d3.1 industrial competitiveness methodology development ......page 2 change history version date...

A METhodology foR evaluatiON of prOject iMpacts in the fiEld of Transport

Grant No. 213546

D3.1 Industrial Competitiveness methodologydevelopment and application results

Project: METRONOME 213546Document Number and Title: D3.1Work-Package: WP 3Deliverable Type: ReportContractual Date of Delivery: November 2008Actual Date of Delivery: July 2009Author/Responsible(s): Evangelos Mitsakis, Yannis Tyrinopoulos

Centre for Research and Technology Hellas– Hellenic Institute of Transport

Contributors: Anne BinstedApproval of this report: Anu Tuominen, VTTKeyword List: project evaluation, methodology, industrial

competitiveness, research project impactsDissemination level: Public (PU)

Grant No. 213546

Change History

Version Date Status Author (Partner) Description1 8.5.2009 draft 1 CERTH/HIT2 3.7.2009 draft 2 CERTH/HIT3 21.9.2009 final CERTH/HIT

Distribution list

European Commission: [email protected]

METRONOME partners:[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@caminos.upm.es

METRONOME Steering Group:

[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@caminos.upm.es

mailto:[email protected]















Grant No. 213546

Table of Contents1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Objectives and Scope ................................................................................................61.2 Scope of Industrial Competitiveness............................................................................6

1.2.1 Defining the term ‘Industrial Competitiveness’.......................................................61.2.2 The Industrial Competitiveness model ..................................................................61.2.3 Positioning of Industrial Competitiveness in METRONOME......................................7

1.3 Contents...................................................................................................................82 Description of Assessment elements ........................................................................................... 10

2.1 FP5 and FP6 policy objectives and targets related to Industrial Competitiveness ...........102.1.1 FP5 – GROWTH – policy objectives and targets related to Industrial Competitiveness

112.1.2 FP6 – Sustainable Surface Transport (SST) – policy objectives and targets related toIndustrial Competitiveness..............................................................................................12

2.2 Industrial Competitiveness domains & types of impacts ..............................................152.3 Users of evaluations ................................................................................................16

2.3.1 Types of user ...................................................................................................162.3.2 User groups .....................................................................................................172.3.3 Evaluation context ............................................................................................172.3.4 Evaluation user requirements.............................................................................182.3.5 Evaluation processes.........................................................................................182.3.6 European practice.............................................................................................19

2.4 FP5 and FP6 projects related to Industrial Competitiveness domains............................223 Industrial Competitiveness Assessment Methodology.................................................................... 23

3.1 Assessment process ................................................................................................233.1.1 Identification of Industrial Competitiveness domains and types of impacts - Step 1 243.1.2 Identification of Framework Programme specific objectives and targets related toIndustrial Competitiveness - Step 2 .................................................................................243.1.3 Definition of Indicators based on each Framework Programme target - Step 3.......243.1.4 Grouping of indicators based on Framework Programme objectives - Step 4 ..........253.1.5 Relation of each indicator to Industrial Competitiveness domains - Step 5 .............253.1.6 Definition of the Evaluation Framework and success/failure criteria – Step 6..........253.1.7 Definition of the Justification Matrix for selecting projects - Step 7 ........................263.1.8 Selection of projects based on the Justification Matrix and sampling - Step 8 .........273.1.9 Testing the application of the methodology on a small number of projects – Step 9283.1.10 Qualitative analysis of all projects and analysis of the results – Step 10.................283.1.11 Relation of all projects’ assessment results to Industrial Competitiveness domains –Step 11 293.1.12 Assessment, Results, Conclusions, Recommendations, Other use by EU services –Step 12 29

3.2 Indicators ...............................................................................................................293.2.1 Description of the indicators ..............................................................................293.2.2 Relation to objectives and targets ......................................................................333.2.3 Relations between indicators and Industrial Competitiveness domains...................33

3.3 Data collection ........................................................................................................413.3.1 Projects’ websites .............................................................................................413.3.2 Transport Research Knowledge Centre – TRKC....................................................413.3.3 IST World Portal ...............................................................................................41

Grant No. 213546

3.4 Data analysis ..........................................................................................................423.4.1 First statistical insights in the selected project .....................................................423.4.2 Comparative analysis ........................................................................................423.4.3 Definition of success .........................................................................................42

4 Methodology implementation ..................................................................................................... 434.1 Guide for methodology implementation.....................................................................434.2 FP5 methodology implementation.............................................................................47

4.2.1 Statistical insights of the selected FP5 projects. ...................................................474.2.2 Results of FP5 assessment procedure – Rating of projects and indicators ..............484.2.3 Results of FP5 assessment procedure – Industrial Competitiveness domains results504.2.4 Results of funding instrument performance in FP5...............................................51

4.3 FP6 methodology implementation.............................................................................524.3.1 Statistical insights of the selected FP6 projects ....................................................524.3.2 Results of FP6 assessment procedure – Rating of projects and indicators ..............534.3.3 Results of FP6 assessment procedure – Industrial Competitiveness domains results554.3.4 Results of funding instrument performance in FP6...............................................56

5 Conclusions and future recommendations.................................................................................... 575.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................575.2 Discussion of Industrial Competitiveness related research in FP7.................................575.3 Extensions and improvements of the proposed methodology ......................................58

6 References .............................................................................................................................. 59Annex 1. Detailed description of the Framework Programmes 5 and 6 ................................................... 61Annex 2. European Union Work Programmes where funding for transport related projects has been provided..................................................................................................................................................... 61Annex 3. List of selected 49 projects related to Industrial Competitiveness domains................................ 96

Grant No. 213546

List of FiguresFigure 1: Users of evaluation methodologies (based upon Fahrenkrog et al, 2002; IEG, 2007;OECD, 1997a; OECD, 1999). ..............................................................................16Figure 2: Overview of the assessment process.....................................................23Figure 3: Example of an analysis chart for the indicators of one FP objective..........28Figure 4: Results of FP5 objective 1 “Enhancing the efficiency and quality of transport systems andservices”...........................................................................................................48Figure 5: Results of FP5 objective 2: Maintain and consolidate the competitive position of theEuropean road, waterborne-based, rail and intermodal supply industries................48Figure 6: Results of FP5 objective 3 “Development of critical technologies and their integration andvalidation around advanced industrial concepts....................................................49Figure 7: Bar Chart of number of responses (to indicators) corresponding to IndustrialCompetitiveness domains for all FP5 projects.......................................................50Figure 8: Average performance of indicators per funding instrument in FP5............51Figure 9: Results of FP6 objective 1: New technologies and concepts for all surface transportmodes (road, rail and waterborne)......................................................................53Figure 10: Results of FP6 objective 2: Advanced design and production techniques.53Figure 11: Results of FP6 objective 3: Rebalancing and integrating different modes.54Figure 12: Results of FP6 objective 4: Increasing road, rail and waterborne safety and avoidingtraffic congestion. .............................................................................................54Figure 13: Bar chart of number of responses (to indicators) corresponding to IndustrialCompetitiveness domains for all FP6 projects.......................................................55Figure 14: Average performance of indicators per funding instrument in FP5..........56

List of TablesTable 1: FP5 GROWTH policy objectives and targets related to Industrial Competitiveness. 11Table 2: FP6 Sustainable Surface Transport policy objectives and targets related to IndustrialCompetitiveness................................................................................................15Table 3: Industrial Competitiveness Domains and types of Impacts .......................16Table 4: Users of evaluation methodologies from a sample of EU member states....20Table 5: Overview of the EU’s evaluation system (adapted from Guy 2002, cited in Georghiou etal, 2002)...........................................................................................................21Table 6: Evaluation criteria for EU evaluators (based on Europa, 1999)..................21Table 7: Scales of measuring indicators and related definitions of the scales. .........26Table 8: Evaluation Framework database file – template.......................................26Table 9: Justification Matrix for selecting projects – template. ...............................27Table 10: Necessary sample size ........................................................................27Table 11: FP5 indicators and description .............................................................30Table 12: Statistical results of the (25) FP5 selected projects. ...............................47Table 13: Number of responses (to indicators) corresponding to Industrial Competitivenessdomains for all FP5 projects ...............................................................................50Table 14: Statistical results of the (24) FP6 selected projects. ...............................52Table 15: Number of responses (to indicators) corresponding to Industrial Competitivenessdomains for all FP6 projects ...............................................................................55

Grant No. 213546

1 Introduction

1.1 Objectives and Scope

The objective of METRONOME WP3 is the development of a Methodology, which will be adoptedfor the evaluation and assessment of Framework Programmes 5 and 6 projects in the field oftransport focused on strengthening the European Industrial Competitiveness.

Hereafter, the objective is to define the scope of work carried out within Work Package 3. Moreparticularly, a description of the term ‘European Industrial Competitiveness’ is provided, togetherwith a definition of the position of this term within WP3 and METRONOME and a definition of theboundaries of the methodological work to be done.

1.2 Scope of Industrial Competitiveness

1.2.1 Defining the term ‘Industrial Competitiveness’‘Industrial competitiveness’ is a complex concept, which can be analyzed from differentperspectives. It depends on a number of factors including the availability of a skilled labour force,the ability of a sector or a company to compete on quality as well as on cost and to generateproduct innovations, and many others.International industrial competitiveness is generally viewed as an industry’s ability to export itsgoods, with industry being defined as a group of firms that produces similar goods. However, anindustry is often very heterogeneous in what it produces, in how it produces it, and to whom itsells. The cost functions vary greatly among regions, as different regions and countries have, forexample, different labor and input costs, different economic regimes and associated investmentrisks. The result of such heterogeneity is that the impact assessment of EU transport relatedresearch is likely to vary among firms within the same industry.

1.2.2 The Industrial Competitiveness modelComparative position: The comparative position is a measure of the firm's output or performanceif it were to have the facilities of the competitor with which the comparison is being made. Thefacilities of the competitor are however 'normalized' (scaled down or up, preserving thetechnological characteristics) according to the capacity or size of the firm in order to have asuitable basis for comparison. For instance, if the competitor has the capacity and technology toproduce X units of output per worker it is assumed that the same productivity level is achieved bythe firm. Simply because it is this competitor against which the firm has to compete and thereforeif the competitor is able to achieve the X level of labor productivity, so must the firm. Then thecomparative position of the firm becomes the competitor's labor productivity (thus preserving thetechnological characteristics of the competitor) times the number of workers employed (thusscaling down or up to the size of the firm). This is only one way of finding the comparativeposition. Other procedures can also be devised reflecting the competitive environment in whichthe sector or a firm operates. Even mathematical models can be built to find the value ofcomparative position.Potential position: It is of interest to know the best result that could be achieved if the existingfacilities and resources of the sector or a firm are fully and most efficiently utilized. First, it

Grant No. 213546

provides a basis to compare the potentiality with that of the competitor. The ratio of potentialposition to comparative position indicates where a sector or a firm stands in comparison to thecompetitor. Second, it produces awareness, when compared to the actual performance, to whichextent the existing facilities and resources are currently being utilized.Current position: This is what the sector or the firm is currently able to do or is planning toachieve under the prevailing conditions. In other words, the current position is the programmed oractual output. Knowledge of the current position is of importance for at least two reasons. First,when compared to the value of potential position, it indicates the extent to which the existingfacilities and resources are successfully utilized. This comparison provides an instrument withwhich one can identify the bottlenecks under the current conditions and hence can devise ways ofeliminating them. Second, it shows how the performance compares to that of the competitorwhen one relates it to the value of comparative position.Operational mastery: This is the ratio of the current position to the potential position. It is aninternal criterion to measure the combined performance of the production and marketingmanagement. It indicates the extent to which the existing facilities and resources of the firm aresuccessfully being used vis-a-vis the best possible utilization. In a sense, operational mastery is ameasure of internal overall productivity of the sector or a firm.Strategic proficiency: This is the ratio of the potential position to the comparative position. It is anexternal criterion that can be used to measure the performance of top level management from theview point of awareness and preparedness in providing production-distribution facilities andresources.Industrial mastery: This is the ratio of the current position to the comparative position. It is alsoan external criterion and can be used to measure the combined management performance at alllevels and in all functional areas. It indicates where the actual achievements stand in comparisonto that of the competitor.Cost superiority: Neither a high strategic proficiency nor a high industrial mastery by itself canensure a continued long-run success in markets unless the sector or the firm also enjoys somesort of comparative input cost advantages or other benefits emanating from the political-economicenvironment in which it operates. To measure the cost effectiveness in this sense, a costsuperiority index is defined. More specifically, the cost superiority index determines where thesector or the firm comparatively stands with respect to both input costs and input usage rates.Current cost superiority is obtained by using the current input usage rates whereas potential costsuperiority is based on the best possible input usage rates.Competitiveness level: The concepts formulated above allow the definition of two types ofcompetitiveness levels; namely, actual and potential. Actual competitiveness level is given by theproduct of industrial mastery and current cost superiority whereas potential competitiveness levelis the product of strategic proficiency and potential cost superiority.

1.2.3 Positioning of Industrial Competitiveness in METRONOMEThe above introduction to the conceptual background of Industrial Competitiveness is aiming firstto provide an understanding of the complexity of the concept and second to provide the firstinsights of the work performed in WP3 of the project METRONOME. Some of the elements of themodel described above have been taken into account; some others have been adjusted, whileothers have been considered irrelevant to the work and have not been taken into account.Next, the restrictions and driving forces which allow the definition, the role and position ofIndustrial Competitiveness within METRONOME – WP3 and which set the technical objectives ofthe work that has been carried out are presented:

FPs driven: Industrial Competitiveness is examined from the perspective of the Research andDevelopment results of the EU’s Framework Programmes 5 and 6. In particular, the focus is

Grant No. 213546

on the contribution of the results of these Programmes to the strengthening of the IndustrialCompetitiveness of Europe.Impact driven: The Methodology in WP3 does not compare and assess the competitiveposition of European industry in relation with other contents or countries, e.g. U.S.A. orJapan, but it concentrates on the impact and the contribution of FP 5&6 results to thestrengthening of the Industrial Competitiveness of Europe. The difference between thesetwo approaches is major and the first approach lies beyond the scope of the work performedin METRONOME.Sector driven: The Industrial Competitiveness of a firm or a company is not examined. Thefocus lies on assessing the Industrial Competitiveness of a sector. The IndustrialCompetitiveness of a firm entails private elements (e.g. profit), whereas the IndustrialCompetitiveness of a sector, such as transport which is the focus of the project, entails alsopublic aspects (e.g. societal) that are taken into account.Technology driven: Due to the nature of the project, particular focus is placed on thetechnological dimension of Industrial Competitiveness. This means that emphasis is put onthe technology oriented contribution, such as – among others - Intelligent TransportationSystems (ITS) results and products, derived from the two FPs, towards the enhancement ofEurope’s Industrial Competitiveness.Methodology driven: According to the objectives of the project, its main output is theIndustrial Competitiveness Methodology itself. The Methodology is to be developed andvalidated, while the results from its application to selected projects are derived and providethe necessary input for the recommendations drawn. This means that particular focus isplaced on the methodological process and its validity rather than on the application.Data limitations: The limited budget and timeframe of METRONOME imposes the applicationof the Industrial Competitiveness Methodology to a limited number of FP5 and FP6 projects,thus analyzing limited set of data. Although this can be considered as a fact with an impacton the final results, the particular aspects of the proposed methodology related to projectselection and data collection ensure that a reliable and robust Methodology and results aredelivered.

1.3 ContentsThe present document, which aims to present the results of the activities carried out in the thirdWork Package of the METRONOME project, consists of the following chapters:

Chapter 1: IntroductionThe first chapter of the Deliverable includes an overview of the objectives and the scope of theassessment of Industrial Competitiveness, the definition of this term as well the positioning of it inthe METRONOME project.

Chapter 2: Description of Assessment elementsThe second chapter describes all the assessment elements which have been taken intoconsideration for the formulation of the proposed assessment methodology. These include the FP5and FP6 policy objectives and targets related to Industrial Competitiveness, the IndustrialCompetitiveness domains & types of impacts, the potential Users of evaluations and finally theactual FP5 and FP6 projects related to Industrial Competitiveness domains.

Chapter 3: Industrial Competitiveness Assessment Methodology

Grant No. 213546

The third chapter provides a detailed description of the Assessment process which is proposed bythe METRONOME project regarding Industrial Competitiveness. The 12 steps of themethodological process are presented. Following that, a description of the proposed indicators isprovided, together with references regarding the data collection processes that are proposed. TheData analysis concludes the description of the Industrial Competitiveness assessment methodologydescription.

Chapter 4: Methodology implementationThe fourth chapter is concerned with the implementation of the proposed methodology in anumber of projects. First, a short Guide for methodology implementation is presented, which isfollowed by the actual implementation of the methodology for the selected projects of FP5 andFP6.

Chapter 5: Conclusions and future recommendationsThe fifth chapter is concerned with presenting the concluding remarks of the developedmethodology and its implementation. Future research and policy recommendations are providedfollowed by a discussion of Industrial Competitiveness related topics of research in the ongoing7th Framework Programme. Some recommendations regarding the record and file keeping of FPprojects are presented, which aim to foster a more convenient assessment methodologyimplementation in the future. Finally, a number of possible extensions and improvements of theproposed methodology are discussed.

These five main chapters are followed by references and annexes.

Grant No. 213546

2 Description of Assessment elementsThe assessment of the Industrial Competitiveness takes into account a number of elements, whichcollectively constitute all these necessary aspects that need to be considered and analyzed inorder to fulfil the objectives of the WP3 tasks. These assessment elements are the following:- FP5 and FP6 policy objectives related to Industrial Competitiveness- FP5 and FP6 policy targets related to Industrial Competitiveness- Competitiveness domains and types of impacts- User groups- FP5 and FP6 projects related to Industrial Competitiveness domains

These elements are presented in detail in the following paragraphs.

2.1 FP5 and FP6 policy objectives and targets related to Industrial CompetitivenessIn order to identify the FP5 and FP6 policy objectives and targets, a thorough analysis of all WorkProgrammes of both FP5 and FP6 needs to be carried out. This work is based first on thenecessary data collection and second on the understanding of the policy objectives that eachFramework Programme aims to achieve. For a detailed description of the Framework Programmesthe reader is advised to consult Annex 1.

Next, a detailed presentation of the two Framework Programmes’ policy objectives and targetsfollows. It must be pointed out that the list of objectives and indicators is limited to the FP5-GROWTH and FP6-SST Work Programmes, thus the end results do not cover all transport relatedtopics (objectives and targets) that the European Union aimed to achieve through other WorkProgrammes in both Framework Programmes, such as the ICT and others. The reader is advisedto consult Annex 2, where Work Programmes that funded transport related research projects ispresented, in order to have an overview of the framework in which the current study takes place.

Grant No. 213546

2.1.1 FP5 – GROWTH – policy objectives and targets related to Industrial Competitiveness

WorkProgramme

PolicyObjectives

Targets

Improve the overall cost-effectiveness and functioning of transportoperations and infrastructureIntegrate the respective strengths of all modes of transport in order toprovide door-to-door services for both passengers and freightSignificantly reduce congestion in the networks by the year 2010Reduce the average viability threshold for intermodal freight journeys inthe European Union from ca 500 km to 200 km by the year 2010

GROWTH1999.1

Enhancing theefficiency andquality oftransportsystems andservices

Integrate information technologies and second generation satellitenavigation and positioning systems in the transport sector

Reductions in energy consumptionGROWTH1999.2

Maintain andconsolidate thecompetitiveposition of theEuropean road,waterborne-based, rail andintermodalsupply industries

Large increases in overall safety, reliability and availability

Improved fuel efficiency and reduction of emissions: Contribution to thereduction of 30% in CO2 emissions for new car fleet average, 20% forrail vehicles and 15 % of marine vessels by 2008 to 2012 time periodagainst the 1995 state of art technologies for consumption of equivalentclasses; Development and validation of Zero Emission Vehicles, andEquivalent Zero Emission Vehicles capable of market deployment by2005/2010; Pass-by noise targets : 70 dBA for automobiles, 74 dBA forheavy vehicles based on standard homologation tests and reduction of 10dBA in relation to present railway technologyImproved performance: For new and advanced vehicle, vessel andinfrastructure concepts, improvements are sought of 30% to 50% insafety, reliability, maintainability, availability and operability. For railwaysincreased reliability (by 25%) and availability (of 99% at peak trafficperiods) is expected; Reference targets are reductions of life cycle costsand maintenance costs by 30%. For ships, sub-sea vehicles and marineinfrastructure design improvements are sought to reduce time to marketby 15-20%, and to increase efficiency and reduce operating costs by30% to 40%. In the case of intermodal logistic interfaces, advancedconcepts should aim at increased reliability, energy efficiency andadaptability while, significantly speeding up (up to 50%) logisticoperations

GROWTH1999.3

Development ofcriticaltechnologies andtheir integrationand validationaroundadvancedindustrialconcepts

Improved system competitiveness: Halving of time-to-market and of costsis expected for the development of vehicle concepts and maininfrastructure components. Further improvements may be feasiblethrough the full co-operation between manufacturers, componentsuppliers and sub-contractors; In the medium term, advances of practicesin integration of design and production operations might lead toimprovements in vehicle quality and reliability of about 50%.

Table 1: FP5 GROWTH policy objectives and targets related to Industrial Competitiveness.

