COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 21.06.1996 
COM(96) 280 final 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL. THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
on the final evaluation of the centralized action for the dissemination and exploitation 
of knowledge resulting from the Community's specific RTD programmes (VALUE II) 

4 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Commission Communication to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic 
and Social Committee on the final evaluation of the Centralized Action for the 
Dissemination and Exploitation of knowledge resulting from the Community's specific 
RTD Programmes (VALUE H) 
I. INTRODUCTION 
H. PANEL'S RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE STRATEGIC 
OUTLOOK AND THE COMMISSION'S COMMENTS 
HI. PANEL'S SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS AND THE COMMISSION'S 
COMMENTS 
- Network of relay centres 
- Information and dissemination service 
- Exploitation of RTD results 
- Research-Scientific Community and Research-Society interfaces 
IV. CONCLUSION 
End.: 1) Final evaluation of the VALUE II Programme; 
2) Comments by the VALUE II Programme Management Committee. 
COMMISSION COMMUNICATION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE 
COUNCIL AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE ON THE 
FINAL EVALUATION OF THE CENTRALIZED ACTION FOR THE 
DISSEMINATION AND EXPLOITATION OF KNOWLEDGE RESULTING 
FROM THE COMMUNITY'S SPECIFIC RTD PROGRAMMES (VALUE H) 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. The Council Decision of 29 April 1992 on the dissemination and 
exploitation of knowledge resulting from the specific programmes of 
research and technological development of the Community (VALUE H) 
lays down that, at the end of the action, an evaluation of the results 
achieved shall be conducted for the Commission by a group, of independent 
experts, in order to determine the extent to which the results obtained help 
not only to achieve the objectives of this action and of the third framework 
. programme (1990-1994) but also to assess the efficiency with which the 
action was carried out and promoted (Art. 4(2)). 
2. The Commission therefore set up a group of independent experts known as 
the "VALUE II final evaluation panel" to carry out the evaluation. The 
group, chaired by Mr K.P. Friebe, carried out the evaluation from the 
beginning of February 1995 until the end of July 1995 and submitted its 
report to the Commission departments on 31 July 1995, 
3. The dissemination and exploitation Committee (VALUE II Management 
Committee) expressed its observations on the final evaluation report at its 
meeting of 7 November 1995. 
H. PANEL'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE STRATEGIC OUTLOOK 
AND THE COMMISSION'S COMMENTS 
The panel believes that greater attention should be paid to innovation, which is not 
simply the product of research and technological development activities but also 
comprises organizational and social aspects. A major initiative with significant 
funding would, according to the panel, therefore be justified in the field of 
innovation. 
The Commission agrees to a large extent with this analysis and on 20 December 
1995 it adopted a "Green Paper on Innovation". 
The basic premise behind the Green Paper is that European businesses are 
comparatively less able than their competitors to transform scientific 
breakthroughs and technological achievements into innovations. 
Europe must therefore take resolute action and to this end the Green Paper 
proposes thirteen lines of action corresponding to the main objectives as follows: 
gearing research to innovation, strengthening human resources, improving 
financing conditions and creating a legal and regulatory environment suited to 
innovation, whilst developing the role and means of action of the public 
authorities. 
The Green Paper on innovation is likely to be discussed widely in the first half of 
1996 and the final evaluation of VALUE II may, to a certain, extent, be considered 
as a contribution to that debate, making it possible to define innovation priorities 
and the measures to be carried out. 
m. PANEL'S SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS AND THE COMMISSION'S 
COMMENTS 
The panel's final evaluation contains an analysis of the activities implemented 
under VALUE II and recommendations regarding their future development. 
The VALUE II Management Committee for its part feels that with limited 
resources the Commission departments have developed and implemented new 
instruments which have considerably helped promote new attitudes regarding 
dissemination and exploitation under the fourth framework programme. 
The conclusions regarding the main activities of VALUE II are as follows: 
• The relay centre network: 
The panel concludes that, in the 1993-1994 period, the relay centres succeeded, 
via a broad range of services upstream and downstream, in advancing the 
exploitation of Community RTD results in the Member States. It also felt that the 
key to the success of the relay centre scheme lay in the commitment, qualities and 
experience of those called upon to act as efficient "brokers" between businesses 
and technology holders. 
The creation of the network of relay centres was one of the most significant new 
activities of VALUE H, and has served, with due regard for national contexts, to 
bring Community activities closer to local users' needs. 
By now concentrating on its role of promoting innovation, the network of relay 
centres should, as the panel recommended, contribute more than in the past to 
matching businesses' needs with the technologies available and not confine itself to 
promoting the results of Community RTD activities. 
As pointed out by the Value II Management Committee, these developments call 
for increased collaboration, with a view to improved rationalization of their 
respective activities, with the other Community networks promoting RTD 
activities (network of EuroInfoCentres, CRAFT network aimed at facilitating the 
participation of SMEs in Community RTD programmes, etc.), national networks -
in particular those serving SMEs - and the other players in the innovation system. 
• The information and dissemination service: 
Significant improvements have been made to the CORDIS information service in 
recent years, as the final evaluation report and the comments of the VALUE II 
Management Committee emphasize. CORDIS has become a widely-used, 
recognized tool for the dissemination of information on Community RTD activities 
4 
(14 000 users). Nevertheless, the panel regrets the lack of an integrated EC policy 
on RTD information and the risk of duplicating efforts, and would like to see the 
introduction of a coherent, well-defined approach. It also recommends that a study 
should be carried out on demand, the future development of the system and its 
cost. These recommendations are, to a large extent, shared by the VALUE II 
Management Committee. 
The Commission has noted the panel's recommendations, most of which it has 
already accommodated. It has taken steps to increase the coherence of its 
information instruments on RTD activities. It has set up a Working Party to 
promote the creation of bridges between the national and Community systems for 
disseminating scientific and technical information. It is also continuing its efforts to 
better adapt to existing or potential demand and to reduce the system's collection 
and operating costs. Finally, it has launched studies aimed at defining the possible 
future development of the system. 
• The utilization of RTD results 
The panel believes that the exploitation - projects have made a significant 
contribution to the programme and that the activity has been organized efficiently. 
It recommends that priority should be given to user-driven consortia and to 
projects on generic technological fields with a high spin-off potential. It is also of 
the opinion that the exploitation measures should not be confined to Community 
RTD activities but should also include all the results available from European 
RTD. The VALUE II Management Committee considers that these projects have 
a high value added and have had spin-off effects by helping to promote the 
development of an "exploitation" culture at Community level. 
The Commission to a large extent shares the opinion expressed by the panel and 
the VALUE II Management Committee. It is lending its support through the new 
Innovation Programme (4th framework programme) to technology validation and 
transfer projects. These projects are demand-oriented and trans-sectoral. In this 
respect they differ from other RTD activities and, in particular, from cooperative 
research projects which, while also demand-oriented, are further "upstream" and 
are not a priori trans-sectoral. Moreover, as recommended by the panel, the 
technology validation and transfer projects are no longer confined to the 
exploitation of Community RTD results. They arouse great interest amongst 
SMEs, since more than 60% of project coordinators are SMEs, and there is at 
least one SME in 90% of the projects selected. "Project" activity is also now 
granted a much higher level of funding and it should therefore be possible to better 
promote the innovation culture at Community level. 
• Legal protection of results 
The panel considers that the results obtained as regards intellectual property are 
relatively meagre, and approves the recent initiatives aimed at improving the 
quality of the services proposed in the field of patents. 
The Commission believes the issues surrounding intellectual property are very 
important in the context of innovation policy. The role of the Community in this 
respect is relatively limited for legal reasons. This is particularly true regarding 
shared-cost activities because of the contractual liabilities of the contracting parties 
in RTD projects. The financial resources allocated to this activity were also very 
limited under VALUE H. Nevertheless, there have been a number of recent 
initiatives, some of them referred to in the panel's evaluation (quick scan, patent 
building scheme, training of project leaders, etc.), which should make it possible to 
take fuller account of these aspects in the management of projects receiving 
Community funding. 
• Promotional activities: 
A large number of promotional activities were carried out, but the panel felt their 
impact on the main target groups could have been greater. The panel therefore 
proposes that a more coherent overall promotion strategy should be drawn up, 
taking better account of the needs and perceptions of the various target groups. 
The Commission has noted the panel's observations. It has already taken 
organizational measures which should enable the adoption of a better coordinated, 
more targeted approach. 
• Research-Scientific Community and Research-Society Interfaces: 
The panel expressed its interest in the activities carried out, with limited resources, 
in these areas. It recommends that their results be promoted by means of 
campaigns aimed at pre-defined target groups. 
The Commission also attaches great importance to the social aspects of research 
and innovation. The work programme of the Innovation Programme accordingly 
provides for a line of action devoted to raising public awareness of research and 
technology issues and the role they play in the present society. 
• Relations with other Community initiatives 
The panel considers that the Value II Programme should maintain closer links with 
other Community initiatives such as those of the structural funds, or with other 
policies such as industrial policy or enterprise policy (particularly in favour of 
SMEs). 
Dissemination, exploitation and innovation activities take place at the interface 
between research and these policies or initiatives, and the Commission thus shares 
the panel's view. Several pilot projects have already been implemented, and these 
will have to be assessed and, if necessary, pursued and further developed. In 
particular, they may concern specific actions at regional level, actions targeted 
specifically at SMEs and measures to improve the terms of innovation financing. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Commission wishes to thank the VALUE II final evaluation panel for its 
comments and recommendations, some of which have already been accommodated 
in the measures provided for under the Innovation Programme. It also considers 
this report to be a valuable contribution to the debate on innovation in Europe. 
This communication, together with the final evaluation report, is submitted to the 
European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee, in 
accordance with Article 4 of the Council Decision of 29 April 1992. 
Y-
VALUE II Programme 
Final Evaluation 
31 July 1995 
Report prepared by an Evaluation Panel at the request of the European 
Commission's Directorate General XIII : Telecommunications, 
Information Market and Exploitation of Research. 
s 
CONTENTS 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
H BACKGROUND TO THE FINAL EVALUATION OF THE 
VALUE II PROGRAMME 
1. Overview of VALUE II 
2. The Findings and Recommendations of the Mid-Term Review 
3. The Evaluation Mandate and Approach 
EOL FINAL EVALUATION OF VALUE II 
1. Introduction 
2. Action line 1.1a 
3. Action line Lib 
4. Action line 1.2 
5. Action Line 1.3 
6. Action Line 1.4 
7. Interfaces II & m VALUE Relay Centres Network 
Basic Service (CORDIS/Publications) 
Utilisation of Results 
Legal Protection of Results 
Promotional Activities 
Research-Scientific Community and 
Research-Society 
IV. STRATEGIC ISSUES 
1. Background 
2. Strategic Considerations 
3. Recommendations 
ANNEXES 
Annex I The Council Decision of 29 April, 1992 
Annex II Final Evaluation Terms of Reference 
Annex III Executive Summary of the Evaluation of the VRCs 
Annex IV Acronyms and Abbreviations 
^ 
VALUE II Programme 
Final Evaluation 
A final evaluation of the Community's Centralised Action for the 
Dissemination and Exploitation of Knowledge Resulting from the 
Specific Programmes of Research and Technological Development 
(VALUE H). 
•O 
EVALUATION PANEL: K.P. Friebe (Chairman) 
Dr. L. Crespo 
Prof. Th. Durand 
Prof. N. Gangas 
Dr. F. Gonçalves 
Prof. P. Hills 
Dr. B. Svensson 
Ir. A. Vyverman 
EDITORIAL SUPPORT: Mrs. M. Victor 
31 July 1995 
Report prepared at the request of the European Commission's 
Directorate General XIII : Telecommunications, Information Market 
and Exploitation of Research. 
M) 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
The VALUE Evaluation Panel would like to express their sincere 
appreciation to all those interviewed throughout the Commission and 
elsewhere. The assistance of the VALUE Team, particularly Mr. Giulio-
Cesare Grata, Director of DG XIII-D, Mr. Jean-Noel Durvy, and Mr. 
Constant Gitzinger is gratefully acknowledged. The views and 
recommendations contained in the report are, however, the 
responsibility of the authors alone. 
.,.••4"^ 
L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
STRATEGIC ISSUES 
In relation to the strategy of VALUE, much has already been said in the 
Mid-Term Review about the historical strategy of the VALUE I and II 
programmes. The panel felt that there was no need to duplicate this and 
that it was more appropriate to identify the lessons from past experience 
and concentrate on discussing future strategies. 
The panel wishes to stress that -the real objective behind investing in RTD 
is competitiveness through innovation and that innovation is not just a 
spill-over of RTD. While the existence of the Third Activity recognises 
that it is not enough to invest in RTD. the current attention paid to 
innovation is clearly insufficient to leverage RTD properly. 
The panel insists in pointing out that innovation should be recognised as 
a risky business for companies, Furthermore, it is difficult to fund» While 
past thinking and action was inspired by a technology-push perspective, 
the relevant approach should be mostly around demand-led policies. RTD 
programmes should not be expected to generate off-the-shelf-technologies, 
except for very specifier but nevertheless important cases, 'Instead, RTD 
projects should be regarded as ways to build a wide variety of expertise 
available to help firms solve the problems encountered in their 
innovation processes. 
In addition, innovation encompasses organisational and social 
dimensions as much as technological ones. 
The panel strongly advocates a major initiative dedicated to the 
promotion of innovation. A detailed discussion of the strategy issues is to 
be found on p. 53-61. This initiative should help co-ordinate the many 
actions of the Commission This major action has a validity of its own, 
beyond RTD activities. 
Significant funding should oe allocated to this initiative. The panel 
considers that 10% of the RTD budget is a much more relevant order of 
magnitude than the amounts allocated to past actions. 
The panel suggests four major action lines (see p. 60-61) for promoting 
innovation,, encompassing a variety of approaches in order to reach SMEs 
and help experience-sharing across borders. The panel recommends that 
new thinking and thus new actions on Innovation emerge within the 
Union» The panel suggests strongly that this, initiative be recognised as a 
top priority and wishes to raise political awareness in the Community. 
Al 
2. VALUE RELAY CENTRES NETWORK 
There is no doubt that the recognised difficulty in translating R&D results 
into marketable products/services, including the corresponding 
production processes, is a weakness that needs to be addressed urgently 
and in such a way that it should be considered a strategic issue, given the 
importance that variables such as "reduced time to market" and "shorter 
product life cycles" assume in today's supra-national competitive 
environment. 
Taking into consideration the Mid-Term Review and the recent 
evaluation of VRCs, the panel concludes that, in general, both the analysis 
and recommendations made in these documents still remain valid. The 
main conclusion of the aforementioned evaluation is that during their 
pilot operation in 1993 and 1994, VRCs succeeded, via a wide spectrum of 
upstream and downstream services, in advancing the valorisation of 
Community RTD results across the Member States. 
In view of this positive outcome of the detailed evaluation of the VRCs, 
we expand below in this report by presenting some general reflections on 
the Relay Centres concept which is pertinent to the currently unfolding 
Third Activity as well. 
The cornerstone of the success of any Relay Centres experiment is basically 
and inevitably dependent on the commitment, skills and expertise of the 
people involved in becoming effective brokers between business and 
technology. Synergies could be achieved through the utilisation by RCs of 
the old SPRINT networks, given the complementary nature of their 
activities. 
The VR-Service, acting as a permanent monitoring, guiding and 
supporting feedback system, could enhance its efforts for a more active 
networking of the RCs, as well as for a better cohesion in their operations 
across Europe. 
The most important asset of each RC is its own personnel. Their 
managerial, technical and entrepreneurial skills are the key issue of all 
operations. Any measures taken to secure and expand this asset are, 
therefore, vital for success. 
3. CORDIS 
At the end of 1994, the recommendations formulated during the Mid-
Term Review were still valid. Since then, progress has been observed. 
A coherent and well defined RTD information provision approach seems 
highly desirable in order to make any innovation policy successful. This 
*A5 
is, of course, not the responsibility of one single DG, but must be assured at 
the highest EC level. 
Means should be found and procedures be established to shorten 
drastically the delay in provision of information on projects and results 
from EC RTD programmes and to enable the delivery of more up-to-date 
information. 
The information provided by CORDIS could be expanded in ways which 
we recommend in our report. 
It is recommended that in the medium-term an integrated in-depth study 
be undertaken in which the following items should be addressed. Of these 
issues, the first is considered to be the most important. 
• The demand side: the impact of the service should be measured 
and the users surveyed. Such a market study should also cover the 
most appropriate marketing policy to be followed in terms of money 
charged for services. 
• Technological evolution: how the information provision could 
look like in about 5 years' time and how CORDIS could adapt to 
technological evolution. This study should also take into account 
the relationship with national or regional RTD databases. 
• Cost control: essential for the operation of CORDIS, while 
maintaining high quality and service. This plan should be based on 
a profound assessment of the actual process for the creation and 
maintenance of the databases and should contain the steps to be 
taken in order to cope with the technological changes of the near 
future, to ensure a significant and lasting cost reduction over the 
coming years. 
CORDIS also has a role to play in bringing the national and regional RTD 
databases closer to potential users in a harmonised way. 
UTILISATION OF RESULTS 
Directly supported valorisation projects make an important contribution 
to the programme. The Commission have organised the aclivity 
effectively. Several, and probably many, projects are of high technical 
quality and should lead to exploitation which would have been lost 
without VALUE. More could be achieved, however, with a better focused 
and more commercially oriented approach. 
This would take greater account of two points: that technology transfer 
and innovative attitudes are best diffused via personal contacts; and that 
appropriate technological solutions are more likely to be generated by 
Aii 
demand from the bottom up, than by top-down dissemination. The 
Commission should reflect these considerations in selecting projects and 
setting their objectives. 
There should be increased emphasis, therefore, on user-driven consortia. 
All projects should include, as main partners, an organisation committed 
to exploitation if the project is successful. More weight should be placed at 
all levels of the programme, on demonstrating the innovative attitudes 
behind the projects, as well as their results. Projects should be selected 
wherever possible to cover generic technologies with a high spin-off 
potential. 
5. LEGAL PROTECTION OF RESULTS 
The panel considers the results achieved in the IPR field within the 
framework of the VALUE programme to be relatively meagre both in 
quantitative and qualitative terms. This is supposed to be caused by lack of 
financial resources as well as lack of initiative on the part of DG XIII Patent 
Section. 
Among key activities in future are a "Quick Scan", which allows 
assessment of the novelty of technologies in collaboration with the 
European Patent Office in The Hague, and a "Patent Build-up Scheme", 
which is aiming to make contractors aware of the importance of the 
priority year and the opportunities for secondary filings. 
The panel concludes that there is a need for a radical change in the present 
organisation and operations of the Patent Section considering the great 
importance of JPR matters in connection with RTD projects. It therefore 
welcomes the recent initiatives which aim to offer improved patenting 
services in future. 
The evaluation is concluded by a presentation of five specific ideas that 
could serve as viable tools in the future operations of DG XIII Patent 
Section and other pertinent EC bodies involved in IPR matters. 
6. PROMOTIONAL ACnvmES 
The panel has the impression, when surveying the large number of 
promotional activities undertaken, that they have resulted from a step-by-
step line of action rather than from a well thought-out and well-integrated 
promotional strategy. A possible consequence of this is that there has 
developed only limited awareness among important target groups about 
the links between individual activities and the overall objectives and 
ambitions of the VALUE programme. 
AS 
The panel suggests a more powerful promotion of the Third Activity in 
the future based on: 
• an analysis of the needs and perceptions of different target audiences 
and the results of previously carried out promotional activities 
under VALUE 
• a coherent promotional strategy across all three objectives of this 
Activity, and 
• a strong and clearly identified connection between promotional 
efforts related to individual activities and the principal common 
elements of the overall promotional strategy. 
The evaluation concludes by suggesting that the promotional activities for 
each of the three objectives of the Third Activity should be subordinate to, 
or comply with the principal common elements of a coherent 
promotional strategy. 
