Annexes to COM(2013)830 - Second interim evaluation of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC Joint Technology Initiatives - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2013)830 - Second interim evaluation of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC Joint Technology Initiatives. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2013)830  |
| date | November 27, 2013 |
Regarding the implementation of the recommendations of the first interim evaluation, the panel is overall satisfied and indicates that most of the recommendations were addressed in the Commission's report on the interim evaluation report and overall implemented in a satisfactory manner. Nevertheless, the implementation of some recommendations that were addressed to the Member States is according to the panel less satisfactory. These recommendations relate to the harmonisation of MS funding practices, procedures, and multi-annual budgetary commitments which may cause process delays and administrative burden.
5. Planned follow-up actions
The Commission welcomes the second interim evaluation report. The recommendations are based on a thorough and critical analysis. The Commission will as set out below implement the recommendations made to it and will work with industry, JTI member States and the Joint Undertakings to help them undertake their parts.
In particular, the Commission will undertake:
· short-term actions for the existing JUs (i.e. their activities until the launch of the new JTI) through their governance structures; and
· actions in the context of the legal framework of the next generation JTI ECSEL.
The Commission's response to the recommendations from the panel is outlined below. This section also presents the follow-up by the Commission of its report about the first interim evaluation.
5.1. General observations
The Commission acknowledges the value of the tri-partite model and is in particular pleased with the positive findings on the effectiveness and efficiency of the current JUs. The launch and ramping up of the JUs has been difficult but the major hurdles have been overcome.
In operational terms, the ENIAC JU is on track to bring it close to the original ambition for the initiative, i.e. to leverage an industrial investment programme in nanoelectronics R&D of some €2.7 billion. The ARTEMIS JU will be further away from the initial target of €2.5 billion in R&D for embedded computing systems. However, the developments of the last two years indicate also for ARTEMIS a significant increase of its volume of activities. The Commission is confident that both initiatives will have delivered on their promises by the end of their mandate in 2017.
5.2. Recommendations for the Industrial Associations
The Commission recognises the important role of the industrial associations being members of the JUs, especially in the buy-in of industry including SME's, in keeping the research agenda up-to-date and in promoting the JUs. The Commission stresses the importance of the involvement of industry at the highest level to show leadership and engagement. In this context, the positioning document[10] developed under the auspices of AENEAS[11] and CATRENE[12] provides significant perspectives and objectives for the European nanoelectronics industry by 2020.
In agreement with the observations of the second interim evaluation panel, the Commission considers the evolution of the JUs to support projects at higher Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as both timely and needed, putting more focus on innovation and exploitation, and bringing R&D closer to the market. In particular, the call for manufacturing pilot lines by the ENIAC JU in 2012 has been very successful. This call is the first large-scale implementation of the recommendations from the High-Level Group on KETs. Similarly, the ARTEMIS Innovation Pilot Projects are indeed 'a laudable intent of sustaining innovation from proof of concept and prototyping stage right through to a solid industrial platform'.
Furthermore, the good work done within ARTEMIS-IA[13] on the portfolio analysis and key performance indicators is acknowledged. Both industrial associations together with the JUs will be encouraged to continue working in this direction thereby addressing recommendation 15.
Nevertheless the Commission concurs with the evaluation panel that more can be done as stated in recommendations 1 and 2. With the new ECSEL JU, the industrial partners should take the opportunity of a more coordinated and proactive approach to reinforce the strategic dimension of their cooperation. They will be invited to come up with key orientations for the European electronic components and systems industry to become the engine for the promising field of "smart everywhere" products and services. To this effect, the proposal of the Council Regulation on ECSEL includes a requirement for broader stakeholder engagement.
The report from the Commission on the first interim evaluation commented extensively on the positioning of the JUs towards EUREKA. The Commission now acknowledges that significant progress has been made. In the area of nanoelectronics, CATRENE and ENIAC developed a common Vision, Mission and Strategy document for R&D in micro- and nanoelectronics in Europe. Similarly, in the area of embedded systems, ITEA2[14] and ARTEMIS hold co-summits and have set up a coordination mechanism[15]. These actions will contribute to the development of an overarching EU research, development and innovation strategy covering nanoelectronics, embedded computing and cyber-physical systems in line with recommendation 16 and should be reinforced.
5.3. Recommendations for the Joint Undertakings
The Commission concurs with the findings of the panel of experts that the evaluation and selection procedures and the technical review process have been streamlined, are good and perceived by the participants as being very helpful. Projects launched at the start of the JUs are now coming to an end and the focus of the final reporting should be on the exploitation of the results. The Commission therefore welcomes recommendations 3 and 15 and will ask the Executive Directors to examine the possibility to implement them and ensure a proper reporting on exploitation activities, though limiting the burden on the beneficiaries. The development of an appropriate metrics for measuring the impact and success of JU projects is equally important.
