FP7-SME-2013 SME-FP7 Proposals Ing. Leonardo Bocchi

FP7-SME-2013

SME-FP7 Proposals

Ing. Leonardo Bocchi

Navacchio . 3 luglio 2012

[email protected] 3

Outline

The call–Topics–which call: SME - SME/AG - DEMO–IPR

Participation–Part A–Part B

Evaluation–Scientific/technological–Implementation–Impact


[email protected] 4

Main objective

Strengthening the innovation capacity of European SMEs and their contribution to the development of new technology based products and markets by:

– helping them outsource research, – increase their research efforts, – extend their networks, – better exploit research results and acquire technological know how, – bridging the gap between research and innovation through European level

collaboration.


[email protected] 5

R4SME : 3 activities

Research for the benefit of SMEs (SMEs)Research for the benefit of SME-Associations/Groups (SME-AGs)Demonstration Action (DEMO)

Indicative budget (Million €)

110 79

15 SMEsSME-AGsDEMO

Dati 2011


[email protected] 6

Topics

bottom-up scheme

any research topic across the entire field of science and technology.

Areas Excluded From Funding Under FP7 (Art. 6) (i) Research activity aiming at human cloning for reproductive purposes;

(ii) Research activity intended to modify the genetic heritage of human beings which could make such changes heritable (Research relating to cancer treatment of the

gonads can be financed); (iii) Research activities intended to create human embryos solely for the purpose of research or for the purpose of stem cell procurement, including by means of somatic

cell nuclear transfer;


[email protected] 7

SMEs & SME-AGs : Actors

SME Participantsmicro, small and medium-sized enterpriseshttp://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme_definition/index_en.htm

RTD Performersuniversities, research organizations and industrial companies, including research performing SMEs.

Other Entreprises / End-Usersmay participate by making a particular contribution to the project and in solving specific problems or needs of the SME participants involved, though not in a dominant role.

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme_definition/index_en.htm


[email protected] 8

Typically:• 5 to 10 participants• 500.000 to 1.500.000 €• 12 to 24 months

1. SMEs activity : Objective

Answer innovation needs of SMEsOutsource Research & Development to RTD performersExploitation potential for the SMEs


[email protected] 9

1. SMEs : Consortium

Minimum 3 SME Participants Minimum 2 RTD PerformersOther participants possible (end-users)

INDEPENDENT from each other


[email protected] 10

1. SMEs : The transaction

Customer-Seller relationshipSMEs are the direct beneficiaries of the scheme

SMEs

RTD performers

End-Users

Investing in Research

Results and IPR



1. SMEs : Activities

Research & Technological Development (R&D)Core of the ProjectPerformed mostly by RTD performersSpecifications defined by SMEsResults acquired by SMEs

Demonstration ActivitiesTesting viability of the project resultsMarket - oriented

OthersTraining of the SME partners by the RTD performersDissemination of the project resultsManagement of the project



1. SMEs : Impact

Strengthening the competitiveness of SMEMarket PotentialDescribed at qualitative and quantitative levelBasic ethical principlesInclude provisions for communication and dissemination of results



2. SME-AGs activity: objective

Develop technological solutions to problems common to a large number of SMEsMust be driven by the SME associationsOutsource Research & Development to RTD performers

Typically:• 10 to 15 participants• 1.000.000 to 3.000.000 €• 24 to 36 months



2. SME-AGs : consortium

Minimum 3 independent SME Associations/groups from 3 countries (EU or Associated) or 1 SME Association made of 3 countries.Minimum 2 independent RTD performersOthers Enterprises / End-Users : Minimum 2 SMEs



2. SME-AGs : The transaction

Customer-Seller relationshipSME-AGs & their members are the direct beneficiaries of the scheme

SME-AGs

RTD performers

End-Users


Results and IPR



2. SME-AGs : Activities

Research & Technological Development (R&D)Core of the ProjectPerformed mostly by RTD performersSpecifications defined by SME-AGs & their membersResults acquired by SME-AGs & their members

