Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

**COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES**

Brussels, 21.06.1996
COM(96) 280 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

TO THE COUNCIL. THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

on the final evaluation of the centralized action for the dissemination and exploitation
of knowledge resulting from the Community's specific RTD programmes (VALUE II)

_**4**_

**EUROPEAN COMMISSION**

**Commission Communication to the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic**
**and Social Committee on the final evaluation of the Centralized Action for the**

**Dissemination and Exploitation of knowledge resulting from the Community's specific**
**RTD Programmes (VALUE** **H)**

**I.** **INTRODUCTION**

**H.** **PANEL'S** **RECOMMENDATIONS** **CONCERNING** **THE** **STRATEGIC**

**OUTLOOK AND THE COMMISSION'S COMMENTS**

**HI.** **PANEL'S** **SPECIFIC** **CONCLUSIONS** **AND** **THE** **COMMISSION'S**

**COMMENTS**

**- Network of relay centres**

**- Information and dissemination service**

**- Exploitation of RTD results**

**-**
**Research-Scientific Community and Research-Society interfaces**

**IV.** **CONCLUSION**

**End.:** **1) Final evaluation of the VALUE II Programme;**

**2) Comments by the VALUE II Programme Management Committee.**

COMMISSION COMMUNICATION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE
COUNCIL **AND** THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE ON THE

FINAL EVALUATION OF THE CENTRALIZED ACTION FOR THE

DISSEMINATION AND EXPLOITATION OF KNOWLEDGE RESULTING
FROM THE COMMUNITY'S SPECIFIC RTD PROGRAMMES (VALUE H)

I. **INTRODUCTION**

1. The Council Decision of 29 April 1992 on the dissemination and
exploitation of knowledge resulting from the specific programmes of
research and technological development of the Community (VALUE H)
lays down that, at the end of the action, an evaluation of the results
achieved shall be conducted for the Commission by a group, of independent
experts, in order to determine the extent to which the results obtained help
not only to achieve the objectives of this action and of the third framework
. programme (1990-1994) but also to assess the efficiency with which the
action was carried out and promoted (Art. 4(2)).

2. The Commission therefore set up a group of independent experts known as
the "VALUE II final evaluation panel" to carry out the evaluation. The
group, chaired by Mr K.P. Friebe, carried out the evaluation from the
beginning of February 1995 until the end of July 1995 and submitted its
report to the Commission departments on 31 July 1995,

3. The dissemination and exploitation Committee (VALUE II Management
Committee) expressed its observations on the final evaluation report at its
meeting of 7 November 1995.

H. PANEL'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE STRATEGIC OUTLOOK

**AND** THE COMMISSION'S COMMENTS

The panel believes that greater attention should be paid to innovation, which is not
simply the product of research and technological development activities but also
comprises organizational and social aspects. A major initiative with significant
funding would, according to the panel, therefore be justified in the field of
innovation.

The Commission agrees to a large extent with this analysis and on 20 December
1995 it adopted a "Green Paper on Innovation".

The basic premise behind the Green Paper is that European businesses are
comparatively less able than their competitors to transform scientific
breakthroughs and technological achievements into innovations.

Europe must therefore take resolute action and to this end the Green Paper
proposes thirteen lines of action corresponding to the main objectives as follows:
gearing research to innovation, strengthening human resources, improving
financing conditions and creating a legal and regulatory environment suited to
innovation, whilst developing the role and means of action of the public
authorities.

**The Green Paper on innovation is likely to be discussed widely in the first half of**
**1996** **and the** **final** **evaluation of** **VALUE** **II may, to a** **certain,** **extent, be considered**
**as a contribution to that debate, making it possible to define innovation priorities**
**and the measures to be carried out.**

**m .** **PANEL'S** **SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS AND THE COMMISSION'S**

**COMMENTS**

**The panel's final evaluation contains an analysis of the activities implemented**
**under** **VALUE** **II** **and recommendations regarding their future development.**

**The VALUE II Management Committee for its part feels that with limited**
**resources the Commission departments have developed and implemented new**
**instruments which have considerably helped promote new attitudes regarding**
**dissemination and exploitation under the fourth** **framework** **programme.**

**The conclusions regarding the main activities of VALUE II are as follows:**

**•** **The relay centre network:**

**The panel concludes that, in the 1993-1994 period, the relay centres succeeded,**
**via a broad range of services upstream and** **downstream,** **in advancing the**
**exploitation of Community RTD results in the Member States. It also felt that** **the**
**key to the success of the relay centre scheme lay in the commitment, qualities and**
**experience of those called upon to act as** **efficient** **"brokers" between businesses**
**and technology holders.**

**The creation of the network of relay centres was one of the most significant new**
**activities of VALUE H, and has served, with due regard for national contexts, to**
**bring Community activities closer to local users' needs.**

**By now concentrating on its role of promoting** **innovation,** **the network of relay**
**centres should, as the panel recommended, contribute more than in the past to**
**matching businesses' needs with the technologies available and not confine itself to**
**promoting the results of Community RTD activities.**

**As pointed out by the Value II Management Committee, these developments call**
**for increased** **collaboration,** **with a view to improved rationalization of their**
**respective activities, with the other Community networks promoting RTD**
**activities (network of EuroInfoCentres, CRAFT network aimed at facilitating the**
**participation of** **SMEs** **in Community RTD programmes, etc.), national networks -**
**in** **particular those serving SMEs - and the other players in the innovation system.**

**•** **The information and dissemination service:**

**Significant improvements have been made to the CORDIS information service in**
**recent years, as the final evaluation report and the comments of the VALUE II**
**Management Committee emphasize. CORDIS has become a widely-used,**
**recognized tool for the dissemination of information on Community RTD activities**

**4**

**(14 000 users). Nevertheless, the panel regrets the lack of** **an** **integrated EC policy**
**on RTD information and the risk of duplicating efforts, and would like to see the**
**introduction of a coherent, well-defined approach. It also recommends that a study**
**should be carried out on demand, the future development of the system and** **its**
**cost. These recommendations are, to a large extent, shared by the VALUE** **II**
**Management Committee.**

**The Commission has noted the panel's recommendations, most of which it has**
**already accommodated. It has taken steps to increase the coherence of its**
**information instruments on RTD activities. It has** _**set**_ **up a Working** **Party** **to**
**promote the creation of** **bridges** **between the national and Community systems for**
**disseminating scientific and technical information. It is also continuing its efforts to**
**better adapt to existing or potential demand and to reduce the system's collection**
**and operating costs. Finally, it has launched studies aimed at defining the possible**
**future development of the system.**

**•** **The utilization of RTD results**

**The panel believes that the exploitation** **-** **projects have made a significant**
**contribution to the programme and that the activity has been organized efficiently.**
**It recommends that priority should be given to user-driven consortia and to**
**projects on generic technological fields with a high spin-off potential. It is also of**
**the opinion that the exploitation measures should not be confined to Community**
**RTD activities but should also include all the results available from European**
**RTD.** **The VALUE II Management Committee considers that these projects have**
**a high value added and have had spin-off effects by helping to promote the**
**development of an "exploitation" culture at Community** **level.**

**The Commission to a large extent shares the opinion expressed by the panel and**
**the VALUE II Management Committee. It is lending its support through the new**
**Innovation Programme (4th** **framework** **programme) to technology validation and**
**transfer projects. These projects are demand-oriented and trans-sectoral. In this**
**respect they differ from other RTD activities and, in particular, from cooperative**
**research projects** **which,** **while also demand-oriented, are further "upstream" and**
**are not** _**a priori**_ **trans-sectoral.** **Moreover, as recommended by the panel, the**
**technology validation and transfer projects are no longer confined to the**
**exploitation of Community RTD results. They arouse great interest amongst**
**SMEs, since more than 60% of project coordinators are SMEs, and there is at**
**least one SME in 90% of the projects selected. "Project" activity is also now**
**granted a much higher level of funding and it should therefore be possible to better**
**promote the innovation culture at Community level.**

**•** **Legal protection of results**

**The panel considers that the results obtained as regards intellectual property are**
**relatively meagre, and approves the recent initiatives aimed at improving the**
**quality of the services proposed in the field of patents.**

**The Commission believes the issues surrounding intellectual property are very**
**important in the context of innovation policy. The role of the Community in this**
**respect is relatively limited for legal reasons. This is particularly true regarding**
**shared-cost activities because of the contractual liabilities of the contracting parties**
**in RTD projects. The** **financial** **resources allocated to this activity were also very**
**limited under VALUE H. Nevertheless, there have been a number of recent**
**initiatives, some of them referred to in the panel's evaluation (quick** **scan,** **patent**
**building scheme, training of project leaders, etc.), which should make it possible to**
**take fuller account of these aspects in the management of projects receiving**
**Community funding.**

**•** **Promotional activities:**

**A large number of promotional activities were carried out, but the panel felt their**
**impact on the main target groups could have been greater. The panel therefore**
**proposes that a more coherent overall promotion strategy should be drawn up,**
**taking better account of the needs and perceptions of the various target groups.**

**The Commission has noted the panel's** **observations.** **It has already taken**
**organizational measures which should enable the adoption of** **a** **better coordinated,**
**more targeted approach.**

**•** **Research-Scientific Community and** **Research-Society** **Interfaces:**

**The panel expressed its interest in the activities carried out, with limited resources,**
**in these areas.** **It recommends that their results be promoted by means of**
**campaigns aimed at pre-defined target groups.**

**The Commission also attaches great importance to the social aspects of research**
**and innovation. The work programme of the Innovation Programme accordingly**
**provides for a line of action devoted to raising public awareness of research and**
**technology issues and the role they play in the present society.**

**•** **Relations with other Community initiatives**

**The panel considers that the Value II Programme should maintain closer links with**
**other Community initiatives such as those of the structural funds, or with other**
**policies such as industrial policy or enterprise policy (particularly in favour of**
**SMEs).**

**Dissemination,** **exploitation and innovation activities take place at the interface**
**between research and these policies or initiatives, and the Commission thus shares**
**the panel's view. Several pilot projects have already been implemented, and these**
**will have to be assessed and, if necessary, pursued and further developed. In**
**particular, they may concern specific actions at regional level, actions targeted**
**specifically at SMEs and measures to improve the terms of innovation financing.**

**IV.** **CONCLUSION**

**The Commission wishes to thank the VALUE II final evaluation panel for** **its**
**comments and recommendations, some of which have already been accommodated**
**in the measures provided for under the Innovation Programme. It also considers**
**this report to be a valuable contribution to the debate on innovation in Europe.**

**This** **communication,** **together with the final evaluation report, is submitted to the**
**European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee, in**
**accordance with Article 4 of the Council Decision of 29 April** **1992.**

**Y-**

### VALUE II Programme

_**Final Evaluation**_

**31 July 1995**

**Report prepared by an Evaluation Panel at the request of the European**
**Commission's Directorate General XIII : Telecommunications,**
**Information Market and Exploitation of Research.**

_**s**_

**CONTENTS**

**ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS**

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

**H** **BACKGROUND** **TO THE FINAL** **EVALUATION** **OF THE**
**VALUE II** **PROGRAMME**

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

EOL **FINAL EVALUATION** **OF VALUE** **II**

1. Introduction
2. Action line 1.1a
3. Action line Lib
4. Action line 1.2
5. Action Line 1.3
6. Action Line 1.4
7. Interfaces II & m

**IV.** **STRATEGIC ISSUES**

VALUE Relay Centres Network
Basic Service (CORDIS/Publications)
Utilisation of Results
Legal Protection of Results
Promotional Activities
Research-Scientific Community and
Research-Society

1. Background
2. Strategic Considerations
3. Recommendations

**ANNEXES**

**Annex I** The Council Decision of 29 April, 1992
**Annex II** Final Evaluation Terms of Reference
**Annex** **III** Executive Summary of the Evaluation of the VRCs
**Annex IV** Acronyms and Abbreviations

**^**

#### VALUE II Programme

_**Final Evaluation**_

_**A**_ **final evaluation of the** **Community's** **Centralised Action for the**
**Dissemination and Exploitation of Knowledge Resulting from the**
**Specific Programmes of Research and Technological Development**
**(VALUE** **H).**

**EVALUATION** **PANEL:** **K.P. Friebe (Chairman)**
**Dr. L. Crespo**
**Prof.** **Th. Durand**
**Prof.** **N. Gangas**
**Dr. F.** **Gonçalves**
**Prof.** **P. Hills**
**Dr. B. Svensson**
**Ir.** **A.** **Vyverman**

**EDITORIAL SUPPORT:** **Mrs. M. Victor**

**31 July** **1995**

**Report prepared at the request of the European Commission's**
**Directorate General XIII : Telecommunications, Information Market**
**and Exploitation of Research.**

**• O**

_**M)**_

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The VALUE Evaluation Panel would like to express their sincere

appreciation to all those interviewed throughout the Commission and

elsewhere. The assistance of the VALUE Team, particularly Mr. Giulio

Cesare Grata, Director of DG XIII-D, Mr. Jean-Noel Durvy, and Mr.

Constant Gitzinger is gratefully acknowledged. The views and

recommendations contained in the report are, however, the

responsibility of the authors alone.

**.,.••4"^**

L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STRATEGIC ISSUES

In relation to the strategy of VALUE, much has already been said in the
Mid-Term Review about the historical strategy of the VALUE I and II
programmes. The panel felt that there was no need to duplicate this and
that it was more appropriate to identify the lessons from past experience
and concentrate on discussing future strategies.

The panel wishes to stress that -the real objective behind investing in RTD
is competitiveness through innovation and that innovation is not just a
spill-over of RTD. While the existence of the Third Activity recognises
that it is not enough to invest in RTD. the current attention paid to
innovation is clearly insufficient to leverage RTD properly.

The panel insists in pointing out that innovation should be recognised as
a risky business for companies, Furthermore, it is difficult to fund» While
past thinking and action was inspired by a technology-push perspective,
the relevant approach should be mostly around demand-led policies. RTD
programmes should not be expected to generate off-the-shelf-technologies,
except for very specifier but nevertheless important cases, 'Instead, RTD
projects should be regarded as ways to build a wide variety of expertise
available to help firms solve the problems encountered in their
innovation processes.

In addition, innovation encompasses organisational and social
dimensions as much as technological ones.

The panel strongly advocates a major initiative dedicated to the
promotion of innovation. A detailed discussion of the strategy issues is to
be found on p. 53-61. This initiative should help co-ordinate the many
actions of the Commission This major action has a validity of its own,
beyond RTD activities.

Significant funding should oe allocated to this initiative. The panel
considers that 10% of the RTD budget is a much more relevant order of
magnitude than the amounts allocated to past actions.

The panel suggests four major action lines (see p. 60-61) for promoting
innovation,, encompassing a variety of approaches in order to reach SMEs
and help experience-sharing across borders. The panel recommends that
new thinking and thus new actions on Innovation emerge within the
Union» The panel suggests strongly that this, initiative be recognised as a
top priority and wishes to raise political awareness in the Community.

_**Al**_

**2.** **VALUE RELAY CENTRES NETWORK**

**There is no doubt that the recognised difficulty in translating R&D results**
**into marketable** **products/services,** **including the corresponding**
**production processes, is a weakness that needs to be addressed urgently**
**and in such a way that it should be** **considered** **a strategic issue, given the**
**importance that variables such as "reduced time to market" and "shorter**
**product** **life** **cycles" assume in today's supra-national competitive**
**environment.**

**Taking into consideration the Mid-Term Review and the recent**
**evaluation of VRCs, the panel concludes that, in general, both the analysis**
**and recommendations made in these documents still remain valid. The**
**main conclusion of the** **aforementioned** **evaluation is that during their**
**pilot operation in 1993 and 1994, VRCs succeeded, via a wide spectrum of**
**upstream and downstream services, in advancing the valorisation of**
**Community RTD results across the Member States.**

**In view of this positive outcome of the detailed evaluation of the VRCs,**
**we expand below in this report by presenting some general reflections on**
**the Relay Centres concept which is pertinent to the currently unfolding**
**Third Activity as well.**

**The cornerstone of the success of any Relay Centres experiment is basically**
**and inevitably dependent on the commitment, skills and expertise of the**
**people involved in becoming effective brokers between business and**
**technology. Synergies could be achieved through the utilisation by RCs of**
**the old SPRINT networks, given the complementary nature of their**
**activities.**

**The VR-Service, acting as a permanent monitoring,** **guiding** **and**
**supporting feedback system, could enhance its efforts for a more active**
**networking** **of** **the RCs, as well as for a better cohesion in their operations**
**across Europe.**

**The most important asset of each RC is its own personnel.** **Their**
**managerial, technical and entrepreneurial skills are the key issue of all**
**operations. Any measures taken to secure and expand this asset are,**
**therefore, vital for success.**

**3.** **CORDIS**

**At the end of 1994, the recommendations formulated during the Mid-**
**Term Review were still valid. Since then, progress has been observed.**

**A coherent and well defined RTD information provision approach seems**
**highly desirable in order to make any innovation policy** **successful.** **This**

***A5**

**is,** **of course, not the responsibility of one single DG, but must be assured at**
**the highest EC level.**

**Means should be found and procedures be established to shorten**
**drastically the delay in provision of information on projects and results**
**from EC RTD programmes and to enable the delivery of more up-to-date**
**information.**

**The information provided by CORDIS could be expanded in ways which**
**we recommend in our report.**

**It is recommended that in the medium-term an integrated in-depth study**
**be undertaken in which the following items should be addressed. Of these**
**issues, the first is considered to be the most important.**

**•** **The demand side: the impact of the service should be measured**
**and the users surveyed. Such a market study should also cover the**
**most appropriate marketing policy to be followed in terms of money**
**charged for services.**

**•** **Technological evolution:** **how the information** **provision** **could**
**look like in about 5** **years'** **time** **and how CORDIS could adapt to**
**technological evolution. This study should** **also** **take into account**
**the relationship with national or regional RTD databases.**

**•** **Cost control:** **essential for the operation of CORDIS, while**
**maintaining high quality and service. This plan should be based on**
**a profound assessment of the actual process for the creation and**
**maintenance of the databases and should contain the steps to be**
**taken in order to cope with the technological changes of the near**
**future, to ensure a significant and lasting cost reduction over the**
**coming** **years.**

**CORDIS also has a role to play in bringing the national and regional RTD**
**databases closer to potential users in a harmonised way.**

**UTILISATION** **OF RESULTS**

**Directly supported valorisation projects make an** **important** **contribution**
**to the programme.** **The Commission have organised the** **aclivity**
**effectively. Several, and probably many, projects are of high** **technical**
**quality and should lead to exploitation which would have been lost**
**without VALUE. More could be achieved, however, with a better focused**
**and more commercially oriented approach.**

**This would take greater account of two points: that technology transfer**
**and innovative attitudes are best diffused via personal contacts; and that**
**appropriate technological solutions are more likely to be generated by**

_Aii_

**demand from the bottom up, than by top-down dissemination. The**
**Commission should reflect these considerations in selecting projects and**
**setting their objectives.**

**There should be increased emphasis, therefore, on user-driven consortia.**
**All projects should include, as main partners, an organisation committed**
**to exploitation if the project is successful. More weight should be placed at**
**all levels of the programme, on demonstrating the innovative attitudes**
**behind the projects, as well as their results. Projects should be selected**
**wherever possible to cover generic technologies with a high spin-off**
**potential.**

**5.** **LEGAL** **PROTECTION** **OF RESULTS**

**The panel considers the results achieved in the** **IPR** **field within the**
**framework of the VALUE programme to be relatively meagre** **both** **in**
**quantitative and qualitative terms. This is supposed to be caused by lack of**
**financial resources as well as lack of initiative on the part of DG** **XIII** **Patent**
**Section.**

**Among key activities in future are a** _**"Quick**_ _**Scan",**_ **which allows**
**assessment of the novelty of technologies in collaboration with the**
**European Patent Office in The Hague, and a** _**"Patent**_ _**Build-up**_ _**Scheme",**_
**which is aiming to make contractors aware of the importance of the**
**priority year and the opportunities for secondary filings.**

**The panel concludes that there is a need for a radical change in the present**
**organisation and operations of the Patent Section considering the great**
**importance of** **JPR** **matters in connection with RTD projects. It therefore**
**welcomes the recent initiatives which aim to offer improved patenting**
**services in future.**

**The evaluation is concluded by a presentation of five specific ideas that**
**could serve as viable tools in the future operations of DG XIII Patent**
**Section and other pertinent** **EC** **bodies involved in IPR matters.**

**6.** **PROMOTIONAL ACnvmES**

**The panel has the impression, when surveying the large number of**
**promotional activities undertaken, that they have resulted from a step-by-**
**step line of action rather than from a well** **thought-out** **and well-integrated**
**promotional strategy. A possible consequence of this is that there has**
**developed only limited awareness among important target groups about**
**the links between individual activities and the overall objectives and**
**ambitions of the VALUE programme.**

_**AS**_

**The panel suggests a more powerful promotion of the Third Activity in**
**the future based** **on:**

**•** **an analysis of the needs and perceptions of different target audiences**
**and the results of previously carried out promotional activities**
**under VALUE**

**•** **a coherent promotional strategy across all three objectives of this**
**Activity, and**

**•** **a strong and clearly identified connection between promotional**
**efforts related to individual activities and the principal common**
**elements of the overall promotional strategy.**

