Memorandum submitted by the Institution
of Electrical Engineers (IEE)
The Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE)
is pleased to respond to the invitation to submit comments to
this enquiry.
IEE has a world-wide membership of over 130,000
professional engineers. These members represent a wide range of
engineering disciplines including electronics, communications,
computing, software engineering, power engineering and manufacturing.
Many of our members are directly involved in developing and exploiting
the science and technology of the future.
This submission combines the experience of members
from both industry and academia who are directly involved in setting
up EU-funded research projects. The academic input has been strengthened
by input from the UK Computing Research Committee (UKCRC), an
expert Panel of the IEE and BCS which aims to promote quality
in computing research.
In general there was consensus between the views
of the industrial and academic sectors but where these views diverge,
this is indicated in the attached responses.
In summary, IEE finds that:
— Even in university research where
the UK is well represented, the UK is unlikely to derive value
for money from the Framework Programmes because the benefits are
offset by the high costs of bidding, the overheads of international
collaborations and uneconomic overhead levels. However, the benefits
of collaborative research are mainly intangible, making any conclusions
on this issue subjective.
— The UK Government could do much more
to support SMEs in particular in applying for EU research funds.
— While the published process for applying
for funding is clear, the actual process seems to rely on political
contacts with European Commission Officers and a good deal of
experience and specialist staff time is required to reach a successful
conclusion.
— Continuity between successive framework
programmes is adequate, however the recent sharp increase in bureaucratic
overhead in Framework six is problematic.
— It is vital that the quality of projects
in Framework seven is not diluted by the political pressure to
include representatives from new member states. To remain competitive
in world terms, the EU needs to fund the very best science and
engineering research and technology development, and to fund it
well. If this conflicts with wider social aims flowing from enlargement,
then these social aims must be addressed separately.
— The mechanism for project calls is
too restricted and encourages poor quality projects at the expense
of good ones.
— EC research programmes have generally
managed to achieve a good balance between pure and applied research,
though proponents of each are able to put forward arguments for
their area being increased at the expense of the other.
— We suggest that the funding, structure
and existence of the Joint Research Centre should be reviewed.
— IEE is very concerned at the suggestion
that existing UK research budgets might be taken and channelled
through unproven mechanisms in a European Research Council.
The IEE's detailed responses to the questions
are appended. Please let me know if you require any further amplification.
UK SCIENCE AND
EUROPE: VALUE
FOR MONEY?
Submission by the IEE
1. Is the UK getting value for money from
the Framework Programmes?
1.1 The simple answer to this question is
probably "no". However a full analysis needs to take
account not only of the financial returns but also of the wider
impacts of European collaboration, alternative ways in which the
funds might have been used and the validity of the available mechanisms
for assessing the results of Framework Programmes.
1.2 UK companies and academic institutions
are well represented in the 5th framework. The evidence presented
to the recent House of Lords Inquiry into Microprocessing showed
that, in purely financial terms, UK academia do far better than
juste retour from EU programmes, whereas UK industry does
far worse. This suggests that EU funding for technology development
based in industry is not an effective use of DTI funds.
1.3 Similarly, in academic research, it
could be argued that the money would be better spent through UK
programmes because of (a) the very high costs of bidding; (b)
the overheads of large international collaborations; and (c) the
uneconomic overhead levels. These overheads lead to Framework
research needing cross-subsidy from other university income (a
practice that the DTI Cross-Cutting Review of Science and Research
has deprecated).
1.4 Nevertheless, it would be wrong for
the UK to withdraw from European programmes because there are
benefits to be achieved from international collaboration irrespective
of its direct impact on the national economy. Throughout the last
twenty years EC funded R&D has driven the development of European
intellectual capital, harmonised standards and inter-working,
opened channels for communications and international markets,
and contributed to overall economic growth.
1.5 The EU-funded Networks of Excellence
(for example, Cabernet and ACiD) have been very successful in
building powerful research collaborations and many SMEs have become
successful with the assistance of EC funded R&D programmes
and the business relationships they formed as a result. For example,
ARM in its early days was very much helped by the Open Microprocessor
Initiative which was a framework programme.
1.6 Attaining successful exploitation of
project results has always been an issue in the framework programmes.
