SadržajMarie Sklodowska – Curie

Actions

European Industrial DoctorateTowards increased employability and

innovation

Sandra Vidović,

19th October 2017

• Study is assessing the European Industrial Doctorates (EID) scheme.

• The report presents findings and conclusions from an assessment of the EIDscheme activities from itsformation in 2012 up until March 2016.

Rationale

Study focuses on addressing three main issues that provide the rationale for a European programme on industrial doctorates: Lack of intersectoral mobility between academia and industry; Lack of transferable skills in European labour force of researchers; and No common rules or guidelines around industrial doctorates across EU.

The objectives of EID: To promote joint training and strengthen collaboration between industry

and academia; To develop PhD candidates’ skills to meet the needs of industry; and To foster industrial competitiveness and the research environment.

The EID scheme was launched in 2012 following the introduction in 2011 of the principles for innovative doctoral training developed by the European Commission working group on doctoral training.

Logic model EID scheme

Relevance of the EIS scheme

• Most established universities offer training in various transferable skills –while the EID scheme generates structure and raises awareness of training offers along the ‘value chain’ from basic research, applied research towards business relevantactivities such as product development, manufacturing, marketing & sales andfinance.

• Industrial doctorates are often arranged on a bilateral and institutional level. Stakeholders agreed with the idea of structured doctoral training with non-academic participation.

• Stakeholders were concerned about the trend to turn doctoral training into skills training – the main aspect of a PhD should be to conduct independent scientificwork. Any training offered should complement the research focus of a PhD project.

• Stakeholders also highlighted that EID projects, and ITN projects offer PhD candidates access to networks of senior researchers which is considered key to further career prospects. The quality and extent of networks in EID/ITN projects are not generally available in ‘classic’ PhD/graduate programmes.

• EID proposals are based on predefined research topics and also indicate tentative individual PhD projects for fellows.

• Survey responses indicate that EID placements were flexible enough to enable participants to fine-tune their research topics once the fellowship had started.

Motivations to apply

Main motivations of organisations to apply for EID funding:• Academic institutions - access to research funding, the ability to recruit a cohort of

researchers working on a specific research topic, and the possibility to strengthen existing relationships and collaborations with industry.

• Industry participants are attracted by recruitment opportunities at very low cost, coinciding with specific development and innovation projects.

Main motivations of fellows to apply:• The salary is considered very competitive compared to starting salaries in industry

and other PhD scholarships.

• Often PhD candidates are employed as research assistant, and cannot spend theirwhole working hours on the PhD project. The MSCA rules mandate that the fellowship shall only be spent on the PhD project.

• EID project enabled access to network of high quality, senior experts beyond that offered had they conducted their PhD in a ‘regular’ programme.

Motivations to apply 2

Demand and participation

The overall statistics on participation in EID projects are:• 101 EID projects to date, representing 17 % of the 579 ITN projects funded • 281 organisations participated in EID projects to date, representing 6% cent of

the 4,517 organisations participating in ITN projects.• €114 million were awarded by the EU to EID projects to date, representing 6%

of the €1.8 billion awarded to ITN projects across the FP7 and H2020

Success rates for EID are generally higher than for ITN overall:• The success rate by EID projects (number of projects / number of proposals)

was 18.9 %, much higher than the corresponding success rate for ITN (11.8 %).• The success rate by EID participants (number of participants/number of

applicants)• was 14.0 %, again higher than the corresponding success rate for ITN (8.7 5).

EID are generally smaller than ITN projects overall. The average number of participations per EID project was 2.78 (compared to an average 7.80 participants per ITN project) – minimum 2 partners in consortium

Number of EID projects

• Of the 2,013 applicants in EID proposals - 1,789 (89 %) were based in EU Member States, 89 (4 %) in associated countries and 35 (3 %) from third countries.

• Organisations participating in EID proposals were based in 40 countries(compared to 104 for all ITN proposals).

• The following ten EU Member States provided the highest number of EID applicants: UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland and Sweden. Representing 79 % of all EID applications and 87 % of all EU funding

requested by EID applicants in Horizon 2020.

• Switzerland was the most important non-EU country in terms of demand for EID projects (representing 3 % of EID applicants).

Number of EID projects

Indication that researchers in proposals are more often recruited by universities than businesses.HES – awardingPhD

Participation of organisations

The limited presence of SOC projects is most likely due to a perceived lack of potential forindustrial application and consequentially lower demand for funding under this scientific panel.

Participation by scientific panel

EID implemetation

Most organisations (academic and non-academic) felt that the objectives andstructure of the scheme were clearly set out and realistic.

Most participants who responded considered the level of funding provided by the EID scheme to be adequate for the achievement of the scheme objectives.

• Most respondents (90 %) also felt that the type of funding provided to be sufficient to achieve the scheme objectives.

Among academic organisations that deemed the level of EID funding to be insufficient, a common concern related to the duration of the EID scheme funding.

• PhD programmes lasting for 4 - EID scheme funding covered only 3 years• Need to have alternative funding streams to bridge this gap. • Recommended - an extension of the scheme duration to 4 years.

Of non-academic organisations that did not feel EID scheme funding was sufficient, some said that the funds did not cover the material costs of research such as laboratory expenses.

EID implemetation - funding

EID implemetationadministrative and financial rules

Among the minority of respondents who did not consider administrative rules to be appropriate, reasons cited included:• Difficulty in designing standard administrative rules applicable to different local contexts

(e.g. the varied lengths of PhD programmes in different countries); • The strictness of the eligibility criteria regarding the mobility of EID fellows and VISA

problems relating to the recruitment of researchers from third countries.

