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)
Date: 1996-06-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, dissemination of information, project evaluation, research and development, technological change

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. 

HI. 

PANEL'S  RECOMMENDATIONS  CONCERNING  THE  STRATEGIC 
OUTLOOK AND THE COMMISSION'S COMMENTS 

PANEL'S 
COMMENTS 

SPECIFIC  CONCLUSIONS  AND  THE  COMMISSION'S 

- 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. 

2. 

3. 

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)). 

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, 

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 
scientific 
than 
comparatively 
breakthroughs and technological achievements into innovations. 

their  competitors 

less  able 

transform 

to 

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 
COMMENTS 

SPECIFIC  CONCLUSIONS  AND  THE  COMMISSION'S 

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. 
2. 
3. 

Overview of VALUE II 
The Findings  and  Recommendations  of  the  Mid-Term  Review 
The Evaluation  Mandate  and  Approach 

EOL  FINAL EVALUATION OF VALUE II 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 

Introduction 
Action line 1.1a 
Action line Lib 
Action line 1.2 
Action Line 1.3 
Action Line 1.4 
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. 
2. 
3. 

Background 
Strategic  Considerations 
Recommendations 

ANNEXES 

Annex I 
Annex II 
Annex III 
Annex IV 

The Council Decision of 29 April, 1992 
Final Evaluation  Terms of  Reference 
Executive Summary of  the Evaluation  of  the VRCs 
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, 
'Instead,  RTD 
except  for  very  specifier  but  nevertheless  important  cases, 
projects  should  be  regarded  as  ways  to  build  a  wide  variety  of  expertise 
available 
their 
to  help  firms  solve  the  problems  encountered 
innovation  processes. 

in 

In  addition, 
dimensions  as  much  as  technological  ones. 

innovation  encompasses  organisational  and 

social 

The  panel  strongly  advocates  a  major 
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. 

initiative  dedicated 

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. 

2. 

VALUE RELAY CENTRES NETWORK 

Al 

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. 

essential  for  the  operation  of  CORDIS,  while 
Cost  control: 
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 
Complementarity and Subsidiarity;  and 

the  principles  of  Horizontality, 

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 

•Lib 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

I  VALUE Relay Centres 

" 

' 

ÏTÂ 

* 

CORDIS and publications for dissemination 

Utilisation of results 

Protection of results 

Promotional activities 

Total Expenditure until 1 January 1994 > 

Above expenditure as percentage of budget > 

11.6 

11.1 

0.4 

5.3 

41.8 

75 

Table 2 

ACTIVITIES  WITHIN  INTERFACE  H 

Cost  (MECU) 

1 

2 

3 

Studies, surveys, evaluations 

Promotion, awareness, seminars, etc. 

Directories, databases, documents 

Total Expenditure until 1 January 1994 > 

Above expenditure as percentage of budget > 

0.6 

0.4 

0.05 

1.05 

37 

Table 3 

ACTIVITIES  WITHIN  INTERFACE  IH 

Cost  (MECU) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Studies, surveys, evaluations 

Promotion, awareness, seminars, etc. 

Directories, databases, documents 

Contribution to TA within the EU 

"~ 

Total Expenditure until 1 January 1994 > 

Above expenditure as percentage of budget > 

0.4 

0.3 

0.05 

0.3 

1.05 

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 
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. 

to  improve  the  effectiveness  of 

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. 

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 
to  European  economic 
competitiveness  and as such  require significant  funding,  not just a small 
percent of RTD budgets. 

innovation  are  essential 

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? 

2. 

3. 

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 

•B* 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 o ii  the £ - uctural Funds to satisfy  SME needs 
would  seem  appropriate.  This  clearly  relates  to  the  "ex  ante-upstream" 
type  of  reasoning mentioned  above. 

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 

5. 

*6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

&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. 

20. 

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. 

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 

«B* 

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 

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". 

s 

The  Terms  of  Reference  of  the  Final  Evaluation  of  VALUE  U,  given  in 
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. 

2. 

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. 

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. 

in  advancing  the  valorisation  of 
Overall,  VRCs  succeeded 
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. 

x 

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 
if 
"downstream"  activities  are pursued  in  an effective  manner,  and  an  effort 
is made to approach the two types of agents. 

these  with  a  "real  world" 

image, 

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. 

^ 

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 
industrial 
performance. 

improving 

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 
interaction  and  co-operation  among  the  participants; 

through  better 

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 

RTD-ACRONYMS 

Dairy 

Fortnightly 

'. 

: 

RTD-œMDCKUMENTS 

Fortnighdy 

RTD-PROGRAMMES 

Fortnigjitly 

RTD-PROJECTS 

Fortnightly 

RTD-PUBLICATIONS 

Fortnightly 

RTD-RESULTS 

RTD-PARTNERS 

RTD-OONTACTS 

Monthly 

Fortnightly 

Fortnighdy 

! 

4,412 

~"~ 

4,638 

805 

393 

23,008 

69,203 

11,541 

17,992 

4,726 

~ 

*  Total 1st March'95 

| 

137,788 

RTD-News:  the  latest  news  announcements  on  all  aspects  of  Community 
RTD  activities. 

RTD-Acronyms: 
, 
RTD. 

acronyms  and  abbreviations  relating  to  Community 

R T D - C O M D O C U M E N T S: 
the 
Commission's  initiatives  on  research  matters  to  the  Council  of  Ministers 
and  to the European  Parliament, as part of the legislative  process. 

comprehensive  summaries  of 

RTD-Programmes:  all  Community-funded  research  and  research-related 
programmes. 

RTD-Projects: 
involved  within  the  various  Community-funded  programmes. 

individual  contracts  and  studies  and  the  organisations 

R T P - P u b l i e a t i o n s: 
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. 

results  and  prototypes  arising  from  Community  and  other 
RTD-Results: 
RTD  research  that  are  awaiting  commercial  exploitation  as  well  as 
information  on  research  projects  needing  further  developments. 

^ >& 

potential  suitable  partners  for  participation  in  the 
RTP-Partners/EOI: 
Community  RTD  programmes  and  projects  and  for  participation  in  the 
commercial  exploitation  of RTD results. 

main  contact  points  (named  individuals)  on  both 
RTD-Contacts: 
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: 

to  Central  Host; 
Watch-CORDIS 
Windows-based  graphical  user interface;  Off-line  preparation 
of queries;  automated  log-on/log-off). 

(Windows  Access 

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: 

Ï 9 9 2 :I 

4,720,003 ECU 

1993: 

Ï99* 

5,887,394 ECU 

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 
procedures. 

improvement  of  data  acquisition 

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, 

Currency 

Coverage 

Accuracy 

Consistency 

__ 

addresses). 

Never ending job. 

Be aware of all available information. 

Unequal quality of source information. 

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 
In  this 
databases  closer  to  potential  users  in  a  harmonised  way. 
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 
Some,  for  example,  may  come  from  more  general 
applications. 
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 
tool  (avoid  re-inventing  the  wheel,  diagnose  early 
information 
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. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Making,  under  appropriate  provisions, patent  costs eligible  expenses 
within  EC RTD projects  would  definitely  lead  to  a  wider  protection 
oflPR. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

The  "Innovation  and  Technology  Transfer  Newsletter",  addressed 
to  research  and  industrial  partners,  consultants  on  technology 
transfer,  information  brokers, decision-makers, etc. 

The  periodical  "CORDIS  Focus",  addressed  to  a  wide  audience  of 
actors, intermediaries  and  multipliers  of  Community  RTD. 

The  "Euro-Abstract  Catalogues",  addressed 
researchers  and  documentalists. 

in  particular  to 

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 

The  "VALUE  Information-Press-Service"  (Vips),  compiling  and 
disseminating  each  month  to  many  journalists  in  Europe  extended 
journalistic  information  and  selected  RTD Community  results. 

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) 

target 
an  analysis  of  the  needs  and  perceptions  of  different 
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 
In 
lessons  learned  at  a  European  level  will  be  of  great  importance. 
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 
are  thus  both 
programmes  benefit  industry.  VALUE  type  scbe* 
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^ 

Promoting Innovation 

6 c 

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 
educational 
(suppliers,  engineering,  consultants,  professionals, 
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 
PUBLIC FINANCIAL SUPPORT/ 

I
I~ 
L JX 

\ 
\ 

TECHNICAL RESOURCE 
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 

Innovation  is  a 
The  firm  is  the  place  where  innovation  really  occurs. 
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. 

the  framework  programme  and 

Seen  from  the  promotion  of  innovation  perspective,  the  best  way  to 
achieve  this  is to  adopt  a  demand-led  approach.  However,  the  philosophy 
behind 
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 
life 
disciplines  is  thus  inappropriate  to  the  jigsaw  nature  of  real 
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 

the 
While  dissemination /valorisation  of  RTD  results 
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. 

implies 

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 
(infrastructure, networks e.g. science parks, financial tools, etc.); 

innovation 

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 

N o l H i /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. 

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, 
the 
dissemination  and optimization of  the results of  aaivirics in 
Community  research, 
technological  development  and 
demonstration; 

to  cany  out  activities 

for 

is 

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  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 . 2 C.  1. "0?2. p. 75;andDcdiionof  8 April 1992 

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'; 

in 

the 

Whereas,  by  its  Decision  90/221/Euratom,  ££C(*),  the 
Council  adopted  a  third  Framework  Programme  for 
Community  activities 
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 
the  dctaDcd 
and  providing 
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; 

that 

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 
the  specific  R  &  D 
of  knowledge  resulting 
programmes; 

form 

Whe.rc**;.d..: f v r a i om  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 

the  activities  undertaken  by 

Whereas the  decisions  relating  to  the  research  and  training 
programmes 
thermonuclear 
in  the  fields  of  controlled 
fusion  (1990-1994)  and  nuclear  fission  safety  (1990-1994), 
together  with 
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, 
its  economic  and  social 
in  particular  with  respect 
cohesion; 

to 

into  a  broader  context  and 

Whereas,  in  order  to  improve  the  insertion  of  Community 
research 
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 
rcscarch-soacTy 
interfaces; 

rcscarch-science  and 

the 

to 

the 

scientific 

Whereas  Decision  9 0 / 2 2 1 / E u r a t o m,  EEC  provides  that  a 
research  must  be 
particular  aim  of  Community 
to 
technological  basis  of 
and 
strengthen 
European  industry  and  to  encourage  it  to  become  more 
competitive  at  international  level;  whereas  it  also  provides 
that  Community 
research 
is 
contributes,  inter  alia,  to  -the  strengthen  of  the  economic 
and  social  cohesion  of 
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; 

the  Community  and 

justified  where 

action 

to 

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 
the  scientific  and 
technical  quality  of  the  programme; 

to 

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 
include 
it 
encouraging 
technological 
promoting  cooperation  on 
research  and 
development  with 
intenudotul 
and 
organizations;  whereas 
such  cooperation  may  prove 
particularly  bcnefidal  for  the  development  of  this  action; 

to  become  more  compcuavc 

countries 

third 

Whereas  the  Sdcntific  and  Technical  Research  Commince 
(Crest)  has  delivered  its  opinion. 

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 

HAS ADOPTED THIS  DECISION: 

links  with 

Whereas 
for 
downstream  exploitation  should  also  be  developed,  in 
particular  with  the  Eureka  initiative; 

complementary  mechanisms 

this  action,  an  assessment 
Whereas,  in  the  context  of 
should  be  made  of  the  economic  and  social  impact  as  well 
as  of  any  eventual  technological  risks; 

Whereas  basic  research  in  the  field  of  the  dissemination  and 
exploitation  of  R  ôc  D  knowledge  must  be  encouraged 
throughout  the  Community; 

V n c i r a s.  in  addition  to  the  specific  programme  concerning 
human  rcso. rces' an  mobility.  «  «s necessary  10  encodage 
,..„,t,rT,,  .~  »'•«.  —««<-*(  of  this 

_i  --.,^,,-t, 

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. 

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, 
including 
c  :>rndiiorc  on  ssaff  ar. ;  adrr.jr.'sirjnon  amounting  IO ECU 

"<»  ECU  57  mill.on. 

is  estimated 

^6 

2 3.  5.  92 

Official  Journal  of  the  European  C o m m u n i t i es 

No  L  H l /3 

indicative  allocation  of 

2.  An 
Annex  U. 

funds 

is  set  out 

in 

3. 
If  the  Council  takes  a  decision  pursuant  to  Article  1  (4) 
of  Decision  9 0 / 2 21  / E u r a t o m,  E E C,  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. 

Article  4 

1. 
In  the  course  of  the  second  year  of  the  implcmentatior 
of  the  action,  the  C o m m i s s i on  shall  review  it  and  send  : 
rcpon  on 
the  Europcar 
Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  Economic  and  Socii 
Committee;  die 
shall  be  accompanied,  wher 
necessary,  by  proposals  for  amendment  of  the  acnoc. 

the  results  of 

its  review  ot 

r c p on 

2.  At  the  end  of  the  action,  an  evaluation  of  the  results 
achieved  shall  be  conducted 
; 
experts.  T he  Croup's  rcpon, 
Group  of 
together  with 
shall  be 
comments, 
submitted  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee. 

for  the  Commission  by 

t he  Ccmmission's 

independent 

3.  T he  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  9 0 / 2 2 1 / E u r a t o m,  E E C. 

Article  S 

shall 
1.  The  C o m m i s s i on 
implementation  of  the  action. 

be 

responsible 

for 

th< 

2.  A  work  p r o g r a m me  shall  be  drawn  up  tn  accordar.ee 
in  Annex  1  and  updated  wh.trt 
with  the  aims  set  o ut 
necessary.  It  shall  set  o ut  the  detailed  objectives  and  types 
of 
finança: 
arrangements  to  be  m a de  for  them.  The  Commission  sr.il: 
make  calls  for  proposals  for  projects  on  the  basis  of  tr.t 
work  p r o g r a m m e. 

undertaken, 

projects 

and 

the 

be 

to 

the-  measures 

The  representative  of  the  C o m m i s s i on  shall  submit  to  the 
to  be  taken.  The 
committee  a  draft  of 
committee  shall  deliver  its  o p i n i on  on  the  draft  within  a 
time  limit  w h i ch  the  chairman  may  lay  d o wn  according  to 
the  urgency  of  the  matter.  T he  o p i n i on  shall  be  delivered 
by  the  majority  laid  d o wn  in  Article  148  (2)  of  the  Treaty 
in  the  case  of  decisions  which  the  Council  is  required  to 
adopt  on  a  proposal  from  the  C o m m i s s i o n.  The  votes  of 
the  representatives  of 
the 
committee  shall  be  weighted  in  the  manner  set  out  in  that 
Article.  T he  Chairman  shall  not  vote. 

the  Member  States  within 

The  Commission  shall  adopt  the  measures  envisaged  if  they 
arc  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  the  committee. 

If  the  measures  envisaged  arc  not  in  accordance  with  the 
opinion  of  the  c o m m i t t e e,  or  if  no  opinion  is delivered,  the 
Commission  shall,  w i t h o ut  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  b om  referral 
of  the  matter  to  the  Council,  the  latter  has  not  acted,  the 
proposed  measures  shall  be  adopted  by  the  Commission. 

Article  7 

1.  T he  procedure  laid  d o wn  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. 

—  the  assessment  of 

the  projects  proposed  and  rhe 
estimated  a m o u nt  of  the  Community's  cooeribuboû  to 
them,  w h e re  this  amount  exceeds  ECU  150  0 0 0, 

—  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 
Article  8. 

for 

implementing 

the  rules 

laid  down  v 

Article  6 

F*»- 0-.f  e x e c u t i on  of  this  action,  insofar  as  it  relates  to  the 
specific  prc;^r»mmcs  based  on  Article 
l 3 0q  (2)  of  :'.< 
Treaty,  the  Comiy.'ssion  shall  be  assisted  **v  a  conir.incc 

2.  Where,  pursuant  to  the  thiiw  r r ' ^t  of  oaragiaph  1,  d 
amount  of  the  Communiry  contribution  ts-  less  than  < 
equal  t o,  E CU  1 50  0 0 0,  the  Commission  shall  inform  u 
committee  of  the  projects  and  concerted  a a i o ns  andof  i: 
Outcome  of  t h eu  assessment.  The  Commission  shall  al 
I 
inform 

ilir  o o m m m cc  of 

implement  anon  of 

ihr 

H 

N oL  l41/< 

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communion 

2 3 : 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  o n / o r i c lc  130a  (2)  of 
the  Treaty,  hereinafter 
to  as  "knowledge*,  the 
referred 
following  rules,  while  respecting  prc-cxisring  rights,  shall 
apply: 

(a) 

resulting 

from  work  undertaken 
the  knowledge 
duecily  or  the  cost  of  which  is  wholly  supported  by 
the  Community  shall  in  principle  be  the  property  of 
the  Community. 

resulting 

from  work 

under  a 
The;  knowledge 
shared-cost  contract  shall  be 
the 
contractors  who  carry  out  the  work.  They  shall  agree 
between  themselves  on  particular  arrangements  for 
such  ownership; 

the  properry  of 

(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) 

it  exploited, 

its  co-contractors  shall  be 
the  Community  and 
required  to  exploit  the  knowledge  in. their  possession, 
or  have 
the 
taking  full  account  of 
Community's 
international 
the  objective  of 
compenoveness  of  European 
the 
and 
economic  and  social  cohesion  in  the  Community; 

in  conformity  with 

the 
industry 

strengthening 

interests  and 

of 
the  Community's 
knowledge  may  be  subject  to  appropriate  conditions, 
particularly  œoeerning  the  payment  of  fees. 

interests.  Such 

provision 

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 
the 
that 
conditions,  provided 
its 
lcgidmatc 
the 
and 
Community 
co-contractors  arc  safeguarded; 

interests  of 
interests  of 

the 

(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.. 

(d)  knowledge  belonging  to  the  Community  shall  be  made 
available  to  its  co-cootractors  and  to  interested  third 
parries  established  in  the  Community  w ho  undertake 
to  exploit  it,  or  have  it  exploited,  in  conformity  with 

For  the  Council 

The  President 

•  Luii  VALENTE  DE OUVEIRA 

n 

2 3.  5.  92 

Official  j o u r n al  of  rhe  E u r o p c aa  Communities. 

No  L  H 1 /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  w mt  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  ^  a u o i à no  *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-  R ID  *r.-cc<hc  ptogrif.imcs  and  ine  ccnualncd  acuoo. 

(b)  Internal  cotnplccneoianry 

supplement  OK  meajajres  ciiea  under  ose  specific  RTD 
Tbe  cm trained  a ex» on  will  onorthaatr  int 
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  t o m b e ».  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  t r u u m uc  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. 

No  L  K l /6 

O f f i c i ai  J o u r n al  of  t he  E u r o p e an  C o t i u n u o i à cs 

2 3.  5.  92 

1 

protect  their  findings  in  certain  cases  w h e r e,  for  e x a m p l e,  chcy  lack  the  n c c c s u ry  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.  T he  f o l l o w i ng  measures  arc  proposed: 

1.1.  N ew  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  o n,  the  cacrarg  srxucrurej  in 
Member  States  designed  for  the  some  purpose.  T he  relay  cencrcv  will  have  speoal  access  to 
Community  mformaoon,  under  the  control  of  the  C o m m i s s i o n,  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. 

