of ESPRIT.
The ESPRIT Management Committee (EMC) comprising  
representatives of the national administrations within the  
Member States advise on the development of ESPRIT and  
reflects the formal opinions of the governments.
Following the public call for proposals, a large number of 
projects were proposed for the ESPRIT pilot phase, and for the 
first year (1984) and second year (1985) of ESPRIT proper. (see 
Annex A)
.  At the pilot phase, 145 proposals were received of which 36 
were approved and received financial support amounting to  
11.5 Mecus for the first year.
.  Following the 1984 call for proposals a total of 441  
proposals were submitted; the number of proposals approved  
amounted to 110 (i.e. 25% of those proposed) corresponding
to funding by the CEC of 389.7 Mecus.
In 1985, 389 proposals were received
call for proposals; 95 proposals  
corresponding to funding by the CEC ofin response to the  
have been selected  
268.9 Mecus.

- 5 -
. Further details are given in ANNEX A.
1.2 ESPRIT mid-term Review
The Council Decision of 28th February 1984 (84/130/EEO foresees  
a mid-term review of the ESPRIT programme.
. The main terms of reference of this review have been to  
assess the extent to which ESPRIT is on the way to meeting  
its objectives namely:
- The promotion of European industrial cooperation in  
precompetitive R&D.
“ The provision of basic technologies that are  
required by the European IT industry to ensure its  
competitiveness.
” To pave the way for standards.
-  addition, it was requested that the review should
consider the orientation of ESPRIT in the forthcoming  
years, and in particular:
- The industrial cooperation established (in  
qualitative and quantitative terms).
- The time-horizon for the economic exploitation of  
pre-competitive research and prospects for  
strengthening competitiveness.
- The induced cooperation and degree of know-how  
transfer achieved.
- The induced indirect effects on industrial
cooperation (outside ESPRIT), the impact on
standardisation and on communication facilities.
- The interaction with other pre-competitive R&D  
programmes (national and Community).
- The research areas, their relative balance and  
cohesion.
- The modalities and procedures used.
(2)

-  6 -
The review has been undertaken by an independent Review Board and 
Secretariat.
.  The Review Board comprised:
Dr. A.E ,Pannenborg (ex-Philips, Netherlands), Chairman  
Dr. A.%anzin (ex-Thomson, ex-institut de Recherche  
d'informatique et d 'Automatique (IRIA) France)
Prof.Dr. H.J.Warnecke (Fraunhofer-Institut für Produktions­
technik und Automatisierung (IPA), Germany)
.  The Secretariat comprised
Dr.Ing. V.C.Grandis (Tecnetra, Italy)
Dr. P.A.Monseu (COMASE, Belgium)
Dr. P.A.Walker (Mackintosh International, UK)
The Review team obtained inputs from ESPRIT participants by means 
of a series of personal interviews, group discussions and a 
mailed questionnaire.
.  Personal face-to-face interviews were held with a sample of  
project managers (i.e. prime contractors) and with company  
representatives (at board level), and partners.
.  Personal face-to-face interviews were held with
representatives of the national administrations.
.  Group discussions were held with a sample of project  
partners and subcontractors from industry, academia and the  
independent research institutes.
.  A listing of organisations providing inputs is given in  
ANNEX B.
.  A structured questionnaire was mailed to all participants  
in the ESPRIT phase I  (1984) programme.
- A total of 477 participants received the  
questionnaire and 238 were completed and returned to  
the Review Board and have been analysed.

- 7 -
The results of the statistical analysis of the  
completed questionnaire are given in Annex C.
The views expressed and opinions of the organisations interviewed  
have been collected and collated and used as the basis of the 
conclusions derived by the Review Board and the recooaendaf ions 
submitted to the Conaission.
-  The views expressed and opinions of the organisations  
interviewed are summarised in Chapter 2 of this report.
-  The conclusions reached (Chapter 3) and recommendations  
made (Chapter 4) are a consensus of the views of the Review  
Board and Secretariat.
.  Because of the short duration of some of the projects* in  
some instances the views expressed are based upon
expectations rather than achievements.
1

2. THE REVIEW FINDINGS
2.1 Introduction
Despite initial scepticism on the part of many IT companies there 
is now unanimous agreement as to the initial success of ESPRIT, 
particularly with respect to the promotion of trans-European 
cooperation between IT organisations.
.  Typical comments received included
- "We did not think it would work, now we are finding  
that it is working much better than expected".
- "Before ESPRIT we only met our European colleagues at  
international conferences, now we meet regularly".
- "Before ESPRIT we looked to the US for partners, now  
we have discovered the technological capabilities of  
Europe and look to Europe".
Many detailed comments and suggestions have been received and 
these are expressed in the following sections of the report.
.  The comments are a synthesis of the inputs received from  
the organisations listed in Annex B and are categorised as  
far as possible into sections which reflect the original  
terms of reference of the Review.
- Those comments which cannot be conveniently  
categorised are included in an "other comments"  
section.
In general the comments made are substantiated by the analysis of 
the questionnaires returned.
.  Where appropriate cross reference is made to the results of  
the questionnaire survey given in ANNEX C.

- 9 -
2.2 Trans-European cooperation
Trans-European cooperation between organisations working on 
ESPRIT projects has started very successfully. (See Annex C2, 
4.5)
-  the initial indications are that it is working
extremely well with very few problems.
- This initial good start has yet to be consolidated
and turned into economic benefits for Europe.
.  All partners are responding to the challenge presented by  
trans-European cooperation.
•  English is used as the working language and in general does  
not cause problems.
- Some c l  a r i  f i  c a t i  o i  ■  and agreement on the meaning of
the terminologies and company jargons used has been
necessary in a num >er of projects.
Translation of the contracts into national languages  
has been necessarj in a number of instances and has  
caused problems.
To ensure success of the collaborative projects it has been found 
necessary to pay great attention to the planning of the programme 
of work and to communication between the partners.
.  Good planning necessitates:
- a well defined work schedule;
- well defined sub-tasks and allocation of
responsibilities;
- well defined milestones and objectives.
Good communications reqjire regular  
during the initial launch phase of  
management and technical levels.meetings (particularly  
the project) at both

-  10  -
.  To overcome the lack of concentrated critical mass in  
distributed, multi-partner projects, the importance of  
providing opportunities for creative interaction cannot be  
ove rst ressed.
- Technical workshops have been found to be very  
successful and are highly recommended.
- In addition limited (i.e. 2 week) secondment and
interchange of staff has proved to be very successful  
in some projects.
A manifestation of the success of trans-European cooperation is 
its implementation outside ESPRIT.
.  Cooperation agreements have been negotiated between  
European IT companies.
- For example: the Bull, ICL, Siemens agreement on
software development.
.  Trans-European companies are providing assistance to each  
other in a time of need.
- For example the assistance given by a French company  
to a UK company held up by the late delivery of an  
item of research equipment.
.  Trans-European consortia, having failed to obtain support  
from ESPRIT, continue to cooperate on their programme of  
pre-competitive research.
A penalty incurred in trans-European cooperation is the 
additional management overhead.
.  In general the majority of companies considered that  
trans-European cooperation added between 10 and 20% to the  
cost of the project.
- The larger the project, the smaller was the  
percentage overhead.
- Nevertheless the cooperation is more beneficial than  
isolated research.

-  11  -
. During the initial start-up phase of the projects the  
overhead incurred was substantially higher (e.g. 30%) due
to the familiarisation and learning process.
- This should be regarded as an entrance fee.
-  A significant part of this overhead is associated with the  
high travel costs in Europe.
- This is particularly so for air travel which in  
Europe costs substantially more'than in the US.
- The high cost of air travel is particularly severe
for those companies located at the geographic
extremities of the Community (e.g. Denmark, Greece,  
Ireland and Southern Italy).
The use of an efficient means of electronic communication is 
considered to be very important
-  EUR0K0M is found by most organisations to be inadequate to  
fulfil all needs.
- Although EUR0K0M will handle short messages it is  
inadequate for document or software transfer.
-UNIX is being used as an alternative by many
companies in addition to telex and facsimile.
Some consortia have experienced difficulties caused by the
cultural differences between Northern and Southern Europe.
-  Despite the slow down in project start-up caused by these
differences, in the long term it is expected that ESPRIT  
will have beneficial effects in helping to overcome such
differences by developing an understanding between the
partners involved.
Problems with the contracts between the Commission and the 
participants have caused some difficulties.
.  Not all participants found that the compromises reached in  
the contract on Property Rights and joint liabilities were  
adequate to their particular needs. This was of more

12  -
concern to smaller companies, universities and research  
institutes. Also criticized very widely were the delays  
that occur in contract signing, mainly caused by the  
sequential signing procedure of the contract. The results  
of the 'Simplification Grcup' in which the Commission  
considers improving procedures with contractors from large  
and small companies and universities are eagerly awaited.
2.3 Perceived benefits from ESPRIT
There is unanimous agreement that ESPRIT has enabled the size, 
and scope of the research projects to be increased. (See Annex 
C3, 4.1, 4.4)
.  More ambitious research targets have been set than would  
have been otherwise possible.
.  The resources applied to particular research projects are  
larger.
- Both in terms of manpower and the diversity of skills  
app lied.
.  Collective European skills are being focused and
concentrated into strategically important areas.
.  Individual research projects have been accelerated and are  
moving more rapidly towards the achievement of these
objectives.
- During the initial start-up period there is a slowing
down effect as partner:; learn to work together but
this is then followed by an acceleration effect of  
the programme. (See Annex C3, 4.3>
- Despite the overhead incurred one company judged that
ESPRIT led to a factor of 4 increase in the cost-
effectiveness of their research activity.

