Скачать презентацию IST Proposers Workshop 24 Mar 2003 Myer W Скачать презентацию IST Proposers Workshop 24 Mar 2003 Myer W

c1c8511716cd4aa1690f9a655949d084.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 41

IST Proposers Workshop 24 Mar 2003 Myer W Morron ISERD mwm@iserd. org. il 24 IST Proposers Workshop 24 Mar 2003 Myer W Morron ISERD [email protected] org. il 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron

 • • • • Outline Goals of workshop Overview of where we stand • • • • Outline Goals of workshop Overview of where we stand today Available documents Process - what to do and how to decide STREPs IPs No. Es Proposal differences SMEs Eureka/Magnet How to identify a proposal to join Financial/IPR/liability aspects Conclusions 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 2

Goals of workshop • • Sixth in a planned series of twice a month Goals of workshop • • Sixth in a planned series of twice a month Information aimed at IST participants To bring you up to date with latest situation To structure your activities To answer your questions To get answers for those we cannot handle To use reactions in planning content for next workshop on 13 April • Note - official documents are only legal guide 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 3

Overview of where we stand today • • Basic call documents available Some important Overview of where we stand today • • Basic call documents available Some important supplementary guides missing A great deal of confusion in Europe Some major players going down blind alleys In some areas increasing importance of Eureka New proposal system EPSS/EPT available EPSS Workshop on 15 April 2003 Several basic questions unanswered 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 4

Available documents • • • Workprogram 2003/2004 available First call issued Call correction issued Available documents • • • Workprogram 2003/2004 available First call issued Call correction issued All Proposers Guides available Guide correction issued “Provisions” drafts available Drafts of evaluation manuals available Full drafts of model contract available Only drafts of Financial and IPR manuals Preliminary consortium agreements No Memoranda of Understanding 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 5

Process - what to do & how to decide • • Clarify your own Process - what to do & how to decide • • Clarify your own goals for participation Identify Strategic Objective Identify topic(s) Know which call and time frame Clarify if you will coordinate or participate Key question is to go for an IP or a STREP Danger of STREP overlap with an IP I suggest the following process 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 6

IP or STREP? Identify if area of interest covered by SO Can it complement IP or STREP? Identify if area of interest covered by SO Can it complement a No project in a SO? No Yes Look elsewhere for funding Yes Does specific topic ask only STREPs? No STREPs and/or IPs Find consortium Yes Identify potential IP proposers Is topic covered? Yes No Allow you to participate? Join 24 Mar 2003 Yes ISERD No M W Morron Consider STREP 7

STREPs • • • STREP ~ 1 -3 MEuro & ~4 -6 partners, 2 STREPs • • • STREP ~ 1 -3 MEuro & ~4 -6 partners, 2 -3 yrs STREPs are extremely important for Israelis Opportunity for our high tech industry In IST Call 1 funding is 1, 100 MEuro 65% to IPs and No. Es (700 MEuro) – Of which say 150 MEuro for No. Es – and say 550 MEuros for IPs • Of remaining 35%, say 5% for SSAs and CAs • Leaves 30% ie 330 MEuro for STREPs 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 8

STREP possible structure Partners Management Board with senior representative of each partner Technical Board STREP possible structure Partners Management Board with senior representative of each partner Technical Board with technical leaders of each partner/WP WP 1 Project Management 24 Mar 2003 WP 2 WP 3 ISERD WP 4 M W Morron Chaired by Project Manager Chaired by Technical Director WP 5 9

Financial Management This is manipulation by the Commission of assigned funding An example would Financial Management This is manipulation by the Commission of assigned funding An example would be to offer a proposal for say 15 MEuro over four years, an initial contract for say 7 MEuro for 2 years to be followed by a competative call for final two years. Positive effect is it allows more IPs to be initiated, postpones political conflict, less danger of losing funding Negative effect is it precommits future funding for second phase, postpones hard decisions 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 10

