Knowledge & Digital Content Technologies Use of instruments, partnerships & hints Roberto Cencioni DG Information Society Use of instruments, partnerships & hints Roberto Cencioni DG Information Society

IST Programme Reminder: European challenges Transnational partnerships Complementary skills Critical mass of resources Focus, Excellence & Impact hence... Focus, Excellence & Impact

2003 Calls 1 st call = Knowledge Technologies 1 st call = Knowledge Technologies Background technical document available 2 nd call = Cross-media Digital Content 2 nd call = Cross-media Digital Content Background document published in due course common themes: common themes: digital content collections & repositories metadata & content description new value chains & content/knowledge lifecycles socio-economic aspects (eg usability, business models) research infrastructures specific support actions (eg awareness)

Schedule of 1 st call first call expected in Dec. 2002, closing late April 2003 first call expected in Dec. 2002, closing late April 2003 evaluation around mid-May => experts wanted! evaluation around mid-May => experts wanted! hearings in June hearings in June negotiations until Sep / Oct negotiations until Sep / Oct contract awarding in Nov / Dec contract awarding in Nov / Dec projects due to start in Dec / Jan 2004 projects due to start in Dec / Jan 2004 Highly competitive & demanding process … Highly competitive & demanding process …

What kind of project for KT?

What kind of project for DC? new-media industries the main target: highly dynamic, interactive, visual … content new-media industries the main target: highly dynamic, interactive, visual … content outputs reusable for enterprise content (eg corporate portals & intranets) IPs addressing the full digital value chain IPs addressing the full digital value chain interactive TV digital cinema games … focus on cross-media, multi-platform content NoEs addressing creativity & usability NoEs addressing creativity & usability STRPs in specific media domains STRPs in specific media domains SSAs in support of RTD work SSAs in support of RTD work

My ideal IP the “ideal” IP should encompass the “ideal” IP should encompass genuine research work “engineering” tasks (esp. methods & tools) system integration & validation (“total system” approach) along with along with promotion & dissemination of results training, awareness & best practice (researchers, integrators, launching users) cooperation & exchanges with related national and international efforts (incl. standards bodies) socio-economic impact & consequences

Use of FP6 instruments room for both old & new instruments room for both old & new instruments > 60% of budget earmarked for new instruments IPs IPs up to 4 years, 5-15 Meuro (EU funding) NoEs NoEs up to 5 years, 3-6 Meuro STRPs STRPs up to 3 years, 1-3 Meuro SSAs SSAs (specific support actions) up to 3 years, 1-2 Meuro

Outcome of 2003 calls fewer, bigger projects wrt. FP5 fewer, bigger projects wrt. FP meuro available 100+ meuro available 4-6 IPs 3-4 NoEs 8-12 STRPs 1-3 SSAs some 20 proposals likely to be retained for funding … highly selective process! some 20 proposals likely to be retained for funding … highly selective process! proposals cutting across knowledge / content / interface technologies are welcomed proposals cutting across knowledge / content / interface technologies are welcomed

Using the new instruments do not artificially create an IP! do not artificially create an IP! an IP should be THE project in the target area an IP should be THE project in the target area an ambitious & progressive endeavour with clearly defined milestones & checkpoints appropriate use in this sector: not 30 Meuros, nor 3 Meuros; typically 6-12 Meuros, more where justified by scope & impact appropriate use in this sector: not 30 Meuros, nor 3 Meuros; typically 6-12 Meuros, more where justified by scope & impact an NoE should be interdisciplinary, include an industry section and / or a user section an NoE should be interdisciplinary, include an industry section and / or a user section

Partnerships consortium consortium IPs 4-10 partners, from 3+ countries NoEs 4 “core” partners min., from 3+ countries STRPs 4-6 partners, from 3+ countries cohesive agenda; competent, committed & reliable partners cohesive agenda; competent, committed & reliable partners complementarity: cover all areas you need complementarity: cover all areas you need duplication of competence duplication of competence Necessary for NoEs Acceptable for IPs where dictated by project needs industry/SME/academia/NAS participation: as dictated by project needs industry/SME/academia/NAS participation: as dictated by project needs

Financial Packaging Sound costing adds to credibility project funding commensurate with expected results & impact project funding commensurate with expected results & impact funding of partners depends on individual role & input funding of partners depends on individual role & input partners’ input: labour, know-how, facilities partners’ input: labour, know-how, facilities fair cost projections, no double billing fair cost projections, no double billing choose reliable (ie financially sound) partners choose reliable (ie financially sound) partners

Coordination project leader(s) project leader(s) proven management skills international project experience coordinator’s functions coordinator’s functions interface consortium-EC financial administration contract signatory coordinator & partners coordinator & partners QA’ed reporting, against schedule up to 10-15% of project effort!

Some lessons none yet with IPs or NoEs! none yet with IPs or NoEs! have a look at complex, multi-party projects in science & industry however, as seen in the EOIs: however, as seen in the EOIs: do not artificially adapt a proposal to a strategic objective respond to all the evaluation criteria, not just the scientific & technical ones pay attention to using the full range of activities allowable for the new instruments give realistic cost / resource estimates pay extra attention to co-ordination of large projects; ensure that project management expertise is available

RTD content RTD content narrow scope, little or no EU dimension aims too general, lack of focus lack of innovation, current state of art missing planning planning links missing between objectives & workplan milestones missing or too general risk factors not addressed, no contingency plans management management management structure vague weak dissemination, exploitation … plans consortium not balanced Reasons for failure

Conclusion preserve your credibility: select one proposal and make it win! preserve your credibility: select one proposal and make it win! ensure that the proposal brings out key innovations ensure that the proposal brings out key innovations full depth of participation rather than long list of organisation names full depth of participation rather than long list of organisation names critical mass: avoid the “1 FTE per partner” trap check relevance of your ideas with EC staff, at an early stage check relevance of your ideas with EC staff, at an early stage