Grant No. 213546

2.1.2 FP6 – Sustainable Surface Transport (SST) – policy objectives and targets related toIndustrial Competitiveness

WorkProgramme

PolicyObjectives

Targets

Energy-efficient, cost-effective and clean public and/or private vehiclefleets for passenger or freight transport (minimum Euro-IV standard)using alternative fuels and the necessary energy infrastructureStimulation of collective passenger transport and its quality of service bymeans of introducing clean and energy-efficient vehicle fleets; non-conventional public transport systems; innovative organisational,financing and management schemes; improved security and safety;integration with walking, cycling and other modes; particular attentionshould be paid to accessibility for people with reduced mobilityNew concepts for the distribution of goods by means of introducinginnovative freight logistics services using clean and energy efficientvehicle fleets, dedicated infrastructure and information servicesTransport management systems and traveller services (including systemsand services based upon satellite applications/GALILEO), such as thosefor intermodal travel information, transport pricing and payment, roadconditions, vehicle location and guidance and traffic managementDevelopment and promotion of future generations of clean, quiet andefficient vehicle concepts for all surface transport modes and to reach atarget of 30% fuel substitution of fossil fuels by 2020Reduce the use of polluting transport means in populated areas whilemaintaining the same level of accessibility and put on course thetransition towards an environmentally harmless transport system basedon renewable fuels and reduced environmental noise emissionsTechnologies for propulsion increasingly based on alternative andrenewable fuels in vehicles and vessels, in particular the optimisation ofengines, the development of new components and auxiliary systems, thecombination of various types of motorizations and fuels for optimalpropulsion efficiency and cleanlinessIntegrating zero or near-zero emission propulsion systems andcomponents such as fuel cells which offer high-energy efficiency benefitsDevelopment of holistic noise abatement solutions which consider theentire vehicle/vessel and infrastructure system, new technologies andsystems approaches for improved noise control at source and the furthersupport to legislation. Particular attention will be given to urban areasIntegration and validation of measurement and sensing technologies toensure the optimised environmental operation of both vehicles/vesselsand infrastructureTechnologies and related legislation for the effective, safe and cleansupply and delivery of alternative and renewable fuels at fuel distributionpointsDevelopment of concepts for innovative, non-polluting means of transportto achieve a more effective organisation of urban transport of personsand goods that would, as a consequence, result in a more rational use ofmotorised trafficResearch to develop, compare and assess possible scenarios for thetransport system and energy supply of the future taking into accountongoing research outside the research framework programme undertakenby or in co-operation with the Commission. The analysis includesmodelling and forecasting and will consider such criteria as the autonomyand security of energy supply, effects on the environment and economic,technical and industrial viability including the impact of potential costinternalisation and the interactions between transport and land use

SST.2002/06.1

Newtechnologies andconcepts for allsurfacetransport modes(road, rail andwaterborne)

Through technological breakthroughs, to contribute to the European

Grant No. 213546

objectives to drastically reduce simultaneously the global CO2 emissionsfrom passenger cars towards 90 g/km as well as other greenhouse gasesand their gaseous and particulate pollutants to near zero levels takinginto account the requirements on alternative and renewable fuelsReductions of maritime and inland waterways transport pollutionconsidering existing fuel infrastructure, emissions characteristics and newtype of zero emission propulsion. The aim will be to reduce pollution by50% with respect to IMO forthcoming legislation by 2020Development of low CO2 and noise and near-zero emission power trainsfor carsEstablishment of a virtual centre of knowledge enabling verifying theengineering process and interfaces; Agreed test and validation methods,procedures and infrastructure for “interoperable product solutions” andoptimal system performance

Develop and promote concepts of one-off, small series and masscustomisation production environments specific to surface transport,based on the innovative use of advanced design and manufacturingAchieve improved product quality and performance based on costeffective and environmentally friendly production systems on a life-cyclebasisReduce manufacturing costs by 30%-40% and production lead-times by25%Integration and standardisation of enhanced product development toolsfor design, simulation, prototyping, testing and risk management thatwould reduce product development time and all associated costs andresourcesApplication of advanced design and manufacturing techniques used invehicle production and infrastructure aiming at developing clean, silent,safe and comfortable products and services with reduced operational costand energy consumptionDevelopment of advanced, low-mass material structures and systems forvehicles and vessels offering product structural and functional integrityfor rated performance at low costIntegration of manufacturing processes for products characterised by ahigh degree of complexity with emphasis on quality, cleanliness, flexibilityand cost effectivenessDevelopment of strategies and processes for clean maintenance,dismantling and recycling of vehicles and vessels. Emphasis will be put onclean, cost and energy effective processes, autonomous systems formaintenance and inspection, innovative dismantling and recyclingoperationsDesign and manufacture of new construction concepts for road, rail,waterborne and inter-modal infrastructures that are high quality, costeffective, energy efficient, low noise, safer, risk mitigating and lowmaintenanceDesign and manufacturing technologies to improve vehicle/vesselinterfaces with transport infrastructure and other vehicles/vessels fromthe same and different transport modes including infrastructure vehicleinspection aspectsIncrease the competitiveness of EU shipbuilders while including leadingedge knowledge on environmental aspects, safety, comfort and costeffectiveness of operationsIncrease the capacity of infrastructure for passengers and freight trafficEnsure the enhanced performance of vehicle and infrastructurecomponents and systems under changing operational conditions, thusleading to improved system capacity and efficiency, fulfillingenvironmental and safety standards

SST.2002/06.2

Advanced designand productiontechniques

Development of new designs which improve the vehicle/infrastructureinterface leading to improved dynamic behaviour, reduced noise, lowerelectro-magnetic compatibility and will improve the durability and

Grant No. 213546

reliability of both vehicles and infrastructureRolling stock and infrastructure with increased reliability andmaintainability, improved availability and productivity and reduced life-cycle costA programme for jointly executed research in the area of structuralanalysis for ships, creation of research facilities and platforms,dissemination and communication of research results, creation of apermanent organisation such as a virtual institute to ensure integration ofa lasting nature

Support technologies and services to ensure that the inherent advantagesof the individual modes can be exploited in “Door to Door” transportchainsIntegration and interoperability of maritime and inland waterwaystransportImproved ship safetyEnvironmentally friendly ship operations and designSeamless international rail freight servicesA detailed concept for developing a dedicated freight network by 2015A field-validated concept for Dedicated Rail Freight Operation in Europeanwide corridorsContribution to developing the concept of “Motorways of the Sea” andrevitalising the railways in door to door transport chainsIntegrate, demonstrate and validate intermodal technologies, systemsand strategies to increase the efficiency and interoperability of transportmodes, their related infrastructure and vehicles, and demonstrate thepotential of intermodal transport to achieve European transport policyobjectivesStimulate understanding, co-operation and exchanges between Europeanactors (city authorities, transport operators, shippers, retailers, citizensetc.) on priority themesIntegration and validation of applications based on new technologies andin the area of localisation and navigation (EGNOS, Galileo, enhanced-GPS), telecommunications and earth observationEnsure the integration and efficient interaction with advanced on-boardsystems and equipment (such as VHF, Navtex, GPS, Voyage DataRecorder, electronic maps, Integrated Bridge Systems, alert systems etc.)Interfaces between ships' integrated information systems and shoresystems other than maritime report systems such as River InformationServices, environmental monitoring systems as well as freight transportmanagement and port information systems in order to facilitate e.g.resource management, the pre- and on-haulage of goods. administrativeand documentary procedures (e.g.. customs procedures) as well as toenhance securityImplementation of operational solutions for information exchange and(one-stop) reporting in interoperable information networksStrengthening the scientific and technological expertise in maritimeresearch. Establishment of a large-scale European knowledge basis tosupport the development, implementation and assessment of policymeasures in the different fields of interest. Development ofrecommendations and implementation scenariosDevelopment of vehicle and vessel concepts for both passengers andfreight, characterised by interoperability and inter-connectivity, for cross-operation between different transport routes and networks supported byadvanced mechatronics, on-board electronics, information andcommunication systemsDevelopment of new inter-modal vehicle/vessel concepts to attain optimalperformance in terms of fuel economy, environmental impact (includingnoise), manoeuvrability (including obstacle avoidance), stability andmaximum carrying volume

SST.2002/06.3

Rebalancing andintegratingdifferenttransport modes

Development of equipment, methods and systems for optimal

Grant No. 213546

accommodation, fast loading and unloading of intermodal transport unitsand definition of optimal use of storage space both in vehicles/vesselsand terminals and efficient final distribution of goodsTechnologies to ensure effective, clean and safe operations ofvehicles/vessels in terminals and minimisation of turn-round timecombining manoeuvring assistance, terminal auxiliary services, wastemanagement (including ballast water in ports) and integration oftelematics support for improved communication with terminals controland management systemsInnovative concepts and industry-compatible components to enhancesystem simplicity and encourage modular approaches in relation to theimplementation of technical standards of interoperability for the futureEuropean rail system

Halve the number of fatalities by 2010Cut by around 75% the number of persons killed or severely injured by2025Best practice information for the cost efficient safety orientedmanagement of road infrastructure including roads, the road environmentand tunnelsSupport the development of policy and industrial strategies to build aconsensus on priorities for regulation and standardisation processes witha view to integrate the deployment of the different traffic managementand information systems in order to achieve an enhanced management ofthe existing infrastructure as well as interoperability of the transportsystemDeploy a single European service for electronic fee collection onmotorways and other kinds of roads, both in urban and interurbanconditionsMethods to determine optimal investments in transport infrastructureDevelopment and introduction of advanced protection and rescuesystems including compatibility problems (between vehicles and withinfrastructure and pedestrians) and vulnerable road users

SST.2002/06.4

Increasing road,rail andwaterbornesafety andavoiding trafficcongestion

Development of human substitutes for injury assessment (crashdummies, computer models), developing test methods (including tools),developing design counter-measures, reports on the evaluation ofregulations and counter-measures

Table 2: FP6 Sustainable Surface Transport policy objectives and targets related to IndustrialCompetitiveness

2.2 Industrial Competitiveness domains & types of impactsDriven by the restrictions and driving forces described in Chapter 1, the Industrial Competitivenessis examined in the following domains with the associated types of impacts:

Industrial Competitiveness Domains Types of Impacts1. Technologies. Processes and Services Impacts on the development of new technologies,

processes and services to be used in the transportsector towards strengthening the IndustrialCompetitiveness of the European Union transportsector in whole

2. Products Impacts related to new, innovative products towardsstrengthening the Industrial Competitiveness of theEuropean Union transport sector

3. Infrastructures Impacts related to new and sustainable transportinfrastructures towards strengthening the IndustrialCompetitiveness of the European Union transportsector.

Grant No. 213546

4. Patents & Standards Impacts related to the creation of new patents andstandardization of procedures, processes and productstowards strengthening the Industrial Competitivenessof the European Union transport sector

5. Societal & Environmental Impacts related to societal and environmental issuestowards strengthening the Industrial Competitivenessof the European Union transport sector

6. Legislative Impacts related to new legislative measures towardsstrengthening the Industrial Competitiveness of theEuropean Union transport sector

7. Financial Impacts related to any financial aspects of all theIndustrial Competitiveness domains towards itsstrengthening in the European Union transport sector

Table 3: Industrial Competitiveness Domains and types of Impacts

2.3 Users of evaluations

2.3.1 Types of userThe range of users of evaluation methodologies can be broad, with evaluations being conductedboth internally and externally, and by both the public and private sectors. The users, and thesectors within which they work, will depend upon the nature and content of the research projectbeing evaluated by any given methodology. Users are likely to fall within one of the categoriesdetailed in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Users of evaluation methodologies (based upon Fahrenkrog et al, 2002; IEG,2007; OECD, 1997a; OECD, 1999).

There is a large amount of diversity of users within each of the categories detailed in Figure 1.Many of the people working in the roles can, for example, be from either the public or privatesector, and can be internal or external to either the research team or the institute tasked withproducing the work being reviewed. The expectations of these users for evaluation methodologiesvary greatly.

Users ofevaluation

methodologies Trainedevaluators

Policymakers

Decisionmakers

Auditors

Practitioners

Consultants Projectmanagers

Programmemanagers

Economicanalysts

Scientists/AcademicsConsumer

groups

Staff collectingand analysingproject data

Otherstakeholders Project

participants

NGOs (Non-GovernmentalOrganisations

Grant No. 213546

2.3.2 User groupsEvaluators can be drawn from a wide range of institutions from across the EU including the privatesector, evaluation firms, Government, universities, or other public sector bodies. The OECD (1999)recognises that Governments consider it important to have a range of different evaluators, bothinternal and external, to call on. It can be assumed that these evaluators will typically fall withinone or more of the following groups:

The research team/internal (self evaluation can jeopardise credibility, but it is appropriatewhen the main objectives are organisational learning and improved implementation);

Management agencies (often used for reviewing use of budgets, value for money, etc.,primarily used when the evaluator needs to have close links with decision-making processes);

External evaluators (research bodies or consultants offer impartiality, new perspectives, andspecialist evaluation skills) (OECD, 1999);

Independent evaluators (to improve accountability and transparency).

A fifth category, ‘stakeholders’ is also identified (OECD, 1999). Stakeholders are highly unlikely tobe the primary users of a methodology, but they can be actively involved in assessing researchoutputs through a number of mechanisms, including steering and advisory groups and consumerassociations, and should be given the opportunity to be included in evaluation processes (IEG,2007). Stakeholders, who are referred to throughout evaluation literature, are key users ofmethodologies (although not the main users) as they can help to build an understanding of theextent to which the research has met their needs and contributed to society (Langer et al, 2003).The increasing amount of interaction between research and society has led to an increase in thelevel of involvement, and number, of stakeholder communities (Fahrenkrog et al, 2002).

The sector that evaluators work within will have an impact upon the focus of the evaluation, andupon its overall status. Evaluations conducted internally, for example, (which therefore compriseof a wide range of user sectors) often identify practical recommendations, although may beconstrained by the skills of staff and a potential lack of objectivity. External evaluators on theother hand are more independent and can more objectively evaluate research outcomes, althoughthe focus of their findings and recommendations may be less relevant on a political level to that ofinternal evaluations and the evaluators may have less access to relevant information. It is partlyowing to the relative attributes of involving these different users that evaluations are oftenconducted by a combination of actors, to fulfil a range of demands (OECD, 1999). The difficultiesfaced in choosing evaluators that are acceptable to all partners (IEG, 2007) highlight the need forevaluators from multiple sectors and backgrounds. This can lead to the formation of semi-independent evaluation bodies, created to reduce the limitations associated with using oneparticular actor (OECD, 1999).

It is important to note that evaluation methodologies should not only be used by evaluators, butalso by governing bodies and project managers (IEG, 2007). Governing bodies and managers areless likely to have evaluation experience, and so sub-committees are sometimes established tofacilitate and review evaluations. These committees can be comprised of expert consultantsand/or peer groups from relevant sector(s). This is a practice used by the EU.

2.3.3 Evaluation contextThe organisations and individuals involved in the research programme will vary between projectsto be evaluated. The policy context, the sectors that a project will impact and the structure of aproject will all have a bearing on the actors involved (Fahrenkrog et al, 2002). The value to beobtained from involving sectors which have expertise in the area being researched is obvious. Thisis increasing as the objectives and impacts of FP5 and FP6 projects, such as applicability and

Grant No. 213546

relevance to industry, are widening, which indicates that evaluators should have a range ofbackgrounds, such as in industry (Oksanen, 2000). The need for evaluations to be of a highscientific quality will, however, mean that many of the users will work at fairly high levels withinthe research and knowledge generation sector.

This can mean that despite the wide range of potential evaluators available, the pool of evaluatorsis in practice often limited by the need for technical specialists in a given research area (IEG,2007). The need for evaluators to be knowledgeable in the appropriate field of research canincrease the potential for conflicts of interest, which can make it necessary to also involve anindependent evaluator.

The diversity of users of evaluation methodologies is increased further by the preference forinvolving geographically diverse evaluators. This is particularly true on a European level (Europa,1999). The involvement of researchers outside of the country conducting the research can havethe added benefit of increasing the likelihood of an independent evaluation (IEG, 2007).

2.3.4 Evaluation user requirementsTo maximise the credibility of evaluations users of the methodologies are required to be:

Experienced (both in conducting evaluations and in the research field that the project to beevaluated relates to); and

Independent (impartial and unbiased) (Fahrenkrog et al, 2002; IEG, 2007; OECD, 1999).

The need for evaluators to be experienced has led to calls for a centralisation of evaluationcapability (Boyle, 1997, cited in OECD, 1999). It is inevitable that there will continue to be a largerange of actors using evaluation methodologies, although new ways to organise evaluation areemerging. This includes giving the responsibility of conducting evaluations to externalorganisations and outsourcing certain parts of an evaluation to third parties who have relevantexpertise in certain areas that the programme covers (Oksanen, 2000).

The number of evaluators involved in an evaluation can depend upon a number of factors,including the budget and scope of an evaluation, and whether a multi-disciplinary team will needto be assembled. The team should combine the relevant technical and practical skills, experienceand attributes (IEG, 2007). This can lead to a division of responsibilities within a team.

2.3.5 Evaluation processesEvaluations of research often include both qualitative and quantitative elements. The qualitativeaspect tends to constitute of a process of peer review by people with expertise within theappropriate area, whilst the quantitative aspect frequently involves the use of indicators.

Almost all evaluations of research projects have an element of peer review, as the involvement ofinformed peers is regarded as the most reliable and comprehensive way (and indeed sometimesthe only way) to judge scientific quality and societal impact (Arnold et al, 1997; Merkx et al,2007). Peer review is considered to be the most widely used method of evaluation (Kostoff, 1993cited in Capron et al, 1997). It can be used as a way to review any aspect of a researchprogramme, including the evaluation itself, although it is often used to indicate the likely impact ofa project and to judge the fundamental quality of research. Quantitative data, for example thatderived from indicators, can be used to support the peer review process (Merkx et al, 2007).

The CHASS model for research quality and impact assessment, devised by the Australian Councilfrom the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (CHASS) (cited in Merkx et al, 2007) emphasisesthe fact that indicators of the impact of research on certain sectors are highly specific. Theytherefore state that users of this part of methodologies need to be experts, either academic ordirect users.

Grant No. 213546

Members of peer review teams, and by implication those that use indicators to estimate theimpact of research, are limited only to those with the appropriate scientific knowledge (TEKES,2002). The sectors from which peer reviewers can be drawn are therefore broad. It is possiblethat again emphasis will be placed on experts within the knowledge sector.

2.3.6 European practiceThe launch of the Fourth Framework Programme in 1994 led the European Commission tointroduce a new evaluation scheme consisting of annual reporting of continuous monitoring, and afive year assessment that include the review of two previous research programmes (Georghiou etal, 2004). The five year assessments are conducted by an appointed panel of independent high-level external experts and are supported by peer review, stakeholder engagement, and input fromparticipants. These panels are made up of people holding high responsibilities in the field, which inpractice results in a balance of experts with either an industrial or academic background (Durieuxet al, 1997).

It is not this panel but rather the independent expert panels that they commission that satisfy therequirements of the methodology used (Bach et al, 1998). Experts are selected by the Commissionin terms of their experience and knowledge of Community research policy, which indicates thatusers will be primarily drawn from the knowledge sector. Efforts are also made to ensure abalance among different sectors of the research community as well as a geographic spread ofevaluators.

Georghiou et al (2004) detail that in terms of evaluation on a European level ‘there is no singlemodel of good practice,’ rather peer reviews and expert groups are used for evaluation processes.This is also emphasised by Durieux et al (1997) who state that the most important features in theevaluation of European Research and Technological Development (RTD) programmes areindependent expert panels, interviews, questionnaires and core indicators. The OECD (1997a)published a report comparing international evaluation methods and practices. Table 4 below isbased on contributions to this report, and gives an overview of the key user groups of evaluationsin a small number of EU member states.

Country EvaluatorsAustria(Stampfer, 1997)

The university sector pre-dominates evaluations. There is arelatively low level of involvement of industry, planninginstitutions and funding organisations.

Finland(Luukkonen,1997)

Traditional predominance of panels of external experts (oftenfrom other countries). Now moving towards use of externalprofessional evaluators or evaluating institutions either inaddition to, or as a substitute for, peer review/expert panels.Shift motivated by the lack of specific evaluation skills of expertsin the specific research field, and also to provide the evaluationwith more credibility and independence. Dominated by domesticand international evaluation consultants, evaluating institutionsand professionals engaged in evaluation activities. Evaluationsthat focus on the scientific quality of research is also oftenevaluated by individuals representing the national andinternational research community. These tend to be peopleaffiliated to a university or research institute.

The Netherlands Evaluation of research programmes has moved from being

Grant No. 213546

(Eiffinger, 1997) largely internal evaluations by the responsible agencies to moreformal and systematic evaluations by external reviewcommittees. These committees tend to comprise ofrepresentatives of the research and business community, andother relevant sectors of society. Innovation Oriented ResearchProgrammes (IOPs) (a long term research scheme focused onthe needs of business and industry) are often evaluated by anexternal consultancy company to evaluate the extent to whichobjectives have been met. Strategic and innovation orientedresearch projects tend to combine expert evaluation withsystematic data gathering.

Germany(Kuhlmann,1997)

Science and technology research evaluation is comprised of peerreview and impact analyses. Evaluation is largely conducted byindependent evaluators.

Table 4: Users of evaluation methodologies from a sample of EU member states

DG Research has an Evaluation Unit comprised of six staff members, responsible for theimplementation of evaluation, but these staff members do not conduct evaluations. DG Budgetand DG Audit have established a Network of Evaluators to spread best practice, although expertsthat are used to evaluate European research projects have not necessarily had contact with theseevaluation specialists. Table 5 below gives an overview of the users of evaluation methodologieson a general European level.

Evaluation Evaluationobjectives

Methodology Users ofevaluation

Target audience

SpecificProgrammes

Input to FP –yearassessmentand futureprogrammedesign

Expert panels;Coreindicators;Qualitativeevidence;Interviews;Surveys;Reports frommonitoring;Panels andpreviousevaluations;Report onprojectachievements.

Programmemanagers;ProgrammeCommittees;CREST (body ofmember state repsthat advise onscience andtechnologymatters);EuropeanParliament Council;Economic andSocial Committee.

Frameworkprogrammes

Assessprogressagainst ECobjectivesinput to S&Tpolicy, andFP design

Expert panels;Coreindicators;Qualitativeevidence;Interviews;Reports fromspecific

EvaluationUnit (co-ordination);ProgrammeManagers(input).

FP management;CREST;EuropeanParliament Council;Economic andSocial Committee.

Grant No. 213546

programmeassessment;Panels andpreviousevaluations;Report on FP-levelachievements.

Table 5: Overview of the EU’s evaluation system (adapted from Guy 2002, cited inGeorghiou et al, 2002)

The criteria outlined by the EU for the selection of experts contributing to research projectevaluations gives an indication of the sectors from which users are likely to be drawn. Thesecriteria are summarised in Table 6 below.

External experts involved in evaluation must:

Not have been programme members, contractors or experts to a programmecommittee for the five preceding years (independence criteria);

Have a background and experience in one or more of the following (qualitycriteria):

o The relevant science and technology field and RTD management,working in either a research centre, university or industry (large orSME);

o Policy making in the fields of science and technology, innovation orother related areas;

o Expert in RTD evaluation or in socio-economics with broad experiencein science and technology impact assessment;

o Users of relevant RTD results (Europa, 1999).

Members of external evaluation panels must:

Have participated in monitoring exercises of the specific or other FrameworkProgrammes (continuity criteria);

Have a background and experience to complement that of others on the panel.All major research themes should be covered by the panel, along with experiencein evaluating Research and Technological Development (complementary criteria);

Represent a range of Member States (Community Criteria) (Europa, 1999).

