Analysis of FP participation through a regional and territorial basis

Analysis of FP participation through a regional and
territorial basis
Towards a common methodology?
Mathieu DOUSSINEAU
TECHNOPOLIS France
1
Technopolis group, un réseau européen
Amsterdam
Stockholm
Tallin
Brighton
Bruxelles
Paris
Vienne
Ankara
70 consultants
(10 consultants au bureau parisien)
2
Content
•
•
•
•
•
Current situation
Towards a common methodological approach
What could be done
Back to the Breton experience
Examples
3
Current situation
•
Context
•As Framework Programme is growing, Regions are more independent from
central public authorities, the question of FP assessment is more and more
crucial
•There is almost no data spreading of regional participation from National
contact points neither programme committee representatives towards
regions (at least in France)
•Regions are trying to perform their own FP assessment by collecting
information from local stakeholders (Surveys, interviews and Cordis data
mining).
•EC has difficulties to provide clean and reliable data to provide to region
because there is an “headquarter effect” (“effet de siège”). A FP participation is
often located in the capital city. This effect is partially depending of the
political structure of each country (Germany vs France) and the main
research stakeholders (large research organisms, large companies...)
•The reliability of the data is also depending of the research systems
organisations which specific to each country (the case of UMR in France for
example). This characteristics is independent of the EC data.
4
Current situation
•
Consequence
• There is many good regional FP assessment performed but without
common methodology of data gathering and without commonly
agreed indicators. Considering the heterogeneity of regional
assessment, the comparison between regional assessment is not
possible
5
Current situation
•
Regions need some strategic governance tools such as reliable regional FP
analysis.
1. On a time basis: What is the trend between FPs? Regions need to monitor and
compare the performance of regional stakeholders in FP6 and FP7 .This
monitoring allows an evaluation of local support actions in each region.
2. On an intra regional perspective: what is the weight the FP comparing to
other national or European supports in terms of participation, coordination,
and budget ?
3. On an inter-regional perspective : how to compare regions between each other
if the FP analysis are not complete. What are the main collaboration axis
between regions
4. On a technological perspective: what information FP analysis gives in terms of
technological specialization of regional stakeholders?
... ... ...
6
Towards a common methodological approach
•
The main factors affecting FP regional analysis
1.
2.
3.
4.
The characterics of national research systems
The link with “national information owners”
The size of the region in terms of participations
The type of participant in regions (university, public research
organizations, SME...)
5. The quality of the regional data collecting (each regional
participation is checked one by one with the contact
database)
6. Quality of the communication between region and local stakeholders
•
More the region has performed a good FP assessment easier the
qualification is.
7
Towards a common methodological approach
•
Towards a common methodological approach commonly agreed by
regions and EC.
The methodological approach needs 2 information sources :
1. EC contract data
2.Local data collected by regional structures
•
•
The adjustment of the methodology according the characterics of
groups of regions and countries
The involvement of regional structures is crucial by their
knowledge of the local research system to complete the database
1. To interact with local contact point of public organism
2.To interact with private entities
8
What could be done
•
From database enrichment, indicators can be calculated
• To compare regional profile to the national profile
•
In terms of research domains
Is there a regional specialisation?
Is there a trend between FP6 and FP7 (to assess regional effort to support local
participants, an implementation of regional research policy-clusters...)?
•
In terms of participants activities
What is the regional profile comparing to national profile (universities, companies,
RTD organisations, SME)
In there a lack of some participant category comparing to the European research
potential of the region?
What is the structuring effect of FP between regional participants? If the
structuring effect is assessed, what are the main reasons ? Clusters policies,
Public private partnership?
9
What could be done
•
To Draw the map of regional cooperation
• Between regions in research domains
• Between regional actors in research domains
10
Back to the Breton experience: The methodological
approach
•
Main objectives:
• Locate all regional participants and draw the inter regional
collaborations in the European Research Area
•
Specific objectives :
• Matching the data collected by the local structures in regions with the
EC contract database
• Building a clean and stable projects database involving at least one
regional participation
• Building regional performance indicators (thematics, instruments,
type of participants...)
