ForskEL and ForskVE
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong><br />
- a description, mapping <strong>and</strong> evaluation<br />
of the programmes from 1998-2013
3 Introduction<br />
4 Important findings<br />
6 Recommendations<br />
8 Introduction to <strong>ForskEL</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong><br />
12 The organisation of <strong>ForskEL</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> projects<br />
28 Network analysis of<br />
<strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong><br />
34 Performance<br />
39 Conclusion<br />
The report is made by<br />
Nadika Bulathsinhala<br />
Postdoc - Southern University of Denmark<br />
nab@iti.sdu.dk - October 2013<br />
2
Introduction<br />
The amount of public research <strong>and</strong> development investments in new<br />
energy innovation technologies has played a crucial role in the development<br />
<strong>and</strong> proliferation of new innovative technologies in Denmark 1 . The<br />
public investments are especially relevant in the early stages of technology<br />
development, where uncertainty about the innovation is greatest,<br />
<strong>and</strong> where the privately held companies are less willing to take risks 2 .<br />
Furthermore, research <strong>and</strong> development (R&D) in the energy sector is<br />
often an interactive process where companies <strong>and</strong> research institutes<br />
innovate in the interaction with each other <strong>and</strong> therefore often joined in<br />
collaborative R&D projects. However, even though almost DKK 1 billion is<br />
used on energy research 3 , there is not much information at project level<br />
on how these funded projects are constructed, who participates in the<br />
projects <strong>and</strong> information about the outcomes of the projects.<br />
The goal of this report is threefold. First, it examines the organisational<br />
structure of the PSO-funded (public service obligation) programmes<br />
administrated by Energinet.dk called <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong>. The aim is<br />
to underst<strong>and</strong> how these <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> projects are formed <strong>and</strong><br />
structured. Until now, there does not exist any general information about<br />
<strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> projects. Second, this report will give an overview<br />
of the network structure of <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> projects, describing<br />
how the Danish energy sector is interconnected in regard to R&D. This<br />
will give an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the complexity of the <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> ForksVE<br />
network. Finally, the report will provide the first performance evaluation<br />
of almost hundred <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> projects. This contributes to a<br />
deeper underst<strong>and</strong>ing of projects funded by Energinet.dk <strong>and</strong> what the<br />
end-results of these projects are.<br />
“The results of the report are based on findings from a PhD study which was conducted<br />
from 2009-2012 <strong>and</strong> the report applies updated data from 1998-2013”.<br />
1 Borup et al., 2009<br />
2 Gallagher et al., 2006<br />
3 http://energiforskning.dk/da/stats/bevilgede-tilskud-til-energiprojekter-i-2011<br />
3
Important findings<br />
The main challenge of the programmes is to promote R&D in<br />
a way that strengthens the power of the private sector’s innovation<br />
<strong>and</strong> profit incentives. The public energy programmes<br />
can contribute to meeting future energy dem<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> provide<br />
incentives for private companies to focus on R&D <strong>and</strong> collaborative<br />
R&D projects (among various combinations of industry,<br />
academia, <strong>and</strong> national laboratories, other governmental <strong>and</strong><br />
semi-governmental entities <strong>and</strong> NGOs) <strong>and</strong> provide major potential<br />
for combining different forms of comparative advantage<br />
in the creation of R&D <strong>and</strong> innovation.<br />
The report is divided into three parts: the organisation of the<br />
PSO funded projects, administrated by Energinet.dk, network<br />
analysis of the <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> projects <strong>and</strong> performance<br />
measurement of the projects’ output.<br />
The organisation of <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> projects<br />
<strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> have almost allocated around DKK 2 billion<br />
from 1998-2013. The majority of the projects are under<br />
DKK 3 million <strong>and</strong> biomass is the energy area that has received<br />
the largest funding amount. 56% of the projects are in the area<br />
of applied research, but 85% of the total funding goes to demonstration<br />
projects. The majority of the projects only has one<br />
partner, but this percentage has declined since 2007. Furthermore,<br />
the estimated duration time of a project is around 2.5<br />
years. Looking at who participates in the projects, it is observed<br />
that in 51% of the projects, a university is involved in the<br />
projects <strong>and</strong> 16% included a research technology organisation<br />
(RTO). It is also observed that in 61% of the projects, a privately<br />
held company is main responsible for the project.<br />
Network analysis<br />
First, the report illustrates the whole <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> network<br />
from 1998-2013. The sociogram shows that there are<br />
three groups in the whole network: the core group, the periphery<br />
group <strong>and</strong> the group with no relations to the others. In<br />
other words, the sociogram shows that there are some partners<br />
who are involved in a lot of projects <strong>and</strong> they have relations to<br />
other partners <strong>and</strong> then are some partners who are only involved<br />
in one project <strong>and</strong> do not have any relations. Furthermore,<br />
when looking at the different technology phases, the network<br />
analysis shows that the network structure changes from basic<br />
to demonstration, indicating that partner relations changes<br />
over time as the projects evolve.<br />
4
Performance evaluation of <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong><br />
When looking at project management in <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong><br />
projects, the analysis shows that around 50% of the projects<br />
to some extent or to a high extent met the application goals.<br />
Furthermore, around 50% of the projects fulfilled their scheduled<br />
activities or work packages to some or a high extent. The<br />
analysis also shows that around 40% of the projects met their<br />
final deadline to a low or a very low extent. Examining the projects<br />
in regard to technological output, the analysis shows that<br />
a majority of the projects to some or to a high extent met their<br />
technical goals. Furthermore, the analysis shows that 60% of<br />
the projects created knowledge that can be used in a new project<br />
<strong>and</strong> approx. 50% of the projects created new technology.<br />
5
Recommendations<br />
4 Bulathsinhala, N: Innovation<br />
processes in the energy<br />
sector 2013<br />
The recommendations in this report are based on the results<br />
from the report <strong>and</strong> the doctoral dissertation 4 . The recommendations<br />
are divided into three levels: programme level, participant<br />
level which are the project applicants <strong>and</strong> the partners<br />
involved in the projects <strong>and</strong> finally on expert level who are the<br />
expert evaluators who evaluate the projects.<br />
At programme level, the programmes should improve how it informs<br />
the experts <strong>and</strong> participants of the objectives of the programme.<br />
Stating very clearly what the goal of the programme<br />
is makes it straightforward for the experts <strong>and</strong> the participants<br />
involved in the programme. The programmes should state how<br />
public R&D differs from private R&D, <strong>and</strong> the importance of<br />
focus on the long-term horizon in technology development.<br />
Moreover, it is difficult to measure R&D project performances,<br />
when the project is publicly funded, but it is quite important to<br />