Demonstration ActivitiesTesting viability of the project resultsMarket - oriented

OthersTraining of the technical and managerial staff from SME-AGs partners by the RTD performers (max 15% of the costs)Dissemination of the project resultsManagement of the project



2. SME-AGs : impact

Developing new or conforming to existing European norms and standardsClear economic impact for the SME members of the SME-AGsCompetitive advantage described both at qualitative and quantitative levelBasic ethical principles Include provisions for communication and dissemination of results



Financial contribution

For both SMEs & SME-AGs activities:Max 110% of the estimated price to be invoiced by the RTD performers to the SMEs or SME-AGs

The FINAL requested EC contribution will be either the "total requested EC contribution" or the "maximum EC contribution equal to 110 % of subcontracting of RTD performers excl. VAT ", which ever is the lowest.



3. Demonstration activity : Context

Average DEMO costs in R4SMEs is normally below 6% of the budget of the projectStrong need to bridge the innovation gap between the outcomes of the project and its potential exploitation on the market



3. Demonstration : Objective

centered on the needs of the SMEs to carry out demonstration activities before being able to enter the marketdetailed market studies/business plans or market strategies

Typically:• 500.000 to 3.000.000 €• 18 to 24 months



3. Demonstration : Consortium

Minimum 3 SMEs that have participated together to :FP6-2004-SME-COOP or FP6-2004-SME-COLLOrFP7 : Research for the benefit of SMEs (SMEs & SME-AGs)

75% of the cost carried out by the SMEsCoordinator is a SME partnerOther actors possible: SME-AGs, Large companies, RTD performers



3. Demonstration : concept

the subject of the demonstration action is research results originated within a previous FP7 or FP7 R4SMEs project (listed before)

and that these results are ready and suitable for the exploitation phase through the demonstration action.



3. Demonstration : Activities

Demonstrationprove the viability of new technologies that offer a potential economic advantage, but which cannot be commercialized directly (e.g. testing of product-like prototypes

Managementmanagement, training and other costs should not exceed 10% of the total cost of the project



3. Demonstration : Impact

bridging the gap between research and marketdescribed both at qualitative and quantitative level



Intellectual Property Rights

For the three activities: Must be already addressed in the proposalIPR Ownership and user rights to be already describedSpecific rules for this funding scheme



IPR : options

Default option SME partners own the project results

In practice, different options possible*:The agreement must be done in the (economic) interest of the SMEs or SME-

AGs, and their members.The proposal should provide a clear and adequate description of how the

participants will organize IPR ownership and user rights (e.g. licenses, royalties) among themselves

*as long as the SMEs are provided with all the rights that are required for their intended use and dissemination of the project results



IPR : Definitions

Background = information and attached rightswhich are held by participants prior to their accession to the grant agreement (no sideground)which are needed for carrying out the project or for using its resultswhich may be defined by the participants

Foreground = all results of the project and attached rights



IPR: Overview

Access rights conditions Access rights to background Access rights to foreground

Needed for carrying out the project

Royalty-free(unless otherwise agreed before accession to Grant Agreement)

Royalty-free

Needed for use of the project results

Fair and reasonable conditions or royalty-free to be agreed at any time

Access to the background of RTD performers for the implementation of the project is always royalty-free Access to the background of RTD performers for use purpose of the project results must be agreed before accessing the grant agreement.Access to the project results for RTD performers can be granted for R&D purposes only



Proposal see Guide for Applicants– Specific for each Funding Scheme

Description of the specific funding Scheme– How to Apply

EPSS, Electronic Proposal Submission ServiceParticipant Identification Code PIC based, http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/pp-pic_en.html

– Check List for proponents– Preproposal Check Form (see at the end of the guide)– Submission (one step, two steps, etc.)