„ 7. INTERFACES II AND III : RESEARCH-SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AND 
RESEARCH-SOCIETY 
Innovation, as a whole, is the outcome of a large combination of 
interdisciplinary activities and to be successful it requires, among other 
facts, social awareness, acceptance and training to lead to the desired proper 
use. Barriers and threshold levels for technology acceptance may vary 
from country to country but transnational considerations and lessons 
learned at a European level will be of great importance. Interfaces II & HI 
addressed these issues with very reduced human and budgetary resources. 
The panel recognises the efforts and the qualified approach of the project 
team as well as some relevant results. In general terms it has been a tool-
oriented concept which led to some workable goods and manuals. A 
special mention has to be made of the awareness workshops methodology 
which has been very successfully used in several European cities to deal 
with the issue of sustainable living in urban environments. This 
methodology has been recognised and adopted by relevant European and 
national institutions. 
Therefore, the panel expresses its surprise and concern about the 
dismantlement of this activity at the end of VALUE II and the apparent 
abandonment of these action Unes within the Third Activity. It hopes that 
this situation will be reconsidered and reinstated or continued with 
appropriate resources and with a clearer recognition of its benefits at 
Commission level. The resources foreseen for accompanying measures 
could be used synergistically for this purpose. 
AC 
IL BACKGROUND TO THE FINAL EVALUATION OF THE 
VALUE H PROGRAMME 
1. OVERVIEW OF VALUE II 
Programme title: Centralised Action for the dissemination and 
exploitation of knowledge resulting from the specific programmes of 
research and technological development of the European Union. 
Programme period: May 1992 - December 1994. 
Programme Acronym: VALUE II 
The Third Framework Programme stipulated that measures for 
disseminating knowledge and results arising from the specific and 
supplementary programmes shall be implemented, on the one hand, by 
these programmes themselves and, on the other, by means of the 
Centralised Action. The goal of this action, in particular, was to add 
specific value to the whole range of Community RTD activities which 
were the subject of the Third Framework Programme (1993-1994), co­
ordinating and supplementing the measures taken under the specific RTD 
programmes. More specifically, the main objective was to promote the 
dissemination and utilisation of the results of EU Research and 
Technological Development (RTD) activities with a view to attaining tire 
declared goal of the Framework Programme. Thus, exploitation per se of 
research results was not within the objectives of VALUE II. 
The Council Decision (see Annex 1) for the Centralised Action (or VALUE 
H) was adopted on 29 April 1992 and allocated to this programme a budget 
of 57 MECU. Later, by the Decision 93/167/Euratom, EEC, of 15 March 
1993, this amount was revised to 66 MECU. Thus, the funds allocated for 
VALUE II are higher than those for VALUE I, but they still represent a 
small fraction (1%) of the financial envelope for the whole Third 
Framework Programme. Therefore, VALUE II was given inadequate 
means to promote significantly RTD results and to facilitate their effective 
utilisation across the EU. 
VALUE II both provided continuity for the measures carried out during 
1989-1993 under Sub-programme I of VALUE I and introduced new topics 
of strategic importance for the promotion of Community RTD results and 
for facilitating their utilisation. These new topics brought into focus the 
perspectives of: 
• the interdisciplinarity of research; and 
Aif-
the repercussipns of RTD activities and of their results on society as 
a whole. 
More specifically, the Council Decision specified that VALUE II should be 
implemented: 
• in accordance with the principles of Horizontality, 
Complementarity and Subsidiarity; and 
• along three interfaces; those of "Research-Industry", "Research-
Scientific Community" and "Research-Society". 
The objectives set for each of these interfaces can be summarised as 
follows:-
Interface I. "Research-Industry", for improving the international 
competitiveness of Europe's industry in accordance with the 
provisions of the EEC Treaty by means of specific projects designed 
to maximise the impact of Community R&D activities on industry 
as a whole. 
Interface II. "Research-Scientific Community", for contributing to an 
interdisciplinary reflection on research, its methods, problems and 
impact. 
Interface HI, "Research-Society", for identifying and studying the 
societal impact of the new scientific and technological knowledge 
acquired as a result of Community activities as well as for providing 
information to the public so as to ensure that changes in the 
contemporary approach to science are compatible with 
developments in society. 
The following tables depict the main activities carried out per action line 
of the programme and the corresponding funds spent or allocated until 31 
December 1994. 
ïablfLl 
LINES OF ACTION OF INTERFACE I Cost (MECU) 
LÎâ I VALUE Relay Centres " ' ÏTÂ * 
•Lib CORDIS and publications for dissemination 11.6 
1.2. Utilisation of results 11.1 
1.3. Protection of results 0.4 
1.4. Promotional activities 5.3 
Total Expenditure until 1 January 1994 > 41.8 
Above expenditure as percentage of budget > 75 
Table 2 
ACTIVITIES WITHIN INTERFACE H Cost (MECU) 
1 Studies, surveys, evaluations 0.6 
2 Promotion, awareness, seminars, etc. 0.4 
3 Directories, databases, documents 0.05 
Total Expenditure until 1 January 1994 > 1.05 
Above expenditure as percentage of budget > 37 
Table 3 
ACTIVITIES WITHIN INTERFACE IH Cost (MECU) 
1 Studies, surveys, evaluations 0.4 
2 Promotion, awareness, seminars, etc. 0.3 
3 Directories, databases, documents 0.05 
4 Contribution to TA within the EU "~ 0.3 
Total Expenditure until 1 January 1994 > 1.05 
Above expenditure as percentage of budget > 41 
>C3 
2. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MID-TERM REVIEW 
2.1. VALUE in Context 
Economic development in the whole of Europe will depend greatly in 
future on the application of well-defined R&D strategies, the promotion 
of successful innovations and the availability of appropriate technologies. 
These will be a pre-requisite to creating jobs and ensuring the well-being of 
all European citizens. R&D and the promotion of innovation are 
therefore essential activities in fulfilling these aims. 
The RTD culture is fairly well-established in Europe : EC-funded RTD 
currently represents about 5% of all R & D conducted within the European 
Union. In contrast, however, the culture of utilising the results of this 
RTD, i.e. the exploitation and dissemination of the outcome of RTD, is not 
that widespread. The VALUE Programme, which should play a decisive 
role in promoting the utilisation of RTD and hence in aiding the dynamic 
economic development of Europe in future, has a budget allocation of 
only 1% of all EC-funded RTD - far too small to have any real impact. 
VALUE I (1989-1993) and VALUE H (1992-1994) were pilot programmes 
during the Second and Third RTD Framework Programmes. They made it 
possible to design relevant methodologies and tools to help transform R & 
D results into real economic activities. 
A global policy to ensure these essential activities should now be 
formulated, adopting a broader strategic vision to include a far greater 
effort and political commitment. A major initiative, targeted at the 
promotion of innovation for which the funding would be clearly distinct 
from the funding of R & D and thus from the Fourth Framework 
Programme, should be considered in the medium term. 
In the meantime, the specific programmes should be invited to work 
closer with VALUE in order to improve the effectiveness of the 
promotion of RTD results. In addition, VALUE should concentrate more 
on SMEs via a more "demand pull" or "bottom-up" approach. Indeed, 
VALUE'S main task is to design appropriate processes to assist SMEs solve 
the technical problems that they face by calling upon the technical 
capabilities of R & D labs, wherever these are located ii; Europe. 
2.2. Strategic Perspectives 
1. The major issue behind VALUE concerns the very nature of the re 
RTD programmes, given the overall objective of promoting innovation 
throughout Europe. Conventional wisdom assumes that RTD yields 
results which may be directly or indirectly exploitable through some 
Ho 
adaptation and development processes. However, this is unfortunately 
seldom the case. It must be recognised clearly that RTD programmes 
essentially contribute to strengthening the "existing knowledge base" in 
the teams conducting the work. Making the best use of RTD results thus 
primarily means exploiting the enriched "existing knowledge base" in 
order to solve problems encountered throughout the many loops of the 
innovation processes taking place within and among companies and R & 
D centres. 
2. Both VALUE I and VALUE II were designed with a big agenda without 
adequate political and financial support. It must be emphasised that the 
exploitation of RTD results, technology transfer and more generally the 
promotion of innovation are essential to European economic 
competitiveness and as such require significant funding, not just a small 
percent of RTD budgets. 
3. VALUE may be considered a back-up initiative, should the participants of 
an RTD programme not exploit their results in the usual way. However, 
little or no attention was paid in VALUE to "upstream" or "ex ante" 
integration of business perspectives into the RTD programmes, i.e. before 
the RTD project was funded and launched. Is it normal or inevitable that 
over 50% of RTD projects fall in the "Candidates for Value" category while 
only about 20% lead to "Autonomous" exploitation by the consortia which 
conducted the RTD? 
4. VALUE fulfils a function which is directly related to other existing 
activities. 
National policies, methodologies and tools exist to promote 
technology transfer and innovation within most countries and at 
regional level. This includes exploitation of publicly funded R&D. 
SPRINT aims at promoting "cross-border" technology transfer and 
innovation. 
VALUE addresses community funded RTD only. 
VALUE might thus have been designed around existing tools stemming 
from national or SPRINT initiatives, as a communication action towards: 
existing technology transfer agents and their networks; 
£-1 
existing value added networks of information providers; 
the management team of the specific programmes (ESPRIT, BRITE-
EURAM, ....) in the Commission. 
The integration of SPRINT and VALUE into a single programme should 
strengthen the effectiveness of both the VALUE and SPRINT initiatives. 
More co-operation between the specific programmes and VALUE would be 
appropriate. 
5. VRCs were created as a decentralised tool for VALUE. They offer a unique 
opportunity to promote innovation and technology transfer towards 
SMEs, adopting a bottom-up approach and taking into account the 
diversity of national and regional cultures encountered in Europe. VRCs 
should thus be both strengthened and optimised. Along these lines, an in-
depth evaluation of the VRCs was performed. 
*6. VALUE should be extended to include not only Community funded RTD 
results but also relevant technologies requiring transfer/exploitation 
throughout the multiple and complex loops of the innovation process. 
This would therefore require VALUE to deal also with all other types of 
RTD results e.g. nationally funded. 
7. SMEs should be a definite priority for Community programmes and 
especially for the promotion of exploitation via the VALUE Programme. 
VRCs have an important role to play in this process. The panel 
recommends that the Commission halt the continual creation of new 
offices, guichets or similar entities. Decentralisation is clearly appropriate 
but without co-ordination it leads to wasteful overlaps and duplication. 
8. The VALUE approach, initially created in a "technology push" type of 
mode, should become more demand-oriented or "market pull" based. 
From that perspective, the concepts behind the experiment currently 
under way between VALUE oii the £ - uctural Funds to satisfy SME needs 
would seem appropriate. This clearly relates to the "ex ante-upstream" 
type of reasoning mentioned above. 
9. VALUE has been involved directly in exploitation projects covering 
activities such as marketing studies, business plans, search for industrial 
partners, tests under industrial conditions, prototyping, patent support, 
licensing, participation in exhibitions, etc. Shouldn't VALUE'S role focus 
on organising/integrating/promoting/linking, helping to match needs •B* 
&3L 
and skills, working more as a catalyst and designer of processes than as a 
direct player? 
Undertaking specific projects may, however, be useful to: 
demonstrate the exploitation mechanisms as well as utilise 
outstanding R&D results in Member States or Community regions 
having little experience in exploitation/insufficient pertinent 
national schemes; 
serve as examples of concrete outputs of the VALUE Programme 
whenever an illustration is required by the public (displaying 
function); 
keep the VALUE team up-to-date with respect to the difficulties of 
real life innovation processes; 
analyse across these projects, to learn from such experiments. 
10. How do VALUE/SPRINT/the Fourth Framework Programme/Structural 
Funds relate to one another from the above viewpoint? More specifically, 
should not VALUE and VALUE/SPRINT be related increasingly to the 
structural initiatives of DG XVI, or even to the Industrial Policy of DG III 
or the SME actions of DG XXHI? The current pilot initiatives, e.g. with DG 
XVI, hint clearly in this direction. 
11. From such a perspective, the purely administrative funding approach 
adopted recently of 1% of the specific RTD programmes supposedly 
devoted to dissemination activities may only be effective if co-ordinated by 
VALUE. 
12. There is a clear need, in parallel to the RTD action, to develop an effective 
strategy for the promotion of innovation, technology transfer and the 
exploitation and dissemination of RTD results and knowledge. 
2.3. Promotional Activities 
13. Under this action line scientific information arising from Community 
RTD activities was disseminated by means of publications, information 
sheets and articles. 
S3 
14. The FLAIR-FLOW project, a co-ordinated action supported jointly by 
VALUE and FLAIR, was particularly effective in aiding dissemination of 
results from European Food R&D. Dissemination took place using 
various means, the most important being the one-page technical 
documents in layman's language which were widely circulated. 
15. Other important activities under this action were the publication of 
"Innovation & Technology Transfer News-Letter", "Euro-abstract 
Catalogues" and "CORDIS Up-date". 
16. Horizontal activities which proved very helpful are the RTD Help Desk 
and the establishment of Cooperation Network, representing a very good 
synergistic initiative between VALUE and other EC initiatives and 
funding sources, e.g., regional funds handled by DG XVI. 
2.4. Utilisation of Results 
17. Exploitation of results is a major action, lying at the heart of the VALUE 
Programme. 94 projects out of 373 proposals were selected for financial 
support of actions such as marketing studies, business plans, search for 
industrial partners, tests under industrial conditions, prototyping, patent 
support, licensing, participation in exhibitions, etc. Around 40% of the 
contracts are concluded with SME companies. 
18. Although exploitation is a lengthy process, it is clear by now that a 
substantial proportion of the projects essentially supported during VALUE 
I could lead to significant results in the near future. The various 
instruments of assistance available enable VALUE to accommodate better 
proposers' needs. 
19. The source of the VALUE exploitation scheme is only a fraction of what is 
produced in the individual Member States of the European. Union. The 
exploitation action therefore should not be limited to Community RTD 
alone but should be expanded to include all avx^Jable European RTD 
results. 
20. In order for VALUE to have a major impact on the exploitation of RTD 
results, the budget needs to be of a different order to magnitude» However, 
even then, collaboration should be sought with national and intern: 
exploitation schemes and potential financing bodies (DG XVI, DG ; 
EUREKA, CRAFT, national and regional supporting organisations, etc.). 
21. The delay caused by the Commission procedures for selection and 
conclusion of project proposals is too long, hence inefficieht and needs to 
be reviewed in future. 
2.5. Methods and Tools 
Value Relay Centres 
22. The network of VALUE Relay Centres is an interesting initiative that 
might become the necessary bridge between the European specific RTD 
programmes and users' needs, especially those of SMEs. It could have 
important synergistic effects with the national RTD programmes and 
could act as a transnational European platform for effective dissemination 
and cross-fertilisation of RTD efforts. 
23. Its short operational history indicates a non-homogeneous situation 
among the different VRCs, some already producing good results while 
others appearing to lack clear action plans. A revision of the current 
situation is recommended in order to improve the performance of VRCs 
in some countries. 
CORDIS 
24. CORDIS is now in its full pilot operational phase and is quite a well 
known EC initiative, valued by RTD people within the EC and abroad. 
Together with its success emerges also the need for further improvements, 
e.g. higher speed in data collection, continuous data updating, more 
coherent abstracting of primary information in order to obtain more 
accurate record characterisation (e.g. SIC codes) and better data quality and 
consistency. 
25. These improvements in data presentation and consistency in both on-line 
and off-line CORDIS products, combined with the VALUE Management 
Team policy to utilise new technological options, present an opportunity 
for CORDIS to become very attractive also to users inexperienced with on­
line searches and to satisfy simultaneously the increasing demand for 
well-presented, easily accessible and manageable information. Multi­
media CD-ROMs and Context Driven Applications are examples of future 
technological options within the reach of CORDIS. 
26. The recently launched software interface "Watch-CORDIS" demonstrates 
the above VALUE team policy. The merits of this new product could be 
enhanced significantly by enabling access through it to the CORDIS CD-
ROM data as well. 
£V 
27. Much should be done in training intermediaries and end users in using 
CORDIS fully. A better training policy and practice is needed, given that 
promotion and training should be envisaged as complementary push-pull 
activities. 
28. Publication of sub-sets of CORDIS data should not be considered an 
indispensable but redundant system. In fact, there is a need for re­
formulating the strategy for CORDIS publications from the viewpoint of 
their actual usefulness and promotion of CORDIS and its products. 
29. Promotion of CORDIS should be increased but within an overall 
marketing strategy. Such a strategy should be formulated before the end of 
VALUE H, so as to provide a dear direction for CORDIS promotion during 
the next Framework Programme. 
30. The usefulness of CORDIS would be increased greatly by substantially 
upgrading the content and quality of information on the RTD 
programmes, RTD projects and other pertinent databases and by 
incorporating additional EC documentation, e.g. synopses of submitted 
RTD proposals, abstracts of European Parliament papers dealing with RTD 
and more general issues of science and technology. Such an upgrading 
would give it an EC-encyclopaedic character which would have many 
multi-faceted beneficial effects across the EC. 
31. CORDIS is already accessible via several Wide Area Networks, while there 
is also interest by intermediary organisations in distributing electronically 
sub-sets of CORDIS. However, before using new options for a more 
dynamic penetration of CORDIS by distributing sub-sets of CORDIS to 
other hosts, or even relocating CORDIS from ECHO, a multitude of major 
policy and technical issues require clarification. 
32. In conclusion, a clear overall CORDIS strategy is urgently required, 
particularly given the limited funds envisaged for VALUE and SPRINT 
initiatives within the Third Activity* cf the next Framework Programme. 
This is needed not only for optimising the service but also for securing its 
future. The issue of decentralisation or commercialisation of CORDIS 
should be the cardinal consideration in such a strategy. 
Legal Protection of Results 
33. Because of its importance and relatively low cost, the protection of RTD 
results is an essential part of the VALUE scheme. Patent evaluation of all 
JRC and some selected Framework Programme research results is executed 
by the VALUE patent team. Drafting of patent claims, writing patent «B* 
cklo 
specifications and patent filing applications are undertaken by professional 
patent lawyers. 
34. Very few patents until now have been granted on patent applications 
under VALUE. 72 cases have been filed, essentially from BRITE/EURAM 
and the life Sciences programmes. Exploitation of RTD results takes years 
and although no patents taken by the Commission under the VALUE 
programme have yet been commercialised, several cases of exploitation 
are under way. 
35. The work of the VALUE patent team could be improved through greater 
involvement by the programme project officers and RTD project partners. 
2.6. Interfaces II and III 
36. The activities of Interfaces II and HI are new to VALUE and could have a 
significant impact. However, the importance attached to them by the 
Commission is insufficient with respect to the magnitude of the tasks 
involved. 
37. The Commission's strategic approach and planning have benefited the 
implementation of the actions. Nevertheless, a clear administrative 
identity is required urgently for the management team of these tasks, to 
facilitate its work in approaching the target groups and in developing their 
activities, not only outside but inside the Commission. 
38. Since there is a general lack of awareness about the new issues (Research-
Scientific Community/Research-Society Interfaces), the Commission 
should place greater emphasis on promoting these through campaigns 
aimed at target groups in the Commission itself as well as in the Member 
States. 
This could involve synergy with Interface I activities, e.g. using VALUE 
Relay Centres as "distribution networks" for various Interfaces II and III 
activities. 
39. The Commission should consider merging Interfaces II and HI, directing 
more effort and resources, particularly human resources, towards Interface 
IE, "Research-Society" actions. 
£^ 
3. THE FINAL EVALUATION MANDATE AND APPROACH 
In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Council Decision: "At the 
end of the action, an evaluation of the results achieved shall be conducted 
for the Commission by a Group of independent experts. The Group's 
report, together with the Commission's comments, shall be submitted to 
the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social 
Committee". 
