Document ID: IPF 11-007
VINNOVA Dno: 2009-04589
Proof of Concept
Part of Deliverable D2.2 INNO-Partnering Forum
Description of the deliverable
This is a formal delivery under D2.2 Peer review within WP2 of the INNO-
Partnering Forum (IPF) project. In the context of the IPF project a total of 12
peer reviews will be conducted and reported upon. Three peer reviews were
conducted in spring 2010. Early May 2010 an invitation to participate in a new
round of peer reviews was issued by various channels, including the PRO-INNO
EUROPE / IPF website, to innovation agencies with a public mission. Innovation
agencies were asked to submit successful and suitable innovation programmes
for peer reviewing and to express interest in joining review teams.
IPF reviewed and evaluated the programmes submitted and considered their
merits in view of the objectives of the IPF project, amongst which the ‘potential
for good practices’ stood out as the leading criterion. One of the four
programmes selected was:
Proof of Concept (PoC), operated by Scottish Enterprise (UK)
The review of PoC was prepared during December 2010 – January 2011. The
review team visited Glasgow and Edinburgh 27-28th January, 2011. The review
report was completed and agreed by all involved early March, 2011. It will be
made available on the PRO INNO Europe website, under IPF.
The following dissemination level is set for this report/deliverable in accordance with
the contract and discussions with the Commission services: PU=Public
Table of contents
0 Identification............................................................................................................. 5
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6
2 Policy Objectives, Policy Mix & Policy Delivery ........................................................... 7
3 Service delivery System ........................................................................................... 10
4 Results and impact .................................................................................................. 14
5 Identification and description of critical success factors ........................................... 15
6 Transferability issues ............................................................................................... 16
APPENDIX A: Host Agency Self Assessment Questionnaire............................................... 17
APPENDIX B: Content of Project Guide ............................................................................ 23
The views expressed in this report are those of the author and the Peer Review Team. They
do not necessarily reflect the opinion or position of the European Commission and in no way
commit the involved organisations.
The Reviewed Team
o Ms Kate MacInnes, SE, Commercialisation, Entrepreneurial Support, Manager of
Strategic Networks and Partnerships
o Mr Michael Hambly, SE, Director of Entrepreneurial Support and Head of High Growth
Start Up Team
o Mr Gavin Laird, SE, Commercialisation, Senior Executive Enterprise Fellowships
o Mr Cameron Scott, Investment Manager SIB (Scottish Investment Bank)
o Ms Elaine Morrison, SE, Commercialisation, Portfolio Services Senior Manager
o Dr Ben Panter, CEO Blackford Analysis Ltd
o Mr Derek Waddell, CEO Edinburgh Research and Innovation Ltd
The Review Team
o Mr Koen de Pater (AgNL, The Netherlands) – Team leader
o Ms Mariana Karepova (FFG, Austria)
o Ms Marie Wall and Mr Pontus von Bahr (Vinnova, Sweden)
o Ms Stefanie Zenk (ZukunftsAgentur Brandenburg, Germany)
o Mr Jean-Pierre Leac (Nord France Innovation Développement, France)
o Mr Kees van Hoeven (AgNL, the Netherlands), secretary to the review team
Date Version Status
31-01-2011 0 Draft for discussion, prepared by Kees van Hoeven
04-02-2011 1 Draft for discussion after comments by Koen de Pater
01-03-2011 2 Final after comments by team members and host
Brief introduction to the programme
The Proof of Concept Programme (PoCP) of Scottish Enterprise (SE) is one of the
programmes SE uses to deliver Commercialisation Support. Also three others have been
explained during the review. They are:
o Enterprise Fellowships
o High Growth Start Up Support
o Opportunities to licence - innovative technologies resulting from the large scale
R&D commercialisation programmes developed under the ITI (Intermediary
Technology Institutes) Programme now part of SE. (Not discussed in any detail.)