Strict deadline !!!! Submit it before and more than once

– Next Steps: evaluation and negotiation– Instructions to compile Part A and B (models)– Distribution of budget on Annexes

[email protected], APRE Toscana

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/pp-pic_en.html



Proposal

Part A and B are specific for each funding scheme

Part A, automatically produced on EPSSAbstract, informationFinancial aspectsPartners forms

Part B: Technical descriptionSection 1: Scientific and/or technical qualitySection 2. ImplementationSection 3. ImpactSection 4. Ethical Issues




Evaluation Procedure

A one-stage submission procedure Proposal submission

VIA Electronic Proposal Submission Service (EPSS) on or before the published deadline.

Applicants must ensure that proposals conform to the page limits and layout given in the Guide for Applicants, and in the proposal part B template available through the EPSS

The evaluation criteria and sub-criteria (including weights and thresholds), for the different funding schemes are set out in Annex 2Read the evaluation guide




Evaluation of Part B

The first 3 sections have the same relevance:Section 1: Scientific and/or technical qualitySection 2. ImplementationSection 3. Impact (higher threshold)

This is only Yes/No, ethically acceptable or not acceptableSection 4. Ethical Issues

[email protected], APRE Toscana 32



Other conditions

Indicative evaluation and contractual timetable: expected grant agreement negotiations for the shortlisted proposals will

start as of April/May 2013.

Consortia agreements: all actions resulting from this call are required to conclude a consortium

agreement.

Contract:The forms of grant which will be offered are specified in Annex 3 to the

Cooperation work programme.

Financial GuaranteeCertification of Financial Sheets, CFS




Outline






Part A

A1Acronym (letters-numbers)Title - abstractSimilar projects (from the same participants)

A2 (one for each partner)Participant data (address, contact point, ...)Type (SME - RTD - Other)

A3 BudgetDirect costs (eligible only)

Research - Demo - management - otherPersonnelSubcontract (excluding RTD)

Indirect costs



RTD performers

Research activitiesInvoiced to SMEsNot included in A3 form

Management, Demo, OtherDirectly funded by EUIncluded in A3 form



SME, Other participants

Research activitiesInclude both own research AND invoicing from RTD performersIncluded in A3 form

Management, Demo, OtherIncluded in A3 form



Example

Research Demo Mgmt Other

RTD 100000 10000 5000 3000

SME 25000 8000 7000 2500

Research Demo Mgmt Other

RTD ------- 10000 5000 3000

SME 125000 8000 7000 2500

Invoice from RTD to SME: 100000

Costs

Form A3



Indirect costs

YES

NO



Funding

Reimbursement ratesResearch 50% or 75% (non profit public bodies, education establishment, SME, research organizations)Demo 50%Other (including management) 100%

Maximum contribution110% of the invoices from RTD to SME



Part B

Document in pdf format IMPORTANT: Page and table limits: remember to keep to the page and table limits where these are specified. The minimum font size allowed is 11 points. The page size is A4, and all margins (top, bottom, left, right) should be at least 15 mm (not including any footers or headers).

Please remember that it is up to you to verify that you conform to page limits. There is no automatic check in the system!



Part B - layout

Section I: Scientific and/or technical quality1.1 Soundness of concept and quality of objectives

Describe the extent to which the proposed project addresses a specific scientific and/or technological problem or needs of the SME participants through outsourcing research activities to RTD performers. Provide a conclusive analysis of the competitive threat and specify clearly how the proposed work will enable the SME participants to improve their competitive position. SME participants should carry out research and/or demonstration activities to validate and exploit the research results provided by the RTD performers.

Describe in detail the proposed project’s S&T objectives. Show the soundness of the concept: the objectives should be realistic and their achievement verifiable within the project, as the progress of the project work will be measured against these goals.

Describe how the proposed project reflects the concept of "Research for SMEs" by offering a solution to SME participants in need of outsourcing research and development activities.



Part B

1.2 Innovative character in relation to the state-of-the-art Describe the international state-of-the-art on which the project’s

approach is based, by means of a documentary study including, for example, literature, publications, patents, standards and data-base searches. Briefly describe the technical limitations of existing products /processes /services and include comments on competing techniques.

1.3 Contribution to advancement of knowledge / technological progress

Describe the innovative character of the project and how the proposed project will enhance significantly the state-of-the-art in that area.