Table 6: Evaluation criteria for EU evaluators (based on Europa, 1999)

Evaluators should also be selected in line with good practice guidelines detailed in the Europeanevaluation ‘Toolbox’ (Fahrenkrog et al, 2002), which states that research evaluation should;

Promote independence to maximise credibility of results, i.e. by using external evaluationexperts from other countries;

Grant No. 213546

Involve policy makers and project managers in evaluation;

Incorporate views of industry, target groups and representative social communities.

2.4 FP5 and FP6 projects related to Industrial Competitiveness domainsThe reader is advised to consult Annex 3 of the present deliverable, where an indicative list of 49projects which address the Industrial Competitiveness domains, as described previously, ispresented.

Grant No. 213546

3 Industrial Competitiveness Assessment Methodology

3.1 Assessment processThe proposed process for the assessment of the Industrial Competitiveness is comprised by twelvesteps. The following figure provides the overview of these steps together with the data needs andthe validation requirements related to the process steps.

Figure 2: Overview of the assessment process

Grant No. 213546

3.1.1 Identification of Industrial Competitiveness domains and types of impacts - Step 1Following a detailed literature review, both scientific and related to European Union’s policydocumentation as described previously (see References), seven domains, already indicated in 2.2,have been identified. These domains are:

1. Technologies. Processes and Services2. Products3. Infrastructures4. Patents & Standards5. Societal & Environmental6. Legislative7. Financial

The Industrial Competitiveness domains cover to the largest possible extent, the wider area ofIndustrial Competitiveness related to the objectives and targets set by the European Union’sFramework Programmes. The types of impacts that these domains aim to cover are the following:

1. Impacts on the development of new technologies, processes and services to be used in thetransport sector towards strengthening the Industrial Competitiveness of the EuropeanUnion transport sector in whole

2. Impacts related to new, innovative products towards strengthening the IndustrialCompetitiveness of the European Union transport sector

3. Impacts related to new and sustainable transport infrastructures towards strengtheningthe Industrial Competitiveness of the European Union transport sector.

4. Impacts related to the creation of new patents and standardization of procedures,processes and products towards strengthening the Industrial Competitiveness of theEuropean Union transport sector

5. Impacts related to societal and environmental issues towards strengthening the IndustrialCompetitiveness of the European Union transport sector

6. Impacts related to new legislative measures towards strengthening the IndustrialCompetitiveness of the European Union transport sector

7. Impacts related to any financial aspects of all the Industrial Competitiveness domainstowards its strengthening in the European Union transport sector

3.1.2 Identification of Framework Programme specific objectives and targets related to IndustrialCompetitiveness - Step 2

The detailed analysis and thorough understanding of the policy objectives and measurable targetsof the two Framework Programmes is carried out in this step of the assessment methodology. Theanalysis requires the review of all related European Union decision and implementation documentsregarding the Work Programmes of each Framework Programme. The results of this activity havebeen presented in 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 for FP5 and FP6 respectively.

3.1.3 Definition of Indicators based on each Framework Programme target - Step 3An indicator is defined as the effort to quantify and simplify phenomena and help understandcomplex realities. Indicators are aggregates of raw and processed data but they can be furtheraggregated to form complex indices.The definition of indicators in Work Package 3 includes all the activities that result to the definitionof qualitative statistics of the Industrial Competitiveness and will allow the further analysis of the

Grant No. 213546

performance of the two Framework Programmes. The definition of the indicators is based on atransformation of the targets set by the European Union to measureable statistics and indicationsor in other words indices.

3.1.4 Grouping of indicators based on Framework Programme objectives - Step 4The grouping of indicators is realized in two levels. The first level includes the grouping ofindicators according to the objectives that the targets - which are addressed by each indicator –are related to. The second level of grouping is performed in order to achieve a reduction ofindicators that address the same topic both semantically and logically. In this case two or moreindicators – within the same group of indicators per objective – can be reformulated into oneindicator that will measure more than one characteristic. This step can also provide assistancetowards the reduction of large number of indicators which are both difficult to measure in terms ofeffort and time.

3.1.5 Relation of each indicator to Industrial Competitiveness domains - Step 5Each indicator is associated to the domains that are addressed by it. This association (or relation)occurs with semantic and logical terms.The association indicates both the exact Industrial Competitiveness domains that each indicator isassociated to and also provides some useful qualitative insights for each indicator in terms ofrelations to these domains. Finally, useful insights can be gained from a reverse interpretation, i.e.the number of indicators which address a certain Industrial Competitiveness domain.

3.1.6 Definition of the Evaluation Framework and success/failure criteria – Step 6The Evaluation Framework is a database file, where the measuring of each indicator is takingplace. The database file consists first of necessary fields, such as name, acronym and othergeneral information of the project assessed. Second and most important, there are fields whereeach indicator is measured. The indicators’ selection for each project assessed is based on theobjectives – and thus resulting targets which are then transformed to indicators according to steps3 and 4- that this project was aiming to. The overall question that shall be answered for eachindicator is “Rate the extent to which the project contributed/addressed the indicator…”. Themeasuring scale for each indicator is as follows:

Grant No. 213546

Scale DefinitionFully The project contributed significantly/addressed in a very large extent

the indicator.Partly The project contributed averagely/addressed in a moderate extent the

indicator.Indirectly The project contributed / addressed in a moderate extent the indicator,

although the project did not aim to do so.No – Not at all The project did not contribute/address the indicator.Not relevant The project did not contribute/address the indicator, because the

project did not aim to do so.

Table 7: Scales of measuring indicators and related definitions of the scales.

The actual implementation of the proposed assessment methodology is carried out by deployingthe Evaluation Framework files and filling in the necessary information by measuring the extent towhich the project under assessment addressed each indicator.

A sample of an Evaluation Framework database file is presented next.

Project: Acronym Full titleProject date: (Start) (End)Programme type: FP5 FP6 (choose relevant)ProgrammeAcronym:

GROWTH SST (choose relevant)

Project type: IP STREP NOE Other (chooserelevant)

INDICATORS Rate the extent to which the project contributed/addressed the indicatorFully Partly Indirectly No – Not at

allNotrelevant

1. ...2. …3. …4. …

Table 8: Evaluation Framework database file – template.

3.1.7 Definition of the Justification Matrix for selecting projects - Step 7In order to ensure that the projects to be assessed, based on the assessment criteria describedabove, satisfy certain requirements, the need to identify a methodological step which will facilitatethe selection of the projects to be assessed arises.

The selection of the projects to be assessed is determined through a project selection JustificationMatrix. This matrix is comprised by the Industrial Competitiveness domains, which have beendefined in 3.1.1. In order for a project to be selected, at least one of the IndustrialCompetitiveness domains must be addressed by the project.A sample of a Justification Matrix for selecting projects is presented next.

Grant No. 213546

No. Project name FP – Work Programme IndCo domain

(select appropriate) (select appropriate)

1. XXX FP5-GROWTH Technologies, Processes and Services

.. .. FP6-SST Products

.. .. Infrastructures

.. .. Patents & Standards

.. .. Societal & Environmental

.. .. Legislative

.. .. Financial

Table 9: Justification Matrix for selecting projects – template.

3.1.8 Selection of projects based on the Justification Matrix and sampling - Step 8The identification of the projects is executed in two ways. First, the thematic area addressed bythe project, together with the project objectives is identified. Then, a two page projectidentification document is created for each project. This identification document is then indexedand scanned with index-searching software (eg Windows Index Service or Adobe Acrobat SearchTool, depending on the format of the document). The search criteria include the short descriptionof each Industrial Competitiveness domain. The search results have to be proof-read andvalidated by a human. In case that one or more of the search criteria are identified during thisindexed search process, then this domain is considered as relevant to the specific project and it ismarked positively in the Justification Matrix. The process has to be repeated seven times in orderto identify the existence of relevance with each one of the seven Industrial Competitivenessdomains.

As far as the necessary project sample is concerned, two issues are taken into consideration. Thefirst is concerned with the necessary sample size. In order to achieve results for all the indicators– thus providing an assessment related to the Framework Programmes’ objectives and targets –all indicators must be covered by the selected sample. As this is achieved through an iterativeprocess of analyzing and assessing each individual project, the exact number of the projects’sample cannot be directly computed. However, the sample size of the projects to be analyzed andassessed must in any case cover at least certain percentage levels of the entire number ofprojects that are potential candidate to be included in the assessment based on the JustificationMatrix procedure. The following table provides an overview of the necessary sample size,depending on the number of the entire population.

Population N Sample Size n Percentage of n/N100 96 96200 185 92,5500 414 82,81000 706 70,62000 1091 54,65000 1622 32,410000 1936 19,3100000 2344 2,3500000 2390 0,5

Table 10: Necessary sample size

Grant No. 213546

The second issue is concerned with the applicability of the methodology on the selected sample.Following the reasoning and the description of the proposed methodology, it is concluded that theassessment procedure can be applied to any random project selected after the Justification Matrixprocedure.

3.1.9 Testing the application of the methodology on a small number of projects – Step 9In order to ensure the applicability of the proposed assessment methodology, a validation stephas to be executed in this stage. The testing of the methodology occurs with the application of iton a small number of projects. This number of projects is considered sufficient when it reaches 2-5% of the total projects to be assessed. In case that the application of the methodology is notconsidered successful (e.g. no results can be measured, no projects can be found, no associationbetween indicators and targets can be justified etc), then the user is advised to return to Step 3and re-run the assessment process.

3.1.10 Qualitative analysis of all projects and analysis of the results – Step 10This step involves the analysis of the results of the above described assessment process. Eachselected project is rated for each indicator. The end results of all ratings of all projects are thenanalysed collectively in the following manner: Each scale used for the rating of each indicator isassigned a number from one to five. An index is then created for each scale according to thenumber that this scale has been used (through the rating process) for all projects assessed foreach indicator. The sum of these indexes always must sum up to one. This procedure is repeatedfor each indicator per objective. A graphical chart is then created as follows: the x-Axis is labelledwith the five scales and the indicators of each objective. The y-Axis is labelled with the indexachieved for each indicator per scale. An illustrative example of such a chart is presented below.

Figure 3: Example of an analysis chart for the indicators of one FP objective

The same procedure results to the analysis of each indicator separately against each objective orFramework Programme.

Grant No. 213546

3.1.11 Relation of all projects’ assessment results to Industrial Competitiveness domains – Step11

The project results are related to the defined Industrial Competitiveness domains as follows. Eachtime that a response according to the five assessment scales is recorded, a relation to theIndustrial Competitiveness domains which are assigned to the respective indicator is made. Thetotal number of responses according to the five scales of the assessment process indicates theperformance for each Industrial Competitiveness domain.

3.1.12 Assessment, Results, Conclusions, Recommendations, Other use by EU services – Step 12The final step of the proposed methodology consists of the interpretation of the results and thedrawing of conclusions and recommendations. As this is a rather general procedure without anygenerally applicable rules, it is left open on how to interpret the results. After all, it lies on theobjectives set each time that the methodology is used to define the extent and the direction of theconcluding remarks that are made.

3.2 Indicators

3.2.1 Description of the indicatorsEach indicator selected for use in the assessment process must be carefully examined anddescribed. The indicators that have been selected for use in the Industrial Competitivenessassessment of METRONOME are presented next.

FP5 Indicators DescriptionCosts reduction due to improved cost-effectiveness

The extent to which the project contributed to thereduction of costs based on improved cost-effectiveness

Qualitative improvements of transportoperations and infrastructure

The extent to which the project contributed toqualitative improvement of transport operations or tothe improvement of infrastructures

Integration/synergies achieved betweendifferent transport modes

The extent to which the project contributed to theachievement of integration and synergies betweendifferent modes of transport

Achievement of inter/multi/co-modalityThe extent to which the project contributed to theachievement of inter-modality, multi-modality or co-modality

Contribution to reduced congestion in roadand rail networks

The extent to which the project contributed to thereduction of the congestion in road or in rail networks

Contribution to reduced viability thresholdfor intermodal freight journeys in EU

The extent to which the project contributed to thereduction of the viability threshold of intermodal freightjourneys (trips) throughout the European Union

Integration of SATNAV (SatelliteNavigation) and GPS (Global PositioningSystem) technologies in the transportsector

The extent to which the project contributed to theintegration of advanced satellite technologies, such asSATNAV (Satellite Navigation) and GPS (GlobalPositioning System) in the transport sector

Contribution to reduced fuel consumption The extent to which the project contributed to thereduction of fuel consumption

Contribution to increased safety oftransport operations

The extent to which the project contributed to theincrease of safety in transport operations

Contribution to increased reliability andavailability of transport operations

The extent to which the project contributed to anincrease of the reliability and availability of transportoperations

Reduction of CO2 emissions and noiselevels for new car fleets, rail vehicles andmarine vessels (passenger & freight)

The extent to which the project contributed to thereduction of CO2 emissions and noise levels for new carfleets, rail vehicles and marine vessels both forpassenger and freight transport

Grant No. 213546

Contribution to increased safety, reliability,maintainability, availability and operabilityfor new vehicles, vessels andinfrastructures

The extent to which the project contributed to anincrease of safety, reliability, maintainability, availabilityand operability for new vehicles, vessels andinfrastructures

Contribution to decreased life cycle andmaintenance costs

The extent to which the project contributed to adecrease of life cycle costs and maintenance costs

Contribution to decreased time-to-marketby 15-20% for ships, sub-sea vehicles andmarine infrastructure

The extent to which the project contributed to adecrease of the time-to-market by 15-20% for ships,sub-sea vehicles and marine infrastructure

Contribution to increased efficiency andreduction of operating costs by 30-40% forships, sub-sea vehicles and marineinfrastructure

The extent to which the project contributed to anincrease of the efficiency and to a reduction of operatingcosts by 30-40% for ships, sub-sea vehicles and marineinfrastructure

Contribution to the overall improvement ofsystem competitiveness

The extent to which the project contributed to theoverall improvement of system competitiveness

Contribution to increased cooperationbetween manufacturers, componentsuppliers and sub-contractors

The extent to which the project contributed to anincrease of the cooperation between manufacturers,component suppliers and sub-contractors

Contribution to advanced practices andintegration of design and productionoperations

The extent to which the project contributed to new andadvanced practices and integration of design andproduction operations

Table 11: FP5 indicators and description

FP6 Indicators Description

Increased use of alternative fuels in publictransport & private vehicle fleets(passenger & freight)

The extent to which the project contributed to anincrease of the use of alternative fuels in publictransport and private vehicle fleets both for passengerand for freight transportation

Contribution to innovations in PublicTransport organization, financing andmanagement schemes: Collectivepassenger transport, clean and energy-efficient vehicle fleets, non conventionalPublic Transport systems

The extent to which the project contributed toinnovations in Public Transport organization, financingand management schemes: Collective passengertransport, clean and energy-efficient vehicle fleets, nonconventional Public Transport systems

Contribution to improved Public Transportsafety and security

The extent to which the project contributed toimprovements of the Public Transport safety andsecurity

Public Transport integration and synergieswith walking, cycling and other modes

The extent to which the project contributed to theintegration and synergies of Public Transport modeswith walking, cycling and other modes

Contribution to the introduction ofinnovative freight logistics services usingclean and energy efficient vehicle fleets,dedicated infrastructure and informationservices

The extent to which the project contributed to theintroduction of innovative freight logistics services usingclean and energy efficient vehicle fleets, dedicatedinfrastructure and information services

Innovation in developing systems for:intermodal travel information, vehiclelocation, guidance and traffic management,road conditions information, transportpricing and payment

The extent to which the project contributed to creatinginnovations in developing systems for: intermodal travelinformation, vehicle location, guidance and trafficmanagement, road conditions information, transportpricing and payment

Reduction of the use of polluting transportmeans in populated areas whilemaintaining accessibility

The extent to which the project contributed to areduction of the use of polluting transport means inpopulated areas while maintaining accessibility

Integration of zero or near-zero emissionpropulsion systems and componentsoffering high-energy efficiency benefits

The extent to which the project contributed to theintegration of zero or near-zero emission propulsionsystems and components offering high-energy efficiencybenefits

Innovative concepts for non-pollutingmeans of transport (incl. noise)

The extent to which the project contributed to creatingnew innovative concepts for non-polluting means of

Grant No. 213546

transport (incl. noise)

Consolidation of research in the fields oftransport in energy in Europe

The extent to which the project contributed toconsolidated research in the fields of transport in energyin Europe

Reduction of CO2, greenhouse, gaseousand particulate emissions

The extent to which the project contributed to areduction of CO2, greenhouse, gaseous and particulateemissions

Contribution towards standardizedinteroperable product solutions and optimalperformance

The extent to which the project contributed towardsstandardized interoperable product solutions andoptimal performance

Use of innovative, advanced design andmanufacturing methods, techniques andconcepts in surface transport

The extent to which the project contributed to theincreased use of innovative, advanced design andmanufacturing methods, techniques and concepts insurface transport

Improved product quality and performancebased on environmental friendly productionsystems

The extent to which the project contributed toimprovements of product quality and performancebased on environmental friendly production systems

Reduction of manufacturing costs by 30%-40% and production lead-times by 25%

The extent to which the project contributed to areduction of manufacturing costs by 30%-40% andproduction lead-times by 25%

Contribution towards integration andstandardisation of enhanced productdevelopment tools for design, simulation,prototyping, testing and risk management

The extent to which the project contributed towardsintegration and standardisation of enhanced productdevelopment tools for design, simulation, prototyping,testing and risk management

Improvement of product structural andfunctional integrity for rated performanceat low cost

The extent to which the project contributed toimprovements of product structural and functionalintegrity for rated performance at low cost

Increased quality, cleanliness, flexibility andcost effectiveness manufacturing processesfor products

The extent to which the project contributed toincreasing the quality, cleanliness, flexibility and costeffectiveness manufacturing processes for products

Innovative strategies and processes forclean maintenance, dismantling andrecycling of vehicles and vessels

The extent to which the project contributed to creatinginnovative strategies and processes for cleanmaintenance, dismantling and recycling of vehicles andvessels

New clean, cost and energy effectiveprocesses, autonomous systems formaintenance and inspection, innovativedismantling and recycling operations

The extent to which the project contributed to creatingnew clean, cost and energy effective processes,autonomous systems for maintenance and inspection,innovative dismantling and recycling operations

Contribution towards new constructionconcepts (road, rail, waterborne and inter-modal infrastructures)

The extent to which the project contributed towardsnew construction concepts (road, rail, waterborne andinter-modal infrastructures)

Increased quality, cost effectiveness,energy efficiency, noise reduction, safety,risk mitigation and low maintenancethrough new construction concepts

The extent to which the project contributed to anincrease of the quality, cost effectiveness, energyefficiency, noise reduction, safety, risk mitigation andlow maintenance through new construction concepts

Improved vehicle or vessel interfaces withtransport infrastructure and othervehicles/vessels from the same anddifferent transport modes

The extent to which the project contributed to animprovement of vehicle or vessel interfaces withtransport infrastructure and other vehicles/vessels fromthe same and different transport modes

Increased competitiveness of EUshipbuilders

The extent to which the project contributed to anincrease of the competitiveness of EU shipbuilders

Increased capacity and efficiency ofsystems and infrastructures (passenger &freight traffic)

The extent to which the project contributed to anincreased of the capacity and of the efficiency ofsystems and infrastructures (passenger & freight traffic)

Performance enhancement of vehicle andinfrastructure components and systems

The extent to which the project contributed toenhancing the performance of vehicle and infrastructurecomponents and systems

Improved dynamic behaviour, reducednoise, lower electro-magnetic compatibility,durability and reliability of both vehicles

The extent to which the project contributed to animprovement of the dynamic behaviour, reduced noise,lower electro-magnetic compatibility, durability and

Grant No. 213546

and infrastructure reliability of both vehicles and infrastructure

Improved availability and productivity andreduced life-cycle costs in rail sector

The extent to which the project contributed toimprovements of availability and productivity andreduced life-cycle costs in rail sector

Contribution to establishing new researchfacilities and platforms for shipbuildingrelated research

The extent to which the project contributed toestablishing new research facilities and platforms forshipbuilding related research

Contribution to the promotion of Door-to-Door transport chains

The extent to which the project contributed to thepromotion of Door-to-Door (D2D) transport chains

Contribution to the improved ship safetyThe extent to which the project contributed toimproving ship safety

Contribution to environmentally friendlyship operations and design

The extent to which the project contributed to moreenvironmentally friendly ship operations and design

Contribution to developing the concept of“Motorways of the Sea”

The extent to which the project contributed to thedevelopment of the concept of “Motorways of the Sea”(MOS)

Contribution to new intermodaltechnologies, systems and strategies

The extent to which the project contributed to thecreation of new intermodal technologies, systems andstrategies

Contribution to increased efficiency,interoperability and synergies of transportmodes incl. cross-border operations

The extent to which the project contributed to anincrease of efficiency, interoperability and synergies oftransport modes incl. cross-border operations

Use of new satellite navigation technologiesand concepts in the field of transport

The extent to which the project contributed to the useof new satellite navigation technologies and concepts inthe field of transport

Facilitation of optimal resourcesmanagement, pre- and on-haulage ofgoods, administrative and documentaryprocedures

The extent to which the project contributed to thefacilitation of optimal resources management, pre- andon-haulage of goods, administrative and documentaryprocedures

Improving information exchange and onestop reporting in transport operationsinformation networks

The extent to which the project contributed to theimprovements of information exchange and one stopreporting in transport operations information networks

Support to the development,implementation and assessment of policymeasures

The extent to which the project contributed to thesupport of the development, implementation andassessment of policy measures

New intermodal concepts for vehicles andvessels

The extent to which the project contributed to thecreation of new intermodal concepts for vehicles andvessels

Enhanced fuel efficiencyThe extent to which the project contributed toenhancing the efficiency of fuel

New equipment, methods and systems foroptimal accommodation, fast loading andunloading of intermodal transport units

The extent to which the project contributed to thedevelopment of new equipment, methods and systemsfor optimal accommodation, fast loading and unloadingof intermodal transport units

Optimal use of storage space both invehicles/vessels and terminals

The extent to which the project contributed to theoptimization of the use of storage space both invehicles/vessels and terminals

Enhanced efficiency in the final distributionof goods

The extent to which the project contributed toenhancing the efficiency in the final distribution of goods

Contribution to standards in EU railinteroperability issues

The extent to which the project contributed toestablishing new standards in EU rail interoperabilityissues

Contribution towards the decrease offatalities

The extent to which the project contributed towards thedecrease of fatalities

Reduction of management costs forinfrastructures

The extent to which the project contributed to reducingthe management costs for infrastructures

New policies and industrial strategies forintegrated deployment of TrafficManagement Centre information systems

The extent to which the project contributed to theformulation of new policies and industrial strategies forintegrated deployment of Traffic Management Centreinformation systems

Grant No. 213546

Enhanced management of existinginfrastructures

The extent to which the project contributed toenhancing the management processes and proceduresof existing infrastructures

Contribution towards the deployment ofsingle pan-European e-fee collectionssystem on roads

The extent to which the project contributed towards thedeployment of single pan-European e-fee collectionssystem on roads

Contribution towards optimal investment intransport infrastructures

The extent to which the project contributed towardsoptimal investment in transport infrastructures

New vehicle-infrastructure-pedestrianprotection systems

The extent to which the project contributed todeveloping new vehicle-infrastructure-pedestrianprotection systems

New test methodologiesThe extent to which the project contributed todeveloping new test methodologies

New regulation evaluation methodologiesThe extent to which the project contributed toformulating new regulation evaluation methodologies

3.2.2 Relation to objectives and targets

3.2.3 Relations between indicators and Industrial Competitiveness domainsThe selected indicators correspond to at least one or more of the seven Industrial Competitivenessdomains that have been identified. This relation exists for each indicator per FrameworkProgramme objective as well as for each Industrial Competitiveness domain related to theindicators. These relations are presented next.

