Evaluation of the effectiveness of the New Instruments of ... - CORDIS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5. Efficiency New Instruments are perceived as likely to improve the efficiency of the actions supported. Table 5.1: Opinion on different aspects related with efficiency (n=130) (on 5-points scale, whereby 5 = fully agree) Statement Successful proposers n=115 By the fact that more management responsibility is given to the consortium 3.8 in case of an IP / NoE, a higher efficiency will be achieved I believe that the provisions and requirements of the Commission for project 3.7 funding (including monitoring, financial controls, reporting required, etc.) ensure proper accountability The flexibility at the level of work programme and budgets of IPs and NoEs 3.8 will lead to higher efficiency The research proposals (work packages, etc.) were detailed enough as to 3.9 guarantee an efficient follow-up of the approved projects Budget provisions were detailed enough as to guarantee an efficient followup of the approved projects 3.6 It may be efficient to follow up on some close-to-win projects for future calls 3.6 The average ‘no reply’ rate for the above statements has been 14 %, probably due to the fact that these respondents consider it is still too early in the process to express themselves on these issues since the major part of the negotiation processes were still under course when the questionnaire have been filled out. The majority of those respondents who did give their opinion, however, agreed with each of the statements given. No significant differences can be observed when looking at the different thematic areas. 66
6. Comparison with FP5 and traditional instruments Opinions are clearly in favour of a continuation of the co-existence, with a significant group that would prefer traditional instruments to be enhanced. A question was included to verify the previous experience of respondents with EU RTD. The results are given in the table below. No Once More than Never reply once Have been coordinator of a project funded by EC 10% 22% 32% 36% RTD in the past Have been a participant 11% 10% 59% 20% Have applied unsuccessfully 20% 15% 38% 27% The Experience level of successful participants is significantly higher as from unsuccessful applicants. This result is not surprising. Of the 145 unsuccessful applicants, 31 have answered ‘never’ on all three questions above. For the 115 successful applicants, this figure is 14 only. Table 6.1: Comparison of an IP / NoE as an instrument with a traditional shared cost research project in previous FPs (n=230, those who have previous experience with EU RTD) (on 5-points scale, whereby 5 = much higher / better with new instruments than with previous instruments) Statement Successful n=116 Unsuccessful n=114 The possibility to fit the needs of my organisation 3.1 2.6 The share of time needed from the co-ordinator for 4.0 3.8 management issues The level of ambition 4.1 3.9 The level of risk-taking (scientific and other risks) 3.6 3.3 The level of flexibility allowed in the course of the project (in 3.8 3.5 terms of size of the consortium and content of the project) The level of bureaucracy 3.3 3.5 The level of complexity of IPR issues 3.7 3.8 The level of cost-efficiency for the project co-ordinator 3.0 2.9 The chart below gives the average result regarding the co-existence of new instruments with traditional instruments. There are significant differences between the successful and unsuccessful applicants. Those considering traditional instruments should be enhanced represent 28 % of the successful applicants, and 47 % of the unsuccessful. 67
Page 1 and 2:
Report Evaluation of the effectiven
Page 3 and 4:
1. Executive Summary An independent
Page 5 and 6:
2. Introduction The European Resear
Page 7 and 8:
The members of the Panel 1. Ramon M
Page 9 and 10:
The New instruments in the first ca
Page 11 and 12:
• The mismatch between the expect
Page 13 and 14:
Integrated Projects and STREPs are
Page 15 and 16: 3.4. Ensuring participation of all
Page 17 and 18: Dissatisfaction with the feedback o
Page 19 and 20: Another novelty introduced in FP 6
Page 21 and 22: 4.1. Portfolio of Instruments Recom
Page 23 and 24: Integrated Projects Integrated Proj
Page 25 and 26: Recommendation 9 For FP7 a much mor
Page 27 and 28: First step • Proposals are short
Page 29 and 30: The existing Financial Regulation s
Page 31 and 32: 1. Overall situation of FP6 (first
Page 33 and 34: 2. Situation of new instruments in
Page 35 and 36: Thematic Priority Area 3 Nanotechno
Page 37 and 38: Thematic Priority Area 4.2 Space Ch
Page 39 and 40: Thematic Priority Area 6.1 Sustaina
Page 41 and 42: Thematic Priority Area 6.3 Global c
Page 43 and 44: 3. Comparison between priorities Sh
Page 45 and 46: Participants from Candidate Countri
Page 47 and 48: Annex 2 Survey among Project Partic
Page 49 and 50: Introduction This report analyses t
Page 51 and 52: Table 1.2: Type of applicant by the
Page 53 and 54: Chart 1.6 : Type of organisation (n
Page 55 and 56: Priorities where the group of respo
Page 57 and 58: Respondents, due to their profile,
Page 59 and 60: the proposal, which is generally co
Page 61 and 62: These results confirm that projects
Page 63 and 64: Chart 3.9: Expectation for the futu
Page 65: Following elements notably are crit
Page 69 and 70: Annex 3 High level Panel of experts
Page 71 and 72: • Frustration at the concept of h
Page 73: Annex 4 - Estimate of average contr
show all

Evaluation of the effectiveness of the New Instruments of ... - CORDIS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?