**The evaluation concludes by suggesting that the promotional activities for**
**each of the three objectives of the Third Activity should be subordinate to,**
**or comply with the principal common elements of a coherent**
**promotional strategy.**

**„** **7.** **INTERFACES II AND III** **:** **RESEARCH-SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AND**
**RESEARCH-SOCIETY**

**Innovation, as a whole, is the outcome of a large combination of**
**interdisciplinary activities and to be** **successful** **it requires, among other**
**facts,** **social awareness, acceptance and training to lead to the desired proper**
**use.** **Barriers and threshold** **levels** **for technology acceptance may vary**
**from country to country but transnational considerations** **and** **lessons**
**learned at a European level will be of great importance. Interfaces II** **&** **HI**
**addressed these issues with very reduced human and budgetary resources.**

**The panel recognises the efforts and the qualified approach of** **the** **project**
**team as well as some relevant results. In general terms it has been a tool-**
**oriented concept which led to some workable goods and manuals. A**
**special mention has to be made of the awareness workshops methodology**
**which has been very successfully used in several European cities to deal**
**with the issue of sustainable living in urban environments.** **This**
**methodology has been recognised** **and** **adopted by relevant European and**
**national institutions.**

**Therefore, the panel expresses its surprise and concern about the**
**dismantlement of this activity at the end of VALUE II and the apparent**
**abandonment of these action Unes within the Third Activity. It hopes** **that**
**this situation will be reconsidered and reinstated or continued with**
**appropriate resources and with a clearer recognition of its benefits at**
**Commission level. The resources foreseen for accompanying measures**
**could be used synergistically for this purpose.**

_**AC**_

**IL** **BACKGROUND** **TO** **THE FINAL EVALUATION** **OF** **THE**

**VALUE H** **PROGRAMME**

**1.** **OVERVIEW** **OF VALUE** **II**

**Programme title: Centralised Action for the** **dissemination** **and**
**exploitation of knowledge resulting from the specific programmes of**
**research and technological development of the European Union.**

**Programme period: May** **1992** **- December 1994.**

**Programme Acronym: VALUE II**

**The Third Framework Programme stipulated that measures for**
**disseminating knowledge and results** **arising** **from the specific and**
**supplementary programmes shall be implemented, on the one hand, by**
**these programmes themselves and, on the other, by means of the**
**Centralised Action. The goal of this action, in particular, was to add**
**specific value to the whole range of Community RTD activities which**
**were the subject of the Third Framework Programme (1993-1994),** **co-**
**ordinating and supplementing the measures taken under the specific RTD**
**programmes.** **More** **specifically, the main objective was to promote the**
**dissemination and utilisation of the results of EU Research and**
**Technological Development (RTD) activities with a view to attaining tire**
**declared** **goal of the Framework Programme. Thus, exploitation per se of**
**research** **results was not within the objectives of** **VALUE** **II.**

**The Council Decision (see Annex 1) for the Centralised Action (or VALUE**
**H) was adopted on 29 April 1992 and allocated to this programme** **a** **budget**
**of 57 MECU. Later, by the Decision** **93/167/Euratom,** **EEC, of 15 March**
**1993,** **this amount was revised to 66 MECU. Thus, the funds allocated for**
**VALUE II are higher** **than** **those for VALUE I, but they still represent a**
**small fraction (1%) of the financial envelope for the whole Third**
**Framework Programme. Therefore, VALUE II was given inadequate**
**means to promote significantly RTD results and to facilitate their effective**
**utilisation across the EU.**

**VALUE II both provided continuity for the measures carried out during**
**1989-1993** **under** **Sub-programme** **I of VALUE I and introduced new topics**
**of strategic importance for the promotion of Community RTD results and**
**for facilitating their utilisation. These new topics brought into focus the**
**perspectives of:**

**•** **the interdisciplinarity of research; and**

_Aif-_

**the** **repercussipns** **of RTD activities and of their results on society as**
**a whole.**

**More specifically, the Council Decision specified that VALUE II should be**
**implemented:**

**•** **in** **accordance** **with** **the** **principles** **of** **Horizontality,**
**Complementarity and Subsidiarity; and**

**•** **along** **three interfaces; those of** **"Research-Industry",** **"Research-**
**Scientific** **Community"** **and** **"Research-Society".**

**The objectives set for each of these interfaces can be summarised as**
**follows:-**

**Interface** **I.** **"Research-Industry",** **for improving the international**
**competitiveness of Europe's industry in accordance with the**
**provisions** **of the EEC Treaty by means of specific projects designed**
**to maximise the impact of Community R&D activities on industry**
**as a whole.**

**Interface II.** **"Research-Scientific** **Community", for contributing to an**
**interdisciplinary reflection on research, its methods, problems and**
**impact.**

**Interface HI,** **"Research-Society",** **for identifying and studying the**
**societal impact of the new scientific and technological knowledge**
**acquired as a result of Community activities as well as for providing**
**information to the public so as to ensure that changes in the**
**contemporary approach** **to** **science are compatible with**
**developments in society.**

**The following tables depict the main activities carried out per action line**
**of the programme and the corresponding funds spent or allocated until 31**
**December 1994.**

**ïablfLl**

LINES OF ACTION OF INTERFACE I Cost (MECU)

LÎâ I VALUE Relay Centres " ' _ÏTÂ_ 

- Lib CORDIS and publications for dissemination 11.6

1.2. Utilisation of results 11.1

1.3. Protection of results 0.4

1.4. Promotional activities 5.3

Total Expenditure until 1 January 1994              - 41.8

Above expenditure as percentage of budget         - 75

Table 2

ACTIVITIES WITHIN INTERFACE H Cost (MECU)

1 Studies, surveys, evaluations 0.6

2 Promotion, awareness, seminars, etc. 0.4

3 Directories, databases, documents 0.05

Total Expenditure until 1 January 1994 > 1.05

Above expenditure as percentage of budget > 37

Table 3

ACTIVITIES WITHIN INTERFACE IH Cost (MECU)

1 Studies, surveys, evaluations 0.4

2 Promotion, awareness, seminars, etc. 0.3

3 Directories, databases, documents 0.05

4 Contribution to TA within the EU "~ 0.3

Total Expenditure until 1 January 1994               - 1.05

Above expenditure as percentage of budget > 41

**>C3**

**2.** **FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS** **OF THE** **MID-TERM REVIEW**

**2.1.** **VALUE in Context**

Economic development in the whole of Europe will depend greatly in
future on the application of well-defined R & D strategies, the promotion
of successful innovations and the availability of appropriate technologies.
These will be a pre-requisite to creating jobs and ensuring the well-being of
all European citizens. R & D and the promotion of innovation are
therefore essential activities in fulfilling these aims.

The RTD culture is fairly well-established in Europe : EC-funded RTD
currently represents about 5% of all R & D conducted within the European
Union. In contrast, however, the culture of utilising the results of this
RTD, i.e. the exploitation and dissemination of the outcome of RTD, is not
that widespread. The VALUE Programme, which should play a decisive
role in promoting the utilisation of RTD and hence in aiding the dynamic
economic development of Europe in future, has a budget allocation of
only 1% of all EC-funded RTD - far too small to have any real impact.

VALUE I (1989-1993) and VALUE H (1992-1994) were pilot programmes
during the Second and Third RTD Framework Programmes. They made it
possible to design relevant methodologies and tools to help transform R &
D results into real economic activities.

A global policy to ensure these essential activities should now be
formulated, adopting a broader strategic vision to include a far greater
effort and political commitment. A major initiative, targeted at the
promotion of innovation for which the funding would be clearly distinct
from the funding of R & D and thus from the Fourth Framework
Programme, should be considered in the medium term.

In the meantime, the specific programmes should be invited to work
closer with VALUE in order to improve the effectiveness of the
promotion of RTD results. In addition, VALUE should concentrate more
on SMEs via a more "demand pull" or "bottom-up" approach. Indeed,
VALUE'S main task is to design appropriate processes to assist SMEs solve
the technical problems that they face by calling upon the technical
capabilities of R & D labs, wherever these are located ii; Europe.

2.2. Strategic Perspectives

1. The major issue behind VALUE concerns the very nature of the re
RTD programmes, given the overall objective of promoting innovation
throughout Europe. Conventional wisdom assumes that RTD yields
results which may be directly or indirectly exploitable through some

_**Ho**_

**adaptation and development processes. However, this is unfortunately**
**seldom the case. It must be recognised clearly that RTD programmes**
**essentially contribute to strengthening the "existing knowledge base" in**
**the teams conducting the work. Making the best use of RTD results thus**
**primarily means exploiting the enriched "existing knowledge base" in**
**order to solve problems encountered throughout the many loops of the**
**innovation processes taking place within and among companies and R &**
**D centres.**

**2.** **Both VALUE I and VALUE II were designed with a big agenda without**
**adequate political and financial support. It must be emphasised that the**
**exploitation of RTD results, technology transfer and more generally the**
**promotion of innovation are essential to European economic**
**competitiveness and as such require significant funding, not just a small**
**percent of** **RTD** **budgets.**

**3.** **VALUE may be considered a back-up initiative, should the participants of**
**an RTD programme not exploit their results in the** **usual** **way.** **However,**
**little or no attention was paid in VALUE to "upstream" or "ex ante"**
**integration of business perspectives into the RTD programmes, i.e. before**
**the RTD project was funded and launched. Is it normal or inevitable that**
**over** **50%** **of** **RTD** **projects fall in the "Candidates for Value" category while**
**only about** **20%** **lead to "Autonomous" exploitation by the consortia which**
**conducted the RTD?**

**4.** **VALUE fulfils a function which is directly related to other existing**
**activities.**

**National policies, methodologies and tools exist to promote**
**technology transfer and innovation within most countries and at**
**regional level. This includes exploitation of publicly funded R&D.**

**SPRINT aims at promoting "cross-border" technology transfer and**
**innovation.**

**VALUE addresses community funded RTD only.**

**VALUE might thus have been designed around existing tools stemming**
**from national or SPRINT initiatives, as a communication action towards:**

**existing technology transfer agents and their networks;**

**£-1**

**existing value added networks of information providers;**

**the management team of the specific programmes (ESPRIT,** **BRITE-**
**EURAM, ....) in the Commission.**

**The integration of SPRINT and VALUE into a single programme should**
**strengthen the effectiveness of both the VALUE and SPRINT initiatives.**
**More** **co-operation** **between the specific programmes and VALUE would be**
**appropriate.**

**5.** **VRCs were created as a decentralised tool for VALUE. They offer a unique**
**opportunity to promote innovation and technology transfer towards**
**SMEs, adopting a bottom-up approach and taking into account the**
**diversity of national and regional cultures encountered in Europe. VRCs**
**should thus be both strengthened and optimised. Along these lines, an in-**
**depth evaluation of the VRCs was performed.**

***6.** **VALUE should be extended to include not only Community funded RTD**
**results but also relevant technologies requiring** **transfer/exploitation**
**throughout the multiple and complex loops of the innovation process.**
**This would therefore require VALUE to deal also with all other types of**
**RTD results e.g. nationally funded.**

**7.** **SMEs should be a definite priority for Community programmes and**
**especially for the promotion of exploitation via the VALUE Programme.**
**VRCs have an important role to play in this process.** **The panel**
**recommends that the Commission halt the continual creation of new**
**offices, guichets or similar entities. Decentralisation is clearly appropriate**
**but without co-ordination it leads to wasteful overlaps and duplication.**

**8.** **The VALUE approach, initially created in a "technology push" type** **of**
**mode, should become more demand-oriented or "market pull" based.**
**From that perspective, the concepts behind the experiment currently**
**under way between VALUE** **o i i** **the £** **- uctural** **Funds to satisfy SME** **needs**
**would seem appropriate. This clearly relates to the "ex ante-upstream"**
**type of** **reasoning** **mentioned above.**

**9.** **VALUE has been involved directly in exploitation projects covering**
**activities such as marketing studies, business plans, search for industrial**
**partners, tests under industrial conditions, prototyping, patent support,**
**licensing, participation in exhibitions, etc. Shouldn't VALUE'S role focus**
**on** **organising/integrating/promoting/linking,** **helping to match needs**

**•B***

**&3L**

**and skills, working more as a catalyst and designer of processes than as a**
**direct player?**

**Undertaking specific projects may, however, be useful to:**

**demonstrate the exploitation mechanisms as well as utilise**
**outstanding R & D results in Member States or Community regions**
**having little experience in** **exploitation/insufficient** **pertinent**
**national schemes;**

**serve as examples of concrete outputs of the VALUE Programme**
**whenever an illustration is required by the public (displaying**
**function);**

**keep the VALUE team up-to-date with respect to the difficulties of**
**real life innovation processes;**

**analyse across these projects, to learn from such experiments.**

**10.** **How do** **VALUE/SPRINT/the** **Fourth Framework** **Programme/Structural**
**Funds relate to one another from the above viewpoint? More specifically,**
**should not VALUE and** **VALUE/SPRINT** **be related increasingly to the**
**structural initiatives of DG XVI, or even to the Industrial Policy of DG III**
**or the SME actions of DG** **XXHI?** **The** **current** **pilot initiatives, e.g. with DG**
**XVI, hint clearly in this direction.**

**11.** **From such a perspective, the purely administrative funding approach**
**adopted recently of 1% of the specific RTD programmes supposedly**
**devoted to dissemination activities may only be effective if co-ordinated by**
**VALUE.**

**12.** **There is a clear need, in parallel to the RTD action, to develop an effective**
**strategy for the promotion of innovation, technology transfer and the**
**exploitation and dissemination of RTD results and knowledge.**

**2.3.** **Promotional Activities**

**13.** **Under this action line scientific information arising from Community**
**RTD activities was disseminated by means of publications, information**
**sheets and articles.**

**S3**

**14.** **The FLAIR-FLOW project, a co-ordinated action supported jointly by**
**VALUE and FLAIR, was particularly effective in aiding dissemination of**
**results from European Food R & D .** **Dissemination** **took** **place using**
**various means, the most important being the one-page technical**
**documents in layman's language which were widely circulated.**

**15.** **Other important activities under this action were the publication of**
**"Innovation & Technology Transfer News-Letter", "Euro-abstract**
**Catalogues" and "CORDIS Up-date".**

**16.** **Horizontal activities which proved very helpful are the RTD Help Desk**
**and the establishment of Cooperation Network, representing a very good**
**synergistic initiative between VALUE and other EC initiatives and**
**funding sources, e.g., regional funds handled by DG XVI.**

**2.4.** **Utilisation of Results**

**17.** **Exploitation of results is a major action, lying at the heart of the VALUE**
**Programme. 94 projects out of 373** **proposals** **were selected for financial**
**support of actions such as marketing studies, business plans, search for**
**industrial partners, tests under industrial conditions,** **prototyping,** **patent**
**support, licensing, participation in exhibitions, etc. Around 40% of the**
**contracts are concluded with SME companies.**

**18.** **Although** **exploitation** **is a lengthy process, it is clear by now that a**
**substantial proportion of the projects essentially supported during VALUE**
**I could lead to significant results in the near future.** **The various**
**instruments of assistance available enable VALUE to accommodate better**
**proposers'** **needs.**

**19.** **The source of the VALUE exploitation scheme is only a fraction of what is**
**produced in the individual Member States of the European. Union. The**
**exploitation action therefore should not be limited to Community** **RTD**
**alone but should be expanded to include all** **avx^Jable** **European RTD**
**results.**

**20.** **In order for VALUE to have a major impact on the exploitation of RTD**
**results, the budget needs to be of a different order to** **magnitude»** **However,**
**even then, collaboration should be sought with national and intern:**
**exploitation schemes and potential financing bodies (DG XVI, DG ;**
**EUREKA, CRAFT, national and regional supporting organisations, etc.).**

21. The delay caused by the Commission procedures for selection and
conclusion of project proposals is too long, hence inefficieht and needs to
be reviewed in future.

**2.5.** **Methods and Tools**

_**Value Relay Centres**_

22. The network of VALUE Relay Centres is an interesting initiative that
might become the necessary bridge between the European specific RTD
programmes and users' needs, especially those of SMEs. It could have
important synergistic effects with the national RTD programmes and
could act as a transnational European platform for effective dissemination
and cross-fertilisation of RTD efforts.

23. Its short operational history indicates a non-homogeneous situation
among the different VRCs, some already producing good results while
others appearing to lack clear action plans. A revision of the current
situation is recommended in order to improve the performance of VRCs
in some countries.

_**CORDIS**_

24. CORDIS is now in its full pilot operational phase and is quite a well
known EC initiative, valued by RTD people within the EC and abroad.
Together with its success emerges also the need for further improvements,
e.g. higher speed in data collection, continuous data updating, more
coherent abstracting of primary information in order to obtain more
accurate record characterisation (e.g. SIC codes) and better data quality and
consistency.

25. These improvements in data presentation and consistency in both on-line
and off-line CORDIS products, combined with the VALUE Management
Team policy to utilise new technological options, present an opportunity
for CORDIS to become very attractive also to users inexperienced with online searches and to satisfy simultaneously the increasing demand for
well-presented, easily accessible and manageable information. Multimedia CD-ROMs and Context Driven Applications are examples of future
technological options within the reach of CORDIS.

26. The recently launched software interface "Watch-CORDIS" demonstrates
the above VALUE team policy. The merits of this new product could be
enhanced significantly by enabling access through it to the CORDIS CDROM data as well.

**£V**

**27.** **Much should be done in training intermediaries and end users in using**
**CORDIS fully. A better training policy and practice is needed, given that**
**promotion and training should be envisaged as complementary push-pull**
**activities.**

**28.** **Publication of sub-sets of CORDIS data should not be considered an**
**indispensable but redundant system. In fact, there is a need for** **re-**
**formulating the strategy for CORDIS publications from the viewpoint of**
**their actual usefulness and promotion of CORDIS and its products.**

**29.** **Promotion of CORDIS should be increased but within an** **overall**
**marketing strategy. Such a strategy should be formulated before the end of**
**VALUE H, so as to provide a** **dear** **direction for CORDIS promotion during**
**the next Framework Programme.**

**30.** **The usefulness of CORDIS would be increased greatly by substantially**
**upgrading the content and quality of information on the RTD**
**programmes, RTD projects and other pertinent databases** **and** **by**
**incorporating additional** **EC** **documentation, e.g. synopses of submitted**
**RTD proposals, abstracts of European Parliament papers dealing with RTD**
**and more general issues of science and technology. Such an upgrading**
**would give it an** **EC-encyclopaedic** **character which would have many**
**multi-faceted beneficial effects across the EC.**

**31.** **CORDIS is already accessible via several Wide Area Networks, while there**
**is also interest by intermediary organisations in distributing electronically**
**sub-sets** **of CORDIS. However, before using new options for a more**
**dynamic penetration of CORDIS by distributing sub-sets of CORDIS to**
**other hosts, or even relocating CORDIS from ECHO, a multitude of major**
**policy and technical issues require clarification.**

**32.** **In conclusion, a clear overall CORDIS strategy is urgently required,**
**particularly given the limited funds envisaged for VALUE and SPRINT**
**initiatives within the Third** **Activity*** **cf the next Framework Programme.**
**This is needed not only for optimising the service but also for securing its**
**future. The issue of decentralisation or commercialisation of CORDIS**
**should be the cardinal consideration in such a strategy.**

_**Legal**_ _**Protection of Results**_

**33.** **Because of its importance and relatively low cost, the protection of RTD**
**results is an essential part of the** **VALUE** **scheme. Patent evaluation of all**
**JRC and some selected Framework Programme research results is executed**
**by the VALUE patent team. Drafting of patent claims, writing patent**

**«B***

_cklo_

**specifications and patent filing applications are undertaken by professional**
**patent lawyers.**

**34.** **Very few patents until now have been granted on patent applications**
**under VALUE. 72 cases have been filed, essentially from** **BRITE/EURAM**
**and the** **life** **Sciences programmes. Exploitation of** **RTD** **results takes years**
**and although no patents taken by the Commission under the VALUE**
**programme have yet been commercialised, several cases of exploitation**
**are under way.**

**35.** **The work of the VALUE patent team could be improved through greater**
**involvement by the programme project officers and RTD project partners.**

**2.6.** **Interfaces II and** **III**

**36.** **The activities of Interfaces II and HI are new to VALUE and could have a**
**significant impact. However, the importance attached to them by the**
**Commission is insufficient with respect to the magnitude of the tasks**
**involved.**

**37.** **The Commission's strategic approach and planning have benefited the**
**implementation of the actions.** **Nevertheless, a clear administrative**
**identity is required urgently for the management team of these tasks, to**
**facilitate its work in approaching the target groups and in developing their**
**activities, not only outside but inside the Commission.**

**38.** **Since there is a general lack of awareness about the new issues (Research-**
**Scientific** **Community/Research-Society** **Interfaces), the Commission**
**should place greater emphasis on promoting these through campaigns**
**aimed at target groups in the Commission itself as well as in the Member**
**States.**

**This could involve synergy with Interface I activities, e.g. using VALUE**
**Relay Centres as "distribution networks" for various Interfaces II and III**
**activities.**

**39.** **The Commission should consider merging Interfaces II and HI, directing**
**more effort and resources, particularly human resources, towards Interface**
**IE,** **"Research-Society" actions.**

**£^**

**3.** **THE FINAL EVALUATION** **MANDATE** **AND** **APPROACH**

In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Council Decision: "At the
end of the action, an evaluation of the results achieved shall be conducted
for the Commission by a Group _of_ independent experts. The Group's
report, together with the Commission's comments, shall be submitted to
the European Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social
Committee".