Relations between indicators and Industrial Competitiveness domains in FP5

FP5 EU Objective 1: Enhancing the efficiency and quality of transport systems and services

INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS DOMAINS

INDICATORS

Technologies,Processesand Services Products

Infrastructures

Patents &Standards

Societal &Environmental Legislative Financial Ratio(*)

Costs reduction due toimproved cost-effectiveness Yes No Yes No No No Yes 0,43Qualititativeimprovements oftransport operations andinfrastructure Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes 0,57Integration/synergiesachieved betweendifferent transportmodes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes 0,57Achievement ofinter/multi/co-modality Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes 0,57Contribution to reducedcongestion in road andrail networks Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes 0,57Contribution to reducedviability threshold forintermodal freightjourneys in EU Yes No No No Yes No Yes 0,43Integration of SATNAV(Satellite Navigation)and GPS (GlobalPositioning System)technologies in thetransport sector Yes Yes No No Yes No No 0,43

Grant No. 213546

FP5 EU Objective 2: Maintain and consolidate the competitive position of the European road,waterborne-based, rail and intermodal supply industries


INDICATORS


Infrastructures

Patents &Standards


Contribution to reducedfuel consumption Yes No No No Yes No Yes 0,43Contribution to increasedsafety of transportoperations Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes 0,71Contribution to increasedreliability and availabilityof transport operations Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes 0,57

FP5 EU Objective 3: Development of critical technologies and their integration and validationaround advanced industrial concepts


INDICATORS


Infrastructures

Patents &Standards


Reduction of CO2emmisions and noiselevels for new car fleets,rail vehicles and marinevessels (passenger &freight) Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes 0,57Contribution to increasedsafety, reliability,maintainability,availability andoperability for newvehicles, vessels andinfrastructures Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes 0,71Contribution todecreased life cycle andmaintenance costs Yes No No No Yes No Yes 0,43Contribution todecreased time-to-market by 15-20% forships, sub-sea vehiclesand marineinfrastructure Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes 0,57Contribution to increasedefficiency and reductionof operating costs by 30-40% for ships, sub-seavehicles and marineinfrastructure Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes 0,57Contribution to theoverall improvement ofsystem competitiveness Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1,00Contribution to increasedcooperation betweenmanufacturers,component suppliers andsub-contractors Yes No No No No Yes Yes 0,43

Grant No. 213546

Contribution to advancedpractices and integrationof design and productionoperations Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes 0,57

(*) the ratio is defined as the number of Industrial Competitiveness domains addressed by each indicator divided by seven (number ofdomains)

Ratio statistics of FP5 indicatorsMedian 0,57Average 0,563925-Quartile 0,4286 (25% of all indicators have at most

this ratio)75-Quartile 0,5714 (75% of all indicators have at least

this ratio)

Relations of FP5 indicators to Industrial Competitiveness domainsINDCODOMAINS

Technologies,Processes andServices

Products Infrastructures

Patents &Standards

Societal &Environmental Legislative Financial

Number of timesaddressed byindicators

18 9 11 1 13 2 17

Percentage(Number of timesaddressed byindicators dividedby number ofindicators)

100% 50% 61% 6% 72% 11% 94%

Grant No. 213546

Relations between indicators and Industrial Competitiveness domains in FP6

FP6 EU Objective 1: New technologies and concepts for all surface transport modes (road, rail andwaterborne)


INDICATORS


Infrastructures

Patents &Standards


Increased use ofalternative fuels in publictransport & privatevehicle fleets (passenger& freight) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes 0,57Contribution toinnovations in PublicTransport organization,financing andmanagement schemes:Collective passengertransport, clean andenergy-efficient vehiclefleets, non conventionalPublic Transport systems Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes 0,57Contribution to improvedPublic Transport safetyand security Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 0,71Public Transportintegration and synergieswith walking, cycling andother modes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 0,71Contribution to theintroduction ofinnovative freightlogistics services usingclean and energyefficient vehicle fleets,dedicated infrastructureand information services Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 0,71Innovation in developingsystems for: intermodaltravel information,vehicle location,guidance and trafficmanagement, roadconditions information,transport pricing andpayment. Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes 0,57Reduction of the use ofpolluting transportmeans in populatedareas while maintainingaccessibility Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No 0,57Integration of zero ornear-zero emissionpropulsion systems andcomponents offeringhigh-energy efficiencybenefits Yes Yes No No Yes No No 0,43Innovative concepts fornon-polluting means oftransport (incl. noise) Yes No No Yes Yes No No 0,43Consolidation of researchin the fields of transportin energy in Europe No No No No Yes No No 0,14

Grant No. 213546

Reduction of CO2,greenhouse, gaseousand particulateemissions No No No No Yes No No 0,14Contribution towardsstandardizedinteroperable productsolutions and optimalperformance No Yes No Yes No No Yes 0,43

FP6 EU Objective 2: Advanced design and production techniques


INDICATORS


Infrastructures

Patents &Standards

Societal &Environmental Legislative Financial Ratio (*)

Use of innovative,advanced desing andmanufacturing methods,techniques and conceptsin surface transport Yes No No Yes No No No 0,29Improved productquality and performancebased on environmentalfriendly productionsystems Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes 0,57Reduction ofmanufacturing costs by30%-40% andproduction lead-times by25% Yes Yes No No No No Yes 0,43Contribution towardsintegration andstandardisation ofenhanced productdevelopment tools fordesign, simulation,prototyping, testing andrisk management Yes No No Yes No No No 0,29Improvement of productstructural and functionalintegrity for ratedperformance at low cost Yes Yes No No No No Yes 0,43Increased quality,cleanliness, flexibilityand cost effectivenessmanufacturing processesfor products Yes Yes No No No No Yes 0,43Innovative strategiesand processes for cleanmaintenance,dismantling andrecycling of vehicles andvessels Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes 0,57New clean, cost andenergy effectiveprocesses, autonomoussystems for maintenanceand inspection,innovative dismantlingand recycling operations Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 0,86Contribution towardsnew constructionconcepts (road, rail,waterborne and inter-modal infrastructures) No No Yes No No No No 0,14

Grant No. 213546

Increased quality, costeffectiveness, energyefficiency, noisereduction, safety, riskmitigation and lowmaintenance throughnew constructionconcepts Yes No No No Yes No Yes 0,43Improved vehicle orvessel interfaces withtransport infrastructureand othervehicles/vessels from thesame and differenttransport modes Yes Yes No No No No No 0,29Increasedcompetitiveness of EUshipbuilders Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1,00Increased capacity andefficiency of systems andinfrastructures(passenger & freighttraffic) Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes 0,71Performanceenhancement of vehicleand infrastructurecomponents andsystems Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes 0,71Improved dynamicbehaviour, reducednoise, lower electro-magnetic compatibility,durability and reliabilityof both vehicles andinfrastructure Yes No No No Yes No Yes 0,43Improved availability andproductivity and reducedlife-cycle costs in railsector Yes No No No Yes No Yes 0,43Contribution toestablishing newresearch facilities andplatforms forshipbuilding relatedresearch Yes Yes Yes No No No No 0,43

FP6 EU Objective 3: Rebalancing and integrating different transport modes


INDICATORS


Infrastructures

Patents &Standards


Contribution to thepromotion of Door-to-Door transport chains Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 0,86

Contribution to theimproved ship safety Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes 0,71Contribution toenvironmentally friendlyship operations anddesign Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes 0,57Contribution todeveloping the conceptof “Motorways of theSea” No No No No Yes Yes Yes 0,43

Grant No. 213546

Contribution to newintermodal technologies,systems and strategies Yes No No No Yes No Yes 0,43Contribution to increasedefficiency,interoperability andsynergies of transportmodes incl. cross-boarder operations Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes 0,57Use of new satellitenavigation technologiesand concepts in the fieldof transport Yes Yes No No No No No 0,29Facilitation of optimalresources management,pre- and on-haulage ofgoods, administrativeand documentaryprocedures No No No No No Yes Yes 0,29Improving informationexchange and one stopreporting in transportoperations informationnetworks Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes 0,57Support to thedevelopment,implementation andassessment of policymeasures No No No No No Yes No 0,14

New intermodal conceptsfor vehicles and vessels Yes No No No Yes No Yes 0,43

Enhanced fuel efficiency Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes 0,57New equipment,methods and systems foroptimal accommodation,fast loading andunloading of intermodaltransport units Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes 0,57Optimal use of storagespace both invehicles/vessels andterminals Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes 0,57Enhanced efficiency inthe final distribution ofgoods Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes 0,57Contribution tostandards in EU railinteroperability issues No No No Yes No No No 0,14

FP6 EU Objective 4: Increasing road, rail and waterborne safety and avoiding traffic congestion


INDICATORS


Infrastructures

Patents &Standards


Contribution towards thedecrease of fatalities Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes 0,71Reduction ofmanagement costs forinfrastructures Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes 0,71New policies andindustrial strategies forintegrated deployment of Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes 0,57

Grant No. 213546

Traffic ManagementCentre informationsystemsEnhanced managementof existinginfrastructures Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes 0,57Contribution towards thedeployment of singlepaneuropean e-feecollections system onroads Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 0,86Contribution towardsoptimal investment intransport infrastructures Yes No No No No No Yes 0,29New vehicle-infrastructure-pedestrianprotection systems Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes 0,71

New test methodologies Yes No No No No No No 0,14New regulationevaluationmethodologies Yes No No No No Yes Yes 0,43

(*) the ratio is defined as the number of Industrial Competitiveness domains addressed by each indicator divided by seven (number ofdomains)

Ratio statistics of FP6 indicatorsMedian 0,57Average 0,5025-Quartile 0,4285 (25% of all indicators have at most

this ratio)75-Quartile 0,5714 (75% of all indicators have at least

this ratio)

Relations of FP6 indicators to Industrial Competitiveness domains

INDCO DOMAINSTechnologies,Processesand Services

Products Infrastructures

Patents &Standards

Societal &Environmental

Legislative Financial

Number of timesaddressed byindicators

46 28 20 10 34 15 37

Percentage(Number of timesaddressed byindicators dividedby number ofindicators)

85% 52% 37% 19% 63% 28% 69%

Grant No. 213546

3.3 Data collection

3.3.1 Projects’ websitesThe European Union in most cases necessitates the creation of websites for the EU-fundedprojects, in order to attain a wide dissemination of the projects’ results. These websites of theprojects comprise a main source of information provision for the necessary data that has to becollected in order to enable the measurement of the Industrial Competitiveness related indicators.The most relevant sources are considered the abstracts as well as the final results anddeliverables which are present on these websites. The information is collected and furtherprocessed in order to be used for the assessment purposes.

3.3.2 Transport Research Knowledge Centre – TRKCThe Transport Research Knowledge Centre (TRKC) is a service of the European Union whichprovides an overview of research activities at European and national level. In-depth information isavailable and programme and project profiles can be retrieved and further analysed.The TRKC information portal comprises:

Information on transport research programmes across the European Research Area;A compendium of European and national research funding mechanisms;A project database of ongoing and completed European and national transport researchprojects. Main results and policy implications of the projects are outlined and categorisedinto key thematic areas;Thematic analysis reports on the results and policy implications of completed projects;Policy brochures presenting the highlights of the research results according to policytopics;A links library to transport research government institutions, professional organisations,information relays;Access to a data collection tool, where research project coordinators can submit researchresults from their own projects;Helpdesk, Frequently Asked Questions, and a glossary of transport-related abbreviations.

The TRKC provides necessary information that can be collected for the projects that have to beassessed.

3.3.3 IST World PortalThe IST World portal offers information about experts, research groups, centres and companiesinvolved in creating the technologies for the growing information society. Focus of the service isthe expertise and experience of relevant players in European countries. The repository currentlycontains CORDIS FP5, FP6 and FP7 information about funded European FP7, FP6 and FP5projects. It offers FP5+FP6 IST related information. The repository offers Language Technologyrelated information from LT World, as well as parts of Google-Scholar, information about SMEs inNMSs from the EPRI-start project. It also features data from registered users, with the IST WorldCommunity. The portal itself utilizes advanced technologies for gathering, extracting, classifyingand condensing relevant information as well for the detection, visualization and prediction ofconnections and trends.

Grant No. 213546

3.4 Data analysis

3.4.1 First statistical insights in the selected projectNext, an overview is provided regarding the statistics that should be examined for the projectsselected and which will contribute to the conclusions drawn by the end of the IndustrialCompetitiveness assessment methodology. These statistics shall be carried out for all the projectsper Framework Programme assessed.

Measuring objectMeasuringtype Explanation/Interpretation of resultMaximum Maximum number of partners for the selected projectsMinimum Minimum number of partners for the selected projects

AverageAverage number of partners for the selected projects(round to nearest integer)

Median Middle value of the given number of projects

25%-Quartile25% of the projects which have at most the number ofpartners than the number returned

Number of partners

75%-Quartile75% of the projects which have at least the number ofpartners than the number returned

Maximum Maximum amount of community contribution (funding)Minimum Minimum amount of community contribution (funding)Average Average amount of community contribution (funding)Median Middle value of the community contribution (funding)

25%-Quartile25% of the projects received at most the amount ofcommunity contribution than the number returned

Amount of ECfunding

75%-Quartile75% of the projects received at least the amount ofcommunity contribution than the number returnedCountry Name

Number of projects per countryCountry of coordinatorPercentage of country participation in the total number ofprojects

3.4.2 Comparative analysisThe assessment of the projects selected is carried out as described in steps 11 and 12.

3.4.3 Definition of successThe definition of success is subjective, when quantitative characteristics or scales are measured.Thus many interpretations of the results can be made according to the viewpoint of the assessingbody and the objectives of the assessment itself. For the purpose of METRONOME the levels ofsuccess are defined in the assessment phase as Project addressed the XX indicatorFullyPartlyIndirectlyNot at allNot relevant.After that scaling, a second definition of success regarding the assessment of the overall resultsfollows.

Grant No. 213546

4 Methodology implementation

4.1 Guide for methodology implementationBefore the implementation of the proposed assessment methodology, the presentation anddescription of a Guide for methodology implementation is deemed necessary. The guide takes intoconsideration the twelve steps that have been proposed in Chapter 3 of the present deliverable,together with the activities that are concerned with data collection and validation of the stepsexecuted.

Step 1- Identify Industrial Competitiveness domains and types of impactsConduct a detailed literature review, both scientific and related to European Union’s policydocumentation in order to identify the assessment domains. Analyze the domains and interpretthem.

Step 2- Identify Framework Programme specific objectives and targets related to IndustrialCompetitivenessAnalyze in detail and thoroughly understand the policy objectives and measurable targets of theFramework Programmes to be assessed. Review all related European Union decision andimplementation documents regarding the Work Programmes of each Framework Programme.

Step 3 - Define Indicators based on each Framework Programme targetDefine qualitative statistics of the Industrial Competitiveness and in order to analyze theperformance of the Framework Programmes assessed. Transform the targets set by the EuropeanUnion to (qualitatively) measureable statistics and indications or in other words indexes.

Step 4 - Group indicators based on Framework Programme objectivesFirst group the indicators according to the objectives that the targets - which are addressed byeach indicator – are related to. Second reduce the indicators that address the same topic bothsemantically and logically. In this case two or more indicators – within the same group ofindicators per objective – can be reformulated into one indicator that will measure more than onecharacteristic. This will also provide assistance towards the reduction of large number of indicatorswhich are both difficult to measure in terms of effort and in terms of time.

Step 5 - Relate each indicator to Industrial Competitiveness domainsAssociate each indicator to the domains that are addressed by it. This association (or relation)occurs with semantic and logical terms. The association indicates both the exact IndustrialCompetitiveness domains that each indicator is associated to and also provides some usefulqualitative insights for each indicator in terms of each relation to these domains.

Step 6 - Define the Evaluation Framework and success/failure criteriaCreate a database file, where the measuring of each indicator is going to take place. The databasefile shall consist first of necessary fields, such as name, acronym and other general information ofthe project assessed. Second and most important, there are fields where each indicator ismeasured. The indicators’ selection for each project assessed is based on the objectives – andthus resulting targets which are then transformed to indicators according to steps 3 and 4- thatthis project was aiming to. The overall question that shall be answered for each indicator is “Ratethe extent to which the project contributed/addressed the indicator…”. Create the appropriatemeasuring scale for each indicator as follows:

Grant No. 213546

Scale DefinitionFully The project contributed significantly/addressed in a very large extent

the indicator.Partly The project contributed averagely/addressed in a moderate extent the

indicator.Indirectly The project contributed / addressed in a moderate extent the indicator,

although the project did not aim to do so.No – Not at all The project did not contribute/address the indicator.Not relevant The project did not contribute/address the indicator, because the

project did not aim to do so.

The actual implementation of the proposed assessment methodology is carried out by deployingthe Evaluation Framework files and filling in the necessary information by measuring the extent towhich the project under assessment addressed each indicator.

A sample of an Evaluation Framework database file is presented next.

Project: Acronym Full titleProject date: (Start) (End)Programmetype:

FP5 FP6 (choose relevant)

ProgrammeAcronym:

GROWTH SST (choose relevant)

Project type: IP STREP NOE Other

(chooserelevant)

INDICATORS Rate the extent to which the project contributed/addressedthe indicatorFully Partly Indirectly No – Not

at allNotrelevant

1. ...2. …3. …4. …

Step 7 - Define the Justification Matrix for selecting projectsCreate a project selection Justification Matrix to determine the selection of the projects to beassessed. This matrix is comprised by the Industrial Competitiveness domains, which have beendefined in step 1. In order for a project to be selected, at least one of the IndustrialCompetitiveness domains must be addressed by the project. A sample of a Justification Matrix forselecting projects is presented next.

Grant No. 213546

No. Project nameFP – WorkProgramme IndCo domain(select appropriate) (select appropriate)

1. XXX FP5-GROWTHTechnologies, Processes andServices

.. .. FP6-SST Products .. .. Infrastructures .. .. Patents & Standards .. .. Societal & Environmental .. .. Legislative .. .. Financial

Step 8 - Select projects based on the Justification Matrix and samplingThe identification of the projects is executed in two ways. First, the thematic area addressed bythe project, together with the project objectives is identified. Then, a two page projectidentification document is created for each project. This identification document is then indexedand scanned with index-searching software (eg Windows Index Service or Adobe Acrobat SearchTool, depending on the format of the document). The search criteria include the short descriptionof each Industrial Competitiveness domain. The search results have to be proof-read andvalidated by a human. In case that one or more of the search criteria are identified during thisindexed search process, then this domain is considered as relevant to the specific project and it ismarked positively in the Justification Matrix. The process has to be repeated seven times in orderto identify the existence of relevance with each one of the seven Industrial Competitivenessdomains.

Step 9 - Testing the application of the methodology on a small number of projectsThe testing of the methodology occurs with the application of it on a small number of projects.This number of projects is considered sufficient when it reaches 2-5% of the total projects to beassessed. In case that the application of the methodology is not considered successful (e.g. noresults can be measured, no projects can be found, no association between indicators and targetscan be justified etc), then return to Step 3 and re-run the assessment process.

Step 10 - Qualitative analysis of all projects and analysis of the resultsRate each selected project for each indicator. The end results of all ratings of all projects are thenanalysed collectively in the following manner: Each scale used for the rating of each indicator isassigned a number from one to five. An index has to be then created for each scale according tothe number that this scale has been used (through the rating process) for all projects assessed foreach indicator. The sum of these indexes always must sum up to one. This procedure shall berepeated for each indicator per objective. A graphical chart is then created as follows: the x-Axis islabelled with the five scales and the indicators of each objective. The y-Axis is labelled with theindex achieved for each indicator per scale.

Grant No. 213546

Step 11 - Relate all projects’ assessment results to Industrial Competitiveness domainsRelate the project results to the defined Industrial Competitiveness domains as follows. Each timethat a response according to the five assessment scales is recorded, a relation to the IndustrialCompetitiveness domains which are assigned to the respective indicator is made. The totalnumber of responses according to the five scales of the assessment process is the resultingperformance for each Industrial Competitiveness domain.

Step 12 - Assessment, Results, Conclusions, Recommendations, Other use by EU servicesInterpret the results and draw conclusions and recommendations.

Horizontal steps are defined as steps that occur in the same time with the steps mentionedbefore. These steps include the data collection and the validation, which occur as shown in therespective figure of 3.1

Horizontal Step 1 – Data collectionData shall be collected during the first three steps and also for the execution of step 7. During thesteps 1 to 3, data related to scientific papers and EU policy related documents shall be collected.During step 7 data related to projects from various sources (web sites, TKRC, other informationservices) shall be collected.

Horizontal Step 2 - ValidationValidation shall occur in the following ways. First, the data collected and analyzed during the firstthree steps shall be validated by official of the European Union, in order to ensure that all requireddata sources have been used and that the further development of the assessment methodologyshall not miss any further EU policy related information. Second, EU officers shall validate theselected projects which will actually be assessed and finally the overall methodology shall bevalidated by applying it to a small number of projects.

Grant No. 213546

4.2 FP5 methodology implementation

4.2.1 Statistical insights of the selected FP5 projects.

FP5 ProjectsMaximum 28Minimum 4Average ~10Median 925%-Quartile 6

Number of partners

75%-Quartile 11

Maximum5.002.281

€Minimum 740.105 €

Average2.147.059

€

Median1.949.029

€

25%-Quartile1.599.768

€

Amount of ECfunding

75%-Quartile3.148.696

€Austria 1 (4%)

Denmark 2 (8%)

France 2 (8%)

Germany 11 (44%)

Italy 4 (16%)

Spain 1 (4%)

Sweden 3 (12%)

Country ofcoordinator

UnitedKingdom 1 (4%)

Table 12: Statistical results of the (25) FP5 selected projects.

