COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Final evaluation of the Active and Assisted Living Research and Development Programme
Date: 2022-12-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, digital technology, e-Health, elderly person, information technology, innovation, population ageing, quality of life, research and development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 19.12.2022  SWD(2022) 404 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Final evaluation of the Active and Assisted Living Research and Development Programme {COM(2022) 708 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation .................................................................. 3 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ............. 4 

2.1  

2.2  

Description of the intervention and its objectives ............................................. 4 

Point(s) of comparison ....................................................................................... 9 

3.  HOW  HAS  THE  SITUATION  EVOLVED  OVER  THE  EVALUATION 

PERIOD? ................................................................................................................... 10 

3.1  

3.2 

Current state of play ......................................................................................... 10 

Key Programme statistics ................................................................................ 11 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ............................................. 12 

4.1  

To what extent was the intervention successful and why? .............................. 12 

4.1.1   Effectiveness................................................................................................. 12 

4.1.2   Efficiency ..................................................................................................... 23 

4.1.3 

 Coherence .................................................................................................... 30 

4.1.4   Transparency and openness .......................................................................... 34 

4.2  

4.3 

How did the EU intervention make a difference? ............................................ 36 

Is the intervention still relevant? ...................................................................... 39 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ....................... 41 

5.1 

5.2 

Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 41 

Lessons learned ................................................................................................ 44 

ANNEX I. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................. 46 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ....................... 48 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS 

ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ........ 53 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ................................................ 60 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATIONS ...................................................... 65 

ANNEX  VI.  SET-UP  OF  THE  PROGRAMME  AND  ADDITIONAL 

PROGRAMME STATISTICS .................................................................................. 68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AAL1 

AAL2 

AALA 

AISBL 

AHA 

AWP 

CMU 

DG 

EB 

EC 

EDCTP2 

EIP AHA 

EU 

GA 

ICT 

ISSG 

Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme 

Active and Assisted Living Research and Development 
Programme 

Ambient Assisted Living Association 

Association Internationale Sans But Lucratif 

Active Healthy Ageing 

Annual Work Programme 

Central Management Unit 

Directorate-General 

Executive Board 

European Commission 

European  and  Developing  Countries  Clinical  Trials 
Partnership under Horizon 2020 

European 
Healthy Ageing 

Innovation  Partnership  on  Active  and 

European Union 

General Assembly 

Information and Communications Technology 

Inter-Service Steering Group 

JPI MYBL 

Joint Programming Initiative ‘More Years Better Lives’ 

KPIs 

MTR 

NCP 

OO 

PRIMA 

RIE 

Key Performance Indicators 

Mid-Term Review 

National Contact Point 

Operational Objective 

Partnership  for  Research  and  Innovation 
Mediterranean Area 

in 

the 

Recommendation of the Interim Evaluation 

1 

 
R&D 

R&I 

SCPs 

SMEs 

TFEU 

UN 

UK 

Research and Development 

Research and Innovation 

Small Collaborative Projects 

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

United Nations 

United Kingdom 

2 

 
3.  1.INTRODUCTION 

1.1Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

The  purpose  of  this  evaluation  is  to  assess  the  ‘Active  and  Assisted  Living  Research  and 
Development  Programme’  (hereinafter  ‘the  AAL2  Programme’),  under  Horizon  2020. 
Decision1  No  554/2014/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  Union’s 
participation in the Programme, sets out a pre-established framework for the interim and final 
evaluation, in line with other initiatives under Horizon 2020 based on Articles 185 and 187 of 
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

The AAL2 Programme is based on Article 185 of the TFEU, which foresees that the Union 
may  make  provision  for  the  participation  of  the  European  Union  (EU)  in  research  and 
including 
development  (R&D)  programmes  undertaken  by  several  Member  States, 
participation in the structures created for the execution of those programmes. 

This final evaluation covers the seven-years of operation of the Programme, from June 2014 
to June 2021 and is based on the five evaluation criteria of the Better Regulation Guidelines 
complemented  with  two  additional  partnership-specific  criteria  of  additionality  and 
‘transparency  &  openness’  of  the  Partnership.  The  final  evaluation  covers  the  AAL 
Association’s  Participating  States.  The  full  list  of  AAL2  Participating  States  for  the  period 
2014-21 can be found in Annex VI, Table 4. 

Following  the  impact  assessment  conducted  in  2013  and  the  Interim  Evaluation2  of  the 
AAL2 Programme carried out in 2017, the final evaluation assesses progress made towards 
the  Programme's  objectives  and  on  fulfilling  the  recommendations  set  out  in  the  Interim 
Evaluation.  In  addition  it  develops  both  concrete  conclusions  and  lessons  learned  covering 
policy aspects, strategy and operational levels. 

The  findings  of  this  final  evaluation  draw  largely  on  a  supporting  evaluation  study3 
(hereinafter ‘the study’), conducted by external contractors, which is part of the Research and 
Innovation Framework Programme Impact Monitoring, Analysis and Evaluation strategy4 for 
the  period  2019-2024  covering  the  overall  ex-post  evaluation  of  Horizon  2020  and  the 
interim  evaluation  of  Horizon  Europe,  including  partnerships.  More  particular  the  AAL2 

1  Decision No 554/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014, Article 12 – The 
Commission  shall send a report of the evaluation to the  European Parliament and to the Council  no later 
than 31 December 2022. 

2 

3 

4 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Communications  Networks,  Content  and  Technology, 
Uusikylä,  P.,  Mollenkopf,  H.,  Ciesla,  A.,  et  al.,  Interim  evaluation  of  the  active  &  assisted  living 
programme : final report, Publications Office, 2017, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/785852 

Independent  Expert  Report  (September  2022).  Active  and  Assisted  Living  Research  and  Development 
Programme  (AAL2)  final  evaluation  -  Study  in  support  of  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  European 
Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Innovation  Horizon  2020,  Prognos,  PPMI,  Publications  Office, 
2022, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/068757 

https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/support-policy-making/shaping-eu-research-and-
innovation-policy/evaluation-impact-assessment-and-monitoring_en  

3 

 
 
                                                 
Programme  final  evaluation  was  covered  under  the  evaluation  study  entitled  “Evaluation 
study on Resilient Europe”. 

The evaluation is based on the findings of the study, incorporating 2 case studies, using data 
collected through surveys and approximately 30 interviews with Programme participants and 
a wider variety of stakeholders, complemented  with  statistical  information  about  the AAL2 
Programme provided by the dedicated implementation structure, managing the Programme. 

More information on the methodology and process to carry out this evaluation is available in 
Annex II. 

The  present  evaluation  Staff  Working  Document  accompanies  a  Commission  report  on  the 
final  evaluation  of  the  AAL2  Programme  and  will  feed  into  the  wider  debate  on  how  to 
maximise  the  benefits  of  Information  and  Communications  Technology  (ICT)/digital 
solutions  for  active  and  healthy  ageing  through  research  and  deployment  coordination,  and 
cooperation with public health and digital health initiatives. 

3.  2.WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1   Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The combined challenge of demographic change and digital transformation 

By 2070, over 30% of Europeans are projected to be 65  years of  age or  over, compared to 
just over 20% in 20195. The share of people aged 80 years and older is  expected to double 
from 5.8% to 13.2% over the same period. Within the EU, the impact of ageing varies widely 
between  regions,  as  well  as  between  urban  and  rural  areas,  and  gains  in  healthy  life 
expectancy  are  unevenly  distributed6.  At  the  same  time  there  are  social  and  economic 
opportunities  associated  with  the  concept  of  healthy  ageing.  Older  citizens  are  increasingly 
shaping  economies  and  the  demand  for  services  and  products  in  the  ‘silver  economy’  is 
increasing rapidly7. There is now a substantial number of technologies and digital solutions to 
support  people  at  any  stage  in  their  lives,  to  support  ageing  in  place,  enhance  the  home 
environment  and  support  social  connectedness8.  In  using  these  technologies  to  their  full 
potential,  there  is  potential  for  economic  growth  and  social  development  in  demographic 

5  European  Commission  (2021).  The  2021  Ageing  Report.  Economic  &  Budgetary  Projects  for  the  EU 

Member States (2019-2070) 

6  World Health Organization (2021). Decade of Healthy Ageing. Baseline Report 

7  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Communications  Networks,  Content  and  Technology, 
Worthington,  H.,  Simmonds,  P.,  Farla,  K.,  et  al.,  The  silver  economy  :  final  report,  Publications  Office, 
2018, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/685036 

8 

SAPEA,  Science  Advice  for  Policy  by  European  Academies  (2019). Transforming  the  Future  of  Ageing. 
Berlin: SAPEA. Available at: https://sapea.info/wp-content/uploads/tfa-report.pdf, pp. 190-196  

4 

 
                                                 
change that can balance some of its impacts on health and (social) care systems and improve 
the quality of life of the ageing population and their carers. 

Demographic ageing is set to bring about an imminent and significant change in society and 
the  economy  for  which  the  EU  is  not  yet  well  prepared.  Spiralling  ageing-related  costs  for 
governments  are  being  compounded  by  missed  or  underexploited  opportunities  on  the 
growing markets for ICT-enabled products and services for active and healthy ageing. 

There are three main problems with these markets. The first is low availability of innovative 
ICT  products  and  services,  caused  by  EU  market  fragmentation.  Secondly,  there  is 
fragmentation of R&D and innovation at European level, with high participation barriers for 
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). The third problem stems from limited adoption 
of innovation, related to a lack of evidence building and sharing. 

The  EU  added  value  is  evident  given  these  problems:  fragmentation  of  the  market  and  of 
research  efforts,  a  lack  of  focus  on  trans-EU  deployment  and  a  lack  of  a  shared  European 
vision on the markets for ICT/digital products and services to assist active and healthy ageing 
and living.  

It is in this context that the Commission provides its support through funding and actions that 
promote  policy  cooperation,  research  and  exchange  of  good  practice  but  also  stimulates 
cooperation  structures  such  as  public-public  partnerships  which  aim  to  develop  closer 
synergies, increase coordination and avoid unnecessary duplication with Union, international, 
national and regional research programmes. 

Programme Strategy, objectives and intervention logic 

The  AAL2  Programme,  focussing  on  digital  innovation  in  active  and  healthy  ageing,  was 
initiated  with  the  overarching  goal  to  help  address  the  ageing  challenge  and  turn  it  into  an 
opportunity for Europe. Following strategic programme objectives were agreed among the 
founding countries: 

  Enhance  the  availability  of  ICT-based  products  and  services  for  active  and  healthy 
ageing,  to  improve  the  quality  of  life  of  older  people  and  their  carers,  and  help 
increase the sustainability of care systems. 

  Create/maintain a critical mass of trans-European applied research, development and 
innovation  for  ICT-based  products  and  services  for  ageing  well,  in  particular 
involving SMEs and users. 
  Leverage/maintain  private 

industrial 
exploitation by providing a coherent framework for developing European approaches 
and solutions including common minimum standards that meet varying national and 
regional social preferences and regulatory aspects. 

improve  conditions  for 

investments  and 

The 2013 impact assessment set-out the following operational objectives [OO] to meet the 
above AAL2 strategic programme objectives: 

  Further improve operational excellence and accountability for the Programme [OO1]; 
  Reduce time to market, by facilitating user and industry-driven research [OO2]; 

5 

 
  Facilitate participation for all actors in the innovation chain, in particular SME, end-
users  and  service  providers,  from  the  start  and  in  all  stages  of  the  projects  (e.g. 
through iterative and design and development approaches) [OO3]; 

  To increase the number of Participating States and to leverage private and national co-

financing [OO4]; 

  To ensure complementarity with national programmes and EU level initiatives such as 
Horizon  2020,  and  align  with  the  Strategic  Implementation  Plan  of  the  European 
Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP AHA) [OO5]. 

The  intervention  logic  underpinning  the  implementation  of  the  AAL2  Programme  was 
updated as part of the 2021 Programme Impact Assessment9 and is represented in Figure 1. It 
sets  out  the  relationships  between  the  objectives,  inputs  and  activities,  and  defines  outputs, 
short- and medium-term outcomes and impacts. 

9  Third edition of the AAL Programme impact assessment, Analytical report final, IDEA Consult, December 
2021 http://www.aal-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/IA-AAL Final summary-report-FINAL.pdf  

6 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 1: Updated AAL2 intervention logic and evaluation scope (source: third edition of the AAL Programme Impact Assessment, IDEA Consult, 2021, p. 6) 

7 

 
Programme governance and management 

The  AAL2  Programme  is  set-up  and  governed  by  the  Participating  States  via  a  dedicated 
implementation  structure,  the  Ambient  Assisted  Living  Association  (AALA)  set-up  as  an 
international  not-for-profit  association  under  Belgian  law  (AISBL).  The  highest  decision-
making body of the AALA is the General Assembly (GA), which comprises representatives 
from  all  Participating  States  who  enjoy  the  same  voting  rights.  Members  of  the  GA  are 
typically national funding authorities (ministries and/or funding agencies). If more than one 
agency for the same country is present in the GA, a representative (bearing the country vote) 
must  be  designated.  In  total  21  countries  participated  throughout  the  AAL2  Programme’s 
lifecycle,  16  EU  Member  States,  3  Horizon  2020  associated  countries  and  2  third 
countries10,11. The Commission has observer role in the GA. Nevertheless, the Commission is 
a party to the delegation agreement with the AALA as regards the EU’s financial contribution 
and has a veto right over the Annual Work Programme (AWP) approval. 

Programme activities 

The AAL2 Programme addresses applied research and innovation (R&I) in the areas of active 
and healthy ageing systems and applications with a short to medium term time horizon and a 
time-to-market of 2-3 years. The Programme is designed to complement longer-term research 
in ICT for Healthy and Active Ageing under Horizon 2020, which focuses on advanced R&I 
with a time-to-market of 5-10 years. 

The main activity of the AAL2 Programme is launching annual transnational project calls, 
selecting  and  supporting  promising  transnational  R&I  projects  that  contribute  to  the 
fulfilment  of  the  Programme’s  objectives.  Participation  in  calls  is  generally  possible  for 
applicants from Participating States providing financial contributions to AAL2 calls. Actual 
participation  in  AAL2  projects  depends  on  the  application  success  in  the  selection  process 
based on excellence criteria and the national contributions available to fund participants from 
the respective country.  

In  addition  to  call  management  and  implementation,  the  AAL2  Programme  established  a 
portfolio  of  Support  Actions  (Figure  11:  AAL  Support  Actions  portfolio  in  Annex  VI) 
aimed  at  strengthening  the  capacity  of  Programme  beneficiaries  and  the  wider  AAL 
community. Support Actions were largely targeted at specific shared needs and responded to 
the  challenges  experienced  by  beneficiaries  in  implementing  their  projects,  especially 
difficulties  in  bringing  their  products  or  services  to  the  market  and  community  building 
support. 

10  Austria, Belgium (2 regions), Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy (3 regions), 

Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,  Romania, Slovenia, Spain (3 regions), Sweden, 
Switzerland, Taiwan and the United Kingdom.  

11  The full list of countries and corresponding agencies who participated at some point in AAL2 can be found 

in Annex VI. 

8 

 
                                                 
2.2  

Point(s) of comparison  

The  2014  decision  stipulates  that  AAL2  should  build  on  the  achievements  of  the  previous 
programme,  the  Ambient  Assisted  Living  Joint  Programme  (AAL1)  and  address  its 
shortcomings  by  encouraging  stronger  user  participation  in  projects  and  by  a  more  agile 
programme implementation. 

Additionally, the AAL2 Interim Evaluation, carried out in 2017, covering the first three years 
of operations of AAL2 (2014-16) resulted in some recommendations for the second term of 
the AAL2 Programme [RIE]: 

  Enhance  the  strategic  leadership  of  the  AALA  through  appropriate  appointments 

[R1IE]; 

  Further  intensify  support  for  business  planning  and  market  research  to  strengthen 
commercialisation  and  build  engagement  with  the  community  supporting  active  and 
healthy ageing [R2IE]; 

  Provide focused support on key framework conditions shaping the development of the 
market  for  innovative  solutions,  support  the  integration  of  solutions  in  existing 
systems and encourage testing on the demand-side [R3IE]; 
Intensify  communication  and  outreach  to  increase  the  visibility  of  the  Programme 
[R4IE]; 

 

  Secure the sustainability of the Programme for the remainder of the term,  including 

through stabilising the number of Participating States [R5IE]. 

The  present  evaluation  includes  an  assessment  of  the  progress  made  in  this  respect  and  is 
following  up  on  the  points  of  comparison  used  for  the  interim-evaluation,  broadened  with 
additional indicators where relevant. A more detailed discussion and underpinning evidence 
is provided in Section 4 of this document where the different evaluation criteria are analysed. 

The present evaluation was informed by the above intervention logic (Figure 1) and focuses 
primarily on the outputs, and outcomes levels (blue-coloured parts of the framework).  Data 
on the long-term impacts (green, red and orange parts in Figure 1) of the AAL2 Programme 
are still emerging. For a definitive assessment of impacts it is too early because they include 
both  direct  and  indirect  macro-level  results  enabled  by  the  Programme  and  depend  on  the 
research  projects’  outcomes  and  the  uptake  of  the  results  ideally  2-3  years  after  project 
implementation.  It  should  be  recalled  that  AAL2  projects  deliver  prototypes  of  digital 
solutions which typically cannot immediately be brought to market without further product-
development  efforts.  This  combined  with  the  fact  that  a  significant  share  of  the  AAL2 
research projects are still ongoing explains why it is at this moment in time too early to make 
an  overall  assessment  of  the  long-term  (+5  years  after  project  completion)  Programme 
impacts of AAL2. 

3.  3.HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

3.1   Current state of play 

The AAL2 Programme built on the structures and activities developed during AAL1. It has 
continued  and  expanded  its  portfolio  of  activities.  An  Interim  Evaluation  of  AAL2, 

9 

 
conducted  in  2017,  concluded  that  the  Programme  successfully  transitioned  from  AAL1  to 
AAL2. It made good progress towards its objectives and remained highly relevant because of 
the growing importance of demographic change in Europe. In 2017 the Central Management 
Unit (CMU) went through a major restructuring after the Interim Evaluation, to align with the 
increasingly  complexity  of  the  Partnership  and  its  stronger  innovation  drive  requiring 
different  managing  and  coordinating  skills  and  competences.  The  Programme  further 
expanded its activities, especially with regard to the Support Action portfolio and increased 
Programme  visibility.  The  final  transnational  project  call  was  launched  in  December  2020 
and from mid-2021, the AAL2 Programme is gradually being phased out. Activities will stop 
completely once ongoing projects12 have ended. The Programme is expected to close by end 
2027  at  the  latest.  While  the  Final  Evaluation  is  aimed  to  assess  the  achievements  of  the 
Programme  towards  its  objectives  during  AAL2  only,  in  a  few  instances  it  is  necessary  to 
include information from the predecessor programme, AAL1 that ran from 2008-2013 under 
Framework Programme 7. 

Between 2014 and 2021 the Programme issued eight calls for proposals.  It should be noted 
that the 2021 call was not initially planned but made possible following a decision by the GA. 
However,  due  to  national  budget  limitations,  not  all  countries  were  able  to  contribute 
financially to this additional call. The calls were organised according to priority themes: 

  2014: Care for the future 
  2015: Living actively and independently at home 
  2016: Living well with dementia 
  2017: Integrated packages of solutions 
  2018: Smart solutions for ageing well 
  2019: Sustainable smart solutions for ageing well 
  2020: Healthy ageing with support of digital solutions 
  2021:  Advancing  inclusive  health  and  care  solutions  for  ageing  well  in  the  new 

decade 

Over time, the portfolio of Support Actions increasingly moved to addressing the needs of the 
wider  community  involved  in  active  and  assisted  living,  for  example,  through  addressing 
regulatory  issues  of  relevance  to  the  market,  as  well  as  issues  concerning  the  ethical 
implication of novel solutions and concerns about ensuring data privacy. At a later stage, the 
Programme  also  developed  and  implemented  Support  Actions  aimed  at  strengthening  the 
wider  ecosystem  required  for  integrating  novel  technologies  in  existing  health  and  care 
system in a successfully and sustainably way. 

During the second period of implementation of the AAL2 Programme a number of changes 
and  improvements  were  introduced  to  further  increase  the  relevance,  efficiency  and 
effectiveness  of  the  Programme,  optimise  the  organisation  of  calls  and  support  successful 
applicants in bringing their solution to the market. They include, for example:  

12  Status 151 AAL2 projects end 2021: 78 finished; 59 ongoing; end date last projects expected mid-2025. 

10 

 
                                                 
  The  introduction  of  impact  assessment  and  key  performance  indicators  (KPIs)  to 

help the Programme focus on delivering outcomes and impacts; 

  The expansion of call themes from  narrower topics to  broader  challenges to  give 

more space to innovative proposals; 

  The  possibility  to  apply  for  Small  Collaborative  Projects  (SCPs)  to  explore  new 
approaches, or target  new business  sectors or stakeholder  groups through smaller 
scale projects of shorter duration; 

  Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the application window for calls 
was extended to 8 months to allow applicants, especially user organisations, more 
time to prepare; 

  The reconfiguration criteria were further optimised for projects in which applicants 
needed  to  be  replaced  because  of  insufficient  budget  available  at  national  level. 
The  maximum  share  of  uncovered  budget  (in  terms  of  person  months)  for  a 
proposed  project  to  be  eligible  for  reconfiguration  was  increased  from  20%  to 
25%; 

  Programme beneficiaries were required to develop a business plan for their project 

and were given feedback on it at their mid-term review (MTR);  

  Support  Actions  portfolio  was  widened,  synergies  and  closer  collaboration  with 

other programmes were realised. 

3.2  Key Programme statistics 

During  the  period  2014-21  the  AAL2  Programme  funded  151  projects  with  a  total  of  705 
beneficiaries  and  1078  participations13.  The  total  contracted  project  funding  volume 
amounts  to  EUR 186.1  million  public  funding,  of  which  EUR  98.3 million  (52.8%)  were 
national grants,  the remaining EUR  87.8 million (47.2%) were European  Commission (EC) 
contributions14.  The  sum  of  beneficiaries’  own  (i.e.  private)  contributions  amounted  to 
EUR 77.7 million. The average contracted budget per project (including own contributions) 
is  EUR 1.7  million;  the  average  contracted  public  funding  volume  per  project  is  EUR 1.2 
million.  Next  to  co-funding projects,  EC  contributions  also  cover administrative costs for  a 
total  of  EUR 6.5  million  and  Support  Actions  for  EUR 6.4  million  over  the  period  2014  to 
2021. 