systematic investigate what the programme <strong>and</strong> projects have<br />
produced. This kind of performance measurement can be done<br />
by looking at the ex-ante <strong>and</strong> ex-post processes <strong>and</strong> the programme<br />
<strong>and</strong> project objectives.<br />
At participant level, participants (applicants) in public R&D<br />
projects should seriously consider why they involve themselves<br />
in public inter-organisational R&D projects. Unmotivated<br />
participation in R&D collaborations, because it might produce<br />
some ’free’ information is not optimal for innovation or societal<br />
purposes. A large amount of the electricity consumers <strong>and</strong> tax<br />
payers’ money goes to public R&D, <strong>and</strong> the participants should<br />
therefore consider why they apply for funding <strong>and</strong> how their<br />
project can contribute to the energy system. This also means<br />
that substituting private R&D with public R&D is not recommendable.<br />
Furthermore, participants in cooperative R&D projects<br />
are recommended to focus on explorative projects with high<br />
risk, where they experiment <strong>and</strong> gain new knowledge. Engagement<br />
in these kinds of projects might increase the learning of<br />
all the participants in the project. Moreover, being involved in<br />
inter-organisational R&D does not only require expertise in a<br />
given field, it also requires project management. This implies<br />
that the partners must engage in project management by giving<br />
one partner the main responsibility of delegating tasks <strong>and</strong><br />
maintaining an overview of the whole project. Publically funded<br />
6
projects with a long time span must have a project manager,<br />
whose primary role is to manage the project <strong>and</strong> use the knowledge<br />
created in the project. Furthermore, commitment, trust<br />
<strong>and</strong> engagement are also necessary in inter-organisational<br />
R&D, meaning that sleeping partners are not recommended.<br />
When creating an inter-organisational R&D project, it can also<br />
be beneficial for the whole project to identity <strong>and</strong> discuss each<br />
participant’s knowledge <strong>and</strong> expertise <strong>and</strong> how they can contribute<br />
to the project. Too many participants with the same abilities<br />
might not contribute to making the project a success. And<br />
finally <strong>and</strong> most importantly, the R&D projects should carefully<br />
consider if there is a partner involved in the project, who is interested<br />
in pushing the results to the next phase of technology<br />
development. This type of partner, called a knowledge integrator,<br />
can push the project to produce a successful outcome.<br />
At expert level, it is first of all important that the experts bear in<br />
mind that the supported technologies have to fit with the future<br />
energy system, which may not look like the present system. It is<br />
important that they are visionary <strong>and</strong> not too path-dependent.<br />
Even though they are experts, they should not be too influenced<br />
by past experience. A majority of the experts are retired employees<br />
from the private energy sector or from an academic position.<br />
A great amount of knowledge acquired over many years<br />
is valuable, but it is important to bear in mind that the sector<br />
<strong>and</strong> technology continuously changes <strong>and</strong> develops. Therefore,<br />
it is important for the experts to be updated <strong>and</strong> open-minded.<br />
Being visionary, it is also natural to support projects that are<br />
risky <strong>and</strong> explorative. This dem<strong>and</strong>s that the experts are knowledgeable<br />
about the technology <strong>and</strong> capable of underst<strong>and</strong>ing<br />
new views on the technology. Furthermore, the experts should<br />
also underst<strong>and</strong> the context of public funding <strong>and</strong> that creating<br />
new knowledge for the benefit of society is as valuable as<br />
creating or improving technologies for the market. The recommendation<br />
here is that it is essential to look beyond the private<br />
market, without forgetting it. Finally, when evaluating projects<br />
it is important to examine, if there is a partner (knowledge integrator)<br />
in the projects who is motivated by taking the outcome<br />
of the project to the next phase of technology development.<br />
This can result in overall project success.<br />
7
Introduction to <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong><br />
Energinet.dk is an independent public enterprise owned by the<br />
Danish state as represented by the Ministry of Climate, Energy<br />
<strong>and</strong> Building. It has its own Supervisory Board. Energinet.dk<br />
owns the natural gas transmission system, the 400 kV, 150 kV<br />
<strong>and</strong> 132 kV electricity transmission system <strong>and</strong> is the co-owner<br />
of the electrical interconnections to Norway, Sweden <strong>and</strong><br />
Germany.<br />
The aim of <strong>ForskEL</strong> programme is to support research, development<br />
<strong>and</strong> demonstration projects, which aims at developing<br />
<strong>and</strong> incorporating environmentally friendly power generation<br />
technologies including the development of an environmentally<br />
friendly <strong>and</strong> safe electricity system. The programme mainly<br />
prioritises projects in the areas of applied research <strong>and</strong> development<br />
which means projects of the original character, in order<br />
to acquire knowledge <strong>and</strong> insight towards a specific practical<br />
aim or objective. Furthermore, projects that use knowledge to<br />
produce new or improving existing materials, products, processes,<br />
methods, systems or services are also highly prioritised.<br />
The amount of funding every year is DKK 130 million.<br />
The aim of <strong>ForskVE</strong> programme is to support projects that<br />
promote the spread of power generation units with a smaller<br />
power generation capacity based on renewable energy. The<br />
amount of funding is approx. DKK 25 million.<br />
Furthermore, the programmes <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> help to<br />
support the energy policy objectives of security of supply, cli-<br />
<strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> are public service obligation<br />
(PSO) programmes administered by Energinet.dk.<br />
8
mate, environment <strong>and</strong> cost-effectiveness <strong>and</strong> they contribute<br />
to achieving the objective of making Denmark independent of<br />
fossil fuels in 2050.<br />
Grants from the <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> programme can be<br />
acquired by public or privately held companies <strong>and</strong> knowledge<br />
institutions including universities <strong>and</strong> RTOs. Also foreign project<br />
participants can apply for grants, but it is emphasised that<br />
the results promote the development of the Danish electricity<br />
system, <strong>and</strong> that the main applicant is registered by the Danish<br />
Central Business Register.<br />
9
Figure 1 illustrates the <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>ForskVE</strong> project evaluation process.<br />
Step 1<br />
Ex-ante evaluation<br />
of project application<br />
made by experts<br />
Step 2<br />
Final selection of<br />
projects is made by<br />
<strong>ForskEL</strong> based on the<br />
experts’ evaluations<br />
Step 3<br />
Ex-post evaluation of<br />
project outcome made<br />
by experts<br />
Figure 1 - The project evaluation process of <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong><br />
10
Selection process of the projects<br />
<strong>and</strong> the evaluation process<br />
Different partners, such as a utility, a university <strong>and</strong> a supplier<br />
of components can together formulate a project. The project is<br />
often required to produce a written project application, which<br />
describes the main aim <strong>and</strong> purpose of the project, etc.<br />
Step one in the evaluation process is to select which projects<br />
the programmes want to support. This is done by an ex-ante<br />
evaluation of the project application conducted by energy<br />
experts. At <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong>, all the energy experts are divided<br />
