PUBLIC CONSULTATION REPORT Report of the Public ... · 3. EIT consultation process and respondents profile 6 3.1.Consultation process 6 3.2.Respondents profile 6 4. Results of the

1

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Education and Culture

PUBLIC CONSULTATION REPORT

Report of the Public Consultation on the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

September 2011

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive summary 3 2. Background 5 3. EIT consultation process and respondents profile 6

3.1.Consultation process 6 3.2.Respondents profile 6

4. Results of the public consultation on the EIT 9

4.1.EIT mission, objectives and added value 9 4.2.Synergies with EU initiatives 12 4.3.Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) 13 4.4.Impact, assessment and outreach 19 4.5.Organisation 22 4.6.Funding Model 24

5. Results of the public consultation on the Common Strategic Framework for Future Research and Innovation (CSFRI) 27

5.1. Introduction 27 5.2. Main messages 27

Annex I: Online questionnaire Annex II: List of written contributions Annex III: Response statistics to the online questionnaire

3

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 14 April the European Commission launched an open public consultation on the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). The consultation was undertaken in order to provide the Commission with stakeholders' views on EIT's future priority areas and on its role in the European innovation landscape. The outcome of the public consultation serves as input to the preparatory process of the Strategic Innovation Agenda (SIA) and accompanying amended EIT Regulation. The future SIA will also take into account the results of the broader public consultation on the future EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ('Horizon 2020'), which was launched with the objective of obtaining stakeholder's views on how to make the EU research and innovation funding more effective.

The Commission has received 187 contributions to the consultation on the EIT, 134 of which were submitted via the online questionnaire, and the remaining 53 in the form of written contributions. Contributions were received from a wide range of stakeholder organisations representing in a balanced way the three strands of the knowledge triangle.

The analysis both of the contributions submitted to the public consultation on the EIT (cf. section 4) and of the replies relative to the EIT in the framework of Horizon 2020 consultation (cf. section 5) can be summarised as follows:

• The support for the EIT's mission and its underlying concept of a balanced and integrated approach to the knowledge triangle is very strong. There is a widespread consensus that the main added value of the EIT is the seamless integration of higher education, entrepreneurship, research and innovation.

• The EIT shall play a distinctive role within the future Horizon 2020, and it should seek to generate and tangibly demonstrate complementarities with other European and national activities and policies.

• Business participation is deemed of high relevance to the success of EIT's KICs. In order to attract private sector's participation, flexibility, low levels of bureaucracy, clarity on the applicable rules and clear returns on investment are fundamental.

• Synergies and cooperation between the co-location centers are essential for the success of KICs, but their role within the KICs should be further clarified.

• The consolidation of the three existing KICs (Climate KIC, KIC InnoEnergy, EIT ICT Labs), by providing tangible results and concrete benefits to society, is considered as important as the designation of new ones. The future KIC themes should bring about sustainable and systematic impact, blend a critical mass of excellent education, research and innovation stakeholders, and be aligned with the priorities of the forthcoming Horizon 2020.

• There is a large consensus on the importance for the EIT to engage in its educational mission. The EIT should promote entrepreneurial attitudes and creative thinking and play a role in the generation of new educational programmes creating new profiles of entrepreneurial and knowledge talent.

4

• The EIT should actively promote new models of knowledge sharing and open innovation and come up with concrete and structured measures to disseminate KICs' innovation and funding models to all relevant stakeholders.

• The EIT should have the autonomy and flexibility to organise itself in the most appropriate way, but within the broad framework of Horizon 2020.

• Further efforts are necessary to ensure the EIT as a business friendly and non-bureaucratic instrument. There are strong calls for a more efficient and streamlined organisation/governance structures for the EIT and its KICs. The EIT should reduce administrative burdens and hurdles, and provide clear and consistent guidance to the KICs.

• There is a clear need for a better communication and improved transparency of the EIT and its Governing Board towards external stakeholders.

• The leverage concept of EIT funding to KICs should be maintained.

5

2. BACKGROUND

The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) was set up in 20081 with the objective of enhancing EU's innovation capacity, via integration of the actors of the “knowledge triangle” (research, education, business). The EIT is fully anchored in the context of the EU innovation policy agenda and contributes to the strengthening of knowledge triangle policies, notably education, skills and entrepreneurship. The EIT contributes prominently to a number of flagships initiatives laid down in the EU 2020 strategy, in particular to the 'Innovation Union', the 'Agenda for New Skills and Jobs', and 'Youth on the Move'. The EIT is expected to interact with relevant EU and national initiatives and programmes via the future Horizon 2020: the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, which responds to the call for making research and innovation funding more effective.

EIT's establishing Regulation breaks down the EIT’s implementation into two stages:

During an "initial phase" (2008-2013), covered by a fixed financial envelope (EU budget contribution of EUR 308.7 million), two to three Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) were to be chosen in broadly predetermined fields within 18 months of the Governing Board's appointment. The EIT did so in December 2009 and has today concluded agreements with all three KICs, which are set up in the areas of climate change adaptation and mitigation (Climate KIC), sustainable energy (KIC InnoEnergy) and future information and communication society (EIT ICT Labs).

The second phase, which will set out the long-term modalities for the operation of the EIT, corresponding to the post-2013 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), will be defined in the first Strategic Innovation Agenda (SIA). The SIA should effectively demonstrate the viability and durability of the EIT/KIC model, as well as the EIT's position and role in the EU knowledge and innovation landscape.

The Commission will base its proposal for SIA and for an accompanying amended EIT Regulation on four main pillars: a draft SIA by the EIT Governing Board2, an independent evaluation of the EIT3, the results of the discussions on Horizon 2020, and the stakeholders' input to the open public consultation on the EIT.

The outcome of the broader public consultation on the future Horizon 20204, which was launched with the objective of obtaining stakeholder's views on how to make the EU research and innovation funding more effective, will also constitute a very important element in the preparation of SIA and in the setting out of EIT's future priorities (cf. section 5 for further details).