Figure 2 gives an overview of six key funding indicators throughout the AAL2  Programme 
cycle. The total number of individual participations in projects peaked at the beginning and at 
the end (153 participations) of the AAL2 Programme, steadily decreasing until 2017, where a 
low of 117 participations was reached. However, a similar trend, with a delay of 2 years, can 
be  observed  for  the  different  funding  contribution  levels,  which  decreased  from  EUR 40.9 

13  The term ‘participations’ refers to the sum of all beneficiaries in all projects, including multiple counting of 

beneficiaries that participated several times. 

14  The  Partnership’s  financing  is  based  on  the  principle  of  a  50-50  share  between  Union  contributions  and 
national  contributions  on  Programme  level.  Contributions  to  the  administrative  costs  of  the  Programme 
shall  not  exceed  6%  of  the  Union  financial  contribution  (Decision  No  554/2014/EU,  Article  2).  This 
explains  why  the  Union  contributions  to  project  funding  are  slightly  lower  than  the  national  project 
contributions. 

11 

 
                                                 
million  in  2014  to  EUR 26.3  million  in  2019,  but  then  rose  again  to  EUR 36.8  million  in 
2021. In these data, it is not obvious whether the COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on 
project participations and funding in 2020 and 2021. 

Figure 2: Projects, individual project participations and funding, per year 

35.000.000 €

30.000.000 €

25.000.000 €

20.000.000 €

15.000.000 €

10.000.000 €

5.000.000 €

0 €

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Call 2014

Call 2015

Call 2016

Call 2017

Call 2018

Call 2019

Call 2020

Call 2021

Sum of national contributions

Sum of EC contributions

Total public contributions

Own contributions

Number of projects

Number of participations

More Programme data can be found in Annex VI ‘Set-up of the Programme and Additional 
Programme Statistics’. 

3.  4.EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1   To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

4.1.1   Effectiveness 

The effectiveness of the Programme is presented in terms of the progress made towards each 
of  the  three  strategic  Programme  objectives  and  assessed  against  the  linked  operational 
objectives. 

Objective 1: Enhance the availability of ICT based products and services for active and 
healthy ageing, to improve the quality of life for older people and their carers, and help 
increase the sustainability of care systems 

The assessment of progress towards Objective 1 starts by examining how the involvement of 
end-users in funded projects has developed during AAL2 and presents information on output, 
outcome  and  impact,  including  the  development  and  deployment  of  solutions  and  their 
impact on the quality of life of the older people, their families and carers.  

User involvement and profile 

12 

 
 
User participation and user-centric development is essential to design innovative ICT-enabled 
solutions to the needs of the elderly people, carers and intermediaries, including the settings 
in which the technology is to be used. The AAL2 Interim Evaluation assessed the degree of 
involvement  of  end-users  in  funded  projects.  It  found  that  18%  of  project  participants  had 
been users, a figure that had remained unchanged compared to AAL1. The category ‘users or 
end-user organisations’ covers three specific classifications of users – primary, secondary and 
tertiary – although the three classes are not broken down (see Annex VI for definitions). The 
Interim  Evaluation  stated  that,  while  users  are  well  represented,  their  engagement  was  still 
deficient in terms of (1) breadth, i.e. stakeholders not been representative of all types of users 
and  (2)  many  of  them  are  proxy  users  rather  than  end-users  themselves  (e.g.  associations, 
charities). 

The  involvement  of  user  or  end-user  organisations  in  new  projects  increased  significantly 
since  the  publication  of  the  Interim  Evaluation  (see  Figure  3).  Their  number  more  than 
doubled from  26 in  2017 to  54 in  2021. Over the whole  Programme period of AAL2, end-
user  organisations  constituted  approximately  one  quarter  of  all  project  participants  (see 
Annex VI). 

Figure 3: Number of project participations per type of organisation, per year 

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

End-user organisations

Large enterprises

Other

Research institutes

SMEs

Universities

Call 2014 Call 2015 Call 2016 Call 2017 Call 2018 Call 2019 Call 2020 Call 2021

End-user  organisations  can  be  further  disaggregated  by  type  of  organisation  (Figure  4). 
Around 20.8% of all end-user organisations are foundations (including charities). About 15% 
are care organisations such as care facilities and care services. User-involvement clearly has a 
central  role  in  the  development  of  solutions  for  active  and  healthy  ageing  and  is  a  key 
modality of the Programme aiming at improving the adoption and relevance of the developed 
solutions. 

13 

 
 
We  conclude  that  the  share  of  end-user  organisations’  participations  increased  significantly 
(from 18% in AAL1 to 26% in AAL2) and that the breath of types of end-users diversified 
and included more actors from the health and (social) care demand-side over the second half 
of the AAL2 programming period. [linked to OO3 and R3IE] 

Figure 4: Shares of different types of end-user organisations 

2,8% 2,5% 2,1%

3,2%

20,8%

4,9%

4,6%

4,9%

5,3%

6,4%

6,7%

7,8%

12,7%

15,2%

Foundations

Care organisations

Medical institutions

Social organisations

Companies

Universities

Non-profit organisations

Other

Municipalities

Associations

Educational institutions

Interest groups

Research institutes

Public bodies

Development and deployment of solutions 

The 8 calls for transnational projects and resulting 151 funded projects directly contribute to 
developing and enhancing the availability of ICT based products and services for active and 
healthy  ageing.  Measuring  the  actual  deployment  and  impact  of  such  solutions  is  more 
difficult as already explained earlier. 

The 2021 Programme Impact Study stated that 23 of the 3815 (61%) AAL2 projects brought 
at least one solution or component to the market. Considering that most solutions require 2-3 
years to mature after the end of a project before they can be launched, this is a positive result. 
Numbers  provided  by  the  2019  and  2020  Programme  Impact  studies16  also  demonstrate  a 
steep  increase  in  solutions  in  the  market,  with  24  of  85  projects  launching  a  solution  or 
component17.  The  2013  Commission  Impact  Assessment  proposed  a  target  of  25%  of  all 
running  projects  that  should  reach  the  market  by  2020.  The  above  collected  evidence  a 
exceeds  this  target  and  shows  that  AAL2  developed  solutions  have  increased  chances  for 

15  2021 Programme Impact Study reports findings from a survey of AAL2 beneficiaries linked to projects that 

had been completed by December 2019. Total of 38 projects have been included. 

16  Learnings from the 2019 and 2020 AAL Impact Assessment, September 2020. 

17  These numbers include projects supported under AAL1. 

14 

 
 
                                                 
market success with shorter time to market cycles although it is still too early to  generalise 
this conclusion. 

Once the products and services are on the market, they are adopted by end-users. The number 
of users could thus be seen as an indicator for deployment and use of the AAL solutions. The 
revenues  generated  by  the  launched  products/services  represent  an  increased  commercial 
income  for  the  industrial  base  in  Europe  and  give  an  indication  on  the  impact  of  the 
programme  at  the  level  of  markets  and  solutions.  The  2021  Programme  Impact  Study 
presents  information  about  the  revenue  generated  by  digital  solutions  developed  in  the 
projects, the number of individual end-users using the solution after one year and the number 
of  paying  customers.  The  average  total  revenue  for  projects  with  positive  revenue  was 
EUR 243  875  per  year  for  products  or  services,  and  about  EUR 50 000  for  components18. 
These  figures  were  slightly  higher  for  projects  included  in  the  survey  presented  in  the 
Programme  Impact  Study  reports published in  2019 and 2020. However, these two surveys 
largely related to projects that had been launched under AAL1 and their solutions had more 
time to mature. The average total number of individual end-users per solution in one year was 
1 855, an increase of around 30% compared to the numbers reported in the  2019 and 2020 
Programme  Impact  Studies.  The  average  total  number  of  paying  customers  per  solution  in 
one  year  was  771,  compared  to  approximately  1  000  paying  customers  using  solutions 
developed by the projects included in the survey in the two previous years (including AAL1 
solutions  which  had  more  time  to  mature).  Reaching  a  market  of  paying  customers  can  be 
seen  as  an  important  condition  to  increased  availability  of  digital  products  and  services 
(strategic objective 1), both on the side of industry as well as on the side of the users of the 
products  and  services  (older  adults,  informal  carers,  care  organisations,  insurers,  public 
authorities). 

It  is  not  useful  to  compare  these  outcomes  against  the  outcomes  of  other  public-public 
partnerships,  given  that  the  AAL2  Programme  is  special  in  addressing  an  immature, 
fragmented and highly regulated market. However, compared with the internal benchmark of 
AAL1  (using  the  2019  and  2020  Programme  Impact  Studies)  numbers  of  solutions 
commercialised across (and beyond) Europe, numbers and type of customers and end-users 
reached per year show a positive trend and tend to outperform the 25% target set in the 2013 
Impact Assessment. [OO2 & RI3] 

Impact on quality of life of older people and carers 

The  2021  Programme  Impact  Study  also  presents  initial  findings  on  the  impact  of  the 
developed  and  deployed  solutions  on  the  quality  of  life  of  older  people.  Only  beneficiaries 
participating in the 38 finished projects with a full product or service already launched on the 
market  were  asked  to  respond  to  this  question.  Of  these  respondents:  9/13  agree  that  AAL 
solutions  helped  older  people  to  live  independently  in  their  own  homes;  8/13  think  they 

18  Numbers are based on 12 respondents who replied to that question (only respondents who actually launched 

a solution on the market could answer this question). 

15 

 
                                                 
helped them remain in better mental condition; and 6/12 agree that they help them succeed in 
independently  interacting  with  their  network.  Conversely,  5/12  thought  that  AAL  solutions 
helped  the  older  people  to  feel  less  dependent  on  others  for  daily  tasks  and  4/12  continue 
participating in common activities with their network. 

The 2021 Programme Impact Study also asked beneficiaries about the impact on carers. Of 
the  13  respondents,  the  following  numbers  agree  with  the  following  statements:  9/13:  care 
visits are more relevant thanks to automated risk detection tools; 8/13: carers have more time 
for  qualitative  interaction  with  the  older  adult;  8/13:  carers  feel  the  effect  of  being  less 
burdened; 7/13: carers in the formal sector feel they save at least 5% of costs overall thanks 
to better planning and coordination; 5/12: carers spend at least 15 minutes less on looking for 
information or coordinating with other carers. 

Given  the  sample  size  of  completed  research  projects  (n=38/151)  at  the  time  of  the  survey 
and consequently the lower number of respondents  to  this question (n=13), it is  difficult  to 
provide  a  judgement.  Nevertheless,  these  first  findings,  confirm  the  potential  of  the 
developed AAL2 digital solutions in support of active and assisted living. 

The 2021 Programme Impact Study also provides insight into the impact of AAL2 on raising 
awareness  for  solutions  in  the  field  of  active  and  assisted  living.  85%  of formal  carers  and 
91%  of  older  people  responding  to  the  survey  agree  with  the  statement  that  the  AAL 
Programme  helped  raise  awareness  of  the  needs  of  older  people  and  the  opportunities 
associated  with  solutions  for  healthy  living  and  well-being  among  formal  carers  as  well  as 
older people and their networks. 

In the interviews of the supporting study, representatives of user organisations explained that 
the organisation and (local) financing of care as well as expectations from older people and 
their families strongly shape the demand-side of the innovation market. Circumstances vary 
substantially between and within countries. In some countries, end-users are largely expected 
to  be  individual  older  people  or  families  while  in  other  countries  formal  care  organisations 
play  a  more  substantial  role  in  shaping  the  demand-side.  This  implies  that  supporting 
solutions  might  be  paid  out  of  pocket  by  individuals  while  in  another  contexts  they  are 
purchased  by  care  organisations.  The  demand-side  may  also  involve  public  funders  and  is 
shaped  by  different  degrees  of  regulation.  These  national  differences  in  health  and  care 
‘market  models’  explain  to  some  extent  the  difficulties  faced  by  innovators  during  market 
launch and afterwards when trying to keep their product or service on the market. 

However, interviewees also stated that expectations and thus markets have been changing and 
are continuously evolving, with technology becoming more familiar and acceptable, and most 
people wanting to live at home as long as possible. This was also noted in countries that had a 
tradition  of  older  people  moving  into  residential  care,  which  was  understood  as  not  being 
sustainable in  the future. Stakeholders and beneficiaries also  noted  that while there are still 
obstacles to marketisation due to the structure of the market, there is significant potential in 
developing and promoting innovative solutions for active and healthy living. [linked to R3IE] 

16 

 
It is clear from these assessments that outcomes and impacts are yet difficult to measure. The 
consecutive  Programme  impact  studies  have  made  progress  in  providing  better  data,  but 
available  data  are  still  limited  in  scope  and  detail.  However,  the  limited  data  currently 
available shows an upward trend in AAL solutions brought to market and demonstrate some 
impact  on  end-users  while  qualitative  findings  suggest  that  the  market  conditions  are 
evolving and that the full potential for impact has not yet been fully realised. 

Objective  2:  Create/maintain  a  critical  mass  of  trans-European  applied  research, 
development  and  innovation  for  ICT-based  products  and  services  for  ageing  well,  in 
particular involving SMEs and users 

To measure progress made towards Objective 2, the Interim Evaluation examined KPIs such 
as  the  number  of  countries  involved  in  AAL2,  national  commitments  made,  budget 
utilisation, the number of organisations participating in each call and the number of projects 
funded. This approach was also used in the Final Evaluation of AAL1, which had referred to 
‘the  presence  of  a  sufficient  number  of  actors,  sufficient  cooperation,  and  sufficient  total 
R&D  and  innovation  activity  to  initiate  a  self-sustaining,  productive  and  viable  research 
environment’19.  

The  AAL2  Interim  Evaluation  concluded  that  ‘indicators  for  these  elements  were  mostly 
moving in  an undesirable direction’ and that ‘both  large  countries  and key  innovators have 
been lost from the Programme’, ‘too few projects start[ed] from validated user insights or had 
identified customers for the solutions proposed20. 

The  assessment  of  progress  towards  Objective  2  builds  on  the  above  KPIs  updated  and 
complemented with other output and outcome-related indicators. [linked to OO1 & R5IE] 

Number of proposals and projects 

As shown in Annex VI (Figure 14: Number of proposals and individual applicants per year) 
the first years of AAL2 showed a more than 50% decline of proposals from 97 in 2014 to 42 
in 2017, the period assessed by the Interim Evaluation. From 2017, the number of proposals 
increased  again  to  106  in  2020,  outperforming  the  2014  figure.  In  2021  (limited  additional 
call), the number of proposals was 85.  Therefore, the negative trend during the first half of 
AAL2 did not continue during the second half of the Programme and was reversed. 

The  same  observation  applies  to  the  number  of  projects  starting  during  AAL2  (Annex  VI 
Figure  13:  Number  of  projects  per  application  area,  per  year).  Between  2014  and  2017  the 

19  European Commission, Directorate-General for the Information Society and Media, Final evaluation of the 
2014, 

Programme, 

Publications 

Office, 

Living 

Joint 

Ambient 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/361, p11. 

Assisted 

20  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Communications  Networks,  Content  and  Technology, 
Uusikylä,  P.,  Mollenkopf,  H.,  Ciesla,  A.,  et  al.,  Interim  evaluation  of  the  active  &  assisted  living 
programme : final report, Publications Office, 2017, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/785852, pp. 15-16. 

17 

 
                                                 
number of newly started projects decreased from 20 to 14 per year. Yet in 2018 this number 
increased to 21 and remained at a high level until the end of the Programme. The decrease 
observed during the Interim Evaluation was thus reversed in the second half of AAL2 [linked 
to OO1 and R5IE]. 

Proposals and projects per type of organisation 

Objective 2 makes explicit reference to SMEs and end-users as priority target groups of the 
Programme.  Over  the  entire  period  of  AAL2,  42.1%  of  applicants  were  SMEs  and  24.9% 
were  end-users  (Figure  18:  Share  of  individual  participations  in  proposals  by  type  of 
organisation)21. While the number of SMEs among applicants fell from approximately 330 in 
2014  to  152  in  2017,  the  number  recovered  and  stabilised  at  about  250 towards  the  end  of 
AAL2.  There  was  a  strong  increase  in  the  number  of  end-user  organisations  among 
applicants  since  2017,  which  rose  from  69  in  2017  to  226  in  2021  (Figure  3:  Number  of 
project participations per type of organisation, per year). 

In  terms  of  participation  of  SMEs  and  end-user  organisations  in  projects,  the  respective 
shares were 40.3% for SMEs and 26.3% for end-user organisations (see Annex VI Figure 19: 
Share of individual participations in projects by type of organisation). In summary, it can be 
stated  that  the  priority  target  groups  of  the  Programme,  SME’s  and  end-users  were  well 
represented  in  the  number  of  applications  received,  as  well  as  in  the  projects  selected  for 
funding. [linked to OO3, OO4 & R5IE] 

Geographical distribution of applicants and project participants 

The  geographical  spread  of  individual  participations  in  proposals  was  uneven,  with  some 
countries  participating  significantly  more  strongly  in  proposals  than  others.  These  can  be 
grouped as follows: 

  Group 1 – Countries with ≥ 500 individual participations in proposals:  

o  Netherlands (731), Switzerland (599), Austria (591) 

  Group 2 – Countries with 201-500 individual participations in proposals: 

o  Romania (414), Italy (396), Portugal (282) 

  Group 3 – Countries with 101-200 individual participations in proposals: 

o  Belgium  (200),  Spain  (192),  Slovenia  (169),  Poland  (143),  Hungary  (135), 

Denmark (134), Norway (122), Cyprus (116) 

  Group 4 – Countries with ≤ 100 individual participations in proposals: 

o  UK (72), Luxembourg (40), Canada (39), Sweden (17), Ireland (12), Taiwan 

(9), Israel (6) 

With few exceptions (notably Spain and the UK, with the latter not participating in calls after 
2015),  the  difference  in  the  distribution  of  applications  between  countries  did  not  change 
substantially during AAL2.  

21  Numbers include multiple counting of organisations that participated in several applications. 

18 

 
 
 
                                                 
Individual participations in projects show a similar pattern of distribution between countries: 

  Group 1 – Countries with ≥ 150 individual project participations: 
o  Austria (166), Switzerland (152), Netherlands (166) 
  Group 2 – Countries with 51-100 individual project participations: 
o  Italy (97), Romania (88), Belgium (84), Portugal (63) 

  Group 3 – Countries with 11-50 individual project participations: 

o  Spain  (45),  Denmark  (42),  Hungary  (33),  Norway  (33),  Poland  (30),  Cyprus 

(22), Slovenia (21), Luxembourg (11) 

  Group 4 – Countries with ≤ 10 individual project participations: 

o  United Kingdom (10), Taiwan (10), Ireland (7), Sweden (6), Canada (5), Israel 

(2) 

The  map  below  (Figure  5:  Geographical  distribution  of  project  participations  per  country) 
illustrates the distribution of project participations across the participating countries. 

Figure 5: Geographical distribution of project participations per country 

Source: Combination of AAL administrative monitoring data with Bing Maps. 

Key learnings identified by participants 

Whereas  the  above  statistics  mostly  relate  to  the  activities  supported  by  the  AAL2 
Programme, an analysis of effectiveness also needs to consider the outputs and outcomes of 

19 

 
 
 
 
those activities. A key indicator in this respect are the learnings that have been identified by 
participants. The 2021 Programme  Impact Study provides relevant data on four dimensions 
of learning relating to: (1) user needs; (2) operational knowledge; (3) markets; (4) investors. 
For each of these dimensions, a survey asked beneficiaries whether they felt their knowledge 
had increased (a) as a result of participating in AAL2 (targeting all 91 respondents) and (b) as 
a  result  of  participating  in  the  AAL2Business  Support  Action  (with  33  survey  participants 
responding to this question). 

With  regard  to  (1)  user  needs,  82%  of  91  respondents  indicated  that  their  knowledge  had 
increased as a result of collaborating with users and adapting to user needs; 47% agreed that 
this had resulted in an increase in user acceptance. Out of 33 respondents who participated in 
the  AAL2Business  Support  Action,  76%  confirmed  that  their  ability  to  identify  user  needs 
and  develop  user  profiles  had  improved  to  a  moderate  or  great  extent  as  a  result  of 
participating in AAL2Business. 73% stated that participating in AAL2Business had improved 
their ability to involve users in developing a product or service to a moderate or great extent. 

In terms  of  (2) operational  knowledge,  66% of  91 respondents agreed that their knowledge 
had increased on technological aspects. Moreover, 32% and 30% acquired new knowledge on 
aspects  of  marketing  and  regulatory  aspects,  respectively.  While  gains  in  knowledge  on 
marketing and regulation were lower than on technological aspects, these were not central to 
the  calls.  However,  42%  of  33  respondents  stated  that  participating  in  Support  Actions 
improved their knowledge on intellectual property rights to a moderate extent. 

to  geographically  different  markets;  28%  agreed 

In  relation  to  knowledge  gained  on  (3),  the  market  for  active  and  assisted  living  through 
regular  calls:  35%  of  91  respondents  confirmed  that  they  had  gained  new  insights  into  the 
consumer  market  relevant  to  AAL  solutions;  30%  agreed  they  had  learned  about  the 
that  participation  had 
adaptation 
strengthened  their  ability  to  assess  commercial  viability;  14%  agreed  they  had  gained 
credibility  and 
investors. 
Strengthening the marketisation skills  of beneficiaries had been identified as a key area  for 
support  and  thus  became  the  focus  of  the  AAL2Business  Support  Action.  This  has  had  an 
effect:  of  the  33  respondents  who  had  participated  in  the  Support  Action,  61%  agreed  that 
their  participation  had  improved  their  ability  to  develop  a  commercialisation  strategy;  75% 
agreed that participating had improved their  ability to  develop  a business model.  [linked to 
R2IE, R3IE and OO2] 

to  provide  evidence 

to  convince 

their  ability 

improved 

Network creation 

Another indicator for measuring progress towards Objective 2 is the degree to which AAL2 
has helped to develop networks among relevant actors in the Participating States. The survey 
conducted  for  the  2021  Programme  Impact  Study  shows  that  for  the  91  respondents,  68% 
stated that they benefited from the collaboration networks established during the project. Of 
the 56 who had participated in the yearly organised networking event, the AAL Forum, 89% 
stated that the Forum helped them to broaden their network in relevant fields. 