into different energy area sessions, where their expertise<br />
is relevant. In the ex-ante evaluation process, at least two main<br />
discussants evaluate each project application <strong>and</strong> fill in a form<br />
provided by Energinet.dk. The form has formulated different<br />
measures from how good is the description of the technology<br />
to does the project have value for money <strong>and</strong> impact? It is m<strong>and</strong>atory<br />
for the discussants, after the points have been awarded,<br />
to state the reasons for their evaluation approach to the written<br />
format <strong>and</strong> make an argument for their evaluation.<br />
8-14 experts are represented in an evaluation session, depending<br />
on the technology, <strong>and</strong> the discussants present their evaluation<br />
form on a projector, enabling everyone to see which<br />
score each project has received <strong>and</strong> why. After the discussants’<br />
presentation, the rest of the experts can ask questions to the<br />
discussants, <strong>and</strong> the forum is open for discussion between the<br />
experts. If particular experts are incompetent because of their<br />
own interests in a given project, they are excluded from the<br />
evaluation of the project application.<br />
The aim of the discussion is to find a consensus score that<br />
covers all the experts’ opinions, <strong>and</strong> all the comments are<br />
written down by the programme research coordinator. After<br />
the main evaluation of the project applications, step two is<br />
the crucial selection of projects that will receive funding. This<br />
is done by research coordinators from Energinet.dk. Step<br />
three, an ex-post evaluation of the finished projects, is made<br />
by experts.<br />
The duration time between step two <strong>and</strong> step three can be<br />
around three to four years, which means that it is not always<br />
the same experts that make the ex-ante evaluation in step one<br />
<strong>and</strong> the ex-post evaluation of the project outcome in step three.<br />
11
The organisation of <strong>ForskEL</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> projects<br />
Over the years, <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> have prioritised different<br />
focus areas in their call depending on the overall political<br />
energy strategy, <strong>and</strong> the annual call <strong>and</strong> the prioritisation is<br />
approved by the Minister of Climate <strong>and</strong> Energy. This implies<br />
that one year, the majority of the focus might be on biomass<br />
<strong>and</strong> over time, the focus might change <strong>and</strong> be on solar power.<br />
Moreover, some energy areas are only represented some<br />
years <strong>and</strong> then they are faded out such as biofuel. A reason for<br />
this can be that another energy programme prioritises biofuel<br />
or that the present technology has become commercial. Other<br />
projects such as non-environmental fossil energy projects do<br />
not receive public funding anymore, because it does not fit with<br />
the aim of the programme which is to support environmental<br />
energy technologies.<br />
A description of the energy areas<br />
over the years <strong>and</strong> funding<br />
The section describes all energy areas that have received funding<br />
from <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> since 1998-2013, <strong>and</strong> all the<br />
supported energy areas have to have a relation to the energy<br />
system. The purpose of the description is to give a basic underst<strong>and</strong>ing<br />
of the technologies supported by the programmes <strong>and</strong><br />
describe the energy categories explained in figure 2.<br />
Figure 2 illustrates the number of projects in each energy area<br />
that has received funding from 1998-2013. It is shown that in<br />
1999, a majority of the projects were in the area of biomass,<br />
but the support has declined since 2010. The figure also illustrates<br />
that new energy areas have evolved like Electricity<br />
storage <strong>and</strong> Dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> response. Furthermore, the figure<br />
shows how the support to the different energy areas differs<br />
over time. A reason for the changes can be political agendas.<br />
For example, the Danish government wanted to focus on a certain<br />
technology such as hydrogen power in the beginning of the<br />
2000s <strong>and</strong> therefore, the area was allocated a great deal of<br />
financial funding. Another reason for the decline of a technology<br />
can be the evolvement of the technology. Concurrently with<br />
a technology becoming more commercial, it may receive less<br />
public funding, as the need for public funding reduces as the<br />
technology becomes more mature.<br />
12
Number of projects<br />
30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
Figure 2 - <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> projects from 1998-2013<br />
Number of projects<br />
30<br />
0<br />
1998<br />
1999<br />
Biofuel<br />
2000<br />
2001<br />
2002<br />
Hydrogen<br />
2003<br />
2004<br />
2005<br />
Solar<br />
2006<br />
2007<br />
2008<br />
Control <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong><br />
2009<br />
2010<br />
2011<br />
25<br />
Biomass<br />
Wave<br />
Smart grid<br />
Fossil<br />
Wind<br />
Other<br />
Dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> response<br />
Electricity storrage<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
1998<br />
1999<br />
2000<br />
2001<br />
2002<br />
2003<br />
2004<br />
2005<br />
2006<br />
2007<br />
2008<br />
2009<br />
2010<br />
2011<br />
2012<br />
2013<br />
Biofuel<br />
Hydrogen<br />
Solar<br />
Control <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong><br />
Biomass<br />
Wave<br />
Smart grid<br />
Fossil<br />
Wind<br />
Other<br />
Dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> response<br />
“The figure above illustrates all the <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> projects from 1998-2013.<br />
The dataset consist of 562 projects <strong>and</strong> all the energy areas are represented”.<br />
Electricity storrage<br />
13
Description of energy areas supported by <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong><br />
Biofuel is a fuel that contains energy from geologically recent carbon fixation. Biofuel is produced from living organisms <strong>and</strong><br />
examples of this carbon fixation occur in plants <strong>and</strong> microalgae. The use of biofuel is mostly seen in the transportation sector.<br />
Hydrogen is a zero-emission fuel which uses electrochemical cells or combustion in internal engines, to power vehicles <strong>and</strong> electric<br />
devices. A fuel cell combines hydrogen <strong>and</strong> oxygen to produce electricity, heat, <strong>and</strong> water. Fuel cells are often compared to batteries.<br />
Solar energy technologies use the sun’s energy <strong>and</strong> light to provide heat <strong>and</strong> electricity for homes, businesses, <strong>and</strong> industry. There<br />
are different solar energy technologies like photovoltaic systems <strong>and</strong> concentrated solar power (CSP) that produce electricity directly<br />
from the sun light or solar heating that heats water with sun light radiation.<br />
Biomass is the use of biomass to generate electricity. There are six major types of bio power systems which are direct-fired, co-firing,<br />
gasification, anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis <strong>and</strong> small, modular. Most of the biomass plants in the world use direct-fired systems,<br />
where they burn bioenergy feedstock directly to produce steam.<br />
Smart grid is a modernised electrical grid that uses information <strong>and</strong> communications technology to gather <strong>and</strong> act on information,<br />
such as information about the behaviours of suppliers <strong>and</strong> consumers. The goal is to improve the efficiency, reliability, economics, <strong>and</strong><br />
sustainability of the production <strong>and</strong> distribution of electricity.<br />
Wind turbines are mounted on a tower to capture as much energy as possible. At 100 feet (30 metres) or more aboveground,<br />
they can take advantage of the faster <strong>and</strong> less turbulent wind. Wind turbines can be used as st<strong>and</strong>-alone applications, or they can be<br />
connected to a utility power grid or even combined with a photovoltaic (solar cell) system.<br />
