Get documents about "Eu Funding Sme Project
W
Description
Eu Funding Sme Project document sample
Document Sample
Impact assessment for improving SME specific
research schemes and measures to promote SME
participation in the framework programme
Final Report
July 2006
Contractor: Contact for this study:
European Policy Evaluation Consortium Technopolis France
B. de Laat / P. Bitard
22-28 Avenue d‟Auderghem – 55, rue des Petites Ecuries
B-1040 Brussels FR-75010 PARIS
Tel: +32 2 7402729 Tel: +33 1 49 49 09 20
Fax: +32 2 740 2720 Fax: +33 1 49 49 09 29
E-mail: contact@epec.info E-mail: pierre.bitard@technopolis-group.com
URL: www.epec.info URL: www.technopolis-group.com
Table of contents
Executive summary 1
Introduction 1
1 The context for the evaluation, definitions and questions 1
1.1 SMEs in the Framework Programmes 1
1.2 The schemes evaluated 4
1.2.1 CRAFT/COOP 4
1.2.2 COLL 5
1.2.3 ETI 6
1.3 Questions to be answered 6
2 Approach 7
2.1 Preliminary work 7
2.1.1 The intervention logic exercise 7
2.1.2 Literature review 8
2.1.3 Analysis of the participation in FP4, FP5 and FP6 8
2.2 The impact assessment 9
2.2.1 The tools used and their purposes 10
2.2.2 The on-line survey methodology 10
2.2.3 Case studies 13
2.2.4 The ETI beneficiaries‟ satisfaction survey 16
2.2.5 Interviews with intermediary organisations 17
2.3 Policy assessment 17
3 Evaluation findings 18
3.1 Preliminary results 18
3.1.1 Key findings from the literature review 18
3.1.2 Analysis of the data on participation in FP4, FP5 and FP6 21
3.1.3 The intervention logics 22
3.2 Impact assessment 29
3.2.1 The key case studies findings 29
3.2.2 CRAFT / COOP scheme 31
3.2.3 COLL scheme 54
3.2.4 Quantitative findings on CRAFT/COOP and COLL impacts 66
3.2.5 ETI actions 67
3.3 Policy assessment 76
3.3.1 Outsourcing level for RTD activities 77
3.3.2 IPR regime and management 78
3.3.3 Consortium management and flexibility 79
3.3.4 Support measures 80
4 Conclusions 81
2
Executive summary
This report contains the results of the “impact assessment for improving SME specific
research schemes and measures to promote SME participation in the framework
programme.” The aim of this study is to perform a retrospective analysis of
impacts of past activities in order to set the scene for discussions on future
Community programmes. The schemes analysed were CRAFT under FP4, and
CRAFT/COOP, COLL and ETI under FP5 and FP6. COLL was a pilot scheme under
FP5.
The study addresses the impact of projects in terms of the results, exploitation and
validity of the schemes. It aims at answering the following questions:
What is the profile of the participants and the impacts of the SME-specific
schemes?
What kind of evolution in time of the SME-specific schemes can be identified and what are the
effects of the changes on the socio-economic impacts of the projects?
Are the proposed strategies and objectives of the SME-specific schemes in FP7 realistic and
coherent? Will they lead to an increased impact? What lessons can be learned from it?
The purpose of the study has evolved towards a greater focus in the course of the
implementation. This report therefore contains an in-depth analysis of both the
profiles of the participants and of the impacts of the SME-specific schemes and
support actions.
The reasons for this focus are the following.
First, the comprehensive analysis of the evolution over time of the SME-specific
schemes and the study of the implied changes in their effects have proven hardly
feasible. The available data was not as complete as foreseen because of the
participants‟ limited memory of their participation in FP4 and FP5 EU projects.
Second, the final question regarding the extent to which the SME-specific schemes in
FP7 are realistic and coherent was partly approached via a Policy Workshop. There
are two reasons for that:
the exceptionally large scope of this impact assessment – three different
schemes over three subsequent FPs, thousands of participants of various kinds,
and four different types of impacts analysed.
and the late (as regards the implementation of this study) adoption of the
Commission‟s proposal for the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) – i.e.
on 6 April 2005 .
Objectives of the evaluated schemes
Cooperative and Collective Research projects address primarily the large community
of SMEs with capacity to innovate but with limited research capabilities.
Co-operative Research is a scheme whereby a number of SMEs from different
countries, having specific problems or needs, assign a significant part of the required
1
scientific and technological research to RTD performers. Co-operative research1 is a
bottom-up scheme and hence covers any scientific or technological topic or field in
supporting the R&D needs of SMEs. The scheme facilitates trans-national R&D co-
operation between SMEs and Europe‟s research community. Under FP5 the CRAFT
scheme could be used under the so-called Specific Programmes of the framework
programme. Under FP6 a specific budget for Co-operative research was reserved and
managed by the SME Unit of DG RTD.
Collective Research is a scheme where RTD performers undertake scientific and
technological research activities on behalf of Industrial Associations or Groupings in
order to expand the knowledge base of large communities of SMEs and thus improve
their general standard of competitiveness.
As part of the special support for SME participation in European research activities,
the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) funds a range of Economic and
Technological Intelligence (ETI) projects. In practice, ETI aimed at helping
companies to participate to CRAFT in FP5 whilst n FP6 it aimed to help SMEs
participate in the New Instruments – Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence.
ETI actions are not an FP6 instrument by themselves but are implemented using
Specific Support Actions and Coordination Actions.
Evaluation methodology
The techniques used and combined: After an analysis of information
provided by the European Commission and a literature review, the following
evaluation techniques were used and combined: an on-line survey amongst
beneficiaries of the programme, 12 case studies, a survey among final
beneficiaries of the ETI scheme, interviews with intermediary organisations,
an intervention logic workshop and a policy workshop.
The conceptual approach: Two main types of impacts are analysed in this
study: those associated with “material” effects, and those with “structuring”
effects. The former relate to „technical or scientific‟ and „socio-economic‟
impacts, the latter to the nature of the services provided and to changes in the
absorptive capacity of the firms involved.
Main observations and conclusions
A high net effect of the schemes
According to the findings of the evaluation, the net effect of all three schemes, over
all three Framework Programmes, is high: a majority of participants (irrespective of
their types) state that the project would not have been carried out without EU funding;
moreover, this is reinforced by the observation that additional finance is in most cases
an own contribution. In the evaluator‟s view, this is evidence that the schemes fill a
gap in the SME-specific public support architecture that is hardly filled anywhere
else. In addition to that, the evaluation results show that the schemes respond to their
objectives.
A high level of “technologically competent” SMEs is drawn into the schemes
1
Dubbed CRAFT up till FP5, it is from FP6 onwards short-named COOP; we will therefore refer
to COOP in this „Executive Summary‟.
2
The target of COOP consists of SMEs „with capacity to innovate but with limited
research capabilities‟ (excerpt from RTD work programme). On the whole, between
65% and 70% of the SME participants have up to 20% Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
active in R&D activities, with more than 25% of them employing between 6% and
20% of their staff in R&D. This important finding – since this quantitative
information was not known beforehand – is confirmed by the fact that a large
majority of the SMEs who answered to the survey carried out for this assessment
(above 70%, irrespective of the scheme) consider themselves as being “technology-
intensive.” Both indications are, as usual, self-declarations and they therefore reflect
the respondents‟ declarations.
Exhibit 1 Hierarchy of Technological Capabilities
Hie rarchy of Te chnological Capabilitie s
Research department or equivalent
Research
Able to take long run view of
Performers
technological capabilities
Multiple engineers
Technological Some budgetary discretion
Compete nts Able to participate in technology networks
Minimum- One engineer
Capability Able to adopt/adapt packaged solutions
Companie s May need implementation help
Low- No meaningful technological capability
Technology No perceived need for this
SMEs May be no actual need
Source: E. Arnold, Developing Company Technological Capabilities
In terms of Arnold‟s “staircase”-model (see above) the schemes are not drawing
mainly “minimum capability” companies, which would participate in the schemes to
upgrade their research competence. Fieldwork results show that in reality the scheme
reaches “technological competents”. In the latter case, the importance of the scheme
is that it allows even technologically competent companies to outsource research they
are not able to perform in-house. For that reason, it is difficult to determine with
certainty which share of companies use CRAFT/COOP for this purpose only:
CRAFT/COOP projects considered in the case studies are project which sometimes
look very much like collaborative research projects where part of the research is also
performed by the SME participants themselves –even though of course the IPR
should not be shared among the participants, but remains with the SME(s), which, as
case studies show, sometimes lead to friction between project partners.
There may be a link with the (high) oversubscription rate, which should be more
closely investigated. The high oversubscription rate, together with the importance of
the criterion of scientific quality during the evaluation process, may impact on the
projects finally selected. The latter may in the end turn out to be more „STREP‟-like.
This notwithstanding, the large proportion of “technological competents” in the
participant group of firms can be interpreted as a real added value of the EU SME-
specific schemes: it implies that a number of European SMEs willing to
technologically step up do consider the EU SME-specific schemes as a relevant
means by which technological capability improvements can be achieved.
3
The important role of RTD-performers in initial stages
The survey findings suggest that although the idea for CRAFT/COOP projects often
comes from SMEs, RTD-performers are also very strongly involved in the initial
stages the proposal: they quite often intervene in the definition of the project
consortium‟s composition and also in the submission for EU funding. Furthermore,
and even though counter-intuitive, the exploratory analysis proposed in the report
leads the evaluator to suspect that projects initiated by RTD-performers (they have
had the research idea) would have higher socio-economic impacts than SME-initiated
projects.
A number of combined explanations can be suggested to elucidate this observation (as
appeared from the inputs collected during the Policy Workshop by the stakeholders
who participated to it). If the RTD-P initiator is a research organisation, it may have:
a better anticipation of emerging technologies and markets, since exploring
the current technological paradigm‟s possibilities is the research
organisations‟ „raison d‟être‟
a more comprehensive view on what SMEs are doing
a longer-term horizon
a better organisational ability and capacity to prepare and manage large
European projects (known to represent a considerable administrative effort for
participants, in particular when these are SMEs)
This question is very much (theoretically) debated but little is really known despite its
policy importance. Since it may have consequences for future requirements on
consortia, the Commission may want to further investigate this important point.
Finally, there is evidence that CRAFT/COOP are more effective (in terms of market
share, profit and turnover) when the project focuses more on process improvements.
Focusing on research related to improved processes implies long lasting
organisational changes that enhance the SME ability to gain market shares and
increase turnover.
A high net effect of the „collaborative research scheme‟ (COLL), which moreover fills
an important gap in the EU-RTD support landscape
The evaluation shows that the COLL scheme responds to its objectives.
Generally, COLL projects appear to rely heavily on RTD-Performers in their
initiation and implementation. The case studies show that nonetheless the idea for the
project comes from IAGs. The reason for that is that IAGs are extremely competent
when it comes to the identification of the needs of an entire industrial sector. IAGs
often rely on the experience of an RTD-P for the start-up and further implementation
of the idea into a project nevertheless.
The COLL scheme has a high net effect (or additionality), higher than CRAFT/COOP
for the participants in that scheme. The SMEs participating in COLL state that the
research performed in the COLL project is closely connected to their core business.
This can be interpreted as the “core group” SMEs being carefully selected in COLL
projects.
4
An important impact of the scheme lies in the increase of cross-border cooperation
between RTD organisations, between SMEs and between RTD organisations and
SMEs. The scheme would therewith fill an important gap in the European research
landscape since this is typically one of the goals national schemes do not aim for
(even though through ERANETS signs of first cross-border calls for proposals are
emerging).
ETIs have a strong structuring effect, and few alternatives are available
As concerns the ETI scheme, a first result of the evaluation is that it allowed to better
understand the participants to this scheme (there is only one “role” in the project,
namely “intermediaries”, however this corresponds in reality to a variety of types of
organisations). Just under than one-third of the intermediaries who responded to the
survey were NCPs. The second major group consisted of professional associations
whilst business/innovation centres and, the related, cluster and science
park/technological centres both represent around 10%.
The net effect of the ETI schemes is considerable. There do not seem to be any other
mechanisms (on national level for instance), which respond to the need fulfilled by
ETIs. ETIs have a strong structuring effect by leading many SMEs to propose a
project for, and eventually participate in, the EU programmes. Other major impacts of
the schemes on SMEs are the increased frequency of collaboration with foreign
SMEs, with foreign and with national research organisations.
The satisfaction survey that was implemented in order to better understand the
impacts of the ETI scheme has also yielded important findings. The first one is
methodological and relates to the fact that it was difficult to obtain well-maintained
lists of final beneficiaries from the direct beneficiaries (i.e. “intermediaries) of the
scheme. More attention should be paid to this issue in future evaluations when
preparing a survey of the final beneficiary population.
The survey of final beneficiaries shows that there is a link between recalling the ETI
support and having submitted further EU projects: unsurprisingly, there is a
correlation between SMEs declaring not having received any ETI services and SMEs
not further involved in EU projects. The remainder of SMEs had a very positive
opinion with regard to ETIs as concerns the up-to-date information they provide on
funding opportunities; partner search services; and assistance in preparing a joint
proposal for submission under the EU research programmes.
Furthermore, the satisfaction survey shows that the ETI scheme is one amongst a
variety of possible opportunities that SMEs have at their disposal for funding (e.g.
European, national, regional, sectoral…). However, the SMEs contacted for this study
do acknowledge the need for high quality and relevant information on EU funding
and cross-border cooperation opportunities and in this respect the ETI scheme
definitely responds to that need.
More efforts in business intelligence needed to increase socio-economic impact
Finally, in particular the case studies show that CRAFT/COOP projects could have
benefited from more systematic efforts in business intelligence in order to increase
project impact. For most of the projects (confirmed by the survey) the technical
objectives are achieved. This is not the case for the economic objectives the
5
achievement of which is sometimes hindered by competing technology-market
combinations that emerged during the course of the project but were not anticipated
by the project consortium. Also, several projects lead to innovation, but regulation is
missing that would help to create the market corresponding to the products or
processes developed through the innovation. As this is an issue which has been
identified by earlier evaluations of SME programmes, conducted both at European
and national levels, the anticipation of future markets and competing technologies or
services may be something to give more attention to in the future. This may point at a
lack of business intelligence skills within companies, also often encountered in
evaluations of national SME RTD and innovation schemes, which can be improved
through additional measures.
6
Introduction
This report is the final report for the study concerning the “impact assessment for
improving SME specific research schemes and measures to promote SME
participation in the framework programme”, setting out the detailed description of
information sources, methods, analysis and conclusions coming as a result of the
evaluation.
Based on a retrospective analysis of impacts of past activities, the aim of this
study is to perform a retrospective analysis of impacts of past activities in order
to set the scene for discussion of future Community programmes.
The objective of the study is to:
collect and analyse evidence on the impact of the SME specific research
schemes and identify ways to improve their design and implementation in FP7
collect and analyse evidence on the impact of measures to promote SME
participation and identify ways to improve their design and implementation in
FP7
The following schemes/support actions were analysed for, respectively FP4, FP5 and
FP6 (cf. Exhibit 2). Under FP4, only CRAFT existed. Under FP5, the ETI scheme
(for “Economic and Technological Intelligence) and a pilot scheme for collective
research (COLL) was added to this. The three were fully operational under FP6.
Exhibit 2 Investigation domain
FP
Scheme FP4 FP5 FP6
CRAFT/ COOP √ √ √
COLL √ √
ETI √ √
1 The context for the evaluation, definitions and questions
1.1 SMEs in the Framework Programmes
SMEs comprise the vast majority of employers in any economy, and as such are a
natural focus for government policy in most areas, from environmental protection to
occupational health to trade. In the area of research policy, the EU (and most of the
individual Member States) has sought to identify a number of measures by which to
improve the interface between this large number of innovative businesses and the
public sector research base. The Framework Programme is no exception to this and
has sought to encourage participation of research-active SMEs within the thematic
programmes, and innovation-active SMEs (with no or limited internal research
capability) within SME specific schemes.
1
The Framework Programme is designed with two broad categories of SME in mind,
traditionally corresponding to the 2 upper levels in Arnold‟s “Hierarchy of
Technological Capabilities” model of the R&D competence of firms and more
recently also targeting lower levels (see Exhibit 3):
The 1% of EU employers that is research-capable and active in economic
sectors where technology is a strong business driver.
The 10% or so of EU employers that are innovation-active but with little need
for internal research competence where nonetheless technological innovation
constitutes an opportunity for market and or productivity enhancing
innovation.
Exhibit 3 Hierarchy of Technological Capabilities
Hie rarchy of Te chnological Capabilitie s
Research department or equivalent
Research
Able to take long run view of
Performers
technological capabilities
Multiple engineers
Technological Some budgetary discretion
Compete nts Able to participate in technology networks
Minimum- One engineer
Capability Able to adopt/adapt packaged solutions
Companie s May need implementation help
Low- No meaningful technological capability
Technology No perceived need for this
SMEs May be no actual need
Source: E. Arnold, Developing Company Technological Capabilities
The majority of small firms across all economic sectors will tend to purchase their
technology in the market place, embodied in new and replacement equipment,
software upgrades and revised codes of practice. For the majority it is more sensible
to follow rather than lead on these matters, and success in the market place is driven
at least as much by market relationships, staff commitment, branding and so on.2
According to current thinking, small, high-tech businesses tend to be one of the most
important starting points for new large businesses and emerging economic sectors.3
Within the Framework Programmes, businesses are addressed through the mainstream
thematic priority areas, and SME support actions aligned with the priority areas.
Similarly, innovation in medium-technology businesses – and more mature sectors –
is seen as crucial to sustaining European presence in global markets subjected to huge
2
This is especially true for the service sector in which a substantial proportion of all European
SMEs are active. These SMEs are not actively targeted by the Framework Programme. In the
service sector innovation has a rather different dynamic to that evident in for example
manufacturing or process industries since the main elements have been innovations in business
processes and novel configurations and applications of ICTs.
3
See for instance, E. Leprince, Comment faire émerger de nouveaux leaders mondiaux en
Europe?, Le Monde, 22 février 2005, who (on the basis of a report of the French Comité
Richelieu) states that Europe‟s 25 largest enterprises existed already in 1960 whereas on the 25
largest American companies, 19 are relatively recent ones.
2
price competition. This much larger segment of participants is addressed primarily
through the SME-specific measures.4
In FP6 Thematic Priority Areas, the Commission has set a target of 15% in terms of
the total share of funding to be spent with SMEs, which is around €1.865 billion. In
addition to the mainstream research fund, € 473 million are available for SME
specific research schemes (i.e. Horizontal Research Activities involving SMEs – Co-
operative Research and Collective Research). Taken together, FP6 is able to commit
more than €2.3 billions in support of research and innovation in the small business
sector, which makes it one of the world‟s largest financial research instruments for
SMEs.