Many systems have been introduced to measure the usefulness of
results, but they are often intangible or absorbed inside large
organisations. Hence there are only macro results within projects
and intangible results at the corporate or national level. This
makes it difficult to draw conclusions about value for money.
2. Is the Government doing enough to promote
the participation of UK research establishments and industry in
the Sixth Framework Programme and the European Research Area?
2.1 Concerning Framework six, our members
feel that the Government currently provides an information service
but little more and that this is insufficient to promote participation.
One exception to this, the EPSRC's provision of travel grants
to support the work of building consortiums is recognised and
appreciated. The European Research Area does not seem to have
much tangible form or impact at present.
2.2 Members believe that the DTI should
be more proactive in encouraging research proposals, and in supporting
them through the evaluation process. This is particularly true
of the industrial Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) base. Successful
participation requires a member of staff to work virtually full-time
on identifying, evaluating, applying, lobbying and programme management
activities. Larger companies may have sufficient resources to
commit to this but SMEs tend to find this a significant obstacle
to participation.
2.3 The UKIS Help service makes a lot of
information available, however there is a feeling that UK agencies,
only provide information that is readily available elsewhere.
Essential information, such as draft work-programmes and other
internal EC documents, has to be obtained through collaborators
in other European countries.
2.4 Although the DTI makes itself available
to help with FP6 it is perceived as an introduction agency only.
DTI can tell a company whom to contact but it is up to the company
to take it from there. It is understood that the DTI also operates
behind the scenes to make sure that UK gets its fair share of
the money, but that is (almost by definition) invisible and, if
the evidence to the HoL Inquiry into microprocessing is correct,
unsuccessful. Most small UK companies simply cannot risk the effort
involved in applying for EC research funding without being more
certain of the outcome.
2.5 Involvement by UK universities often
depends on the knowledge and contacts of particular individuals
at universities.
2.6 In the EUREKA programme, microelectronics
actions fall under MEDEA, which enables European collaboration
but with local member state financing. However, until recently,
the DTI, although encouraging participation in EUREKA, didn't
provide any funding. Potential UK participants were therefore
at a disadvantage compared to almost all other EC member states.
2.7 The IEE recommends that Government consider
the following actions to increase its promotional work:
(a) The UKIS Information Service should be
better targeted at sectors that do not currently participate to
a great degree, such as SMEs.
(b) More help could be directed to getting
a broader base of UK university participation.
(c) A network of regional support centres
might be set up to help companies apply for EU research funds,
based on the model of the successful FUSE initiative (set up under
the DTI Microelectronics in Business Programme).
(d) The Government should give consideration
to encouraging closer collaboration between "cottage"
industries and SMEs in our IT design community. This might be
achieved by creating a new Government funded institution, similar
to IMEC in Belgium or the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany, with
a remit to continuously encourage joint R&D at a practical
level. The need for such a body is due to the fragmented state
of the UK's IT industry sector. The UK doesn't have a major semiconductor
or electronics company like Alcatel, Nokia, Ericsson, Infineon,
Philips, Siemens or ST to provide a focal point and a natural
broker for international partnerships in this domain. This limits
the UK's ability to compete for funding.
(e) Action needs to be taken to position
and promote EU Research Funding successfully in the finance community.
In general Venture Capitalists are unaware of EC funding, or have
negative pre-conceived ideas about it. There is a perception that
Business Angels and Venture Capitalists prefer their companies
not to be involved in collaborative R&D on the basis that
it dilutes effort and focus, leaks intellectual property, costs
management time and, in the event of a great business opportunity,
only delays progress. There is already an abundance of cash available
for funding credible development, when investors perceive good
returns. However there is little enthusiasm in supporting research
and next to no support for the crucial 3rd stage, the costs of
putting products into production. Therefore it is important to
ensure that EC funded programmes are positioned as pre-competitive
background research and/or post IPO market enlargement actions
that complement venture capital or supplement angel investment.
3. Is the process for obtaining EU funds
sufficiently transparent and straightforward?
3.1 The process is not at all straightforward
and more could be done, particularly by the European Commission,
to make their procedures more transparent. The financial and consortium
structures, contracts, and claims documentation seem unnecessarily
complex and burdensome. The Commission seems well motivated, so
it is not clear why it has to be so baroque.