14
Wave power devices extract energy from the surface motion of ocean waves or from pressure fluctuations below the surface.<br />
Machinery able to exploit wave power is generally known as a wave energy converter.<br />
Fossil fuels formed by natural processes such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms. Fossil fuels contain high<br />
percentages of carbon <strong>and</strong> include coal, petroleum, <strong>and</strong> natural gas. <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> do not in the present time support projects<br />
in the area of fossil energy.<br />
Control <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> response are two areas that support the creation of what Smart Grid requires <strong>and</strong><br />
coordinated development <strong>and</strong> demonstration activities that promote the maturation of technologies <strong>and</strong> the solutions that must be the<br />
building blocks of the future intelligent electricity system.<br />
Electricity storage is accomplished by devices or physical media that store energy to perform useful operation at a later time. A<br />
device that stores energy is sometimes called an accumulator. Some technologies provide only short-term energy storage, <strong>and</strong> others<br />
can be very long-term such as power to gas using hydrogen or methane <strong>and</strong> the storage of heat or cold between opposing seasons in<br />
deep aquifers or bedrock.<br />
Other is technologies that are currently at the research stage <strong>and</strong> are far from being commercial. Some of these technologies are<br />
relevant for environmentally friendly power generation <strong>and</strong> integration; they can be supported, to the extent that it is applied research,<br />
feasibility studies or pilot projects.<br />
15
6 - 8.9 mio. DKK.<br />
3 - 5.9 mio. DKK.<br />
PSO Funding<br />
Figure 3 illustrates the number of projects <strong>and</strong> the size of the<br />
The total amount of financial funding from the different PSO<br />
total budgets divided into four groups. It shows that 63% of the<br />
programmes affiliated with Energinet.dk from 1998-2013 is<br />
projects have received a funding amount smaller than DKK 3<br />
DKK 1,867,425,664. Every year, the programmes have a total<br />
million. A reason for this is that many of the projects are fea-<br />
of approx. DKK 150 million which they can grant qualified pro-<br />
sibility studies where the aim is to investigate, whether there<br />
jects. If the programmes do not utilise the whole budget, it is<br />
is a valid foundation for a bigger project in a given energy area<br />
possible to assign the rest of the funding to the next year. The<br />
<strong>and</strong> whether the new technological possibility is a realistic op-<br />
figure below shows the total amount of funding from 1998-<br />
portunity.<br />
2013 divided on project size.<br />
Furthermore, the second largest group with 22% is the group<br />
Figure 3<br />
The total amount<br />
of funding divided<br />
on project size<br />
Number of projects<br />
400<br />
352<br />
300<br />
of projects in the budget area of DKK 3-6 million <strong>and</strong> the third<br />
largest group is projects in the budget area of DKK 6-9 million.<br />
The last group of projects with a budget from DKK 9 million <strong>and</strong><br />
above is only 7%, indicating that not many projects receive a<br />
relatively large amount of PSO funding. However, it is observed<br />
that there is an increase in the projects with a budget over<br />
200<br />
DKK 9 million since 2009. A reason for this can be that since<br />
2009, the programmes have increased their focus on bigger<br />
124<br />
consortium projects that dem<strong>and</strong>s a larger budget. The aim of<br />
100<br />
the consortium projects is to support larger projects that inclu-<br />
0<br />
44 40<br />
de different partners from all the technological development<br />
phases. This means that the aim is to support projects where<br />
the partners can execute different tasks in the technological<br />
16<br />
9 mio. DKK. <strong>and</strong> over<br />
Under 3 mio.DKK.<br />
development phases from applied research to demonstration/<br />
commercialisation.
When examining how the total amount of PSO funding is divided<br />
between the different energy areas, it gives an interesting<br />
picture. Over the years, some energy areas have received more<br />
financial support than others.<br />
The area of biomass has received 26% of the total amount of<br />
PSO funding, illustrating that even though projects in biomass<br />
have declined over the years (see figure 2), this energy area<br />
has over a period of time collected the largest amount of the<br />
total PSO funding.<br />
The second largest energy area that has been allocated a great<br />
deal of funding is hydrogen (23%). The relatively new funding<br />
area called Dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> response has received around 5% of<br />
the total PSO funding, indicating that this is an area that now<br />
has a lot of focus. <strong>ForskEL</strong> has prioritised this area due to the<br />
great attention to <strong>and</strong> implementation of Smart grid technology.<br />
An energy area which has received less funding is biofuel. A<br />
reason for this is that biofuel is more relevant in the transportation<br />
sector.<br />
What is important to emphasize is that the whole picture of<br />
funding allocation can change when looking at the total number<br />
of projects <strong>and</strong> funding. Table 1 illustrates the total number of<br />
projects divided into energy areas from 1998-2013.<br />
The table illustrates that even though the energy area of hydrogen<br />
has received a large of the portion of the total amount<br />
of PSO funding, the number of hydrogen projects is relatively<br />
small compared to biomass or wind.<br />
“An energy area which has received less funding is biofuel. A reason for<br />
this is that biofuel is more relevant in the transportation sector”.<br />
18
Figure 4 - Energy area divided on the total amount of PSO funding from 1998-2013<br />
PSO funding (mio. DKK)<br />
Table 1 - Total number of projects<br />
divided into energy areas from 1998-2013<br />
600<br />
Energy area<br />
Number of projects<br />
Biofuel 20<br />
500<br />
Biomass 173<br />
Wave 34<br />
400<br />
Hydrogen 69<br />
Smart grid 34<br />
300<br />
Fossil 39<br />
Solar 59<br />
200<br />
Wind 78<br />
Control <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> 17<br />
100<br />
Dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> response 20<br />
Electricity storage 3<br />
0<br />
Other 16<br />
Total 562<br />
Biofuel<br />
Biomass<br />
Wave<br />
Hydrogen<br />
Smart grid<br />
Fossil<br />
Solar<br />
Wind<br />
Other<br />
Control <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong><br />
Dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> response<br />
Electricity storrage<br />
19
the technological development phases<br />
The technological development phases (basic research, applied<br />
research, demonstration, <strong>and</strong> commercialisation) are in reality<br />
not a linear process, but a muddle of overlapping processes<br />
<strong>and</strong> feedback. The ’muddle’ includes partnerships <strong>and</strong> interactions<br />
within <strong>and</strong> between sectors (government, industry, academia,<br />
NGOs) <strong>and</strong> across national boundaries, eg in the EU.<br />
One of the two main reasons why the energy industry does R&D<br />
is that such activities foster the development of new products<br />
or improve existing products <strong>and</strong> the companies’ own energy<br />
usage (<strong>and</strong> allow them to meet regulations); the second reason<br />
is the ultimate intention, which is to stay in business <strong>and</strong> maintain<br />
or increase the competitive position in the market.<br />
Figure 5 below illustrates the different phases in technology<br />
development. One project might start in basic research doing<br />
pure science <strong>and</strong> after some years, depending on the project’s<br />
complexity <strong>and</strong> funding, proceed to the next phase if the results<br />
are applicable. In applied research, the goal is to turn the<br />
pure science into a more strategic outcome, where the results<br />
over time can become a commercial output. The demonstration<br />
phase tests the R&D in approximating real-world conditions<br />