Conflicts between EID rules and requirements and national regulations or organisational practices • Recognition of qualifications awarded and training, joint supervision, and for exploiting

project results• National requirements with regards to salaries and recruitment procedures were not

always in line with EU funding - t process and equal opportunities policies in the context of national employment laws

• Differences in length between standard doctoral programmes (typically 4 years)• Compared with the three years under the EID fellowship, caused some conflicts with

internal rules and management issues.

EID implemetation

• The EID is perceived as only relevant for scientific disciplines with clear potential for industrial application, with a strong focus on engineering and informationsciences.

• Timelines of the scheme evaluation procedure might be too long for some potential industry applicants, who then recruit PhDs directly. Time delay between the expert evaluation and the announcement of evaluation

results to applicants

• It can be difficult to arrange agreements on how to share background IP, and howthis is being used and circulated in the consortium.

• Joint supervision can be challenging and might pose risks for PhD candidates, if roles and expectations are not clearly set out at the start.

• Requirements of joint supervision and secondments can be difficult to meet for SMEs – they often cannot provide capacity for weekly supervision and guidance, nor meet reporting requirements. SMEs are often participating as partner organisations

Added value

Researcher level

• The specific focus on applied or industrial research and the specific scientific disciplines and research areas of the project

• The European dimension of the EID fellowship and focus on transferable skills

The main added value delivered by the EID compared to ‘regular’ PhD at the same institution was to help candidates gain a strong understanding of how their research could impact industry, and how this might further their career opportunities

Hiring a former EID fellow may help academic labs to more easily and efficiently establish public-private partnerships, the EID fellow having experienced the working methods used in the private sector (i.a. relating to project management with its deliverables/ milestones, standard operating procedures, quality assurance, communication etc);

Added value 2

Organisation level

On average, 84 per cent of respondents (including academic and non-academic organisations) stated that they would not have gone ahead with their project without any funding from the EID scheme.

The EID scheme offered strong added value, in particular in countries where no projects of comparable size or with comparable thematic focus would have been funded.

Both academic and nonacademic participants suggested that the most likely impact would be a continuation of projects with reduced funds.

Respondents also widely mentioned that projects would have suffered a reduction in outputs and results in terms of scientific or technical skills acquired

Results and impact

At the level of individual researchers, 85 per cent of EID fellows surveyed aimed to work as researchers in the non-academic sector after completing their PhD.

EID fellows acquired and built on various skills through the EID scheme:• Expert knowledge gained by fellows in their research areas, • Scientific communication skills (such as oral presentations and publications) • Specific crossdisciplinary knowledge, approaches and methods, and applied

industry-relevant research expertise• Specific knowledge / expertise in applied industrial research• Language training• Open access training, ect.

• EID scheme appears to have fostered new collaborations

• EID scheme extended collaboration between partner organisations

• Most nonacademic and academic organisations participating in the EID scheme have concrete plans to continue their partnership with other partner organisations involved in the EID project

• Non-academic participants were slightly more likely to work with newpartners than academic participants.

• Academic organisations were mainly attracted by the research funding available, the ability to recruit cohorts of researchers working on a specific topic and the possibility of strengthening existing relationships with industry.

• The main motivation cited by nonacademic participants was the opportunity to recruit research staff at very low to no cost through the EID fellowships and collaboration with academia

Results and impact

IPR applications (six new patents, one trademark, one registered design and one other form of IPR).

Around 50 % of all EID fellows surveyed produced or contributed to journal publications as a direct output of their fellowship.

Scientific publications were also found to be important outputs.

Where impacts where reported, the changes were most commonly associated with introducing new content or new types of training courses to curricula.

Results and impact 2

• The European Commission and REA should encourage the participation of nonacademic actors other than businesses to meet the EID specific objectives ofcareer opportunities across the non-academic sector.

• The work programme should be amended to further emphasise the need for training that provides added value vis-à-vis alternative industrial PhD or otherprogrammes

• The mid-term evaluation should investigate in more detail whether the inclusion of academic institutions apart from institutions awarding doctoral degrees has led to a more diverse group of academic participants.

• The European Commission should try to encourage demand/applications from a more diverse group of countries, including so-called ‘widening’ countries.

• Given overall demand substantially exceeds the scheme budget, plus the strong overall relevance of the EID scheme, it would be reasonable to increase the budget allocated to EID funding in the next MSCA work programme.

Recomendations

Recomendations 2

• Joint supervision can be a challenge and can be risky for PhD candidates if roles and expectations are not clearly set out from the start. There might be scope to include offers to train prospective supervisors in EID projects and prepare them for joint supervision.

• There should be greater flexibility in how fellows split their time between academic and nonacademic partner organisations, in line with the practicalities of the work and the problems in coordinating work across two institutions.

• National contact points should provide comprehensive instructions about the recruitment of nonEU citizens and advise on a step by step approach to applying to the respective national regulations of labour market and immigration. –EURAXESS services centres!

• The maximum length of fellowships under EID should be extended from 36 to 48 months. The European Commission should also consider that if such a change is not accompanied by an increase in scheme budget, the number of overall projects or number of fellows per project would have to be reduced.

Good luck!

Sandra Vidović

Horizon 2020 National Contact Point for Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions

Agency for Mobility and EU ProgrammesFrankopanska 26, HR-10 000 ZagrebPhone +385 (0)1 500 5954Fax +385 (0)1 500 5699

sandra.vidovic@mobilnost.hrwww.mobilnost.hr

www.obzor2020.hr