- 13 -
ESPRIT has led to interaction between companies and an exchange 
of know-how and ideas at all levels. (See Annex C3, 6.2)
.  Of particular significance, this interaction is occurring  
at board level, at management level and at the technical  
(i.e. research) level.
-  There is now an increased awareness (i.e. transparency)  
about the activities of the European IT industry and its  
capabi l  i  t i  es .
In the case of some saall companies and academic institutions 
ESPRIT has made possible research programmes that could not have 
otherwise been afforded.
Organisations and individual research workers involved in ESPRIT 
are perceived to have increased confidence and motivation.
.  European IT companies have more confidence in their  
collective ability to become more competitive with the US  
and Japan.
- There are positive signs that the industry in Europe  
is already becoming more aggressive and moving into  
an offensive posture.
- As quoted by the chief executive of a major European
E DP company "Because of ESPRIT, I have more
confidence that our business objectives may be  
achievable".
.  Individual research workers in industry and academic
expressed greater confidence and motivation.
- The resources being allocated to the research  
programme were more in tune with the requirements of  
the task.
The benefits of working as a member of an
international research team provides a strong  
motivation.

- 14 -
The ESPRIT programme of cooperation in pre-competitive research 
is leading to increasing cohesiveness within the IT industry 
which was absent before due to commercial competitivity.
.  This cooperation is in no way inhibiting the ability of  
commercial companies to compete in the market place.
.  As a consequence of ESPRIT, communication and understanding  
across the IT industry is being significantly improved.
- There is a better rapport between the large IT  
compani es.
- There is better communication and understanding  
between the large and small IT companies, and between  
the industrialists and the academic research  
establishments. (See Annex C 3 , 4.6,4.7)
.  By the involvement of users, particularly in the CIM area,  
the relationship between suppliers and users is being  
improved although even more user involvement is still  
required.
The implementation of ESPRIT has allowed the breaking of the 
geographical isolation of certain institutions.
.  This is particularly true of small sized Community Member  
States peripherally located.
.  National programmes are influenced by the existence of  
guidelines stemming from the Workplan.
Of particular importance and benefit to the European IT industry 
are the ESPRIT activities relating to standards.
.  The ESPRIT "standards-projects" are preparing the European  
position with respect to the new emerging standards in  
office systems and in computer integrated manufacturing.

- 15 -
- As a consequence of this activity, Europe will speak
with one voice at the international standards  
meetings (e.g. ISO, ECMA) and the reaching of  
agreement on international standards should be
speeded up.
- Also of importance is the multi-disciplinary aspect  
of work on the new standards involving companies from  
the office, EDP, telecommunication and manufacturing  
sectors.
ESPRIT has created the climate and the means for cooperation.
.  ESPRIT's example has helped the Commission and the national  
PTT's to launch the RACE project.
.  Researchers and academics have expressed their wish that  
the ESPRIT model be applied to other inter-European  
cooperative projects.
The initial benefits seen by the ESPRIT participants are 
encouraging and in-line with the original ESPRIT objectives. (See 
Annex C3, 6.2)
.  It has to be recognised however that much remains to be  
done in terms of consolidation before the fruits of the  
seed-sowing can be harvested.
2.4 ESPRIT management and control  
2.4.1 By the ITTTF
It is recognised by almost all participants that the management 
and control of the ESPRIT programme has been good and effective 
despite the impedance of the surrounding CEC bureaucracy.

-  16  -
.  The huge magnitude of the administrative task faced by the  
ITTTF is recognised by the participants who praised the  
speed with which the ESPRIT programme was launched, once it  
had been approved by the Council of Ministers.
.  Bureaucratic procedures have caused major problems however  
with delays in the receipt of contracts and of payments.
- In many instances, the start of projects has been  
severely inhibited by the delay in the receipt of  
signed contracts (six month delays are not uncommon).
- In some instances fuzzy (i.e. uncertain) starts have  
been made, in good faith, pending the receipt of the  
contract.
- Delays in contract payments following the provision  
and acceptance of agreed deliverables also causes  
severe problems in terms of cash-flow.
.  These delay-induced problems are particularly severe for  
the small companies and academic institutes who do not  
have the required reserves needed to carry them through  
the resulting cash-flow problems.
In general the administration of the ESPRIT programme has been 
considered by many participants to be better than that 
experienced in other programmes and in certain national 
programmes.
•  Particular praise was given to the formal procedures  
specified by the ITTTF and the quality of the staff  
involved.
.  It was observed that too many staff members of the ITTTF  
lack industrial experience. This, however, reflects the  
apparent unwillingness of industry itself to make suitable  
personnel available for work in the ITTTF.

- 17 -
Although satisfaction with the proposal evaluation procedures
was expressed by many companies, some concern was voiced as t© 
its adequacy.
. Some criticism was expressed concerning the quality of the  
experts used in the evaluation process.
- Some companies found that the "experts” knowledge of  
the field was not adequate and tended to be too  
academi c.
- Views were also expressed that the experts were not  
always impartial and in some cases had vested  
interests in the outcome of the evaluation.
.  It was also commented that the evaluation failed to take
adequate account of the strategic factors concerning the  
development of the IT industry and that in some cases  
support was not given to advanced projects but to catch up  
projects proposed by companies trailing behind the European  
leaders.
.  At present success in the evaluation is heavily dependent  
upon the quality of the written proposal.
- Some companies claim that it is more dependent upon
the quality of the writing than on the technical  
content of the proposal and that inadequate and
insufficient account is taken of the balance between  
the technical content of the proposal and the  
capabilities of the consortia.
.  Concern is also expressed that there is normally no oral
presentation and no opportunity for interactive discussion  
with the evaluators.
Many companies commented on the lack of coherence between the 
projects selected for support.
.  This has led to a large number of small projects being  
supported.

-  18  -
Many participants consider that the cost of submitting proposals 
and the reject rates were too high and that the delay in 
receiving feedback fro· the evaluation was too long.
.  Many companies requested more transparent rules for the  
eva luat i  on.
- Proposers' need to know the criteria which will be 
applied to the selection process.
.  A strong request was made that the results of the
evaluation together with the evaluators comments should be  
fed back to the proposers.
- When a proposal is rejected, the proposers are not
sufficiently informed as to the reasons.
Consequently, they cannot learn and make progress  
when subsequent calls for proposals are issued.
- Concern was expressed by some companies at the
leakage of information occurring between consortia at  
the evaluation stage and also of the evaluation
resu Its.
.  Since the success rate on proposals submitted for
consideration is typically only 25 X, a large amount of  
industry time and effort is wasted in the preparation of
unsuccessful proposals.
- Some reimbursement of the costs of preparing
successful proposals has been suggested.
In an attempt to reconcile these views an alternative evaluation 
mechanism was considered and found acceptable by many companies.
-  The proposed procedure would involve the following steps:
~ 1. Submission of outline Ci.e. summary) proposals.
2. Filtering of the outline proposals.
3. Development of full proposals for only those that  
pass the filtering process (maybe only 30 X)
4. Submission of full proposal and personal (i.e.  
oral) presentation to the evaluation committee.
•itfS

- 19 -
Whilst recognising that there nay, for budgetary reasons, be a 
justification for pruning or Merging projects it uas thought that  
this should be done with great care.
.  Project pruning should not be imposed but left to the  
project team to implement.
.  Merging of projects has caused and wilt continue to cause,  
great problems due to incompatibilities between companies,  
to differences in objectives, and in background  
information.
- In addition merging causes considerable delays due to  
"learning" effects and the necessary familiarisation  
process.
- Furthermore, it tends to increase the number of  
partners beyond the limit where a project can be  
effectively managed.
.  As far as possible such actions should be avoided and  
natural forces used to rationalise the composition of  
consortia.
In the view of the Review Board, support for conpeting or 
overlapping projects is not necessarily bad, provided adequate  
funding is available.
The question of project continuity is of considerable importance  
'  to the IT organisations participating in ESPRIT.
.  The award of short term (i.e. 1  year) contracts is bad and
should be avoided.
- Although it provides an opportunity for programme  
correction, such contracts are difficult for academic  
organisations and research institutes to accommodate  
because of the lack of commitment and uncertainty  
hanging over the project which makes recruitment and  
the purchase of equipment difficult.

-  20  -
,  in a research environment it is recommended that research  
contracts should have a duration of at least 3 years - If  
a project needs to be stopped then the CEC support should  
be terminated in a formal way.
.  In the same way project vacillation (i.e. changes in the go  
status, or in the programme content) should be avoided if  
at all possi b le.
- it was reported that the technical annex of one  
project had been changed seven times.
.  Continuation contracts should be awarded well in advance of  
the expiry of existing contracts to ensure that research  
continuity and momentum are maintained.
In general participants expressed satisfaction with the manner in 
Mhich the programme was being administered from Brussels.
.  The importance of the individual programme and project  
leaders was stressed and opinions differed as to whether  
there was too much or too little interference in the  
technical aspects of the projects.
.  General complaints were made about the amount of paper work  
required by Brussels and the reluctance of the Brussels  
staff to visit the projects.
The project interim reviews Mere considered a tedious, but 
necessary exercise by many participants.
-  All participants appreciated the opportunity given to make  
suggestions for reviewers but many were critical of the  
change of reviewers and consequent lack of continuity that  
has frequently occurred.
.  A few contractors were critical of the caliber of the  
reviewers used.