20 

 
In  interviews  as  part  of  the  supporting  study,  beneficiaries  noted  that  participating  in 
networks and having the opportunity to find new partners for collaboration was a key reason 
for  their  participation  in  AAL2.  They  specifically  welcomed  the  opportunity  to  collaborate 
across  borders  and  within  European  networks  and  highlighted  the  benefits  from  those 
collaborations  for  inspiration,  learning  and  improvement.  This  was  confirmed  by  National 
Contact  Points  (NCPs)  and  stakeholders  who  also  suggested  that  these  opportunities  may 
have  been  especially  relevant  for  beneficiaries  from  smaller  countries,  or  from  countries 
where the market for AAL2 was still underdeveloped compared with other national/regional 
markets and systems. Opportunities for collaboration were also fostered by the introduction 
of SCPs as a new instrument that allowed beneficiaries to explore new ideas at a small scale 
over a shorter period of time within a participatory, collaborative framework. [linked to OO1, 
OO3, R4IE] 

Objective 3: Leverage/maintain private investments and improve industrial conditions 
for industrial exploitation by providing a coherent framework for developing European 
approaches  and  solutions  including  common  minimum  standards  that  meet  varying 
national and regional social preferences and regulatory aspects 

The market for active and healthy ageing solutions is fragmented, highly regulated and facing 
a  complex  demand-side.  There  are  many  obstacles  to  new  solutions  being  launched  and 
performing  successfully  on  the  market.  In  a  similar  vein  as  the  Interim  Evaluation,  the 
assessment  of  progress  towards  Objective  3  focuses  on  support  for  business  planning  and 
commercialisation,  the  involvement  of  large  industry  partners,  and  the  level  of  private 
investment  leveraged  by  the  Programme.  The  Interim  Evaluation  suggested  that  more 
involvement of large industry partners is needed to scale-up solutions and create significant 
impact  on  both  the  market  and  end-users.  It  also  concluded  that  many  beneficiaries  were 
insufficiently prepared for marketisation, that business planning was insufficient and that the 
AAL2 as a whole lacked an integrating framework for individual project results. 

Support to business planning and commercialisation 

Previous  evaluations  emphasised  the  importance  of  improving  participants’  business 
orientation,  market  knowledge  and  commercialisation  skills,  particularly  for  strengthening 
their  capacity  to  develop  a  business  plan,  find  investors  and  bring  solutions  to  the  market. 
Already during AAL1 the programme invested in developing a portfolio of Support Actions, 
next to the project calls. This comprehensive programme-driven approach was strengthened 
and expanded significantly during AAL2, with a dedicated set of Support Actions specifically 
addressing  the  above  mentioned  needs.  Especially  AAL2Business  and  the  Market 
Observatory actions provided project beneficiaries with the skills and knowledge required to 
bring  their  product  or  service  to  the  market.  This  was  seconded  by  improvements  to  the 
project  call  procedures,  requiring  applicants  to  include  a  business  strategy  as  part  of  their 
proposals. 

Interviews  and  the  available  data  from  the  beneficiary  survey  demonstrate  that  the  Support 
Actions  were  highly  valued  by  participants  and  contributed  to  feeling  more  confident  and 

21 

 
becoming  more  successful  in  navigating  the  market,  engaging  with  the  demand-side, 
exploring and integrating user expectations, and developing business and commercialisation 
strategies. Beneficiaries, NCPs and other stakeholders interviewed were highly appreciative 
of the Support Actions, which were rated as exemplary and good practices to follow.  

This finding is further confirmed in the 2021 Programme Impact Study; 61% of respondents 
who participated in Support Actions (n=33) stated that their participation had improved their 
ability to develop a commercialisation strategy and 75% agreed that the Support Actions had 
improved their ability to develop a business model.  

Beneficiaries’ own contributions and private investments into the Programme 

Over the entire AAL2 Programme period, own funding contributed  by participants in  AAL 
projects  amounted  to  EUR  77.7  million,  which  equalled  41.7%  of  the  combined  EC  and 
national  funding (sum of public programme contributions). Hence, this sum  can be seen as 
the amount of private investments being directly triggered by the Programme.  

The  study  supporting  this  final  evaluation  also  assessed  private  follow-up  investments 
attracted  by  the  Programme  beneficiaries  by  using  the  platform  Dealroom22.  Dealroom 
provides  data  on  investments  into  companies  by  various  business  organisations  such  as 
banks,  investors  or  business  angels.  While  it  is  not  possible  to  link  this  investment  data 
directly  to  specific  AAL2  projects,  they  may  provide  interesting  contextual  information. 
From  a  dataset  that  contained  the  URLs  (Uniform  Resource  Locators)  of  703  AAL2 
participants23, we could match 205 participants (approximately 30%) to data entries included 
in  the  Dealroom  database.  Dealroom  identified  investments  being  made  in  35  out  of  those 
205 organisations (approximately 17%) between 2014 and 2020. In total, these investments 
amounted  to  around  EUR  374  million24,  with  one  single  company,  MindMaze25  from 
Lausanne, receiving EUR 307.7 million. Ten more companies received investments of more 
than EUR 1 million. The remaining 24 companies stayed below the EUR 1 million threshold. 

The 2020 edition of the Programme Impact Study looked at the investor events that had been 
organised by the AALA in 2017 and 2018. In total, these five events attracted 27 investors 
and  an  equal  amount  of  companies,  pitching  26  different  solutions  (with  some  of  the 
solutions being pitched multiple times, bringing the total number of pitches to 37). While no 
direct investment being secured as a result of the event could be identified, the authors of the 
study  supporting  the  final  evaluation  passed  the  list  of  pitching  companies  through  the 

22  www.dealroom.co 

23  The  dataset  was  generated  using  information  available  on  the  AAL  Programme  website  (http://www.aal-

europe.eu/) 

24  Due to some exchange rate variation between USD and EUR, this is to be seen as an approximate figure. 

25  MindMaze is a Swiss based unicorn founded in 2012 working on brain technology. They raised Series A1 

and A2 funding and are active in several countries such as United States, UK, Germany and China. 

22 

 
                                                 
Pitchbook26 database. Out of the list of 27, Pitchbook contained records on 13 of these. Out 
of  those  13,  the  database  had  information  on  investments,  mergers  and  acquisitions  for  7 
companies,  with  mostly  undisclosed  amounts.  However,  the  authors  noted  that  none  of  the 
investments made, suggest a direct link with the AAL investors’ events. 

Involvement of large industry  

Although  large  enterprises  were  not  defined  as  a  core  target  group  to  be  addressed  by  the 
Programme, the Interim Evaluation noted that the development of a new market requires not 
only agile and innovative SMEs with  a strong  focus on the user perspective, but  also  large 
industry partners that can contribute the expertise and market power to launch and establish 
new solutions  in  the market. When looking at  Figure  15:  Share of project  participations  by 
type  of  organisation,  per  year,  Annex  VI),  it  becomes  clear  that  the  involvement  of  large 
industry players remained relatively low  and did not  change over the entire duration of the 
Programme. 

Overall, the AAL2 Programme has achieved positive results at the output and outcome levels 
within its remit. While it supports beneficiaries in overcoming market barriers, it is not in a 
position  to  remove  these  barriers  entirely.  Data  on  long-term  /  macro-level  impacts  are 
limited mostly as it is still too early to conduct a full impact analysis of the Programme. A 
key issue that needs to be taken into account when considering the effectiveness of AAL2 is 
that  it  operates  in  a  fragmented  and  still  immature  market  and  that  many  of  the  barriers  to 
successful  deployment  and  commercialisation  of  digital  solutions  for  active  and  healthy 
ageing  lie  outside  the  scope  of  the  Programme.  Compared  with  AAL1  (as  an  internal 
benchmark) there was a positive trend in the numbers of solutions launched, and individual 
end-users reached. A beneficiary survey  and stakeholder interviews confirmed the potential 
for positive impacts of solutions on the quality of life of older people and their carers. 

A  strong  feature  of  AAL2  is  its  portfolio  of  Support  Actions  that  have  proved  to  be  an 
effective accompanying measure to the annual calls for transnational projects. By supporting 
beneficiaries to learn from each other, understand the market,  and develop business models 
and  commercialisation  strategies,  Support  Actions  provide  high  additional  value  to  the 
Programme and towards achieving its objectives. [linked OO3, OO4, R2IE & R3IE] 

4.1.2 Efficiency 

The efficient implementation of the Programme, includes the governance structure of AAL2, 
the performance of the CMU, the administrative burden at Programme and project level, and 
its  budget  utilisation.  In  addition  the  flexibility  of  the  Partnership  towards  adjusting  its 
objectives, activities and resources to changing circumstances has been assessed.  

Implementation and governance structure 

26  The Pitchbook data provides data similar to those offered by Dealroom, referred to further above. 

23 

 
                                                 
The voluntary nature of the Article 185 initiative and the possibility of having varying levels 
of commitment  (in terms  of financial contributions  and/or content-related engagement) was 
seen as helpful to kick-start the Partnership. It was a way of getting the initiative started in a 
field  that was  still largely  underdeveloped and to which countries gave uneven priority.  By 
building  an  ‘alliance  of  early  movers’  the  Programme  was  tapping  into  the  energy  and 
enthusiasm  of  those  dedicated  to  promoting  digital  solutions  for  ageing  well.  The  fact  that 
countries  were  not  obliged  to  commit  a  specific  financial  contribution  or  other  types  of 
engagement  for  the  entire  Programme  duration,  lowered  the  threshold  for  them  to  join. 
However, this in-built flexibility proved to be challenging in the longer term. The decrease in 
funding commitments which occurred during the first half of the AAL2 Programme (Annex 
IV, Table 5: Budget committed per country, per year) challenged the financial sustainability 
of the Programme at mid-term27. 

Interviewees  indicated  that  the  possibility  and/or  willingness  of  NCPs  to  engage  in 
developing a joint strategic agenda varied. A few funding agencies may have seen their role 
primarily in following due process in managing project funding, with less attention given to 
providing  strategic  direction.  Some  of  them  noted  that  they  had  tried  to  align  national 
strategy,  but  they  had  not  been  able  to  convince  their  political  masters  to  support  AAL  as 
strongly  as  they  wished.  This  meant  that  the  CMU  had  to  play  a  strong  role  in  driving 
strategy development while encouraging NCPs to engage in the process. 

It  has  also  been  noted  that  the  EC  has  a  different  role  in  the  governance  structure  of  the 
Programme compared to the Participating States. While the Programme is largely  governed 
by the Participating States who form the main decision-making body, it is also a Partnership 
between  the  Participating  States  and  the  EC  as  per  Decision  No  554/2014/EU.  The  EC 
contributes 50% of public funding, yet in the GA the EC has observer status only. The only 
effective  mechanism  for  the  EC  to  influence  the  strategic  direction  of  AAL2  is  during  the 
approval  process  of  the  AWP.  Some  interviewees  therefore  suggested  that  the  governance 
structure is weighed against the EC.  

However, in general, the assessment of NCPs and other stakeholders about the functioning of 
the governance structure of the Programme was positive. A modus operandi was found that 
appeared  to  work  well  for  the  various  decision-making  processes  in  place  and  almost  all 
NCPs were satisfied with the strategic direction and processes of engagement during AAL2 
Programme execution. [linked OO1 & R1IE]. 

Performance of the CMU 

The  findings  of  the  study  supporting  the  final  evaluation  confirm  the  assessment  of  the 
Interim  Evaluation  that  the  CMU  operates  effectively  and  at  a  high  level  of  competence. 
Based  on  the  insights  from  interviews  and  desk  research,  the  concerns  about  the  lack  of 
strategic  capacity  expressed  in  the  Interim  Evaluation,  is  not  confirmed.  The  CMU  went 
through  a  major  restructuring  after  the  Interim  Evaluation,  to  align  with  the  increasingly 

27  While this risk was detected in the Interim Evaluation, it did not materialise. 

24 

 
                                                 
complexity of the Partnership and its stronger innovation drive requiring different managing 
and coordinating skills and competences. The vast majority of individuals interviewed lauded 
the  leadership,  commitment  and  energy  of  the  CMU  and  saw  its  performance  as  a  key 
strength  of  AAL2.  NCPs  and  other  stakeholders  provided  highly  positive  feedback  with 
respect  to  the  performance  and  role  of  the  CMU  in  developing  the  Programme,  especially 
during the second phase of AAL2 after a change in leadership. It was also stated that the level 
of  dedication  to  its  mission  distinguishes  AAL2  from  the  other  R&D  programmes.  This 
positive assessment was also reflected in the MTR satisfaction survey conducted by the AAL 
CMU in 202028. 

The  CMU  implemented  a  number  of  changes  to  the  management  of  the  Programme  as 
outlined in ‘Section 3.1 Current  state  of  play’.  These  have  improved  its  efficiency  and 
focused  the  Programme  on  maximising  the  outputs,  outcomes  and  impacts.  Stakeholders 
described  the  management  approach  as  proactive,  flexible  and  inspirational  and  noted  that 
this  approach  was  specific  to  AAL2  and  contrasted  to  their  experience  of  other  (Horizon 
2020) programmes. In this respect, the Partnership seems to have enjoyed an unusual degree 
of managerial freedom that was used to its advantage and appreciated by its members. [linked 
to 001 & R1IE] 

Administrative burden 

The public consultation on the Article 185 initiatives conducted in 201729 concluded that the 
administrative burden on applicants was higher compared to projects that were funded by one 
country only. Yet it also concluded that projects funded by Article 185 partnerships were less 
administratively burdensome than Horizon 2020 projects insofar as  applicants  were already 
familiar with national funding rules. Beneficiaries interviewed noted that the use of national 
funding  rules  simplified  the  process  for  them,  which  was  especially  relevant  to  SMEs, 
although  national  funding  rules  and  procedures  varied  significantly  in  complexity.  More 
critically,  interviewees  stated  that  they  needed  to  report  separately  to  the  EC  and  their 
respective  NCP,  often  in  two  different  formats,  which  was  consistently  felt  to  be  an  added 
burden. 

Financial matching and budget utilisation 

As  an  Article  185  initiative,  the  AAL  Programme  combines  national  project  (co-)funding 
with  a  centrally  organised  selection  process  based  on  three  core  criteria.  This  constellation 
requires  a  complicated  matching  process  to  make  the  best  use  of  the  available  funding  and 
minimise the risk of underspending. Irrespective of its excellence, an application can only be 
funded  if  all  Participating  States  involved  as  national  funders  still  have  sufficient  budget 

28  AALA (2020). Projects Mid-Term Review Satisfaction Survey. 
29  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Participation  of  the  EU  in 
research and development programmes undertaken by several Member States based on Article 185 of the 
TFEU, Publications Office, 2017, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/749071 

25 

 
                                                 
available. If not, applicants whose country has run out of national budget, can be replaced by 
other participants from countries that still have budget available30.  

This  matching  process  was  introduced  to  address  problems  in  budget  utilisation  resulting 
from  the  combination  of  applying  national  funding  rules  together  with  a  central  evaluation 
process.  All  projects  invited  for  reconfiguration  during  AAL2  (47  in  total)  succeeded  in 
reconfiguring their proposals and signed grant agreements, with the exception of one project 
in Call 2020. Though, the matching process requires substantial additional administration and 
thus  introduces  new  challenges.  In  the  interviews,  NCPs  and  beneficiaries  reported 
difficulties  in  reconfiguring  projects  as  this  required  them  to  redistribute  tasks  within  the 
consortium  or  identify  new  beneficiaries  that  could  execute  specific  work  packages. 
Interviewees agreed that the process was manageable but created additional challenges. The 
MTR  satisfaction  survey  confirmed  that  the  majority  of  beneficiaries  involved  in  project 
reconfiguration were satisfied with the outcome. 

In  total,  the  budget  utilisation  under  AAL2,  defined  as  the  ratio  between  total  budget 
committed by Participating States and annual budget contracted over the  Programme period 
was 79.4%31. Budget utilisation varied between years, with the utilisation rate being as low as 
65.1% in 2019 and as high as 97.2% in the last call in 2021 (see Figure 6).  

30  Subject to the condition that not more than 20% (25% from 2018) needs to be replaced. 

31  This figure relates to the national contributions only. If EC contribution is included in the  calculation, the 

rate is 81.9%. 

26 

 
                                                 
Figure 6: Call Budget (in M€) committed VS budget used per year (national contributions only) 

22,3

16,1

16,1

14,6

14,5

13,0

14,3

12,8

15,1

15,1

11,3

13,2

12,3

12,0

9,8

10,0

25,0

20,0

15,0

10,0

5,0

0,0

Call 2014
(65.5%)

Call 2015
(90.1%)

Call 2016
(80.7%)

Call 2017
(89.5%)

Call 2018
(74.8%)

Call 2019
(64.9%)

Call 2020
(75.8%)

Call 2021
(97.6%)

Budget committed in m. €

Budget used in m. €

The variation of the project budget utilisation rate was even larger when comparing different 
countries  (see  Figure  7).  While  Switzerland,  Austria  and  the  Netherlands  contracted  more 
funding  than  originally  committed,  Israel,  Luxembourg,  Belgium  and  the  UK  contracted 
significantly less than 50% of what they had originally committed. 

There are a number of reasons that can explain the under-utilisation of the committed budget. 
First, there was a lack of absorption capacity in some countries illustrated by a low number of 
proposals  submitted  and/or  a  low  number  of  highly  ranked  proposals  in  those  countries32. 
This led to 28.7% of the committed budget not being used. Second, some proposals could not 
be  funded  because  at  least  one  country  had  already  depleted  its  committed  budget.  This 
accounted  for  8.2%  of  the  budget  underspend.  However,  thanks  to  the  possibility  of 
reconfiguring projects and some national budgets being increased, an additional 18.8% of the 
originally committed budget could still be contracted. [linked to OO1, OO4 & R5IE] 

32  This may be due to a variety of different factors, including a low number of relevant actors in the respective 

country or a lack of awareness of the Programme. 

27 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 7: Budget committed VS budget used per country 

140,0%

120,0%

111,7%

118,6%

106,3%

95,7%

97,0%

92,9%

83,1%

77,2%

70,6%72,6%

65,2%

73,5%

66,9%

58,8%

56,4%

56,2%

52,3%

43,1%

43,4%

35,1%

28,6%

100,0%

80,0%

60,0%

40,0%

20,0%

0,0%

Cost-effectiveness and administrative overhead 

Figure  8  shows  that  the  overall  EU  AAL2  Programme  commitment  amounts  to 
EUR 108,6 million, which is significantly lower than the initial, maximum estimated Union’s 
financial contribution of EUR 175 million at set-up of the Programme. Article 2 of legal base 
(Decision No 554/2014/EU) stipulates that the annual financial commitment of the Union to 
the  AAL2  Programme  shall  not  exceed  the  annual  financial  commitment  to  the  AAL2 
Programme  by  Participating  States.  The  decreasing  national  funding  commitments  was  an 
element of attention raised at the AAL2 MTR. It resulted partly from fewer countries being 
involved  then  initially  planned  and  partly  due  to  decreasing  contributions  from  those  that 
remain.  In  addition,  some  countries  that  have  signed  participation  agreements  don’t  always 
actively  contributing  to  yearly  transnational  calls  e.g.  only  16  countries  contributed  to  call 
2016 (see also Annex VI Table 5). However, this negative trend was reversed in 2018 with 
increasing  national  funding  commitments  peaking  at  almost  EUR  21  million  commitments 
for the final Programme year 2020. 

The  administrative  costs  for  the  Programme  are  fixed  at  maximum  6%  of  the  EC 
contribution.  In  absolute  terms,  this  means  that  between  EUR  0.8  million  and  EUR  1.2 
million  was used per  year on  administrative overhead  resulting  in  EUR  6.5 million  in  total 
between  2014  and  2021.  While  it  is  difficult  to  compare  the  percentage  of  administrative 

28 

 
 
overhead of AAL2 to that of other Article 185 partnerships such as ECDTP2 or Eurostars33, 
for example, it is important to note that in absolute terms, it is significantly smaller than those 
of other Article 185 partnership programmes. In view of the strong performance of the CMU 
during the final years of AAL2, this means that the budget has been used highly efficiently34. 

Figure 8: Annual estimated EC contribution and breakdown between types of costs (TOF = Transfer of 
Funds). 

Spending on Support Actions under AAL2 was also very moderate, constituting 5.9% of the 
total  EC  contributions  over  this  period.  Support  Actions  were  considered  effective  in 
supporting  the  Programme  objectives  and  cost-effective  in  terms  of  spending.  [linked  to 
OO1]. 

Flexibility  in  adjusting  objectives,  activities  and  resources  to  changing  market  and 
policy needs 

There  are  numerous  examples  of  adjustments  and  improvements  made  to  the  AAL2 
Programme that demonstrate the flexible and forward-thinking approach taken when dealing 
with  challenges  and  responding  to  stakeholder  feedback.  In  terms  of  its  strategic  direction, 
the  CMU  and  AALA  have  positioned  themselves  as  a  ‘learning  organisation’  giving 
emphasis to monitoring, assessing and improving the implementation of the Programme. To 
this  end,  three  Programme  impact  studies  were  commissioned  that  made  a  strong  and 
convincing  effort  to  inform  improvements  to  AAL2.  As  part  of  this  evidence-informed 
learning  process,  the  definition  of  the  objectives  and  the  intervention  logic  were  sharpened 

33  This is due, among others, to the fact that other Article 185 partnerships have a high proportion of in-kind 

contributions and that the ratio between EC and Participating States contributions is different.  

34 

In the case of EDCTP2 and Eurostars, admin costs amounted to EUR 29.9 million and EUR 10.6 million, 
respectively, for the period 2014-2020. 

29 

 
 
                                                 
and  changes  were  made  to  many  dimensions  of  the  Programme.  Interviewed  stakeholders 
consistently  stated  that  the  CMU  was  highly  adept  at  listening  to  and  using  feedback  from 
stakeholders and the wider community to improve the Programme. 

This agility  was  also demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic with adjustments made 
to  call  procedures  to  encourage  participation  and  the  AAL  Forum  moving  to  an  online 
format.  

In terms of responsiveness to policy needs, the challenges faced by AAL2 and by innovators 
in  the  more  widely  field  of  active  and  assisted  living,  were  explored  by  introducing  an 
Ecosystem  Support  Action.  This  approach  was  developed  by  involving  a  large  number  of 
stakeholders and by systematically exploring the many factors that determine the success of 
novel solutions in the market. 

