Source: EURLEX
Language: es
Format: md

**COMISIÓN** **DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS**

Bruselas, 21.06.1996
COM(96) 280 final

COMUNICACIÓN DE LA COMISIÓN
AL CONSEJO. AL PARLAMENTO EUROPEO

Y AL COMITÉ ECONÓMICO Y SOCIAL
sobre la evaluación final de la acción centralizada de difusión y

explotación de los conocimientos resultantes de los

programas específico de IDT de la Comunidad

(VALUE II)

**^í**

**COMISIÓN** **EUROPEA**

**Comunicación de la Comisión al Parlamento Europeo, el Consejo y el Comité Económico**
**y Social sobre la evaluación** **final** **de la acción centralizada de difusión y explotación de los**

**conocimientos resultantes de los programas específicos**

**de IDT de la Comunidad**

**(VALUE II)**

**I** **LVTRODUCCIÓN**

**II** **RECOMENDACIONES** **DEL** **GRUPO** **SOBRE** **LAS** **PERSPECTIVAS**
**ESTRATÉGICAS** **Y** **COMENTARIOS** **DE** **LA COMISIÓN**

**DI** **CONCLUSIONES** **DEL** **GRUPO Y** **COMENTARIOS** **DE LA COMISIÓN**

**- Red de centros de enlace**

**- Servicio de información y difusión**
**~ Explotación de los resultados de IDT**

**- Protección jurídica de los resultados**

**- Actividades de promoción**

**- Interfaces** **"Investigación-Comunidad** **científica" e Investigación-**
**Sociedad"**

**- Relaciones con otras iniciativas comunitarias**

**IV** **CONCLUSIÓN**

**Anexos: 1) Informe de evaluación** **final** **del programa VALUE II**

**2) Dictamen del Comité de Gestión del programa VALUE II**

**ylUo**

**COMUNICACIÓN** **DE LA COMISIÓN AL PARLAMENTO** EUROPEO, EL

**CONSEJO** **Y EL COMITÉ ECONÓMICO** Y **SOCIAL** SOBRE LA EVALUACIÓN
**FINAL** **DE** **LA** **ACCIÓN** **CENTRALIZADA** **DE** **DIFUSIÓN** Y EXPLOTACIÓN DE LOS

**CONOCIMIENTOS** **RESULTANTES** **DE** **LOS** **PROGRAMAS** **ESPECÍFICOS** **DE** **IDT**

**DE LA** **COMUNIDAD** **(VALUE II)**

**INTRODUCCIÓN**

**1)** En **la** Decisión del Consejo, de 29 de abril de 1992, sobre la acción de difusión
y explotación de los conocimientos resultantes de los programas específicos de
**IDT** de la Comunidad (VALUE II), se dispone que, al concluir dicha acción, un
Grupo de expertos independientes evaluará para la Comisión en qué medida los
resultados conseguidos cumplen los objetivos asignados a aquélla y al Tercer
programa marco (1990-1994), así como la eficacia con que se haya realizado su
gestión y su promoción (apartado 2 del artículo 4).,

2) En consecuencia, la Comisión creó un Grupo de expertos independientes para
realizar la mencionada evaluación, al que se llamó "Grupo de evaluación final
de VALUE II". El Grupo realizó sus trabajos, presidido por el director
ministerial Sr. D. K.P. Friebe, desde comienzos de febrero de 1995 hasta finales
de julio de 1995, y presentó su informe a los servicios de la Comisión el 31 de
julio de 1995.

3) El Comité de Difusión y Explotación (Comité de Gestión de VALUE II) dio a
conocer sus comentarios sobre el informe de evaluación final en su reunión de

7 de noviembre de 1995.

**II** RECOMENDACIONES DEL GRUPO SOBRE LAS PERSPECTIVAS ESTRATÉGICAS Y

COMENTARIOS DE LA COMISIÓN

El Grupo considera que debe prestarse mayor atención a la innovación, pues ésta
no es un simple derivado de las actividades de investigación y desarrollo
tecnológico, y abarca aspectos tanto organizativos como sociales. A juicio del
Grupo, estaría pues justificada una acción de gran envergadura en el ámbito de la
innovación con un tuerte apoyo financiero.

La Comisión, que comparte en amplia medida este análisis, aprobó el 20 de
diciembre de 1995 un "Libro Verde sobre la innovación".

El Libro Verde tiene como punto de partida el hecho de que las empresas
europeas parecen tener menor capacidad que sus competidoras para transformar
en innovaciones los avances científicos y tecnológicos.

Europa tiene que reaccionar con determinación. Con este fin, el Libro Verde
propone trece vías de acción que corresponden a los objetivos principales

_**AC**_

**enumerados a continuación: orientar mejor la investigación a la innovación,**
**reforzar** **los** **recursos humanos, mejorar las condiciones de financiación y crear un**
**medio jurídico y normativo propicio a la innovación, al tiempo que se hace**
**evolucionar el papel y las modalidades de actuación de los poderes públicos.**

**El Libro Verde sobre la innovación se debatirá ampliamente durante el primer**
**semestre de 1996, por lo que el informe de evaluación final de VALUE II puede**
**considerarse, en cierta** **manera,** **una contribución a dicho debate, que permitirá**
**precisar las prioridades en materia de innovación y las actividades que deban**
**realizarse.**

**HI** **CONCLUSIONES DEL GRUPO Y COMENTARIOS DE LA COMISIÓN**

**El informe de evaluación final del Grupo contiene un análisis de las actividades**
**realizadas en VALUE II, así como recomendaciones sobre su evolución en el**

**futuro.**

**En opinión del Comité de Gestión de VALUE II, los servicios de la Comisión han**
**creado y utilizado, con recursos escasos, nuevos instrumentos que han contribuido**
**ampliamente a** **fomentar** **nuevas actitudes respecto de la difusión y la valorización**
**en el Cuarto programa marco.**

**Las conclusiones sobre las actividades de principales de VALUE II son las**
**siguientes:**

*** Red de centros de enlace**

**El Grupo considera que, durante el período 1993-1994, los centros de enlace**
**hicieron progresar en los Estados miembros la valorización de los resultados**
**comunitarios de IDT, a través de un amplio abanico de servicios prestados** _**a priori**_
**y** _**a posteriori.**_ **Asimismo, considera que la clave del éxito de esta experiencia está**
**íntimamente ligada a la calidad y la experiencia de las personas que habrán de**
**convertirse en "intermediarios" eficaces entre las empresas y los tenedores de**
**tecnología.**

**La creación de una red de centros de enlace ha sido una de las actividades más**

**significativas de VALUE II. Ha permitido, respetando la idiosincrasia nacional,**

**acercar las actividades comunitarias a las necesidades de los usuarios locales.**

**La red de centros de enlace debería concentrarse ahora en su función de**

**promoción de la innovación, para contribuir con más fuerza que en el pasado a la**
**adecuación de las tecnologías disponibles a las necesidades de las empresas, y no**
**limitarse exclusivamente a la promoción de los resultados de las actividades**
**comunitarias «le IDT, según las recomendaciones del Grupo.**

**Tal como indica el Comité de Gestión de VALUE II, esta evolución exige una**
**mayor** **colaboración,** **con vistas a una mejor racionalización de sus respectivas**

_**AU**_

actividades, con las demás redes comunitarias que fomentan las actividades de IDT
(red de Centros Europeos de Información Empresarial, red CRAFT destinada a
facilitar la participación de las PYME en los programas comunitarios de IDT,
etc.), con las redes nacionales —especialmente las que están al servicio de las
PYME— y con ios demás actores del sistema de innovación.

- **Servicio** **de información y difusión**

**Durante** los últimos años se han introducido mejoras significativas en el servicio de
información CORDIS, tal y como se destaca en el informe de evaluación final y los
comentarios del Comité de Gestión de VALUE II. CORDIS se ha convertido en

una herramienta de difusión de información sobre las actividades comunitarias de
IDT ampliamente utilizada y reconocida (14.000 usuarios). El Grupo lamenta, sin
embargo, la falta de una política general de la Comunidad en materia de
información sobre IDT, así como los riesgos de duplicación de esfuerzos. El
Grupo desea la adopción de un enfoque coherente y bien definido. Recomienda
también que se realice un estudio sobre la demanda, la futura evolución del sistema
y su coste. El Comité de Gestión de VALUE II comparte en amplia medida dichas
recomendaciones.

La Comisión toma nota de las recomendaciones del Grupo, que ya ha tenido en
cuenta ampliamente. En efecto, la Comisión ha tomado medidas para reforzar la
coherencia de sus instrumentos de información sobre las actividades de IDT; ha
creado un Grupo de trabajo para facilitar la conexión entre sistemas nacionales y
comunitarios de difusión de información científica y técnica; prosigue, asimismo,
su esfuerzo para adaptarse mejor a la demanda actual o futura y reducir los costes
de recopilación de información y funcionamiento del sistema; por último, ha
emprendido una serie de estudios para definir la futura evolución del sistema.

- **Explotación de** **los** **resultados de IDT**

El Grupo considera que los proyectos de valorización han hecho una gran
contribución al programa y que se ha organizado con eficacia esta actividad.
Recomienda que se dé prioridad a las agrupaciones dirigidas por usuarios y a los
proyectos en los Grupos tecnológicos genéricos con un potencial elevado de
repercusión. En su opinión, la actividad de explotación no debería tampoco
limitarse exclusivamente a las actividades de IDT de la Comunidad, sino incluir
todos los resultados disponibles de IDT europea. El Comité de Gestión de
VALUE II considera que estos proyectos han tenido un alto valor añadido y
efectos derivados, al participar en la creación de una cultura de la "valorización"
de ámbito comunitario.

La Comisión comparte en amplia medida la opinión del Grupo y del Comité de
Gestión de VALUE IL Dentro del nuevo programa "Innovación" (Cuarto
programa marco), proporciona apoyo a proyectos de validación y transferencia de
tecnología, que se caracterizan por su orientación a la "demanda" y su
"transectorialidad". Dichos proyectos se caracterizan por esta razón de las demás
actividades de IDT y, concretamente, de los proyectos de investigación

_**At**_

cooperativa, que, si bien se orientan hacia la demanda, se encuentran en una fase
"anterior" y no presentan, _a_ _priori,_ un carácter transectorial. Por otra parte, los
proyectos de validación y transferencia de tecnologías ya no se limitan, tal como
recomienda el Grupo, a la simple valorización de los resultados de IDT de la
Comunidad, y despiertan un gran interés entre las PYME, ya que más del 60 % de
los coordinadores de proyectos son PYME y hay como mínimo una PYME en el
90 % de los proyectos seleccionados. La actividad "proyectos" se encuentra
dotada, además, de recursos sensiblemente superiores y, por tanto, debería hacer
posible un mayor fomento de la cultura de la innovación a escala comunitaria.