1 Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. 2 Document submitted to the European Commission on 15 June 2011 and available at: http://eit.europa.eu/fileadmin/Content/Downloads/SIA/EIT_Strategic_Innovation_Agenda_Final.pdf 3 Document available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/education/2011/eitreport_en.pdf 4 http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=home

6

3. EIT CONSULTATION PROCESS AND RESPONDENTS PROFILE

3.1. Consultation process

As part of the process of preparation of the Strategic Innovation Agenda and accompanying amended EIT Regulation, and as input to the discussions on Horizon 2020: the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, the European Commission has launched a public consultation on the EIT. The public consultation was launched on 14 April and ran until 30 June 2011, for a total period of eleven weeks. It consisted of an online questionnaire5 with various multiple choice and open questions, grouped in six major sections:

1. EIT mission, objectives and added value

2. Synergies with other EU initiatives

3. Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs)

4. Impact, dissemination and outreach

5. Organisation

6. Funding model

Stakeholders had also the possibility of submitting written contributions trough the email address created for that purpose6.

To accompany the consultation, the Directorate General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) has organised two information sessions for interested stakeholders. The first information session took place on 5 May 2011 and aimed at presenting and clarifying questions on the consultation objectives and process. Participants (35) were mainly Brussels-based stakeholders, including a balanced representation of the knowledge triangle actors (education, research and business). The second information session was organised on 6 July 2011 and attracted 32 participants representing the knowledge triangle actors, but also national and regional authorities' representatives. The main objectives of the meeting were to present the consultation preliminary results and next steps in the preparation of the Strategic Innovation Agenda, and to give participants the possibility of discussing these results.

DG EAC has further organised meetings with the most relevant stakeholders. Meetings were held with Member States representatives, organisations from the research, higher education, business and innovation communities, and the CEOs of the three EIT KICs (Climate KIC, KIC InnoEnergy and EIT ICT Labs).

3.2. Respondents profile

The European Commission has received 187 contributions to the open consultation, 134 of which were submitted via the online questionnaire (72%), and the remaining 53 in the form of written contributions sent by email (28%).

5 The online questionnaire was published at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/consult/index_en.html 6 [email protected]

7

Contributions were received from a wide range of stakeholders representing in a balanced way the three strands of the knowledge triangle (education, research and business). More than three quarters of all participants (77%) responded on behalf of an organisation, while 23% took part in the consultation as individuals.

From the respondents who answered the questionnaire on behalf of an organisation (99), 35% represent higher education institutions, 26% private sector organisations (including both commercial organisations and associations), and 22% research centres. It is important to note that the majority of the commercial organisations answering the questionnaire were commercial organisations employing more than 250 employees (69%).

Figure 1. Whom participants responded on behalf of

35%

26%

14%3%

22%

Higher education Private sectorResearch OthersPublic administration

In a clear representation of the knowledge triangle actors, the 35 citizens who answered the online questionnaire have also identified themselves as working mainly for higher education (34%), research (29%) and private sector organisations (23%).

Figure 2. Individuals' organisations main activity

29%

23%

9%6%

34%

Higher education ResearchPrivate sector Public administrationOther

8

The geographical analysis to the online questionnaire responses shows EU-15 countries based individuals and entities were the most represented among all participants (80%). Spain and Germany were the respondents' countries more represented (14), followed by Portugal (13), Belgium (11) and France (10). There were 11 contributions from EU-12 countries: 5 from Poland, 2 from Hungary and 1 from Czech Republic, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Romania. 4 contributions were received from non EU countries' individuals and entities (Switzerland and USA).

Figure 3. Profile of respondents by geographical location

14 14 13 11 10 114

57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

n° o

f res

pons

es

Spain

German

y

Portugal

Belgium

France

UE 12

Non EU

Others

9

4. RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE EIT

The following sections summarise the views expressed by the respondents under the six major blocks of the consultation on the EIT. The analysis is based on the replies to the online questionnaire and the written contributions sent via email.

4.1. EIT mission, objectives and added value

4..1.1. Mission

Generally, there is a very strong level of support for the EIT mission as defined in the Regulation7 and consultation texts: "to contribute to sustainable European Economic growth and competitiveness by reinforcing the innovation capacity of the Member States and the EU. It shall do this by promoting and integrating higher education, research and innovation of highest standards".

An overwhelming majority of respondents emphasize the importance of the EIT in the integration of the three strands of the knowledge triangle. They point out that the interaction between research, education and innovation should be optimised in a balanced way avoiding disproportionate focus in one or another dimension of the knowledge triangle.

Whilst considering the EIT important for achieving Europe 2020 strategy objectives and contributing for economic and social development, respondents (especially from higher education and research organisations) stress the EIT should clearly focus its mission in 'enhancing Europe's innovation capacity'. According to one respondent "(…) it has to be ensured that the EIT conveys its clear focus on becoming a model for transforming research results into technical and societal innovations by providing open innovation environments"8.

In a position largely shared by other participants, public authorities' representatives stress the EIT should play a distinctive role within the forthcoming Horizon 2020, but that it should also create complementarities with other EU and national initiatives and policies (see section 4.2 for more details on this issue).

The EIT has a strong potential to boost the European innovation capacity by stimulating the integration between the three sides of the knowledge triangle (education, research and innovation) and entrepreneurship. No other instrument in the European innovation agenda focuses simultaneously on educational, entrepreneurial and innovation impact. This approach should enhance the contribution of EU science and technology to economic and social development, and to spread best practices throughout the continent. Wageningen University and Research Centre.

4.1.2. Core objectives of the EIT

Questions 2 to 6 aimed at assessing stakeholders' views on how relevant it is for the EIT to deliver on a certain number of issues. All areas which were identified as areas where the EIT could deliver to achieve its mission have received a positive assessment from respondents: 7 Article 3. 8 Written contribution of CESAER- Conference of European Schools for Advanced Engineering Education and Research.