<strong>and</strong> scales up the technology to demonstrate real world feasibility.<br />
Finally, if the technical feasibility of a new technology is<br />
a success, the next phase is to introduce the technology to the<br />
market. From the demonstration <strong>and</strong> commercialisation phase,<br />
there is a feedback loop back to applied research via testing<br />
Figure 5 - The technological development process<br />
Basic research<br />
Applied research<br />
Demonstration<br />
Commercialization<br />
Discoveries<br />
Academic<br />
curiousity<br />
Applied <strong>and</strong><br />
strategic R&D<br />
Up-scaling R&D<br />
<strong>and</strong> testing<br />
Price reduction<br />
Competitive<br />
technology<br />
Feedback<br />
Technology push<br />
20
<strong>and</strong> up-scaling of the technology. Furthermore, the figure<br />
shows that there is a technology push by politically supporting<br />
collaborative R&D projects that meet the overall energy policy.<br />
The projects that apply for funding from <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong><br />
have over time been in different phases in the technology development<br />
process, from basic research to demonstration. Figure<br />
6 shows how the total amount of PSO funding is divided<br />
between phases. The focus of the programmes <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>ForskVE</strong> is now predominantly on applied research <strong>and</strong> demonstration<br />
<strong>and</strong> therefore not on basic research, as Figure 5 above<br />
illustrates. Only around 3% of the total amount of funding from<br />
1998-2013 is allocated to basic research. 12% of the total PSO<br />
funding is allocated to applied research.<br />
Figure 6 - Total PSO budget <strong>and</strong> technology phases<br />
3%<br />
12%<br />
85%<br />
Basic<br />
Applied research<br />
Demonstration<br />
Figure 6 also illustrates that the majority of the total PSO funding<br />
goes to demonstration. A reason for this is that demonstration<br />
projects are financially dem<strong>and</strong>ing, because the aim of<br />
demonstration projects is to scale up the facilities <strong>and</strong> test a<br />
technology. However, 56% (not shown in the figure) of all projects<br />
are in the technology area of applied research, indicating<br />
that the programme prioritises projects primarily in technology<br />
phase of applied research. Only 29% (not shown in the figure)<br />
of the projects are in the technology phase of demonstration,<br />
even though they financially constitute 85% of the total amount<br />
of PSO funding.<br />
21
The construction of the projects<br />
It is important to describe the composition <strong>and</strong> construction of<br />
the <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> projects because this gives a better<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the projects in general <strong>and</strong> information about<br />
how the projects that have received funding from 1998 to 2013<br />
are constructed.<br />
As mentioned before, <strong>ForskEL</strong> or <strong>ForskVE</strong> projects can involve<br />
different partners who have a mutual interest in collaborating<br />
on a technological challenge, e.g. a project in the area of solar<br />
energy might involve a university with the latest knowledge<br />
about solar energy technology, a supplier of components that<br />
can be used in the creation of the new technology <strong>and</strong> an energy<br />
company that in the end might be interested in implementing<br />
the technology. Figure 7 illustrates a possible structure of<br />
a <strong>ForskEL</strong> or <strong>ForskVE</strong> project.<br />
Figure 7 - Example of<br />
a collaborative R&D<br />
project constellation<br />
University<br />
The average of the total number of partners in projects is approx.<br />
three partners. Figure 8 illustrates that 29% of the projects<br />
only have one partner in the project. These projects are<br />
mainly in the technology phases of applied research (27.5%)<br />
<strong>and</strong> demonstration (32.9%). However, since 2007 projects<br />
with only one partner has declined purposely due to the increased<br />
focus on the triple helix concept. The goal of the triple<br />
helix concept is to increase innovation <strong>and</strong> the development of<br />
new knowledge through the collaboration between university,<br />
Supplier of<br />
components<br />
Energy<br />
company<br />
22
industry <strong>and</strong> government <strong>and</strong> intersection of the three institutional<br />
spheres. Furthermore, from around 2010, projects with<br />
more than four partners have slightly increased, indicating that<br />
projects have become larger over the years, when looking at<br />
the number of partners.<br />
Figure 9 below illustrates the estimated duration of the projects.<br />
The average of the estimated duration time of a project<br />
is around 2.5 years. When a project applies for funding, they<br />
also have to estimate a termination date for the project in their<br />
application.<br />
In addition, when examining the budget it is also observed<br />
that since 2005, the number of projects receiving funding has<br />
decreased, indicating that <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> now support<br />
fewer project with larger budgets including more partners than<br />
before.<br />
The figure shows that around 32% of the projects have an estimated<br />
duration of approx. three years <strong>and</strong> 23% of the projects<br />
have estimated a duration time of approx. four years. Only<br />
around 19% of the projects have a longer duration time longer<br />
than four years <strong>and</strong> approx. 54% of these projects are in the<br />
technology phase of applied research. It is also observed that<br />
since 2003, the duration time of the projects has decreased.<br />
Figure 8 - Number of partners in the projects<br />
Figure 9 - Project duration<br />
Number of projects<br />
Number of projects<br />
180<br />
160<br />
140<br />
120<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
160<br />
140<br />
120<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14<br />
0<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9<br />
23
Who participates in the projects?<br />
<strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> encourage everybody with an interest in<br />
developing environmental technologies that can be implemented<br />
in the electricity system to submit a project application.<br />
Figure 10 illustrates that around 51% of the projects have a<br />
university included in the project. As expected, a great deal of<br />
projects in the area of applied research have included a university,<br />
but it is also important to observe that the presence of<br />
universities is identified in all the technology phases, indicating<br />
that universities do play a significant role in energy research.<br />
A RTO is often a privately held company which specialises in<br />
consulting in research <strong>and</strong> technology. In Denmark they are<br />
called advanced technology groups (GTS) <strong>and</strong> there are nine<br />
independent organisations across the country specialised in<br />
different areas. Figure 11 illustrates that 16% of the projects<br />
includes an RTO <strong>and</strong> they are primarily in the technology phases<br />
applied research <strong>and</strong> demonstration (not shown in the figure).<br />
International partners can be a foreign university or a privately<br />
held company. Figure 12 shows the percentage of international<br />
partners in the projects of <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong>. Around<br />
11% of the projects include international partners <strong>and</strong> in nearly<br />
57% of the projects which includes an international partner, the<br />
partner is a university (not shown in the figure).<br />
It is also observed that the number of international partners is<br />
relatively constant over the years. The only requirement of a<br />
project with an international partner is that the main responsible<br />
partner of the project is a Danish institution. Furthermore,<br />
<strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> support Danish partners in international<br />
projects such as ERA-Net projects in Smart grid, Biomass <strong>and</strong><br />
Solar energy. These projects are not included in the dataset as<br />
projects with an international partner.<br />
Being included in a project <strong>and</strong> being responsible for a project<br />