In FP6, the main routes through which SMEs may bid to obtain support are:
Calls for proposals for the Thematic Priority Areas
SME specific research schemes, including Cooperative Research Projects and
Collective Research Projects
The Commission has suggested that around 20 000 individual SMEs participated in
FP4 and FP5 combined (for an equivalent of 1.4 b€), split evenly between the high-
technology SMEs in the mainstream programme and the medium-tech SMEs
supported through schemes such as CRAFT.
SME participation has been increasing over time, and, starting from a low level,
which would suggest that the Commission has had success in its ambition to involve
European SMEs in research activities. The 5-year Assessment (2000) reported that
SME participation had increased from 19% of all participations during FP3 to 21%
during FP4, rising from 35% to 45% as a share of all business participations for the
same programmes.5 By reserving a larger proportion of total funds (15% of the
Thematic Priority budget in FP6), the Commission hoped to further encourage the
engagement of high-technology businesses. However, there was concern expressed in
a number of quarters that the change in the instruments under FP6 would have led to a
decline in the level of overall participation of SMEs in the mainstream research
despite actions to minimise the impact, and to tailor activities specifically towards
SMEs as has happened in some areas of the Programme. However, the 5-year
assessment 1999-2003 did not find this to be the case.6
4
DG Research has focused the FP on support for the development of new technology rather than
the diffusion of technology, public support for which is seen as being in the domain of DG
Enterprise. Innovation in its broader sense is however not ignored. The 6FP includes a Euro
290 million budget entitled Research and Innovation, which is concerned to link research
outputs to exploitation through support for information and advisory services (CORDIS, the
Innovation Relay Centres) and innovation networks, amongst other things.
5
Mandl C. (2000), Five-year assessment report related to the specific programme: Innovation and
Innovation-SME, covering the period 1995-1999.
6
The Five Year Assessment of the IST programme however found for the IST programme that
“whereas in FP5 the number of projects involving an SME was 25% this number dropped to
15% in the first call of FP6.” (p.30)
3
FP6 had also an important budget for SME specific schemes.7 Under the FP6 calls for
SME specific programmes 2 505 proposals were received under the Co-operative
research scheme, of which 304 were retained for funding although several hundred
other proposals passed the quality threshold.8
There has been a dramatic increase in applications from earlier rounds, where a call
for proposals might attract 100 proposals: in FP6, each call has attracted 500 or more.
Commentators expect interest in the Cooperative research scheme to continue as
globalisation is forcing more SMEs to explore technological innovation – and other
risky ventures – in an effort to drive up productivity and reduce costs such that they
can compete with the Far East.
Promoting research and innovation in SMEs is not only a concern for the European
Commission. Most European Member States have RTDI9 policy instruments
specifically geared toward SMEs (e.g. soft loan schemes,) or have specific
arrangements or obligations in their regular research and innovation policy
programmes (e.g. allowing for higher project funding if an SME is involved in a
research consortium). The Netherlands has recently started a SBIR pilot to test the
feasibility of this scheme in Europe. In many cases, the effectiveness of individual
instruments has been analysed.10 Also, attempts have been made in the past to assess
the impact of policy mixes in this area.11
1.2 The schemes evaluated
The present study focuses on the evaluation of the Cooperative research scheme
(COOP, former CRAFT), the Collective research scheme and the Economic and
Technological Intelligence (ETI) actions under FP4, FP5 and FP6. The present
section describes the aims of these schemes and further information can also be found
in 3.1.3 where the associated intervention logics are proposed.
1.2.1 CRAFT/COOP
Both Cooperative and Collective Research projects address primarily the large
community of SMEs with capacity to innovate but with limited research capabilities.
7
Some respondents suggested that the mainstream fund may be close to saturation, that there are
not a sufficient number of research active SMEs for Framework to chase and that the funds may
be better applied via other parts of Framework to other parts of the small business community.
8
EARTO representatives suggest that the level of over-subscription is a problem for their
members. While RTOs are paid commercial rates to perform the research, success rates of 20%
will break the business model for the intermediate sector, which bears most of the costs of
constructing the CRAFT teams and preparing the proposals. SMEs will walk away from the
scheme too, never to return. Competition for funds is so intense that few businesses are able to
succeed without the support of one of the 10-20 EU RTOs with experience of the scheme.
9
Research, Technological Development and Innovation.
10
Technopolis, one of the members of the EPEC consortium, has been in charge of over a dozen of
evaluations and studies of national or regional RTDI programmes in Europe, that partially or
entirely target SMEs (in Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, UK).
11
Apart from DG RTD-Dir M‟s own work in this area (the “Raising EU R&D Intensity” reports),
one can cite Technoopolis, 2001, An international review of methods to measure relative
effectiveness of technology policy instruments, The Hague: Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs,
or projects such as the Trend Chart which aim to monitor national policy developments, and
eventually their impact.
4
Co-operative Research Projects‟ specific objective and beneficiaries are stipulated in
the Work Programme.12
“Co-operative Research is a scheme whereby a number of SMEs from different
countries, having specific problems or needs, assign a significant part of the required
scientific and technological research to RTD performers. 13”
“The Co-operative Research scheme aims to support SMEs in need of specific
scientific and technological research […]. Therefore, the Intellectual Property Rights
belong exclusively to the SME participants. The RTD performers and the other
enterprises and end-users will not have any ownership of the Intellectual Property
Rights derived from the project but may benefit from early access to and preferential
use of the results, in accordance with the Rules for Participation.”
FP6 places a strong emphasis on this kind of SME support and has set aside about
€320 million to finance co-operative research activities.
Co-operative research is a bottom-up scheme and hence covers any scientific or
technological topic or field in supporting the R&D needs of SMEs. The scheme
facilitates trans-national R&D co-operation between SMEs and Europe‟s research
community. Under FP5 the CRAFT scheme could be used under the so-called
Specific Programmes of the framework programme. Under FP6 a specific budget for
Co-operative research was reserved and managed by the SME Unit of DG RTD.
1.2.2 COLL
The second FP6 SME-specific scheme is Collective research (COLL) with a budget
of about €150 million. The Work Programme defines COLL as follows:
“Collective Research is a scheme where RTD performers undertake scientific and
technological research activities on behalf of Industrial Associations or Groupings in
order to expand the knowledge base of large communities of SMEs and thus improve
their general standard of competitiveness.”
Like Co-operative research, research activities in Collective research projects are also
assigned to RTD performers. However in this case the benefit to SMEs is more
indirect and the participants involved are different. The RTD performers undertake
scientific and technological research activities on behalf of industrial associations and
groupings representing SMEs in order to improve the overall competitiveness of large
communities of SMEs and SME-intensive sectors. In all cases the Industrial
Associations or Groupings retain the ownership of the results.
The scheme evolved from five pilot projects funded by the European Commission
under the Fifth Framework Programme.
Collective Research Projects may address pre-normative research issues,
technological problems related to the development and implementation of legislation,
12
Cf. Work Programme for the “Horizontal Research Activities involving SMEs”
13
Note that RTD Performers are defined as independent entities having the capacity to carry out
research at the request of the SMEs (e.g. universities, research centres or technological
institutes).
5
and technological problems of whole industrial sectors that could not possibly be
addressed by Co-operative Research Projects. They aim at achieving concrete results
in terms of applicable new knowledge either to improve or develop new products,
processes or services or to meet other needs of SMEs.
1.2.3 ETI
As part of the special support for SME participation in European research activities,
the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) funds a range of Economic and
Technological Intelligence (ETI) actions. The scheme was first introduced under FP5
to provide strategic research support to European SMEs by improving their access to
scientific and technological information. The FP5 ETI projects used dedicated
networks and information sources to promote innovation in SMEs, to gather, analyse
and disseminate information on technological developments, applications and markets
relevant to SMEs, and to identify and disseminate best practices. In practice, it was
aimed at helping companies to participate to CRAFT. Over 50 ETI projects were
funded under FP5.
In FP6, this approach has been focused on helping SMEs in specific sectors to take
part in FP6's mainstream research projects – Integrated Projects and Networks of
Excellence – as a way of improving their competitiveness.
The objective of ETI projects is not to create something new, but to use existing
sources to identify SME needs. In this respect, SME partners do not carry out ETI
projects themselves. Instead, they are run by intermediaries with good access to
dissemination routes, such as SME National Contact Points, industrial federations,
network or associations of research performers, professional associations, chambers
of commerce and so on. Their responsibility is to encourage a more innovation-
oriented environment through the EU, stimulate innovation itself and help create
innovative technology-based business.
“Each economic and technological intelligence activity should address a specific
research theme or industrial sector. […] projects should concentrate on (i) the
involvement of SMEs /SME Groupings in new and existing FP6 projects and / or (ii)
on enhancing the readiness of SMEs/SME Groupings to participate in emerging and
future European RTD activities and programmes. 14”
ETI actions do not constitute an FP6 instrument by themselves but are implemented
using two instruments – Specific Support Actions and Coordination Actions.
1.3 Questions to be answered
The following questions are specifically to be answered by this study:
What is the profile of the participants and the impacts of the SME-specific
schemes?
14
EC, 2004, Guide for proposers for Specific Support Actions, Stepping up Economic and
Intelligence Call 2.
6
What kind of evolution in time of the SME-specific schemes can be identified
and what are the effects of the changes on the socio-economic impacts of the
projects?
The approach followed to provide answers to these questions is detailed below in
section 2.
2 Approach
The study was organised in three main phases (corresponding to three reports), which
address a specific objective. The Final report is built around the findings of the first
two parts and adds onto it the policy dimension, based upon the Policy Workshop‟s
contribution.
The following three subsections will describe the methodological content, i.e. the
combination of tools used, in the three phases, the results of which are integrated into
the Findings section of the present report.
2.1 Preliminary work
The first phase of the study aimed at setting up the background information necessary
for the impact assessment. In this perspective, three main tools were combined:
establishment of the intervention logics, literature review and analysis of data
provided by the Commission. These will be briefly described below.
2.1.1 The intervention logic exercise
For each of the schemes to be analysed in the study, an “Intervention Logic” was
constructed in dialogue with the Commission services. Understanding the
Intervention Logic was an important methodological step in the study, since it
allowed the evaluation team to make the evaluation questions more precise, and,
consequently, to be more targeted in the data collection process and in the formulation
of evaluation questions.
This exercise has led to a series of 6 “Intervention Logics,” one for each scheme (and
no specific one for CRAFT-FP4)
Co-operative research FP6
CRAFT FP5
Collective research FP6
Collective research FP5 – pilot scheme
ETI in FP6 & FP5
Diagrams with a proposal for the Intervention Logics were distributed by EPEC on
Friday 14 October and were discussed in 2 subsequent meetings with the Steering
Group for this study, at 18 and 20 October 2005, held at the Commission premises. At
the first of these two meetings it was decided to split the analyses for ETI FP6 and
FP5 although they both aimed to promote SME participation. The reason for that is
that in FP6, ETI was geared toward promoting the participation of SMEs in the
thematic priority areas of FP6, particularly in the Integrated Projects and Network of
7
Excellence. In FP5, the emphasis was put on encouraging and assisting SMEs to
participate in specific schemes like Exploratory Awards and CRAFT.
The resulting Intervention Logics, annexed to this report, proved very useful to
construct the tools used for this report. In particular, the case study protocol and
interview checklists were based upon the Intervention Logics that were established.
Actual impacts will be compared to the expected impact as described in the
Intervention Logics.
2.1.2 Literature review
A great amount of literature (both grey and academic) was found on the issue of the
impact of R&D schemes on SMEs, both at the level of European programmes and
national level. An analysis of this literature was part of the preliminary work of the
present study and full details including bibliographic references can be found there.
Hereunder, highlights from this literature review are provided.
Four bodies of literature were analysed:
Panel reports from Five-Year Assessments
Evaluations and impact studies of individual Specific Programmes (SPs)
within the Framework Programme or of thematic issues, such as socio-
economic aspects
FP-wide impact studies
Studies which evaluate impacts of the FP at national level and eventually other
studies regarding the involvement of SMEs in national research programmes
2.1.3 Analysis of the participation in FP4, FP5 and FP6
The analysis of data provided by the Commission to be used for the evaluation was
the third component of this preliminary work. This concerned, in particular,
participants‟ databases to be used also for the establishment of the respondents‟
database for the survey.
On the basis of the information provided by the European Commission services, the
following overview of the different schemes and the number of projects, participants
and average number of participants per project can be provided, as follows.
Exhibit 4 Overview of projects in FP4, FP5 and FP6
FP4 FP5 FP6
Framework Programme/
SCHEME ETI
CRAFT CRAFT COLL ETI COOP COLL
Characterisation
Number of projects funded: 185 680 5 53 304 46 46
Numbers of participants: 1418 5 590 40 960 2906 959 659
Of which SMEs 969 2 633 N/A 242 1880 535 150
Average # participants / project 8 8 8 18 10 21 14
Source: Commission data / Technopolis analysis
8
A number of aspects must be borne in mind in relation to the dataset of origin.
1 In spite of the expectations expressed in the Terms of reference for the present
study, no data was available in the FP4, FP5 and FP6-related datasets about the
following two items:
The nature of the SME R&D investment level
The position of the company in the market (leader or follower)
Given the importance of these two features in the Terms of Reference for this
study, primary data were needed on this through the study. It also implied that
there was no possibility for the evaluators to check the respondents‟ database
representativeness with regard to these two characteristics since they were absent
from the original dataset.
2 Very partial information was available about the actual role participants had
played within the projects. In particular, it was not possible to infer the extent to
which the SME was at the origin of the project or the consortium or whether it
was taken on board by, for example, the Research Performers in the project. This
aspect hence also needed investigation through the study. Again, its absence from
the dataset of origin prevented us from checking the respondents‟ database
representativeness on this aspect.
3 A number of participants in the EU project database were associated to projects
without acronym (or name). This was so for all the FP4 projects participants
(1418) and for 95 FP5 projects (funded by DG RTD).
4 More generally, the comprehensive longitudinal analysis foreseen by the Terms of
Reference was not feasible given the poor consistency or lack of data available for
the three framework programmes considered.
An on-line survey (cf. 2.2.2), directly addressed to participants in the different
schemes, was designed partly to overcome these shortcomings.
2.2 The impact assessment
The following specific questions were to be answered by this part of the study:
1 What is the profile of the participants to the SME specific schemes?
2 What impacts do the different schemes under consideration here have on the
target beneficiaries?
The lessons drawn from this part of the investigation were presented and discussed
during the Policy Workshop, held at the end on 28 April 2006.
Two main types of impacts are analysed in this study: those associated with what are
usually called “material” effects, and those with “structuring” effects. The former
relate to „technical or scientific‟ and „socio-economic‟ impacts, the latter to the nature
of the services provided and to changes in the absorptive capacity of the firms
involved.
9
Exhibit 5 summarise the two main components of each type of impacts.
Exhibit 5 Categories of impacts studied
Material effects Structuring effects
Technical or scientific impacts The nature of the services provided and their impact
Socio-economic impacts Absorptive capacity of the firms involved
The focus of the analysis will be different according to the schemes being examined.
Both the SME-specific measures and the SME-support measures are likely to
generate material and structuring effects. ETI actions however were designed mainly
to generate structuring effects.
The preliminary lessons learnt from this part of the survey will be derived from a
comparison between the expected (cf. the Intervention Logic) and the actual impacts.
After the preliminary work, the following phase consisted of fieldwork. We will
therefore describe below the evaluation tools used, i.e. an electronic survey,
interviews, case studies and an ETI final beneficiaries satisfaction survey.
2.2.1 The tools used and their purposes
Exhibit 6 presents the evaluation tools used and the questions they address. Since no
single evaluation tool is perfect, following the principle of “triangulation,” we have
combined 4 tools to address the key questions of the present study.
Exhibit 6 Techniques used and evaluation questions
Evaluation questions Profile of participants and impacts ETI satisfaction of final
of the schemes beneficiaries
Tools
On-line survey √ √
Case studies √
ETI final beneficiaries survey √
Interviews of „intermediaries‟ √ √
2.2.2 The on-line survey methodology
An on-line survey was carried out. Its aim was to target all participants in the three
Research Schemes under scrutiny here, i.e. the Co-operative research schemes
(CRAFT/COOP), the Collective research scheme (COLL) or Economic and
Technological Intelligence actions (ETI) under FP4 (if applicable), FP5 or FP6.
Agreement was reached over the content and presentation of the on-line questionnaire
via an iterative process between the consultant and the Commission services.
Subsequently, the following steps were followed:
Launch of the survey on the 6 December 2005
A reminder sent on 16 December
Closure of on-line survey at 2 January 2006.
The questionnaire used, comprehensive results and the in-depth analysis of the
respondents‟ population (together with definitions) is proposed in the Appendix part.
10
The on-line survey database of origin can be characterised in the following way:
Database from the Commission: 4950 individuals, among which 374
individuals participated in more than one project
5055 invitation letters sent (some individuals have several e-mail addresses)
Exhibit 7 Participation in the on-line survey
Number of filled
Number of respondents questionnaires
At the closing of the survey 1 472 1 496
After cleaning up the
1 160 1 184
response database
Note: 19 respondents filled in more than one questionnaire (i.e. 43 questionnaires in total).
After preliminary cleaning of the database, the procedure used to select the basic
respondent‟s database to be further investigated consisted in deleting the
questionnaires of respondents that did not fill in the “acronym of the project”-field.
When this field was not filled in, it was not possible for the respondents to go on
completing the questionnaire (compulsory answer). Indeed, this field empty, it would
have neither been possible to trace the respondent nor to sort data by project.
The overall return rate is 29,9%, cf. Exhibit 8.
Exhibit 8 The on-line survey: Participation rate
Reference population 4 950
Mail failures (non-valid addresses) 1 071
Number of respondents 1 160
Participation rate* 29,9%
NB: *[calculation: (respondents/(reference population- mail failures)]
The study of the respondent’s sample15 shows that the distribution of respondents is
skewed towards FP6 participants and CRAFT/COOP projects.
In terms of projects, the respondents‟ sample turns out to be well-balanced between
FP5 and FP6 projects, even though FP6 represents slightly more than half of the
projects (Exhibit 9). Temporal proximity to the participation period explains this.
This is confirmed by the extremely small part of FP4 projects in the respondents‟
database. In fact, compared with the initial sample, one may note that FP4 projects
are under-represented while FP6 projects are over-represented. The coverage in terms
of FP5 project can be deemed very satisfactory.
15
Cf. Appendix for the detailed analysis.