The Terms of Reference of the Final Evaluation of VALUE U, given in
s Annex 2, further detailed the evaluation task by stipulating that.

the panel will assess the extent to which the results achieved
contribute to the objectives of VALUE II and that of the Third
Framework Programme;

this panel will also assess the efficiency and effectiveness with
which the programme has been managed and promoted.

Finally, DG XIII-D asked the panel to reflect on strategic policy issues in
relation to the dissemination and exploitation of RTD results and to
technological innovation.

The work of the panel basically comprised:

critical review of pertinent EC documentation and activity reports;

interviews with DG XIII-D officials and leaders of a few VALUE
demonstration projects; and

extensive discussions in four plenary meetings as well as in several
meetings of panel member sub-groups that focused on particular
action lines of VALUE II.

With respect to the evaluation approach followed, it is to be noted thah

1. In view of the exploratory character of VALUE II, its results were
assessed mainly on a qualitative basis. Quantitative indicators were
used only for revealing or stressing qualitative features along
particular lines of actions.

2. In view of the fact that the financial envelope of VALUE II rendered
to its actions only a catalytic role, the approach for assessing the

_**M**_

**overall programme performance has been guided by the following**
**basic questions:-**

**were the initiatives designed by the VALUE Management**
**Team sound and in line with the mandates for this**
**programme?;**

**did the VALUE Management Team develop, within the**
**budgetary and other operational constraints of this**
**programme, a coherent set of activities for demonstrating**
**new tools and mechanisms that could facilitate the**
**innovation process at some of its critical stages?;**

**did these tools and mechanisms prove operative or adequate,**
**even in the limited areas and contexts in which they were**
**tested?;**

**is the experience gained from the exercise useful for**
**upgrading** **EC** **measures for the valorisation of** **RTD** **results?**

**^**

**HI.** **FINAL EVALUATION** **OF VALUE H**

**1.** **INTRODUCTION**

The Mid-Term Review of VALUE II covered the period from programme
start - May 1992 - until March 1995. The Review was made available to the
EC in May 1994 and was presented to the VALUE II Management
Committee in June 1994.

Hence the present final evaluation looked in particular at the progress
made during the last six or seven months of the programme's life.
Obviously the work carried out within this closing period has been in
many respects the continuation of activities launched previously.
However, the findings and recommendations of the Mid-Term Review
(Section II.2 earlier) influenced progress, as can be deduced from the
adjustments made by DG XHI-D to several on-going activities and the
reflections of the VALUE Management Committee on corresponding
issues.

For reasons of coherence, clarity and completeness of the overview and
evaluation of VALUE II throughout its duration, this report integrates the
findings of the Mid-Term Review with those relating to the work carried
out since May up until December 1994. Therefore, each action line of the
programme is considered below in a unified manner.

**2.** **ACTION** **LINE Lia : VALUE RELAY CENTRES** **NETWORK**

**2.1.** **Introduction**

**In this section the panel differentiates between the status of the Value**
**Relay Centres (VRCs) of the VALUE Programme and the new Relay**
**Centres (RCs) of the Third Activity, involved in the innovation actions**
**under DG** **XHI** **policy. The panel believes this distinction could be useful**
**for future innovation activities, be these ones that are made directly with**
**entrepreneurial companies or ones which aim to create an overall climate**
**favourable to innovation.**

**Moreover, the panel considers that there is a great need for coherence**
**within the various technology-related** **networks promoted** **by the**
**Commission and believes that the current competitive atmosphere**
**between these networks is not the optimum method of promoting**
**innovation. It helps neither the image of the network actors nor the task**
**of European innovation.**

**2.2.** **Overall Comments**

**There is no doubt that the recognised difficulty in** **trans!** **dng R&D results**
**into marketable** **products/services,** **including** **th*** **corresponding**
**production** **processes, is a weakness that needs to be adclressad urgently**
**and in such a way that it should be considered as a** **strategic** **issue, given**
**the importance that variables such as "reduced time to market" and**
**"shorter product life** **cycles"** **assume in** **today's** **supra-national competitive**
**environment.**

**The VRCs, together with the Exploitation Projects and CORDIS, constitute**
**the main tools developed by VALUE for addressing the aforementioned**
**weakness.**

**Taking into consideration the Mid-Term Review and the recent**
**evaluation of VRCs, the panel concludes that, in general, both the analysis**
**and recommendations made in these documents still remain valid. The**
**Executive Summary of the VRCs Evaluation, included in this report as**
**Annex HI, gives an overview of the methodology and performance of the**
**VRCs.**

**The basic conclusions of the aforementioned evaluation are that:**

**•** **During their pilot operation in 1993 and 1994, VRCs carried out a**
**'wide** **range of effective and, in many cases, innovative activities.**
**These, although of a quite experimental character, satisfied to a large**
**extent** **users'** **expectations.**

_**?>***_

**VRCs offered upstream and downstream services, e.g. services for**
**proposal preparation, search for partners, sensitising clients to**
**exploitation options for RTD results, etc. Downstream activity,**
**however, has been hampered by the known difficulty of financing**
**exploitation projects.**

**VRCs networking was rather limited, but in some cases good cross-**
**border collaboration has developed.**

**Overall, VRCs succeeded in advancing the valorisation of**
**Community RTD results across the Member States, despite the**
**rather low EC funding level for most of** **these'** **centres.** **This positive**
**impact was to a large extent due to the commitment and**
**enthusiasm shown by all people involved - both in the VRCs and**
**in the VR-Service in Luxembourg.**

**In view of the findings of the detailed evaluation of the VRCs, we expand**
**below in the present report by presenting some general reflections on the**
**Relay Centres concept** **which** **is pertinent to the currently unfolding Third**
**Activity as** **well**

**The RCs and their network could assume a greater role in acting as the**
**main bridge between SMEs' technological requirements and the research**
**efforts of European, national and sectorial programmes.**

**The horizontal nature of the network could serve as an integrating force**
**via strong representation of SMEs' needs throughout the varying stages of**
**the political decision-making process. At the same time the network**
**could constitute a valuable source of information, reflecting knowledge of**
**the field, in particular in those instances where such information might be**
**crucial, given the diversity within regions and industries towards**
**innovation activities.**

**RCs could trigger RTD institutions to show more concern integrating**
**some business orientation at an early stage in their research aims, by**
**exposing and confronting these with a "real world" image, if**
**"downstream" activities are pursued in an effective manner, and an effort**
**is made to approach the two types of agents.**

**The RCs' facilitator and catalyst role could be that of a decoding agent in**
**both directions. Moreover, with their own dynamic inclusion in local and**
**Community networks, they could be used as exploratory vehicles for the**
**further design and testing of new tools. In connection with this, it should**
**also be noted that RCs and other EC networks like** **EICs,** **etc. should take**
**notice of each other's existence. This would avoid confusion and create**

**synergy.**

**x**

**^**

**23.** **Operational** **Aspects**

**Being close to the market, the RCs are able to enhance the transectorial**
**transfer of technology, if they adopt a truly proactive "demand-pull"**
**approach.** **Furthermore,** **dynamic** **networking between RCs could**
**improve transnational technology transfer.**

**The RCs must adopt a** **pro-active** **attitude in the sense that the focus of**
**their work should be innovation and technology transfer rather than**
**dissemination and exploitation issues.**

**The RCs must, therefore, focus more on helping SMEs to foster**
**innovation strategies and for that VRCs will need to draw on any**
**available source of novel technologies, not only Community ones, or**
**even on mature technologies if these are to be used in innovative**
**contexts.**

**The RCs should have some of the characteristics of innovation agencies,**
**With** **a European scope.** **This implies that RCs need to utilise the**
**competencies of other Centres operating under different EC programmes,**
**in order to transform the RCs into windows of opportunities for local**
**companies to access European networks of institutions, projects and**
**experts on innovation.**

**In such a framework it is important that the RCs inform the other**
**programmes about their strategic position in order to enable these**
**programmes to take advantage of this and co-ordinate within the RC**
**network the dissemination effort of particular research findings, in order**
**to increase the global effectiveness of European innovation efforts.**

**A most significant, and positive, aspect is the diversity of** **actions** **and**
**processes that are being undertaken now by the different VRCs. This leads**
**one to assume that an operational decentralised approach will prove of**
**strategic advantage in fulfilling the goals of the programme and that cross-**
**fertilisation actions will encourage each individual RC to stretch its own**
**positioning in the near future.**

**2.4.** **Organisational Aspects**

**Future support is required to reinforce the autonomy and flexibility as**
**well as the identity of the** **RCs** **to prevent absorption by the host - possible**
**not only by draining or diverting the RC financial** **resources,** **but also by**
**using its human resources to accomplish the tasks of the host**
**organisation.**

**One way to prevent this is to sustain an effective network mode of**
**operation between the RCs, not only by means of an effective support and**

_**'SQ**_

**induce "per se" an immediate and perceivable shift in the behaviour of**
**relevant agents and key** **actors,** **as well as** **in** **the** **occurrence** **of generalised**
**innovation processes.**

**The success stories disseminated among potential users of** **R&D** **results,**
**especially in the less developed regions, and used for demonstration**
**purposes, were powerful motivators for improving industrial**
**performance.**

**RCs could play a more important mediating role in future between SMEs**
**and producers of EC-funded RTD, as well as other national and**
**international non-EC funded RTD generators, but they should also play a**
**determinant role in matching the capabilities of RTD institutions with the**
**actual needs of** **SMEs** **in terms of their** **problem-solving** **weaknesses.**

**Through their inclusion in local and global networking activities, RCs**
**could diffuse** **state-of-the-art** **knowledge and skills in different areas of**
**scientific and technological knowledge, which constitutes "per se" an**
**excellent contribution to the industrial development of regions, especially**
**for those with weaker innovation systems.**

**The success of exploitation projects and eventually a faster translation into**
**marketable innovative products could be expected from those RCs that are**
**part of a developed network and from technology-oriented regions or**
**industries; whereas in less structured and solid innovation systems and**
**in** **regions** **where the SMEs and local RTD institutions are less aware of**
**these goals, vehicles and processes, the RCs' role might be initially less**
**rewarding, fulfilling and visible but nevertheless probably of greater**
**importance and contribution in the longer term.**

**2.6.** **Recommendations**

**During the current initial stage of the new RCs network the temptation to**
**standardise procedures and especially structures must be avoided, since by**
**their** **very** **nature, effective networks are those that can adapt and**
**transform constantly.**

**There is the risk that a** **RC** **could concentrate its efforts on those SMEs that**
**have already had some experience with a VRC and these would then tend**
**to become regular "customers", especially if some significant success was**
**achieved or if they had a more** **technologically-oriented** **corporate culture.**
**This would be a comfortable and successful situation from the** **RCs** **point**
**of view, but would have the drawback of diverting the** **RCs** **efforts and**
**available resources from those that have not yet been attracted or exposed**
**to the purposes and processes of the programmes.**

**Eventually, the RC might become a "centre of excellence" for a limited**
**number of companies or RTD producers that at a given stage could and**

**3>r~**

**indeed should upgrade their connections with private agents or have**
**established their own networking** **activities.** **A certain degree of control**
**could be used in order to redirect the** **RC back** **to its original aims.**

**The cornerstone of the success of any RCs experiment is basically and**
**inevitably dependent on the commitment, skills and expertise of the**
**people involved, in becoming effective brokers between business and**
**technology. Synergies could be achieved through the utilisation by the**
**RCs of the old SPRINT networks, given the complementary nature of**
**their activities.**

**The** **VR-Service** **acting as a permanent monitorin, guiding and supporting**
**feedback system, could enhance its efforts for a more active networking of**
**the RCs as well as for a better cohesion in their operations across Europe.**

**In order to facilitate and promote an effective networking, the number of**
**RCs should not be significantly greater than that currently in existence.**

**The experts who assessed the performance of the VRCs detected different**
**strategies, sets of action and orientations between VRCs. In a future**
**evaluation, it might be possible, indeed necessary, to broaden the three**
**attribute groupings for RCs - substantial, valuable, and useful - in order to**
**reveal also aspects like those just mentioned.**

**The most important asset of each RC is its own personnel.** **Their**
**managerial, technical and entrepreneurial skills are the key issue of all**
**operations. Any measures taken to secure and expand this asset are,**
**therefore, vital to success.**

**<->o**

**3.** **ACTION** **LINE Lib :** **BASIC** **SERVICE** **: COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND**
**DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION SERVICE (CORDIS)**

**3.1.** **Introduction**

**CORDIS** is **an** acronym for the **Community Research and Development**
**Information Service. It** was initiated in 1988 with the following objectives:

to satisfy the need for timely and accurate information, initially on
the Framework Programme; eventually to be extended to other
Community Research and Technological Development (RTD)
Programmes and their results;

to provide wider awareness of such Community programmes and
their objectives, thus facilitating the development of Community
consciousness;

to allow for expanded programme benefits through better
interaction and co-operation among the participants;

to help promote the co-ordination of policies and programmes
carried out at national level.

In 1989, CORDIS was subsumed into VALUE as an essential element of the
Community endeavour to disseminate and exploit results of Community
research programmes. CORDIS was put at the disposal of the public as an
experimental service in December 1990 with the first three databases:
RTD-Programmes, RTD-Projects, RTD-Publications.

Important improvements have been made during VALUE II and now
CORDIS can be fully exploited.

3.2. **The Current Situation**

_The_ _**CORDIS**_ _Databases_

The actual database consists of 9 individual databases in English (except for
RTD News which is also available in German), which are updated
according to their news value (see Table 1). At present, CORDIS covers
over 137,000 documents about non-confidential matters.

**à£**

**Table 1 : CORDIS Databases,** Update **and Record Count**

Database Name Update Record Count   

RTD-NEWS Dairy _'._ ! 4,412 ~"~

RTD-ACRONYMS Fortnightly : 4,638

RTD-œMDCKUMENTS Fortnighdy 805

RTD-PROGRAMMES Fortnigjitly 393

RTD-PROJECTS Fortnightly 23,008

RTD-PUBLICATIONS Fortnightly 69,203

RTD-RESULTS Monthly 11,541

RTD-PARTNERS Fortnightly 17,992 ~

RTD-OONTACTS Fortnighdy 4,726

- Total 1st March'95 | 137,788

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

RTD-Acronyms: acronyms and abbreviations relating to Community
RTD.,

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

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

programmes.

RTD-Projects: individual contracts and studies and the organisations
involved within the various Community-funded programmes.

RTP-Publieations: bibliographical information and abstracts on
publications, reports and scientific papers arising from Community
research activities as well as other scientific and technical documents
published by the Commission.

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

**^ > &**

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

**RTD-Contacts:** main contact points (named individuals) on both
national and European level able to provide information, advice or
assistance on RTD activities.

_**The Information Collection Process**_

Information is collected in different ways:

 Regular direct contacts and collaboration agreements with specific
programmes and other data providers.

 - Use of internal databases as information sources.

 - Use of electronic information tools.

 Extraction of information from various documentary sources.

For this data collection, CORDIS has installed a Brussels-based CORDIS
Information Collection Unit. This consists of a dedicated team of
information collectors with specialists for each database. For the majority
of the databases the teams have active contact with individuals and
different programmes from within and outside the Commission. For
some other databases, such as Comdocuments, the activities involve
abstracting published documents. A number of contractors also work on
the CORDIS service.

CORDIS has prepared a guide called "USING CORDIS TO PROMOTE
YOUR PROGRAMME", providing suggestions and detailed directives on
how the RTD programmes can deliver information for CORDIS.

_**Accessibility**_ _**of**_ _**CORDIS**_

CORDIS is accessible in different ways:

Off-line through a CD-ROM published quarterly and containing all
CORDIS databases in compressed form (7,000 subscribers free of
charge);

**n**

**The on-line service (14,000 subscribers free of charge) is hosted by**
**ECHO (European Commission Host Organisation) in Luxembourg**
**and is accessible through:**

**Direct Dial (PSTN): X.25 (e.g. Datex-P, Transpac); Europanet,**
**etc.**

**Internet.**

**There exist different ways of information retrieval:**

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

**Menu system (Easy-to-use information retrieval system).**

**CCL (Common Command Language; standardised, efficient**
**search language).**

**Information about CORDIS is published in several** **ways,** **the most**
**important being CORDIS focus (extracts from RTD-news, published**
**every two weeks);** **Euroabstracts (printed equivalent of RTD-**
**Publications, published monthly);** **Innovation & Technology**
**Transfer (latest information about RTD in the European Union, six**
**issues per year), available free of charge from DG XIII on request.**

**Publicity and demonstrations were made at different happenings like EC-**
**programme proposers days, technology exhibitions etc. CORDIS is also**
**promoted in periodicals like: Euromanagement News, R&D in Europe**
**(EG Liaison), etc**

_**Users of CORDIS**_

**Among the actual 14,000 users of CORDIS one can cite:**

**national administrations (13%);**

**industrial companies (24%: of which 25% big companies, 25%**
**medium sized companies, 50% very small companies);**

**research centres (18.5);**

**educational institutes (26%);**

**focal points (e.g.:** **VRCs)** **(8%);**

**consultants, information brokers and others (10.5%).**

_**Funding**_

**The CORDIS project was funded by the following VALUE II funds:**

Ï 9 9 2 : I 4,720,003 ECU

1993: 5,887,394 ECU

Ï99* 2,760,683 ECU

TOTAL: 13,368,080 ECU

**The following internal EC staff worked for CORDIS: 3 A Tades, 1** **B** **grade,**
**2** **C** **grades.**

_**CORDIS'**_ _**Quality Approach**_

**To attain sufficiently high quality of the databases, CORDIS has adopted a**
**quality procedure, through:**

**Improved infrastructure of information collection.**

**CORDIS data provision guidelines.**

**Continuous review and improvement of data acquisition**
**procedures.**

**CORDIS data quality plan (specific scope of each CORDIS database,**
**data quality targets for Data Collection / Data Management,**
**achievement of data quality targets).**

**Implementation of improved data verification tools:**

**Problems detected early.**

_**Q-1**_

**Regular feedback to data providers**

**Quality measurements**

QUALITY PARAMETERS DIFFICULTIES

Timeliness Obtain the information as soon as it becomes

available at the source.

Completeness Obtain all the necessary data (e.g. texts, dates,

addresses).

Currency Never ending job.

Coverage Be aware of all available information.

Accuracy Unequal quality of source information.

Consistency Information received from variety of sources

and in several forms.
L
__ ;

_**C(**_ **X**

33. Evaluation **and** Strategic Issues

At the end of 1994 the recommendations formulated during the MidTerm Review were still valid. Since then, progress has been observed.

On top of these recommendations the panel wants to comment on the
following items:

_**Lack**_ _**of**_ _**an Integrated EC**_ _**Policy**_ _**RTD Information**_ _**Provision**_

_**i**_
The lack of coherence in information handling within the EC research
programmes is striking. Some examples are illustrative:

There exist two public accessible databases: CORDIS and ARCADE,
and it is totally unclear how far the one is complementary to the
other. The least one can say is that this leads to confusion among
potential users (where to go for what information) and, keeping in
mind what CORDIS has cost so far, to loss of money;

Not all RTD programmes have specific research results available in
time. Some RTD programmes only publish general results of the
total programme, others provide individual information of the
total programme, others provide individual information on project
results;

Some programmes seem to be capable of providing information
electronically to CORDIS, others only provide hard copies (which is
far less cost-effective);

Some DGs (like DG XH) have one main source of information (i.e.
AMPERE but this is neither complete enough, nor up-to-date), in
other DGs the sources are very varied.

A coherent and well-defined approach seems highly desirable in order to
make an information policy successful. This is of course not the
responsibility of one single DG, but must be assured at the highest level.

**. 3**
**(p**

_**The Information Provided**_

The coverage of the 3 RTD framework programmes (essentially projects
**and** results) is very heterogeneous. In general project description is better
covered than project results. In some cases a very high degree of coverage
is attained (e.g. the project description for the industrially oriented
programmes and mobility of the Third Framework Programme), while for
other programmes it is very low (energy, life sciences, environment for
the same item). On project results only 33%, 38% and 6% of the first,
second **and** Third Framework Programme respectively are covered. This
means that the major part of the results covers research done some seven
**years ago.** **Means** **should be found and procedures be established to**
**shorten this delay drastically and to enable more up-to-date** **information** **to**
**be** **delivered.**

The information provided could be expanded with:

more detailed information on project results: scientific, technical,
the markets it addresses, the type of products involved, patents
taken, scope for transfer of technology, the importance for SMEs, etc.
In this context it is suggested to expand those databases with
information on patents taken within the framework of the EC
research projects;

information on national RTD programmes and national (or
regional) RTD databases;

statistics on past calls: number of projects and total budget
introduced, success rates, etc

financial information on accepted projects.