-  21 -
While the need for an interi· review is generally recognised, the 
burden of Monthly progress reports is criticised.
.  Nevertheless, the usefulness of the monthly report has been  
stressed by several project managers.
- It is sometimes the only way, for the project manager  
to be aware of a problem with a partner.
- Industrial companies should not be disturbed by what  
is generally considered as a normal project  
monitoring procedure.
- The burden of the monthly report can be minimised by  
making use of a short structured reporting format.
It was generally agreed by the participants that badly running 
projects should be terminated at an early stage to avoid waste of 
funding and to enforce the reputation of the ESPRIT programme.
.  The 6 monthly interim review provides the opportunity for  
checking the progress of the projects.
.  The reviewers comments should be distributed to the  
participants as soon as possible after the review.
To assist the smooth running of ESPRIT it is suggested that 
careful consideration be given to the terms of reference of the 
project leaders in Brussels.
.  Several companies suggested that the project managers should  
be given more responsibility and that the "Brusse l  s-j ob'f 
should be that of CONTRACTS MANAGER.
Overall concern was expressed at the inadequacy of communications 
within ESPRIT.
.  The Information Exchange System, EUROKOM, was not
considered to be up to the task that it needs to perform.
- In particular the inability of EUROKOM to handle  
documents was criticised.
(3)

-  22  -
.  A general need exists for more communication within the  
project areas and across ESPRIT.
- Suggested remedies include:
1. A monthly Alvey-type newsletter on project  
progress .
2. A directory of ESPRIT participants and of the
ITTTF administration.
3. More use of workshops and specialised technology  
related clubs crossing project and area  
boundaries.
The need for ESPRIT to have a positive "Public Relations" policy 
was stressed.
.  There is a recognised need for ESPRIT to have a good,
transparent (i.e. visible) public image.
- At the same time the CEC policy with respect to the  
disclosure of technical information should be  
reconsidered in the light of adverse reactions from  
commercial organisations.
.  On the evidence of the 1984 Technical Week, (which was
largely related to the pilot phase), many participants were  
of the view that there was considerable room for
improvement.
- Whilst it provided i  public relations opportunity,
the Technical Week did not provide the opportunity
for technical dialogue and was of little technical
value.
- The inclusion of a lerge number of parallel workshop  
sessions could improve this situation.
2.4.2 By Prime Contractors and Pertners
The management task associated wi th trans-European, multi-partner 
projects has been underestimated.

- 23 -
.  In the majority of projects the overhead associated with  
the trans-European multi-partner structure of the team was  
thought to add an additional 10 to 20 X to the costs.
- During the first year of the project this additional  
overhead may be substantially higher (i.e. 30 %).
.  It is recognised by most participants that effective  
project management requires the use of professional  
management skills and techniques.
- Individuals having management skills are needed  
rather than technocrats.
- Project management techniques including critical  
path analysis, should be used more in the Large  
projects.
.  The key to success in many projects, (particularly those  
involving many partners), is the individual chosen to be  
project manager.
- This role is frequently separated from that of  
technical leadership of the project.
In many projects a business-like structure has been adopted  
involving a Supervisory Board as well as Management Committee.
.  The Board contains representatives from all project  
partners and oversees the functioning of the project  
consortium.
- Board members have equal voting rights.
- The Board is used in the event of there being a  
dispute or major disagreement within the consortium.
.  The Management Committee has responsibility for the
implementation of the programme of research specified in  
the technical annex to the contract.
The use of technical workshops and working groups between the  
partners are considered important.

- 24 -
.  in fragmented mu Iti-partner projects there is a general  
lack of opportunity for creative interaction.
- The setting up of technical workshops can help to  
overcome this problem.
A good, clearly defined programme of work is obviously an 
important requirement for all projects.
.  Tasks, milestones, critical paths and responsibilities  
should be clearly defined.
.  Regular meetings of the project participants are also of  
areat importance.
- During the initial setting up phase of the projects  
it has been found desirable in many projects to have  
extensive meetings to integrate and familiarise the  
diverse project participants with the overall  
objectives of the programme and plan of work.
In several consortia separate collaboration agreements have been 
reached between partners.
.  This has been considered necessary to overcome the  
shortcomings in the CEC contract particularly with respect  
to the Industrial (Intellectual) Property Rights (IPR's).
Concern was expressed by many organisations at the high cost of 
submitting proposals and the short time allowed.
.  A better balance in the time allowed for the preparation  
and submission of proposals and for the subsequent  
evaluation was requested.
- More time for the preparation of the proposals, less  
time taken for the evaluation.

- 25 -
2.5 The importance of ESPRIT to the R&D programmes of  
participating organisations
There was general agreement among all participants that ESPRIT 
had led to a significant increase in R&D activity. (See Annex C3, 
7.1, 7.2) ...—....-
.  
Although ESPRIT only accounted for a small percentage of  
the total R&D activity of many participating organisations  
it is nevertheless significant. (See Annex C 3 , 2.2)
- In the case of large organisations, ESPRIT only  
accounted for 1  % of the total R&D activity but up  
to 10 % of their advanced research.
.  in the case of some small industrial and academic  
organisations ESPRIT accounted for the total research  
activity.
- Without ESPRIT such organisations would not have the  
funds available for a significant research activity.
Despite the disturbance caused to the normal R&D programmes of 
companies the contribution being made by ESPRIT was recognised to 
be of value. (See Annex C3, 6.2, 7.1-7.4)
.  ESPRIT has contributed to the R&D programmes in terms of:
- the financial input;
- the inwards transfer of technology;
the enlargement and broadening of the research  
programme;
- the acceleration of the research;
- the stimulation of creativity;
- the exposure to different points of view.
.  As a result of ESPRIT, companies have a greater awareness  
of the activities of other companies in Europe and this  
has led, in some cases, to a rethinking of company  
strategies.

26
2.6 The contribution of ESPRIT to the provision of a technology
■  . .      |  '  I "  ■ ■ ■  "  « I  . . .  "  ·■— — —■ * ■      1  '  ■  .........  I —  . 1 . —  —  —
ba
se for the IT i  ndust ry.
Companies participating in the ESPRIT programme believe that it 
will assist in the provision of a technology base for the IT 
industry, (see Annex C3, 4.9)
.  In some cases, ESPRIT is being used to support a catching  
up, exercise.
- Companies less competitive in the development of a  
technology are using ESPRIT as the means to catch up  
with other companies in Europe. This is not  
considered to be the best use of ESPRIT funding as it  
does nothing to help the competitiveness of the  
European IT industry vis-à-vis the US and Japan.
- Catching up with the US and Japan is a supportable  
objective provided that the resources allocated are  
adequate for the task.
.  In areas where Europe is on-a-par with or ahead of the US  
and/or Japan, the support provided by ESPRIT should help to  
ensure that the position is maintained.
ESPRIT alone however is not sufficient.
-  To build upon the progress made so far there is a need for:
- additional research funding;
- support for prototype development (particularly  
among the SME's);
- production engineering;
- assistance with marketing.
.  Also of major importance is a greater involvement of  
leading-edge users.
- Suitable demonstration projects could provide the
means for user involvement.

- 27 -
Greater attention should now be given to the strategic arsd  
commercial importance of the technologies being supported by  
ESPRIT.
.  The initial broad-brush approach in selected areas of the  
IT industry has served to get ESPRIT off the ground and  
provides the vehicle for trans-European cooperation.
.  Looking to the future there is a recognised need for more  
focusing of the activit es supported.
- In particular it should be ensured that the areas  
supported are of commercial and strategic importance.
2.7 The programme content and balance of ESPRIT
The vast majority of organisations expressed satisfaction with 
the content and balance of th< ESPRIT programme.
.  Since the programme i  5 based on an industry specified  
Workplan this is hardly surprising.
.  Strong views were expressed by some companies on the  
inadequate funding in CIM (less than 20 % of budget) and  
the paucity of good proposals in software technology.
Significant comments wer· Made however concerning the gaps in the 
Workplan and perceived lack of adequate strategic consideration.
.  The Workplan concentrates on three areas of technology  
(Microelectronics, Software Technology and Advanced  
Information Processing) and two application areas (Office  
Systems and Computer Integrated Manufacturing).
- The three techno ogy areas were chosen as being the  
foundations of information technology.
- The two applies ion areas were selected as being  
significant user; and beneficiaries of information  
technology.