Grant No. 213546

4.2.2 Results of FP5 assessment procedure – Rating of projects and indicators

Figure 4: Results of FP5 objective 1 “Enhancing the efficiency and quality of transport systems andservices”

Figure 5: Results of FP5 objective 2: Maintain and consolidate the competitive position of theEuropean road, waterborne-based, rail and intermodal supply industries.

Grant No. 213546

Figure 6: Results of FP5 objective 3 “Development of critical technologies and their integration andvalidation around advanced industrial concepts.

Grant No. 213546

4.2.3 Results of FP5 assessment procedure – Industrial Competitiveness domains results

Tech

nolo

gies

.Pr

oces

ses

and

Serv

ices

Prod

ucts

Infr

astr

uctu

res

Pate

nts

& S

tand

ards

Soci

etal

&En

viro

nmen

tal

Legi

slat

ive

Fina

ncia

l

Fully 28 20 11 5 24 8 28

Partly 11 6 6 - 9 1 11

Indirectly 10 5 6 3 6 7 10

No 1 1 1 - 1 - 1

Table 13: Number of responses (to indicators) corresponding to Industrial Competitiveness domainsfor all FP5 projects

Figure 7: Bar Chart of number of responses (to indicators) corresponding to IndustrialCompetitiveness domains for all FP5 projects

Grant No. 213546

4.2.4 Results of funding instrument performance in FP5

The following figure presents the average performance of the indicators for each one of the FP5funding instruments.

Figure 8: Average performance of indicators per funding instrument in FP5.

Note: the results of Research and technology development projects are based only on one projectof this funding scheme. No project under the Accompanying measures, Thematic networks -Concerted Actions and Study contracts – Assessment contracts funding schemes have beenanalysed.

Grant No. 213546

4.3 FP6 methodology implementation

4.3.1 Statistical insights of the selected FP6 projects

FP6 ProjectsMaximum 70Minimum 7Average ~28Median 2625%-Quartile 16

Number of partners

75%-Quartile 40

Maximum19.000.000

€Minimum 698.000 €Average 8.132.321 €Median 8.405.572 €25%-Quartile 2.499.380 €

Amount of EC funding

75%-Quartile

11.057.614€

Belgium 1 (4%)

Finland 1 (4%)

Germany 6 (25%)

Intl. 5 (21%)

Italy 4 (17%)

Netherlands 2 (8%)

Poland 1 (4%)

Spain 1 (4%)

Country ofcoordinator

Sweden 3 (13%)

Table 14: Statistical results of the (24) FP6 selected projects.

Grant No. 213546

4.3.2 Results of FP6 assessment procedure – Rating of projects and indicators

Figure 9: Results of FP6 objective 1: New technologies and concepts for all surface transport modes(road, rail and waterborne).

Figure 10: Results of FP6 objective 2: Advanced design and production techniques.

Grant No. 213546

Figure 11: Results of FP6 objective 3: Rebalancing and integrating different modes.

Figure 12: Results of FP6 objective 4: Increasing road, rail and waterborne safety and avoiding trafficcongestion.

Grant No. 213546

4.3.3 Results of FP6 assessment procedure – Industrial Competitiveness domains results

Tech

nolo

gies

.Pr

oces

ses

and

Serv

ices

Prod

ucts

Infr

astr

uctu

res

Pate

nts

& S

tand

ards

Soci

etal

&En

viro

nmen

tal

Legi

slat

ive

Fina

ncia

l

Fully 46 24 16 10 35 7 33

Partly 20 15 6 8 17 1 19

Indirectly 10 7 8 4 9 3 8

No 1 1 1 - - - -

Table 15: Number of responses (to indicators) corresponding to Industrial Competitiveness domainsfor all FP6 projects

Figure 13: Bar chart of number of responses (to indicators) corresponding to IndustrialCompetitiveness domains for all FP6 projects

Grant No. 213546

4.3.4 Results of funding instrument performance in FP6

The following figure presents the average performance of the indicators for each one of the FP6funding instruments.

Figure 14: Average performance of indicators per funding instrument in FP5.

Note: the results of Specific Targeted Research projects and Coordination Actions are based onlyon one project for each one of these funding schemes. No project under the Networks ofExcellence funding scheme has been analysed.

Grant No. 213546

5 Conclusions and future recommendations

5.1 ConclusionsConclusion 1The overall objectives of the European Union are satisfied to a very large degree, as shown in theassessment results, although this needs further investigation with the assessment of a muchlarger number of projects. FP6 projects tend to perform slightly better towards the achievement ofthe FP Work Programme objectives than those of FP5.

Conclusion 2The responses rated with the highest degree for the selected projects lie above 50% of allresponses for the seven Industrial Competitiveness domains.

Conclusion 3FP5 projects tend to present slightly better assessment results for the same IndustrialCompetitiveness domains than the FP6 projects.

5.2 Discussion of Industrial Competitiveness related research in FP7One topic of the forthcoming 2010 Transport Work Programme is directly addressing issues ofcompetitiveness.

AREA 7.2.5.2. Competitive surface transport products and servicesThe objective is to develop innovative products and systems concepts (for vehicles, vessels andinfrastructures) meeting end-users expectations and ensuring high quality services enablingEurope to strengthen its global position or to regain competitiveness. Particular attention will begiven to the role of SMEs in the innovation process and the supply of components, systems andequipments within the transport sector. Therefore, the involvement of SMEs in projectpartnerships is important.

Expected impactMaintain European share of ultra large cruise ship world production.Develop new generations of transport products that are highly competitive, emit less CO2and other pollutants and tailored to customers expectations.Create new niche markets for high technology added value products1 and services andtake full advantage of eco-innovations.Improve the quality and competitiveness of surface transport services considering featuressuch as price attractiveness, environmental friendliness, punctuality, frequency, real timeinformation or leisure and work during travel time2.Drastically reduce maintenance and inspection costs3.Sustain economic development in Europe, create job opportunities and technology skills,with special focus on green technologies.Promote the start-up and emergence of new high-tech SMEs, particularly in the advancedtransport technologies and ‘services-related’ activities specific to Transport.Proposals must ensure at least a neutral impact on climate change.

1 Waterborne TP SRA2 ERRAC SRA3 ERRAC SRA and ECTP SRA

Grant No. 213546

5.3 Extensions and improvements of the proposed methodologyThe proposed methodology has been presented in detail in the previous sections of the presentdeliverable. Although, the respective partner responsible for the development of this methodologyhas hardly tried to include as many steps as possible, which are going to ensure the logical flow ofprocesses and data in the proposed methodology and although the methodology has been testedfor validation purposes and implemented in a number of projects that has been concludedtogether with the responsible community officers, there is a number of issues related toextensions and possible improvements of the proposed methodology. These extensions andimprovements are presented next.

1. Input of strategic research objectives and targets by official European Union data sourcesdirectly to the interested party, which carries out the assessment process, in order to avoidmissing or misinterpreted objectives and targets.

2. Consultation with Technology Platforms for the validation of the objectives and targets whichare going to form the basis for the definition of indicators.

3. Consultation with European Union officers regarding the definition of success of previous (orongoing) Framework Programmes in order to obtain targets for the indicators or whatever meanwill be used to measure/assess the objectives and targets.

4. Validation of projects’ assessment with selected experts, which are aware of project results, butdid not participate in the projects which are being assessed to avoid biased opinions.

5. In case that data shall be collected by means of questionnaires, these shall be sent officially byEuropean Union bodies, in order to ensure (or demand) the replies.

6. Possible exchange of methodologies between similar or cluster projects in order to validateeach methodology developed. Use cluster projects as a validation instrument from the beginningof the assessment process.

7. Inclusion of an econometrics expert – either in the consortium or as external expert – since thebeginning of the project.

8. Consider the participation of FP research partners in the assessment process as a constantparameter of bias for the end results.

9. Propose a structured projects related data and information storage mechanism to the EuropeanUnion in order to enable easier, less time consuming, more reliable and less costly assessments inthe future.

10. Apply the methodology after the execution of each related European Union funded project.This extension requires an automation of the procedure with a feasibility study which may resultto recommending the creation of an automated software package based on the proposedIndustrial Competitiveness assessment methodology that can be used by the interested bodies.

Grant No. 213546

6 ReferencesArnold, E., and Guy, K. (1997). Technology diffusion programmes and the challenge forevaluation. (Chapter 6 in OECD conference on policy evaluation in innovation andtechnology, 1997, Paris).Bach, L., Georghiou, L. (1998). The Nature and Scope of RTD Impact Measurement. Adiscussion paper for the International Workshop on ‘Measurement of RTD Results/Impact,’Brussels, 28-29 May 1998.Capron, H., and van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (1997). Public support to R&Dprogrammes: An integrated assessment scheme. In OECD (1997a). Policy Evaluation inInnovation and Technology: Towards Best Practices.Centre for industrial Competitiveness - University of Massachusetts Lowell.Durieux, L., and Fayl, G. (1997). The scheme used for evaluating the European researchand technological development programmes. In OECD (1997a). Policy Evaluation inInnovation and Technology: Towards Best Practices.Eiffinger, M. (1997). Evaluation of scientific research in the Netherlands. In OECD (1997b).The evaluation of scientific research: selected experiences.Europa (1999) Fifth Framework Programme: Monitoring, Evaluation and AssessmentActivities.European Competitiveness Council.European Parliament web site.European Union Directorate General Enterprise.European Union Enterprise Policy, European Union - European CommissionEuropean Union web site, The Commission's report.European Union web site, Facing The Challenge. The Lisbon strategy for growth andemployment. Report from the High Level Group chaired by Wim Kok, November 2004,Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, ISBN 92-894-7054-2, (theKok report).Fahrenkrog, G., Polt, W., Rojo, J., Tubke, A., and Zinocker, K. (eds.) (2002). RTDEvaluation Toolbox: Assessing the Socio-Economic Impact of RTD Policies.Georghiou, L., Rigby, J., and Cameron, H. (eds) (2002). Assessment of the socio-economicpacts of the framework programme.Georghiou, L., and Polt, W. (2004). EU Evaluation Practice. INTEREG Research ReportSeries. Institute of Technology and Regional Policy.Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.IEG (2007). Sourcebook for Evaluating Global and Regional Partnership Programs.Indicative Principles and Standards.IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook.Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness, Harvard Business School.International Transparency.Kuhlmann, S. (1997). Evaluation as a medium of science and technology policy: recentdevelopments in Germany and beyond. In OECD (1997a). Policy Evaluation in Innovationand Technology: Towards Best Practices.Langer, M., Schon, A., Egger-Steiner, M., and Hubauer, I. (2003). Evaluating Evaluation inthe context of Sustainable Development (I) The Planning and Commissioning Procedure ofEvaluations with Sustainable Development as part of a Tool Box.Lisbon AgendaLuukkonen, T. (1997). The increasing professionalization of the evaluation of mission-oriented research in Finland: implications for the evaluation process. In OECD (1997a).Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology: Towards Best Practices.

Grant No. 213546

Merkx, F., van der Wijden, I., Oostveen, A., van den Besselaar, P., and Spaapen, J. (2007).Evaluation of Research in Context: A Quick Scan of an Emerging Field.OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.OECD (1997a). Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology: Towards Best Practices.OECD (1997b). The evaluation of scientific research: selected experiences.Oksanen, J. (2000) Research evaluation in Finland: Practices and experiences, past andpresent. In OECD (1997a). Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology: Towards BestPractices.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1999). Improving evaluationpractices: Best Practice Guidelines for Evaluation and Background Paper.Research Councils UK (2005). Practical Guidelines: Evaluation.Stampfer (1997). Science and technology policy evaluation in Austria: struggling towards ahigher ranking on the policy agenda. In OECD (1997a). Policy Evaluation in Innovation andTechnology: Towards Best Practices.TEKES (2002). Evaluation of the Finnish R&D Programmes in the Field of Electronics andTelecommunications (ETX, TLX and Telectronics I): Evaluation report.The World Bank.UNCTAD, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.UNDP, United Nations Development Programme.UNIDO, United Nations Industrial Development Organisation.World Economic Forum.

Grant No. 213546

Annex 1. Detailed description of the Framework Programmes 5 and 6

&

Annex 2. European Union Work Programmes where funding for transportrelated projects has been provided

6.1 Framework Programme 5

6.1.1 Main targets and objectives

The main targets of the Competitive and Sustainable Growth Programme are:

to produce, disseminate and use the knowledge and technologies needed to design and developprocesses and produce high quality, environment- and consumer-friendly products which will becompetitive on tomorrow's market;

to help increase economic growth, maintain and/or create new jobs in Europe; to sustain the continuing innovation and modernisation efforts of manufacturing, processing and

services enterprises (including SMEs) so as to improve their competitiveness; to support the development and implementation of Community policies that enable competitive and

sustainable development.

This goes hand in hand with the development of related services, including transport, which are economic,safe and protective of the environment and quality of life as well as with the development of qualitymaterials, reliable measurement and testing methods and the optimal use of specific researchinfrastructures.

Competitiveness and sustainability require a "systems approach" in which research activities support thedevelopment of coherent, interconnected and eco-efficient industrial and social systems, responding to bothmarket and social needs.

6.1.2 Strategy of the programme

The programme supports research activities contributing to competitiveness and sustainability, particularlywhere these two objectives interact.

Answering to socio-economic needs: by stimulating holistic approaches, by strengthening theinnovative capacity of the European industrial system and by fostering the creation of businessesand services built on emerging technologies and new market opportunities, the programme will helpto face the major challenges of society, in particular employment. In parallel, research intosustainable mobility and environmentally and consumer friendly processes, products and serviceswill contribute to improving the quality of life and working conditions.Stimulating European added value: Activities to solve the cross-border problems arising inconnection with the various key actions have a clear European dimension, as does the developmentof norms and standards in support of Community policies. Achieving the critical mass needed toattain concrete and tangible results in cost-intensive technologies will also necessitate mobilisingnational and other RTD Community resources.Supporting European competitiveness: Europe suffers from a recognised gap compared with itsmajor competitors, inasmuch as it is less able to translate its scientific knowledge into innovation.Not only research but also innovation in respect of new concepts (e.g. eco-industries) should befostered to boost competitiveness and productivity.

Grant No. 213546

Ethical framework: Full respect of human rights and fundamental ethical principles will be ensuredthroughout all activities in the specific programme in accordance with Article 6 of the EuropeanParliament and Council Decision on the 5th Framework Programme.

6.1.3 Types of Actions supported within FP5

Types of actions supported

The Community will contribute financially to the RTD (2) activities, carried out under the SpecificProgrammes implemented within the Fifth Framework Programme.

The general rules (3) are as follows:

(a) Shared-cost actions

Research and technological development (R&D) projects (4) - projects obtaining new knowledgeintended to develop or improve products, processes or services and/or to meet the needs ofCommunity policies (financial participation: 50 % of total eligible costs (4)(5) )Demonstration projects (4) - projects designed to prove the viability of new technologies offeringpotential economic advantage but which cannot be commercialised directly (financial participation:35 % of total eligible costs (5) )Combined R&D and demonstration projects (4) - projects combining the above elements(financial participation: 35 to 50 % of total eligible costs (4)(5) )Support for access to research infrastructures (only implemented under "Improving the humanresearch potential and the socio-economic knowledge base" - IHP Programme) - actions enhancingaccess to research infrastructures for Community researchers. Support will cover maximum of 100% of the eligible costs necessary for the action"SME Co-operative" research projects (4) - projects enabling at least three mutually independentSMEs from at least two Member States or one Member State and an Associated State to jointlycommission research carried out by a third party (financial participation: 50 % of total eligible projectcosts (4) )"SME Exploratory" awards - support of 75 % of total eligible costs (6) for an exploratory phase of aproject of up to 12 months (e.g. feasibility studies, validation, partner search).

(b) Training fellowships

Marie Curie fellowships are either fellowships, where individual researchers apply directly to theCommission, or host fellowships, where institutions apply to host a number of researchers (financialparticipation: maximum of 100 % of the additional eligible costs necessary for the action (7) ).

The decisions on the specific programmes may define specific sub types of actions for example: theprogramme "Confirming the international role of Community research" - INCO 2 - defines bursaries foryoung researchers from developing countries and other bursaries for researchers from the EU MemberStates or Associated States as specific training fellowships.

(c) Research training networks and thematic networks

Training networks for promoting training-through-research especially of researchers at pre- andpost-doctoral level (these are only implemented under the IHP programme);and thematic networks for bringing together e.g. manufacturers, users, universities, researchcentres around a given S&T objective. These include co-ordination networks between Communityfunded projects. Support will cover a maximum 100 % of the eligible costs necessary for setting upand maintaining such networks.

(d) Concerted actions

Grant No. 213546

Actions co-ordinating RTD projects already in receipt of national funding, for example to exchangeexperiences, to reach a critical mass, to disseminate results etc. (financial participation: maximum of 100 %of the eligible costs necessary for the action).

(e) Accompanying measures

Actions contributing to the implementation of a Specific Programme or the preparation of future activities ofthe programme. They will also seek to prepare for or to support other indirect RTD actions (financialparticipation: maximum of 100 % of total eligible costs).

Each Specific Programme will not necessarily open all the above mentioned types of actions in allCalls. Please refer to section II and Part 2 of this Guide to see which actions are called for in thedifferent programmes and Calls.

Clusters

A cluster is a defined group of RTD projects. Its aim is to guarantee complementarity among projects, tomaximise European added value within a given field and to establish a critical mass of resources at theEuropean level.

An integrated approach towards research fields and projects financed is needed to solve complexmultidisciplinary problems effectively. Clusters reflect this problem-solving approach. Indeed, in a cluster,projects are joined together because they complement each other in addressing major objectives in thecontext of a key action or a generic activity (sometimes even across different key actions or SpecificProgrammes). Clusters are expected to optimise scientific networking, management, co-ordination,monitoring, the exchange of information and, on voluntary basis, the exploitation and disseminationactivities. The cluster may thus become a natural process to generate European added value, wherever itmakes sense, beyond the limited resources of an isolated project.

All types of projects can be assembled and integrated within a cluster, including those funded by differentEU RTD activities (key action, generic activity, infrastructure). By the same token, and as part of an overallEuropean approach, relevant activities under other research frameworks (notably EUREKA, COST) couldalso be taken into account whenever this can reinforce synergy. Clusters will be set up through thematicnetworks or complementary clauses.

Gender equal opportunities

In line with the Commission’s strategic approach of mainstreaming equal opportunities in all Union’s policies,particular account is taken in the Fifth Framework Programme of the need to promote the participation ofwomen in the fields of research and technological development. Therefore women are encouraged toparticipate in proposals for the above mentioned RTD activities.

Footnotes:

(2) It will also carry out research and development activities conducted by the Joint Research Centre(3) In the Decisions adopting the Specific Programmes, there can be no derogation from the financialparticipation rates set out here, with the exception of duly justified special cases(4) The rates may need to be adjusted in individual cases to comply with the Community framework for Stateaid for R&D (O.J. C 45, 17.2.1996) and with article 8 of the WTO Agreement on subsidies and countervailingmeasures (O.J. L 336, 23.12.1994). If the project is supported financially by a Member State or one of itspublic bodies, the cumulation rule applies, according to item 5.12 of the above mentioned Communityframework.(5) In the special case of legal entities which do not keep analytical accounts, the additional eligible costsgenerated as a result of the research will be financed at the rate of 100%

Grant No. 213546

(6) EC funding up to maximum of 22,500 euros(7) In the case of industrial host fellowships, this will normally approximate to 50% of the total eligible costs

Growth type of actions

6.1.3.1 R&D, demonstration and combined projects

R&D, demonstration and combined projects are carried out by industrial or service organisations,universities and research centres covering research targeted on strategic objectives with significant potentialfor socio-economic and industrial impact, demonstrated by a real participation of economic entitieswhenever appropriate as well as potential for new policy options and Community policy. SME participation inRTD actions is encouraged and special attention will be given to the utilisation and diffusion of technologiesdeveloped under RTD projects.

Whereas research projects are designed to obtain new knowledge likely to be useful to support thedevelopment of products, processes, services and policies, demonstration projects are projects, which aredesigned to prove the technical viability of technologies, methodologies or services that cannot becommercialised directly or to test the feasibility of innovative policy measures.

As much as possible, demonstration projects should be associated with user groups that need to beconvinced of the benefits of the new technology or innovative measures or may play a future role in itsacceptance. This can constitute a powerful tool to overcome the non-scientific hurdles to dissemination andto prepare the ground for future exploitation. The user groups should normally not be included as contractorswithin the project, as they are not expected to play any active role in a research project.

The duration of the demonstration projects will be established on a case by case basis (taking into accountparameters such as market situation and trends, time needed for prototype building and validation, etc.).The normal duration is 24 months. In principle it can not exceed 48 months.

Combined projects are projects which include research and demonstration activities as described above.In the case of combined projects the proposal should clearly distinguish the R&D and Demonstration parts.

RTD, demonstration and combined projects need to respond to the objectives specified in the call anddetailed in the Work programme.

"Clustering" of projects is encouraged in order to achieve greater critical mass and impact (see paragraph"Clusters" and "Co-ordination activities").

6.1.3.2 Co-ordination Activities

Thematic Networks and Concerted Actions are designed to facilitate networking of organisations, co-ordination of activities and exchange and dissemination of knowledge so as to optimise research efforts,reach critical mass and enhance impacts at European level. They bring together industry, universities,research centres, users, research infrastructures and other relevant stakeholders around a common S&Tobjective related to the priorities of the programme. Please note that Thematic Networks and ConcertedActions can not provide funding for actual RTD activities.

Thematic Networks are used to:

a) to co-ordinate a group ("cluster") of projects funded at Community level. This may includerelevant projects from more than one Key Action and from other EU programmes and, whereappropriate, activities funded at national level or in other European frameworks. Participation is on avoluntary basis. The Thematic Network proposal may be submitted simultaneously with the group ofproject proposals, or at a later stage if intended to co-ordinate on-going projects. Following a call for

Grant No. 213546

proposals, the Growth Programme itself may encourage the formation of project clusters linkingseveral successful projects with common or interrelated objectives, and where the co-ordination oftheir activities would lead to clear added value.

b) to carry out activities addressing the objectives set out in the section "Support for ResearchInfrastructures", which is implemented through a 2-stage process (Expressions of Interest anddedicated calls).

c) to establish and develop networking activities other than those defined above, which cancontribute significantly to achieving the objectives of the Key Actions and Generic Technologies.