"Research for SMEs" aims at offering technological solutions to SMEs. Hence, with regard to innovation it is not a requirement to develop cutting edge technology at world class level.

The adoption of existing technologies to new applications in a concrete SME business case is also worth considering here. In that sense 'State-of-the-art" is to be understood as advancement of knowledge or technological progress including a comprehensive description.



1.4 Quality and effectiveness of S/T methodology and associated work plan

A detailed work plan, broken down into work packages1 (WPs) Consortium management and assessment of progress and results. Research, technological development and innovation activities:

Describe major elements or blocks of work. Identify who will carry out each. Show the relevance and contribution of each to the project as a whole. Show contingency plans for unexpected outcomes of the research work.

Demonstration activities: Typically linked to the validation of the RTD results. Describe each demonstration activity and identify who will carry out each. Show the relevance and contribution of each to the research elements of the

project on which these demonstrations are fully or partly based.



Part B

1.4 Quality and effectiveness of S/T methodology and associated work plan

Timing of the different WPs and their components (Gantt chart or similar).

Detailed work description broken down into work packages: Work package list (please use table 1.4a); Deliverables list (please use table 1.4b); Description of each work package, and summary (please use table 1.4c).

Maximum length per work package is 2 pages. Summary effort table (please use table 1.4d) List of milestones (please use table 1.4e)

Provide a graphical presentation of the components showing their interdependencies (Pert diagram or similar)

Describe any significant risks, and associated contingency plans.



Part B

Section II: Implementation 2.1 Quality of the Consortium as a whole

2.1.1 Description of project management structure and proceduresThe management and decision making approach should be tailored to

the real needs of the project in terms of scale and complexity. the project management will enable the project to achieve its goals and

the SME participants to achieve execution of the project according to their needs and requirements. Role of SMEs in the "driver's seat" of the project.

Satisfactory plan for the management of knowledge, intellectual property and other innovation-related activities arising from the project. Handling of IPR matters should be reflected in the decision making process.

Outline the decision making mechanisms and clearly state the responsibilities of each individual partner. Describe conflict resolution mechanisms and contingency planning.

Demonstrate that the coordinator is experienced and qualified. Clear justification if the SMEs entrust the coordination to another partner and explain how this organisation will act in the interest of the SMEs.



Part B

2.1.2 Description of the consortium Present a profile of each participant. Outline the consistency between its

business activities, its intended role in the project and the benefits it expects to derive from participating.

The SME participants must be the real driving force for the project with each having an active role in the consortium. The RTD performers must demonstrate a high level of scientific excellence and complement each other.

If 'Other enterprises or end users' are included in the consortium, describe their relevance to the project and how their participation is in the interest of the SME participants.

Describe how the participants collectively constitute a consortium capable of achieving the project objectives. Show complementarities between participants.

Demonstrate the quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementary balance).

Demonstrate that all participating companies in the project have a well defined interest, with little or no overlap. If there are potential commercial conflicts between partners, clearly demonstrate how they will deal with this problem.



Part B

2.2 Appropriate allocation and justification of the resources to be committed

Allocation and justification of the resources to be committed Demonstrate how the project will mobilise the critical mass of resources

necessary for success; how the resources will be integrated to form a coherent project, and show that the overall financial plan for the project is adequate.

Show that the proposal allocates and justifies appropriate resources in line with the work plan and for the successful conduct of the project.

Make clear that the SME participants take into account the remuneration ("invoices") for the subcontracting to the RTD performers.

Demonstrate that the transaction price agreed with the RTD performers respects market conditions.

Demonstrate that the SME participants possess their own resources necessary for the project. Explain how the RTD performers will co-invest in the project in case they retain ownership of foreground.

Justify subcontractors and Non-EU partners



Part B

Section III: Impact (SME)3.1 Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant activity

Clear economic impact for the SME participants, improving their competitiveness by creating new or by expanding existing markets.

