A - Alignment of EU RTD Framework Programme with national priorities
To what extent has research funded through the EU RTD Framework Programmes (FPs):
1. Been aligned with your research and innovation priorities (yes or no; if yes, specify; request evidence; ask how it came about; and what the consequences have been)?
2. Leveraged areas of UK strength (yes or no; if yes, specify; request evidence; ask how it came about; and what the consequences have been)?
3. Been carried out by the UK’s leading researchers and research organisations (yes or no; if yes, specify; request evidence; ask how it came about; and what the consequences have been)?
4. Filled important gaps not addressed by national programmes (yes or no; if yes, specify; request evidence; ask how it came about [why were there important gaps in national portfolio]; and what the consequences have been)?
5. Helped to introduce new areas of expertise (yes or no; if yes, specify; request evidence; ask how it came about; and what the consequences have been)?
6. Increased capacity in emerging areas where UK will need to work with partners in order to have sufficient impact?
7. Or, conversely, concentrated on areas that are less important to you (yes or no; if yes, specify; request evidence; ask how it came about; and what the consequences have been)?
8. Has UK-FP strategic alignment changed through successive FPs, FP4 to FP7?
9. Is it important to your organisation that FP should align with your priorities (yes or no; if yes, why is it important; what would happen if things were not aligned; what would ‘misaligned’ look like)? 10. Will your organisation be doing more or different things to improve alignment with FP8?
11. Should the UK overall be doing more to improve alignment and leverage? 12. What practicable actions would you recommend BIS consider?
B - Impacts of UK involvement in FPs61
13. What have been the principal impacts of UK involvement in successive FPs within your area of interest?
14. What is the principal source of value added, as compared with national programmes: what kinds of benefits do you see which would have been unlikely to arise otherwise?
15. Has the FP had a meaningful impact on UK research: − The topicality / relevance of research agendas?
− The quality / scale of research infrastructure available? − The quality of research / research outputs?
61 We will need to unpack these broad-brush questions about impacts and added value, by checking off each point in the respondent’s narrative against our more detailed checklist (below). And then by asking about any type of impact that did not get covered in the response to the initial question. For all points or questions, the interviewer will need to obtain a basic yes or no [or don’t know or not applicable]. If the answer is no, ask whether they would have hoped to see impact of this kind and why they think it hasn’t arisen. If yes, ask the respondent to elaborate and give specific examples to help us understand what they mean and what has happened. Ask respondents if they have any data / objective evidence to support their views. We also need to explore why / how the FP has produced these sorts of benefits and whether national programmes might have produce similar results. Lastly, we need to ask for referrals to any obvious success stories we might consider as case studies.]
− The knowledge / skills of researchers, public and private? − The international connectedness of UK researchers? − The careers of UK researchers?
− The global profile / influence of UK researchers?
16. Has the FP had an impact on the volume of national investment in research and innovation (public or private) in your area?
17. Has the FP had an impact on the volume or quality of Intellectual Property being created in your areas of interest?
18. Has the FP had an impact on the quality or frequency of interaction amongst businesses and public sector research organisations in your area?
19. Has there been any evident impact on the persistence of these sorts of behavioural changes, relating to knowledge transfer / innovation?
20. Has the FP triggered subsequent research or development, which would otherwise not have happened?
21. Has FP had an impact on the innovativeness of UK businesses active in your areas of interest? 22. Have there been any notable innovations, which track back to FP?
23. Has the FP had an impact on other aspects of the performance of UK businesses, productivity, competitiveness, overseas market access, exports, etc?
24. Has the FP had an impact on inward investment to the UK by research-active businesses, in your areas of interest?
25. Has FP had an impact on policy development and allocation of resources across priorities? 26. Has there been any noticeable change in the kinds of impacts, across successive FPs?
27. Do you see a case to re-balance the mix of impacts that derive from the FP, should its priorities and instruments be optimised around an alternative set of objectives?
28. Which FP funding mechanisms are most closely identified with success in your areas of interest? 29. Has the FP strengthened UK research and researchers through the ‘best with best’ criterion,
exploiting the intrinsic ability of an international programme to address a larger pool of internationally outstanding scientists than a typical national programme?