- 28 -
.  For economic reasons (balance of trade and employment)
several companies advocated strongly the inclusion of  
consumer electronics and of computer peripherals.
- Consumer electronics accounted for an estimated 44 %
of the balance of trade deficit in electronics in  
1983, and support for the European industry in this
sector is urgently needed. Such support is not
possible with the present funding of ESPRIT.
.  For technology-impact reasons a strong optoelectronics
activity was advocated by several companies.
- Optoelectronics is expected to be part of RACE (the  
programme of research on advanced communications in  
Europe), and is therefore considered to be largely  
outside the ESPRIT programme.
Concern was expressed by a number of companies at the lack of 
flexibility in the Workplan and the fragmentation of the support 
provided.
-  The Workplan, which imposes a framework on ESPRIT, also  
makes it difficult to accomodate non-Workplan compatible  
projects.
-  The large number of small projects supported by ESPRIT was  
criticised and a plea made for more focused projects.
- A view emerged that there should be fewer, larger  
projects with more user involvement.
A few people have expressed the view that the projects supported 
by ESPRIT were not ambitious enough.
.  "There are no new ideas or really advanced concepts in  
ESPRIT"

- 29 -
2.8 The future development ESPRIT
In terms of programme content strong views were expresssed by 
aany coapanies that ESPRIT should continue to he based on pr@- 
coapetitive R&D.
-  For clarification pre-competitive may be defined to be:  
"Those activities which companies can work on in a  
collaborative manner without endangering their individual  
commercial position".
Strong views were also expressed on the desirability of including 
demonstration projects having an application bias and large user  
involvement.
-  Such demonstration projects would be large in terms of the  
resources required, would serve to demonstrate and  
integrate a number of the technologies developed within  
ESPRIT, and would "have a large user involvement.
- In addition, the demonstration projects would act as  
a stimulant to the market.
.  The "Demonstrator Projects" in the Alvey programme were  
cited as examples of what can be done.
After careful consideration, the Review Board recoaaend that a 
separate demonstrator programme be included in the second phase 
of ESPRIT with an additional budget of at least one third that of 
the ESPRIT-II proper.
.  The demonstrator projects will need to be carefully  
selected to satisfy the following criteria:
- Advanced in concept and able to demonstrate
technologies that will be available in five years  
time with a high probability of success.
Undertaken in a user environment with a large  
involvement of leading-edge users.
- Transparency to the outside world so that market  
stimulation is achieved.

- 30 -
Other suggested enhancements to the ESPRIT programme should 
include:
.  More flexibility in the Workplan.
.  More recognition of the importance of taking market and  
business related factors into account in the selection of  
projects.
.  More involvement of non-commmunity organisations.
A number of research areas were suggested for inclusion in future 
ESPRIT programmes.
.  Consumer electronics and computer peripherals because of  
their economic importance.
- In consumer electronics there is a clearly stated  
need for the establishment of European standards for  
domestic networks as well as a specific requirement  
of advanced component technologies (e.g. flat screen  
displays, frame-stores, and components for satellite  
reception).
- In computer peripherals, despite the fact that Europe  
has become largely dependent upon US and Japanese  
sources, opportunities could arise for new innovative  
products and ESPRIT support has been requested for  
this area.
.  Optoelectronics is considered by many people to be of major  
strategic importance for tie future, not only because of  
its impact on te lecommunic»tions but also because of the  
potential for ultra high speed data processing by means of  
optical computing.
- Its inclusion in future ESPRIT programmes is
advocated by many organisations.

- 31 -
The important role played by ESPRIT in the developaent ©f 
standards has been repeatedly stressed and should be continued,
-  Further standard activities are recommended particularly  
related to OSI (the Open Systems Interconnection).
- A major OSI demonstration project is therefor®  
suggested.
The importance of project continuity between the first and second 
phases of ESPRIT projects has been stressed.
.  Decisions to continue or discontinue research programmes  
should be made prior to (i.e. more than 3 months before)  
the expiry of current contracts.
In the further developaent of ESPRIT it is recommended that 
special attention should be given to the participation of small
aedium sized enterprises and academic institutions.
-  In addition to their normal participation as partners in
ESPRIT projects, it is suggested that the small
organisations should have a significant share in large  
demonstration projects, say 10%, depending upon the quality  
and the strategic interests of the proposers.
·. Special provision should be considered to encourage the  
participation of advanced research organisation.
In the considered opinion of the review board further developaent 
of ESPRIT (i.e. ESPRIT II) should be such as to ensure that the 
resources applied to cooperative pre^coapetitive research are at 
least comparable to those coaaitted to ESPRIT I.
.  The large number of good proposals submitted and need to  
restrict the number of proposals accepted and , in some  
instances, to reduce the level of support provided,  
demonstrates the need not only to maintain the level of  
support but to increase it.

- 32 -
2.9 Other possible approaches
Although ESPRIT has been highly successful in stimulating 
transnational cooperation, doubts have been expressed as to its 
effectiveness in developing technology. (See Annex C3, 4.9)
.  Although the multi-partner projects provide the larger  
research teams required and Europe benefits from the  
concentration and coupling of research activity, it has to  
be recognised that a distributed project does not provide  
the concentration and coupling of research resources  
required to achieve the critical mass and economies of  
scale that are required in certain research areas.
- 10% of participants responding to the questionnaire  
believe that ESPRIT will result in a technological  
lead for Europe. (See Annex C3, 8)
Nixed views were expressed as to the effectiveness of specialised 
research institutes i.e. Centres of Excellence. (See Annex C3, 
10)
.  Although such centres would have benefits in terms of the  
concentration of resources (equipment and manpower) some  
organisations considered that they would be less effective  
in the transfer of technology and promotion of trans-  
European cooperation.
.  On balance there was general support for the concept of  
specialised Centres of Excellence.
It is the opinion of the Review Board that a few selected 
European Centres of Excellence in Information Technology should 
be developed and encouraged to become international in their 
orientation.
.  Such centres should preferably be based on existing  
activities and be interrelated by means of a networking  
system.

- 33 -
It is suggested that European companies should be  
encouraged to second staff to such centres for periods of  
time after which they return to their employer with the  
acquired technology skills and know-how.
In addition, it is recommended that a portion of the ESPRIT  
funding should be used for the award of fellowships to  
these institutes for nationals from other Member States.
- Similar fellowships should also be awarded to  
academic institutes.
- In this way a (variable) part of the cost of a  
selected Centre of Excellence would be shifted from  
national funding to European funding.
2.10 The relationship of ESPRIT to the national programmes of  
research in Information Techology.
In general the national programmes of research in Information 
Technology are complementary to ESPRIT.
.  No severe problems of competition between the programmes  
have been encountered.
Of particular importance is the relationship between ESPRIT and 
the UK's Alvey programme.
.  Both pogrammes were launched at about the same time with  
similar objectives (i.e. to support, on a collaborative  
basis, pre-competitive research in Information Technology).
.  The main differences between the programmes are:
- the inclusion of demonstration projects in Alvey;
- the absence of a workplan framework to the ALvey  
programme which thus provides for flexibility;
- the 100 % funding provided to academic institutions:  
(since Alvey funding is based on a reallocation of  
existing funds this does not significantly help the  
academics).

- 34 -
In general UK coapanles participating in both prograaaes 
expressed a preference for ESPRIT.
.  "There is a wider choice of partners."
.  The administrative procedures are more clearly defined in  
ESPRIT than in Alvey.
recognised however that Alvey has better coaaunications.
The Alvey Newsletter is considered to be of major benefit.  
The Alvey clubs are considered to be an effective means of 
achieving technical interaction and dialogue across project  
boundari es.
All organisations agreed that the two prograaaes could operate 
side by side and be autually supportive and although they are 
clearly coapeting for resources this has not caused aajor 
probleas.
.  To ensure that both programmes achieve maximum benefit it  
is important that open dialogues be established between the  
Alvey and ESPRIT research teams.
In the rest of Europe ESPRIT seeas to be aore far reaching than 
the various national prograaaes.
.  Although some overlap in the programmes does occur, in  
general they are mutually supportive.
The Review Board recognises the importance of coordinating the 
various cooperative research prograaaes in Europe and suggest 
that initiatives be taken to avoid unneccesary duplication of 
effort.
. This applies particularly to the relationship between  
national programmes and ESPRIT.it is

- 35 -
. Increasingly it will be necessary to coordinate and  
delineate other European collaborative research and  
development programmes like BRITE, RACE, and the still  
largely undefined EUREKA.
Concern was expressed by industry at its ability to continue to 
participate in collaborative RRD projects.
.  In many cases companies stated that the existing BRITE and  
ESPRIT programmes were using all their available resources  
and that the addition of RACE and EUREKA would exceed their  
capabilities to participate.
- In these cases companies would need to carefully  
select their programmes.
.  This situation demonstrates the lack of research scientists  
and technicians in Europe and the necessity of increasing  
the efforts in education and training.
2.11 The exploitation of the results of ESPRIT
All participants expressed an intention to exploit the
technologies being developed with the support of ESPRIT.
.  In addition to the products and systems that will result  
from the ESPRIT activities, in certain projects, the main  
exploitation will be in the form of know-how which will be  
important in ensuring that industry develops the user-  
friendly products and systems required by the market.
- This is particularly the case in the Office Systems  
and Computer Integrated Manufacturing sectors.

- 36 -
In aost cases the products and systeas will require a further 3 
to 5 years of developaent after the coapletion of ESPRIT. (See 
Annex C3, 5.1)
.  Although some products may appear on the market before, in  
the majority of cases commercial exploitation will occur in  
the 1990's.
As already stated, in soae projects ESPRIT is being used as a 
Beans of catching up by the consortia involved.
.  In such cases it is very doubtful whether products which  
are able to compete in the worldwide market will ever  
appear.
- From a European perspective the best that can be  
expected is that the technology would be used as a  
basis for import substitution with corresponding  
beneficial effects on the balance of trade and on  
employment.
The aost significant exploitation of ESPRIT supported technology 
is likely to occur in those areas where European technology is 
on-a-par with or ahead of the rest of the world.
.  In these cases (unfortunately not many) ESPRIT support is  
helping to ensure that the European position is maintained.
- Many of these areas are in highly specialised Niche  
markets and although the overall benefits to the  
companies involved will be significant, the net  
effect on the European balance of trade in the IT  
sector will be small.
- Such areas nevertheless provide the best opportunity  
for a long term impact on the balance of trade and  
employment.