The impact on the participating SMEs should be clearly addressed in terms of economic growth, employment, market strategy, distribution channels etc. underpinned by quantitative and qualitative indicators.

Justify the transnational approach and explain how the project will increase transnational technological cooperation amongst SMEs and between SMEs and research organisations or other organisations at the European level.



Section III: Impact (SME)3.1 Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant activity

Projects under 'Research for SME associations' develop technical solutions to problems common to a large number of SMEs in specific industrial sectors or segments of the value chain through research, for example, to develop or conform to European norms and standards, and to meet regulatory requirements in areas such as health, safety and environmental protection. The expected outcome should demonstrate a clear economic impact for the SME-AGs and their members and/or the sectors concerned.

Indicate the contribution of the project in addressing EU societal objectives (quality of life, health, safety, working conditions, employment, environment, contribution to standards, etc.).



Part B

3.2 Appropriateness of measures envisaged for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property

3.2.1 Project results and management of intellectual propertyProvide a clear and adequate description of how the participants will

organise IPR (intellectual property rights) ownership and user rights (e.g. licences, royalties) among themselves.

"Guide to Intellectual Property Rules for FP7 projects" (ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/ipr_en.pdf).

By default, the SME participants retain the full ownership of all project results ("foreground") and the RTD-performers are remunerated accordingly. The consortium may however reach a different agreement in their own best interests, as long as the SMEs are provided with all the rights that are required for their intended use and dissemination of the project results.



Part B

If the consortium agrees that the RTD performers keep part ownership or the entire foreground the consortium has to describe clearly:

How it is ensured that the SME participants are provided with all the rights that are required for their intended use and dissemination of the project results.

How this is reflected in the value of the transaction (remuneration of the RTD performers).

How the RTD performers are going to exploit the IPR.

The partners should already present a breakdown on the sharing of different elements of the IPR proportional to their work in the project and in line with their business strategy or position in the supply chain. Describe clearly, if applicable, any allocation of rights for the dissemination and use to 'Other Enterprises and end-users'.

Access rights to background and foreground to carry out the project and after its conclusion should be clearly defined. A table listing all items by partner and type of access right granted should be included in this chapter.



Part B

3.2.2 Dissemination and/or exploitation of project results "plan for the use and dissemination of the foreground“: explaining how

knowledge and intellectual property issues will be managedDescribe the industrial or commercial routes envisaged for the exploitation

of the results. Describe the steps that are foreseen to ensure that the SME participants will be able to assimilate and exploit the results of the project with the necessary resources. Specify in particular the role of each SME participant as well as 'Other enterprises and end-users' and the tasks to be implemented during the project to validate the technology and facilitate the absorption of results by the SME participants.

Identify the project results (including knowledge), how these results are going to be exploited by the SME participants and the amount to be reimbursed to the RTD performers

Describe, if relevant, the scope, any intended measures and time scale for dissemination of the results and transfer of technology to other organisations.

In designing these measures, you should take into account a variety of communication means and target groups as appropriate (e.g. policy-makers, interest groups, media and the public at large).



Part B

Section IV: Ethics Issues Describe any ethics issues that may arise in the project. In particular, you should explain the benefit and burden of the

experiments and the effects it may have on the research participants. You should be aware of the legal framework that is applicable and the

possible specific conditions that are relevant in each country.The local ethics committee or/and relevant competent authorities (Data

Protection, Clinical Trials etc) should be contacted for information and, when applicable, guidance (and possibly FP7 Ethics Help Desk).

Fill the Ethics issues table. If you indicate YES to any issue, please identify the pages in the proposal where this ethics issue is described.

Any ethics review will be performed solely on the basis of the information available in the proposal.



Outline






Evaluation procedure

Individual assessment reportEach expert is asked to evaluate each proposal.Evaluators will assess and mark the proposal exactly as it is described and presented. They do not make any assumptions or interpretations about the project, in addition to what is in the proposal.The experts record their individual opinions in an Individual Evaluation Report (IER), giving scores and also comments that should be concise but explicit justifications against the evaluation criteria for each score.Evaluators are required to provide comments to accompany each of their scores. These comments must be consistent with any scores awarded and serve as input to any consensus discussion and related consensus report.The evaluator will also indicate whether, in their view, the proposal deals with sensitive ethical issues.