- **Protección** **jurídica** **de los resultados**

El Grupo considera que los resultados conseguidos en materia de propiedad
intelectual son más bien escasos. Aprueba las recientes iniciativas para mejorar en
el futuro la calidad de los servicios propuestos en el campo de las patentes.

La Comisión considera que los asuntos relacionados con la propiedad intelectual
son muy importantes en política de innovación. El papel de la Comunidad en esta
cuestión es relativamente limitado, por razones de orden jurídico, particularmente
en lo que se refiere a las actividades de gastos compartidos, por las
responsabilidades contractuales de los contratistas participantes en proyectos de
IDT. Los recursos financieros dedicados a esta actividad en VALUE II fueron, por
otra parte, muy modestos. Sin embargo, se ha llevado a cabo recientemente una
serie de iniciativas, citadas parcialmente en el informe del Grupo ("quick scan",
"patent building scheme", actividades de formación de los encargados de
proyectos, etc.), que permitirán tener más en cuenta estos aspectos en la gestión
de los proyectos con contribución comunitaria.

- **Actividades de promoción**

Se ha llevado a cabo un gran número de actividades de promoción, cuya
repercusión sobre los "grandes grupo objetivo" no ha sido la óptima, según el
Grupo, que propone, pues, una estrategia general de promoción más coherente y
que tenga más en cuenta las necesidades y percepciones de los diferentes grupos
"objetivo".

La Comisión toma nota de las observaciones del Grupo. Ha tomado ya medidas de
organización que permitirán adoptar un planteamiento al tiempo mejor coordinado
y mejor dirigido.

 - **Interfaces** **"Investigación-Comunidad** **científica"** e **"Investigación-**
**Sociedad"**

El Grupo ha expresado su interés por las actividades realizadas dentro de estas
líneas de acción con recursos modestos. Aconseja que sus resultados se
promocionen a través de campañas dirigidas a grupos "objetivo" que se
determinen con antelación.

_**Al"**_

**La Comisión concede, asimismo, gran interés a los aspectos sociales de la**
**investigación y la innovación. El plan de trabajo del programa "Innovación"**
**contiene una línea de acción dedicada a mejorar la concienciación del público en**
**asuntos de investigación y** **tecnología,** **y** **en el papel que éstas desempeñan en la**
**sociedad actual.**

*** Relaciones con otras iniciativas comunitarias**

**El Grupo considera que el programa VALUE II debería mantener unos vínculos**
**más estrechos con otras iniciativas comunitarias, como las relacionadas con los**
**fondos estructurales, y con otras políticas, como la política industrial o la política**
**empresarial (especialmente en su orientación a favor de las PYME).**

**Las actividades de difusión, valorización e innovación se sitúan en la interfaz entre**
**la investigación y dichas políticas, y, en consecuencia, la Comisión comparte la**
**opinión expresada por el Grupo. Se han puesto en marcha ya varias experiencias**
**.** **. piloto, que deberán evaluarse y, en su caso, proseguirse y desarrollarse. Pueden**
**centrarse, concretamente, en acciones específicas en el plano regional, acciones**
**dirigidas más particularmente a las PYME o, incluso, medidas para la mejora de**
**las condiciones de** **financiación** **e innovación.**

**TV** **CONCLUSIÓN**

**La Comisión agradece los comentarios y recomendaciones del Grupo de**
**evaluación final de VALUE II. Algunos de ellos ya se han tenido en cuenta al**
**poner en marcha las actividades previstas en el programa "Innovación". Asimismo,**
**considera que el informe constituye una contribución preciosa al debate sobre la**
**innovación en Europa.**

**La presente Comunicación, junto con el informe de evaluación final, se dirige al**
**Parlamento Europeo, el Consejo y el Comité Económico y Social de conformidad**
**con el apartado 1 del artículo 4 de** **Sa** **Decisión del Consejo, de 29 de abril de 1992.**

_AÇr_

SÍNTESIS

**1.** **ASPECTOS** **ESTRATÉGICOS**

En cuanto a la estrategia de VALUE, en la evaluación provisional ya se comentaba
ampliamente la estrategia histórica de los programas VALUE I y II. El grupo de
expertos ha creído que no es necesario volver a repetirlo y que es más adecuado
asimilar lecciones de experiencias pasadas y centrarse a analizar estrategias
futuras.

El grupo de expertos desea recalcar que el objetivo real de la inversión en
investigación y desarrollo tecnológico (I+DT) es la competividad a través de la
innovación y que esta innovación no consiste tan sólo en la difusión de I+D.
Mientras la existencia de una "Tercera Actividad" pone de manifiesto que no es
suficiente invertir en I+D, la atención actual prestada a la innovación es también
claramente insuficiente para impulsar este área adecuadamente.

El grupo de expertos insiste en señalar que se debería considerar la innovación
como una actividad arriesgada para las empresas. Además, es muy difícil de
financiar. Mientras una perspectiva de expansión tecnológica era la inspiración de
la filosofía y plan de acción del pasado, el enfoque apropiado, actualmente, sería
centrarse fundamentalmente en políticas enfocadas a la demanda. No se debería
esperar que los programas de I+D generaran tecnologías normalizadas, excepto en
casos muy concretos, aunque no menos importantes. Por el contrario, se debería
considerar los proyectos de I+D como vías para construir una amplia gama de
conocimientos técnicos disponible para ayudar a las empresas a solucionar los
problemas que encuentran durante los procesos de innovación.

Además, la innovación abarca no sólo dimensiones organizativas y sociales sino
también tecnológicas.

El grupo de expertos recomienda firmemente una mayor iniciativa hacia el
fomento de la innovación. Se puede encontrar un análisis detallado sobre las
cuestiones estratégicas en las páginas 53 a 61. Esta iniciativa debería ayudar a
coordinar las múltiples acciones de la Comisión. Esta importante acción tiene
validez por sí misma, más allá de las actividades de I+D.

A esta iniciativa se le debería asignar una financiación significativa. El grupo de
expertos considera que el 10% del presupuesto de I+D es una cantidad mucho más
adecuada que las asignadas a acciones pasadas.

_**A**_ _**fi**_

**El grupo de expertos sugiere cuatro principales líneas de acción (ver páginas 60 y**
**61)** **para promover la** **innovación,** **que abarcan una gama de enfoques para llegar a**
**las PYME y facilitar que se compartan experiencias más allá de las** **fronteras.** **El**
**grupo recomienda que la nueva filosofía, así como las nuevas acciones sobre**
**innovación deberían surgir dentro de la Unión. Sugiere firmemente que se confiera**
**a esta iniciativa máxima prioridad y desea despertar la conciencia de los**
**responsables políticos de la Comunidad.**

```
2. LA RED DE CENTROS DE ENLACE DE VALUE

```

**No hay duda que la reconocida dificultad de traducir los resultados de I+D en**
**productos y servicios comerciables, incluyendo los procesos de producción**
**correspondientes, es un escollo que debe ser resuelto urgentemente y ser tratado**
**como una cuestión estratégica, dada la importancia que tienen en el marco**
**supranacional competitivo de hoy en día variables tales como "plazo reducido de**
**comercialización"** **y "ciclos productivos más cortos".**

**Teniendo en cuenta la evaluación provisional y la reciente evaluación de los**
**centros de enlace de Value, el grupo de expertos concluye que, en general, las**
**recomendaciones y el análisis hechos en estos documentos todavía tienen vigencia.**
**La principal conclusión de la mencionada evaluación es que durante la operación**
**piloto de los centros de enlace de Value en 1993 y 1994, estos tuvieron éxito,**
**mediante un amplio espectro de servicios previos y posteriores, a la hora de**
**anticipar la valorización de los resultados de I+D comunitarios en los Estados**
**miembros.**

**En vista del resultado positivo de la detallada evaluación sobre los centros de**
**eniace de VALUE, vamos a ampliarla en este informe presentando reflexiones**
**generales sobre el concepto de centro de enlace, que también es relevante para la**
**actual difusión de la "Tercera Actividad".**

**La piedra angular del éxito de cualquier experimento de centros de enlace se basa**
**principalmente e inevitablemente en el compromiso, destreza y habilidad de las**
**personas comprometidas en llegar a ser eficaces intermediarios entre las empresas**
**y la tecnología. Las sinergias pueden lograrse a través de la utilización de las**
**antiguas redes del programa SPRINT por los centros de enlace, dada la naturaleza**
**complementaria de sus actividades.**

**Dado que** **el** **servicio de centros de enlace Value, actúa como un sistema**
**permanente de** **supervisión,** **guía y apoyo de** **feedback,** **podría intensificar sus**
**esruerzos para lograr una red más activa de los centros de enlace y una mejor**
**cohesión de sus operaciones en Europa.**

_**Aï**_

El factor más importante de cada centro de enlace es su personal. Sus
competencias técnicas, empresariales y directivas son la cuestión clave de todas las
operaciones. Cualquier medida que asegure e impulse este factor es, de hecho,
vital para conseguir el éxito.

**3.** **CORDIS**

A finales del año 1994, las recomendaciones propuestas durante la evaluación
provisional eran todavía válidas. Desde entonces, se han hecho progresos.

Un enfoque coherente y bien definido sobre el suministro de información en el área
de I+D parece ser muy recomendable para procurar el éxito de cualquier política
de innovación. Por supuesto, la responsabilidad no incumbe a una sola Dirección
General sino que corresponde a los niveles más altos de la CE.

Se deberían encontrar los medios y establecerse los procedimientos para acortar
drásticamente los plazos del suministro de información sobre proyectos y
resultados de programas comunitarios de I+D y facilitar la difusión de una
información más actualizada.

La información proporcionada por el Servicio de Información sobre la
Investigación y Desarrollo Comunitario (CORDIS) podría difundirse tal y como
recomendamos en nuestro informe.

Se recomienda que a medio plazo se lleve a cabo un estudio integrado en
profundidad que analice las siguientes cuestiones (de entre ellas, la primera es la
más importante):

      - La demanda: se debería medir el impacto del servicio, así como hacer una
encuesta entre los usuarios. Un estudio de mercado como este debería
incluir la política de mercado más apropiada relativa al importe facturado
por los servicios.

      - Evolución tecnológica: en qué estado podría encontrarse el suministro de
información dentro de cinco años y cómo CORDIS podría adaptarse a la
evolución tecnológica. Este estudio debería también tener en cuenta la
relación con las bases de datos nacionales y regionales de I+D.

      - Control del gasto: esencial para la operación CORDIS, pero manteniendo
en todo momento su elevada calidad y servicio. Este plan debería basarse
en una evaluación profunda de los procesos actuales de creación y
mantenimiento de bases de datos y debería incluir los pasos a seguir para
asimilar los cambios tecnológicos venideros y asegurar una reducción de
costes significativa y duradera para el futuro.