Concerted Actions are used for the co-ordination of research activities already funded within individualMember states, in order for instance to channel efforts efficiently, to exchange and complement experience,to disseminate results.

Thematic Network and Concerted Action proposals submitted in response to periodic calls are notrestricted to the priorities published in the call, and therefore can address any research objective specified inthe work programme (except Support for Research Infrastructure, in which case proposals can only besubmitted in response to a dedicated call). In the case of Key Action 1, they may only address the TargetedResearch Actions. Thematic Network and Concerted Action proposals submitted in response to adedicated call must address the objectives specified in the call.

6.1.3.3 Expression of Interest for the needs of research; in support for Researchinfrastructures

The "Expressions of Interest" is a mechanism that enables the GROWTH programme to focus on specificallyidentified needs related to research or research infrastructures for Europe. The process is described in theflow chart that follows. The mechanism provides a flexible and efficient approach both in targeting resourcestowards the most important needs in pursuit of the Community’s objectives and in assisting eventual projectproposers by ensuring that their efforts are directed towards those needs.

Interested parties can send to the Commission their research related needs as topics they would like to seedeveloped, provided they are within an area covered by the "Expressions of interest" call. The topic must bepresented as a brief but structured supporting document as described below.

The supporting document received by the Commission that are within scope are evaluated periodically byexternal experts. The evaluation will be made on the basis of the programme priorities, objectives andavailable budget, and the clarity of the supporting document. The selected priority topics are published in asecond stage in the Official Journal of the European Community as a "Dedicated Call" for proposals(typically twice a year).

The supporting document of the published priority topics are made available to all interested parties toprepare and target their proposals in open competition.

The Call for "Expressions of interest" is applicable to the following R&D and Networking activities of theCompetitive and Sustainable Growth Programme:

Methodologies in support of European standardisation (R&D)

The aim should be to provide research for European standards to promote compatibility of systems,prevent the duplication of effort and enable advantages of economies of scale for thecompetitiveness of European industry and the operation of the internal market. Priority will be givento research needed for the development of new or improved standards in support of the "NewApproach Directives" and will focus upon:

the development and validation of measurement and testing methods,

Grant No. 213546

the production of scientific and metrological data needed to define performance, reliabilityand safety criteria for products and services

Note: The feasibility studies for Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) which are needed to supportthe implementation of European and international standardisation and to favour mutual recognitionagreements must be submitted following the format described for feasibility studies for CRMs on thefollowing page.

Pre and co-normative research in the areas of agriculture, food, health, energy and the environmentwill be the responsibility of the relevant Thematic Programmes.

Methodologies in support of the fight against fraud (R&D)

The aim should be to develop, improve and validate the measurement and testing methodologiesthat are needed in order to keep the know-how and technology ahead of the defrauder. The systemswill help in the routine detection, control and prevention of fraud and/or provide the detailed scientificevidence that will stand up in a court of law. General methodologies used for characterisation ofproducts in the field of food, feed and the environment are outside of the scope of this activity.Priority will be given to:

Characterising, mapping, tracking, and tracing procedures (including sampling) for industrialproducts, components, process ingredients, and consumer goods.

Sampling, measurements, tests, and databanks for checking the authenticity of differentindustrial products and components in order to detect illegally used compounds,components or undesirable (e.g. toxic) substances in relation to safety and origin.

Measurements and testing procedures including sampling plans, and chemometrical/statistical techniques to establish the authenticity of (or modifications to) products, goods,etc.

Procedures for screening, identification and confirmatory purposes. These proceduresshould allow a reliable identification of the origin of products, components, and dangerousgoods, as well as of product categorisation in custom tariffs and for pursuing the control ofsubsidies and quotas.

Databases for various methods used for the identification of physical, chemical, and otherproperties in order to speed up or improve the identification of the origin of products,dangerous goods and components.

Sampling, analytical procedures, and harmonised databases to detect illegal drugtrafficking, to identify persons and illegally traded species; to determine the origin and age ofcultural artefacts; and to permit comparison of investigation and prosecution activities (inconsultation with stakeholders such as for example EUROPOL and relevant counterfeitingand industrial associations/federations).

Sampling, analytical procedures, and harmonised databases for the detection of doping insport.

The fight against fraud may require specific measures, particularly with regard todissemination/exploitation.

Feasibility studies for certified reference materials CRMs (R&D)

Research to develop the ability to produce and certify reference materials can be related to:preparation, properties of materials, sources of error in measurements and agreement betweenmethods and laboratories, etc. The work can include the preparation of small test batches. Theactual production of batches of CRMs for sale will be the subject of separate calls fortenders.

To enable the Commission to assess priority topics it is important to demonstrate the socio-economic importance and the European dimension of a possible project. Demonstration should also

Grant No. 213546

be made that a similar CRM does not (anymore) exist or is not under preparation elsewhere, orwhich essential requirements are currently not met by current existing CRM.

Topics for the "Expressions of interest" for CRM feasibility studies must relate to activities listed inthe Work programme:

- CRMs for European standards: CRMs representative of manufactured products to verify qualityand safety standards and for the testing of materials following a standard method; CRMs in supportof Directives and Community policies including the fields of agriculture, food, health care, energyand the environment.

- CRMs for the fight against fraud: CRMs for checking the authenticity of origin of materials andcomponents, for the identification of species, for the control of subsidies and quotas, for theverification of product category in relation to custom tariffs, subsidies and quotas, for the detection ofillegal substances and dangerous goods, for the detection of illegal drugs in sport, for thedetermination of the origin and age of cultural artefacts, for the identification of persons.

- CRMs for the improvement of quality (traceability and calibration): CRMs for the calibrationand performance testing of instruments, for material testing, for product testing and processmonitoring, for chemical and biological analysis of industrial importance.

Research will develop the ability to produce and certify reference materials that are fit for purpose.The planned exploitation of the results of the projects has to aim at the production and certificationof the RMs in compliance with prevailing international quality standards (in accordance with thegeneral contract rules the research consortia can transfer the intellectual property rights for theproduction and certification of CRMs to a third party, e.g. the Commission, see also objective 7.4).

Type of CRM concerned:

Topics for feasibility studies may deal with CRMs for identification, calibration or quality controlpurposes:

Reference substances, species or specimens for the purpose of identification or control oforigin.

Reference materials for calibration e.g. transfer standards for metrology, pure substancesfor use as calibrants, pure substances serving as generic reference standards in chemicalanalysis, stable isotope reference materials, CRMs to which commercial clinical test kitswould become traceable, reference materials for the validation and calibration of a range ofcommon instrumental methods, and reference microbiological preparations.

Tools for quality control (certified control specimens, "matrix" CRMs including CRMscertified for composition, physical or technical properties, or effects).

Support for research infrastructures (Networking)

The aim of this activity will be to enhance the problem solving approach of the GROWTHProgramme by supporting via networking activities the relevant research infrastructure. Theobjectives are:

the optimum utilisation of geographically dispersed medium and large scale researchfacilities;

the rapid transfer and implementation of RTD results into industrial applications; the improvement of interoperability and common protocols.

The "Expressions of Interest" call will cover all four categories of activities in the Work programme,as mentioned below:

Grant No. 213546

1. Support activities to medium and large-scale facilities

These activities will aim at identifying the needs and creating networks for optimum use of mediumand large scale facilities having a strong and innovative scientific, technical or socio-economicrelevance to the Programme.

Note: This activity will neither provide funding to specific RTD projects requiring the use of mediumand large scale facilities (these costs should be included as eligible costs in the RTD proposalsubmissions) nor will it provide funding to individual researchers requiring access to medium andlarge scale facilities (support may be provided through the ‘Enhancing Access to ResearchInfrastructures’ specific action of the fourth activity "Improving Human Research Potential").

2. Setting up of virtual institutes

A virtual institute is a network linking geographically dispersed complementary research andindustrial capabilities with the potential to become a legal and self-supporting entity. The broad aimis the rapid exploitation of RTD results into industrial applications. A degree of flexibility is foreseenso that virtual institutes may be set up in such a way as to meet the differing needs ofresearch/industrial sectors related to the GROWTH Programme. Proposers of topics should giveparticular emphasis to topics that are strongly market-oriented. Eventual proposals for VirtualInstitutes will need to demonstrate through a business plan that the institute can become self-financing in the longer term. Thus an outline to indicate the feasibility of the business plan should begiven in the expression of interest.

3. Reference databases

The aim will be to provide improved access to existing databases. This could include initiatives thatlink data from various sources and which will be of value to European researchers and industry. Thecreation of so-called "platforms" of databases could for example create a single entry point of linkedor related databases, other activities could aim to promote acceptability, quality, comparability andinteroperability of data, particularly that produced by EU funded research.

4. Measurement and quality management infrastructure

The aim is to develop and strengthen the European metrology infrastructure, to reinforce traceabilityand to improve cohesion of metrology systems and to promote the "measured once acceptedeverywhere" philosophy. Such activities could for example cover:

transnational traceability chains and accreditation activities (including intercomparisons)particularly at inter-regional and candidate member state level and in the less developedmetrological sectors;

mutual recognition agreements for calibration capabilities of laboratories; and for the qualitycertification and accreditation measures via harmonisation and integration of accreditationand certification audits;

the capability of National Metrology Institutes and Official Control Laboratories to set upinternational traceability systems including for example intercomparisons, in particular formetrology in biology and chemistry;

the development of user-friendly guidelines needed for the certification and use of CRMsand other quality control tools such as proficiency tests and statistical control charts in orderto improve international cohesion;

the harmonisation of implementation associated with novel quality management andaccreditation standards;

helping consumer associations and industry to develop and test guidelines for goodpractices for the organisation of comparative studies on products and services.

EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST: MECHANISM (FP5)

Grant No. 213546

When? What? Refer to

Call for Expressions of Interest

Open from March 1999until 30 April 2001

Call for expressions of interest in the areas andfor the objectives covered by this procedure

Interested parties prepare brief definition andjustification of need (max. 6 page "supportingdocument")

Publication inOfficial Journal,Info. pack andthis guide onrequest

Any time until30 April 2001 Submission of supporting documents

Typically twice per yearuntil final evaluation inSpring 2001

External experts evaluatethe "supporting document"

Same informationas supplied toproposers

Identification of priority topics

Typically twice per yearUntil Summer 2001

List of priority topics published asa dedicated call

Publication inOfficial Journal,Info. pack and"supportingdocument" onrequest

Deadlines

Type af action Opening/closingdates Deadlines for receipt

Call for Expressions of Interest for the needsfor research:

- Measurements and Testing (objectives 6.2.1,6.2.2, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3)- Support for Infrastructure (objectives 7.1 to7.4)

15 March 99 / 30 April2001

30/4/99, 15/6/99, 15/12/99,15/6/2000, 30/4/2001

6.1.3.4 SME's specific Measures

SME specific Measures are designed especially to encourage and facilitate the participation of SMEs inRTD, demonstration and combined projects and support activities having a great potential for innovation inSMEs. The implementation of these measures follows the common rules established in the horizontalprogramme "Innovation and the participation of SMEs".

These measures consist of:

"Co-operative Research" proposals (CRAFT) enable at least three mutually independent SMEsfrom at least two different Member States, or one Member State and an Associated State, to jointlyseek the resolution of their common technological problems by entrusting it to third legal entities (the"RTD performers"), including industrial entities, with appropriate research or technological validation

Grant No. 213546

capacities. In the context of Co-operative Research projects, those SME contractors which are ableto carry out part of the research work themselves may do so up to 60% of total project costs, leavingthe remainder (40% or more) to be executed by the RTD performer. The total cost of Co-operativeResearch projects may not exceed 2 Meuro, of which the Commission may fund up to 50%. Theirmaximum duration is 24 months. Co-operative Research projects may include a validation phase."Exploratory Awards" allow at least 2 SMEs from 2 different Member States, or one Member Stateand an Associated State, to obtain financial support from the Commission to prepare a completeproject proposal. The total cost of an Exploratory Award may not exceed 30.000 Euro, of which theCommission may finance up to 75% (or 22.500 Euro). The maximum duration of an ExploratoryAward is 12 months.

An Exploratory Award is intended to prepare a complete project proposals: either a CRAFT project proposalthat is submitted in response to the open call, or an RTD, demonstration or combined project submitted inresponse to a periodic call. Co-operative Research proposals and Exploratory Awards proposals aimed atCo-operative Research (CRAFT) may fall within the overall objectives of the thematic programme. In otherwords, they do not have to relate to the specific objectives and priorities of the key actions and generictechnologies. As such, these measures allow for a ‘bottom up’ character since proposals may be submittedfor the objectives and priorities of the thematic programme in its entirety.

Exploratory Awards intended to prepare non-CRAFT projects must address priorities identified in the WorkProgramme regarding the periodic call envisaged for the submission of the resulting project proposals. Inaddition, they must be submitted sufficiently in advanced of the closing date of the envisaged periodic call(i.e. at least 9 months between the chosen cut-off date for the submission of the Exploratory Award proposaland the closing date of the periodic call). Non-CRAFT project proposals prepared through ExploratoryAwards must conform to the priorities of the periodic call in response to which they are submitted (even ifthese priorities have changed compared to those on the base of which the Exploratory Award proposalswere selected).

6.1.3.5 Accompanying measures

Accompanying measures (8) are aimed at contributing to the implementation of the programme, to the up-dating of the Work programme, the preparation of future activities and the dissemination of results.

For the specific case of accompanying measure proposals consisting of policy-driven research studiescontributing to the specific objectives of the Key Action 2 Sustainable mobility and intermodality , theseproposals must be submitted in response to periodic calls and conform to the priorities specified in thesecalls. Accompanying measures on very specific topics may be included in dedicated calls.

An open call for Accompanying measures proposals has been published in the Official Journal N° C72 onMarch 16, 1999. It covers the following types of measures:

Measure 1. Studies contributing to the implementation of Key Actions, Generic activities orSupport for Research Infrastructures: prospective, impact assessment, or strategic studiesaddressing scientific, technical, socio-economic, and policy dimensions related to a specificobjective or activity (e.g. targeted research action, technology platform) of the programme (9).Measure 2. Studies in preparation of future activities: proposals should address, with aEuropean perspective, broad cross-cutting RTD policy issues related to industrial competitivenessand sustainable growth or focus on important specific socio-economic problems/needs, emergingtechnologies, technological systems, industrial sectors, or changing techno-industrial clusters. Theyshould include as appropriate a combination of the following: socio-economic challenges andopportunities, driving forces and directions of change, short/medium/long term goals fortechnological innovation, technological bottlenecks and research roadmaps, prospectiveassessment of the impacts of new technologies, comparative assessment of European capabilities,needs and opportunities for European and international RTD cooperation, technical and non-technical barriers to technology deployment, and implications for European RTD and other policies.Measure 3. Innovation support actions to promote and facilitate the diffusion, transfer,exploitation and broad use of results, particularly in SMEs, through a variety of mechanisms,

Grant No. 213546

including, innovation support networks and events (e.g. investment fora, technology brokerageevents), promotion of best practices regarding the use of well-founded and established methods andtechnologies, assessment actions (e.g. user needs), publications, web sites, and otherdissemination actions and means aimed at various user communities (including policy makers,standardisation bodies). Actions addressing not only the technical aspects of innovation but also,where appropriate, social, organisational, management and skill related aspects are encouraged.

Take-up measures involving significant technical work (e.g. trials, first user actions, and assessmentand qualification actions) are not funded through Accompanying Measures. They should be includedin or submitted as Cooperative Research, R&D, demonstration or combined R&D/demonstrationprojects submitted in response to relevant calls for proposals.

Measure 4. Awareness, assistance and information exchange actions: to increase awarenessabout specific objectives or activities of the programme and encourage the participation of particularcommunities (e.g. users and socio-economic researchers in RTD activities, SMEs in the Marie Curiefellowship chemes); to promote exchange of information between the research community, usersand other stakeholders. Actions may include conferences, seminars, workshops or other scientificand technical meetings, publications, web sites, etc.

Information and assistance actions to promote the participation of SMEs in SME specific measures(Exploratory Awards and Co-operative research projects) will normally be supported by thehorizontal programme Innovation and participation of SMEs. Exchange of information andcollaboration within network of projects is supported via Thematic Networks or Concerted Actions.

Measure 5. Training actions in support of RTD activities of the programme (other than MarieCurie Fellowships), addressing researchers and users.

Proposals consisting of the organisation of an event (e.g.conference, workshop, exhibitions, etc.) (Measure3 and 4) should be submitted sufficiently in advance of the planned date for evaluation (the time between thedeadline for receipt of proposals and the date of the event should be at least 6 months).

Actions devoted to the commercialisation of products, processes or services, marketing activities and salespromotion are excluded. Proposed actions must have a clear European dimension and well defined andsignificant contribution to the relevant objective or activity of the programme and be of interest to a widergroup of organisations than the proposers themselves. Financial participation can be up to 100% of the totaleligible costs if the action is of broad interest and the proposers do not benefit directly from the results of theaction; up to 75% for studies and up to 50% for the other types of actions if the proposers benefit directlyfrom the results of the action (10).

6.1.3.6 Marie Curie Training Fellowships

Marie Curie training fellowships - consisting of

Industry Host Fellowships: these are awarded to registered companies for the training of youngpost-graduate and post-doctoral researchers in an industrial environment andExperienced Researcher Fellowships (category 40): these allow experienced researchers totransfer knowledge and technology between industry and academia or to contribute to the scientificdevelopment of institutions in less-favoured regions.

6.1.3.7 INCO Bursaries

Short-term training grants (6 months) to give young researchers from Developing Countries the opportunityto collaborate in ongoing RTD projects and concerted actions are implemented jointly with the Programmeon Confirming the International Role of Community Research.

Grant No. 213546

6.1.4 List of FP5 calls published

Growth Programme Calls for Proposals by Call Type

Periodic Calls

Fixed deadline call - Call for proposals for indirect RTD actionsOpening date: 01.06.2001Closing date: See Call text[Call identifier: Growth June 2001]

Fixed deadline call - Call for proposals for indirect RTD actionsOpening date: 14.12.2000 (Referred to as "15 December 2000" Call)Closing date: See Call text - KA1 and MAT: 15.05.2001 - KA2 KA3 and M&T: 15.03.2001 - KA4: 30.03.2001[Call identifier: Growth 2001]

Fixed Deadline Call - RTD, Demonstration and Combined Projects; Thematic Networksand Concerted Actions; INCO Bursaries; Accompanying Measures under Key Action 2onlyOpening date: 06.06.2000Closing date: 29.09.2000[Call identifier: GROWTH June 2000]

Fixed Deadline Call - RTD, Demonstration and Combined Projects; Thematic Networksand Concerted Actions; INCO Bursaries; Accompanying Measures under Key Action 2onlyOpening date: 15.12.1999Closing date: 31.03.2000[Call identifier: GROWTH 2000]

Fixed Deadline Call - RTD, Demonstration and Combined Projects; Thematic Networksand Concerted Actions; INCO Bursaries; Accompanying Measures under Key Action 2onlyOpening date: 16.03.1999Closing date: 15.06.1999[Call identifier: Growth 1999]

Open Calls

Joint call for proposals - IST & GROWTH programmes - "Intelligent ManufacturingSystems"Opening date: 27.01.2001Closing date: See Call text[Call identifier: IMS]

Corrigenda to the Open Call of 16.03.1999Continuous Submission Scheme - Accompanying measures, SME measures, Marie CurieFellowships, Expressions of Interest for specific research needs [Call identifier: GROWTH 1999]

Marie Curie Fellowships: Industry host fellowships and Experience researchers'fellowshipsOpening date: 16.03.1999

Grant No. 213546

Closing date: 28.02.2002 at 5.00 pmTentative deadlines for receipt: 2.6.1999, 19.11.1999, 22.3.2000, 18.9.2000, 21.3.2001, 19.9.2001and 28.2.2002

SME specific measures: Exploratory awards and Cooperative researchOpening date: 16.03.1999Closing date: 18.04.2001 at 5.00 pm for exploratory awardsClosing date: 28.02.2002 at 5.00 pm for cooperative research proposals

Tentative deadlines for receipt: exploratory awards: 14.4.1999, 15.9.1999, 12.1.2000, 26.4.2000,13.9.2000, 17.1.2001, 18.4.2001

Tentative deadlines for receipt: cooperative research proposals: 15.9.1999, 12.1.2000, 26.4.2000,13.9.2000, 17.1.2001, 18.4.2001, 16.1.2002, 28.2.2002.

Accompanying measuresOpening date: 16.03.1999Closing date: 28.02.2002 at 5.00 pmTentative deadlines for receipt: 15.6.1999, 15.11.1999, 15.3.2000, 15.9.2000, 15.3.2001, 15.9.2001and 28.2.2002.

Expressions of interest for the needs of researchExpressions of interest for the needs in support for research infrastructuresOpening date: 16.03.1999Closing date: 30.04.2001Evaluation every six months[Call identifier: Growth 1999]

'Intelligent Manufacturing Systems'Joint call for proposals IST & GrowthOpening date: 16.03.1999Closing date: 15.09.2000[Call identifier: IMS]

Dedicated calls

Measurements and Testing, InfrastructuresOpening date: 16.10.2001Closing date: 15.02.2002[Call identifier: GROW/DC5MTI]

Call for proposals to extend existing contracts under the specific programme forresearch, technological development and demonstration on "Competitive andSustainable Growth" (1998 to 2002) to include partners from the « Newly AssociatedStates » (NAS)Opening date: 01.09.2001Closing date: 13.12.2001[Call identifier: Growth 2001 NAS]

Measurements & Testing - InfrastructuresOpening date: 13.10.2000Closing date: 15.03.2001 (Deadline for receipt)[Call identifier: Growth-Dedicated Call October 2000 : M&T, Infrastructure]

Grant No. 213546

Measurements & Testing - InfrastructuresOpening date: 14.04.2000Closing date: 15.09.2000 at 5:00pm[Call identifier: Growth-Dedicated Call April 2000 : M&T, Infrastructure]

Measurements & Testing, InfrastructuresOpening date: 15.10.1999Closing date: 15.03.2000[Call identifier: Growth-Dedicated call-10/99:M&T, Infrastructure]

Measurements and Testing, Support for research InfrastructuresRestricted to following RTD subjects:

1. Methodologies to support standardisation and Community policies2. Needs in support of measurements and quality management infrastructures

Opening date: 15.07.1999Closing date: 15.12.1999 at 5.00 pm[Call identifier: Growth-Dedicated call-7/99:M&T, Infrastructure]

Key action : sustainable mobility and intermodalitySecond Generation Satellite Navigation and Positioning Systems (GNSS-2)Opening date: 30.06.1999Closing date: 01.10.1999[Call identifier: Dedicated call GNSS-2]

Grant No. 213546

Framework Programme 6

Sustainable surface transport

Overview

Intended to strengthen the scientific and technological capacities needed for Europe to be able to implementsustainable development, and integrating its environmental, economic and social objectives with particularregard to renewable energy, transport, and sustainable management of Europe's land and marineresources.