Neither were risk capital funds, of which SE has several, ranging from pre-seed to venture
capital and loans. These are administered by the Scottish Investment Bank which supports
the development of Scotland’s private sector SME funding market to ensure both early
stage and established businesses with growth and export potential have adequate access
to growth capital. Cameron Scott gave the presentation.
Beside these commercialisation programmes also some financing and R&D feasibility
programmes are relevant including the SMART funding grants. Especially SBF and SMART.
Albeit more for the subsequent period after the PoCP phase – i.e. after company formation.
The idea behind the PoCP programme is to help develop spin-outs from the universities (14
in Scotland) and research institutions (about 6) and to develop them into successful
companies of scale (defined by the achievement of ₤ 5 million of turnover within five years
or securing ₤ 10 million of commercial investment in the same period).
The PoCP supports the University or Institute with money and the research team with
managerial counselling support to develop and execute a commercialisation plan.
After the spin-out, the company may be suitable to benefit from other support programmes
and Scottish Enterprise has a structure in place which helps the growth of business.
The PoCP started in 1999, further developed post 2004 when it received £10 m in ERDF
funding and is currently again in a process of modifications to ensure it is part of SE’s
comprehensive approach to commercialisation.
Reference to associated documentation
1. A lot of factual information can be found in the project guide (appendix B)
2. Also the self assessment questionnaire provides information (appendix A)
Reason to choose this measure as the subject of a peer review
The PoCP has been chosen, because the concept of supporting the spinning out of research
companies from the universities seems to be very suitable for transfer to other countries.
And because SE is successful with their programme, it may well serve as a best practice.
2 Policy Objectives, Policy Mix & Policy Delivery
The context for the policy: Why it was proposed
The Knowledge Economy Task Force concluded in the late 1990s that a gap existed in the availability
of support for the commercialisation of new ideas resulting from academic research in Scotland.
There was a point at which the new science was well enough explored and lab-demonstrated to
attract no further academic funding but further work needed to be done to prove the viability of a
commercial offering based on the new science to the point where a businesslike investment
appraisal was feasible. In 1999 the Scottish Government approved a new programme designed to
bridge this commercialisation gap.
The programme has evolved over the last 10 years from a fund to a full support programme.
The focus now is ensuring that any future funding is focused on opportunities which may
lead to companies of scale. Scotland has too few of them.
The objectives of the policy
The programme supports the valorisation of knowledge into society by supporting the
development of commercialization strategies for that knowledge, by spin-outs and by
licenses (to Scottish companies or companies who plan to establish a base in Scotland).
Are the objectives clear and measurable?
It is unclear whether the qualitative goal was translated into a quantitative one. At least one
has been mentioned for the High Growth Start Up programme which should lead to a certain
number of growing companies.
Although it seems that the goals have not been set quantitatively, quantitative results have
been presented. See chapter 4 for the concrete figures on:
o Number of spin-outs
o Number of licenses
o Number of jobs created within the universities (during the PoCP)
o Number of jobs created by the spin outs (after the PoCP)
o Money provided by the PoCP programme
o Capital attracted by the spin-outs
Policies with similar objectives
As mentioned in the introduction, the PoCP is part of more measures aiming at valorisation
and of creating companies of scale. Also some universities themselves will have policies for
Links with other policies
Scottish Enterprise strives for links between their commercialisation support programmes
and other business support interventions to ensure continuity, consistency of support and a
“joined-up” approach. One of the ways to achieve that is to make sure that individuals
within the various post PoCP support mechanism are involved in the PoCP process and can
monitor and review projects. The Technopolis case study of 2007 provided an overview as
This overview presents even some more policies than have been mentioned during the
review meeting, where the following was presented:
Commercialisation in Scotland
Strong focus on later Projects emerge
stage commercial “SMART-ready” from
outcome in due PoCP
diligence i.e. half way there value of in
• Unified Process
• Recognises that scale matters
• Focus on closer to market projects with clear commercial potential
EUROPE & SCOTLAND Scottish Enterprise