IPs • Size - depends on topic – Most areas • 6 - 12 IPs • Size - depends on topic – Most areas • 6 - 12 MEuro funding with some financial management • 8 - 15 core partners • 4 - 5 years – Microelectronic, Communications • 10 - 25 MEuro funding with financial management • 8 - 15 core partners • 4 - 5 years • Now only two types – Monolithic – Incremental participation 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 11

IP Limiting Factors It is vital to bear in mind the following • Management IP Limiting Factors It is vital to bear in mind the following • Management “Span of Control” must be minimised to 6 - 8 via sub-project mechanism • “Core partners” would each be expected to allocate several staff full time to the project – Significant work cannot be carried out with part time staff – Also would show level of commitment – 12 MEuro project over 4 years = ~ 120 manyears/4 = 30 people full time => 15 partners 2 staff each • IT market is too dynamic for longer term commitments (ie >4 years) 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 12

IP possible structure Partners Management Board with senior representative of each partner Chaired by IP possible structure Partners Management Board with senior representative of each partner Chaired by Project Manager Core Team of Core Partners Chaired by Technical Director Technical Board with Area leaders Area 1 WP 2 24 Mar 2003 WP 3 Project Mngmnt Office Area 2 WP 1 WP 2 ISERD Area 3 WP 1 WP 2 Area 4 WP 2 M W Morron WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 13

No. Es • Networks should consist of a limited number of major labs/players • No. Es • Networks should consist of a limited number of major labs/players • Options to add in further participants • Proposals with 90 partners will fail • It is the Department or Institute that joins • Must have high level commitment (Vice Chancellor) • Area is even fuzzier than IPs • Companies will not get R&D funding – Could get funding for - Technology xfer, training, steering committee, No. E Management etc 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 14

No. E possible structure Network Board with senior representative of each partner (Vice Chancellor No. E possible structure Network Board with senior representative of each partner (Vice Chancellor level) Chaired by Academic Leader Scientific and/or Industrial Advisory Board Joint Activity Board with department leaders of each partner Chaired by Network Manager Network Management WP 1 24 Mar 2003 WP 2 WP 3 ISERD WP 4 M W Morron WP 2 WP 3 WP 5 15

Proposal differences • • • Discussing IST R&D proposals Only Part A and Part Proposal differences • • • Discussing IST R&D proposals Only Part A and Part B Not anonymous No signatures New submittal tool EPSS Modified/new criteria www. cordis. lu/fp 6/pre_registration. htm Shortlisted No. Es and IPs invited for interview 7% management at 100% can be divided “Innovation” is now dissemination, takeup etc 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 16

SMEs • More difficult for micro SMEs • Evaluation criterion • Ending of FF SMEs • More difficult for micro SMEs • Evaluation criterion • Ending of FF means previous FFers should try to justify higher rates by imaginative use of FC • Opportunity to add in during call 3 • Need to differentiate between low and high tech SMEs • Opportunity for 100% cover of risk insurance 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 17

Eureka 1 • Several IST Strategic Objectives have directly corresponding Eureka Activities. • In Eureka 1 • Several IST Strategic Objectives have directly corresponding Eureka Activities. • In general Eureka deals with Current Generation Technology plus one and IST with plus two. • Thus there is encouragement in IST link them, with IST feeding into Eureka. CGT +1 Eureka project Market CGT+2 IST project 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 18

Eureka 2 • As a consequence I would expect that several consortia proposing to Eureka 2 • As a consequence I would expect that several consortia proposing to IST will be based on existing Eureka projects • A way to identify them and perhaps join (with or without participation in Eureka) is via Eureka • In Israel Eureka funding is via Chief Scientist rules - at a disadvantage wrt most Europeans, as their financial conditions are better 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 19

Eureka 3 Following SOs specifically reference Eureka · Pushing limits of CMOS & preparing Eureka 3 Following SOs specifically reference Eureka · Pushing limits of CMOS & preparing for post-CMOS · Micro and nano systems · Broadband for all (shortly) · e. Safety for Road and Air Transport · e. Health · Open development Platforms for software and services · Embedded systems · Product and Service engineering 2010 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 20