As set out above, both JUs proved to be able to respond quickly and appropriately to changing requirements and steer the initiatives closer to the market. The various bodies in the JUs are to be commended for this. Therefore, the Commission is confident that the recommendations 4, 6 and 14 will find positive reception within the bodies of the JUs as they address issues of a more operational nature.
The implementation of an ex-post audit strategy by the JUs has been particularly difficult and subject to observations from the Court of Auditors. The Commission will continue to raise this issue in the Governing Boards in view of achieving a reasonable assurance that the financial transactions of the JUs are correct. Recommendations 10, 12 and 13 are addressed in the proposed Council Regulation on ECSEL to the extent in which these recommendations can be implemented within the applicable legal framework.
5.4. Recommendations for the European Commission
The recommendations relating to the next generation JTI have been taken into account in the Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation on the ECSEL Joint Undertaking. This concerns in particular the recommendation to have a single JTI (recommendation 5) with a single integrated research and innovation agenda (recommendation 1) based on a simplified financial regulation (recommendation 7) and an increased strategic role for its Governing Board (recommendation 8). The ECSEL proposal furthermore incorporates a further harmonisation of rules (recommendation 9) in accordance with the Rules for Participation of HORIZON 2020.
Moreover the Commission adopted on 23 May 2013 a European strategy for micro- and nanoelectronics components and systems[16], in line with recommendation 16. A cornerstone of the strategy is the set-up of the new ECSEL JU with a focus on innovation and covering higher TRL.
5.5. Recommendations for the Member States
The Commission recognises the difficulties experienced by the JU member States in implementing their part of the recommendations, in particular with respect to engaging in multi-annual commitments, the harmonisation of rules and funding rates, and the synchronisation of procedures. The experience and mutual understanding built up through their participation in the ARTEMIS and ENIAC JUs should allow making a fresh start with the ECSEL JU under the umbrella of Horizon 2020. This is already visible in the ECSEL Council Regulation proposed by the Commission in which these issues are addressed. In particular, it offers the possibility of a common approach for the implementation of the public contributions to the projects. The Commission urges the Member States to take all necessary measures to support the proposed harmonisation and simplification of the processes for the beneficiaries in the future actions being retained for funding.
The Commission also notes that much progress has been made recently within ARTEMIS and ENIAC JU in finding a balance between supporting national priorities and achieving common European objectives.
6. Conclusion
While the first interim evaluation helped the JUs improve their operations and focus on their operational objectives, the findings of the second interim evaluation were a timely and significant input in the drafting of the Commission proposal for the future ECSEL Council Regulation. Although there are still administrative hurdles which can be overcome in the future ECSEL JU, the ARTEMIS and ENIAC JUs proved to be an effective and efficient tool to implement an R&D programme driven by industry and co-financed by the Member States and the EU.
The final evaluation of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC JUs is scheduled for 2017 as part of the interim evaluation foreseen for the ECSEL JU. That final evaluation should look into the overall impact of the projects supported by the JUs, and comment on their contribution in the overall context of the European strategy for micro- and nanoelectronics and embedded systems.
Annex - List of recommendations by the evaluation panel
No[17] || Summary of recommendations || Timeframe
Recommendations for the Industrial Associations
1 || The JTI SRA and work programmes need to reflect more strongly a coherent European perspective, linking to an overarching European Electronic Components and Systems research, development and innovation strategy, as proposed in Recommendation 16. || Next Generation JTIs
2 || The Industrial Associations should play a more active role in the definition of the overall objectives and strategy of the JTIs and should engage more actively with stakeholders so as to promote and facilitate participation in project proposals, especially by SMEs, and to develop and keep up-to-date the Strategic Research Agenda. || Now/ Next Generation JTIs
Recommendations for the Joint Undertakings[18]
3 || JTI project reviews, including a final post-project review that should be held, the panel concludes, between 6 and 12 months after the end of a project, should monitor more closely and rigorously the actual and planned exploitation of project results, and the measures put in place by project partners to achieve such planned exploitation. || Now
4 || ARTEMIS projects should build, where appropriate, on previously developed ARTEMIS technology, making reference to what has been funded before and demonstrating, in addition to novelty, the appropriate re-use of previous project results combined with a suitable progression to higher TRL levels. The proportion of funding for projects targeting generic applications and services (Applications projects) should be increased. || Now/ Next Generation JTIs