The Terms of Reference of the Final Evaluation of VALUE U, given in 
s Annex 2, further detailed the evaluation task by stipulating that. 
the panel will assess the extent to which the results achieved 
contribute to the objectives of VALUE II and that of the Third 
Framework Programme; 
this panel will also assess the efficiency and effectiveness with 
which the programme has been managed and promoted. 
Finally, DG XIII-D asked the panel to reflect on strategic policy issues in 
relation to the dissemination and exploitation of RTD results and to 
technological innovation. 
The work of the panel basically comprised:-
critical review of pertinent EC documentation and activity reports; 
interviews with DG XIII-D officials and leaders of a few VALUE 
demonstration projects; and 
extensive discussions in four plenary meetings as well as in several 
meetings of panel member sub-groups that focused on particular 
action lines of VALUE II. 
With respect to the evaluation approach followed, it is to be noted thah-
1. In view of the exploratory character of VALUE II, its results were 
assessed mainly on a qualitative basis. Quantitative indicators were 
used only for revealing or stressing qualitative features along 
particular lines of actions. 
2. In view of the fact that the financial envelope of VALUE II rendered 
to its actions only a catalytic role, the approach for assessing the 
M 
overall programme performance has been guided by the following 
basic questions:-
were the initiatives designed by the VALUE Management 
Team sound and in line with the mandates for this 
programme?; 
did the VALUE Management Team develop, within the 
budgetary and other operational constraints of this 
programme, a coherent set of activities for demonstrating 
new tools and mechanisms that could facilitate the 
innovation process at some of its critical stages?; 
did these tools and mechanisms prove operative or adequate, 
even in the limited areas and contexts in which they were 
tested?; 
is the experience gained from the exercise useful for 
upgrading EC measures for the valorisation of RTD results? 
^ 
HI. FINAL EVALUATION OF VALUE H 
1. INTRODUCTION 
The Mid-Term Review of VALUE II covered the period from programme 
start - May 1992 - until March 1995. The Review was made available to the 
EC in May 1994 and was presented to the VALUE II Management 
Committee in June 1994. 
Hence the present final evaluation looked in particular at the progress 
made during the last six or seven months of the programme's life. 
Obviously the work carried out within this closing period has been in 
many respects the continuation of activities launched previously. 
However, the findings and recommendations of the Mid-Term Review 
(Section II.2 earlier) influenced progress, as can be deduced from the 
adjustments made by DG XHI-D to several on-going activities and the 
reflections of the VALUE Management Committee on corresponding 
issues. 
For reasons of coherence, clarity and completeness of the overview and 
evaluation of VALUE II throughout its duration, this report integrates the 
findings of the Mid-Term Review with those relating to the work carried 
out since May up until December 1994. Therefore, each action line of the 
programme is considered below in a unified manner. 
2. ACTION LINE Lia : VALUE RELAY CENTRES NETWORK 
2.1. Introduction 
In this section the panel differentiates between the status of the Value 
Relay Centres (VRCs) of the VALUE Programme and the new Relay 
Centres (RCs) of the Third Activity, involved in the innovation actions 
under DG XHI policy. The panel believes this distinction could be useful 
for future innovation activities, be these ones that are made directly with 
entrepreneurial companies or ones which aim to create an overall climate 
favourable to innovation. 
Moreover, the panel considers that there is a great need for coherence 
within the various technology-related networks promoted by the 
Commission and believes that the current competitive atmosphere 
between these networks is not the optimum method of promoting 
innovation. It helps neither the image of the network actors nor the task 
of European innovation. 
2.2. Overall Comments 
There is no doubt that the recognised difficulty in trans! dng R&D results 
into marketable products/services, including th* corresponding 
production processes, is a weakness that needs to be adclressad urgently 
and in such a way that it should be considered as a strategic issue, given 
the importance that variables such as "reduced time to market" and 
"shorter product life cycles" assume in today's supra-national competitive 
environment. 
The VRCs, together with the Exploitation Projects and CORDIS, constitute 
the main tools developed by VALUE for addressing the aforementioned 
weakness. 
Taking into consideration the Mid-Term Review and the recent 
evaluation of VRCs, the panel concludes that, in general, both the analysis 
and recommendations made in these documents still remain valid. The 
Executive Summary of the VRCs Evaluation, included in this report as 
Annex HI, gives an overview of the methodology and performance of the 
VRCs. 
The basic conclusions of the aforementioned evaluation are that: 
• During their pilot operation in 1993 and 1994, VRCs carried out a 
'wide range of effective and, in many cases, innovative activities. 
These, although of a quite experimental character, satisfied to a large 
extent users' expectations. 
?>* 
VRCs offered upstream and downstream services, e.g. services for 
proposal preparation, search for partners, sensitising clients to 
exploitation options for RTD results, etc. Downstream activity, 
however, has been hampered by the known difficulty of financing 
exploitation projects. 
VRCs networking was rather limited, but in some cases good cross-
border collaboration has developed. 
Overall, VRCs succeeded in advancing the valorisation of 
Community RTD results across the Member States, despite the 
rather low EC funding level for most of these' centres. This positive 
impact was to a large extent due to the commitment and 
enthusiasm shown by all people involved - both in the VRCs and 
in the VR-Service in Luxembourg. 
In view of the findings of the detailed evaluation of the VRCs, we expand 
below in the present report by presenting some general reflections on the 
Relay Centres concept which is pertinent to the currently unfolding Third 
Activity as well 
The RCs and their network could assume a greater role in acting as the 
main bridge between SMEs' technological requirements and the research 
efforts of European, national and sectorial programmes. 
The horizontal nature of the network could serve as an integrating force 
via strong representation of SMEs' needs throughout the varying stages of 
the political decision-making process. At the same time the network 
could constitute a valuable source of information, reflecting knowledge of 
the field, in particular in those instances where such information might be 
crucial, given the diversity within regions and industries towards 
innovation activities. 
RCs could trigger RTD institutions to show more concern integrating 
some business orientation at an early stage in their research aims, by 
exposing and confronting these with a "real world" image, if 
"downstream" activities are pursued in an effective manner, and an effort 
is made to approach the two types of agents. 
The RCs' facilitator and catalyst role could be that of a decoding agent in 
both directions. Moreover, with their own dynamic inclusion in local and 
Community networks, they could be used as exploratory vehicles for the 
further design and testing of new tools. In connection with this, it should 
also be noted that RCs and other EC networks like EICs, etc. should take 
notice of each other's existence. This would avoid confusion and create 
synergy. x 
^ 
23. Operational Aspects 
Being close to the market, the RCs are able to enhance the transectorial 
transfer of technology, if they adopt a truly proactive "demand-pull" 
approach. Furthermore, dynamic networking between RCs could 
improve transnational technology transfer. 
The RCs must adopt a pro-active attitude in the sense that the focus of 
their work should be innovation and technology transfer rather than 
dissemination and exploitation issues. 
The RCs must, therefore, focus more on helping SMEs to foster 
innovation strategies and for that VRCs will need to draw on any 
available source of novel technologies, not only Community ones, or 
even on mature technologies if these are to be used in innovative 
contexts. 
The RCs should have some of the characteristics of innovation agencies, 
With a European scope. This implies that RCs need to utilise the 
competencies of other Centres operating under different EC programmes, 
in order to transform the RCs into windows of opportunities for local 
companies to access European networks of institutions, projects and 
experts on innovation. 
In such a framework it is important that the RCs inform the other 
programmes about their strategic position in order to enable these 
programmes to take advantage of this and co-ordinate within the RC 
network the dissemination effort of particular research findings, in order 
to increase the global effectiveness of European innovation efforts. 
A most significant, and positive, aspect is the diversity of actions and 
processes that are being undertaken now by the different VRCs. This leads 
one to assume that an operational decentralised approach will prove of 
strategic advantage in fulfilling the goals of the programme and that cross-
fertilisation actions will encourage each individual RC to stretch its own 
positioning in the near future. 
2.4. Organisational Aspects 
Future support is required to reinforce the autonomy and flexibility as 
well as the identity of the RCs to prevent absorption by the host - possible 
not only by draining or diverting the RC financial resources, but also by 
using its human resources to accomplish the tasks of the host 
organisation. 
One way to prevent this is to sustain an effective network mode of 
operation between the RCs, not only by means of an effective support and 

'SQ 
induce "per se" an immediate and perceivable shift in the behaviour of 
relevant agents and key actors, as well as in the occurrence of generalised 
innovation processes. 
The success stories disseminated among potential users of R&D results, 
especially in the less developed regions, and used for demonstration 
purposes, were powerful motivators for improving industrial 
performance. 
RCs could play a more important mediating role in future between SMEs 
and producers of EC-funded RTD, as well as other national and 
international non-EC funded RTD generators, but they should also play a 
determinant role in matching the capabilities of RTD institutions with the 
actual needs of SMEs in terms of their problem-solving weaknesses. 
Through their inclusion in local and global networking activities, RCs 
could diffuse state-of-the-art knowledge and skills in different areas of 
scientific and technological knowledge, which constitutes "per se" an 
excellent contribution to the industrial development of regions, especially 
for those with weaker innovation systems. 
The success of exploitation projects and eventually a faster translation into 
marketable innovative products could be expected from those RCs that are 
part of a developed network and from technology-oriented regions or 
industries; whereas in less structured and solid innovation systems and 
in regions where the SMEs and local RTD institutions are less aware of 
these goals, vehicles and processes, the RCs' role might be initially less 
rewarding, fulfilling and visible but nevertheless probably of greater 
importance and contribution in the longer term. 
2.6. Recommendations 
During the current initial stage of the new RCs network the temptation to 
standardise procedures and especially structures must be avoided, since by 
their very nature, effective networks are those that can adapt and 
transform constantly. 
There is the risk that a RC could concentrate its efforts on those SMEs that 
have already had some experience with a VRC and these would then tend 
to become regular "customers", especially if some significant success was 
achieved or if they had a more technologically-oriented corporate culture. 
This would be a comfortable and successful situation from the RCs point 
of view, but would have the drawback of diverting the RCs efforts and 
available resources from those that have not yet been attracted or exposed 
to the purposes and processes of the programmes. 
Eventually, the RC might become a "centre of excellence" for a limited 
number of companies or RTD producers that at a given stage could and 
3>r~ 
indeed should upgrade their connections with private agents or have 
established their own networking activities. A certain degree of control 
could be used in order to redirect the RC back to its original aims. 
The cornerstone of the success of any RCs experiment is basically and 
inevitably dependent on the commitment, skills and expertise of the 
people involved, in becoming effective brokers between business and 
technology. Synergies could be achieved through the utilisation by the 
RCs of the old SPRINT networks, given the complementary nature of 
their activities. 
The VR-Service acting as a permanent monitorin, guiding and supporting 
feedback system, could enhance its efforts for a more active networking of 
the RCs as well as for a better cohesion in their operations across Europe. 
In order to facilitate and promote an effective networking, the number of 
RCs should not be significantly greater than that currently in existence. 
The experts who assessed the performance of the VRCs detected different 
strategies, sets of action and orientations between VRCs. In a future 
evaluation, it might be possible, indeed necessary, to broaden the three 
attribute groupings for RCs - substantial, valuable, and useful - in order to 
reveal also aspects like those just mentioned. 
The most important asset of each RC is its own personnel. Their 
managerial, technical and entrepreneurial skills are the key issue of all 
operations. Any measures taken to secure and expand this asset are, 
therefore, vital to success. 
<->o 
3. ACTION LINE Lib : BASIC SERVICE : COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND 
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION SERVICE (CORDIS) 
3.1. Introduction 
CORDIS is an acronym for the Community Research and Development 
Information Service. It was initiated in 1988 with the following objectives: 
to satisfy the need for timely and accurate information, initially on 
the Framework Programme; eventually to be extended to other 
Community Research and Technological Development (RTD) 
Programmes and their results; 
to provide wider awareness of such Community programmes and 
their objectives, thus facilitating the development of Community 
consciousness; 
to allow for expanded programme benefits through better 
interaction and co-operation among the participants; 
to help promote the co-ordination of policies and programmes 
carried out at national level. 
In 1989, CORDIS was subsumed into VALUE as an essential element of the 
Community endeavour to disseminate and exploit results of Community 
research programmes. CORDIS was put at the disposal of the public as an 
experimental service in December 1990 with the first three databases: 
RTD-Programmes, RTD-Projects, RTD-Publications. 
Important improvements have been made during VALUE II and now 
CORDIS can be fully exploited. 
3.2. The Current Situation 
The CORDIS Databases 
The actual database consists of 9 individual databases in English (except for 
RTD News which is also available in German), which are updated 
according to their news value (see Table 1). At present, CORDIS covers 
over 137,000 documents about non-confidential matters. 
à£ 
Table 1 : CORDIS Databases, Update and Record Count 
Database Name Update Record Count * 
RTD-NEWS Dairy '. ! 4,412 ~"~ 
RTD-ACRONYMS Fortnightly : 4,638 
RTD-œMDCKUMENTS Fortnighdy 805 
RTD-PROGRAMMES Fortnigjitly 393 
RTD-PROJECTS Fortnightly 23,008 
RTD-PUBLICATIONS Fortnightly 69,203 
RTD-RESULTS Monthly 11,541 
RTD-PARTNERS Fortnightly 17,992 ~ 
RTD-OONTACTS Fortnighdy 4,726 
* Total 1st March'95 | 137,788 
RTD-News: the latest news announcements on all aspects of Community 
RTD activities. 
RTD-Acronyms: acronyms and abbreviations relating to Community 
RTD. , 
RTD-COMDOCUMENTS: comprehensive summaries of the 
Commission's initiatives on research matters to the Council of Ministers 
and to the European Parliament, as part of the legislative process. 
RTD-Programmes: all Community-funded research and research-related 
programmes. 
RTD-Projects: individual contracts and studies and the organisations 
involved within the various Community-funded programmes. 
RTP-Publieations: bibliographical information and abstracts on 
publications, reports and scientific papers arising from Community 
research activities as well as other scientific and technical documents 
published by the Commission. 
RTD-Results: results and prototypes arising from Community and other 
RTD research that are awaiting commercial exploitation as well as 
information on research projects needing further developments. 
^>& 
RTP-Partners/EOI: potential suitable partners for participation in the 
Community RTD programmes and projects and for participation in the 
commercial exploitation of RTD results. 
RTD-Contacts: main contact points (named individuals) on both 
national and European level able to provide information, advice or 
assistance on RTD activities. 
The Information Collection Process 
Information is collected in different ways: 
• Regular direct contacts and collaboration agreements with specific 
programmes and other data providers. 
• Use of internal databases as information sources. 
• Use of electronic information tools. 
• Extraction of information from various documentary sources. 
For this data collection, CORDIS has installed a Brussels-based CORDIS 
Information Collection Unit. This consists of a dedicated team of 
information collectors with specialists for each database. For the majority 
of the databases the teams have active contact with individuals and 
different programmes from within and outside the Commission. For 
some other databases, such as Comdocuments, the activities involve 
abstracting published documents. A number of contractors also work on 
the CORDIS service. 
CORDIS has prepared a guide called "USING CORDIS TO PROMOTE 
YOUR PROGRAMME", providing suggestions and detailed directives on 
how the RTD programmes can deliver information for CORDIS. 
Accessibility of CORDIS 
CORDIS is accessible in different ways: 
Off-line through a CD-ROM published quarterly and containing all 
CORDIS databases in compressed form (7,000 subscribers free of 
charge); 
n 
The on-line service (14,000 subscribers free of charge) is hosted by 
ECHO (European Commission Host Organisation) in Luxembourg 
and is accessible through: 
Direct Dial (PSTN): X.25 (e.g. Datex-P, Transpac); Europanet, 
etc. 
Internet. 
There exist different ways of information retrieval: 
Watch-CORDIS (Windows Access to Central Host; 
Windows-based graphical user interface; Off-line preparation 
of queries; automated log-on/log-off). 
Menu system (Easy-to-use information retrieval system). 
CCL (Common Command Language; standardised, efficient 
search language). 
Information about CORDIS is published in several ways, the most 
important being CORDIS focus (extracts from RTD-news, published 
every two weeks); Euroabstracts (printed equivalent of RTD-
Publications, published monthly); Innovation & Technology 
Transfer (latest information about RTD in the European Union, six 
issues per year), available free of charge from DG XIII on request. 
Publicity and demonstrations were made at different happenings like EC-
programme proposers days, technology exhibitions etc. CORDIS is also 
promoted in periodicals like: Euromanagement News, R&D in Europe 
(EG Liaison), etc 
Users of CORDIS 
Among the actual 14,000 users of CORDIS one can cite: 
national administrations (13%); 
industrial companies (24%: of which 25% big companies, 25% 
medium sized companies, 50% very small companies); 
research centres (18.5); 
educational institutes (26%); 
focal points (e.g.: VRCs) (8%); 
consultants, information brokers and others (10.5%). 
Funding 
The CORDIS project was funded by the following VALUE II funds: 
Ï992:I 4,720,003 ECU 
1993: 5,887,394 ECU 
Ï99* 2,760,683 ECU 
TOTAL: 13,368,080 ECU 
The following internal EC staff worked for CORDIS: 3 A Tades, 1 B grade, 
2 C grades. 
CORDIS' Quality Approach 
To attain sufficiently high quality of the databases, CORDIS has adopted a 
quality procedure, through: 
Improved infrastructure of information collection. 
CORDIS data provision guidelines. 
Continuous review and improvement of data acquisition 
procedures. 
CORDIS data quality plan (specific scope of each CORDIS database, 
data quality targets for Data Collection / Data Management, 
achievement of data quality targets). 
Implementation of improved data verification tools: 
Problems detected early. 
Q-1 
Regular feedback to data providers 
Quality measurements 
QUALITY PARAMETERS DIFFICULTIES 
Timeliness Obtain the information as soon as it becomes 
available at the source. 
Completeness Obtain all the necessary data (e.g. texts, dates, 
addresses). 
Currency Never ending job. 
Coverage Be aware of all available information. 
Accuracy Unequal quality of source information. 
Consistency Information received from variety of sources 
and in several forms. __ L ; 
C( X 
33. Evaluation and Strategic Issues 
At the end of 1994 the recommendations formulated during the Mid-
Term Review were still valid. Since then, progress has been observed. 
On top of these recommendations the panel wants to comment on the 
following items: 
Lack of an Integrated EC Policy RTD Information Provision 
i 
The lack of coherence in information handling within the EC research 
programmes is striking. Some examples are illustrative: 
There exist two public accessible databases: CORDIS and ARCADE, 
and it is totally unclear how far the one is complementary to the 
other. The least one can say is that this leads to confusion among 
potential users (where to go for what information) and, keeping in 
mind what CORDIS has cost so far, to loss of money; 
Not all RTD programmes have specific research results available in 
time. Some RTD programmes only publish general results of the 
total programme, others provide individual information of the 
total programme, others provide individual information on project 
results; 
Some programmes seem to be capable of providing information 
electronically to CORDIS, others only provide hard copies (which is 
far less cost-effective); 
Some DGs (like DG XH) have one main source of information (i.e. 
AMPERE but this is neither complete enough, nor up-to-date), in 
other DGs the sources are very varied. 
A coherent and well-defined approach seems highly desirable in order to 
make an information policy successful. This is of course not the 
responsibility of one single DG, but must be assured at the highest level. 
(p .3 
The Information Provided 
The coverage of the 3 RTD framework programmes (essentially projects 
and results) is very heterogeneous. In general project description is better 
covered than project results. In some cases a very high degree of coverage 
is attained (e.g. the project description for the industrially oriented 
programmes and mobility of the Third Framework Programme), while for 
other programmes it is very low (energy, life sciences, environment for 
the same item). On project results only 33%, 38% and 6% of the first, 
second and Third Framework Programme respectively are covered. This 
means that the major part of the results covers research done some seven 
years ago. Means should be found and procedures be established to 
shorten this delay drastically and to enable more up-to-date information to 
be delivered. 
