New paths in EU funding 2

Rationale
1. Phases
  1. Promotion and positioning
  2. Proposal preparation
  3. Negotiation and signature
  4. Project execution
  5. Reporting / auditing
  6. Results exploitation
2. Tensions
  1. Research vs Innovation
  2. Basic research vs Applied research
3. Programmes
  1. National
  2. European
4. New funding schemas
  1. KIC
  2. H2020
5. New actors
  1. Competitors?
  2. Companies
6. Ecosystem
  1. Universities
    1. Researchers
    2. Knowledge Transfer Units
    3. EU Projects Preparation Offices
    4. International Offices
  2. Companies
  3. EU Commission
    1. Project Officers
    2. National Contact Points
7. Internationalisation of research
8. Constraints
  1. Limited by the resources
  2. Complexity H2020
    1. People overload by information
  3. Active vs non active researchers
Organisational approach
1. Central approach
  1. One single unit for the whole university
    1. Utrecht University of Applied Sciences
    2. Universitat Politècnica de València
    3. Metropolitan Manchester University
    4. HAW Hamburg
  2. Description
    1. Strong support unit
    2. Centralization of R&D services
    3. Full information about funding opportunities
    4. Group of professionals
      1. Research applications
      2. Develop applications
      3. Key account managers
      4. Strategic partnerships
      5. Companies
      6. Communication skills
      7. Awareness in EU funding
      8. Non technical aspects of the projects
  3. Strengths
    1. Scale economies
    2. Efficiency
    3. Knowledge sharing
      1. Best practices
      2. Information about programmes
    4. Central Information System
  4. Weaknesses
    1. De-specialisation
    2. Surface knowledge?
2. De-centralized approach
  1. Tech transfers
  2. Located in each Faculty
    1. Tech transfer specialist
      1. Turku University of Applied Sciences
      2. One person per faculty
      3. Tech transfer happening in faculties
    2. Tech transfer offices
      1. TU-Delft
      2. One office per faculty
  3. Strengths
    1. Specialisation
    2. Poximity with researchers
  4. Weaknesses
    1. Knowledge sharing
    2. Scale economies
3. Different necessities
  1. Type of institutions
    1. Universities of Applied Sciences
    2. Research Universities
  2. Available resources
Partnerships
1. Common framework
  1. Share
    1. Resources
    2. Knowledge
    3. Projects
  2. Based on
    1. Complementarity
    2. Resources sharing
    3. Effectiveness
    4. Efficiency
    5. Additional funds
  3. Strategic Alliance
  4. Triple Helix Model
    1. Public Bodies
    2. Companies
    3. Universities
  5. Reason
    1. Globalisation
    2. Rankings
    3. Big projects
2. Corridor Manchester
  1. Partners
    1. Manchester Metropolitan University
    2. The University of Manchester
    3. The Central Manchester University Hospitals
    4. City council
    5. Foundation Trust
  2. Resources
    1. Universities
    2. Research centers
    3. Science Park
    4. Cultural venues
  3. MoU
    1. Research
    2. Knowledge exchenge
    3. Innovation
  4. Links
    1. Management in intelctual property
    2. Complementary portfolios
    3. Intelectual property Company
3. Initiatives in The Netherlands
  1. Utrecht Province
    1. Partners
      1. Utrech University
      2. Medical University
      3. Utrecht University of Applied Sciences
    2. Resources
      1. Funded by the government
      2. Additional ones
      3. Not a separate legal entity
    3. Services
      1. Tech transfer
      2. Startup support
      3. Entrepreneurship education
  2. Other initiatives
    1. Differnt ways
    2. Testing ways of doing things
4. Baltic University Programme
  1. Network
  2. Hamburg University of Applied Sciences
Strategy
1. Engaging researchers
  1. Target groups
    1. Newcomers
      1. Mentor programme
      2. From National Winners to EU Winners
      3. From EU Winners to EU Leaders
      4. How to do research
      5. People
      6. New to EU 2020 projects
      7. New to research
    2. Experienced
  2. From non active to active
    1. National programmes
    2. EU 2020 projects
  3. Personal
    1. Training
    2. Supprot
    3. Coaching
    4. Specific information for each situation
  4. Mentor programme
    1. Researchers with expertise
    2. Tech Transfer managers with expertise
    3. link
  5. Being closer to the researchers
    1. Centralized?
    2. Decentralized?
2. Communication/Information
  1. Information events
    1. General
    2. Focus
  2. Encourage people to do research
  3. Social and networking activities
  4. Create a knowledge base
  5. Complex field
3. Partnerships
  1. Companies
    1. Personal relations
    2. Professors-Company
    3. Former activities
    4. One to one relation
    5. Managing the links
  2. Universities
  3. Government
  4. How to scale it up from personal to institutional?
4. Presence in Europe
  1. Involving researchers as evaluators
  2. EU Office in Brussels
  3. Critical Success Factors
    1. We have to do more
      1. Resources for EU2020 activities
      2. Establish EU Office
  4. Involve national contact points
    1. Give information special calls
    2. Read your proposal
Industry links
1. Disconnection with EU Programmes
  1. They can get funds
  2. They don't know it is possible
2. Timescale
  1. They don't want to wait
  2. They want to solve right now
  3. Difficulty to engage them in projects
3. Universities of Applied Sciences
  1. Funding scheme for UAS
  2. Mandatory to have business involved
4. One to one relation
  1. Link between the individuals
  2. Specific expertise
  3. Identify
    1. Which professors are working with which company
    2. Trusting reslation with companies
    3. Manage relation with companeis
    4. Think differently about the companies
5. Needs from companies
  1. Research questions from industry
  2. They look for particular professors
6. EU Projects
  1. Mandatory in most of the H2020 programme
  2. Difficulties to engage them in projects