While the Programme has not been able to influence its market environment to an extent that 
would  bring  about  significant  improvements  in  the  swift  uptake  of  novel  solutions,  the 
challenge  of  integrating  innovations  into  existing,  complex  and  highly  variable  health  and 
care  systems  is  now  much  better  understood.  This  way,  AAL2  has  laid  some  of  the 
groundwork for future action and initiatives that aim to address demographic change and to 
improve the sustainability of European health and care systems. 

4.1.3 Coherence 

Coherence with Horizon 2020 and other EU and national policies (programme level) 

AAL2 continues to occupy a unique position within the European policy landscape. It is well 
aligned with general EU policy objectives and acts as a bridge between research and market-
oriented  programmes.  Its  three  objectives  are  well  aligned  with  the  overall  objective  of 
Horizon 2020 to ‘contribute to building a society and an economy based on knowledge and 
innovation  across  the  Union  by  leveraging  additional  R&D&I  funding’35.  This  applies  in 
particular  to  Societal  Challenge  1  on  ‘Health,  demographic  change  and  well-being’,  which 
includes  ‘active  ageing  and  self-managing  disease’  as  one  of  its  broad  lines  of  activities. 
Under  this  Societal  Challenge,  a  number  of  calls  and  topics  were  launched  to  support  the 
development of technologies for active and healthy ageing. Most notably, Work Programme 
2018-2020  included  a  call  on  ‘Digital  transformation  in  Health  and  Care’,  consisting  of  21 
individual  topics  and  a  funding  volume  of  approximately  EUR  100  million  in  each  of  the 
three years. 

While there is a thematic correspondence between AAL2 and some of the activities funded 
under Horizon 2020 Societal Challenge 1, a detailed analysis shows that the respective calls 
and topics are complementary and synergetic to AAL2. By way of example, the topic ‘SC1 

35  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  establishing  Horizon  2020  –  The 
Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) of 30 November 2011, COM(2011) 809 
final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0809:FIN:en:PDF  

30 

 
                                                 
HCC-08-2020: Scaling up innovation for active and healthy ageing’ makes explicit reference 
to AAL2 and encourages the involvement of AAL2 partners36. 

Also more generally, AAL2 is distinct from most research funded under Horizon 2020 due to 
its  market  orientation37.  This 
its  specific  focus  on 
complementarity  was  already  raised  by  the  public  consultation  on  Article  185  initiatives 
conducted  in  2017,  in  which  64%  of  AAL2  respondents  consider  the  Programme  to  be 
coherent with other EU initiatives38. 

innovation  and  SMEs,  and 

The  collaboration  and  communication  with  other  programmes,  such  as  the  EIP  AHA  and 
Joint  Programming  Initiative  ‘More  Years  Better  Lives’  (JPI  MYBL),  have  been  deepened 
during  the  second  phase  of  AAL2,  implementing  the  recommendations  of  the  Interim 
Evaluation. The joint organisation of the one-week-long AAL Forum Online Event in 2020, 
with  almost  1.000  international  participants,  is  a  tangible  result  of  this  collaboration39.  The 
Programme has also extended its outreach and collaboration with other EU institutions. These 
have been mainly in an advisory role, such as supporting informal working groups within the 
EU Parliament and deepening ties with different Commission Directorates-General (DGs). 

To  further  strengthen  its  external  coherence  and  policy  alignment,  the  Programme  has 
expanded  its  advocacy  role  within  Europe  and  vis-à-vis  Participating  States  in  raising 
awareness  for  the  potential  of  innovative  solutions  and  the  need  for  transformative  change 
and has contributed to setting the agenda in this policy field. 

At national level, the AAL2 Programme demonstrated complementarity in those participating 
countries, in which AAL2 provided the only opportunity to engage in this particular field (as 
noted  by  NCPs  during  interviews).  The  possibility  to  contribute  to  Programme  activities  in 
line  with  national  capacities  and  needs,  enabled  the  Participating  States  to  work  together 
constructively. This potentially helped those countries in which markets were small to shape 
the  Programme  according  to  their  needs  (here  referred  to  as  ‘smaller’  countries).  NPCs 
interviewed for this evaluation noted that the AAL2 Programme was particularly valued by a 
number  of  smaller  countries.  For  those  countries,  this  was  an  opportunity  to  establish  and 
develop the agenda for active and healthy ageing both domestically and within the EU. 

36  Horizon 2020, Work Programme 2018-2020, part ‘8. Health, demographic change and wellbeing’.  

37  While  the  European  Innovation  Council  pilot  also  focuses  on  innovation  and  market  orientation,  it  very 

much focuses on breakthrough, disruptive innovations, which is not the key objective of AAL2.  

38  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Participation  of  the  EU  in 
research and development programmes undertaken by several Member States based on Article 185 of the 
TFEU, Publications Office, 2017, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/749071, p. 10. 

39  http://www.aal-europe.eu/community-building/aal-forum-intro/  

31 

 
                                                 
Finally, it should be stated that the AAL2 strategy is aligned with the United Nations (UN) 
Sustainable Development Goal 3 to ‘ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all 
ages’40. 

Coherence with Horizon 2020 (participant level) 

To  assess  the  degree  of  involvement  of  AAL2  participants  in  Horizon  2020  the  study 
supporting  the  final  evaluation  analysed  the  Horizon  2020  centrality  score  of  699  AAL2 
participants41. A centrality score refers to the degree of involvement in Horizon 2020 (based 
on number of participations), compared to all other Horizon 2020 participants. It is measured 
in percentiles. As can be seen in Table 1, 5.6% of AAL2 participants were among the top 1% 
Horizon 2020 participants during the same period of time. This number is particularly high 
for universities and higher education institutes with 22% of them belonging in the top 1% of 
Horizon 2020 participants. To a lesser degree, this applies to research institutes, with 8% of 
them  falling  into  this  category.  In  contrast,  among  private  companies  and  other  types  of 
organisations,  this  share  is  0%;  for  public  bodies,  it  is  1.1%.  56.2%  of  AAL2  participants 
have never participated in Horizon 2020, with that number being as high as 62.8% for private 
companies and 82.8% for public bodies.  

These centrality scores show that AAL2 manages to bring together top research performing 
bodies in Europe with private companies (mostly SMEs) and end-user organisations that do 
not  typically  participate  in  Horizon  2020.  This  also  means  that  there  is  a  strong 
complementarity  between  the  AAL2  Programme  and  other  activities  under  Horizon  2020. 
[linked to OO5 & R2IE]. 

40  United Nations (2015). Transforming our World: The  2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.  Online 

available at: 
https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Develo
pment%20web.pdf. 

41  Using organisation name and website, the study matched the AAL2 participant data to CORDA Participant 
Identification  Code  numbers.  A  small  number  of  records  had  to  be  removed  because  of  data  issues.  The 
statistic therefore refers to 699 out of 705 AAL2 participants.  

32 

 
 
                                                 
Table 1: H2020 centrality score of AAL2 participants 

All AAL2 
participants 

Universities & 
higher education 
institutes 

Private companies 
(including SMEs 
and large 
enterprises) 

Public bodies 

Research institutes 

Other 

Centrality 
within H2020 

Number   Share 
within 
category 
of AAL 
particip
ants 

Number   Share 
within 
category 
of AAL 
particip
ants 

Number   Share 
within 
category 
of AAL 
particip
ants 

Number   Share 
within 
category 
of AAL 
particip
ants 

Number   Share 
within 
category 
of AAL 
particip
ants 

Number   Share 
within 
category 
of AAL 
particip
ants 

Top 1 % 

39 

5.6 % 

Top 10 % 

127 

18.2 % 

Top 50 % 

235 

33.6 % 

Bottom 50 % 

71 

10.2 % 

No H2020 
participation 
so far  

393 

56.2 % 

31 

64 

84 

8 

49 

22.0 % 

45.4 % 

59.6 % 

5.7 % 

0 

24 

72 

35 

0.0 % 

8.2 % 

24.6 % 

11.9 % 

34.8 % 

184 

62.8 % 

Total 

699 

141 

293 

.

1 

4 

13 

3 

77 

93 

1.1 % 

4.3 % 

14.0 % 

3.2 % 

82.8 % 

7 

29 

45 

11 

31 

87 

8.0 % 

33.3 % 

51.7 % 

12.6 % 

35.6 % 

0 

6 

21 

14 

50 

85 

0.0 % 

7.1 % 

24.7 % 

16.5 % 

58.8 % 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Internal Programme coherence 

In  terms  of  internal  coherence,  the  AAL2  has  made  good  progress  in  clarifying  and 
conceptually  developing  the  role  of  each  of  the  Programme  components  and  creating 
synergies at many levels. This relates to the refinement of the Programme calls as well as the 
Support Actions that are well integrated and designed to support the three objectives of the 
Programme. Support Actions were developed to run alongside the R&I projects funded by the 
Programme. They were based on insights gained from analysis and progress monitoring that 
helped identify challenges and opportunities. Some Support Actions were already present in 
AAL1  and  were  intensified  during  AAL2,  while  others  have  been  added  in  response  to 
analysis and changing policy needs (Figure 11: AAL Support Actions portfolio in Annex VI). 

Support  Actions  expanded  from  primarily  offering  opportunities  for  networking  and 
exchange  to  developing  targeted  interventions  aimed  at  specific  skill  and  knowledge  gaps. 
Stakeholders  interviewed  for  this  evaluation  noted  that  there  was  significant  learning 
involved  in  developing  and  adjusting  Support  Actions,  as  well  as  a  willingness  to  listen  to 
beneficiaries and expert advice, and to embrace novel ideas for improvement. Opportunities 
were  used  to  apply  the  management  tools  of  the  project  funding  to  identify  challenges  and 
offer  tailored  support,  for  example  by  using  projects’  MTRs  to  identify  weaknesses  in  the 
projects’  approaches  to  marketisation  and  provide  targeted  coaching  to  develop  project 
beneficiaries’ business skills (AAL2Business). 

AAL2 also broadened the target audience from providing support to individual project teams 
to serving and developing the wider AAL community. Project funding was most successful in 
relation  to  achieving  the  first  two  objectives  associated  with  bringing  about  innovative 
solutions and creating a critical mass of R&D&I. However, the third objective of shaping the 
market  conditions  for  such  innovations  was  correctly  understood  as  being  much  harder  to 
achieve and thus  benefiting from specific support.  During  AAL2 this increasingly involved 
activities aimed at shaping the market, by building and engaging with its demand-side (e.g. 
by involving regions as purchasers and providers of health and care). It included promoting 
an  understanding  of  the  need  for  a  wider  approach  to  ecosystem  building  for  European 
societies to capitalise on the potential of innovation in this sector.  

On the basis of the above, it can be stated that the programme design of AAL2 has created 
synergies between its various activities and between individual projects. 

4.1.4   Transparency and openness 

Overall, AAL2 has demonstrated that it is open to new members participating in the AAL2 
Programme and to new project beneficiaries. AAL2 has developed transparent processes for 
consulting stakeholders and identifying priorities in each of its core activities. This includes 
the  preparation  of  calls  for  proposals,  the  development  of  Support  Actions  and  the 
organisation  of  networking  and  outreach  activities.  The  decentralised  management  of  the 

34 

 
 
Partnership,  more  specifically  using  national  funding  rules  and  providing  NCPs,  also 
contributes to the accessibility for SMEs. [linked to OO3 & R5IE]. 

Openness  towards  new  participants  and  mechanism  to  involve  new  members  and  a 
broader set of stakeholders 

The  underlying  Article  185  initiative  procedures  allow  countries  to  join  and  leave  the 
Programme  at  any  time.  Throughout  the  AAL2  Programme  lifecycle  interested  countries 
could apply to become member of the AALA. The AAL2 Partnership provides the possibility 
for flexible membership (‘variable geometry‘) for those countries interested and also allows 
for varying degrees of financial commitment to the Partnership. In addition, participation is 
possible  for  non-EU  countries  and  for  countries  not  associated  with  Horizon  202042. 
Currently  Canada  and  Taiwan  participate  in  AAL2  as  non-EU  Member  States,  while 
Switzerland, Norway and Israel were associated countries during Horizon 2020. 

As  a  specific  feature,  AAL2  also  engages  with  a  number  of  subnational  regions.  During 
AAL2,  four  regions  participated  as  members  and  provided  NCPs:  Friuli-Venezia  Giulia  in 
Italy, Basque Country in Spain, as well as Flanders and Brussels in Belgium. The possibility 
for regions  to  become  a  member and be more  actively involved in  steering the Programme 
was  seen  as  an  important  step  by  NCPs  and  other  stakeholders  interviewed.  Interviewees 
acknowledged that in many countries, regions are responsible for governing health and care 
systems, and involving them was therefore key to unlock the potential of novel solutions for 
active and healthy ageing. 

AAL2  reached  out  to  engage  a  broad  set  of  stakeholders  across  Europe.  The  calls  under 
AAL2  are  open  to  international  project  teams  with  participants  from  science  and  research 
organisations,  companies  and  end-user  organisations.  Participation  in  AAL2  projects  is 
generally possible for applicants from Participating States providing financial contributions to 
AAL2  calls.  Actual  participation  in  AAL2  projects  varied  between  participating  countries 
depending  on  the  application  success  in  the  selection  process  and  the  national  financial 
contributions available to fund participants from the respective country. 

Before  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  the  annual  AAL  Forum  was  held  at  different  locations 
across  Europe  to  allow  for  regional  spread  and  invite  participation  from  a  broad  range  of 
stakeholders  (not  limited  to  AAL2  beneficiaries).  Also,  the  challenge  prize  as  another 
Support  Action  was  open  to  all  entries  in  the  field  and  not  limited  to  Programme 
beneficiaries.  There  were  also  increasing  efforts  to  provide  services  to  the  wider  AAL 
community including the development of guidelines and regulatory information. 

Processes for consulting stakeholders and identifying priorities 

National  stakeholders  are  consistently  consulted  as  members  of  the  AALA.  GA  meetings 
provide  the  opportunity  to  all  Participating  States  to  participate  in  key  decisions  and  put 

42   Non-EU  and  non  H2020  associated  countries  are  not  eligible  for  EU  co-funding  and  participate  with 

national contributions only. 

35 

 
                                                 
forward their opinions, priorities and concerns. The funding authorities serving as NCPs are 
represented in the GA. As these institutions are in close contact with the project participants 
and  other  stakeholders  in  their  country,  they  can  bring  in  the  perspectives  and  needs  from 
different  national  backgrounds.  Decision-making  in  the  GA  follows  a  democratic  approach 
(‘one  country  –  one  vote’)  so  that  all  participating  countries  are  involved  in  the  setting  of 
priorities for the AAL2 Programme.  

This  particularly  concerns  the  selection  of  the  thematic  priorities  for  the  yearly  calls  which 
are  developed  in  a  working  group  drafting  the  AWP.  This  working  group  is  open  to  all 
interested members. Stakeholders interviewed mentioned that in practice the opportunities to 
engage  in  the  setting  of  priorities  were  taken  up  by  the  different  participating  countries  to 
varying degrees, also depending on the individual financial and staff capacities.  

Accessibility for the enterprise sector and SMEs 

The  AAL2  Programme  is  accessible  for  different  types  of  stakeholders  across  Europe.  The 
calls  under  AAL2  target  cross-sector  international  project  teams.  Data  on  the  types  of 
participants  in  AAL2  projects  show  that  about  45%  of  participants  are  from  the  enterprise 
sector. The share of SMEs among the participants of AAL2 projects between 2014 and 2021 
was  35.7%.  This  high  level  of  participation  of  enterprises  and  especially  SMEs  is 
reconfirming the observation from the 2017 public consultation on Article 185 initiatives. It 
concluded  that  82%  of  AAL2  respondents  consider  the  Programme  to  be  accessible  for  its 
target group, in particular SMEs43.  

In addition, the strong national embedding of the project funding, represented by a network of 
NCPs  as  main  contact  points  for  beneficiaries  as  well  as  the  use  of  national  funding  rules, 
lowers the barriers to  participation especially for SMEs as  several  interviewed stakeholders 
noted.  Nevertheless,  the  market  still  poses  considerable  barriers  for  SMEs  to  scale  up  e.g. 
because  of  the  often  demanding  requirements  from  end-users  such  as  hospitals.  Therefore, 
high participation of SMEs in AAL2 R&D projects does not yet directly translate into short-
term economic success of SMEs in the market. 

4.2   How did the EU intervention make a difference? 

This approach has helped to develop a new narrative of demographic change that emphasised 
the  opportunities  associated  with  ageing  societies.  It  has  also  increased  awareness  of  the 
potential  of  ICT-based  solutions  to  address  the  challenge  of  demographic  change  among 
many stakeholders, including national funding agencies, SMEs and end-user organisations. 

The Programme proves to be particularly useful to beneficiaries from smaller and mid-sized 
countries and regions, as it enables them to engage with new partners and other stakeholders, 
and to access markets in other countries. In some countries, the Programme has inspired new 

43  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Participation  of  the  EU  in 
research and development programmes undertaken by several Member States based on Article 185 of the 
TFEU, Publications Office, 2017, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/749071, p. 11. 

36 

 
                                                 
initiatives,  complementing  and  reinforcing  the  effects  and  achievements  at  national  or 
regional level. [linked to OO5] 

Additionality in terms of thematic focus and programme design 

The AAL Programme is novel and unique in the sense that it brings together several topics 
and  policy  areas  which  had  previously  been  separate,  at  least  at  EU  level,  including 
technology and digitalisation, demographic change, and the future of health and care systems. 
This approach has helped to develop a new narrative of demographic change that emphasised 
the  opportunities  associated  with  ageing  societies.  It  has  also  increased  awareness  of  the 
potential  of  ICT-based  solutions  to  address  the  challenge  of  demographic  change  among 
many stakeholders, including national funding agencies, SMEs and end-user organisations.  

By doing so, the Programme has also managed to bring together various stakeholder groups 
that previously had little or no interaction with each other. While some of these interactions 
have  taken  place  at  national  level,  there  is  considerable  added  value  in  supporting  this 
interaction  at  transnational  and  subnational  level.  SMEs  particularly  benefited  from 
opportunities to explore and understand markets other than their own domestic markets. More 
generally, the exchange of knowledge and good practices organised through the Programme 
was useful for all stakeholders involved. 

In  terms  of  its  design,  the  Programme  differs  from  Horizon  2020  not  only  because  of  its 
market-orientation,  but  also  because  of  its  integrated,  holistic  approach  to  developing  the 
field of digital solutions for active and assisted living. The portfolio of Support Actions was a 
useful instrument for helping beneficiaries to go beyond the development of solutions and to 
launch their products or services on the market. 

It is unlikely that the activities resulting from AAL2, especially the transnational interactions 
and  collaborations,  would  have  happened  without  the  Programme  being  in  place.  In 
interviews, beneficiaries noted that a key reason for participating in the Programme was the 
possibility  of  collaboration  with  other  beneficiaries  across  national  borders  and  working 
within European networks. As yet, there is no alternative Programme with the same focus or 
scope that would allow international consortia to apply for funding for their collaboration in 
the  field  of  solutions  for  active  and  healthy  living.  Therefore,  in  terms  of  its  activities  and 
corresponding  outputs,  the  additionality  of  the  Programme  is  high.  In  the  survey  of 
beneficiaries, reported in the 2021 Programme Impact Study, beneficiaries stated that 12 out 
of 13 AAL products or services and 7 out of 10 AAL components launched would not have 
been  brought  to  the  market  or  would  have  generated  lower  revenues  without  the  support 
through the Programme. 

Contribution towards international positioning and visibility 

An  additional  partnership  evaluation  criteria  was  assessed  in  the  study  supporting  the  final 
evaluation  namely  the  extent  to  which  partnerships  have  helped  foster  the  international 
positioning  and  visibility  of  the  European  R&I  system,  as  well  as  the  level  of  international 
cooperation  at  partnership  and  project  level.  Five  non-EU  countries  (Switzerland,  Norway, 

37 

 
Canada,  Taiwan,  Israel)44  participate  in  the  Programme,  three  of  which  are  non-European, 
demonstrating  the  Programme’s  reputation  beyond  the  boundaries  of  the  EU.  These  five 
countries  accounted  for  27.8%  of  total  national  funding,  led  by  Switzerland  contributing 
24.3% of national funding. The same countries also constituted about one fifth of the 1 077 
participations in project calls (202 participations). Again, most of the non-EU participations 
were from Switzerland (152). Non-European countries in contrast contributed only 1.3% of 
national funding and 1.6% of participations (17 out of 1 077). 

Among  European  non-EU  partners,  the  Programme  helped  to  raise  awareness  for  the 
potential  of  assistive  technologies.  An  impact  study  from  Switzerland,  published  in  2019, 
concluded  that  the  Programme  has  led  to  increased  awareness  of  the  potential,  and 
challenges,  of  assistive  technologies  for  older  people  among  project  beneficiaries  and 
experts45. Moreover, interviewees suggested that various regions were able to learn from the 
Programme  and  its  international  perspective.  The  Swiss  impact  study  demonstrated  that 
Switzerland’s  participation  in  the  Programme  has  reached  most  of  its  objectives  and 
contributed  to  improved  cooperation  and  increased  research  activity  in  the  field.  This  is 
reflected by the continuous commitment of Switzerland to the Programme: across all funding 
calls, Switzerland has the second highest number of project participations. 

In  terms  of  support  to  the  international  positioning  and  visibility  of  the  European  R&I 
system,  AAL2  has  made  a  significant  contribution  to  strengthening  the  R&I  collaboration 
with  Switzerland  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  with  Norway  and  also  with  Canada,  Taiwan  and 
Israel. 

Moreover,  at  international  level,  AAL2  was  able  to  create  a  network  of  partnerships  in  the 
field  of  ICT-based  solutions  for  active  and  healthy  ageing,  which  included  collaborations 
with  the  World  Health  Organization  (unit  on  assistive  technologies),  the  AGE  Platform  in 
Europe  and  the  Canadian  Institutes  of  Health  Research.  Interviews  with  non-European 
partners demonstrated that AAL2 was visible among the relevant stakeholders. A NCP noted 
that  being  involved  in  AAL2  increased  the  appetite  among  researchers  to  collaborate  with 
European colleagues. Although there was only a limited number of participations from non-
European  countries,  participants  valued  that  the  Programme  allowed  for  learning  from 
experiences  in  other  countries.  This  aspect  is  especially  relevant  to  countries  in  which  the 
AAL sector is less developed. Moreover, as highlighted during one interview, as ageing will 
become  increasingly  problematic  in  regions  other  than  Europe,  the  AAL2  Programme 
provided  helpful  experience  and  guidance  for  future  national  responses  to  the  challenge  of 
ageing societies outside Europe. 