Whether the content of the information provided by CORDIS is sufficient
is not clear and could not be analysed by the panel. **In order to have a clear**
**picture on the subject a market analysis should be conducted.** What
information should be provided depends essentially on market demand
**(also** **see below** _[ r]_ _DRDIS_ _**in**_ _the_ _Met'um_ _**and**_ _Long_ _Term)._

_**The**_ _**Catalytic Role of**_ _**CORDIS**_

In providing information accessible to all kinds of users, CORDIS plays a
catalytic role in the dissemination of information about RTD programmes,
projects and project results towards all kind of users. Information which
is normally not or very difficult to find can now be retrieved within a very
short time and by almost everyone with only a basic training.

**QV**

_**The**_ _**Impact of**_ _**CORDIS**_

**Although detailed information is not available, with 14,000 subscribers**
**CORDIS is thought to have a significant impact already on RTD activity in**
**Europe. From the limited information available we can conclude that**
**CORDIS is used mostly in the context of** **EC** **project proposal preparation:**
**RTD proposers check whether a given subject is already treated in the**
**context of the EC RTD programmes. This follows clearly from the very**
**high activity during the** **lanuary-February** **1995 period during which the**
**activity was three times higher** **man** **usual.**

**It is not clear to what extent CORDIS has an impact on technological**
**innovation in industry, essentially for SMEs. From the number of**
**industrial subscribers to CORDIS** **(24%)** **we have to conclude that only a**
**very limited number of European companies (3,360) use CORDIS.**
**Although companies are in many cases assisted through information**
**brokers, consultants, VRCs and other intermediaries, and although not all**
**companies are able (lack of human resources, lack of skills) to use CORDIS,**
**the** **3^60** **industrial subscribers is only a tiny fraction of the European**
**industrial world. So even at last** **year's** **growth rate of** **100%,** **much effort is**
**still needed in order to increase substantially the number of subscribers.** **In**
**view of this the promotional activity of CORDIS** **?h\>uld** **be increased**
**essentially towards companies, as research centres and ducation institutes**
**already constitute the majority of users. Promotion** **terhno-economic**
**journals, the use of pertinent associations, etc. as** **alreac stipulated** **during**
**the Mid-Term Review should be increased.**

_**The User Friendliness**_ _**of**_ _**CORDIS**_

**The user** **friendliness** **of CORDIS has been increased enormously during**
**the last few years through the introduction of state-of-the-art menu based**
**retrieval procedures, such as the** **CD-ROM** **and later on-line through the**
**introduction of the Windows based system WATCH CORDIS. Working**
**with CORDIS can easily be learned in** **1** **to 2 hours** **as** **it is to a large degree**
**self-explanatory. However, in some cases** **and** **for some kinds of people it**
**might be advantageous to provide a tutorial with a demo, showing how**
**information can be retrieved from the system. This could be provided** **on-**
**line as well, be downloaded through INTERNET, as well as on CD-ROM.**

**It is unclear to what** **extent** **the fact that the information is provided only**
**in English is a handicap and to what extent other languages should be**
**introduced. Again a market study should clarify this potential problem.**

**?s**

_The Quality_ _Control_ _of CORDIS_

The quality control procedure adopted by CORDIS since 1994 was a
necessary step which had to be taken to ensure sufficiently timeline,
complete, accurate and consistent data.

_The Link Between CORDIS and Other RTD Databases_

CORDIS only provides information about the RTD programmes of the
European Commission. However, for those looking for information
concerning high technology or for experts (companies, R&D institutes or
universities), this is not enough, since most research in Europe is executed
in national and regional R&D programmes* Databases concerning
national or regional research results apparently are not easily accessible. It
would therefore be extremely interesting to find in CORDIS information
on national research programmes and national RTD databases and even
find signposts when browsing through the CORDIS information, In this
respect one could also do something on COST, EUREKA and ESA. An
integration of other databases into CORDIS seems not feasible or even
necessary, given the existence and accessibility of this information.

_CORDIS in the Medium and Long Term_

The viability of CORDIS in the medium and long term is of concern. The
evaluation panel believes that three important elements will determine
CORDIS' future:

market needs;
cost control;
evolution of information technology;

These issues are intimately linked and any medium and long term
strategy for CORDIS should be based upon them. Of these issues, the first
is considered to be by far the most important.

Any strategy should be compatible with market demand. CORDIS should
in the first place offer the kind of information the market wants. CORDIS
was set up at a time when information technology and information
services were still in their infancy. Consequently, CORDIS has adapted
itself over the years to become,, technologically speaking, a state-of-the-art
service. This approach did not, however, necessarily take into account
broad market needs. The approach so far can be considered more
technologically than market driven and leaves us with uncertainty about
the market requirements.

_**Ht**_

**Modem** **technology will, in several years' time, probably change the whole**
**picture of information provision and information access.** **Electronic**
**Document Delivery, which has already been started through the**
**INTERNET access, is a new and exciting way and is already a step in that**
**direction. However, the evaluation panel believes that the whole system**
**o£ information flow from those who generate it (mostly the RTD partners)**
**to the centralised access will be changed completely and will have a**
**tremendous impact on the whole process.**

**Quite a lot has been spent on bringing CORDIS up to the current**
**operational level and its upkeep continuously requires large amounts of**
**money. Although the amounts necessary may remain available for some**
**time, the evaluation panel is of the opinion that a plan for cost control**
**and cost reduction is of the highest importance. The economies made**
**could be used for improved services, better awareness or even for other**
**types of actions within the context of technology transfer and validation.**
**The cost charged for CD-ROM as from the second half** **of** **1995 can be**
**considered a move in the direction of cost reduction, although it is**
**questionable whether this will have an optimal result when disconnected**
**from** **a more general approach. Also the** **free-of-charge accessibility** **of**
**CORDIS through INTERNET should be reviewed in the light cf possible**
**US charges for their databases.**

**It is therefore recommended that in the medium** **tern an integrated** **in-**
**depth study be made composed of the following items:**

**the demand side: the impact of the service should be measured and**
**the users surveyed. Such a market study** **should** **also cover the**
**most appropriate marketing policy to be followed in terms of**
**money charged for** **services.**

**technological** **evolution:** **in order to find out how the** **information**
**provision could look like in about 5 years' time and how** **CORDIS**
**could adapt to it This study should also take into account the**
**relationship to national or** **regional** **RTD** **databases.**

**cost control: essentially for the operation of CORDIS, while**
**maintaining high quality and service. This plan should be based on**
**an in-depth assessment of the actual process for the creation and**
**maintenance of the databases and should contain the steps to be**
**taken in order to cope with the technological changes of the near**
**future, to ensure a significant and lasting cost reduction over the**
**coming years.**

_**H¥**_

**3.4.** **Conclusion**

**Over** the last few years CORDIS has become a very important tool for the
retrieval of information about the research efforts originating from the
European Commission, and its usage is not limited to programmes,
projects and results, as described in its 9 databases, but extends to more
general research such as state-of-the-art studies, main RTD actors in a
given technical field etc. This is made possible through an easily accessible
system and a user-friendly enquiry system. CORDIS can be considered an
example for national and regional instances of how information about
research can be put at the disposal of users.

However, in order for CORDIS to ensure a .efficient impact and guarantee
its survival in the long term it is recommended that in-depth studies be
made with a view to the medium ^^d long term, on the demand side, on
the cost control and cost JVauction process, and on technological
evolution. In addition, _CQF^IS_ should increase its promotional activity
to convince essentially th/3MEs to make use of the service.

CORDIS also has _y_ _[r]_ _*_ ole to play in bringing national and regional RTD
databases closer to potential users in a harmonised way. In this
perspective c*e could think of financial support actions to make their
information available to the whole European scientific and technical
commun [5] '/ and to create links with the CORDIS database.

_**s-**_

**< #**

4. ACTION LINE L2 : UTILISATION OF RESULTS

**4.1.** **Form and Purpose of the** Activities

This action line, which directly supports valorisation of specific research
results, is designed to contribute to the main objective of the programme.
This is to facilitate the exploitation of Community RTD results in the
interests of improving the international competitiveness of Europe's
industry.

The approach is intended to compensate for the fact that, although the
RTD project contracts envisage that industrial partners to those projects
will exploit the results of research, three-quarters of them do not in
practice do so. Even in the remaining quarter of projects they often only
exploit some of the results. Opportunities for spin-off are also frequently
ignored. The VALUE programme also recognises that some RTD projects
do not lend themselves to immediate exploitation, though they reinforce
competences which may, at a later date, be used advantageously in various
innovative ways; moreover, much RTD project work takes place in
organisations, such as universities, which are not oriented towards
exploitation.

To these ends the programme supports three main types of activity under
this action line:

practical training activities related to the exploitation of results and
technology transfer;

presentation of the results of such work at conferences, exhibitions
and other public events;

particular projects which valorise research results by taking them
forward to the stage of demonstration or the transfer of a working
technology to new users in a sector or country different from the
original.

The stated objectives for this part of the programme are rather general.
More specific and verifiable objectives could help to focus projects on the
trade-off between the demands of technical excellence, innovativeness and
exploitation prospects. They would also be helpful both at the selection
stage and in subsequent evaluation, For example, they should indicate the
relative priority to be accorded to technological advance and commercial
potential and the time-scales to be attempted.

**<0**

_4JI._ **Administrative Arrangements**

The arrangements for operating this part of the programme continue
those adopted under VALUE I and through the early stages of VALUE II
though there have been some detailed improvements in approach since
the Mid-Term Review of the present programme. For example, the
budget for supporting technology validation and transfer projects has been
raised to 84 MECU for four years and technologies from any origin (not
just Community-supported research) are now eligible.

There have been two calls for proposals under VALUE II and another is
current under the Fourth Framework Programme. These have so far
given rise to 373 proposals of which 94 were accepted for support. Total
budget allocated is 7.6825 MECU. Individual project costs range from a few
k ECU for preparatory expert work to several hundreds of k ECU for larger
prototyping projects. As pointed out in the Mid-Term Review these are
very small amounts compared with those devoted to the RTD itself, less
than 5%, especially recalling that exploitation is a more expensive activity
by at least one order of magnitude.

We described the procedures involved in calling for and appraising
proposals in our Mid-Term Review report. These have not changed
significantly. So far as we can tell the Commission have operated the
arrangements efficiently. We note that Commission officials regularly
monitor projects. We encourage them to bear in mind that the costs of
doing this are justified only to the extent that they do not exceed the
amounts they save by averting failures. We are also conscious, however,
that more than one project participant remarked to us that officials'
advice, from the perspective of a wide experience of projects, had been
extremely valuable.

4.3. Findings

We have examined several of the current projects. These have not been
selected on any statistical basis. **Nor** have we had the opportunity to see a
large enough number for them to be regarded as a representative sample
or to examine them in great depth.

Nevertheless, it is clear that several, and perhaps many, are of high
technical quality. In the future some, though not all, should lead to
important exploitation activities which would have been lost without
VALUE.

In some cases there is a lack of commercial realism. While it is acci.
that a major justification for many of the projects is to include noncommercial bodies, such as universities and state-owned institutions, it is
important that at least one main participant has a truly commercial
attitude and the interest to make the project's output marketable.

**So**

Successful innovation requires a combination of developmental and
commercial skills which must be optimally promoted. It is important also
to ensure that the IPR arrangements are designed to be as conducive as
possible to exploitation. For example, patents might either be jointly
owned or in the hands of the partner most likely to carry out the actual
exploitation.

4.4. Discussion

There are three main evaluation issues relating to this action line. The
first is whether the rationale for it is valid and whether the approach and
stated objectives adopted to meet that rationale are appropriate to it.

The second issue involves judging whether, assuming the broad approach
is justified, it has achieved an effective impact.

The third issue concerns the efficiency with which the activity has been
managed. On this we have touched above.

Turning to the broad rationale for the action line, it is clearly important
that research should be exploited to the optimum extent, though it will
not necessarily be appropriate to exploit all research within the same timescale. Some results may, of their nature, take many years to deliver
benefits. Moreover, not all the returns to research accrue from direct
applications. Some, for example, may come from more general
improvements in knowledge and understanding.

It is possible that supporting development projects is a less cost-effective
means of technology transfer than diffusing research results by direct
information distribution through publications or databases. This latter
approach is less costly and broader based, whereas project support involves
concentrating significant amounts of money on a limited number of quite
narrowly specific projects. Even if the returns on some such projects are
high - which is by no means always the case - it is necessary to allow for a
quite high failure rate. Moreover, the amount of support which can be
provided is extremely small in relation to total expenditure on such
projects. Sceptics contend that this means that such project support can
have only the most marginal effect.

The argument for project support rests on the assumption that it has a
multiplier or gearing effect because it can be directed to key cases which
will act as demonstrators as well as providing experience and learning
opportunities. Moreover, on the principle that people are the best
technology and innovation vectors, support to collaborative projects
creates contacts which may be fruitful beyond the particular project both at
the time and in the future. The reality, immediacy and depth of project
based examples make them more likely to engender enthusiasm for

**•s-1**

**technological innovation than the distribution of relatively superficial**
**and generalised** **information.** **-**

**The evidence to resolve this controversy decisively does not exist. We are,**
**however, impressed by two basic principles. The first of these is that**
**technology transfer and, more especially, innovative attitudes, are best**
**diffused via personal contacts.** **Secondly, appropriate technological**
**solutions are more likely to be generated by demand from the** **bottom** **up**
**than by top-down** **dissemination.**

**We think that project support should have a place in a programme such**
**as VALUE II because it conforms, at least to some** **extent,** **to** **these**
**principles. It can create real contacts. And the work can, and should, arise**
**from proposals by those directly connected with the market place.**

**Moreover it is not an** **'either** **or' issue but one concerned with the**
**relative amounts of resources to be devoted to each kind of activity. The**
**VALUE II programme already has information transfer components. We**
**see no reason to extend these at the expense of project support, indeed, if**
**anything we would change the balance in the opposite direction. But**
**project support must be genuinely user and market led; and it must build**
**on,** **and develop synergies with, the other forms of promotion.**

**4.5.** **The Impact of the Projects**

**In the light of the principles set out above it is essential to maximise the**
**demonstration and technology generation effect of the projects supported.**
**Although progress has been made in this direction, we think more might**
**be done.**

**At present** **projects** **are demonstrated at, for example, exhibitions and at**
**relatively brief** **workshops.** **We welcome this, but we encourage the**
**Commission to develop such activities in more depth. Emphasis should**
**be placed not only on communicating project results but** **on** **the processes**
**that have led to them. The projects might be the basis for case studies in**
**innovation seminars lasting for a day or two rather than an hour or two.**
**It would not be unreasonable, as a condition of support, to oblige**
**collaborators to participate in these and to** **demonstrate** **both the particular**
**project (preferably on site) and the benefits to be** **gamed** **from similar**
**innovative action.** **The projects should be used as vehicles for**
**demonstrating the innovation process and the innovation mentality.** **TL:**
**chief benefit would be from the contacts involved, for the 'vectors' of**
**innovation are people.**

**It is essential, however, that the projects be set up with great care.** **W*** **w.**
**impressed with the technical quality of most of those we have seen. This**
**is naturally vital. But prospects of eventual exploitation are also** **cruricd**
**and, although these are taken into account, we are not sure they always get**

S£_

so much attention when selecting and setting up projects. We have
already suggested that one of the justifications for project support is that it
is to some extent market generated. This implies that at least one of the
partners in every case should have some commitment to exploitation if
the project is successful.

We recognise that emphasis on exploitability should not lead to
supporting commercially safe proposals while ignoring innovative but
more risky ones. The panel believes this may be achieved by the increased
emphasis on user-driven consortia that we have suggested. The more
precise objectives we have called for should also ensure that proper
relative weights are placed on innovativeness and exploitability. Support
should be carried as close to the market as the pre-competitive principle
allows.

Two factors could improve the opportunities for uncovenanted spin-off
applications. In the first place the selection process should seek whenever

                               possible to support technology with 'generic' potential "technologies
diffusantes". Secondly, we have been told there is already a tendency to
support fewer, but larger projects. If this is necessary to maximise the
opportunities for exploitation we would support some further
development in this direction.

4.6. Conclusions and Recommendations

We support the concept of project support but think its nature should take
more account of the specific considerations which justify it. These are,
primarily, the opportunities it provides to bring researchers, innovators
and potential exploiters together in a collaborative environment. It is also
important that the work involved is user and market led.

We, therefore, recommend that more specific, verifiable objectives be set
for this part of the programme which will both guide those selecting and
setting up projects and assist in focusing the projects as they proceed. To
this latter end each project should also have specific verifiable objectives,
relating to those for the action line and emphasising exploitation. All
projects should include, as main partners, an organisation with some
commitment to exploitation and the project should be set up to encourage
this.

With rather similar objectives in view we recommend that the tendency
to supporting larger, even if necessary fewer, projects should be extended.
In particular projects should be selected wherever possible to cover generic
technologies likely to have a high gearing and spin-off potential.

The main emphasis should be placed on demonstrating not just the
results of the projects but the innovative attitudes behind them. This

**53**

**should be borne in mind at all stages from project selection onwards and**
**in European,** **national** **and regional contexts.**

**5.** **ACTION** **LINE L3 : LEGAL** **PROTECTION** **OF** **RESULTS**

**5.1.** **Findings**

_**Objectives**_

**With this action line the Commission had as its main objectives:**

**the patenting and protection of Commission owned RTD results**
**stemming from JRC research;**

**the protection of results stemming from Commission RTD**
**Programmes, where the contractor is the owner and where the**
**partners are not capable or not willing to take out patents. For**
**budgetary reasons the latter case is most common with R&D centres**
**and SMEs;**

**support, advisory or financial, to partners of Community RTD**
**projects for conducting patent screening and patent applications;**
**and**

**public awareness campaigns and training on methods and**
**procedures for protection of RTD results.**

_**Past Achievements**_

**Since 1960 more than 2,400 inventions have been developed into patent**
**applications under the auspices of DG** **XIQ** **Patent Section. Of these, 520**
**patent files are still in force, with about 10,000 individual patents due to**
**secondary extensions of priority filings in all relevant countries. 463**
**patent applications are not yet granted and thus require continuous**
**supervision. 17 software registrations for copyright have been deposited**
**and 251 trademarks registered.**

**Of the patent applications, the vast majority originates from research**
**performed at the JRCs, but in the years 1991 to 1994, 221 inventions**
**resulting from cost-shared actions under the VALUE programme have**
**been filed as patent applications. Of these, 71 patents have been awarded**
**so far. The financial support for patent applications for projects related to**
**the VALUE programme was discontinued at the end of 1994.**

_**T**_ _**H**_

**The maintenance and expansion (expansion only in the case of** **JRC**
**patents,** **since** **VALUE has been disconnected) of this portfolio constitutes**
**the daily management work of the Patent Section.**

_**Current and Future Activities**_

**Emergence of patentable inventions at the JRC institutes will be fostered**
**within the framework of the new competitive activities of the JRC. While**
**patent assistance under VALUE has not been reinforced in the current**
**Third Activity programme, new initiatives have been prepared. As a pilot**
**action, selected proposals to the Projects part (Technology Validation and**
**Technology Transfer Projects) of the programme will all be subjected to a**
**quick-** **check in collaboration with the search division at the European**
**Patent Office (EPO) in The Hague. The new scheme has been labelled**
_**"Quick Scan"**_ **and will allow contractors to assess the novelty of their**
**technologies on the basis of the expert check by EPO examiners.**

**Also within the framework of the Projects scheme, a systematic** _**Patent**_
_**Build-up Scheme**_ **is elaborated. Due to ignorance or** **unawareness** **many**
**patent applications, in the first twelve months after a priority filing, are**
**not developed further in order to allow for a broader and more**
**substantiated secondary filing in all important markets. It will be a key**
**goal to sensitize contractors to the importance of the priority year and the**
**opportunities for substantiated secondary filings.**

_**Awareness raising**_ **for utilisation of the unique patent system also as an**
**information tool (avoid re-inventing the wheel, diagnose early**
**technological trends, check what the competition is working on) will**
**complement these activities. In connection with this, various training**
**tools are being prepared together with the EPO as well as awareness actions**
**by the Commission alone.**

**The researchers (in particular new staff) at the JRC institutes in** **Ispra** **and**
**elsewhere are a special focus regarding** _**education**_ _**in IPR matters.**_ **Training**
**courses have already been designed by external experts and will be taught**
**under supervision of the Patent Section. Education, information and**
**awareness will be extended more decidedly towards the administrators**
**and also the contractors of other specific programmes. Advice on IPR**
**matters is continually given to all parties requesting it in the course of EU**
**funded research and development.**

**5.2.** **The Panel's Assessment**

**The overall outcome from what has been tried out or undertaken in the**
**IPR field within the framework of the VALUE programmes is relatively**
**meagre. This opinion of the panel is corroborated by the following two**
**observations:**

S'S"

**The number** of patent applications filed and patents awarded (221
**and** 71 respectively) seems very limited in comparison with the
**total number** of projects and RTD results stemming from **the**
VALUE programmes.