European Regional Development Fund
Investing in your future
The difference between the pictures makes it also clear that now the PoCP programme is
more regarded as part of a total programme to commercialize research results. Also note
that since 2007 the pipeline of innovation support has been restructured. Information on the
new grant structure can be found at http://www.scottish-enterprise.com/fund-your-
The next table characterizes the policies by phase, nature and aim:
Programme Phase Nature Objective Deliverable
PoCP Feasibility Money to To support Proof of
university researchers develop (commercial)
and execute a good concept by spin out
Advice to commercialisation or license
Enterprise Feasibility or Education to To develop Spin out company
Fellow development researcher entrepreneurial entrepreneur
High Development Advice and To optimize High growth
Growth support to commercial companies with the
Support unit access planning and potential to develop
investments execution into companies of
ITI Development Commercial To exploit the License to Scottish
opportunities commercial benefits Companies
of R&D programmes
SMART Feasibility Money to To execute Proof of (technical)
and/or company technical feasibility principle
or technical Pre-
Dependency on other agencies/institutions
For the execution of the PoCP SE is dependent on the cooperation with universities and
institutions. The programme is attractive for them because it offers relevant money which
cannot easily be obtained from other sources. The number of institutions which can supply
applications for the programme is approximately 20. In practice the larger universities such
as Edinburgh, Strathclyde and Aberdeen which have a larger dedicated business formation
and technical transfer resource generate the majority of applications. All universities are also
active in spinning out companies without applying to PoCP for support.
The PoCP operates within the Scottish, UK and European frameworks. No specifics have
appeared during the review.
3 Service delivery System
3.1 Programme Design
Description of the procedures
Basically the way of operation is:
o Up until 2009 a twice yearly call was put out for applications. Since April 2010
applications can be submitted at any time.
o Before submitting an application the project must be discussed with the SE industry
team and with the institutions technical transfer office.
o Then the applications are pre selected by an expert panel from SE after significant
o Thereafter the applicant gives a presentation to the selection panel.
o The selection panel approves the award.
The procedures after granting are clearly and in detail described in the Project guide. The
operation is based on strict reporting and formats are prescribed.
o It starts with forming of the Project Management Group, consisting of the Principal
Investigator, the Research Assistants and a commercialisation officer from the
university and a Programme Manager and Technology Entrepreneur from SE. This
project team meets at least quarterly.
o The project starts officially when the Project Commencement Certificate has been
approved by SE.
o Payment to the institution is made quarterly based on the approved cost declaration.
o Progress reports to SE must also be given quarterly.
o The commercialisation plan must be ready within the first 6 months.
o Milestones are evaluated by the Project Review Panel of SE based on a report and a
15 minute presentation.
o The project is concluded with the so called Close Out meeting.
Needs taken into account in the design of the programme
It has been explained that the design of the PoCP has been based on an extensive round of
interviews among all the stakeholders by the Knowledge Economic Taskforce, which
There is a pre-seed funding gap which is restricting the flow of technology from the
laboratories to the market place
Scotland should endeavour to strengthen the linkages between its Higher Education
Institutes, Research Institutions, NHS and the Scottish Enterprise Cluster Teams.
Refinement of the procedures over time
The PoCP has started in 1999, has been changed in 2004 and has currently been modified
again. Whether this has also led to changes in the procedures has not been discussed. SE can
confirm that there will be procedural changes implemented during the course of 2011.
However, these reflect structural changes within the organisation and a re-allocation of
internal roles rather than significant changes to the programme itself.
Number of people involved in directly running the programme
The PoCP team at SE has been recently reduced from 11 to a core team of 4 people.
However, the new commercialisation team is now responsible for project management of
PoCP projects and support is now carried out by a wider team.
The level of bureaucracy and flexibility
The level of bureaucracy is limited and the advisors have sufficient flexibility. It appears that
in comparison with other programmes the commercialisation programmes are less
bureaucratic. On the other hand demands are strict for reporting and documenting decisions
and what is going on.
