International comparison
Download
1 / 19

International comparison of European NCP systems models, services and tools - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 94 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' International comparison of European NCP systems models, services and tools' - kale


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

International comparison

of European NCP systems

models, services and tools

NCP Benchmarking Workshop

Sarajevo, 25 March 2010

Klaus Schuch


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.


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!


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


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


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!


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.


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).


Benchmarking of 8 NCP systems

  • Estonia

  • Hungary

  • Poland

  • Slovenia

  • Austria

  • Belgium

  • France

  • Macedonia


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)


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)


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


National FP Co-funding

  • Proposal preparation funds are common but rules vary

  • Top-up for granted FP projects sometimes at regional level (structural funds)



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


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)


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)


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


Klaus Schuch

Zentrum for Soziale Innovation

Linke Wienzeile 246

A - 1150 Vienna

Tel. ++43.1.4950442-32

Fax. ++43.1.4950442-40

email: [email protected]

http://www.zsi.at


ad