##### **_J\_**

CORDIS tiene también un papel que desempeñar a la hora de acercar las bases de
datos nacionales y regionales de I+D a los usuarios potenciales de una manera
armonizada.

**4.** **UTILIZACIÓN DE LOS RESULTADOS**

Los proyectos de valorización directamente apoyados contribuyen
significativamente al programa. La Comisión ha organizado la actividad
efizcamente. Varios proyectos, y posiblemente muchos, son de una gran calidad y
deberían conducirnos a la explotación de resultados, que se habría perdido sin la
presencia de VALUE. Sin embargo, se podría conseguir mucho más con un
enfoque mejor dirigido y más comercial.

Para ello deberían tenerse más en cuenta dos puntos: que la transferencia
tecnológica y las actitudes innovadoras se difunden mejor por contactos
personales y que las soluciones tecnológicas apropiadas tienen mayor probabilidad
de ser generadas por una demanda ascendente, que por una difusión descendente.
La Comisión debería tener en cuenta estas consideraciones cuando selecciona
proyectos y establece sus objetivos.

Por lo tanto, se debería poner un mayor énfasis en la creación de consorcios
dirigidos por los usuarios. Todos los proyectos deberían incluir como socio
principal una organización dedicada a la explotación de resultados para el caso de
que el proyecto funcione. Se debería dar más importancia a todos los niveles del
programa, señalando las actitudes innovadoras en que se basan los proyectos, así
como sus resultados. Los proyectos deberían ser seleccionados, cuando sea
posible, para abarcar tecnologías genéricas con un elevado potencial de desarrollo.

5. PROTECCIÓN LEGAL DE LOS RESULTADOS

El grupo de expertos considera que los resultados conseguidos en el ámbito de los
DPII (Derechos de Propiedad Industrial e Intelectual) en el marco de VALUE son
relativamente pobres tanto en calidad como en cantidad. Se supone que esto se
debe a la escasez de fuentes financieras y la falta de iniciativa por parte de la
sección de patentes de la Dirección General Xffl.

Entre las actividades clave en un futuro, se encuentran la de un "Quick Sean", en
colaboración con la Oficina de Patentes de la Haya, que permite la evaluación de
los aspectos novedosos de las tecnologías y la de un "Patent Build-up Scheme",

_**AK**_

cuyo objetivo es poner sobre aviso a los contratistas de la importancia del año
prioritario y de las oportunidades de presentación de registros secundarios.

El grupo de expertos concluye que se necesita un cambio radical en la
organización actual y en las operaciones de la sección de patentes, habida cuenta
de la gran importancia de los asuntos de DPII relacionados con los proyectos de
I+D. Por lo tanto, acoge con agrado las últimas iniciativas, cuyo objetivo es
ofrecer un mejor servicio de patentes en el futuro.

Se concluye la evaluación presentando cinco ideas específicas que pueden servir
como herramientas viables en operaciones futuras de la sección de patentes de la D
G XIII y otros departamentos pertinentes de la CE que participan en cuestiones de
**DPn.**

**6.** **ACTIVIDADES DE** **PROMOdÓN**

El grupo de expertos tiene la impresión, cuando estudia el gran número de
actividades de promoción llevadas a cabo, que estas son el resultado de una línea
de acción hecha paso a paso, en vez de una estrategia de promoción bien diseñada
e integrada. Una posible consecuencia de esto es que los grupos destinatarios no
son apenas conscientes de los vínculos entre las actividades individuales, los
objetivos generales y las ambiciones del programa VALUE.

El grupo de expertos sugiere una promoción más importante de la "Tercera
Actividad" en el futuro basada en:

     - un análisis de las necesidades y percepciones de los diferentes públicos
destinatarios y los resultados de actividades de promoción previamente
llevadas a cabo bajo el programa VALUE

     - una estrategia de promoción coherente presente en los tres objetivos de la
actividad

     - una conexión estrecha y claramente identificable entre los esfuerzos de
promoción referidos a actividades individuales y los principales elementos
comunes de la estrategia global de promoción.

La evaluación concluye sugiriendo que las actividades para cada uno de los tres
objetivos de la "Tercera Actividad" deberían subordinarse, o ajustarse, a los
elementos priíicipales comunes de una estrategia de promoción coherente.

_**/it**_

**7.** **INTERFACES H** **y** **ffl:** **INVESTIGACIÓN-COMUNIDAD** **CIENTÍFICA**
**E** **INVESTIGACIÓN-SOCIEDAD.**

**La** **innovación,** **en conjunto, es el resultado de una amplia combinación de**
**actividades interdisciplinarias y para triunfar necesita, entre otras cosas, la**
**concienciación de la sociedad, la aceptación y la formación adecuada para lograr**
**su correcta y deseada utilización. Las barreras y los umbrales para la aceptación**
**tecnológica pueden variar de país a** **país** **pero, las consideraciones y las lecciones**
**transnacionales aprendidas a escala europea pueden ser de gran importancia. Las**
**interfaces II y III estudiaron estas cuestiones con escasos recursos humanos y**
**presupuestarios.**

**El grupo de expertos reconoce los esfuerzos realizados, el enfoque correcto**
**adoptado por** **el** **equipo del proyecto así como algunos resultados importantes. En**
**términos generales, se ha partido del concepto de herramienta que ha culminado**
**en artículos y manuales viables. Se debe hacer una mención especial a la**
**metodología** **de los talleres de concienciación que han sido utilizados con éxito en**
**varias ciudades europeas para tratar la cuestión de la vida sostenible en un medio**
**urbano. Esta ha sido reconocida y adoptada por importantes instituciones**
**europeas y nacionales.**

**Por este motivo, el grupo de expertos expresa su sorpresa y preocupación por el**
**cesmantelamiento de esta actividad al final del programa VALUE II y el aparente**
**abandono de estas líneas de acción dentro de la "Tercera Actividad". Espera que**
**esta situación sea reconsiderada y restablecida o continuada con los medios**
**apropiados y con un reconocimiento más claro de sus beneficios a escala de la**
**Comisión. Los recursos previstos para medidas de acompañamiento podrían**
**uxilizarse** **de forma sinérgica para este propósito.**

_**AM**_

**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**

**in.** **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)**

**L** **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.

DDL **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,** **Aey** **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.**

**DÉ-**

## 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**

îEL **BACKGROUND** **TO THE** **HNAL EVALUATION** **OFTHE**

**VALUE II** **PROGRAMME**

**1.** Overview of VALUE **II**
**2.** The Rndings and Recommendations of the Mid-Tenn Review
3. The Evaluation Mandate and Approach

**ffl.** **HNAL EVALUATION** **OF VALUE** **II**

**1.** Introduction
2. Action Line Lia

3. Action line Lib
4. Action Line L2
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**
**(VALUEII).**

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

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

**31 July** **1995**

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

_**M)**_

**ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS**

**The VALUE Evaluation Panel would like to express their sincere**

**appreciation to all those interviewed throughout the Commission and**

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

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

**Constant** **Gitzinger** **is gratefully acknowledged. The** **views and**

**recommendations contained in the report are, however, the**

**responsibility of** **the** **authors alone.**

**^M**

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

**1.** **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 specific 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 be 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.** **6O76I)** **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.**

_**Ai**_

**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 marker 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 activity**
**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**

_**^M\**_

**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 IPR 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** **ACTIVITIES**

**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.**

_j?r_

**The panel suggests** **à** **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.**

**Hie** **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.**

**!?.** **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** **& m**
**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 lines 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.**

_**A£**_

**H.** **BACKGROUND** **TO** **TOE** **HNAL** **EVALUATION** **OF THi**

**VALUE H** **PROGRAMME**

**1.** **OVERVIEW** **OF VALUE n**

**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 (1990-1994),** **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 the**
**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**
**TJ)** **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** **[ :]** **i;;do**mt€**
**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 repercussions 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 III.** **"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.**

**Tabtel**

LINES OF ACTION OF INTERFACE I Cost (MECU)

_ | VALUE Relay Centres _'._ 13.4

- Lib CORDIS and publications for dissemination 11.6

1.2. Utilisation of results ÏÏ7Ï

1.3. Protection of results H 4 ~"~

1.4. Promotional activities 53

Total Expenditure until 1 January 1994 > 4L8 """

Above expenditure as percentage of budget > 75

                                           

_**Jjùû&l**_

1 : — — • — - — - —

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 > LÔ5

Above expenditure as percentage of budget > 37

_**IM&l**_

_•_ ' " i           - _ ———>«

ACTIVITIES WITHIN INTERFACE IH Cost (MECU)

. : . _

1 Studies, surveys, evaluations 0.4 |

2 Promotion, awareness, seminars, etc. 03

3 Directories, databases, documents 0.05

4~~~ Contribution to TA within the EU " 53

Total Expenditure until 1 January 1994 > 1.05

Above expenditure as percentage of budget           - j "" 41

_**A&**_

**2.** **HNDINGSAND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MID-TERM** **REVIEW**

**2.L** **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** **R** **(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 puir** **or** **"bottom-up** **[M]** **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 in Europe.**

**2.2.** **Strategic Perspectives**

**1.** **The major issue behind VALUE concerns the very nature of the results of**
**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**

_¡to_

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

**Both VALUE I and VALUE II were designed with a big agenda without**
**adequate political and financial support It must be emphasised that the**
**exploitation of RTD results, technology transfer and more generally the**
**promotion of 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** **[M ]**
**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;**

**•**

_SLA_

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

**the management team of the specific programmes (ESPRIT,** **BRTTE-**
**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 arid 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 and the Structural Funds to satisfy SME needs**
**would seem appropriate. This clearly relates to the "ex ante-upstream"**
**type of reasoning mentioned above.**

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

**<&L**

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

**Undertaking spedfic 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/SPRTNT/the** **Fourth Framework Programme/Structural**
**Funds relate to one another from the above viewpoint? More spedfically,**
**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** **XXm?** **The** **current** **pilot initiatives, e.g. with DG**
**XVI, hint dearly in this direction.**

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

**12.** **There is a dear 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.**

**23.** **Promotional Activities**

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

**23**

**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 & P.** **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 finandal**
**support of actions such as marketing studies, business plans, search for**
**industrial partners, tests under industrial conditions,** **prototyping,** **patent**
**support, licensing, partidpation in exhibitions, etc. Around 40% of the**
**contracts are conduded with SME companies.**

**18.** **Although** **exploitation** **is a lengthy process, it is dear 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 indude all available 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 international**
**exploitation schemes and potential finandng bodies (DG XVI, DG** **XXm,**
**EUREKA, CRAFT, national and regional supporting organisations, etc.).**

_***H**_

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

_IS._ 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 spedfic RTD
programmes and users' needs, espedally 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 dear 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.

