MAP-IT! Review Meeting 5 March Brussels MAP IT Questionnaire INNOVA/ITIDA

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review2 Questionnaire elaboration Main objective: –To provide a clear instrument to project partners to perform the mapping and the benchmarking exercise; –to provide comprehensive insight into IT organisations, their ICT capabilities today and with regard to the future as well as on their interests in cooperating with European players in research projects Main tool for Working groups to analyse and illustrate within the National Mapping Reports aspects, such as: –State-of-the-art on R&D and innovation; –Research strengths and weaknesses; –Main target players (Type, geographical distribution, networks); –technology areas most active in and countries’ research priorities; –cooperation level of the key players in these IT fields.

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review3 Deliverable 1.4 Questionnaire template 3 sections: –Section A: General Information –Section B: R&D activities –Section C: Some quantitative data specific to your organisation Template completed in Month 12 Accessible to the public at med.eu/questionnairehttp:// med.eu/questionnaire Completed data collection: Month 17

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review4 Main remarks made by Reviewers Section A: Business Areas are too in-depth Section B: –Business language –Answering mask for Challenge level not informative enough –Answering mask for Specific objective level need to provide more information on IT capabilities –Future IT ambitions has not being paid attention to Section C: –Add sentence stating that not all indicators have to be answered –Weighting of excellence criteria

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review5 Questionnaire – General Information (A) General mapping related information on target players, such as: –Contact details, –Organisation type (SME, Large company, University, R&D Centre, others) –Year of establishment, –Number of employees, –Annual turnover and annual balance sheet total (corresponding to the characteristics set out in the EC Definition for SMEs), –Legal status, –Level of interest in International R&D cooperation and previous international cooperation experiences (MED countries, EU, other countries)

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review6 Questionnaire – General Information (A) –Business Areas => List of sectors and sub-sectors changed! –Detailed segmentation successfully applied in other project contexts –Precise detection and comprehensive picture of the real business areas of MED IT players

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review7 Questionnaire – General Information (A) –Business Areas

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review8 –Business Areas

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review9 Questionnaire – R&D activities (B) Detailed mapping related information on target players Questions related to Challenges and Specific objectives of the ICT Work programme Challenges and Specific objectives have been translated into “business language”, taking into consideration the nature of the organizations in the MED region and the capacity they have

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review10 Challenges & Specific objectives – old version 1 0 = No capability; 1 = Low capability; 2 = Medium capability; 3 = High capability

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review11 Challenges – new version

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review12 Questionnaire – R&D activities (B) Answers provided for the “Challenge Level” (first decision level): Based on your organisation, do you have current interest and/or future plans in any of the listed fields? –Yes, and I am interested in the future –Yes, but I am not interested in the future –No, but I am interested in the future –No, and I am not interested in the future Introductory question has been added, making the answering options clearer

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review13 Questionnaire – R&D activities (B) First decision level important for structuring the questionnaire in an intelligent way, i.e.: –if these questions were not answered, the responders would not be directed only to those areas (specific objectives - level 2) they are active in or interested in as regards the future, thus an intelligent navigation would not be possible –responders do not have to answer to all 25 specific objectives, only the ones of interest => encouragement of filling-in the questionnaire Level 2 is the important answering part, Level 1 is just a tool in order to direct the organisations to their areas of activity or interest.

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review14 Specific objectives – new version

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review15 Questionnaire – R&D activities (B) Answering mask for level 2 (specific objectives): –My organization develops/ controls/integrates systems for …. (not more than six explanations): How many of these questions would you answer with YES? => the number provides a first idea on the degree of involvement of an IT organisation in the specific area –Mayor topic relevant projects you worked on (max. 3 projects): Name, Brief project description, Level of participation/role in the project (e.g. research, design, development, coordination, testing, providing infrastructure) => IT players’ capability –Which achievements do you want to reach in this specific IT area (new technologies, processes, etc.)? => understanding of the real involvement/ commitment of an organisation in the IT field, also with regard to the future. –Cooperation level in this area (local, national, trans-national, international)

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review16 Questionnaire – R&D activities (B) Answering mask at specific objective level (level 2) changes when the answer at level 1 is “No, but I am interested in the future” Two “open questions” are made: –Which achievements do you want to reach in this specific IT area (new technologies, processes, etc.)? –How do you plan to enter this area? Do you already have implemented steps in order to reach the goal of entering the area? => Future ambitions is being paid attention to, both for organisations already involved in a specific IT area and for those not involved today but interested to enter the market

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review17 Questionnaire – quantitative data (C) Selected indicators did not change Indicators listed in the questionnaire do not represent the final performance indicators => Indicators will be translated into useful performance indicators, representing ratios Calculation model applied to the performance indicators for detecting the IT performance of target players Statement that not all indicators need to be answered has not been inserted since the commitment of responders might be reduced and the calculation model could not be adapted efficiently

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review18 Excellence criteriaPerformance indicators 1.Research quantity/productivity  Total number of research projects/product development per total number of researchers/product development managers  Investments in R&D per total revenue 2.Socio-economic value of research activities  Total number of filed patents per total number of research projects/product development  Total number of Spin-offs per total number of research projects/product development  Total number of publications (national/international) per total number of researchers/product developers 3.Research diversity  Number of specialisation fields per total number of researchers/product developers 4.Cooperation attitude  Total number of research projects/product development in cooperation with domestic organisations or institutions per total number of research projects/product development  Total number of research projects/product development in cooperation with non-domestic organisations or institutions per total number of research projects/product development  Total number of expatriate researchers/product developers per total number of researchers/product developers  Total number of researchers/product developers coming from foreign countries through exchange programmes per total number of researchers/product developers 5.Competitiveness at international level  Export share  Share of foreign direct investments

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review19 Excellence criteria Performance indicators with Weights 1.Research quantity/productivity Indicator a. -> multiplied by 0,7 Indicator b. -> multiplied by 0,3 2.Impact of research activities Indicator c. -> multiplied by 0,3 Indicator d. -> multiplied by 0,4 Indicator e. -> multiplied by 0,3 3.Research diversity Indicator f. -> multiplied by 1 4.Cooperation attitude Indicator g. -> multiplied by 0,3 Indicator h. -> multiplied by 0,3 Indicator i. -> multiplied by 0,2 Indicator j. -> multiplied by 0,2 5.Presence at international level Indicator k. -> multiplied by 0,4 Indicator l. -> multiplied by 0,6 Weights provided to the performance indicators

5 March Brussels MAP-IT! 1st Periodic Review20 Weights provided to the excellence criteria Excellence criteria have different relevance in measuring the IT excellence of the mapped organisations –Research quantity/productivity -> multiplied by 0,3 –Impact of research activities -> multiplied by 0,2 –Research diversity -> multiplied by 0,1 –Cooperation attitude -> multiplied by 0,3 –Presence at international level -> multiplied by 0,1 Questionnaire – quantitative data (C)

Calculation Model

D2.2 - Data Collection Plan Cybion – Project CoordinatorData Collection Plan