3.2 While the published process is clear,
the actual process seems to involve political manoeuvring with
European Commission officers. The importance of direct contacts
between participants and the Commission cannot be overstated.
In general it is not possible to participate in EU projects without
having specialist staff, full time, to liaise with the Commission,
or accepting that the setup and running will have to be undertaken
by an experienced contracting organisation. This clearly militates
against SMEs or academic researchers who have not "got themselves
known" in Brussels/Luxembourg. There is an opportunity for
support service for this.
3.3 Projects usually require a greater long-term
vision and offer financial help, in a time frame beyond the event-horizon
of most (in particular small) companies. To succeed they need
to be championed internally by a person with vision and authority.
3.4 One of the key problems and causes of
wasted effort is the need to anticipate the form of the final
call for proposals. Because of this, bidding takes serious effort
and experience. By the time the Call is issued, it is far too
late to think about getting involved, so researchers and industry
have to form consortiums far in advance and to commit time and
money to trying to match research objectives with the form in
which the Call will finally emerge. Since the draft work programmes
are, in principle at least, confidential, this involves many meetings
with Commission staff. The final form of FP6 is still not clear,
and companies and consortia are burning time and money to anticipate
how this is going to materialize.
3.5 If a company is slow to take action
it may fail to make the right partnerships, or get involved in
the wrong projects. This can be counterproductive and companies
frequently end up doing work because they are committed to by
EU Contract, rather than because of its value to their business.
3.6 Few SMEs can be bothered with this—especially
as the financial rewards are small even if successful. Universities
are driven to participate, by RAE and other considerations, and
some have achieved long-term success through building consortia
that continue from one project to the next (Newcastle is an example
where established consortia have participated successfully in
several successive Frameworks).
3.7 The experience of some small companies
is that, having applied for support, the applications disappeared
into a hole for far too long before being returned with insufficient
explanation of why they had failed (or indeed succeeded). This
is an important issue as the vast majority of UK companies (and
particularly the high-tech ones that might participate) are SMEs.
Once an activity has been identified as necessary, the company
wants to get on with it immediately. It cannot then afford the
possibility of the work being rejected outside of its control.
3.8 The scope for tightening financial management
procedures is constrained because member states that send money
to the EC would like it returned into their economies as quickly
as possible, so if cash is to be held back until completion of
satisfactory work it probably has to be paid direct from Government
to company (or institution) within each member state. That begs
the question as to why such funding should be controlled by EC
officers and project reviewers from other member states.
3.9 Research groups in other EU countries
seem able to get top-up funding from other public agencies for
Framework projects. This makes Framework projects a far more attractive
source of funding in France, for example, than in the UK. IEE
recommends that the UK Government consider making available such
top-up funding in the UK.
4. IS
THERE CONTINUITY
BETWEEN SUCCESSIVE
FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES?
4.1 There was a gradual evolution through
Framework Programmes three to five but Framework six is very different
with a need for industries to pre-cluster into much larger projects
with global objectives. It is natural for the successive frameworks
to reflect the advancement of international research. Taking into
account the necessary changes, the continuity is sufficiently
good. However, sometimes the frameworks seem to be excessively
conditioned by political motivations and ideologies.
4.2 The new project structure in FP6 could,
in principle, be a significant improvement, but the Integrated
Projects (IPs) seem likely to be too small to achieve their stated
aims of having a real impact—largely because FP6 covers
far too wide a spectrum of research for its budget.
4.3 Although the basic themes run forward,
the language used to describe the overall objectives is opaque.
Nevertheless, Members report that conversations with Commission
officials are helpful, and research in the underlying ISTAG papers,
though time consuming, usually leads to clarification.
4.5 The decision to retain the name of Networks
of Excellence (NoEs), whilst completely revising their structure
and objectives, has led to widespread confusion. Academics, in
particular, believe that Network of Excellence are far better
value for money than Integrated Projects, because Integrated Projects
consume a great percentage of their funds on subsidies to large
EU companies with little visible impact on the EU economy, quality
of life, or science and engineering base.