The information provided could be expanded with: 
more detailed information on project results: scientific, technical, 
the markets it addresses, the type of products involved, patents 
taken, scope for transfer of technology, the importance for SMEs, etc. 
In this context it is suggested to expand those databases with 
information on patents taken within the framework of the EC 
research projects; 
information on national RTD programmes and national (or 
regional) RTD databases; 
statistics on past calls: number of projects and total budget 
introduced, success rates, etc 
financial information on accepted projects. 
Whether the content of the information provided by CORDIS is sufficient 
is not clear and could not be analysed by the panel. In order to have a clear 
picture on the subject a market analysis should be conducted. What 
information should be provided depends essentially on market demand 
(also see below rDRDIS in the Met'um and Long Term). 
The Catalytic Role of CORDIS 
In providing information accessible to all kinds of users, CORDIS plays a 
catalytic role in the dissemination of information about RTD programmes, 
projects and project results towards all kind of users. Information which 
is normally not or very difficult to find can now be retrieved within a very 
short time and by almost everyone with only a basic training. 
QV 
The Impact of CORDIS 
Although detailed information is not available, with 14,000 subscribers 
CORDIS is thought to have a significant impact already on RTD activity in 
Europe. From the limited information available we can conclude that 
CORDIS is used mostly in the context of EC project proposal preparation: 
RTD proposers check whether a given subject is already treated in the 
context of the EC RTD programmes. This follows clearly from the very 
high activity during the lanuary-February 1995 period during which the 
activity was three times higher man usual. 
It is not clear to what extent CORDIS has an impact on technological 
innovation in industry, essentially for SMEs. From the number of 
industrial subscribers to CORDIS (24%) we have to conclude that only a 
very limited number of European companies (3,360) use CORDIS. 
Although companies are in many cases assisted through information 
brokers, consultants, VRCs and other intermediaries, and although not all 
companies are able (lack of human resources, lack of skills) to use CORDIS, 
the 3^60 industrial subscribers is only a tiny fraction of the European 
industrial world. So even at last year's growth rate of 100%, much effort is 
still needed in order to increase substantially the number of subscribers. In 
view of this the promotional activity of CORDIS ?h\>uld be increased 
essentially towards companies, as research centres and ducation institutes 
already constitute the majority of users. Promotion terhno-economic 
journals, the use of pertinent associations, etc. as alreac stipulated during 
the Mid-Term Review should be increased. 
The User Friendliness of CORDIS 
The user friendliness of CORDIS has been increased enormously during 
the last few years through the introduction of state-of-the-art menu based 
retrieval procedures, such as the CD-ROM and later on-line through the 
introduction of the Windows based system WATCH CORDIS. Working 
with CORDIS can easily be learned in 1 to 2 hours as it is to a large degree 
self-explanatory. However, in some cases and for some kinds of people it 
might be advantageous to provide a tutorial with a demo, showing how 
information can be retrieved from the system. This could be provided on­
line as well, be downloaded through INTERNET, as well as on CD-ROM. 
It is unclear to what extent the fact that the information is provided only 
in English is a handicap and to what extent other languages should be 
introduced. Again a market study should clarify this potential problem. 
?s 
The Quality Control of CORDIS 
The quality control procedure adopted by CORDIS since 1994 was a 
necessary step which had to be taken to ensure sufficiently timeline, 
complete, accurate and consistent data. 
The Link Between CORDIS and Other RTD Databases 
CORDIS only provides information about the RTD programmes of the 
European Commission. However, for those looking for information 
concerning high technology or for experts (companies, R&D institutes or 
universities), this is not enough, since most research in Europe is executed 
in national and regional R&D programmes* Databases concerning 
national or regional research results apparently are not easily accessible. It 
would therefore be extremely interesting to find in CORDIS information 
on national research programmes and national RTD databases and even 
find signposts when browsing through the CORDIS information, In this 
respect one could also do something on COST, EUREKA and ESA. An 
integration of other databases into CORDIS seems not feasible or even 
necessary, given the existence and accessibility of this information. 
CORDIS in the Medium and Long Term 
The viability of CORDIS in the medium and long term is of concern. The 
evaluation panel believes that three important elements will determine 
CORDIS' future: 
market needs; 
cost control; 
evolution of information technology; 
These issues are intimately linked and any medium and long term 
strategy for CORDIS should be based upon them. Of these issues, the first 
is considered to be by far the most important. 
Any strategy should be compatible with market demand. CORDIS should 
in the first place offer the kind of information the market wants. CORDIS 
was set up at a time when information technology and information 
services were still in their infancy. Consequently, CORDIS has adapted 
itself over the years to become,, technologically speaking, a state-of-the-art 
service. This approach did not, however, necessarily take into account 
broad market needs. The approach so far can be considered more 
technologically than market driven and leaves us with uncertainty about 
the market requirements. 
Ht 
Modem technology will, in several years' time, probably change the whole 
picture of information provision and information access. Electronic 
Document Delivery, which has already been started through the 
INTERNET access, is a new and exciting way and is already a step in that 
direction. However, the evaluation panel believes that the whole system 
o£ information flow from those who generate it (mostly the RTD partners) 
to the centralised access will be changed completely and will have a 
tremendous impact on the whole process. 
Quite a lot has been spent on bringing CORDIS up to the current 
operational level and its upkeep continuously requires large amounts of 
money. Although the amounts necessary may remain available for some 
time, the evaluation panel is of the opinion that a plan for cost control 
and cost reduction is of the highest importance. The economies made 
could be used for improved services, better awareness or even for other 
types of actions within the context of technology transfer and validation. 
The cost charged for CD-ROM as from the second half of 1995 can be 
considered a move in the direction of cost reduction, although it is 
questionable whether this will have an optimal result when disconnected 
from a more general approach. Also the free-of-charge accessibility of 
CORDIS through INTERNET should be reviewed in the light cf possible 
US charges for their databases. 
It is therefore recommended that in the medium tern an integrated in-
depth study be made composed of the following items: 
the demand side: the impact of the service should be measured and 
the users surveyed. Such a market study should also cover the 
most appropriate marketing policy to be followed in terms of 
money charged for services. 
technological evolution: in order to find out how the information 
provision could look like in about 5 years' time and how CORDIS 
could adapt to it This study should also take into account the 
relationship to national or regional RTD databases. 
cost control: essentially for the operation of CORDIS, while 
maintaining high quality and service. This plan should be based on 
an in-depth assessment of the actual process for the creation and 
maintenance of the databases and should contain the steps to be 
taken in order to cope with the technological changes of the near 
future, to ensure a significant and lasting cost reduction over the 
coming years. 
H¥ 
3.4. Conclusion 
Over the last few years CORDIS has become a very important tool for the 
retrieval of information about the research efforts originating from the 
European Commission, and its usage is not limited to programmes, 
projects and results, as described in its 9 databases, but extends to more 
general research such as state-of-the-art studies, main RTD actors in a 
given technical field etc. This is made possible through an easily accessible 
system and a user-friendly enquiry system. CORDIS can be considered an 
example for national and regional instances of how information about 
research can be put at the disposal of users. 
However, in order for CORDIS to ensure a .efficient impact and guarantee 
its survival in the long term it is recommended that in-depth studies be 
made with a view to the medium ^^d long term, on the demand side, on 
the cost control and cost JVauction process, and on technological 
evolution. In addition, CQF^IS should increase its promotional activity 
to convince essentially th/3MEs to make use of the service. 
CORDIS also has yr*ole to play in bringing national and regional RTD 
databases closer to potential users in a harmonised way. In this 
perspective c*e could think of financial support actions to make their 
information available to the whole European scientific and technical 
commun5'/ and to create links with the CORDIS database. 
s-
<# 
4. ACTION LINE L2 : UTILISATION OF RESULTS 
4.1. Form and Purpose of the Activities 
This action line, which directly supports valorisation of specific research 
results, is designed to contribute to the main objective of the programme. 
This is to facilitate the exploitation of Community RTD results in the 
interests of improving the international competitiveness of Europe's 
industry. 
The approach is intended to compensate for the fact that, although the 
RTD project contracts envisage that industrial partners to those projects 
will exploit the results of research, three-quarters of them do not in 
practice do so. Even in the remaining quarter of projects they often only 
exploit some of the results. Opportunities for spin-off are also frequently 
ignored. The VALUE programme also recognises that some RTD projects 
do not lend themselves to immediate exploitation, though they reinforce 
competences which may, at a later date, be used advantageously in various 
innovative ways; moreover, much RTD project work takes place in 
organisations, such as universities, which are not oriented towards 
exploitation. 
To these ends the programme supports three main types of activity under 
this action line: 
practical training activities related to the exploitation of results and 
technology transfer; 
presentation of the results of such work at conferences, exhibitions 
and other public events; 
particular projects which valorise research results by taking them 
forward to the stage of demonstration or the transfer of a working 
technology to new users in a sector or country different from the 
original. 
The stated objectives for this part of the programme are rather general. 
More specific and verifiable objectives could help to focus projects on the 
trade-off between the demands of technical excellence, innovativeness and 
exploitation prospects. They would also be helpful both at the selection 
stage and in subsequent evaluation, For example, they should indicate the 
relative priority to be accorded to technological advance and commercial 
potential and the time-scales to be attempted. 
<0 
4JI. Administrative Arrangements 
The arrangements for operating this part of the programme continue 
those adopted under VALUE I and through the early stages of VALUE II 
though there have been some detailed improvements in approach since 
the Mid-Term Review of the present programme. For example, the 
budget for supporting technology validation and transfer projects has been 
raised to 84 MECU for four years and technologies from any origin (not 
just Community-supported research) are now eligible. 
There have been two calls for proposals under VALUE II and another is 
current under the Fourth Framework Programme. These have so far 
given rise to 373 proposals of which 94 were accepted for support. Total 
budget allocated is 7.6825 MECU. Individual project costs range from a few 
k ECU for preparatory expert work to several hundreds of k ECU for larger 
prototyping projects. As pointed out in the Mid-Term Review these are 
very small amounts compared with those devoted to the RTD itself, less 
than 5%, especially recalling that exploitation is a more expensive activity 
by at least one order of magnitude. 
We described the procedures involved in calling for and appraising 
proposals in our Mid-Term Review report. These have not changed 
significantly. So far as we can tell the Commission have operated the 
arrangements efficiently. We note that Commission officials regularly 
monitor projects. We encourage them to bear in mind that the costs of 
doing this are justified only to the extent that they do not exceed the 
amounts they save by averting failures. We are also conscious, however, 
that more than one project participant remarked to us that officials' 
advice, from the perspective of a wide experience of projects, had been 
extremely valuable. 
4.3. Findings 
We have examined several of the current projects. These have not been 
selected on any statistical basis. Nor have we had the opportunity to see a 
large enough number for them to be regarded as a representative sample 
or to examine them in great depth. 
Nevertheless, it is clear that several, and perhaps many, are of high 
technical quality. In the future some, though not all, should lead to 
important exploitation activities which would have been lost without 
VALUE. 
In some cases there is a lack of commercial realism. While it is acci. 
that a major justification for many of the projects is to include non­
commercial bodies, such as universities and state-owned institutions, it is 
important that at least one main participant has a truly commercial 
attitude and the interest to make the project's output marketable. 
So 
Successful innovation requires a combination of developmental and 
commercial skills which must be optimally promoted. It is important also 
to ensure that the IPR arrangements are designed to be as conducive as 
possible to exploitation. For example, patents might either be jointly 
owned or in the hands of the partner most likely to carry out the actual 
exploitation. 
4.4. Discussion 
There are three main evaluation issues relating to this action line. The 
first is whether the rationale for it is valid and whether the approach and 
stated objectives adopted to meet that rationale are appropriate to it. 
The second issue involves judging whether, assuming the broad approach 
is justified, it has achieved an effective impact. 
The third issue concerns the efficiency with which the activity has been 
managed. On this we have touched above. 
Turning to the broad rationale for the action line, it is clearly important 
that research should be exploited to the optimum extent, though it will 
not necessarily be appropriate to exploit all research within the same time-
scale. Some results may, of their nature, take many years to deliver 
benefits. Moreover, not all the returns to research accrue from direct 
applications. Some, for example, may come from more general 
improvements in knowledge and understanding. 
It is possible that supporting development projects is a less cost-effective 
means of technology transfer than diffusing research results by direct 
information distribution through publications or databases. This latter 
approach is less costly and broader based, whereas project support involves 
concentrating significant amounts of money on a limited number of quite 
narrowly specific projects. Even if the returns on some such projects are 
high - which is by no means always the case - it is necessary to allow for a 
quite high failure rate. Moreover, the amount of support which can be 
provided is extremely small in relation to total expenditure on such 
projects. Sceptics contend that this means that such project support can 
have only the most marginal effect. 
The argument for project support rests on the assumption that it has a 
multiplier or gearing effect because it can be directed to key cases which 
will act as demonstrators as well as providing experience and learning 
opportunities. Moreover, on the principle that people are the best 
technology and innovation vectors, support to collaborative projects 
creates contacts which may be fruitful beyond the particular project both at 
the time and in the future. The reality, immediacy and depth of project 
based examples make them more likely to engender enthusiasm for 
•s-1 
technological innovation than the distribution of relatively superficial 
and generalised information. -
The evidence to resolve this controversy decisively does not exist. We are, 
however, impressed by two basic principles. The first of these is that 
technology transfer and, more especially, innovative attitudes, are best 
diffused via personal contacts. Secondly, appropriate technological 
solutions are more likely to be generated by demand from the bottom up 
than by top-down dissemination. 
We think that project support should have a place in a programme such 
as VALUE II because it conforms, at least to some extent, to these 
principles. It can create real contacts. And the work can, and should, arise 
from proposals by those directly connected with the market place. 
Moreover it is not an 'either or' issue but one concerned with the 
relative amounts of resources to be devoted to each kind of activity. The 
VALUE II programme already has information transfer components. We 
see no reason to extend these at the expense of project support, indeed, if 
anything we would change the balance in the opposite direction. But 
project support must be genuinely user and market led; and it must build 
on, and develop synergies with, the other forms of promotion. 
4.5. The Impact of the Projects 
In the light of the principles set out above it is essential to maximise the 
demonstration and technology generation effect of the projects supported. 
Although progress has been made in this direction, we think more might 
be done. 
At present projects are demonstrated at, for example, exhibitions and at 
relatively brief workshops. We welcome this, but we encourage the 
Commission to develop such activities in more depth. Emphasis should 
be placed not only on communicating project results but on the processes 
that have led to them. The projects might be the basis for case studies in 
innovation seminars lasting for a day or two rather than an hour or two. 
It would not be unreasonable, as a condition of support, to oblige 
collaborators to participate in these and to demonstrate both the particular 
project (preferably on site) and the benefits to be gamed from similar 
innovative action. The projects should be used as vehicles for 
demonstrating the innovation process and the innovation mentality. TL: 
chief benefit would be from the contacts involved, for the 'vectors' of 
innovation are people. 
It is essential, however, that the projects be set up with great care. W* w. 
impressed with the technical quality of most of those we have seen. This 
is naturally vital. But prospects of eventual exploitation are also cruricd 
and, although these are taken into account, we are not sure they always get 
S£_ 
so much attention when selecting and setting up projects. We have 
already suggested that one of the justifications for project support is that it 
is to some extent market generated. This implies that at least one of the 
partners in every case should have some commitment to exploitation if 
the project is successful. 
We recognise that emphasis on exploitability should not lead to 
supporting commercially safe proposals while ignoring innovative but 
more risky ones. The panel believes this may be achieved by the increased 
emphasis on user-driven consortia that we have suggested. The more 
precise objectives we have called for should also ensure that proper 
relative weights are placed on innovativeness and exploitability. Support 
should be carried as close to the market as the pre-competitive principle 
allows. 
Two factors could improve the opportunities for uncovenanted spin-off 
applications. In the first place the selection process should seek whenever 
possible to support technology with 'generic' potential - "technologies 
diffusantes". Secondly, we have been told there is already a tendency to 
support fewer, but larger projects. If this is necessary to maximise the 
opportunities for exploitation we would support some further 
development in this direction. 
4.6. Conclusions and Recommendations 
We support the concept of project support but think its nature should take 
more account of the specific considerations which justify it. These are, 
primarily, the opportunities it provides to bring researchers, innovators 
and potential exploiters together in a collaborative environment. It is also 
important that the work involved is user and market led. 
We, therefore, recommend that more specific, verifiable objectives be set 
for this part of the programme which will both guide those selecting and 
setting up projects and assist in focusing the projects as they proceed. To 
this latter end each project should also have specific verifiable objectives, 
relating to those for the action line and emphasising exploitation. All 
projects should include, as main partners, an organisation with some 
commitment to exploitation and the project should be set up to encourage 
this. 
With rather similar objectives in view we recommend that the tendency 
to supporting larger, even if necessary fewer, projects should be extended. 
In particular projects should be selected wherever possible to cover generic 
technologies likely to have a high gearing and spin-off potential. 
The main emphasis should be placed on demonstrating not just the 
results of the projects but the innovative attitudes behind them. This 
53 
should be borne in mind at all stages from project selection onwards and 
in European, national and regional contexts. 
5. ACTION LINE L3 : LEGAL PROTECTION OF RESULTS 
5.1. Findings 
Objectives 
With this action line the Commission had as its main objectives: 
the patenting and protection of Commission owned RTD results 
stemming from JRC research; 
the protection of results stemming from Commission RTD 
Programmes, where the contractor is the owner and where the 
partners are not capable or not willing to take out patents. For 
budgetary reasons the latter case is most common with R&D centres 
and SMEs; 
support, advisory or financial, to partners of Community RTD 
projects for conducting patent screening and patent applications; 
and 
public awareness campaigns and training on methods and 
procedures for protection of RTD results. 
Past Achievements 
Since 1960 more than 2,400 inventions have been developed into patent 
applications under the auspices of DG XIQ Patent Section. Of these, 520 
patent files are still in force, with about 10,000 individual patents due to 
secondary extensions of priority filings in all relevant countries. 463 
patent applications are not yet granted and thus require continuous 
supervision. 17 software registrations for copyright have been deposited 
and 251 trademarks registered. 
Of the patent applications, the vast majority originates from research 
performed at the JRCs, but in the years 1991 to 1994, 221 inventions 
resulting from cost-shared actions under the VALUE programme have 
been filed as patent applications. Of these, 71 patents have been awarded 
so far. The financial support for patent applications for projects related to 
the VALUE programme was discontinued at the end of 1994. 
TH 
The maintenance and expansion (expansion only in the case of JRC 
patents, since VALUE has been disconnected) of this portfolio constitutes 
the daily management work of the Patent Section. 
Current and Future Activities 
Emergence of patentable inventions at the JRC institutes will be fostered 
within the framework of the new competitive activities of the JRC. While 
patent assistance under VALUE has not been reinforced in the current 
Third Activity programme, new initiatives have been prepared. As a pilot 
action, selected proposals to the Projects part (Technology Validation and 
Technology Transfer Projects) of the programme will all be subjected to a 
quick- check in collaboration with the search division at the European 
Patent Office (EPO) in The Hague. The new scheme has been labelled 
"Quick Scan" and will allow contractors to assess the novelty of their 
technologies on the basis of the expert check by EPO examiners. 
Also within the framework of the Projects scheme, a systematic Patent 
Build-up Scheme is elaborated. Due to ignorance or unawareness many 
patent applications, in the first twelve months after a priority filing, are 
not developed further in order to allow for a broader and more 
substantiated secondary filing in all important markets. It will be a key 
goal to sensitize contractors to the importance of the priority year and the 
opportunities for substantiated secondary filings. 