- 37 -
ESPRIT alone 1s not sufficient to ensure that these opportunities 
are exploited.
. As suggested in 2.6, much more remains to be done, in  
particular:
- Prototype development
- Production engineering
- Manufacture
- Marketing
. The SME's in particular requested help in moving through  
these exploitation phases.
The whole question of the Industrial (Intellectual) Property 
Rights (IPR's) overshadows the exploitation of ESPRIT technology.
. Not all participants found that the compromises reached in  
the contract concerning IPR's and joint liabilities were  
adequate to their particular needs.
.  This was particularly so for the smaller companies,  
Universities and Research Institutes.
Despite the impending problems with IPR's some companies have 
taken the view that it is more important to proceed with tho 
development of the technology than to delay natters.
. Although some consortia insisted on getting agreement on  
IPR matters prior to starting work, others have put the  
problem on one side pending the completion of the  
development of the technologies.
- In many instances separate collaboration agreements  
have been reached by consortia members covering  
liability and exploitations.
- Where agreements have not been reached it is to be  
expected that problems will arise.

- 38 -
2*12 The influence of the 12 members of the Round Table.
It is agreed by the participants In ESPRIT that the part played 
by the 12 has been necessary and Instrumental In getting ESPRIT 
started.
.  The '12' represented a major part of the European IT  
industry and gave their consistent support for the concept  
of ESPRIT, in the development of the Workplan and in the  
submission of proposals.
- it is therefore to be expected that the 12 should  
have a major involvement in the projects supported by  
ESPRIT.
Strong views were expressed by some other organisations wishing 
to have a voice in the Round Table and ESPRIT Steering Committee.
.  Such views were expressed by IT organisations not currently  
participating in the Round Table or Steering Committee, by  
software companies, by SME's and by users.
In the considered view of the Review Board it would be 
impractical and unwise to enhance the representation on the Round 
Table and Steering Committee and organisations wishing to have a 
say are urged to make use of the existing means of consultation.
.  In the final formulation of the Workplan, specialist  
working groups are set up and individual organisation are  
invited to comment and participate.
- The ITTTF is urged to give more publicity to this  
process and to take more positive actions to solicit  
contributions from the entire IT industry and from  
users.

- 39 -
Concern was expressed by soae of the SNE*s that the large IT 
companies (the 12) nay exploit technologies developed by ESPRIT 
■ore rapidly than the SRE’s.
.  Although the large companies have the resources required  
for the rapid exploitation the technologies, the built-in  
inertia makes it difficult for large companies to respond  
rapidly and in the view of the Review Board the SME's will  
have every opportunity to exploit the technologies.
- The SME's however have a need for additional support  
for prototype development.
2.13 The quality of research workers participating in ESPRIT
In the vast majority of projects total satisfaction was expressed 
by participants at the quality and competence of the research 
workers being used on ESPRIT projects.
.  The incidence of sleeping (i.e. non contributing) partners  
was very low.
.  In a few cases participants complained of a lack of ability  
in the prime contractor and of constantly changing project  
teams.
- This leads to a risk that the best research workers  
will not continue to work on the projects.
Project teams were generally reported as being highly motivated.
.  The ESPRIT projects attract high catiber, highly motivated  
research workers.
. Competition within the consortia stimulated by company  
pride and reputation, was acting as a strong motivator for  
many participants.

- 40 -
As already Mentioned in 2.10, general shortage of suitably 
qualified engineers and scientists was reported particularly in 
the A.I. field. (See Annex C3, 9)
.  This shortage will become more severe with the launch of  
other cooperative research programmes (e.g. RACE, and  
EUREKA).
L
.  Some concern was also expressed at the lack of adequate  
management skills in the project teams and of industrial  
experience within the Brussels administration.
- It is suggested that the ITTTF would provide some  
form of project management training.
\
2.14 Other significant comments
ESPRIT is helping to promote better understanding between the 
academic and industrial environments.
.  Some initial antagonism was experienced by consortia  
participants.
Small companies are finding it difficult to participate fully in 
ESPRIT because of the resources that are required.
.  SME's do not in general have the resources necessary to  
devote to proposal preparation.
Software companies find it difficult to participate in ESPRIT 
because of the nature of their business.
.  In general software companies undertake contract work in  
which the professional stafi are 100% fee earning.
- 50% funding is difficult to accommodate.
Research as understood by  
to a much lesser extent byhardware industry is undertaken  
the software industry.

- 41 -
It nas suggested that the function of the ESPRIT Advisory Board 
should be reexaained.
. The EAB does not appear to be functioning very well at the  
moment and it is suggested that its membership should be  
extended to provide a better balance and opportunity for  
participation by spokesmen for the SME's, the software  
companies and the academics.
Because of the rapid pace of development within the IT industry 
it is considered that ESPRIT must be fast in its execution and be 
based upon the best people and European resources.
•Trailing and second-best projects or project teams will not  
have the desired effect on the competitive position of  
European industry.
A general view was expressed that the consortia are too large.
.  An optimum size of 3 or 4 partners was recommended by many  
companies.
- The present average of 5.5 partners per project is  
considered to be much too large.
- Projects should never have more than six partners,  
including the Prime Contractor and further  
participating parties, if any, should have the role  
of sub-contractor in order to ensure manageability  
of the proj ect.
.  In the case of standards related projects it is recognised  
that there is a need for a larger number of participants.
Many project managers expressed the view that they would like to 
have more responsibility delegated to them from Brussels.
.  The mutual trust between participants that is necessary  
for the success of the projects should also extend to the  
relationship between the project leaders in Brussels and  
the project managers who should be given more direct  
responsibility for the projects.

- 42 -
As a result of the strong views expressed concerning the role of 
the academic institutions it is suggested that a body
representing the· enter into negotiations with the CEC.
.  Causes for concern are:
- the contracts and financial terms;
- the payment schedule;
- the role of academic institutions as partners or  
sub-contractors.
The Review Board welcomes the suggestion that some form of 
performance related award be given each year.
.  By analogy with the UK's Queen's Award it is suggested that  
there be annual ESPRIT awards for innovation, project
progress etc.
Several companies expressed concern about the relationships 
between ESPRIT and EUREKA and it is the view of the Board that 
ESPRIT should continue to be based on pre-competitive research 
with EUREKA (and RACE) being concerned with down stream (i.e. 
more development oriented) projects.

- 43 -
3. REVIEW CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the synthesis of the review findings 
presented in Chapter 2, the following conclusions have 
been drawn by the Review Board.
3.1 ESPRIT has been successfully established as a 
programme of cooperative pre-competitive research 
across the IT industry in Europe.
.  The fields of activity chosen for support are:  
Microelectronics, Software Technology, Advanced  
Information Processing, Office Systems and  
Computer Integrated Manufacturing.
3.2 ESPRIT has been highly successful in stimulating 
trans-European cooperation between large and snail 
conpanies in the IT sector, and between industry, 
independent research institutes and acadeni c 
institutions across Europe.
.  ESPRIT is a start, further consolidation is  
needed.
.  The cooperation established within ESPRIT is  
extending outside.
3.3 English is used as the working language and no 
significant problems have been encountered.
3.4 The overheads associated with trans-European 
multinational projects are high, typically 10-20 X 
of project costs but 30 X in the first start-up 
year.
.  High European air fares are a major contribution  
to these high overheads.

- 44 -
3.5 6ood electronic coaaunication between partners is 
considered essential.
.  EUROKOM as it stands is inadequate.
3.6 Soae probleas have been caused by cultural 
differences between Northern and Southern Europe.
.  ESPRIT will help to lessen these differences.
3.7 There is an urgent need for a siaplifi cation in 
the aechanisa to arrive at signed contracts and in 
payaent procedures.
3.8 ESPRIT has led to an enhanceaent of IT research 
prograaaes.
.  An increase in size, scope and an acceleration of  
the programmes to meet more ambitious targets.
3.9 The cooperation established in ESPRIT has given the 
European IT industry aore confidence.
.  "The industry is moving on to the offensive."
3.10 The European posture in IT industry standards is 
being strengthened by ESPRIT.
3.11 Despite the incuaberance iaposed by bureacracy the 
aanageaent and control of ESPRIT has been good.
.  There is room for improvement in:
- contract and payment procedures;
- proposal evaluation procedures;
- the manipulation of proposed projects.

- 45 -
3.12 To enhance the public image of ESPRIT there is a 
need for a more positive PR policy.
.  ESPRIT should be transparent to participants and  
non-participants.
3.13 The aanageaent task associated with running the 
prograaae and the individual projects requires the 
use of the best aanageaent techniques.
.  A good clearly defined programme of work is an  
important requirement for all projects.
- Task specifications, milestones, critical  
paths and responsibilities should be clearly  
def i  ned.
3.14 Project supervision is frequently provided by a 
project board from the participants with a 
management committee responsible for the execution 
of the research programme.
3.15 Effort should be made by the ESPRIT management to 
reduce the bureaucratic load of the review 
procedures.
.  Nevertheless, the ESPRIT Review Board do not  
advocate a suppression of the monthly report, and  
certainly not a reduction of the frequency of the  
interim reviews.
3.16 The ESPRIT management, after justified reviewers“  
advice, must be ready to stop badly running 
projects.