Main objectives:

Strengthening the S&T capacities needed for Europe to be able to implement a sustainable developmentmodel in the short and in the long term, integrating its social, economic and environmental dimensions;contributing to international efforts mitigating adverse trends in global change.

Thematic area:

Sustainable surface transport Environmentally friendly and competitive transport systems and means of transport

o New technologies and concepts for all surface transport modes (road, rail,waterborne)

o Advanced design and production techniques Safer, more effective and competitive rail and maritime transport

o Rebalancing and integrating different transport modeso Increasing road, rail and waterborne safety and avoiding traffic congestion

Budget:

The indicative budget allocated to the Thematic Priority Sustainable development, global change andecosystems for the duration of FP6 is 2.120 MEUR distributed as follows:

Sustainable surface transport: 610 MEUR

6.1.5 Strategic objectives

Based on the Treaty establishing the European Union, the Framework Programme has to serve two mainstrategic objectives: Strengthening the scientific and technological bases of industry and encourage itsinternational competitiveness while promoting research activities in support of other EU policies. These twoobjectives are setting the general scene for choosing priorities and instruments.

Who could consider participation?

A research group at university or at a research institute:Research institutions are one of the main target groups of FP6. They find possibilities in virtually allactions of FP6, from participation in research projects to becoming hosts for mobility and trainingactions.

A company intending to innovateCompanies are one of the main target groups of FP6, in particular SMEs, for which 15% of the budget ofthe thematic priorities is reserved. Companies can take part in all research activities. They can alsobecome hosts for mobility and training actions.

Grant No. 213546

A Small or medium-sized enterprise (SME)SMEs are encouraged to take part in all thematic areas. 15% of the budget is reserved for them. Inaddition, for SMEs intending to innovate without having their own research capacity, the "co-operativeresearch" instrument is appropriate. Consortia involving a minimum of three SMEs from two differentcountries can entrust research and development tasks to scientific institutions. The SMEs will own theresults.

A SMEs Association or groupingTo boost innovation of whole groups of SMEs or of sectors dominated by SMEs, the instrument"collective research" is foreseen. Business associations (consortia of at least two national associationsfrom two different countries or one international association) may receive funding to entrust researchactivities to research institutions.

Public administrationsIf the organisation is dealing with research policy or management of public research programmes, theERA-NET scheme might be of interest. The scheme gives support to transnational coordination and co-operation of research activities carried out at national or regional level. Otherwise, public administrationscan be valuable partners of consortia in areas where they play a role in the use of research results (e.g.in health, environment, transport, legislation etc...) Undergraduate students

In general, activities funded under FP6 do not seek to target undergraduates directly, with the exception ofsome actions to promote science among young people.

Early stage researchers (post-graduate)Special mobility and training schemes are foreseen in FP6 for early-stage researchers, enabling them tofurther their research career by working in an institution in a country different from their country of origin orresidence. Furthermore, these researchers can get support for participation in international conferences andtraining courses.

Experienced researchersSpecial mobility actions are foreseen in FP6 for experienced researchers (having a PhD or 4 years researchexperience). Their aim is to provide advanced training or to support the transfer of knowledge to institutionsintending to develop new areas of activities or to institutions in less favoured regions.

Acknowledge world-classThere are Excellence Grants to enable a promising researcher to create a team engaged in leading edge ormulti-disciplinary research, and Chairs for making top-level teaching appointments, in particular to attractworld-class researchers and encourage them to resume their careers in Europe.

Institutions running research facility of transnational interestThe infrastructure actions are of interest to institutions hosting an important research facility. They offersupport for transnational access for guest researchers from Europe or other countries. Moreover, supportwill also be given for design studies and development of new infrastructures and for communicationnetworks.

Organisations and persons from third countryInternational co-operation (=co-operation with third countries not being a member state or an associatedstate) is an integral part of FP6, with the following three complementary routes for participating and funding:

1. The opening of the bulk of research activities to third country organizations2. Specific measures in support of international co-operation3. International mobility of researchers (fellowships to and from third countries)

OthersThe list of potential participants is just exemplary, not exhaustive. Other entities like European EconomicInterest Groups (EEIGs), European interest organisations, international organisations, non-governmentalorganisations, end-users, specialist service providers (management, dissemination etc) and many othersmay also participate.

Grant No. 213546

The European and international dimension

Following the principle of subsidiarity, projects have to be transnational: only consortia of partners fromdifferent member and associated countries can apply. For mobility and training actions the fellows have togo to a country different from their country of origin or residence. Activities that can better be carried out atnational or regional level, i.e. without co-operation across borders will in general not be eligible under theFramework Programme.

6.1.6 Activity Areas

These are the research areas and research activities that are eligible for funding under FP6.

Thematic Areas

Covers those areas where the EU in the medium term intends to become the most competitive and dynamic,knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobsand greater social cohesion.

Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health:

To exploit breakthroughs achieved in decoding the genomes of living organisms, for the benefit of publichealth and to increase the competitiveness of the European biotechnology industry. Also to bring basicknowledge through to the application stage to enable real progress at European level in medicine andimprove the quality of life.

Information society technologies:

Intended to stimulate the development in Europe of both hardware and software technologies andapplications at the heart of the creation of the information society in order to increase the competitiveness ofEuropean industry and allow European citizens the possibility of benefiting fully from the development of theknowledge-based society

Nanotechnologies and nano-sciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials and new productionprocesses and devices:

Intended to help Europe achieve a critical mass of capacities needed to develop and exploit, especially forgreater eco-efficiency and reduction of discharges of hazardous substances to the environment, leading-edge technologies for the knowledge-based products, services and manufacturing processes of the years tocome.

Aeronautics and space

To strengthen, by integrating its research efforts, the scientific and technological bases of the Europeanaeronautics and space industry and encouraging it to become more competitive at international level; and tohelp exploit the potential of European research in this sector with a view to improving safety andenvironmental protection.

Food quality and safety

Intended to help establish the integrated scientific and technological bases needed to develop anenvironmentally friendly production and distribution chain of safer and varied food. To control food-relatedrisks, relying on biotechnology tools taking into account post-genomic research, as well as to control healthrisks associated with environmental changes.

Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems

Grant No. 213546

Intended to strengthen the scientific and technological capacities needed for Europe to be able to implementsustainable development, and integrating its environmental, economic and social objectives with particularregard to renewable energy, transport, and sustainable management of Europe's land and marineresources.

Citizens and governance in a knowledge-based society

Intended to mobilise in a coherent effort, in all their wealth and diversity, European research capacities ineconomic, political, social sciences and humanities necessary to develop an understanding of theemergence of the knowledge-based society and new forms of relationships between its citizens, on the onehand and between its citizens and institutions, on the other.

Cross-cutting research activities

Activities under this heading will complement research within the 7 thematic areas.

Research for policy support

Intended to respond to the scientific and technological needs of the policies of the Community, underpinningthe formulation and implementation of Community policies, bearing in mind also the interests of futuremembers of the Community and associated countries. They may include pre-normative research,measurement and testing.

New and emerging science and technology (NEST)

Intended to respond flexibly and rapidly to major unforeseeable developments, emerging scientific andtechnological problems and opportunities, as well as needs appearing at the frontiers of knowledge, morespecifically in multi-thematic and interdisciplinary areas.

Specific SME activities

Carried out in support of European competitiveness and enterprise and innovation policy, these specificactivities are intended to help European SMEs in traditional or new areas to boost their technologicalcapacities and develop their ability to operate on a European and international scale.

International co-operation activities

In support of the external relations, including the development policy of the Community, specific measuresaimed at encouraging international research cooperation will be undertaken. Apart from these specificmeasures, third country participation will be possible within the 7 thematic priorities.

JRC activities

In accordance with its mission of providing scientific and technical support for Community policies, the JRCwill provide independent, customer-driven support for the formulation and implementation of Communitypolicies, including the monitoring of the implementation of such policies, within the areas of its specificcompetence.

Strengthening the foundations of ERA

To stimulate the coherent development of research and technology policy in Europe by supportingprogramme co-ordination and joint actions conducted at national and regional level as well as amongEuropean organisations. Activities may be implemented in any scientific and technological area.

Co-ordination of research activities

Grant No. 213546

Develop synergies between existing national activities; enhance the complementarity between Communityactions and those of other European scientific co-operation organisations in all fields of science (examples:health, biotechnology, environment, energy)

Development of research/innovation policies

Encourage coherent development of research and innovation policies in Europe by early identification ofchallenges and areas of common interest and by providing policy makers with knowledge and decision-aiding tools.

Structuring the ERA

The main aim is to fight structural weaknesses of European research. By their nature and means ofimplementation, the activities carried out within this programme are applicable to all fields of research andtechnology.

Research and innovation

To stimulate technological innovation, utilisation of research results, transfer of knowledge and technologiesand the setting up of technology businesses in the Community and in all its regions, not least in the lessdeveloped areas. Innovation is also one of the most important elements throughout this programme.

Marie Curie Actions - Human resources and mobility

To support the development of abundant world-class human resources in all regions of the EU by promotingtransnational mobility for training purposes, the development of expertise or the transfer of knowledge, inparticular between different sectors. To support the development of excellence and help to make Europemore attractive to third country researchers.

Research infrastructures

To help establish a fabric of research infrastructures of the highest level in Europe and to promote theiroptimum use on a European scale.

Science and society

To encourage the development of harmonious relations between science and society and the opening-up ofinnovation in Europe, as well as contributing to scientists' critical thinking and responsiveness to societalconcerns, as a result of the establishment of new relations and an informed dialogue between researchers,industrialists, political decision-makers and citizens.

Nuclear energy

Aims at intensifying and deepening the already well established co-operation at European level in the field ofnuclear research.

Controlled thermonuclear fusion

Controlled thermonuclear fusion could contribute to long-term energy supply and, therefore, to therequirements of sustainable development for a reliable centralised supply of baseload electricity.

Management of radioactive waste

Grant No. 213546

The exploitation of nuclear fission energy for energy production requires progress to be made in the problemof waste, and more particularly the industrial implementation of technical solutions for the management oflong-lived waste.

Radiation protection

Vigilance is still required to ensure a continuation of the EU outstanding safety record. EU enlargementintroduces new challenges. Improvement of radiation protection continues to be a priority area. Activities willbe carried out in several areas including "risk and emergency management", "radio-ecology", "protection ofworkplace and environment", ...

Other activities in the field of nuclear technologies and safety

To respond to the scientific and technical needs of the policies of the Community in the fields of health,energy and the environment, to ensure that the European capability is maintained at a high level in relevantfields not covered by priority thematic areas, and to contribute towards the creation of the EuropeanResearch Area.

6.1.7 Classification of FP6 InstrumentsThe Instruments have been classified into three different groups on the basis of their purpose:

The first group comprises the instruments aimed at generating, demonstrating and validating newknowledge through research and development, and is composed of Integrated Projects (IPs) andSpecific Targeted Research Projects (STREPs);

The second group is composed only of the Networks of Excellence (NoEs), an instrument aimed atthe durable integration of the participants’ activities/capacities;

The third group comprises the instruments aimed at supporting collaboration and coordination, andother activities (such as conferences and studies) and is composed of Coordination Actions (CAs)and Specific Support Actions (SSAs).

Grant No. 213546

Instruments aimed at generating, demonstrating and validating new knowledgeInstrument Purpose “Target ”

audienceActivities coveredby EU contribution

Fundingmechanism

Indicationonvalue of EUcontribution1

Averageduration

“Optimum”size ofconsortium2

Flexibility Enlargement ofpartnershipwithinthe initialbudget

Specificcharacteristics

IntegratedProject(IP)

Ambitiousobjective-drivenresearchdealing withdifferentissuesthrough a“programmeapproach”

Industry, includingSMEs

ResearchinstitutesUniversities

(Possibly)Potential end-users

One or more of:Research

Demonstration

Training

Innovation linkedactivities

Management of theconsortium

Cost based € 10 million€ 4-25million

36-60months

10-20participants

Yearlyupdate ofwork plan

Possible through“competitivecalls”

“Programmeapproach”,focussing onmultiple issues

As a rule severalcomponents

Oftenmultidisciplinary

SpecificTargetedResearchProjects(STREP)

Objective-drivenresearchmore limitedin scope thanIPs andusuallyfocussed on asingle issue

Industry, includingSMEs

Researchinstitutes

Universities

One or more of:ResearchDemonstrationInnovation linkedactivitiesManagement of theconsortium

Cost based € 1.9 million€ 0.8-3million

18-36months

6-15participants

Fixedoverallwork plan

Possible “Projectapproach”,focussing on asingle issue

As a rule onecomponent

Oftenmonodisciplinary

Network ofExcellence(NoE)

Durableintegrationof theparticipants’researchactivities

Researchinstitutes

Universities

Mainly indirectly:Industry (possiblyThrough steeringcommittees,governing boards,scientificcommittees)

Joint programme ofactivities (JPA):

Integrating activities

Joint researchprogramme

Spreading ofexcellence

And

Calculation of thegrantMaximum grantcalculated on thebasis of thenumber ofresearchers

Possibility for theparticipants torequest a loweramount

€ 7 million€ 4-15million

48-60months

6-12participants

Yearlyupdate ofthe workplan

Possible through“competitivecalls”

Institutionalcommitment atstrategic levelfromthe very start andfor the wholeduration

As a rule limitednumber of

Grant No. 213546

SMEs(possibly throughtakeup actions)

Management of theconsortium Payment of the

grantBased on actualcosts forimplementing theJPA

AndOn basis of theprogresstowards durableintegration

partners

Coordination Action(CA)

Coordination,networking

Researchinstitutes

Universities

Industry includingSME

Activities intended toimprove and effect thecoordination ofresearch carried out inanother context thatcan include:programmes ofmeetings, seminars,workshops, workinggroups, studies,analyses, exchanges ofpersonnel,exchange anddissemination ofgood practices,setting up ofinformation systemsManagement of theconsortium

Cost based € 1 million€ 0.5-1.2million

18-36months

13-26participants


Possible No funding ofresearch activities

Consistent set ofactivitiesfocussingon coordination(“programme”approach)

SpecificSupportAction(SSA)

Preparation offuture actions,support topolicy,disseminationof results

Researchinstitutes

Universities

Industry includingSMEs

Individual meetings,seminars, workshops,studies, publications,scientific awards andcompetitionsManagement of theconsortium

Cost based

Public procurement(payment of a pricefollowing a call fortender) whenprovision of serviceto the Commission

€ 0.5 million€ 0.03-1million

9-30months

1-15participants


Possible No funding ofresearch activities

“Project”approach

Possibility of onesingle participant

Grant No. 213546

6.1.8 Budget outlineSixth framework programme for RTD and demonstration activities

(EUR million)

1. Focusing and integrating Community research 14 682

Thematic priorities (1) 12 438• Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health. (2) 2514

Advanced genomics and its applications for health 1 209

Combating major diseases 1 305• Information society technologies (3) 3 984

• Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-basedmultifunctional materials and new production processesand devices

1 429

• Aeronautics and space 1 182

• Food quality and safety 753• Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems 2 329

Sustainable energy systems 890

Sustainable surface transport 670 Global change and ecosystems 769

• Citizens and governance in a knowledge-based society 247Specific activities covering a wider field of research 1 409

• Policy support and anticipating scientific andtechnological needs 590

• Horizontal research activities involving SMEs 473

• Specific measures in support of international cooperation.(4) 346

Non-nuclear activities of the Joint Research Centre 835

2. Structuring the European Research Area 2 854

Research and innovation 319Human resources 1 732

Research infrastructures (5) 715Science and society 88

3. Strengthening the foundations of the European Research Area 347

Support for the coordination of activities 292Support for the coherent development of policies 55

TOTAL 17 883

Grant No. 213546

(1) Of which at least 15 % for SMEs.(2) Including up to EUR 475 million for cancer-related research.(3) Including up to EUR 110 million for the further development of Géant and GRID.(4) The amount of EUR 346 million will fund specific measures in support of internationalcooperation involving developing countries, Mediterranean countries (including the WesternBalkans), and Russia and the New Independent States (NIS). Another EUR 312 million isearmarked to finance the participation of third-country organisations in the “ThematicPriorities” and in the “Specific activities covering a wider field of research”, thus bringing thetotal amount devoted to international cooperation to EUR 658 million. Additional resources willbe available under section 2.2 “Human resources and mobility” to fund research training forthird-country researchers in Europe.(5) Including up to EUR 218 million for the further development of Géant and GRID.

6.1.9 List of FP6 calls publishedFP6-2006-TTC-TU-Priority-6-1Specific call to promote the participation of partners from Targeted Third Countries in projects forwhich contracts are already signed or under negotiation in priority thematic areas of researchFP6-2006-TTC-TU-Priority-6-2Specific call to promote the participation of partners from Targeted Third Countries in projects forwhich contracts are already signed or under negotiation in priority thematic areas of researchFP6-2006-TTC-TU-Priority-6-3Specific call to promote the participation of partners from Targeted Third Countries in projects forwhich contracts are already signed or under negotiation in priority thematic areas of research.FP6-2002-Transport-2Thematic call in the area of “Sustainable Surface Transport Specific Support Actions”FP6-2005-Global-4Thematic call in the area of 'Global Change and Ecosystems'FP6-2005-Energy-4Thematic call in the area of 'Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems, 1)Sustainable Energy Systems, ii) Research activities having an impact in the medium and longerterm'FP6-2005-TREN-4Periodic call in the area of “Sustainable energy systems” and 'Sustainable surface transport'FP6-2005-Transport-4Thematic call in the area of 'Surface Transport 3B'FP6-2004-Global-3Call for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research,technological development and demonstration: 'Integrating and strengthening the EuropeanResearch Area'FP6-2004-Hydrogen-2Thematic call in the area of Support of the co-ordination, assessment and monitoring of researchto contribute to the definition phase for a hydrogen communities technology initiativeFP6-2004-Hydrogen-1Thematic call in the area of Component development and systems integration of hydrogen andfuel cells for transport and other applicationsFP6-2004-TREN-3Periodic call in the area of 'Aeronautics and Space', 'Sustainable energy systems' and'Sustainable surface transport'FP6-2004-Energy-3Thematic call in the area of 'Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems, 1)Sustainable Energy Systems, ii) Research activities having an impact in the medium and longerterm'.FP6-2003-Transport-3Thematic call in the area of 'Surface Transport 2B'FP6-2003-Global-2Thematic call in the area of 'Global Change and Ecosystems'

Grant No. 213546

FP6-2003-Energy-2Thematic call in the area of 'Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems, 1)Sustainable Energy Systems, ii) Research activities having an impact in the medium and longerterm'.FP6-2003-TREN-2Periodic call in the area of 'Aeronautics and Space', 'Sustainable energy systems' and'Sustainable surface transport'.FP6-2003-ACC-SSA-GeneralSpecific Support Actions (SSA) for Associated Candidate CountriesFP6-2003-ACC-SSA-EnergyTargeted Specific Support Actions (SSA) for Associated Candidate CountriesFP6-2003-ACC-SSA-TransportTargeted Specific Support Actions (SSA) for Associated Candidate CountriesFP6-2002-Transport-1Thematic call in the area of “Surface Transport 1B”FP6-2002-TREN-1Periodic call in the area of 'Aeronautics and Space', 'Sustainable energy systems' and'Sustainable surface transport'FP6-2002-Global-1Thematic call in the area of Global Change and EcosystemsFP6-2002-Energy-1Thematic call in the area of “Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems, 1)Sustainable Energy Systems, ii) Research activities having an impact in the medium and longerterm”EOI.FP6.SES-ML.2003An opportunity for Europe's research community to help identify priorities for the mid-termrevision of the Work Programme for the FP6 Thematic Priority 6.1.ii – sustainable energysystems, research activities having an impact in the medium and longer term

Sustainable Surface Transport specific calls

Joint Call for the Thematic Priorities »Aeronautics and Space«, »Sustainable EnergySystems« and »Sustainable Surface Transport«, financed by DG TREN

Joint Call with relevance to the Priority 4 »Aeronautics and Space« and Priority 6 “SustainableDevelopment, Global Change and Ecosystems” with Sub-priorities 6.1. »Sustainable EnergySystems« and »Sustainable Surface Transport« was published on the 8th of July 2005 in theOfficial Journal:

TREN - 4OJ Reference: OJ C168 of 8.07.2005Available budget: 161 MEUR (DG TREN)Call identifier: FP6-2005-TREN-4Deadline: All instruments - 22 December 2005 at 17.00 Brussels local time!

