1 / 25

My experience

SAFEFOODERA WORKSHOP Food Safety Research Ideas Forum 30 th October 2006 Increasing the Impact of National Research Programmes through Transnational Cooperation and Opening Angus Hunter Managing Director, Optimat Ltd angus.hunter@optimat.co.uk. My experience . ERA Policy Study Author

wycliff
Download Presentation

My experience

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. SAFEFOODERA WORKSHOPFood Safety Research Ideas Forum30th October 2006Increasing the Impact of National Research Programmes through Transnational Cooperation and OpeningAngus HunterManaging Director, Optimat Ltdangus.hunter@optimat.co.uk

  2. My experience ERA Policy Study Author • DG Research study on the Design of National Research Programmes • Good Practice Guide on Increasing the Impact of National Programmes through Transnational Cooperation and Opening ‘eTranet’ Project Manager • ERA-NET on ‘ICT for Traditional Manufacturing Industries’ (2003-2007) Veteran of ERA Workshops • DG Research (ERA-NET) • DG INFSO (CISTRANA) • TAFTIE • UK ERA-NET Participants

  3. Overview of the study Objectives • Factors that encourage or inhibit transnational opening • Rationale for the barriers • Case studies of programmes that encourage TN cooperation • Practical suggestions for national programme designers Scope • All 34 countries of European Research Area • China, Japan, USA • Basic, applied/industrial, SME, mobility programmes Inputs • Desk research, CREST interviews, national consultations • Empirical programme survey (>300 invited, 127 responses) • Expert workshops • Manchester Conference (21/10/05) – coordination of national programmes Ouputs • Policy report for DG Research and CREST • Good Practice Guide for national programme designers and managers

  4. Inequity across ERA

  5. Variable geometry

  6. Limited openness

  7. Benefits of internationalisation

  8. 3/21 Prevalence of barriers

  9. Important barriers

  10. 5/23 Prevalence of enablers

  11. Important enablers

  12. Strategies based on ‘Objectives’ • Development of knowledge-based industries • Corint Programme (Romania) • Industrial PhD (Denmark) • Research and Technology Innovation Fund (Hungary) • Internationalisation (of industry and researchers) • Aide à l’innovation Programme (France) • CIR-CE Programme (Austria) • FinNano Programme (Finland) • ProInno II Programme (Germany) • Torch Programme (China) • Increasing scientific competitiveness • IWT Programmes (Belgium) • NWO Programmes (Netherlands) • RPT Programme (Cyprus) • Addressing societal or environmental challenges • Food Standards Agency (UK)

  13. Conclusions • Design of national programmes • Complex, dynamic landscape • More coordination in basic research • More ‘variable geometry’ in applied/industrial research • Limited sign of landscape alignment • Barriers to international cooperation • Major barriers to opening of national programmes • Policy barriers appear to be most important • Variation between countries and cultures • Strategies to address the barriers • Dependent on the objectives of the programme • Mobility and basic research programmes have more enablers • Interesting differences in enablers across ERA

  14. Stakeholder Issues

  15. Other Issues • Perception of legal barriers • Lack of empirical evidence of the benefits • Enablers need to be embedded in design • Lack of opportunity for ERA networking • ERA-NET is helping but many not involved • Limited transnational design creativity • Most ERA-NETs are taking a simple approach based on Joint Calls for international R&D projects

  16. SAFEFOODERA WP4 Joint Activities • Investigate the feasibility of establishing a food safety research ideas forum • For public funders • To facilitate opportunities for joint activities

  17. ETRANET Research Ideas Enablers WP1 Networking 1.2 Programme benchmarking 1.3 Best practice exchange visits 1.6 Twinning activities with other countries WP2 Strategic Activities 2.1 Synthesis of strategic studies • Forward looking 2.2 Sectoral observatory • MANUFUTURE, eBusinessW@tch, etc WP3 Joint Activities 3.2 Analysis of programme synergies • Backward looking 3.3 European database of experts/facilities • Prerequisite for VUN 3.4 Virtual users network (VUN) WP4 Transnational Research 4.1 National events with users 4.4 Joint programme demonstrator pilots 4.5 EU Conference for domain experts • Launch of 1st Joint Call (pilot) in June 2006 4.6 Parallel/synchronised Call system • Linked to future national programme synergies

  18. Virtual Networking

  19. Other ERA-NET’s • Most are using the virtual common pot • Some national agencies are involved in multiple ERA-NETs • Mainly TAFTIE members • Promoting the need for harmonised Joint Call systems, etc • Worried about proliferation and fragmentation • Most (all) have some kind of virtual networking system • Are they effective ????

  20. More ERA creativity needed Creative Right Brain “How can we collaborate with similar programmes in other countries to our mutual advantage” Critical Left Brain “I agree that we could benefit from transnational cooperation and involving foreign researchers but it’s just too difficult”

More Related