4.6 The size and complexity of Projects
under FP6 will tend to discourage newer participants who may be
put off by the extra administration that managing a very large
project entails.
4.7 The gaps between each framework programme
can cause the time between the last call for R&D in one framework
and the first call in the next to be as much as two years. This
means that normal industry practice is to ignore the possibility
of EC funding because it is undesirable to put work on hold until
a call is made that it can be submitted to. Meanwhile many mediocre
projects are artificially contrived to accommodate the rigid call
structure. IEE recommends that the UK Government should press
the Commission to introduce a "rolling call" mechanism
in order to overcome this problem.
5. WHAT
IS THE
POTENTIAL IMPACT
OF EU ENLARGEMENT,
AND WHAT
CHANGES ARE
NEEDED FOR
FRAMEWORK SEVEN?
5.1 Companies and institutions from the
new member states in eastern Europe will be very proactive in
leveraging the funded research programmes to their benefit. The
Commission will also be pre-disposed to make sure that they are
well represented in projects. This, coupled with a certain degree
of weariness about the funding programme from existing players,
means that the UK will need to invest and support more involvement
if it is to continue in them.
5.2 The scientists and researchers of the
new EU countries already have experience of co-operative projects,
since they are actively participating in the COST projects, for
example. Nevertheless, special actions could be necessary to support
the effective participation of those countries into the competitive
projects funded by the EU.
5.3 The EU needs to decide on its strategy
for developing the research capability of new member countries,
and to set aside additional funding to support the chosen strategy.
UK universities will be willing to help, but it must be recognised
that this will be a net drain on UK research resources and that
universities and researchers must be compensated in some way for
the contribution they make.
5.4 It is vital that the quality of projects
is not diluted by the political pressure to include representatives
from new member states. There is a danger that FP7 will be just
like FP6, but with some recommendation that consortia include
two or more organisations from new member countries. That would
increase bid costs, increase project overheads, slow down research
progress, and damage EU competitiveness in the short and medium
term (although with longer-term benefits).
5.5 While measures need to be put in place
to ensure that these organizations are encouraged to participate,
and to develop the overall European research base, past experience
indicates that informal quotas within projects result in less
value for money for the taxpayer.
5.6 To remain competitive in world terms,
the EU needs to fund the very best science and engineering research
and technology development, and to fund it well. If this conflicts
with wider social aims flowing from enlargement, then these social
aims must be addressed separately.
5.7 It is not clear what legal structures
support the new EU countries, and how projects will be affected
by their intellectual property laws (or lack of them). We recommend
that Government should provide details of such issues through
its Information Services.
6. IS
THE PROCESS
FOR THE
SELECTION OF
PRIORITY AREAS
AND THE
AWARDING OF
FUNDING TO
PROJECTS FAIR:
IS THE
BALANCE BETWEEN
PURE AND
APPLIED RESEARCH
RIGHT; AND
ARE THE
TIME FRAMES
FOR FUNDING
PROJECTS ADEQUATE?
(a) Is the process
for the selection of priority areas and the awarding of funding
to projects fair?
6.1 The mechanism for IST (previously ESPRIT)
project calls is too restricted and encourages poor quality projects
at the expense of good ones. Work programme action lines are called
too infrequently and a particular item may be called only twice
in four years. But the pace of development in industry and opportunities
for collaboration arise almost spontaneously and there should
be a mechanism for immediately applying for EC funding for potentially
good projects. Normal industry practice is to ignore the EC funding
opportunity because it is undesirable to put work on hold until
a call is made that it can be submitted to. Meanwhile many mediocre
projects are artificially contrived to accommodate the rigid call
structure. This problem should be overcome by introducing a "rolling
call" mechanism.
6.2 The evaluations process is sometimes
dependent on chance factors and inconsistent. For example, it
may happen that a project approved by the referees is not funded
for the lack of funds related to a certain Call for Proposal.
There is no mechanism to recover such projects while in other
fields projects of less relevance or less impact may be funded
anyway.
6.3 Sometimes the Frameworks seem to be
excessively conditioned by political motivations and ideologies.
(b) Is the balance between pure and applied
research right?
6.4 No one will ever be satisfied that their
area of interest is getting adequate priority for funding.