Evaluation procedure

Consensus reportOnce the 3 evaluators assigned to each proposal have completed their IERs, the evaluation progresses to a consensus report (CR), representing their common views.

CR are built on the basis of the individual evaluations reports (IER)The aim is agreement on scores and comments“Outlying” opinions need to be explored - Not just a simple averaging.

The rapporteur is responsible for drafting the consensus report (CR) which includes consensus marks and comments



Evaluation criterium

S/T QUALITY - “Scientific and/or technological excellence”

Sound concept, and quality of objectivesInnovative character in relation to the state-of-the artContribution to advancement of knowledge / technological progressQuality and effectiveness of S/T methodology and associated work.

IMPLEMENTATION - “Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management”

Appropriateness of the management structures and proceduresQuality and relevant experience of the individual participantsQuality of the consortium (including complementarity and balance)Appropriate allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment)

IMPACT - “Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results”

Contribution, at the European [and/or international level], to the expected impacts listed in the work programme Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property.



S&T Excellence

S&T excellence (example for SME-AG call)To what extent addresses the proposed project specific scientific and/or technological problems or needs of SME-AGs?How well do the SME associations/groupings (SME-AGs) tackle this by outsourcing research activities to RTD performers? How conclusive is the analysis of the needs of the sector (meeting regulatory requirements, influencing norms and standards, replying to a competitive threat)?To what extend is clearly specified how the proposal will enable the members of the SME-AGs to gain a competitive advantage?How adequate is the contribution of SME-AGs, their members and/or Other enterprises and end-users to the research and/or demonstration activities?How well are the proposed project’s S&T objectives described?How realistic and achievable are these objectives?

No requirement to develop cutting edge technology at world class level!



Implementation

Project management structure and procedureHow is the overall quality of the project management in terms of distribution of responsibilities and decision making? Is the structure of the management (e.g. levels, procedures, committees etc.) coherent with the size of the consortium and the scope of the work plan?Is the management plan tailored to the demands of the complexity of the project?Is the Coordinator experienced and qualified for a demanding and complex management task?Is the communication flow adequately described?Are there clear arrangements for decision making?Does the consortium have adequate mechanisms in place for conflict resolution?Are IPR matters reflected in the decision making process?



Implementation

Structure of the consortiumIs the consortium as a whole well balanced and reasonably sized with respect to the proposed work plan?Does the proposal clearly present the profile and role of each participant in terms of competencies, skills, key personnel, business / industrial activity, research field?Are the SME participants the real driving forces for the project with each having an active role in the consortium?Do the RTD performers demonstrate a high level of scientific excellence and complement each other?Are other enterprises and end users convincingly integrated in the consortium to the benefit of the SMEs e.g. by testing of results or serving as multiplier or image carrier?Does the proposal show the interest of all participating companies in the project with no or little overlap?



Implementation

Allocation of resourcesDoes the proposal allocate appropriate resources in terms of personnel, equipment and materials for the successful conduct of the project?Are the personnel resources (person months) convincingly related to work packages / project activities?Is the cost breakdown well structured and correspond to activities to be implemented by each participant?Are the envisaged efforts adequate, over-estimated or under-estimated with respect to the project’s work plan?Have the SME participants taken into account the remuneration (invoices) for the subcontracting to RTD performers in the cost breakdown?



Implementation

Allocation of resourcesDoes the proposal demonstrate that the SME participants posses their own resources necessary for the total investment in the project?Are major purchases of equipment credibly justified and indispensable for successfully carrying out the project? Does the proposal provide an adequate breakdown of workpackages, partners involved and person months allocated?Is there a balanced allocation of finance to partners in line with the work plan?Is there a coherent integration of finance, resources (personnel, others), work plan and partnership from a global point of view?Is subcontracting to third parties (other than subcontracting to RTD performers) well justified?