¿er

**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** **Ü,** **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 sdence and technology. Such an upgrading**
**would** **give** **it an** **EC-encydopaedic** **character which would have many**
**multi-faceted benefidal 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** **darification.**

**32.** **In condusion, a dear overall CORDIS strategy is urgently required,**
**particularly given the limited funds envisaged for VALUE** **and** **SPRINT**
**initiatives within the Third Activity of the next Framework Programme.**
**This is needed not only for optimising the service but also for securing its**
**future.** **The issue of decentralisation or commerdalisation 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** **daims,** **writing patent**

Í<{0

**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** **BRTTE/EURAM**
**and the Life Sdences programmes. Exploitation of RTD results takes years**
**and although no patents taken by the Commission under the VALUE**
**programme have yet been commerdalised, 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 HI**

**36.** **The activities of Interfaces H and III** **are** **new to VALUE and could have a**
**significant impact. However, the importance attached to them by the**
**Commission is insuffident 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** **H** **and III**
**activities.**

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

_**Sóf**_

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

**.** **In accordance with Artide 4, paragraph 2 of the Coundl 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 Coundl and the Economic and Social**
**Committee".**

**The Terms of Reference of the Final Evaluation of VALUE II, given in**

***** **Annex 2, further detailed the evaluation task by stipulating that**

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

**this panel will also assess the effidency 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 offidals 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** **n.**

**With respect to the evaluation approach followed, it is to be noted** **thafc-**

**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 finandal envelope of VALUE II rendered**
**to its actions only a catalytic role, the approach for assessing the**

_**â&**_

**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?**

**& ***

**m.** **HNAL** **EVALUATION** **OF VALUE H**

**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 dosing 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 XIII-D to several on-going activities and the
reflections of the VALUE Management Committee on corresponding
issues.

For reasons of coherence, darity 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.

**3o**

**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** **XTQ** **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.**

_**7JL**_ **Overall Comments**

**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 as a strategic issue, given**
**the importance that variables such as** **"reduced** **time to** **market"** **and**
**"shorter product life** **cydes"** **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 condudes that, in general, both the analysis**
**and recommendations made in these documents still remain valid. The**
**Executive Summary of the VRCs Evaluation, induded in this report as**
**Annex IH, gives an overview of the methodology and** **performance** **of the**
**VRCs.**

**The basic condusions 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.**

**3^f**

**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 finandng**
**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'** **fadlitator and catalyst role could be** **that** **of a decoding agent in**
**both directions. Moreover, with their own dynamic indusion in local and**
**Community networks, they could be used as exploratory vehides 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.**

**^a_**

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

**Being dose 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 agendes,**
**with a European scope. This implies that RCs need to utilise the**
**competences** **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** **mat 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 finandal 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**

**^>2>**

**monitoring** **from the VR-Service, but also by promoting synergy across the**
**RCs network through, for example:** **~**

**•** **allowing for sub-networking activities among RCs having some**
**common interests, methods or targets;**

**•** **allowing for** **sub-networking** **meetings, as and when required;**

**•** **organising structured meetings, in which each RC should present**
**and discuss its own activities and experience;**

**•** **formalising a staff exchange programme, where a member of one**
**VRC should choose another RC where he could work on the**
**current activities of the host** **RC** **for a period of 1-3 months.**

**In line with the analysis and condusions of the VRCs' evaluation, it is**
**possible to visualise a set of spedfic actions which could be taken to**
**improve the performance of each** **RC.**

**The envisaged global network can be achieved and be viable and**
**successful only if individual centres' operational and experience levels**
**tend to be compatible and complementary to each other. However, in**
**view of the differences within regions in attitudes and awareness towards**
**innovation activities, such state could be attained by increased interaction**
**among the RCs and adaptability of their operations.**

**The experts who evaluated the VRCs detected that some types of host**
**organisations proved more suitable than others for the RC task; in order**
**to fulfil the RCs' main aim of promoting innovation in a clear**
**"downstream" manner it might be advisable to consider the profiles of**
**hosting organisations and so increase the cohesion of the networking**
**effort.**

**2.5.** **Condusions**

**Perhaps the most significant success of the VALUE II programme is the**
**learning process of developing effective tools and organisational forms**
**that will play an important role in redudng the gap between R&D**
**institutions and those who are able to translate the results of their research**

**into viable commerdal and** **sodal** **realities.**

**The** **results of the programme are undoubtedly not yet fully recognised for**
**two main reasons. On the one hand, the time required to utilise fully the**
**outcome of RTD is far greater than the duration of the programme** **itself,**
**so efforts to increase awareness of these results among potential users**
**might take some time to produce any significant results. On the other**
**hand, the funds allocated to VALUE were of a magnitude that would not**

**' ^**

**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,**
**espedally 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 indusion in local and global networking activities, RCs**
**could diffuse state-of-the-art knowledge and skills in** **(afferent** **areas of**
**sdentific and technological knowledge, which constitutes "per se" an**
**excellent** **contribution to the industrial development of regions, espedally**
**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, vehides 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 espedally 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", espedally 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**

**•as** **[-]**

**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 fadlitate 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.**

**BcC**

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

**3.L** **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 fadlitating the development of Community
consciousness;

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

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 **n** and now
CORDIS can be fully exploited.

_32._ **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 Dafly ! " ! 4,412 ~~

RTO-ACRONYMS ~~ Fortnightly 4^38

RTD<X>MTX)OJMENTS Fortnightly 805 ~

RTD-PROGRAMMES Fortnighdy "Ü93 "~

RTD-PROJECTS Fórtnighüy 23 f 008

RTD-PUBUCATIONS Fortnighdy 69,203

RTD-RESULTS Monthly 11,541

RTD-PARTNERS Fortnighdy 17^992

RTD-OONTACTS Fortnightly 4J26

 - Total 1st March'95 1 137,788

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

RTD-Acronyms! acronyms and abbreviations relating to Community
RTD. .«

**RTP-COMPQCUMENTS:** comprehensive summaries of the
Commission's initiatives on research matters to the Coundl 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-Publkatipng:** bibliographical information and abstracts on
publications, reports and sdentific papers arising from Community
research activities as well as other sdentific and technical documents
published by the Commission.

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

**^ > &**

**RTD-PaTtners/EOI:** **potential suitable partners for partidpation in the**
**Community RTD programmes and** **projects** **and for participation in the**
**commerdal exploitation of RTD results.**

**RTD-Contactsí** **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 spedalists 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);**

**^**

**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.**

**Publidty 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 dte:**

**national administrations** **(13%);**

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

_**ko**_

**I**

**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:**

_WL_ I 4,720,003 ECU

1993: 5,887394 ECU

Ï9941 2,760,683 ECU

TOTAL: 13,368,080 ECU

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

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

**To attain suffidentiy 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 (spedfic 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.**

**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.

_**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**_

_**l**_
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 undear 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 spedfic 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 _XB)_ 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.

**^**

_**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 sdences, 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: sdentific, 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**

**finandal information on accepted projects.**

**Whether the content of the information provided by CORDIS is suffident**
**is** **not** **dear 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** _**CORDIS in**_ _**the**_ _**Medium**_ _**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.**

**uv**

_**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 condude 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 dearly from the very**
**high activity during the January-February 1995 period during which the**
**activity was three times higher than usual.**

**It is not dear 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 condude 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 should be increased**
**essentially towards companies, as research centres and education institutes**
**already constitute the majority of users. Promotion in** **techno-economic**
**journals, the use of pertinent assodations, etc as already 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 undear 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 darify this potential problem.**

_**HT**_

_**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 suffidentiy 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.**

_**k6**_

**Modern** **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 exdting way and is already a step in that**
**direction. However, the evaluation panel believes that the whole system**
**of 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 of possible**
**US charges for their** **databases.**

**It is therefore recommended that in the medium term 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.**

_**<iï**_

**3.4.** **Condusion**

**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 suffident impact and guarantee**
**its survival in the long term it is recommended that in-depth studies be**
**made with a view to** **tifie** **medium and long term, on the demand side, on**
**the cost control and cost reduction process, and on technological**
**evolution. In addition, CORDIS should increase its promotional activity**
**to convince essentially the SMEs to make use of the service.**

**CORDIS also has a role to play in bringing national and regional RTD**
**#** **databases doser to potential users in a harmonised way. In this**
**perspective one could think of finandal support actions to make their**
**information available to the whole European sdentific and technical**
**community and to create links with the** **CORDIS** **database.**

**<¿v**

**ACTION UNE 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 fadlitate 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 commerdal
potential and the time-scales to be attempted.

_**<fi**_

_**42.**_ **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** **n** **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%,** **espedally 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 offidals** **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 consdous, however,**
**that more than one project participant remarked to us** **that** **offidals'**
**advice, from the perspective of a wide experience of projects, had been**
**extremely valuable.**

**43.** **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 dear 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 commerdal realism. While it is accepted**
**that a major justification for many of the projects is to indude non-**
**commerdal bodies, such as universities and state-owned institutions, it is**
**important that at least one** **.main** **partidpant has a truly commerdal**
**attitude and the interest to make the** **project's** **output marketable.**

**So**

**Successful** **innovation** **requires a combination of developmental and**
**commerdal skills which must be optimally promoted. It is important** **also**
**to ensure that the IPR arrangements are designed to be as condudve 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 dearly important**
**that research should be exploited to the optimum extent, though it will**
**not necessarily be appropriate to exploit all research within the same time-**
**scale. Some results may, of their nature, take** **many** **years** **to** **deliver**
**benefits. Moreover, not all the returns to research accrue from direct**
**applications.** **Some, for example, may come from more general**
**improvements in knowledge and understanding.**

**It is possible that supporting development projects is a less cost-effective**
**means of technology transfer than diffusing research results by direct**
**information distribution through publications or databases. This latter**
**approach is less costly and broader based, whereas project support involves**
**concentrating significant amounts of money on a limited number of quite**
**narrowly spedfic 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 prindple 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**

_**SA**_

**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 prindples. The first of these is that**
**technology transfer and, more espedally, 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**
**prindples. 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 prindples 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 partidpate in these and to demonstrate** **bom** **the particular**
**project (preferably on site) and the benefits to be gained from similar**
**innovative action.** **The projects should be used as vehicles for**
**demonstrating the innovation process and the innovation mentality. The**
**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. We are**
**impressed with the technical quality of most of those we have seen. This**
**is naturally vital. But prospects of eventual exploitation are also crudal**
**and, although these are taken into account, we are not sure they always get**

**S5L**

**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 commerdally 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 wdghts are placed on innovativeness and exploitability. Support**
**should be carried as dose to the market as the** **pre-competitive** **prindple**
**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.** **Condusions and Recommendations**

**We support the concept of project support but think its nature should take**
**more account of the spedfic 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 spedfic, 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 spedfic verifiable objectives,**
**relating to those for the action line and emphasising exploitation. All**
**projects should indude, 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 UNE U : 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 finandal, 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 Xm 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 IRCs, 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 finandal support for patent applications for projects related to
the VALUE programme was discontinued at the end of 1994.

