1 / 19

International comparison of European NCP systems models, services and tools

International comparison of European NCP systems models, services and tools NCP Benchmarking Workshop Sarajevo, 25 March 2010 Klaus Schuch. Challenges ahead.

kale
Download Presentation

International comparison of European NCP systems models, services and tools

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. International comparison of European NCP systems models, services and tools NCP Benchmarking Workshop Sarajevo, 25 March 2010 Klaus Schuch

  2. Challenges ahead • BiH is associated to FP; given the political reality a way out of FP association seems unlikely – thus, the issue remains on the agenda! • Financial pressure on BiH will probably increase (fee reduction?) • FP becomes more competitive (15% success rate) • FP oriented towards more excellence, joint programming (which puts pressure on national co-financing budgets), big challenges supposed to need large coordinated approaches to tackle them.

  3. Contributions of a NCP System • NCPs can – maybe more than other distinctive single measures – support successful FP participation of Bosnian-Herzegovinian researchers (up to 20%?) • If NCPs are well embedded in the national ERA governance, than they can take-over intelligence services too (in division of labour with the ministry and government) • FP can be instrumentalized to enhance modernisation agenda in S&T • BUT: NCPs cannot solve structural problems!

  4. BiH NCP-System at first glance • http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/get-support_en.html • Select a country; all NCP functions • The following results were detected: • BiH: 2 contacts (NCP coordinator and INCO NCP) • Albania: 17 contacts Bulgaria: 67 contacts • Croatia: 24 contacts Estonia: 24 contacts • Macedonia: 21 contacts Hungary: 29 contacts • Montenegro: 15 contacts Poland: 47 contacts • Serbia: 30 contacts Slovenia: 22 contacts

  5. BiH NCP-System at first glance (2) • Last News on 1 January 2010 (checked yesterday) • No newsletter received since weeks • Partner search does not work from main site • Last announced workshops in 2008 • Last announced info-days in 2007 • but good webpage structure – potentially powerful tool

  6. Bosnia-Herzegovina should not refrain from a NCP-system! More investment and steady funding is necessary! Clear governance structure, commitment, performance based resource allocation and a cross-cutting quality initiative are in demand! Networking at different European levels is needed!

  7. NCP systems in Europe • France, Germany, UK, Greece, or Russia maintain NCPs in different host organisations – challenge for the NCP coordinator to ensure ongoing flow of information, dialogue and steering. At least, France and Germany maintain a joint web-portal as online entrance point. • Sweden, Austria, The Netherlands, Italy, Poland and Ukraine created central organisations resp. agencies. The NCP coordinator is often the director of the organisation or its respective department.

  8. High diversity • Some countries seek organisation synergies between national funding programmes and NCP activities (e.g. VINNOVA, SENTER-NOVEM, FFG). • Others seek synergies between national RTD organisations and NCP activities and place them in leading national RTD organisations (e.g. Slovenia/JSI; France/CNRS, Russia/Khurtschakov Institute). • In some countries like Sweden, Austria, The Netherlands national funding for the central NCP organisation covers 100% of efforts; others like Italy are partly funded via contributions by members and competitively acquired resources. NCPs in Greece or France are publicly supported through their host organisations (e.g. universities).

  9. Benchmarking of 8 NCP systems • Estonia • Hungary • Poland • Slovenia • Austria • Belgium • France • Macedonia

  10. Size of NCP systems • Around 20 NCPs are covering the majority of FP sub-programmes (plus occasionally other initiatives) • In many countries NCPs are doing other jobs too • Most NCP systems have substantial number of additional support personnel (e.g. Poland, Austria)

  11. Organisation of NCP systems • Some centralised NCP systems are complemented by regional (and thematic) contact points (e.g. Poland) • Private-non-profit status is exception; usually there is public background • In some organisationally decentralised systems a strong “headquarter” exists (e.g. MZ, SL); in others only weak coordination through government (BE, FR)

  12. Budget and Financing • Budgets depend strongly on salary levels • Without salaries additional budget is limited • EU sources can be exceptionally substantial but not reliable • No service fees; NCP services are perceived as public task

  13. National FP Co-funding • Proposal preparation funds are common but rules vary • Top-up for granted FP projects sometimes at regional level (structural funds)

  14. Quality Assurance and Evaluation

  15. QA • Benchmarking with other NCPs is important (peer reviews) • Twinning with experienced NCP in start-up phase recommended • Often supervisory or monitoring councils are in place • Reporting templates are a common feature (incl. statistics) • More emphasis should be directed on output indicators (FFG), but input indicators are more common • Regular competitive contracting increases competitiveness • QA best practices: TEKES, VINNOVA, FFG, DLR • Initiative proposed by FFG to start a joint QA activity for NCP systems

  16. Success Criteria • Success rate in FP above EU average (EE); impact (hardly attributable) • Feedback questionnaires at promotion events (AT, EE) • Statistics on the use of websites, helpdesks, participants in information days etc. (BE) (input data) • 90% of consulted coordinators should submit project proposal (AT) (output data) • 60% of consulted project partners should submit project proposal (AT) (output data) • Success rate of consulted researchers by factor 2 (AT) (impact)

  17. Relations with national ERA governance • NCPs and PC are usually closely related (often overlaps) • NCPs only occasionally in other strategic bodies (usually GOV NCPs) • Embedding of NCPs in national ERA net governance rather loose (need for coordination mechanism; need for national ERA governance) • … but NCPs can support national ERA governance (PL) in the country and positioning of the country vis-a-vis EC (SL)

  18. The ideal NCP system? • Not in the government, but supervised by it • Selection process is decisive (working culture, service attitude and costumer-orientation) • Centralised; complemented by regional structures • Avoidance of conflict of interest (no research organisation based solution) • Dedicated budget and operational autonomy • Financial sustainability and high allocation from one source • FTE instead of multiple job descriptions • NCP nomination based on professional merits and not political influence • International visibility/accessibility must be secured

  19. Klaus Schuch Zentrum for Soziale Innovation Linke Wienzeile 246 A - 1150 Vienna Tel. ++43.1.4950442-32 Fax. ++43.1.4950442-40 email: schuch@zsi.at http://www.zsi.at

More Related