- 46 -
3.17 Technical workshops and working groups aire 
important for establishing technical interaction 
within projects.
3.18 ESPRIT is Baking a significant contribution to the 
R&D activities of participating organisations and 
hence to the provision of a technology base for 
the IT industry.
3.19 Greater attention should now be given to the 
strategic and coaaercial iaportance of projects 
supported.
3.20 General satisfaction is felt with the content and 
balance of the IT prograaae.
.  Gaps exist in the software technology programme  
which should be filled, and a need was expressed  
for more support on Computer Integrated  
Manufacturing.
3.21 Concern was expressed at the lack of flexibility in 
the Workplan, at the f ragaentation and lack of 
cohesiveness in the support provided and at the 
absence of truly aabitious projects.
3.22 Although the future developaent of ESPRIT should be 
based on pre-coapetitive R&D, account needs to be 
taken of the need for deaonstration projects.
.  Such projects should involve leading-edge  
users.

- 47 -
3.23 Other areas suggested for inclusion in the 
further development of ESPRIT include:
- consumer e lectronics, optoelectronics and  
computer peripherals
3.24 The importance of ESPRIT to the development of 
European standards is reaffirmed.
3.25 In the further development of ESPRIT special 
provision may need to be made for the SHE's.
3.26 Funding levels should be such as to allow a 
continuation and if possible an increase in the 
levels of support already committed.
3.27 There was general support for the establishment of 
specialised Centres of Excellence based on 
existing centres which should be interlinked and 
given a trans-European perspective.
3.28 ESPRIT was considered to be complementary to the 
national programmes in pre-competitive research.
.  There were no major conflicts between ESPRIT and  
the national programmes.
3.29 A need exists for further coordination and 
delineation between the national programmes; and 
between ESPRIT, and other cooperative European 
programmes such as BRITE, RACE and EUREKA.

48 -
.  Resource limitations may curtail the extent to  
which organisations are able to participate in  
all of these programmes.
.30 The issue of Industrial Property Right is not 
impeding the development of the technologies, 
however, in spite of the provisions in the contract 
which gives every contractor the right to exploit 
on a royalty-free basis any foreground patents and 
information generated under the contracts, a number 
of contractors fear that commercial exploitation 
may be impeded.
.  Should such cases occur they would have to be  
solved case-by-case
,31 The 12 major IT companies represented on the Round 
Table have played, and will continue to play, a 
significant role in the ESPRIT programme.
.  More effort should be made to take account of the  
views of other organisations (particularly the  
SME's).
32 The quality of the researchers working on ESPRIT is 
considered to be good.
.  Company pride provides a strong motivation.
33 The number of partners in most projects is too 
large and should be smaller.
.  Except in standards-related projects.

- 49 -
3.34 The resources required for participation in ESPRIT 
make it difficult for SHE's and software houses to 
participate.
.  A higher level of funding or subcontract role  
is suggested.
3.35 The function and composition of the ESPRIT
Advisory Board should be reexamined.
3.36 Project managers would like to have more
responsibility.
3.37 There is a need for negotiations between a body 
representing the academic environment and the CEC.

- 50 -
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the findings described in the previous chapters  
the ESPRIT Review Board makes the following recommendations.
4.1 ESPRIT II
As the aain vehicle for the further development of ESPRIT, it is 
recommended that ESPRIT II should continue to have its main 
emphasis on pre-competitive research.
It is recommended that the funding of ESPRIT II be such as to 
ensure that the I.T. research activity can be increased 
substantially.
Despite strong pleas that the areas supported be extended it is 
the review board's opinion that such a move would dilute the 
existing activities which should continue to be focused on 
microelectronics, software, advanced information processing, 
office systems and computer integrated manufacture.
The research areas supported should be merged into 
Microelectronics, Advanced Information Processing and 
Applications.
.  The advanced information processing would be a merging of  
the present areas 2 and 3 (i.e. software technology and
advanced information processing).
.  The application area would be a merging of the present  
areas 4 and 5 (i.e. office systems and computer integrated  
manufacture) .
The plea for  
elect ron i  cs inthe inclusion of  
the scope of ESPRITsome areas of consumer  
should be reexamined.

- 51 -
.  Although optoelectronics is expected to be supported by the  
RACE programme, it may also require additional support  
under ESPRIT.
It is recommended that flexibility be used in the segmentation  
between A and B type projects in the different areas.
.  The areas have different characteristics and have different  
A/B requirements.
4.2 Demonstrator projects
Recognising the strengths of the arguments in favour of  
demonstration projects, the Review Board recommend the 
establishment of a specific programme of ESPRIT demonstrators in 
information technology.
.  .  Such demonstrators would have a large user involvement and
would be sufficiently advanced in concept to serve as a  
meaningful demonstration of the benefits accompanying the  
use of advanced information technology systems and  
services.
.  It is envisaged that a number of demonstration projects  
would be embarked upon and that they would act as a  
stimulant to the users and to the market for IT products  
and services.
.  Because of the nature of demonstration projects they would  
tend to be dominated by the large companies.
- To ensure the participation of the SME's it is  
suggested that they should have a reasonable  
involvement in such projects.
.  A mechanism for funding demonstrator projects will need to  
be developed in consultation with suppliers and users.

- 52 -
4.3 Funding requirements and allocation
It is proposed that the funding for ESPRIT II be increased and 
that additional funding be made available for the demonstration 
projects.
.  Due attention should be given to ensure that the various  
categories of participants can all play their proper role.
- Pre-competitive research tending to favour the
realisation of strategic objectives undertaken
jointly by industry, academic and independent
research institutes.
- Pre-competitive research, the leaders of which are  
small and medium sized enterprises.
- Speculative precompetitive research in which Academic  
Institutes are leaders.
- Application oriented demonstration projects involving  
suppliers and users.
. The snail organisations (SHE's and Research Institutes) 
should have a significant involveaent, say 10Z, in the 
large demonstrator projects.
4.4 PROJECT SELECTION AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION
In ESPRIT II it is recommended that more attention be given to 
the strategic and commercial significance of the projects being 
supported.
.  Strategic significance should include the potential market  
opportunity; the ability and intention of the companies to  
exploit commercially; and the ultimate impact on the  
balance of trade and employment.
It is further recommended that the proposal evaluation procedures 
should be reviewed with consideration given to an alternative 
multi-stage process involving the filtering of outline proposals 
and oral presentations to the evaluators.

- 53 -
. Attention should also be given to the criticisms made of  
the individuals involved in the evaluation process.
As far as possible project manipulation (i.e. attempts to impose 
merging of contracts) should be avoided.
.  It is not necessarily bad to have competition and overlap 
between research activities.
- It is better to make a choice than force an  
incompatible set of participants into a project.
Of importance is the need to keep proposers informed of the 
status of their proposals during the evaluation phase.
.  More transparency should be given to the evaluation  
criteria as well as rapid feedback on the status.
4.5 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The Review Board recommend that more attention be given to the 
need to use professional skills in the management of trans- 
European multi-partner projects.
.  Managers rather than technocrats should be used and  
professional management techniques employed.
.  It is recommended therefore that the CEC provide more  
guidance and assistance in this task e.g. in the form of  
training courses.
For large projects it is recommended that separate administrative 
managers and technical managers be appointed with the project 
leaders in Brussels having the responsibility of contract 
managers.
.  A clarification of the various roles and responsibilities  
of these positions is considered desirable.

- 54 -
.  In general the project managers have requested that they  
have more responsibility for the project than is allowed  
at present.
4.6 COMMUNICATIONS
As a Matter of some urgency there is a need to iMprove 
coMMunications throughout ESPRIT.
.  An improved electronics based communication system should  
be put in place.
.  Communications and interaction across the ESPRIT programme  
should be improved by means of:
- a monthly newsletter;
- a directory of participants and the ITTTF;
- more use of technology based workshops and clubs for  
interaction and discussion.
It is recoMMended that the objectives and purpose of the 
Technical Week should be reconsidered.
.  More technical dialogue should be encouraged by the greater  
use of technical workshops.
The CEC policy with respect to technical disclosures should be 
reconsidered in view of the industrial character of the 
programme.
.  There is a conflict between the needs of the EEC, industry,  
and academic institutions.

- 55 -
4.7 PROJECT CONTINUITY
To ensure a continuity in the research programmes it is strongly 
recoaaended that short (i.e. provisional) contracts should be 
avoided and that continuity should be ensured by contract  
overlap.
.  Second phase contracts should be awarded well before the 
completion of first phase projects.
4.8 CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE
Even if the establishment of new Cent res-of-Ex ce Hence is not 
realized it is recoaaended that action be taken to proaote the 
Europeanisation of existing centres.
.  The award of ESPRIT fellowships are recommended.
.  Networking between Centres-of-Excellence should be  
established and developed.
4.9 ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS
It is suggested that there is a need to reconsider the role of 
the academic institutes, their participation in ESPRIT and the 
contract and budgetary position.
.  It is recommended that negotiations be carried out between  
the CEC and representatives of the academic institutions  
participating in ESPRIT to sort out these problems.
- During negotiations the overall goal of ESPRIT to  
encourage industrial competitiveness of the  
Community should not be overlooked.