6 || ENIAC and CATRENE calls for, and selection of, proposals should be more closely aligned (e.g. by the use of common and/or complementary calls), with the relevant funding awarding bodies retaining some flexibility over the assignment of the most appropriate funding stream. || Now/ Next Generation JTIs
8 || Focus the JU Governing Boards on strategic issues and reduce their administrative burden in order to attract participation from high-level industry representatives. || Now/ Next Generation JTIs
10 || The JUs should explore and develop appropriate mechanisms to create an ‘early warning system’ to identify potential delays, or restrictions to the availability, of funding from Member States. In order to bridge any financial gaps so identified, advanced funding by the EC (on behalf of a Member State) should be allowed for projects which are mission-critical. || Now
12 || Take steps (e.g. modification of evaluation criteria) during the proposal evaluation and selection process to improve the match of the project portfolio to strategic European aims and to ensure optimum coverage of key areas defined in the overarching EU ECS strategy (proposed in Recommendation 16) and the workplans derived from such a strategy. || Next Generation JTIs
13 || Specific support mechanisms for enhancing the project management processes in JTI projects should be developed and implemented. Management costs should be 100% funded by the EC for all JTI projects. || Now/ Next Generation JTIs
14 || JTI projects should be subject to only one (i.e. the JU) project review and reporting process. || Now
15 || Appropriate metrics for measuring the impact and success of JTI projects should be developed and used for both current and future JTIs. || Now
Recommendations for the European Commission
5 || The ENIAC & ARTEMIS JTIs, along with the European Technology Platform (ETP) on Smart Systems Integration (EPoSS), should be integrated into a single organisation (an ECS JTI). || Next Generation JTIs
7 || Construct the proposed new, integrated JTI (of Recommendation 5), or indeed any future JTI, as a PPP body as defined in Article 209 of the financial regulation. || Next Generation JTIs
13 || Specific support mechanisms for enhancing the project management processes in JTI projects should be developed and implemented. Management costs should be 100% funded by the EC for all JTI projects. || Now/ Next Generation JTIs
16 || A mid- to long-term overarching EU research, development and innovation strategy in Electronic Components and Systems (ECS) should be clearly defined and used as a key 'driver' for funding decisions. || Now
Recommendations for the Member States
9 || Member State participation rules, funding rates and procedures should be harmonised and synchronised wherever possible, adopting best practice as the guiding principle. || Now/ Next Generation JTIs
11 || Member States should commit to a multi-annual funding system. || Now/ Next Generation JTIs
14 || JTI projects should be subject to only one (i.e. the JU) project review and reporting process. || Now
[1] Council Regulation No 74/2008 of 20 December 2007 on the establishment of the ‘ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking’ to implement a Joint Technology Initiative in Embedded Computing Systems. Council Regulation No 72/2008 of 20 December 2007 setting up the ENIAC Joint Undertaking.
[2] ARTEMIS member States: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus (withdrew recently), Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Slovenia, United Kingdom. ENIAC member States: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom.
[3] http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/information_society/evaluation/rtd/jti/index_en.htm
[4] COM(2010) 752 final and http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/information_society/evaluation/rtd/jti/
[5] The expert panel consisted of the following members: M. Götzeler (CEO Aixtron SE); W. Arden (former Infineon Technologies); Ch. de Prost (ATMEL); J.-L. Dormoy (EDF); M. Jansz (Technology Foundation STW); T. Luukkonen (Research Institute of the Finnish Economy); A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli (University of California at Berkeley); D. Wright (University of Exeter).
[6] The evidence base for the evaluation included an extensive desk review of relevant documents on legal and financial matters, research agendas, work programmes, participation statistics and project information. 104 interviews were conducted with a wide range of stakeholders: industry, academia, Commission, national Public Authorities, EUREKA clusters and the JUs.
[7] https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/second-interim-evaluation-artemis-and-eniac-joint-technology-initiatives
[8] http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/files/kets/hlg_report_final_en.pdf
[9] COM(2013) 501 final and http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2013/pdf/jti/ecsel_factsheet.pdf
[10] Innovation for the future of Europe: Nanoelectronics beyond 2020 http://www.aeneas-office.eu/web/downloads/strategic-docs/position_paper_final.pdf
[11] The Association for European NanoElectronics ActivitieS http://www.aeneas-office.eu/web/index.php
[12] The Eureka Cluster for Application and Technology Research in Europe on NanoElectronics http://www.catrene.org/
[13] The industrial Association for Advanced Research & Technology for EMbedded Intelligence and Systems http://www.artemis-ia.eu/
[14] The Eureka Cluster on Information Technology for European Advancement (ITEA) http://www.itea2.org/
[15] High-level vision 2030 ITEA-ARTEMIS - http://www.artemis-ia.eu/publications
[16] COM(2013) 298 final
[17] The numbering of the recommendations refers to the report of the experts.
[18] These recommendations refer to a collective/joint responsibility of all parties involved in the JUs.