11
Back to the Breton experience: The methodological
approach-main results
•
Measure of the “headquarter effect” according type of participants
58% of participations
are not well located
12
Back to the Breton experience: the technical approach
Regional input
13
Back to Breton experience: different manners to read the
« clean regional data »
Graphs
Tables
Maps
Social network analysis
EDF_FR
AIRPARIF_FR
MIC_FR
ICO_FR
CORNILLE_HAVARD_FR
CSTB_FR
DMR_FR
RENAULT_FR
MINEFI_FR
AM_FR
CAPSICOM_FR
ARMINES_FR
ACTEON_FR
BRGM_FR
AQUAMETRIS_FR
INERIS_FR
LPTC_FR
SECOMAM_
P5LAA_FR
CNRS_FR
STS_FR
EXPLORAIR_FR
LPS_FR
NOSOCO_FR
ECRIN_FR
CEA_FR
LACAZE_FR
14
Examples
•
FP participants in
construction sector
L’analyse de réseaux est largement fonction
la taille de l’échantillon
Les cercles indiquent de degré d’intégration des entités dans le secteur.
Il parait logique de trouver dans le 1er les entités les plus généralistes, leur taille dépend15
de leur influence sur l’ensemble de réseau
Examples
• Les principaux participants aux projets de recherche du 6e PCRD
Nbre Partic.
dont
Coord.
Rang
NOM
Pays
1
NETHERLANDS ORGANISATION FOR APPLIED
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Pays-Bas
27
1
2
TECHNICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF FINLAND
Finlande
27
4
3
FRAUNHOFER
Allemagne
20
4
4
FUNDACION LABEIN
Espagne
17
6
5
JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
CE
16
0
6
CENTRE SCIENTIFIQUE ET TECHNIQUE DU
BATIMENT
France
16
0
...
...
...
...
...
15
CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE
SCIENTIFIQUE
France
8
0
21
COMMISSARIAT A L'ENERGIE ATOMIQUE
France
7
0
25
AGENCE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DE LA
MAÎTRISE DE L'ÉNERGIE
France
6
0
34
ELECTRICITE DE FRANCE
France
3
0
16
Examples
•
Links between french participants in construction sector
IP SESAC
NOE INTUITION
IP-PME FLEXIFUN BAR
IP NANOSECURE
STREP SWIFT WFD
IP RENAISSANCE
STREP SELF
CLEANING GLASS
IP MODURBAN
17
:
Examples
• La coopération internationale dans le domaine de l’énergie solaire photovoltaïque
dans le 6e PCRD (évaluation de la thématique Energies non nucléaires du 6e PCRDTechnopolis Group 2009)
• L’analyse permet de
visualiser les coopérations
entre pays et de montrer les
affinités entre pays ou
groupes de pays.
•
Une dimension temporelle
peut être ajoutée à l’analyse
en modélisant des réseaux
dans le programme
précédent ou suivant. Des
différences de structuration
pourraient alors être
observées et l’impact des
politiques mises en oeuvre
clairement démontré.
18
:
Examples
• Les participants chinois et leurs coordonnateurs dans la thématique IST du 6e PCRD (Interim
evaluation of the Chinese participation in the EU’s Framework Programme- Technopolis
Group- 2008)
• L’analyse permet de
•
•
visualiser les coopérations
entre participants chinois et
coordonnateurs européens.
Elle permet de montrer
quels sont les acteurs chinois
les plus attractifs
et les coordonnateurs
européens les plus actifs
dans la coopération
scientifique avec la Chine
⇒ l’analyse de réseaux sociaux
est un outil incomparable
pour déceler les acteurs clés
d’un programme impliquant
de nombreux participants
19
Examples
•
Les liens entre les participants français dans les nouveaux processus pour
le secteur de la construction du 6e PCRD
20
Contacts :
Mathieu Doussineau
Tél. : 01 49 49 09 27
[email protected]
www.technopolis-group.com
21