is two different things. Being the main responsible partner of a<br />
project implies that the current partner has the overall responsibility<br />
for the project <strong>and</strong> they often also invest more time <strong>and</strong><br />
money in the project compared to the other partners depending<br />
on the arrangement of the project. Figure 13 illustrates the responsible<br />
partners in the funded projects, divided into different<br />
groups such as universities, private companies, RTO <strong>and</strong> public<br />
institutions such as a municipality.<br />
The figure shows that a majority of the projects have a privately<br />
held company as the main responsible for the projects. This<br />
means that it for example is a utility or a producer of electricity<br />
that forms a project, incorporating others partners in the project.<br />
Moreover, it is observed that the majority of these projects<br />
are in the technology phases applied research <strong>and</strong> demonstration.<br />
24
Figure 10 - The presence of universities in the projects<br />
51%<br />
Figure 11 - The presence of a RTO in the projects<br />
16%<br />
51%<br />
Projects including a<br />
university<br />
16%<br />
Projects<br />
including a RTO<br />
49%<br />
49%<br />
Figure 12 - The presence of an international<br />
partner in the projects<br />
89%<br />
89%<br />
11%<br />
11%<br />
Projects not including<br />
a universaty<br />
Projects including a<br />
university<br />
Projects not including<br />
a universaty<br />
Projects not including<br />
an international partner<br />
Projects including an<br />
international partner<br />
Projects not including<br />
an international partner<br />
Projects including an<br />
international partner<br />
84%<br />
84%<br />
65%<br />
65%<br />
8% 1%<br />
Figure 13 - Partners responsible for<br />
the projects divided into groups<br />
8% 1%<br />
26%<br />
26%<br />
Projects not<br />
including<br />
Projects<br />
a RTO<br />
including a RTO<br />
Projects not<br />
including a RTO<br />
University<br />
Private company<br />
RTO<br />
Public University institution<br />
Private company<br />
RTO<br />
Public institution<br />
25
The second largest group is universities. They are mainly responsible<br />
for project in basic research <strong>and</strong> applied research.<br />
Finally, RTOs are the second smallest group with 8% <strong>and</strong> they<br />
are mostly represented in applied research confirming their role<br />
as the mediator between universities <strong>and</strong> private companies.<br />
Energy areas <strong>and</strong> the technology<br />
development phases<br />
It is interesting to examine where the different energy areas are<br />
represented in the technological development phases, because<br />
it is relevant to illustrate the position of different technologies<br />
<strong>and</strong> compare them. Table 2 shows the projects divided into<br />
phases <strong>and</strong> energy areas. The table does not illustrate the development<br />
over time, because it only sums up all the projects<br />
from 1998-2013. However, it can be concluded that the table<br />
does show some kind of progress, especially with the technologies<br />
that are represented through all the technological development<br />
phases such as biomass.<br />
All energy areas besides Biofuel, Control <strong>and</strong> regulation, Dem<strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> regulation <strong>and</strong> Electricity storage are represented<br />
in all the technology phases. This indicates the possibility of<br />
some of the supported projects from <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong><br />
have progressed through time. However, since 2009 there has<br />
been a drastic decrease of projects in basic research supported<br />
by <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong>. A reason for this can be that all<br />
the energy programmes have made a more clearly division of<br />
the different phases in technological development between the<br />
programmes, meaning that some of the programmes have their<br />
primary focus on basic research <strong>and</strong> others in demonstration.<br />
<strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> are primarily in the area of applied research<br />
<strong>and</strong> demonstration.<br />
Furthermore, as expected, table 3 shows that the privately<br />
held companies primarily are represented in applied research<br />
<strong>and</strong> demonstration. However, the table also shows that private<br />
companies were engaged in basic research. A reason for this<br />
can be that private companies in the energy sector have employees<br />
that have the technological expertise <strong>and</strong> competences to<br />
engage in projects in the area of basic research. The table also<br />
shows as expected that the involvement of research institutions<br />
decreases through the phases.<br />
26
Table 2 - Number of projects divided into energy areas <strong>and</strong> technology phases<br />
research Applied research Demonstration<br />
Biofuel 0 14 6<br />
Control <strong>and</strong> regulation 0 9 8<br />
Dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> regulation 0 7 12<br />
Electricity storage 0 2 2<br />
Biomass 26 106 36<br />
Wave 1 20 14<br />
Hydrogen 17 36 12<br />
Smart grid 8 15 10<br />
Fossil 5 15 19<br />
Solar 4 25 28<br />
Wind 14 50 10<br />
Other 6 6 2<br />
Table 3 - Private <strong>and</strong> research institutions divided into technology phases<br />
research Applied research Demonstration<br />
A private company is included in R&D projects 51 281 148<br />
Only research institutions are included in the R&D project 30 24 11<br />
27
Network analysis<br />
of <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong><br />
Social network analysis (SNA) is an approach that can be used<br />
to observe <strong>and</strong> identify relationships in networks through advanced<br />
calculations. The aim of this section is to give an overall<br />
picture of the network of <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> projects <strong>and</strong><br />
how the participants (partners) are related in the whole network<br />
<strong>and</strong> divided into the different phases of technology development.<br />
Furthermore, the SNA can be used to identify if there<br />
are participants, who are not included in the main network <strong>and</strong><br />
if there are participants who have many relations to other actors<br />
in the sector.<br />
The SNA sociogram consists of nodes which represent individual<br />
partners within the network <strong>and</strong> ties which represent<br />
relationships between the partners in a network. This report<br />
will depict the network of <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> projects by<br />
using social network sociograms, where nodes are represented<br />
as points <strong>and</strong> ties are represented as lines. It is important to<br />
bear in mind that all the sociograms in the report have a time<br />
dimension from 1998-2013 <strong>and</strong> are an aggregated view of the<br />
network.<br />
The whole <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> network<br />
When examining R&D in the Danish energy sector, it is observed<br />
that the sector is filled with a great amount of different<br />
participants from privately held companies such as producers<br />
of electricity to research institutions such as universities.<br />
The sociogram illustrates all the participants in <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>ForskVE</strong> projects from 1998-2013. The white nodes are the<br />
different participants <strong>and</strong> the larger the nodes are, the more<br />
a participant is involved in different projects. The blue nodes<br />
are projects, <strong>and</strong> if a participant is involved in many projects, a<br />
group of blue nodes are seen near a big white node.<br />
From the sociogram, three main groups are identified. There is<br />
a core group of participants marked with a red circle, who are<br />
involved in many projects <strong>and</strong> have numerous relations to other<br />
participants. Then there is another group marked with the green<br />
circle <strong>and</strong> they are outside the main core of the network, but<br />
they are also involved in projects <strong>and</strong> have relations to other<br />
participants in the sector. Finally, the third group is outside the<br />
28