11
Exhibit 9 The respondents’ sample vs the initial database, breakdown of
projects by FPs
Projects Respondents’ sample Initial sample
FPs Total Percentages Total Percentages
FP4
15 3% 185 12%
FP5
223 41% 738 48%
FP6
301 56% 602 39%
Total 539 100% 1535 100%
Unsurprisingly, with 83% of the population, CRAFT/COOP is most prominent in the
responses (Exhibit 10). COLL and ETI represent respectively 9% and 8%. When
compared with proportions observable in the initial sample, CRAFT/COOP represent
90%, COLL account for 4% and ETI correspond to 6%. Therefore, COLL projects are
over-represented in the respondents‟ sample.
Exhibit 10 The respondents’ sample vs the initial database, breakdown of
projects by schemes
Projects Respondents’ sample Initial sample
Schemes Total Percentages Total Percentages
CRAFT/ COOP 445 83% 1166 90%
COLL 48 9% 50 4%
ETI 46 8% 77 6%
Total 539 100% 1293 100%
NB: About 1% of the respondents could not be associated with a specific scheme.
This described above skewed distribution has the following consequences in terms of
the comparison of impacts among the different Framework Programmes under
scrutiny here. Based on the results of the survey:
no comparison can be made between FP4 and the other two FPs
no comparison of impacts of Collective research scheme participants between
FP5 and FP6 will be proposed (3 out of the 5 pilot COLL projects‟
participants answered some of the questions only)
there will be no comparisons of evolution between FP5 and FP6 ETI projects
(7 ETI project participants responded)
Most survey-based comparisons across FPs will therefore relate to FP5 CRAFT vs
FP6 COOP.
12
2.2.3 Case studies
Case studies are useful when an in-depth examination of a specific case (type of R&D
support, a sector, an organisation, a measure, project, a specific effect…) is required
that involves answering “how” and “why” questions, or when there is a need to take
contextual factors into account. The case study type used in this study is to
demonstrate the impact of the Community activities towards SMEs in the area of
research and innovation, hence we are typically in the type of “causal” case study.
Full case study results can be found in the Appendix to this report.
The first subsequent paragraph (2.2.3.1) describes the case studies selection rationale,
the second (2.2.3.2) the case study protocol.
2.2.3.1 Selection rationale
On the basis of an initial proposal, the following distribution of the 12 cases studies
over the possible “FP vs scheme”-couples was agreed with the Commission services
(Steering group meeting of 18 October 2005).
Exhibit 11 Distribution of the 12 case studies according to FP-scheme couples
Framework Programme
Scheme FP6 FP5 FP4
CRAFT/ COOP 1 3 3
COLL 1 1
ETI 1 2
The case studies have been selected using the following complementary approaches:
survey of the material published by the Commission and available on
CORDIS‟ website
analysis of the Commission data (preliminary work)
interviews of a large selection of the SME National Contact Points
high-tech vs traditional sector projects
nationality balance
First, a survey of the material published by the Commission and available on
http://sme.cordis.lu/home/ was carried out. For each FP- scheme couple, a very large
collection of the funded projects (i.e. COOP, COLL and ETI projects) has been
published. The „fiches‟ describe important features of the project: duration, cost, types
and names of the partners, technical content and objectives, etc. When available
„success story‟ reports have also been consulted (FP4 and FP5 CRAFT projects, cf.
Exhibit 2 below). On the whole, the Cordis databases displays the following
distribution of 135 cases and 208 success stories.
Exhibit 12 The reference collection: Cordis databases
FP
FP6 FP5 FP4
Scheme
208 „success stories‟
CRAFT/COOP 30 cases (1st call)
(Minus 30 cases from under FP3)
13
COLL 23 cases (1st call) 5 pilot cases
ETI 24 cases (1st call) 53 cases
Case studies were picked from this reference set. Even though this collection is less
comprehensive than the databases provided by the Commission, its content is far
more detailed and systematic allowing a detailed analysis and therefore a more
reasoned selection. In particular, the success stories‟ cases (i.e. FP4 and FP5 CRAFT
projects) gave an in-depth overview of the projects including a description of some of
their outputs.
Second, the analysis of the Commission data was considered.
This analysis allows us to select „average‟ profiles within each type of scheme and
framework programme. For instance, the „average‟ funded project in CRAFT,
irrespective of the FP, is composed of 9 partners, mainly SMEs the size of which is
between 10 and 49 employees. When available, relevant data about the nationality of
the project was also used. It was mainly used to control for quantitative factors.
Obviously useful to make a pre-selection or to check whether the envisaged cases are
regular ones, this statistical approach alone is however not sufficient for reasons of
the incompleteness of data.
Third, a large selection of the SME National Contact Points has been interviewed
(either by phone or face-to-face). Among the other things, NCPs were questioned
about interesting cases they knew about for each of the schemes. NCPs were most of
the time able to give such examples considering CRAFT projects, somewhat less
often for COLL projects and seldom for ETI projects.
Fourth, a balance between high-tech and traditional sector-based projects was sought.
Fifth, the selection has also, as far as possible, taken into account the „nationality‟ of
the project as given by the location of the contact person so as to tend to an overall
nationality balance. In any case, nationality balance was one of the participation rules
and therefore selected projects were controlled for this criterion.
Once applied, this set of criteria allowed the establishment of the following list of
case studies (Exhibit 13), approved by the Commission services.
14
Exhibit 13 Selected cases characteristics, by scheme and by Framework
Programme
High- Nationality
Names of the projects tech (contact
vs Trad person)
COOP cases
„Medical technology- better images aid diagnostic High-T. FR
FP4 (3) medicine‟
„DELFIN‟ Trad. D
„Developing new methods of vaccine production‟ High-T. SP
„GEOWATERS‟ Trad. HU
FP5 (3) „RASTUD‟ High-T UK
„CLEANAIR High-T NO
FP6 (1) „AGRONETS‟ Trad. GR
COLL cases
FP5 (1) SPACE2TEX High-T. B
FP6 (1) „DERMAGENESIS‟ Trad. IT
ETI cases
FP5 (2) „EUROPABIO SME PROJECT‟ High-T. B
BALTDYN N/A Latvia
FP6 (1) „SMEsGoLifeSciences High-T. AT
2.2.3.2 Case study protocol
Each case study consisted of the following items:
Preparatory work
Site-visits / interviews with case studies protagonists
Write-up of case study monographs
Feedback to case study protagonists
Each case study comprised one day dedicated either to site visit or to phone
interviews or both.
Exhibit 14 presents the target aimed at in terms of number and type of interviewees,
by scheme. This composition could be modified according to the actual characteristics
of the project investigated.
15
Exhibit 14 Case studies’ target in terms of number/type of interviewees, by
scheme
Number/type of interviewees
Scheme Number Type
CRAFT/ COOP 3 2 SMEs and 1 RTD-P
2 or 3 (Core-Group) SMEs and 1 IAG and
COLL 5
1 RTD-P.
4 „Intermediaries‟, of which if possible up
ETI 4
to 2 SME [org. type] partners
The case study programme started on 6 December 2005 (the end of the year period
being not optimal for launching such an endeavour) and ran until end February 2006.
Results of individual case studies are annexed to this report.
2.2.4 The ETI beneficiaries’ satisfaction survey
In order to fully assess the impact of ETI, the answers from ETI partner participants
needed to be complemented with the opinion of their clients, the real and ultimate
beneficiaries of the ETI scheme. Direct investigation of the SMEs beneficiaries of
ETI services was necessary to complete data obtained from the on-line survey. Phone
interviews were therefore carried out.
Two different procedures were followed, depending on the FP under which the
scheme was implemented:
As regards ETI intermediaries in FP5, 47 of the 53 intermediaries published
on the CORDIS website were contacted; first by email, and then by phone. 10
out of the 47 intermediaries contacted provided us with a list of SMEs they
offered services to. Three main reasons could explain this 20% response rate:
Given the delay between now and the implementation of the projects (i.e. in 2001), most people in
charge have changed position or retired
ETI Intermediaries were not willing to give any information arguing that data was not recent
enough or they simply refused without giving any clear reason
The national experts who participated to the Policy Workshop argued that Economic and
Technological Intelligence was not a very easily identifiable label
75 SMEs were contacted directly by phone to implement the survey. The lists with
SME details provided turned out to be generally of poor quality. The contacts were
not updated so only 17 direct contacts with SMEs could in the end be established (i.e.
response rate of 22.6 %). Among them, only 7 SMEs were able to answer our
satisfaction survey (9.3% of response).
Concerning SMEs in ETI under FP6, the full list of “intermediaries” that
responded to the Web-survey implemented earlier was contacted. 58
intermediaries or “partners” were asked SMEs contact details by email,
corresponding to 29 different ETI projects. 5 different ETI projects yielded 76
contacts with SMEs. Data from 10 SMEs beneficiaries (response rate of
26.3%) was obtained via phone interviews.
16
Exhibit 15 summarises this data.
Exhibit 15 Satisfaction survey: summary of the data, by FP
Framework Programme
Characteristics of the data FP5 FP6 Total
Intermediaries or “partners” contacted 47 58 105
ETI projects 47 29 76
Lists of SME beneficiaries obtained 10 5 15
SMEs contacted 75 76 151
SMEs direct answers obtained 17 22 39
Three different types of SMEs were identified:
14 SMEs declared they had not benefited from ETI services and were not
involved in any European funded project
21 SMEs benefited from ETI services and are either involved in European
projects (thanks to the ETI), or have submitted application for EU research
project and wait for answer, or have submitted without success, or could not
answer
4 SMEs declared they had not benefited from ETI services and were involved
in one or more European research funded programmes
2.2.5 Interviews with intermediary organisations
20 interviews have been carried out with intermediaries, including NCPs. Questions
were asked about the impact of the SME specific schemes and impacts of the ETI
actions, in particular on SMEs.
2.3 Policy assessment
A dedicated Policy Workshop has been held on 28 April 2006 with the specific aim
to discuss the impact assessment‟s conclusions. The attendees were mainly national
policy experts in the field of RTD and SMEs (14 persons), together with Commission
Officials (12 persons). The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report
take into account the above-mentioned discussions. The comments received in that
occasion have been considered in the interpretation of the findings presented in this
report.
17
3 Evaluation findings
3.1 Preliminary results
This subsection presents the preliminary findings of the study; they pertain to the first
phase of the assignment and consist of:
The findings from the literature review
The analysis of the data related to the participants in the three schemes under
consideration here (and over the three framework programmes)
The intervention logics developed
3.1.1 Key findings from the literature review
The main SME-related findings of the literature review are the following16.
The FP4 Impact analysis of BRITE-EURAM states that 60% of SMEs (vs 50% of
large companies) fully achieved their S&T objectives and 60% of SMEs (vs 50% of
large companies) fully exploited their results.
The FP4 Impact assessment report on the specific programme 'International RTD
cooperation‟ states that overall industrial participation, in particular by SMEs, in the
main target of INCO-1 Copernicus is limited. There is no statistical evidence on the
extent of industrial participation by SMEs despite the fact that the original Council
Decision stressed SME participation. Despite recognition of the importance of SMEs,
the text setting out the totality of the political decision to implement INCO-1 within
FP4 does not offer a particularly clear or consistent background for the management
actions needed for its implementation by the Commission.
The FP4 Impact Assessment of Joule/Thermie/NNE states that SMEs are more
engaged than their larger counterparts and may provide better continuity in research.
Overall, the technical results of the SME projects were consistent with the aims of
THERMIE B and will achieve, particularly for the SME community:
enhanced awareness within the EU and non-EU regions of appropriate
technologies, their applicability, the markets that are available, and the
suppliers of the technology;
an industry with an improved understanding of the mechanisms to increase
awareness and how to overcome barriers to effective information
dissemination.
Apart from these specific issues related to individual Specific Programmes, the
following points seem to be recurrent in the assessments of the SME participation in
the FPs over time.
16
Please refer to the relevant Appendix for additional data.
18
The analysis “What the Five-Year Assessment Reports write on the Participation of
SMEs” (1996) showed that SMEs lack access to information; have relatively low
success rates; and their participation is hampered by lengthy procedures and red tape,
EU confidentiality rules, lack of flexibility, pre-competitiveness of projects. As
prerequisites for the future success of the (back then called) “Technology Stimulation
Measures for SMEs” (TSMEs) were cited: better functioning of the network of
CRAFT focal points (now NCPs – National Contact Points), increase the visibility of
measures, further simplification of practical arrangements, strengthening the
“bottom-up” approach, more market-oriented approach and rapid feed-back
mechanisms.
In 2002 things had not changed significantly when the Annual Monitoring Report for
the Innovation and SME programmes suggested a reduction of administrative burden
with priority on simplification and reduction of time to contract and a more adequate
analysis of the needs of SMEs. As a consequence, with the start of FP6, important
reductions of time to contract and time to payments have been implemented and
finally achieved.
This is confirmed by the 2005 „Report of the framework programme monitoring panel
2004‟17 which cites high bidding costs, bureaucracy and red tape, access to finance,
duration of the project and a high failure rate as main barriers for participation. With
the new instruments, in particular IPs, new barriers such as a higher dependence on
multinational enterprises (MNEs) and large companies have been introduced.
National evaluations of FP participation18 tend to conclude that the national level of
participation is satisfactory. Nonetheless, insufficient participation by SMEs is
repeatedly referred to as a problem. In some cases, evaluators distinguish between
technology-based SMEs, which tend to participate satisfactorily, and more traditional
SMEs, whose role in FPs has historically tended to be as end users or recipients of
knowledge. SMEs, especially the latter variety, as well as small research performers
feel that the new instruments of FP6 put them at a disadvantage. The analysis of
national evaluations also indicates that there does not seem to be substantive
discussions in Member States about whether the inclusion of SMEs in Framework
Programmes is a sensible objective, even though there is evidence that FP participants
are (as one would expect) generally organisations with strong research or
technological capabilities.
The literature review also shows that there is evidence that – as one would expect –
SMEs and large companies tend to have different motives for participating in FPs.
SMEs, especially those that are not research-based, tend to be more interested in
shorter-term product and process outputs from projects than large firms or research
performers, which seek intermediate knowledge outputs. In some cases, this leads to
disappointment. Thus, following earlier analyses, in the CRAFT programme, SMEs
had more exploitation goals than others and were less likely to achieve them. The
small size of SMEs means that their usefulness in generating wide economic impacts
is limited. However, the pattern of findings about SMEs is not completely uniform.
For example, impact assessment of energy projects showed a higher proportion of
17
http://ec.europa.eu/research/reports/2004/pdf/monitoring_2004_en.pdf
18
Cf Erik Arnold, John Clark, Alessandro Muscio, James Stroyan, What the Evaluation Record
tells us about Framework Programme Performance, October 2004, Brussels: CEC DG Research
19
small firms achieving scientific goals than large firms did, and that they were more
likely to patent.
Myer Morron‟s elaborate analysis of the IST programme (2004) states that the
problem as regards SME schemes, i.e. use of Associations and the SME measures, is
that they aim at so-called low-tech SMEs. The IST programme is mainly aimed at
participation of high tech SMEs and this was expected to be more problematic in FP6
as the proposed remedies are aimed at low tech SMEs. FP6 would be much less
conducive to low-tech SMEs with the removal of the stand-alone take up instrument.
The observations coming from the literature analysis presented above have
consequences for the present study. The studies on SME participation in the
subsequent FPs indicate that the barriers for SMEs to participate are substantial (and
the different studies are starting to repeat each other). However, far less is known
about the actual impact that the FPs have on SMEs.
The exception to this rule is the recently issued report by the BMBF on German SME
participation in the FP (CRAFT and Thematic Priorities) and Eureka.19 It tends to
show that the SMEs participating in European R&D co-operation are well aware of
the added value of such European co-operations as compared with national co-
operation. This holds for CRAFT, the Thematic Priorities and Eureka. R&D
internationalisation for (German) SMEs is normally part of an overarching
internationalisation strategy extending far beyond the bounds of the company‟s own
R&D: it includes commercial motives such as the development of new foreign
markets or the increase of market shares abroad. Interestingly, in very few instances
does the added value of European R&D co-operation, as opposed to national R&D
co-operation, lie in gaining access to additional expertise not present in Germany, or
in optimising or accelerating the R&D process in a narrower sense.20
For all three cases (i.e. CRAFT, Thematic Priorities and Eureka) studied in this
German study, the aims of SMEs are similar, namely to expand the company‟s
internal know-how and capabilities; to develop commercial products, methods and
processes; and to improve competitiveness. Overall, SMEs consider Eureka to be
more market-oriented and therefore better corresponding to their needs. As regards
CRAFT more specifically, the study indicates that the strengths are the bottom-up
approach and the flexibility in the choice of topics; and the opportunity CRAFT gave
to research-receptive SMEs to build absorptive capacity. The main weaknesses
observed were the dominance of R&D performers and the high oversubscription rate.
To conclude, a major finding of the literature review is that although SME-related
issues are dealt with as a crucial topic, they are rarely at the heart of the analyses
concerning the impact of research programmes. If they do, and with the exception of
the recent impact study of German SME participation in the FP and Eureka, they are
more concentrating on administrative issues than on impact per se. For this reason,
the present evaluation has a major interest: first, its focus is specifically on impact of
19
Alexandra Rammer Anton Geyer, 2005, Erfahrungen deutscher KMU mit europäischen FuE
[Forschung und Entwicklung] Kooperationen am Beispiel der EU
Forschungsrahmenprogramme und EUREKA, Studie im Auftrag des DLR, Endbericht
20
This is an important observation for the present study since country differences may exist with
regard to this aspect
20
the SME specific schemes and second, it covers the last three Framework
Programmes.21 These two features make the present one a unique study.
3.1.2 Analysis of the data on participation in FP4, FP5 and FP6
The limitations/ specific features of the EC datasets analysed here are presented above
(cf. 2.1.3). The investigations carried out during fieldwork directly addressed to
participants in the different schemes are partly designed to complement the available
dataset.
The following five paragraphs expose the main findings related to the study of
CRAFT FP4, CRAFT FP5 and COOP, COLL and ETI FP6 respectively: each relates
to the evolution over FP4, FP5 and FP6 of the 5 main features of interest here22.
3.1.2.1 Evolution of the size of the projects
The number of participants in CRAFT/COOP projects has remained stable with an
average of 8 partners over FP4 and FP5 and 9 under FP6. Under FP6, size differences
are noticeable among the different schemes/ support actions: on the average,
Collective research projects were composed of 20 participants and ETI support
actions, 15.
3.1.2.2 Evolution of the size of the participating organisations
Based on the databases analysed, the dominant size category of CRAFT/COOP
participants in the last three FPs was organisations with less than 50 employees, and
especially firms with between 10 and 49 employees. Only under FP4 were „single
person‟ companies the dominant ones. By all accounts, this is specific to „FAIR‟
projects (i.e. those for which detailed data were available) and cannot be generalised
to the whole population of FP4 SME participants.