Eureka 4 CMOS Micro/Nano Broadband Multimodal e. Safety e. Health Software/embedded Product engineering 24 Eureka 4 CMOS Micro/Nano Broadband Multimodal e. Safety e. Health Software/embedded Product engineering 24 Mar 2003 ISERD MEDEA+ EURISMUS/PIDEA CELTIC MULTIMEDIA ITEA FACTORY M W Morron 21

Eureka 5 Major relevant Eureka activities and leaders MEDEA+ (Microelect) ST Microelectronics EURIMUS (Microsystems) Eureka 5 Major relevant Eureka activities and leaders MEDEA+ (Microelect) ST Microelectronics EURIMUS (Microsystems) Leta CEA PIDEA (Packaging) Thomson MULTIMEDIA Belgian Ministry of Science ITEA (Software) Philips CELTIC (Telecomm) Alcatel in planning FACTORY French Ministry of Industry 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 22

Magnet • In FP 6 and in IST in particular the linking of national Magnet • In FP 6 and in IST in particular the linking of national programs and projects to IST projects is actively encouraged and is part of the evaluation. • Magnet consortia as legal entities can participate in say IPs in related areas. • Individual members can also participate in their own right 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 23

How to identify a proposal to join • Main goal is to identify potential How to identify a proposal to join • Main goal is to identify potential coordinators • 95% will not be new to IST • Use all info sources to prepare a list of potential coordinators • Rank according to your business interest • Contact them and ask if they are organising or involved in a proposal and explain what you could offer 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 24

Memorandum of Understanding A coordinator should sign with partners when forming consortium and contain Memorandum of Understanding A coordinator should sign with partners when forming consortium and contain at least • • • Non-disclosure agreement Non-competitive clause ie competing consortium Status in consortium ie “Core” partner or not Role in consortium How to handle financial viability check Access to the 7% Notional level of participation Any relevant IPR issues Any relevant exploitation issues 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 25

How to identify coordinators • • • Current project partners Discussions at concertation/cluster meetings How to identify coordinators • • • Current project partners Discussions at concertation/cluster meetings Participation/coordination in FP 5 projects Scan Expression of Interest data base Participation in related Eureka area projects From CORDIS partner search Roadmap projects in your area (if any) From Idealist partner search From attendance at related Information Events Use www. iserd. org. il/ist under Strategic Objectives 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 26

Financial aspects • Major changes • Choice of Cost Models – AC – FCF Financial aspects • Major changes • Choice of Cost Models – AC – FCF • • Calculation of overhead Budget breakdown in Proposal Financial viability changes No. E calculation of Grant 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 27

Major changes • • • Project can start when coordinator/CEC sign Advance payments annually Major changes • • • Project can start when coordinator/CEC sign Advance payments annually Annual cost statements final No imposed financial system Cost categories eliminated All cost statements must have audit certificate Up to 7% of project for PM at 100% (Funding distribution not in contract) FF replaced by FCF with 20% overhead Takeup now at 50% instead of 100% 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 28

AC Cost Model • For academic institute/non profit organisation • Difference form old AC AC Cost Model • For academic institute/non profit organisation • Difference form old AC is that 100% management costs can now cover recurrent costs • Can choose FC (as per FP 5) - NEW • Maximum funding 100% plus 20% overhead • Overhead on all costs except subcontracts • (Also for a physical person) 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 29

FC Cost Model • • For any industrial/commercial organisation Only SME may choose FCF FC Cost Model • • For any industrial/commercial organisation Only SME may choose FCF Calculated overhead verified by auditor Overhead applies to all costs except subcontracts • Non technical support staff working on project can now be directly charged (but not double counted) 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 30

FCF Cost Model • For SMEs only • Flat rate of 20% overheads on FCF Cost Model • For SMEs only • Flat rate of 20% overheads on all costs except subcontracts • Non technical support staff working on project can now be directly charged 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 31