We have found very little evidence of any systematic penetration of
**the** research community by the Patent Section, for example in **the**
**form** of seminars or promotion campaigns, in order to increase
general knowledge about IPR matters among **researchers.**

**In relation to the** first observation a possible explanation of the low patent
**activity** recorded is that patent applications are filed by RTD partners
**directly,** something that the Patent* Section does not keep track of.
Another explanation is of course the fact; that the Section discontinued its
financial support to VALUE projects for patenting costs in the autumn of
1994. No reason for this was given to the panel, but possibly it was due to
a general lack of financial resources within the Patent Section.

As concerns the second remark the panel has noticed organisations by
various VRCs of seminars where IPR issues have been emphasised. These
seminars could be seen, however, a* separate events rather than as
forming part of a well thought-out and consistently implemented strategy.
The panel is inclined to interpret the absence of such a strategy as a
combination of lack of initiative and lack of resources on the part of-the
Patent Section.

**5.3.** **Conclusions and** Recommendations

**Considering the** great importance of IPR matters in connection with RTD
projects there is **a** need for a radical change in the present organisation and
operations of DG XIII Patent Section. The panel welcomes the initiatives
**taken recently and** partly presented above (see _Current and future_
_activities),_ which indicate that a new, more suitable approach in relation
**to IPR matters** is about to be launched by the Patent Section» A prerequisite, however, to these initiatives being carried out successfully is **a**
combination of more resources, financial as well as human, and more
commitment.

A few specific ideas for consideration by DG XHI Patent Section and other
pertinent EC bodies are presented below:

1. Awareness campaigns on the patenting and protection of RTD
results should be extensive and continuous. Concise brochures and
other low cost publications, distributed as widely as possible in
universities, research institutions etc, represent a simple and costeffective tool for disseminating basic facts on ÎPR issues.

5 ^

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

3. A systematic registration and monitoring not only of patents
granted, but also of patent applications, licensing agreements and
other kinds of collaboration contracts emerging from EC supported
RTD projects would lead to a more efficient dissemination and
faster exploitation of RTD results. Obviously, such data would also
be a valuable input to assessments of the innovative content of EC
RTD activities. In this connection, a CORDIS database dedicated to
patents, trademarks, copyrights, licences and other indicators of EC
RTD results, would be a useful tool. Currently, such data are very
rare in CORDIS.

4. Several VRCs have responded to their clients' need for advice on
IPR matters. The new Relay Centres of the Third Activity should
expand on this decentralised activity. In addition, an Electronic
Bulletin Board System or a WWW site set up by the Pa^nt Section
in DG Xni could prove instrumental in aiding _the_ exploitation of
RTD results and creating a general snowb:: :1 fi t on IPR matters
across the whole RC network.

5. The incentives for patenting differ rather widely a *x *he Member
States. This situation puts up barriers to the protection of RTD
results by international consortia. In addition, the rather uncertain
prospect of any economic benefit to the researcher from a patent
leads him to choose the publication route which gives him at least
. academic credit. Before solving the complex legal aspects of this
problem, there could be ways and incentives in EC RTD projects for
encouraging "patenting first and publishing after". Such measures
would create a better and more positive environment aci oss the EU
for fostering and protecting innovation.

Certainly the ideas presented above are indicative and do not exhaust the
issues and measures that ought to be considered by the EC for protecting
and promoting innovation.

**S7-**

**ACnON LINE** **1.4** **:** **PROMOTIONAL** **ACTIVITIES**

**The principal goals along this line were:-**

**to disseminate as widely as possible information on Community**
**supported RTD activities and their results; and**

**to promote the specific VALUE initiatives for facilitating the**
**valorisation and exploitation of Community RTD results.**

**A wide spectrum of promotional activities has been undertaken to**
**achieve** **jthese** **aims. These activities can be grouped in the following three**
**archetypes:-**

**publications (brochures, periodicals, information sheets, etc.)**

**events (organisation of participation in** **conferences,** **workshops,**
**seminars, fairs, etc.)**

**services (networking, provision of information, etc.)**

**A few indicative examples of promotional activities are:-**

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

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

**3.** **The "Euro-Abstract Catalogues", addressed in particular to**
**researchers and documentalists.**

**4.** **The FLAIR-FLOW project aiming at the co-ordination of the**
**dissemination of RTD results emerging from Food RTD projects**
**supported by VALUE and** **FLAIR**

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

**6.** **The** **"RTD-Help-Desk",** **a service for responding to public queries**
**about Community research activities.**

-cr<p

In addition to the above specific examples as well as to the other centrally
undertaken promotional activities, we should also mention those
implemented via;

the multitude of decentralised initiatives which are part of the
everyday work of the 27 VRCs; and

the continuous and expanding presence of CORDIS within the
Union and recently worldwide too through its screen on the World
Wide Web.

The total amount spent on promotional activities until 1 January 1994 was
5.3 MECU, which was equivalent to approx. 13% of the total expenditures
of VALUE II so far. It appears to the panel, however, that this significant
promotional effort resulted from a step-by-step line of action based on
individual decisions rather than from a well thought-out and wellintegrated promotional strategy. A possible consequence of this is that
there has developed only limited awareness among important target
groups about the links between individual activities and calls for
proposals and the overall objectives and ambitions of the VALUE

programme.

Consequently the panel suggests a more powerful promotion of the Third
Activity in the future based on:

(i) an analysis of the needs and perceptions of different target
audiences and the results of previously carried out promotional
activities under VALUE.

(ii) a coherent promotional strategy across all three objectives of this
Activity, and

(iii) a strong and clearly identified connection between promotional
efforts related to individual activities and the principal common
elements of the overall promotional strategy.

**-5^**

**7.** **INTERFACES II** **AND ni :** **RESEARCH-SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AND**
**RESEARCH** **SOCIETY**

**7.1.** **Introduction**

The so-called "Interfaces II and EI" were a minor part within the VALUE II
X Programme, representing approximately 13% of its budget. They were
\conceived as a necessary complement to the main activity of the
Programme which was to promote the application of Community RTD
results by enterprises and was defined as "Interface I Research-Industry"
where **fee** bulk of the budget was spent.

The aim of Ih^?face II was to contribute to an interdisciplinary reflection
in relation* to **fee** research environment, including methodology and
other issues of a serial, financial and managerial character. Interface II
activities were, among others, several studies contracted, some seminars
and expert workshops, humeri of an Interfaces Bulletin and the annual
Interfaces Conferences.

_**_ The aim of Interface EI was to identify and study the impact on society of
- the new scientific and technologic^ knowledge acquired as a result of
Community research activities covering three main areas: Assessment of
the Social Impact of S&T (mainly supporting the European T.A.
infrastructure), Communication with the Public and Analysis of the Public
Demand. The main outcomes of Interface IE, besides several studies
contracted and seminars organised, were a very^ interesting proven and
tested Awareness Scenario Workshop Methodology and a large set of
material and support actions addressed to the refinement of tools and
information of the European Technology Assessment expertise.

Prior to any further analysis, the panel wishes to express its concern about
the dismantlement of this activity at the end of the VALUE II Programme
as, in its view, these lines of activities should be neither marginalised nor
abandoned. To be successful, innovation definitely needs soiial
adaptation, accompaniment, training, awareness to lead to final acceptance
and proper use. Barriers and threshold levels for technology acceptance
may vary from country to country but transnational considerations and
lessons learned at a European level will be of great importance. In
addition, in the field of innovation the EU's main goal of integration and
cohesion requires an in-depth consideration of the various aspects
(economic, social, cultural) in the different regions in Europe.

Innovation is essentially combinatory and thus needs to draw upon
various disciplines, sub-technologies and expertise. Not only did
Interfaces II and HI address these issues with too meagre resources but such
a global approach no longer even exists within the Third Activity.

_**Go**_

**7.2.** **General** **Comments**

**The** ppiiel considers very relevant the objective of reconciling the general
pubpc with research activities and technological development, these being
also necessary to reinforce interdisciplinary activities through the various
existing research communities. However, the minimal resources
allocated to the Interfaces on the margins of a small programme like
VALUE II could not satisfy such an important challenge.

As indicated in the Mid-Term Review report the whole activity lacked a
clear identity in front of one of its main target users - i.e. the European
Commission. The job was mainly conceived, co-ordinated and to some
extent performed by a reduced task force of only two enthusiastic
Commission officials, whose dedication has to be largely recognised. They
had the organisational support of an external Management Unit and the
advisory support of an "ad hoc" Think Tank Group (TTG).

The Council Decision took place in May 1992, the resources and staff
assignment in late 1992 and the constitution of the working team in April
1993, but at the end of 1993 the first versions of the Fourth Framework
Programme, including some restrictions in the scope of the Interfaces
action line, obliged a significant re-tuning of their on-going activities.

These time schedule considerations and the fact that the first concrete
outputs of Interfaces II and HI appeared at the end of 1994 might explain
why the scope and potential results of this line have not been sufficiently
understood within the VALUE Management Unit and also misconceived
when defining the whole Fourth Framework Programme and particularly
the "Third Activity". A dear effect of this is the allocation of the so-called
"socio-targeted research programme" within DG XII.

The launch of this new activity took longer than expected, mainly for
administrative reasons and therefore the allocated budget was not
consumed during the first two years. The general restrictions on
expenditure in 1994 did not take into account this fact and the VALUE II
Management Committee cut the overall budget from the 7 MECU
foreseen at the beginning of the programme for this task to 5.7 MECU.

7.3. Findings and Results

The first period of activity was driven by an intensive reflection process
(TTG, Experts' Working Seminars,...). Then the whole task was conceived
with a clear modular structure which allowed for quick adaptations to the
recommendations of the Mid-Term Review panel (i.e. shifting the priority
to Interface HI : Research-Society activities) and the orientation of the
future Fourth Framework Programme.

_**<oA**_

_**'**$&*.**_

**In general terms it has been a** **tool-oriented** **concept,** **the** **outcome of** **which**
**led to workable goods and manuals. Its background and goals were**
**service-oriented,** **acting sometimes in a cathartic role (passive concept) and**
**at other times in an enzymatic way (dynamic concept). The Interfaces**
**Team had a clear vision of the importance of the methodologies for the**
**dissemination of results and the importance of targeting clusters of**
**opinion leaders.**

**Altogether about 40 projects were launched, resulting in a similar number**
**of reports although their usefulness and possibilities for application are**
**not homogeneous.**

**The most important outcome was about half a dozen useful tools in the**
**fields of Technology Assessment, Awareness and Science and Technology**
**communication issues.**

**A very good appreciation of some of them, especially the Awareness**
**Scenario Workshop methodology, has been confirmed by relevant**
**European and national institutions. To complement the figures given in**
**Chapter II.1 earlier (Overview of VALUE II) the budget committed up to**
**mid-1995, including the last call for proposals for studies, is 2.45 MECU for**
**Interface** **II** **and 3.3** **MECU** **for Interface** **HI.**

**Of the total expenditure for Interface III, 0.8 MECU has been used to**
**develop the European Awareness Scenario Workshop methodology as**
**follows:**

**1993:** **Survey, initial idea evaluation and first presentation event —** **0.15 MECU**

**1994:** **Test with European dimension (4 cities and final conference) plus**
**first materials** **027** **MECU**

**1995:** **Test in a real project context (including final workshop and conference)** **0.10 MECU**

**European training (2 pilot sessions plus material packages in EU**
**languages)** **028** **MECU**

**TOTAL** **08MECU**

**Before the end of this year about 15 European cities will have used this**
**tool with a recognised impact at political, citizen and media levels, which**
**provides certain confidence about the value of the money spent. Prospects**
**are on-going for offering the methodology to some countries in the Far**
**East and Latin America.**

**£.**

_**<ot**_

**7.4.** **Recommendations**

**The panel feels strongly that the social and cultural dimensions of**
**innovation, as well as the interdisciplinary nature of technological**
**development, are very important and judges very positively the initial**
**approach carried out within the Interfaces II and** **HI** **action lines.**

**The panel recommends that the research on the tools, as launched in the**
**last two years, be continued further in order to better achieve the goals of**
**understanding impacts, communicating research orientation and**
**applications of results, contributing to a deeper interdisciplinary**
**atmosphere, etc.**

**Nevertheless, the issue of Interface III should be viewed more from a**
**bottom-up (i.e. no innovation without taking into account the social and**
**cultural dimensions, etc.) rather than a top-down perspective (i.e. Science**
**and Technology need to be explained to the general public, etc.).**

**The panel would encourage the Third Activity Management Team**
**towards promoting more widely exploitation of the tools, such as the**
**Awareness Methodology; the efficiency of this in matching social needs to**
**technological results has been demonstrated and it has contributed to a**
**global European culture of innovation and promotion should include, in**
**particular, informing other EC and Member States services of the existing**
**expertise.**

**Finally, the panel expresses its concern for the apparent abandonment of**
**these action lines within the Third Activity and hopes that this situation**
**will be reconsidered and reinstated or continued with appropriate**
**resources and with a clearer recognition of its benefits at Commission**
**level. Resources foreseen for accompanying measures could be used**
**synergistically for that purpose.**

**6^**

**IV.** **STRATEGIC ISSUES**

**1.** **BACKGROUND**

**In relation to the strategy of VALUE, much has already been said in the**
**Mid-Term Review about the historical strategy of the VALUE I and II**
**programmes.**
**The panel felt that there was no need to duplicate this and that it was**

**more appropriate to identify the lessons from past experience and**
**concentrate on discussing future strategies.**

**VALUE I and II, as well as SPRINT, were clearly experimental**
**programmes designed to spearhead new ways of dealing with RTD results**
**dissemination, technology transfer and innovation.**

**The VALUE programme objectives were the dissemination and**
**optimisation of Commission funded RTD results.** **The SPRINT**
***'** **programme was more general, operated outside the RTD framework, and**
**had specific objectives in the field of promotion of innovation. Yet the**
**complementarity of the two programmes and some overlap in their**
**means and tools were clear enough for the Mid-Term Review panel to**
**support the idea of a merger between SPRINT and VALUE.** **Tftis** **merger**
**was implemented for the Fourth RTD Framework Programme and the**
**corresponding Third Activity is now under way. The integration of both**
**programmes is a commendable step towards creating a tool better adapted**
**to the overall goal of promoting** **innovation.**

**The Commission is currently planning a Green Book on Innovation,**
**encompassing the many challenges faced by European firms as well as the**
**variety of experience gained throughout the Union and at Commission**
**level in promoting innovation, technology transfer and the creation,**
**absorption and diffusion of technologies by enterprises. This indicates**
**clearly that innovation is regarded as a major issue.**

**In this context, the VALUE II final evaluation panel wishes to contribute**
**to the current policy thinking around the general issues attached to**
**innovation, technology transfer and exploitation of RTD potential.**

**2.** **STRATEGIC** **CONSIDERATIONS**

**In its efforts to improve the well-being of** **citizens** **throughout the Union,**
**the Commission aims to implement the internal market, increasing the**
**competitiveness of firms at both a European and global level, and**
**reinforcing the social and economic cohesion of the Union.**

**6(y**

In so doing, strengthening European science and technology and
promoting innovation, the transfer of technology and the dissemination
and valorisation of RTD results are regarded as complementary means
contributing to industrial competitiveness.

2.1. It is not enough to Invest in RTD

It should be stressed that past experience has shown that investments in
science yield no clearly perceived direct returns in technological
development and economic growth. The processes at work are rarely
linear. R&D expenditures certainly help but to what extent, under what
circumstances and in what time scale are still much debated questions.

As an example, it is a well known fact that the creation of RTD
programmes is monitored by large companies and major research
organisations. SMEs are too small to be part of the corresp ending lobbies
and in fact participate relatively very little in Community RTD
programmes. This is in clear contradiction to the explicit objective of
Commission policy defining SME competitiveness as a top priority. In any
case, this clearly favours policies which pro-actively help public RTD
programmes benefit industry. VALUE type scbe* are thus both
legitimate and useful.

Conversely, the promotion of innovation does not sim !y correspond-to
active transfer of R&D results to firms. Much more is inv >lved, ind tiding
creating an environment favourable to innovative activities, promoting
an infrastructure of actors and means, helping firms solve the problems
which they encounter throughout the many loops of the innovation
process, generating adequate sources of funding, etc.

_12._ **RTD** / Innovation Policy: the Imbalance

Figure 1 below shows how promotion of innovation and RTD activities
are related to technology transfer and the dissemination and utilisation of
RTD results. It also shows the relative importance of the resources usually
allocated to innovation policy compared with those to RTD. Of course,
RTD programmes also contribute to human knowledge and thus should
not be justified for purely utilitarian reasons. Nevertheless, the increasing
importance of industrial competitiveness and the scarcity of resources may
lead to some questioning of the balance of funding and the attention given
to innovation on the one hand and RTD activities on the other.

_6^_

_**6**_ _**c**_

Promoting Innovation

Technology Transfer

Dissemination /
"Valorisation" of RTD results

_the size of the bubbles illustrates the_
_relative_ _attention paid to the activities_

The panel feels that some cultural change has already taken place in the
RTD community. Some researchers still keep igncHng downstream
considerations and view dissemination and valorisât n as constraints
now put upon them by the specific programmes. They /en ^ orry about
research money being taken away from their resear ». f c-ne others,
however, have become aware of the importance of tL*» role of RTD ir
nurturing innovation processes in industry through ad hoc processes.
They understand that natural spill-over from research projects into the
economy does not take place automatically. Nevertheless, the relative
emphasis is still on RTD per se, not on innovation.

**2.3.** **Innovation** **is** **not just a Spill-over** of **RTD**

Innovation in a company, especially an SME, relies on the synergistic
combination of a variety of factors: some perception of a market need only
partially satisfied, some recognition of technologies which might be
useful, some development capability, the managerial ability to run a
project, the availability of a network of partners in the environment
(suppliers, engineering, consultants, professionals, educational
institutions, i.e. _"technische Dienstleister"),_ the capacity to find adequate
funding as well as to train existing human resources and/or hire new
competence, the will to adapt the organisation accordingly, etc.
This view is similar to the illustration in the SPRINT final evaluation
report and shown here as Figure 2 below.

_**m**_

**SME PARTNERS**

**CONSULTANTS**

**INNOVATION POUCY** **/** **I I ~** **\** **TECHNICAL RESOURCE**
**PUBLIC FINANCIAL SUPPORT/** **L J X** **\** **CENTRES**

**RTO**

**FINANCIAL SYSTEM \** **. ^** _**J**_ **/ ADVISERS** **IN** **TECHNOLOGICAL**

**INNOVATION**

**OTHER SMEs**

As can be easily understood, the "technology push" approach behind
VALUE can fulfil at best only a very small part of the innovation agenda.

**2.4.** **Recognising Innovation** as **a** Risky Business **for** the **Firm**

The firm is the place where innovation really occurs. Innovation is a
means to an end, namely competitiveness. It is a risky business for the
firm trying to transform a need perceived in the market place into an
opportunity. Firms do not enter innovation processes for fun, nor because
it would be considered smart. Innovation involves a painful and complex
process for the firm pressurised by a competitive environment, especially
for SMEs.
Whenever an innovation policy is designed, these simple elements
should be kept in mind.

**2.5.** **From Technology-Push to Demand-Led Policies**

Seen from an RTD policy perspective, the dissemination of results is an
important task as it aims to make scientific and technological progress
accessible to firms.

Seen from the promotion of innovation perspective, the best way to
achieve this is to adopt a demand-led approach. However, the philosophy
behind the framework programme and thus VALUE was more
"technology push" oriented. While recognising that both RTD activities
and innovation promotion are necessary and complementary, the panel
advocates the latter perspective of innovation promotion rather than
supply of RTD results.

_**6ï**_

As **a** matter of fact/one objective of **a** programme like VALUE and now
the Third Activity is to contribute to changing the culture of both RTD
players **and** firms so that they understand each other increasingly and thus
join forces through collaborative ventures and projects. In this respect a
small programme like VALUE could be considered as the catalyst of a
change process. A good example of this is the co-ordinating role now
played by the Third Activity for the specific programmes, helping RTD
actors pay more attention to downstream concerns, utilisation of results
and effective innovation. Moreover, this view essentially confirms in a
positive manner that VALUE has been a programme with little resources
and a big agenda.

**2.6.** **Generating a Variety of Expertise rather than** "Off-the-Shelf-Technology"

It should be stressed that whenever technology is the missing link, the
innovating company will be looking less for "that piece of technology'' as
if it were available off-the-shelf, but rather for some technical expertise to
solve the problem encountered, and in a timely and cost-effective fashion.
What RTD activities generate is not so much directly usable results but
enhanced competence. RTD should be considered less as a supplier of
technologies and more as source of scientific and technical expertise. In
addition, most innovations actually combine a set of sub-technologies
requiring a variety of competences. The necessary division of science into
disciplines is thus inappropriate to the jigsaw nature of real life
innovations.

At the outset of programmes, therefore, innovation cannot be expected to
follow naturally, as a simple continuation of RTD activities. This thus
leads to the horizontal nature of VALUE, integrating the programmes and
operating as a technology broker.

**2.7.** **Innovation** Extends **beyond Technology**

Whenever the promotion of innovation is related to RTD programmes,
this relationship tends to identify VALUE-SPRINT/Third Activity with
technological innovations; yet there is an increasing awareness of the not
purely technical aspects of innovation: organisational and social
dimensions tend to play a very important role in innovation. Some argue
that these "soft" aspects even constitute barriers to change in many cases
and thus should be treated with much more care. The panel feels that
separating these aspects from the Third Activity (e.g. the targeted socioeconomic research programme) will result in dealing solely with the body
(hardware matters) on the one hand and "soul" on the other. The panel
would suggest reconciling and integrating both sets of dimensions.