Awareness raising for utilisation of the unique patent system also as an 
information tool (avoid re-inventing the wheel, diagnose early 
technological trends, check what the competition is working on) will 
complement these activities. In connection with this, various training 
tools are being prepared together with the EPO as well as awareness actions 
by the Commission alone. 
The researchers (in particular new staff) at the JRC institutes in Ispra and 
elsewhere are a special focus regarding education in IPR matters. Training 
courses have already been designed by external experts and will be taught 
under supervision of the Patent Section. Education, information and 
awareness will be extended more decidedly towards the administrators 
and also the contractors of other specific programmes. Advice on IPR 
matters is continually given to all parties requesting it in the course of EU 
funded research and development. 
5.2. The Panel's Assessment 
The overall outcome from what has been tried out or undertaken in the 
IPR field within the framework of the VALUE programmes is relatively 
meagre. This opinion of the panel is corroborated by the following two 
observations: 
S'S" 
The number of patent applications filed and patents awarded (221 
and 71 respectively) seems very limited in comparison with the 
total number of projects and RTD results stemming from the 
VALUE programmes. 
We have found very little evidence of any systematic penetration of 
the research community by the Patent Section, for example in the 
form of seminars or promotion campaigns, in order to increase 
general knowledge about IPR matters among researchers. 
In relation to the first observation a possible explanation of the low patent 
activity recorded is that patent applications are filed by RTD partners 
directly, something that the Patent* Section does not keep track of. 
Another explanation is of course the fact; that the Section discontinued its 
financial support to VALUE projects for patenting costs in the autumn of 
1994. No reason for this was given to the panel, but possibly it was due to 
a general lack of financial resources within the Patent Section. 
As concerns the second remark the panel has noticed organisations by 
various VRCs of seminars where IPR issues have been emphasised. These 
seminars could be seen, however, a* separate events rather than as 
forming part of a well thought-out and consistently implemented strategy. 
The panel is inclined to interpret the absence of such a strategy as a 
combination of lack of initiative and lack of resources on the part of-the 
Patent Section. 
5.3. Conclusions and Recommendations 
Considering the great importance of IPR matters in connection with RTD 
projects there is a need for a radical change in the present organisation and 
operations of DG XIII Patent Section. The panel welcomes the initiatives 
taken recently and partly presented above (see Current and future 
activities), which indicate that a new, more suitable approach in relation 
to IPR matters is about to be launched by the Patent Section» A pre­
requisite, however, to these initiatives being carried out successfully is a 
combination of more resources, financial as well as human, and more 
commitment. 
A few specific ideas for consideration by DG XHI Patent Section and other 
pertinent EC bodies are presented below: 
1. Awareness campaigns on the patenting and protection of RTD 
results should be extensive and continuous. Concise brochures and 
other low cost publications, distributed as widely as possible in 
universities, research institutions etc, represent a simple and cost-
effective tool for disseminating basic facts on ÎPR issues. 
5^ 
2. Making, under appropriate provisions, patent costs eligible expenses 
within EC RTD projects would definitely lead to a wider protection 
oflPR. 
3. A systematic registration and monitoring not only of patents 
granted, but also of patent applications, licensing agreements and 
other kinds of collaboration contracts emerging from EC supported 
RTD projects would lead to a more efficient dissemination and 
faster exploitation of RTD results. Obviously, such data would also 
be a valuable input to assessments of the innovative content of EC 
RTD activities. In this connection, a CORDIS database dedicated to 
patents, trademarks, copyrights, licences and other indicators of EC 
RTD results, would be a useful tool. Currently, such data are very 
rare in CORDIS. 
4. Several VRCs have responded to their clients' need for advice on 
IPR matters. The new Relay Centres of the Third Activity should 
expand on this decentralised activity. In addition, an Electronic 
Bulletin Board System or a WWW site set up by the Pa^nt Section 
in DG Xni could prove instrumental in aiding the exploitation of 
RTD results and creating a general snowb:: :1 fi t on IPR matters 
across the whole RC network. 
5. The incentives for patenting differ rather widely a *x *he Member 
States. This situation puts up barriers to the protection of RTD 
results by international consortia. In addition, the rather uncertain 
prospect of any economic benefit to the researcher from a patent 
leads him to choose the publication route which gives him at least 
. academic credit. Before solving the complex legal aspects of this 
problem, there could be ways and incentives in EC RTD projects for 
encouraging "patenting first and publishing after". Such measures 
would create a better and more positive environment aci oss the EU 
for fostering and protecting innovation. 
Certainly the ideas presented above are indicative and do not exhaust the 
issues and measures that ought to be considered by the EC for protecting 
and promoting innovation. 
S7-
ACnON LINE 1.4 : PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES 
The principal goals along this line were:-
to disseminate as widely as possible information on Community 
supported RTD activities and their results; and 
to promote the specific VALUE initiatives for facilitating the 
valorisation and exploitation of Community RTD results. 
A wide spectrum of promotional activities has been undertaken to 
achieve jthese aims. These activities can be grouped in the following three 
archetypes:-
publications (brochures, periodicals, information sheets, etc.) 
events (organisation of participation in conferences, workshops, 
seminars, fairs, etc.) 
services (networking, provision of information, etc.) 
A few indicative examples of promotional activities are:-
1. The "Innovation and Technology Transfer Newsletter", addressed 
to research and industrial partners, consultants on technology 
transfer, information brokers, decision-makers, etc. 
2. The periodical "CORDIS Focus", addressed to a wide audience of 
actors, intermediaries and multipliers of Community RTD. 
3. The "Euro-Abstract Catalogues", addressed in particular to 
researchers and documentalists. 
4. The FLAIR-FLOW project aiming at the co-ordination of the 
dissemination of RTD results emerging from Food RTD projects 
supported by VALUE and FLAIR 
5. The "VALUE Information-Press-Service" (Vips), compiling and 
disseminating each month to many journalists in Europe extended 
journalistic information and selected RTD Community results. 
6. The "RTD-Help-Desk", a service for responding to public queries 
about Community research activities. 
-cr<p 
In addition to the above specific examples as well as to the other centrally 
undertaken promotional activities, we should also mention those 
implemented via; 
the multitude of decentralised initiatives which are part of the 
everyday work of the 27 VRCs; and 
the continuous and expanding presence of CORDIS within the 
Union and recently worldwide too through its screen on the World 
Wide Web. 
The total amount spent on promotional activities until 1 January 1994 was 
5.3 MECU, which was equivalent to approx. 13% of the total expenditures 
of VALUE II so far. It appears to the panel, however, that this significant 
promotional effort resulted from a step-by-step line of action based on 
individual decisions rather than from a well thought-out and well-
integrated promotional strategy. A possible consequence of this is that 
there has developed only limited awareness among important target 
groups about the links between individual activities and calls for 
proposals and the overall objectives and ambitions of the VALUE 
programme. 
Consequently the panel suggests a more powerful promotion of the Third 
Activity in the future based on: 
(i) an analysis of the needs and perceptions of different target 
audiences and the results of previously carried out promotional 
activities under VALUE. 
(ii) a coherent promotional strategy across all three objectives of this 
Activity, and 
(iii) a strong and clearly identified connection between promotional 
efforts related to individual activities and the principal common 
elements of the overall promotional strategy. 
-5^ 
7. INTERFACES II AND ni : RESEARCH-SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AND 
RESEARCH SOCIETY 
7.1. Introduction 
The so-called "Interfaces II and EI" were a minor part within the VALUE II 
X Programme, representing approximately 13% of its budget. They were 
\conceived as a necessary complement to the main activity of the 
Programme which was to promote the application of Community RTD 
results by enterprises and was defined as "Interface I Research-Industry" 
where fee bulk of the budget was spent. 
The aim of Ih^?face II was to contribute to an interdisciplinary reflection 
in relation* to fee research environment, including methodology and 
other issues of a serial, financial and managerial character. Interface II 
activities were, among others, several studies contracted, some seminars 
and expert workshops, humeri of an Interfaces Bulletin and the annual 
Interfaces Conferences. 
** The aim of Interface EI was to identify and study the impact on society of 
* the new scientific and technologic^ knowledge acquired as a result of 
Community research activities covering three main areas: Assessment of 
the Social Impact of S&T (mainly supporting the European T.A. 
infrastructure), Communication with the Public and Analysis of the Public 
Demand. The main outcomes of Interface IE, besides several studies 
contracted and seminars organised, were a very^ interesting proven and 
tested Awareness Scenario Workshop Methodology and a large set of 
material and support actions addressed to the refinement of tools and 
information of the European Technology Assessment expertise. 
Prior to any further analysis, the panel wishes to express its concern about 
the dismantlement of this activity at the end of the VALUE II Programme 
as, in its view, these lines of activities should be neither marginalised nor 
abandoned. To be successful, innovation definitely needs soiial 
adaptation, accompaniment, training, awareness to lead to final acceptance 
and proper use. Barriers and threshold levels for technology acceptance 
may vary from country to country but transnational considerations and 
lessons learned at a European level will be of great importance. In 
addition, in the field of innovation the EU's main goal of integration and 
cohesion requires an in-depth consideration of the various aspects 
(economic, social, cultural) in the different regions in Europe. 
Innovation is essentially combinatory and thus needs to draw upon 
various disciplines, sub-technologies and expertise. Not only did 
Interfaces II and HI address these issues with too meagre resources but such 
a global approach no longer even exists within the Third Activity. 
Go 
7.2. General Comments 
The ppiiel considers very relevant the objective of reconciling the general 
pubpc with research activities and technological development, these being 
also necessary to reinforce interdisciplinary activities through the various 
existing research communities. However, the minimal resources 
allocated to the Interfaces on the margins of a small programme like 
VALUE II could not satisfy such an important challenge. 
As indicated in the Mid-Term Review report the whole activity lacked a 
clear identity in front of one of its main target users - i.e. the European 
Commission. The job was mainly conceived, co-ordinated and to some 
extent performed by a reduced task force of only two enthusiastic 
Commission officials, whose dedication has to be largely recognised. They 
had the organisational support of an external Management Unit and the 
advisory support of an "ad hoc" Think Tank Group (TTG). 
The Council Decision took place in May 1992, the resources and staff 
assignment in late 1992 and the constitution of the working team in April 
1993, but at the end of 1993 the first versions of the Fourth Framework 
Programme, including some restrictions in the scope of the Interfaces 
action line, obliged a significant re-tuning of their on-going activities. 
These time schedule considerations and the fact that the first concrete 
outputs of Interfaces II and HI appeared at the end of 1994 might explain 
why the scope and potential results of this line have not been sufficiently 
understood within the VALUE Management Unit and also misconceived 
when defining the whole Fourth Framework Programme and particularly 
the "Third Activity". A dear effect of this is the allocation of the so-called 
"socio-targeted research programme" within DG XII. 
The launch of this new activity took longer than expected, mainly for 
administrative reasons and therefore the allocated budget was not 
consumed during the first two years. The general restrictions on 
expenditure in 1994 did not take into account this fact and the VALUE II 
Management Committee cut the overall budget from the 7 MECU 
foreseen at the beginning of the programme for this task to 5.7 MECU. 
7.3. Findings and Results 
The first period of activity was driven by an intensive reflection process 
(TTG, Experts' Working Seminars,...). Then the whole task was conceived 
with a clear modular structure which allowed for quick adaptations to the 
recommendations of the Mid-Term Review panel (i.e. shifting the priority 
to Interface HI : Research-Society activities) and the orientation of the 
future Fourth Framework Programme. 
<oA 
'**$&*. 
In general terms it has been a tool-oriented concept, the outcome of which 
led to workable goods and manuals. Its background and goals were 
service-oriented, acting sometimes in a cathartic role (passive concept) and 
at other times in an enzymatic way (dynamic concept). The Interfaces 
Team had a clear vision of the importance of the methodologies for the 
dissemination of results and the importance of targeting clusters of 
opinion leaders. 
Altogether about 40 projects were launched, resulting in a similar number 
of reports although their usefulness and possibilities for application are 
not homogeneous. 
The most important outcome was about half a dozen useful tools in the 
fields of Technology Assessment, Awareness and Science and Technology 
communication issues. 
A very good appreciation of some of them, especially the Awareness 
Scenario Workshop methodology, has been confirmed by relevant 
European and national institutions. To complement the figures given in 
Chapter II.1 earlier (Overview of VALUE II) the budget committed up to 
mid-1995, including the last call for proposals for studies, is 2.45 MECU for 
Interface II and 3.3 MECU for Interface HI. 
Of the total expenditure for Interface III, 0.8 MECU has been used to 
develop the European Awareness Scenario Workshop methodology as 
follows: 
1993: Survey, initial idea evaluation and first presentation event — 0.15 MECU 
1994: Test with European dimension (4 cities and final conference) plus 
first materials 027 MECU 
1995: Test in a real project context (including final workshop and conference) 0.10 MECU 
European training (2 pilot sessions plus material packages in EU 
languages) 028 MECU 
TOTAL 08MECU 
Before the end of this year about 15 European cities will have used this 
tool with a recognised impact at political, citizen and media levels, which 
provides certain confidence about the value of the money spent. Prospects 
are on-going for offering the methodology to some countries in the Far 
East and Latin America. £. 
<ot 
7.4. Recommendations 
The panel feels strongly that the social and cultural dimensions of 
innovation, as well as the interdisciplinary nature of technological 
development, are very important and judges very positively the initial 
approach carried out within the Interfaces II and HI action lines. 
The panel recommends that the research on the tools, as launched in the 
last two years, be continued further in order to better achieve the goals of 
understanding impacts, communicating research orientation and 
applications of results, contributing to a deeper interdisciplinary 
atmosphere, etc. 
Nevertheless, the issue of Interface III should be viewed more from a 
bottom-up (i.e. no innovation without taking into account the social and 
cultural dimensions, etc.) rather than a top-down perspective (i.e. Science 
and Technology need to be explained to the general public, etc.). 
The panel would encourage the Third Activity Management Team 
towards promoting more widely exploitation of the tools, such as the 
Awareness Methodology; the efficiency of this in matching social needs to 
technological results has been demonstrated and it has contributed to a 
global European culture of innovation and promotion should include, in 
particular, informing other EC and Member States services of the existing 
expertise. 
Finally, the panel expresses its concern for the apparent abandonment of 
these action lines within the Third Activity and hopes that this situation 
will be reconsidered and reinstated or continued with appropriate 
resources and with a clearer recognition of its benefits at Commission 
level. Resources foreseen for accompanying measures could be used 
synergistically for that purpose. 
6^ 
IV. STRATEGIC ISSUES 
1. BACKGROUND 
In relation to the strategy of VALUE, much has already been said in the 
Mid-Term Review about the historical strategy of the VALUE I and II 
programmes. 
The panel felt that there was no need to duplicate this and that it was 
more appropriate to identify the lessons from past experience and 
concentrate on discussing future strategies. 
VALUE I and II, as well as SPRINT, were clearly experimental 
programmes designed to spearhead new ways of dealing with RTD results 
dissemination, technology transfer and innovation. 
The VALUE programme objectives were the dissemination and 
optimisation of Commission funded RTD results. The SPRINT 
*' programme was more general, operated outside the RTD framework, and 
had specific objectives in the field of promotion of innovation. Yet the 
complementarity of the two programmes and some overlap in their 
means and tools were clear enough for the Mid-Term Review panel to 
support the idea of a merger between SPRINT and VALUE. Tftis merger 
was implemented for the Fourth RTD Framework Programme and the 
corresponding Third Activity is now under way. The integration of both 
programmes is a commendable step towards creating a tool better adapted 
to the overall goal of promoting innovation. 
The Commission is currently planning a Green Book on Innovation, 
encompassing the many challenges faced by European firms as well as the 
variety of experience gained throughout the Union and at Commission 
level in promoting innovation, technology transfer and the creation, 
absorption and diffusion of technologies by enterprises. This indicates 
clearly that innovation is regarded as a major issue. 
In this context, the VALUE II final evaluation panel wishes to contribute 
to the current policy thinking around the general issues attached to 
innovation, technology transfer and exploitation of RTD potential. 
2. STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS 
In its efforts to improve the well-being of citizens throughout the Union, 
the Commission aims to implement the internal market, increasing the 
competitiveness of firms at both a European and global level, and 
reinforcing the social and economic cohesion of the Union. 
6(y 
In so doing, strengthening European science and technology and 
promoting innovation, the transfer of technology and the dissemination 
and valorisation of RTD results are regarded as complementary means 
contributing to industrial competitiveness. 
2.1. It is not enough to Invest in RTD 
It should be stressed that past experience has shown that investments in 
science yield no clearly perceived direct returns in technological 
development and economic growth. The processes at work are rarely 
linear. R&D expenditures certainly help but to what extent, under what 
circumstances and in what time scale are still much debated questions. 
As an example, it is a well known fact that the creation of RTD 
programmes is monitored by large companies and major research 
organisations. SMEs are too small to be part of the corresp ending lobbies 
and in fact participate relatively very little in Community RTD 
programmes. This is in clear contradiction to the explicit objective of 
Commission policy defining SME competitiveness as a top priority. In any 
case, this clearly favours policies which pro-actively help public RTD 
programmes benefit industry. VALUE type scbe* are thus both 
legitimate and useful. 
Conversely, the promotion of innovation does not sim !y correspond-to 
active transfer of R&D results to firms. Much more is inv >lved, ind tiding 
creating an environment favourable to innovative activities, promoting 
an infrastructure of actors and means, helping firms solve the problems 
which they encounter throughout the many loops of the innovation 
process, generating adequate sources of funding, etc. 
12. RTD / Innovation Policy: the Imbalance 
Figure 1 below shows how promotion of innovation and RTD activities 
are related to technology transfer and the dissemination and utilisation of 
RTD results. It also shows the relative importance of the resources usually 
allocated to innovation policy compared with those to RTD. Of course, 
RTD programmes also contribute to human knowledge and thus should 
not be justified for purely utilitarian reasons. Nevertheless, the increasing 
importance of industrial competitiveness and the scarcity of resources may 
lead to some questioning of the balance of funding and the attention given 
to innovation on the one hand and RTD activities on the other. 
6^ 
6 c 
Promoting Innovation 
Technology Transfer 
Dissemination / 
"Valorisation" of RTD results 
the size of the bubbles illustrates the 
relative attention paid to the activities 
The panel feels that some cultural change has already taken place in the 
RTD community. Some researchers still keep igncHng downstream 
considerations and view dissemination and valorisât n as constraints 
now put upon them by the specific programmes. They /en ^ orry about 
research money being taken away from their resear ». f c-ne others, 
however, have become aware of the importance of tL*» role of RTD ir 
nurturing innovation processes in industry through ad hoc processes. 
They understand that natural spill-over from research projects into the 
economy does not take place automatically. Nevertheless, the relative 
emphasis is still on RTD per se, not on innovation. 
2.3. Innovation is not just a Spill-over of RTD 
Innovation in a company, especially an SME, relies on the synergistic 
combination of a variety of factors: some perception of a market need only 
partially satisfied, some recognition of technologies which might be 
useful, some development capability, the managerial ability to run a 
project, the availability of a network of partners in the environment 
(suppliers, engineering, consultants, professionals, educational 
institutions, i.e. "technische Dienstleister"), the capacity to find adequate 
funding as well as to train existing human resources and/or hire new 
competence, the will to adapt the organisation accordingly, etc. 
This view is similar to the illustration in the SPRINT final evaluation 
report and shown here as Figure 2 below. 
m 
SME PARTNERS 
CONSULTANTS 
INNOVATION POUCY / II~ \ TECHNICAL RESOURCE 
PUBLIC FINANCIAL SUPPORT/ LJX \ CENTRES 
RTO 
FINANCIAL SYSTEM \ . ^ J / ADVISERS IN TECHNOLOGICAL 
INNOVATION 
OTHER SMEs 
As can be easily understood, the "technology push" approach behind 
VALUE can fulfil at best only a very small part of the innovation agenda. 