3.1.2.3 Evolution of the consortia’s composition
The evolution of consortium composition can be studied only for CRAFT under FP4
and FP5 and COOP under FP6. Between FP4 and FP5 there is not much variation: the
participation of different types of partners in the project is relatively stable with a
share of SMEs at three quarters of the total population. This number drops to just over
60% for the (start of) FP6 (first two calls). In FP4 CRAFT, about 10% of the SMEs
were co-ordinators, while this proportion rose up to around 15% in FP5 CRAFT, and
dropped to about 7% in FP6 COOP.
3.1.2.4 Country of origin of the participating SMEs
The proportion of SMEs from the different EU countries was given as an indicator of
country participation dynamism. The main features can be summarised as follows:
Germany and Spain remained present in the first group consisting of countries
with above 10% of SMEs from these countries in the overall population;
France has lost momentum all over the period;
21
Cf. Appendix for further information.
22
The comprehensive results of the data analysis are presented in Appendix to this report.
21
A growing number of countries are represented (especially in the third group
consisting of countries with below 5% of the SMEs from these countries in the
overall population), demonstrating the particular vitality of the newly accessed
countries.
3.1.2.5 Evolution of the selection rate
CRAFT/COOP is the only scheme whose evolution of the selection rate can be
described (since data for ETI and COLL under FP5 are either non-existent or non-
available). While CRAFT projects‟ selection rates amounted to around 40% in FP4
and to 30% in FP5, it has dropped to 9% in FP6. Note that this figure is not the
ultimate one since new calls have been launched during the first semester 2006). An
explanation can be found in two simultaneous evolutions:
A growing number of CRAFT/COOP projects proposals have been submitted
Under FP6, COOP was not any longer part of the FP Thematic Priorities
Areas so that a financial balance had to be found among the different schemes
proposed by DG Research SME Unit (which, from under FP6 onwards is
specifically in charge of the SME-specific measures i.e. COOP, COLL and
ETI) based upon a fixed budget; under FP5, budget reallocations were
possible within a theme among the schemes.
This evolution is shown in Exhibit 16.
Exhibit 16 Evolutions of CRAFT/ COOP funded and submitted projects
FP
Projects FP4 FP5 FP6
Submitted projects 1775 2261 2505
Funded projects 766 680 304
Selection rate 43% 30% 12%
The analysis of FP 6 SME-specific measures shows clear differences in selection rates
according to the type of scheme considered, the overall selection rate of 12,5% results
from a combination of two extremely selective schemes i.e. COOP and COLL with
ETI whose selection is rate of about 20%.
3.1.3 The intervention logics
An “Intervention Logic” exercise was carried out in collaboration with Commission
officials. The resulting 6 Intervention Logics present in a condensed and practical
way the content of the SME-specific schemes and support actions for FP4, FP5 and
FP6. In addition to introducing the schemes to the reader, note that they have proven
very useful to help to determine the relevant questions for the questionnaire survey
and for the case studies.
22
Exhibit 17 The Intervention Logic of Co-operative Research FP6
23
24
Exhibit 18 The Intervention Logic of CRAFT FP5
25
Exhibit 19 The intervention Logic of Collective Research FP6
26
Exhibit 20 The Intervention Logic of Collective Research FP5 (pilot)
27
Exhibit 21 The Intervention Logic of Economic and Technological
Intelligence FP6
28
Exhibit 22 The Intervention Logic of Economic and Technological
Intelligence support action FP5
3.2 Impact assessment
The impact assessment part of this report is built around the findings resulting from
the use of two main tools: case studies and a web-based survey. After a brief
overview of the key case studies findings, we will present the full detailed results of
the survey for each of the schemes/ support actions considered; notice that when
deemed necessary the case studies findings will be used to complement the survey
results.
3.2.1 The key case studies findings
Detailed results per case are given in the Appendix to this report. A summary of the
main insights from the case studies is presented hereafter. This summary stresses the
key dimensions of the impact assessment in a condensed form, before the full
description is given (cf. 3.2.2 to 3.2.5):
The project initiator
The additionality (or net effect) of the schemes
The technical impacts of the schemes
The economic impacts of the schemes
The type of consortia
29
In the CRAFT/COOP cases studied,23 the project idea mostly comes from the SME
who has a problem to solve or an idea for a project; the RTD performer plays an
important role in proposing the consortium and bringing the project to the Framework
Programme. In the case of COLL, the project idea and initiation often come from the
IAG [role in the consortium] in ETIs they appear to come from the associations [type
of organisation] whereas NCP in some cases play a role as promoter of the EU
programmes.
Even if the idea, and sometimes further initiation, comes from an SME, it is important
to underline that such “initiator-SMEs” in the cases studied often already have
longstanding relationships with the RTD-P (mostly the latter are research
organisations). More generally, the cases are characterised by the fact that two or
more partners (or ensembles of partners) have previously had R&D collaborations
that precede the project. Initiating SMEs are therefore R&D-inspired SMEs, and
several cases (RASTUD, Ultralow radioactivity measurements) even hi-tech SMEs.
A second important observation relates to the relevance and uniqueness of the
schemes. Without exception the cases show that there are no comparative national
schemes and this is even more so when the international aspect is taken into account
(i.e. national schemes do not fund international partnerships). The partners in the
projects agree that there are no such schemes available elsewhere, and that the
European SME schemes are the only ones around that allow for having this type
activity, or this type of consortium, funded. This notwithstanding, partners often also
admit that they would have done the project also without EU funding, giving the
importance of the issues at stake. This would lower the additionality of the schemes.
All projects generally achieve their technical objectives and the three ETIs studied
even go (sometimes far) beyond that, as best illustrated by Europabio. This means
that project goals seem to be well defined and reasonable. This is linked to the
specific type of project one finds under the SME specific schemes, namely close to
the market with quite precise expectations on what is technically feasible or not.
This turns out to be less the case for the economic impacts. In several cases, once the
project is finished, the market does not turn out to be there. This is so because
alternative/competing technologies or markets have meanwhile developed which
surpass the projects‟ outcomes. A good example is the DELFIN project aiming at
finding ways to prevent cork on still wine bottles to be contaminated, whereas during
the course of the project the market, starting with the new industrial wines from
Australia and Latin America, has been inundated by bottles with plastic corks which
do not show that problem and decreasing the market for the technology coming from
the project. In another case (“Baculovirus”) regulation could help market creation
since for the moment markets do not exist for the virus detection method that has
been developed and published about by the European project. More generally,24 more
business intelligence could be useful in the different projects in order to better
23
And therewith providing slightly different evidence than the survey – note however that the case
study results cannot be statistically generalised.
24
Confirming what has been said earlier in a study on the structure and function of Technology
Implementation Plans – see De Laat & Martin, 2003.
30
anticipate the evolution in future markets and the development of corresponding
technologies.
Case studies show the structuring effect of CRAFT/COOP projects, especially on
low-innovative SMEs: they gained experience and knowledge, increased their
network of other SMEs and RTD-Ps, learned to cooperate with research institutes and
also to work internationally in an EU programme. Technology-intensive companies
(from which there were quite a few represented in the cases) benefit from CRAFT
projects by increasing their knowledge base/technological ground; participating in an
EU research project is also a way for such an SME to develop the share of its profits
coming from the commercialisation of its research activities.
Finally, COLL/CRAFT consortia are mostly of the vertical type with companies
either occupying different positions in the respective value chains, or having
complementary assets around the technological object to be developed. The reason for
this lies in the IPR developed which would be easier to share than if “horizontal”
partners would be involved (occupying the same position in the value chain). On the
contrary, in COLL and ETI one finds partners that are both horizontal and vertical,
justified by the fact that (in COLL) common solutions for common (sector) specific
problems are sought.
Each of the subsections 3.2.2, 3.2.3 and 3.2.5 will deal with a specific scheme /
action, namely CRAFT/COOP, then COLL and ETI, respectively. For each specific
scheme/action, the profile of the participants will be analysed, then the impacts
studied.
3.2.2 CRAFT / COOP scheme
In the case of CRAFT/COOP projects, the main participants are also the main target
beneficiaries. Those are the European SMEs that wish to innovate but with limited
internal capacity or competence to carry out research on their own, generally, or with
regard to the domain in which the project takes place. The other participants are the
RTD-Ps, to which part of the required scientific and technological research is
assigned.
3.2.2.1 Profile of the CRAFT/COOP participants
About 1/3 of the companies were created in the 1990‟s, the majority of them (70%)
being set up the last 20 years (cf. Exhibit 23).
31
Exhibit 23 Companies’ year of creation
No
Before 1950
N/ answer
8%
A 1950's
2000's 4% 1960's
16%
6%
1970's
6%
1980's
20%
1990's
34%
Total: 479
Exhibit 24 RTD-P Year of creation
No
answer
Before 1950
2000's 31%
5%
1990's
14%
1950's
1980's 8%
11% 1970's 1960's
9% 6%
Total: 287
Unsurprisingly, since many of them are national research organisations, most of
which were established after WWII, 30% of the RTD performers were created before
the 1950‟s (cf. Exhibit 24). It should be noted that, with regard to age, this population
is very different from SMEs participating in CRAFT/COOP.
32
Exhibit 25 Geographical distribution of respondents
Company RTD-P
Western countries 56% 60%
Benelux 10% 10%
Scandinavia / Baltic region 13% 11%
Middle/eastern Europe 10% 10%
Mediterranean region 4% 2%
Alpine region 4% 6%
Other 3% 1%
TOTAL 100% 100%
Total number of citations 586 322
The geographical distribution of answers shows that most of respondents (2 out of 3)
were from western countries, be they companies or RTD-performers (Exhibit 25).
Exhibit 26 Companies’ sector of activity: Manufacturing
Sector (Main activity) Nb %
Manufacturing (other) 81 21%
Electrical and optical equipment 61 16%
Machinery and equipment n.e.c. 53 14%
Chemicals, chemical products and man-made fibres 32 8%
Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing 23 6%
Rubber and plastic products 23 6%
Basic metals and fabricated metal products 23 6%
Construction 21 6%
Food products beverages and tobacco 14 4%
Textiles and textile products 12 3%
Electricity, gas and water supply 11 3%
Other non-metallic mineral products 7 2%
Leather and leather products 7 2%
Transport equipment 4 1%
Publishing and printing 3 1%
Wood and wood products 3 1%
Mining and quarrying 1 0%
Pulp, paper and paper products 2 1%
TOTAL 381 100%
41% of companies have their activity mainly in the field of manufacturing, electrical
and optical equipment and machinery and equipment n.e.c. (cf. Exhibit 26).
Exhibit 27 Companies’ sector of activity: Services
Sector (Main activity) Nb %
Wholesale and retail trade 52 44%
Other community, social and personal service activities 13 11%
33
Transport, storage and communication 11 9%
Education 10 8%
Private households with employed persons 8 7%
Health and social work 8 7%
Real estate, renting and business activities 7 6%
Extra-territorial organizations and bodies 3 3%
Financial intermediation 2 2%
Public administration and defence 2 2%
Repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles and personal and household goods 2 2%
Hotels and restaurants 1 1%
Total 119 100%
As regards the activity in the service sector, the majority of respondents declared to
have an activity in the “wholesale and retail trade” (44%) (cf. Exhibit 27).
Note that 121 companies indicated their sector of activity as being both
manufacturing and services.
Exhibit 28 Turnover / Budget
Company RTD-P
Less than or equal to EUR 7 million 353 74% 111 39%
EUR 7 million to EUR 40 million 89 19% 77 27%
More than EUR 40 million 37 8% 99 34%
TOTAL 479 100% 287 100%
3 SMES out of 4 (74%) declared to have a turnover of less or equal to EUR 7
million25 (cf. Exhibit 28). As regards RTD performers, responses are more
homogeneous since 39% declared a budget less than or equal to EUR 7 million, 27%
between 7 and EUR 40 millions, and 34% more than 40 millions.
Exhibit 29 RTD-P staff
More than
1 - 10 10 - 49 50 - 99 100 No answer TOTAL
Permanent staff 14% 18% 11% 57% 0% 100%
Temporary
8% 24% 7% 35% 26% 100%
staff
Total: 287 respondents
57% of RTD performers declared to have more than 100 individuals in their
permanent staff (Exhibit 29). As regards temporary staff, 35% of RTD performers
declared to have over 100 individuals, and 24% are smaller research units (between
10 and 49 individuals). RTD-Performers are obviously much larger organisations than
SME participants (cf. below), since the SMEs‟ most populated group is composed of
10 to 49 employees.
25
For this item (which used standard Commission categories), the granularity has probably not
been fine-grained enough.
34
Exhibit 30 RTD legal status
RTD-P legal status Nb %
Governmental 154 54%
Private Non Profit Organisation 71 25%
Private Commercial Organisation including Consultant 40 14%
Public Commercial Organisation 14 5%
Joint Research Centre 6 2%
No answer 2 1%
TOTAL 287 100%
A large majority of RTD performers are either governmental or private non-profit
organisations (69%, cf. Exhibit 30).
Exhibit 31 RTD-P Origin of funding
RTD-P origin of funding Nb %
Block grants (from the Government) 168 22%
Directed, project-specific grants from the Government 201 26%
Contracts with public sector 134 17%
Contracts with private sector 207 27%
Your organisation's own funding 42 5%
Other 19 2%
Total 771 100%
RTD performers are funded first and foremost by contracts with the private sectors
(27%) followed by project-specific grants from governments (26%); the other two
sources of funding are block grants from the government (22%), and contract with the
public sector (17%) (Exhibit 31).
As regards size, the main group of SMEs is composed of companies with 10 to 49
employees (Exhibit 32). CRAFT/COOP participants are well balanced among the
three main size classes of companies (i.e. „below 10 employees‟, „between 10 and 49‟
and „above 49‟). 30% of the SME beneficiaries of the population have more than 50
employees. This gives a population‟s average size well above the European SMEs
average (which is closer to 5 employees per company).
35
Exhibit 32 Size classes of respondent companies (number of employees)
CRAFT / COOP 31% 37% 23% 3%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0 employee (single person company) 0 - 10 10 - 49 50 - 249 250 - 499 500 - 1999 2000+
Note: Total number of respondents: CRAFT/COOP 479
Most SMEs – i.e. around 40% of the sample – have less than 5% of their staff
employed in R&D activities, irrespective of the scheme (Exhibit 33). However, on the
whole, between 65% and 70% of the SME participants have up to 20% Full Time
Equivalent (FTE) active in R&D activities, with more than 25% of them employing
between 6% and 20% of their staff in R&D.
Exhibit 33 Proportions of R&D staff in participant companies
(CRAFT/COOP projects), irrespective of the FPs
No answer
7%
76% - 100%
5%
51% - 75%
5%
Less than 5%
40%
21% - 50%
17%
6% - 20%
26%
Note: Total number of respondents: CRAFT/COOP 479
The study of the possible difference between FP5 CRAFT and FP6 COOP
populations reveals no noteworthy variation (Exhibit 34).
36
Exhibit 34 Proportion of R&D staff in companies, CRAFT/COOP scheme, by
FP
FP6 34% 24% 18% 12% 5% 7%
FP5 34% 30% 20% 9% 5% 3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Less than 5% 6% - 20% 21% - 50% 51% - 75% 76% - 100% No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: FP5 151; FP6 245
This particularly high level of commitment towards R&D among the SME
respondents is confirmed by the fact that a large majority of them consider themselves
(above 70%, irrespective of the scheme) as being „technology intensive‟ (Exhibit
35)26.
Moreover, SMEs consider themselves as being incumbents rather than newcomers in
R&D. This is especially true when participants in CRAFT/COOP projects are
considered (54% describe themselves as not being new comers in R&D). This is also
consistent with the fact that most of them consider their companies as being market
leaders, rather than followers. To conclude, it is „as if‟ taking part in a EU SME-
specific research project were an indication of innovation dynamism: SMEs involved
seem to be aware of and prepared for innovation-based competition.
26
The fact that lower-tech SMEs would have less access to internet and therefore have responded
less frequently may have introduced a bias here. There is no means to control for this.
37
Exhibit 35 Positioning of companies, irrespective of the FP
Do you consider your
company to be a
35% 54% 8%
newcomer in Research
and Development?
Do you consider your
company to be 73% 18% 5%
technology-intensive?
Do you consider your
company to be a market 51% 35% 12%
leader?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes No Do not know No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: CRAFT/COOP 479
There is no significant difference between FP5 and FP6 CRAFT/COOP in this case
either. FP6 respondents seem slightly more newcomers in R&D and technology-
intensive than FP5 respondents; on the other hand, FP6 CRAFT/COOP companies
consider themselves slightly less market leaders than FP5‟s (Exhibit 36).
Exhibit 36 Positioning of company, in CRAFT/COOP scheme, by FP
your company to your company to be a newcomer in
Do you consider Do you consider your company to
Do you consider
Development?
Research and
FP6 37% 53% 7% 3%
FP5 34% 56% 9% 1%
be technology-
FP6 74% 18% 5% 3%
intensive?
FP5 72% 19% 9% 1%
be a market
FP6 49% 36% 11% 3%
leader?
FP5 52% 32% 15% 1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes No Do not know No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: FP5 151; FP6 245
This innovation dynamism is necessary since a large majority of the respondents have
to cope with a dynamic sectoral environment, be it considered in terms of technology,
competition or regulation (Exhibit 37).
38
Exhibit 37 Three characterisations of the companies’ sector of activity
environment, irrespective of the FP
in terms of regulation 17% 46% 31% 6%
in terms of competition 42% 48% 6%
in terms of technology 44% 43% 10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
very dynamic dynamic not particularly dynamic No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: CRAFT/COOP 479
It seems as though the companies‟ sectoral environment was slightly more dynamic
with regard to “technology” and “competition” but less dynamic as far as “regulation”
is concerned under FP5 as compared with under FP6. Technological dynamism was
declared to be stronger under FP6 than under FP5.
The cases shed further light on the role of “regulatory dynamism.” In some cases
studied, the technological objectives of projects are met whereas the SMEs concerned
have difficulties in bringing the technologies to the market since this depends on the
development of specific pieces of (e.g. environmental) regulation. Anticipating these
developments appears to be an important issue, which is not always dealt with well
within the projects.
39
Exhibit 38 Three characterisations of the companies’ sector of activity
environment, in CRAFT/COOP scheme, by FP
in terms of in terms of in terms of
technology competition regulation
FP6 15% 48% 30% 7%
FP5 20% 46% 31% 3%
FP6 42% 47% 6% 5%
FP5 41% 53% 5% 1%
FP6 47% 40% 9% 4%
FP5 42% 45% 11% 1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
very dynamic dynamic not particularly dynamic No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: FP5 151; FP6 245
3.2.2.2 Analysis of the CRAFT/COOP projects
The importance of RTD-Performers as key actors is worth noticing: they very often
propose the research idea, compose the consortium and initiate the submission
process to the Commission (Exhibit 39). Nonetheless, interestingly, companies tend
to be very active too: they are as much cited as initiators in terms of the idea of
research as RTD-Ps. This observation matches quite well the scheme‟s conception.