green circle <strong>and</strong> a majority of these nodes do not have a relationship<br />
to other participants in the network. Questions that<br />
are interesting to ask are whether the participants outside the<br />
green circle have access to other participants’ experiences <strong>and</strong><br />
knowledge or whether participants in the red circle are members<br />
of an exclusive group only sharing knowledge within the<br />
small network. Furthermore, projects not being a part of the<br />
larger network might indicate that <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> dare<br />
to support newcomers to the network <strong>and</strong> not always support<br />
familiar participants with a known network.<br />
There are three participants that over time have 102, 91 <strong>and</strong> 68<br />
different relations. These participants are two Danish universities<br />
<strong>and</strong> a former producer of electricity.<br />
Figure 14<br />
Sociogram of the whole <strong>ForskEL</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> network <strong>and</strong> projects<br />
29
Technology development phases<br />
<strong>and</strong> the network<br />
The technology development phases such as basic, applied <strong>and</strong><br />
demonstration have previously been described in this report.<br />
The aim of this is to illustrate the network in the different phases<br />
<strong>and</strong> show how the network changes, the more the projects<br />
involve.<br />
During the technology development phase of basic research<br />
(figure 15), it is observed that there are some large-scale participants<br />
(white nodes) that are involved in a great amount of<br />
projects (blue nodes). There are 146 nodes <strong>and</strong> 200 relations<br />
in this network. The most active participant in basic research<br />
is involved in 43 projects.<br />
What it important to show is that within basic research, the network<br />
has a close interaction between the projects <strong>and</strong> participants<br />
which means that the distance between the participants<br />
is relatively small <strong>and</strong> there is a strong collaboration culture.<br />
Figure 15 - The <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong><br />
network in basic research<br />
30
In applied research (figure 16) the network is completely different<br />
compared to the network in basic research. There are 738<br />
nodes <strong>and</strong> 939 relations in this network <strong>and</strong> the most active<br />
participant is involved in 64 projects. This phase has the most<br />
participants compared to the other phases; however, more<br />
participants in a network can also affect the closeness of the<br />
network because of the bigger spread.<br />
Figure 16 - The <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong><br />
network in applied research<br />
31
The last technology development phase is the demonstration<br />
phase. Here 480 nodes are observed <strong>and</strong> there are 503 relations<br />
between the nodes <strong>and</strong> the most active participant is<br />
involved in 21 projects. The demonstration phase differs from<br />
the other phases by being the most fragmented network, indicating<br />
that this network is highly specialised.<br />
To sum up, by applying the SNA it has been possible to identify<br />
the network structure <strong>and</strong> provide information about the whole<br />
network of <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> <strong>and</strong> how the energy sector<br />
in regard to R&D is connected. It has shown that over time, a<br />
majority of the different participants are involved in different<br />
projects <strong>and</strong> have relations to one another.<br />
32
Figure 17<br />
The <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>ForskVE</strong> network<br />
in demonstration<br />
33
Performance<br />
The definition of performance is the accomplishment of a given<br />
task measured against present known st<strong>and</strong>ards of accuracy,<br />
completeness, cost <strong>and</strong> speed. The data in this section consists<br />
of 135 end reports, carried out by 27 different evaluators.<br />
20 evaluators agreed to participate in the survey, which resulted<br />
in a response rate of 74.0%.<br />
In the process, the end report of the expert evaluator <strong>and</strong> a<br />
copy of the survey for each report were sent to the expert evaluators<br />
by email. The evaluator was requested to evaluate the<br />
end reports again <strong>and</strong> then fill in a questionnaire for each project<br />
they had previously evaluated. 105 surveys were returned,<br />
resulting in a response rate of 77.7%.<br />
investigates the short-term performance. A future project will<br />
look more into the long-term outcome of <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong><br />
projects.<br />
A way to examine performance on a short term is to investigate<br />
if the projects fulfil the obligations written in the project application<br />
<strong>and</strong> if the final results of the project are as the project<br />
aimed for. But bear in mind that measuring performance on a<br />
short <strong>and</strong> long term can be complex especially in public supported<br />
projects. Overall, the level of risk in public supported<br />
projects can be relatively high, meaning that a great deal of<br />
the projects may fail <strong>and</strong> some projects may succeed in project<br />
management but fail in technology output <strong>and</strong> vice versa.<br />
When examining <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> projects, it is relevant<br />
to investigate, when looking at the short term perspective,<br />
the project application <strong>and</strong> output. It is also relevant to examine<br />
the project output in a long-term perspective such as five<br />
years after the project has ended, in order to see whether the<br />
technology is implemented <strong>and</strong> deployed, but this report only<br />
Therefore, the analysis will start with performance measurements<br />
on project management examining how well the projects<br />
manage the project. Subsequently, the analysis will go more<br />
into the technological output <strong>and</strong> study how relevant the final<br />
results of the projects are.<br />
34
As a final point, investigating performance of public supported<br />
projects is not a simple task. As mentioned before, the programmes<br />
support projects that have more than a potential economic<br />
dimension. The projects also have to contain a societal<br />
<strong>and</strong> political dimension; therefore, it is important to have this<br />
complexity in mind.<br />
project management<br />
Project management is the discipline of planning, organising,<br />
motivating <strong>and</strong> controlling resources to achieve specific goals.<br />
By employing good project management, it can be less challenging<br />
to meet the goals <strong>and</strong> milestones of the project. Table<br />
4 shows to what extent the projects lived up to the goals in the<br />
project application.<br />
The table shows that around 50% of the projects to some<br />
extent or to a high extent lived up to the application goals. This<br />
indicates that around half of the projects met their application<br />
goals as described in the application. In a project, the applicants<br />
have to describe different activities <strong>and</strong> work packages.<br />
Table 5 below illustrates to what extent the projects fulfilled the<br />
scheduled activities <strong>and</strong> work packages.<br />
Table 4: Goals in the project application<br />
To a high In some To a To a very<br />
extent extent Neutral low extent low extent Total<br />
To what extent<br />
did the project live<br />
up to the project<br />
application goals? 24 (23%) 28 (27%) 32 (31%) 14 (13%) 6 (6%) 104<br />
Table 5 - Activities <strong>and</strong> work packages<br />
To a high In some To a To a very<br />
extent extent Neutral low extent low extent Total<br />
To what extent did<br />
the project fulfil the<br />
scheduled activities<br />
or work packages? 14 (14%) 39 (38%) 30 (29%) 15 (15%) 4 (4%) 102<br />
35
Table 5 shows that around 50% of the projects to some or a<br />
high extent fulfilled their scheduled activities or work packages.<br />
Only 4% of the projects fulfilled their activities or work<br />
packages to a very low extent.<br />
In the application, the project applicants have to state when<br />
they plan to finalise the project. There is a deadline <strong>and</strong> they<br />