_**64**_

**2.8.** **Adopting a Variety of Approaches and Promoting Experience Sharing**
**Across Borders**

**While** **dissemination /valorisation** **of RTD results implies the**
**management of concrete projects and the establishment of highly visible**
**tools (e.g. the Relay Centers), the promotion of an environment**
**favourable to innovation and the enhancement of technology** **absorption**
**by enterprises may lead to Community activities which appear less**
**tangible but still real since they contribute mainly to managerial practice**
**and cultural changes among RTD actors and firms. The panel thus**
**suggests combining both approaches with real, down-to-earth projects on**
**the one hand and more organisational contribution on the other.**

**In addition, the diversity of** **experience** **gained throughout the Union and**
**at Commission level favours experience sharing across borders and thus**
**Commission involvement.**

**Different regions of Europe may save much time and energy by**
**exchanging information, etc. among themselves, including with more**
**advanced regions and countries where national schemes have been tested**
**over the years. These activities could therefore reinforce the economic**
**and social cohesion of the Union. In addition, it is felt that both the aim**
**and** **scope** **of an innovation policy should combine the local/regional level**
**and the continent-wide** **perspective.**

**2.9.** **Reaching** **SMEs** **in** **a** **Decentralised Way**

**Furthermore, it is well known that these activities of innovation**
**promotion benefit SMEs only when they take place in their local**
**environment.**

**The promotion of innovation needs to be adapted to each context.**
**Promoting innovation is as complex a process as innovation** **itself.**
**Approaches, tools and instruments should thus match the characteristics**
**of** **each** **country, sector, type of firm, etc**

**This leads to the adoption of a centralised perspective for such activities as**
**well as to close co-operation with regional** **huriatives** **where** **».he**
**Community clearly has a role in promoting the exchange of best practices**
**as** **well** **as in supporting local/experimental projects.**

**2.10. Co-ordinating Initiatives**

**Promoting innovation throughout the European social and economic**
**fabric involves many different activities.** **While part of the RTD**
**framework, the Third Activity already co-operates on regional policies in**

**fO**

**the context of structural funds. Industrial policy, financing or** **education,**
**inter alia, are also clearly linked with this Activity.**

**In addition, it is important to stress that the innovation process in Europe**
**will only succeed (and therefore the competitiveness of European**
**companies will only be upgraded) if all possible instruments (such as**
**industrial, export, third country aid policies, etc.) at both the EU and**
**Member States levels are utilised, in combination with the full potential**
**of European technology.**

**Innovation impacts directly and indirectly in many respects on the**
**Union's citizens, affecting their way of life, their environment,**
**employment conditions, etc.**

**Conversely, as discussed earlier, innovation requires a variety of**
**ingredients, not just a supply of** **technologies.** **The panel thus strongly**
**supports the on-going co-operations between the Third Activity and other**
**Community initiatives as they make it possible to demultiply the**
**resources of the Third Activity while bringing adequate expertise to the**
**corresponding functional domains of action of the Community.**

**3.** **RECOMMENDATIONS**

**The panel strongly advocates a major initiative dedicated** **to.** **the**
**promotion of innovation. This initiative should not be regarded simply**
**as an appendix to RTD activities. This initiative should work at increasing**
**the awareness of companies throughout Europe about the potential**
**benefits of innovation, the ways and means to proceed, the risks attached,**
**the support that may be available in time and the best managerial and**
**organisational practices stemming from past experience. This initiative**
**should be awarded significant funding. The panel considers that** **10%** **of**
**the RTD budget is a much more relevant order of magnitude than the**
**amounts allocated to past actions.**

**Four major lines of action, both direct and indirect measures, should be**
**envisaged to promote innovation throughout the Union while**
**minimising the risks involved for individual firms:**

**measures for facilitating innovation inside companies;**

**measures to promote a climate favourable to innovation**
**(infrastructure, networks e.g. science parks, financial tools, etc.);**

**measures to stimulate the search, scanning, identification and**
**recognition of market needs by firms, thus creating innovative**
**opportunities;**

**^**

**measures to** **help** **firms integrate the social and cultural dimensions**
**of innovation, so that the social embedding of new activities into**
**society can be pursued in an interactive, real time mode.**

**New thinking and thus new actions on innovation need to emerge to**
**make sure that the Union benefits from the corresponding** **expected** **gains**
**in competitiveness.**

**Innovation requires flexibility and speed. The panel emphasises that** **the**
**management of measures designed to promote innovation should rely on**
**flexible and time-efficient procedures.** **The panel suggests that the**
**Commission consider specifically streamlined administrative procedures,**
**adapted to the requirements of innovation.**

**The panel points out the risk of having the Third Activity within the RTD**
**framework as it gives the wrong impression** **that** **innovation could be**
**considered basically a technical matter and a downstream addendum to**
**RTD activities. The** **panel** **suggests strongly that this initiative should be**
**recognised clearly as a top priority and wishes to raise political awareness**
**in the Community.**

**&**

# ANNEXES

**V3**

**ANNEX** **I**

**VALUEn**

**Council Decision**

**29** **AprU** **1992**

**23.** **5. 92** **Official journal of the** **European Communities** **N o l H i / i**

**li**

_**(Acts whose publication is not**_ _**obligatory)**_

COUNCIL

**COUNCIL DECISION**

**of 29 April 1992**

**on the dissemination and exploitation of knowledge resulting from the specific programmes of**
**research and technological development of the Community**

**(92/272/EEC)**

**THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN** **COMMUNITIES.**

**Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European**
**Economic Community,** _**snû**_ **is particular Article 130q (2}**
**thereof.**

**Having regard to the proposal** **from** **the Commission** **(*),**

**In** **cooperation with the European Parliament** **(** **[2]** **),**

**Having regard to the opinion of the Economie and Social**
**Corxunincc (** **[3]** **),** **"** **.** _**t**_

**Whereas** **Article I30g** **(c) of the Treaty states that the**
**Community, complementing the** **activities carried** **out in the**
**Member States, is to** **cany** **out** **activities for** **the**
**dissemination and optimization of the results of** **aaivirics** **in**
**Community** **research, technological** **development** **and**
**demonstration;**

**Whereas the second paragraph of Article 130k of the**
**Treaty stipulates that the Council shall define the detailed**
**arrangements for the dissemination of knowledge resulting**
**from the specific programmes;**

**Whereas the Treaty establishing the European Coal and**
**Steel Community stipulates** **that-thc** **Commission is to carry**

**(')** **OJ No C** **53,** **28.** **2.** **1991.** **p.** _**?0.**_
**(*)** **OJ** **NoC** **0.2C.** **1.** **"** **[0]** **?2.** **p.** **75;andDcdiionof** **8 April 1992**

**out activities in** **die** **coal and steel sector which do not** **form**

**part of the Framework Programme for research and**
**technological development, the results of which must be**
**disseminated and used by** **means** **of suitable separate**
**activities, using** **the** **resources of the** **ECSC 'operating**
**budget';**

**Whereas, by its Decision** **90/221/Euratom,** **££C(*),** **the**
**Council adopted a third Framework Programme for**
**Community** **activities** **in the field of research and**
**technological development (1990 to 1994),** **specifying,**
_**inter**_ _**/ilia,**_ **the activities to be pursued for developing the**
**scientific knowledge and technical know-how needed by**
**the** **Community** **and** **providing** **that** **the** **dctaDcd**
**arrangements for** **the** **dissemination of the knowledge**
**gained, in particular the** **définition** **and the** **implementation**
**of the centralized action, should** **be** **the subject of a Council**
**Decision;**

**Whereas, pursuant to Article** _**<**_ **and Annex 1 of Decision**
**90/221/Euratom,** **EEC, the amount deemed necessary for**
**the whole Framework Programme includes an amount** _**oi**_
**ECU 57 million for the exploitation and** **dissemination**
**of** **knowledge** **resulting form the specific** **R &** **D**

**programmes;**

**Whe.rc**;.d..:** **fvraiom** **Treaty contains detailed** **provision:**
**for.xhè^disstminatiort.of.-information** **which apply,** _**mu**_
_**alia;**_ **to** **nuclear** **research** **programme*;**

**V**

                                  - s

**NoL 141/2** Official Journal of the European Communities 23.5.92

Whereas the decisions relating to the research and training
programmes in the fields of controlled thermonuclear
fusion (1990-1994) and nuclear fission safety (1990-1994),
together with the activities undertaken by the Joint
Research Centre in the field of nuclear research, envisage
that the amount estimated as necessary as the contribution
of these programmes to the present -centralized action for
the dissemination and exploitation of results is ECU 6,57
million;

Whereas the dissemination of knowledge and exploitation
of results should be dealt with in a coherent manner;

Whereas « is necessary to ensure the coherence of schemer,
for disseminating the knowledge resulting from specific
programmes in the Framework Programme; whereas such
coherence must be based on general rules which guarantee
the protection of the legitimate interests of the public and
private contracting parties and of the rights linked to the
obtaining and exploitation of the results, as well as their
exploitation in conformity with the Community's interests,
in particular with respect to its economic and social
cohesion;

Whereas, in order to improve the insertion of Community
research into a broader context and to opumixe the
utilization of the knowledge which results from it, it is
important that the centralized action should both intensify
its emphasis on the research-industry interface and widen
its scope to the rcscarch-science and rcscarch-soacTy
interfaces;

Whereas Decision 90/221/Euratom, EEC provides that a
particular aim of Community research must be to
strengthen the scientific and technological basis of
European industry and to encourage it to become more
competitive at international level; whereas it also provides
that Community action is justified where research
contributes, _inter alia,_ to -the strengthen of the economic
and social cohesion of the Community and to the
promotion of its overall harmonious development, while
being consistent with the pursuit of scienrific and technical
excellence; whereas the present action is looked upon as
contributing to the achievement of these objectives;

Whereas small and mcdium-sircd enterprises (SMEs)
should be involved to the maximum extent possible in this
action; whereas account should be taken of thcu spcoj]
rcquucmcnis, without prejudice to the scientific and
technical quality of the programme;

Whereas, in accordance with Article 130g of the Treaty,
the Community's activities aimed at strengthening the
scientific and technological basis of European industry and
encouraging it to become more compcuavc include
promoting cooperation on research and technological
development with third countries and intenudotul
organizations; whereas such cooperation may prove
particularly bcnefidal for the development of this action;

Whereas the Sdcntific and Technical Research Commince

(Crest) has delivered its opinion.

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Whereas it is desirable to cooperate with existing networks
for the dissemination and the promotion of innovation and
_Article J_
to encourage new networks where these do not exist;

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

Whereas, in the context of this action, an assessment

should be made of the economic and social impact as well
as of any eventual technological risks;

Whereas basic research in the field of the dissemination and

exploitation of R ôc D knowledge must be encouraged
throughout the Community;

Vnciras. in addition to the specific programme concerning
human rcso. rces' an mobility. « «s necessary 10 encodage

_i --.,^,,-t,,..„,t, rT,, .~ »'•«. —««<-*( of this

1. The dissemination and exploitation of knowledge shall
be carried out as part of the specific programmes and by

means of a centralized action.

2. The centralized action, as defined in rjint:. ?, shall

ensure overall coordination and coherence in the field

covered by the Framework Programme. It is adopted for
the period running from 29 April 1992 to 31 December

1994.

_AmcU_ _2_

1. The amount of Community expenditure deriving irom
the levies on the fu-.-ri:. estimate»! as necessary for the
execution pi the~spcofte* programmes, "with a viev/ TO the
implementation of the centralized action established by this
Decision, is estimated "<» ECU 57 mill.on. including
c :>rndiiorc on ssaff ar. ; adrr.jr.'sirjnon amounting IO ECU

**^6**

**23.** **5. 9 2** **Official Journal of the European Communities** N o L Hl/3

**2.** **An** **indicative** **allocation** **of** **funds** **is set out** **in**

**Annex** **U.**

**3.** **If** **the Council takes a** **decision** **pursuant to Article 1 (4)**

**of Decision 9 0 / 2 2 1 /Euratom, EEC, this Decision shall be**

**adapted accordingly.**

_**Article**_ _**3**_

**Detailed rules for the implementation of the programme**

**and the** **amout** **of the Community's financial contribution**

**arc set out in Annex** **111.**

_**Article**_ **4**

**1.** **In** **the course of the second year of the** **implcmentatior**

**of the action, the Commission shall review it and send** **:**

**rcpon** **on the** **results of its review ot the** **Europcar**

**Parliament, the Council and the Economic and** **Socii**

**Committee;** **die** **rcpon** **shall** **be** **accompanied,** **wher**

**necessary, by proposals for amendment of the** **acnoc.**

**2.** **At the end of the action, an evaluation of the results**

**achieved shall** **be** **conducted for the** **Commission** **by ;**

**Group** **of** **independent** **experts. The** **Croup's** **rcpon,**

**together** **with** **the** **Ccmmission's** **comments,** **shall** **be**

**submitted to the European Parliament, the Council and the**

**Economic and Social Committee.**

**3.** **The reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be**

**established having regard to the objectives set out in Annex**

**1 tc this Decision and in accordance with Article 2 (4) of**

**Decision** **9 0 / 2 2 1 / E u r a t o m,** **EEC.**

_**Article S**_

**1.** **The** **Commission** **shall** **be** **responsible** **for** **th<**

**implementation of the action.**

**The representative of the Commission shall submit to the**

**committee a draft of** **the-** **measures to be taken. The**

**committee shall deliver its opinion on** **the** **draft within a**

**time** **limit which the chairman may lay down according to**

**the urgency of the matter. The opinion shall be** **delivered**

**by the majority laid down in Article 148 (2) of the Treaty**

**in** **the case of decisions which** **the** **Council is required to**

**adopt on a proposal from the Commission. The votes of**

**the representatives** **of** **the Member** **States within the**

**committee shall be weighted in the manner set out in that**

**Article. The Chairman shall not vote.**

**The Commission shall adopt the measures envisaged** **if they**

**arc** **in** **accordance with the opinion of the committee.**

**If** **the measures envisaged arc not in accordance** **with** **the**

**opinion of the committee, or** **if** **no opinion** **is** **delivered,** **the**

**Commission shall, without delay, submit to the Council a**

**proposal relating to the measures to be taken. The** **Couna]**

**shall a n by a** **qualifiée!** **majority.**

**If,** **on the expiry of a period of three months** **bom** **referral**

**of the matter to the Council, the latter has not acted, the**

**proposed measures shall be adopted by the Commission.**

_**Article**_ _**7**_

**1.** **The procedure laid down in Article** _**6**_ **shall apply to:**

**— the preparation and updating of the work programme**

**referred to in Article 5 (2),**

**— the contents of the calls for** **proposals.**

**— the assessment** **of** **the projects proposed** **and** **rhe**

**estimated amount of the** **Community's cooeribuboû** **to**

**them, where this amount exceeds ECU** **150** **000,**

**— departures from the general rules set** **out in** **Annex** **111,**

**2.** **A work programme shall be drawn up** **[tn accordar.ee](http://accordar.ee)**

**with the aims** **set** **out in Annex 1 and updated** **wh.trt**

**necessary.** **It** **shall set out the detailed objectives and types**

**of** **projects** **to** **be** **undertaken,** **and** **the** **finança:**

**arrangements to be made for them. The Commission** **[sr.il:](http://sr.il)**

**make calls for proposals for projects on the basis of** **tr.t**

**work programme.**

_**Article**_ _**6**_

**F*»-** **0-.f** **execution of this action, insofar as it relates to the**

**specific** **prc;^r»mmcs** **based on Article l30q (2) of** **:'.<**

**Treaty,** **the Comiy.'ssion** **shall be assisted** ****v** **a** **conir.incc**

**— any adaptation of the indicative breakdown of** **the.**

**amount set out in Annex 11,**

**— the measures to be undertaken to evaluate** **the** **acaorj,**

**— measures for implementing the rules** **laid down** _**v**_

**Article 8.**

**2.** **Where, pursuant to the** **thiiw r r ' ^ t** **of** **oaragiaph** **1,** **d**

**amount of** **the Communiry contribution** **ts-** **less than <**

**equal to, ECU 150 0 0 0, the** **Commission** **shall inform** **u**

**committee of the projects and concerted** **aaions** **andof** **i:**

**Outcome** **of theu assessment. The Commission shall** **al**

**inform** **ilir** **oommmcc** **of** **ihr** **implement anon** **of** **I**

###### **_H_**

NoL l41/< Official Journal of the European Communion 2 3 : 5 . 9 2

_Article 8_

For the execution of this action, insofar as it relates to the
dissemination and exploitation of knowledge resulting
from the specific programmes based on/oriclc 130a (2) of
the Treaty, hereinafter referred to as "knowledge*, the
following rules, while respecting prc-cxisring rights, shall
apply:

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

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

(b) knowledge which could be used in an industrial or
commercial application, if its nature jusaiics such a
measure," shall be protected in any appropriate form to
the extent required in the light of the interests of the
Community and its co-contractors and in accordance
with any applicable legislation or convention;

(c) the Community and its co-contractors shall be
required to exploit the knowledge in. their possession,
or have it exploited, in conformity with the
Community's interests and taking full account of
the objective of strengthening the international
compenoveness of European industry and the
economic and social cohesion in the Community;

(d) knowledge belonging to the Community shall be made

available to its co-cootractors and to interested third

parries established in the Community who undertake
to exploit it, or have it exploited, in conformity with

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

All conn-actors shall make the knowledge in thenpossession, together with any information necessary
for its use, available to the co-coacractors and to
interested third parties under contractually defined
conditions, provided that the interests of the
Community and the lcgidmatc interests of its
co-contractors arc safeguarded;

(c) the Commission shall ensure that knowledge suitable
for dissemination according to the concracrual terms is
disseminated or published cither by the Commission
use!! or by its co-contractors, without any restriction
oihcr than those imposed by die need to safeguard
imellcCTuaJ and industrial property, confidcnoaliry or
IcgKimatc commercial interests.

The Commission shall lay down the arrangements for
implementing the rules laid down in the first subparagraph
of this Article, in accordance with the procedure described

in Artidc 6.

_Article_ 9

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 29 April 1992..

For _the Council_

_The President_

_•_ Luii VALENTE DE OUVEIRA

## _n_

23. 5. 92 Official journal of rhe Europcaa Communities. N o L H 1 / 5

_ANNEXI_

OBJECTIVES AND TECHNICAL CONTENT

The general aim of the eennaiued anion lo< tnc dissemination and exploitation of knowledge resulting from
Commumry research a ou vines, earned ow ytïdc? dits aexson. it to give spcahc added vaJue to the R ôé D
activities which axe the subject of the thud Fsamework Frogrammc (or 1990 to 1994. On ibc one hand, u
provider the necessary conassuiry for wmt _at the._ measures carried out unda the VaJuc programme; on the
other, u introduces new topics _cjaaccm-zà_ p-u-neuiariy "-nth the rcpescussions of research and technological
development acovmcs and _thaï_ toui''. oc «>Cîcr; ai i -» hole.

Tins centralized anion «% to be r.onduoc<5 ^ a u o i à n o *tm die following guiding principles

(a) HoruuntaLty

Measures to publish a_nd uolux tes-card? resuhi must apply to the whole tartge of Coramuiury R fie 0
activities, coveted by the Comtnowry Frimc-otk Pioysmmc, a?cspcaj*c of the narvrc of rrogjamracs.
the persons involved and the jdjuwjiiiKiO'X authonues rcspons.-blc. Tots cru en on wJJ be implemented
through coordination a/td Laivon berv^ctt- RID *r.-cc<hc ptogrif.imcs and ine ccnualncd acuoo.

(b) Internal cotnplccneoianry

Tbe cm trained a ex» on will onorthaatr _int_ supplement OK meajajres ciiea under ose specific RTD
programmes. It will aJso concrctïT" oa *cr,vsti« reouuTBg spccuJ mbasmucrùrc and '.Vil It (ooenpoxcnzod
tnionnaaoo vyHcms, 3 crtwofV ui Vchsy rx-'ooas", ex.) ot spxaaJ capabilities for aansfernng know-how 10
fields of activity m other -"IjCiplmet.

<c) Subsidiaries

Tl.c ccntraJucd acooo wijj build on the synergies between Ooocunaki^d (public and private) and
Community R _&._ D aenvincs and is designed, ki eonjuncrioo with other Corucaurury measure and in
cooperation wtih the naaonal and regional authonocs responsible, to establish a coherent tncchanrsrn for
the unjixaoon and transfer of the tccbnologies and the know-how obtained bora research and technological
development, using, wherever passable, the existing structures in Member States.

As far as the content of the prevent acooo is cotuemed, those measures already hunched co forge doscx links
berween research and industry wiil be supplemented by other new measuia designed to forge clover links
berwecn research and loacty and between research and the soenobc cotarnumry. These arc measures which
rcQect the DC* scientific and sechnologica] ©bjccrivGs and coosaraiaa ter by tociery and in uuoarooca, and rise
increasing interest in the mtcrdisapUnary approach to research and tedsnologkaJ devcloptacai tombe». Ar thi»
nage, and now that so aebviocs art more dortJoped. crus cxn a allied acnoo -«.-ÛJ tocorporatc dvese no* topics
into IG conceptual and operaaonaj fraxnewofk.

