PONDERACIÓN DE LAS PREMISAS

The study focused on strategic questions in the main: the degree of alignment with national science and innovation policy or the strategic added value of the FP. However, almost everyone contacted during the course of the study did wish to offer a series of observations about the operational aspects of the FP and in particular that while much good progress has been made, it continues to be unnecessarily bureaucratic, costly, inflexible and slow. When asked about possible future developments and opportunities for improvement in relation to the FP, most focused on explaining negative issues experienced through their participation, rather than providing actual ‘recommendations’ for improvement. Nevertheless, some suggestions for developments and opportunities for improvement to FP8 were identified that might enhance UK involvement and benefits derived. These focused, at the European level, on further developing the themes and types of research supported and reducing the level of bureaucracy. At the national level, suggestions focused on exploring possibilities for inputting to FP development/definition and providing support to applicants and participants.

At the European- or Framework Programme level, there was an almost universal view that the Commission should press on with its simplification agenda, and that there must be many opportunities for improving speed and efficiency while also recognising that this is a multilateral programme with a very particular legal basis. Feedback focused in two key areas where there was felt to be opportunity for improvement: the thematic areas and types of research funded through FP and the administrative and other reporting requirements.

On research priorities, there was no strong pattern from participant recommendations. Similarly with stakeholders, most make an appeal for expanding the part of the FP that best addresses their constituents. However, participants would like to see a better balance of topics/themes and types of research being supported through the FP, reducing the focus on ‘hot topics’ / new areas and on applied research and exploitation. They would also like to see wider and more open work programmes and calls being developed, with less pre-defined (project-level) specificity and greater flexibility for the scientific community to propose their own ideas for work.

Survey respondents felt that UK agencies/representatives might be able to do more in general to push for UK interests in FP development. As discussed above in the context of strategic alignment, potential changes to FP8 are already expected to move the FP closer to UK thinking, but opportunities will remain for BIS (with other UK actors and the EC) to seek greater alignment between FP and UK strategies and priorities. In particular, the UK should try to broaden the sectors addressed by the FP to better match the UK knowledge economy (including higher value services and creative industries) and encourage a greater focus on the outcomes of funded research, rather than the approach to delivering those outcomes

The majority of participants appear satisfied or neutral with regard to the various aspects of FP6/7 pre- defined administration and reporting procedures and many stakeholders took the time to complement the Commission on its hard work, and argued that good progress had been made in several areas. However, survey respondents reporting a negative benefit to cost ratio for their FP participation tended to cite various problems with programme or project administration as the main cause. The areas of greatest dissatisfaction were with reporting procedures and mechanisms for payment of EC contributions, while the timeliness of various processes (particularly the application and contract negotiation procedures) were also sources of dissatisfaction for a significant minority of participants: • The overall level of bureaucracy and reporting involved is considered excessive, requiring a lot of

time and effort on the part of all participants and a disproportionate burden on smaller organisations and the inexperienced. Participants would like to see a pruning of these requirements within FP8, as well as simplified reporting procedures and a better balance between research reports and other financial / administrative reporting

• Co-financing is fine in principle, however the level of assistance seems too low given the extent to which the Commission services look to prescribe project activity and outputs, and the administrative requirements involved. Participants would therefore like to see increased EC contributions to better reflect true costs and a better recognition of the administration and

management requirements. Specific aspects of EC funding rules were also highlighted as being overly-restrictive and difficult to access

• The programme tends to move forward very slowly, and uncertainly, which creates waste and opportunity costs. Respondents complained about the timeliness of every step in the process from the call to the evaluation to contracting, to invoicing and payments. Better quality, more transparent and faster evaluation and contract negotiation processes in particular were requested by participants, as well as earlier payment of EC contributions

Other possible areas for development at the European-level, where there was some convergence of opinion included: (i) encouraging the Commission to continue to evolve the portfolio of FP instruments, to create more opportunities for community-led and co-financed research, as well as return to focusing FP funding more on small and medium-sized projects and instruments, rather than large projects and networking activities; (ii) a two stage proposal process, with a light-touch first stage (with lower hit-rates than at present), with a managed second, full-proposal stage (with higher pass rates), to reduce unnecessary expense and encourage additional applicants to come forward; and (iii) generally, clearer information and instructions on the various processes and requirements for FP projects, increased consistency between project officers and less churn in project officers during the course of projects.

At the National level there are felt to be opportunities to exert greater efforts in influencing the FP and its contents and a need for additional support for applicants/participants.

The majority of respondents to the survey did not believe that national agencies or representatives in the UK have had a major influence on FP priorities or instruments in the past (FP6 or FP7). However, many were unable to suggest practicable ways by which they might increase the extent to which they influence FP planning in the future. In part this was because the community is not aware of which agencies are involved or responsible for trying to influence the FPs or increase their relevance, what the process of developing FP priorities and calls involves, and what mechanisms are available that could be used to influence these.