Exhibit 39 Origin of the project, irrespective of the FP
The idea to submit the
project to the European 32% 46% 5% 3% 3% 11%
Commission came from
The proposal for the
consortium members 33% 46% 4% 3% 3% 11%
originated from
The idea for the research 40% 40% 3% 11%
stemmed from
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Company Research organisation Intermediary Industry association and its members Other No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: CRAFT/COOP 820
As far as the difference between FP5 and FP6 is considered, RTD-Ps play a more
important role in FP6 than in FP5 for two of the initial stages (the idea to submit the
project to the EC and the proposal for the consortium members). As to the idea for the
research, SMEs are cited more often than RTD-Ps.
40
A similar pattern emerges from the case studies, where the idea often comes from the
SME but the proposal for the consortium and the idea of proposing the project for EC
funding comes from RTD-Ps. More generally, the literature study and in particular the
impact assessment of the framework programmes (SME specific schemes and
thematic priorities) and Eureka27 also highlighted the predominance of research
organisations in the projects.
Exhibit 40 Origin of the project, in CRAFT/COOP scheme, by FP
Commission
project to the
The idea to
came from
FP6 34% 49% 3% 3% 8%
submit the
European
FP5 31% 46% 6% 4% 9%
The proposal for
originated from
The idea for the the consortium
FP6 33% 49% 3% 2% 9%
members
FP5 34% 42% 4% 5% 10%
research stemmed
FP6 42% 40% 2% 3% 9%
from
FP5 43% 41% 3% 9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Company Research organisation Intermediary Industry association and its members Other No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: FP5 201; FP6 371
CRAFT/COOP project consortia are „vertical‟ in nature (Exhibit 41), i.e. they
eventually tend to build on technical complementarities among different partners
along the value chain to solve their problem.
Exhibit 41 Type of project consortium, irrespective of the FP
CRAFT / COOP 48% 29% 13% 10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Vertical Horizontal Do not know No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: CRAFT/COOP 820
27
Cf. , the “2005 Annual impact report of Eureka”, 2006, confirmed during interview with a
project manager of Eureka.
41
Exhibit 42 Type of project consortium in CRAFT/COOP scheme, by FP
FP6 49% 29% 14% 8%
FP5 50% 28% 13% 9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Vertical Horizontal Do not know No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: FP5 201; FP6 371
CRAFT/COOP projects are noticeably strongly linked to the other innovation projects
of the SME participants. Moreover, COOP (FP6) projects are more linked to other
innovation projects of companies than CRAFT (FP5) projects.
Exhibit 43 Strength of link to companies’ core innovation and business
activities, irrespective of the FP
linked to other
innovation projects of the 41% 37% 12% 10%
company?
within the core business 51% 35% 5% 9%
of your company?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
very much slightly related no No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: CRAFT/COOP 455
42
Exhibit 44 Strength of link to companies’ core innovation and business
activities in FP5 CRAFT vs COOP FP6 scheme
innovation projects of
the company?
FP6 44% 37% 9% 10%
linked to other
FP5 44% 31% 15% 9%
business of your
within the core
FP6 50% 36% 6% 9%
company?
FP5 54% 33% 5% 8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
very much slightly related no No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: FP5 138; FP6 235
3.2.2.3 Impacts of CRAFT/COOP
Net effect of CRAFT/COOP scheme
First of all, one has to consider the net effect (or level of additionality)
CRAFT/COOP schemes attain (Exhibit 45). On the whole, irrespective of
organisation type, a majority of participants would have abandoned their research
project if it were not funded under CRAFT/COOP. This is confirmed by the low
proportion of participants who declared that they would have implemented the project
with other sources of funding. 41% of the CRAFT/COOP participants consider the
project as being related to the company‟s core innovation projects. Comparing the
level of additionality attained by CRAFT projects (FP5) vs COOP projects reveals no
specific difference (Exhibit 46).
So, the net effect of the SME-specific scheme CRAFT/COOP is quite high, under
both FPs.
The net effect of a scheme or additionality is a usual impact assessment indicator: it is
the proportion of respondent participants to the scheme who would have abandoned
their research project if it were not funded under the scheme. This indicator brought
about questions during the Policy Workshop; some participants argued that
interpreting such data was not easy. The question of „abandoned project when no EU
funding‟ was difficult to appraise since the exact meaning of „abandoned‟ was
considered unclear. It was also argued that figures could be either interpreted as good
or bad depending on the existence or not of alternative solutions for SMEs. The
audience generally agreed however that the trans-national characteristics of the
schemes are seen as a major difference and benefit of CRAFT/COOP as compared to
national schemes and this is the way in which the additionnality should be interpreted.
43
Exhibit 45 Additionality: Without the contribution of the European
Commission, would CRAFT/COOP participants have…, irrespective of the FP
Abandoned the project? 53% 27% 20%
Implemented the project
with other source(s) of 23% 47% 29%
funding?
Postponed the project? 48% 21% 31%
Limited the scope of the
46% 22% 32%
project?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes No No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: CRAFT/COOP 820
Exhibit 46 Additionality: Without the contribution of the European
Commission, would CRAFT/COOP participants have…, by FP
source(s) of Postponed the scope of the
Limited the
FP6 49% 20% 31%
project?
FP5 48% 24% 28%
FP6 51% 20% 29%
project?
FP5 46% 23% 31%
Implemented
the project
with other
FP6 23% 50% 27%
funding?
FP5 24% 50% 26%
Abandoned
the project?
FP6 54% 27% 19%
FP5 56% 27% 17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes No No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: FP5 201; FP6 371
We will now consider the material effects and the structuring effects of
CRAFT/COOP.
44
Material effects of CRAFT/COOP scheme
Material effects will be examined considering first their scientific and technical
components, and second their socio-economic components.
As regards the scientific and technical components, the „development of a new or
improved product‟ is the main achievement of CRAFT/COOP projects (44% of the
respondents), followed by „feasibility studies‟ (40%) and the development of a new
process (37%). The case studies conducted by the evaluation team shows that the
development of products is indeed the main output of CRAFT/COOP.
Exhibit 47 Main scientific and technical effects, by type of objective,
irrespective of the FP
Commercialise a new or
improved product or 20% 10% 45% 5% 19%
service
Determine the feasability
of a product, process or 40% 7% 28% 5% 19%
service
Develop a new process 37% 12% 29% 4% 18%
Develop a new or
21% 17% 31% 5% 25%
improved service
Develop a new or
44% 7% 34% 2% 13%
improved product
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes No Too early to assess the actual results Do not know No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: CRAFT/COOP 820
If one differentiates between FP5 (CRAFT) and FP6 (COOP) projects, the same
ranking is observed (Exhibit 48). Variations are explained by the fact that a very
much larger proportion of the projects‟ achievements under FP6 is still pending as
compared with FP5‟s. Interestingly, one of the reasons why „commercialisation‟ is the
least attained objective is that even FP5 CRAFT projects‟ achievements are still
difficult to measure; a non-negligible proportion of respondents declared they were
„too early to assess‟.
45
Exhibit 48 Main scientific and technical effects in CRAFT/COOP scheme, by
type of objective and by FP
Determine the Commercialise
FP6
product or
16% 7% 56% 5% 16%
improved
a new or
service
FP5 25% 14% 38% 5% 18%
feasability of a
or improved Develop a new process or
FP6 31% 6% 43% 5% 15%
product,
service
FP5 55% 11% 8% 6% 19%
FP6 29% 9% 45% 3% 14%
process
FP5 47% 17% 12% 3% 20%
Develop a new Develop a new
FP6 20% 12% 44% 5% 18%
service
FP5 22% 27% 21% 4% 26%
or improved
FP6 36% 3% 48% 11%
product
FP5 58% 13% 16% 11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes No Too early to assess the actual results Do not know No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: FP5 201; FP6 371
On the whole, CRAFT/COOP projects tend to have high socio-economic impacts on
companies (Exhibit 49). The five highest socio-economic impacts of the participation
in CRAFT/COOP projects on companies are:
1 Increased turnover
2 Increased national market share
3 Increased international market share
4 Increased number of research staff
5 Increased profit
These impacts are very much in accordance with the expected impacts of the scheme.
Case studies highlight the difficulty in assessing material effects of CRAFT/COOP on
companies. For some SMEs (it seems for high-innovative ones especially) the project
led to a slight increase in turnover, and an increase in the number of R&D staff. In
two cases, the project in itself was successful, but the product developed or
demonstrated was somewhat ahead of its time and could not be commercialised. In
one of the case studies, all partner companies expect an increase of their international
or national market shares.
46
The case studies show (for CRAFT/COOP) that once the project is finished, the
market often does not turn out to be there. This is so because alternative/competing
technologies or markets have meanwhile developed which surpass the projects‟
outcomes. A good example is the project aiming at finding ways to prevent cork on
still wine bottles to be contaminated, a technology exceeded by the increased use of
plastic corks on bottles from the new wine producing countries, which are inert and
do not give rise to problems of contamination. In some other cases (environmental)
regulation could help market creation. More generally,28 more business intelligence
could be useful in the different projects in order to better anticipate the evolution in
future markets and the development of corresponding products and processes.
Exhibit 49 Socio-economic impacts (on companies) of the participation in
CRAFT projects, by type of impacts, irrespective of the FP
Number
of licenses
4%
Number of
copyrights or
brands
5% Turnover
15%
Other
6%
Number of patents
6% National market
share
12%
Share of export on
total turnover
8%
International
market share
Total number of 12%
employees
10%
Number of
Profit research staff
11% 11%
Note: 5 answers possible. Proportions (in %) calculated on the number of total number of responses of the
category, here equals to 558.
With regard to the comparison of socio-economic impacts under CRAFT (FP5) vs.
COOP (FP6), the two following evolutions are worthy of note:
the most visible evolution is the much smaller increase in the national market
shares in COOP (FP6) as compared with CRAFT (FP5)
28
Confirming what has been said earlier in a study on the structure and function of Technology
Implementation Plans – see De Laat & Martin, 2003.
47
at the same time, the second most important change is that COOP (FP6)
respondents declared a slightly more important increase in the total number of
employees than CRAFT (FP5) respondents
Exhibit 50 Socio-economic impacts (on companies) of the participation in
CRAFT (FP5) vs COOP (FP6)
Share of export on total
turnover
Total number of
employees
Profit
Number of research FP6
staff
FP5
International market
share
Turnover
National market share
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%
Note: 5 answers possible. Only the 7 most important declared positive socio-economic impacts on companies are
presented. Proportions (in %) calculated on the number of total number of responses of the category, here equals to
130 for FP5 and 216 for FP6.
RTD-P vs Company: does the initiator’s type make a difference in terms of the
impact?
In order to examine the extent to which the type of initiator of the EU project affects
the impact, the 5 main direct impacts will be considered accounting for the type of
organisation from which the research idea originated. CRAFT (FP5) and COOP (FP6)
schemes will also be compared with regard to this issue.
The analysis proposed has to be taken with caution because of the small number of
respondents on which the analysis is performed. The study does not intend to achieve
statistically significant results but instead aims to explore an issue on which very little
is really known despite its very high policy importance.
The method used is described in Exhibit 51. Note that the nature of the relationship
between the status of the initiator and the impact is studied in such way that the same
companies are considered at both sides of the connection. The step-by-step procedure
used to carry the analysis can be described as follows:
1 All the respondent companies that have participated in a CRAFT/COOP project
and that have declared a positive impact as a consequence of the participation in
the project form the reference sample, i.e. 240 companies, are selected
2 This 240-group is then split into 2 main categories according to the answer given
to the question about the research idea (themselves excluded): the idea for the
48
research could have originated from another company (94 responses) or from an
RTD-performer (146 responses) within the project consortium
3 Each of these 2 groups is divided into 5, according to the 5 main types of declared
impacts
4 Each of the latter groups are then eventually split into 2 categories, according to
the Framework Programme in which the projects were performed
For the cases examined, the association between the initiator‟s type and the socio-
economic impact put under scrutiny is therefore possible.
Exhibit 51 RTD-P vs Company
Role in Criteria 1:
CRAFT/COOP research
scheme under originating from Criteria 2: evidence of direct impact
FP5 and FP6 : company or
company RTD-P
The idea for the Impact on Turnover Impact on National Impact on profit ?
research stemmed ? market share ?
fromÉ
Company 1 Research Increase Increase
organisation
Company 2 Company
É Intermediary Increase Increase
É Research Decrease
organisation
É Company Increase Decrease Increase
Company 391 IAG Increase
Company Satisfied criteria Non satisfied
satisfying both criteria
criteria =
company counted
Exhibit 52 shows that the highest socio-economic impacts are to be found when
projects are initiated by an RTD-P as compared with SME-initiated projects: 86 out of
the 112 most important socio-economic impacts are observed when companies
declared that the research idea originated from a RTD-P in the consortium. Moreover,
this holds for both FP5 and FP6.
As far as differences between CRAFT (FP5) and COOP (FP6) are considered, COOP
projects seem to have stronger impacts than CRAFT‟s, irrespective of the initiator‟s
type: 78 out of the 112 main declared socio-economic impacts on companies are
observed in FP6 projects.
Even though the sample used to attempt a measure of the underlying mechanism is
too small a size to permit any generalisation (94 companies indicated that the origin
of the research came from another Company, 146 companies indicated it originated
from RTD-Ps, FP5 and FP6 considered altogether), the evidence presented cannot be
disregarded. It may be counterintuitive but this does not imply that there is no truth in
it. More investigation is needed to better understand the phenomenon especially since
49
the case studies do not provide counterevidence, but show that the initiative comes
from (R&D intensive) SMEs, which are already very used to working with the RTD-P
they are co-proposing with, without being able to make generalisations of the
influence of such binomes on the impact of the project.
As a matter of fact, it seems as though the most efficient combination in terms of the
(expected) socio-economic impacts were a FP6 COOP project initiated by a RTD-P.
Two tentative combined explanations may be put forth in order to substantiate this
result:
RTD-Ps have a better strategic vision than SMEs
RTD-Ps, especially under FP6, are experienced stakeholders in submitting
proposals and in accompanying R&D project development
Exhibit 52 Influence of the initiator of project (idea of research) on companies
in CRAFT and COOP schemes, by type of impact
National International Share of Total main
The market market export on socio-eco Total
initiator FP Turnover share share Profit turnover impacts responses
FP5 2 3 1 0 0 6 33
Company FP6 4 6 4 3 3 20 61
FP5+FP6 6 9 5 3 3 26 94
FP5 9 7 6 5 1 28 52
RTD-P FP6 14 9 14 12 9 58 94
FP5+FP6 23 16 20 17 10 86 146
TOTAL 29 25 25 20 13 112 240
How do impacts develop? From scientific and technical effects to socio-economic
impacts
In order to better grasp the mechanisms through which the impacts developed, the
scientific and technical effects will be logically linked to their possible socio-
economic impacts.
The five main socio-economic impacts observed above will be assessed considering
whether scientific and technical effects were declared. Each of the main socio-
economic impacts corresponds to a specific combination of scientific and technical
effects: these are the mechanisms by which the impacts were generated.
The largest positive impacts on turnover were associated firstly to the
development of new processes, secondly to the commercialisation of new or
improved products and services, and thirdly to the development of new
products (cf. Exhibit 34, Appendix B)
The largest positive impacts on national market shares were associated firstly
to the development of new processes, secondly to the commercialisation of
new or improved services, and thirdly to the development of new or improved
services (cf. Exhibit 35, Appendix B)
The largest positive impacts on international market shares were associated
firstly to the development of processes, secondly to the commercialisation of
50
new or improved products or services, and thirdly to the development of new
or improved products (cf. Exhibit 36, Appendix B)
The largest positive impacts on profit were associated firstly to the
development of new processes, secondly to the development of new or
improved products, and thirdly to the commercialisation of new or improved
products or services (cf. Exhibit 37, Appendix B)
The largest positive impacts on the share of export on turnover were
associated to the development of new processes, secondly to the development
of new or improved products, and thirdly to the commercialisation of new or
improved products or services (cf. Exhibit 38, Appendix B)
Overall, socio-economic impacts are higher when the CRAFT/COOP project leads to
the development of new processes. This key constant feature of the combination holds
irrespective of the nature of the socio-economic impact considered. Improved
processes can be analysed as long-lasting organisational changes that enhance the
SME ability to gain market shares and turnover. It seems as though CRAFT/COOP,
and COLL project to a lesser extent, were perceived as more efficient when they
primarily generate improved or new processes.
The same mechanisms are observed whilst analysing differences across FPs (Cf.
Exhibit 39, Appendix B): larger impacts involve the development of new processes as
an achievement of the CRAFT or COOP projects.
Furthermore, in general, COOP projects seem to rely more heavily on the listed
scientific and technical effects than CRAFT. The notable exception to this is that
CRAFT projects rely more heavily than COOP on the commercialisation of new or
improved products or services in order to benefit from higher increases of turnover
and national market shares.
Exhibit 53 Socio-economic impacts, by type of scientific and technical effects,
by FPs :CRAFT vs COOP
Increase Increase
of of S hare
Increase National Increase of of export
of market International Increase on Total of
Turnover share market share of Profit turnover respondents
Develop a new FP5 22% 23% 19% 17% 16% 77 100%
or improve d
product FP6 28% 20% 32% 22% 20% 74 100%
Develop a new FP5 28% 34% 28% 22% 22% 32 100%
process FP6 37% 32% 46% 29% 24% 41 100%
Develop a new FP5 17% 20% 17% 14% 10% 59 100%
or improve d
service FP6 26% 20% 26% 18% 15% 61 100%
Determine the FP5 14% 17% 16% 12% 9% 77 100%
feasibility of a
product,
process or FP6 24% 16% 24% 18% 10% 67 100%
service
Commercialise FP5 25% 33% 22% 14% 8% 36 100%
a new or
improve d
product or FP6 24% 19% 26% 17% 12% 42 100%
service
51
Structuring effects of the participation in CRAFT/COOP scheme on companies
Structuring effects are examined mainly by considering the way absorptive capacity
of firms involved evolved as a result of their participation in the schemes. These
impacts encompass changes likely to be more sustainable than purely material
impacts since they relate to micro socio-economic evolutions. They pertain to
behavioural changes.