3.2 Programme Delivery and Marketing
The delivery of the programme
The delivery of the programme is well documented (see the start of this chapter).
Modifications to account for changes in the environment
The criteria for selection have been sharpened over time and now focus on the creation of
companies of scale. An important change is that in 2004 the support was broadened from a
financial subsidy to include a wider spectrum of actions. In the course of time the role of SE
expanded into ‘3 M’: helping start ups with management, markets and money.
Links with other programmes/policies
As described earlier the PoCP is strongly related with other commercialisation programmes.
Promotion of the programme to clients and others
Promotion is done in several ways. There are small postcards aiming at researchers.
Furthermore all universities and knowledge institutes are well aware of the programme. The
question is then how they are doing the promotion to their researchers. E.g. University of
Edinburgh does a pre selection amongst their research projects. Finally SE brings out success
stories and tries to obtain press coverage.
Impact of active promotion to the success of the programme
This topic has not been discussed. However, experience by SE is that without promotion
there are fewer applications. This is being reviewed at present to understand lessons
learned and agree on future protocols for promotion and awareness raising.
3.3 Participant Selection and Contracts
Selection of participants
See also the beginning of the chapter. Selection is done in three stages:
1) Pre selection of written application by a panel consisting of various people. Including
experienced outside people, like of GlobalScots and people who are engaged in other
commercialisation support activities such as the HGSU and the investment teams.
How this is done, e.g. in a meeting or by the processing of individual scores has not
2) Applicants who get through the first stage are invited to an interview panel where
they need to present a more detailed description of the project and address any
issues raised in the first stage application.
3) The presentations are given to a panel with industry expertise, market expertise,
GlobalScots and the SE team. After the panel the grants are selected.
Prior to formal selection, informal discussions take place among the University and SE’s
sector team to understand the potential market opportunity which the project aims to
target and ensure that requests for financial support are aligned to SE’s strategic
Preparation of Contract
The contract (between SE and the institution) is based on a fixed format. Especially reporting
demands are very strict. The contract also contains some conditions to reclaim the grant
money if the institution breaches certain rules, like using the money for something else and
failure to make best endeavours to commercialise
Payment to clients
Payment to the institutions is done on a quarterly basis, in the second month of a quarter.
The real costs are paid for. There is a specific form to use.
3.4 Participant Monitoring and Impact
Level of on-going monitoring/mentoring and interaction
The programme manager of SE and the Technology Entrepreneur appointed by SE monitor
the programme continuously. They participate in regular meetings at least per quarter and
at important milestones. Also they are notified if anything happens with impact on plan
Formal progress reports need to be submitted to SE. These have a prescribed fixed format.
Projects with insufficient performance can be stopped midway.
Follow up of successful clients
The idea is to conclude the project at the investment-ready stage. Also suitable projects will
also be selected to receive HGSU support which will give intensive support in securing
investment and building the management team. Projects which are not considered as
suitable for HGSU support can still be considered for a lighter-touch form of relationship
management by Scottish Enterprise which, in turn, can provide them with access to other
forms of advisory or financial support for their business.
Customer views on the programme
Both institutes and researchers seem quite pleased with the programme. It provides
substantial money, but mainly it supplies access to relevant people and helps the
entrepreneur who does everything for the first time.
4 Results and impact
o Over 970 applications submitted over the past 10 years
o 235 projects funded
o Over £47 million awarded
o > 90 % of funding goes into personnel
o Average projects run 18 months to 2 years
o Over 500 knowledge-intensive jobs created in universities
o Over 300 jobs created in new Scottish companies
o 50 new high-tech companies formed
o 57 license deals signed
o Over £243 million post-PoCP investment leveraged
Metrics used to monitor the programme
The number of spin-outs and the sum of attracted follow-up funding are being used as main
parameters to monitor the progress and the result of the programme.