***v**

**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 spedal 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 deddedly towards the administrators**
**and also the contractors of other spedfic 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:**

^rsr

**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 rdation 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**
**finandal 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 finandal 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, as separate events rather than as**
**forming part of a** **well** **thought-out and consistently implemented strategy.**
**The panel is indined 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.**

**53.** **Condusions 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** **Xm** **Patent Section. The panel welcomes the initiatives**
**taken recently and partly presented above (see** _**Current and future**_
_**activities),**_ **which** **indicate** **mat** **a new, more suitable approach in relation**
**to IPR matters is about to be launched by the Patent Section. A pre-**
**requisite, however, to these initiatives being carried out successfully is a**
**combination of more resources, finandal as well as human, and more**
**commitment.**

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

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

_**St**_

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

**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 effident dissemination and**
**faster exploitation of RTD results. Obviously, such data would also**
**be a valuable input to assessments of the innovative content of EC**
**RTD activities. In this connection, a CORDIS database dedicated to**
**patents, trademarks, copyrights, licences and other indicators of EC**
**RTD results, would be a useful tool. Currently, such data are very**
**rare in CORDIS.**

**Several VRCs have responded to their dients' 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 Patent Section**
**in DG** **Xni** **could prove instrumental in aiding the exploitation of**
**RTD** **results** **and creating a general snowball effect** **on** **IPR matters**
**across the whole RC network.**

**5.** **The incentives for patenting differ rather widely across the 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 across 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.**

**< r ^**

**6.** **ACTION** **UNE L4** **: PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES**

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

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

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

**A wide spectrum of promotional activities has been undertaken to**
**achieve these 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.**

_**^s**_

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

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

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

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

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

**^**

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

**7.1.** **Introduction**

The so-called "Interfaces II and IH" were a minor part within the VALUE II
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 the bulk of the budget was spent

The aim of Interface II was to contribute to an interdisdplinary reflection
in relation to the research environment, including methodology and
other issues of a sodal, finandal and managerial character. Interface II
activities were, among others, several studies contracted, some seminars
and expert workshops, launch of an Interfaces Bulletin and the annual
Interfaces Conferences.

ii The aim of Interface m was to identify and study the impact on sodety of
_1_ the new sdentific and technological knowledge acquired as a result of
Community research activities covering three main areas: Assessment of
the Sodal 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 m, 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 sodal
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, sodal, cultural) in the different regions in Europe.

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

_**6o**_

_**72.**_ **General Comments**

The pand considers very relevant the objective of recondlihg the general
public with research activities and technological development, these being
also necessary to reinforce interdisdplinary 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
dear 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 offidals, 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 _(JTG)._

The Coundl 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 III appeared at the end of 1994 might explain
why the scope and potential results of this line have not been suffidentiy
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
"sodo-targeted research programme" within DG XR.

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.

_73._ 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 dear modular structure which allowed for quick adaptations to the
recommendations of the Mid-Term Review panel (i.e. shifting the priority
to Interface III : Research-Sodety activities) and the orientation of the
future Fourth Framework Programme.

**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 dear vision of the importance of the methodologies for the**
**dissemination of** **results** **and the importance of targeting dusters 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 Sdence 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** **ELI** **earlier (Overview of VALUE II) the budget committed up to**
**mid-1995, inducting the last call for proposals for studies, is 2.45 MECU for**
**Interface** **II** **and 3.3** **MECU** **for Interface m.**

**Of the total expenditure for Interface HI, 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)** **0.28** **MECU**

**TOTAL** **08** **MECU**

**Before the end of this year about 15 European** **dries** **will have used this**
**tool with a recognised impact at political, dtizen 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.**

62L

**7.4.** **Recommendations**

**The panel feels strongly that the sodal and cultural dimensions of**
**innovation, as well as the interdisdplinary nature of technological**
**development, are very important and judges very positively the initial**
**approach carried out within the Interfaces** **II** **and** **m** **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 sodal and**
**cultural dimensions, etc.) rather than a** **top-down** **perspective (i.e. Sdence**
**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 effidency of this in matching sodal needs to**
**technological results has been demonstrated and it has contributed to a**
**global European culture of innovation and promotion should indude, 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 dearer recognition of its benefits at Commission**
**level. Resources foreseen for accompanying measures could be used**
**synergistically for that purpose.**

**6^**

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

**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 spedfic objectives in the field of promotion of innovation. Yet the
complementarity of the two programmes and some overlap in their
means and tools were dear enough for the Mid-Term Review panel to
support the idea of a merger between SPRINT and VALUE. TJiis 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
dearly 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 dozens throughout the Union,
the Commission aims to implement the internal market, increasing the
competitiveness of firms at both a European and global level, and
reinfordng the sodal and economic cohesion of the Union.

**6(/**

In so doing, strengthening European sdence 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 dearly 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 corresponding lobbies
and in fact partidpate relatively very little in Community RTD
programmes. This is in dear contradiction to the explidt objective of
Commission policy defining SME competitiveness as a top. priority. In any
case, this dearly favours polides which pro-actively help public RTD
programmes benefit industry. VALUE type schemes are thus both
legitimate and useful.

Conversely, the promotion of innovation does not simply correspond-to
active transfer of R&D results to firms. Much more is involved, induding
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 rdated 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 scardty 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.

¿fs

_**£6**_

**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 ignoring downstream**
**considerations and view dissemination and valorisation as constraints**
**now put upon them by the spedfic programmes. They even worry about**
**research money being taken away from their research. Some others,**
**however, have become aware of the importance of the role of RTD in**
**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.**

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

**Innovation in a company, espedally 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 capadty 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.**

**£¥**

**SME PARTNERS**

**CONSULTANTS**

**INNOVATION POUCY** **/** **¡ C ~** **\** **TECHNICAL RESOURCE**
**PUBLIC FINANCIAL** **SUPPORT/** **\ J * à \ .** **\** **CENTRES**

**RTO**

**FINANCIAL SYSTEM \** **_ _** **/ /** **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, espedally
for SMEs.
Whenever an innovation policy is designed, these simple elements
should be kept in mind.

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

Seen from an RTD policy perspective, the dissemination of results is an
important task as it aims to make sdentific 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.

_**62**_

**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** **spedfic** **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 sdentific and technical expertise. In**
**addition, most innovations actually combine a set of sub-technologies**
**requiring a variety of competences. The necessary division of sdence 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 sodal**
**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** **sodo-**
**economic research programme) will result in dealing solely with the body**
**(hardware matters) on the one hand and "soul" on the other. The panel**
**would suggest** **recondling** **and integrating both sets of dimensions.**

_**£q**_

_**IS.**_ **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 sodal 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** **dose co-operation** **with regional initiatives where the**
**Community dearly 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 polides in**

**¥o**

**the context of structural funds. Industrial policy, finandng or** **education,**
**inter alia, are also** **dearly** **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** **polides,** **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 dtizens, 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** **fadlitating** **innovation inside companies;**

**measures to promote a climate favourable to innovation**
**(infrastructure, networks e.g. sdence parks,** **finandal** **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 sodal and cultural dimensions**
**of innovation, so that the** **social** **embedding of new: activities into**
**sodety** **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-effident 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 dearly as a top priority and wishes to raise political awareness**
**in the Community.**

**ft**

# ANNEXES

**V3**

**ANNEX!**

**VALUEn**

**Council Decision**

**29 April 1992**

_**^**_

**23.** **5. 92** **Official Journal of the European** **Communities** **No** **L HI/1**

**H**

_**(Acts**_ _**whom**_ _**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, and in particular Artide** **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 Economic and Social**
**Committee** **(** **[J]** **),** **"** _**t**_

**Whereas Article 130g (c) of** **the** **Treaty states that the**
**Community, complementing the activities carried out in the**
**Member States, is to carry out activities for** **the**
**dissemination and optimization of the results of activities 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** **dissémination** **of knowledge resulting**
**from** **the spedfic 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.** **?5.**
**(** **[a]** **)** **OJ No C** **1** **>.** **2C.** **1.** _*****2.**_ **p.** **75;** **and** **Dco»¿o« oí 8** **April 1992**

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

**pan 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,** **EEC(** **[4]** **),** **the**
**Council adopted a third Framework Programme for**
**Community** **activities in** **the** **field of research and**
**technological development (1990 to 1994), specifying,**
_**inter**_ _**¿lia,**_ **the activities to be pursued for developing** **the**
**scientific** **knowledge** **and technical** **looow-how** **needed by**
**the** **Community** **and** **providing** **that** **the** **dctaDed**
**arrangements** **Cor the** **dissemination of the** **knowledge**
**gained, in particular the definition and the** **implementstioo**
**of the** **centralized** **action, should** **be the** **subject of a Council**
**Decision;**

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

**programmes;**

**Whc(c**;d.C** **#** **Fv** **[r]** **»** **[,]** **om** **Treaty contains detailed provision**
**for.** **xhc^issttninariorv.of.information** **which apply,** _**mu**_
_**alia;**_ **to** **nuclear** **research programmes;**

**No L** **M l / 2**

**^ < T**

**Offioal** **Journal of the** **European Communities** **2J.** **5.** **92**

**Whereas** **the decisions relating to the research and training**
**programmes** **in the** **fields of controlled** **thcrmonudcar**
**fusion** **(1990-1994)** **and** **nudcar** **fission safety** **(1990-1994).**
**together with the activities undertaken by the Joint**
**Research Centre in the field of nudcar** **research,,** **envisage**
**that the amount estimated as necessary as the contribution**
**of these programmes to the** **present** **centralized action (or**
**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 it** **is** **necessary to ensure** **the** **coherence** **oí** **scheme,**
**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 conformiry with the Community's interests,**
**in particular with respect to its economic and** **sodal**
**cohesion;**

**WbeTcas,** **in order to improve the insertion of Community**
**research into a broader context and to optimize the**
**uoTtxation** **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** **rcsearch-sdcncc** **and rcscarch-sodcTy**
**interfaces;**

**Whereas Decision** **90/221** **/Euratom, EEC provides that a**
**particular aim of Community research** **must** **be to**
**strengthen the sdentific** **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,** **inxcr** _**alia,**_ **to the strengthen of the economic**
**and sodal cohesion of the Community and to the**
**promotion of its overall harmonious development, while**
**being consistent with the pursuit of sdentific and technical**
**excellence; whereas the present action is looked upon** **as**
**contributing to** **the** **achievement of these objectives;**

**Whereas small and medium-sized** **enterprises** **(SMEs)**
**should be involved to the maximum extent possible in** **this**
**action; whereas account should be taken** **oí thcix spcoal**
**requirements, without prejudice to** **the saenufic** **and**
**technical quality of the programme;**