10

more than 80% of respondents considered these areas as relevant or highly relevant (cf. figure 4).

The area "transfer and valorisation of higher education, research and innovation activities in a business context" was the area which received the higher level of support (96% of the respondents considered this action as relevant or highly relevant).

Figure 4. Percentage of respondents who consider the identified core objectives as relevant or highly relevant

94% 94%83%

95% 96%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

New business creation via innovationTransfer/valorisation of K triangle activities in a business contextCutting-edge and innovation-driven research in relevant areasDevelopment of skilled/entrepreneurial people through education/trainingDissemination of best practices & knowledge sharing

Through their written contributions, and the answers to the open question about the other areas which the EIT should aim at to achieve impact, respondents have highlighted different objectives. On the one hand, they emphasise the integrative nature of the EIT in bringing together the actors of the knowledge triangle, but also other relevant stakeholders, such as public authorities, regional actors, among others.

EIT should catalyse a permanent transformation in how large companies, SME’s, research centres, and academia work with each other and with other stakeholders of the society in world-class innovation hotspots reaching out in all parts of Europe and linked with the global innovation ecosystems. EIT ICT Labs.

On the other hand, in a position mostly shared by business and higher education organisations, respondents stress the EIT should deliver innovation creating tangible impact on the market. This can be achieved in terms of new business creation (including SMEs)9, people with profiles and skills fit for the economy, and generation and dissemination of knowledge. When referring to human resources development, higher education organisations highlight the importance of being more specific and addressing characteristics such as creativity, endurance, ability to work in interdisciplinary, intersectoral and intercultural teams, and entrepreneurial spirit.

9 On this point it is interesting to note the position of some research organisations on the fact the EIT should act as a 'facilitator' and not a business and wealth 'creator' itself.

11

The creation of new business (not simply new businesses) will be an important aspect of EIT’s delivery. Investment should be targeted on those areas of technology where Europe (or a group of its Member States) has a world-leading position and on those institutions with a proven track record of excellence and delivering impact, or on emerging technologies where Europe has the business infrastructure and skill-base to become world leading. Rolls-Royce.

Of equal relevance, respondents emphasise awareness raising, knowledge transfer and communication activities as core objectives for the EIT.

The triangle of knowledge model needs to permeate & diffuse beyond the limits of its KICs by involving actors close to the KIC’s participants. EIT should foster SMEs activities, not only in innovation, but also in training, entrepreneurship and development of products and services. Ministry of Science and Innovation - Spain.

4.1.3. EIT added value

All EIT characteristics which were identified of potential added value have received a positive assessment from respondents. The characteristics "the balanced approach to the knowledge triangle, addressing education, research and innovation simultaneously and integrally, i.e. connecting stakeholders who would otherwise not meet" and "the focus on people as the main driving force for innovation" have received the highest level of support (93% of the respondents considered these characteristics as relevant or highly relevant). The feature "business like approach to funding" has received the lowest level of support, but still 76% of the respondents support it (cf. figure 5).

Figure 5. Percentage of respondents who consider the proposed added value characteristics as relevant or highly relevant

93%87% 87%

93%

76% 80%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

The balanced approach to the knowledge triangleThe focus on excellenceThe co-location modelPeople as the main driving force for innovationThe business-like approach to fundingThe creation of new funding and organisational models for innovation

Participants' written contributions also highlight the elements of added value mentioned in the questionnaire: the balanced approach to the knowledge triangle, the focus on people as the main driving force for innovation, the focus of excellence and the concept of KICs co-location centres.

12

"EIT’s focus on people as the main driving force for innovation and its goal to foster and imbed entrepreneurship throughout the innovation cycle underpins all EIT activity. This approach offers EIT (and the KICs) the potential to distinguish itself in the research funding landscape and to become a driver of innovation capacity". Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation of Ireland.

At the same time, some respondents, mainly from the private sector, emphasise that the added value of the EIT and its KICs is not proven yet and has to be demonstrated in practice.

When referring to other characteristics the EIT should embrace to achieve its objectives, representatives from business organisations, but also research centres, point out that the EIT must provide strategic support to the KICs and develop strong communication channels with them, so as to ensure the Institute is more than a body administrating grants. In a position shared by other respondents, higher education organisations emphasise the importance of simplification, flexibility and transparency, together with exchange of best practices.

"Initially EIT conveyed a message of high trust and simplicity. (…) In order to achieve its objectives and to be more effective and efficient EIT should monitor more closely the participation of all participants, share good practices, advertise major findings and results and deal with political, administrative and/or legislative hurdles. Especially the abundance of red tape in proceedings and administration is a formidable hindrance and demoralizer for researchers. A business-like approach should allow for a high-trust approach and exemptions to prevailing EU-regulations." 3TU. Federation.

4.2. Synergies with other EU initiatives

The large majority of respondents agree that the EIT should have a distinctive role within the future Horizon 2020: the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation10 (90%).

Figure 6. Within the Common Strategic Framework, the EIT has a distinctive role to play, as it links up all three sides of the knowledge triangle

59%

31%

4% 1%4%

fully agree somewhat agree somewhat disagree

strongly disagree don't know 10 The questionnaire mentions the CSFRI (Common Strategic Framework for Future EU Research and Innovation). Its name was subsequently changed to Horizon 2020: the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. Further information can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=home

13

According to consultation respondents, the EIT's role in the future Horizon 2020 should be to "ensure a better integration of the knowledge triangle and to lead by example in transforming research results to marketable products and services for the benefit of European competitiveness"11.

In line with the above, respondents further underline that "the EIT's ambition is to act as a "smart investor". It is not, nor should it become, a funding programme of the Commission. A balance will therefore have to be found between the EIT's need to retain enough flexibility to address distinct needs whilst ensuring alignment with other elements based within a common framework"12.