Regular monitoring of the results and impact
The board of SE monitors the results permanently and from time to time independent
external evaluations are being performed, namely in 2003 and 2007. With the introduction
of a Commercialisation approach within SE it is no longer intended that individual
programme evaluations will take place. Instead a longitudinal study of SE’s
commercialisation support will track the journey and capture impact. The most recent study
has been commissioned (February 2011) and the results will become publicly available later
in the year.
Changes of the service delivery system as results of monitoring/evaluation
The 2003 evaluation of PoCP by Segal Quince Wicksteed (SQW) suggested strengthening
PMGs by providing them with external, business-oriented advice. ERDF support was secured
to assemble a team of Outcome Managers with good knowledge of the technologies and
markets being addressed by PoCP projects. An Outcome Manager was assigned to each
PMG from 2005 onwards. In doing so the means of the programme shifted from money only
towards managing for results.
The PriceWaterhouse Cooper evaluation in 2007 suggested that PoCP projects could benefit
further from more specific support for the commercialisation process itself. In 2008, a team
of 12 Technology Entrepreneurs has been created, who were each contracted for up to 100
days per year to help PoCP select the projects with best commercial potential and help
project management groups (academic teams) achieve the best possible commercial
5 Identification and description of critical success factors
Critical success factors for the programme
o Resources for substantial funding – average of £275k ($400k) per project;
o Tough due diligence with commercial focus;
o Strict budgetary and management control;
o Commercialisation support from Institution and SE, e.g. by putting the entrepreneur
in touch with pivotal players in commercial networks;
o Project Management Groups;
o Technology Entrepreneurs;
o Advisory Boards with industry experts;
o Integrated with other Scottish support mechanisms for commercialisation,
innovation and investment – e.g. Scottish Enterprise Investment Funds, Scottish
Investment Funds, High Growth Start-up Unit, Funding programmes (SMART, R&D);
o Involvement of universities and research institutes to put forward qualified
o Support and guidance to the entrepreneurs by external expertise from people who
have done it before, are more important than just money
o Providing this help by an independent body (SE) strengthens the position of the
researcher towards the institution
o The PoCP Review Panel not just monitors progress but also helps to find the best
possible way of commercialisation
o The High Growth Team dissembles the proposed business plan into pieces and then
reassembles it. The example of Blackford Analysis shows how good this can work out.
o Arranging all the various programmes to the same goal to create Companies of Scale
o Giving attention to the entrepreneurial education to scholars, students and
Practices to be considered for implementation by other agencies in similar programmes
o Interlinking the various programmes by having people from the one programme
acting in another role in another programme.
o Creating support networks like GlobalScots for acting in review panels or as direct
adviser to the entrepreneurs
Practices to be considered as high risk which may need improvement
o The now upcoming focus on picking the potential companies of scale sounds like the
ambition to pick winners. That is very risky and labour intensive. A funnel approach
with short stages and a reduction of projects at every gate may be a better approach.
o When a project would be stopped at such a gate the consequences for the
researcher may be considerable. Therefore some sort of safety net may be advisable.
o The focus on company building is not naturally understood by all. Some people (esp.
venture capitalists) first think of profitable exiting as the success factor.
o The difference between the various programmes is difficult to understand from the
outside. How do applicants make the right choice?
o The criteria for evaluation seem not to be very clear. Therefore the execution may be
too much person dependent.
o The division of roles between commercialisation staff from the institutions and SE
seems not to be very clear. The more SE does for valorisation, the more universities
and research institutes might lean back. The PoC programme could be linked to
agreements with them to step up their own valorisation efforts, so that in the course
of years that responsibility could be safely left to them.
6 Transferability issues
Successful implementation of programmes depends very often in details: what kind of
contracts, what kind of competences by the people, etcetera. We have not been able to go
into that kind of detail.
Basically the type of programme is transferable to other countries. Commercialisation of
research is a problem in most countries.
Also the way of working seems to be transferable.