There is a clear desire for greater input bottom-up, with UK representatives and agencies more actively seeking interaction with scientists, research groups and business. Participants would like to: better understand the processes by which FP work programmes are developed and how they might influence the agendas; input views on priorities to delegates early in the process so that these can be fed into programme committees and advisory groups in a coordinated way; and gain information on ongoing developments and the likely formulation of future FP areas/calls, with the opportunity to comment on any draft documents.

Linked to this, participants would like to see assistance, encouragement and support for the direct participation of the research base in the development of the FP. Closer involvement in the processes would allow participants to gain information and experience, provide expert, knowledgeable input to developments and collect information to feed back to the community.

Stakeholders also suggested a need to encourage greater levels of support and assistance to participants and applicants. Experiences vary considerably, but it would appear that participants without FP experience and those not affiliated to large organisations (with dedicated support personnel) are often those encountering the most serious difficulties. Many participants noted that the availability of expert support staff within their organisation to deal with administrative/legal/financial aspects of FP involvement could dramatically lessen the burden on individual participants. For others, national dedicated support staff that understand FP mechanisms and have good links with officials in Brussels would be welcomed.

As was discussed above in relation to the participation of key research groups, there is strong involvement by leading R&D players in some sectors (aerospace, energy, telecoms), but it would appear that a majority of business from several research-intensive UK sectors (notably pharmaceuticals and biotechnology) are typically not involved in FP projects. Improved UK market intelligence may be required on, for example, why groups come and go, or simply stay away from the FP. However, non- involvement is likely to be caused in part by the relatively high cost and bureaucratic rigidities of the FP and its slow metabolic rate and all-round sluggishness. Survey respondents mentioned that they would like to see national agencies and representatives providing specific targeted support to industry, in order to encourage involvement and interest and ensure industry needs are met through the FP.

In addition, there appears to be demand for clearer communication at the national level of the entire FP8 process (when it will launch, how much money, what calls, when meetings are planned, etc.) and information on the opportunities and benefits of participation. Additional funding to support the application phase (travel, networking, expertise and effort) would also be welcomed by many actors.

8.9 Recommendations to BIS

We have three sets of recommendations, which will tend to be mutually reinforcing. The biggest challenge would seem to relate to the issue of widening participation outside the areas where UK universities and research institutes have been hugely successful: life sciences, ERC, Marie Curie, Research Infrastructure.

This relates to business engagement in particular, with whole swathes of businesses seemingly unaware of or indifferent to FP. Moreover, comparing participation data with income statistics suggests UK businesses are playing secondary or otherwise less intensive roles than their counterparts elsewhere in Europe.

Chasing more business involvement is a difficult game, and short-term success can be costly and cause long-term damage, as people are persuaded, against their instincts to get involved in activities that are not wholly suited to them. With that cautionary note in mind, there are perhaps three things BIS might give more thought to:

• Encouraging the Commission to spend a greater share of its total budget through its growing list of more flexible instruments, to reduce wasted efforts, speed up processes and permit faster turnaround on payments

• Explore ways to make more and better use of larger / experienced organisations to bring partners and supply chains with them, possibly even looking to extend the use of the kind of RTO-led club research model one sees in the SME-specific measures

• Pull together more evidence and in-depth case material on the benefits of participation, such that NCPs and others have the kind of marketing platform they need to engage prospective participants In terms of national arrangements, we recommend BIS look at three issues, each of which might also make significant inroads to the business / SME challenge everywhere described:

• The overall PCM, expert and NCP arrangements, to determine whether things have become too fragmented and dispersed, and, critically, whether the system has sufficient resource in light of the very substantial flow of income from the FP and the 1,000s of organisations that have an interest • The market intelligence (and FP information more generally) that is available to the national

support system, and its adequacy when looked at from the perspectives of: promoting the FP, consulting relevant communities on future priorities and work programmes, disseminating information on programme results and understanding why organisations elect not to participate • The addition of an FP / international chapter in the strategies and annual reports provided to BIS,

by the research councils and others. The intention would be to encourage funders to look more closely at the nature of the FP achievements, such that they can better articulate that added value and provide something approaching an account of its impacts, jointly and severally

In terms of the future and FP8, we have to follow the popular vote and recommend that:

• BIS continue to promote the simplification agenda, possibly prioritising responsiveness and speed over administrative costs. As with any situation where one is seeking to persuade others to change in line with your own ambitions, it makes sense for BIS to develop concrete proposals that model key parameters / trade-offs, while also confirming those innovations remain compliant with relevant regulations. Bearing the cost of such experimentation, should win friends and influence people in other Member States as well as Brussels

• BIS push for early elaboration of the purpose, shape and balance of important new concepts like Grand Challenges and Joint Programming. As noted in the previous bullet point, these arguments might carry more weight if BIS, perhaps with its partners here in the UK, were to set out its own experiences of developing and implementing major programmes (e.g. Innovation Platforms, or cross-council initiatives) marshalled around grand challenges

• BIS explore ways in which it might encourage the Commission that flexible, trust-based contracts are preferable and more consequential than the kind of detail prescriptions required by the present regulations