Cost of Employment Basis of costings: Co. E = Salary + benefits (car, bituach Cost of Employment Basis of costings: Co. E = Salary + benefits (car, bituach minhalim, etc) + statuary costs such as bituah leumi + allowance for inflation of say 4% per year Remember to calculate your rate based on “productive time” ie net of vacation, holidays, company training, sickness, miluim, etc ie ~< 10 months in a year 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 32

Calculation of overhead 1 · · · technical service departments such as QA, design Calculation of overhead 1 · · · technical service departments such as QA, design services allocations for internally funded R&D if it is normal practice costs related to general administration and management; costs related to ongoing professional training of staff costs of office or laboratory space, including rent or depreciation of buildings & equipment, & related expenditure such as water, heating, electricity, maintenance, insurance & safety costs; · communication expenses, network connection charges, postal charges and office supplies; · office equipment such as PC’s, laptops, office software; · miscellaneous recurring consumables. 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 33

Calculation of overhead 2 • In past it was normal practice to calculate overhead Calculation of overhead 2 • In past it was normal practice to calculate overhead based on R&D headcount • Now it is probably better to calculate on a cost basis as overhead is added to all project expenses, excluding subcontracts • Please use an accountant experienced in EU rules 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 34

Budget breakdown in Proposal • Must be a general breakdown in the proposal • Budget breakdown in Proposal • Must be a general breakdown in the proposal • More detailed breakdown for the 18 month implementation plan • Must be split between types of activity as rates can vary: – Project Management – Research and innovation – Demonstration – Training costs 24 Mar 2003 ISERD 100% up to 7% 50% 35% 100% M W Morron 35

No. E calculation of Grant Researchers to be integrated into the average annual grant: No. E calculation of Grant Researchers to be integrated into the average annual grant: • 50 researchers € 1 million/year • 100 researchers € 2 million/year • 150 researchers € 3 million/year • 250 researchers € 4 million/year • 500 researchers € 5 million/year • 1000 researchers and above € 6 million/year The grant for an intermediate number of researchers would be calculated by linear interpolation. The bonus for doctoral students engaged on research activities in the frame of the network will be € 4, 000/year for each student, up to a maximum of 10 % of the grant for the “researchers”. 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 36

“Collective responsibility” • • • Replaces liability of consortium members Major differences None for “Collective responsibility” • • • Replaces liability of consortium members Major differences None for “public bodies” Contractor liability limited to his grant Commission will check financial viability of Co-ordinator • How will co-ordinator check that of partners? • Need to open their books via independent 3 rd party - who pays? 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 37

IPR Aspects 1 The rules regarding the protection dissemination and use of knowledge have IPR Aspects 1 The rules regarding the protection dissemination and use of knowledge have been simplified and a larger flexibility is granted to the participants: · rules are identical for all participants · rules concentrate on the principles and provisions considered necessary for an efficient cooperation and the appropriate use and dissemination of the results · participants may define among themselves the arrangements that fit them the best within the framework provided in the model contract 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 38

IPR Aspects 2 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 39 IPR Aspects 2 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 39

Conclusions • • • MOU advisable when joining consortium Keep in touch with ISERD Conclusions • • • MOU advisable when joining consortium Keep in touch with ISERD as things change Next Workshop 13 Apr 2003 - online form Will hold EPSS/EPT Workshop 15 April email questions etc to [email protected] org. il Everyone in Europe is confused 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 40

Links www. iserd. org. il/ist www. iserd. org. il/new. ISERD/IST/Documents. htm www. cordis. lu/experts/fp Links www. iserd. org. il/ist www. iserd. org. il/new. ISERD/IST/Documents. htm www. cordis. lu/experts/fp 6_candidature. htm eoi. cordis. lu/search_form. cfm www. ideal-ist. net www. cordis. lu/ist/projects. htm www. cordis. lu/ist/KA 2/Roadmap www. iserd. org. il/idealist/SO. html www. eureka. be www. eureka. org. il www. eurimus. com www. itea-office. org www. medea. org www. pidea. com. fr 24 Mar 2003 ISERD M W Morron 41