As far as CRAFT/COOP scheme is considered (Exhibit 54), robust evidence29 shows
a large variety of reliably identified structuring impacts. The 5 first structuring effects
are:
1 Improved technical skills
2 Improved scientific skills
3 Increased frequency of collaboration with foreign RTD performers
4 Increased frequency of collaboration with foreign SMEs
5 Increased participation in subsequent EU projects
This ranking is very much in accordance with the most important expected kind of
structuring effects of the scheme. Case studies confirm the structuring effect of
CRAFT/COOP projects, especially on low-innovative SMEs: they gained experience
and knowledge, increased their network of other SMEs and RTD-Ps, learnt to
cooperate with research institutes and also to work internationally in an EU
programme. Technology-intensive companies benefit from CRAFT projects by
increasing their knowledge base/technological ground; participating in an EU
research project is also a way for such an SME to develop the share of its profits
coming from the commercialisation of its research activities.
Exhibit 54 Structuring effects (on companies) of the participation in
CRAFT/COOP projects, irrespective of the FP
Structuring effects %
Your company's own technical skills 12%
Your company's own scientific skills 11%
Frequency of collaboration with foreign RTD performers 10%
Frequency of collaboration with foreign SMEs 9%
Participation in subsequent EU projects 7%
Ability to develop innovative products or services 7%
Frequency of collaboration with national RTD performers 7%
Your ability to identify new research partners after the project 7%
Your company's own commercial skills 6%
Your company's technical infrastructure 5%
Quality of the contacts with clients 5%
Frequency of collaboration with national SMEs 4%
Your company's own legal skills 3%
Frequency of collaboration with Industrial Associations/Groupings 3%
Frequency of buying in knowledge from outside the company 3%
Other 1%
TOTAL 100%
Note: Several answers possible. Proportions (in %) calculated on the number of total number of responses of the
category, here equals to 1082.
29
Based on a population of 424 respondents.
52
The comparison of the structuring impacts between CRAFT and COOP projects are
now studied through the seven main observed structuring effects (Exhibit 55). There
is no striking evidence of differences between CRAFT (FP5) and COOP (FP6)
projects‟ main impacts. Quite logically, the two major CRAFT‟s structuring effects
are stronger than COOP‟s. Indeed, these effects take time since they relate to the
companies‟ core behaviours: i.e. the companies‟ own technical and scientific skills.
On the other hand, the frequency of collaboration with other national RTD performers
has dropped from CRAFT (FP5) to COOP (FP6). At the same time, the frequency of
collaboration with foreign SMEs and foreign RTD performers has slightly improved
from CRAFT (FP5) to COOP (FP6).
Exhibit 55 Structuring effects (on companies) of the participation in CRAFT
(FP5) vs COOP (FP6) projects
Ability to develop innovative products or services
Participation in subsequent EU projects
Frequency of collaboration with foreign SMEs
Frequency of collaboration with other national RTD
FP6
performers
FP5
Frequency of collaboration with foreign RTD performers
Your organisation's own scientific skills
Your organisation's own technical skills
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%
Note: Several answers possible. Comparison based on the selection of the seven most often declared structuring
effects only. Proportions (in %) calculated on the number of total number of responses of the category, here equals
to 326 for FP5 and 565 for FP6.
3.2.2.4 Main structuring effects of the participation in CRAFT/COOP: on RTD-Ps
As far as the structuring effects of the participation of RTD-Ps in EU projects are
considered (Exhibit 56), the 5 first effects are the following:
1 Increase of the frequency of collaboration with foreign RTD performers
2 Improvement of the RTD-P‟s own scientific skills
3 Improvement of the RTD-P‟s own technical skills
4 Increase of the frequency of collaboration with foreign SMEs
5 Increased participation in subsequent EU projects
This ranking is specific to RTD-Ps and corresponds very much to what could be
expected as a result of their participation in the EU project: improvement of their
ability to collaborate with foreign counterparts and stepping up of their scientific and
technical skills.
53
Exhibit 56 Main structuring effects of the participation in CRAFT/COOP
projects on RTD-Ps, by type of impact
Structuring effects %
Frequency of collaboration with foreign RTD performers 9%
Your organisation's own scientific skills 9%
Your organisation's own technical skills 9%
Frequency of collaboration with foreign SMEs 8%
Participation in subsequent EU projects 8%
Frequency of collaboration with other national RTD performers 7%
Your ability to identify new research partners after the project 7%
Frequency of collaboration with national SMEs 7%
Ability to develop innovative products or services 7%
Your organisation's technical infrastructure 6%
Your organisation's own learning ability 6%
Your organisation's own legal skills 5%
Quality of the contacts with clients 4%
Your organisation's own commercial skills 4%
Frequency of collaboration with Industrial Associations/Groupings 3%
Other 0%
TOTAL 100%
Note: Several answers possible. Proportions (in %) calculated on the number of total number of responses of the
category, here equals to 1156.
3.2.3 COLL scheme
COLL projects are designed to benefit to SMEs in an indirect way. Nonetheless,
although more difficult than CRAFT/ COOP scheme to approach and measure, the
impacts should logically be larger. Indeed, the key stakeholders are the industrial
associations and groupings: they represent large communities of SMEs through which
the outcomes of the RTD performers‟ scientific and technological research activities
are disseminated.
3.2.3.1 A tentative appraisal of COLL’s ‘multiplication effect’
There are three main categories of participants in this scheme. These are, in addition
to the IAGs, (Core-Group) SMEs and RTD-Performers.
The impacts of COLL are more difficult to assess because they depend upon
theoretical „multiplication‟ effects: one IAG involved in a COLL project represents a
specific number of SME members (to which should be added its, even possibly larger,
sphere of influence). This study specifically addresses the issue in considering three
complementary indicators of the IAG possible influence: IAGs‟ members, the
proportion of SMEs within IAGs‟ members and the main orientation of the IAG. This
dimension will be our starting point, since this multiplication effect is crucial to
understand the COLL projects‟ possible impacts.
27 IAGs responded to the questionnaire, 75% of which represent more than 50
members, and almost one-fifth between 500 and 5000 members. In addition to that,
about three-quarters of their members are SMEs.
54
Exhibit 57 IAGs’ members Exhibit 58 SMEs in IAGs’ (%)
No answer
7% Less than 50%
Less than 50 No Answer 9%
More than 5000 19% 19%
4%
500 - 5000
19%
50 - 150
29%
150 - 500 More than 50%
22% 72%
NB: Total number of respondents: COLL 27
It should be added that a majority of these IAGs are oriented towards the promotion
of industrial interests (Exhibit 59) and that their members‟ fees are their main source
of funding (Exhibit 60). They are therefore accountable to their members for keeping
them informed of the developments implied by their participation in the EU project.
Exhibit 59 IAGs’ orientations
63% 30% 7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
...the promotion of industrial interests ...the promotion of other types of interests
...the promotion of regional interests
Note: Total number of respondents : COLL 27
Exhibit 60 IAGs’ origin of funding
Origin of funding Nb %
Members annual fee 26 41%
Grants 12 19%
Contracts 13 21%
Subventions (from public institutions) 5 8%
Other 7 11%
TOTAL 63 100%
Thus, the logical expectation according to which the impacts of COLL should be high
is confirmed by the analysis of the respondents‟ answers.
55
3.2.3.2 The participants’ profiles
About one third of companies were created in the 1990‟s (32%), and on the whole
40% were created either in the 1990‟s or in the beginning of the next decade. In
contrast, another third (37%) were created before 1980.
Exhibit 61 Companies’ year of creation
Before 1950
No
7% 1950's
answer
2000's 7%
9% 1960's
9%
1970's
14%
1990's
32%
1980's
13%
Total: 46
Exhibit 62 RTD-P Year of creation
No
answer Before 1950
32%
2000's
2%
1990's
17%
1950's
1980's 9%
7% 1970's
7% 1960's
9%
Total: 54
The young age of the participant companies contrasts with that of the RTD-P (mostly,
public organisations, cf. below): half of RTD performers are old established since
56
they were created before 1970. At the other side of the scale, about one fifth of them
were created in the last 15 years (19%).
Exhibit 63 IAG Year of creation
No
answer Before 1950
30%
1990's
30%
1950's
4%
1960's
1980's 1970's
7%
11% 7%
Total: 27
The distribution of the IAG by year of creation displays three groups with the same
size: one third of the IAG (30%) were created recently (i.e. after 1990), one third
(29%) between 1950 and 1989 and one third before 1950.
Exhibit 64 Location of the COLL participants (respondents)
Company IAG RTD-P
Western countries 58% 38% 61%
Middle/eastern Europe 8% 21% 19%
Benelux 12% 13% 7%
Alpine region 6% 8% 6%
Scandinavia / Baltic region 4% 10% 4%
Mediterranean region 6% 6% 2%
Other (please specify) 6% 4% 2%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100%
Total number of citations 50 48 54
As far as companies and RTD performers are concerned, Western countries are over-
represented in comparison with IAG (respectively 58% and 61% for the formers and
38% for the later). The geographical location of IAGs displays a remarkable structure
in the sense that Middle/eastern countries and Scandinavia /Baltic region provide one
third of the IAG involved in COLL projects. In contrast, only 12% of companies
come from these countries.
57
Exhibit 65 Sector of activity of companies: Manufacturing
Manufacturing sector of companies (main activity) Nb. %
Manufacturing (other) 10 22%
Rubber and plastic products 8 17%
Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing 1 2%
Machinery and equipment n.e.c. 4 9%
Basic metals and fabricated metal products 3 7%
Construction 2 4%
Electrical and optical equipment 3 7%
Food products beverages and tobacco 2 4%
Textiles and textile products 1 2%
Wood and wood products 1 2%
Chemicals, chemical products and man-made fibres 1 2%
Electricity, gas and water supply 1 2%
Leather and leather products 0 0%
Pulp, paper and paper products 1 2%
Transport equipment 0 0%
No answer 8 17%
Total 46 100%
Manufacturing (other) is the sector the most represented with one fifth of the
companies (22%). Three sectors cover almost half of the sample (48%), namely
Manufacturing (other), Rubber and plastic products and Machinery and equipment
n.e.c.
Exhibit 66 Sector of activity of companies: Services
Service sector of companies (main activity) Nb. %
Wholesale and retail trade 5 11%
Education 1 2%
Other community, social and personal service activities 2 4%
Financial intermediation 0 0%
Health and social work 1 2%
Hotels and restaurants 1 2%
Real estate, renting and business activities 1 2%
No answer 35 76%
Total 46 100%
Concerning the sector of activity of companies in services, only little information was
provided, since the respondents rarely provided this information: three quarters of
them did not answer (76%).
Exhibit 67 Turnover (company) and budget (IAG and RTD-P)
Company IAG RTD-P
Less than or equal to EUR 7 million 34 74% 22 81% 19 35%
58
EUR 7 million to EUR 40 million 9 20% 2 7% 22 41%
More than EUR 40 million 3 7% 3 11% 13 24%
TOTAL 46 100% 27 100% 54 100%
A vast majority of companies and IAGs have a turnover, respectively budget, inferior
to 7 million euro (respectively 74% and 81%). The RTD performers display a
radically different structure insofar as one fourth (24%) had a budget superior to 40
million euro and one third (35%) inferior to 7 million euro.
Exhibit 68 RTD-P staff
More than
1 - 10 10 - 49 50 - 99 100 No answer TOTAL
Permanent staff 9% 17% 7% 67% 0% 100%
Temporary
6% 20% 9% 41% 24% 100%
staff
Total: 54
Two thirds of the RTD performers have more than 100 permanent staff. One every
ten are small research unit with less than 10 permanent staff. 41% of them have more
than 100 temporary employees.
Exhibit 69 Legal status of IAGs and RTD-Ps
Status IAG RTD-P
Private Non Profit Organisation 22 81% 15 28%
Governmental 0 0% 28 52%
Private Commercial Organisation including Consultant 1 4% 8 15%
Public Commercial Organisation 2 7% 1 2%
International organisation 2 7% 0 0%
Joint Research Centre 0 0% 1 2%
No answer 0 0% 1 2%
TOTAL 27 100% 54 100%
The IAGs are Private Non Profit Organisations for a large majority (81%). On the
side of RTD performers, half of them (52%) are governmental institutes.
Exhibit 70 RTD-P Origin of funding
Type of funding Nb %
Block grants (from the Government) 33 22%
Directed, project-specific grants from the Government 34 23%
Contracts with public sector 30 20%
Contracts with private sector 44 29%
Your organisation's own funding 6 4%
Other 3 2%
TOTAL 150 100%
59
Half of RTD-P funding (49%) comes from contracts either from the public sector
(20%) or from the private sector (29%). 45% was provided by the Government either
through block grants (22%) or through directed project-specific grants.
3.2.3.3 Analysis of COLL projects
The importance of RTD-Performers as key actors in COLL is striking. In many cases
they propose the research idea, compose the consortium and initiate the submission
process to the Commission (Exhibit 71). This fact is more notable in the case of
COLL then it was for COOP as seen earlier, since RTD-Ps are designated as initiators
by around 60% of the respondents in all three phases. In sum, COLL projects
appear to rely more heavily on RTD-Performers rather than on IAGs.
The case studies allow to temper this view since the idea behind COLL project rather
comes from professional associations or IAGs: they can identify the needs of a whole
industrial sector. They nevertheless often rely on the experience of an RTD-P to
further develop the idea of the project.
Exhibit 71 Origin of the project
The idea to submit the
project to the European 8% 62% 1% 11% 2% 16%
Commission came from
The proposal for the
consortium members 9% 57% 1% 15% 2% 16%
originated from
The idea for the research 9% 65% 14% 10%
stemmed from
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Company Research organisation Intermediary Industry association and its members Other No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: COLL 133 (based on their roles in the project).
COLL projects are mainly based on stakeholders intervening at the same level of the
value chain (they are somewhat more horizontal than vertical). This is explained by
the fact that IAGs gather together stakeholders with the same kind of interests.
60
Exhibit 72 Type of project consortium: COLL
COLL 36% 39% 16% 9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Vertical Horizontal Do not know No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: COLL 133
The research developed under COLL projects is markedly more connected to the
SME participants‟ core-business – „very much‟ for almost 50% of the respondents-
than to the other innovation projects of the company –„very much‟ for a third of them
only. This divergence is worthy of note since it implies that the COLL project plays
an essential role, which is in accordance with the planned function of this type of
scheme. Another interpretation is that the so-called “Core Group” SMEs are well
selected.
Exhibit 73 Strength of link to companies’ core innovation and business
activities
linked to other
innovation projects of the 29% 38% 18% 16%
company?
within the core business 49% 33% 7% 11%
of your company?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
very much slightly related no No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: COLL 45
3.2.3.4 Impacts of COLL
Net effect of COLL
First of all, one has to consider the net effect of COLL (or level of additionality)
(Exhibit 74). A majority of participants would have abandoned their research project
if it were not funded under the COLL scheme (60% of the respondents). This is
confirmed by the low proportion of participants who declared that they would have
implemented the project with other sources of funding (17%). Compared with
CRAFT/COOP, the COLL scheme‟s additionality turns out to be higher.
61
So, the net effect of the SME-specific scheme COLL is quite high.
Exhibit 74 Additionality: Without the contribution of the European
Commission, would COLL participants have…,
Abandoned the project? 59% 25% 17%
Implemented the project
with other source(s) of 17% 56% 28%
funding?
Postponed the project? 42% 24% 34%
Limited the scope of the
50% 17% 33%
project?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes No No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: COLL 133
Material effects of COLL scheme
Material effects will be examined considering first their scientific and technical
components, and second their socio-economic components.
As regards the technical components, COLL projects result mainly in „feasibility
studies‟ (29% of the respondents declared it attained), then in the development of a
new or improved product (23%) and the development of a new or improved service
and the development of a new process (20% each).
62
Exhibit 75 Main scientific and technical effects of COLL, by type of objective
Commercialise a new or
improved product or 16% 7% 58% 2% 17%
service
Determine the feasability
of a product, process or 29% 5% 42% 6% 19%
service
Develop a new process 20% 13% 46% 4% 17%
Develop a new or
20% 9% 47% 6% 19%
improved service
Develop a new or
23% 4% 54% 2% 17%
improved product
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes No Too early to assess the actual results Do not know No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: COLL 133.
According to the results of the survey (cf. Exhibit 76), the higher socio-economic
impacts of the participation in COLL projects on companies are increases in:
1 Turnover
2 The research staff
3 The total number of employees
4 Profit
5 The share of export on total turnover
6 The national market share
63
Exhibit 76 Socio-economic impacts (on companies) of the participation in
COLL projects, by type of impact
Number of
copyrights Number of
or brands licenses
4% 4%
Other Turnover
4% 17%
International
market share
7%
National market
share Number of
11% research staff
14%
Share of export
on total turnover
11%
Total number of
employees
14%
Profit
14%
Note: Several answers possible. Proportions (in %) calculated on the number of total number of responses of the
category, here equals to 28.
Structuring effects of the participation in COLL scheme on companies
Structuring effects will be examined considering mainly the way absorptive capacity
of firms involved evolved as a result of their participation in the schemes. These
impacts encompass changes likely to be more sustainable than purely material
impacts since they relate to micro socio-economic evolutions. They pertain to
behavioural changes.
As far as COLL scheme is considered (Exhibit 77), the five first structuring effects
are the following:
1 Improvement of the company's own technical skills
2 Improvement of the company's own scientific skills
3 Increase in the frequency of collaboration with national RTD performers
4 Increase in the frequency of collaboration with foreign RTD performers
5 Improvement of the company‟s ability to identify new research partners after the
project and improvement of the quality of the contacts with clients
Again, these achievements demonstrate a good relevance as regards the objectives of
COLL.
64
Exhibit 77 Structuring effects (on companies) of the participation in COLL
projects30
Structuring effects %
Your company's own technical skills 13%
Your company's own scientific skills 11%
Frequency of collaboration with national RTD performers 9%
Frequency of collaboration with foreign RTD performers 9%
Your ability to identify new research partners after the project 9%
Quality of the contacts with clients 9%
Your company's technical infrastructure 7%
Frequency of collaboration with national SMEs 7%
Frequency of collaboration with foreign SMEs 7%
Ability to develop innovative products or services 5%
Frequency of collaboration with Industrial Associations/Groupings 4%
Participation in subsequent EU projects 4%
Your company's own commercial skills 2%
Your company's own legal skills 2%
Frequency of buying in knowledge from outside the company 2%
TOTAL 100%
Note: Several answers possible. Proportions (in %) calculated on the number of total number of responses of the
category, here equals to 55.
Main structuring effects of the participation in COLL projects on RTD-Ps
As far as the structuring effects of the participation of RTD-Ps in EU projects are
considered (Exhibit 78), the first 5 effects are the following:
1 Increase in the frequency of collaboration with foreign RTD performers
2 Increase in the frequency of collaboration with foreign SMEs
3 Improvement of the RTD-P‟s own technical skills
4 Improvement of the RTD-P‟s own scientific skills
5 Increase in the frequency of collaboration with Industrial Associations/Groupings,
with national SMEs and Participation in subsequent EU projects
This ranking is specific to RTD-Ps and corresponds very much to what could be
expected as a result of their participation in the EU project: improvement of their
ability to collaborate with foreign counterparts and notably with foreign SMEs, and
stepping up of their technical and scientific skills. This is a major achievement of the
SME-specific schemes, in general.