44  The UK is counted as an EU Member State. 

45  SBFI (2019). Impact Studie zur Teilnahme der Schweiz am Active and Assisted Living AAL Programme. 

Bern, Staatssekretariat für Bildung, Forschung und Innovation. 

38 

 
                                                 
4.3 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

The  key  challenges  addressed  by  the  AAL2  Programme,  as  described  in  Section  2.1 
Description  of  the  intervention  and  its  objectives,  remain  valid  and  their  relevance  will 
further increase in the future. In 2021, 20.8% of the EU population was aged 65 and over; this 
share  is  expected  to  increase  to  31.3%  by  2100.  For  people  aged  80  and  over,  the  share  is 
expected  to  increase  2.5-fold  from  6.0%  in  2021  to  14.6%  in  210046.  The  ratio  between 
working  age people and  older people has already  been shifting,  with  fewer  younger people 
supporting  an  increasing  number  of  older  people.  This  has  implications  for  delivering  and 
financing formal  and informal  care  and other  forms  of social support for older people. The 
impact  of  these  developments  on  European  societies  has  also  been  emphasised  by  various 
recent  reports  published  by  the  EC,  such  as  the  EC  Report  on  the  Impact  of  Demographic 
Change47  and  the  2021  Ageing  Report48.  It  is  therefore  essential  that  people  are  enabled  to 
live more independently, stay active for longer and that society uses available opportunities to 
support active and healthy living. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  ICT-based  solutions  have  substantial  potential  to  support  active  and 
healthy  living,  despite  challenges  experienced  in  implementation  and  public  trust. 
Stakeholder interviews also observed that the market for innovative solutions is growing and 
is  attracting  an  increasingly  large  number  of  investors  from  the  ICT  field  as  well  as  from 
service  and  care  providers  (including  examples  of  utility  providers).  Given  the  breadth  of 
applications  for  such  innovations  (e.g.  in  the  workplace,  the  health  and  care  sector  and  in 
society more widely) there are plenty of opportunities to engage in the AAL market49. 

This  potential  is  recognised  in  several  EU  initiatives  directed  at  enhancing  the  capacity  of 
ICT solutions for ageing well50. The European Blueprint on Digital Transformation of Health 
and Care for the Ageing Society51 promotes a shared vision of a broad range of stakeholders 
on  how  ageing  well  should  look  in  the  digital  age.  It  stresses  the  role  of  technology  and 
digital  innovations  for  providing  sustainable  and  integrated  healthcare.  The  2019  Science 

46  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Population_structure_and_ageing 

47  European  Commission  (2020).  Report  on  the  Impact  of  Demographic  Change,  available  online  at 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/demography_report_2020_n.pdf  

48  European  Commission  (2021).  The  2021  Ageing  Report:  Economic  &  Budgetary  Projections  for  the  EU 
Member  States  (2019-2070),  available  online  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/economy-
finance/ip148_en.pdf  

49  Kurt Salmon/IDC (2014). Final Report. A Study concerning a Market Observatory in the Ambient Assisted 
Living  field.  Online  available  at:  http://www.aal-europe.eu//wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Final-report-SA-
Market-observatory.pdf  

50  Silver Economy Report, Publications Office, 2018, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/685036 

51  European  Commission  (2017).  Blueprint  on  Digital  Transformation  of  Health  and  Care  for  the  Ageing 
Society. Online available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/blueprint-digital-transformation-
health-and-care-ageing-society  

39 

 
                                                 
Advice  for  Policy  by  European  Academies  report  ‘Transforming  the  Future  of  Ageing’ 
highlighted  the  use  of  technology  as  a  key  area  of  interest  for  healthy  ageing52.  The 
importance of technology and digital innovation for Europe’s resilience was also emphasised 
in  the  2030  Digital  Compass53,  setting  out  a  vision  and  targets  for  a  successful  digital 
transformation  of  Europe  by  2030.  These  include  the  resilience  and  sustainability  of  health 
and  care  systems.  Last  but  not  least,  the  EC’s  2021  Green  Paper  on  Ageing  highlights  that 
any  European  policy  response  to  demographic  change  also  needs  to  address  the  twin 
challenges of achieving the green and digital transformation of society. 

The AAL2 Programme is also well aligned with  several of the EU2020 flagship initiatives, 
such as the Innovation Union, the Digital Agenda for Europe and the Agenda for New Skills 
and  Jobs.  It  is  also  fully  in  line  with  the  most  recent  New  European  Innovation  Agenda54, 
which focuses on the development of new technologies to address the most pressing societal 
challenges, and to bring them on the market. Finally, it also aligns with the UN Decade for 
Healthy Ageing55 and the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development56. 

The  AAL2  Programme  has  been  unique  in  this  space  as  it  brought  together  a  focus  on 
improving  active  and  healthy  ageing  and  the  use  of  innovative  ICT-based  solutions. 
Stakeholders  and  NCPs  noted  that  this  unique  focus  has  been  highly  productive  both  in 
raising awareness for the potential of digital technologies and in strategically developing the 
emerging landscape and markets. As mentioned above, AAL2 has already collaborated with 
other European initiatives in the field of health and ageing to create synergies and ensure the 
sustainability of its impacts. With the various improvements to the Programme (see  Section 
3.1 Current  state  of  play),  AAL2  has  shown  flexibility  in  adapting  to  a  changing  policy 
landscape, improving Programme effectiveness and efficiency and responding to the COVID-
19 pandemic, for example. 

However, many of the barriers for market development referred to in Section 2.1 Description 
of the intervention and its objectives remain and much of the potential of ICT-based solutions 
for  active  and  healthy  living  is  yet  to  be  realised.  Several  of  these  barriers  lie  outside  the 

52  SAPEA,  Science  Advice  for  Policy  by  European  Academies  (2019).Transforming  the  Future  of  Ageing. 

Berlin: SAPEA, https://www.sapea.info/wp-content/uploads/tfa-report.pdf  

53  https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/europes-digital-decade-digital 

targets-2030_en  

54  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic 
and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  A  New  European  Innovation  Agenda.  Online 
available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022DC0332  

55  https://www.who.int/initiatives/decade-of-healthy-ageing  

56  United Nations (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.  Online 

available at: 
https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Develo
pment%20web.pdf  

40 

 
                                                 
scope of the Programme and require larger societal interventions. These include substantial 
political  willingness  to  transform  health  and  care  systems  and  create  the  environment  for 
innovative solutions to thrive and make a more substantive contribution to active and healthy 
living. 

3.  5.WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1 

Conclusions 

The Programme continues to occupy a unique position in the field of 
digital solutions for active and healthy ageing, with strong relevance, EU 
added value and additionality 

As the only European funding Programme focusing on digital solutions for active and healthy 
ageing,  the  AAL2  Programme  continues  to  occupy  a  unique  position  in  the  European  R&I 
funding  landscape.  By  mobilising  technological  innovation  and  entrepreneurship  to  address 
the consequences of demographic change and strengthen the sustainability of health and care 
systems, it had a pioneering role in creating and seizing the many opportunities of active and 
healthy  ageing.  AAL2  actively  contributed  to  developing  a  positive  perspective  on  ageing 
instead of considering ageing as a social and economic problem. In doing so, it has opened a 
space to bring together stakeholder groups that previously had little or no interaction, and that 
worked productively together to develop novel solutions and foster social innovation. 

AAL2  differs  from  most  other  actions  within  the  Horizon  2020  programme  because  of  its 
strong market orientation and its integrated, holistic approach towards involving end-users in 
both  the  design  and  implementation  of  transnational  project  calls  and  in  the  portfolio  of 
Support Actions. It has developed a portfolio of accompanying activities that can be seen as 
exemplary also for other programmes. 

The  Article  185  Partnership  has  enabled  a  group  of  committed  countries  to  pioneer  this 
initiative  and  launch  what  could  be  called  an  ‘alliance  of  early  movers’  to  promote  digital 
solutions for ageing well, without relying on the commitment of all Member States. This has 
allowed more than 700 beneficiaries from 21 different countries (including five non-EU and 
three non-European  countries) to  collaborate on  developing solutions  that  help  improve the 
well-being and quality of life of older people. This includes their families and carers, making 
support and care systems more efficient and sustainable, creating business opportunities and 
thus  strengthening the industrial  base in  Europe,  in  particular the active and healthy  ageing 
sector. 

AAL2 brings together a highly relevant combination of beneficiaries, 
including SMEs and end-user organisations that do not typically 
participate in Horizon 2020 

The Programme  succeeded  in  reaching its  two main target  groups:  SMEs constitute 40.3%, 
and  end-user  organisations  26.3%  of  beneficiaries.  Universities  and  research  institutes 
constitute  another  25%  of  Programme  beneficiaries.  Analysis  shows  that  these  universities 
and research organisations are significantly involved in Horizon 2020, which can be seen as a 

41 

 
marker  of  research  excellence.  The  Programme  therefore  brings  together  some  of  the  top 
research  performing  bodies  in  Europe  with  private  companies  (mostly  SMEs)  and  end-user 
organisations  that  do  not  typically  participate  in  Horizon  2020.  In  particular  SMEs  benefit 
from the strong national embedding (local contact points and funding rules) which lowers the 
barriers  for  them  to  participate  in  the  Programme.  In  addition,  the  number  of  user 
organisations among beneficiaries of new projects has increased steeply during AAL2. 

However, as stated by the  Interim Evaluation  of AAL2  and the Final Evaluation  of AAL1, 
scale is important. The Programme aimed to make a sizeable difference to the development 
of the market, and the lives and well-being of its target audiences. Large enterprises typically 
have the market power, expertise and production capacity to introduce new products at scale 
and pace, and therefore should be encouraged to engage in this market. Yet large enterprises, 
initially  not  defined  as  a  core  target  group  of  the  Programme,  only  represent  5%  of 
Programme beneficiaries. 

The Programme is well managed thanks to flexible implementation 
methods and a strong leadership role by the CMU 

The  Article  185  Partnership  that  underpins  AAL2  has  implications  for  the  governance  and 
implementation of the Programme. In terms of its implementation, the possibility of having 
varying  levels  of  commitment  of  Participating  States  has  proved  to  be  an  advantage  in 
launching  the  initiative  and  pioneering  its  objectives.  However,  it  also  involves  risks,  for 
example if too many countries choose to opt out or reduce their financial commitments. 

A  key  strength  of  the  AAL2  Partnership  is  that  it  allows  the  Programme  tapping  into  the 
energy  and  enthusiasm  of  Participating  States.  This  allowed  for  the  development  of  the 
landscape for digital solutions and established the agenda for active and healthy ageing. It has 
also provided the CMU with a degree of managerial flexibility in adapting the Programme, 
implementing  improvements  and  inspiring  change.  In  contrast  to  the  concerns  expressed  in 
the Interim Evaluation, the restructured CMU was able to provide strategic leadership during 
the second phase of the AAL2 Programme. Stakeholders noted that because of this proactive 
leadership, the Programme has been able to adjust swiftly to new insights and demands and 
implement  a  number  of  improvements.  Both  the  leadership  style  and  the  governance 
arrangements have been judged as inclusive and transparent. 

A characteristic of the AAL2 Partnership is the combination of a centrally organised project 
selection  process  based  on  excellence  criteria  with  a  decentralised  mechanism  of  project 
funding.  In  this,  the  success  of  each  application  depends  on  both  its  excellence  and  the 
availability of national  funding. This mechanism adds  complexity in  cases  where proposals 
have received high quality scores and funding is available for some partners involved, but not 
for all (if respective national budgets have been exhausted). This leads to a budget utilisation 

42 

 
rate of just under 80%57, which is sub-optimal from Union’s budget consumption perspective. 
However, the central project selection process can be seen as an advantage as it helps national 
funders to focus on projects that are competitive at European level. 

The Programme has made progress towards its objectives, but the 
complex nature of the market constrains the swift uptake of solutions 

AAL2  has  made  substantial  efforts  to  improve  the  supply  side  of  the  market  through  the 
development  of  digital  solutions  and  supporting  their  marketisation  and  commercialisation. 
The Programme has also increasingly addressed barriers on the demand-side of the markets. 
However, many challenges to the uptake of solutions lie outside the scope of the Programme. 
The  market  for  digital  solutions  for  active  and  healthy  ageing  is  still  fragmented  and 
immature,  especially  on  the  demand-side.  The  demand  for  digital  solutions  is  shaped  by  a 
host  of  factors  such  as  cultural  expectations  towards  older  age  and  care,  the  acceptance  of 
technology, the digital literacy of its users, cross-sectorial collaboration and the organisation 
of care delivery and funding within health and care systems. The demand-side is also shaped 
by  a  number  of  intermediaries,  such  as  insurers  and  public  funders.  These  factors  in 
combination determine whether digital solutions are seen as acceptable and whether they will 
be  taken  up.  It  is  therefore  necessary  to  understand  that  a  wider  approach  to  system 
transformation  and  far-reaching  integration  is  needed  to  fully  use  the  potential  of  digital 
solutions for active and healthy ageing. 

Compared  with  AAL1,  there  was  a  positive  trend  in  the  number  of  solutions  launched  and 
individual end-users reached under AAL2. The potential of the solutions to impact positively 
on  the  quality  of  life  of  older  people  and  their  carers  has  been  demonstrated  by  the  survey 
conducted as part of the 2021 Programme Impact Study. However, these preliminary finding 
is based on a small number of completed projects58 at this point in time. 

In  addition,  beneficiaries  gained  substantial  knowledge  beyond  the  technological  R&I 
expertise.  Substantial  gains  in  knowledge  were  achieved  in  relation  to  an  increased 
understanding  of  user  needs  and  developing  business  and  commercialisation  strategies. 
Beneficiaries also confirmed the positive effects of the Programme on networking and mutual 
learning.  These  effects  were  strengthened  by  deploying  a  coherent  portfolio  of  Support 
Actions that have been widely judged as effective and supportive by beneficiaries, NCPs and 
other stakeholders. 

Overall, it can be concluded that the AAL2 Programme has achieved positive results at the 
output and outcome levels within its remit. However, while it has supported beneficiaries in 
overcoming market  barriers, the Programme was not  able to  remove these barriers entirely. 

57  A large share of the underspend is due to a lack of selected proposals in some countries. This may be due to 
a variety of different factors, including a low number of relevant actors in the respective country or a lack of 
awareness of the Programme. 

58  Third  edition  of  the  AAL  Programme  impact  assessment,  Analytical  report  final,  http://www.aal-

europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/IA-AAL-Final-summary-report-FINAL.pdf, p. 40 

43 

 
                                                 
As  a  consequence,  the  impact  of  the  Programme  is  limited  by  the  difficult  market 
environment in which it operates with challenges remaining, particularly on the demand-side. 
Addressing the fragmentation of  the supply side  was  a key motivation  for the initiating the 
Programme.  However,  AAL2  has  also  shown  how  the  fragmentation  of  the  demand-side 
creates barriers to uptake and market success of digital innovation. 

5.2 

Lessons learned 

The  following  section  presents  key  lessons  learned  on  governance  and  implementation 
relevant to policy, strategy and operational levels. 

Policy level 

There  is  continued  need  for  actions  at  the  intersection  of  digital  innovation  and 
demographic  change  to  support  active  and  healthy  living,  and  secure  the  future  of 
health and care systems. 

By mobilising technological innovation and entrepreneurship to address the consequences of 
demographic change and strengthen the sustainability of health and care systems, the AAL2 
Programme  addressed  many  opportunities  of  active  and  healthy  ageing  and  actively 
contributed to developing a positive perspective on ageing. In doing so, it has opened a space 
to  bring  together  stakeholder  groups  that  previously  had  little  or  no  interaction  and  that 
worked productively together to develop novel solutions. 

A wider approach to system transformation is needed to develop the market and 
overcome the barriers to market impact. 

The AAL2 Programme evidenced that the demand for digital solutions is shaped by a host of 
factors, such as cultural  expectations towards older age and care, acceptance of technology, 
the organisation of care delivery and financing within health and care systems. The demand-
side is also shaped by a number of intermediaries, such as insurers and public funders. These 
factors determine whether digital solutions are seen as acceptable and whether they present a 
likelihood of being taken up. 

There is an opportunity to tap into the energy of an ‘alliance of early movers’ to 
promote technological and social innovation for ageing well in Europe. 

The AAL2 Programme brought countries together in an ‘alliance of early movers’ that were 
willing  to  promote  innovative  solutions  for  active  and  healthy  ageing  and  develop  the 
research  communities  and  market  in  Europe  and  beyond.  By  tapping  into  the  energy  and 
enthusiasm of those wanting to participate, the Programme has managed to set the agenda for 
active and healthy ageing and establish the role of digital innovation in the field. 

Strategy level 

Strategies for deploying and scaling up innovation for ageing well require all actors 
along the value chain to be involved. 

44 

 
The  AAL2  Programme  succeeded  in  bringing  together  a  highly  relevant  combination  of 
stakeholders,  including  SMEs,  end-user  organisations,  and  research  organisations.  The 
ongoing digital transformation of the health and care systems should  be based on strategies 
for  deploying  and  scaling  up  innovation,  involving  the  entire  value  chain  including 
innovative SMEs but also large enterprises, who typically have the market power, expertise 
and  production  capacity  to  commercialise  products  and  services  at  scale.  An  ecosystem 
perspective  applied  to  the  value  chain  also  requires  strategic  involvement  of  state  and  sub-
state  stakeholders  such  as  regions  and  social  insurance  organisations  that  structure  the 
demand-side. 

Continuous  learning  and  providing  focused  support  are  vital  for  adapting  to 
challenges and changing expectations. 

The AAL2 Programme  has  nurtured a culture of continuous  learning and improvement and 
established supporting processes to implement this culture. In addition to regular monitoring 
and  auditing  practices  linked  to  the  transnational  calls  and  projects,  the  Programme 
developed a portfolio of Support Actions for capacity building and community development. 
This  approach to  continuous learning, trial  and  error  and improvement is highly productive 
and a demonstration of good practice. 

Operational level 

Support Actions are cost-effective add-ons to call funding, strengthening an initiative 
in view of reaching its objectives. 

The AAL2 Programme has developed a portfolio of accompanying activities that have been 
successful and cost-effective in supporting beneficiaries to meet and learn from each other. It 
has also helped them to understand the market, develop viable commercialisation strategies, 
and consider the wider ecosystem of digital solutions for active and healthy living, including 
health and care systems. 

Support  Actions  are  particularly  effective  if  they  are  tailored  to  the  needs  of  their  target 
groups and provided at a suitable time in the lifecycle of projects. They must be responsive to 
the  development  of  policy,  technology  and  markets,  and  based  on  a  good  understanding  of 
the  challenges  experienced  during  the  implementation.  They  are  particularly  useful  for 
building  networks,  supporting  commercialisation  expertise,  developing  an  ecosystem 
perspective to social innovation and for strengthening the visibility of the Programme. 

The  combination  of  a  centrally  organised  project  selection  process  and  a 
decentralised funding mechanism has benefits but also comes with challenges. 

Future  partnerships  should  allow  for  a  mix  of  structural  and  creative  approaches  to  finding 
solutions for difficulties resulting from decentralisation. This could include the development 
of shared mechanisms and standardised tools that help simplify the scientific, managerial and 
financial coordination of the Partnership. 

45 

 
ANNEX I. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead DG 

The EC’s DG for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (CNECT) is the lead 
DG for this evaluation (PLAN/2022/520). 

Organisation and timing 

The  Commission  published  a  call  for  evidence  on  the  final  evaluation  of  the  ‘Active  and 
assisted living joint research and development programme’ on 22 July 2022 that was open for 
feedback until 2 September 2022. 

Three partnerships based on Article 185 TFEU (AAL2, Eurostars-2 and the Partnership for 
Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA)) have evaluations  due by the 
end  of  2022.  In  this  context,  DG  Research  and  Innovation  set  up  one  inter-service  steering 
group (ISSG) to guide the three evaluations.  

The  ISSG  was  established  on  4  July  2022  involving  representatives  from  the  Secretariat-
General, DG for Research and Innovation, DG for Communications Networks, Content and 
Technology,  DG  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  DG  for  Informatics,  DG  for 
Budget,  DG  for  Competition,  DG  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and  Culture,  DG  for 
Environment, DG for Migration and Home Affairs, DG for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, 
DG for Structural Reform Support, the Joint Research Centre and the Executive Agency for 
Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises.  The  ISSG  contributed  to  the  evaluation  and  ensured 
that  it  met  the  necessary  standards  for  quality.  Two  meetings  were  held  between  July  and 
October  2022.  A  third  one  took  place  to  present  Eurostars-2  draft  Commission  report  and 
draft Staff Working Document. 

Evidence, sources and quality 

This evaluation report drew on the following sources of evidence: 

 

Independent expert report on the final evaluation of AAL2, 202259 

  Third edition of the AAL Programme Impact assessment, 202160 

  Learnings from the 2019 and 2020 AAL Impact assessment61 

59 

Independent  Expert  Report  (September  2022).  Active  and  Assisted  Living  Research  and  Development 
Programme  (AAL2)  final  evaluation  -  Study  in  support  of  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  European 
Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Innovation  Horizon  2020,  Prognos,  PPMI,  Publications  Office, 
2022, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/068757 

60  http://www.aal-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/IA-AAL-Final-summary-report-FINAL.pdf 

61  http://www.aal-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/AAL-IA-2020-Final-report-.pdf  

46 

 
 
                                                 
  2019 Impact assessment report62 

  2016 Impact assessment report63 

  AAL Market and Investment Report, 201864 

  Market Observatory study in the Ambient Assisted Living field, 201865 

  AAL report on the Medical devices Regulation implication for technologies targeting 

Active and Healthy Ageing, 202166 

  Action  Aimed  at  Promoting  Standards  and  Interoperability  in  the  Field  of  AAL, 

201567 

  AAL2 project Call results and annual statistical reports68 (calls 2014 to 2020) 

 

Interim Evaluation of the Active and Assisted Living programme, 201769  

  Meta-evaluation of Article 185 initiatives, 201770 

 

Impact  assessment  on  the  EU’s  participation  in  the  AAL  research  and  development 
programme  jointly  undertaken  by  several  Member  States,  2013  (SWD(2013)  252 
final)71 

  Annual AAL Programme Reviews (Commission supported by external experts) 

External expertise 

Expert advice has been widely used to prepare the Commission Staff Working Document. It 
mainly includes the study commissioned by the EC. The contractor was PPMI together with 
Prognos. The study has been published as Independent Expert Report72. 