- 56 -
4.10 ESPRIT AWARDS
As a motivator and public relations exercise it is recommended  
that ESPRIT awards be presented on an annual basis for 
achievements in innovation, in project  progress etc.
4.11 PROGNOSIS
Finally the Review Board recommend strongly that ESPRIT should go 
on and that the progress made to date should be consolidated.
.  ESPRIT should continue to be seen as the embodiment of  
cooperative, trans-European precompetitive high technology  
research, at the same time providing a foundation for the  
down-stream, more development oriented projects associated  
with RACE and EUREKA.
Having reached its conclusions and recommmendations, the Review 
Board draws attention to the following issues.
1. ESPRIT can be seen as the necessary and indispensable
instrument for the establishment of a climate for
cooperation between industry, academia and the research  
institutes.
.  ESPRIT alone however, will not solve the lack of  
European competitiveness vis-a-vis the US and Japan.
2. Despite their economic and strategic importance the ESPRIT  
programme has been defined to exclude telecommunications,  
consumer electronics and to a large extent optoelectronics  
and computer peripherals.
.  In addition it is not clear that the environment for  
a rapid follow-up with prototype development, with  
product i  on engineering and with marketing has been  
created.

- 57 -
3. Substantiated focusing of R&D activity into the few  
strategically and economically important segments of the  
IT industry in a cohesive manner will be necessary if  
ESPRIT is to realise its full potential. This should be  
reflected in the Workplan for the second phase of ESPRIT.
The above issues are of such importance that in the opinion of 
the Review Board special studies should be undertaken by the 
Commission within the same frame of industrial cooperation that 
allowed the launching of ESPRIT.
In the present industrial situation support for pre-competitive 
research should continue to be the prime function of ESPRIT.
. The ESPRIT programme we believe is laying the foundation  
for the building of the European IT industry.
A good start has been made but much more remains to be done.
The Review Board believe that posterity will view ESPRIT as an 
important milestone in the formation of a Community environment 
that will have far reaching implications across all industrial 
sectors.

THE ANNEXES

- A1 -
ANNEX A
F^PRIT STATISTICS (1)
A1 ESPRIT PILOT PHASE (1983-4)
AREA MEL ST AIP OS CIM TOTAL OF
TOTAL
PROPOSALS RECEIVED (NO.)  
PROPOSALS ACCEPTED (NO.)9
627 37  
5 539
1133
9145
3624.8
FUNDING PROVIDED (Mecus)  
FUNDING PROVIDED %1.91
16.61.93 1.76  
16.8 15.23.18
27.72.72
23.6.  11.5 
100%
NO. OF CONTRACTORS  
NO. OF CONTRACTORS AS %25
16.023 28  
14.7 17.947
30.133
21.1156
100
NOTE
1) Figures for first year only, continuation in the following years: see A2.
2) Large companies  with more than 1000 employees represented 72% of total industry  
participation in the pilot phase.
3) The mean number of participants per contract is 4.3
- 7 contracts had 2 participants
- 22 contracts had between 3 and 5 participants
- 7 contracts had more than 5 participants
) Data kindly provided by the Information Technology and Telecommunications Task  
Force

- A2 -
A2 ESPRIT FIRST YEAR (1984)
(May 1984 call for proposals)
(Includes continuation of pilots)
%
AREA MEL ST AIP OS CIM TOTAL OF
TOTAL
PROPOSALS RECEIVED (NO.) 666611275122441
PROPOSALS ACCEPTED:
- continuation of pilots 41410 423
- new projects 1984 2515 19131587
TOTAL ACCEPTED 2916 2323 1911025%
FUNDING EXPECTEDd) (Mecus)
PILOTS (CONTINUED)
- type alpha (2) 013.919.77.0 040.6
- type beta (3) 9.650 2.518.9 6.837.9
TOTALPILOTS 78.5
NEW 1984
- type alpha (2) 63.340.755.852.421.2233.4
- type beta (3) 18.212.618.46.222.477.8
TOTAL NEW 311.2
TOTAL EXPECTED 389.7
NUMBER OF CONTRACTORS 11879130124 103 554
% OF TOTAL 21.314.223.522.4 18.6100
NUMBER OF TYPE A PROJECTS 1210 1110 12 55
NUMBER OF TYPE B PROJECTS 1761213 755
NUMBER OF COMPANIES 77516880 50326
NUMBER OF UNIVERSITIES 18133918 19107
NUMBER OF RESEARCH CENTRES 2112 2123 1895
NUMBER OF OTHER INSTITUTIONS 23 231626
alpha/beta ratio on new projects: 3
(1) Funding varies as a function of the evolution of the projects. The above figures  
correspond to the situation in November 1984. In September 1985, the total  
expected, for the 1984  call of proposals, was reduced to 372.0 Mecus, instead of  
389.7 due to projects modifications.
(2) alpha = more than 5 Mecus/project
(3) beta = less than 5 Mecus/project

- A3 -
A3 ESPRIT SECOND YEAR (1985)  
(May 1985 call for proposals)
AREA MEL ST AIP OS CIM TOTAL
PROPOSALS RECEIVED 6771 948176389
PROPOSALS UNDER DISCUSSIONd) 2416(2) 222310 95
FUNDING EXPECTED (Mecus)(1) 76.537.7(2) 65.054.635.1268.9
for the proposals under
discussion
NO. OF CONTRACTORS 120 77133138 97565
(% of total) 21.213.6 23.524.417.24100%
NO. OF A TYPE PROJECTS (3) 91117331
NO. OF B TYPE PROJECTS (3) 1515 1116 764
NUMBER OF COMPANIES 7145 708248316
NUMBER OF UNIVERSITIES 2124 302719121
NUMBER OF RESEARCH CENTRES 20 3171911 70
NUMBER OF OTHER INSTITUTIONS 85161019 58
Situation in September 1985
(1) The contracts are still in negotiation.
The figures are tentative.
(2) New proposals are expected in 1985, due to the supplementary call for  
proposals in Software Technology (deadline: 15 November 1985). Supplementary  
funding expected in ST: 18.9 Mecus
(3) Includes gamma-projects, i.e. additiors to existing projects.

- Bl -
ANNEX B
ORGANISATIONS PROVIDING INPUTS  
B1 INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES
AC€C B KTAS DK
AEG D KUKA D
ANSALDO I L.M.S. B
B.I.M. B LOGICA UK
B.M.W. D MATRA F
BRITISH AEROSPACE UK MEMORY COMPUTER PLC IR
BRITISH TELECOM UK MNEMONICA GR
B.T.M.C. B NATIONAL SOFTWARE CNTR. IR
BULL F NIXDORF D
CAP-GEMINI BELGIUM B NKT DK
CAP-GEMINI SOGETI F OCE NL
CESI INTERNATIONAL F OLIVETTI I
CGE F PHILIPS NL
CISI F PLASMA TECHNOLOGY UK
COMAU I PLESSEY UK
C.A.T. IR RENAULT AUTOMATION F
CORRELATIVE SYSTEMS B SCICON UK
CRI DK SGS I
DANSK DATAMATIK CENTER DK SG2 F
DATA MANAGEMENT I SIEMENS D
DELPHI I SNIAS F
ENIDATA I SOBEMAP B
EUROSOFT F STC UK
FERRANTI UK STET I
FIAT RESEARCH CENTER I STEWART-HUGHES UK
F.N. B STOLLMANN D
GEC UK SYSECA F
GENERIC LTD IR SYSTEMS & MANAGEMENT I
ICL UK TELETTRA I
I.O.T. D TEMA I
ITT UK THOMSON F
JOHNSON MATTHEY UK THORN-EMI UK
JOYCE LOEBL UK TRIUMPH-ADLER D
KRUPP-ATLAS D V.D.S. D

B2. RESEARCH INSTITUTES
ATOMIC ENERGY RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT
BRITISH SHIP RESEARCH INSTITUTE
CEA
CERCI
CNET
CNR-PISA
CNRS
CRAI
CREI
CRETAN RESEARCH CENTRE  
CRISS (NRS)
CSELT (STET)
CWI
DANISH WELDING INSTITUTE
ELEKTRONIK CENTRALEN
FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE
GMD
IGN
IMEC
INRIA
KFK
LAAS (CNRS)
LABORATOIRES DE MARCOUSSIS  
LETI (CEA)
LRI (CNRS)
MITRA
NORD JYDSK UDVIKLINGS CENTER  
RISO NATIONAL LABORATORY  
RUTHERFORD-APPLETON LABORATORY  
SEPT (CNET)
THE WELDING INSTITUTE

- B3 -
B3. ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF LOUVAIN (KUL) B
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF LOUVAIN (UCL) B
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF NIJMEGEN NL
CRANFIELD INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY UK.
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH CENTRE IR
HATFIELD POLYTECHNIC UK
LEEDS UNIVERSITY UK
LINGUISTICS INSTITUTE IR
LONDON UNIVERSITY UK
POLYTECHNIC OF THE SOUTH BANK UK
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF TURIN I
QUEEN MARY COLLEGE UK
STRATHCLYDE UNIVERSITY UK
TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS GR
TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN IR
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN IR
UNIVERSITY OF DORTMUND D
UNIVERSITY OF GENOA I
UNIVERSITY OF LIEGE B
UNIVERSITY OF PASSAU D
UNIVERSITY OF PARIS-SUD F
UNIVERSITY OF PISA I
UNIVERSITY OF UTRECHT NL
UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS GR
UNIVERSITY OF CRETE GR
B4 NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIONS
BELGIUM
DENMARK
GERMANY
GREECE
FRANCE
IRELAND
ITALY
LUXEMBOURG  
NETHERLANDS  
UNITED KINGDOM

- C1 -
ANNEX C
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
C1 INTRODUCTION
A five page questionnaire was mailed to all 477 participants in  
the ESPRIT phase I (1984) programme. Half the questionnaires  
(exactly 238) have been completed and returned. This is a very  
satisfactory response and shows the interest of the participants  
in this review.
80 participants forwarded additional comments with their answers  
about the ESPRIT programme and its future development. These  
comments were taken into account by the Review Board.
The summarised analysis of the questionnaire responses are given  
in part C3 of this Annex.