Participants strongly advocate the EIT should seek to actively generate synergies with other EU and national initiatives (87%), as well as with initiatives in the area of education, research and innovation (88%). They are of the view that the "societal challenges" approach will facilitate the creation of such synergies and complementarities at the EU and national levels. They further underline that the EIT KICs co-location centres have a role to play in building up synergies and complementarities with national and regional schemes, and can contribute to the formulation and implementation of smart specialisation strategies (83%).

On the open question about the initiatives with which the EIT should create synergies, respondents think that it should establish links with European research, innovation and education activities (inter alia, FP7, CIP, the Lifelong Learning programme), national and regional initiatives (including Structural Funds contributions) and the knowledge triangle actors (research institutes, enterprises and education entities).

Strategic coherence between these activities and the EIT could be achieved in the framework of Horizon 2020 and through best practices networks and common platforms. Interestingly, some participants mention that the EIT and its KICs "should not spend too much time and resources on connecting to other relevant EU activities: it should be up to the relevant European Innovation Partnership to align and orchestrate all activities of FP, CIP, EIT and other EU programmes, initiatives and activities addressing a given societal challenge"13.

4.3. Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs)

4.3.1. KIC model

When asked about the specifics of the KIC model, the majority of respondents think that the private sector participation in the KICs (91%), the focus on measurable deliverables (90%), and its bottom-up approach (86%) are relevant or highly relevant.

11 Business Europe contribution to the open public consultation on the EIT. 12 Imperial College London contribution to the open public consultation on the EIT. 13 Philips contribution to the open public consultation on the EIT.

14

Figure 7. Percentage of respondents who consider the KIC model characteristics as relevant or highly relevant

86%91% 90%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Bottom up approach of the KIC model (autonomy andflexibility)Participation of the private sector

Measurable deliverables

A strong business participation and commitment has been key for the establishment of the first KICs, both large global companies and small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). It is essential to maintain a very high level of business involvement to make the KIC-model optimised in its operations and results. Swedish Government: Ministry of Entreprise, Energy and Communications and Ministry of Education and Research.

Whilst considering business participation of high relevance to the success of the EIT KICs, respondents point out the EIT has not yet proved to be the business friendly and non-bureaucratic instrument that was envisaged. In order to attract private sector's participation, flexibility, low levels of bureaucracy and clearer rules, namely in terms of IPR, are considered as very relevant. This should be coupled with the creation of tangible benefits to the business sector and clear returns on investment opportunities.

On the question about other features that the EIT should embrace in order to further enhance the KIC model, representatives from the business, higher education and research sectors share the view that above all the KIC concept should be further clarified.

DIGITALEUROPE believes the concept of Knowledge and Innovation Communities is important and would like to stress the need for bringing more clarity about the concept itself as today’s ambiguities give rise to different expectations between stakeholders of the KICs and the EIT. DIGITALEUROPE.

In addition, respondents emphasise the importance of simplification, less constraints and of a clear operational and governance structure. They ask for more and consistent guidance on the EIT's relations with the KICs, namely on issues such as IP policy and the implications of EU state aid rules for R&D and innovation.

The current features should be clearly defined, rather than adding new features. (…) The KICs should be free, within clear parameters, to determine the most appropriate structure and receive appropriate support and guidance from the EIT. This should be done in a more

15

collaborative way rather than the lengthy negotiations that were reported in evaluation of the EIT. UK Research Councils.

Together with other respondents, research and higher education organisations further propose more action in the area of best practices exchange between KICs and the creation of clear indicators to measure KICs' impact.

There is an urgent need, as required by the EIT Regulation and Statutes, for developing appropriate performance indicators and establishing sound monitoring and evaluation procedures for the KICs and for the EIT as a whole for supporting the learning process and to be able to assess progress towards achieving objectives and targets. CESAER.

4.3.2. Co-location

Over 83% of the respondents consider co-location centres as relevant or highly relevant to the success of KICs.

Figure 8. How relevant are the co-location centres to the success of the KICs?

42%

42%

3% 4%

10%

highly relevant relevant

of little relevance irrelevantdon't know

With regard to the potential benefits of co-location centres, respondents mostly point to strengthening local economy and development, innovation and knowledge spread and close interaction between stakeholders as potential benefits. Further benefits include strengthening excellence, providing for a structuring effect on innovation activities and attracting talent to the co-location centres.

"There are many potential benefits of co-location centres for the country/region in which they are located. It is not only a prestige but the increase of the region’s level of innovation. This place can specialize in technologies given by KIC. It can also influence the society (the level of education, standard of living). Moreover, the co-location centres could be very good sources of information." Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland.

In what concerns other measures the EIT should promote to maximise the benefits of co-location, respondents have very diverse responses. Measures suggested include mainly:

16

• Synergies and further coordination between co-location centres;

• Collaboration with local related innovation activities, local organisations representing the knowledge triangle actors, SMEs, NGOs, citizens and public authorities;

• Communication and dissemination related activities, including sharing lessons learnt and exchange of best practices.

As also mentioned when referring to the KIC model, some participants have underlined the need of better clarifying the role of co-location centres and ensuring a more efficient and flexible operational approach.

4.3.3. Themes

Whilst largely supporting the creation of new KICs, consultation respondents emphasise this is as relevant as the consolidation and "proof of concept" of the three existing KICs. For the participants, the establishment of new KICs should be carried out in a gradual and incremental manner.

As regards the criteria for assessing the feasibility of potential future KIC themes, all proposed criteria were considered as relevant or highly relevant by the respondents - the level of support varies from 74% to 92%. The criterion 'bring about sustainable and systematic impact; measured i.a. in terms of new educated entrepreneurial people, new technologies, new business creation and/or social value creation' has received the highest level of support as 92% of the respondents consider this element as relevant or highly relevant. The criterion offer potential for impact on the global scale and engaging in international co-operation with excellent partners from third countries has received the lowest level of support, but still 75% of the respondents support it (cf. figure 9).