**Whereas, in accordance with Artide 130g of the** **Trcary,**
**the Community's activities aimed at** **sacngthening the**
**sdentific and technological basis of European industry and**
**encouraging it to become more** **compcuavc** **indudc**
**promoting cooperation on research and** **tcchnologica]**
**development** **with** **third** **countries and** **btemaoooa!**
**organizations; whereas such cooperation may prove**
**particularly** **bcnefidal** **for** **the** **development of this action;**

**Whereas the Sdentific and Technical Research** **Committee**

**(Crest) has delivered its** **opinion.**

**HAS ADOPTED** **THIS** **DECISION:**

**Whereas it is desirable to cooperate with existing networks**
**(or the dissemination and the promotion of innovation and**
_**Article 1**_
**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 fie D knowledge must be encouraged**
**throughout the Community;**

**~'nc»ras.** **in addition to the specific programme** **concernió»**
**human** **reso.** **rces'an** **mobility,** **it** **is** **necessary** **IO** **encodage**

**•** **_i . - .,,,, !,** **, . . ^, t** **r T N** **... fV<** **—»«»<•** **«i** **of elm**

**1.** **The dissemination and exploitation of knowledge shall**
**be carried out as** **pan** **of the** **specific programmes** **and by**
**means of a centralized action.**

**2.** **The centralized action, as defined in Annex I,** **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** **Dcccmbc:**

**1994.**

_**Anide**_ _**2**_

**1.** **The amount of Community expenditure** **deriving** **from**
**the levies on the** **fc-.rj;,** **estimates as necessary** **for the**
**execution** **ol** **the'speciftc'** **programmes',** **"with a view** **TO** **the**
**implement** **a't** **ion of** **tKe"** **ccmraliicd action** **established by this**
**Decision, is estimated at ECU 57** **million,** **including**
**expenditure on** **siaff** **and administration** **amounting** **to ECU**

**V6**

**23.** **5. 92** **Offtdal Journal of the European** **Communities** **Noi-** **Hl/3**

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

**Annex (1.**

**3.** **If the Coundl takes a** **dedsion** **pursuant to Anide 1 (4)**
**of** **Dedsion 90/221 /Euratom, EEC, this Dedsion 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** **III.**

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

**1.** **In** **the course of the second year of the implementation**
**of the action, the Commission shall review it and send a**
**repon on the results of its review ot the European**
**Parliament, the Council and the** **Ecooomic** **and** **Socu:**
**Commincc; the repon shall be accompanied,** **wher'.**
**necessary, by proposals for amendment of the** **acrioc.**

**2.** **At the end of the action, an evaluation of the results**
**achieved shall be conducted for the** **Commission** **by «**
**Croup of independent experts. The Croup's report,**
**together with the** **Commission's** **comments, shall be**
**submitted to the European Parliament, the Council and the**
**Ecooomic and Sodal Commincc.**

**3.** **The reports referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall** **be**
**established having regard to the objectives set out in Annex**
**I to this Decision and in accordance with Artide 2 (4)** **oí**
**Dedsion** **90/221** **/Euratom, 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 mancr. The opinion shall be delivered**
**by the majority laid down in Anide 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**
**Ankle.** **The Chairman shall not vote.**

**The Commission shall adopt the measures envisaged** **if uSey**
**are** **in** **accordance with the opinion of the** **commincc.**

**IÍ** **the measures envisaged arc not in accordance** **with uSe**
**opinion of the commincc, 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 Council**
**shall act by a qualified majority.**

**1Í,** **on the expiry of a period of three months** **from** **referral**
**of tSe mancr 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 Artide 6 shall apply to:**

**— the preparation and updating of the work programme**
**refened** **to in Artide 5 (2),**

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

**— the assessment of the projects proposed and rite**
**estimated amount of** **the Community's concriburioo** **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** **in** **accordance**
**with the aims set out in Annex 1 and updated where**
**necessary.** **It** **shall set out the detailed objectives and** **type***
**of** **projects** **to** **be** **undenaken,** **and** **the** **finançai**
**arrangements to be made for them. The Commission** **sni'J**
**make calls for proposals for projects on the basis of** **:*r.e**
**work programme.**

_**Article 6**_

**-Fo-** **-hf** **execution** **of** **this action, insofar as it relates to the**
**spedfic** **programmes** **based on Anide l30q (2)** **oí** **:'•.<•**
**Treaty, the** **Commission** **shall** **be** **assisted** **[ k v a]** **eomr.ince**

**— any adaptation of the indicative breakdown of** **the.**
**amount** **set** **out in Annex II,**

**— the measures to be undenaken to evaluate the** **acboo.**

**— measures for implementing the rules laid down** **L-**
**Anide 8.**

**2.** **Where, pursuant to the** **thiiw :7**«-«u** **of paragraph** **1,** **d**
**amount of the Community contribution** **is** **less than <**
**equal to, ECU** **ISO** **000, the Commission shall inform** **u**
**commincc of the projects and concerted actions and oí** **i:**
**outcome of their assessment. The Commission shall a)**

**inform the** **committee** **of** **the tnwlemcnt anon oí** **t**

**¥***

**N o L l 4 l / <** **Offidal Journal of the European** **Communities** **23:** **5. 92**

_**Article 8**_

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

**(a)** **the** **knowledge resulting from work** **undenaken**
**directly or the cost of which is wholly supported by**
**the Community shall in** **prindplc** **be the property of**
**the Community.**

**The.; knowledge** **resulting** **from** **work** **under a**
**shared-cosi** **contract shall be the property** **oí** **the**
**contractors who carry out** **the** **work.** **They** **shall agree**
**between themselves on particular** **anangements** **for**
**such ownership;**

**(h) knowledge which could be used in an industrial or**
**commercial application, if its nature justifies 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-oootraaors** **and in accordance**
**with any applicable legislation or. convention;**

**(c) the Community and its** **co-contxaexors** **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**
**compctirjvcncss** **of** **European** **industry** **and the**
**economic and sodal cohesion in the Community;**

**(d) knowledge belonging to the Community shall be made**
**available to its** **co-coooraciors** **and to interested third**

**parties 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 concerning the payment of fees.**

**All contractors shall make the knowledge in their**
**possession, together with any information necessary**
**for its use, available to the** **co-cootrac:ors** **and to**
**interested third parties under contractually defined**
**condioons,** **provided that the** **inrcresrs** **of the**
**Community and the legitimate intereso of its**
**co-contractors** **arc safeguarded;**

**(c) the Commission shall ensure that knowledge suitable**
**for dissemination according to** **the** **contractual terms is**
**disseminated or published** **cither** **by the Commission**
**itself or by its** **co-contractors,** **without any restriction**
**other than those imposed by** **die need** **to safeguard**
**intellectual and industrial property,** **coofidcnaaliry** **or**
**legitimate commercial interests.**

**The Commission shall lay down the arrangements** **for**
**implcmenong** **the rules laid down in** **the** **first subparagraph**
**oí this** **Anide,** **in accordance with** **die** **procedure described**

**in Anide** **6.**

_**Article**_ **9**

**This Dedsion is addressed to the Member States.**

**Done at Luxembourg, 29** **April** **1992.,**

**For** _**the Council**_

_**"The**_ _**President**_

**Luis** **VALENTE** **DE** **OUVEIRA**

###### **ft**

**23.** **S. 92** **Offidal** **Journal of the** European Communities. No L H1/5

_**ANNEX**_ _**I**_

**OBJECTIVES AND TECHNICAL** **CONTENT**

**The genera)** **aim** **of** **che centralized** **action for** **the** **dissemination and exploitation of** **knowledge rcsulong** **from**
**Commumry** **research** **activities,** **earned out under this** **acucm.** **is** **10 eve** **specific added value »o** **the** **R** **or** **D**

**•** **activities which arc the subject of the third Framework Programme for 1990 «o** **1994.** **On the one** **hand,** **it**
**provides the necessary continuity (or some of chc measures carried out** **unda** **the Value programme; on the**
**other,** **it introduces new topics concerned pameularly** **with** **the repercussions of research and tcchnoiopcaJ**
**development activities and their results on society as a whole.**

**This ccnualucd** **action** **it** **to be conducted** **in** **accordance** **wm the** **following guiding** **principia.**

**(a)** **Horuomabty**

**Measures to publish and** **uoJuc** **research results** **muii** **apply to** **the** **whole tange of** **Community R & D**
**activates,** **covered by** **the** **Community Framework** **Programme,** **urcspccuvc** **of** **die** **nature of** **f** **rogiamrocs.**
**the persons involved and** **the adminisoaovc authonucs** **responsible.** **Tbu** **criterion** **will** **be implemented**
**through coordination and liaison between RTD specific programmes** **and the ccnualucd** **acuoo.**

**(b)** **Internal** **complementarity**

**The crnaalucd acucm** **will coordinate and** **supplement die** **measures takes under the specific RTD**
**programma,** **it** **will also** **coocrnoatc** **00 activities** **requiring** **special** **infrastructure** **and** **skill*** **(computerized**
**information** **systems,** **a network** **of'relay** **sudóos*,** **etc.) or special** **capabilities** **for transferring know-how** **to**
**fields of activity in other disciplines.**

**(c)** **Subsidiarity**

**The ccnualucd** **acboo** **will build** **on** **the synergies** **betweca** **decentralized (public** **and** **private) and**
**Community** **R & D activities and is** **designed,** **in conjunction** **widb** **other Community measures and in**
**coopcrattoo** **with** **the** **national** **and** **regional authorities** **responsible,** **to establish a coherent mechanism for**
**the utilización** **and transfer of the technologies and the know-how obtained bom research and technological**
**development,** **using, wherever possible, the existing structures in Member** **Sutes.**

**As** **far** **as the content of** **the** **present action is concerned, those measures already launched to forge closer links**
**berween** **research and industry will be supplemented by other** **new** **measures designed** **10** **forge closer links**
**between research and society and between research and** **the scicodfic** **community. These arc measures which**
**re Oca** **the** **new** **scientific and technological** **objecsves** **and** **ootuxraina sex** **by society and** **its** **unoorooca,** **and** **chc**
**increasing interest in the interdisciplinary approach to research and** **uxhoologicaj dcvcloptacai** **actmbo.** **At this**
**stage,** **and** **now** **that** **its** **activities arc more developed, this centralized** **acrioo wQ]** **incorporate these** **new** **topics**
**into** **its conceptual and operational framework.**

**Detailed objectives for the centralized action, including measurable targets and milestones.** **wJl** **be described** **in**
**workplans, which will be submitted annually to the commincc.**

**1.** **RESEARCH-INDUSTRY** **INTERFACE**

**The aim is to** **help** **to improve the** **internanonal compcurivcncss 01** **Europe's industry** **in** **accordance with**
**the provisions of** **the** **Trary by means od** **specific** **projects designed to maximize the impact of Community**
**R** **Ac** **D** **acbvines** **on industry as a whole.**