62  http://www.aal-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/aal-impact-assesment-1.pdf  

63  http://www.aal-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/First-AAL-Impact-Assessment-

Results_Technopolis-Group_Final-Report-2016.pdf 

64  http://www.aal-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/AAL-Market-report-Technopolis-180604.pdf  

65  http://www.aal-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Final-report-SA-Market-observatory.pdf  

66  http://www.aal-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/AAL-and-the-new-EC-Medical-Devices-regulation-

final.pdf 

67  http://www.aal-europe.eu/promoting-standards-and-interoperability-in-aal/  

68  http://www.aal-europe.eu/projects-main/call-report-and-statistics/  

69  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6a22bc32-ad66-11e7-837e-01aa75ed71a1  

70  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3966c4a7-b47c-11e7-837e-01aa75ed71a1/language-

en  

71  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0252&from=en 

72  See footnote 59 

47 

 
                                                 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

The final  evaluation  addresses the seven  years of operation of the AAL2 programme, from 
June 2014 to June 2021, in line with the five evaluation criteria of the Commission’s Better 
Regulation  Guidelines,  complemented  with  two  additional  partnership-specific  criteria  on 
‘additionality’ and the ‘transparency & openness’ of the partnership. 

Methodology, sources of information and data analysis 

The  evaluation  methodology  built  on  different  analysis  methods  and  data  sources.  The 
evaluation is mainly informed by the support study73, incorporating 2 case studies, using the 
wealth  of  evidence  already  collected  by  previous  studies,  such  as  prior  evaluations, 
programme  impact  assessments,  self-assessment  reports,  annual  reviews  (Commission 
supported  by  external  experts)  and  other  reports  (full  list  see  Annex  I.  Procedural 
Information).  The  evaluation  also  encompassed  statistical  information  about  the  AAL2 
programme  and  the  ‘2021  Programme  Impact  Study’74,  provided  by  the  dedicated 
implementation structure (CMU) managing the programme. 

Support study: Design and used methods 

Prognos, as part of a consortium led by PPMI, carried out a support study to provide input for 
this evaluation. The study was delivered over a period of nine months. The study team used 
triangulation  of  data  from  the  different  data  collection  activities  as  a  method  to  arrive  at 
robust and evidence-based results that could be confirmed by more than one source. 

The methodology for the support study was based on: 

  Desk-based research; 
 
Interviews; 
  Case studies; 
  Analysis of funding and administrative data; 
  Other quantitative methods. 

The  data  and  information  collected  through  the  above  methods  were  mapped  against  the 
different  evaluation  criteria  and  individual  sub-questions.  The  study  team  then  performed 
individual  assessments.  These  individual  assessments  were  discussed,  validated  and  refined 
in two workshops. 

A  key  source,  in  particular  for  the  assessment  of  the  Effectiveness  criterion,  has  been  the 
2021 Programme Impact Assessment carried out by IDEA Consult on behalf of AALA. It is 

73  See footnote 59 

74  See footnote 60 

48 

 
 
                                                 
largely based on a survey of 91 AAL2 participants, covering 38 AAL2 projects that had been 
completed by December 2019. The secondary analysis and use of this evidence has been one 
of  the  pillars  of  the  study  design.  In  addition,  the  desk  research  retrieved  information  from 
various  published  documents  such  as  pertinent  strategic,  operational  and  policy  documents, 
and annual programme reports. 

The  quantitative  findings  were  enriched  with  qualitative  information  from  27  interviews75 
with Programme participants, Programme officials, NCPs, project beneficiaries and a wider 
variety  of  stakeholders  (see  Annex  V.  Stakeholders  consultation  for  full  list).  These 
interviews  had  a  dual  purpose:  part  of  the  questions  were  directly  related  to  the  evaluation 
criteria,  other  questions  were  primarily  linked  to  two  case  studies  that  accompanied  the 
evaluation. Interviews were conducted in a semi-structured format, i.e. using topic guides that 
provided a general structure, but leaving the flexibility to zoom in on specific aspects when 
relevant. 

Case studies 

Two  case  studies  have  been  conducted  to  explore  specific  areas  of  interest,  to  complement 
evaluation questions and to provide relevant learnings to inform future programmes.  

  case study 1: ‘Support Actions for capacity development and community building’; 
  case study 2: ‘Learnings from the AAL2 Public-Public Partnership Approach’.  

The case studies largely drew on desk research and interviews. While being standalone cases, 
they also inform the assessments of several evaluation criteria in the final evaluation support 
study. 

Case study 1 focussed on the contributions of the AAL2 Support Actions to capacity building 
of  programme  beneficiaries,  to  strengthening  and  building  the  wider  community  of  AAL 
stakeholders. It examines the evolution of the Support Actions portfolio from its initial focus 
on strengthening end-user involvement to  an ecosystem approach to  enable societies to  use 
the full potential of digital technologies for active and assisted living. 

The  focus  of  case  study  2  is  on  the  Partnership  approach  underpinning  AAL2  and  its 
contribution to achieving Programme objectives and identifies possible learnings. It maps the 
structures,  processes  and  tools  of  the  AAL2  Partnership  and  analyses  its  strengths  and 
weaknesses  with  the  overall  aim  to  identify  learnings  from  the  experience  of  the  AAL2 
Partnership relevant to other (future) programmes. 

The full case study reports are available as annexes to the support study report76. 

75  Out of the 27 interviewees, 4 had provided their responses in writing 

76  See footnote 59 

49 

 
 
                                                 
Case study questions 
Case study 1 
What  are  the  key  characteristics  of  the 
Support Actions and how did they contribute 
to the objectives of the AAL Programme? 

extent  did 

the  Programme 
To  what 
demonstrate  flexibility  towards  adapting  the 
Support Actions to cope with changing needs 
and context? 
To  what  extent  have  Support  Actions 
contributed  to  developing  the  capacities  of 
project 
the  wider 
community? 

beneficiaries 

and 

established 

What is the impact of the Programme on EU 
and  national  policy  aimed  at  facilitating  or 
supporting uptake of AAL technologies 
Case study 2 
Which  structures,  processes  and  tools  have 
been 
the 
to 
Partnership  approach 
that  provide  key 
learnings to other programmes? 
these 
How  effective  and  efficient  are 
Partnership structures, processes, and tools in 
achieving  the  Programme  objectives?  Are 
measures aimed at improving the Partnership 
and sustaining its effects appropriate? 

implement 

What  are  the  key  learnings  relevant  to  other 
programmes  at  the  end  of  their  lifecycle  in 
view of creating lasting impacts? 

Analysis of funding and administrative data 

Criteria 

Mapping of Support Actions 
Programme level e.g. needs identified, target 
groups, 
time-
frequency/intensity,  KPIs, 
limited actions 
Activities by Member State partners 
Evolution and adaptation over time 
Changing needs/demands 
Changing context 

to  knowledge  (e.g.  market, 

Contribution 
systems, regulation) 
Networking  and  community  building  (e.g. 
investors) 
Support  and  care  systems  (e.g.  awareness, 
openness) 
EU  level  or  regional  policy  changes  in 
support of AAL 

Key characteristics of the Partnership 
e.g.  governance  structure,  mechanisms  for 
aligning goals and objectives, financial rules, 
monitoring and reporting; evolution 
Analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the 
Partnership, e.g.  
Flexibility of adjusting to changing markets 
and needs 
Openness to new participants 
EU  value  added  as  opposed  to  national 
activities 
Conclusions and recommendations for future 
actions 

The study team  has also conducted a thorough analysis of funding  and administrative data, 
which  have  been  provided  by  the  CMU.  These  data  included  information  on  applications 
received,  funding  committed,  funding  actually  spent  and  projects  launched,  etc.  They  were 
analysed along different dimensions, including overall level, disaggregation by countries and 
disaggregation by types of organisation. 

Other quantitative methods 

A  calculation  of  centrality  score  has  been  conducted,  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  AAL2 
beneficiaries  were  integrated  into  the  broader  Horizon  2020  R&I  network.  For  this,  the 

50 

 
 
contractor  has  scrapped  the  URLs  of  all  AAL2  participants  from  the  AAL  website. 
Subsequently, these were matched to the URLs of H2020 participants available in CORDA, 
to identify the PIC numbers of relevant organisations. Next, the analysis was extended to the 
full  list  of  Horizon  2020  projects  and  participations.  Based  on  this  analysis,  the  extent  to 
which AAL2 participants are integrated into Horizon 2020 R&I networks was established. 

Finally,  the  contractor  conducted  an  analysis  of  investment  data  related  to  AAL2 
beneficiaries.  For  this,  the  contractor  made  use  of  the  Dealroom  platform.  Dealroom 
provides data on investments in companies by various business organisations such as banks, 
investors or business angels. While it is not possible to link investment data to specific AAL2 
projects, they may provide interesting contextual information. From a dataset that contained 
the  URLs  of  703  AAL2  participants,  205  participants  (i.e.  approximately  30%)  could  be 
matched to data entries included in the Dealroom database. Dealroom identified investments 
being made in 35 out of those 205 organisations (i.e. approximately 17%) between 2014 and 
2020. 

Limitations and reliability of data 

Time table final evaluation 

The final transnational project call was launched in December 2020 and from mid-2021, the 
AAL2 Programme is gradually being phased out. Approximately 40% of the AAL2 research 
projects are still ongoing77. Activities will stop completely once ongoing projects have ended. 
The Programme is expected to close by end 2027 at the latest. 

The  present  evaluation  was  informed  by  the  updated  intervention  logic  (Figure  1)  that 
underpins  the  implementation  of  the  AAL2  Programme  and  focuses  on  the  outputs,  and 
outcomes  levels  (blue-coloured  parts  of  the  framework).  Data  on  the  long-term  impacts 
(green, red and orange parts in Figure 1) of the AAL2 Programme are still emergent. 

For  a  definitive  assessment  of  long-term  results  (+5  years  after  project  completion)  and 
Programme impacts it is too early because they include both direct and indirect macro-level 
results enabled by the Programme  and  depend on the projects’ outcomes and the uptake of 
the results ideally 2-3 years after project implementation. Furthermore they can also depend 
on external factors of context and barriers, such as the availability of funding from internal or 
external  investors,  the  regulatory  framework,  the  business  cycle,  market  developments, 
competition, sales and marketing efforts, etc. factors which lie outside the scope of the AAL2 
Programme. 

Small sample sizes of the Programme Impact Studies 

A key source for the assessment of impact and effectiveness criteria was the ‘Third edition of 
the AAL Programme impact assessment from 2021’ conducted by IDEA Consult. It studied a 

77  Status  151  AAL2  projects  end  2021:  78  finished;  59  ongoing;  last  projects  are  estimated  to  be  finalised 

mid-2025. 

51 

 
                                                 
relatively  small  sample  size  of  38/151  AAL2  projects  completed  by  December  2019  and 
interviewed involved AAL2 beneficiaries. 282 participants involved in the 38 projects where 
invited  to  a  survey.  While  the  survey  yielded  a  high  response  rate  of  34.7%  (91  complete 
responses and 7 partial), and each of these 38 projects  had been covered by  at  least  one of 
these 91 complete responses, the effective sample size of projects covered was small. 

Also, the number of respondents that had participated in AAL Support Actions and were able 
to reply to related questions were limited: 33 respondents had participated in AAL2Business 
and 56 respondents had participated in the AAL Forum. The sample size was even smaller for 
those questions about the effects of solutions on older people and their carers: only 13 of 91 
respondents were in a position to answer these questions because they had launched solutions 
on  the  market.  This  means  that  these  numbers  are  illustrative  rather  than  statistically 
representative. 

The answers reflect the views of a limited sample of relevant stakeholders linked to the small 
number of projects finalised at the time of inquiry. 

Given the constraints imposed by the time table for current final evaluation of the Programme 
and  the  relatively  high  number  of  still  ongoing  AAL2  research  projects,  this  was  the 
maximum sample size that could be attained at the time of the assessment. 

Furthermore, the evaluation results have been clustered per targeted Programme beneficiaries 
(industry, older adults and support and care systems). This is not a direct one-on-one relation 
between  the  initial  Programme  strategic  objectives,  nevertheless  the  assessment  of 
programme  effectiveness  has  been  structured  in  this  document  according  to  the  strategic 
objectives  in  order  to  ensure  coherence  with  both  the  interim-evaluation  and  the  Better 
Regulation Guidelines. 

The available datasets provided by the CMU were considered as highly reliable. 

The  impact  of  the  above  limitations  was  mitigated  to  a  maximum  possible  extent,  in 
particular by counter balancing lacking reliable quantitative data with qualitative data and the 
long list of studies and sources of additional evidence listed in Annex I. 

Critical assessment of work carried out by external contractor 

The  work  carried  out  by  the  contractors  is  of  good  quality.  The  conclusions  of  the  support 
study  are  sound  and  based  on  a  good  understanding  of  the  complexities  inherent  to  the 
AAL2’s  underlying  indirect  management  model  for  ‘Article  185  TFEU  partnerships’  with 
Member States. The Commission services agree with the conclusions presented. 

52 

 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

Evaluation Matrix 

Evaluation question 

Judgment criteria 

Indicator 

Data sources 

Relevance 

To  what  extent  have  the  objectives 
of  the  AAL2  partnership  been,  and 
are  still  relevant  vis-à-vis  of  the 
needs  and  problems  addressed  by 
the  Research  and  Innovation  (R&I) 
Framework programme? 

JC  1.1:  The  objectives  of  AAL2 
Programme  continue  to  be  relevant 
vis-à-vis  of  the  needs  and  problems 
addressed  by  the  R&I  Framework 
programme,  namely  demographic 
change and digital technologies. 

Do  the  challenges  of  demographic 
change  and  digital  transformation 
remain valid and will their relevance 
increase in the future? 

JC  1.2:  The  AAL2  Programme  has 
proved  to  be  flexible  in  responding 
to  new 
insights  and  changing 
demands. 

How  flexible  has  the  partnership 
been? 

Percentage  of  the  EU  population 
aged  65  and  over/aged  80  and  over 
(current and projected) 

Document review 

Interviews 

Market  size  of  AAL  products  and 
services 

Number  of  investors  (ICT  field, 
service and care providers) 

and 

‘prominence’ 

Number 
of 
references to demographic challenge 
and  ICT-based  solutions 
in  EU 
policy and strategy documents 

and 

of 
Number 
adjustments/improvements that have 
been made to the Programme 

degree 

Coherence 

How  well  do  the  different  actions 
work together, internally (i.e. to  the 

JC  2.1:  The  different  activities  of 
AAL2 work well together internally, 

Evidence on how AAL2 is coherent  Document review 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
partnership,  with  other  partnerships 
and  with  other  R&I  Framework 
programme  activities),  and  with 
interventions/policies 
other  EU 
(complementarities, 
synergies, 
overlaps)?  Did  AAL2  Programme 
demonstrate  complementarity  with 
relevant 
interventions/policies  at 
national level? 

are well aligned with each other and 
with the three strategic objectives of 
the Programme. 

JC  2.2:  The  different  activities  of 
AAL2  work  well  with  other  EU 
policies,  are  well  aligned  with  the 
EU’s  overarching  policy  objectives. 
AAL2  is  complementary  to  other 
relevant programmes and initiatives. 

Public  consultation  on  Article  185 
initiatives of 2017 

Interviews 

Cordis  data 
centrality score) 

(for  calculation  of 

internally 

Degree  to  which  AAL2  created 
synergies  between  its  Programme 
activities and projects 

Evidence on how AAL2 is coherent 
with/complementary  to  other  EU 
initiatives 

Degree  to  which  AAL2  engaged 
with  the  active  and  healthy  living 
community  such  as  with  the  EIP 
AHA and JPI MYBL 

Number of international participants 
to the yearly AAL Forums 

Degree to which AAL2 collaborated 
with other EU initiatives 

to  which  AAL2  was 
at 

activities 

to 

Degree 
complementary 
national level 

Efficiency 

What is the relationship between the 
resources  used  by  the  partnership 

JC  3.1:  The  costs  and  efforts  for 
the 
governing 

operating 

and 

Involvement  of  AAL2  participants 
in Horizon 2020 (centrality score) 

Smoothness  of 

the  governance  Document review 

54 

 
 
 
 
Partnership  have  been  appropriate 
(operational efficiency). 

JC  3.2:  The  resources  used  by  the 
in 
Partnership  are  proportionate 
is 
it 
relation 
generating (cost-effectiveness). 

the  changes 

to 

JC  3.3:  The  costs  borne  by  the 
stakeholders  were  proportionate  to 
the associated benefits. 

and the changes it is generating? 

the 

implementation  of 

the 
Has 
Programme been efficient as regards 
the 
its 
governance 
the 
performance  of 
administrative burden at Programme 
and project level? 

structure, 
the  CMU, 

for 
How  did  processes 
flexibility needs in implementation? 

cater 

Has  the  Partnership  been  flexible 
towards  adjusting 
its  objectives, 
activities  and  resources  to  changing 
circumstances? 

How cost-effective has AAL been? 

How proportionate were the costs of 
application  and  participation  borne 
by  different  stakeholder  groups, 
taking  into  account  the  associated 
benefits? 

Effectiveness 

structure and processes 

MTR Satisfaction Survey of 2020 

Public  consultation  on  Article  185 
initiatives of 2017 

Interviews 

AAL2 
monitoring data 

administrative 

and 

Performance of the CMU 

Administrative burden 

total 

between 

budget 
Ratio 
committed  by  Participating  States 
and  annual  budget  contracted  over 
the Programme period 

Extent  to  which  AAL2  has  been 
in  adjusting  objectives, 
flexible 
activities  and  resources  to  changing 
market and policy needs 

Percentage  of  administrative  costs 
and of spending on Support Actions 
in the annual Programme budget 

What  is  the  progress  made  towards 
the objectives of the partnership and 
the  R&I  Framework 
those  of 
the 
programme, 

including 

JC  4.1:  AAL2  made  progress 
towards  the  strategic  Programme 
objectives  of  the  Partnership  and 
those of the Framework programme 

Evolution  of  end-users  involvement 
in funded projects 

Number of solutions on the market 

55 

edition 

of 
impact 

the  AAL 
assessment 

Third 
Programme 
(2021) 

 
 
 
 
contribution  to  EU  priorities  and 
Sustainable Development Goals? 

In  particular,  what  is  the  progress 
made 
strategic 
the 
Programme objectives: 

towards 

for 

products 
active 

  Enhance  the  availability  of 
and 
ICT-based 
services 
and 
healthy  ageing,  to  improve 
the  quality  of  life  of  older 
people  and  their  carers,  and 
the 
increase 
help 
care 
of 
sustainability 
systems; 

of 

  Create/maintain  a  critical 
trans-European 
mass 
applied 
research, 
development  and  innovation 
for  ICT-based  products  and 
services  for  ageing  well,  in 
particular 
involving  SMEs 
and users; 

  Leverage/maintain 
private 
improve 
investments  and 
conditions 
industrial 
for 
exploitation  by  providing  a 
coherent 
for 
European 
developing 
approaches  and 
solutions 
including common minimum 

framework 

including  the  contribution  to  EU 
Sustainable 
and 
priorities 
Development Goals.  

learned 

JC  4.2:  Adequate  systems  were  put 
to  produce  and  share 
in  place 
from 
lessons 
implementation 
results 
achieved,  for  policy  making  and 
between  Framework  programme 
interventions. 

and 

Perceived improvement of quality of 
life through developed solutions 

Impact  assessments  of  2019  and 
2020 

Interviews 

AAL2 
monitoring data 

administrative 

and 

Dealroom  data  (Dealroom.co)  and 
Pitchbook 

Number 
participating in each call 

of 

organisations 

Number of proposals and of projects 
funded 

Percentage  of  SMEs  and  of  end-
users among applicants 

SMEs and end-users participation in 
projects 

Geographical 
applicants and project participants 

distribution 

of 

Learnings identified by participants 

Degree  to  which  AAL2  has  helped 
to develop networks among relevant 
actors in the Participating States 

Involvement  of 
players 

large 

industry 

Support  for  business  planning  to 
strengthen commercialisation 

Beneficiaries’  own  contributions 
and private investments 

56 

 
standards  that  meet  varying 
national  and  regional  social 
preferences  and  regulatory 
aspects. 

Were adequate systems  put in place 
to  produce  and  share  lessons  learnt 
and  results  achieved,  for  policy 
R&I 
making 
Framework 
programme 
interventions? 

between 

and 

To what extent does the programme 
communication/valorisation  strategy 
allow  identifying,  capitalising  upon 
transferring  good 
and  (possibly) 
practices/results? 

EU added value 

the  additional  value 
What 
is 
resulting 
the  partnership 
from 
compared  to  the  value  resulting 
from 
national 
interventions or with other forms of 
AAL2 
Has 
implementation? 
inspired new initiatives? 

regional 

or 

Includes 
specific  question  of  how 

the  partnership-
the 

also 

JC  5.1:  The  value  resulting  from 
AAL2 that is additional to the value 
that  could  result  from  interventions 
carried  out  at  regional  or  national 
level  or  with  other 
forms  of 
implementation  is  positive.  AAL2 
inspired new initiatives. 

JC  5.2:  AAL2  has  helped  fostering 
international  positioning  and 
the 

Participation 
companies at investor events 

investors 

of 

and 

Ability 
to  create  a  network  of 
stakeholders  (ecosystem)  in  ICTs 
for active and healthy ageing 

Degree  to  which  AAL2  has  added 
value 
initiatives, 
national 
perspectives and/or markets. 

to 

edition 

of 
impact 

the  AAL 
assessment 

Third 
Programme 
(2021) 

Degree  to  which  AAL2  inspired 
new initiatives. 

Public  consultation  on  Article  185 
initiatives of 2017 

Number 
participating in AAL2 

non-EU 

of 

countries 

Interviews 

AAL2 

administrative 

and 

Percentage  of  the  non-EU  countries 

57 

 
 
 
 
positioning 

partnership  has  helped  fostering  the 
and 
international 
visibility  of 
the  European  R&I 
system,  and  an  assessment  of  the 
level  of  international  cooperation  at 
partnership and project level. 

visibility  of 
the  European  R&I 
system and the level of international 
cooperation  at  Partnership  and 
project  level.  The  participation  and 
level  of  involvement  of  non-EU 
countries in AAL2 is good.  