While comparing CRAFT/COOP to COLL projects, differences become visible. In
particular, RTD-Ps benefit more from their participating in COLL than in
CRAFT/COOP projects for almost all the structuring impacts. This is in accordance
with the schemes‟ content and architecture where RTD-Ps play a key role in COLL.
Exhibit 78 Main structuring effects of the participation in COLL projects on
RTD-Ps, by type of impact
Structuring effects %
Frequency of collaboration with foreign RTD performers 11%
Frequency of collaboration with foreign SMEs 9%
30
Not enough IAGs answered this question in order to calculate impacts on member companies.
65
Your organisation's own technical skills 9%
Your organisation's own scientific skills 9%
Frequency of collaboration with Industrial Associations/Groupings 8%
Frequency of collaboration with national SMEs 8%
Participation in subsequent EU projects 8%
Frequency of collaboration with other national RTD performers 7%
Your ability to identify new research partners after the project 7%
Your organisation's own learning ability 6%
Ability to develop innovative products or services 5%
Your organisation's technical infrastructure 5%
Your organisation's own legal skills 3%
Quality of the contacts with clients 3%
TOTAL 100%
Note: Several answers possible. Proportions (in %) calculated on the number of total number of responses of the
category, here equals to 214.
3.2.4 Quantitative findings on CRAFT/COOP and COLL impacts
Companies31 were asked to quantify the impact of schemes on variation of turnover,
number of employees, number of patents and amount of royalties generated by
licences.
The turnover of more than half of the respondents increased up to 19% as a result of
their participation in the EU project (Exhibit 79).
Exhibit 79 Socio-economic impacts: quantitative assessment of the variation
of the turnover of companies as a consequence of their participation in the EU
project (CRAFT/COOP)
Variation Nb. of respondents %
0% 17 17%
1% - 9% 28 28%
10% - 19% 24 24%
20% - 49 % 17 17%
50% - 100 % 4 4%
More than 100% 3 3%
Too early to say 4 4%
N/A 3 3%
TOTAL 100 100%
The impact on the number of employees is also quite striking since half of the
respondents population declared an increase from 1 to 5 persons (Exhibit 80).
31
Intermediaries (for ETI) and IAGs (for COLL) had to do the same exercise for, respectively,
targeted companies and member companies, but their responses are not exploitable: 6
respondents only expressed their views in both cases.
66
Exhibit 80 Socio-economic impacts: quantitative assessment of the variation
of the number of employees as a consequence of their participation in the EU
project (CRAFT/COOP)
Number of employees Nb. of responses %
0 21 21%
1 21 21%
2 18 18%
3 7 7%
4 1 1%
5 5 5%
6 2 2%
7 2 2%
8 1 1%
10 3 3%
11 – 100 6 6%
More than 100 (up to 7 500) 8 8%
Too early to say 2 2%
N/A 3 3%
TOTAL 100 100%
About one third of the respondents declared that the EU project led to 1 to 2 patents
(note that there was no consequence in terms of patents for about half of the
respondents, cf. Exhibit 81). Given both the size of the companies considered here
and their limited research capabilities, this is also quite an impressive record.
Exhibit 81 Socio-economic impacts: quantitative assessment of the variation
of the number of patents of companies as a consequence of their participation in
the EU project
Number of patents Nb. of respondents %
0 42 48%
1 19 22%
2 9 10%
3 4 5%
4 3 3%
5 2 2%
10 2 2%
Too early to say 2 2%
N/A 4 5%
TOTAL 87 100%
3.2.5 ETI actions
This section provides a characterisation of the impacts of ETI and will describe, on
the basis of a dedicated telephone survey that was carried out, the satisfaction of SME
beneficiaries of ETI projects.
67
In total 213 respondents filled the survey questionnaire for ETI actions. 143 of these
explicitly recognised their role as “intermediary” in the project.32 Moreover, three out
of the twelve case studies concerned ETIs (one for FP6 and two for FP5).33 Finally,
the NCPs – very active in ETIs as will be shown below – were a major source of
information for the present section.
3.2.5.1 Analysis of the profile of the participants (Intermediaries)
Exhibit 82 shows that in more than half of the cases, the legal status of the
intermediaries responding to the questionnaire was a “private non profit”
organisation, while 23% were governmental bodies and 17% were private commercial
organisations, including consultants.
Exhibit 82 Intermediaries legal status
No
Public answer
Commercial Governmental
Organisation (local, regional
5% or national)
23%
Private
Private Commercial
Non Organisation
Profit (including
Consultant)
17%
Number of respondents for this question: 126
If one considers the type of “intermediary” organisation that responded to the
questionnaire, the picture is much more varied. About 30% of the ETI intermediaries
responding to the questionnaire were NCPs. The second major group consists of
professional associations whilst business/innovation centres and, the related, cluster
and science park/technological centre both score 9%.
32
This means that a limited set of analyses are conducted on this sub-sample only.
33
I.e. EUROPABIO SME PROJECT, BALTDYN and SMEsGoLifeSciences
68
Exhibit 83 Type of Intermediary organisation
No answer
2%
Other
12%
SME National Contact
Point (NCP) Governmental
29% agency/organisation
5%
Business Innovation
Center
Network or 9%
association of research Cluster/Science
performers park/Technological
2% centre
Non profit 9%
Professional
association association/org
16% .
Chamber of commerce Regional
4% Universi
ty organisation
Number of respondents for this question: 126
So far, little was known about intermediaries that participated to ETIs. The list given
by CORDIS34 is constructed in such a way that 50% of the intermediaries participants
are in the “etc.” category. It can therefore be noted that the survey already gives a
more nuanced picture than thus far has been available and shows more precisely what
type of organisations actually participate as “intermediaries” to ETIs.
Exhibit 84 Intermediaries’ permanent staff
No 1
answer 2% 2
2% 3
7%
4
6%
5
9%
More than 10
53%
6 - 10
19%
Number of respondents for this question: 126
Well over half of the responding intermediaries have more than 10 permanent staff,
whereas one quarter has between 5 and 10. Over one quarter turn out to be small
organisations and have a lower number of staff (Exhibit 84).
34
Cf. http://sme.cordis.lu/economic/eti_projects.cfm
69
3.2.5.2 Analysis of ETI projects
ETI actions are generally not considered very risky by around half of the respondents,
independent of whether financial, economic or technological risk is concerned
(Exhibit 85). Finally, horizontal (same position in the value chain) and vertical
(different positions in value chain) partnerships are both equally represented (Exhibit
86). This notwithstanding, around one-third of the respondents judge ETI projects still
quite risky from an economic, financial and technical point of view. Consequently,
ETIs can in many cases be considered as genuine research projects the outcome of
which is not necessarily clear at the start.
Case studies moreover show that, maybe related to the previous issue, the results of
ETI actions cannot necessarily be predicted and are often beyond what was initially
planned (in terms of, for instance, events organised).
Exhibit 85 Level of risks associated with the ETI projects, by type of risk
from an economic
6% 32% 48% 14%
(market) point of view
from a financial
(investment) point of 10% 23% 54% 14%
view
from a technical point of
8% 25% 54% 13%
view
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
very much quite so not so much no answer
Note: Total number of respondents: 213
Exhibit 86 Type of project consortium in ETIs
ETI 36% 36% 13% 15%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Vertical Horizontal Do not know No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: 213
In summary, ETI “intermediary organisations” are quite diverse though
predominantly NCPs, professional associations and business/innovation, cluster and
science park/technological centres. The origin of ETI projects mainly is with the
70
intermediary organisations, ETI projects are generally not viewed as very risky whilst
the two different partnership types (horizontal and vertical) are equally represented.
3.2.5.3 Impacts of ETIs
Net effect of ETI actions
According to the survey results, the net effect (or level of additionality) of the ETI
scheme turns out to be high as around 60% of respondents state that they would have
abandoned the project without the contribution of the European Commission. The
case studies show that there are hardly any other mechanisms or instruments (on
national level for instance), which do respond to the need that ETIs fulfil.
Exhibit 87 Additionality of the ETI scheme: Without the contribution of the
European Commission, would ETI participants have…
Abandoned the project? 59% 16% 25%
Implemented the project
with other source(s) of 11% 53% 36%
funding?
Postponed the project? 34% 23% 44%
Limited the scope of the
35% 23% 42%
project?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes No No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: 213
Especially RTD organisations (type of organisation) seem to be particularly
influenced by ETIs since nearly half of them state that the ETI has led to a change in
the organisation‟s situation as a consequence of the participation in an ETI project
(graph not shown). This is less the case for intermediaries (34%) and far less for
companies or IAGs.
Material effects of ETI actions
Although ETI actions mainly aim at creating structuring effects, they primarily rely
on and generate material effects. These are the following.
Through their participation in ETI projects, intermediaries declared that they achieved
mainly “the promotion of innovation in SMEs” and “helping SMEs to take part in the
Framework Programme‟ which both score well over 50%. Nonetheless, both
“dissemination of best practices” and “gathering, analysing and disseminating
information on technological developments, applications and markets relevant for
71
SMEs are objectives that are said to be achieved by over 40% of respondents from the
intermediary group (Exhibit 88).
Exhibit 88 Material effects of ETI, by type
Identify and disseminate best practices 43% 6% 24% 6% 22%
relevant to SMEs
Gather, analyse and disseminate information
on technological developments, application 42% 5% 20% 6% 27%
and markets relevant to SMEs
Promote innovation in SMEs 53% 3% 21% 3% 20%
Help SMEs to take part in FP research projects 52% 3% 25% 3% 16%
(IP and NoE)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes No Too early to assess the actual results Do not know No answer
Note: Total number of respondents: 129.
These relatively high levels of achievement have to be taken with caution as they are
based on intermediaries‟ [role] responses. The same holds for the analyses of the main
types of material impacts and of the structuring impacts (see below).35
Among the main direct impacts of ETI –interpreted here as material effects–is a
strong structuring effect: 43% of the intermediaries declared that their SME clients
have benefited from an increased participation in EU projects (Exhibit 88).
One of the case studies, EUROPABIO, provides a specific example of this. The
amount of biotech SMEs projects funded under the FP (e.g. IPs) as a result of their
participation in the ETI-related activities was well above expectations (97 achieved
instead of 75 planned). So, from a quantitative perspective this ETI was rather
successful in fulfilling its mission. Apart from information, the project provides
assistance to Biotech SMEs in writing proposals.
This can considered to be the most important structuring effect: it implies that a
number of SMEs will be participating in FP‟s scheme as a result of the ETI in the
years following the intermediaries‟ actions. Again, this result is hardly surprising
35 No comparison between FP5 and FP6 could be propose as only three persons responded for FP5 projects
72
since it was the main objective of ETIs and that intermediaries were self-assessing
their performance.
The five main material socio-economic impacts of ETIs on SMEs are the following
(cf. Exhibit 89)36:
1 Increase in the targeted company national market share
2 Increase in the targeted company international market share
3 Increase in the targeted company turnover
4 Increase in the targeted company total number of employees
5 Increase in the targeted company profit
Exhibit 89 Socio-economic impacts of ETI on targeted companies, by type of
objective: The intermediaries’ point of view
Number Number
of licenses of patents
2% 2%
Number
of research staf f
4%
National market
Number of share
copyrights or 18%
brands
4%
Other
7%
Share of export
on total turnover International
9% market share
15%
Profit
11%
Turnover
15%
Total number of
employees
13%
Note: Several answers possible. Proportions (in %) calculated on the number of total number of responses of the
category, here equals to 46.
36 A comparison between FP5 and FP6 on direct impacts can not be done as no one responded for FP5 projects.
73
Structuring effects of ETI actions: on companies
The structuring effects are the main category of impacts expected from the
implementation of ETIs (cf. 1.2.3). Based on the intermediaries‟ responses to the
survey (Exhibit 90), the five main structuring effects on companies are:
1 An increase in the frequency of collaboration with foreign SMEs
2 An increase in the frequency of collaboration with foreign RTD performers
3 An increase in the frequency of collaboration with national SMEs
4 An improvement of the targeted companies‟ own technical skills
5 An increase in the frequency of collaboration with national RTD performers
It is worth noticing that, on the whole, the key structuring effects relate to
collaboration with both SMEs and RTD-Ps, firstly at the transnational level and
secondly at the national level.
Exhibit 90 Structuring effects of ETI actions on companies, by type of
objective: The intermediaries’ point of view
Structuring effects %
Frequency of collaboration with foreign SMEs 13%
Frequency of collaboration with foreign RTD performers 11%
Frequency of collaboration with national SMEs 10%
The targeted companies‟ own technical skills 8%
Frequency of collaboration with national RTD performers 8%
The targeted companies‟ own commercial skills 7%
Frequency of collaboration with Industrial Associations/Groupings 7%
The targeted companies‟ ability to identify new research partners after the project 7%
The targeted companies‟ participation in subsequent EU projects 7%
The targeted companies‟ own scientific skills 6%
The targeted companies‟ own legal skills 4%
The targeted companies‟ ability to develop innovative products or services 4%
Quality of the contacts with clients 4%
The targeted companies‟ technical infrastructure 3%
Frequency of buying in knowledge from outside the company 1%
TOTAL 100%
Note: Several answers possible. Proportions (in %) calculated on the number of total number of responses of the
category, here equals to 72.
The results of the SME beneficiaries‟ satisfaction survey will complement the
analysis of the structuring effects of ETI by taking into account the SMEs‟ point of
views.
3.2.5.4 SME beneficiaries satisfaction survey
151 SMEs were directly contacted by phone (cf. Exhibit 91). The response rate varied
and depended greatly upon the quality of the lists of SME beneficiaries provided by
the intermediaries (as explained above, most intermediaries did not provide any list).
Up-to-date and well-maintained lists led to acceptable response rates, leading us to
think that in the future more attention should be paid to this issue within the
monitoring procedures of the Commission in order to be able to better survey this
(indirect) target population in future evaluations. Responses from 39 SMEs were
obtained.
74
Exhibit 91 Distribution of the SMEs approached for this survey
FP5 FP6 Total
Contacts available 76 75 151
Contacts obtained 17 22 39
SMEs in the satisfaction survey 6 19 25
SMEs that have not benefited from ETI services 12 2 14
Level of knowledge
As regards the SMEs‟ level of knowledge about the ETI project they were supposed
to have benefited from, 14 SMEs declared they had not received any services from
them. And this holds despite the fact that intermediaries provided the lists of their
clients SMEs. This is very likely to be due to the delay between this evaluation and
the period the services were provided (2001 in FP5) to SMEs. There is a correlation
between SMEs declaring they have not received ETI services and SMEs not involved
in EU projects. Particularly under FP5, 6 SMEs that either were not involved in any
European funded project or did not submit any proposal did not remember ETI
services. Concerning FP6 ETI, 2 SMEs declared they have not beneficiated from ETI
services and were not part of EU project. During the Policy Workshop 37, participants
agreed that ETI intermediaries had „branding‟ problems and, for that reason, precise
explanations of the exact origin of the funding (i.e. the EC) were not systematically
given to the future clients. In the end, parts of the beneficiaries did not know the
precise origin of the funding.
Services received and satisfaction
25 SMEs declared they had benefited from ETI services and were able to answer the
satisfaction survey. Three services were mainly emphasised by the respondents:
obtaining up-to-date information about funding opportunities,
partner search services
assistance and guidance in preparing a joint research proposal for submission
under a research programme
Those services were judged very positively by SMEs since SMEs do not have
capacities to stay aware of funding opportunities, find the right partner and set up
proposals on their own.
Exhibit 92 ETIs: Services provided and satisfaction level
SMEs Satisfaction
Services provided concerned level
Technological Trends analysis
3 12% Moderate
Technology transfer activities and services
3 12% Moderate
Technological audits
3 12% Good
Workshops / brokerage events to bring together SMEs,
5 20% High
suppliers, users, large firms to form joint proposals
37
Whose aim was to discuss the findings of the impact assessment, cf. above.
75
Information and assistance on management, coordination
and exploitation issues for ongoing projects 5 20% High
Partner search services
10 40% High
Assistance and guidance in preparing a joint research
proposal for submission under a research programme 10 40% High
Information and awareness on the research funding
opportunities provided by the EU Framework Programme 17 68% High
The impact on SMEs and participation in European funded research projects
14 SMEs judged very positively the impact of ETI services as regards awareness of
EU research programmes. Nevertheless, the impact on their participation in EU
research project was limited given that most of answers were from SMEs of the FP6
ETI scheme. The projects SMEs have been participated in or applied to were CRAFT,
STREP, IP, Eureka or Life.
Exhibit 93 EU research projects and SME beneficiaries
Framework Programme
FP5 FP6 Total
EU project involvement level
Not involved in EU project 1 11 12
EU project applicant 0 3 3
EU project participant 5 3 8
Participating in an ETI: an opportunistic choice
Most of the time, there were no specific reasons why SMEs participated in the ETI
support action. The main reason why they chose specifically ETI is the up-to-date
information about EU funded projects. Nevertheless, it seems that SMEs tend to
maximize the opportunity to obtain information about funding, regardless of its origin
(regional, national or European level).
Exhibit 94 Participating in an ETI: an opportunistic choice
Framework Programme
Existence of specific reasons FP5 FP6 Total
„Specific reasons‟ to choose ETI projects 0 4 4
„No specific reasons‟ to choose ETI projects 3 11 14
3.3 Policy assessment
This section approaches a number of cross-cutting themes based on the issues under
consideration for the 7th Framework Programme. In fact, the Commission proposed 5
points38 to be debated by the assembly during the Policy Workshop. Most of the
comments collected are integrated into the report where relevant while the following
four themes will be partially tackled here.
38
The additional theme proposed was “socio-economic impacts”, which benefits from an in-depth
study in the rest of the report.
76
1 Outsourcing level for RTD activities
2 IPR regime and management
3 Consortium management and flexibility
4 Support measure in the themes
The following paragraphs do not intend to replace the practitioners‟ insight but
instead only seek to provide references and possibly „food for thought‟ with regard to
the themes.
3.3.1 Outsourcing level for RTD activities
As given in the “Proposal for a Decision of the EP and of the Council concerning the
seventh framework programme of the European Community for research,
technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013)” (COM
(2005) 119 Final), the primary means by which the objectives of „the research for the
benefit of SMEs‟ in FP7, i.e. “to strengthen the innovation capacity of the European
SMEs and their contribution to the development of new technology based products
and markets”, is to be achieved is by helping the SMEs to outsource research to
universities and research centres.