2.4. Recognising Innovation as a Risky Business for the Firm 
The firm is the place where innovation really occurs. Innovation is a 
means to an end, namely competitiveness. It is a risky business for the 
firm trying to transform a need perceived in the market place into an 
opportunity. Firms do not enter innovation processes for fun, nor because 
it would be considered smart. Innovation involves a painful and complex 
process for the firm pressurised by a competitive environment, especially 
for SMEs. 
Whenever an innovation policy is designed, these simple elements 
should be kept in mind. 
2.5. From Technology-Push to Demand-Led Policies 
Seen from an RTD policy perspective, the dissemination of results is an 
important task as it aims to make scientific and technological progress 
accessible to firms. 
Seen from the promotion of innovation perspective, the best way to 
achieve this is to adopt a demand-led approach. However, the philosophy 
behind the framework programme and thus VALUE was more 
"technology push" oriented. While recognising that both RTD activities 
and innovation promotion are necessary and complementary, the panel 
advocates the latter perspective of innovation promotion rather than 
supply of RTD results. 
6ï 
As a matter of fact/one objective of a programme like VALUE and now 
the Third Activity is to contribute to changing the culture of both RTD 
players and firms so that they understand each other increasingly and thus 
join forces through collaborative ventures and projects. In this respect a 
small programme like VALUE could be considered as the catalyst of a 
change process. A good example of this is the co-ordinating role now 
played by the Third Activity for the specific programmes, helping RTD 
actors pay more attention to downstream concerns, utilisation of results 
and effective innovation. Moreover, this view essentially confirms in a 
positive manner that VALUE has been a programme with little resources 
and a big agenda. 
2.6. Generating a Variety of Expertise rather than "Off-the-Shelf-Technology" 
It should be stressed that whenever technology is the missing link, the 
innovating company will be looking less for "that piece of technology'' as 
if it were available off-the-shelf, but rather for some technical expertise to 
solve the problem encountered, and in a timely and cost-effective fashion. 
What RTD activities generate is not so much directly usable results but 
enhanced competence. RTD should be considered less as a supplier of 
technologies and more as source of scientific and technical expertise. In 
addition, most innovations actually combine a set of sub-technologies 
requiring a variety of competences. The necessary division of science into 
disciplines is thus inappropriate to the jigsaw nature of real life 
innovations. 
At the outset of programmes, therefore, innovation cannot be expected to 
follow naturally, as a simple continuation of RTD activities. This thus 
leads to the horizontal nature of VALUE, integrating the programmes and 
operating as a technology broker. 
2.7. Innovation Extends beyond Technology 
Whenever the promotion of innovation is related to RTD programmes, 
this relationship tends to identify VALUE-SPRINT/Third Activity with 
technological innovations; yet there is an increasing awareness of the not 
purely technical aspects of innovation: organisational and social 
dimensions tend to play a very important role in innovation. Some argue 
that these "soft" aspects even constitute barriers to change in many cases 
and thus should be treated with much more care. The panel feels that 
separating these aspects from the Third Activity (e.g. the targeted socio­
economic research programme) will result in dealing solely with the body 
(hardware matters) on the one hand and "soul" on the other. The panel 
would suggest reconciling and integrating both sets of dimensions. 
64 
2.8. Adopting a Variety of Approaches and Promoting Experience Sharing 
Across Borders 
While dissemination /valorisation of RTD results implies the 
management of concrete projects and the establishment of highly visible 
tools (e.g. the Relay Centers), the promotion of an environment 
favourable to innovation and the enhancement of technology absorption 
by enterprises may lead to Community activities which appear less 
tangible but still real since they contribute mainly to managerial practice 
and cultural changes among RTD actors and firms. The panel thus 
suggests combining both approaches with real, down-to-earth projects on 
the one hand and more organisational contribution on the other. 
In addition, the diversity of experience gained throughout the Union and 
at Commission level favours experience sharing across borders and thus 
Commission involvement. 
Different regions of Europe may save much time and energy by 
exchanging information, etc. among themselves, including with more 
advanced regions and countries where national schemes have been tested 
over the years. These activities could therefore reinforce the economic 
and social cohesion of the Union. In addition, it is felt that both the aim 
and scope of an innovation policy should combine the local/regional level 
and the continent-wide perspective. 
2.9. Reaching SMEs in a Decentralised Way 
Furthermore, it is well known that these activities of innovation 
promotion benefit SMEs only when they take place in their local 
environment. 
The promotion of innovation needs to be adapted to each context. 
Promoting innovation is as complex a process as innovation itself. 
Approaches, tools and instruments should thus match the characteristics 
of each country, sector, type of firm, etc 
This leads to the adoption of a centralised perspective for such activities as 
well as to close co-operation with regional huriatives where ».he 
Community clearly has a role in promoting the exchange of best practices 
as well as in supporting local/experimental projects. 
2.10. Co-ordinating Initiatives 
Promoting innovation throughout the European social and economic 
fabric involves many different activities. While part of the RTD 
framework, the Third Activity already co-operates on regional policies in 
fO 
the context of structural funds. Industrial policy, financing or education, 
inter alia, are also clearly linked with this Activity. 
In addition, it is important to stress that the innovation process in Europe 
will only succeed (and therefore the competitiveness of European 
companies will only be upgraded) if all possible instruments (such as 
industrial, export, third country aid policies, etc.) at both the EU and 
Member States levels are utilised, in combination with the full potential 
of European technology. 
Innovation impacts directly and indirectly in many respects on the 
Union's citizens, affecting their way of life, their environment, 
employment conditions, etc. 
Conversely, as discussed earlier, innovation requires a variety of 
ingredients, not just a supply of technologies. The panel thus strongly 
supports the on-going co-operations between the Third Activity and other 
Community initiatives as they make it possible to demultiply the 
resources of the Third Activity while bringing adequate expertise to the 
corresponding functional domains of action of the Community. 
3. RECOMMENDATIONS 
The panel strongly advocates a major initiative dedicated to. the 
promotion of innovation. This initiative should not be regarded simply 
as an appendix to RTD activities. This initiative should work at increasing 
the awareness of companies throughout Europe about the potential 
benefits of innovation, the ways and means to proceed, the risks attached, 
the support that may be available in time and the best managerial and 
organisational practices stemming from past experience. This initiative 
should be awarded significant funding. The panel considers that 10% of 
the RTD budget is a much more relevant order of magnitude than the 
amounts allocated to past actions. 
Four major lines of action, both direct and indirect measures, should be 
envisaged to promote innovation throughout the Union while 
minimising the risks involved for individual firms: 
measures for facilitating innovation inside companies; 
measures to promote a climate favourable to innovation 
(infrastructure, networks e.g. science parks, financial tools, etc.); 
measures to stimulate the search, scanning, identification and 
recognition of market needs by firms, thus creating innovative 
opportunities; 
^ 
measures to help firms integrate the social and cultural dimensions 
of innovation, so that the social embedding of new activities into 
society can be pursued in an interactive, real time mode. 
New thinking and thus new actions on innovation need to emerge to 
make sure that the Union benefits from the corresponding expected gains 
in competitiveness. 
Innovation requires flexibility and speed. The panel emphasises that the 
management of measures designed to promote innovation should rely on 
flexible and time-efficient procedures. The panel suggests that the 
Commission consider specifically streamlined administrative procedures, 
adapted to the requirements of innovation. 
The panel points out the risk of having the Third Activity within the RTD 
framework as it gives the wrong impression that innovation could be 
considered basically a technical matter and a downstream addendum to 
RTD activities. The panel suggests strongly that this initiative should be 
recognised clearly as a top priority and wishes to raise political awareness 
in the Community. 
& 
ANNEXES 
V3 
ANNEX I 
VALUEn 
Council Decision 
29 AprU 1992 
23. 5. 92 Official journal of the European Communities NolHi/i 
li 
(Acts whose publication is not obligatory) 
COUNCIL 
COUNCIL DECISION 
of 29 April 1992 
on the dissemination and exploitation of knowledge resulting from the specific programmes of 
research and technological development of the Community 
(92/272/EEC) 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, snû is particular Article 130q (2} 
thereof. out activities in die coal and steel sector which do not form 
part of the Framework Programme for research and 
technological development, the results of which must be 
disseminated and used by means of suitable separate 
activities, using the resources of the ECSC 'operating 
budget'; 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (*), 
In cooperation with the European Parliament (2), 
Having regard to the opinion of the Economie and Social 
Corxunincc (3), " . t 
Whereas Article I30g (c) of the Treaty states that the 
Community, complementing the activities carried out in the 
Member States, is to cany out activities for the 
dissemination and optimization of the results of aaivirics in 
Community research, technological development and 
demonstration; 
Whereas the second paragraph of Article 130k of the 
Treaty stipulates that the Council shall define the detailed 
arrangements for the dissemination of knowledge resulting 
from the specific programmes; Whereas, by its Decision 90/221/Euratom, ££C(*), the 
Council adopted a third Framework Programme for 
Community activities in the field of research and 
technological development (1990 to 1994), specifying, 
inter /ilia, the activities to be pursued for developing the 
scientific knowledge and technical know-how needed by 
the Community and providing that the dctaDcd 
arrangements for the dissemination of the knowledge 
gained, in particular the définition and the implementation 
of the centralized action, should be the subject of a Council 
Decision; 
Whereas, pursuant to Article < and Annex 1 of Decision 
90/221/Euratom, EEC, the amount deemed necessary for 
the whole Framework Programme includes an amount oi 
ECU 57 million for the exploitation and dissemination 
of knowledge resulting form the specific R & D 
programmes; 
Whereas the Treaty establishing the European Coal and 
Steel Community stipulates that-thc Commission is to carry 
(') OJ No C 53, 28. 2. 1991. p. ?0. 
(*) OJ NoC 0.2C. 1. "0?2. p. 75;andDcdiionof 8 April 1992 Whe.rc**;.d..: fvraiom Treaty contains detailed provision: 
for.xhè^disstminatiort.of.-information which apply, mu 
alia; to nuclear research programme*; 
V •s 
NoL 141/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 23.5.92 
Whereas the decisions relating to the research and training 
programmes in the fields of controlled thermonuclear 
fusion (1990-1994) and nuclear fission safety (1990-1994), 
together with the activities undertaken by the Joint 
Research Centre in the field of nuclear research, envisage 
that the amount estimated as necessary as the contribution 
of these programmes to the present -centralized action for 
the dissemination and exploitation of results is ECU 6,57 
million; 
Whereas the dissemination of knowledge and exploitation 
of results should be dealt with in a coherent manner; 
Whereas « is necessary to ensure the coherence of schemer, 
for disseminating the knowledge resulting from specific 
programmes in the Framework Programme; whereas such 
coherence must be based on general rules which guarantee 
the protection of the legitimate interests of the public and 
private contracting parties and of the rights linked to the 
obtaining and exploitation of the results, as well as their 
exploitation in conformity with the Community's interests, 
in particular with respect to its economic and social 
cohesion; 
Whereas, in order to improve the insertion of Community 
research into a broader context and to opumixe the 
utilization of the knowledge which results from it, it is 
important that the centralized action should both intensify 
its emphasis on the research-industry interface and widen 
its scope to the rcscarch-science and rcscarch-soacTy 
interfaces; Whereas Decision 90/221/Euratom, EEC provides that a 
particular aim of Community research must be to 
strengthen the scientific and technological basis of 
European industry and to encourage it to become more 
competitive at international level; whereas it also provides 
that Community action is justified where research 
contributes, inter alia, to -the strengthen of the economic 
and social cohesion of the Community and to the 
promotion of its overall harmonious development, while 
being consistent with the pursuit of scienrific and technical 
excellence; whereas the present action is looked upon as 
contributing to the achievement of these objectives; 
Whereas small and mcdium-sircd enterprises (SMEs) 
should be involved to the maximum extent possible in this 
action; whereas account should be taken of thcu spcoj] 
rcquucmcnis, without prejudice to the scientific and 
technical quality of the programme; 
Whereas, in accordance with Article 130g of the Treaty, 
the Community's activities aimed at strengthening the 
scientific and technological basis of European industry and 
encouraging it to become more compcuavc include 
promoting cooperation on research and technological 
development with third countries and intenudotul 
organizations; whereas such cooperation may prove 
particularly bcnefidal for the development of this action; 
Whereas the Sdcntific and Technical Research Commince 
(Crest) has delivered its opinion. 
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: 
Whereas it is desirable to cooperate with existing networks 
for the dissemination and the promotion of innovation and 
to encourage new networks where these do not exist; Article J 
Whereas links with complementary mechanisms for 
downstream exploitation should also be developed, in 
particular with the Eureka initiative; 
Whereas, in the context of this action, an assessment 
should be made of the economic and social impact as well 
as of any eventual technological risks; 1. The dissemination and exploitation of knowledge shall 
be carried out as part of the specific programmes and by 
means of a centralized action. 
2. The centralized action, as defined in rjint:. ?, shall 
ensure overall coordination and coherence in the field 
covered by the Framework Programme. It is adopted for 
the period running from 29 April 1992 to 31 December 
1994. 
Whereas basic research in the field of the dissemination and 
exploitation of R ôc D knowledge must be encouraged 
throughout the Community; 
Vnciras. in addition to the specific programme concerning 
human rcso. rces' an mobility. « «s necessary 10 encodage 
_i --.,^,,-t, ,..„,t,rT,, .~ »'•«. —««<-*( of this AmcU 2 
1. The amount of Community expenditure deriving irom 
the levies on the fu-.-ri:. estimate»! as necessary for the 
execution pi the~spcofte* programmes, "with a viev/ TO the 
implementation of the centralized action established by this 
Decision, is estimated "<» ECU 57 mill.on. including 
c :>rndiiorc on ssaff ar. ; adrr.jr.'sirjnon amounting IO ECU 
^6 
23. 5. 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No L Hl/3 
2. An indicative allocation of funds is set out in 
Annex U. 
3. If the Council takes a decision pursuant to Article 1 (4) 
of Decision 90/221 /Euratom, EEC, this Decision shall be 
adapted accordingly. 
Article 3 
Detailed rules for the implementation of the programme 
and the amout of the Community's financial contribution 
arc set out in Annex 111. The representative of the Commission shall submit to the 
committee a draft of the- measures to be taken. The 
committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft within a 
time limit which the chairman may lay down according to 
the urgency of the matter. The opinion shall be delivered 
by the majority laid down in Article 148 (2) of the Treaty 
in the case of decisions which the Council is required to 
adopt on a proposal from the Commission. The votes of 
the representatives of the Member States within the 
committee shall be weighted in the manner set out in that 
Article. The Chairman shall not vote. 
The Commission shall adopt the measures envisaged if they 
arc in accordance with the opinion of the committee. 
Article 4 
1. In the course of the second year of the implcmentatior 
of the action, the Commission shall review it and send : 
rcpon on the results of its review ot the Europcar 
Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Socii 
Committee; die rcpon shall be accompanied, wher 
necessary, by proposals for amendment of the acnoc. 
2. At the end of the action, an evaluation of the results 
achieved shall be conducted for the Commission by ; 
Group of independent experts. The Croup's rcpon, 
together with the Ccmmission's comments, shall be 
submitted to the European Parliament, the Council and the 
Economic and Social Committee. If the measures envisaged arc not in accordance with the 
opinion of the committee, or if no opinion is delivered, the 
Commission shall, without delay, submit to the Council a 
proposal relating to the measures to be taken. The Couna] 
shall an by a qualifiée! majority. 
If, on the expiry of a period of three months bom referral 
of the matter to the Council, the latter has not acted, the 
proposed measures shall be adopted by the Commission. 
Article 7 
3. The reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be 
established having regard to the objectives set out in Annex 
1 tc this Decision and in accordance with Article 2 (4) of 
Decision 90/221/Euratom, EEC. 1. The procedure laid down in Article 6 shall apply to: 
— the preparation and updating of the work programme 
referred to in Article 5 (2), 
— the contents of the calls for proposals. 
Article S 
1. The Commission shall be responsible for th< 
implementation of the action. 
2. A work programme shall be drawn up tn accordar.ee 
with the aims set out in Annex 1 and updated wh.trt 
necessary. It shall set out the detailed objectives and types 
of projects to be undertaken, and the finança: 
arrangements to be made for them. The Commission sr.il: 
make calls for proposals for projects on the basis of tr.t 
work programme. — the assessment of the projects proposed and rhe 
estimated amount of the Community's cooeribuboû to 
them, where this amount exceeds ECU 150 000, 
— departures from the general rules set out in Annex 111, 
— any adaptation of the indicative breakdown of the. 
amount set out in Annex 11, 
— the measures to be undertaken to evaluate the acaorj, 
— measures for implementing the rules laid down v 
Article 8. 
Article 6 
F*»- 0-.f execution of this action, insofar as it relates to the 
specific prc;^r»mmcs based on Article l30q (2) of :'.< 
Treaty, the Comiy.'ssion shall be assisted **v a conir.incc 2. Where, pursuant to the thiiw rr'^t of oaragiaph 1, d 
amount of the Communiry contribution ts- less than < 
equal to, ECU 150 000, the Commission shall inform u 
committee of the projects and concerted aaions andof i: 
Outcome of theu assessment. The Commission shall al 
inform ilir oommmcc of ihr implement anon of I 
H 
NoL l41/< Official Journal of the European Communion 23:5.92 
Article 8 
For the execution of this action, insofar as it relates to the 
dissemination and exploitation of knowledge resulting 
from the specific programmes based on/oriclc 130a (2) of 
the Treaty, hereinafter referred to as "knowledge*, the 
following rules, while respecting prc-cxisring rights, shall 
apply: 
(a) the knowledge resulting from work undertaken 
duecily or the cost of which is wholly supported by 
the Community shall in principle be the property of 
the Community. 
The; knowledge resulting from work under a 
shared-cost contract shall be the properry of the 
contractors who carry out the work. They shall agree 
between themselves on particular arrangements for 
such ownership; 
(b) knowledge which could be used in an industrial or 
commercial application, if its nature jusaiics such a 
measure," shall be protected in any appropriate form to 
the extent required in the light of the interests of the 
Community and its co-contractors and in accordance 
with any applicable legislation or convention; 
(c) the Community and its co-contractors shall be 
required to exploit the knowledge in. their possession, 
or have it exploited, in conformity with the 
Community's interests and taking full account of 
the objective of strengthening the international 
compenoveness of European industry and the 
economic and social cohesion in the Community; 
(d) knowledge belonging to the Community shall be made 
available to its co-cootractors and to interested third 
parries established in the Community who undertake 
to exploit it, or have it exploited, in conformity with the Community's interests. Such provision of 
knowledge may be subject to appropriate conditions, 
particularly œoeerning the payment of fees. 
All conn-actors shall make the knowledge in then-
possession, together with any information necessary 
for its use, available to the co-coacractors and to 
interested third parties under contractually defined 
conditions, provided that the interests of the 
Community and the lcgidmatc interests of its 
co-contractors arc safeguarded; 
(c) the Commission shall ensure that knowledge suitable 
for dissemination according to the concracrual terms is 
disseminated or published cither by the Commission 
use!! or by its co-contractors, without any restriction 
oihcr than those imposed by die need to safeguard 
imellcCTuaJ and industrial property, confidcnoaliry or 
IcgKimatc commercial interests. 
The Commission shall lay down the arrangements for 
implementing the rules laid down in the first subparagraph 
of this Article, in accordance with the procedure described 
in Artidc 6. 
Article 9 
This Decision is addressed to the Member States. 
Done at Luxembourg, 29 April 1992.. 
For the Council 
The President 
• Luii VALENTE DE OUVEIRA 
n 
23. 5. 92 Official journal of rhe Europcaa Communities. No L H1/5 
ANNEXI 
OBJECTIVES AND TECHNICAL CONTENT 
The general aim of the eennaiued anion lo< tnc dissemination and exploitation of knowledge resulting from 
Commumry research a ou vines, earned ow ytïdc? dits aexson. it to give spcahc added vaJue to the R ôé D 
activities which axe the subject of the thud Fsamework Frogrammc (or 1990 to 1994. On ibc one hand, u 
provider the necessary conassuiry for wmt at the. measures carried out unda the VaJuc programme; on the 
other, u introduces new topics cjaaccm-zà p-u-neuiariy "-nth the rcpescussions of research and technological 
development acovmcs and thaï toui''. oc «>Cîcr; ai i -» hole. 