Detailed objecuves for the cenoaJued action, irxiuding measurable targets and rrulestones, v»ol] be devenbed in
workplans, which vnij be subtnmed annually to the comnstrtcc.

1. RESEARCH-D^DUSTRY rNTERfACE

The aim «s to help to «mprovc the tntemanonal cornpedriveness ot Europe's industry in accordance with
the provisions of the Trary by means 00 specihc piojcas designed to truumuc the impact of Commumry
R _Ik_ D activities on industry as a whole

For this purpose, the networks and partnerships berween companies and laboraioncs from the different
countries which result from the Community R & D programmes consonne an imponant clement of the
mechanism set up for th< djsseroirkjoon and exploitanon of their results.

_**1**_

**N o** **L K l / 6** **Officiai Journal o f the E u r o p e a n** **C o t i u n u o i à c s** **2 3 . 5 . 9 2**

**protect their findings in certain cases** **where,** **for** **example,** **chcy lack the ncccsury** **expertise** **and arc unable**

**to obtain this through the** **usual** **nanonaj and commercial channels, and at the same tune help** **them** **to**

**exploit and promote such findings. The following measures** **arc** **proposed:**

**1.1.** **New** **channels of iaiormaooo**

**(a)** _**Ncusork**_ _**of**_ _**telsy**_ _**centres**_

**A** **ncrwor*** **of relay** **ceo ties will** **be** **vet** **up to promote the** **disseminaoor.** **and** **crploitaooo** **of**

**Community R & D results, while taking into account, and building on, the** **cacrarg srxucrurej** **in**

**Member States designed for the some purpose. The relay** **cencrcv** **will** **have speoal** **access to**

**Community** **mformaoon,** **under the control of the** **Commission,** **and will have as their** **mam** **task the**

**tailonng** **and interpretation of** **this** **information to local needs, especially** **in** **relation to companies,**

**particularly SMEs. universities and research involutes. The specific needs of** **ir.e** **more peripheral and**

**least-favoured areas of the Community** **wùM alvo** **be taken** **into** **account.**

**^hile** **giving full consideration to local needs and** **orcumsrances.** **the** **fol)o«--.r;r** **activities,** **inter** _**oLs**_

**may** **be undertaken** **by the relay** **ccnucv**

**— the** **dissemmauon** **of** **mformaoon** **on Community programmes and calls for proposals,**

**-— identihcanoQ** **of opportunities for** **parnopanon** **in** **Comrouniry R f c** **D** **programmes,** **and general**

**guidance to candidates** **in** **the preparation of proposals,**

**— facilitating the** **inicrprctaoon** **and** **disscminaoon** **of Community** **programme** **results for target**

**audiences and local firms,**

**— promotion of the exploitation of** **the** **research resula with potentially** **ia:crested** **enterprises,**

**— assistance to organizations which have produced results in the** **idcnrificaoon** **of exploitation'**

**opportuntoes** **at a European level and market research possibilities, -**

**— providing information on specialized agencies dealing** **with mtellecrual** **property and legal**

**(** **protecoon** **of** **results,**

**— providing information on possibilities for financial support.**

**Competent** **naoonal** **authorities and the scientific, technical and industrial community will help the**

**Commission to select the relay centres in the Member States and to define their specific tasks.**

**The relay centres will, at the outset, analyse** **cuxrent** **practice on** **dissemination** **and exploitation,**

**identify** **ne»** **approaches, where** **necessary,** **and formulate a Plan of Acnoc** **with** **specific targets.**

**1.1.** **(b)** _**Basic Sennce**_

**A user-friendly computerized information service** **colled** **Cordis will become available in 1992. After**

**1992.** **and depending on the results of a detailed** **evaluation,** **the aim of the** **ccnoalued** **action will be**

**to update and expand the Cordis** **informaDon** **service. The service could provide** **new** **functions and**

**continue to** **expand** **using new sources of** **iniormaoon,** **harmonize and/or** **integrate** **databases, use**

**electronic storage devices (CD-ROM and video** **diva)** **and develop** **user-frier.dly** **systems for clccnooic**

**data exchange in** **cooperanon** **with related Community programmes.**

**Tne** **development of computerized methods docs not exclude the** **use** **of more traditional methods**

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

**servies**

**Utilization of results**

**This** **activity,** **which was already started** **in** **the Value programme, should be extended to the new fields**

**covered** **bv** **the Framework Programme and developed «n** **line wiuS** **the results that** **txcome-available in** **the**

**vcats** **ahead.** **This** **means utilizing the research and development results of which the Communery** **is** **the**

**n w n n** **a n j .** **where** **needed.** **hclp«*»c** **«e** **«.I'thzc** **the** **.evults** **of research and development projects undertaken**
**o«** _**»**_ **«har:** **[ :]** **-„c..** **UJSIS.** **»n** **«he** **latter** **cave.** **IT»C** **3«m will** **be to help contractors** **v.ho** **do not have** **.s««<*ioeni**

**expertise,** **in** **particular the** **universities,** **research** **i«.-".«rules** **and SMEs.** **to** **take** **advantage** **of** **ih< rcsulrs** **of**

**-** **.** **_.t** **„„.l** **. „** **i . . i „** **._** **_** **. „** **., .,** **,1,,.** **C ^ r r - m, . . . ^** **A** **V** **D** _**r^uU-,**_ _**cnidc**_

**23.** **5.** **92** **Official journal of the European Communities** **-** **No L** **H l / 7**

**The work to be undertaken could take different** **forms,** **depending on each specific** **ose,** **as** **follow*;**

**—** **identifying,** **controlling and appraising** **the** **results of research** **in** **order to develop and target**
**utilization plans,**

**—** **finding licensees, including for** **the** **JRC and, more generally, parties interested** **in** **utilizing results,**

**— providing adequate financing support for** **srudics** **or tests and experimental** **developments.**

**This** **word** **w\Ji** **be** **earned out with** **the help of** **outside** **experts and competent** **organuanons tn** **the**

**Member States.**

**1.3.** **Protectioo** **of results**

**The protection of results belonging to the** **Community** **and management** **oi** **the patents portfolio** **that it**
**holds** **wijl** **be** **continued,** **as** **in** **the past, through systematic** **cxanunaoon** **of the final reports and results**
**obtained** **by** **the JRC. The activities described below,** **winch** **have already been started** **in** **the Value**
**programme,** **will** **be developed more intensively by the** **centralized** **action.**

**Those** **universines,** **research centres and SMJEs which do not have access to patenong expertise** **will,** **on**
**request,** **be provided** **with aid** **by the** **cenrralued** **action. It will supply expertise on patents and financial**
**support limned to the costs of searches for prior claims to novelty and** **first** **patent applications.**

**Public awareness campaigns may also be organized on the importance of protection results for the**
**research** **socnosu partieipaong in** **communiry R & D programmes.**

**1** **[ 4]** **.** **Protnouonal** **activities**

**Promotion on the results could take the following form:**

**— financial support for organizations making an active contribution to the promotion of results and.** **iri**
**general, for organizations within a** **transnaboaal network** **set up in order to facilitate, promote and**
**coordinate access to** **Cornmunity** **programmes,**

**—** **organxzaoon** **of** **seminars,** **cooicreoccs** **and other means of** **oommunicaooo,** **including in** **aosobatioo**
**with** **the** **topecove** **bodies in the Member States and. in** **parocular,** **with the "relay centres',**

**—** **artendance** **of trade fairs.**

**Specific** **acbviàcs arc** **planned to provide economic and social cohesion in regions where** **dissemination**
_**2j\â**_ **udkubon** **structures do not exist or arc still in their infancy.**

**II** **INTERJACE** **BETWEEN RESEARCH AND THE** **SCŒNTTJF1C COMMIJNTTY**

**The** **ob|ccbvc** **of the activities under this** **beading** **is to contribute to** **mtcrdisdpunary reOecnoo m** **relation**
**to research,** **IU** **methods, problems and** **impact.** **Such** **acovibcs** **will be** **scrucnired** **around the following**

**four areas:**

**11.1.** **General context of research** *****

**The** _**2\rr.**_ **is** **to study the coosaaints and/or** **opporrunibes** **for the disscminaoon and crploitaoon of R 6c D**
**acnvices** **applying the** **dtscipbnes** **of law,** **poliocol** **sciences,** **sooal** **and human** **soenccs.** **Examples** **of topics**
**to be considered could** **be;**

**— his:ory and** **comparabve** **analysis of public and private research structures.**

**— aspects of** **avil** **and public law, mainly** **in** **respect of intellectual property** **nghrs.**

**—** **intcrnanonal** **rules on scientific and technological** **infonmabon.**

**U.2.** **Cocaraunicaooo** **of research**

**The** **obiee»^-** **i«** **i-»** **•_-upvc-'«.** **i*»e** **communication** **of research towards** **tes various** **UKU..by** **obiain>*~^** **-**
**oenei understanding** **of communication** **pann—v** **Disciplines of a** **voooruhuial nnuir** **w»** **[1]** **'** **play an**

**o** _**^\**_

**N o L** **H I / 8** **OfficiaJ** **Journal of the** **European** **C^rrununicics** **23. 5 .** **^ 2**

**11.3.** **Ecooonxia** **of** **research**

**Macrocconotnic insxrumencs** **and business sciences must be used to determine the optimum use of**
**resources to be channelled into research as pan of general economic** **development objeenves** **and company**
**objectives. Taking account also of studies conducted in other contexts, the** **cost/benefit** **aspects of the**
**cycle of research and development, and the economic obstacles** **to** **its** **cxploitabon.** **will be** **examined,** **in**
**particular** **wuh** **a view** **to** **main opbmal use of the** **financial** **resources allocated under the third Framework**
**Programme.**

**II** **«.** **Management** **of** **research**

**The** **overall ob|ccovc is to promote knowledge of best practice in the** **management** **of R** **6c** **D in order to**
**contribute to better cxploitabon of results. Management studies will help with the** **orgoruzaooo** **of**
**research and laboratory management. They can make a concribuboo to project management,**
**admintsoaovc** **procedures and methods of management. Particular** **anenbon** **will be paid to subjects**
**relating to decentralized management and making** **more** **efficient use of human resources** **ta** **the**
**departments** **which manage research. Comparative studies will be conducted on the different**
**management** **models used by universities and** **idustnal** **research** **insotutes.**

**ill** **INTERJACE** **BETwT.EN** **RESEARCH AND SOCIETY**

**1 his** **heading covers measures designed to** **idenbfy** **and study the unpad on soocry of the** **new** **scientific**
**and technological** **knowledge,** **acquired as a result of Community** **acbivines,** **especially where the**
**interaction between science and** **technology,** **on the one hand, and society, on the other,** **is** **particularly**
**critical. The** **aim is** **to spread** **socnnGc** **know-how widely through Europe in order to seek to ensure that**
**changes** **in the** **contemporary approach to** **voencr** **arc compatible with developments** **in** **soacry.**

**To** **this** **end,** **it** **should take its place in an efficient** **ùitcracbve** **process** **cenxsisong** **of the following** **stages:**
**research, research results, pubbc perception and reaction,** **.assessment** **of** **.social impaa.-mociiEcaooQ** **of**
**research acovibcs where necessary.** **In** **order to ensure that this procedure works** **effectively,** **close** **h"W**
**will** **have to be forged across the board with** **the** **specific study programmes developed prior to the**
**policy-making process. Wherever possible,** **acovioes** **will be based on** **the** **work of, and executed in close**
**coordinaoon** **with,** **existing** **organizabons** **in the Member States.** **The** **centralized** **acboo** **will be** **m** **three**

**parts.**

**Ul.l.** **Contribution to assessment of the social impact of science and technology**

**In coniuncoon with** **the** **mote specific abvioes** **provided for in the individual specific programmes and**
**with** **the** **acb vibes** **of the Monitor** **programme,** **more general** **"technology** **assessment'** **schemes will be**
**developed. Those areas which will be specially monitored and studied arc not only those which relate to**
**the cxplouaoon** **of new tcchoologics affecting** **health,** **safety and the environment, but also ethical and**
**legal quesnons relating to** **the** **cxploitabon of results.**

**ill.2.** **Coovmuntcauoa** **with the public**

**The** **ceoa alued** **acboo will make** **use** **of channels of** **communicabon,** **particularly the mass** **m*dia,** **to**
**provide** **informaoon** **for** **(he** **public, building on existing** **strucrures in** **Member** **Scares,** **wncrc** **appropriate,**
**use could be made of the relay** **ccoorcs menooncd** **under 1.1. (a).**

**III.3** **Analysing pubbc demand and** **new rcquircroenu**

**In coniunction wuh** **other programmes** **concerned,** **including the Monitor programmes** **(').** **the centralized**
**action** **will** **provide** **srudics** **and surveys designed to identify** **the** **latest social** **needs,** **through** **its** **direct**
**contact** **with** **actual or** **potcnoal** **users of the knowledge resulting from R 6c D programmes.**

_*$>%_

23. _5._ 92 **Official Journal of the European** **Communities** NoL M1/9

_**ANNEXU**_

**INDICATIVE BREAKDOWN OF EXPENDITURE**

_**(ECU**_ _**-*A«>n)**_

**I.** **Research•mduscry** **interface**

**U.** **R eve arch-vQcnofic** **commumry interface**

**ID.** **Rcvearch-soaety** **interface**

**50**

**4**

3

**57('l**

**(')** **Inducjnr,** **crprodirurr** **on** **«iff amounting** **to ECU** **•*** **million and** **admnufuative crpcndiiuic totalling** **ECU 5** **CiJJiOO.**

**The breakdown between different areas does** **not** **exclude the possibibry that** **projects** **could cover several**

**areas.**

**€^>**

**No L** **141/10** **Official** **journal of** **the** **European Communities** **~** **2 3 . 5 . 9 2**

**ANNEX «I**

**RULES FOR** **IMPLEMENTINC THE** **ACTION**

**1.** **The Commission will implement** **the** **action on the basis of the sdcnbfic and technical content** **described** **in**
**Annex 1.** **It** **will apply the accumulated experience and best practice of both European and** **internaoonal**
**experts in this field.**

**2.** **The rules (or implementing the** **acboo.** **referred to in Article 3, comprise pro** **jeers,** **cooccncd** **acboos** **and '**
**accompanying measures. Sdecboo of projects must take account of the criteria listed in Annex** **111** **to**
**Decision** **90/221** **/Euratom,** **EEC and of the objectives set out** **in** **Annex** **I** **to** **this** **programme.**

**—** **PlOICCIS**

**The projects** **will** **be the subject of** **sha/cd-cost concracrs** **and Community financial paniopaoon which**
**wdJ** **not normally be more than 50** _***L.**_ **Univcrsines and** **other research centres** **parocipaong** **in**
**shared-cost** **projects will have the opnon of requesting, for each** **prO|CCt.** **either 50** **%** **funding of total**
**expenditure or 100** ***A** **funding of the additional marginal costs.**

**Shared-cost** **projects roust, as a general rule, be carried out by participants established in the**
**.,** **Community, for example** **univcrsibes.** **revcach** **organizations and industrial firms, including small and**
**medium-sized** **enterprises. Concracrs relating to** **shared-cost** **projects must as a general rule** **be** **concluded**
**following a** **sélection** **procedure based on** **caL's** **for proposals published in the** _**Official Journal of the**_
_**European**_ **Communities.**

**—** **Coooencd acxiocu**

**Concerted** **acboos** **consist of acboo by the** **Commumry** **to coordinate the individual** **aebvibes** **carried out**
**in** **the** **Member States. Tbey may benefit from funding of up to 100** _**"l>**_ **of coordxnabng expenditure.**

**— Accompanying measures**

**The accompanying measures referred to in Article 7 will in particular be implemented through:**

**— the** **organizaboo** **of seminars, workshops and** **soenbiic** **conferences;**

**— internal** **coordiruboo** **through the crcaooo of** **integrating** **groups;**

**— independent scientific and** **strategic evaiuaoon** **of** **the opcraoon** **of the projects and** **the** **acboo;**

**—** **conrnbunon** **to studies and enquiries.**

V '

**Scj**

VALUE-n-5/DOC-i

MH) TERM REVIEW OF TAB CENTRALIZED ACTION (VALUE g)

The Council Decision of 29 April 1992 or : the disseminarion and exploitation of knowledge

resulting from the specific programmes of research and technological development of the

Community, foresees in Article 4, paragraph one tbar "in the course of the second year of the

implementation of the action, a review of it by ihe Ccrsmission and foresees that a report on

die results of this review be sent to the Eir:pean Pêjiiaine.p.t, the Council _?v.à_ ihe Economic

and Social Coniiniiteè".

Due to the faa thai VALUE II is is pin a continuation of the VALUE t programme, and th2i

the final evaluation of VALUE I takes _ztect_ cLinng ihe same period, the Commission services

su£2-£$i tiiat the saine panel of independent tx"pens evaluating VALUE 1 be asked to review

VALUE II activities.

In compliance with Article 7, psraercph i. sixth been: of the afoR aid 'Councu Decision,

Coramitîee opinion is asked on tins suggestion

The proposed terms of reference for the mic-tenn review of Value II are attached (Annex Ï).

The Composition of the panel is also ar^chid (Annex U).

**:çr**

**ANNEX II**

**Final Evaluation**

**Terms of Reference**

**£6**

**TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE FINAL**
**EVALUATION OF THE CENTRALISED ACTION**

**(VALUE II)**

**In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Council Decision at the end of the**
**action, an evaluation of the results achieved shall be conducted for the**
**Commission by a Group of independent experts. The Group's report, together**
**with the Commission's comments, shall be submitted to the European**
**Parliament, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee.**

**To conduct this final evaluation, the Commission services will be assisted by a**
**group of independent experts, hereafter referred to as the panel.**

**The panel will assess the extent to which the results achieved contribute to the**
**objectives of the Centralised Action (VALUE H) and that of the Third Framework**
**Programme (1990-1994) notably through:**

**strengthening the scientific and technological base of European industry**
**(including SMEs) so that it can become more competitive internationally;**

**contributing to the dissemination and exploitation of results** _**K**_ **of**
**Community RTD activities (towards SMEs in particular) thus**
**demonstrating the added value of those RTD results;**

**contributing to the implementation of the internal market, to the**
**reinforcement of the economic and social cohesion of the Community and**
**to the strengthening of European science and technology;**

**complement the action of the Member States, particularly with regard to**
**the setting up of a network of relay centres.**

**The panel will also assess the efficiency and effectiveness with which the**
**programme has been managed and promoted.**

**This evaluation will take into account for each type of activity, the results**
**achieved and their relation to the human and financial resources allocated to it.**
**The new activities of VALUE II (Relay Centres and Interfaces II and** **in)** **will be**
**reviewed more in depth. Qualitative or quantitative indicator will be used**
**whenever possible.**

**The panel is invited to make recommendations to the Commission.**

_**E^f-**_

**ANNEX III**

**Executive Summary of the**

**Evaluation of the VRCs**

**EVALUATION** **OF** **VALUE RELAY CENTRES**

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

**In** **response to the recommendation of the Mid-term Review for Programme VALUE** **II,**
**General Directorate XIII-D of the European Commission (EC) decided in October** **1994**
**to proceed to a detailed evaluation of the VALUE Relay Centres (VRCs) by four**
**external experts.**

**The EC decision stipulated also that:**

_**1.**_ _**"the evaluation**_ _**exercise**_ _**should**_ _**be**_ _**flexible,**_ _**easy to implement and have a rather**_
_**qualitative than quantitative**_ _**character.**_
_**2. each VRC**_ _**should**_ _**be**_ _**visited**_ _**and**_ _**evaluated**_ _**by**_ _**one**_ _**of**_ _**the independent**_ _**experts.**_
_**3. the**_ _**heterogeneity**_ _**and**_ _**varied approaches**_ _**used for the**_ _**implementation**_ _**of the Relay**_
_**Centres place**_ _**the same**_ _**importance on**_ _**all**_ _**activities developed to**_ _**date".**_

**The evaluation** **started** **in December 1994 and has been practically completed early**
**February 1995. During this period, the evaluators:**

**1.** **visited all 27 VRCs and discussed with their principal staff their work;**
**2.** **studied the progress reports prepared by each VRC and collected ancillary**
**information from the VALUE Relay Service Central Co-ordination Unit;**
**3. studied 1992 EC documentation on the concept and contractual tasks of VALUE**
**Relay Centres;**
**4. analysed in various ways the data obtained from of the** **Users'** **Survey conducted by**
**VALUE Relay Service Central Co-ordination Unit during the evaluation period;**
**and**
**5. held few meetings for discussing extensively the approach and other aspects of the**
**evaluation exercise.**

**In view of the innovative character of the VRC exercise and the diversity of business**
**environments in which this exercise unfolded during** **1993** **and 1994, the evaluators set**
**themselves three principal targets:**
**First,** **to reveal whether each VRC:**

**• identified the needs of its operational environment,**

**• formulated a coherent strategy to meet somehow this demand,**
**and**

**• employed effectively its human and financial resources.**

**Second,** **to identify:**

**• the essential elements of the upstream, downstream, networking and promotional**
**activities carried out by each VRC;**
**and**

**• the global operational features of the VRC-Network.**

**Executive Summary**

EVALUATION OF VALUE RELAY CENTRES

**Third,** **to:**

**• give an overview of the methodologies and tools employed by all VRCs;**

**• draw few general conclusions** **for the** **overall performance the VRCs;**

**• recommend specific actions in relation to any major operational problems identified**
**in the work of each VRC;**

**and**

**• devise a common frame of reference for presenting the level of experience attained**
**by each VRC during their pilot operation.**

**The outcome of the** **evaluators"** **work along the above three principal targets is**
**presented in detail in the evaluation** **REPORT** **as well as in its confidential** **SUPPLEMENT,**
**which addresses the latter two items of the above list.**

**The present Executive Summary summarises below several main points with respect to**
**the overall operation of all 27 VRCs.**

**Criteria** **for** **the evaluation**

**The evaluators attempted to deduce a rough, but still quite informative, assessment of**
**the overall performance of each VRC. The criterion for this assessment has been the**
**experience both gained and contributed by each VRC in implementing the challenging**
**tasks given by the VALUE II programme at national and EC levels.**

**Criteria for the evaluation of each VRC were the performance of the upstream and the**
**downstream tasks according to the regulations of the contracts with the Commission.**
**The performance can only be evaluated regarding the VRC and the host and the added**
**VALUE of the VRC to the host's activities at the time of the analysis.**

**The analysis of the individual VRC has been done regarding the following parameters:**

**Mission in its environment**

**Organization of host**
**Organization of VRC**
**Strategy, methodology, customers**

**-**
**Upstream activities**
**Downstream activities**

**Networking**
**Promotional** **activities**

**When starting the network two years ago, the VRC system was completely new. Even**
**now, it is still in the stage of dynamic foundation. Therefore, the evaluation criteria**
**included the perspective of work of the VRC in relation to its host organization.**

Executive Summary

EVALUATION OF VALUE RELAY CENTRES

**General comments**

**Start-up phase**

- The innovative character of the VRC concept and the different interpretations of how
to employ this concept across the European Union forced each VRC to devise an
optimum response to the demand placed by its own business environment. Each
VRC had to devise a specific strategy and to find methods and tools to work with.