Figure 9. Percentage of respondents who consider the proposed criteria as relevant or highly relevant

90%

78%

92% 91%

79%85%

90%

75%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Address major societal challengesEconomic and societal relevanceBring about sustainable and systematic impactBlend a critical mass of excellent research, education and innovation stakeholdersSelect themes where Europe has a strong research base but a weak innovation performanceMobilise investment and long-term commitment from the business sectors; have/create a market for its productsRequire trans-disciplinary approaches/new types of educationImpact on the global scale/co-operation with excellent partners from third countries

17

In a clear sign of support for the questionnaire's put forward criteria, 36% of the respondents didn't answer or propose additional criteria. The rest of the respondents stressed the already mentioned criteria; namely, the importance of addressing areas where the EU can be competitive and offer added value and ability to create new businesses, as well as reinforcing EU economic competitiveness. The analysis of the written contributions further confirms the support for the criteria indicated in the questionnaire. Respondents highlight the the KICs' thematic areas must address major societal challenges (view strongly emphasised by public authorities), and be able to generate economic and social impact and innovation added value.

Business organisations clearly emphasise the KICs must focus on areas where the benefit for the European industry is evident. They further point out that it is essential to engage in close dialogue with stakeholders and, in particular the European business community, when of the definition of new KICs.

Whilst supporting the questionnaire's criteria, representatives of higher education organisations also mention the importance of complementarity, alignment, and coordination with the priorities of the forthcoming Horizon 2020, and with other relevant European policies.

The following principles must be respected when defining the specific focus of future KICs:

- The KICs must focus on areas where the benefit for European industry to participate is obvious, considering the absolute necessity of strong and committed business participation for the KICs to meet their objectives. (…)

- The KICs’ focus should as far as possible be coherent with the societal challenges as defined in the upcoming proposal on the CSFRI, provided that these challenges are defined in a way that they in particular consider areas where there is a strong potential for value added in the EU, not only from a societal but also from an economic perspective.(…)

A better and more transparent dialogue with the business community and other stakeholders will be instrumental in respecting these principles. BUSINESSEUROPE.

In terms of the potential future KICs, the themes which have received a higher level of support through the online questionnaire were health (81%), biotechnology (78%), sustainable cities (77%) and ageing population (75%). The themes with a lower level of support were healthy childhood (56%) and safe societies (46%).

18

Figure 10. Percentage of respondents who consider the proposed themes as relevant or highly relevant

81%75%

56%

68%

77%70%

78%

46%

62%58%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Health Ageing populationHealthy childhood FoodSustainabme cities Natural resourcesBiotechnology Safe societiesAdded value manufacturing Human learning and learning environments

Amongst the new suggested themes in the questionnaire, the most popular were health/healthcare and mobility/ transportation. Looking at the themes proposed trough the different written contributions, the majority of respondents support the food, healthy ageing, health and sustainable cities themes. Other themes which were mentioned several times include information and communication technologies, marine resources, sustainability and quality of the living environment.

Interesting to note is the recommendation made by some respondents on the need of clearly substantiate and justify the themes when proposing them in the future EIT SIA. A foresight exercise should involve stakeholders and experts from the specific innovation community.

With regard to the ideal scope of a KIC theme, respondents tend to prefer a big leeway to KICs in defining themselves the specific topic within the broader theme defined at the political level. A common trend in many answers is the need for flexibility in defining better the KIC activities in a bottom-up way. The main reasons around the need for flexibility are the need to be dynamic in a changing environment, the varying market needs or the bigger opportunities around a broader theme. Some participants seem to suggest that there is no predefined size that can fit a KIC. Differences are expected in the markets KICs operate, in the level of development of themes, and the involvement of the industrial community.

A broad theme would be preferable but applicants must be given freedom to focus on specific topics within their own project. Instructions must be given in the call about what focus is expected. Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives.

On the question whether KICs should be established in the same theme, respondents have a slight numerical preference for not doing so. Amongst the 134 answers to the online questionnaire 52 (39%) respondents replied negatively and 41 (31%) positively. The remaining respondents have mixed position (34) or didn't reply (7). Negative answers refer to duplications and redundancies and the need for 'champion' KICs. Supporters refer to the breadth of some themes which justify multiple KICs on the same theme, or the opportunity for complementarities. Several respondents refer to the need for competition arising of many KICs on the same topic.

19

Would it make sense to establish several KICs in one and the same theme?

Yes it has, if it introduces a healthy competition between KICs that stimulate innovation. University Bocconi.

No. A KIC involves the strongest partners possible in Europe, has global leadership potential, elaborates RTD&I strategies affecting policies all over Europe and has structural role model character. This cannot be duplicated. Max-Planck-Institute.

4.4. Impact, assessment and outreach

4.4.1. Impact on people – nurturing talent through education

There is a large consensus on the importance for the EIT to engage in its educational mission. Whilst more than 90% of the respondents consider relevant the EIT to promote entrepreneurial attitudes and creative thinking, and 86% to generate new educational programmes creating new profiles of entrepreneurial and knowledge talent, only 54% support the promotion of EIT labelled degrees and diplomas (cf. figure 11).

Figure 11. Percentage of respondents who consider the proposed education initiatives as relevant or highly relevant

91% 86%

54%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Promote entrepreneurial attitudes and creative thinking

New educational programmes that create new profiles of entrepreneurial/knowledgeabletalentPromote EIT labelled degrees and diplomas

The relative lower level of support to EIT labelled degrees reveals some hesitation among the participants whether the EIT could fulfil its educational mission by providing EIT labelled Master and PhD degrees only. Some respondents point at other strands of education and training where EIT could be more active: lifelong learning, training of professionals, undergraduate education and even outreach to secondary schools. Others warn for duplication of the work of universities in setting up new degree programmes. The consultation answers do not provide a basis for attributing degree awarding powers to the EIT itself, neither to take over the role of the universities and competent bodies in assuring the quality of degree programmes.

