1996 External Monitoring Report
on Esprit
Esprit Monitoring, Assessment and Evaluation Activities - Esprit Home Page
- ESPRIT continues to be a Programme driven by user needs and market-pull. Its workprogramme is innovative in both implementation and technical content and is the result of a wide consultation with industry, researchers, specialists and users. Execution is based on focused calls which address eight specific Domains within the Programme. Calls are also issued for a number of Preparatory, Support and Transfer activities which previously have been referred to as Accompanying Measures. There were two calls in 1996 and the 1996 Monitoring Panel has analysed data from these together with data from the four calls which closed in 1995. Overall, the process of selection, and the criteria adopted, address the long term concerns stated in the overall Programme and within each of the Domains and constitute a sound basis for implementation of the workprogramme.
- The 1996 Panel welcomes the implementation of several of the recommendations made by the 1995 Monitoring Panel, specifically those requesting a global map of projects, a review of the 2-Step evaluation process, and improvements in the transparency of the selection process. The Panel is also impressed with the progress the Commission has made in the last year so that more detailed statistical analysis of individual projects and trends can be provided. Further support of these initiatives are essential in order to improve the work of monitoring exercises.
- While recognising that progress has been made in several important areas, the 1996 Panel needs to reiterate some of the key recommendations made last year particularly those relating to the need for simplified and more flexible legal and financial controls, the poor take-up of SME Exploratory Awards, and a reduction in participant numbers per project.
- The ESPRIT Programme takes the views of both industrial IT users and vendors seriously as well of those of academia and the general research community. The balanced participation of these groups within the workprogramme is to be commended as are the Commission's attempts to find an advisory structure in which each type of participant has a significant voice. As ESPRIT has evolved, however, so has the complexity of the advisory structure and it is now appropriate that this should be reviewed in order to improve its transparency and ensure that both small and large users and vendors feel that they can make an effective contribution to the direction of the workprogramme.
- In 1996 each of the eight domains has intensified its efforts to launch new preparatory and support measures or to regroup existing ones. The trend detected by the Panel towards smaller Accompanying Measures, however, together with the poor take-up of some measures, suggests that the more needs to be done to co-ordinate these activities whenever synergies or added value is anticipated, and further thought needs to be given to the transparency of these activities and how best to publicise them.
- Considerable progress has been made in 1996 concerning the transparency of the selection process following the implementation of previous recommendations Results are also now available from the study of the 2-Step evaluation process which was suggested in 1995. Given the generally favourable conclusions of this study, the Panel recommends that the 2-Step process should be applied quickly in all domains but that the Commission should take further steps to ensure that Consortia which have already developed a full proposal are neither inconvenienced nor disadvantaged by the 2-Step process.
- In 1996, greater emphasis has been placed on the need for Consortia to demonstrate industrial relevance and the exploitation potential of proposals. The panel believes there is a need to maintain this emphasis and for Consortia to demonstrate in proposals that they have a basis for a clear agreement concerning the commercial exploitation of results. On its part, the Commission should take steps to ensure that evaluators have sufficient business and marketing expertise in order to properly assess the commercial potential of proposals.
- Although the involvement of SMEs in projects remains a priority for the Programme, SME participation in 1996 declined slightly and there was a reduction in the number of SME Awards from the already low figure last year. Echoing the 1995 report, the 1996 Panel is convinced that contract negotiation, payment mechanisms, and monitoring procedures are too complex, slow and inflexible, particularly for small projects, and may seriously inhibit SMEs from participating more actively in Consortia. In addition, the research culture of regular reviews, reports and detailed legal and financial controls may run counter to the risk-taking, fast-moving, entrepreneurial climate inhabited by SMEs. The Panel recommends that the Commission should: 'disaggregate' SMEs i.e. provide a better classification system for small and medium enterprises based on number of staff and turnover; provide 'fast-track access to funding; allow payment schemes based on deliverables rather than costs; provide an altogether more flexible and simpler administrative process.
- The 1995 Panel suggested that the heavy workload of Commission staff could be lightened by simplifying administrative procedures. The 1996 Panel endorses this view and further suggests that the workload of Project Officers could also be lightened by outsourcing some non-critical tasks.
- In 1996 ESPRIT has produced case study material and initiated new projects that provide information on ESPRIT success stories and qualitative assessment of how results are being exploited. The Panel welcomes these activities but believes that more statistical information on Return-On-Investment (ROI) and business-quality information is also required. This may require continued interaction with the project team for some considerable time after the technical completion of the RTD activity. In turn this may involve making new contractual arrangements with Consortia or finding ways of more successfully implementing those which already exist.
- As in 1995, a small number of recommendations made by the Monitoring Panel need to be addressed at the level of the Framework Programme, specifically those relating to the slowness of payment mechanisms and the need for simpler contractual agreements. The 1996 Panel encourages the ESPRIT Programme Management to lobby strenuously on behalf of these changes. Until some of these perhaps more strategic issues are tackled, it is unlikely that several of the problems existing at the specific programme level will be fully resolved.
The Members of the Panel of Independent External Experts
Dr. David Boland
ICI Engineering (UK)
Dr. Jean-Claude Syre
Euro-Aptitudes (FR)
Prof. Dr. Roberto Polillo
Etnoteam (IT)
Rapporteur : Mr. Jim Ayre
Multimedia Ventures (UK)
Esprit Monitoring, Assessment and Evaluation Activities - Esprit Home Page
The URL of this document is /esprit/src/monit-96.htm
It was last updated on 25 June 1997 and is maintained by Esprit