Additionality 

funding 
Programme funding 

the 

in 

total  national 

monitoring data  

Participation of non-EU countries in 
project calls 

edition 

Third 
Programme impact assessment 

of 

the  AAL 

Interviews  

AAL2 
monitoring data 

administrative 

and 

How much additional private and/or 
public  R&I 
investments  on  EU 
priorities  have  been  mobilised 
thanks  to  the  partnership,  under  the 
partnership 
of 
contribution  of  partners,  both  at 
national and European level? 

and 

top 

on 

that 

How  do  partnerships  facilitate  the 
creation  and  expansion  of  R&I 
networks 
together 
relevant  and  competent  actors  from 
across  Europe,  thus  contributing  to 
the 
the  ERA 
(European Research Area)?  

realisation 

bring 

of 

to  bring 
Has  AAL2  managed 
together  topics  and  policy  areas 
which  had  previously  been  separate 
at EU level? Has AAL2 managed to 
bring  together  stakeholder  groups 

JC  6.1:  AAL2  has  had  a  leverage 
effect  on  private  and/or  public  R&I 
investments on EU priorities both at 
national and European level. 

Extent  to  which  AAL2  managed  to 
bring  together  topics  and  policy 
areas  that  were  previously  handled 
separately (EU level) 

JC  6.2:  AAL2  managed  to  bring 
together  topics  and  policy  areas 
which  had  previously  been  separate 
at  EU  level  and  managed  to  bring 
that 
together  stakeholder  groups 
previously 
no 
or 
had 
interaction with each other. 

little 

Extent  to  which  AAL2  managed  to 
bring  together  stakeholder  groups 
that  previously  had  limited  or  no 
interaction 

Budget leverage effect 

JC  6.3:  AAL2  has  had  a  positive 
impact on the competitiveness of the 
Union’s  industry,  aimed  at  a  better 
industrial 
exploitation 
potential  of  policies  of  innovation, 
technological 
research 
and 
in 
development  (Horizon  2020), 
particular with regards to ICT based 

the 

of 

58 

 
 
 
 
that  previously  had  little  or  no 
interaction with each other? 

products and services for active and 
healthy ageing. 

To  what  extent  has  AAL2  created 
conditions  for  the  competitiveness 
of  the  Union's  industry,  aimed  at  a 
better  exploitation  of  the  industrial 
potential  of  policies  of  innovation, 
technological 
research 
development  (H2020),  in  particular 
with  regards  to  ICT  based  products 
and  services  for  active  and  healthy 
ageing? 

and 

Transparency & openness 

to 

(incl.  procedures 

How open is the partnership to new 
/ 
participants 
new 
mechanisms 
members  at  partnership  and  project 
level,  as well as  gradually engage  a 
broader  set  of  stakeholders  across 
Europe)? 

involve 

consulting 

How  transparent  are  the  processes 
relevant 
for 
stakeholders 
the 
identification of priorities? 

and 

all 

in 

JC  7.1:  AAL2  is  open  towards  new 
participants. 

JC  7.2:  AAL2  has  developed 
transparent  processes  for  consulting 
stakeholders  in  the  identification  of 
priorities. 

JC  7.3:  Accessibility  for  SMEs  is 
enabled  by  the  decentralised  set-up 
of AAL2 (national rules). 

Degree  to  which  membership  is 
to 
inclusive  and  open 
flexible, 
and 
regions 
subnational 
international project teams 

Frequency  of  consultation  of  the 
AALA members  

Percentage  of  participants  from  the 
private sector 

Share of SMEs among participants 

Interim Evaluation of AAL2 

Public  consultation  on  Article  185 
initiatives of 2017 

Interviews 

How open is it to SMEs? 

59 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS 

The data presented in table underneath is based on the results of the first AAL2 published in 2021. Although the quality of the data collected is high and 
the  overall  response  rate  to  the  underpinning  surveys  was  good,  some  limitations  on  the  robustness  of  the  methodology  should  be  taken  into 
consideration. On average the AAL2 R&I projects are 3 year projects so only a limited number of completed projects could be taken into account (38 
projects completed by end 2019, most projects issued from first 3 calls of the programme: call 2014 (20), 2015(16), 2016(2)).  

With  data  on  the  long-term  impacts  of  the  Programme  still  emerging  (see  the  section  on  Effectiveness),  an  assessment  of  the  relationship  between 
resources used and the changes which the Partnership is generating is preliminary. 

60 

 
Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses78 

Administrations 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment  

Costs on research programme level 

total 

of 

6% 
annual 
Programme 
budget 

total 

5.9%  of 
annual 
Programme 
budget 

total 

88%  of 
annual 
Programme 
budget 

countries 

in-kind 
Participating 
through  FTEs  working  on  the  Programme; 
these  efforts  are  not  quantified  and  thus  not 
included in the national contributions 

invested 

tailored 

Support  Actions  were 
to  serve 
specific needs of the programme beneficiaries 
and initiated at EU-level. Participating States’ 
delegates  were  closely 
the 
steering committees of the SA. 

involved 

in 

37% national grants (cash contribution), 33% 
EU funding, 30% private investment79 

Administrative 
Indirect-management  dedicated 
implementation  structure  cost 
(EC-level)  

recurrent 

recurrent 

of 

services 

Support Actions 
Portfolio 
and 
activities to strengthen the skills 
of 
and 
project 
the  wider 
beneficiaries  and 
community 

knowledge 

Research projects 
Grants 
R&I projects 

funding 

recurrent 

transnational 

Direct benefits 

Strengthening  the 
base in Europe 

industrial 

recurrent 

BENEFITS 

end-
Involving 
users 
the 
in 
development  of 
products 
new 
and 
services, 
increases  user-

1)  61%  of  the 
projects 
launched  a  new 
product,  systems 
or  services  on 
the market 

78 

Including health and (social) care professionals and institutions (public and private) and research organisations 

79  Based on project funding data see section 3.2 Key Programme Statistics 

61 

 
                                                 
                        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
acceptance  and 
product adoption  

of 

40% 

2) 
project 
beneficiaries  are 
SMEs  and  4.9% 
large enterprises 
3) 40% of budget 
to 
dedicated 
collaborative 
project  calls 
allocated 
SMEs 

is 
to 

recurrent 

Strengthening trans-European 
R&D network, with a market-
oriented mindset, in active and 
healthy 
digital 
ageing 
innovations 

Increased  awareness  of  ICT-
enabled solutions 

recurrent 

56.2%  of  AAL2 
participants  have 
not  participated 
a  Horizon 
in 
project 
2020 
(outside AAL2) 

62.8%  of  SMEs, 
participating 
in 
AAL2 
projects 
participants  have 
not  participated 
in 
a  Horizon 
2020 project 

AAL2 created a 
European-wide 
network of over 
a 
thousand 
in 
actors 
active&healthy 
ageing.  It  also 
created 
an 
emerging 
network 
regional 
health&care 
ecosystem in 15 
countries 

of 

25%  of  budget 
dedicated 
to 
collaborative 
project  calls  is 
allocated 
to 
end-user 
organisations 

High 
involvement  of 
end-users  (26% 
of 
project 
beneficiaries)  in 
the  development 
an 
phase  has 
important impact 
on  the  relevance 
of  the  products 
and services. 

User-testing  has 
helped  82%  of 
project 
to 
participants 
identify 
their 
customers’ needs 
more precisely. 

Capacity 

building 

and  recurrent 

1)  Organisation  68% 

of 

the   

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
transnational 
networking, 
knowledge  exchange  and  best 
practices 

Indirect benefits 

Better quality of life 

Indirect 
of 
evidence 
positive 
impact 
on  older  adults 
in 
longer 
live 
their  own  homes 
in  better  mental 
condition 

recurrent  More 

than 
60%  of 
the 
2021 IA report 
respondents 
with  an  AAL 
product/servic
the 
e 
on 
think 
market 
their 
that 
products/servic
es 
support 
older people to 
live 
independently 
at home and to 
remain 
in 
better  mental 
condition. 

Support 
health 
systems 

sustainability 

and 

(social) 

of 
care 

recurrent 

of 
8  AAL2 
forums  with  4 
800  participants. 
2)  65  projects 
participated 
in 
AAL2Business 
Support  Action 
to  increase  their 
market skills. 

project 
participants  think 
they are currently 
benefiting 
from 
the collaborations 
and networks that 
were  established 
during their  AAL 
project. 

Indirect  evidence 
positive 
of 
impact  on 
the 
and 
relevance 
quality  of  care 
visits 
and 
unburdening 
cares  with  some 
preliminary 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of 

indications 
cost-saving 
effects 

high 
The 
involvement 
of 
end-users  in  the 
development 
phase 
an 
has 
important  impact 
on  the  adoption 
of 
use 
and 
innovative 
solutions 

to 

1) 
of 
68% 
companies  could 
faster 
bring 
products 
the 
market 
2) 
evidence 
increased 
revenues 
and 
share  of  paying 
customers 

Indirect 
of 

Increased  openness  of  health 
and  care  systems 
towards 
innovative solutions 

recurrent 

Increased  Active  and  healthy 
ageing market share 

1)  5 
investor 
events organised, 
27 
involving 
investors, 
26 
different  AAL 
solutions. 
2)  35  companies 
in 
participating 
AAL2 
projects 
(2014–2020) 
received  in  total 
EUR 374 million 
of 
private 
investments.  The 
to 
direct 
specific  AAL2 
projects 
could 
not be made. 

link 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATIONS 

Overview of consultation activities 

  Beneficiaries projects MTR Satisfaction Survey, July 2020 

  Third edition of the AAL Programme impact assessment, December 2021 

  As  part  of  the  supporting  study,  in-depth  interviews  with  stakeholders  at  EU  and 

national level, 2022 

  Feedback on the call for evidence, July-August 2022 

Stakeholders consulted 

The  table  ‘Stakeholders  engaged  per  consultation  activity’  provides  an  overview  of  the 
stakeholders consulted and follows the stakeholder consultation strategy set-out in the call for 
evidence. 

Consultation activity 

Stakeholder group 

Number  of 
who responded 

stakeholders 

Beneficiaries  projects  MTR 
Satisfaction Survey 

Third  edition  of  the  AAL 
impact 
Programme 
assessment80 

Interviews  as  part  of 
supporting study 

the 

Feedback  on 
evidence document81 

the  call  for 

AAL project beneficiaries 

433 

All participants from projects 
finished  by  the  end  of  2019 
(full  survey)  and  respondents 
from 
Impact 
the  AAL 
Assessment  survey  of  2020 
(follow-up survey) 

Commission  (DG  CNECT), 
AAL  Programme  Director, 
Operations 
Programme 
Manager,  members  of 
the 
Executive  Board 
(Acting 
President,  Vice  Presidents), 
members  of 
the  Advisory 
Board; 

NCPs, 
national ministries; 

representatives 

of 

Research 
companies, 
organisations  

institutes,  private 
end-user 

Micro 
Germany, UK and Romania 

organisation 

from 

Full survey: 91 

Follow-up survey: 11 

27 

3 

80  http://www.aal-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/IA-AAL-Final-summary-report-FINAL.pdf  
81  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13531-Active-and-assisted-living-

joint-RD-programme-final-evaluation/feedback_en?p_id=31313223  

65 

 
                                                 
The call for evidence was open for feedback between 22 July 2022 and  2 September 2022. 
Feedback received is very low; only three feedbacks were submitted. The limited number of 
received responses are not pertinent and were not taken into consideration. 

Other consultation  activities (Beneficiaries projects MTR Satisfaction Survey, Third edition 
of  the  AAL  Programme  impact  assessment  and  interviews)  have  proved  very  useful.  The 
identified stakeholder groups have been reached and their inputs have been considered in the 
supporting  study  and  in  the  Staff  Working  Document.  It  is  however  to  be  noted  that  the 
Beneficiaries projects MTR Satisfaction Survey and the Third edition of the AAL Programme 
impact  assessment  were  not  conducted  specifically  within  the  scope  of  the  final  evaluation 
but provided valuable evidence to feed the different evaluation criteria. 

Overall results per consultation activity 

Beneficiaries projects MTR Satisfaction Survey 

In  the  context  of  issues  being  spotted  at  mid-term  reviews  of  AAL2  projects  related  to, 
among  others,  project  administration,  a  questionnaire  was  prepared  and  sent  to  project 
participants  for  feedback  on  their  satisfaction  regarding  the  national  and  CMU  support, 
reconfiguration of projects, grant negotiation, project execution, MTRs, etc. 

The Beneficiaries projects MTR Satisfaction Survey included positive and negative opinions: 

  The  accessibility  of  the  involved  funding  agencies  and  the  CMU,  throughout  the 

whole project life cycle was recognised in that survey. 

  Lengthy time to national grant in some funding agencies was an identified bottleneck 

in the survey (especially for SMEs). 

  The  need  for  harmonisation  between  national  and  European  frameworks  (eligibility 
criteria,  submission,  funding  rates,  grant  agreement,  reporting  and  other)  was  called 
for. 

Third edition of the AAL Programme impact assessment 

Various aspects emerged from the Third edition of the AAL Programme impact assessment, 
such as: 

Important contributions to knowledge-base, network as well as learning; 
Important learnings as regards the centrality and importance of user-involvement; 

 
 
  Positive economic effects, e.g. new solutions, new markets; 
  Value added of the international dimension; 
 
Improved awareness among target groups; 
 
Indirect evidence of positive impact on older adults living longer in their own homes 
and remaining in better mental condition; 
Indirect evidence of positive impact regarding the relevance and quality of care visits 
as well as unburdening the carers. 

 

66 

 
 
 
Interviews of the supporting study 

Finally,  as  regards  the  interviews  part  of  the  supporting  study,  overall,  the  results  were 
positive or very positive. The purpose of interviews was to enrich quantitative findings with 
qualitative  information  from  a  variety  of  stakeholder  perspectives.  The  interviews  were 
conducted  in  a  semi-structured  format,  i.e.  using  topic  guides  that  provided  a  general 
structure,  but  leaving  the  flexibility  to  zoom  in  on  specific  aspects  when  relevant.  Not  all 
questions could be given the same priority during the interviews and questions were selected 
that  were  most  pertinent  to  interviewees.  The  relevant  results  are  integrated  under  the 
respective criteria throughout the evaluation and referenced in the current document. Overall, 
the interviewees found the Programme in general useful and well organised. Specific aspects 
of the Programme and its implementation were only noted in some comments as suboptimal. 

67 

 
 
 
ANNEX VI. SET-UP OF THE PROGRAMME AND ADDITIONAL PROGRAMME STATISTICS 

Governance 

The  AAL  Programme  is  set-up  and  governed  by  the  Participating  States  via  a  dedicated 
implementation  structure,  the  AALA  set-up  as  an  international  not-for-profit  association 
under  Belgian  law  (AISBL).  The  highest  decision-making  body  of  the  AALA  is  the  GA, 
which  comprises  representatives  from  all  Participating  States  who  enjoy  the  same  voting 
rights.  If more than one agency for the same country is  present  in  the GA, a representative 
(bearing  the  country  vote)  must  be  designated.  Members  of  the  GA  are  typically  national 
funding  authorities  (ministries  and/or  funding  agencies).  In  total  21  countries  participated 
throughout  the  Programme’s  lifecycle,  16  EU  Member  States,  3  Horizon  2020  associated 
countries and 2 third-countries82,83. The Commission has observer role in the GA and a veto 
right  over  the  AWP,  and  is  also  a  party  to  the  delegation  agreement  with  the  AALA  as 
regards the EU’s financial contribution.  

The GA elects an Executive Board (EB) as the official legal representative of the Association 
responsible  for  staffing,  contracting  and  budget  planning.  The  GA  also  organises  working 
groups on specific topics such as the drafting of the  AWP or the preparation of calls.  Each 
year the Participating States, together with the EC, agree a joint AWP. This invites proposals 
for joint projects with participants from at least three partner countries, subject to a common 
evaluation procedure and co-funding from national budgets. The AWP has to be approved by 
the EC. EU funding is only committed once Participating States have made clear political and 
financial  commitments  to  the  Programme,  and  EU  payments  are  only  made  once 
Participating States have paid their contributions. 

The  Management  Unit  (Figure  9)  is  responsible  for  the  operational  management  of  the 
Programme  and  consists  of  an  EU  layer  and  a  national  layer.  The  CMU  works  closely 
together with a network of NCPs based in each member country or region. The NCPs check 
the eligibility of applicants, sign and manage the  national project grant agreements, transfer 
payments and monitor project progress. They are the most important point of contact for the 
national project consortia along with the CMU. NCPs are required to conduct ex post audits 
of expenditure on indirect actions as per Decision No 554/2014/EU. A key characteristic of 
the Programme is therefore its degree of decentralisation84. 

82  Austria,  Belgium  (2  regions),  Canada,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Israel,  Italy  (3  regions), 
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,  Romania, Slovenia,  Spain (3 regions), Sweden, 
Switzerland, Taiwan and the UK. 

83  The full list of countries and corresponding agencies who participated at some point in AAL2 can be found 
in Table 4: List of national sources for the co-financing of the AAL2 Programme over the period 2014-21 

84  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Meta-evaluation  of  Article  185 
initiatives  :  report  of  the  expert  group,  Nauwelaers,  C.(editor),  Hunter,  A.(editor),  Meyer-Krahmer, 
F.(editor), 
2017, 
Santos, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/421843, pp. 9-10. 

Publications 

D.(editor), 

F.(editor), 

Galetta, 

Office, 

68 

 
                                                 
An  Advisory  Board  of  experts  from  business,  technology,  research  and  politics  provides 
senior technical advice to the AALA. 

Figure 9: AAL Programme governance structure 
Source: Interim Evaluation of the Active & Assisted Living Programme (p. 9 and 39) 

Transnational call management 

A  well-functioning  call  management  and  implementation  process  was  put  in  place.  The 
process was adapted over the years taking into account emerging and continuously evolving 
characteristics  of  digital  technologies  as  well  as  the  learnings  on  challenges  identified  over 
the  previous  years.  This  continuous  evolution  and  learning  loop  resulted  in  a  structured 
process illustrated in the figure below. 

Figure 10: AAL2 annual project call management process 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
Support Actions portfolio 

The  Support  Action  portfolio  has  been  implemented  alongside  the  annual  transnational 
project calls. The Support Action portfolio has evolved and expanded over time and became 
more tailored to specific support needs, using insights from previous evaluations and from the 
programme impact monitoring. 

The establishment of the Support Actions portfolio distinguished four phases:  

  An  initial  focus  on  networking,  mutual  learning  and  actions  to  strengthen  the 

involvement of end-users in projects approved for funding (starting in AAL1); 

  A second phase in which Support Actions addressed specific information and capacity 
needs  of  project  teams  by  strengthening  their  market  orientation  and  business  skills 
(from 2012);  

  A  third  phase  that  supported  projects  in  bringing  their  products  and  services  to  the 
market by providing access to market intelligence tailored to the knowledge gaps of 
participants and the wider community (from 2014); 

  A  fourth  and  final  phase  which  saw  the  development  of  an  ecosystem  approach,  in 
addition to the consolidation and diversification of the Support Actions (from 2017) – 
the  ecosystem  approach  built  on  the  realisation  that  a  wider  approach  to  health  and 
care  system  transformation  is  needed  if  AAL  innovations  are  to  realise  their  full 
potential. 

Figure 11: AAL Support Actions portfolio 

AAL Forum 

Throughout  the  Programme,  the  AAL  Forum  has  been  a  key  Support  Action  bringing 
together AAL beneficiaries and the wider community to showcase project experiences, share 
good  practices  and  stimulate  mutual  learning.  As  shown  in  Figure  12,  participation  in  the 
AAL Forum varied between years, reaching a peak of 800 participants in 2017. Participation 
remained  high  in  2020  and  2021  despite  the  constraints  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  which 
caused  the  Forum  to  move  to  an  online  format.  The  AAL  Forum  continues  to  attract 
researchers, end-users, business representatives and public officials, with the largest share of 
participants  coming  from  the  EU-27  countries  (81%-89%).  A  smaller  share  of  participants 

70 

 
 
from  non-EU-27  countries,  such  as  Switzerland  (0%-7%),  the  UK  (2%-4%)  and  Norway 
(2%-4%). Participation  was  particularly strong  from Austria, Belgium,  Denmark, Germany, 
Italy,  the  Netherlands,  Romania,  Spain  and  Sweden.  The  Forum  has  also  attracted 
participants from Canada, Israel, Serbia, Taiwan and the United States85. 

Figure 12: Number of participants in the AAL Forum, per year 

624

531

800

700

657

650

450

465

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Networking  opportunities  associated  with  the  AAL  Forum  were  consistently  rated  highly 
valuable by project beneficiaries. They also found these events useful for mutual learning and 
as  source  of  inspiration  for  their  own  projects,  user  involvement  and  business  approach. 
Programme beneficiaries stated that having these learning and networking opportunities – as 
well as exposure to potential project partners, user groups and investors at the European level 
– was a key reason for participating in the AAL2 Forum. 

AAL2Business 

AAL2Business  was  launched  in  2013  as  a  Support  Action,  initially  for  a  three-year  period 
that  was  subsequently  extended  to  cover  the  entire  duration  of  the  AAL2  Programme. 
AAL2Business capitalised on the fact  that each  project  consortium had to  undergo a  MTR. 
Projects that were likely to benefit from tailored business coaching support were identified. In 
total,  154  projects  participated  in  the  AAL2Business  Support  Action,  of  which  40 
participated more than once, and a total of 51 requested business coaching. Around 60% of 
those  that  participated  noted  that  their  capabilities  to  develop  a  commercialisation  strategy 

85  Third  edition  of  the  AAL  Programme  impact  assessment,  Analytical  report  final,  December  2021, 
http://www.aal-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/IA-AAL-Final-summary-report-FINAL.pdf, p. 69. 

71 

 
 
                                                 
improved due to their participation in AAL2Business86. Of the 23 projects that launched an 
AAL  solution  or  component  in  the  market,  almost  half  (48%)  had  participated  in 
AAL2Business. 