(…) The Netherlands feel positive towards offering the EIT branding opportunities of their educational programs through the EIT label. The actual degrees and diplomas, however, should always be awarded by accredited institutions from the members states and not by the EIT itself. The KICs are a coordinating and facilitating network of existing partners. The EIT

20

label deducts its value from the educational programs that the KICs offer. The programs will have to prove their quality in order for the EIT label to become a success. Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Ministry of Economic affairs, Agriculture and Innovation.

4.4.2. Dissemination

The large majority of respondents agree that the EIT should actively promote excellence and new models of knowledge sharing and open innovation (90%), as well as provide a number of concrete support measures for the dissemination of results from its activities to European innovation stakeholders (79%).

Figure 12. Percentage of respondents who consider the proposed actions as relevant or highly relevant

90%

79%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Promote excellence/new models of knowledge sharing/openinnovation/accessible knowledge over time

Provide a number of concrete support measures for thedissemination of results from its activities to Europeaninnovation stakeholders

When asked about the support measures the EIT could promote, respondents mention the traditional communication and dissemination channels:

• organisation of public events such as conferences, workshops, national and regional dissemination events;

• the development of social media tools, such as websites and webforums;

• the publication of reports, brochures and newsletters.

Some respondents further develop their proposals and suggest public events to be used as innovation summits, where the most outstanding annual innovation results can be presented and innovation prizes awarded. Others propose the creation of a web portal presenting the portfolio of research achievements with an innovation potential. When referring to the publication of EIT-KIC activities, some business organisations alert for the necessary balance between the advantages of open sharing of information and the need of protecting commercially sensitive data.

Other measures suggested by respondents include the organisation of site visits for companies, EIT and KIC staff and students to other companies and co-location centres. Some

21

participants also propose (and offer) the EIT uses existing universities and business associations as platforms for dissemination of results.

Above all the proposed measures, the majority of consultation participants agree the EIT should develop a governance model for identifying, promoting and transferring the results from KIC activities to all the relevant stakeholders. This should run in parallel and in addition to the KICs own initiatives in terms of dissemination and best practice exchange.

What could these support measures be?

Governance process for transfering results from KIC activities towards the stakeholders. SAP AG.

In this context, participants also support the fact the EIT should foster the creation of learning communities across the EU (66%). When asked how the EIT could do it, 55 respondents (41%) did not respond to the question, referred to the already mentioned communication and dissemination measures, highlighted education activities such as the organisation of PhD programmes, international courses and learning groups, or suggested the promotion of mobility programmes of students, researchers and staff in key subject areas. Some participants also highlight the important role of the KICs and their co-location centres in the development of these learning communities.

The EIT and the KICs together with the communities of other innovation actors in Europe should join forces striving together towards creating an environment of mutual learning about innovation in order to further improve the innovation climate and performance in Europe. For innovation, conducive environments and frameworks play the crucial role. Therefore, it will be important that the KICs and the EIT identify the most important aspects and parameters of such environments and frameworks. The distributed nature of the KIC collocation centres provide a Europe wide network of intelligence capable of identifying optimal framework conditions and best practice. The co-location centres can play an active role locally and they can reach out to environments where the KICs are not directly active. Thus, the KICs can make a major contribution to strengthen the local-global connectedness of co-location centres and the KICs as a whole. CESAER.

4.4.3. Outreach beyond Europe

In terms of EIT's outreach beyond Europe, the vast majority of respondents agree that the EIT should support European stakeholders in enhancing their international competitiveness (91%) and in their quest for attracting international talent (90%).

In order to enhance international competitiveness and attractiveness, respondents highlight different measures. In the perspective of some, the EIT and its KICs should first focus in consolidating and proving they succeed in stimulating innovation and creating measurable impact. The international competitiveness and attractiveness will come by itself if the EIT and its KICs carry out and clearly communicate and disseminate the results of their excellence-based activities.

In parallel, respondents underline the EIT can enhance international competitiveness and attractiveness through the promotion of a more attractive and competitive working environment and conditions in the framework of the KICs: attractive conditions and financial

22

assistance for top talent to work with European researchers in universities and in industries, and chances for top European talent to go and work with the best in the rest of the world14.

This will be a stepwise approach: International talents are only attracted by EIT and its KICs if there is a certain reputation of excellence visible. Attractive working and mobility conditions in a KIC will also play an important role. Federal Office for Professional Education and Technology – Switzerland.

Other respondents emphasise the importance of the EIT developing partnerships with internationally leading players.

The EIT should help the KICs build strategic partnerships with internationally leading players in key innovation cultures both in the old and new economies. The goal of these partnerships is to ease the transfer of key elements of innovation cultures into the European context. University of Edinburgh and UK Computing Research Committee.

4.5. Organisation

The level of autonomy and flexibility given to the EIT is of high relevance and seen as a condition for its success – 93% of the respondents think that flexibility and autonomy is relevant or highly relevant for the EIT to fulfil its mission and have an impact on the EU innovation landscape.

Figure 13. How relevant are autonomy and flexibility for the EIT to fulfil its mission and have an impact on the EU innovation landscape?

42%

42%

3% 4%

10%

highly relevant relevant

of little relevance irrelevantdon't know

Despite the strong level of support to EIT's autonomous and flexible character, the large majority of respondents see room for further improvement. They point out not only the urgent need for simplification, but also for further action in terms of governance and accountability.

Respondents point out the unjustified administrative complexity which hinders the EIT in the delivery of their innovation activities and strongly recommend further simplification.