**For this purpose, the networks and partnerships between companies and laboratories from** **die différent**
**countries which** **result** **from the Community** **R & D** **programmes constitute an important** **clement** **of the**
**mechanism set up for the** **dissemination** **and cxploiution of their** **tcsulo.**

**I«** **« up** **10 companii** **fust** **and** **foiemoit.** **lo** **make good** **uvc** **of** **»!«<:** **mulu and to p»o»ca ihcvc «csulu** **as**

**-** **•** **I** **.« • '** **—** **\** **M** _**,.^-r^<yr**_

**¥3**

**No L** **M l / 6** **Offidal** **Journal of the European** **Communities** **23.** **5.** **9 2**

**protect** **their** **findings** **in certain cases** **where,** **for example,** **they** **lack the necessary** **erpcnisf** **and arc unable**
**to obuin this through the usual** **nabonal** **and commercial channels, and at the** **same** **nmc help them to**
**exploit and promote such findings. The following measures arc proposed:**

**1.1.** **New channel»** **of information**

**(a)** **NViu/O'i** _**of**_ _**telsy**_ _**centra**_

**A network of relay** **cenoo will** **be** **set** **up to promote the disscminaoon** **aad crploitaooo** **of**
**Community R** _**ti**_ **D results, while taking into account, and building** **oa,** **the** **exiracg** **structura** **is**
**Member States designed for** **die same** **purpose. The** **relay** **centres will** **have ipcoal** **access to**
**Community** **informaoon,** **under the control of the** **Commission,** **and will** **have** **as** **thcu** **main task the**
**tailoring and interpretation of dm information to local needs, especially** **m rcUuon** **to** **companies,**
**pameularly** **SMEs. universities and research** **insorutcs.** **The** **spedfic needs of the more peripheral and**
**Icau-favourcd** **areas of the Community will also be taken** **into** **account.**

***C?hilc giving** **full** **consideration.to** **local needs and** **circums:anccs.** **the** **follow™••** **ao-mes.** _**mw cLs**_
**may be** **undcrulen** **by the** **rcby** **ccnucv.**

**— the** **disscminaoon** **of informaoon on Community programmes and** **cal'i** **for proposals;**

**-<-** **identincanoo** **of** **opportuniucs** **for** **parriopahon** **in** **Community** **R ¿V. D** **progTa-Timc.** **and general**
**guidance to** **candidates in** **the** **prcparabon** **of proposals,**

**—**
**factlitaung** **the interpretation and disscminaoon of Communiry** **programme rc-.ulis** **for target**
**iudicr.crs** **and local firms,**

**— promotion of** **the cxploiuuon** **of the research results with poten** **culi y** **¿atec^ce!** **enterprises,**

**— assistance to organizations which** **have** **produced results in the** **idenoficadon** **of cxploiuuon***
**opportunities at a European level and market** **research** **possibilities, •**

**— providing informaoon** **on spcdalizcd** **agences dealing with intellectual property and legal**

**(** **protection of** **results,**

**— providing informaoon on possibilities for** **hoanbal** **support.** _**'**_

**Competent nabonal authorities and the** **sdcnónc,** **technical and industrial community** **vol!** **help** **the**
**Commission to select the relay centres in the Member** **Sutes** **and to define** **thcu-** **spedfic** **tasks.**

**The relay centres will, at the** **outset,** **analyse current practice on** **dissenunanon** **and exploitation,**
**identify new approaches, where necessary, and formulate a Plan of** **ACDOC** **wiü»** **specific targets.**

**1.1.** **(b) fituic Service**

**A** **user-fncndly** **computerized** **infortnarioo** **service called Cordis will become available in 1992. After**
**1992.** **and depending on the results of a detailed evaluation,** **the** **aim of the centralized action will be**
**to update and expand the Cordis information service.** **The** **service could provide** **new** **functions** **and**
**continue to expand using new sources of** **informaoon,** **harmonize and/or integrate databases, use**
**electronic** **storage** **devices (CD-ROM and video discs) and develop** **user-frieT.d"y syitems** **for** **clccrrooic**
**dsta exchange in cooperation with related Community programmes.**

**The development of computerized methods docs not exclude the** **use** **of** **more aad:tional** **methods**
**such as the publication of** **buUenns** **and bibliographies which** **will** **provide** **wider** **access to** **inform** **anon**

**services**

**1.2** **Utilizaiion** **of results**

**This** **activiry,** **which was already started** **«n ihe** **Value programme, should be extended to** **«he** **new field»**
**coveted bv** **the** **Framework Programme and developed** **in line** **with the results that** **bccomc-available in the**
**vcats** **ahead.** **This** **means utilizing** **ihe** **research and development results of which the Community** **is** **the**
**[nv.net](http://nv.net)** **anJ.** **where** **needed.** **hclpi*»t** **[, c]** ***.«*»hzc ihe «csults** **of research and development** **protect»** **undenaken**
**o« »** **«har:** **[ :]** **- . c .** **Lasts,** **in** **the latter case.** _**\hc**_ **j»m will** **be to help contractors who do** ***»oi have .s«<** **[r]** **tocnt**
**expertise,** **in** **particular** **the** **universities,** **research** **u.-•.«rutes** **and SMEs.** **to** **take** **advantage oí** **il»'** **results of**

**• •** **•** **•** **--'** **-~.«** **>~** **l.-i~** **. -** **~** **.~** _**...r**_ **«l.r** **C"c«»rr»_.«..\** _**H**_ **V** **I)** **-e-vult»** _**rrnár**_

**1**

**I**

**í**

##### **1** **I**

**•3** **©**

**2 3 . 5 . 9 2** **Offidal** **Journal of** **che** **European Communities** **-** **N o L M 1 / 7**

**The work to be undenaken could cake** **différent** **forms,** **depending** **on** **each** **specific** **ose.** **as follow*:**

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

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

**— providing** **adequate** **financing** **Support (or** **studies or tests and experimental** **developments.**

**This** **word** **will** **be earned out** **with** **the** **help** **of outside experts and competent organuanons** **in the**
**Member** **States.**

**1.3.** **Proteetioo** **of results**

**The** **proteenon** **of results belonging to** **the** **Community and management** **oí** **the patents portfolio** **that it**
**holtjs will** **be** **continued,** **as in** **the** **past,** **through systematic** **cxammaoon** **of** **the** **final** **repon»** **and results**
**obtained by the** **JRC.** **The** **actwioc»** **described** **below,** **winch** **have already been** **staned** **tn the** **Value**
**programme,** **will be developed more intensively by the ccnualucd** **aeuon.**

**Those universities, research centres and SMEs which do not** **have** **access to patcnong expertise** **will,** **on**
**reçues:,** **be provided with aid by the** **ornrralúcd** **action. It will supply expertise on patent» and financial**
**suppon** **limited to the costs of searches for pnor claims to novelty and** **firs:** **patent** **appticaoons.**

**Public awareness campaigns may also be organized on the importance of protection results for** **the**
**research** **socnosu participating in** **community R fie D programmes.**

**1** ***.** **Promotional activities**

**Promonon** **on** **the** **results could ukc the following form:**

**—** **Boudai** **suppon for** **organizaboru** **making an active** **cootribuoon** **to** **the promoboo** **of results and.** **iri**
**general, for organizabons within a** **cransnadonal** **network set up in order to fadlitate, promote and**
**coordinate access to Community programmes,**

**—** **orgaaiubon** **of seminars, conferences and other means of** **communicaboo,** **inducting in** **assodaboo**
**with** **die ropecave** **bodies in the Member States and, in particular,** **wid> the 'relay** **cenocs*.**

**— attendance of trade fairs.**
# **r**

**Spcdhc** **aebvibes** **arc planned to provide economic and social cohesion in** **regióos** **where disseminadon**
**i** **and** **ubhudoo** **structures do not exist or are** **soil** **in their infancy.**

**n.** **INTEPJACE** **BETWEEN RESEARCH AND THE SCIENTIFIC** **COMMUNTTY**

**The** **objecnvc** **of the** **aebvibes** **under this beading is to contribute to** **utcrdisdplinaxy** **rcOccboo** **m rclabon**
**to research, its methods, problems and impact. Such aebvibes will be struaurcd around the following**
**four areas:**

**II.1.** **GcoeraJ context** **of research** **«**

**The** **3L*D is** **to study the constraints and/or** **opporrurûbes** **for the disscminaoon and** **cxplouaoon** **of R** **Ac** **D**
**acnviccs** **applying** **the** **disciplines of** **law,** **poltocal** **soenccs.** **sodal and** **humac** **sciences. Examples of topics**

**to be considered could be:**

**—** **hit;ory** **and** **comparanvc** **analysis of public and private research structures.**

**— aspects of ovil and public law, mainly in respect of** **intcllectuaJ** **property nghrs.**

**—** **imemahona)** **rules on** **sdcnbüc** **and technological** **informaoon.**

**11.2.** **Communicaboo of research**

**The** **obicc*—** **»«** **«"•** **vaprcvv ***« commu.««onon** **of** **rcscardi** **towards tes** **vjnou»** **users.,** **by** **obtain»*"^** **-**
**octici** **understanding of communication** **pan<f»v Disdplincs** **of a** **vooocultural roiure** **»V'** **play** **an**

**8^1**

**No L U** **1/8** **Official Journal of the** **European Communido** **23.** **S.** **^ 2**

**ll.J.** **Ecoooreia** **of** **meutfa**

**Maaocconomk ùistnimcno** **and business** **sciences** **must be** **used** **to determine the optimum use of**
**resources to be channelled into research as pan of general economic development** **obfeenves** **and company**
**objeebves.** **Taking account also of studio conducted in other** **contexts,** **the** **con/benefit** **aspects of** **(he**
**cycle of research and** **development,** **and the economic obstacles to its** **cxploiuboo.** **will be** **examined,** **in**
**particular with** **a** **view** **to main** **opbmal** **use of** **the** **finandal resources allocated under the third Framework**
**Propamine.**

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

**The** **overall objective is to promote knowledge of best practice in the management of R** **ôc** **D** **in** **order to**
**contribute to** **bener cxploiuboo.of** **results. Management studies will hdp with the** **organizaboo** **of**
**research and laboratory management. They o n make a** **cootríbuóoo** **to project** **management,**
**admimsoaovc** **procedures and methods of management. Particular** **atrenbon will** **be paid to subjects**
**relating to decentralized management and making more efficient use of human resources is the**
**departments** **which manage research. Comparative studies will** **be** **condoned on the different**
**mamger^mi model» used** **by universities and** **idustnal** **research insntutes.**