Challenge Prize / Smart Ageing Prize 

The AAL Challenge Prize (later renamed the Smart  Ageing Prize) has  been awarded every 
two years from 2016 onwards. Calls for submissions were devoted to priority themes such as 
the  Internet  of  Things  (2016),  Social  Inclusion  through  Digitalisation  (2018)  and  Silver 
Entrepreneurship (2020). At its peak the Smart Ageing Prize attracted over 170 submissions. 
In  total,  306  applications  were  submitted  from  a  wide  spectrum  of  applicants.  Shortlisted 
entries  were  evaluated  by  a  panel  of  judges  and  semi-finalists  were  offered  additional 
business coaching. Prize winners and runners-up reported that the experience enabled them to 
generate  additional  visibility  for  their  project  and  products,  reach  new  audiences  and  build 
new partnerships.  

Market Observatory 

A Market Observatory Support Action was created in 2016 to further strengthen the market 
orientation  and  business  knowledge  of  project  beneficiaries,  and  provide  specialist  insights 
into  the  emerging  market  for  active  and  assisted  living.  Following  an  assessment  of 
beneficiaries’  information  needs,  five  Investor  Events  were  organised  in  2017  and  2018 
during  which  start-ups  learned  how  to  pitch  their  projects  to  a  panel  of  investors  ‘Dragons 
Den’  style.  Over  22  investors  took  part  in  these  events.  In  total,  32  AAL  solutions  were 
pitched at the AAL investor events. The Support Action also included the publication of an 
‘AAL  Market  and  Investment  Report’  and  a  ‘Dos  and  Don’ts  when  Finding  an  Investor’ 
booklet. 

86  Third  edition  of  the  AAL  Programme  impact  assessment,  Analytical  report  final,  December  2021, 
http://www.aal-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/IA-AAL-Final-summary-report-FINAL.pdf,  p.  18; 
p. 70; p. 71; p. 73. 

72 

 
 
 
                                                 
Programme Statistics 

Table 2 shows the number of countries financially contributing to the annual project call per 
year.  While  a  decrease  of  participation  can  be  seen  after  2014,  the  number  of  countries 
participating remained stable at around fifteen countries after 2017. The lower participation of 
countries in  2021 is linked to  the fact  that the 2021 call was an additional  call, not  initially 
planned but enabled by a desire of some countries to spend unused budget.  

Table 2: Number of participating countries in project calls, per year 

Call Year 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2021 

Number of 
participating 
countries 

Difference from 
previous year 

19 

14 

15 

14 

15 

15 

17 

13 

0 

−5 

1 

−1 

1 

0 

2 

−4 

Figure 13 shows the distribution of projects over the different application areas of AAL2, per 
year. Please note that double counting is possible and quite common, as individual projects 
can  be  linked  to  several  application  areas.  As  can  be  seen,  a  significant  proportion  of  the 
projects are linked to the field ‘Health & Care’. This trend is particularly pronounced in 2019 
and  2020,  preceding  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  least  common  application  area  is 
‘Mobility & Transport’. 

Figure 13: Number of projects per application area, per year 

25

20

15

10

5

0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Health & Care
Safety & Security
Body Functions
Other

Information & Communication
Leisure & Culture
Work & Training

Vitality & Abilities
Living & Buildings
Mobility & Transport

73 

 
 
 
 
Figure  14  illustrates  the  evolution  of  proposals  over  the  years.  The  number  of  submitted 
proposals peaked at the beginning and at the end of the Programme period. It started with 97 
proposals  (680  individual  applicants87)  in  2014,  then  fell  to  42  proposals  (357  individual 
applicant) in 2017 and rose again to 106 proposals (715 individual applicants) in 2020. The 
final  and  additional  call  2021  (with  only  13  participating  states),  saw  85  proposals  (625 
individual applicants), possibly reflecting increased interest during the pandemic. 

Figure 14: Number of proposals and individual applicants per year 

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

680

715

625

515

507

539

481

357

97

67

65

42

73

82

106

85

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Number of proposals

Number of applicants

87  Number  includes  multiple  counting  of  individual  organisations  that  participated  in  several  applications  in 

the same year.  

74 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 15 shows the share of participations in newly started projects by type of organisation, 
per  year.  As  can  be  seen,  SMEs  participations  varied  over  the  Programme  period,  yet  was 
higher  than  the  shares  of  all  other  types  in  every  single  year.  The  participation  of  end-user 
organisations saw a steep increase over the course of the Programme. 

Figure 15: Share of project participations by type of organisation, per year 

50,0%

45,0%

40,0%

35,0%

30,0%

25,0%

20,0%

15,0%

10,0%

5,0%

0,0%

End-user organisations

Large enterprises

Other

Research institutes

SMEs

Universities

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

The following table groups the project beneficiaries by number of participations. More than 
three quarters of the participants participated only once in AAL2 projects, 13.2% participated 
twice and only 10.0% participated three times or more. 

75 

 
 
Table 3: Beneficiaries grouped by number of individual participations 

Number of 
individual 
participations per 
participant 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

9 

10 

11 

15 

19 

Number of 
participants 

Share of participants 

541 

93 

27 

14 

13 

7 

2 

2 

3 

1 

1 

1 

76.8 % 

13.2 % 

3.8 % 

2.0 % 

1.8 % 

1.0 % 

0.3 % 

0.3 % 

0.4 % 

0.1 % 

0.1 % 

0.1 % 

Figure 16 depicts the overall success rate of applications throughout the years. Seen over the 
entire  Programme  duration,  24.5%  of  applications  were  successful  and  selected  for  AAL2 
funding.  

Figure 16: Success rate of applications, per year 

35,0%

30,0%

25,0%

20,0%

15,0%

10,0%

5,0%

0,0%

33,3%

28,8%

25,4%

23,1%

20,6%

25,9%

23,2%

21,7%

Call 2014 Call 2015 Call 2016 Call 2017 Call 2018 Call 2019 Call 2020 Call 2021

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Analysis per country 

Throughout  the  AAL2  Programme  lifecycle  (covering  2014-21)  following  Participating 
States and associated national funding bodies contributed to the AAL2 Programme activities 
and are/were a member of the AALA. Table 4 lists them in alphabetical order. 

Table 4: List of national sources for the co-financing of the AAL2 Programme over the period 2014-21 

1 

2A 

2B 

2C 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9A 

9B 

9C  

10A 

10B 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17A 

17B 

17C 

18 

AAL2 
Participating 
State 

Austria 

Belgium 

National Funding Agency (NFA) 

Austrian Research Promotion Agency [FFG] 

Flanders Innovation & Entrepreneurship / Agentschap Innoveren en 
Ondernemen [VLAIO] 

Belgium2* 

SPW-DGO6 Economie, Emploi et Recherche [Wallonia] 

Belgium 

Canada4* 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Hungary 

Ireland2* 

Israel1,2* 

Italy 

Italy 

Italy 

Brussels Region [Innoviris] 

Canadian Institutes of Health Research [CIHR] 

Research Promotion Foundation [RPF] 

Danish Innovation Fund 

National Innovation Office [NIH] 

Enterprise Ireland 

Israel-Europe R&D Directorate for FP7 [ISERD] 

Ministero dellˈUniversità e della Ricerca [MIUR]  

Ministry of Health [MoH] 

Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region 

Luxembourg 

Fonds National de la Recherche [FNR] 

Luxembourg 

Luxinnovation GIE 

Netherlands 

The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development 
[ZonMW] 

Norway 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Research Council of Norway 

Narodowe Centrum Badań i Rozwoju [NCBR] 

Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [FCT] 

Executive Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development and 
Innovation Funding [UEFISCDI] 

Slovenia 

Government Office for Digital Transformation 

Spain 

Spain 

Spain 

Sweden1,2* 

19 

Switzerland3* 

Ministerio de Industria, Energia y Turismo [MINETUR]  

Instituto de Salud Carlos III [ISCIII] del Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo 

Government of Biscay region 

Verket för Innovationssystem – Swedish Governmental Agency for 
Innovation [Vinnova]  

Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research [EAER]; 
State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation [SERI]; 
International Cooperation in Research and Innovation 

77 

 
 
20 

21 

Taiwan4* 

UK1* 

Ministry of Science and Technology [MOST] 

Innovate UK 

1* Participating States who contributed to the first AAL2 calls only with national funding. They are/were member of the AALA but did not 
request EU co-funding because of not signing the AAL2 bilateral agreement with the AALA to be eligible for EU co-funding as stipulated 
in the co-decision establishing the AAL2 Programme. 

 
 
 

Israel (call 2014 and 2015) 
Sweden (call 2014) 
UK (call 2014 and 2015) 

2* Participating states/regions who left the AAL2 Programme: 

  Wallonia–Belgium in December 2016 
 
 
 

Ireland in February 2017 
Sweden in March 2018 
Israel in September 2018 

3* As partly associated with Horizon 2020, Switzerland was not eligible to receive AAL co-funding from the EU until December 2016. The 
Swiss national funding body therefore augmented its national funding by the co-funding percentage granted to an AAL call by the EC.  

4* AALA third-country members not eligible for EC co-funding: 

 
 

Canada joined in September 2015 
Taiwan joined in September 2019 

78 

 
 
 
Figure  17  shows  per  country  the  number  of  individual  participations  in  proposals  over  the 
whole Programme period. The largest share came from the Netherlands with 731 applicants88. 
Switzerland and Austria rank second and third with almost 600 applicants each. The countries 
with  the  lowest  number  of  participations  in  applications  are  Sweden,  Ireland,  Taiwan  and 
Israel, all below 20 applicants. 

Figure 17: Number of Individual participations in proposals per country  

591

200

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

731

599

396

414

282

116 134 135

143

122

39

12

6

40

192

169

72

17

9

Whereas Table 5 shows the evolution of call budget  committed per participating country at 
Programme  level,  shows  the  actual  project  funding  per  country.  The  significant  drop  of 
funding  committed  by  Switzerland  after  year  one  has  technical  reasons89.  Apart  from  that, 
Spain also saw a drastic decline in funding after the first  year. Sweden, the UK and Ireland 
ceased  contributing  after  year  1,  2  and  3,  respectively.  For  all  other  countries,  the 
commitment  remained  relatively  stable  over  the  Programme  period.  The  actual  project 
funding  provided  per  country  varied  throughout  the  Programme  period,  yet  without  a  clear 
trend.  Furthermore,  as  can  be  seen  for  example  in  the  Belgian  case,  the  countries  with  the 
highest call budget commitments were not necessarily the countries with the highest amount 
of project funding being provided. 

88  Number  includes  multiple  counting  of  organisations  that  participated  in  several  applications  in  the  same 

year. 

89  Switzerland committed a particularly high amount in the first year of AAL2. This is explained by the fact 
that Swiss participants were initially not eligible for EC funding and  hence were compensated for this by 
additional funding from the Swiss funding agency. Once Switzerland became an associated country in the 
Horizon 2020 Programme, Swiss partners were eligible for EC funding. 

79 

 
 
                                                 
Table 5: Budget committed per country, per year 

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

Austria 

Belgium  

Canada 

Cyprus 

2
0
1
4

C
a
l
l

2
0
1
5

C
a
l
l

2
0
1
6

C
a
l
l

2
0
1
7

C
a
l
l

2
0
1
8

C
a
l
l

2
0
1
9

C
a
l
l

2
0
2
0

C
a
l
l

2
0
2
1

C
a
l
l

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

T
o
t
a
l

1,500,000 

2,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,000,000 

2,000,000 

2,093,931 

1,200,000 

1,470,000 

14,763,931 

2,800,000 

2,800,000 

2,900,000 

2,500,000 

2,500,000 

2,500,000 

2,300,000 

2,000,000 

20,300,000 

580,000 

232,000 

235,868 

231,779 

230000 

200,000 

200,000 

400,000 

400,000 

400,000 

400,000 

100,000 

1,509,647 

2,100,000 

Denmark 

267,000 

450,000 

500,000 

400,000 

1,363,497 

2,980,497 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Israel 

Italy 

750,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

300,000 

300,000 

3,750,000 

1,500,000 

600,000 

1,000,000 

524,000 

1,555,000 

1,500,000 

1,695,000 

1,735,000 

1,735,000 

1,735,000 

11,479,000 

Luxembourg  650,000 

650,000 

650,000 

650,000 

650,000 

650,000 

650,000 

325,000 

4,875,000 

Norway 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Switzerland 

Taiwan 

The 
Netherlands 

United 
Kingdom 

Total year 

725,000 

700,000 

625,000 

600,000 

400,000 

450,000 

450,000 

3,950,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

4,000,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

500,000 

4,000,000 

1,000,000 

1,000,000 

1,000,000 

1,000,000 

1,000,000 

1,000,000 

1,000,000 

1,000,000 

8,000,000 

200,000 

200,000 

200,000 

200,000 

200,000 

200,000 

200,000 

200,000 

1,600,000 

1,950,000 

200,000 

800,000 

800,000 

950,000 

950,000 

300,000 

1,000,000 

5,950,000 

1,000,000 

5,882,353 

2,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,175,000 

1,800,000 

1,775,000 

1,775,000 

2,216,650 

20,124,003 

1,350,000 

1,350,000 

1,350,000 

1,350,000 

1,350,000 

1,417,074 

1,350,000 

350,000 

9,867,074 

200,000 

200,000 

400,000 

1,200,000 

1,200,000 

2,400,000 

22,274,353  16,124,000  16,060,000  14,307,000  15,330,868  15,352,784  13,390,000  12,310,147  125,149,152 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 6: Project funding per country, per year 

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

Austria 

Belgium 

Canada 

Cyprus 

C
a
l
l
2
0
1
4

C
a
l
l

2
0
1
5

C
a
l
l
2
0
1
6

C
a
l
l
2
0
1
7

C
a
l
l
2
0
1
8

C
a
l
l
2
0
1
9

C
a
l
l
2
0
2
0

C
a
l
l
2
0
2
1

c
o
u
n
t
r
y

T
o
t
a
l

1 535 296  2 680 776  2 052 432  2 622 578  2 886 305  1 990 325  1 232 313  1 493 193  16 493 218 

557 062 

1 095 588  406 017 

2 304 808  977 081 

403 297 

992 094 

2 021 863  8 757 809 

60 879 

99 267 

410 470 

193 920 

75 518 

550 745 

92 842 

309 693 

124 107 

118 764 

122 222 

674 786 

1 483 640 

Denmark 

222 105 

186 145 

107 348 

286 741 

1 360 494  2 162 833 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Israel 

Italy 

637 858 

483 058 

273 363 

470 753 

426 507 

460 467 

143 466 

309 533 

234 762 

336 974 

171 753 

2 895 471 

881 270 

171 753 

951 487 

926 220 

889 255 

168 631 

804 077 

635 993 

739 088 

1 360 108  6 474 860 

Luxembourg  302 940 

249 623 

136 985 

322 972 

100 926 

280 822 

315 040 

1 709 309 

Norway 

484 383 

713 410 

401 109 

227 691 

391 986 

2 218 579 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

47 165 

149 686 

213 178 

753 355 

213 575 

496 380 

144 022 

592 157 

2 609 517 

500 000 

500 000 

296 933 

500 010 

500 292 

456 223 

448 065 

514 791 

3 716 314 

1 000 002  1 000 000  811 337 

1 061 208  1 124 717  998 318 

772 647 

995 028 

7 763 257 

116 115 

132 375 

183 701 

145 719 

264 330 

117 450 

53 598 

162 024 

1 175 311 

Spain 

1 428 125 

319 023 

337 142 

486 461 

231 938 

311 134 

3 113 822 

Sweden 

0 

0 

Switzerland  4 464 805  4 827 421  4 270 212  2 110 527  1 800 913  1 499 642  2 565 906  2 328 273  23 867 698 

Taiwan 

The 
Netherlands 
United 
Kingdom 
Total 
countries 

1 289 925  1 597 924  1 706 954  1 513 644  1 360 354  1 381 858  1 308 189  331 820 

10 490 668 

526 295 

514 700 

1 040 995 

14 605 729  14 491 400  13 020 245  12 814 959  11 331 308  9 849 855  10 000 898  11 969 714  98 084 107 

280 060 

102 937 

382 997 

Table 7: Number of individual participations in newly started projects per country, per year. 
Austria has  the highest  total number of participations (166), followed by  Switzerland (152) 
and the Netherlands (150). Sweden (6), Canada (5) and Israel (2) are at the bottom of the list. 
In cases where a country did not commit any funding to a specific call, this is indicated by 
‘n/a’. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7: Number of individual participations in newly started projects per country, per year 

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

Austria 

Belgium 

Canada 

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Israel 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Norway 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Switzerland 

Taiwan 

The 
Netherlands 
United 
Kingdom 
Total 

C
A
L
L
2
0
1
4

17 

6 

n/a 

2 

4 

6 

3 

2 

C
A
L
L
2
0
1
5

23 

13 

n/a 

2 

n/a 

6 

2 

0 

15 

13 

1 

6 

1 

13 

8 

3 

18 

6 

21 

n/a 

15 

6 

1 

0 

2 

7 

11 

2 

0 

n/a 

20 

n/a 

23 

4 

C
A
L
L
2
0
1
6

22 

5 

0 

6 

n/a 

3 

2 

n/a 

13 

1 

8 

3 

2 

10 

2 

4 

n/a 

15 

n/a 

21 

n/a 

C
A
L
L
2
0
1
7

21 

13 

2 

3 

n/a 

3 

n/a 

n/a 

5 

3 

n/a 

7 

5 

11 

4 

4 

n/a 

18 

n/a 

18 

n/a 

C
A
L
L
2
0
1
8

22 

7 

1 

1 

5 

7 

n/a 

n/a 

12 

1 

0 

1 

12 

15 

6 

6 

n/a 

17 

n/a 

25 

n/a 

C
A
L
L
2
0
1
9

24 

11 

1 

7 

4 

6 

n/a 

n/a 

11 

n/a 

6 

6 

8 

9 

1 

6 

n/a 

17 

n/a 

18 

n/a 

C
A
L
L
2
0
2
0

16 

11 

1 

1 

12 

2 

n/a 

n/a 

8 

2 

8 

2 

7 

12 

1 

7 

n/a 

22 

7 

16 

n/a 

C
A
L
L
2
0
2
1

21 

18 

n/a 

n/a 

17 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

20 

2 

5 

8 

9 

12 

2 

n/a 

n/a 

22 

3 

14 

n/a 

T
O
T
A
L

166 

84 

5 

22 

42 

33 

7 

2 

97 

11 

33 

30 

63 

88 

21 

45 

6 

152 

10 

150 

10 

153 

129 

117 

117 

138 

135 

135 

153 

1077 

Analysis per type of organisation 

Figure 18 shows the share of individual participations in proposals per type of organisation, 
counting  each  individual  partner  in  each  application.  Seen  over  the  entire  Programme 
duration,  SMEs  make  up  42.1%;  the  second  largest  group  are  end-user  organisations  with 
24.9%  of  all  applications.  The  least  common  organisations  among  the  applicants  are  large 
enterprises (5.3%) and other organisations (4.0%). 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 18: Share of individual participations in proposals by type of organisation 

12,7%

24,9%

42,1%

5,3%

4,0%

11,0%

End-user organisations

Large enterprises

Other

Research Institutes

SMEs

Universities

Figure 19 shows the share of individual participations in  newly  started projects  per type of 
organisation,  counting  each  individual  partner  in  each  project.  The  distribution  across  the 
different  types  is  quite  similar  to  applications,  with  the  higher  share  of  research  institutes 
being the only noticeable difference.  

Figure 19: Share of individual participations in projects by type of organisation 

10,9%

26,3%

End-user organisations

Large enterprises

Other

Research institutes

40,3%

4,9%

1,8%

SMEs

Universities

15,9%

Figure 20 shows the number of applications of individual participations in proposals by type 
of  organisation,  per  year.  While  the  number  of  SMEs  among  applicants  fell  from 
approximately 330 in 2014 to 152 in 2017, this number recovered and stabilised at about 250 
towards  the  end  of  AAL2.  There  was  a  strong  increase  in  the  number  of  end-user 
organisations among applicants since 2017, which rose from 69 in 2017 to 226 in 2021. 

83 

 
 
 
Figure 20: Number of individual participations in proposals by type of organisation, per year 

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

End-user organisations

Large enterprises

Other

Research institutes

SMEs

Universities

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

The  ‘user  or  end-user  organisations’  category  in  AAL  covers  three  specific  types  of  end-
users: 

  Primary end-user: the person who uses a digital solution for ageing well, considered 

as a single individual: ‘the Well-Being Person’. 

  Secondary  end-users:  persons  or  organisations  directly  in  contact  with  one  or  more 
primary  end-user,  including  informal  carers  such  as  relatives,  friends  or  neighbours 
and formal carers such as care organisations and their representatives.  

  Tertiary  end-users:  private  or  public  organisations  that  do  not  directly  use  a  digital 

solution, but are tasked with organising, enabling or paying for them. 

Examples of solutions developed in AAL projects and brought to market 

  RemeCare Heart Failure (launched in 2021), a remote patient monitoring service for 
patients  with  chronic  heart  failure.  Heart  failure  patients  use  RemeCare  to  improve 
their  medication  compliance,  and  to  monitor  their  vital  parameters  and  heart  failure 
symptoms.  The  use  of  the  app  ensures  that  communication  between  healthcare 
providers and patients is improved. 

  123family.org (launched in 2020), a videocall app suitable for people without digital 

skills and or with dementia. 

  The  DomoCare  product  range  (launched  between  2017  –  2021),  a  safety  and  care 
service  platform  for  seniors  living  at  home  (alert  systems  for  home  and  outside, 
systems for health monitoring, sleep assessment and combinations thereof). 

  Cariot Brush (launched in 2020), a solution that helps remind users and their carers 
to  brush  their  teeth.  CARIOT  BRUSH  can  identify  residents  that  have  not  received 
the  minimum  oral  care  needed  and  remind  nursing  home  caregivers  to  facilitate  the 
missing tooth brushing actions via an interactive live info screen placed in the guard 
room of the nursing home. 

84 

 
 
 
  Anne4Care  (launched 

in  2019),  a  virtual  assistant  supporting  videocalling, 
medication  and  agenda  planning  and  communication,  radio  and  news  selection  and 
communication. 

  Revita (launched in 2018), a technological platform / monitoring app that brings the 
hospital  and  its  professionals  closer  to  the  patient’s  home.  Users  can  consult  their 
diaries,  obtain  reminders,  make  video  calls  with  professionals  and  manage  their 
measurements. 

  James  Telecare  (launched  in  2018),  an  emergency  call  system,  a  watch,  which 

ensures safety of older adults, health monitoring and social integration. 

  Palettev2  (launched  in  2018),  a  contact  platform  for  older  adults  to  share  interests, 

activities and visit events together (matching facility). 

85