On motives for participation in the Framework Programme
Tomas Åström
Introduction
Background and rationale
• Norway’s participation in the FP is strong and its success rates are above EU average…
… but Norway’s financial contribution to the FP is growing faster than its financial returns…
… so there is a desire to increase participation in Horizon 2020
• Key question: how can Norway’s FP participation be increased and widened?
• KD is to present a research White Paper in the spring of 2013
Methodology
• Focus on health, ICT and environment
• Desktop study of previous studies
• Renewed analysis of a 2011 FP participants’ survey for NordForsk
• Six focus groups:
• KD, SINTEF, NILU, NTNU, UiB, UiO
• Interviews with:
• Ministry personnel
• RCN personnel
• Researchers and management of participants in FP7 projects
• Management of non-participants
• In total over 100 persons
• The study has intentionally focused on perceived (subjective) views
The overall picture
The top-down view (1)
• The messages from the policy level that FP participation should increase, are consistent, loud and clear
• There are fiscal incentives for:
• HEIs to seek FP funding
• Research institutes to increase international revenue
• Regional health authorities to publish in international journals, and particularly with foreign co-authors
• Thus, for HEIs and institutes the incentive is on the “input” side, whereas it is on the “output” side for regional health authorities
The top-down view (2)
• RCN and Innovation Norway provide competent FP advisory services and RCN runs several FP support programmes, e.g.:
• Prosjektetableringsstøtte (PES)
• Tiltak for økt deltakelse av forskningsinstitutter i EUs rammeprogram (STIM-EU)
• Toppfinansiering av Marie Curie-stipender (IS-TOPP)
• Funding of ERC Starting grant proposers
• R&D providers have developed:
• Internationalisation strategies, and occasionally for FP participation
• Internal FP support functions (several examples)
• Organisational fiscal incentives to stimulate FP participation (rare examples)
The bottom-up view: main motives
• The main motives are:
• Networking
• Knowledge acquisition
• Problem solving
• Methods development
• Staying abreast with international developments/competitors
• Accessing infrastructure
• Building reputation
• Accessing funding – but it is more “boundary condition” than motive
• Our data confirm findings from previous studies, both in Norway and elsewhere
The bottom-up view: main deterrents
• The main deterrents are:
• Demanding proposals
• Low success rates
• Cumbersome project administration
• Complex rules for participation
• Complicated to protect IPR
• High transaction costs
• Our data confirm findings from previous studies, both in Norway and elsewhere
Norwegian characteristics
National funding systems
• The R&D funding situation for researchers in HEIs and health authorities is generous:
• Government R&D base grants to HEIs is more generous than in most other European countries
• Competitive RCN funding is, in general, both abundant and associated with a weaker competitive element than foreign funding
• Competition for R&D funding from regional health authorities to health authorities is regional, and success rates are higher than for RCN (and foreign) funding
Government funding of R&D expenditure to HEIs
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Success rates in RCN and FP7 programmes
Programme type RCN FP7
RCN programmes vs. FP7 Cooperation programme 27% 23%
RCN FRIPRO vs. FP7 Ideas programme (i.e. ERC) 16% 11%
Government base funding to research institutes
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Base funding/total turnover
GTS SINTEF IRECO FhG TNO
Tentative conclusions on national funding systems
• If you are forced to explore all available funding opportunities (to stay in business/to keep your job/to conduct the kind of R&D you want) you will; if you are not, you will not
• Several interviewees state that the national funding systems for HEIs and regional health authorities are direct disincentives to internationalisation and FP participation
• Were national funding scarce, researchers would be more prone to seek foreign funding
Competitiveness and quality
• Quality and competitiveness of Norwegian research are good – but is “good” good enough?
• Based on bibliometric analyses, the Fagerberg Committee found that Norwegian researchers are significantly less competitive than their Nordic colleagues when (public) cost is taken into account
• The 2012 RCN evaluation concluded that “research quality
improvement to the high level needed for Norwegian long-term competitiveness is an important challenge for RCN and the
research-performing system”
• Hypothesis: Being exposed to competition enhances your competitiveness
Additional issues
• Norway’s high cost levels may lead to Norwegian organisations being squeezed out of consortia
• Norwegian research communities in health, ICT and environment are fragmented, and collaboration within and outside the country is low. Moreover, corresponding industries are relatively weak
• Direct incentives to provide individuals with motives for FP participation are very rare
Differences between themes
Why so few health authorities in Health?
• There are several deterrents:
• Generous R&D funding with only regional competition
• There are no FP support functions (except at OUS)
• FP participation is not a strategic objective
• Neither (regional) health authorities nor individuals are appraised on FP performance
• However, participation may be larger than statistics reveal, since researchers with dual positions mostly elect to participate in the university role (access to FP support function, funding reward to HEIs)
Why so few SMEs in ICT?
• The majority of ICT companies are consumer-oriented and thus have no R&D needs; thus, there are not that many candidates
• Most FP instruments are unattractive to SMEs; time perspectives are too long and procedures too rigid
• SMEs often participate together with a HEI or an institute, and many R&D groups are not internationally competitive (insufficient quality, too small and fragmented, not part of the right networks)
What can be learnt from successes in Environment?
• R&D issues in environment are inherently international
• It takes long time to build up international competitiveness, so consistency in national funding is important
• Being an early mover helps
• Norwegian R&D providers are clearly internationally competitive;
acting from a position of comparative advantages is key
• Participation is dominated by institutes, which are forced to explore all funding opportunities
Possibilities to increase FP
participation
Caveat
• Increasing FP participation is a political goal that is not
automatically shared by all R&D providers and individuals that may be affected
For ministries
• Actions that there may be reason for ministries to consider are to:
• Provide RCN with additional resources to expand its FP information and support services
• Require publicly funded R&D providers to more explicitly prioritise internationalisation and FP participation
• Take action to strengthen and defragment the Norwegian R&D community in ICT
• Amend the HEI and regional health authority funding systems to include a requirement that recipients have a certain degree of FP engagement to receive the full extent of the government base grant
For RCN
• Actions that there may be reason for RCN to consider are to:
• Strengthen the existing FP information and support system
• Devise (0r retain existing) instruments to:
• Convince more Norwegians to act as proposal evaluators for COM
• Stimulate Norwegian organisations to assume larger roles in FP consortia
• Support newcomers to the European arena in building networks
• Stimulate institutes and HEIs to bring companies with them into consortia
• (Yes, we know that parts of this is already in place, or is being planned)
For management of R&D providers
• Management is in a position to increase FP participation by:
• Setting explicit objectives for FP participation
• Introducing proposal quality-control routines to increase success rates
• Supporting proposal authors, both morally and administratively
• Provide administrative support to participants, especially coordinators
• Enticing more individuals to write FP proposals by:
• Sending part of the organisation’s funding reward to the research group that was responsible for the successful proposal
• Starting to appraise individual researchers on their FP performance
• Corresponding incentive structures would probably be effective also in health authorities and institutes
Parting words
• Increased FP participation is clearly desirable, but the benefits of FP participation go way beyond the direct economic return
• Norway probably needs to set its quality objectives well above world average to retain its competitiveness
• Increased FP participation should preferably take place in areas where Norwegian industry is strong, or where there are other compelling reasons to have a strong Norwegian presence; this
means that there may be a need for further national prioritisation
• Increased FP participation is only a means to an end
Thank you!
Technopolis Group has offices in Amsterdam,
Ankara, Brighton, Brussels, Frankfurt/Main, Paris, Stockholm, Tallinn and Vienna.
www.technopolis-group.com