have to write an end report that includes their results <strong>and</strong> conclusion.<br />
The table below illustrates if the project met its final<br />
deadline <strong>and</strong> to what extent.<br />
Table 6 shows that around 40% of the projects met their final<br />
deadline to a low or a very low extent. This means that a great<br />
deal of the projects are not capable of finishing the projects<br />
according to the scheduled time. There are a lot of different<br />
reasons for why the projects are delayed. A reason can be that<br />
a supplier of components could not deliver on time, which affects<br />
the rest of the process or it can be a change of partners<br />
in the projects or simply new knowledge that might affect the<br />
final outcome. Furthermore, it can also be due to poor project<br />
management that the projects have a hard time meeting their<br />
deadlines.<br />
The analysis also shows that 62% (not shown in the table) of<br />
the projects when looking at the overall project management<br />
was a success, indicating that even though the projects might<br />
not meet the final deadline, the overall project management in<br />
most of the projects is sufficient.<br />
Technological output<br />
Technology output means the final results or findings of the<br />
project. The majority of the projects aim at creating new technologies<br />
or innovations <strong>and</strong> the following analysis will illustrate<br />
how the projects managed to do so.<br />
All projects have to state in their application what their technical<br />
goals are. Some projects aim at increasing the efficiency of<br />
an existing technology, while others try to develop <strong>and</strong> test a<br />
new technology. The table below illustrates to what extent the<br />
projects met their technical goals.<br />
Table 6 - Meeting final deadline<br />
To a high extent In some extent Neutral To a low extent To a very low extent Total<br />
To what extent did the<br />
project meet its final deadline? 4 (4%) 25 (27%) 27 (29%) 22 (23%) 16 (17%) 94<br />
36
Table 7 shows that a majority of the projects to some or to a<br />
high extent met their technical goals. Only 5%of the projects<br />
met their technical goals to a very low extent. What is interesting<br />
to see is that 50% of the projects that met their final<br />
deadlines to a low extent did, met their technical goals to some<br />
extent (not shown in the table). This indicates that there can be<br />
a relationship between not meeting final deadlines <strong>and</strong> achieving<br />
the technical goals of the project.<br />
Projects from <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> often have a relatively long<br />
time horizon. As previously explained in this report, projects<br />
can go through different technological phases <strong>and</strong> it can take<br />
years before a project becomes commercial. Therefore, the<br />
goal of a project is not always to create a commercial product,<br />
but it can also be to create some new knowledge that can be<br />
used in a new project, going from applied research to demonstration.<br />
Tabel 8 illustrates to what extent the projects created<br />
knowledge that could be used in a new project.<br />
Table 8 shows that 60% of the projects did create knowledge<br />
that can be used in a new project. This indicates that projects<br />
in the technology phases of either basic, applied or demonstration<br />
created some knowledge that might be useful in a new<br />
project. However, newly created knowledge does not also have<br />
to be positive results. It can also be negative results that can<br />
contribute with the knowledge of what does not work <strong>and</strong> this<br />
knowledge can be used in a new project.<br />
Table 7 - Projects <strong>and</strong> meeting technical goals<br />
To a high In some To a To a very<br />
extent extent Neutral low extent low extent Total<br />
To what extent did<br />
the project fulfil its<br />
technical goals? 12 (12%) 40 (38%) 29 (28%) 18 (17%) 5 (5%) 104<br />
Table 8 - Projects <strong>and</strong> new created knowledge<br />
To a high In some To a To a very<br />
extent extent Neutral low extent low extent Total<br />
To what extent did<br />
the project create<br />
knowledge that<br />
can be used in<br />
a new project? 20 (19%) 43 (41%) 22 (21%) 14 (13%) 6 (6%) 105<br />
37
One of the main aims of <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> is to support<br />
projects that develop new technology. Developing a technology<br />
can be very costly <strong>and</strong> time dem<strong>and</strong>ing. For many private<br />
companies, it can be very risky <strong>and</strong> cost-intensive to focus on<br />
the development of new technologies; therefore, the programmes<br />
prioritise to support projects with the aim of developing<br />
a new technology. The table below illustrates to what extent<br />
the project supported by <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> created a new<br />
technology.<br />
Table 9 shows that around 50% of the projects create a new<br />
technology, meaning that half of the projects did not create a<br />
new technology. A reason might be that it takes a long time to<br />
develop a technology <strong>and</strong> that a great deal of the projects can<br />
be in the area of incremental innovation, where the goal is to<br />
refine the existing technology <strong>and</strong> to test them. However, this<br />
might also indicate that half of the projects might have failed in<br />
developing a new technology <strong>and</strong> they did not create the output<br />
that they have aimed for.<br />
Finally, asking the expert evaluators about whether the overall<br />
technical results of the projects were a success, only 52% answered<br />
yes. Additionally, 48% of the projects produced scientific<br />
publications signifies that new knowledge was created, but<br />
only 10% of projects devised patent applications. Furthermore,<br />
only 11% of the projects produced a PhD. project (not shown<br />
in the table).<br />
Table 9 - Projects <strong>and</strong> new technology<br />
To a high extent In some extent Neutral To a low extent To a very low extent Total<br />
To what extent is the<br />
technology new? 8 (8%) 42 (41%) 35 (34%) 13 (12%) 5 (5%) 103<br />
38
Conclusion<br />
The goal of this report was threefold. First, it presented <strong>and</strong><br />
then examined the organisational structure of the <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>ForskVE</strong> projects. Until now there does not exist any general<br />
information about <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong>. Second, this report<br />
gave an overview of the network structure of <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>ForskVE</strong> projects, describing how the Danish energy sector is<br />
interconnected in regard to R&D. This has also not been done<br />
before <strong>and</strong> this gave knowledge about the <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> Forsk-<br />
VE network. Finally, the report provided the first performance<br />
evaluation of almost hundred <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong> projects.<br />
This has also not been done before <strong>and</strong> the results are interesting<br />
for future project evaluation, because it contributes with<br />
deeper underst<strong>and</strong>ing of projects funded by Energinet.dk <strong>and</strong><br />
what these projects have produced on the short term.<br />
In the future, there is a need for a larger performance evaluation<br />
that examines the outcome of the projects on the short <strong>and</strong><br />
long term. This can give a better underst<strong>and</strong>ing to <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>ForskVE</strong> of which projects to give financial support, what the<br />
projects need to fulfil their goals, <strong>and</strong> finally how to increase<br />
the level of success of the final output.<br />
I would like to thank Energinet.dk, all the research coordinators<br />
at <strong>ForskEL</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ForskVE</strong>, Jens Martinus Pedersen, Knut Berge,<br />
Niels Laursen, Per Kristensen, Tue Hald, Jan Vedde, Kurt S.<br />
Hansen, Bjarne Maribo Pedersen, Lars Nikolaisen, Ole Kristensen,<br />
Kaj Isaksen, Lasse Rosendahl, Viktor Jensen, Fritz Luxhøj,<br />
Thomas Astrup, Krister Ståhl, Peter Ahm <strong>and</strong> Ole Jess Olsen for<br />
insightful comments <strong>and</strong> assistance.<br />
39