Open Topics:

Activity Code Areas addressedApplicableinstruments

SUSTDEV Sustainable development, global change and

Grant No. 213546

ecosystems

SUSTDEV-1 Sustainable Energy Systems

SUSTDEV-1.1 Research activities having an impact in the short andmedium term

SUSTDEV-1.1.1 Cost-effective supply of renewable energies

SUSTDEV-2005-1.1.1-1 Demonstrations of innovative designs of automatedbiomass heating systems STREP

SUSTDEV-2005-1.1.1-2 Solar heating and cooling STREP

SUSTDEV-2005-1.1.1-3 Geothermal energy STREP

SUSTDEV-2005-1.1.1-4 Innovative wind farms, components and design tools STREP

SUSTDEV-2005-1.1.1-5 Demonstrations of the next generation of PVtechnologies / products STREP

SUSTDEV-2005-1.1.1-6 Ocean / marine energy technologies STREP

SUSTDEV-2005-1.1.1-7 All CA SSA

SUSTDEV-1.1.3 Eco-buildings STREP

SUSTDEV-1.1.4 Polygeneration STREP

SUSTDEV-2005-1.1.6CONCERTO II – Managing energy demand andrenewable energy supply in high performancecommunities

IP

SUSTDEV-2005-1.1.7-1 Grid issues - Distributed generation STREP CASSA

SUSTDEV-2005-1.1.7-2 Grid issues - Management of electricity grids linkedto large scale wind power generation

STREP CASSA

SUSTDEV-2005-1.1.8-1 Thematic Promotion and Dissemination - Renewableelectricity technologies SSA

SUSTDEV-2005-1.1.8-2 Thematic Promotion and Dissemination - Renewableheating and cooling technologies SSA

SUSTDEV-2005-1.1.8-3 Thematic Promotion and Dissemination - Productionand distribution of liquid and gaseous biofuels SSA

SUSTDEV-2005-1.1.8-4 Thematic Promotion and Dissemination - Eco-buildings SSA

SUSTDEV-2005-1.1.8-5 Thematic Promotion and Dissemination -Polygeneration SSA

SUSTDEV-2005-1.1.8-6Thematic Promotion and Dissemination - Energydemand management and renewable energy supplyin high performance communities

SSA

SUSTDEV-2005-1.1.8-7 Thematic Promotion and Dissemination - Alternativemotor fuels SSA

SUSTDEV-2 Sustainable surface transport

SUSTDEV-2.1 Developing environmentally friendly and competitivetransport systems and means of transport

SUSTDEV-2.1.1 New technologies and concepts for all surfacetransport modes (Road, Rail and Waterborne)

SUSTDEV-2005- CIVITAS dissemination and best practice transfer SSA

Grant No. 213546

3.1.1.1.6 action

SUSTDEV-2.2 Making rail and maritime transport safer, moreeffective and more competitive

SUSTDEV-2.2.1 Re-balancing and integrating different transportmodes

SUSTDEV-2005-3.3.1.3.4 New concepts for trans-European rail freight services IP

SUSTDEV-2005-3.3.1.3.6 Motorways of the sea (MoS) IP

SUSTDEV-2005-3.3.1.3.7

EU co-ordination and promotion forum on intermodalpassenger travel CA

SUSTDEV-2005-3.3.1.3.8 Knowledge base for intermodal passenger travel STREP

SUSTDEV-2005-3.3.1.3.13

Vessel data management (Voyage data recorder,Electronic logbooks) STREP

SUSTDEV-2.2.2 Increasing road, rail and waterborne safety andavoiding traffic congestion

SUSTDEV-2005-3.4.1.4.11 Improve infrastructure cost allocation methods STREP

SUSTDEV-2005-3.4.1.4.12 Design appropriate contractual relationships STREP

Thematic call in the area of Sustainable Surface Transport, Surface Transport 3B - ii)Research activities having an impact in the medium and longer term

Thematic Call with relevance to the Priority 6 “Sustainable Development, Global Change andEcosystems” with Sub-priority 6.2. »Sustainable Surface Transport« - Surface Transport 3Bwas published on the 31st of March 2005 in the Official Journal:

Sustainable Surface Transport – Surface Transport 3B - ii) Research activitieshaving an impact in the medium and longer termOJ Reference: OJ C 079 of 01.04.2005Available budget: 150 MEUR (DG RTD) + 5MEUR (DG RTD) - SSAsCall identifier: FP6-2005-Transport-4Deadline: All instruments - 1 September 2005 at 17.00 Brussels local time!

Open Topics:

Activity Code Areas addressed Applicableinstruments

SUSTDEV Sustainable development, global change andecosystems



SUSTDEV-2.1.1 New technologies and concepts for all surface transportmodes (Road, Rail and Waterborne)

Grant No. 213546

SUSTDEV-2005-3.1.1.1.1

Low cost power-integrated advanced hybridconfigurations IP

SUSTDEV-2005-3.1.1.1.2

Towards advanced road transport for urbanenvironment IP

SUSTDEV-2005-3.1.1.1.3 Efficient rail traction and sustainable energy supply IP

SUSTDEV-2005-3.1.1.1.4

Research domain 1.4 (for all transport modes and forroad transport with emphasis on after-treatment) andresearch domain 1.8

STREP

SUSTDEV-2005-3.1.1.1.5

Research domains 1.4 to 1.10 for all surface transportmodes CP

SUSTDEV-2.1.2 Advanced design and production techniquesSUSTDEV-2005-3.2.2.2.1

Future road vehicle production structures (the 5 day carinitiative) IP

SUSTDEV-2005-3.2.2.2.2

Development of cost-effective high performance trackinfrastructure for heavy and light rail systems IP

SUSTDEV-2005-3.2.2.2.3

Structuring the European Marine Testing capacity forincreased competitiveness NoE

SUSTDEV-2005-3.2.2.2.4

Research domain 2.2 (only for a new generation ofproducts and systems in waterborne transport),research domain 2.3 (for all types of transport vehiclesand vessels excluding passenger cars), researchdomain 2.4 and research domain 2.6 (with specialconsideration of the needs of New Member States)

STREP

SUSTDEV-2005-3.2.2.2.5

Research domains 2.1 to 2.7 for all surface transportmodes CA

SUSTDEV-2.2 Making rail and maritime transport safer, more effectiveand more competitive

SUSTDEV-2.2.1 Re-balancing and integrating different transport modes

SUSTDEV-2005-3.3.1.3.1 Effective operations in ports IP

SUSTDEV-2005-3.3.1.3.2

Research domain 3.14 (only for rail transport) andresearch domain 3.16 STREP

SUSTDEV-2005-3.3.1.3.3



SUSTDEV-2005-3.4.1.4.1 Safe maritime operations IP

SUSTDEV-2005-3.4.1.4.2

Research domain 4.13 (only for rail transport andpowered two-wheelers) and research domains 4.15 and4.16

STREP

SUSTDEV-2005-3.4.1.4.3


Grant No. 213546

Thematic call in the area of Support of the co-ordination, assessment and monitoring ofresearch to contribute to the definition phase for a hydrogen communities technologyinitiative

Thematic Call with relevance to the Priority 4 »Aeronautics and Space« and Priority 6“Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems” with Sub-priorities 6.1.»Sustainable Energy Systems« and »Sustainable Surface Transport« was published on the29th of June 2004 in the Official Journal:

Hydrogen - 2OJ Reference: OJ C169 of 29.06.2004Available budget: 4.5 MEUR (DG TREN)Call identifier: FP6-2004-Hydrogen-2Deadline: IP - 8 December 2004 at 17.00 local time!


AERO Aeronautics and space


SUSTDEV-1 Sustainable Energy SystemsSUSTDEV-2 Sustainable surface transport

SUSTDEV-AERO-2004-Hydrogen-2

Support of the co-ordination, assessment andmonitoring of research to contribute to the definitionphase for a hydrogen communities initiative

IP

Thematic call in the area of Component development and systems integration of »Hydrogenand Fuel Cells« for transport and other applications

Joint Call with relevance to the Priority 4 »Aeronautics and Space« and Priority 6 “SustainableDevelopment, Global Change and Ecosystems” with Sub-priorities 6.1. »Sustainable EnergySystems« and »Sustainable Surface Transport« was published on the 29th of June 2004 inthe Official Journal:

Hydrogen - 1OJ Reference: OJ C169 of 29.06.2004Available budget: 35 MEUR (DG TREN)Call identifier: FP6-2004-Hydrogen-1Deadline: Ips and STREPs - 8 December 2004 at 17.00 local time!

Open Topics:


AERO Aeronautics and space


SUSTDEV-1 Sustainable Energy SystemsSUSTDEV-2 Sustainable surface transportSUSTDEV-AERO-2004-Hydrogen-1.1 Fuel Cell and Hybrid Vehicle Development IP

STREP

Grant No. 213546

SUSTDEV-AERO-2004-Hydrogen-1.2

Integration of fuel cell systems and fuel processorsfor aeronautics, waterborne and other transportapplications

IP

Joint Call for the Thematic Priorities »Aeronautics and Space«, »Sustainable EnergySystems« and »Sustainable Surface Transport«, financed by DG TREN

Joint Call with relevance to the Priority 4 »Aeronautics and Space« and Priority 6“Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems” with Sub-priorities 6.1.»Sustainable Energy Systems« and »Sustainable Surface Transport« was published onthe 29th of June 2004 in the Official Journal:

TREN - 3OJ Reference: OJ C169 of 29.06.2004Available budget: 252 MEUR (DG TREN)Call identifier: FP6-2004-TREN-3Deadline: All instruments - 8 December 2004 at 17.00 local time!

Open Topics:


AERO Aeronautics and spaceAERO-1 Aeronautics

AERO-1.4 Increasing operational capacity and safety of the air transportsystem

AERO-2004-1.3.1.4g Innovative air traffic management research STREP

AERO-2004-1.3.1.4i

Specific Support Action for the Single European Sky and ATMMaster Plan SSA

AERO-2004-1.3.2.10 Co-operative ATM (C-ATM) (phases 2 and 3) IP

AERO-2004-1.3.2.11 Airport Efficiency (AFF) (phase 2) IP

SUSTDEV Sustainable development, global change and ecosystemsSUSTDEV-1 Sustainable Energy Systems

SUSTDEV-1.1 Research activities having an impact in the short and mediumterm

SUSTDEV-1.1.1 Cost-effective supply of renewable energies

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.1-1 Innovative combinations of biomass with fossil fuels IP

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.1-2

Innovative demonstrations of improvements to energyrecovery and renewable electricity production using wastematerials and other commonly available biomass feedstocks

IP

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.1-3

Innovative approaches to improving the yield of medium tolarge scale biogas plants STREP

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.1-4

Innovative combinations of biomass and wastes with fossilfuels STREP

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.1-5 Innovative wind farms, components and design tools STREP

SUSTDEV- Innovations in PV manufacturing plant at an industrial scale STREP

Grant No. 213546

2004-1.1.1-6SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.1-7 Geothermal energy STREP

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.1-8 Ocean / marine energy technologies STREP

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.1-9 All CA

SSASUSTDEV-1.1.4 Polygeneration

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.4-1 Improvement of the competitiveness of polygeneration IP

STREPSUSTDEV-2004-1.1.4-2 Innovative integration of polygeneration IP

STREPSUSTDEV-1.1.5 Alternative motor fuels

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.5-1 Biofuel-Cities

IPSTREPCA

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.5-2 Hydrogen for transport IP

CA

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.7-1 Grid issues - Distributed electricity generation

STREPCASSA

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.7-2

Grid issues - Management of electricity grids linked to largescale decentralised wind power generation

STREPCASSA

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.8-1

Thematic Promotion and Dissemination - Renewableelectricity technologies SSA

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.8-2

Thematic Promotion and Dissemination - Renewable heatingand cooling technologies SSA

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.8-3

Thematic Promotion and Dissemination - Production anddistribution of liquid and gaseous biofuels SSA

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.8-4 Thematic Promotion and Dissemination - Eco-buildings SSA

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.8-5 Thematic Promotion and Dissemination - Polygeneration SSA

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.8-6

Thematic Promotion and Dissemination - Energy demandmanagement and renewable energy supply in highperformance communities

SSA

SUSTDEV-2004-1.1.8-7

Thematic Promotion and Dissemination - Alternative motorfuels SSA


SUSTDEV-2.1 Developing environmentally friendly and competitive transportsystems and means of transport

SUSTDEV-2.1.1

New technologies and concepts for all surface transportmodes (Road, Rail and Waterborne)

SUSTDEV-2004-3.1.1.1.2 High quality public transport - CIVITAS II STREP

CA

SUSTDEV-2004-3.1.1.1.3

Advancing knowledge on innovative measures in urbantransport - CIVITAS II

IPSTREPCASSA

SUSTDEV-2.2 Making rail and maritime transport safer, more effective andmore competitive

SUSTDEV- Re-balancing and integrating different transport modes

Grant No. 213546

2.2.1SUSTDEV-2004-3.3.1.3.4

Intermodal freight transport systems, technologies andstrategies CA

SUSTDEV-2004-3.3.1.3.5 Intermodal freight transport management IP

SUSTDEV-2004-3.3.1.3.9 Logistics best practice CA

SUSTDEV-2.2.2

Increasing road, rail and waterborne safety and avoidingtraffic congestion

SUSTDEV-2004-3.4.1.4.2 Influence of alcohol, drugs and medicines IP

SUSTDEV-2004-3.4.1.4.4 Road Safety Enforcement STREP

SUSTDEV-2004-3.4.1.4.5 Effectiveness of Road Safety Campaigns STREP

SUSTDEV-2004-3.4.1.4.7 Multimodal real time information for people on the move STREP

SUSTDEV-2004-3.4.1.4.10 User reaction and efficient differentiation of charges and tolls STREP

SUSTDEV-2004-3.4.1.4.11 Improve infrastructure cost allocation methods STREP

SUSTDEV-2004-3.4.1.4.12 Design appropriate contractual relationships STREP

SUSTDEV-2004-SSA-3.5.1 Dissemination and promotion of transport research results SSA

Third Call for the Priority 6(SustDev) – Sub-priority 6.2. Sustainable Surface Transport

Call with relevance to the sub-priority 6.2. “Sustainable Surface Transport” of the Priority 6“Sustainable development, global changes and ecosystems” was published on the December13, 2003 in the Official Journal:

Sustainable Surface Transport - 3OJ Reference: OJ C303 of 13 December 2003Available budget: 150 MEUR (DG RTD)Call identifier: FP6-2003-Treansport-3Deadline: 6 April 2004 at 17.00 Brussels local time!

List of the general activity areas addressed within this call as well as specific topics explicitlyopen for this call with an indication of the types of instruments (move the cursor over theacronym of the instrument to view its full title) available. You are strongly encouraged to referto both the Call Text and the Work Programme for further information.





Grant No. 213546

SUSTDEV-2.1.1 New technologies and concepts for all surface transportmodes (Road, Rail and Waterborne)

SUSTDEV-2003-3.1.1.1.1

Future generation of clean and competitive engines forheavy duty vehicles IP

SUSTDEV-2003-3.1.1.1.2

Hydrogen and fuel cell power-train concepts fortransport means IP

SUSTDEV-2003-3.1.1.1.3 Quieter surface transport IP

SUSTDEV-2003-3.1.1.1.4

Research domains 1.4 (for advanced control, highlyefficient hybrid vehicles and air conditions only), 1.9and 1.10

STREP

SUSTDEV-2003-3.1.1.1.5


SUSTDEV-2.1.2 Advanced design and production techniques

SUSTDEV-2003-3.2.2.2.1 Light weight, low mass road vehicles IP

SUSTDEV-2003-3.2.2.2.2

Next generation affordable urban guided publictransport IP

SUSTDEV-2003-3.2.2.2.3

Virtual environment for an integrated fluid dynamicanalysis in ship design (the Vurtual Basin) IP

SUSTDEV-2003-3.2.2.2.4 Risk based ship design and approval IP

SUSTDEV-2003-3.2.2.2.5 Visionary concepts for vessels and floating structures NoE

SUSTDEV-2003-3.2.2.2.6

Research domains 2.5 and 2.6 for all surface transportmodes, domain 2.2 for new product generations only,and domain 2.7 for rail transport only

STREP

SUSTDEV-2003-3.2.2.2.7


SUSTDEV-2.2 Making rail and maritime transport safer, more effectiveand more competitive

SUSTDEV-2.2.1 Re-balancing and integrating different transport modes

SUSTDEV-2003-3.3.1.3.1

Increased reliability and performance of the rail systemthrough intelligent vehicles and infrastructure systemsand their maintenance

IP

SUSTDEV-2003-3.3.1.3.2 Research domain 3.16 for all surface transport modes STREP

SUSTDEV-2003-3.3.1.3.3



SUSTDEV-2003-3.4.1.4.1 Research domain 4.12 for all surface transport modes STREP

SUSTDEV-2003-3.4.1.4.2


Grant No. 213546

Second Call for the Priority 6(SustDev) – Sub-priority 6.2. Sustainable Surface Transport

Call with relevance to the sub-priority 6.2. “Sustainable Surface Transport” of the Priority 6“Sustainable development, global changes and ecosystems” was published on the 17th ofJune 2003 in the Official Journal:

Sustainable Surface Transport - 2OJ Reference: OJ C141 of 17.06.2003Available budget: 48 MEUR out of the Total Indicative Budget 175 MEUR (DG TREN)Call identifier: FP6-2003-TREN-2Deadline: 17 December 2003 at 17.00 local time!

Open Topics:

Area Topic Instrument

Objective 1 « New technologies andconcepts for all surface transportmodes (road, rail and waterborne) »

3.1.1.1.1 Testing implementation andtransition strategies for Clean UrbanTransport – CIVITAS II

IP and SSA

Objective 3 « Re-balancing andintegrating different transport modes»

3.3.1.3.1 Implementation of changein the European Railway System CA

3.4.1.4.6 European service forelectronic fee collection on roads

IP and/orSTREP

3.4.1.4.8 Costs of transportinfrastructure use

STREP, CAand/or SSA

Objective 4 « Increasing road, railand waterborne safety and avoidingtraffic congestion »

3.4.1.4.9 Optimal investments andcharging

STREP, CAand/or SSA

It is important to note that the call for SSA in the field of transport is still open and hasadditional indicative intermediary and final closure dates of 2004, 2005 and 2006, which willbe found in the relevant updates of the work programme. The final closure date will be inMarch 2006.

Specific Support Actions (SSA)OJ Reference: OJ C315 of 17.12.2002Available budget: 5 MEUR (DG TREN)Call identifier: FP6-2002-Transport-2Second deadline: 23 September 2003 at 17.00 local time!

First Calls for the Priority 6(SustDev) – sub-priority 6.2. Sustainable Surface Transport

Two calls with relevance to the sub-priority 6.2. »Sustainable Surface Transport« of thePriority 6 »Sustainable development, global changes and ecosystems« were published on the17th of December 2002 in the Official Journal:

Grant No. 213546

Sustainable Surface Transport - 1B

OJ Reference: OJ C315 of 17.12.2002Available budget: 170 MEUR (DG TREN)Call identifier: FP6-2002-Transport-1Deadline: 15 April 2003 at 17.00 local time!

Specific Support Actions

OJ Reference: OJ C315 of 17.12.2002Available budget: 5 MEUR (DG RTD)Call identifier: FP6-2002-Transport-2Deadline: 3 April 2003 and 19 September 2003 at 17.00 local time!

Grant No. 213546

Annex 3. List of selected 49 projects related to IndustrialCompetitiveness domains

FP5 GROWTH Projects

No Acronym Title

1 INTEGRATION Integration of Sea Land Technologies for an Efficient IntermodalDoor to Door Transport

2 VISPER Vehicle Integral Simulation for Pass-by Noise Reduction (AnInnovative Step towards Low Noise Traffic Emissions)

3 D-ULEV Low CO2 ULEV Diesel Passenger Car

4 CLEVER Compact Low Emission Vehicle for Urban Transport

5 ART-DEXA Advanced Regeneration Technologies for Diesel ExhaustParticulate Aftertreatment

6 BELTLESSENGINE

Validation of fully electrical controlled 14V/42V powercomponents for internal combustion engine including the totalthermal management

7 FPEC Free piston energy converter

8 ULEV-TAP II Ultra Low Emission Vehicle - Transport Advanced Propulsion II

9 FIRE-EXITFormulation of Immediate Response and Evacuation Strategiesthrough Intelligent Simulation Assessment and large-scaleTesting

10 FUNIT Future Unit Injector Technologies

11 HYDROTUBEReduction of CO2-impact by Weight Reduction Achieved byBending and Hydroforming of Steel and Aluminium Tubular Partsfor Body and Chassis Applications

12 SMITS Smart Monitoring in Train Systems

13 ROTRANOMO Development of a Microscopic Road Traffic Noise Model for theAssessment of Noise Reduction Measures

14 SAFECONEQUIPApplication of a Multi-Sensor, Microsystem Technology toPrevent the Overturn and Improve the Operational Efficiency ofSmall and Medium Sized Mobile Equipment

15 CRICE Common Rail based Improved Combustion for Low Emissions

Grant No. 213546

16 EUCLIDE Enhanced human machine interface for on vehicle integrateddriving support systems

17 D-ISELE Diesel - Injection for Small Engines and Low Emissions

18 HIMRATE High-temperature IGBT- and MOSFET-modules for RailwayTraction and automotive Electronic application

19 COSIME Continuous simulation of electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) inautomotive application

20 EUDD European Driver's Desk

21 MG-Chassis Advanced manufacturing technology for automotive chassiscomponents through extensible and sustainable use of Mg alloys

22 DOCKLASER Increasing Efficiency and Quality in Shipbuilding and Shiprepairby Developing Mobile Laser Equipment for Dock-Area

23 DOCKWELDER Flexible Welding Automation of Ship Erection

24 MG-Engine Light Weight Engine Construction through Extended andSustainable Use of Mg-alloys

25 EDIP On-board radio-based control of multiple-locomotive freight trainsfor trans-European operation

Grant No. 213546

FP6 SST Projects

No Acronym Title

1 FIDEUS Freight Innovative Delivery in European Urban Space

2 UNIACCES Design of universal accessibility systems for public transport

3 INTEGRAIL INTElligent inteGration of RAILway systems

4 MC-WAP Molten-carbonate fuel Cells for Waterborne APplication

5 EUR²EX European Rail Research Network of Excellence

6 CITYMOBIL Towards advanced road transport for the urban environment

7 HI-CEPS Highly Integrated Combustion Electric Powertrain System

8 IMPROVEDesign of Improved and Competitive Products Using anIntegrated Decision Support System for Ship Production andOperation

9 FLAGSHIP European Framework for Safe, Efficient and Environmentally-friendly Ship Operations

10 CHINOS Container Handling in Intermodal Nodes - Optimal andSecure

11 RAIL ENERGY Innovative Integrated Energy Efficiency Solutions for RailwayRolling Stock, Rail Infrastructure and Train Operation

12 DE-LIGHTTRANSPORT

Developing lightweight modules for transport systemsfeaturing efficient production and lifecycle benefits atstructural and functional integrity using risk based design

13 EFFORTS EFFective Operation in poRTS

14 AC-DC Automotive Chassis Development for 5-Days Cars

15 HYTRAN Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies for Road Transport

16 INTERSHIP Integrated Collaborative Design and Production of CruiseVessels, Passenger Ships and RoPax

17 NICE New Integrated Combustion System for future Passenger CarEngines (NICE)

18 APROSYS Advanced Protection Systems

19 GREEN Green Heavy Duty Engine

Grant No. 213546

20 INTERGAUGE

Interoperability, Security and Safety of Goods Movement with1435 and 1520(1524) mm Track Gauge Railways: NewTechnology in Freight Transport Including HazardousProducts

21 SAFEDOR Design, Operation and Regulation for Safety

22 NICHES New and Innovative Concepts for Helping European transportSustainability

23 MODURBAN Modular Urban Guided Rail Systems

24 QCITY Quiet City Transport

d3.1 industrial competitiveness methodology development ......page 2 change history version date...

Documents