Because of the importance of networking, it is questionable whether it will be possible to
transfer the national approach to larger countries, maybe then a regional approach could
work out better.
APPENDIX A: Host Agency Self Assessment Questionnaire
The INNO-Partnering Forum for better
SME innovation support services (IPF)
Name of Organisation: Scottish Enterprise
Contact Person: Kate MacInnes
Name of Measure: Proof of Concept Programme
Date of Completion Questionnair : September 2010
A) Measure: general information
A1 - Overview of the measure
The main objective from a Proof of Concept Programme PoCP project is the creation of a
new Scottish company with the capability to grow to a company of scale which Scottish
Enterprise currently defines as the achievement of £5 million turnover within five years, or
securing £10 million of commercial investment within the same period.
A2 - Rationale and objectives
The Proof of Concept Programme (PoCP) originated from the Knowledge Economy Task
Force, whose report in 1999 included the following conclusions:
There is a pre-seed funding gap which is restricting the flow of technology from the
laboratories to the market place
Scotland should endeavour to strengthen the linkages between its Higher Education
Institutes, Research Institutions, NHS and the Scottish Enterprise Cluster Teams.
From these, the Knowledge Economy Task Force defined some fundamental objectives on
which to base the formation and strategy of the PoCP:
1. To improve the level and quality of commercialisation through the provision of PoCP
funding for early stage development activity within Scotland’s Universities and
2. To contribute to Scottish Enterprise’s key industry development approach by
accelerating the commercial exploitation of new innovations from within the academic
3. To contribute to the longer-term development of a strong knowledge-based economy
As the Programme is currently structured, funding of projects may be up to 100% of
eligible costs and there is normally no sharing of equity or direct financial return to
B) Description of the measure
B1 - Who are the targeted beneficiaries?
Full-time employees of Scotland’s Higher Education Institutes, Research Institutions and
B2 - How are the beneficiaries/participants selected?
Prospective applicants are asked to discuss their proposals initially with industry experts
from Scottish Enterprise who will advise whether the proposed project is a suitable
candidate for submission. There is a formal application process (all details on our
website) and the application is submitted to an internal due diligence process with input
from external industry expertise who will determine the likelihood of the project creating a
company of scale in Scotland.
B3 - How is the measure funded?
Funding is through Scottish Enterprise and additional ERDF funding.
B4 - What are the supported activities?
- Salaries (or backfill) for leading academics engaged on the project;
- Research associate salaries
- Market assessment costs
- Patent costs
- Some equipment where use can be wholly attributed to the PoC project.
- Travel and training expenses.
The costs above are paid directly to the University.
In addition SE provides:
- Technology entrepreneurial support assigned to each project from individuals who
have extensive experience in creating technology companies.
- Internal support from commercialisation teams and industry teams in the network.
- Entrepreneurial development support – training in business skills
- Networking opportunities
- Support via Globalscot Network and Scottish Development International
- Ongoing support through the High Growth Start Up Team
- Access and assistance with funding via SMART grants and the SE investment
B5 - How do you perceive the results and impact of the measure?
Results are the creation of a spinout company which is expected to achieve company of
scale within a determined time period. The spinout company will receive ongoing support
from Scottish Enterprise through other interventions – these can include management
support, fund raising support both to private investor funding and further public sector
grants such as SMART and/or the SE Co-investment funding mechanisms.
B6 - Which are the performance indicators for assessment of the measure's
For Proof of Concept programme the number of spinouts created and/or licenses of a
novel technology to a Scottish company.
C) Implementation of the measure
C1 - What is the overall budget? Evolution from year to year?
Date Budget Notes
Sep £11M PoCP established with a budget of £11M and a planned life
99 of three years.
Mar £29M Based on success of early rounds, further £18M granted
Aug £30M Further £1M granted; programme now approved for six years
Mar £33M Further £3M granted
Jul 04 £40.4M £7.4M ERDF awarded to deliver PoCP Plus (later PRP)
Dec £43M Further £2.4M awarded by SEP. Programme extended to
May £49M Further £6M awarded
Feb £79M After positive PWC evaluation SE Board awards further
07 £30M for five years
C2 - What is the maximum and average budget per project ?