- Each VRC went through a learning process in devising its methods and tools of
work.

- Only a few of the VRCs systematically went through a preparatory stage. Many of
the VRCs started their work straight away and start-up work (for example market
analysis or staff training) was not done at all. There were various reasons for this:
many of the VRCs were continuing work they had begun in the previous years.
Many felt they had to satisfy the demands of the users straight away, as services of
the VRC network had been promoted since the beginning of 1993 already.

Despite these basic limitations most VRCs proved quite imaginative while the work
caried out by all of them reveals much enthusiasm and a lot of effort.

The VRC organizations, their strategies, their operational tools, their learning curves up
to the state of productive work in the sense of the task placed by DGXIII and their
further development dynamics are rather heterogeneous. These parameters
characterizing the foundation and further development of the VRCs depend on the
support by their host organizations, their local environment, the VRC personnel as well
as on the resources granted by DGXIII.

Tasks of the VRCs

On the basis of the VRC specifications drawn up by the Programme Management
Committee and the DGXIII, a workprogramme was devised that includes the following
five tasks:

- Promotion of Community RTD activities and the dissemination and exploitation of
knowledge resulting from them

- Specific tasks for the start up phase

- Specific tasks for the launch

- Co-ordination at national level

- Network activities.

The first two tasks describe in some detail the main objectives set for the first 2 years.
More specifically, the first task defined the core and optional VRC activities, while the
second task focused on the preparatory work required for setting a VRC in motion.

Executive Summary

EVALUATION OF VALUE RELAY CENTRES

In contrast to this, the description of the co-ordination at national level and of
networking activities left ample room for initiative.

In the definition of the task, no clear preference is given to upstream or downstream
activities. This remark is further supported by the fact that the Operational Plans
devised by each VRC, initially approved and since then periodically put under scrutiny
by the VRC Service Co-ordination Unit do not demonstrate any particular emphasis on
downstream activities.

Therefore, it was concluded, that

- during the pilot phase each VRC was given the chance to devise an action plan that
.- would best suit the needs of its operational environment.

- This bottom-up approach introduced a very flexible way to implement the work of the
VRCs.

**Support bv the EC**

Considerable financial and practical support has been given to the VRCs by the EC. A
resource of particular importance is the VR Service. The main support instruments are:

Information packages for the VRCs
Level II and III sheets
VACRO Days
Training

Networking
Edition of calendar of events
Information on EC research
Mailing lists of Specific RTD
Promotional Material
Day to day follow up work
Reporting

There are some areas, for example information on sources of financing exploitation
projects others than those of VALUE II, where the information from the VRS could be
improved in the future.

VR Service is a major constituent of the VRC system. It has been recognized by the
VRCs and become an indispensable part of their work. However, VR Service was not
subject of the present evaluation study.

**Service** **fields** **of the VRCs**

The essential elements of the upstream, downstream and promotional activities carried

out by each VRC can be summarised as follows;
VRCs offered their services basically in the following areas:

- Proposal Preparation.

**Executive Summary**

**^ 3 ^**

**• Partner** **Search**

**• Sensitising Clients for RTD.**

**• Information on EC-RTD.**

**• Information on Exploitation Options**

**• Detecting Exploitation Demand.**

**• Sensitising Clients for Exploitation.**

**• Exploitation Project Preparation**

**VRC services have been usually provided via:**

**• Targeted mailings.**

**• Visits to companies.**

**• Phone Help Line.**

**• Venues, as e.g., Information Days, Technology Transfer Days, etc.**

**VRC services diffused information mainly via:**

**• Oral presentations at various venues.**

**• Brochures providing an overview of services offered.**

**• Flyers giving mainly the VRC contact details and a hint of its services.**

**• Articles in the general as well as specialised press (newspapers, etc.).**

**• Newsletters, published either the VRCs themselves or other organisations.**

**• CORDIS, national or in house developed databases.**

**Collecting and processing EC information proved a quite time** **c nsuming** **and costly**
**business, in particular for VRCs far away from Brussels and Luxembourg. Translating**
**of EC information material into native language turned out** **to** **be q** **>»te** **a heavy burden**
**to small VRC teams.**

**The VRCs have to fulfil a variety of very demanding tasks. Co-operation with the**
**customers requires much work, technical knowledge and experience. This is even**
**more true, the more the VRCs are involved in project work (upstream RTD project work**
**or downstream exploitation project work). Possibilities are limited by the small number**
**of VRC staff members.**

**The VRCs tend to provide information activities, more upstream than downstream,**
**rather than to do project work, be it on the proposal preparation or the exploitation**
**project side of their tasks. This especially applies to VRCs which mainly worked in the**
**upstream field as a host already.**

**In** **this connection, the VRCs proved to be good promoters of** **CORDIS.** **Increasing**
**demand for CORDIS is closely linked with the exploitation and dissemination of**
**CORDIS by VRC marketing.**

**• According to their limited resources, the VRCs have only about 6% of their capacity**
**on an average in the field of project work for the exploitation of Community or other**
**results.**

**• It must be thought about how this situation can be improved. Connection of the**
**VRCs with partners contributing technological, company-specific know-how and**

**Executive Summary**

EVALUATION OF VALUE RELAY CENTRES

**expert** **knowledge** **is an important aspect.** **Only some VRC host organizations**
**possess the experience required, in a more or less convincing manner.**

**Consequently, relatively few concrete exploitation projects or success stories of VRCs**
**were found. In many cases, exploitation projects had been prepared, but failed in the**
**execution due to lacking funding.**

**• A number of exploitation projects have certainly been pushed by the VRCs.**
**However, further development among the project partners was not pursued. The**
**VRCs concentrating on downstream** **activities** **are still establishing feedback to their**
**customers and project controlling.**

**In the field of information management, collecting and processing of EC information**
**material has been a rather time-consuming and costly business for the VRCs.**

**• Generally, communication with the programme managers of the Specific**
**Programmes has to be further improved, although closer contacts to the Commission**
**officials or their partners in the National Contact Points have already been**
**established.**

**The Specific Programme managers should ensure that their RTD projects are able to**
**benefit from the** **VRCs'** **expertise and contacts. However, this can become a very**
**demanding task. The** **VRCs'contribution** **can only be limited. This means that the VRCs**
**have to be involved from the very beginning of RTD projects. The VRCs and their** **co-**
**operation partners should be involved as exploitation specialists in the evaluation**
**procedure of Specific RTD Projects. The VRCs should also be involved in "status**
**seminars" of these projects in order to identify as early as possible downstream options**
**of ongoing RTD projects.**

**In the 4th Framework Programme, the Specific Programmes will devote, 1% of their**
**budget to the dissemination and exploitation. The programme managers should be**
**able to use some of this money to** **secure** **services** **from** **the VRCs.**

**Networking**

**Work conducted by DGXIII and the VR Service for establishing a VRC network having a**
**clear identity in the EU and a close co-operation of the VRCs proved to be of crucial**
**importance and very successful.** **Nevertheless, they are still at** **the** **beginning.**
**Networking, at national or European scale, has not been vigorous. The few notable**
**exceptions refer to national networking. A possible reason for this** **situation** **relates to**
**the basically competitive character of much of the** **VRC** **work, while another reason**
**hints to the need of great organisational effort that no VRC could afford alone.**

**There was good collaboration in some areas, notably in partner search for** **P ^** **"** **[f]** **'c**
**RTD Programme proposals. Sub-networks of two or three often neighbour VRCs** **«.ui**
**border-crossing close co-operation can be observed.** **This certainly is a positive**
**development.**

**Executive Summary**

EVALUATION OF VALUE RELAY CENTRES

For the future, measures and incentives should be planned for a closer co-operation of
the VRCs.

**Regional** **representation**

Regional representation of the VRCs is of crucial importance. The main customers are
industrial firms, in particular SMEs. In the field of project work, intermediaries (e.g.
consultants, financial institutions, regional and national funding organizations,
information agents) are beginning to be integrated.

- Those clusters of partners in innovation projects are of particular importance. They
have to gather around a VRC. As few traces of these work-sharing structures can
be noticed only, a system of partners sharing the work with the VRC and recognizing
it as a reference and directing point should be supported in the future.

- Complete competence covering the entire state is of significance for determining the
number of Relay Centres to be established in the next period. It is observed that in
some states the existing VRCs can only work in a spotlike manner. The regions to
be taken care of and the distribution and number of the industrial customers is too
large. Furthermore, the capacity of the individual VRC is much too small in most

cases.

**Financing** of **the** projects

One of the main problems for those VRCs, which are focusing on downstream project
work, is the availability of budgets for their projects and their customers. Considerable
efforts are made to bring in Community or national or private financial support
schemes.

- With the Technology Transfer and the Technology Validation Projects the Activity III
disposes of important tools to contribute to the financing of innovation projects.

- The VRCs should be integrated in these projects in order to ensure better success
by their knowing of good partners and closer binding of innovative partners.

**Methodologies and tools employed**

A great number of methodologies and tools is employed by the VRCs. A detailed
summary is given in ANNEX E of this report.

Obviously, each VRC went through a learning process in devising its methods and tools
of work. However, across the divers experiments undertaken by all 27 VRCs, one
recognises some common archetypes as well as few new ideas in the employed
methodology and tools. Examples of detected new ideas are:

**Executive Summary**

**EVALUATION** **OF** **VALUE** **RELAY CENTRES**

**» The "Diagnostic Service" devised by FIST for identifying project** **RTD-results** **with a**
**clear exploitation potential.**

**•**
**The "virtual team" approach of the VRC at VDIA/DE for a cost effective way of**
**utilising the expertise and manpower available in its host organisation.**

**• The** **VDIA/DE** **idea of a "Status Seminar" in order identify as early as possible**
**downstream options of ongoing RTD projects.**

**• The sectoral and inter-regional working model employed by AIRE for utilising best**
**networks for technology transfer in specific industrial sectors.**

**•** **In** **place of broad VACRO Days, events for smaller groups related to the same field**
**of activity were organised.** **In** **the case of TTB, the events are hosted by companies,**
**a fact that is particularly effective.**

**• The employment of electronic tools (flash-information,** **faxbâses,** **multimedia**
**presentations) as done by** **ANRT,** **CRENEST and TTB.**

**• The preparation of technology sheets targeted towards the needs of the** **VRCs**
**clients by using CORDIS as done by SGPN** **l+D.**

**• The publication campaigns of technology offers as launched by** **ZENIT** **and ARC in**
**major technical and business newspapers.**

**• The** **"Technology** **Scouts" in Danish Universities employed by PUF.**

**Overall performance of the VRCs**

**From the conducted** **Users'** **Survey it can be concluded that overall the VRC**
**performance satisfied to a large extent the users' expectations along upstream**
**activities. For downstream work the degree of satisfaction looks numerically small.**
**However, in view of the fact that these latter activities are very user specific and much**
**know-how based, the evaluators believe that the downstream performance has been**
**also satisfactory.**

**More specifically, 71 ± 17 % of the 900 users who replied feel they benefited from the**
**upstream activity of the VRC in their vicinity. The corresponding percentage for**
**downstream is 36 ± 16 %.**

**Both findings are very positive result in view of the exploratory character of the whole**
**VRC pilot operation.**

**^ 6**

**EVALUATION** **OF** **VALUE** **RELAY** **CENTRES**

The VRCs carried out a wide range of effective and, in many cases, innovative
activities. They did this despite the fact that many of them lacked a clear overall
strategy. On the whole, the VRCs worked more effectively in the upstream area.
Downstream, much work was done, but a lot of VRCs were hampered by their lack of
know-how and experience on many aspects of the dissemination and exploitation of
RTD results.

The VRCs were only able to make limited progress towards becoming a coherent and
cohesive network, despite the enthusiasm of the VR-Service. There was good
collaboration in some areas, notably in partner searches, but most of the work was
done by each VRC acting in isolation.

In general, the work and image of the VRC network could have been greatly improved if
more funding had been available for the VRCs themselves and for the financing of
exploitation projects. An increased level of funding would also enable the VR-Service to
give better support and guidance to the VRC network.

Finally, during its two years pilot operation, the VRC network made overall very good
progress. This was in large measure due to the commitment and enthusiasm shown by
all people involved - both in the individual VRCs and in the VR-Service in Luxembourg.

**Outlook for the future**

The VRC network constitutes an extremely important element of the Third Activityin the
4th Framework Programme. It represents a completely new approach for the
dissemination and exploitation of EU results and even national results in the future.

The two years of 1993 and 1994 were spent for setting up the system. VRC
methodologies and tools were developed. Wide, valuable experience was gathered in
all member states.

**»**
For the future success of the Relay Centres it will be of decisive importance that the
respective VRC finds its individual position in its environment. It should be an initiator
and catalyst of innovation processes in the networks of all partners required. VRCs will
be able to do their own specialized work in a spotlike manner only. They are rather
experts of communication and technology marketing. At the same time they are
representatives of the EU with special reference to the possibilities of support by the
EU.

Everywhere, the VRCs are supported by highly committed people. The work performed
by them in the first two years has given rise to an increasing interest in industry,
research and politics. Now, this achievement has to be further developed.

The VRCs have to be regional directing and co-ordination offices, helping the
customers and in particular the SMEs to find solutions for their innovation problems.
They are executive offices for EC innovation politics within the framework of Activity III
and bridges to all funds offered by the Commission to the member states.

**Executive Summary**

**EVALUATION** **OF** **VALUE** **RELAY** **CENTRES**

**Several recommendations on strategic, operational or even simple practical issues,**
**amerge** **from the experience gained by each individual VRC as well by the whole**
**network. A few are summarised below:**

**• There should be closer co-operation with specific programmes in order to shift**
**downstream work into the lifetime of an RTD project, not just after its end.**

**• VRCs should seek more intense collaboration and networking for a better use of**
**resources, human and other, at regional, national and EU, particularly for**
**downstream activities.**

**• VRCs should define a strategy for positioning themselves clearly in market niches of**
**their business environment.**

**•** **DG-XIII-D** **should monitor more closely the overall performance of future Relay**
**Centres for being able to provide them with a more effective support.**

_**^8**_

**ANNEX** **IV**

**Acronyms** **and**

**Abbreviations**

BRTTE

CCITT

CORDIS

COSINE

CRAFT

CRO

DG

DGXTI

DGXm

DGXVI

DGXVm

**DGxxm**

EC

ECU

EFTA

ESPRIT

EU

EURAM

EUREKA

Gbit/s

HEPnet

IPR

ISO

JRC

**^**

**ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS**

Basic Research in Industrial Technologies for Europe

Comité Consultatif International de Téléphonie et Télégraphie

Community R & D Information Service

Cooperation for Open Systems Interconnection Networking in Europe

Cooperative Research Action for Technology

Cooperative Research Organisation

Directorate-General

DG for Science, Research and Development

DG for Telecommunications, Information Industries and Innovation

DG for Regional Policy

DG for Credit and Investment

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

European Community

European Currency Unit

European Free Trade Association

European Strategic Programme for Research and Development in
Information Technology

European Union

European Research on Advanced Materials

Europe "a la carte" Cooperation in Advanced Technologies

Giga (10 [9] ) bits per second

High Energy Physics network

Intellectual Property Rights

International Organisation for Standardisation

Joint Research Centre

**kbit/s**

**Mbit/s**

**MECU**

**OJ**

**OSI**

**R & D**

**RACE**

**RARE**

**RTD**

**SCREEN**

**SME**

**SPRINT**

**STRIDE**

**TCP**

**VALUE** **I**

**VALUEn**

_yUQO_

**Kilo (10** **[3]** **) bits per second**

**Mega (10** **[6]** **) bits per second**

**Million ECU**

**Officiai** **Journal (of the European Communities)**

**Open Systems Interconnection**

**Research and Development**

**Research in Advanced Communications in Europe**

**Research Associés pour la Recherche Européenne**

**Research and Technological Development**

**Internal (confidential) DG** **XUI** **database on RTD projects**

**Small and Medium-sized Enterprise**

**Strategic Programme for Innovation and Technology Transfer**

**Science and Technology for Regional Innovation and** **Development**

**Transmission Control Protocol**

**Community Programme for the Dissemination and Utilisation of**
**Scientific and Technological Research Results**

**Community Programme of Centralised Action for the Dissemination**
**and Exploitation of Knowledge Resulting from the Specific**
**Programmes of Research and Technological Development**

**VRC** **Value Relay Centre**

_**A$A**_

COMMENTS OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

In conformity with Article 7 of the Council. Decision of 29 April- 1992 _on the
dissémination and exploitation of knowledge resulting from the specific programmes of
RTD of the Community (VALUE IT), the Commirtee delivered a favourable opinion on
the measures to be undertaken to evaluate the action at its meeting of 18 October'1994.

The Committee examined the final evaluation report prepared by the evaluation panel
chaired by Mr. Friebe at its meeting on 7 November 1995 as well as the specific report on
the Value Relay Centres and, as a conclusion of the exchange.of views between its
members, expressed the following comments :

General comments :

While underlining the importance of dissemination and exploitation of RTD results within
the Cornrriuniry Framework programme, the Committee agrees with the panel, to consider,
that innovation is not just a. spill-over of RTD. It should be regarded as a major issue for
which adequate. Community activities should be implemented, building on and
complementing activities carried'.out at the national level.

The Value II programme, with modest resources, has developed and implemented new
tools which have largely contributed to promote new attitudes towards diffusion and
exploitation in'the Fourth Framework Programme.

Rdav centres : .

The establishment of the relay centres network was à significant new action line of
Value H to be further developed. This initiative contributes to bringing Community
activities closer to local users and to matching the needs of SMEs with the technology
supply. ' .

RC in all the Member states should adapt to the national context and cooperate as muchas possible with already existing networks and actors of the innovation: system.

CORDIS ;

Over the last few years, CORDIS has made significant progress and it has become an
important tool for the retrieval of information about the research efforts originating from

                                        me European Community.

Its evolution should be based on a coherent and well defined approach and close links
should be established between CORDIS and other Community '• information systems.
Synergies with other RTD databases at national or European level should also be
increased and the three recommendations of the panel implemented, i.e. an integrated indepth study should be undertaken on the demand side, technological evolution and cost
controL

**Utilisation of results :**

**The committee considers** **that** **the Value** **projects** **had a high added value** **and,side** **impact**
**by developing an** **"exploitation"** **culture at Cornmunity** **leveL** **They should be continued**
**and developed in order to contribute to** **the** **promotion of an innovation culture at**
**European level**

**The Committee congratulates the panel for its excellent report as** **well** **as the panel who**
**carried** **out** **the VRC evaluation and invites the Commission to take into account the above**

**suggestions in the communication that it is to submit to** **die** **Council,** **the European**
**Parliament and** **the Economic and Social Committee.**

**^ /**

**ISSN 0254-1475**

**COM(96)** **280 final**

##### **DOCUMENTS**

**EN** **16**

**Catalogue number :** **CB-CO-96-287-EN-C**

**ISBN 92-78-05534-4**

**Office for Official Publications of the European Communities**

**L-2985** **Luxembourg**