Tins centralized anion «% to be r.onduoc<5 ^ auoiàno *tm die following guiding principles 
(a) HoruuntaLty 
Measures to publish a_nd uolux tes-card? resuhi must apply to the whole tartge of Coramuiury R fie 0 
activities, coveted by the Comtnowry Frimc-otk Pioysmmc, a?cspcaj*c of the narvrc of rrogjamracs. 
the persons involved and the jdjuwjiiiKiO'X authonues rcspons.-blc. Tots cru en on wJJ be implemented 
through coordination a/td Laivon berv^ctt- RID *r.-cc<hc ptogrif.imcs and ine ccnualncd acuoo. 
(b) Internal cotnplccneoianry 
Tbe cm trained a ex» on will onorthaatr int supplement OK meajajres ciiea under ose specific RTD 
programmes. It will aJso concrctïT" oa *cr,vsti« reouuTBg spccuJ mbasmucrùrc and '.Vil It (ooenpoxcnzod 
tnionnaaoo vyHcms, 3 crtwofV ui Vchsy rx-'ooas", ex.) ot spxaaJ capabilities for aansfernng know-how 10 
fields of activity m other -"IjCiplmet. 
<c) Subsidiaries 
Tl.c ccntraJucd acooo wijj build on the synergies between Ooocunaki^d (public and private) and 
Community R &. D aenvincs and is designed, ki eonjuncrioo with other Corucaurury measure and in 
cooperation wtih the naaonal and regional authonocs responsible, to establish a coherent tncchanrsrn for 
the unjixaoon and transfer of the tccbnologies and the know-how obtained bora research and technological 
development, using, wherever passable, the existing structures in Member States. 
As far as the content of the prevent acooo is cotuemed, those measures already hunched co forge doscx links 
berween research and industry wiil be supplemented by other new measuia designed to forge clover links 
berwecn research and loacty and between research and the soenobc cotarnumry. These arc measures which 
rcQect the DC* scientific and sechnologica] ©bjccrivGs and coosaraiaa ter by tociery and in uuoarooca, and rise 
increasing interest in the mtcrdisapUnary approach to research and tedsnologkaJ devcloptacai tombe». Ar thi» 
nage, and now that so aebviocs art more dortJoped. crus cxn a allied acnoo -«.-ÛJ tocorporatc dvese no* topics 
into IG conceptual and operaaonaj fraxnewofk. 
Detailed objecuves for the cenoaJued action, irxiuding measurable targets and rrulestones, v»ol] be devenbed in 
workplans, which vnij be subtnmed annually to the comnstrtcc. 
1. RESEARCH-D^DUSTRY rNTERfACE 
The aim «s to help to «mprovc the tntemanonal cornpedriveness ot Europe's industry in accordance with 
the provisions of the Trary by means 00 specihc piojcas designed to truumuc the impact of Commumry 
R Ik D activities on industry as a whole 
For this purpose, the networks and partnerships berween companies and laboraioncs from the different 
countries which result from the Community R&D programmes consonne an imponant clement of the 
mechanism set up for th< djsseroirkjoon and exploitanon of their results. 
1 
No L Kl/6 Officiai Journal of the European Cotiunuoiàcs 23. 5. 92 
protect their findings in certain cases where, for example, chcy lack the ncccsury expertise and arc unable 
to obtain this through the usual nanonaj and commercial channels, and at the same tune help them to 
exploit and promote such findings. The following measures arc proposed: 
1.1. New channels of iaiormaooo 
(a) Ncusork of telsy centres 
A ncrwor* of relay ceo ties will be vet up to promote the disseminaoor. and crploitaooo of 
Community R&D results, while taking into account, and building on, the cacrarg srxucrurej in 
Member States designed for the some purpose. The relay cencrcv will have speoal access to 
Community mformaoon, under the control of the Commission, and will have as their mam task the 
tailonng and interpretation of this information to local needs, especially in relation to companies, 
particularly SMEs. universities and research involutes. The specific needs of ir.e more peripheral and 
least-favoured areas of the Community wùM alvo be taken into account. 
^hile giving full consideration to local needs and orcumsrances. the fol)o«--.r;r activities, inter oLs 
may be undertaken by the relay ccnucv 
— the dissemmauon of mformaoon on Community programmes and calls for proposals, 
-— identihcanoQ of opportunities for parnopanon in Comrouniry Rfc D programmes, and general 
guidance to candidates in the preparation of proposals, 
— facilitating the inicrprctaoon and disscminaoon of Community programme results for target 
audiences and local firms, 
— promotion of the exploitation of the research resula with potentially ia:crested enterprises, 
— assistance to organizations which have produced results in the idcnrificaoon of exploitation' 
opportuntoes at a European level and market research possibilities, -
— providing information on specialized agencies dealing with mtellecrual property and legal 
( protecoon of results, 
— providing information on possibilities for financial support. 
Competent naoonal authorities and the scientific, technical and industrial community will help the 
Commission to select the relay centres in the Member States and to define their specific tasks. 
The relay centres will, at the outset, analyse cuxrent practice on dissemination and exploitation, 
identify ne» approaches, where necessary, and formulate a Plan of Acnoc with specific targets. 
1.1. (b) Basic Sennce 
A user-friendly computerized information service colled Cordis will become available in 1992. After 
1992. and depending on the results of a detailed evaluation, the aim of the ccnoalued action will be 
to update and expand the Cordis informaDon service. The service could provide new functions and 
continue to expand using new sources of iniormaoon, harmonize and/or integrate databases, use 
electronic storage devices (CD-ROM and video diva) and develop user-frier.dly systems for clccnooic 
data exchange in cooperanon with related Community programmes. 
Tne development of computerized methods docs not exclude the use of more traditional methods 
such as the publication of bullcnns and bibliographies which will provide wider access to tnformanon 
servies 
Utilization of results 
This activity, which was already started in the Value programme, should be extended to the new fields 
covered bv the Framework Programme and developed «n line wiuS the results that txcome-available in the 
vcats ahead. This means utilizing the research and development results of which the Communery is the 
nwnn anj. where needed. hclp«*»c «e «.I'thzc the .evults of research and development projects undertaken 
o« » «har: :-„c.. UJSIS. »n «he latter cave. IT»C 3«m will be to help contractors v.ho do not have .s««<*ioeni 
expertise, in particular the universities, research i«.-".«rules and SMEs. to take advantage of ih< rcsulrs of 
- . _.t „„.l .„ i..i„ ._ _ .„ .,., ,1,,. C^rr-m,...^ A V D r^uU-, cnidc 
23. 5. 92 Official journal of the European Communities - No L Hl/7 
The work to be undertaken could take different forms, depending on each specific ose, as follow*; 
— identifying, controlling and appraising the results of research in order to develop and target 
utilization plans, 
— finding licensees, including for the JRC and, more generally, parties interested in utilizing results, 
— providing adequate financing support for srudics or tests and experimental developments. 
This word w\Ji be earned out with the help of outside experts and competent organuanons tn the 
Member States. 
1.3. Protectioo of results 
The protection of results belonging to the Community and management oi the patents portfolio that it 
holds wijl be continued, as in the past, through systematic cxanunaoon of the final reports and results 
obtained by the JRC. The activities described below, winch have already been started in the Value 
programme, will be developed more intensively by the centralized action. 
Those universines, research centres and SMJEs which do not have access to patenong expertise will, on 
request, be provided with aid by the cenrralued action. It will supply expertise on patents and financial 
support limned to the costs of searches for prior claims to novelty and first patent applications. 
Public awareness campaigns may also be organized on the importance of protection results for the 
research socnosu partieipaong in communiry R&D programmes. 
1 4. Protnouonal activities 
Promotion on the results could take the following form: 
— financial support for organizations making an active contribution to the promotion of results and. iri 
general, for organizations within a transnaboaal network set up in order to facilitate, promote and 
coordinate access to Cornmunity programmes, 
— organxzaoon of seminars, cooicreoccs and other means of oommunicaooo, including in aosobatioo 
with the topecove bodies in the Member States and. in parocular, with the "relay centres', 
— artendance of trade fairs. 
Specific acbviàcs arc planned to provide economic and social cohesion in regions where dissemination 
2j\â udkubon structures do not exist or arc still in their infancy. 
II INTERJACE BETWEEN RESEARCH AND THE SCŒNTTJF1C COMMIJNTTY 
The ob|ccbvc of the activities under this beading is to contribute to mtcrdisdpunary reOecnoo m relation 
to research, IU methods, problems and impact. Such acovibcs will be scrucnired around the following 
four areas: 
11.1. General context of research * 
The 2\rr. is to study the coosaaints and/or opporrunibes for the disscminaoon and crploitaoon of R 6c D 
acnvices applying the dtscipbnes of law, poliocol sciences, sooal and human soenccs. Examples of topics 
to be considered could be; 
— his:ory and comparabve analysis of public and private research structures. 
— aspects of avil and public law, mainly in respect of intellectual property nghrs. 
— intcrnanonal rules on scientific and technological infonmabon. 
U.2. Cocaraunicaooo of research 
The obiee»^- i« i-» •_-upvc-'«. i*»e communication of research towards tes various UKU..by obiain>*~^ -
oenei understanding of communication pann—v Disciplines of a voooruhuial nnuir w»1' play an 
o ^\ 
No L HI/8 OfficiaJ Journal of the European C^rrununicics 23. 5. ^2 
11.3. Ecooonxia of research 
Macrocconotnic insxrumencs and business sciences must be used to determine the optimum use of 
resources to be channelled into research as pan of general economic development objeenves and company 
objectives. Taking account also of studies conducted in other contexts, the cost/benefit aspects of the 
cycle of research and development, and the economic obstacles to its cxploitabon. will be examined, in 
particular wuh a view to main opbmal use of the financial resources allocated under the third Framework 
Programme. 
II «. Management of research 
The overall ob|ccovc is to promote knowledge of best practice in the management of R 6c D in order to 
contribute to better cxploitabon of results. Management studies will help with the orgoruzaooo of 
research and laboratory management. They can make a concribuboo to project management, 
admintsoaovc procedures and methods of management. Particular anenbon will be paid to subjects 
relating to decentralized management and making more efficient use of human resources ta the 
departments which manage research. Comparative studies will be conducted on the different 
management models used by universities and idustnal research insotutes. 
ill INTERJACE BETwT.EN RESEARCH AND SOCIETY 
1 his heading covers measures designed to idenbfy and study the unpad on soocry of the new scientific 
and technological knowledge, acquired as a result of Community acbivines, especially where the 
interaction between science and technology, on the one hand, and society, on the other, is particularly 
critical. The aim is to spread socnnGc know-how widely through Europe in order to seek to ensure that 
changes in the contemporary approach to voencr arc compatible with developments in soacry. 
To this end, it should take its place in an efficient ùitcracbve process cenxsisong of the following stages: 
research, research results, pubbc perception and reaction, .assessment of .social impaa.-mociiEcaooQ of 
research acovibcs where necessary. In order to ensure that this procedure works effectively, close h"W 
will have to be forged across the board with the specific study programmes developed prior to the 
policy-making process. Wherever possible, acovioes will be based on the work of, and executed in close 
coordinaoon with, existing organizabons in the Member States. The centralized acboo will be m three 
parts. 
Ul.l. Contribution to assessment of the social impact of science and technology 
In coniuncoon with the mote specific abvioes provided for in the individual specific programmes and 
with the acb vibes of the Monitor programme, more general "technology assessment' schemes will be 
developed. Those areas which will be specially monitored and studied arc not only those which relate to 
the cxplouaoon of new tcchoologics affecting health, safety and the environment, but also ethical and 
legal quesnons relating to the cxploitabon of results. 
ill.2. Coovmuntcauoa with the public 
The ceoa alued acboo will make use of channels of communicabon, particularly the mass m*dia, to 
provide informaoon for (he public, building on existing strucrures in Member Scares, wncrc appropriate, 
use could be made of the relay ccoorcs menooncd under 1.1. (a). 
III.3 Analysing pubbc demand and new rcquircroenu 
In coniunction wuh other programmes concerned, including the Monitor programmes ('). the centralized 
action will provide srudics and surveys designed to identify the latest social needs, through its direct 
contact with actual or potcnoal users of the knowledge resulting from R 6c D programmes. 
*$>% 
23. 5. 92 Official Journal of the European Communities NoL M1/9 
ANNEXU 
INDICATIVE BREAKDOWN OF EXPENDITURE 
(ECU -*A«>n) 
I. Research•mduscry interface 
U. R eve arch-vQcnofic commumry interface 
ID. Rcvearch-soaety interface 50 
4 
3 
57('l 
(') Inducjnr, crprodirurr on «iff amounting to ECU •* million and admnufuative crpcndiiuic totalling ECU 5 CiJJiOO. 
The breakdown between different areas does not exclude the possibibry that projects could cover several 
areas. 
€^> 
No L 141/10 Official journal of the European Communities ~ 23.5.92 
ANNEX «I 
RULES FOR IMPLEMENTINC THE ACTION 
1. The Commission will implement the action on the basis of the sdcnbfic and technical content described in 
Annex 1. It will apply the accumulated experience and best practice of both European and internaoonal 
experts in this field. 
2. The rules (or implementing the acboo. referred to in Article 3, comprise pro jeers, cooccncd acboos and ' 
accompanying measures. Sdecboo of projects must take account of the criteria listed in Annex 111 to 
Decision 90/221 /Euratom, EEC and of the objectives set out in Annex I to this programme. 
— PlOICCIS 
The projects will be the subject of sha/cd-cost concracrs and Community financial paniopaoon which 
wdJ not normally be more than 50 *L. Univcrsines and other research centres parocipaong in 
shared-cost projects will have the opnon of requesting, for each prO|CCt. either 50 % funding of total 
expenditure or 100 *A funding of the additional marginal costs. 
Shared-cost projects roust, as a general rule, be carried out by participants established in the 
., Community, for example univcrsibes. revcach organizations and industrial firms, including small and 
medium-sized enterprises. Concracrs relating to shared-cost projects must as a general rule be concluded 
following a sélection procedure based on caL's for proposals published in the Official Journal of the 
European Communities. 
— Coooencd acxiocu 
Concerted acboos consist of acboo by the Commumry to coordinate the individual aebvibes carried out 
in the Member States. Tbey may benefit from funding of up to 100 "l> of coordxnabng expenditure. 
— Accompanying measures 
The accompanying measures referred to in Article 7 will in particular be implemented through: 
— the organizaboo of seminars, workshops and soenbiic conferences; 
— internal coordiruboo through the crcaooo of integrating groups; 
— independent scientific and strategic evaiuaoon of the opcraoon of the projects and the acboo; 
— conrnbunon to studies and enquiries. 
V' Scj 
VALUE-n-5/DOC-i 
MH) TERM REVIEW OF TAB CENTRALIZED ACTION (VALUE g) 
The Council Decision of 29 April 1992 or: the disseminarion and exploitation of knowledge 
resulting from the specific programmes of research and technological development of the 
Community, foresees in Article 4, paragraph one tbar "in the course of the second year of the 
implementation of the action, a review of it by ihe Ccrsmission and foresees that a report on 
die results of this review be sent to the Eir:pean Pêjiiaine.p.t, the Council ?v.à ihe Economic 
and Social Coniiniiteè". 
Due to the faa thai VALUE II is is pin a continuation of the VALUE t programme, and th2i 
the final evaluation of VALUE I takes ztect cLinng ihe same period, the Commission services 
su£2-£$i tiiat the saine panel of independent tx"pens evaluating VALUE 1 be asked to review 
VALUE II activities. 
In compliance with Article 7, psraercph i. sixth been: of the afoR aid 'Councu Decision, 
Coramitîee opinion is asked on tins suggestion 
The proposed terms of reference for the mic-tenn review of Value II are attached (Annex Ï). 
The Composition of the panel is also ar^chid (Annex U). 
:çr 
ANNEX II 
Final Evaluation 
Terms of Reference 
£6 
TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE FINAL 
EVALUATION OF THE CENTRALISED ACTION 
(VALUE II) 
In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Council Decision at the end of the 
action, an evaluation of the results achieved shall be conducted for the 
Commission by a Group of independent experts. The Group's report, together 
with the Commission's comments, shall be submitted to the European 
Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee. 
To conduct this final evaluation, the Commission services will be assisted by a 
group of independent experts, hereafter referred to as the panel. 
The panel will assess the extent to which the results achieved contribute to the 
objectives of the Centralised Action (VALUE H) and that of the Third Framework 
Programme (1990-1994) notably through: 
strengthening the scientific and technological base of European industry 
(including SMEs) so that it can become more competitive internationally; 
contributing to the dissemination and exploitation of results K of 
Community RTD activities (towards SMEs in particular) thus 
demonstrating the added value of those RTD results; 
contributing to the implementation of the internal market, to the 
reinforcement of the economic and social cohesion of the Community and 
to the strengthening of European science and technology; 
complement the action of the Member States, particularly with regard to 
the setting up of a network of relay centres. 
The panel will also assess the efficiency and effectiveness with which the 
programme has been managed and promoted. 
This evaluation will take into account for each type of activity, the results 
achieved and their relation to the human and financial resources allocated to it. 
The new activities of VALUE II (Relay Centres and Interfaces II and in) will be 
reviewed more in depth. Qualitative or quantitative indicator will be used 
whenever possible. 
The panel is invited to make recommendations to the Commission. 
E^f-
ANNEX III 
Executive Summary of the 
Evaluation of the VRCs 
EVALUATION OF VALUE RELAY CENTRES 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
In response to the recommendation of the Mid-term Review for Programme VALUE II, 
General Directorate XIII-D of the European Commission (EC) decided in October 1994 
to proceed to a detailed evaluation of the VALUE Relay Centres (VRCs) by four 
external experts. 
The EC decision stipulated also that: 
1. "the evaluation exercise should be flexible, easy to implement and have a rather 
qualitative than quantitative character. 
2. each VRC should be visited and evaluated by one of the independent experts. 
3. the heterogeneity and varied approaches used for the implementation of the Relay 
Centres place the same importance on all activities developed to date". 
The evaluation started in December 1994 and has been practically completed early 
February 1995. During this period, the evaluators: 
1. visited all 27 VRCs and discussed with their principal staff their work; 
2. studied the progress reports prepared by each VRC and collected ancillary 
information from the VALUE Relay Service Central Co-ordination Unit; 
3. studied 1992 EC documentation on the concept and contractual tasks of VALUE 
Relay Centres; 
4. analysed in various ways the data obtained from of the Users' Survey conducted by 
VALUE Relay Service Central Co-ordination Unit during the evaluation period; 
and 
5. held few meetings for discussing extensively the approach and other aspects of the 
evaluation exercise. 
In view of the innovative character of the VRC exercise and the diversity of business 
environments in which this exercise unfolded during 1993 and 1994, the evaluators set 
themselves three principal targets: 
First, to reveal whether each VRC: 
• identified the needs of its operational environment, 
• formulated a coherent strategy to meet somehow this demand, 
and 
• employed effectively its human and financial resources. 
Second, to identify: 
• the essential elements of the upstream, downstream, networking and promotional 
activities carried out by each VRC; 
and 
• the global operational features of the VRC-Network. 
Executive Summary 
EVALUATION OF VALUE RELAY CENTRES 
Third, to: 
• give an overview of the methodologies and tools employed by all VRCs; 
• draw few general conclusions for the overall performance the VRCs; 
• recommend specific actions in relation to any major operational problems identified 
in the work of each VRC; 
and 
• devise a common frame of reference for presenting the level of experience attained 
by each VRC during their pilot operation. 