- C2 -
C 2 COMMENTS
In general the data confirm the findings of the interview phase  
of this report, and support the recommendations of the ESPRIT  
Review Board.
A project sample check has been carried out in the 5 areas to  
verify the coherence of the answers. In taking into account the  
different attitudes and/or interests of the various types and  
sizes of organisations, it is evident that there is a  
consistency between the answers of the partners of the same  
project, and between the answers to the questionnaire and the  
interviews. This further supports the general conclusions  
reached.
The distribution of respondents by country, by organisation size  
or type and by project area, show that the sample of respondents  
is representative of the participants:
- about 70% of the different organisations involved in Phase I  
(1984) have answered
- about 90% of the Phase I (1984) projects are represented in the  
answers.
The following pages summarise the analysis of the questionnaire  
responses. Section 1  of the questionnaire shows the distribution  
of respondents by country, by organisation size or type, and by  
project area.
Sections 2-10 in the questionnaire show the percentage responses  
obtained, calculated on the basis of the number of returns  
received (i.e. 238). When the sum of the percentage responses to
a particular question is less than 100 this implies that there  
were a significant number of 'no answers'.

C3 THE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
1  RESPONDENTS DISTRIBUTION
1.1 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF  RESPONDENTS.Z OF TOTAL RESPONSES  24.5
B-Belgium
D-Germany
DK-Denmark
F-France
GR-GreeceIRL-Ire land 
I-Italy 
L-Luxembourg 
NL-Netherlands 
UK-United Kingdom
B D DK F GR ERL I L NL UK
1.2 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS  BY ORGANISATION SIZE.
(Number of employees)
(Does not include University 
Departments)X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
^ ,n 51· 101- 501- 1001- ^cnnn^ bU 100 500 1000 5000 ^bUUU
1.3 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS  
BY ORGANISATION TYPE.
IND - Industry
R&D - Research Centre
ACADE - University
OTHERS - Otherss o :
40.
30.
20.
1 0 .
0% OF TOTAL RESPONSES  50.0
23.121.4
5.4
IND R & D  ACADE OTHERS
1.4 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY  
AREA TYPE.
MEL - Microelectronics 
ST - Software Technology 
AIP - Advanced Information 
Processing
OS - Office Systems 
CIM - Computer Integrated 
Manufacturing% OF TOTAL RESPONSES  
23.2
MEL ST A IP  OS C IM
1.5 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS  •  BY PROJECT TYPE.
A = Strategic character, with 
well-defined objectives
B = Research orientedTYPE A
TYPE B
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 30 %
% OF TOTAL RESPONSES

1.6 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS  BY CONTRACT TYPE.
SUB = subcontractor
PARTNER = partner
PRIME = prime contractor
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
2R&D
2.1 PART OF ACTIVITY IN THE  
FIELD OF INFORMATION  TECHNOLOGY.
(Does not include University 
Departments)
30 40 %
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
2.2 ESPRIT FUNDING AS  
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL  
R & D SPENDING.
(Does not include University 
Departments)
10 20 30 40 %
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
3 COOPERATION
3.1PROJECT COLLABORATION.VERYGOOD 42.8
54.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 X 
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES

3.2 FREQUENCY OF DISPUTES  WITH PARTNERS.OFTEN
OCCASIONALLY
NEVER0.4
41.2
56.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
4 THE NEED FOR ESPRIT
4.1 WOULD YOU BEUNDERTAKING THIS  WORK WITHOUT ESPRIT?YES INCREASED  
YES AS IS 
YES REDUCED
NO0.2
1  5.3
I g l g i p Ü70.0
gipipi 24.1
--1-. ---►0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
4.2 IF YES, WOULD YOUR WORK 8E  
ELIGIBLE FOR SUPPORT FROM  
A NATIONAL PROGRAMME? YES
NO
0 Î0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %’
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
4.3 HAS ESPRIT ACCELERATED  
OR SLOWED DOWN YOUR  R & D (in terms of days)
!  10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
4.4 HAS ESPRIT LED TO MORE  
AMBITIOUS OBJECTIVES?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 X
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES

4.5 IS TRANS-EUROPEAN
COOPERATION BENEFICIAL  
FOR YOUR ORGANISATION?LARGE
BENEFITS
MEDIUM
BENEFITS
SMALL
BENEFITS
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90  
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
4.6 IS THE COOPERATION BETWEEN  
SMALL AND LARGE  
ORGANISATIONS BENEFICIAL?LARGE
BENEFITS
MEDIUM
BENEFITS
SMALL
BENEFITS53.5
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES80 90
4.7 IS COOPERATION WITH  
ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH  
INSTITUTES OF BENEFIT?YES
T
NO OPINION I 0.9
NO 10.189.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
4.8 IS THERE FREE
INFORMATION EXCHANGE  
BETWEEN PARTNERS?
59.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES

4.9 WILL ESPRIT STRENGTHEN  THE EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGY  BASE?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
4.10  WILL ESPRIT FOSTER  
TRANS-EUROPEAN  COOPERATION? 97.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
5 COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION
5.1 TIME HORIZON FOR
COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION  OF RESULTS?<10 YEARS 
5-10 YEARS 
< 5 YEARS12.1
36.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
6 BENEFITS
6.1 DO THE ESPRIT BENEFITS DEPEND  
ON ORGANISATION SIZE?
LARGER = advantage to
large companies
SMALLER = advantage to
smaller companiesLARGER
NO DIFFERENCE  
SMALLER31.5
39.0
24.3
T - 4 -0 io 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %'
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES

6.2 WHAT ARE THE HOST  
IHPORTANT BENEFITS  
TO YOUR ORGANISATION?
(a) FINANCIALESSEMTIAL 
WELCOME 
NOT IMPORTANT39.9
5.053.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 X
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
(b) COMPANY COLLABORATIONESSENTIAL 
WELCOME 
NOT IMPORTANTliillilii!71
1 3.3
- 1.-46.2 
50.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
(c) ACADEMIA/R & D  
COLLABORATIONESSENTIAL 
WELCOME 
NOT IMPORTANT39.9
2.555.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 X
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
7 MOTIVATIONS FOR PARTICIPATING IN ESPRIT
7.1 ACCELERATED DEVELOPMENT  
OF TECHNOLOGY.LARGE INFLUENCE  
MEDIUM INFLUENCE  
NO INFLUENCE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 X
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
7.2 ACCELERATED TRANSFER  
OF TECHNOLOGY. LARGE INFLUENCE  
MEDIUM INFLUENCE  
NO INFLUENCE46.3
32.4
21.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES

7.3 ENHANCEMENT OF TRANSEUROPEAN  
COOPERATION.LARGE INFL.  
MEDIUM INFL.  
NO INFL.55.5
— I--------- 1----------- 1 ----------1 --------------- 10 
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
7.4 BROADENING THE FUTURE  
PRODUCT RANGE.LARGE INFL.
NO INFL.m22.7
1
:::::::::::::  340.7
35.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
7.5PUBLIC IMAGE.
LARGE INFL.  
MEDIUM INFL ,  
NO INFL.39.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %
% OF TOTAL RESPONSES
8 TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES
8.1 ESTIMATED RELATIVE
COMPETITIVITY OF EUROPE
VS. USA AND JAPAN IN AHEAD OF
YOUR FIELD, AFTER THE
FIRST 5 YEARS OF ESPRIT. EQUAL
BEHIND'-1- 1--------- 1-1- 1- 1-1-.- 1-►0 
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES10.5

9 SKILLS
9.1 DID YOU RECRUIT ADDITIONAL  
STAFF TO CARRY OUT YOUR  
ESPRIT PROJECT? YES
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 %
X OF TOTAL RESPONSES
Total number of staff recruited by the respondents:
- qualified scientists or engineers 287
- other 50
The following skills are reported by the respondents  
as difficult for recruiting:
- engineers: CAD/CAM, electrotechnical, electronic (digital 
+ analogue), System, application, communication, software 
quality reliability, VLSI design, etc...
- man-machine systems experts
- natural language processing experts
- applied mathematicians and statisticians
- software specialists, AI, formal methodology, DBMS, IKBS,
SW quality insurance etc __
10
 ADDITIONAL
10.1 WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT  
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF  
CENTRALISED INSTITUTES FOR  
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH IN EUROPE?
NECES- GOOD NO IMPRAC- BAD  SARY IDEA OPINION TICAL IDEA