**Ill** **INTERFACE EETwllEN** **RESEARCH AND SOCIETY**

**1** **his** **heading covers measures designed to** **idcnbfy** **and study the impact on** **soocry** **of** **die new sdcobfic**
**and** **uchnological** **knowledge,** **acquired** **as a result of Community** **aebvines,** **espedally** **where** **the**
**inter action between science and** **technology,** **on** **the** **one hand, and society, oo** **the** **other, is** **paroailarly**
**critical. The** **aim is** **to spread** **sdcnnGc** **know-how widely through Europe in order to** **seek 10 ensure** **that**
**changes** **in the** **contemporary approach to science arc compabblc with** **devdopmena** **in** **soocry.**

**To** **dus** **end,** **it** **should** **ukc** **its place in an** **cffident intcraebve** **process** **ccmsisbng** **of** **the** **following** **suges:**
**tescarch,** **research results, pubbc** **percepbon** **and** **reacboo,.assessment** **of social** **impad,'-moeU£caboa** **of**
**research** **acovibes** **where necessary.** **In** **order to ensure that this procedure works** **effeebvery,** **dose** **link***
**will** **have** **IO** **be** **forged** **across the board with the** **spedfic** **study programmes developed prior to the**
**policy-making process. Wherever** **possible,** **aebvibes will be based on** **the** **work of, and executed in** **dose**
**coordwaoon** **with,** **existing** **orgaruzaboos** **in** **the** **Member Sutes. The centralized** **acboa** **will be m three**

**pans.**

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

**In coniuncooo with the** **more specific** **abvibes** **provided for in the individual specific programmes and**
**with** **the aebvibes of the Monitor** **programme,** **more general** **'technology** **assessment'** **schema** **wul** **be**
**developed. Those areas which will be specially monitored and studied arc not only those which relate to**
**the** **cxploitaoon of new technologies affecting health, safety and the environment, but also ethical and**
**legal** **quesnons** **relating to** **the cxploiubon** **of results.**

**111.2.** **Communtcaboo** **with the public**

**The** **cesaalizrr!** **acboo** **will make use of channels of** **communication,** **particularly the mass** **madia,** **to**
**provide informaoon** **for the** **public,** **building on existing struca^res ui Mensber** **Sutra.** **XTbert** **apprcipruie,**
**use could be made of the relay centres** **menboned** **under** **l.l.** **(a).**

**III.3** **Analysing public demand and** **new tcquircmenu**

**In coniuncuon with** **other programmes** **concerned,** **tnduding** **the Monitor programmes** **('). the crnnalized**
**action** **will** **provide studies and surveys designed to identify the latest social** **needs,** **through** **io ducct**
**contact** **with** **actual or potential users of** **the** **knowledge resulting from R fie D programmes.**

**$9L**

**23.** **5. 92** **Offjdal Journal of** **the** **European Communities** **NbL Ml/o**

_**ANNEX**_ _**11.**_

**INDICATIVE BREAKDOWN OF EXPENDITURE**

fECU-»li.o«j

I. Rescarch-induscry interface 50

Q. Research-tacobfic community interface _*_

ID. Rescarch-sooety interface 3

57(«)

**(')** **lnclw¿>nr,** **crprsdimrr** **on** **s»aff amounnog** **«o ECU** _*****_ **million and** **admmituaii*c erpcndtiuic** **Kxilliftf;** **ECU 5** **ciJJtoo.**

**The** **breakdown** **between different areas docs not cxdudc** **the** **possibility** **that** **projects could cover several**

**areas.**

**Si**

**No L 141/10** **Official Journal of** **the** **European** **Communities** **23. 5. 92**

_**ANNEX Ul**_

**RUUES FOR** **IMPLEMENTTNC** **THE ACTION**

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

**2.** **The rules for** **unplcmcmiag** **the acxioa, referred to in Arbdc 3, comprise projeczs, concerted** **acboos** **and '**
**accompanying measures. Sdccboo of projects must** **take** **account of** **the criteria** **listed in Annex Ul to**
**Dedsion 90/221** **/Euratom.** **EEC and of the objectives set out** **in** **Annex** **I** **to** **this** **programme.**

**—** **rtoicct»**

**The projects** **will** **be the subject of** **sharcd-cott cono** **acts and Community financial paniopaoon which**
**will not normally be more than** **50%.** **Univcrsincs** **and other research centres** **parbcipaong** **in**
**shared-cost protect»** **will** **have the** **opnon of** **rcqucsong,** **for each** **protect,** **either 50** **%** **funding of total**
**expenditure or 100** _***i.**_ **funding of** **the addibonal** **marginal costs.**

**Shared-cost** **projects roust, as a general** **rule,** **be carried out by participants established in the**
**Community, for example** **univcrstbes,** **rescach organuabons and industrial firms, inducting small and**
**medium-sized enterprises. Contracts relating** **io shared-cost** **project» must as a general** **rule be coaduded**
**following** _**a**_ **selection procedure based on calls for proposals published in the** _**Official Journal of ihe**_
_**European**_ _**Commuantes.**_

**— Concerted actions**

**Concerted actions consist of acbon by the** **Cotnmuoiry** **to coordinate the individual aebvibes carried out**
**in the Member** **Sutes.** **They may benefit from funding of up to 100** _***L**_ **of coordinating expenditure.**

**— Accompanying measures**

**The accompanying measures referred to in Arbdc 7 w31 in particular be implemented through:**

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

**— internal** **ccKirdinabon** **through the crcaboo of imegraong groups;**

**— independent sdcnbfic and strategic** **cvaluabon** **of the** **opcraoon** **of the projects and the** **acboo;**

**—** **contribunon** **to studies and enquiries.**

**8**
**4**

**VALUE-n-5/DOC-i**

**!** **MU)** **TERM REVIEW** **OF TflE** **CENTRALIZED ACTION (VALUE** _**m**_

**The Council Decision of 29 April 1992 or,** _**i$z**_ **dissemination** **and exploitation of** **knowledge**

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

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

**implementation** **of** **the** **action,** **a** **review** **of h by** **ihe Commission aod** **foresees that a** **reoon on**

**die** **results of** **lliis** **review be sent to the** **Eurcpeac** **Parliament the Council and** **rhe** **Economic**

**and Social** **Coniiimtee".**

**Due to the fact** **that** **VALUE** **li** **is** **b pift** **a continuation** **of** **the VALUE I programme, and** **thai**

**the** **final** **evaluation of VALUE I takes place curing** **ihe** **same period,** **LneiCornrrjssion services**

**SJuñgsi** **that the** **sasne** **panel of** **inriependem** **experts evaluating VALUE** _**I**_ **be asked to** **reviev/**

**VALUE II activities.**

**In compliance vvith Artide 7, paragraph i. sixth** **indent** **of the aforesaid 'Council** **Decision,**

**Committee opinion is asked on** **tins** **suggestkr.**

**The proposed** **terms** **of reference for** **the cüc-tenn** **reviev/ of Value** **II are** **attached (Annex I).**

**The Composition of the** **panei** **is also** **ar¿ach¿¿** **(Annex** **U).**

**:sr**

**ANNEX II**

**Final Evaluation**

**Terms of Reference**

**Sé**

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

**(VALUE n)**

**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 II) 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** **„** **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** **UJ)** **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** **compleled** **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**

V3

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

IbMto:

**• 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** **Hems** **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**

**^-1**

**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 thé 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** by **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
VACRODays
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**

**^ 9 L**

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

**• 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 consuming 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 quite 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**

**^3**

**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.**

**NetwprKIng**

**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 Specific**
**RTD Programme proposals.** **Sub-networks** **of two or three often neighbour VRCs with**
**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** **dusters** **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.**

**Rnanclng of** **the protects**

**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 fpple** **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**

**<\s**

**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** **VDWDE** **for a cost effective way** **of**
**utilising** **the expertise and** **manpower** **available in its host organisation.**

**• The** **VDI/VDE** **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,** **faxbases,** **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 I+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** **óf** **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 VRÇ 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.**

**Executive Summary**

**^ 6**

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

**The VRCs** **carried** **out a wide range of effective and, in many cases, innovative**
**activities. They did** **Jhis** **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 Activity in 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** **111**
**and bridges to ail 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,**
**emerge** **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.**

**Executive Summary**

_**^s**_

**ANNEX** **IV**

**Acronyms** **and**

**Abbreviations**

**BRJTE**

**CCTTT**

**CORDIS**

**COSINE**

**CRAFT**

**CRO**

**DG**

**DGXTI**

**DGXffl**

**DGXVI**

**DGXVffl**

**DGXXm**

**EC**

**ECU**

**EFTA**

**ESPRIT**

**EU**

**EURAM**

**EUREKA**

**Gbit/s**

**HEPnet**

**IPR**

**ISO**

**JRC**

**^ < 5**

**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** **(IO** **[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**

_yiOD_

**Kilo** **(IO** **[3]** **)** **bits per second**

**Mega** **(IO** **[6]** **)** **bits per second**

**Million ECU**

**Official 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** **Xm** **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** **^>n** **the**
**dissemination and exploitation of knowledge resulting from the specific programmes of**
**RTD of the Community (VALUE** **H),** **the Committee 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** **évaluation** **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 Community** **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** **adéquate** **Community activities should be** **implemented,** **building on and**
**œmplementmg** **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 inthé Fourth** **Framework Programme.**

**Rdav** **centres :**

**The establishment of the relay centres network** **was** **à significant new action line of**
**Valuell** **to be further** **developed.** **This initiative contributes to** **bringing** **Community**
**activities closer to local** **users** **and to matching the needs of SMEs** **with** **the technology**
**supply.** **•**

**RC in all the Member states should adapt to the national context and cooperate as much-**
**as possible with already existing networks and actors of the** **innovation:** **system.**

**CORDIS :**

**Over the last** **few** **years, CORDIS has made significant progress and it has become** **an**
**important tool for the** **retrieval** **of** **information** **about the research efforts originating from**
**the** **European** **Cómmunny.** *** .**

**Its evolution should be based on a coherent and well defined approach and close links**
**should be established between CORDIS and other** **Community •** **information systems.**
**Synergies with other RTD databases at national or European level should also** **be**
**increased and the** **three** **recommendations of the panel** **implemented^** **i.e. an integrated in-**
**depth study should be undertaken on** **the** **demand side, technological evolution and cost**
**controL**

_Asüt_

**Utaisation of** **results**

**The committee considers** **that-the** **Value projects had a high added value and** **.side** **impact**
**by developing an** **"exploitation"** **culture at Community** **ieveL** **They should be continued**
**and developed in order to contribute to** **the** **promotion of an innovation culture at**
**European** **IeveL** **~**

**The** **Conunittcc** **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** **the** **Council,** **the European**
**Parliament and the** **Economic** **and Social Committee.**

_**AX.:**_ _**^**_

**ISSN 0257-9545**

**COM(96)** **280 final**

#### **DOCUMENTOS**

**ES** **16**

**N** **[g]** **de catálogo :** **CB-CO-96-287-ES-C**

**ISBN** **92-78-05530-1**

Oficina de Publicaciones Oficiales de las Comunidades Europeas

L-2985 Luxemburgo