1. How we learned to participate in EU projects „We”: the VLSI CAD group Institute of Microelectronics and Optoelectronics Warsaw University of Technology Research and teaching: microelectronic design, development of EDA tools for integrated circuit design Staff: approx. 15 acad. teachers and PhD students Leader: Prof. Wieslaw Kuzmicz wbk@imio.pw.edu.pl

2. Overview: 1993 - 2002 FP3  FP4  FP5 (and now: toward FP6) PECO  COPERNICUS  IST Participation in 7 proposals (one unsuccessful) Participation in 5 projects as one of the partners Coordination of one project (plus two educational TEMPUS projects - one coordinated) Total EU support received: ~ 400 k€ (+ 200 k€ from TEMPUS projects) Additional co-funding from Polish sources: ca. 80 kPLN

3. 1993 - 1995: EEMCN (PECO 7668) East European Microelectronic Cooperation Network We were invited by the organiser of the network - a result of earlier contacts Goal: networking, establishing links Main result: basis for future cooperation and projects What we learned: Basics of EU financing mechanisms (very useful!) Legal framework (very useful!) Good partners and not-so-good partners (useful!) How NOT to coordinate the project (extremely useful!)

4. 1994 - 1999: EUROEAST (CP9093) and SYTIC (CP96 0170) Support for development of state-of-the art microelectronic design research centers in CEE EUROEAST: we were invited; SYTIC: we co-authored the proposal Our main task: distribution of our IMiOCAD set of EDA tools Main result: tools delivered to 40+ universities What we learned: „Politics” of EU support for microelectronics - why and what is supported (very useful!) IPR protection problems in software distribution (useful!) Legal limitations for software distribution (useful!) Cultural factors (EU vs. CE vs. NIS) (useful!)

5. 1996 - 1999: HARMONY (CP 94 0202) Application of hardware fuzzy logic processor to adaptive heart pacemakers - our first RTD project; a Polish SME involved We were de facto proposers (but not coordinator) Our main task: development of an analogue ultra low power fuzzy logic controller Main results: one international patent, project listed as one of the most successful projects with CEE countries in FP4 What we learned: How to build a complementary consortium (very useful!) How to manage a really challenging multidisciplinary international research project (extremely useful!) More IPR protection problems (patent!) How to get a Polish SME involved as project partner

6. 1997 - 2000: VILAB (INCO977133) Creation of an Internet-based „virtual laboratory” We were co-authors of the proposal Our main task: development of a set of EDA tools available via Internet Main results: „Virtual Prototyping” service for microelectronic industry developed and implemented What we learned: How to organise Internet-based cooperation How to cooperate in a RTD project with many parallel subprojects and other activities An important side effect of our activities: a guidebook explaining FP5, its policies and rules written; published by Ministry of Economy and available in Internet

7. 1999: ADAGIO (IST-1999-10074) an unsuccessful proposal Our first RTD proposal addressed to IST Topic: application of fuzzy logic to implantable heart defibrillators We were the main co-authors of the proposal Failed: below threshold in “Economic development and S&T prospects”. Comments: “No specific commitment of industrial exploitation, narrow niche opportunity” What we learned: Hard realities of industrial participation in a RTD project (useful!) Differences between EU policy in INCO/Copernicus and in mainstream FP5 projects (very useful !)

8. 2002 - 2004: REASON (IST-2000-30193) Research and Training Action for System on Chip Design We were proposers and now we coordinate the project Main task: knowledge exchange and knowledge sharing between partners from EU, EU candidate countries, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine; 22 contractors, more than 40 institutions directly involved What we already learned: Lobbying mechanisms (very useful!) How to write a really good proposal (very useful!) Contract preparation and negotiations (very useful!) What we are still learning: How to be a good coordinator

9. Additional experience: evaluation of IST proposals Evaluation is a fair procedure with very precise formal rules Very little room for lobbying Understanding of EU policies and true meaning of evaluation criteria is a key for success What we learned:

10. Summary: main lessons learned (1) Results of the project, not the financial support, is what really matters Nothing can replace personal contacts Always try to know and understand motivations of your partners “Strong” partners are not always the best ones Partners interested in getting the EC money only should be avoided

11. Understanding of the “philosophy” and policies behind programs and priorities is the key to successful proposals Direct contacts with the EC are the best source of information Financial rules and legal framework must be understood Final remark: it pays to be active ! Summary: main lessons learned (2)

12. Thank you and good luck !