14 Written contribution of the University of Strathclyde

23

(..) Au sein des participants à l’écosystème IET, la lourdeur excessive des procédures administratives, auxquelles ils ont dû se plier, a induit un délai supplémentaire important dans le lancement des activités concrètes. En effet, ceux-ci ont été confrontés à la fois à des règles juridiques et financières nombreuses, complexes et imprécises gérées difficilement par des services de l'IET peu armés. (…)

Les autorités françaises encouragent donc la Commission européenne à conférer une autonomie pleine et entière à l’IET et à simplifier les règles de fonctionnement (…). Note des Autorités Françaises.

In terms of governance, respondents ask for a clearer structure where the roles of the European Commission, the EIT Governing Board (GB) and Headquarters are better defined and respected in practice. In line with the conclusions of the independent external evaluation on the EIT15, respondents emphasise the Governing Board should be less involved in the basic operations of the EIT. According to them, the GB should have a supervisory and advisory role and the EIT Headquarters should have the full responsibility for the operations in line with the accountability of the EIT Director to the GB. Some organisations consider the actual number of 22 Board members as excessive and recommend a smaller number.

As already pointed out in other sections16, respondents highlight the need for a better communication strategy and improved transparency of the EIT towards the "outside world". Going beyond the traditional events and mailings, the EIT should be more open to dialogue and listening external stakeholders and experts.

Business experience from the first three KICs suggests that the EIT, the way it operates and is governed is far from optimal and that governance of the EIT must be improved.

BUSINESSEUROPE notes in particular certain implementation problems, complexity of rules and rigidity; (…) and therefore calls for an overhaul of the regulations governing the operations of the EIT and its beneficiaries with a view to achieve a drastic simplification of administrative requirements and to permit for more flexibility. (…)

A proper balance must be struck between guaranteeing the EIT’s independence and protecting it from undue political intervention on the one hand, and ensuring that the EIT adheres to common principles of transparency and stakeholder consultation on the other. BUSINESSEUROPE.

Looking at KICs governance, and in line with the conclusions of section 4.3.1 on the KIC model, respondents stress that flexibility is essential for the KICs to attract participation from the private sector (92%).

15 Document available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/education/2011/eitreport_en.pdf 16 Cf. sections 4.1- EIT mission, objectives and added value, and section 4.4.2- Dissemination.

24

Figure 14. Flexibility is essential for the KICs to attract participation from the private sector

73%

19%

4%2%1%

fully agree somewhat agree somewhat disagree

strongly disagree don't know

Whilst recognising flexibility and the bottom-up model of the KICs as a very important asset, consultation participants also highlight the need of a significant simplification. Respondents are of the view that in order to attract excellent partners - and private companies in particular - the administrative burden and level of bureaucracy should be lowered. They ask for a clearer definition of rules and model agreements, which should be used as starting points for KICs to establish their own governance structure. According to the respondents, this would allow the newly established KICs more time to spend on KIC added value activities rather than on the legal aspects of setting up the KICs.

The bottom-up model of the KIC has been an important asset for the successful formation of the current KICs. This flexibility on the other hand created a relatively long period of negotiations and uncertainty. With the models of the current KICs available, the next generation can build on this experience in order to speed up time to contract and facilitate contract negotiations. (…) The administrative burden should be lowered. Association of Universities in the Netherlands - VSNU.

In terms of KICs governance, some respondents further suggest the creation of links between the different (existing and future) KICs to exchange best practices and to exploit potential opportunities for synergies and collaboration. It should be the EIT role to facilitate the communication between the KICs.

4.6. Funding model

The majority of respondents (83%) agree or fully agree that the leverage concept of EIT funding to KICs should be maintained.

25

Figure 14. Flexibility is essential for the KICs to attract participation from the private sector.

56%27%

5%6%

6%

fully agree somewhat agree somewhat disagree

strongly disagree don't know

On the question on other incentives the EIT shall put forward to KICs in order to achieve growth, impact and sustainability, several proposals are put forward. Some respondents (mainly higher education organisations) suggest a higher level of EIT funding (currently of 25%).

The present funding has been sufficient as a start up but is not creating the necessary momentum to change the European landscape. The total budget of a KIC needs to be comparable to similar initiatives at the global level. An annual total budget of a KIC needs at least to be of the order of 200-500M€, depending on the area, in order to become a strategic initiative. The cofunding of the EIT needs to increase to 1/3, with the other 1/3 coming from industry and academia, respectively. This scale is needed if Europe intends to compete with the US and Asia. KTH - Royal Institute of Technology.

Other participants, especially from public authorities, support the concept of executing the budget on the basis of KICs business plans and specific measurable achievements, which should be closely monitored by the EIT.

It is important to retain the funding model leveraging co-funding from KIC-partners which is executed annually on the basis of business plans and Key Performance Indicators. This is a novelty with potential to influence future policies and instruments on the regional, national and European level, as well as to secure commitment from private and public actors. Swedish Government: Ministry of Entreprise, Energy and Communications and Ministry of Education and Research.

Other participants suggest a better alignment and synergies with European, national and regional financing sources.

Few respondents question the objective of achieving financial sustainability. They propose the use of a 'guarantee' to smooth out potential fluctuations, such as for example when a partner reduces or removes its contribution.

Reiterating their views on the importance of flexibility and simplification, some respondents highlight as incentives to KICs to achieve impact and sustainability the reduction of administrative hurdles, clearer rules and governance structures.

26

Are there any OTHER incentives the EIT shall put forward to KICs in order to achieve growth, impact and sustainability?

To enhance the attractiveness of the KICs, the EIT must ensure a lean, expedient administration and trust-based procedures, and must support smooth policy communication with Brussels and a collegial relationship between the Budapest office and the KICs’ offices Roche Diagnostics GmbH.