The outcome of the evaluators" work along the above three principal targets is 
presented in detail in the evaluation REPORT as well as in its confidential SUPPLEMENT, 
which addresses the latter two items of the above list. 
The present Executive Summary summarises below several main points with respect to 
the overall operation of all 27 VRCs. 
Criteria for the evaluation 
The evaluators attempted to deduce a rough, but still quite informative, assessment of 
the overall performance of each VRC. The criterion for this assessment has been the 
experience both gained and contributed by each VRC in implementing the challenging 
tasks given by the VALUE II programme at national and EC levels. 
Criteria for the evaluation of each VRC were the performance of the upstream and the 
downstream tasks according to the regulations of the contracts with the Commission. 
The performance can only be evaluated regarding the VRC and the host and the added 
VALUE of the VRC to the host's activities at the time of the analysis. 
The analysis of the individual VRC has been done regarding the following parameters: 
Mission in its environment 
Organization of host 
Organization of VRC 
Strategy, methodology, customers 
Upstream activities -
Downstream activities 
Networking 
Promotional activities 
When starting the network two years ago, the VRC system was completely new. Even 
now, it is still in the stage of dynamic foundation. Therefore, the evaluation criteria 
included the perspective of work of the VRC in relation to its host organization. 
Executive Summary 
EVALUATION OF VALUE RELAY CENTRES 
General comments 
Start-up phase 
• The innovative character of the VRC concept and the different interpretations of how 
to employ this concept across the European Union forced each VRC to devise an 
optimum response to the demand placed by its own business environment. Each 
VRC had to devise a specific strategy and to find methods and tools to work with. 
• Each VRC went through a learning process in devising its methods and tools of 
work. 
• Only a few of the VRCs systematically went through a preparatory stage. Many of 
the VRCs started their work straight away and start-up work (for example market 
analysis or staff training) was not done at all. There were various reasons for this: 
many of the VRCs were continuing work they had begun in the previous years. 
Many felt they had to satisfy the demands of the users straight away, as services of 
the VRC network had been promoted since the beginning of 1993 already. 
Despite these basic limitations most VRCs proved quite imaginative while the work 
caried out by all of them reveals much enthusiasm and a lot of effort. 
The VRC organizations, their strategies, their operational tools, their learning curves up 
to the state of productive work in the sense of the task placed by DGXIII and their 
further development dynamics are rather heterogeneous. These parameters 
characterizing the foundation and further development of the VRCs depend on the 
support by their host organizations, their local environment, the VRC personnel as well 
as on the resources granted by DGXIII. 
Tasks of the VRCs 
On the basis of the VRC specifications drawn up by the Programme Management 
Committee and the DGXIII, a workprogramme was devised that includes the following 
five tasks: 
• Promotion of Community RTD activities and the dissemination and exploitation of 
knowledge resulting from them 
• Specific tasks for the start up phase 
• Specific tasks for the launch 
• Co-ordination at national level 
• Network activities. 
The first two tasks describe in some detail the main objectives set for the first 2 years. 
More specifically, the first task defined the core and optional VRC activities, while the 
second task focused on the preparatory work required for setting a VRC in motion. 
Executive Summary 
EVALUATION OF VALUE RELAY CENTRES 
In contrast to this, the description of the co-ordination at national level and of 
networking activities left ample room for initiative. 
In the definition of the task, no clear preference is given to upstream or downstream 
activities. This remark is further supported by the fact that the Operational Plans 
devised by each VRC, initially approved and since then periodically put under scrutiny 
by the VRC Service Co-ordination Unit do not demonstrate any particular emphasis on 
downstream activities. 
Therefore, it was concluded, that 
• during the pilot phase each VRC was given the chance to devise an action plan that 
.- would best suit the needs of its operational environment. 
• This bottom-up approach introduced a very flexible way to implement the work of the 
VRCs. 
Support bv the EC 
Considerable financial and practical support has been given to the VRCs by the EC. A 
resource of particular importance is the VR Service. The main support instruments are: 
Information packages for the VRCs 
Level II and III sheets 
VACRO Days 
Training 
Networking 
Edition of calendar of events 
Information on EC research 
Mailing lists of Specific RTD 
Promotional Material 
Day to day follow up work 
Reporting 
There are some areas, for example information on sources of financing exploitation 
projects others than those of VALUE II, where the information from the VRS could be 
improved in the future. 
VR Service is a major constituent of the VRC system. It has been recognized by the 
VRCs and become an indispensable part of their work. However, VR Service was not 
subject of the present evaluation study. 
Service fields of the VRCs 
The essential elements of the upstream, downstream and promotional activities carried 
out by each VRC can be summarised as follows; 
VRCs offered their services basically in the following areas: 
• Proposal Preparation. 
Executive Summary 
^3^ 
• Partner Search 
• Sensitising Clients for RTD. 
• Information on EC-RTD. 
• Information on Exploitation Options 
• Detecting Exploitation Demand. 
• Sensitising Clients for Exploitation. 
• Exploitation Project Preparation 
VRC services have been usually provided via: 
• Targeted mailings. 
• Visits to companies. 
• Phone Help Line. 
• Venues, as e.g., Information Days, Technology Transfer Days, etc. 
VRC services diffused information mainly via: 
• Oral presentations at various venues. 
• Brochures providing an overview of services offered. 
• Flyers giving mainly the VRC contact details and a hint of its services. 
• Articles in the general as well as specialised press (newspapers, etc.). 
• Newsletters, published either the VRCs themselves or other organisations. 
• CORDIS, national or in house developed databases. 
Collecting and processing EC information proved a quite time c nsuming and costly 
business, in particular for VRCs far away from Brussels and Luxembourg. Translating 
of EC information material into native language turned out to be q >»te a heavy burden 
to small VRC teams. 
The VRCs have to fulfil a variety of very demanding tasks. Co-operation with the 
customers requires much work, technical knowledge and experience. This is even 
more true, the more the VRCs are involved in project work (upstream RTD project work 
or downstream exploitation project work). Possibilities are limited by the small number 
of VRC staff members. 
The VRCs tend to provide information activities, more upstream than downstream, 
rather than to do project work, be it on the proposal preparation or the exploitation 
project side of their tasks. This especially applies to VRCs which mainly worked in the 
upstream field as a host already. 
In this connection, the VRCs proved to be good promoters of CORDIS. Increasing 
demand for CORDIS is closely linked with the exploitation and dissemination of 
CORDIS by VRC marketing. 
• According to their limited resources, the VRCs have only about 6% of their capacity 
on an average in the field of project work for the exploitation of Community or other 
results. 
• It must be thought about how this situation can be improved. Connection of the 
VRCs with partners contributing technological, company-specific know-how and 
Executive Summary 
EVALUATION OF VALUE RELAY CENTRES 
expert knowledge is an important aspect. Only some VRC host organizations 
possess the experience required, in a more or less convincing manner. 
Consequently, relatively few concrete exploitation projects or success stories of VRCs 
were found. In many cases, exploitation projects had been prepared, but failed in the 
execution due to lacking funding. 
• A number of exploitation projects have certainly been pushed by the VRCs. 
However, further development among the project partners was not pursued. The 
VRCs concentrating on downstream activities are still establishing feedback to their 
customers and project controlling. 
In the field of information management, collecting and processing of EC information 
material has been a rather time-consuming and costly business for the VRCs. 
• Generally, communication with the programme managers of the Specific 
Programmes has to be further improved, although closer contacts to the Commission 
officials or their partners in the National Contact Points have already been 
established. 
The Specific Programme managers should ensure that their RTD projects are able to 
benefit from the VRCs' expertise and contacts. However, this can become a very 
demanding task. The VRCs'contribution can only be limited. This means that the VRCs 
have to be involved from the very beginning of RTD projects. The VRCs and their co­
operation partners should be involved as exploitation specialists in the evaluation 
procedure of Specific RTD Projects. The VRCs should also be involved in "status 
seminars" of these projects in order to identify as early as possible downstream options 
of ongoing RTD projects. 
In the 4th Framework Programme, the Specific Programmes will devote, 1% of their 
budget to the dissemination and exploitation. The programme managers should be 
able to use some of this money to secure services from the VRCs. 
Networking 
Work conducted by DGXIII and the VR Service for establishing a VRC network having a 
clear identity in the EU and a close co-operation of the VRCs proved to be of crucial 
importance and very successful. Nevertheless, they are still at the beginning. 
Networking, at national or European scale, has not been vigorous. The few notable 
exceptions refer to national networking. A possible reason for this situation relates to 
the basically competitive character of much of the VRC work, while another reason 
hints to the need of great organisational effort that no VRC could afford alone. 
There was good collaboration in some areas, notably in partner search for P^ "f'c 
RTD Programme proposals. Sub-networks of two or three often neighbour VRCs «.ui 
border-crossing close co-operation can be observed. This certainly is a positive 
development. 
Executive Summary 
EVALUATION OF VALUE RELAY CENTRES 
For the future, measures and incentives should be planned for a closer co-operation of 
the VRCs. 
Regional representation 
Regional representation of the VRCs is of crucial importance. The main customers are 
industrial firms, in particular SMEs. In the field of project work, intermediaries (e.g. 
consultants, financial institutions, regional and national funding organizations, 
information agents) are beginning to be integrated. 
• Those clusters of partners in innovation projects are of particular importance. They 
have to gather around a VRC. As few traces of these work-sharing structures can 
be noticed only, a system of partners sharing the work with the VRC and recognizing 
it as a reference and directing point should be supported in the future. 
• Complete competence covering the entire state is of significance for determining the 
number of Relay Centres to be established in the next period. It is observed that in 
some states the existing VRCs can only work in a spotlike manner. The regions to 
be taken care of and the distribution and number of the industrial customers is too 
large. Furthermore, the capacity of the individual VRC is much too small in most 
cases. 
Financing of the projects 
One of the main problems for those VRCs, which are focusing on downstream project 
work, is the availability of budgets for their projects and their customers. Considerable 
efforts are made to bring in Community or national or private financial support 
schemes. 
• With the Technology Transfer and the Technology Validation Projects the Activity III 
disposes of important tools to contribute to the financing of innovation projects. 
• The VRCs should be integrated in these projects in order to ensure better success 
by their knowing of good partners and closer binding of innovative partners. 
Methodologies and tools employed 
A great number of methodologies and tools is employed by the VRCs. A detailed 
summary is given in ANNEX E of this report. 
Obviously, each VRC went through a learning process in devising its methods and tools 
of work. However, across the divers experiments undertaken by all 27 VRCs, one 
recognises some common archetypes as well as few new ideas in the employed 
methodology and tools. Examples of detected new ideas are: 
Executive Summary 
EVALUATION OF VALUE RELAY CENTRES 
» The "Diagnostic Service" devised by FIST for identifying project RTD-results with a 
clear exploitation potential. 
• The "virtual team" approach of the VRC at VDIA/DE for a cost effective way of 
utilising the expertise and manpower available in its host organisation. 
• The VDIA/DE idea of a "Status Seminar" in order identify as early as possible 
downstream options of ongoing RTD projects. 
• The sectoral and inter-regional working model employed by AIRE for utilising best 
networks for technology transfer in specific industrial sectors. 
• In place of broad VACRO Days, events for smaller groups related to the same field 
of activity were organised. In the case of TTB, the events are hosted by companies, 
a fact that is particularly effective. 
• The employment of electronic tools (flash-information, faxbâses, multimedia 
presentations) as done by ANRT, CRENEST and TTB. 
• The preparation of technology sheets targeted towards the needs of the VRCs 
clients by using CORDIS as done by SGPN l+D. 
• The publication campaigns of technology offers as launched by ZENIT and ARC in 
major technical and business newspapers. 
• The "Technology Scouts" in Danish Universities employed by PUF. 
Overall performance of the VRCs 
From the conducted Users' Survey it can be concluded that overall the VRC 
performance satisfied to a large extent the users' expectations along upstream 
activities. For downstream work the degree of satisfaction looks numerically small. 
However, in view of the fact that these latter activities are very user specific and much 
know-how based, the evaluators believe that the downstream performance has been 
also satisfactory. 
More specifically, 71 ± 17 % of the 900 users who replied feel they benefited from the 
upstream activity of the VRC in their vicinity. The corresponding percentage for 
downstream is 36 ± 16 %. 
Both findings are very positive result in view of the exploratory character of the whole 
VRC pilot operation. 
^6 
EVALUATION OF VALUE RELAY CENTRES 
The VRCs carried out a wide range of effective and, in many cases, innovative 
activities. They did this despite the fact that many of them lacked a clear overall 
strategy. On the whole, the VRCs worked more effectively in the upstream area. 
Downstream, much work was done, but a lot of VRCs were hampered by their lack of 
know-how and experience on many aspects of the dissemination and exploitation of 
RTD results. 
The VRCs were only able to make limited progress towards becoming a coherent and 
cohesive network, despite the enthusiasm of the VR-Service. There was good 
collaboration in some areas, notably in partner searches, but most of the work was 
done by each VRC acting in isolation. 
In general, the work and image of the VRC network could have been greatly improved if 
more funding had been available for the VRCs themselves and for the financing of 
exploitation projects. An increased level of funding would also enable the VR-Service to 
give better support and guidance to the VRC network. 
Finally, during its two years pilot operation, the VRC network made overall very good 
progress. This was in large measure due to the commitment and enthusiasm shown by 
all people involved - both in the individual VRCs and in the VR-Service in Luxembourg. 
Outlook for the future 
The VRC network constitutes an extremely important element of the Third Activityin the 
4th Framework Programme. It represents a completely new approach for the 
dissemination and exploitation of EU results and even national results in the future. 
The two years of 1993 and 1994 were spent for setting up the system. VRC 
methodologies and tools were developed. Wide, valuable experience was gathered in 
all member states. 
» 
For the future success of the Relay Centres it will be of decisive importance that the 
respective VRC finds its individual position in its environment. It should be an initiator 
and catalyst of innovation processes in the networks of all partners required. VRCs will 
be able to do their own specialized work in a spotlike manner only. They are rather 
experts of communication and technology marketing. At the same time they are 
representatives of the EU with special reference to the possibilities of support by the 
EU. 
Everywhere, the VRCs are supported by highly committed people. The work performed 
by them in the first two years has given rise to an increasing interest in industry, 
research and politics. Now, this achievement has to be further developed. 
The VRCs have to be regional directing and co-ordination offices, helping the 
customers and in particular the SMEs to find solutions for their innovation problems. 
They are executive offices for EC innovation politics within the framework of Activity III 
and bridges to all funds offered by the Commission to the member states. 
Executive Summary 
EVALUATION OF VALUE RELAY CENTRES 
Several recommendations on strategic, operational or even simple practical issues, 
amerge from the experience gained by each individual VRC as well by the whole 
network. A few are summarised below: 
• There should be closer co-operation with specific programmes in order to shift 
downstream work into the lifetime of an RTD project, not just after its end. 
• VRCs should seek more intense collaboration and networking for a better use of 
resources, human and other, at regional, national and EU, particularly for 
downstream activities. 
• VRCs should define a strategy for positioning themselves clearly in market niches of 
their business environment. 
• DG-XIII-D should monitor more closely the overall performance of future Relay 
Centres for being able to provide them with a more effective support. 
^8 
ANNEX IV 
Acronyms and 
Abbreviations 
^ 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
BRTTE 
CCITT 
CORDIS 
COSINE 
CRAFT 
CRO 
DG 
DGXTI 
DGXm 
DGXVI 
DGXVm 
DGxxm 
EC 
ECU 
EFTA 
ESPRIT 
EU 
EURAM 
EUREKA 
Gbit/s 
HEPnet 
IPR 
ISO 
JRC Basic Research in Industrial Technologies for Europe 
Comité Consultatif International de Téléphonie et Télégraphie 
Community R&D Information Service 
Cooperation for Open Systems Interconnection Networking in Europe 
Cooperative Research Action for Technology 
Cooperative Research Organisation 
Directorate-General 
DG for Science, Research and Development 
DG for Telecommunications, Information Industries and Innovation 
DG for Regional Policy 
DG for Credit and Investment 
DG for Enterprise, Trade, Tourism and "Economie Sociale" 
European Community 
European Currency Unit 
European Free Trade Association 
European Strategic Programme for Research and Development in 
Information Technology 
European Union 
European Research on Advanced Materials 
Europe "a la carte" Cooperation in Advanced Technologies 
Giga (109) bits per second 
High Energy Physics network 
Intellectual Property Rights 
International Organisation for Standardisation 
Joint Research Centre 
yUQO 
kbit/s 
Mbit/s 
MECU 
OJ 
OSI 
R&D 
RACE 
RARE 
RTD 
SCREEN 
SME 
SPRINT 
STRIDE 
TCP 
VALUE I 
VALUEn Kilo (103) bits per second 
Mega (106) bits per second 
Million ECU 
Officiai Journal (of the European Communities) 
Open Systems Interconnection 
Research and Development 
Research in Advanced Communications in Europe 
Research Associés pour la Recherche Européenne 
Research and Technological Development 
Internal (confidential) DG XUI database on RTD projects 
Small and Medium-sized Enterprise 
Strategic Programme for Innovation and Technology Transfer 
Science and Technology for Regional Innovation and Development 
Transmission Control Protocol 
Community Programme for the Dissemination and Utilisation of 
Scientific and Technological Research Results 
Community Programme of Centralised Action for the Dissemination 
and Exploitation of Knowledge Resulting from the Specific 
Programmes of Research and Technological Development 
VRC Value Relay Centre 
A$A 
COMMENTS OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 
In conformity with Article 7 of the Council. Decision of 29 April- 1992 _on the 
dissémination and exploitation of knowledge resulting from the specific programmes of 
RTD of the Community (VALUE IT), the Commirtee delivered a favourable opinion on 
the measures to be undertaken to evaluate the action at its meeting of 18 October'1994. 
The Committee examined the final evaluation report prepared by the evaluation panel 
chaired by Mr. Friebe at its meeting on 7 November 1995 as well as the specific report on 
the Value Relay Centres and, as a conclusion of the exchange.of views between its 
members, expressed the following comments : 
General comments : 
While underlining the importance of dissemination and exploitation of RTD results within 
the Cornrriuniry Framework programme, the Committee agrees with the panel, to consider, 
that innovation is not just a. spill-over of RTD. It should be regarded as a major issue for 
which adequate. Community activities should be implemented, building on and 
complementing activities carried'.out at the national level. 
The Value II programme, with modest resources, has developed and implemented new 
tools which have largely contributed to promote new attitudes towards diffusion and 
exploitation in'the Fourth Framework Programme. 
Rdav centres : . 
The establishment of the relay centres network was à significant new action line of 
Value H to be further developed. This initiative contributes to bringing Community 
activities closer to local users and to matching the needs of SMEs with the technology 
supply. ' . 
RC in all the Member states should adapt to the national context and cooperate as much-
as possible with already existing networks and actors of the innovation: system. 
CORDIS ; 
Over the last few years, CORDIS has made significant progress and it has become an 
important tool for the retrieval of information about the research efforts originating from 
me European Community. -
Its evolution should be based on a coherent and well defined approach and close links 
should be established between CORDIS and other Community '• information systems. 
Synergies with other RTD databases at national or European level should also be 
increased and the three recommendations of the panel implemented, i.e. an integrated in-
depth study should be undertaken on the demand side, technological evolution and cost 
controL 
Utilisation of results : 
The committee considers that the Value projects had a high added value and,side impact 
by developing an "exploitation" culture at Cornmunity leveL They should be continued 
and developed in order to contribute to the promotion of an innovation culture at 
European level 
The Committee congratulates the panel for its excellent report as well as the panel who 
carried out the VRC evaluation and invites the Commission to take into account the above 
suggestions in the communication that it is to submit to die Council, the European 
Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee. 
^/ 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(96) 280 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 16 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-96-287-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-05534-4 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg