COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Regulation on the ECSEL Joint Undertaking
Date: 2013-07-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: electronic component, industrial investment, information technology, innovation, joint venture, nanotechnology, public-private partnership, research and development, sustainable development

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 10.7.2013  
SWD(2013) 255 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Impact Assessment 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Council Regulation 

on the ECSEL Joint Undertaking 

{COM(2013) 501 final} 
{SWD(2013) 256 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Impact Assessment 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Council Regulation 

on the ECSEL Joint Undertaking 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

1.6. 

Procedural Issues And Consultation Of Interested Parties .......................................... 5 

Organisation and Timing.............................................................................................. 5 

Consultation of the IA Board ....................................................................................... 6 

Inter-service Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) ........................................... 7 

Consultation and Expertise .......................................................................................... 7 

Results from the on-line public consultation ............................................................... 8 

Results from the study on future impact of ARTEMIS and ENIAC ......................... 13 

1.6.1.  Main findings ............................................................................................................. 13 

1.6.2.  Main recommendations.............................................................................................. 14 

1.7. 

Stakeholders views - summary................................................................................... 15 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

Problem definition...................................................................................................... 16 

Electronic components: An important industry with significant growth and a massive 
economic footprint ..................................................................................................... 18 

Embedded systems: driving innovation across industry ............................................ 18 

Key technologies for addressing the societal challenges ........................................... 19 

Technological and economic context......................................................................... 19 

2.4.1.  Fierce global competition and changing business models ......................................... 20 

2.4.2.  Declining market shares of production ...................................................................... 20 

2.4.3.  High costs of R&D&I and fragmented European landscape ..................................... 21 

2.4.4.  Fast-paced innovation, seizing the opportunities ahead............................................. 21 

2 

 
 
2.5. 

Achievements and lessons learned from the current ENIAC and ARTEMIS JUs .... 23 

2.5.1.  Governance and objectives ........................................................................................ 23 

2.5.2.  Achievements............................................................................................................. 24 

2.5.3. 

Issues in meeting the initial objectives....................................................................... 26 

2.6. 

Key problems and their drivers .................................................................................. 27 

2.7.  Who is affected and how............................................................................................ 31 

2.8. 

2.9. 

The need for public intervention ................................................................................ 31 

The right to act ........................................................................................................... 32 

2.10. 

Subsidiarity ................................................................................................................ 32 

2.11.  Baseline scenario........................................................................................................ 33 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

4. 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 33 

General Objectives ..................................................................................................... 33 

Specific Objectives..................................................................................................... 34 

Operational Objectives............................................................................................... 39 

How do objectives relate to the problem statement ................................................... 45 

Policy Options............................................................................................................ 45 

4.1. 

Options ....................................................................................................................... 45 

4.1.1.  Option (a) Baseline - Business-as-usual: continue within Horizon 2020 with renewed 
ENIAC and ARTEMIS JUs ....................................................................................... 46 

4.1.2.  Option (b) Zero Option: use of the collaborative research projects under the EU 

Framework Programme Horizon 2020....................................................................... 47 

4.1.3.  Adapting the scope of the new JTI............................................................................. 47 

4.1.4.  Option (c) Implement a contractual Public-Private Partnership ................................ 47 

4.1.5.  Options (d) and (e) Implement a new institutional Public-Private Partnership ......... 48 

4.2. 

Discarded options....................................................................................................... 48 

4.2.1.  No action at all ........................................................................................................... 48 

4.2.2.  Early winding-up........................................................................................................ 49 

4.3. 

Proposed budget ......................................................................................................... 49 

4.3.1.  Operational budget ..................................................................................................... 49 

4.3.2.  Administrative budget................................................................................................ 50 

5. 

Analysis of the Impact ............................................................................................... 51 

3 

 
 
5.1. 

General impact ........................................................................................................... 51 

5.1.1.  Economic impact........................................................................................................ 52 

5.1.1.1.  Competitiveness and investment................................................................................ 52 

5.1.1.2.  Research and innovation ............................................................................................ 52 

5.1.1.3.  Stakeholders ............................................................................................................... 52 

5.1.1.4.  Estimated leverage effect ........................................................................................... 53 

5.1.2.  Societal impact ........................................................................................................... 54 

5.1.2.1.  Employment ............................................................................................................... 54 

5.1.2.2.  Addressing societal challenges .................................................................................. 54 

5.1.3.  Environmental impact ................................................................................................ 55 

5.1.3.1.  Energy efficiency ....................................................................................................... 55 

5.1.3.2.  Recycling and materials ............................................................................................. 55 

5.2. 

Impact of options........................................................................................................ 55 

5.2.1. 

Impact of bi- or tripartite initiative............................................................................. 55 

5.2.2. 

Impact of joining forces ............................................................................................. 56 

5.2.3.  Specific impact on the various stakeholders .............................................................. 56 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

7.3. 

Preferred policy option............................................................................................... 58 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 58 

Implementation and governance ................................................................................ 60 

Evaluation and monitoring......................................................................................... 63 

Mid-term and final evaluations .................................................................................. 63 

Monitoring the JTI progress....................................................................................... 64 

Monitoring the JU operations progress ...................................................................... 65 

Annex 1 – Context of the initiative .......................................................................................... 66 

Annex 2 – Recommendations from the two interim evaluations ............................................. 78 

Annex 3 – Profiles of the ENIAC and ARTEMIS JUs and EPoSS ETP ................................. 82 

Annex 4 – Final report of the study on the future impact of ARTEMIS and ENIAC ............. 93 

Annex 5 – Sources.................................................................................................................... 94 

Annex 6 – Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................. 98 

4 

 
 
INTRODUCTION 

This document is the impact assessment for a Joint Technology Initiative (JTI) on electronic 
components and systems set up as a Joint Undertaking on the basis of Article 187 TFEU. It is 
proposed as part of the implementation of the EU Framework Programme for Research and 
Innovation Horizon 2020 [1]. 

Under  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme,  two  Joint  Undertakings  (JU)  ENIAC  and 
ARTEMIS  were  established  respectively  in  the  field  of  nanoelectronics  and  embedded 
computing systems. The objective of those initiatives was to increase and leverage private and 
public  investments  in  research  and  innovation  in  two  complementary  domains  of  high 
importance for the entire industrial fabric in Europe. Their profiles and achievements to date 
are described in Annex 2. 

Building on the experience gained with ENIAC and ARTEMIS, the present initiative is based 
on a simplified single structure, a focused scope of actions reinforcing the synergies between 
the areas of electronic components and embedded systems and a major simplification of the 
implementation modalities. The initiative is a central pillar of the EU's strategy for electronic 
components and systems in Europe. The strategy aims at drawing more than a €100 billion of 
additional  private  investment  in  innovation  and  production  in  the  field,  creating  more  than 
250 000  induced  jobs  in  the  next  7  years,  and  ensuring  the  best  use  of  electronics  to  spur 
growth across the economy. 

The procedure that was followed is in accordance with the Commission's guidelines for ex-
ante impact assessments [2]. 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Organisation and Timing 

The  consultations  on  the  new  initiative  in  the  field  of  electronic  components  and  systems 
started in early 2011 and ran until March 2013. This included: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Identification  and  analysis  of  economic  data,  carrying  out  literature  searches  and 
assessing results from R&D projects; 

Participating in the inter-service Impact Assessment Steering Group from June 2012 
to December 2012; 

Carrying  out  a  study  on  "Future  Impact  of  ENIAC  and  ARTEMIS"  from  16  July 
2012 to 15 December 2012; 

Launching  the  second  interim  evaluation  of  ENIAC  and  ARTEMIS  JUs  on  10 
September 2012; 

Organising and analysing stakeholder consultations: 

5 

 
 
• 

Public  consultation  on  "Future  Joint  Technology  Initiative(s)  on  electronic 
components  and  embedded  systems",  open  between  20  July  2012  and  12 
October 2012; 

•  Meetings with representatives of Member States and associated countries held 
on 6 July, 21 September, 18 October and 5 December 2012, 31 January and 3 
March 2013; 

• 

• 

• 

Consultation  meetings  with  representatives  of  the  3  ETPs  (AENEAS,  EPoSS 
and ARTEMIS-IA) together on 18 February and 23 November 2011, 30 March 
and 18 October 2012, 5 February, 4th March, and 12th June 2013; 

Bilateral meetings with Member States that provide the highest contributions to 
ENIAC  and  ARTEMIS  JUs:  France  on  3  October  2012,  Germany  on  12 
October 2012, Austria on 17 November 2012, the Netherlands on 19 October 
2012 and Italy on 26 November 2012; and 

Discussion  with  high-level  representatives  of 
industrial  and  academic 
stakeholders at the "European Nanoelectronics Forum 2012" in Munich on 20-
21 November 2012. 

1.2. 

Consultation of the IA Board 

The Impact Assessment Board assessed the draft version of the present impact assessment and 
issued its opinion on 27 February 2013. The Impact Assessment Board approved the Impact 
Assessment Report and suggested certain improvements and modifications. 

The Impact Assessment report was amended in line with these suggestions. In particular  

•  Information  on  the  2nd  interim  evaluation  of  the  ARTEMIS  and  ENIAC  JU  is 
included and an assessment of the various options along the key recommendations of 
the 1st and 2nd interim evaluation is incorporated;  

•  The description of the policy options is improved; 

•  The impact of the options is assessed against the baseline option;  

•  The section on monitoring and evaluation is strengthened; and 

•  The  structure  of  the  Impact  Assessment  Report  is  improved  with  the  detailed 

description of the context given Annex 1 to the report.  

6 

 
 
1.3. 

Inter-service Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) 

The IASG was set up jointly with DG RTD's services dealing with the JTIs in their areas of 
responsibility (Innovative Medicines Initiative, Clean Sky, Fuel Cells & Hydrogen, and Bio-
based Industries). The meetings of the IASG in 2012 contributed to the planning, coordination 
and  discussion  of  the  impact  assessment  reports  of  the  new  JTIs  being  considered  under 
Horizon 2020. Besides DG RTD and CONNECT, the IASG gathered many services including 
SG,  LS,  BUDG,  AGRI,  COMP,  EMPL,  ENER,  ENTR,  ENV,  ESTAT,  HR,  MARKT, 
MOVE, SANCO. 

1.4. 

Consultation and Expertise 

The impact assessment report draws on the extensive consultations with stakeholders from the 
electronic  components  and  systems  sector  and  with  Member  States  as  listed  above.  It  also 
draws  on  the  results  of  studies  and  evaluations  of  the  current  JUs  and  on  the  work  of  the 
High-Level Group on Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) [3]. 

The study about the Future Impact of ENIAC and ARTEMIS [4] examined notably the scope 
of  the  new  initiative  and  the  means  to  maximise  its  impact  on  technology  progress  and  on 
competitiveness  and  growth  for  the  European  industry.  The  main  results  of  the  study  are 
summarised below in Section 1.6. 

In total more than 20 meetings were held with stakeholders. 

In  the  meetings  with  representatives  of  the  European  Technology  Platforms  ARTEMIS, 
ENIAC and EPoSS, each representing some hundreds stakeholders, the desired scope of the 
new  initiative  was  reviewed  in  detail.  This  resulted  in  the  publication  of  a  High  Level 
Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda of the ICT Components and Systems Industry [5]. 

Public authorities were consulted through an informal "Public Authorities Reflection Group" 
set  up  in  mid-2012.  All  Member  States  and  Associated  Countries  to  the  Framework 
Programme were invited through the FP7 ICT Committee and the Public Authorities Boards 
of  ARTEMIS  and  ENIAC  JU.  Fifteen  States  were  regularly  represented  in  these  meetings. 
The consultation of Member States was essential as one of the options for the implementation 
of the JTI is a tripartite model in which the Member States financially contribute, similarly to 
the current ARTEMIS and ENIAC JUs. 

A public consultation was launched on 20 July 2012. It was on-line for twelve weeks until 12 
October 2012. The analysis of the contributions was published at the end of November 2012 
[6].  A  summary  report  is  given  in  Section  1.5.  Through  the  public  consultation,  the  views 
from a wide set of stakeholders were obtained. Special attention was given to solicit opinions 
on the participation of SMEs. 

Structures  of  the  relevant  industry  associations  and  statistics  of  participations  in  ARTEMIS 
and  ENIAC  calls 
the  SME 
participation/participant profiles. The objective was to assess whether the policy put forward 
has  a  positive  impact  on  SMEs  and  provides  effective  incentives  to  facilitate  SME 
participation. 

for  proposals  were  analysed  with 

respect 

to 

7 

 
 
For the economic analysis underpinning the problem definition, the report draws primarily on 
public domain data and recent studies conducted by the Commission. As indicated above this 
context is provided in Annex 1. 

1.5. 

Results from the on-line public consultation 

The  on-line  consultation  was  conducted  through  the  institutional  platform  (IPM)  of  the 
European  Commission  between  20  July  and  12  October  2012.  It  consisted  of  21  questions 
covering  the  policy  and  economic  context,  the  assessment  of  the  current  ENIAC  and 
ARTEMIS  initiatives,  potential  improvements  and  the  model  for  future  initiative(s)  under 
Horizon  2020  as  well  as  related  performance  indicators.  The  consultation  was  widely 
publicised  through  several  institutional  channels  and  repeated  e-mailing  campaigns  to  over 
1,000 contacts representative of all stakeholder categories. 

The  consultation  received  151  contributions.  Figure  1  shows  the  distribution  between 
categories of respondents. 

Private 
individual
2%

Joint 
Undertaking
1%

Academic
29%

Business 
organisation
2%
Public 
authority
8%

SME
11%

Large 
business
28%

RTO
19%

Figure 1 – Respondents to the public consultation 

Companies  and  research  organisations  constitute  more  than  85%  of  the  respondents.  The 
representational  goal  of  the  consultation  is  thus  achieved.  The  contributions  originated  in  a 
large  majority  from  the  23  European  countries involved in the current JTIs, with more than 
1/4  of  the  respondents  from  Germany  and  France.  The  industrial  associations  currently 
member  of  the  ARTEMIS  and  ENIAC  JUs  responded  for  their  constituencies  (representing 
respectively 206 and 126 members) which gives their views more weight. 

The respondents are active in all major sectors in which the use of electronic components and 
embedded  systems  is  essential,  showing  the  relevance  of  their  views.  Also,  60%  of 
respondents  have  applied  for  funding  from  one  or both of  the current initiatives and half of 
them received funding. The highest degree of familiarity with the current JTIs is by industry 
and  RTOs.  Half  of  the  contributors  are  involved  in  activities  related  to  systems  while 
semiconductor design and manufacturing is of interest to roughly 2/3 of the respondents. The 
large  semiconductor  companies  that  replied  participate  in  both  current  JTIs.  Half  of  the 
respondents are active in communications and computing.  

8 

 
 
 
Key directions for action and areas to tackle include the need for: 

• 

• 

• 

Investing more in R&D&I and manufacturing, 

Increasing Europe's technology portfolio, and 

Strengthening the innovation ecosystem. 

According to the respondents, this can be achieved by: 

• 

• 

Improving coordination of activities between EU and Member States, and  

Providing the financial means to compete at a global level 

in order to: 

• 

• 

• 

Achieve critical mass required for disruptive and/or breakthrough research, 

Provide  level-playing  field  conditions  to  foster  European  competitiveness  in  the 
sector, and 

Provide public support for large-scale investments in research and innovation. 

These latter three areas are strongly advocated by private companies. The highest priority for 
industry is to strengthen cooperation between the public and private sectors. Overall there is 
the expectation that the JTI will increase the European market share in electronic components 
and embedded systems. 

How to implement and improve a future initiative? 

Figure 2 shows that there is a balanced opinion regarding the different implementation options 
for a future JTI. The two industrial associations involved in the current JTIs least favour the 
bipartite JTI (irrelevant and neutral respectively) as it would pool a too small budget and has 
the  same  administrative  burden  as  the  tripartite  JTI.  The  comments  by  the  respondents 
indicate that their opinion is largely based on their experience with the current JTIs. They may 
not  have  fully  grasped  the  impact  of  the  potential  improvements  considered  for  a  future 
initiative which may explain the somewhat lower scoring of the improved tripartite JTI. 

9 

 
 
Contractual PPP

Bi-partite JTI

Tri-partite JTI

Improved tripartite JTI

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Strongly
relevant

Relevant Neutral

Irrelevant Strongly
irrelevant

NA

Figure 2 - Implementation model for future JTI 

In  Figure  3,  the  responses  on  potential  improvements  for  a  future  JTI  show  a  general 
agreement on the high importance of lighter financial rules and decision-making. The need for 
specific  rules  for  participation  in  innovation  activities  (supporting  higher  TRLs)  received  a 
less  strong  support.  The  views  on  the  single  point  of  contact  ("one-stop  shop")  are  mixed 
although a majority of SMEs and academics expressed a strong desire. This reflects a need for 
simplification of administrative procedures. 

Very important

Important

Neutral

Not important

Not at all important NA

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

Lighter financial
rules for the JU

Simplified staff
regulation for the
JU

Lighter decision
making processes
in the JU

Specific rules for
participation for
innovation

Single point of
contact for all
project operations

Figure 3 - Potential improvements 

There  is  strong  support  for  multi-annual  commitments  by  Member  States,  for  better 
synchronisation  of  procedures,  for  simplification  and  reduction  of  national  rules,  and  for 
industry to keep research activities in Europe. The European Union should invest more in the 
electronic  components  and  systems.  Support  for  the  latter  view  is  followed  closely  by  the 
wish  to  see  more  investment  by  Member  States  and  also  by  industry  (all  above  60%  of 
opinions). 

10 

 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation of JTIs' achievements 

The  evaluation  of  the  two  existing  JTIs  is  positive  in  all  criteria  and  is  consistent  between 
ARTEMIS and ENIAC as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. 

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

Helped
addressing the
key bottlenecks
in embedded
systems
research

Contributed to
increase
European
competitiveness
in the area of
embedded
systems
research

Helped bringing
together
relevant
stakeholders in
embedded
systems
research in a
spirit of open
innovation

ARTEMIS is
visible at the
international
level as a
European PPP in
embedded
systems
research

Changed the
business model
of research in
the embedded
systems
industry
towards
collaboration
and open
innovation

Effectively
engaged with
SMEs in relevant
sectors

Pooling Union's,
Member States',
industry's and
research
resources

Efficient use of
its resources

Figure 4 - ARTEMIS achievements 

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Helped
addressing the
key bottlenecks
in
nanoelectronics
research

Contributed to
increase
European
competitiveness
in the area of
nanoelectronics
research

Helped bringing
together
relevant
stakeholders in
nanoelectronics
research in a
spirit of open
innovation

ENIAC is visible
at the
international
level as a
European PPP in
nanoelectronics
research

Changed the
business model
of research in
the
nanoelectronics
industry
towards
collaboration
and open
innovation

Effectively
engaged with
SMEs in relevant
sectors

Pooling Union's,
Member States',
industry's and
research
resources

Efficient use of
its resources

Figure 5 - ENIAC achievements 

AENEAS  indicates  that  'the  level  of  cooperation  and  collaboration  is  actually  high  in  the 
domain'. There is generally a more positive opinion on the role of the JTI in bringing together 

11 

 
 
 
 
the relevant stakeholders in the spirit of open innovation. The latter reflects mostly the strong 
agreement from the large companies in both initiatives. 

Timeframe for impact 

The  evaluation  of  the  coverage and  the  impact  of  the  future  JTI  along  the  innovation  chain 
(see Figure 6 and Figure 7) show an overwhelming support for projects with TRLs between 2 
to 7 or 8 and a relatively short term impact at 2-5 years. It also shows the need for continuous 
support of upstream research to help new concepts emerge. 

TRL min

TRL max

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Figure 6 - TRL range 

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

0-2 years

2-5 years

5-10 years

> 10 years

Figure 7 - Distance to market 

System  integration  receives,  by  far,  the  highest  rating  as  a  priority  theme  for  the  future  JTI 
focus,  while  design  and  prototyping/demonstrators  is  in  second  place.  Large  companies 
favour  demonstrators,  SMEs  prefer  prototyping.  The  majority  of  respondents,  including  the 
industrial associations, are in favour of a programme that is more roadmap-driven. 

SMEs' position in the future initiative 

SMEs are particularly keen on improving time-to-market. For them, the role of the JTI is to 
improve cooperation and coordination of the private sector on innovative demonstrators. 

There is a general favourable opinion on the necessity of facilitating access to financing for 
SMEs.  All  stakeholders,  except  large  companies,  support  higher  funding  rates  for  SMEs. 
Favourable rules for the participation of SMEs are seen as strongly effective, though this view 
is not strongly shared by large companies and RTOs. 

12 

 
 
 
 
1.6. 

Results from the study on future impact of ARTEMIS and ENIAC 

The study [4] was conducted by a team of experts with extensive experience in the field of the 
current JTIs. The study consisted of desk research and about 30 interviews of a representative 
sample of stakeholders involved in the ARTEMIS and ENIAC JUs.  

1.6.1.  Main findings 

According  to  the  study  team,  the  JTIs  definitely  need  to  be  continued.  There  is  a  need  to 
continue  to  support  the  European  electronic  components  and  systems  industry  in  order  to 
strengthen  the  position  of  the  industry  in  global  value  chains  and  to  reinforce  the  European 
innovation system in the global innovation network. 

Figure 8 - Value chain coverage of ARTEMIS and ENIAC 

As shown in Figure 8 there are complementarities and strong links between the various parts 
of  the  value  chain  covered  by  ENIAC  and  ARTEMIS.  These  links  are  set  to  grow  as  the 
components  industry  seeks  to  capture  opportunities  in  the  higher  parts  of  the  value  chain. 
Embedded systems suppliers also seek to better exploit possibilities brought by the increasing 
performance  and  functionalities  of  components.  Continued  focused  research  and  innovation 
actions  along  the  tracks  of  the  current  two  JTIs  are  needed.  These  actions  should  be  led  by 
appropriate stakeholders including SMEs. 

Integration  of  operations  of  the  two  JTIs  is  advisable.  This  would  involve  setting  up  an 
efficient  and  effective  one-stop-shop  for  managing  programmes  for  the  European  electronic 
components  and  systems  industry.  Integration  furthermore  creates  scope  for  cross-cutting 
activities.  Large  parts  of  the  current  research  agendas  could  benefit  from  more  strategic 
focusing. 

13 

 
 
 
1.6.2.  Main recommendations 

The recommendations on  the shaping of the future JTI initiative are divided into two major 
groups:  the  first  concerns  the  development  of  the  research  and  innovation  agenda  and  the 
second group deals with how to implement this agenda and related governance/funding issues. 

Developing the research and innovation agenda: 

To further develop the research and innovation agenda a number of conclusions can be drawn:  

1.  Focus on key areas from the double perspective of positioning EU industry in the global 
value chain(s) and strengthening the relevant parts of the European innovation ecosystem. 
In terms of building a research and innovation agenda, this has several consequences: 

•  Maintain  a  clear  focus  on  the  European  value  added  for  the  stakeholders  (industry, 
Member States, research organisations and the relevant regions) to deliver more than 
the sum of national or single firm interests. 

•  To  maximise  impact,  address  the  whole  innovation  chain  including  higher  TRLs 
(avoiding the so-called valley of death). This becomes even more important with the 
growing costs and risks of investment at higher TRLs. This may require an increasing 
involvement  of  users  (firms  and/or  public  organisations,  e.g.  automotive,  aerospace, 
or healthcare and energy sectors) in the new JTI. 

•  Balancing short term and long term interests and ensuring that each stakeholder group 
has  its  own  role  (industry  for  the  market  orientation,  science  for  the  longer  term 
opportunities  and  public  government  for  the  general  public  interest)  will  be  key 
issues. 

2.  A full integration of the research agendas of the two JTIs is not advised although there is a 
clear  need  to  have  continuity  from  electronic  components  to  systems  so  as  to  avoid 
important  gaps  in  the  value  chain.  There  are  significant  areas  of  synergy  and  some 
overlaps between the fields covered by the two running JTIs. Developments in technology 
(interdisciplinary fields) and markets (e.g. the further integration of complete systems on a 
chip)  increase  the  importance  of  these  synergy  areas.  It  is  therefore  essential  to  create 
scope for cross-cutting activities between the agendas of the two running JTIs. 

3.  Agility  and  flexibility  are  needed.  As  the  speed  of  developments  increases  and 
technological  barriers  narrow,  the  ability  to  respond  fast  –  and  not  to  "protect"  obsolete 
trajectories – is needed. In line with the previous point, the new JTIs should create room 
for identifying and responding to new needs and opportunities which may come in parallel 
to the envisioned roadmaps. 

4.  The  participation  of  SMEs  is  better  than  generally  perceived  (Figure  9)  but  needs 
strengthening.  SMEs  may  actually  benefit  from  clearly  recognisable  focus  areas  in  the 
research agenda that are linked to specific parts of the industry value chain. 

14 

 
 
 
 
Figure 9 - SME participation in ARTEMIS and ENIAC projects 

Implementing the research and innovation agenda: 

With  regard  to  the  implementation  of  the  research  agendas  and  issues  of  governance  and 
funding, the following conclusions were drawn: 

1.  Both the stakeholder analysis and the evaluation of the scenarios show a strong preference 
for a "one-stop-shop" organisation. Stakeholder preferences, the SWOT-analyses and the 
analysis  underpinning  the  scenarios  all  confirm  the  need  for  continuation  of  the  present 
tripartite model in which European Union and Member States' funding come together with 
industry funding1. The actual implementation of the tripartite model might be improved by 
integrating  funding  commitments  from  the  Union  with  those  of  the  Member  States  (and 
possible other sources in the future). 

2.  Continue  working  on  aligning  research  agendas  and  priorities  from  a  multi-level 
governance perspective to include regional and other funding (loans, etc.) options. Unified 
operations  and  making 
the  one-stop-shop  work  requires  considerable  effort  of 
coordination.  It  will  require  from  industry  an  effort  to  focus  and  prioritise  taking  into 
account  its  own  interests,  the  public  interest,  a  visionary  medium  to  longer  term 
technological  outlook  and  market  opportunities.  To  achieve  such  a  focus,  high  quality 
strategic  analysis  will  be  required  including  the  identification  of  cross-cutting  activities 
and relevant multi-level alignment of funding. 

3.  Moving the programmes closer to the market (e.g. by supporting higher TRLs in the form 
of pilots and other close to market initiatives) requires a highly professional and strategic 
management  of  the  programmes  as  the  supported  activities  become  deeper  entangled  in 
the competitive operations of firms. 

1.7. 

Stakeholders views - summary 

From the above it can be seen that stakeholders consider the two existing JTIs in ICT as being 
of high value. 

1 

This  finding  comes  out  of  direct  interviews  at  a  time  where  further  developments  of  the  future  JTI 
model were available compared to the situation at the time of the public consultation. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The current initiatives ENIAC and ARTEMIS JU involve industrial stakeholders (both large 
companies  and  SMEs)  and  the  research  community  (universities  and  RTOs)  from  across 
Europe.  Member  States  are  directly  involved  in  the  governance  structures  and  contribute 
financially.  The  industrial  and  research  communities  are  represented  through  the  industrial 
associations AENEAS and ARTEMIS-IA. 

The consultations show that all actors are motivated and committed to the JTIs. According to 
industry, the JTIs helped bringing together relevant stakeholders and facilitated cooperation in 
the  implementation  of  the  industrial  Strategic  Research  Agendas.  The  JTIs  pooled  private 
resources and public funds from Member States and the European Union. 

For the new JTI, all stakeholders strongly support the following two main specific objectives: 

•  Achieve critical mass by pooling public and private resources; and 
•  Provide public support for large scale demonstrators and pilots. 

The new initiative should facilitate efficient transnational research and support cooperation on 
innovation  across  value  chains  closer  to  the  market.  The  design  of  complex  electronic 
components  and  systems  should  be  covered  as  well  as  manufacturing  and  technology 
development. 

Member States insist on the most effective spending of public money in the interests of their 
national industries and research communities. All participating Member States acknowledge 
the  importance  of  a  strong  industry  in  electronic  components  and  systems.  Member  States 
showed  interest  in  participating  in  a  tripartite  model,  where  the  level  of  funding  requires 
pooling of resources and stronger alignment of strategies at regional, national and EU level. 

Some  Member  States  are  aware  of  the  difficulties  currently  faced  by  participants,  notably 
through  the  application  of  national  eligibility  criteria  and  the  lack  of  synchronisation  and 
alignment  of  national  contracting  and  funding  terms.  Differences  in  national  agreements 
create  different  terms  of  participation  amongst  the  beneficiaries  and  lead  to  inefficiencies. 
This is a main difficulty signalled by stakeholders regarding the tripartite model for the JTI. 

For  SMEs  ease  of  participation  is  of  paramount  importance.  They  strongly  favour  more 
targeted support, an opinion that is shared by the Member States.  

The need for multi-annual financial commitments of public authorities is equally highlighted. 

These  various  opinions  have  been  taken  into  account  when  considering  the  options  for  the 
new JTI in electronic components and systems as set out in the remainder of this report. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

The  next  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Horizon  2020  [1],  states  the 
strategic importance of ICT for Europe and the ambition for building on Europe's strengths to 
boost innovation and grow business. ICT plays an essential role as it provides the key basic 
infrastructures, technologies and systems for economic and social prosperity and as it is at the 
origin of new private and public products and services. European industry needs to remain at 
the  cutting  edge  of  technological  developments  in  ICT  as  many  technologies  enter  a  new 

16 

 
 
disruptive phase. This opens new opportunities. Electronic components and systems are at the 
core of all ICT products and services, and apart from being a significant industry by itself, are 
at  the  origin  of  many  productivity  improvements.  They  fuel  innovation  across  the  economy 
and have a key role in addressing societal challenges. 

To address its aims, Horizon 2020 is structured around three complementary and interlinked 
priorities  -  Excellent  Science,  Industrial  Leadership,  and  Societal  Challenges.  Within 
Industrial  Leadership  support  is  foreseen  for  research  and  innovation  to  achieve  industrial 
leadership  in  key  enabling  technologies  –  including  electronic  components  and  systems. 
Important  market  failures  such  as  private  sector  underinvestment  in  R&D  and  insufficient 
financing for growth of innovative SMEs will be addressed. 

Two  specific  activity  lines  within  the  Industrial  Leadership  of  Horizon  2020  concern  the 
electronic components and systems: 

•  A  new  generation  of  components  and  systems:  engineering  of  advanced  and  smart 
embedded components and systems. The objective is to maintain and reinforce European 
leadership in technologies related to smart embedded components and systems. It includes 
micro-nano-bio  systems,  organic  electronics, 
integration,  underlying 
technologies for the Internet of Things (IoT) including platforms to support the delivery of 
advanced  services,  smart  integrated  systems,  systems  of  systems  and  complex  systems 
engineering. 

large  area 

•  Micro- and nanoelectronics and photonics: The objective is to build on the excellence of 
Europe  in  this  key  enabling  technology  and  support  the  competitiveness  and  market 
leadership  of  its  industry.  Activities  will  include  research  and  innovation  on  design, 
advanced  processes,  pilot  lines  for  fabrication,  related  production  technologies  and 
demonstration  actions  to  validate  technology  developments  and  innovative  business 
models. 

The specific objective 'Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies' will follow a more 
technology-driven  approach  to  develop  enabling  technologies  that  can  be  used  in  multiple 
areas, industries and services. Applications of these technologies to meet societal challenges 
will be supported together with the Societal Challenges priority. Stakeholders representing the 
different  perspectives  must  be  fully  involved  in  priority  setting  and  its  implementation.  In 
certain cases, jointly funded public-private partnerships are to be set up. 

The  preamble  to  Horizon  2020  states  that  'a  greater  impact  should  also  be  achieved  by 
combining  Horizon  2020  and  private  sector  funds  within  public-private  partnerships  in  key 
areas  where  research  and  innovation  could  contribute  to  Europe's  wider  competitiveness 
goals and help tackle societal challenges. The public-private partnerships in the form of Joint 
Technology  Initiatives  launched  under  Decision  No  1982/2006/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  December  2006  concerning  the  Seventh  Framework 
programme  of  the  European  Community  for  research,  technological  development  and 
demonstration  activities  (2007-13)  may  be  continued  using  more  fit-for-purpose  structures' 
The  set-up  of  a  Joint  Undertaking  for  R&D&I  in  electronic  components  and  systems  is  an 
essential  pillar  for  an  EU-wide  strategy  to  attract  more  private  investment  in  support  of  an 
industry-driven European roadmap for leadership in the field. 

17 

 
 
2.1. 

Electronic  components:  An  important  industry  with  significant  growth  and  a 
massive economic footprint 

The  electronics  value  chains  already  support  an  important  part  of  the  worldwide  economy. 
This  proportion  will  continue  to  increase  as  electronics  becomes  even  more  prominent  in 
society  and  as  products  and  services  more  heavily  embed  digital  technologies.  The  figures 
below underline the importance of the sector: 

•  The  worldwide  value  of  the  industry  addressed  by  this  initiative  is  in  the  order  of  some 
€230 billion ($300 billion) for the semiconductor industry and around €1.600 billion for 
the electronic systems. 

•  Despite  the  recent  financial  and  economic  setbacks,  the  worldwide  market  for 
semiconductor components (Figure 10) has continued to grow by 5% per annum from the 
beginning  of  the  millennium.  Further  growth  of  the  same  magnitude  has  been  predicted 
for the remaining part of the current decade [7]. 

Figure 10 - Worldwide market 

•  Progress in semiconductors2 is the main driver behind the high growth rates of the digital 

• 

sector which has today a total value of around €3.000 billion worldwide. 
In Europe, more than 200.000 people are directly employed in the semiconductor sector 
alone with a growing shortage of skills. 

•  The  impact  of  electronics  on  the  whole  economy,  from  automotive  to  health,  energy, 

aerospace or agro industries amounts to 10% of the worldwide GDP. 

•  As an example, with the increasing electrification of cars and the move towards greener 
vehicles,  electronics  will  represent  more  than  half  of  the  value  of  the  car  by  2020.  It 
already represents more than a third of the value in today's medium and high range cars. 

In  brief,  electronics  is  at  the  centre  of  improved  productivity  and  sustainability  of  modern 
manufacturing, higher value products and innovation in services in all sectors. 

2.2. 

Embedded systems: driving innovation across industry 

Embedded ICT systems include the software, computing and networking technologies that are 
specifically designed in order to be integrated in all types of products and services such as but 
not  limited  to  cars,  planes,  home  appliances,  medical  equipment,  factories  or  energy 
equipment. Their requirements depend on the physical systems in which they are embedded 

2 

Advances  in  electronics  follow  a  sustained  "more  for  less"  curve  characterised  as  Moore's  Law 
(doubling of performance for the same price every 18 months) 

18 

 
 
 
                                                 
and  often  include  efficient  energy  consumption,  high  safety  and  dependability  features,  and 
the ability to respond in real time as well as stringent size constraints. Embedded systems are 
the  technology  that  enables  the  whole  economy  and  society  to  benefit  fully  from  ICT 
progress. 

An  important  part  of  embedded  systems  is  developed  by  end  user  companies  such  as 
automotive,  energy,  aerospace  or  engineering  companies.  However  there  is  also  a  large 
community of suppliers of such systems, mostly SMEs but equally large companies. A rough 
estimate shows that there are more than two million people in the EU employed to develop, 
implement and maintain embedded systems mainly in user industry. 

In 2010, the global embedded systems market accounted for around €850 billion. The overall 
industry is growing quickly (12% per year) and should reach €1.5 trillion in revenue by 2015. 
It  is  part  of  key  markets  of  European  industry.  For  example,  between  7%  and  12%  in  civil 
avionic costs are in embedded systems (hardware, software services) and up to 35% of R&D 
cost is in embedded systems. The figures are even higher in automotive with 25% of vehicle 
cost in embedded systems and 80% of product innovation coming from embedded systems. 

2.3. 

Key technologies for addressing the societal challenges 

Electronics components and systems are not only found in PCs and mobile devices; they also 
include the sensors, cameras and actuators in all types of artefacts including the smart grids 
for  lower  energy  consumption  or  implants  and  sophisticated  medical  equipment  for 
healthcare.  They  provide  the  building  blocks  for  security  systems,  for  safety  and  energy 
efficiency of transport systems and for food safety and environmental monitoring. 

Nowadays  there  is  not  a  single  societal  challenge  in  which  electronics  is  not  at  the  basis  of 
innovative solutions to address that challenge.  

2.4. 

Technological and economic context 

Europe is facing two main challenges in the field of electronic components and systems: 

•  The  need  to  be  in  control  of  the  key  elements  of  the  value  chain,  i.e.  "components  and 
systems design", "components manufacturing", and "integration of electronic components 
into final  products". The electronics value chain extends beyond manufacturing  of chips 
and  includes  the  whole  user  industry  from  automotive  to  aerospace  up  to  web-based 
services. Each of its elements is essential to ensure sustainability of value creation from 
electronics in Europe3. 

•  The  need  to  cover  the  full  innovation  chain  as  e.g.  highlighted  by  the  KET  report  [3]. 
While there is excellent research capacity in Europe, the steps to innovation and industrial 
production need to be strengthened so that businesses and citizens can fully benefit from 
leading-edge technologies. 

If  Europe  loses  its  electronics  manufacturing  capability/capacity  the  relevant  supply  chains 
and design activities may shift outside Europe and the competitiveness of the whole economic 
fabric  depending  on  electronics  will  be  at  risk.  To  ensure  control  of  the  value  chains  and 

3 

Including not only within the electronics sector but also across the economy 

19 

 
 
                                                 
improve its innovation system, Europe needs to overcome following difficulties (see Annex 1 
for further details): 

•  Fierce global competition and changing business models; 
•  Declining market shares of production; 
•  High costs of R&D&I and fragmented European landscape; and 
•  Fast-paced innovation, seizing the opportunities ahead. 

2.4.1.  Fierce global competition and changing business models 

In  electronics,  a  shift  of  production  to  Asia  has  been  a  major  trend  in  the  last  5  years  as 
illustrated in Figure 11 [7]. This trend is reinforced by changing business models resulting in 
new  industrial  actors  emerging  with  the  foundry  model.  Foundries  now  already  account  for 
nearly 10% of the worldwide production and these are mainly located in Asia. 

Figure 11 - Regional share of IC production 

2.4.2.  Declining market shares of production 

Europe  is  home  to  3  large  European  IDMs  ranked  8th,  13th  and  14th  for  worldwide  sales  in 
2012 [8]. However, the market share of European semiconductor companies is declining and 
is presently below 10% as shown in Figure 12 [7].  

20 

 
 
 
Figure 12 - European semiconductor market shares 

2.4.3.  High costs of R&D&I and fragmented European landscape 

Mastering  complexity  requires  heavy  investment  in  R&D&I  and  spending  huge  capital  in 
production  and  design  facilities  as  research  on  devices  and  production  are  intimately 
intertwined.  Such  investments  can  only  be  justified  by  volume  production  in  particular 
through  commoditisation  (e.g.  mass  market  products).  This  has  led  to  a  concentration  of 
industry. It is estimated that nowadays a semiconductor company must capture a 10% share of 
the worldwide market to afford the investment to keep up with the state-of-the-art technology 
development. 

Two main factors explain Europe's weaker position in this field. Those are underinvestment 
and fragmentation of efforts. Although in absolute terms investments by EU companies is in 
the  order  of  billions  of  euros,  investments  remain  relatively  modest  compared  to  the 
worldwide competition. 

2.4.4.  Fast-paced innovation, seizing the opportunities ahead 

As  illustrated  in  Figure  13  and  Figure  14,  the  European  industry  and  the  affiliated  research 
and  innovation  partners  are  well  positioned  in  critical  industrial  areas.  Europe  has  world 
leading  companies  in  electronic  components  and  systems  in  automotive  [9],  industrial 
automation,  energy  applications  and  communications.  However,  it  is  relatively  absent  in 
computer  and  consumer  related  components  and  systems  that  constitute  a  large  part  of  the 
market [9]. 

21 

 
 
 
Figure 13 - European markets 

Figure 14 - Shares of automotive semiconductors 

The  outlook  for  embedded  systems  in  Europe  is  challenged  by  two  main  factors.  Firstly, 
generic ICT platforms at devices, applications and content level are mostly dominated by non-
EU actors (e.g. operating systems, smartphones, and web-platforms for e-commerce or social 
networks).  Secondly,  embedded  systems  are  increasingly  networked  and  connected  to  the 
Internet4  leading  to  new  business  opportunities  but  also  to  the  entry  of  new  players.  The 
blurring  of  barriers  between  sectors  such  as  the  web  industry  and  the  embedded  systems 
supply  industry  however  also  creates  new  opportunities.  Seizing  these  will  require  notably 
more  cross-sector  sharing  of  tools  and  technologies  that  are  today  separate.  Furthermore  it 
will require more interaction between software development, hardware development and end-
users. 

4 

Embedded  systems  are  increasingly  referred  to  as  "cyber-physical  systems"  to  illustrate  their  role  in 
connecting physical objects to the web 

22 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  close  relationship  between  the  electronic  components  industry  and  the  industrial  fabric 
and the proximity with systems integrators is therefore of paramount importance for Europe. 
At  the  same  time,  R&D  in  Europe  needs  to  keep  pace  with  worldwide  competition.  If  the 
manufacturing industry would start to lose ground in Europe, R&D&I may disappear as well 
and with it the whole ecosystem, including the user industries. 

2.5. 

Achievements and lessons learned from the current ENIAC and ARTEMIS JUs 

2.5.1.  Governance and objectives 

Both  the  ARTEMIS  and  ENIAC  JUs  were  set-up  under  the  Article  171  of  the  Treaty  (now 
Article 187 of the TFEU) along with the other JTIs (IMI, CleanSky and FCH). Both ENIAC 
and ARTEMIS JUs are tripartite initiatives mobilising funding from the EU, Member States 
and private members. 

ENIAC and ARTEMIS JUs have similar governance structures as shown in Figure 15 [10]. 

Figure 15 – Current JUs governance structure 

The governance structure has four bodies as follows: 

•  Governing Board – The Governing Board has overall responsibility for implementing and 
supervising  the  execution  of  the  JTI  programme  and  takes  all  decisions  of  a  strategic 
nature. 50% of the voting rights are for the Industrial Association and 50% for the public 
authorities  (Commission  and  participating  States).  The  distribution  of  the  votes  for  the 
public authorities is established annually in proportion to the funds committed to the JTI's 
activities. 
Industry  and  Research  Committee  –  It  is  inter  alia  responsible  for  the  drafting  of  the 
multiannual strategic plan and the annual work programme. 

• 

•  Public Authorities Board – Composed of national public authorities and the Commission. 
It is inter alia responsible for decisions on the allocation of public funds following open 
calls for proposals. 

23 

 
 
 
•  The Executive Director – He/she is the legal representative of the Joint Undertaking and 
ensures  its  day-to-day  management.  A  Secretariat  supports  the  Executive  Director  in  all 
his/her tasks. 

The objectives of ENIAC and ARTEMIS JUs essentially are: 

•  To define and implement a research agenda in their fields. 
•  To  support  activities  required  for  the  implementation  of  the  research  agenda  notably  by 
awarding  funding  to  participants  in  selected  projects  following  competitive  calls  for 
proposals. 

•  To  promote  a  public-private  partnership  aiming  at  mobilising  and  pooling  public  and 

private resources to increase the overall R&D investment in their fields. 

•  To achieve synergy and coordination of European R&D efforts. 
•  To promote the involvement of SMEs in its activities. 

2.5.2.  Achievements 

Two interim evaluations of the current ARTEMIS and ENIAC JUs [11, 12] were completed 
in  2010  and  2012.  Both  interim  evaluations  confirmed  that  the  original  motivations  for  the 
establishment of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC JU are still valid and acknowledge the significant 
value and achievements obtained. Both evaluations highlight the crucial role of the Strategic 
Research  Agenda  (SRA).  If  the  first  evaluation  was  focused  on  addressing  issues  related  to 
the  start-up  of  the  JUs,  the  second  evaluation  assessed  the  concrete  impact  of  the  two  JUs. 
Many  of  the  recommendations  relate  to  the  'next  generation  JUs'.  These  recommendations 
have been discussed in the design of the new JU with the stakeholders and have been taken 
into  account  in  the  current  Impact  Assessment  (see  in  particular  in  Section  2.6  and  3).  The 
recommendations  relate  to  e.g.  the  support  of  innovation-related  actions  (addressing  higher 
TRLs), the use of a simpler financial regulation in line with the recommendations made by the 
'Ideal house' group [13] and the need for appropriate metrics to measure the impact and the 
success of projects and the initiative as a whole. The second interim evaluation published its 
final report in May 2013.  

In the period 2008-2011, the two JUs supported a total of 84 projects (44 for ARTEMIS JU 
and 40 for ENIAC JU). Annex 2 gives an overview of their results. 

As reported by the ENIAC JU, the impact and leverage of the initiative on the semiconductor 
industry is observed in the following achievements: 

• 

• 

• 

It defined and implemented a Strategic Research Agenda strengthening the relevant 
areas  in  which  Europe  improved  its  competitiveness  by  directing  funding  to  the 
priority  subjects,  in  particular  to  "Energy  Efficiency"  (29%)  and  "Materials, 
Equipment and Manufacturing" (25%). 

The first projects approaching completion in 2012 demonstrated significant advances 
of the state of the art in their respective fields, strengthening the global competitive 
position of the European industry. 

It  leveraged  the  public  investments,  increasing  the  amounts  contributed  by  the 
ENIAC Member States by a factor of 2.5 (from €62 million in 2008 to €150 million 
in  2012)  and  the  EU  contributions  by  a  factor  of  3.5  (from  €35  million  in  2008  to 

24 

 
 
€125 million in 2012). The private sector increased its contributions by a factor of 5 
(from about €110 million in 2008 to an estimate amount exceeding €550 million in 
2012). 

It  engaged  the  whole  ecosystem,  allowing  the  countries  with  smaller  national 
programmes  in  nanoelectronics  to  contribute  to  a  combined  level  equivalent  to  the 
three leading nations. 

It created opportunities to contribute for the SMEs that represent the majority of the 
participating  organizations  with  41%,  inducing  collaboration  of  the  large  industry 
(29%  of  the  participating  organizations)  and  the  academic  and  industrial  research 
(30%). 

The  project  proposal,  submission  and  evaluation  mechanisms  allow  to  execute  the 
whole cycle within 7-9 months. 

It  is  thus  far  the  only  mechanism  that  already  engaged  in  implementing  the  KET 
policy to the extent to which they are compatible with the existing regulations, rules 
and procedures, playing the role of a catalyst federating all contributors towards re-
engaging the European semiconductor industry on a path of profitable growth. 

It  induced  a  new  quality  of  collaboration  between  the  stakeholders  that  resulted  in 
remarkable  progress  in  the  past  and  provides  a  solid  basis  for  the  future  strategic 
perspectives. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

As reported by the ARTEMIS JU, the following achievements are highlighted: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The distribution of investment over the 8 ARTEMIS Strategic Research Agenda Sub-
Programmes  shows  a  large  take-up  of  safety-critical  systems  (with  32%)  and 
architectures  (with  26%).  Safety-critical  systems  are  significant  because  of  its  high 
importance  for  the  transport  and  health  industries,  attracting  larger  projects  with 
directly  relevant  outcomes  for  industry.  In  the  area  of  architectures  fundamental 
technologies  (especially  for  low-power-multi-core  architectures)  are  introduced  in 
industrial applications (i.e. respecting high system reliability demands). 

After  four  Calls,  ARTEMIS  JU  has  running  projects  representing  a  total  R&D&I 
investment  of  €708  million,  comprising  €228  million  national  contributions,  €116 
million contribution by the EU and €363 million from industry. 

ARTEMIS  JU  has  achieved  its  high-level  goals  of  reducing  fragmentation  by 
enlarging the typical project 'footprint' at a European level. 

Creation  of  ARTEMIS  JU  "Centre  of  Innovation  Excellence"  (CoIE)  -  a 
formalization of the "Self-sustaining Innovation Ecosystem" concept. To date, there 
are three such CoIEs, notably on safety-critical (electronic) engineering, on process 
automation and on energy-efficiency in intelligent buildings. 

Two of these CoIEs are the kernel of two corresponding "ARTEMIS Innovation Pilot 
Projects" (AIPPs) that were selected in 2012. 

25 

 
 
• 

Of  the  586  unique  entities  participating  in  ARTEMIS  JU  projects  the  high  level  of 
SME participation (36%) was made possible by the national contribution, favourable 
to  SMEs  and  the  emergence  of  local  ARTEMIS  networks  supportive  of  SME 
integration,  such  as  the  ARTEMIS  "mirrors"  in  Austria,  Hungary,  Denmark  and 
Spain ("Prometeo").  

As can be seen from the above, overall the two JUs demonstrated that they play a significant 
role  as  a  catalyst  in  stimulating  ambitious  projects  and  increasing  the  engagement  of  the 
private  sector.  The  JUs  provide  a  framework  in  which  national  and  European  public 
authorities  can  combine  support  for  topics  of  strategic  importance.  This  capability  has  been 
convincingly  demonstrated  by 
the 
implementation of the KET recommendations in nanoelectronics and by the ARTEMIS JU's 
in  its  first  trial  of  large  Artemis  Innovation  Pilot  Projects  within  their  call  for  proposals  in 
2012. 

the  ENIAC  JU 

in  successfully 

jump-starting 

2.5.3. 

Issues in meeting the initial objectives 

Besides the successes mentioned above, there are some particular problems faced by the JUs 
in meeting their objectives. The second interim evaluation identified a gap in the value chain 
existing at the system level, in disruptive product innovation and in computing and operating 
platform infrastructures. 'Europe's ability to meet such [related] challenges is threatened by 
significant  'gaps'  –  not  only  in  research  or  general  technological  competence,  but  most 
significantly  in  the  industrial  value  chain'.  Considering  the  interdependence  of  activities  in 
ENIAC and ARTEMIS JU for putting products in the market, these findings clearly outline 
the need to address the whole value chain in the future initiative(s). On a general level, both 
interim  evaluations  of  the  ENIAC  and  ARTEMIS  JUs  identify  the  need  to  ensure  that  the 
initiatives implement an over-arching European strategy. 

During  the  period  2008-2012,  the  total  spending  by  the  Member  States  participating  in  the 
initiatives  amounts  to  respectively  395 M€  and  228 M€  for  ENIAC  JU  and  ARTEMIS  JU. 
This is well below the 792 M€ and 738 M€ initially foreseen. In the case of the ENIAC JU the 
spending  of  the  Member  States  is  below  the  1.8  MS/JU  ratio  indicated  in  the  Council 
regulations.  

Regarding the tripartite construction of both JUs, one important challenge ahead is in aligning 
content and procedure with the expectations and processes of the participating Member States. 
The  experience  so  far  however  shows  that  it  was  possible  to  a  certain  extent  to  meet  the 
objectives although with a ramping up slower than originally foreseen. 

In addition to the above further more operational observations can be drawn from the present 
set-up: 

• 

• 

• 

There  is  a  lack  of  synchronisation  of  national  procedures  (for  both  contracting  and 
payments) creating delays in the implementation of projects. 

The  obligation  for  the  participants  to  conclude  two  grant  agreements  (JU  and 
national) constitutes an administrative burden. 

The  variety  of  national  eligibility  criteria  has  an  impact  on  the  way  consortia  are 
built. 

26 

 
 
• 

• 

The 'hard-coded' dependency between national commitments and the EU (1.8 ratio) 
hampered  the  EU  budget  execution  when  national  contributions  were  low  or  when 
national  funding  rates  deviated  from 
the  anticipated  public  funding  ratio: 
1/3 (JU) and  2/3 (national) ratio, in particular in the case of ENIAC pilot lines. 

Requirements of the EU Framework Financial Rules put a significant burden on the 
operations of the JU. 

Those  difficulties  however  were  no  show-stoppers  but  required  continuous  efforts  from  all 
parties to make the system work. Any future initiative would greatly benefit from addressing 
these  up-front  through  a  simplified  operating  model  in  line  with  the  overall  simplification 
goals as proposed in Horizon 2020. 

2.6. 

Key problems and their drivers 

In  their  analysis  the  interim  evaluation  panels  of  the  ARTEMIS  and  ENIAC  JU  identified 
several  issues  to  be  addressed  in  the  implementation  of  the  Joint  Undertakings  in  order  to 
strengthen  and  improve  their  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  and  research  quality.  For 
completeness a succinct table is presented below where recommendations are bundled into six 
categories. 

27 

 
 
Table 1 - Synthetic presentation of the recommendations from the two interim evaluations [11, 12] 

Recommendations 

Ref5 

Constituency 

An integrated European strategy 

A  mid-  to  long-term  overarching  EU  research,  development 
and  innovation  strategy  in  Electronic  Components  and 
Systems  (ECS)  should  be  clearly  defined  and  used  as  a  key 
'driver' for funding decisions. 
Place  greater  emphasis  on  strategic,  European  aims  in 
proposal evaluation & selection processes. 
Improve  the  match  of  the  project  portfolio  to  strategic 
European  aims  and  ensure  optimum  coverage  of  key  areas 
defined  in  the  overarching  EU  ECS  strategy  and  the  work 
plans derived from such a strategy. 
ARTEMIS  &  ENIAC  should  continue  their  initiatives  to  be 
more  closely  aligned  with 
ITEA2  and  CATRENE, 
respectively, retaining some flexibility over the assignment of 
the most appropriate funding stream. 

2-17 

1-16 
2-1 

European 
Commission 

Joint 
Undertakings and 
Industrial 
Associations 

1-18 
2-7 

JTI-EUREKA 
coordination 

Allow for a more efficient implementation 

Future  JUs  in  these  domains  to  continue  the  tripartite  JTI 
model. 
Construct/draft  the  new  Council  Regulations,  as  a  PPP  with 
reduced Financial Regulations and Staff Regulations. 
Regulations  should  allow  JTIs  to  support  innovation-related 
activities other than R&D. 
The  ENIAC  &  ARTEMIS  JUs,  along  with  the  European 
Technology  Platform  (ETP)  on  Smart  Systems  Integration 
(EPoSS), should be integrated into one legal entity. 

1-1 

All 

1-9 
2-8 
1-10 

2-6 

European 
Commission 
European 
Commission 
European 
Commission 

Improved governance and strategic planning 

Focus the JU Governing Board on strategic issues and reduce 
its administrative burden in order to attract participation from 
high-level industry representatives. 
Engage  better  with  the  JTI  constituencies  so  as  to  promote 
and facilitate participation in project proposals, especially by 
SMEs.  AENEAS,  should  play  a  more  active  role  in  the 
definition of the overall objectives and strategy of the ENIAC 
JU and keep up to date the Strategic Research Agenda. 
Lead  the  preparation  of  action  plans  for  achievement  of 
innovation  ecosystem  aims,  making  reference  to  what  has 
been  funded  before  with  the  intent  of  demonstrating  novelty 
as well as re-use of results obtained in previous projects. 

2-9 

1-8 
2-2 

1-7 
2-4 

Joint 
Undertakings 

Industrial 
Associations 

Industrial 
Associations, 
Joint 
Undertakings 

5 

See Annex 2 for synthetic tables of recommendations from the 2 interim evaluations. The first number 
refers to the first or second evaluation and the second number is the recommendation number. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Recommendations 

Specific  support  mechanisms  for  enhancing  the  project 
management  processes  in  JU  projects  should  be  developed 
and implemented. Management costs should be 100% funded 
by the EC for all JU projects. 
Establish a mechanism for recovering some of their operation 
costs from non-member beneficiaries of the JUs. 

Ref5 

2-14 

1-13 
1-15 

Constituency 

Joint 
Undertakings and 
European 
Commission 
European 
Commission, 
Joint 
Undertakings 

Strengthened commitment and alignment with priorities of Member States 

Member  States  should  commit  to  a  multi-annual  funding 
system. 
Compliance with the JTI Council Regulations 
Give early annual indication of support for specific topics. 

1-2 
2-12 
1-3 
1-5 

Member States 

Member States 
Member States 

Harmonisation of conditions of participation 

rules, 

funding 

rates  and 

Regulations  should  allow  JTIs  to  accept  funding  from  other 
sources 
Member  State  participation 
procedures should be harmonised wherever possible. 
Regulations should allow the EU to make additional financial 
contributions  for  strategic  purposes,  projects  which  are 
mission-critical. 
An ‘early warning system’ to identify mismatches in funding 
of member states should be implemented. 
The  proportion  of  funding  for  projects  targeting  generic 
applications  and  services  (applications  projects)  should  be 
increased 

1-11 

1-4 
2-10 

European 
Commission 
Member States 

2-5 

ARTEMIS  JU 
and Industrial 
Association 

Streamlined operations including better monitoring and evaluation 

Establish processes to give early feedback to proposers. 

JU  projects  should  be  subject  to  only  one  joint  JU  and  MS 
project review and reporting process. 

Lead  the  establishment  of  processes  to  monitor  progress 
toward JU objectives. 
Appropriate  metrics  and  data  gathering  for  measuring  the 
impact and success of projects should be developed and used 
to support assessment of the benefits of these JUs. 

ENIAC  should  monitor  more  closely  and  rigorously  the 
actual  and  planned  exploitation  of  project  results,  and  the 
measures  put  in  place  by  project  partners  to  achieve  such 
planned exploitation. 
A  detailed  deployment  and  commercialisation  strategy  for 
ARTEMIS project results should be defined. 

29 

1-17 

2-15 

1-6 

1-14 
2-16 

2-3 

Joint 
Undertakings 
Joint 
Undertakings and 
Member States 
Industrial 
Associations 
European 
Commission, 
Joint 
Undertakings 
Joint 
Undertakings 

 
 
An integrated European strategy in electronic components and systems 

The  second  interim  evaluation  recommended  that  the  JTIs  need  an  overarching  European 
research  strategy.  Such  a  strategy  would  reduce  fragmentation,  avoid  duplication  of  efforts, 
allow  the  development  of  a  sustainable  electronic  components  and  systems  industrial 
ecosystem  and  provide  a  means  to  address  cross-cutting  issues  where  components  and 
embedded software interact.  Furthermore such a strategy would allow a better positioning of 
different existing instruments including  relevant  EUREKA  clusters and provide an effective 
means  for  European  stakeholders  to  keep  pace  with  technology,  to  get  access  to  advanced 
components and to consolidate leadership in electronic systems for key economic sectors. 

Provide a legal base for a more efficient implementation 

Both interim evaluations recommended the implementation of the future JTI on a legal basis 
that  is  better  attuned  to  the  specificities  of  Public-Private  Partnerships  with  a  lighter 
administrative overhead and greater flexibility.  

Improved governance and strategic planning 

Both  interim  evaluations  observed  that  the  Governing  Board  spend  too  much  time  on 
operational monitoring and too little time on discussing strategic issues. The second interim 
evaluation  noted  that  the  administrative  burden  should  be  reduced  in  order  to  attract  the 
participation  from  high-level  industry  representatives.  Improved  governance  and  the 
involvement  of  high-level industry representative will result  in better and strategic  planning 
that will engage stakeholders and better reflect the research priorities including those from the 
Member  States.  In  this  context  the  second  interim  evaluation  report  also  indicated  that 
industrial associations should play a more active role in the definition of the overall objectives 
and strategy of the JTIs and should engage more actively with stakeholders so as to promote 
and  facilitate  participation  in  project  proposals,  especially  by  SMEs,  and  develop  and  keep 
up-to-date the Strategic Research Agenda. 

Strengthened commitment and alignment with priorities of Member States 

Both interim evaluations recommended that Member States should commit to a multi-annual 
funding  system.  This  would  allow  for  strategic  agenda  setting  (see  above)  and  allow 
stakeholders to plan ahead. The latter is essential considering the size of the investments and 
the need for sustaining research over a longer period of time. 

Harmonisation of conditions for participation 

The interim evaluations highlighted the need for harmonisation between national procedures 
and criteria among the participating Member States. Member State participation rules, funding 
rates  and  procedures  should  be  harmonised  and  synchronised  wherever  possible,  adopting 
best practice as the guiding principle.  

30 

 
 
 
Streamlined operations including better monitoring and evaluation 

Both  interim  evaluations  recommended  various  recommendations  as  to  how  to  streamline 
operations and provide for a better monitoring and evaluation. In particular it is recommended 
that  the  evaluation  and  selection  process  should  be  reviewed  to  improve  the  match  of  the 
project  portfolio  with  the  overarching  strategy  (see  above).    Appropriate  metrics/key 
performance  indicators  should  facilitate  the  evaluation  of  the  progress  towards  the  set 
objectives.  The JUs are notably requested to improve the check of the exploitation plan at the 
proposal  level  and  its  follow-up  along  the  life  of  the  project  and  beyond.  Furthermore  the 
need for participants to sign two grant agreements (with the JU and the Member State) may 
delay the start of the projects. Projects supported in the JTI should be subject to only one (i.e. 
the JU) project review and reporting process. 

2.7.  Who is affected and how 

in 

The initiative targets the competitiveness of the European electronic components and systems 
industry.  Industrial  stakeholders  are  the  primary  actors.  The  initiative  will  support  existing 
companies 
their 
manufacturing base. It will moreover support the creation and growing of new companies, in 
particular in the domain of design. It furthermore targets industry that depends on electronics 
to innovate such as the automotive, medical equipment, aerospace and energy industries. This 
constitutes a large part of European industry.  

their  competitiveness  and 

in  growing/maintaining 

improving 

It will affect the European citizens by providing the technologies that are needed to tackle key 
societal  challenges.  Citizens  will  e.g.  have  an  increased  choice  of  energy  efficient  products 
with improved functionalities and access to new related services. 

2.8. 

The need for public intervention 

The  Horizon  2020  Framework  Programme  identified  that  'ICT  underpins  innovation  and 
competitiveness across a broad range of private and public markets and sectors, and enables 
scientific  progress  in  all  disciplines.  To  master  increasingly  complex  and  multidisciplinary 
technology and business chains in ICT, partnering, risk-sharing and mobilisation of critical 
mass across the Union are needed. Union level action helps industry address a single market 
perspective and achieve economies of scale and scope. Collaboration around common, open 
technology platforms with spill-over and leverage effects allow a wide range of stakeholders 
to benefit from new developments and apply further innovations.' This is getting truer as both 
hardware and software are intimately integrated in powerful systems giving more value to the 
system integrators. This requires much closer cooperation along the whole development value 
chain [6]. As indicated in section 2.4, this line of argumentation equally applies to electronic 
components and systems.  

Through  Horizon  2020  in  general  and  Joint  Technology  Initiatives  in  particular,  private 
companies  can  collaborate  with  partners  across  Europe  at  a  scale  that  is  not  possible  at 
national level [14]. In the public consultation both industrial and academic actors endorsed the 
need for support to collaborate at different stages of the innovation chain in order to ensure 
that  research  results  actually  reach  the  market  and  are  not  shelved  in  academic  or  industry 
research labs [6]. 

31 

 
 
A public intervention is required to counter the threats and address the weaknesses hindering 
the development of this industrial sector in Europe (cf. SWOT analysis in Annex 1). Public 
support to collaborative research and innovation involving industry and academia will assist 
to: 

•  Maintain  European  public  research  teams  at  the  leading  edge  in  electronic  components 
and systems and ensure the fast and broad industrial exploitation of technology leadership 
across Europe. 

•  Share  the  costs  of  risk-taking  with  the  electronic  components  and  systems  industry  in 
progressing the technology and its wider use given the huge spill-over on growth and jobs 
across the economy and the impact on addressing the societal challenges ahead. 

•  Join forces. Member States have their own priorities  in promoting their industry but the 
level  of  support  needed  for  this  industry  is  beyond  their  individual  resources. 
Fragmentation leads to duplication in R&D efforts. Furthermore only a few world leading 
clusters  with  significant  industrial  activity  in  electronic  components  and  embedded 
systems exist in Europe. Hence 'EU players need to join forces. Better cooperation based 
on  collaborative  working  and  sharing  between  large  OEMs  companies  and  technology 
providers  accelerate  the  product  innovation  on  both  sides  …  by  coordinating  business 
focus,  research  projects  clusters  provide  a  regional  support  network  for  SMEs  through 
cooperation between academia and large OEMs industry.' [15] 

•  Reinforce  the  existing  European  clusters  in  electronic  components  and  the  actively 
support of the creation of new clusters is needed to place Europe on a comparable footing 
to other players worldwide [16]. There is a need for action at the European level in order 
to  pool  resources  and  bring  actors  together,  to  provide  the  right  level  of  scope  and 
significant means to strengthen the industry. This support needs to provide a sustainable 
and adequate solution for Europe to face international competition.  

•  Structure  and  coordinate  research  and  innovation,  to  ensure  that  also  in  the  future  there 
will be a manufacturing base in Europe and that European actors, especially users, have 
access to the latest technology developments and infrastructures. To reach this goal, it is 
critical to effectively leverage public funding at European and national levels. 

2.9. 

The right to act 

This European initiative is proposed in the context of the implementation of Horizon 2020, in 
particular the Commission's proposal [17] states that: 

'Joint  Undertakings  established  in  FP7  under  Article  187  of  the  Treaty,  for  which  further 
support may be provided under the above conditions6 are: the Innovative Medicines Initiative 
(IMI),  Clean  Sky,  Single  European  Sky  ATM  Research  (SESAR),  Fuel  Cells  and  Hydrogen 
(FCH),  and  Embedded  computing  systems  (ARTEMIS)  and  Nanoelectronics  (ENIAC).  The 
latter two may be combined into a single initiative.' 

2.10. 

Subsidiarity 

The  current  ARTEMIS  and  ENIAC  JUs  provided  a  major  opportunity  to  cooperate  across 
Europe,  create  critical  mass  and  leverage  investments.  Both  interim  evaluations  [11,  12] 
strongly recommended continuing a similar initiative under Horizon 2020 considering that no 
single organisation or Member State could possibly address all the challenges of this industry. 

6 See the criteria which should be fulfilled by Joint Technology Initiatives under Horizon 2020 in section 0 

32 

 
 
                                                 
Therefore,  a  coordinated  action  at  European  level  is  deemed  to  be  the  most  appropriate 
approach. 

The  budgetary  impact  and  EU  contribution  of  this  initiative  are  part  of  the  global  Horizon 
2020 proposal and budget. 

2.11.  Baseline scenario 

The  baseline  scenario  is  to  implement  the  JTI  on  electronic  components  and  systems  by 
renewing the current ARTEMIS and ENIAC JU initiatives with the necessary adaptations to 
comply with the context of Horizon 2020. The two JUs could be set-up as 'PPP' bodies using a 
simplified  financial  regulation  based  on  Article  209  FR.  The  necessary  adaptations  are 
notably concerning the rules for participation for Horizon 2020, e.g. the flat rate financing of 
participants,  

As demonstrated through the various stakeholder consultations, there is a positive opinion in 
pursuing with public support to the sector, and industry is committed to invest significantly in 
Europe  [18].  The  renewal  of  the  current  initiatives  would  continue  support  for  advanced 
electronic  components  and  systems 
its 
competitiveness.  

the  European 

industry  and 

improve 

for 

The  baseline  scenario  is  based  on  a  status  quo  where  no  specific  improvements  beyond  the 
above necessary adaptations are made. 

In this baseline scenario a European strategy for micro- and nanoelectronics components and 
systems would rely on two separate initiatives that each have their own established dynamics 
and building on existing constituencies. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES  

3.1. 

General Objectives 

The present initiative intends to go beyond the objectives of the current ENIAC and 
ARTEMIS JUs. The overall objectives of the present initiative are aligned with the European 
strategy on electronic components and systems, as recommended by the two interim 
evaluations (see Table 1). They translate in the following general objectives of the Joint 
Undertaking: 

• 

• 

• 

to  contribute  to  the  development  of  a  strong  and  globally  competitive  electronics 
components and systems industry in the Union; 

to ensure the availability of electronic components and systems for key markets and 
for  addressing  societal  challenges,  aiming  at  keeping  Europe  at  the  forefront  of 
technology  development,  bridging  the  gap  between  research  and  exploitation, 
strengthening innovation capabilities and creating economic and employment growth 
in the Union; 

to align strategies with Member States to attract private investment and contribute to 
sound  public  finances  by  avoiding  unnecessary  duplication  and  fragmentation  of 
efforts, and easing participation for actors involved in research and innovation; 

33 

 
 
• 

• 

• 

• 

to  maintain  and  grow  semiconductor  and  smart  system  manufacturing  capability  in 
Europe, including leadership in manufacturing equipment and materials processing; 

to  secure  a  commanding  position  in  design  and  systems  engineering  including 
embedded technologies; 

to  provide  access  for  all  stakeholders  to  a  world-class  infrastructure  for  the  design 
and  manufacture  of  electronic  components  and  embedded/cyber-physical  and  smart 
systems; 

to  build  a  dynamic  ecosystem  involving  innovative  SMEs,  strengthening  existing 
clusters and nurturing the creation of new clusters in promising new areas. 

3.2. 

Specific Objectives 

Specific objectives of the initiative aim at improving the European landscape in the electronic 
components and systems sector in order to remove roadblocks and to achieve the overarching 
objectives. They are: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

to  structure  and  perform  excellent  research  and  innovation  in  the  area  ensuring 
optimal articulation between EU, national and regional investment programmes and 
industrial priorities; 

to  mobilise  and  pool,  when  needed,  public  resources  at  regional,  national  and  EU 
levels  in  support  of  electronic  components  and  systems  in  Europe,  creating  critical 
mass and attracting private funding in the field; 

to  facilitate  multi-disciplinary  research  and  innovation  actions  along  the  full 
innovation  chain,  covering  Technology  Readiness  Levels  2  to  8,  including 
manufacturing  pilot  lines  and  large  scale  application  experiments,  thereby  reducing 
time to market and closing the gap between research and industrial exploitation; 

to bring together the actors in value chains, including users and SMEs, to address the 
inherent  complexity  in  the  design  and  manufacturing  of  electronic  components  and 
systems; 

to strengthen the ecosystem from component design to semiconductor manufacturing 
to  embedded  systems  development  to  end  users,  from  equipment  and  material 
suppliers to semiconductor manufacturers to systems engineering, from universities 
to RTOs to industry including SMEs; and 

to  create  and  grow  market  opportunities  for  electronic  components  and  systems  in 
areas  such  as  but  not  limited  to  automotive,  transport,  health,  energy,  security, 
telecommunications and digital media. 

Going  beyond  the  objectives  of  the  current  JUs,  the  initiative  enlarges  the  scope  of  actions 
downstream in the innovation chains. It notably includes actions supporting focused platforms 
which  will  be  widely  accessible  to  further  innovative  developments,  beyond  the  initial 
objectives  of  the  current  JUs.  This  will  reinforce  the  leveraging  effect  of  the  initiative.  The 
following  table  indicates  the  drivers  underlying  the  proposed  specific  objectives  and  how 
these relate to the current JUs' objectives. 

34 

 
 
 
Table 2 - Links between the current JUs' objectives, recommendations from the two interim evaluations and the proposed JU specific objectives 

New JU's objectives 

Recommendations 

Structure and perform excellent research 
and innovation in the area ensuring 
optimal articulation between EU, national 
and regional investment programmes and 
industrial priorities 

Mobilise and pool, when needed, public 
resources at regional, national and EU 
levels in support of electronic components 
and systems in Europe, creating critical 
mass and attracting private funding in the 
field 

An integrated European strategy 

• 

Improve  the  match  of  the  project portfolio to strategic European 
aims  and  ensure  optimum  coverage  of  key  areas  defined  in  the 
overarching  EU  ECS  strategy  and  the  work  plans  derived  from 
such a strategy 

•  ARTEMIS & ENIAC should continue their initiatives to be more 
closely  aligned  with  ITEA2  and  CATRENE,  respectively, 
retaining  some  flexibility  over  the  assignment  of  the  most 
appropriate funding stream 

Allow for a more efficient implementation 

•  Future JTIs in these domains to continue the tripartite JTI model 

Improved governance and strategic planning 

•  Focus the JU Governing Board on strategic issues and reduce its 
administrative  burden in order to  attract participation from high-
level industry representatives 

Allow for a more efficient implementation 

•  Future JTIs in these domains to continue the tripartite JTI model 

Strengthened  commitment  and  alignment  with  priorities  of  Member 
States 

•  Member States should commit to a multi-annual funding system 
•  Give early annual indication of support for specific topics 

35 

ENIAC and ARTEMIS 
objectives 

Define  and  implement  a 
research  agenda  in  their 
fields 

synergy 

Achieve 
and 
coordination of European 
R&D efforts 

aiming 

Promote  a  public-private 
partnership 
at 
mobilising  and  pooling 
private 
and 
public 
resources  to  increase  the 
overall  R&D  investment 
in their fields 

 
 
New JU's objectives 

Recommendations 

ENIAC and ARTEMIS 
objectives 

Harmonisation of conditions of participation 

•  Member  State  participation  rules,  funding  rates  and  procedures 

should be harmonised wherever possible. 

•  Regulations  should  allow  JTIs  to  accept  funding  from  other 

sources 

•  Regulations  should  allow  the  EU  to  make  additional  financial 
contributions  for  strategic  purposes,  projects  which  are  mission-
critical 

Allow for a more efficient implementation 

•  Regulations  should  allow  JTIs  to  support  innovation-related 

activities other than R&D 

•  The  ENIAC  &  ARTEMIS  JTIs,  along  with  the  European 
Technology  Platform  (ETP)  on  Smart  Systems  Integration 
(EPoSS), should be integrated into one legal entity 

Improved governance and strategic planning 

•  Lead  the  preparation  of  action  plans  for  achievement  of 
innovation  ecosystem  aims,  making  reference  to  what  has  been 
funded before with the intent of demonstrating novelty as well as 
re-use of results obtained in previous projects 

for 

activities 
Support 
the 
required 
the 
implementation  of 
research  agenda  notably 
by  awarding  funding  to 
in  selected 
participants 
following 
projects 
competitive 
for 
calls 
proposals 

Facilitate multi-disciplinary research and 
innovation actions along the full 
innovation chain, covering Technology 
Readiness Levels 2 to 8, including 
manufacturing pilot lines and large scale 
application experiments, thereby reducing 
time to market and closing the gap 
between research and industrial 
exploitation 

•  Specific  support  mechanisms 

the  project 
management  processes  in  JTI  projects  should  be  developed  and 
implemented.  Management  costs  should  be  100%  funded  by  the 
EC for all JTI projects 

for  enhancing 

36 

 
 
New JU's objectives 

Recommendations 

ENIAC and ARTEMIS 
objectives 

Bring together the actors in value chains, 
including users and SMEs, to address the 
inherent complexity in the design and 
manufacturing of electronic components 
and systems 

Strengthen the ecosystem from component 
design to semiconductor manufacturing to 
embedded systems development to end 
users, from equipment and material 
suppliers to semiconductor manufacturers 
to systems engineering, from universities 
to RTOs to industry including SMEs 

Streamlined operations including better monitoring and evaluation 

•  ENIAC  should  monitor  more  closely  and  rigorously  the  actual 
and planned exploitation of project results, and the measures put 
in place by project partners to achieve such planned exploitation
A  detailed  deployment  and  commercialisation  strategy  for 
ARTEMIS project results should be defined 

An integrated European strategy 

• 

Improve  the  match  of  the  project portfolio to strategic European 
aims  and  ensure  optimum  coverage  of  key  areas  defined  in  the 
overarching  EU  ECS  strategy  and  the  work  plans  derived  from 
such a strategy 

Improved governance and strategic planning 

•  Engage  better  with  the  JTI  constituencies  so  as  to  promote  and 
facilitate participation in project proposals, especially by SMEs 

An integrated European strategy 

• 

Improve  the  match  of  the  project portfolio to strategic European 
aims  and  ensure  optimum  coverage  of  key  areas  defined  in  the 
overarching  EU  ECS  strategy  and  the  work  plans  derived  from 
such a strategy 

Allow for a more efficient implementation 

•  The  ENIAC  &  ARTEMIS  JTIs,  along  with  the  European 
Technology  Platform  (ETP)  on  Smart  Systems  Integration 
(EPoSS), should be integrated into one legal entity 

37 

Promote  the  involvement 
of SMEs in its activities 

aiming 

Promote  a  public-private 
partnership 
at 
mobilising  and  pooling 
public 
private 
and 
resources  to  increase  the 
overall  R&D  investment 
in their fields 

 
 
New JU's objectives 

Recommendations 

ENIAC and ARTEMIS 
objectives 

Improved governance and strategic planning 

•  Lead  the  preparation  of  action  plans  for  achievement  of 
innovation  ecosystem  aims,  making  reference  to  what  has  been 
funded before with the intent of demonstrating novelty as well as 
re-use of results obtained in previous projects 

Streamlined operations including better monitoring and evaluation 

•  ENIAC  should  monitor  more  closely  and  rigorously  the  actual 
and planned exploitation of project results, and the measures put 
in place by project partners to achieve such planned exploitation
A  detailed  deployment  and  commercialisation  strategy  for 
ARTEMIS project results should be defined 

Define  and  implement  a 
research  agenda  in  their 
fields 

Create and grow market opportunities for 
electronic components and systems in 
areas such as but not limited to 
automotive, transport, health, energy, 
security, telecommunications and digital 
media 

38 

 
 
3.3. 

Operational Objectives 

Operational objectives include: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

to  elaborate  and  keep  an  up-to-date  industry-driven  Strategic  Research  and 
Innovation  Agenda  (SRIA)  for  the  European  electronic  components  and  systems 
industry; 

to  implement  the  SRIA  efficiently  by  initiating  calls  for  proposals,  evaluating 
proposals, awarding funding and monitoring projects including large scale pilot lines, 
technology  platforms  and  application  demonstrators  selected 
through  open, 
transparent and effective procedures, within the limits of available funds; 

to create synergies through closer and more strategic cooperation; 

to assist the exploitation of R&D&I results, supporting the development and growth 
of innovative SMEs in the sector; 

to ease the participation of R&D actors in projects with a truly European dimension, 
by ensuring simple and efficient rules and procedures; 

to  provide  access  to  state-of-the-art  design  and  manufacturing  infrastructures  for 
electronic components and systems; 

to develop closer cooperation and ensure coordination/complementarity of European 
(in  particular  Horizon  2020),  national  and  trans-national  activities,  bodies  and 
stakeholders;  

to foster a comprehensive and fertile innovation environment in Europe; and 

to maintain a continuous stream of highly skilled graduates and trainees in the field, 
responding to growing industrial needs. 

The following table indicates the drivers underlying the proposed operational objectives and 
how they relate to the current JUs' objectives. 

39 

 
 
 
Table 3 - Links between the current JUs' objectives, recommendations from the two interim evaluations and the proposed JU operational objectives 

New JU's objectives 

Recommendations 

Elaborate and keep an up-to-
date industry-driven Strategic 
Research and Innovation 
Agenda (SRIA) for the 
European electronic 
components and systems 
industry 

Implement the SRIA 
efficiently by initiating calls 
for proposals, evaluating 
proposals, awarding funding 
and monitoring projects 
including large scale pilot 
lines, technology platforms 
and application demonstrators 
selected through open, 
transparent and effective 
procedures, within the limits of 
available funds 

Allow for a more efficient implementation 

•  The  ENIAC  &  ARTEMIS  JTIs,  along  with  the  European  Technology 
Platform (ETP) on Smart Systems Integration (EPoSS), should be integrated 
into one legal entity 

Improved governance and strategic planning 

•  AENEAS,  should  play  a  more  active  role  in  the  definition  of  the  overall 
objectives and strategy of the ENIAC JTI and keep up to date the Strategic 
Research Agenda 

Allow for a more efficient implementation 

•  Regulations should allow JTIs to support innovation-related activities other 

than R&D 

Improved governance and strategic planning 

•  Lead  the  preparation  of  action  plans  for  achievement  of  innovation 
ecosystem aims, making reference to what has been funded before with the 
intent  of  demonstrating  novelty  as  well  as  re-use  of  results  obtained  in 
previous projects 

•  Specific  support  mechanisms  for  enhancing  the  project  management 
implemented. 
in  JTI  projects  should  be  developed  and 
processes 
Management costs should be 100% funded by the EC for all JTI projects 

ENIAC and ARTEMIS 
objectives 

Define  and  implement  a 
research  agenda  in  their 
fields 

Support  activities  required 
for  the  implementation  of 
agenda 
research 
the 
notably 
awarding 
by 
funding  to  participants  in 
selected projects following 
competitive 
for 
proposals 

calls 

40 

 
 
 
New JU's objectives 

Recommendations 

ENIAC and ARTEMIS 
objectives 

Streamlined operations including better monitoring and evaluation 

•  Lead  the  establishment  of  processes  to  monitor  progress  toward  JTI 

objectives 

•  Appropriate  metrics  and  data  gathering  for  measuring  the  impact  and 
success of projects should be developed and used to support assessment of 
the benefits of these JTIs 

An integrated European strategy 

•  Place  greater  emphasis  on  strategic,  European  aims  in  proposal  evaluation 

and selection processes 
Improve  the  match  of  the  project  portfolio  to  strategic  European  aims  and 
ensure optimum coverage of key areas defined in the overarching EU ECS 
strategy and the work plans derived from such a strategy 

Allow for a more efficient implementation  

•  The  ENIAC  &  ARTEMIS  JTIs,  along  with  the  European  Technology 
Platform (ETP) on Smart Systems Integration (EPoSS), should be integrated 
into one legal entity 

Improved governance and strategic planning 

•  Focus  the  JU  Governing  Board  on  strategic  issues  and  reduce  its 
administrative  burden  in  order  to  attract  participation  from  high-level 
industry representatives 

Improved governance and strategic planning 

•  Engage  better  with  the  JTI  constituencies  so  as  to  promote  and  facilitate 

participation in project proposals, especially by SMEs 

41 

synergy 

Achieve 
and 
coordination  of  European 
R&D efforts 

Promote  the  involvement 
of SMEs in its activities 

Create synergies through 
closer and more strategic 
cooperation 

Assist the exploitation of 
R&D&I results, supporting the 
development and growth of 

 
 
 
New JU's objectives 

Recommendations 

ENIAC and ARTEMIS 
objectives 

innovative SMEs in the sector 

Ease the participation of R&D 
actors in projects with a truly 
European dimension, by 
ensuring simple and efficient 
rules and procedures 

•  Lead  the  preparation  of  action  plans  for  achievement  of  innovation 
ecosystem aims, making reference to what has been funded before with the 
intent  of  demonstrating  novelty  as  well  as  re-use  of  results  obtained  in 
previous projects 

Streamlines operations including better monitoring and evaluation 

•  ENIAC should monitor more closely and rigorously the actual and planned 
exploitation  of  project  results,  and  the  measures  put  in  place  by  project 
partners to achieve such planned exploitation 
A  detailed  deployment  and  commercialisation  strategy  for  ARTEMIS 
project results should be defined. 

Allow for a more efficient implementation 

•  Construct/draft  the  new  Council  Regulations,  as  a  PPP  with  reduced, 

alternative Financial Regulations and Staff Regulations 

Strengthened commitment and alignment with priorities of Member States 

•  Member  State  participation  rules,  funding  rates  and  procedures  should  be 

harmonised wherever possible 

Streamlined operations including better monitoring and evaluation 

•  Establish processes to give early feedback to proposers 
•  JTI projects should be subject to only one joint JTI and MS project review 

and reporting process 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
New JU's objectives 

Recommendations 

ENIAC and ARTEMIS 
objectives 

Provide access to state-of-the-
art design and manufacturing 
infrastructures for electronic 
components and systems 

Allow for a more efficient implementation 

•  Regulations should allow JTIs to support innovation-related activities other 

than R&D 

Harmonisation of conditions of participation 

Develop closer cooperation 
and ensure 
coordination/complementarity 
of European (in particular 
Horizon 2020), national and 
trans-national activities, bodies 
and stakeholders 

•  The  proportion  of  funding  for  projects  targeting  generic  applications  and 

services (Applications projects) should be increased 

An integrated European strategy 

•  ARTEMIS  &  ENIAC  should  continue  their  initiatives  to  be  more  closely 
aligned with ITEA2 and CATRENE, respectively, retaining some flexibility 
over the assignment of the most appropriate funding stream 

•  Allow for a more efficient implementation 
•  Future JTIs in these domains to continue the tripartite JTI model 

Strengthened commitment and alignment with priorities of Member States 

•  Give early annual indication of support for specific topics 

Improved governance and strategic planning 

•  Focus  the  JU  Governing  Board  on  strategic  issues  and  reduce  its 
administrative  burden  in  order  to  attract  participation  from  high-level 
industry representatives 

•  Engage  better  with  the  JTI  constituencies  so  as  to  promote  and  facilitate 

participation in project proposals, especially by SMEs 

aiming 

Promote  a  public-private 
partnership 
at 
mobilising  and  pooling 
private 
and 
public 
resources  to  increase  the 
overall R&D investment in 
their fields 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
New JU's objectives 

Recommendations 

ENIAC and ARTEMIS 
objectives 

Allow for a more efficient implementation 

•  Regulations should allow JTIs to support innovation-related activities other 

than R&D 

Improved governance and strategic planning 

•  Lead  the  preparation  of  action  plans  for  achievement  of  innovation 
ecosystem aims, making reference to what has been funded before with the 
intent  of  demonstrating  novelty  as  well  as  re-use  of  results  obtained  in 
previous projects 

An integrated European strategy 

•  A mid- to long-term overarching EU research, development and innovation 
strategy  in  Electronic  Components  and  Systems  (ECS)  should  be  clearly 
defined and used as a key 'driver' for funding decisions 
Improve  the  match  of  the  project  portfolio  to  strategic  European  aims  and 
ensure optimum coverage of key areas defined in the overarching EU ECS 
strategy and the work plans derived from such a strategy 

• 

Foster a comprehensive and 
fertile innovation environment 
in Europe 

Maintain a continuous stream 
of highly skilled graduates and 
trainees in the field, 
responding to growing 
industrial needs 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.4. 

How do objectives relate to the problem statement 

In Figure 16, the objectives are mapped onto the problem statements and their drivers. 

It shows that actions have been identified in order to address each major problem area. While 
it  is  recognized  that  the  scope  of  a  JTI  can  only  partially  respond  to  the  overall  economic 
challenges  with  which  the  electronic  components  and  systems  sector  is  faced,  there  is 
significant room for addressing main market failures in Europe such as under-investments and 
fragmentation of the strategies. 

Combined with an efficient implementation, the targets set for the new initiative will provide 
better  conditions  for  a  more  competitive  European  industry  by  fostering  innovation  in 
essential fields of the European economy. 

Figure 16 - Objectives matching the problem drivers 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS  

4.1. 

Options 

Article  19.3  of  Horizon  2020  Framework  Programme  [1]  describes  the  criteria  to  set  up 
public-private partnerships. Public-private partnerships can be implemented either through a 
institutional  or  through  a  contractual  agreement.  An  institutional  PPP  shall  only  be 
implemented where the scope of the objectives pursued and the scale of the resources required 
justify it. 

Public-private partnerships shall be identified in an open and transparent way based on all of 
the following criteria: 

45 

 
 
 
(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

the added value of action at Union level; 

the  scale  of  impact  on  industrial  competitiveness,  sustainable  growth  and  socio-
economic issues; 

the  long-term  commitment  from  all  partners  based  on  a  shared  vision  and  clearly 
defined objectives; 

the scale of the resources involved and the ability to leverage additional investments 
in research and innovation; and 

a  clear  definition  of  roles  for  each  of  the  partners  and  agreed  key  performance 
indicators over the period chosen. 

A  public-private  partnership  is  an  adequate  tool  to  address  the  electronic  components  and 
systems sector.  

In this context five main policy options are identified for implementing the JTI on electronic 
components and systems: 

• 

• 

• 

Rely  on  the  existing  ENIAC  and  ARTEMIS  initiatives  by  renewing  and  adapting 
their  mandate  in  the  new  context  of  Horizon  2020  (baseline  scenario  –  see  Section 
2.11); 

Undertake the planned activities without a dedicated PPP using the standard practices 
foreseen for collaborative projects under Horizon 2020; 

Launch a single new PPP replacing the existing ENIAC and ARTEMIS, which could 
take the form of: 

• 

• 

• 

A contractual PPP (without a dedicated legal entity); 

A  bipartite  institutional  PPP  (a  dedicated  legal  entity  without  Member  State 
participation); or 

A  tripartite  institutional  PPP  (a  dedicated  legal  entity  with  Member  State 
participation). 

4.1.1.  Option (a) Baseline - Business-as-usual: continue within Horizon 2020 with renewed 

ENIAC and ARTEMIS JUs 

Considering the continued support of the Member States this baseline option capitalises on the 
experience gained in the ENIAC and ARTEMIS JUs and renews their present scope and set-
up.  Member  States  would  have  the  option  to  renew  or  terminate  their  membership.  The 
existing Industry Associations constituting the private part of the PPPs would continue to be 
involved. 

This  option  requires  the  adoption  of  new  Council  Regulations  to  provide  the  legal  basis  to 
implement both ENIAC and ARTEMIS JUs' renewed objectives and new rules under Horizon 

46 

 
 
2020. This would provide an opportunity to improve the governance structures and simplify 
their modus operandi. 

4.1.2.  Option  (b)  Zero  Option:  use  of  the  collaborative  research  projects  under  the  EU 

Framework Programme Horizon 2020 

This  option  allows  the  current  JUs  to  accomplish  their  mandates  by  2017,  i.e.  within  the 
existing  JU's  no  new  activities  after  2013  and  a  winding  up  in  2017.  All  running  projects 
launched from 2008 to 2013 will continue to be supported by the current JUs. In this option 
all future public support at the EU level for electronic components and systems would happen 
within Horizon 2020 and no dedicated PPP body would be set up. 

This  option  does  not  necessitate  a  new  legal  act.  The  R&D&I  activities  would  be 
implemented through the standard EU funding programmes.  

4.1.3.  Adapting the scope of the new JTI 

The  Commission  indicated  in  its  report  on  the  first  interim  evaluation  of  the  JTIs  [19]  that 
there  is  a  need  for  pooling  resources  in  a  joint  JU  in  covering  electronic  components  and 
systems. It stated that 'the Commission does not rule out that activities in areas addressed by 
ARTEMIS and ENIAC might be dealt with by a single JTI in the future. This might even cover 
a  larger  part  of  the  value  chain,  addressing  the  burning  issue  of  the  trade-off  between 
hardware  and  software  and  balancing  technology-push  and  application-pull  priorities.  In 
addition, this would help increase the efficiency of the operational set-up'. 

'Experience has shown that it is very difficult to exclude topics from one or other programme 
when  exploring  detailed  options  beyond  high-level  principles.  Indeed,  a  large  number  of 
research  subjects  are  addressed  by  both  programmes  (in  the  application  and  technology 
fields) '. 

Therefore, the following options are built on the strategic need to adapt the scope of the new 
JTI to encompass the full value chains for the electronic components and systems. 

4.1.4.  Option (c) Implement a contractual Public-Private Partnership 

This  option  considers  the  setting  up  of  a  contractual  PPP  according  to  Article  19.2(b)  of 
Horizon 2020. 

As in the zero option, no dedicated legal act is needed and there is no specific involvement of 
Member  States  beyond  the  standard  governance  of  Horizon  2020.  With  this  option,  there 
would be an SRA proposed by industry and a budget earmarked for the area. The European 
Commission  services  or  an  executive  agency  would  manage  the  calls  for  proposals  and  the 
monitoring of projects. The work programmes would be elaborated by industry and approved 
by  the  Commission.  There  would  be  a  contractual  arrangement  signed  by  the  European 
Commission and relevant private partners. 

47 

 
 
4.1.5.  Options (d) and (e) Implement a new institutional Public-Private Partnership 

The institutional PPP is based on Article 19.2(a) of Horizon 2020. As in option (a), the JTI 
has to be implemented through a dedicated legal act based on Article 187 TFEU. In this case a 
single new Joint Undertaking with a budget ceiling would be established.  

There  are  two  ways  to  consider  a  new  institutional  PPP:  with  or  without  Member  States 
participation. 

Option (d) Implement a bipartite institutional Public-Private Partnership 

A  bipartite  PPP  involving  private  stakeholders  and  the  EU  (through  the  Commission)  is  a 
concept  put  forward  by  the  European  Commission  for  implementing  long-term  complex 
initiatives  in  other  fields7.  The  operations  are  run  as  in  the  current  initiatives  but  with  EU 
contributions  only.  The  Member  States  would  not  be  members  of  the  JU  but  could  still  be 
involved  e.g.  through  an  advisory  board.  As  the  Commission  would  be  the  only  public 
funding  body,  the  governance  could  be  simplified,  and  only  include  a  Governing  Board, 
where  private  stakeholders  and  the  European  Commission  are  represented,  the  Executive 
Director,  and  some  advisory  committee(s)  including  a  scientific  committee  and  a  Member 
States representatives group. 

Option (e) Implement a tripartite institutional Public-Private Partnership 

The tripartite PPP involving private stakeholders, Member States (on a voluntary basis) and 
the EU (through the Commission) capitalize on the experience of the existing ARTEMIS and 
ENIAC  JUs.  A  new  JU  could  take  over  all  rights  and  obligations  of  the  current  ARTEMIS 
and ENIAC JUs to avoid duplicating legal structures. It would at the same time address the 
difficulties  experienced  with  the  current  JUs  by  simplifying  its  operational  model.  As  an 
example,  the  JU  could  be  the  one-stop-shop  for  contracting  and  payments  of  both  EU  and 
national contributions. 

As  for  the  two  JUs  in  option  (a)  the  governance  structure  of  this  JU  would  include  a 
Governing  Board  in  which  the  Commission,  Member  States  and  private  stakeholders 
participate, a Public Authority Board, involving the Commission and the Member States, and 
the Executive Director. 

Overall,  except  for  option  (b),  the  proposed  options  address  the  European  need  for  better 
partnering in research and innovation [20]. For options (a), (c), (d) and (e), the Union budget 
ceiling would be communicated upfront.  

4.2. 

Discarded options 

4.2.1.  No action at all 

This  option  would  mean  stopping  all  public  support  at  the  European  level  for  research  and 
innovation  in  electronic  components  and  systems.  The  option  is  discarded  because  it  is 
contrary  to  the  provisions  of  Horizon  2020  in  which  research  and  innovation  in  electronic 

7 

The  other  JTIs  currently  implemented  through  bipartite  JUs  are  Clean  Sky,  Innovative  Medicines 
Initiative and Fuel Cells and Hydrogen. 

48 

 
 
                                                 
components  and  systems  is  part  of  the  specific  objective  "Leadership  in  enabling  and 
industrial technologies" in the priority on industrial leadership. 

4.2.2.  Early winding-up 

This option would mean that the two current JUs would be stopped by an early winding-up. 
Such option would be required should the evaluations of their achievements over the 5 years 
of their existence be negative. This is not the case. As a result, there is no need to terminate 
the JUs before their normal end of life in 2017. 

4.3. 

Proposed budget 

4.3.1.  Operational budget 

The  table  in  Figure  17  provides  a  budget  simulation  for  each  option.  In  the  simulation  the 
following assumptions are made: 

• 

• 

In  options  (a)  and  (e)  the  contribution  of  the  Member  States  is  equal  to  the  EU 
contribution. The contribution of industry would be the double of the total public funding 
as  the  focus  of  the  tripartite  model  is  on  funding  projects  at  a  higher  TRLs.  The  same 
applies for option (d) except that for this option there is no contribution from the Member 
States. 
In  options  (b)  and  (c)  based  on  the  funding  rules  proposed  under  Horizon  2020  the  co-
funding by industry is estimated at 60% of the actual costs. 

•  The EU contribution for options (c), (d) and (e) is slightly increased compared to options 
(a) and (b) to account for the extended scope. The annual EU funding for options (a) and 
(b) is based on the extrapolation of the spending in the current ARTEMIS and ENIAC JU.  

The  table  shows  that  the  tripartite  model  of  options  (a)  and  (e)  offers  the  highest  leverage 
factor  for  the  EU  contribution.  Moreover,  the  options  (a),  (d)  and  (e)  offer  an  increased 
'security' for the partners as the budget ceiling is specified in a dedicated legal act. This is not 
the case for options (b) and (c). 

49 

 
 
EU

Operational budget 
(average M€ / year)
ARTEMIS
ENIAC
ARTEMIS
ENIAC
ARTEMIS
ENIAC

Member 
States

Industry

Total / year
Total (2014-2020)
Total EU (2014-2020)
EU leverage factor

Option 
(a)

Option 
(b)

Option 
(c)

Option 
(d)

Option 
(e)

50
125
50
125
200
500
1050
7350
1225
6,00

50
125
0
0
35
85
295
2065
1225
1,69

171,5

171,5

171,5

0

0

171,5

114

400

800

285,5
1998,5
1200,5
1,66

571,5
4000,5
1200,5
3,33

1143
8001
1200,5
6,66

Options (a), (d), (e) based on 70/30 or 70/15/15 average model
Options (b) and (c) based on average EU funding of 60% actual costs

Figure 17 - Operational budget 

Option (e) would achieve an overall investment programme of some €8 billion by 2020. This 
would cover a significant contribution to the overall investment announced by industry over 
the same period for their entire eco-system [18]. It represents therefore a significant incentive. 

4.3.2.  Administrative budget 

The table in Figure 18 provides a simulation for the administrative budget.  

Options  (d)  and  (e)  are  the  most  effective  due  to  the  economies  of  scale  generated  by  the 
combination of two JUs into one single entity. Options (a), (d) and (e) are based on a 50/50 
contribution industry/EC to the running costs of the JUs. 

Administrative budget 
(M€ / year)

Option 
(a)

Option 
(b)

Option 
(c)

Option 
(d)

Option 
(e)

EU

Industry

ARTEMIS
ENIAC
EC (3FTE)
ARTEMIS
ENIAC

Total / year
Total (2014-2020)
Total EU (2014-2020)
Winding up (2021-2024)
Total EU (2014-2024)

1,25
1,25
0,5
1,25
1,25
5,5
38,5
21
6
24

10,5

10,8

0

10,5
73,5
73,5

0

10,8
75,6
75,6

73,5

75,6

2,1

0,5

2,1

4,7
32,9
18,2
5
20,7

2,1

0,5

2,1

4,7
32,9
18,2
5
20,7

EU in options (b) and (c) based on 6% admin costs in FP
EC FTE in options (a), (d) and (e) for monitoring JU

Figure 18 - Administrative budget 

50 

 
 
         
         
         
         
         
 
 
In the case of options (a), (d) and (e), the resources required in the Commission for the actual 
monitoring  of  the  JUs  are  added  to  the  budget  while  in  options  (b)  and  (c)  the  standard 
administrative costs of the Framework Programme have been used. The latter would be lower 
in the case of an implementation through an Executive Agency. 

The ratio of the administrative cost of the JU per million euro of operational expenditure for 
the preferred option (e) is in the same range as the one for the ERC Executive Agency [21]. It 
represents an overhead of only 1.3%8. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT 

5.1. 

General impact 

When  assessing  the  global  impact,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  economic,  societal  and 
environmental impact. 

The economic impact covers: 

•  Competitiveness  and  investment  aspects  –  the  leverage  effect  of  the  initiative  on  the 
private  and  public  funds  and  the  scale  of  investment  and  critical  mass.  The  initiative 
should impact the potential for cooperation along the innovation and value chains and the 
bridging from technology to innovation; 

•  Research and innovation – the synergy with industrial and national priorities, the extent to 
which the initiative will foster excellence, facilitate progress towards a European Research 
Area by addressing fragmentation and reducing duplication of efforts; 

•  Stakeholders – involving a broad range of stakeholders: industry – technology providers 
and users and including SME's, RTO's and universities, EU, Member States and regions 
and the citizen/consumer who is to benefit from the initiative; 

•  Leverage  effect  –  the  enabling  characteristics  of  electronic  components  and  systems 
induce  an  intrinsic  leverage  effect  illustrated  by  enhanced  growth  and  employment  by 
companies investing and participating in existing public-private partnerships. 

The societal impact examines: 

•  Employment  –  linked  to  the  economic  impact.  The  industrial  sectors  addressed  by  the 
initiative are a major direct employer of highly skilled and technical people. In addition a 
whole supply industry depends on it for employment as well as the economy in general for 
innovation and productivity; 

•  Potential to address societal challenges in domains relevant for the European citizens (e.g. 
transport,  health,  energy)  –  the  development  and  deployment  of  electronic  components 
and systems is critical for ensuring access to technologies indispensable for those societal 
drivers. 

The environmental impact mainly relates to energy efficiency and waste management. 

8 

http://intranet-rtd.rtd.cec.eu.int/int_com/docs/CBA_JU.pdf 

51 

 
 
                                                 
5.1.1.  Economic impact 

5.1.1.1.  Competitiveness and investment 

All actors involved in the sector of electronic components and systems recognize that there is 
a significant size effect. Below some market size (dependent on the sub-segment addressed), 
companies become either isolated or subcritical at world level. What is true for the market is 
also  true  along  the  innovation  chain.  The  capability  to  invest  in  innovative  research  and 
development highly depends on the market position of the companies. Therefore, the leverage 
effect  of  the  European  initiative  on  private  and  public  investments  is  a  key  contributor  to 
creating  critical  mass,  thereby  impacting  the  competitiveness  of  all  actors  involved.  'In  an 
industry  where  technology  and  innovation  play  a  key  role,  supporting  research  and 
development,  international  cooperation  and  harmonisation,  and  the  position  of  SMEs  is  a 
crucial factor of growth' [22] 

It is clear that no Member State hosts all companies necessary to cover the whole chain of an 
application  industry  that  heavily  relies  on  electronic  components  and  systems.  By  its 
collaborative nature, the initiative allows the creation of cross-European consortia in order to 
bring out the best of the European ecosystem and reduce fragmentation.  

Option (a) provides for this in two subsectors of components and systems but does not exploit 
potential  synergies  which  are  possible  in  options  (c)  to  (e).  This  synergy  allows  for  more 
innovative electronic components and systems in the market.  

5.1.1.2.  Research and innovation 

The primary target of the R&D&I initiative in the electronic components and systems is based 
on an industrial agenda. In view of the fast growing complexity and costs of the technology, 
cooperation is the only way forward to avoid unnecessary duplication, improve efficiency and 
reduce time-to-market for new innovative or improved products. The initiative would provide 
a  unique  structure  to  allow  stakeholders  to  cooperate  and  to  facilitate  multi-disciplinary 
integration.  The  intention  is  that  the  initiative  would  cover  higher  Technology  Readiness 
Levels allowing cooperation closer to the market innovation.  

This  will  be  more  difficult  to  achieve  through  option  (b),  (c)  and  (d)  as  limited  resources 
would be available. Moreover the more 'one size fits all' option (b) may not be well suited to 
allow for an optimal implementation of large scale pilots and demonstrators. 

In  this  respect,  the  shared  governance  with  industry  and  Member  States  is  critical  for  an 
efficient  and  timely  implementation  of  the  industry-driven  agenda.  By  sharing  strategies  on 
key aspects of R&D&I in the sector, the European Commission, the Member States (option 
(a) and (e)) and the industry will be able to improve the efficiency in aligning on critical and 
strategic aspects of the technological challenges of the sector. 

5.1.1.3.  Stakeholders 

As  the  public  consultation  showed  large  companies  are  mainly  interested  in  large  scale 
European  projects.  These  projects  are  instrumental  to  build  scenarios,  test  options  and  in 
general allow cooperation with actors along value chains. European RTOs, linked with higher 
education research labs are essential contributors to early exploration and later validation of 

52 

 
 
new  technologies.  SMEs  are  a  major  contributor  to  the  electronic  components  and  systems 
sector  as  they  provide  technology  and  services  along  the  value  chain  including  e.g.  design, 
prototyping  and  services  for  small  volume  production.  Moreover  they  offer  exploitation 
channels  for  integrating  new  technologies  in  innovative  products  and  services.  The 
participation  of  SMEs  strengthens  the  European  ecosystem  from  both  the  user  and  supply 
ends.  SMEs  will  get  access  to  technology  and  improve  their  innovation  capability  whilst 
allowing cost and risk sharing. 

As hosts of industrial clusters in the electronic components and systems, regions will benefit 
from the increase of R&D&I activities. It is further envisaged that regions will make use of 
Smart Specialisation [23] to complement the initiative and build on existing industry clusters 
or equivalent concentrations. Such synergy will further pool resources.  

Options  (a)  and  (e)  in  which  Member  States  are  members  offer  a  better  possibility  to 
coordinate  national  policies  and  allow  for  national  stakeholders  to  contribute  expertise  in  a 
larger European perspective. 

At  the  end  of  the  value  chain  consumers  are  the  purchasers  of  the  products  or  the  users  of 
final services. Improved, safer and more user-friendly products and services will result from 
the projects. A specific characteristic of electronic based products is that the final cost mostly 
remains constant while functionality improves from one generation to the next. 

5.1.1.4.  Estimated leverage effect 

In the field of industrial systems where Europe is the strongest, the electronic components and 
systems do not provide end products on the market but rather building blocks of machinery, 
equipment and systems. Therefore it is difficult to estimate the leverage effect of the research 
and innovation actions funded in the frame of the JTI is a difficult exercise. Nevertheless as 
an enabling technology, this sector provides a multiplying effect in the economy through the 
uptake  of  advanced  and  innovative  components  and  systems  in  all  economic  sectors.  As 
argued in the KET High-Level Group report [3], 'the macroeconomic importance of KETs is 
that they can open up entirely new markets or underpin and enhance existing markets through 
accelerating technological progress with trickle-down effects on productivity and concurrent 
leaps in efficiency levels. In addition to feeding numerous full value chains, products based on 
KETs  often  serve  as  inputs  of  great  value  added  that  are  integrated  into  more  complex 
products.  It  is  these  subsequent  applications  that  drive  major  economic  growth  and 
competitiveness.' This illustrates the intrinsic leverage effect of this category of technologies. 
The leverage effect is not only on further investments by the companies within the sector but 
more  significantly  by  the  companies  which  take  advantage  of  the  huge  benefits  and 
competitive advantages that electronic components and systems provide to their business. 

The  above  statement  is  illustrated  by  the  following  concrete  example.  The  Eureka  cluster 
Euripides2 acts in the field of smart and embedded systems, with activities very close to the 
JTIs (see table 1). Moreover the participants are largely similar with the ones participating in 
the current JTIs [22]. Their recent Vision, Mission, Strategy paper provides an estimate of the 
leverage  effect  of  the  public  funding  by  indicating  that  'studies  of  collaborative  EUREKA 
projects  clearly  indicate  that  on  the  whole  yearly  sales  growth  is  around  24%  higher  for 
EUREKA  participating  firms,  and  yearly  employment  growth  is  around  21%  higher, 
compared to firms that had not participated in a EUREKA project'. Furthermore, 'During the 
first  two  years  after  the  project,  participant’s  turnover  grows  twice  as  fast  as  non-

53 

 
 
participants,  and  after  4-5  years,  participants  outperform  similar  non-participants  by  about 
one  third  in  terms  of  turnover  growth.  In  addition,  growth  in  exports  for  EUREKA 
participants is more than twice that of similar non-participants'. 

5.1.2. 

Societal impact 

5.1.2.1.  Employment 

The  initiative  fosters  research  and  innovation  in  a  very  high-tech  sector.  It  will  directly 
generate highly qualified jobs. With around €700 Million of investment in R&D&I per year, it 
will employ more than 7.000 researchers and engineers but its impact on employment is much 
bigger.  

The initiative tackles the 'valley of death' from research to market and is expected to create 
jobs across the electronic value chain including in user industries. A large number of indirect 
jobs are expected to be created. Studies indicate that for every job in the electronics sector at 
least 4 indirect jobs are created [3]. 

In a recent  report  the  electronics industry estimates  that  some  additional 250.000 direct and 
induced jobs should be created in Europe by 2020 [18] if a sufficiently funded, focused and 
coordinated European effort across the value and innovation chains is sustained. This will be 
through the growth of design and manufacturing in Europe's strongholds in vertical markets 
but also in core markets such as telecommunications and consumer electronics.  

The  integrated  options  (c)  to  (e)  allow  the  creation  of  added  value  through  cross-cutting 
activities  between  the  different  technological  domains.  This  most  likely  will  have  a  more 
positive effect on the employment potential compared to (a) and (b). Further to that, option (e) 
will  probably  have  a  much  deeper  impact  on  the  value  chains  because  of  the  size  of  the 
investment and the alignment with national priorities and hence can be logically expected to 
have a larger impact on employment.  

5.1.2.2.  Addressing societal challenges 

The  initiative  will  provide  a  large  contribution  to  and  solutions  for  societal  challenges 
including  on  health,  demographic  change  and  wellbeing;  secure,  clean  and  efficient  energy; 
smart,  green  and  integrated  transport;  climate action,  resource  efficiency  and  raw  materials; 
and  inclusive,  innovative  and  secure  societies  as  set  out  in  Horizon  2020.  Electronic 
components and systems are general purpose enabling technologies that improve our modern 
lifestyle, reduce greenhouse gas emissions e.g. by better control of energy consumption (smart 
grid) and greener cars, contribute to the safety of vehicles, democratise communications and 
improve and reduce costs of healthcare. 

There are areas where access to electronic component and systems technology is particularly 
important,  in  particular  security,  safety  and  privacy  of  the  digital  infrastructures.  Similarly, 
safety-critical  systems  (e.g.  in  airplanes  or  nuclear  plants  or  smart  grids)  require  first  hand 
access to enabling technologies.  

As embedded in the current JUs' Strategic Research Agendas, tackling societal challenges will 
be addressed by continuity in option (a). But option (d) and (e) will further reduce duplication, 

54 

 
 
increase  synergy  and  bridge  laboratory  research  to  demonstration  between  the  components 
and systems to provide effective solutions to the market. 

5.1.3.  Environmental impact 

5.1.3.1.  Energy efficiency 

The omni-presence of the new 'mobile' society forces the electronics industry to focus itself 
on developing low-energy consumption devices. This has spill-overs in other domains. Future 
products and services based on electronics will be far more efficient in energy consumption 
and energy management. In addition, the electrification of the transport systems and e.g. smart 
cities will heavily rely on efficient power electronics and electronics based integrated control 
systems.  

Compared to the separate JUs in option (a), options (d) and (e) will better facilitate Europe's 
take up of such energy efficient solutions. 

5.1.3.2.  Recycling and materials 

It  is  well  known  that  end-of-life  products,  particularly  electronic  components  contain  many 
different  materials,  especially  inorganic  materials  including  non-environmentally  friendly 
metals.  As  these  are  integral  to  the  components  and  encapsulated  throughout  their  lifetime, 
there is limited risk of these materials being released during their lifetime. Nonetheless, at the 
end  of  their  life,  components  need  to  be  properly  handled  to  avoid  detrimental  pollution. 
Equally and more important recycling of precious metals is needed [24]. 

The initiative will not change the present landscape. 

5.2. 

Impact of options 

5.2.1. 

Impact of bi- or tripartite initiative 

Both  current  initiatives  in  nanoelectronics  and  embedded  systems  are  tripartite,  their  main 
characteristics being the combination of several funding sources. Member States managed the 
national  grant  agreements  and  payments;  the  funding  of  partners  was  based  on  national 
eligibility  criteria.  In  practical  terms,  this  meant  that  partners  in  projects  had  two  contracts: 
one with the JU and one with the national authority. This increases administrative complexity 
and leads to additional overhead. As a result in the public consultation a slight preference was 
given for a bipartite initiative. 

Options  (a)  and  (e)  are  tripartite,  options  (c)  and  (d)  are  bipartite  and  option  (b)  could  be 
termed a single-party model in which the Commission implements. 

In the bipartite model, the leverage effect in terms of direct public funding would disappear. 
In  these  options,  the  Member  States  would  not  contribute  directly  to  the  European  projects 
and  the  impact  will  thus  be  reduced  with  major  consequences  on  the  number  of  large  scale 
demonstrators or pilot lines that could be supported. This will be a major drawback given the 
necessity and the readiness of industry to invest large scale projects including pilot lines. 

55 

 
 
Tripartite options (a) and (e) allow a pooling of several sources of financing in a coordinated 
way. They will allow for a significant part of the budget to be dedicated to support pilot lines 
and large scale demonstration platforms and achieve critical mass. 

Option  (b)  will  be  a  step  backwards  as  it  implies  a  reduction  of  the  importance  of  an 
industrially driven Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda. 

5.2.2. 

Impact of joining forces 

It is important to compare option (a) and (e) in their impacts as they are based on the same 
tripartite model but differ in the implementation by having either 2 structures (option (a)) or 
one  single  structure  (option  (e)).  Option  (a)  will  bring  a  renewed  set  of  two  initiatives  with 
two separate SRIAs. It may not allow to efficiently tackling the whole technology and value 
chains from components to systems. Option (e), with one structure and a common scope for 
action, would allow better coordination and cooperation between the various stakeholders and 
enable synergies in strategic aspects of the current SRIAs in areas such as efficient co-design 
of hardware/software, standardised operating systems or delineation of various functions into 
one or more components. 

As  there  are  many  similarities  among  the  operational  management  of  the  two  current 
initiatives, joining forces in one JU is a sound way of achieving economies of scales in e.g. 
managing  calls  and  monitoring  all  operational  aspects,  including  financial  reporting  and 
auditing. 

5.2.3. 

Specific impact on the various stakeholders 

a/ Large companies 

It is expected that tripartite options (a) and (e) will allow large companies to better achieve 
their goals through significant projects in accordance with national priorities. Bipartite options 
(b)  to  (d)  may  not  provide  sufficient  financial  resources.  Organisations  would  face 
uncertainties on major projects as they will have to apply for several sources of public funding 
in an un-coordinated way. As a result essential parts of the projects may not be supported. 

b/ SMEs 

SMEs  tend  to  address  specific  technologies  rather  than  more  general  technology  areas. 
Therefore, at first sight, option (a) appears the most appropriate for SMEs as it provides more 
focus.  Option  (b)  lacks  direct  national  involvement  and  as  result  may  reduce  SME 
participation  (SMEs  participation  is  around  20%  in  the  Framework  Programme  whilst  it  is 
around 35-40% for the current JTIs). Options (c) to (e) are administratively better for SMEs 
as there is single contracting. 

In  option  (e),  SMEs  will  benefit  from  access  to  demonstration  platforms.  The  "closer  to 
market"  emphasis  will  result  in  a  faster  return  on  investment,  further  counterbalancing  the 
administrative burden. The wider technology scope may however not easily fit the specialist 
skills of SMEs. However, the high rate of SME participation in the current JTI's (option (a)) 
suggests  that  the  benefits  significantly  outweigh  the  downside  aspects  in  the  case  of  option 
(e). 

56 

 
 
c/ Research organisations 

The  current  participation  of  all  major  RTOs  in  the  existing  JU's  is  high.  More  emphasis  on 
innovation and supporting projects at higher TRLs will allow RTOs to 'accompany' industrial 
partners to get closer to market innovation. Options (a) and (e) are likely to be preferred with 
a slight preference for option (e) as this will enhance visibility.  

The involvement of other academic stakeholders is equally important as they cover specific 
technologies. It is expected that the implementation through either of the options will not have 
a significant impact on the participation of these actors.  

d/ Industrial associations (European Technology Platforms, ETPs) 

As industry representatives, the ETPs are directly concerned with the initiative. Their role is 
to  coordinate  the  definition  of  an  industry-driven  common  strategy  in  R&D&I.  The  current 
initiatives are a better way to bring forward their SRAs.  

In  this  context,  it  appears  that  option  (a)  is  the  favoured  option  (as  confirmed  by  the 
contributions of AENEAS and ARTEMIS ETPs to the public consultation). Option (b) would 
put  the  ETPs  in  the  role  of  'consulted  organisations'  with  a  more  limited  impact  on  the 
definition of work programmes. 

The value of options (c) to (e) will be in coordination beyond actual constituencies to address 
issues such as complexity, fragmentation or exchange of information on key problems manner 
as well as in defining and implementing of a joint agenda. 

On a practical level the increase of efficiency of the JU in option (e) will reduce the private 
financial contribution to the administrative costs. 

e/ Member States 

Member  States  contribute  to  the  current  initiatives  by  funding  their  industry  and  research 
organisations.  

Options (b) to (d) represents a major change compared to the current situation and it remains 
to  be  seen  whether  without  the  additional  contribution  of  the  Member  States  a  significant 
impact in the electronic components and systems sector can be achieved. 

Option (a) provides Members States with the same frame as for the current initiatives. Option 
(e)  allows  for  alignment,  a  more  coherent  and  strategic  vision  on  the  whole  sector  and  a 
pooling/combination of resources. 

f/ European Commission 

Leveraging sources of public funding, EU, national and regional, to mobilise private funding 
for R&D&I and the progress towards the European Research Area are main goals. Obviously 
option (a) will not allow the same leverage effect on R&D&I compared to option (e). Options 
(b) to (d) may lead to a decrease of the support to the sector. 

On the EU side all options will make use of the same source of funds, i.e. the budget available 
under the LEIT part of Horizon 2020 

57 

 
 
6. 

PREFERRED POLICY OPTION 

6.1. 

Comparing the options 

Three interconnected levels of comparing options are presented. First the table in Figure 19 
compares  the  merits  of  the  options  (b)  to  (e)  against  the  baseline  scenario  (option  (a))  with 
respect  to  fulfilling  the  objectives  identified  in  section  3.  The  objectives  in  the  table  are 
grouped  according  to  their  contribution  to  one  of  the  criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency  or 
coherence. This addresses the evolved technological and economic context faced at this point 
in time and ensures the objectives are consistent with the new landscape. 

Objectives 

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f
E

y
c
n
e
i
c
i
f
f
E

e
c
n
e
r
e
h
o
C

1.1 Boost competitiveness 
1.2 Cover innovation & value chain 
1.3 Solve societal challenges and create new markets 
3.1 Maintain and grow manufacturing in EU 
3.2 Leadership in E&M 
4.1 Availability of electronic components 
4.2Leadership in system engineering 
2.1 Structure and perform excellent multi-disciplinary research 
2.3 Mobilise and pool resources 
5.2 Efficient implementation of programme 
5.3 Synergies for exploitation of results and fostering SME growth 
5.4 Ease participation in projects with strong European dimension 
5.6 Cooperation and coordination of stakeholders 
2.2 Align strategies 
3.3 Support high TRLs 
5.1 Set strategic research and innovation agenda 
5.5 Access to design and manufacturing infrastructure 
5.7 Maintain human skills 

Option 
(b) 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
= 
- 
+ 
- 
+ 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
= 

Option 
(c) 
+ 
+ 
- 
- 
- 
- 
= 
= 
- 
= 
- 
+ 
= 
= 
- 
= 
= 
= 

Option 
(d) 
+ 
+ 
= 
- 
- 
= 
+ 
+ 
- 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
= 
- 
+ 
+ 
= 

Option 
(e) 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
= 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
= 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
= 

Figure 19 - Comparing the options 

On a second level, with respect to the criteria listed in the proposal for Horizon 2020 [1] to 
identify PPPs (see section 4.1), the comparison above demonstrates that: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Options (a) and (e) offer most added-value of action at Union level (coherence); 

Option  (e)  has  the  strongest  scale  of  impact  on  industrial  competitiveness, 
sustainable growth and socio-economic issues (effectiveness); 

Options (a) and (e) show the strongest long-term commitment from all partners on a 
shared vision and clearly defined objectives (effectiveness and coherence); 

Option  (e)  is  the  strongest  in  the  scale  of  resources  involved  and  the  ability  to 
leverage additional investments in research and innovation (efficiency); 

Options (c), (d) and (e) allow for a clear definition of roles for each of the partners 
(efficiency and coherence). 

The  third  level  concerns  the  options  in  view  of  the  improvements  identified  in  the  interim 
evaluations. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
An integrated European Strategy 
Allow for a more efficient implementation 
Improved governance and strategic planning 
Strengthened commitment and alignment with priorities of Member States 
Harmonisation of conditions of participation 
Streamlined operations including better monitoring and evaluation 

Option 
(b) 
- 
- 
- 
- 
= 
= 

Option 
(c) 
- 
= 
- 
- 
+ 
= 

Option 
(d) 
+ 
= 
+ 
- 
+ 
+ 

Option 
(e) 
+ 
+ 
+ 
= 
= 
+ 

As a complementary comparison, the following table indicates how the proposed objectives 
can  be  addressed  by  the  different  options,  i.e.  how  the  different  options  can  fulfil  the 
recommendations  underlying  the  proposed  specific  and  operational  objectives  (Table  2  and 
Table 3) 

Table 4 - Comparing the potential of the options to addressed the identified issues 

Objectives 

Option 
(b) 

Option 
(c) 

Option 
(d) 

Option 
(e) 

Specific objectives 

Structure and perform excellent research and innovation while improving 
articulation with national and regional efforts 
Mobilise and pool resources 
Support high TRLs 
Constituencies involvement and complexity tackling 
Strengthen the ecosystem 
Leadership in system engineering 

Operational objectives 

Set strategic research and innovation agenda 
Efficient implementation of programme 
Synergies for strategic cooperation 
Exploitation of results and SME growth 
Ease participation in projects with strong European dimension 
Access to design and manufacturing infrastructure 
Cooperation and coordination of stakeholders 
Comprehensive and fertile innovation environment 
Maintain human skills 

- 

- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
= 
- 
= 
- 
- 
= 
= 

= 

- 
- 
= 
= 
- 

- 
= 
= 
- 
= 
- 
= 
= 
= 

= 

- 
= 
+ 
+ 
- 

+ 
= 
+ 
= 
+ 
- 
+ 
+ 
= 

+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
= 

In  conclusion,  the  preferred  option  to  achieve  critical  mass  and  high  Return-on-
Investment  is  (e)  "Implement  a  tripartite  institutional  Public-Private  Partnership",  i.e.  a 
partnership based on a roadmap for R&D&I with an extended scope from components 
to systems, a pooling of resources to support a significant number of large-scale actions 
crossing  the  valley  of  death,  and  the  aligning  of  strategies  and  funding  (regional, 
national and EU level). 

This  is  also  the  conclusion  of  the  study  on  the  future  impact  of  ARTEMIS  and  ENIAC  [4] 
carried  by  independent  organisations  TNO  and  eutema.  In  the  study  four  scenarios  are 
considered:  no  JTI  (corresponding  to  option  (b)  above),  renewal  of  current  JTIs  (option  (a) 
above) and a new integrated (either fully or partially) JTI (option (e) above). The degree of 
integration  (full  or  partial)  reflects  the  views  expressed  by  many  stakeholders  that  a  new 
integrated JTI should offer room for a clear distinction of activities in the respective fields of 
nanoelectronics, smart systems and embedded systems. This has no direct consequence on the 
overall model of option (e).  

59 

 
 
 
 
In  comparing  those  scenarios  on  the  basis  of  their  impact  on  (1)  industry  value  chain,  (2) 
strategic  research  agendas,  (3)  innovation  and  (4)  governance  and  funding,  they  concluded 
that the scenario of a partially integrated JTI is the most favourable as shown in Figure 20. 

Figure 20 - Comparing impacts 

6.2. 

Implementation and governance 

Option (e) is to be implemented by setting up a new legal entity under Article 187 TFEU. It 
would take  the form  of a 'PPP body' using  Article 209 of the Financial Rules [25], charged 
with indirect management according to Article 58.1(c)(iv). This approach would satisfy most 
of  the  demands  from  the  private  partners  (more  flexibility,  less  administrative  overhead)  as 
also expressed in the 'Ideal House' Group report [13]. 

The  positioning  of  the  new  JTI  reflecting  its  complementary  character  with  the  more 
advanced  activities  that  would  be  covered  by  the  'standard'  Horizon  2020  instruments  is 
represented  in  Figure  21.  The  main  drivers  for  the  proposed  delineation  are  the  level  of 
investment on the one hand and the industrial focus on the other hand. While the support of 
high TRLs clearly requires a pooling of resources, flexibility to support lower TRLs projects 
through  either  EU-only  funding  (i.e.  implementing  a  limited  bipartite  within  the  JTI)  or 
through  national  funding  without  EU  contribution  (implementing  an  inter-governmental 
mechanism within the JTI) should be considered. 

60 

 
 
 
Figure 21 - Positioning of new JTI 

Based on the observations drawn from the current JUs (as listed in section 2.5), a streamlined 
governance structure as illustrated in Figure 22 is envisaged. 

61 

 
 
 
Figure 22 - JU governance structure 

Compared  to  the  current  JUs,  the  proposed  governance  structure  would  ensure  that  the 
Governing Board focuses on the strategic aspects. An effective supervision of the operational 
aspects  may  be  delegated  to  a  Supporting  Committee.  The  Supporting  Committee  could 
oversee 'standard' operational aspects and report to the Governing Board. It should be a light 
sub-structure with a minimal number of representatives from each of the members of the JU 
(public authorities, industry and the Commission).  

The  Public  Authorities  Board  decides  on  budgets,  calls  for  proposals  and  the  funding  of 
projects. The public members (Commission and Member States) participate in this board.  

A  Private  Member  Board  ensures  the  definition  and  update  of  the  SRIA,  the  multiannual 
strategic plan and annual work plan. 

The three boards would operate under flexible conditions as they see fit, especially in view of 
the transition from the current JUs. 

The Executive Director ensures the daily operations of the JU as well as the execution of the 
programme. 

The operating principles of the new JU will aim at: 

•  simplification, by having single contracting; and 
•  a balanced sharing of public support of projects between Member States and the EU. 

A  limited  set  of  derogations  to  the  standard  Rules  for  Participation  established  by  Horizon 
2020  might  be  required  in  order  to  cope  with  the  above  principles  and  take  account  of  the 

62 

 
 
 
financial  participation  of  Member  States  on  the  one  hand  and  considering  the  nature  of  an 
industrially-driven  PPP  on  the  other  hand  where  the  private  members  are  expected  to 
contribute significantly more than in the standard Framework Programme. 

7. 

EVALUATION AND MONITORING 

Three  levels  of  evaluation  and  monitoring  will  be  organised.  The  top-level  monitoring  will 
fall  upon  the  Governing  Board  of  the  JU,  in  which  the  Commission  will  be  represented 
according  to  its  share  of  the  overall  budget.  The  Executive  Management  will  monitor  the 
operations of the JU internally and will present an Annual Activity Report to the Governing 
Board  along  the  lines  of  the  Annual  Work  Plan.  This  will  also  be  submitted  to  the  EU 
budgetary authority in the context of the discharge procedure for the use of EU funds by the 
JU. 

The Commission will present to the Council an Annual Implementation Report, including a 
report on the state of progress of the JU and on its financial position. 

7.1.  Mid-term and final evaluations 

At the initiative level, the Commission will carry out mid-term and final evaluations of the JU 
with  the  assistance  of  independent  experts  based  on  desk  research,  interviews  and  data 
mining. These evaluations will look at the progress towards achieving the strategic objectives, 
the  efficiency/effectiveness  of  the  implementation  and  the  commitment  of  the  private 
members in and beyond projects. The Commission will communicate the conclusions of the 
evaluation to the Council and the European Parliament. 

63 

 
 
7.2.  Monitoring the JTI progress 

At  the  level  of  projects,  a  mechanism  will  be  put  in  place  to  measure  the  progress  and  the 
quality  of  each  project.  In  addition,  the  use  and  dissemination  of  results  will  be  monitored 
during  and  after  the  project  lifetime,  in  accordance  with  the  recommendations  of  the  2nd 
interim evaluation panel (see table 1). 

The progress towards the set of objectives of the JTI as identified in section 3 will be annually 
monitored  against  a  set  of  Key  Performance  Indicators  (KPI)  as  indicated  in  the  following 
table. It is expected that the collection of information/data necessary for the monitoring will 
not  lead  to  significant  administrative  costs  as  most  of  the  data  will  have  been  collected 
through regular reporting, at project level and/or annually. 

SRIA with priorities 

(cid:190)  Commitment from all JU members 
(cid:190)  Focus of SRIA commensurate with the 

Objectives 

KPI 

Innovative and State-
of-the-Art projects 

2.1 Structure and 
perform excellent 
multi-disciplinary 
research 

2.2 Align 
strategies 

2.3 Mobilise and 
pool resources 

Budget execution 

3.1 Maintain and 
grow 
manufacturing in 
EU 

Create jobs in 
electronics industries 
Increase 
manufacturing plants 
in Europe 

3.2 Leadership in 
E&M 

Strategic cooperation 
on E&M issues 

Metrics 
(measured over period 2014-2024) 
(cid:190)  Quality of results as e.g. measured in 
number of peer reviewed publications 
(cid:190)  Innovative R&D&I, at least 2 patents per 

10 M€ funding 

(cid:190)  Number and impact of breakthrough 

technologies 

available budget 

(cid:190)  Financial commitments by all JU members 
(cid:190)  Contribution towards the 3% target for 

R&D&I 

(cid:190)  Number of direct and induced jobs in 
Europe – progress towards creation of 
250.000 induced jobs 

(cid:190)  Number of state-of-the-art fabs in Europe 

as measured by technology node and wafer 
size 

(cid:190)  Ranking and market share/volume of 

European E&M suppliers 

(cid:190)  Number of new/upgraded pilot lines in 

Europe – at least 3 per year 

3.3 Support high 
TRLs 

Scale and impact of 
projects 

(cid:190)  Number of demonstrators of integrated 

solutions – at least 3 per year 

4.1 Availability of 
electronic 
components 

4.2 Leadership in 
system 
engineering 

Take-up of new 
technologies by 
European application 
sectors 
Strategic cooperation 
on embedded and 
smart systems issues 

(cid:190)  Access and use by actors not directly 

implementing the pilot lines/demonstrators 

(cid:190)  European market share/volume for new 

solutions 

(cid:190)  Ranking and market share/volume of 
European electronic systems suppliers 

64 

 
 
 
7.3.  Monitoring the JU operations progress 

The monitoring of the financial management of the JU is carried out annually by the European 
Court of Auditors. The operational capability of the JU will also be assessed by KPIs on an 
annual basis, reported by the Executive Director, in line with the following table. 

Objectives 

KPI 

5.1 Set strategic 
research and 
innovation agenda 

SRIA 

5.2 Efficient 
implementation of 
programme 

JU operations 

Metrics 
(measured over period 2014-2024) 

(cid:190)  Adoption of SRIA by all key players 
(cid:190)  Clarity and focus as perceived by the 

stakeholders 

(cid:190)  Time to grants (from call closing to grant 

signature) < 270 days 

(cid:190)  Time to payment < 90 days 
(cid:190)  Dissemination activities 
(cid:190)  Project results 

5.3 Synergies for 
exploitation of 
results and 
fostering SME 
growth 
5.4 Ease 
participation in 
projects with 
strong European 
dimension 
5.5 Access to 
design and 
manufacturing 
infrastructure 
5.6 Cooperation 
and coordination 
of stakeholders 

Industrial up-take of 
project results 

(cid:190)  Number of spin-offs 
(cid:190)  SME growth in terms of turnover and 

employment 

Simplified rules for 
participation 

(cid:190)  Industrial and SME participation rate – the 

latter ≥ 30% 

(cid:190)  Reduction of administrative overhead 

Availability and open 
access to State-of-
the-Art infrastructure 
s 

Partnerships 

(cid:190)  Access and use by SME's, including 

system integrators 

(cid:190)  Composition of consortia – emergence of 

strategic alliances 

(cid:190)  Availability of curricula/courses and 

effective take-up of professional training in 
line with industrial needs 

5.7 Maintain 
human skills 

Expertise available in 
Europe 

In addition, a qualitative monitoring will be carried out on other important aspects such as: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Openness and transparency of procedures; 

Coordination between JTI, other EU initiatives, and national and regional actions; 

Avoidance of conflict of interest; 

Financial auditing; 

Monitoring of good governance. 

65 

 
 
ANNEX 1 – CONTEXT OF THE INITIATIVE 

A.1 The general context of ICT 

ICT in this document refers to all technologies, products and services in the value chain from 
the equipment and materials needed to produce electronic components and systems, through 
to their design and manufacturing, to their integration in applications, including software and 
system engineering. 

Figure 23 - ICT, a strategic "enabling" industry 

A.1.1. ICT – an essential economic sector 

The  revenue  of  the  ICT  sector  corresponds  to  some  10%  of  total  worldwide  GDP  (2010 
figures)  [26].  In  2008,  the  EU  ICT  sector  alone  produced  a  value  representing  EUR  574 
billion.  This  represented  4.7%  of  the  total  Europe  Union  GDP,  of  which  1%  is  in 
manufacturing and 3.7% are in services. It employed in total some 8.3 million people [27].  

ICT contributes directly and indirectly to labour productivity, innovation and competitiveness 
[28].  It  underpins  most  if  not  all  sectors  of  the  economy  and  is  a  main  contributor  to  the 
economic growth [29]. It is well established that there is a 'pervasive impact of ICT-enabled 
hi-tech  products  on  European 
the  EU  economy.  ICT, 
complementing  the  diversity  of  European  industrial  activities,  play  a  growing  and  essential 
role  as  key  enabling  technologies.  This  complementarity  enhances  existing  goods  and 
services,  giving  those  companies  that  embed  ICT  in  their  products  and  services  the 
opportunity to develop (or maintain) the competitive edge on a global scale.' [27] 

industry  performance  and 

The  ICT  sector  leads  other  economic  sectors  in  terms  of  R&D  expenditure.  In  2007, 
worldwide, it accounted for [29]: 

• 

• 

• 

25% of total business expenditure in R&D (BERD); 

17% of gross expenditure in R&D (GERD); and  

Employed 32.4% of all business sector researchers. 

66 

 
 
 
 
A.1.2. Deficit of ICT sector innovation 

Although the EU and the US have roughly the same GDP, the US levels of both business and 
public ICT R&D funding are the double of those in the EU [29]. In 2007, the US level of ICT 
BERD/ICT  GDP  was  0.72%  while  it  was  0.30%  for  the  EU  indicating  that  there  is  a 
comparative  under-investment  in  ICT  R&D  in  Europe.  The  reasons  are  several  fold:  'These 
factors  include  the  competitive  battle  for  the  ICT  industry  among  advanced  economies,  the 
innovative tensions affecting the industry ecosystem, the emergence of new large ICT markets 
and  ICT  knowledge  flows,  and  the  progressive  transformation  of  the  ICT  industry  from  an 
engine of direct growth into a competitive asset as a key enabling technology for other sectors 
of the EU economy.' [27] 

As  a  result  there  is  an  innovation  deficit  when  compared  to  competitor  countries  like  the 
USA,  Japan,  South  Korea  or  China.  While,  due  to  differences  in  patenting  systems,  it  is 
difficult  to  make  comparisons  with  Asia,  the  comparison  with  the  USA  is  striking.  Europe 
applies  for  roughly  half  the  number  of  ICT  patents  when  compared  to  the  USA.  This  is  in 
contrast to other sectors in which Europe does better than the US [30]. The EU is creating less 
value in ICT than the USA.  

A.2 Electronic components and systems - a general purpose technology 

Most,  if  not  all,  advanced  products  rely  on  electronic  components  and systems.  The  quality 
and capability of products most often depend on their electronic core. The 'electronics inside' 
allow for differentiation of products and services and determines the competitive position of 
its suppliers. Increasingly, the physical world (sensors, actuators, computer chips) meets the 
cyber world (computing in the cloud). In these emerging cyber-physical systems (CPS) a huge 
number  of  devices  exchange  data  with  one  another,  access  web  services  and  interact  with 
people  in  increasing  complex  ways  putting  forward  significant  technology  challenges. 
Electronic components and systems are a driver of innovation and growth in many key sectors 
of  European 
aerospace,  health,  manufacturing, 
automotive, 
telecommunications and consumer electronics [31, 32, 33]. 

including 

industry 

Furthermore electronic components and systems are essential in tackling societal challenges 
from  the  reduction  of  greenhouse  gases  emission,  to  the  optimisation  of  the  use  of 
transportation  networks,  to  the  facilitation  of  smart  grids  and  personalised  affordable  health 
care. 

The  present  initiative  focusses  on  electronic  components  and  systems  and  covers  (i)  micro- 
and  nanoelectronics,  i.e.  data  processing  components,  (ii)  embedded  systems  and  (iii)  smart 
systems. These subfields are defined as follows: 

• 

• 

Data  processing  components  are  semiconductor  components  necessary  for  all  data 
processing  functions.  They  are  found  in  all  types  of  computers  (microprocessors, 
microcontrollers, solid-state memories…); 

Embedded systems encompass all computer based systems which are not dedicated 
to data processing only, i.e. all systems performing electronic functions embedded in 
larger systems; and 

67 

 
 
• 

Smart  systems  include  all  other  types  of  semiconductor  components  and  systems 
built  on  them.  They  cover  a  wide  variety  of  components  including  microsystems, 
power electronics, and e.g. radio-frequency components. Most of the smart systems 
embed data processing functions are connected to data processing components. The 
related  components  provide  functionality  to  systems  beyond  computation  and  data 
processing. 

The three subfields are complementary (see Figure 8) but present specific problem sets: 

• 

• 

• 

Data processing components are very capital intensive; 

The  design,  engineering,  verification  and  validation  of  embedded  systems  are 
software and human resource intensive; and 

Smart systems are often specifically designed for each application. 

The revenues of the 3 subfields are summarised in the following figures. 

• 

• 

• 

The revenues of the electronic components industry was 313 B€ worldwide in 2011. 
Its average annual growth rate is 5 to 6% [34, 26]; 

Revenues of the electronic systems industry have been estimated at 852 B€ in 2010. 
Its annual growth rate is estimated at 12% for the next decade [15]; and 

The  revenues  of  the  diversified  components  used  in  smart  systems  is  estimated  at 
some 10 B€ worldwide in 2011. Its estimated annual growth rate is 13% for the next 
decade [26]. 

The  electronic  components  and  systems  sector  thus  represents  a  significant  part  of  the  total 
GDP and is growing faster than the overall economy. 

A.3 Technological and economic trends in nanoelectronics 

A.3.1. Technology roadmap 

The  International  Technology  Roadmap  for  Semiconductors  (ITRS)  is  the  worldwide 
guideline  for  the  development  of  the  next  generations  of  data  processing  components  (i.e. 
microprocessors  and  memories)  [35].  Based  on  the  so-called  Moore's  law  (doubling  of 
computing  component  density  every  18 months),  it  identifies  the  technical  roadblocks  and 
serves as catalyst to create a consensus on how to solve them. 

The last decade saw the introduction of many new technologies necessary for the continuous 
increase  of  the  density  of  the  computing  components.  As  the  critical  dimension  of  the 
fundamental  unit  of  the  components  is  reaching  below  20 nanometres,  the  costs  associated 
with the R&D and manufacturing of these component are becoming very high: it is estimated 
that more than 1 B€ is necessary for the R&D to develop each next generation of components 
and  that  a  manufacturing  plant  will  cost  in  the  order  of  10 B€  [36].  Simultaneously  a 
transition  to  larger  wafer  sizes  for  the  production  of  components  is  happening,  form  the 
current  300 mm  to  450 mm  [37].  This  will  keep  the  price  of  individual  integrated  circuits 
constant but will be accompanied by huge capital spending by the manufacturing companies 

68 

 
 
over the next decade. As a consequence the number of companies that can keep up with new 
technology  developments  is  decreasing  as  the  market  share  threshold  to  afford  the  next 
technology  generation  is  increasing  faster  than  the  market  size.  It  is  estimated  that  a  20% 
annual increase of investment is needed to develop the most advanced components whilst the 
market increase of the order of 6% [38].  

A.3.2. Business models 

The  industrial  landscape  changed  significantly  in  the  last  10  years.  Historically  the 
mainstream  manufacturing  companies,  so-called  Integrated  Device  Manufacturers  (IDMs), 
designed  and  manufactured  their  components  in-house.  This  business  model  was  the 
consequence of the need to master the manufacturing technology to ensure the quality of the 
components.  Until  quite  recently  no  company  was  willing  to  entrust  another  one  to 
manufacture its components. Nevertheless for some specific niche markets, fabless companies 
(design  companies  without  manufacturing  capacity)  emerged  and  an  offer  of  "foundry" 
(manufacturing company without in-house design capability) started to grow rapidly. 

The major fabless companies (not ranked in 2002 in the 25 largest companies of the sector) 
currently hold overall more than a 10% market share (growing from 1 to 6 ranked companies 
from 2003 to now). The total market share of fabless companies is currently estimated at 25% 
[39].  In  parallel  with  the  emergence  of  the  fabless  companies,  foundry  companies 
(manufacturing companies without design)  grew  accordingly from 5.3%  in  2005  to 8.1% in 
2012. In the last 15 years the market share of only one IDM (Samsung) steadily grew from 
4%  to  9.3%.  With  the  exception  of  Intel  and  Samsung  the  market  share  of  the  other 
companies was below 4.5%. The 15% loss of market share of the 18 largest IDMs (without 
Intel  and  Samsung)  can  be  attributed  to  the  15%  gain  by  fabless  companies  (10%)  and 
Samsung (5%) in the same period as illustrated in the Figure 24. 

Intel Corporation
Samsung Electronics
Total fabless
Total foundries
Total IDMs w/o Intel & Samsung

e
r
a
h
s

t
e
k
r
a
M

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Figure 24 - Market share of semiconductor companies 

The market share increase of Samsung is attributable to a full dedication to the mobile device 
strategy  in  a  vertically  integrated  model.  For  the  other  companies  losing  market  share  may 
lead  to  a  situation  where  a  form  of  consolidation  is  inevitable.  In  particular  major  Japanese 
IDMs  either  merged  (Renesas  having  taken  the  legacy  of  Hitachi,  Mitsubishi  and  NEC 
semiconductor  businesses),  were  acquired  by  competitors  (Elpida  was  recently  sold  to 
Micron) or spun off and were dismantled (Fujitsu Semiconductors).  

69 

 
 
 
 
is 

facing 

the  problems 

Europe 
increase  of 
R&D/manufacturing  plant  costs  and  increased  complexity.  In  Europe  there  is  currently  not 
sufficient  investment  and  limited  access  to  volume  markets.  This  is  illustrated  e.g.  by  the 
small number of advanced 300 mm wafer manufacturing plants in Europe [40]. 

identified  above,  notably 

fast 

the 

Figure 25 - Installed monthly capacity for each wafer size by geographic region (July 2011) 

2 of the 3 European IDMs reduced their investment in R&D in the past decade. One European 
IDM is maintaining its R&D investment but its investment in manufacturing sites is relatively 
limited.  This  may  lead  to  a  Europe  that  is  unable  to  manufacture  advanced  data  processing 
components and that is becoming too much dependent on foreign company suppliers. 

e
r
a
h
s

t
e
k
r
a
m
d
l
r
o
W

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

STMicroelectronics

Infineon Technologies (former Siemens Semiconductors)

NXP (former Philips Semiconductors)

Figure 26 - Market share of European IDMs 

This could be compensated by a European position in fabless business model. But as outlined 
in [9], 'in Europe, the ratio of fabless to semiconductor companies is 75% whereas it is 85% 
in  US  and  75%  in  Asia.  If  ratios  are  equivalent,  there  is  a  major  discrepancy  considering 
absolute figures which are not in favour of Europe. Indeed, Europe lacks fabless companies 
(150) compared to the US (600) and Asia (500). Moreover, no European fabless company is 
in the worldwide top 10 (8 US companies out of 10).' 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 27 - Semiconductor/Fabless companies breakdown by region 

The  new  "fabless/foundry"  model  will  most  likely  not  replace  the  IDM  model  as  there  are 
many cases/markets where the model is not profitable or suitable, e.g. in cases in which the 
user  industry  demands  for  product  line  maintenance  for  decades,  such  as  in  automotive  or 
other industrial applications.  

The complexity of the business models and the fabless/foundry model in particular is further 
put  in  perspective  by  referring  to  some  recent  announcements.  Many  IDMs  divested  away 
from capital intensive components manufacturing and now focus on the faster growing area of 
design. This led to offshore manufacturing in Asia. Counter to this recent announcements and 
merger and acquisitions (e.g. Google buying Motorola for mobile devices patents, Qualcomm 
envisioning to acquire manufacturing capability, Amazon intending to purchase part of Texas 
Instruments components activities) 'content' companies (especially in the US) show a growing 
interest in acquiring manufacturing capability.  

A.3.3. Missing mass-volume markets 

Europe  is  missing  companies  developing  advanced  consumer  products  [9].  'Europe  exhibits 
low  performances  on  Data  Processing  and  Consumers  applications.  These  results  on  high 
volumes  markets  are  correlated  with  the  decline  of  European  OEMs  in  these  applications. 
The Communications sector is at the frontier, relying on the large Nokia and Sony Ericsson 
market positions.' [9] The situation however is changing fast. 

This  situation  is  reflected  further  in  the  fact  that  the  fabless  companies  worldwide  mostly 
target  consumer  electronics,  telecommunications  and  computers  as  their  main  market 
segments (see Figure 28) [41]. 

Figure 28 - Customer market segments of fabless companies 

71 

 
 
 
 
A.4  Europe's  leading  position  in  part  of  the  electronic  components  and  systems  value 
chain 

Europe is host to world class research and innovation and it developed a leading position in a 
number of high growth markets. European research institutes (e.g. Fraunhofer, LETI, imec in 
micro- and nanoelectronics, and Tecnalia, Politecnico di Torino or VTT in embedded systems 
and  software)  are  world  class  and  internationally  recognised.  Furthermore  European 
university laboratories are part of large networks of excellence. This constitutes an essential 
asset that needs to be nurtured and enhanced as the industry clearly acknowledges [6]. 

'Europe  is  well  positioned  on  high  growth  market  (Automotive,  IMS).  These  still  small  but 
emergent  markets  are  driven  by  worldwide  champions  like  Bosch,  Valeo,  ABB,  Siemens  or 
Philips  Healthcare,  relying  on  high  performance  technologies  developed  upstream  in  the 
value  chain.  This  reflects  the  importance  of  European  OEM  champions  as  drivers  of  the 
supply chain in emergent markets.' [9] 

A.4.1. Strengths but incomplete value chain in nanoelectronics 

European  strengths  are  very  broad  and  diverse.  To  illustrate  the  Grenoble  cluster,  around 
STMicroelectronics and Soitec, developed an FDSOI technology9 that allows  for the  design 
and  manufacture  of  energy  efficient  nanoelectronics  components  at  a  less  demanding 
complexity (strong reuse of existing processes and design tools). This technology is a strong 
contender in the field of mobile devices and holds the promise in many application sectors to 
further bring added functionality. 

Remarkably, Europe has some of the most important equipment and material suppliers (e.g. 
ASML for EUV Lithography, the key and most risky equipment for further miniaturisation, 
SOITEC  for  substrate  material,  a  key  ingredient  for  new  transistors  or  AIXTRON  for 
manufacturing equipment).  

In  order  to  cope  with  escalating  R&D  costs  in  nanoelectronics,  European  companies 
cooperate  in  partnerships  at  international  level.  Illustrative  examples  are  the  partnering  of 
STMicroelectronics with the IBM cluster in Albany, USA, or the investments of the 3 largest 
semiconductor companies in ASML. 

Important efforts have been conducted at regional level notably in the last 15 years to build 
industrial  and  technology  clusters  in  (nano)  electronics10.  In  line  with  experiences  gained 
around the world, the most successful clusters are often the result of sustained strategies based 
on a combination of policies including investment in R&D and in infrastructure. Furthermore 
the availability of skills and knowledge is an essential factor for deciding on investment  by 
the private sector in this field. 

Further,  in  the  fabless  world  ARM  based  in  the  UK  licences  integrated  circuit  design, 
especially in the microprocessor segment. More than 70% of microprocessors in the world are 
currently  designed  by  ARM,  especially  for  mobile  devices.  The  company  increasingly 
expands its activities including into microprocessors for servers. 

9 
10 

FDSOI: Fully Depleted Silicon on Insulator 
See the constituting clusters of Silicon Europe 

72 

 
 
                                                 
Europe will benefit from strengthening these assets. Europe has many strengths, especially in 
the business-to-business markets and in the automotive, avionics and rail sectors.  

A.4.2. Embedded systems: clear strengths despite fragmentation 

Embedded  systems  are  electronic  products,  equipment  or  complex  systems  containing 
computing devices and/or functional components and special software. Embedded systems are 
not  externally  visible  and  are  normally  inaccessible  to  the  user.  They  bring  intelligence  to 
devices, objects and processes. Embedded systems are not solely dedicated to computing but 
are typically an entire part of a more complex product. As a single component is 'blind' to the 
outside world it needs to be connected to sensors ('eyes', 'ears') and actuators ('arms') in order 
to constitute a smart embedded system. This heterogeneity adds to the system complexity. In 
order  to  cope  with  this  complexity  progress  on  standardisation,  open  technology  reference 
platforms and/or technological convergence are essential. 

Complex  systems  across  the  embedded  and  the  internet  worlds  will  increasingly  share 
common ICT resources and evolve to cyber-physical systems and 'smart spaces'. These will 
have  to  comply  with  stringent  safety,  dependability  and  time-constraints.  Cyber-physical 
systems are powered by a computing continuum spanning embedded and mobile computing 
to warehouse-scale and high performance computing. Whereas data and network security was 
less critical in traditional embedded systems, connectivity to the outside world will have the 
consequence that security will become crucial. In terms of private R&D investment by sector 
using electronic systems, Europe is strong in all sectors except consumer electronics [15].  

sectors  but  also 

In  the  field  of  embedded  systems,  'Europe  benefits  from  strong  OEMs  base  on  Automotive 
and  Aerospace  &  Defense 
such  as 
Electricity/Gas/Water utilities, and Energy Equipment. Stakeholder interviews inputs indicate 
that  OEMs  drive  the  innovation  and  technology  development.  In  emergent  software 
applications  close  collaboration  between  OEMs  and  Software  vendor  companies  is 
considered  critical  for  developing  first  products.  In  this  context  OEMs  create  a  strong 
internal  market  for  the  SMEs.  This  is  particularly  important  for  small  software  companies 
which have mainly local operations and few international capabilities' [15]. 

smaller  markets 

from 

However, there are no  dominant  players in embedded systems opposite to what is observed 
with  the  component  suppliers.  The  main  reason  for  a  balance  among  suppliers  is  because 
proprietary  architectures  and  peripherals  allow  microcontroller  (MCU)  and  digital  signal 
processor  (DSP)  companies  to  differentiate  themselves  and  because  of  the  huge  legacy 
investments  in  programming  [15].  The  fragmented  market  in  Europe  is  strongly  felt  in  the 
field of embedded systems. 'The supply side of the ESD software market is very fragmented. 
IDC  estimates  that  there  are  about  430  European  ESD  software  vendors  but  there  are  no 
more than 20 companies with turnover over 10 M€ which account  to nearly the three quarters 
of  the  market.  Dassault  Systèmes  and  Siemens  PLM  are  the  two  largest  companies.'  At  the 
same  time  'Almost  95%  of  European  ESD  software  vendors  account  just  for  27%  of  the 
market. The activity of these small sized companies (turnover below 10 M€) relies mostly on 
local operations.' [15]  

73 

 
 
A.4.3. Smart systems: world leader in components 

Smart  systems  rely  on  functional  components  for  sensing  and  interacting  with  the 
environment.  They  encompass  a  large  set  of  diverse  components  that  provide  e.g.  the  radio 
frequency  (RF)  functions  for  all  sorts  of  wireless  communications,  a  wide  range  of  sensing 
capabilities,  for  airbags  or  the  mobile  phone  camera,  or  the  handling  of  high  voltages  and 
currents  for  smart  grids  or  green  energy.  All  these  components  are  developed  along  some 
form  of  technology  roadmaps  specific  for  each  application  area.  This  applies  particularly  to 
the microsystems (integrated microelectronics and micromechanical systems). 

This brings inherent entry barriers to the field of (non-logic) functional components. Though 
these components are less R&D intensive they rely more on proprietary processes and design. 
This  and  the  European  strength  in  systems  engineering  helped  Europe  in  developing  and 
holding a strong position (European players are indicated by a red arrow in Figure 29). 

Figure 29 - MEMS companies ranking 

74 

 
 
 
Yole Developpement © March 2012

)
$
M
n
i
(

s
e
u
n
e
v
e
R

$25.000M

$20.000M

$15.000M

$10.000M

$5.000M

$0M

Telecom

Medical

Industrial

Aeronautics

Defense

Consumer

Automotive

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Figure 30 - MEMS market forecast evolution 

While in the past markets tended to grow slowly, now the annual growth rate almost doubles 
the  growth  for  computing  components  (roughly  13%,  see  Figure  29)  [26].  This  is  attracting 
more and new actors. The market for functional components is equally consumer driven. 

The strong position of the EU industry in automotive smart systems is an asset to build on. 
Four European IDMs (STMicroelectronics, NXP, Infineon or Bosch) are in the top 10 global 
suppliers. Other areas such as health and energy are or will become equally important. 

A.5 Outlook 

Electronic components and systems are the most R&D intensive part of the ICT. It is facing 
huge challenges related on the one hand to the substantial size of the needed R&D and on the 
other hand to the increasing complexity requiring multi-disciplinary technology development 
throughout the value chain. 

The  increase  of  systems  design  complexity  results  from  several  factors,  including  the 
proliferation  of  devices,  the  quantity  of  data,  the  diversity  and  richness  of  functions  and 
services,  interoperability  and  networking  [15].  It  is  expected  that  the  number  of  processing 
units will reach 100 per person by 2020 and most of them will be connected to some form of 
network to collect data from their environment and contribute to the ambient intelligence. 'The 
cumulative impacts of computing power available, new software technologies and the Internet 
allowed  exponential  growth 
the  systems  and 
interoperability  capabilities  between  systems.  These  two  aspects  –  diversity  and  richness  of 
functions and services on one hand, interoperability and networking on the other – now lead 
to levels of complexity never achieved previously.' [15]  

functions  and  services  provided  by 

At the same time, the dividing line between electronic components and embedded systems is 
continuously  evolving  as  more  functionality  is  integrated  at  the  component  level.  As  the 
number  of  functions  integrated  in  components  increases  their  design  is  becoming  more 
complex.  Beyond  and  building  on  this  component  complexity  there  is  an  increase  of  the 
complexity of embedded system as well and the need for increased flexibility in the system 
design.  The  industry  is  building  on  this  diversity  and  richness  of  functions  and  services  to 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
differentiate and compete in supplying systems with increased capability. New approaches for 
managing the complexity of design are needed especially in networked architectures. 

In some application sectors the competitive use of electronic components in Europe needs to 
be further developed. This is particularly the case in advanced products for consumer markets.  

Europe is under threat of losing the strategic capability to produce electronic components [9]. 
The close relationship between the electronic component industry and the industrial fabric as 
well  as  the  proximity  with  systems  integrators  is  of  paramount  importance  for  Europe.  The 
strategic importance of electronic systems in specific sectors such as automotive, aerospace, 
health or energy is significant. Electronic systems provide a large part of the added value in 
these sectors and are indispensable to maintain competitiveness. The table below presents an 
integrated summary of several SWOTs [4]. 

76 

 
 
 
Strengths 

Weaknesses 

- 

- 

Excellent  R&D  capabilities/capacities 
industry, institutes and academia 

in 

- 

Insufficient  alignment  of  Member  States  on 
a European ICT industrial strategy 

Leadership 
technologies and applications 

in 

More-than-Moore 

-  World 

leading  technology  and 

industrial 

clusters in the field 

-  Market leaders in equipment and materials 

- 

- 

- 

Traditional  strong  position 
in  electronic 
systems with high degree of specialisation in 
many fields 

important  market 
Leading  position 
e.g. 
segments 
automotive,  healthcare  imaging,  industrial 
automation, security and communications 

in 
applications 

and 

– 

Sizable  ICT  home  market  in  key  application 
domains 

- 

- 

Very  limited  role  in  large consumer  product 
markets: desk/laptop/tablet/tv/smartphone 

and 

strategic 
Limited 
deployment  of  ICT  system  solutions  for 
societal challenges 

fragmented 

-  No overall focus on high-tech products in the 
European  manufacturing 

(decreasing) 
industry 

- 

- 

- 

Inadequate culture for commercialisation of 
inventions and R&D results 

40  %  less  patent  applications  than  USA  or 
Japan 

Shortage  of  well-educated  new  talents,  lack 
of systems thinking in education 

-  Highly  skilled  employees  with  professional 

experience  

Opportunities 

Threats 

-  Growing  markets 

for  components  and 

- 

systems 

Fragmented 
preventing economy-of-scale exploitation 

regulatory 

frameworks 

-  Growing  need  for  customised  solutions  and 

-  Uneven global level playing field 

tighter user-supplier interactions 

-  Growing  complexity  and  prevalence  of 
electronic  systems  in  areas  where  Europe 
has  strong  industry  (e.g.  energy,  transport, 
healthcare) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

The  need  to  address  societal  challenges, 
which creates new market opportunities 

procurement 

innovative 
Increased 
products  and  services  in  areas  of  public 
interest 

of 

Industrial  exploitation  of  new  materials  and 
corresponding equipment 

Expansion  of  PPPs  and  strong  eco-systems 
will increase the attractiveness of Europe as 
location for manufacturing and R&D 

-  Weaknesses 

in 

European 

innovation 

ecosystem development 

- 

- 

- 

Lack  of  competitiveness  with  respect  to 
production cost – labour, energy 

Loss  of  major  parts  of  technology  and 
production expertise and as a consequence, 
risk of degradation in leading-edge R&D&I 

Loss  of  major  parts  of  proprietary 
intellectual property 

-  Dependence  on  non-European  operating 
embedded 

for  mobile 

and 

systems 
applications 

-  Dominance  of  non-EU  actors  from  the 
Internet  world  swapping  over  to  the  world 
of embedded/cyber physical systems 

77 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2 – RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE TWO INTERIM EVALUATIONS 

First interim evaluation recommendations [11] 

No.  Summary of recommendation 

1 

Future JTIs in these domains to continue the tripartite JTI model 

Time-frame 

Next generation 
JTIs 

Recommendations for Member States 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Make multi-annual budgetary commitments 

Comply with the JTI Council Regulations 

Undertake benchmarking & alignment study on national practices 

Give early annual indication of support for specific topics 

Recommendations for Industrial Associations 

6 

7 

8 

Lead  the  establishment  of  processes  to  monitor  progress  toward  JTI 
objectives 

Lead  the  preparation  of  action  plans  for  achievement  of  innovation 
ecosystem aims 

Engage better with the JTI constituencies 

Recommendations for the European Commission 

Now 

Now 

Now 

Now 

Now 

Now 

Now 

9 

10 

Lead  the  drafting  of  new  Council  Regulations  with  alternative 
Financial Regulations and Staff Regulations 

Next generation 
JTIs 

Regulations  should allow  JTIs to  support innovation-related activities 
other than R&D 

Next generation 
JTIs 

11 

Regulations should allow JTIs to accept funding from other sources 

Next generation 
JTIs 

12 

13 

14 

Regulations  should  allow  the  EU  to  make  additional  financial 
contributions for strategic purposes 

Next generation 
JTIs 

Regulations should allow the Joint Undertakings to claim some of their 
operational costs from non-members 

Next generation 
JTIs 

The Commission should establish data gathering to support assessment 
of the benefits of these JTIs 

Now 

78 

 
 
15 

16 

No.  Summary of recommendation 

Time-frame 

Recommendations for the Joint Undertakings 

Establish  a  mechanism  for  recovering  some  of  their  operation  costs 
from non-member beneficiaries of the JTIs 

Next generation 
JTIs 

Place  greater  emphasis  on  strategic,  European  aims  in  proposal 
evaluation & selection processes  

17 

Establish processes to give early feedback to proposers 

Recommendation for JTI - EUREKA co-ordination 

18 

ARTEMIS & ENIAC should continue their initiatives to differentiate 
from and coordinate with ITEA2 and CATRENE, respectively 

Second interim evaluation recommendations [12] 

Now 

Now 

Now 

Rec. 

1 

Summary of Recommendation 

Relevant 
Constituency 

Time-
frame 

E/ The ENIAC SRA, MASP, AWPs and Grand Challenges 
need  to  reflect  more  strongly  a  coherent  European 
perspective,  linking  to  an  overarching  European  ECS  
research,  development  and  innovation  strategy,  as 
proposed in Rec. 17 of this report.  

ENIAC 
Industrial 
Association 
and the JU 

Next 
Generation 
JTIs 

A/ The ARTEMIS SRA and work programmes need to 
reflect  more 
coherent  European 
perspective,  linking  to  an  overarching  European  ECS 
research,  development  and  innovation  strategy,  as 
proposed in Rec. 17 of this report. 

strongly 

a 

2 

E/ The ENIAC Industrial Association, AENEAS, should 
play a more active role in the definition of the overall 
objectives  and  strategy  of  the  ENIAC  JTI  and  should 
engage  more  actively  with  stakeholders  so  as  to 
promote  and 
in  project 
proposals,  especially  by  SMEs,  and  to  develop  and 
keep up to date the Strategic Research Agenda 

facilitate  participation 

ARTEMIS 
Industrial 
Association 
and the JU 

Now/  Next 
Generation 
JTIs 

ENIAC 
Industrial 
Association  

Now/  Next 
Generation 
JTIs 

A/ The ARTEMIS Industrial Association (ARTEMIS-IA) 
should re-double its efforts to synergise the European 
embedded system community 

ARTEMIS 
Industrial 
Association 

Now  Next 
Generation 
JTIs / 

3 

E/  ENIAC  project  reviews,  including  a  final  post-
project  review  that  should  be  held,  the  panel 
concludes, between 6 and 12 months after the end of a 

ENIAC JU 

Now 

79 

 
 
Rec. 

Summary of Recommendation 

Relevant 
Constituency 

Time-
frame 

project,  should  monitor  more  closely  and  rigorously 
the actual and planned exploitation of project results, 
and  the  measures  put  in  place  by  project  partners  to 
achieve such planned exploitation.  

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

A/  A  detailed  deployment  and  commercialisation 
strategy  for  ARTEMIS  project  results  should  be 
defined. 

ARTEMIS  JU 

Now 

Projects  should  build  appropriately  upon  previously 
developed  ARTEMIS  technology,  making  reference  to 
what  has  been  funded  before  with  the  intent  of 
demonstrating  novelty  as  well  as  re-use  of  results 
obtained in previous projects.   

ARTEMIS  JU 

Now/  Next 
Generation 
JTIs 

The  proportion  of  funding  for  projects  targeting 
(Applications 
generic  applications  and  services 
projects) should be increased.  

ARTEMIS    JU 
and  Industrial 
Association 

Now/  Next 
Generation 
JTIs 

The ENIAC & ARTEMIS JTIs, along with the European 
(ETP)  on  Smart  Systems 
Technology  Platform 
Integration (EPoSS), should be integrated into a single 
organisation (one legal entity - an ECS JTI).   

EC  and  future 
JTIs 

Next 
Generation 
JTIs 

ENIAC  and  CATRENE  calls  for,  and  selection  of, 
proposals  should  be  more  closely  aligned  (e.g.  by  the 
use of common and/or complementary calls), with the 
relevant  funding  awarding  bodies  retaining  some 
flexibility over the assignment of the most appropriate 
funding stream. 

ENIAC JU 

Now/  Next 
Generation 
JTIs 

Construct the proposed integrated ECS JTI (of Rec. 6), 
or  indeed  any  future  JTI,  as  a  PPP  with  reduced  legal 
requirements. 

EC 

Focus the JU Governing Board on strategic issues and 
reduce  its  administrative  burden  in  order  to  attract 
participation from high-level industry representatives.

JUs 

Next 
Generation 
JTIs 

Now/  Next 
Generation 
JTIs 

Now 

10  Member  State  participation  rules,  funding  rates  and 
procedures should be harmonised wherever possible. 

Member 
States 

11 

a/  The  JU  should explore  and  develop  appropriate 
mechanisms  to  create an  ‘early  warning  system’  to 
identify mis-matches in funding of member states. 

JUs  

Now 

80 

 
 
Next 
Generation 
JTIs 

Now/ 

Next 
Generation 
JTIs 

Next 
Generation 
JTIs 

Rec. 

Summary of Recommendation 

b/  In  order  to  bridge  financing  gaps,  intermediate 
funding  should  be  allowed  for  projects  which  are 
mission-critical. 

Relevant 
Constituency 

Time-
frame 

JUs and EC 

Now/ 

12  Member  States  should  commit  to  a  multi-annual 

funding system. 

Member 
States 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

Take  steps  (e.g.  modification  of  evaluation  criteria) 
during  the  proposal  evaluation  and  selection  process 
to  improve  the  match  of  the  project  portfolio  to 
strategic  European  aims  and  to  ensure  optimum 
coverage  of  key  areas  defined  in  the  overarching  EU 
ECS strategy (proposed in Rec. 17) and the work plans 
derived from such a strategy. 

JUs 

Specific  support  mechanisms 
for  enhancing  the 
project  management  processes  in  JTI  projects  should 
be  developed  and  implemented.  Management  costs 
should be 100% funded by the EC for all JTI projects. 

JUs and EC 

Now/ 

Next 
Generation 
JTIs 

JTI projects should be subject to only one joint JTI and 
MS project review and reporting process. 

Appropriate  metrics  for  measuring  the  impact  and 
success of  projects should  be developed and used for 
both current and future JTIs.   

long-term  overarching  EU  research, 
A  mid-  to 
development  and  innovation  strategy  in  Electronic 
Components  and  Systems  (ECS)  should  be  clearly 
defined  and  used  as  a  key 
'driver'  for  funding 
decisions. 

and 

Now 

JUs 
Member 
States 

JUs 

Now 

EC 

Now 

81 

 
 
 
ANNEX 3 – PROFILES OF THE ENIAC AND ARTEMIS JUS AND EPOSS ETP 

Both JUs were set up for 10 years (2008-2017) with a financial contribution from the Seventh 
Framework  Programme  over  the  period  2008-2013.  The  present  information  gives  an 
overview of the activities of the JUs during their first four years 2008-2011 for which full data 
are available.  In 2012, the  JUs  extended their scope  of  work  to  include  manufacturing  pilot 
lines  for  ENIAC  (as  a  result  of  the  recommendations  from  the  High-Level  Group  on  Key 
Enabling Technologies [3]) and innovation pilot projects for ARTEMIS, both of which had a 
significant impact on their budget execution. 

ENIAC Joint Undertaking 

The  focus  of  ENIAC  is  the  semiconductor  industry.  The  Multi-Annual  Strategic  plan  [42] 
identifies 8 domains and 25 grand challenges (GC's) setting the scope of the programme. An 
overview of these is provided in the following table. 

C# 

1. 

2. 

Chapter 

Grand challenge (GC) 

Automotive and 
transport 

Intelligent Electric Vehicle 

Safety in traffic 

Co-operative Traffic management 

Communications 
and digital 
lifestyles 

Internet multimedia services 

Evolution to a digital lifestyle 

Self-organizing network 

Short range convergence 

3. 

Energy efficiency 

Sustainable and efficient energy generation 

Energy distribution and management- Smart grid 

Reduction of Energy consumption 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Healthy ageing and 
living 

Home healthcare 

Hospital healthcare 

Heuristic healthcare 

Safety and security 
focuses 

Consumer and citizen security 

Securing the European challenging applications 

Enabling technologies for trust security and safety 

Design 
technologies 

Managing complexity 

Managing diversity 

Design for reliability and yield 

Semiconductor 
process and 
integration 

Know-how on advanced and emerging semiconductor processes 

Competitiveness through semiconductor process differentiation 

Opportunities in system-in-packaging 

82 

 
 
8. 

Equipment, 
materials and 
manufacturing 

Advanced CMOS – 1xnm and 450 mm 

More than more 

Manufacturing 

Chapters  1-5  are  strongly  focused  on  more  market  oriented  research  and  development 
(transport,  communication,  energy,  healthcare,  safety  &security),  where  the  6th  chapter  is 
enabling on design tools, chapter 7 on the more fundamental chips manufacturing processes 
and  8  on  (supporting)  manufacturing  equipment.  Figure  31  shows  that  the  programme 
addresses  strongly  the  semiconductor  manufacturing  part,  but  also  the  more  subsystem 
oriented part of the value chain is addressed by Chapters 1-5. 

Figure 31 - Overview of value chain addressed by ENIAC JU 

The  40  projects  selected  for  funding  in  the  period  2008  –  2011  cover  all  areas  of  research; 
their distribution is shown in Figure 32. 

Figure 32 - Projects per area of activity 

On  average,  there  are  some  20  participants  per  project  from  6  different  Member  States  as 
detailed in Figure 33. 

83 

 
 
 
 
Figure 33 - ENIAC Projects 2008-2011 

The  participation  of  the  R&D  actors  in  the  ENIAC  JU  projects  is  representative  for  an 
industry  in  which  all  players,  large  or  small,  public  research  or  private  companies  have  a 
significant  part  to  play.  Since  the  beginning,  the  projects  exceed  800  participations of  more 
than 400 non-affiliated organizations distributed as shown in Figure 34. 

Figure 34 - Unique participants by type of organisation 

84 

 
 
 
 
In  Figure  35,  the  results  of  the  yearly  calls  for  proposals  demonstrate  that  the  JU  created  a 
favourable environment for leveraging public (i.e. national) and private funds. The impact of 
addressing higher TRLs according to the KET report is remarkable in the 2012 forecasts. 

Figure 35 - Programme execution (in M€) 

The distribution of funding per type of participants is shown in Figure 36. This is in line with 
the  value  chain  and  indicates  that  the  differences  in  funding  rates  applied  by  the  national 
authorities are geared towards more support for SMEs and academic/research partners. 

Figure 36 - Funding per type of participants 

As examples of concrete achievements, the following projects were concluded successfully as 
a result of the first call for proposals in 2008: 

•  The  project  E3Car  improved  by  35%  the  overall  efficiency  of  the  electrical  vehicles 
resulting  in  reduction  of  the  energy  consumption  and  reduced  ecologic  footprint.  It 
innovated at the component, sub-system and system level, creating a view of the electric 
vehicle architecture adopted and further developed and implemented in several follow-up 
projects. 

•  The  project  IMPROVE  advanced  the  state-of-the-art  in  virtual  metrology,  predictive 
maintenance  and  adaptive  control  plans,  reducing  by  30%  the  measurement  steps  in 
manufacturing,  improving  the  up-time  of  the  equipment  items  by  1%-5%  and  virtually 
eliminating  disruptions  caused  by  unexpected  failure.  It  enables 
the  European 
manufacturers to compete based on innovation and efficiency. 

85 

 
 
 
 
•  The  project  LENS  integrated  results  from  various  research  activities  improving  the 
accuracy  in  photolithography  by  40-50%,  introduced  new  materials  and  demonstrated 
process  integration  schemes  using  dual  exposure  and  pitch  doubling  technics  that 
prolonged  the  applicability  of  the  incumbent  immersion  tools  for  two  more  technology 
generation 

ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking 

The  focus  of  ARTEMIS  is  the  electronic  systems  industry,  with  special  focus  on  the  more 
market  oriented  sub-system  industries.  Special  focus  is  on  embedded  systems.  Three  main 
research  domains  are  distinguished  in  the  Multi-Annual  Strategic  Plan  [43]  between:  1) 
Reference  Designs  and  Architectures,  2)  Seamless  Connectivity  and  Middleware  and  3) 
(System) Design Methods and Tools. A set of "ARTEMIS Sub-Programmes" are identified to 
further provide more focus and detail to the program objectives: 

•  ASP1:  Methods  and  processes  for  safety-relevant  embedded  systems.  This  subprogram 
focuses  on  the  transport,  industry,  healthcare  and  public  infrastructure,  looking  at  the 
enhancement  of  safety  and  efficiency.  Its  focus  is  on  software  development  and 
architectural design. 

•  ASP2:  Embedded  Systems  for  Healthcare  systems.  Important  needs  for  applications  in 
this  sub-programme  are:  gathering  and  (pre-)  processing  of  data  by  a  large  variety  of 
detectors,  sensors,  control  treatment  by  various  actuators,  real-time  processing  of  large 
volumes  of  data,  high  reliability,  dependability  and  interoperability  in  complex 
heterogeneous environments. 

•  ASP3:  Embedded  Systems  in  Smart  Environments.  The  overall  goal  is  to  provide 
methods, tools, technology and models with which developers will be able to build 'smart 
environments', i.e. ecosystems of  smart  and heterogeneous devices interacting with each 
other  and  with  the  environment,  and  cooperating  together  to  provide  a  foundation  for 
rapid local applications and service innovations. 

•  ASP4:  Manufacturing  and  production  automation.  The  main  themes  of  this  subprogram 
are  embedded  systems  supporting  sustainable,  competitive,  flexible,  reconfigurable 
manufacturing and delivery of products, and the support of products over their complete 
life-cycle. 

•  ASP5: Computing platforms for Embedded Systems. The main themes of this subprogram 
are: 1) new architectures for embedded systems, addressing very high throughput (multi-
core)  embedded  systems,  low  power  (power  management),  as  well  as  HW  /  SW 
architecture strategies; 2) new design paradigms that render the practical implementation 
of multi- and many-core solutions tractable. 

•  ASP6:  Embedded  Systems  for  the  Security  and  Critical  Infrastructures  Protection.  The 
focus  is  on  embedded  systems  architectural,  design  and  communication  topics,  ensuring 
seamless  and  secure  communication/cooperation  of  heterogeneous  embedded  systems  in 
large-scale  dynamic  networks  using  models/methods/tools  for  predicting  complex, 
dynamic behaviour in distributed and cooperating embedded systems. 

•  Embedded Technology for Sustainable Urban Life. The subprogram calls for integration 
that  crosses  several  technology  domains  and  diverse  application  sectors.  The  research 
strategy  is  to  develop  a  series  of  platform  ecosystems  that  progressively  converge  to 
integrate the management of more resources in larger areas. 

•  ASP8: Human-centred Design of Embedded Systems. The aim is to promote technology 
development  that  supports  designers  to  build  intuitive  Human-Machine  Interfaces  that 

86 

 
 
integrate  naturally  into  operational  environments  and  that  are  effective  and  easy  to  use, 
especially in safety critical domains. 

Looking at the industry value chain in Figure 37, it is clear that more focus is given towards 
application oriented subsystems, but also the connection to semiconductor devices is relevant 
(ASP1,  ASP5,  ASP6).  No  attention  is  given  to  materials  and  semiconductor  manufacturing 
equipment, but subsystem manufacturing equipment (and equipment for other manufacturing 
industries)  is  addressed  (ASP4).  Especially  design  tools  for  subsystem  manufacturers  are  of 
importance. 

Figure 37 - Overview of value chain addressed by ARTEMIS JU 

Looking at the subprograms, it becomes clear that the main focus is on embedded software. 
However,  also  the  hardware  architecture  is  relevant,  as  this  is  very  often  directly  linked  to 
software  architectures.  In  some  subprograms,  attention  is  given  to  the  development  of  new 
micro  transducers  (sensors  and  actuators)  which  are  also  important  research  topics  for  the 
EPoSS  ETP.  The  manufacturing  technologies  are  limited  to  enhancing  equipment  for  the 
manufacturing of subsystems and systems. 

The  44  projects  selected  for  funding  in  the  period  2008  –  2011  cover  all  areas  of  research; 
their distribution is shown in Figure 38. 

87 

 
 
 
Figure 38 - Projects per area of activity 

On  average,  there  are  some  20  participants  per  project  from  6  different  Member  States  as 
detailed in Figure 39. 

88 

 
 
 
Figure 39 - ARTEMIS projects 2008-2011 

The  participation  of  the  R&D  actors  in  the  ARTEMIS  JU  projects  shows  a  balanced 
representation of all the players. Since the beginning, the projects exceed 900 participations of 
more than 500 non-affiliated organizations distributed as shown in Figure 40. 

Figure 40 - Unique participants by type of organisation 

89 

 
 
 
 
In Figure 41, the results of the yearly calls for proposals show that the JU is leveraging public 
(i.e. national) and private funds but at a lower level than anticipated initially. The impact of 
calling for Innovation Pilot Projects explains the 2012 forecasts. 

Figure 41 - Programme execution (in M€) 

The distribution of funding per type of participants is shown in Figure 42. As for ENIAC JU, 
the value chain is well covered and the national authorities are geared towards more support 
for SMEs and academic/research partners. 

Figure 42 - Funding per type of participants 

As  examples  of  concrete  achievements,  the  following  completed  projects  from  the  call  in 
2008 are considered as flagships: 

• 

CESAR  (ASP1:  Methods  and  processes  for  safety-relevant  Embedded  Systems): 
very  large  project  –  the  largest  in  the  ARTEMIS  portfolio  to  date.  Its  importance, 
both in size and of its topic, has generated such gravitational pull that many projects 
have  quickly  "moved  into  orbit"  and  provide  inputs  to  CESAR  or  make  use  of  its 
output.  It  also  lies  at  the  heart  of  CRYSTAL  –  an  AIPP  from  Call  2012.  CESAR 
created  a  "Reference  Technology  Platform"  (the  CESAR  RTP,  or  CRTP)  and 
associated  "Interoperability  Specification"  (IOS).  In  essence,  this  is  a  sophisticated 
toolkit to manage the plethora of other tools needed when developing SW-intensive 
products  that  demand  absolutely  highest  standards  of  reliability.  The  CRTP  allows 
relevant  and  interoperable  tools  to  be  selected  for  particular  market/product 
requirements and generates a customised working environment in which these tools 
can be used to their best advantage. 

90 

 
 
 
 
• 

• 

eDIANA  (ASP7:  Embedded  Technology  for  Sustainable  Urban  Life):  created  and 
demonstrated  a  so-called  "Middleware  Platform"  specification  that  allows  various 
sensors  and  controls  to  communicate  with  each  other,  specifically  aimed  at  energy 
management  in  houses  and  larger  buildings  (offices  and/or  residences).  The 
middleware ensures that devices from different manufacturers can operate together, 
using  wireless  or  wired  technologies.  It  also  foresees  connection  to  larger,  district-
level networks such as "smart grids". The platform's functionality and usefulness in 
the  retrofit  scenario  were  tested  on  three  medium-scale  application  demonstrators. 
The  eDIANA  consortium  is  at  the  heart  of  the  recently  certified  ARTEMIS-IA 
Centre  of  Innovation  Excellence  "ES4IB"  (Embedded  Systems  for  Intelligent 
Buildings). 

INDEXYS  (ASP5:  Computing  Platforms  for  Embedded  Systems):  developed  and 
evaluated  3  different  demonstrators,  in  the  automotive,  aerospace  and  railway 
industrial domains, allowing partners to patent the approach developed for the CAN 
Router  -  a  star  architecture  device  for  the  CAN  network  (the  CAN  bus,  popular  in 
automotive  and  industrial  applications,  was  initially  designed  as  a  bus-architecture 
but  INDEXYS  has  expanded  it  towards  the  more  secure  star-architecture).  It  also 
significantly  influenced  and  contributed  to  the  release  of  the  SAE  Standard  for  the 
Time-Triggered Protocol TTP. 

EPoSS European Technology Platform 

The focus of the EPoSS ETP is on supporting research and development in the subsystem and 
system manufacturing. Core to the program is the integration of smart systems. Based on the 
2009  Strategic  research  agenda  of  EPoSS  [44],  the  core  technologies  are:  Materials, 
Micro/Nano  effects,  Packaging,  Design,  Smart  power  management,  Signal  and  information 
processing, Energy conversion systems, Chemical and biological sensors, analytical systems 
and  Vision  sensors.  The  thematic  priorities  are  structured  according  to  the  following 
application areas: 

•  Smart  Systems  for  Automotive  Applications,  enabling  a  quicker  move  to  the  era  of  full 
electrical mobility. This includes: Smart Systems for the Management of Energy Storage 
Systems, Intelligent Power Electronic Devices, Active Control Units for Electric Motors 
& Wheels, Smart Integration of Range Extenders, Advanced Vehicle to Grid Connection 
Systems 

•  Smart  Systems  for  Medical  Applications,  including  the  integration  of  micro-sensors  and 
micro-actuators in products for cure and care that will provide the healthcare professional 
with  more  advanced  and  improved  options  to  treat  and  take  care  of  patients  and  will 
enable patients to attain a better quality of life, even when suffering from chronic diseases. 
•  Smart  Systems  for  the  Internet  of  Things,  opening  the  way  towards  multi-dimensional, 
context-aware, and smart environments that can bridge the real, virtual and digital worlds 
by  using  wireless  connectivity  for  energy  efficient  and  environmentally  friendly 
applications and services. 

•  Smart  Systems  for  Information  and  Telecommunication,  focusing  on  Personal 
connectivity  and  communication,  High-performance  variable  components  component 
level,  Integration  on  module/subsystem  level,  Machine-to-machine  connectivity,  RF 
antenna and filter design for miniature, low-power designs, New scalable architectures. 

91 

 
 
•  Smart Systems for Safety and Security, including low-cost personal smart secure portable 
objects  and  home  protection  systems  which  are  affordable  for  consumers,  and  high-
performance,  high-efficiency  systems  for  applications  such  as  public  transportation, 
stadiums,  business  and  banking  centres,  administrative  offices,  public  IT  infrastructures, 
border  security,  water  and  energy  distribution,  telecommunications  and  other  safety 
critical systems. 

•  Smart  Systems  for  Aerospace,  including  the  Electrical  Aircraft  (Sensors,  Actuators, 
Networks);  the  Connected  Aircraft  (Communication,  RF  technology),  the  Intelligent 
Aircraft (Sensors, Actuators), the Efficient Aircraft (Sensors, Actuators. Power). 

Looking  at  the  industry  value  chain  in  Figure  43,  the  focus  is  on  systems,  but  within  the 
perspective of manufacturing of components and devices. Although limited attention is given 
to  the  fundamental  research  in  semiconductor  device  development,  still  this  link  within  the 
value chain can be of importance. Overall the program is focused on application products for 
distinctive markets and manufacturing equipment is not a priority. 

Figure 43 - Overview of value chain addressed by EPoSS ETP 

So far, the EPoSS SRA was implemented via different means: the PPPs on the Green Car and 
Efficient  Buildings,  and  'regular'  FP7  objectives  in  the  ICT  Work  Programme.  It  was  only 
loosely coordinated with the activities in ARTEMIS and ENIAC. 

92 

 
 
 
ANNEX  4  –  FINAL  REPORT  OF  THE  STUDY  ON  THE  FUTURE  IMPACT  OF  ARTEMIS  AND 

ENIAC 

The final report of the study SMART 2012/0050 [4] is available in a separate document. 

93 

 
 
ANNEX 5 – SOURCES 

[1]  

[2]  

European Commission, “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of 
the Council establishing Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and 
Innovation [2014-2020],” COM(2011) 809 final, 30 November 2011. 

European  Commission,  “Operational  guidance  for  assessing  impacts  on  sectoral 
competitiveness  within 
- A 
"Competitiveness  Proofing"  Toolkit  for  use  in  Impact  Assessments,”  SEC(2012)  91 
final, 27 January 2012. 

impact  assessment 

the  Commission 

system 

[3]   High-Level Expert Group, “Final report on Key Enabling Technologies,” June 2011. 
Available: 

[Online]. 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/files/kets/hlg_report_final_en.pdf. 

[4]  

TNO  -  eutema,  “Electronic  components  and  systems  in  Europe  -  Future  impact  of 
ENIAC and ARTEMIS,” SMART 2012/0050, December 2012. 

[5]   ARTEMISIA,  EPoSS,  AENEAS,  “High  Level  Strategic  Research  and  Innovation 
Agenda  of  the  ICT  Components  and  Systems  Industries,”  25  April  2012.  [Online]. 
http://www.aeneas-office.eu/web/downloads/strategic-
Available: 
docs/sria_ict_components_systems_industry_corrected.pdf. 

[6]  

European Commission, “Report on the public consultation about the future JTI(s) on 
electronic  components  and  systems,”  November  2012.  [Online].  Available: 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/report-results-public-consultation-future-
joint-technology-initiatives-electronic-components. 

[7]  

ESIA, “WSTS Forecasts 2012Q2,” [Online]. Available: http://www.eeca.eu/esia. 

[8]  

iSuppli, Wikipedia, “Semiconductor sales leaders by year,” 2012. [Online]. Available: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_sales_leaders_by_year. 

[9]   VDI-VDE  and  CEA-LETI,  “ICT  Man  - exploring  the  potential  of  ICT  components 

and systems manufacturing in Europe,” 1 April 2011. 

[10]   European  Commission,  “Commission  Staff  Working  Document  accompanying  the 
Proposal  for  a  Council  regulation  setting  up  the  ENIAC  Joint  Undertaking  -  Impact 
Assessment,” SEC(2007) 851, 22 June 2007. 

[11]   W. Bernotat, “First interim evaluation of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC Joint Technology 

Initiatives,” 30 July 2010. 

[12]   M.  Goetzeler,  “Second  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  ARTEMIS  and  ENIAC  Joint 

Technology Initiatives,” 2013. 

94 

 
 
 
[13]  

'ideal  house'  for  public-private 
JTI  Sherpas'  Group,  “Designing  together  the 
partnerships in European research - Final Report,” January 2010. [Online]. Available: 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/jti/pdf/jti-sherpas-report-2010_en.pdf. 

[14]   European  Commission,  “Impact  assessment  of  Horizon  2020  –  the  Framework 
Programme  for  Research  and  Innovation  (2014-2020),”  SEC(2011)  1427,  30 
November 2011. 

[15]  

IDC France, “Design of future embedded systems,” April 2012. 

[16]   European  Commission,  “Report  from  the  European  competitiveness  week,”  18 
[Online].  Available:  http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/ict-

September  2012. 
competitiveness-week-17-20th-september-2012. 

[17]   European  Commission,  “Proposal  for  a  Council  decision  establishing  the  Specific 
Programme Implementing Horizon 2020,” COM(2011) 811, 30 November 2011. 

[18]   AENEAS  and  CATRENE,  “Innovation  for  the  future  of  Europe:  Nanoelectronics 

beyond 2020,” November 2012. 

[19]   European Commission, “First interim evaluation of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC Joint 

Technology Initiatives,” COM(2010) 752, 16 December 2010. 

[20]   European Commission, “Communication on Partnering in Research and Innovation,” 

COM(2011) 572, 21 September 2011. 

[21]   European  Commission  DG  RTD,  “Cost  benefit  analysis  of  the  Joint  Undertaking  as 

choice of administrative structure to implement a JTI,” 16 November 2012. 

[22]   Euripides2, “Vision, Mission and Strategy,” 2013. 

[23]   European  Commission,  “Guide  on  regional/national  Research  and  Innovation 
Strategies  for  Smart  Specialisation  (RIS³),”  May  2012.  [Online].  Available: 
http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/s3pguide. 

[24]   EDP Science, “Quel futur pour les métaux? - raréfaction des métaux: un nouveau défi 

pour la société,” 2010. 

[25]   European Parliament and Council, “Regulation on the financial rules applicable to the 
general  budget  of  the  Union  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No 
1605/2002,” Regulation No 966/2012, 25 October 2012. 

[26]   Yole  Development,  “Market  overview  and  commercialisation  of  miniaturised  Smart 

Systems,” European Competitiveness week, 18 September 2012.  

[27]   The  Institute  for  Prospective  Technological  Studies,  “The  2011  Report  on  R&D  in 

ICT in the European Union,” EUR 24842 EN (2011). 

95 

 
 
[28]   World Economic Forum and INSEAD, “The Global Information Technology Report 

2012 – Living in a Hyperconnected World,” 2012. 

[29]   The  Institute  for  Prospective  Technological  Studies,  “Prospective  insights  on  ICT 

R&D (PREDICT): Main results of the first phase (2008-2011),” 10 November 2011. 

[30]   The  Institute  for  Prospective  Technological  Studies,  “Performance  of  ICT  R&D,” 

EUR 24934 EN (2011). 

[31]  

IDC France, “Design of future embedded systems, interim study report,” 04/2012. 

[32]   ARTEMIS-IA, “ARTEMIS Strategic Research Agenda,” 14 December 2011. 

[33]   Network  of  Excellence  HYCON  2,  “Position  Paper  on  Systems  and  Control  in 
Horizon  2020  -  Contribution  of  systems  and  control  science  and  technology  to  the 
challenges  of  future  engineering  systems,”  September  2011.  [Online].  Available: 
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/embedded-systems-engineering/documents/hycon2-
report2011.pdf. 

[34]  

iSuppli,  “Intel  Reasserts  Semiconductor  Market  Leadership  in  2011,”  1  December 
2011. 
http://www.isuppli.com/Semiconductor-Value-
Chain/News/Pages/Intel-Reasserts-Semiconductor-Market-Leadership-in-2011.aspx. 

Available: 

[Online]. 

[35]  

ITRS, “International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors,” [Online]. Available: 
http://www.itrs.net. 

[36]  

J.  Ellis,  “A  450mm  World…Preparing  for  Battle,”  26/09/2012.  [Online].  Available: 
http://450mm.com/blog/2012/09/26/preparing-for-battle/. 

[37]   Decision  &  Future  Horizons,  “Benefits  and  Measures 

to  Set  Up  450mm 
Semiconductor  Prototyping  and  to  Keep  Semiconductor  Manufacturing  in  Europe  -
The  role  of  Public  Authorities  and  Programmes,”  SMART  2010-0062,  16  February 
2012. 

[38]   McKinsey  &  Company,  “The  evolution  of  business  models  in  a  disrupted  value 
chain,” 
Available: 
http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/semiconductors/latest_thinking/the_evolutio
n_of_business_models_in_a_disrupted_value_chain. 

[Online]. 

Automn 

2011. 

[39]   D.  Byrne,  “Pricing  and  Product  Sourcing  in  an  Offshoring  Market:  Evidence  from 
[Online].  Available: 

Semiconductor 
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/bkovak/BKM_semicon.pdf. 

Production 

Services,” 

2012. 

June 

[40]  

IC Insights, “The Global Wafer Capacity Analysis and Forecast,” November 2011. 

[41]   University  of  Pennyslvania  - Global  Semiconductor  Alliance,  “Collaborative 

innovation in the global semiconductor industry,” 2011. 

96 

 
 
[42]   ENIAC  Joint  Undertaking,  “Multi-Annual  Strategic  Plan,”  18  November  2010. 

[Online]. Available: http://www.eniac.eu/web/downloads/documents/masp2010.pdf. 

[43]   ARTEMIS  Joint  Undertaking,  “Multi-Annual  Strategic  Plan,”  7  December  2011. 

[Online]. Available: http://www.artemis-ju.eu/governing_board. 

[44]   EPoSS  ETP,  “Strategic  Research  Agenda  of  the  European  Technology  Platform  on 
Smart  Systems  Integration,”  10  March  2009.  [Online].  Available:  http://www.smart-
systems-integration.org/public/documents/publications. 

[45]   European  Commission,  “A  European  strategy  for  Key  Enabling  Technologies  – A 

bridge to growth and jobs,” COM(2012) 341, 26 June 2012. 

[46]   C.  Mack,  “Why  the  Big  Players  Like  450-mm  Wafers,”  20  August  2012.  [Online]. 
http://semimd.com/mack/2012/08/20/why-the-big-players-like-450-mm-

Available: 
wafers/. 

97 

 
 
 
ANNEX 6 – GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

AENEAS 

Private non-profit organisation established under French law to represent 
the R&D actors involved in the ENIAC JU 

ARTEMIS 

European Technology Platform for embedded computing systems 

ARTEMIS-IA 

Private non-profit organisation established under Dutch law to represent 
the R&D actors involved in the ARTEMIS JU 

ARTEMIS JU 

Joint Undertaking implementing a JTI on embedded computing systems 

E&M 

Equipment and Materials 

ENIAC 

European Technology Platform for nanoelectronics 

ENIAC JU 

Joint Undertaking implementing a JTI on nanoelectronics 

EPoSS 

ETP 

Fab 

Fabless 

Foundry 

IC 

ICT 

IDM 

IP 

JTI 

JU 

KET 

European Technology Platform for smart systems 

European Technology Platform (grouping of R&D actors in a specific 
field, driven by industry who produces primarily a Strategic Research 
Agenda covering the key issues requiring a dedicated and joint effort) 

Manufacturing plant for electronic components 

Company designing electronic components without own manufacturing 
capability (outsourcing to foundry) 

Company owning fab(s) and offering manufacturing services to fabless 
customers 

Integrated Circuit (also named 'chip') 

Information and Communication Technology 

Integrated Device Manufacturer – company designing and manufacturing 
its own electronic components 

Intellectual Property 

Joint Technology Initiative – a Public-Private Partnership for R&D&I in a 
specific technology domain 

Joint Undertaking (as defined by Article 187 TFEU) 

Key Enabling Technologies (identified by a High-Level Group of experts 
as advanced materials, biotechnology, micro- and nanoelectronics, 
nanotechnology, photonics and manufacturing as a cross-cutting issue) 

98 

 
 
PA 

PPP 

Public Authority 

Public-Private Partnership 

R&D 
R&D&I 

Research and Development 
Research, Development and Innovation 

RTO 

SME 

SRA 
SRIA 

TRL 

Research and Technology Organisation 

Small- and Medium-sized Enterprise 

Strategic Research Agenda 
Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda 

Technology-Readiness Level – a measure of the industrial maturity of a 
technological product or service (scale 1-basic principles to 9-successful 
mission operations) 

99