^ h i le  giving  full  consideration  to  local  needs  and  orcumsrances.  the  fol)o«--.r;r  activities,  inter  oLs 
may  be  undertaken  by  the  relay  c c n u cv 

—  the  dissemmauon  of  m f o r m a o on  on  C o m m u n i ty  programmes  and  calls  for  proposals, 

-—  identihcanoQ  of  opportunities  for  p a r n o p a n on  in  Comrouniry  R fc  D  programmes,  and  general 

guidance  to  candidates  in  the  preparation  of  proposals, 

—  facilitating  the  inicrprctaoon  and  d i s s c m i n a o on  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 
( 

protecoon  of  results, 

information  on  specialized  agencies  dealing  with  mtellecrual  property  and 

legal 

—  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  o u t s e t,  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  1 9 9 2.  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  i n i o r m a o o n,  harmonize  and/or  integrate  databases,  use 
electronic  storage  devices  ( C D - R OM  and  video  d i v a)  and  develop  user-frier.dly  systems  for  clccnooic 
data  exchange  in  cooperanon  with  related  Community  programmes. 

Tne  development  of  computerized  m e t h o ds  docs  not  exclude  the  use  of  more  traditional  methods 

such  as  the  publication  of  bullcnns  and  bibliographies  which  will  provide  wider  access  to  tnformanon 

s e r v i es 

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 
n w nn  a n j.  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  S M E s.  to  take  advantage  of  ih<  rcsulrs  of 
cnidc 

,1,,.  C ^ r r - m , . . .^  A  V  D 

r^uU-, 

._  _ 

i . . i„ 

„ „ .l 

. , ., 

_.t 

.„ 

.„ 

- 

. 

23.  5.  92 

Official  journal  of  the  European  Communities 

- 

No  L  H l /7 

The  work  to  be  undertaken  could  take  different  forms,  depending  on  each  specific  o s e,  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  H I /8 

OfficiaJ  Journal  of  the  European  C^rrununicics 

2 3.  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 

I.  Research•mduscry  interface 

U.  R eve arch-vQcnofic  commumry  interface 

ID.  Rcvearch-soaety  interface 

(ECU -*A«>n) 

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  1 4 1 / 10 

Official  journal  of  the  European  Communities 

~ 

2 3 . 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. 

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". 

V' 

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 
thus 
demonstrating  the added  value of  those RTD results; 

(towards  SMEs 

in  particular) 

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: 
• 
•  formulated a coherent strategy to meet somehow this demand, 

identified the needs of its operational environment, 

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. 

Increasing 
In  this  connection,  the  VRCs  proved  to  be  good  promoters  of  CORDIS. 
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 

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 

DGXVm 

DG for  Credit and Investment 

DGxxm 

DG for Enterprise, Trade, Tourism and  "Economie Sociale" 

EC 

ECU 

EFTA 

ESPRIT 

European Community 

European Currency Unit 

European Free Trade Association 

European  Strategic  Programme  for  Research  and  Development  in 
Information  Technology 

EU 

European Union 

EURAM 

European Research on Advanced Materials 

EUREKA 

Europe "a la carte" Cooperation  in Advanced Technologies 

Gbit/s 

HEPnet 

IPR 

ISO 

JRC 

Giga (109) bits per second 

High Energy Physics network 

Intellectual Property Rights 

International  Organisation  for  Standardisation 

Joint Research  Centre 

yUQO 

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 

kbit/s 

Mbit/s 

MECU 

OJ 

OSI 

R &D 

RACE 

RARE 

RTD 

SCREEN 

Internal  (confidential)  DG XUI database on RTD projects 

SME 

SPRINT 

STRIDE 

TCP 

VALUE I 

VALUEn 

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 
the  Specific 
Programmes of  Research and Technological  Development 

from 

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