Funding model is unattractive for many partners and administrative burden may be deterrent for industrial partners. Currently, the EIT is not given a high amount of autonomy. (…) Could be a good leverage tool but need more flexibility to stay attractive. Climate-KIC

27

5. RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE COMMON STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND

INNOVATION (CSFRI)

5.1. Introduction

In February 2011 the European Commission launched a public consultation on the future of EU research and innovation funding. In its Green Paper17, the Commission proposed a "Common Strategic Framework" which would cover the current Framework Programme for Research (FP7), the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). The objective of the consultation was to obtain stakeholders' views on how to make simpler the access to EU research and innovation funding, increase scientific and economic impact and improve value for money, and consequently maximise the contribution of research and innovation to the Innovation Union and the Europe 2020 Strategy.

As one of the pillars of the Common Strategic Framework (now renamed Horizon 2020: the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation), the EIT and the discussions on its future are very relevant for the shaping of the EU research and innovation landscape for the period after 2013. Likewise, the outcome of the consultation and the discussions on the CSFRI/Horizon 2020 are important for the preparation of the EIT's Strategic Innovation Agenda and the setting out of its future priorities.

This section analyses the different contributions to the public consultation on the CSFRI in what concerns the EIT18.

5.2. Main messages

As clearly demonstrated in the analysis of the EIT consultation replies19, the majority of respondents strongly support EIT's mission and objectives. They see the EIT and its KICs as a very important "instrument to place innovation on top of the agenda. It has the potential to integrate innovation, research and education with the overall aim to create growth and jobs"20. Because of its singular role in the integration of the knowledge triangle and in EU's education, research and innovation landscape, respondents advocate for the inclusion and reinforcement of the EIT within the future Horizon 2020.

The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) need to find its place within the range of EU research and innovation instruments focusing specifically upon the enhancement of partnerships and knowledge exchange between industry / business and universities and non-university research institutions. European University Association- EUA.

The inclusion of the EIT within Horizon 2020 is, in respondents' view, essential for ensuring complementarities and synergies between the EIT and the other different research and 17 European Commission (2011). GREEN PAPER. From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation funding. COM (2011) 48. 18 For the detailed analysis of the CSFRI consultation results please consult: http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=home 19 Cf. section 4.1- EIT mission, objectives and added value 20 Written contribution of the Danish Centre for Advanced Food Studies.

28

innovation programmes and instruments and, therefore, can contribute to reduce fragmentation and improving the overall effectiveness of the EU innovation landscape.

Integrating research and innovation activities under a common framework should, however, not be at the expense of autonomy and flexibility. According to a large number of respondents, the different programmes and instruments should retain their particular characteristics a not be merged into a single programme. In what regards the EIT, in particular, consultation participants see it best included as an "independent unit under the general policy of the new Common Strategic Framework"21.

The UK supports the concept of the Knowledge Triangle, where synergies are developed between research, education and innovation policies and programmes (…). The UK is pleased that the European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT) is included within the broad remit of the Common Strategic Framework but considers that greater autonomy could be beneficial. (…) We consider that EIT should have the autonomy and flexibility to organise itself in the most appropriate way, but within the broad framework of the future Common Strategic Framework. Department for Business Innovation and Skills - United Kingdom.

Align the EIT with the requirements of a common framework in a flexible manner. LERU recognises the EIT as a potentially powerful vehicle for innovation. (…) It should be kept in mind that the EIT’s ambition is to act as a “smart investor”. It is not, nor should it become, a funding programme of the Commission. A balance will therefore have to be found between the EIT’s need to retain enough flexibility to address distinct needs whilst ensuring alignment with other elements based within a common framework. League of European Research Universities – LERU.

Respondents' support for having different instruments with clear and distinct objectives is seen as incompatible with the introduction of a single set of rules22. In fact, "while seeking for much more commonality, there should be a fair degree of flexibility left, as policy objectives require a variety of instruments. Imposing the same regulatory straightjacket on all activities could even lead to an increase of red tape".23

KIC InnoEnergy sees a danger in stressing the HOW rather than the WHAT. The innovation value chain is so rich in terms of players (individuals, academia, research, industry), in terms of lifecycle (medium term research, POC; demonstrators, small series), in terms or risk, in terms of outputs (enabling technology, prototype, product, ..) …. that we should not lose its richness for having an homogeneous process (…) In KIC InnoEnergy we do not believe in a unique set of rules. KIC InnoEnergy.

Another key message of the CSFRI/Horizon 2020 consultation is the strong request for simplification, which is seen as a key priority towards increasing industrial participation in EU research and innovation funding. As demonstrated in the analysis of EIT's consultation results24, this request also applies to the EIT. Respondents consider that more emphasis should be placed on simplifying administrative and financial rules (in terms of negotiation

21 Written contribution of the European Consortium of Innovative Universities (ECIU). 22 Written contribution of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) and European Biopharmaceutical Enterprises (EBE). 23 Written contribution of Artemis – Industry Association. 24 Cf. section 4.1, 4.3 and 4.5.

29

procedures and reporting for example), if industry is to become more interested in being involved in the EIT KICs.

Other priorities for EIT's future include the call for an increased level of resources allocated to the EIT and its KICs. Respondents recognise the EIT is far from having acquired maturity, but given the relevance of its mission and provided it can tangibly demonstrate its added value and deliver concrete results and benefits to the society, its level of funding should be appropriately raised.

The EIT should continue its pivotal role in the Knowledge Triangle by integrating education, research and innovation activities. For the past year, the EIT and its KICs seem to have suffered from implementation problems, complexity and rigidity, (…) Provided that the EIT gets a sound, lean and mean legal structure and the first three KICs demonstrate that they can deliver tangible benefits to the business sector, we call for additional resources being allocated to the EIT to ensure its financial footing. PHILIPS.

Similarly, consultation participants recommend more transparency and the EIT to be more open to dialogue with external stakeholders. They further ask for the development of supporting measures for disseminating lessons learnt and innovation results to all relevant stakeholders throughout Europe.