According to the results of the present study COOP and COLL schemes‟ main
structuring effects pertain to improvement of the SMEs‟ absorptive capacities. The
schemes‟ chief contribution to the improvement of the absorptive capacities relate to
the enhancement of the firms‟ own technical and scientific skills along with more
frequent collaborations with national and foreign RTD-Ps. The firm‟s ability to
outsource R&D and learn from it is the key structuring effect of the schemes: it goes
along with an extension of the SMEs networks (cross-border) and the acquisition of
technological know-how. It should be noted that the participants did not consider the
„pure increase of the ability to outsource‟ a major structuring effect of the
participation in the scheme: when cited by the respondents to the on-line survey „the
increase in the frequency of buying in research‟ collected only few citations (cf.
Exhibit 54 for the responses of participants to CRAFT/COOP, Exhibit 77 for the
responses of participants to COLL and Exhibit 90 for the responses of participants to
ETI).
Reinforcing this process is therefore both desirable and likely to achieve excellent
results.
In relation to that, one of the main issues raised by the report and approached during
the Policy Workshop concerns the specific target beneficiaries of the schemes. The
findings of the impact assessment demonstrated that the schemes support specific
SMEs: the participating SMEs generally have a significant R&D staff (cf. Exhibit 33
and Exhibit 34). In fact, learning-how-to-outsource may not be as such the principal
need of the participating SMEs given their own R&D capacities. Instead, their need
for outsourcing seems to be related to close-to-the-core technological domain of the
company, which the company wishes to further explore (cf. Exhibit 43 and Exhibit
44).
Would the explorative nature of the research carried out within COOP and COLL -
frames be deemed important, it should be reaffirmed.
77
3.3.2 IPR regime and management
Intellectual Property Right provisions govern the ownership, transfer, dissemination
and use of research results generated during FP projects. The issue of the ownership
and possible transfer of the knowledge created in COOP and COLL projects appears
to be very much debated both at the Commission39 and at the national levels, as
attested by the concerns expressed by the external national experts during the Policy
Workshop.
The general rule applied under FP6 is that the knowledge remains the property of the
participants who generates it, while the regime applicable to COOP and COLL is an
exception: the knowledge created is always the property of the SMEs or of the SME
associations. This creates intricate settings, just like in between the RTD-P and the
SME participants; usual features of such projects, similar to those of IPs further add
to the complexity (i.e. differences in contributions and interests, participants‟ number
and types or countries of origin).
The proposed conception of the Commission is to towards clarification, increased
flexibility and simplification is presented in a simplified form in Exhibit 95.
Exhibit 95 A comparison between FP6 rules and FP7 proposal as regards the
ownership of knowledge in COLL and COOP
FP6 Rules FP7 Proposal
Ownership of knowledge in cooperative or Ownership of foreground by specific
collective research groups
Foreground shall be jointly owned by the
participants which are members of the
specific group benefiting from the action,
unless otherwise agreed by those participants
Where the owners of the foreground are not
Knowledge is the joint property of the SMEs
members of that group, they shall ensure that
or the enterprise groupings, which shall agree
the group is provided with all the rights to
on the allocation and terms of exercising the
foreground that are required for the use and
ownership of the knowledge in particular in
dissemination of that foreground
the consortium agreement in accordance with
rules and contract.
As it may be too burdensome for the
members of the specific group to manage an
IPR portfolio, they may agree to a different
ownership. However, the new owner(s) must
ensure that the members of the group can use
and disseminate the foreground.
Source: EC, Excerpt from Guidance Document “Comparison between IPR provisions under FP6 and
FP7 proposal; http://ec.europa.eu/research/future/pdf/ipr_prov_expl_en.pdf. NB: “Foreground
knowledge” is “the knowledge created by and during the project”.
39
SEC(2005) 430, Commission staff working paper, Annex to the Proposal for the Council and
European Parliament decisions on the 7th Framework Programme (EC and Euratom).
78
3.3.3 Consortium management and flexibility
This issue has long been considered crucial in the SME-specific research schemes‟
history along two main lines of reasoning:
The evaluators in charge of the proposals‟ marking used to stress the need for
a proper consortium management, the complexity of which varied according
to the project‟s type
Some SME participants complained about the lengthy and complex
management procedures
A predetermined composition of the consortium in terms of the role and status of the
participants is obviously an important success factor since it ensures the compliance
with the scheme‟s objectives. The organisational efficiency sought implies a balance
between structure (necessary in particular for monitoring reasons) and flexibility
(necessary since not all the possible evolutions can be foreseen at the project start).
The survey findings add to the knowledge of this issue. In fact, the survey shows that
each partner was satisfied with the contributions of the other research projects‟
partners (irrespective of the categories), and this holds irrespective of the type of
project and partners. „Organisation internal factors‟ were judged the most import
success factors during the implementation phase, whereas „support-related factors‟
were so for the uptake of the results. Nonetheless, in the participants‟ view the main
consortium management issues are the „quality of the co-operation within the project
consortium‟ and „support and information sharing among the projects partners‟ (60%
of the citations, altogether, cf. Exhibit 96).
Exhibit 96 Support-related factors of success for the uptake of the results
Aspects of the quality of the support Number of responses %
Co-operation within the project consortium 336 31%
Support and information sharing among the partners 291 27%
Support and information from the EC 165 15%
Support and information from national public institutions 161 15%
Support and information from regional public institutions 126 12%
TOTAL 1079 100%
NB: several answers possible.
Put differently, the survey findings suggest that in the participants‟ view the quality of
consortium management pertains to each participant‟s ability to commit to the project,
instead of pointing at external factors (such as „procedures‟ or „administration‟).
So, quite contradictory to the common opinion (as conveyed for instance in the
“Marimon Report”), the evaluator has not found any evidence of specific COLL and
COOP projects‟ consortia management issues.
During the policy workshop, discussions on this topic mainly related to the need for
an increased flexibility, which was asked by the participants. It was suggested that the
schemes should be more flexible with regard to outsourcing as long as the structuring
effects can be guaranteed: modifications to the partners‟ list should be easier during
the project since it is difficult to know exactly which partners will be needed.
79
3.3.4 Support measures
Based on the survey findings and on the discussions during the Policy Workshop, the
evaluator is led to the following remarks and comments about ETI support actions.
There are ETI-like actions at national level and therefore it is difficult to actually
assess the benefit of a specific ETI action: the targeted SMEs are not always aware of
the „brand‟ of the support they benefited from. From a National Contact Point‟s
perspective (i.e. the ETIs‟ promoters), ETIs are viewed as complementing the
portfolio of the NCPs support measures. The experts agreed that ETI could, as
suggested, be extended in the direction of providing more „business intelligence‟.
Nonetheless, NCPs emphasised that „business intelligence‟ is often delivered by
commercial companies and should not compete with these. Efforts should therefore
be made in FP7 to define the specific content of the future (equivalent of) ETIs so that
a clear difference is perceptible from the SMEs‟ side. In this perspective, both the
communication strategy and branding and the monitoring of ETIs should be
improved.
Provided that COOP and COLL already have a high oversubscription rate, the extent
to which ETIs should continue to draw more SMEs into those was debated. In
addition to that, in the SMEs‟ experience, the fewer intermediaries there are, the
better.
In line with this current thinking, it is planned that support actions will be integrated
directly into the thematic priorities within FP7. Horizontal business support services
are planned to be under CIP.
80
4 Conclusions
This section contains the conclusions based on the analyses presented in this report.
Exhibit 97 and Exhibit 98 summarise the main outcomes of the fieldwork.
Exhibit 97 Profiles of the target groups
Characteristics Profiles
Stakeholders
The SMEs …
Main size class: 10 to 49, in both schemes
40% have less than 5% FTE active in R&D; 65%-70% have up to 20% FTE
active in R&D, in both schemes
Above 70% consider themselves as being technology intensive; this
proportion is higher in COLL than in CRAFT/COOP
Around 50% are not newcomers in R&D, in both schemes
About 45% consider themselves being in a very dynamic technological
SMEs environment, in both schemes
…and their project’s characteristics
Importance of RTD-Ps in the initial stages of the project, in both schemes;
especially remarkable in the case of COLL: 60% of RTD-Ps designated as
initiators; SMEs are more active in the initial stages in CRAFT/COOP than
in COLL
CRAFT/COOP projects are more often „vertical‟ in nature whereas COLL
are more „horizontal‟
The IAGs…
75% of the IAGs have more than 50 members, and almost one-fifth between
500 and 5000 members.
Their members are to a large extent SMEs: 2/3rd of them have more than
40% of SME members.
SMEs
associations
…and the multiplication effect
(IAGs)
A majority of these IAGs are oriented towards the promotion of industrial
interests
The members‟ fees are their main source of funding: they are therefore
accountable to their members for keeping them informed of the
developments implied by their participation in the EU project.
The intermediaries…
Main size class: more than 10 employees (53%)
Type of organisation: NCPs (30%); Business Innovation
Intermediaries Centres/Technological Centres/Science Parks (18%); Professional
Associations (16%)
81
Exhibit 98 Most important effects observed per scheme
Impacts Material effects Structuring effects
Services provided and
Technical or scientific impacts Socio-economic impacts Absorptive capacity
Scheme their impact
Net effect: 53% of the respondent companies would have abandoned the project without the EC contribution
Development of new or Increased turnover Improved scientific skills N/A
improved products Increased national market Improved technical skills
CRAFT/ share Increased frequency of
COOP Increased international collaboration with foreign
market share RTD-P
Increased size of research Increased frequency of
staff collaboration with foreign
Increased profit SMEs
Increased participation in
subsequent EU projects
Net effect: 59% of the respondents would have abandoned the project without the EC contribution
Feasibility studies Increased turnover Improved technical skills N/A
Increased size of research Improved scientific skills
staff, increased profit, Increased frequency of
increased number of collaboration with national
employees RTD-P
COLL Increased national market Increased frequency of
share, increased share of collaboration with foreign
export in turnover RTD-P
Improvement of the targeted
company‟s ability to identify
new research partners after the
project and improvement of
the quality of the contacts
with clients
82
Net effect: 60% of the respondents would have abandoned the project without the EC contribution
Increased national and Increased frequency of Main service/ high
N/A international market shares collaboration with foreign satisfaction: Information
Increased turnover SMEs and awareness of the
Increased number of Increased frequency of research funding
ETI
employees collaboration with foreign opportunities provided by
Increased profit RTD-P
EU FPs
Increased share of export in Increased frequency of
collaboration with national
Main impact: 8/39 are EU
turnover
SMEs projects‟ participants
Increased frequency of
collaboration with national
RTD-P
Improved technical skills
83
A high net effect of the schemes
According to the findings of the evaluation, the net effect of all three schemes, over
all three Framework Programmes, is high: a majority of participants (irrespective of
their types) state that the project would not have been carried out without EU funding;
moreover, this is reinforced by the observation that additional finance is in most cases
an own contribution. In the evaluator‟s view, this is evidence that the schemes fill a
gap in the SME-specific public support architecture that is hardly filled anywhere
else. In addition to that, the evaluation results show that the schemes respond to their
objectives.
A high level of “technologically competent” SMEs is drawn into the schemes
The target of COOP consists of SMEs „with capacity to innovate but with limited
research capabilities‟ (excerpt from RTD work programme). On the whole, between
65% and 70% of the SME participants have up to 20% Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
active in R&D activities, with more than 25% of them employing between 6% and
20% of their staff in R&D. This important finding – since this quantitative
information was not known beforehand – is confirmed by the fact that a large
majority of the SMEs who answered to the survey carried out for this assessment
(above 70%, irrespective of the scheme) consider themselves as being “technology-
intensive.” Both indications are, as usual, self-declarations and they therefore reflect
the respondents‟ declarations.
Exhibit 99 Hierarchy of Technological Capabilities
Hie rarchy of Te chnological Capabilitie s
Research department or equivalent
Research
Able to take long run view of
Performers
technological capabilities
Multiple engineers
Technological Some budgetary discretion
Compete nts Able to participate in technology networks
Minimum- One engineer
Capability Able to adopt/adapt packaged solutions
Companie s May need implementation help
Low- No meaningful technological capability
Technology No perceived need for this
SMEs May be no actual need
Source: E. Arnold, Developing Company Technological Capabilities
In terms of Arnold‟s “staircase”-model (see above) the schemes are not drawing
mainly “minimum capability” companies, which would participate in the schemes to
upgrade their research competence. Fieldwork results show that in reality the scheme
reaches “technological competents”. In the latter case, the importance of the scheme
is that it allows even technologically competent companies to outsource research they
are not able to perform in-house. For that reason, it is difficult to determine with
certainty which share of companies use CRAFT/COOP for this purpose only:
CRAFT/COOP projects considered in the case studies are project which sometimes
look very much like collaborative research projects where part of the research is also
performed by the SME participants themselves –even though of course the IPR
84
should not be shared among the participants, but remains with the SME(s), which, as
case studies show, sometimes lead to friction between project partners.
There may be a link with the (high) oversubscription rate, which should be more
closely investigated. The high oversubscription rate, together with the importance of
the criterion of scientific quality during the evaluation process, may impact on the
projects finally selected. The latter may in the end turn out to be more „STREP‟-like.
This notwithstanding, the large proportion of “technological competents” in the
participant group of firms can be interpreted as a real added value of the EU SME-
specific schemes: it implies that a number of European SMEs willing to
technologically step up do consider the EU SME-specific schemes as a relevant
means by which technological capability improvements can be achieved.
The important role of RTD-performers in initial stages
The survey findings suggest that although the idea for CRAFT/COOP projects often
comes from SMEs, RTD-performers are also very strongly involved in the initial
stages the proposal: they quite often intervene in the definition of the project
consortium‟s composition and also in the submission for EU funding. Furthermore,
and even though counter-intuitive, the exploratory analysis proposed in the report
leads the evaluator to suspect that projects initiated by RTD-performers (they have
had the research idea) would have higher socio-economic impacts than SME-initiated
projects.
A number of combined explanations can be suggested to elucidate this observation (as
appeared from the inputs collected during the Policy Workshop by the stakeholders
who participated to it). If the RTD-P initiator is a research organisation, it may have:
a better anticipation of emerging technologies and markets, since exploring
the current technological paradigm‟s possibilities is the research
organisations‟ „raison d‟être‟
a more comprehensive view on what other SMEs are doing
a longer-term horizon
better organisational ability and capacity to prepare and manage large
European projects (known to represent a considerable administrative effort for
participants, in particular when these are SMEs)
This question is very much (theoretically) debated but little is really known despite its
policy importance. Since it may have consequences for future requirements on
consortia, the Commission may want to further investigate this important point.
Finally, there is evidence that CRAFT/COOP are more effective (in terms of market
share, profit and turnover) when the project focuses more on process improvements.
Focusing on research related to improved processes implies long lasting
organisational changes that enhance the SME ability to gain market shares and
increase turnover.
A high net effect of the „collaborative research scheme‟ (COLL), which moreover fills
an important gap in the EU-RTD support landscape
The evaluation shows that the COLL scheme responds to its objectives.
85
Generally, COLL projects appear to rely heavily on RTD-Performers in their
initiation and implementation. The case studies show that nonetheless the idea for the
project comes from IAGs. The reason for that is that IAGs are extremely competent
when it comes to the identification of the needs of an entire industrial sector. IAGs
often rely on the experience of an RTD-P for the start-up and further implementation
of the idea into a project nevertheless.
The COLL scheme has a high net effect (or additionality), higher than CRAFT/COOP
for the participants in that scheme. The SMEs participating in COLL state that the
research performed in the COLL project is closely connected to their core business.
This can be interpreted as the “core group” SMEs being carefully selected in COLL
projects.
An important impact of the scheme lies in the increase of cross-border cooperation
between RTD organisations, between SMEs and between RTD organisations and
SMEs. The scheme would therewith fill an important gap in the European research
landscape since this is typically one of the goals national schemes do not aim for
(even though through ERANETS signs of first cross-border calls for proposals are
emerging).
ETIs have a strong structuring effect, and few alternatives are available
As concerns the ETI scheme, a first result of the evaluation is that it allowed to better
understand the participants to this scheme (there is only one “role” in the project,
namely “intermediaries”, however this corresponds in reality to a variety of types of
organisations). Just under than one-third of the intermediaries who responded to the
survey were NCPs. The second major group consisted of professional associations
whilst business/innovation centres and, the related, cluster and science
park/technological centres both represent around 10%.
The net effect of the ETI schemes is considerable. There do not seem to be any other
mechanisms (on national level for instance), which respond to the need fulfilled by
ETIs. ETIs have a strong structuring effect by leading many SMEs to propose a
project for, and eventually participate in, the EU programmes. Other major impacts of
the schemes on SMEs are the increased frequency of collaboration with foreign
SMEs, with foreign and with national research organisations.
The satisfaction survey that was implemented in order to better understand the
impacts of the ETI scheme has also yielded important findings. The first one is
methodological and relates to the fact that it was difficult to obtain well-maintained
lists of final beneficiaries from the direct beneficiaries (i.e. “intermediaries) of the
scheme. More attention should be paid to this issue in future evaluations when
preparing a survey of the final beneficiary population.
The survey of final beneficiaries shows that there is a link between recalling the ETI
support and having submitted further EU projects: unsurprisingly, there is a
correlation between SMEs declaring not having received any ETI services and SMEs
not further involved in EU projects. The remainder of SMEs had a very positive
opinion with regard to ETIs as concerns the up-to-date information they provide on
86
funding opportunities; partner search services; and assistance in preparing a joint
proposal for submission under the EU research programmes.
Furthermore, the satisfaction survey shows that the ETI scheme is one amongst a
variety of possible opportunities that SMEs have at their disposal for funding (e.g.
European, national, regional, sectoral…). However, the SMEs contacted for this study
do acknowledge the need for high quality and relevant information on EU funding
and cross-border cooperation opportunities and in this respect the ETI scheme
definitely responds to that need.
More efforts in business intelligence needed to increase socio-economic impact
Finally, in particular the case studies show that CRAFT/COOP projects could have
benefited from more systematic efforts in business intelligence in order to increase
project impact. For most of the projects (confirmed by the survey) the technical
objectives are achieved. This is not the case for the economic objectives the
achievement of which is sometimes hindered by competing technology-market
combinations that emerged during the course of the project but were not anticipated
by the project consortium. Also, several projects lead to innovation, but regulation is
missing that would help to create the market corresponding to the products or
processes developed through the innovation. As this is an issue which has been
identified by earlier evaluations of SME programmes, conducted both at European
and national levels, the anticipation of future markets and competing technologies or
services may be something to give more attention to in the future. This may point at a
lack of business intelligence skills within companies, also often encountered in
evaluations of national SME RTD and innovation schemes, which can be improved
through additional measures.
87
Related docs