There is no maximum but the average budget is around £255,000 over two years.
C3 - Who do you report to and how? Number of people involved in running
The management structure of the Proof of Concept Programme is incorporated
into our Commercialisation Delivery structure – more information available at the
C4 - What is the size of the measure in terms of number of
projects/activities supported, number of actors involved?
We are currently supporting 28 live projects.
C5 - State aid and market disturbance. What kind of market failure is
addressed by the measure? Is there any market disturbance induced?
The programme addresses the pre-seed funding gap.
C6 - From the start, have there been any changes in the design or
D) Monitoring, evaluation and assessment of the measure
D1 - Who did or will do the monitoring and evaluation?
The 2003 evaluation of PoCP by Segal Quince Wicksteed (SQW)suggested
strengthening PMGs by providing them with external, business-oriented advice. ERDF
support was secured to assemble a team of Outcome Managers with good knowledge of
the technologies and markets being addressed by PoCP projects. An Outcome Manager
was assigned to each PMG from 2005 onwards
The PriceWaterhouse Cooper evaluation in 2007 suggested that PoCP projects could
benefit further from more specific support for the commercialisation process itself. In
2008, therefore, an OJEU procurement exercise assembled a team of 12 Technology
Entrepreneurs who were each contracted for up to 100 days per year to help PoCP select
the projects with best commercial potential and help project management groups
(academic teams) achieve the best possible commercial results.
D2 - What are the results and impacts of the measure (outcomes, relation
with ex ante situation and the original objectives)?
See above note.
D3 - Which indicatorsare used?
The Executive Summary of the PriceWaterhouse Cooper evaluation is attached.
D4 - Main results and conclusions of evaluations /assessments.
See above note D1
D5 – Which elements have been recognized as the strong and weak features
of the measure?
Number of applications is not a good measure – we’re looking for quality and economic
impact within a certain timescale.
New focus is on high growth company creation capable of achieving £5m turnover/value
in 5 years.
D6 – If you could recommend one (practice) element of your programme to
other agencies, what would it be?
Entrepreneurial support and development – the quality of the management team is vital in
driving the company forward and achieving credibility to attract further funding and
E) Regional/local environment
E1 – Are there any regional aspects or implications of the measure?
The programme is only open to Scottish universities and publically funded research
institutes in both Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands region.
F) Policy context
F1 - Are there similar actions overlapping, duplicating or competing with the
F2 - Are there other related policies or measures which are complementary
(or conflicting) at the same policy level?
APPENDIX B: Content of Project Guide
Because of the length of the document (50 pages), only the table of contents is shown here.
PROOF OF CONCEPT PROGRAMME
1.1 Proof of Concept Programme – Expectations of SE and the
2 STARTING THE PROJECT
3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
3.1 Project Management Groups
3.2 Project Management Meetings
3.2.1 Kick-off Meetings
3.2.2 Regular PMG Meetings
3.2.3 Milestone Progress Review Meetings
3.2.4 Final “Close Out” Meetings
3.2.6 Project Risk Manage. and Material Adverse Events
3.3 Project Events
3.3.1 Proof of Concept Programme Associates Fora
3.3.2 Facilitation Workshops
4.1 Payments and Statements
4.4 Market Assessments and Patents
4.6 Virings and Other Change Requests
4.7 Related Party Transactions
4.8 Tendering and Subcontracting
4.9 Conflicts of Interest
5 MARKET ASSESSMENT
6 COMMERCIALISATION PLANS
7 STATE AIDS
9 PUBLICITY MATERIALS
10 PROJECT QUICK START GUIDE - 10 TOP TIPS
11 STANDARD DOCUMENTS, PRO FORMAS
12 COMMERCIALISATION PLANS
Appendices with practical guidelines and formats