Impact

Highest thresholdImpact is usually the most restrictive criterium

Threshold for acceptance is often 4 out of 5

Major concern from the EC is toward the impact of the proposal, which includes:

Economical advantage for the SME / SME-AGincrease in competitivenesseconomical justificationmanagement of IPR

Social impactquality of lifeoccupation



Impact: guiding questions

To what extend demonstrates the proposal a clear economic impact for the SME-AGs and their members and/or the sectors concerned? How strongly will the project improve the competitiveness of the members of the SME-AGs or of the involved SMEs and contribute to improving industrial competitiveness across the European Union?How sound are the economic justification (i.e. its cost effectiveness, taking into account the overall cost of the project in relation to its potential direct economic benefits for the individual SME participants)? Does the project address adequately Community societal objectives (quality of life, health, safety, working conditions, employment, environment, contribution to standards, etc.)?Is the transnational approach well justified and geared towards increased transnational technological cooperation? To what extend demonstrates the proposal a clear economic impact for the SME participants in terms of economic growth, employment, market strategy, distribution channels, etc?



Impact: IPR management

Evaluation of the funding scheme

SME AssociationsSME

RTD-Performers


Results & IPR

Other enterprises, End users



Impact

IPR managementAre adequate plans for knowledge and IPR management clearly described in the proposal?Does the proposal outline how the consortium intends to protect, share, manage and exploit IPR?If the consortium agrees that the RTD performers keep part ownership or the entire foreground the consortium, does the proposal describe clearly:

How it is ensured that the SME participants are provided with all the rights that are required for their intended use and dissemination of the project results.

How this is reflected in the value of the transaction (remuneration of the RTD performers).

How the RTD performers are going to exploit the IPR.Does the proposal clearly describe, if applicable, any allocation of rights for the dissemination and use to Other Enterprises and End-Users?



IPR management

The RTD performers offer a research service for which they must be remunerated by the SME participants and/or other enterprises and end-users. In return the SME participants receive rights to the “foreground" (including intellectual property) generated in the project. All participants must agree on the appropriate conditions with respect to remuneration of the RTD performers and rights relinquished to the SME-participants, and in the best interest of the SME participants, before submitting the proposal.IPR rules are specific for "Research for SMEs“The default regime remains full ownership of all project results ("foreground") and IPR by the SME participants. The consortium may however reach a different agreement in their own best interests, as long as the SME participants are provided with all the rights that are required for their intended use and dissemination of the project results.



Impact: guiding questions

DisseminationDoes the plan for the use and dissemination of the knowledge clearly describe:How the knowledge and IP issues will be managed within the consortium?The industrial or commercial routes envisaged for the exploitation of the results by the SME participants?The role of each SME, other enterprises and end-users to validate the technology and take up of results?The project results (including knowledge) and how these results are going to be exploited by the SME participants and the amount to be reimbursed to the RTD performers (table 3.2.2)?Any intended measures, if relevant, and time scale for dissemination of the results and transfer of technology to other organisations?



References

APRE Toscana:http://www.apretoscana.org

APRE: http://www.apre.it

Find Documents on EC:http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/find-doc_en.html

FP7 Research Enquiries Servicehttp://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?pg=enquiries

ICT National Contact Pointhttp://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ncp_en.html

Information requests to EC: [email protected]




Cordis WEB portalhttp://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html

Find a Callhttp://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm

To become an evaluatorhttps://cordis.europa.eu/emmfp7/

RTD info magazine:http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo/

Guide to financial issuesftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/financialguide_en.pdf

Certificates issued by external auditors –Guidance notes for beneficiaries and auditorsftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/guidelines-audit-certification_en.pdf

SME check tool http://smetest.uwe.be

[email protected], APRE Toscana 71

http://smetest.uwe.be/

http://smetest.uwe.be/



Leonardo BocchiApre Toscana, UNIFI

[email protected]://www.apretoscana.org

Pisa, Navacchio, 13-12-2011


http://www.apretoscana.org/