6.5 On the one hand, universities believe
that the UK's interests would be best served by encouraging the
EU to focus funding primarily on academic research (with some
industrial involvement), rather than spending so much on technology
development in industry. This, it is argued, would yield far better
returns for the UK as its universities are far more successful
in obtaining EU funding than is industry. A separate fund, managed
by professional venture capitalists, could be set up to promote
exploitation, perhaps along the lines of the UK University Challenge
Fund.
6.6 On the other hand, the UK SME base (and
probably larger companies) is in favour of significantly more
of the budget being applied to application rather than research.
They argue that funding technology-transfer into entrepreneurial
companies may well be the best way of ensuring that good ideas
are turned into products that bring real benefits to users and
increased economic activity to industrial sectors, countries and
Europe as a whole.
6.7 EC research programmes have generally
managed to achieve a good balance between the two. However, there
is concern about proposals in Framework 6 for large integrated
projects where large amounts of funding will be put directly into
the hands of major companies with obligations to pass a proportion
on to SMEs and academic research institutions. These new integrated
projects may require stricter and more extensive monitoring to
be sure they deliver the right balance, but resources in the EC
project officer's departments are already stretched.
(c) Are the time frames for funding projects
adequate?
6.8 There should be more flexibility in
the project time frames. For example, five year project terms
would be more appropriate to the time required to produce high
quality longer-term research and would enable universities to
develop stable programmes. The time frames in the 6th Framework
do not allow for the significant increase in work to be done in
building and implementing an Integrated project, meaining that
the effective timescale is significantly shorter.
6.9 In the IST area, the objectives stated
in the ISTAG documents and the Council of Ministers' Lisbon declaration
are visionary and very important. However, even the large IST
budget is inadequate to achieve the strategic aims on the timescales
envisaged. It would be helpful to have realistic targets (constrained
by the budget) or realistic budgets (scaled to make the targets
achievable).
6.10 In order to achieve value for money
from applied research, consideration could be given to extending
the time frames to allow a period of, say, one year after the
R&D project has ended in which companies have to prove how
results were exploited before a final tranche of funding is sent.
7. WHAT
IS THE
BEST ROLE
OF EU RESEARCH
INSTITUTIONS SUCH
AS THE
JOINT RESEARCH
CENTRE; ARE
THEY COST
EFFECTIVE?
7.1 The Joint Research Centre has a large
budget, many staff who have worked there for very many years,
and, apparently, significant political pressures from member states.
This is not an environment optimised for world-leading research
and the JRC is not widely recognised as a source of ground-breaking
results in IST.
7.2 We suggest that the funding, structure
and existence of the JRC should be reviewed. One proposal could
be that no-one should work there for more than ten years, and
that most work should be done through a programme of five-year
funded fellowships, nominated by national Research Councils and
selected by the European Research Council.
8. What Should UK Policy be Towards the Proposals
for a European Research Council?
8.1 IEE supports these proposals in principle,
particularly if it would improve the mobility of research staff
within the EU, but has grave concerns concerning their practical
implementation.
8.2 The long term effects of pooling EU
research funding would be likely to benefit the UK science and
engineering base as UK IST/ICT research is of international quality
and highly competitive. However, UK research funding in IST is
already recognised as insufficient to fund the quantity of first
rate proposals and researchers. The current funding processes
through EPSRC work very well, but the level of funding available
for responsive-mode proposals is inadequate to sustain, let alone
grow, the existing science and engineering research community.
8.3 IEE is therefore very nervous of any
proposal that would take the existing UK research budgets and
channel them through unproven mechanisms in an ERC, because the
disruption could be very damaging to UK science and engineering.
Our worries focus on the unknown priorities, criteria for funding,
structures of projects, and peer review mechanisms that an ERC
would employ. There is also a risk of greatly increased overheads
on proposers and significant disruption to research programmes
and to the careers of younger researchers who have not yet established
international reputations.
9. IS
THE ALLOCATION
OF FUNDING
THROUGH THE
EURATOM PROGRAMME
RIGHT?
9.1 Apart from political reasons, there
are no further motivations for assigning a part of the financial
resources to specific programmes such as EURATOM.
21 January 2003
| 
