At the present stage, and although experiments have already been conducted (at national level in Germany, at EU level, e.g. the AMICA project) Euroscience is not in a position to make suggestions as to "devolved" or "decentralised" operational management structures. The subject is important but demands further analysis and debate, as different types of projects have different requirements. Euroscience is ready to take part in such a reflection.
At the present stage Euroscience stayed deliberately away from the debate on priorities or the balance of priorities within FP5 as the process of defining them is well advanced. Should budgetary problems occur before the FP's final adoption, thus reopening the question of priorities, Euroscience would willingly contribute to the discussion.
Contact
Seltz Raymond, Secretary General
8 rue des Ecrivains
67000 Strasbourg
Tel : +33 (0)3 88 24 11 50
Fax : +33 (0)3 88 24 75 56
Email : Please use our contact form
Search Site
Recommendation for Improving Management and Assessment of the EU Framework Programmes
The European Association Euroscience, created in March 1997, is an independent forum for everyone wishing to reappraise relationships between science and society, to promote closer pan-European co-operation in science and technology and to contribute to a more efficient preparation of young scientists to the changing pattern of science careers. It brings together scientists from the public and business sectors, journalists, science administrators and partners of science from 29 European countries.
In entering the consultation process on the European Union (EU) Framework Programme, Euroscience has several goals:
Management issues are critical if scientific research and its returns to society are to be made more efficient. Being a wide and open association of active scientists - and thus of present and potential users of EU programmes involved in national and international projects -, Euroscience considers it important to help European scientists understand EU strategies in science and technology. After wide consultation of its members, Euroscience wishes to present suggestions and recommendations on the management of the EU R&D Programmes. Beyond this presentation, Euroscience is prepared to offer the expertise of its members on any issue the Commission may find appropriate.
Our recommendations are summarized below:
In entering the consultation process on the European Union (EU) Framework Programme, Euroscience has several goals:
- to help build up the confidence European scientists have in European institutions and to this end to reflect the way a large number of European scientists, in particular younger ones, perceive EU procedures;
- to introduce greater transparency in the management of European science;
- and to clarify the respective roles of scientific experts and of decision makers.
Management issues are critical if scientific research and its returns to society are to be made more efficient. Being a wide and open association of active scientists - and thus of present and potential users of EU programmes involved in national and international projects -, Euroscience considers it important to help European scientists understand EU strategies in science and technology. After wide consultation of its members, Euroscience wishes to present suggestions and recommendations on the management of the EU R&D Programmes. Beyond this presentation, Euroscience is prepared to offer the expertise of its members on any issue the Commission may find appropriate.
Our recommendations are summarized below:
The selection process should encourage the expression of creativity
To reach this objective, calls for proposals should not set over-narrow targets ; provision for a minimal proportion of non conventional projects should be included in all programmes; the relative importance of selection criteria need to be reappraised (para 3.1).
Faster treatment of proposals and more flexibility in the management of projects should be sought by the Commission.
To reach this objective, the negotiation of accepted contracts should be simplified and the role of project co-ordinator should be reinforced (para 3.2).
There should be greater transparency in the expertise process.
To reach this objective, the list of experts should be made public, and the group of experts should behave as far as possible as a collectively responsible entity (para 3.3).
The monitoring, dissemination and exploitation of results and ex-post evaluation of funded projects should receive more attention.
Here Euroscience emphasizes the role of the key-action advisory panels and offers to organize a debate with other partners (sect. 4).
Many Euroscience members found real improvement in the management of the Framework Programmes (FP) :
Most Euroscience members, however, believe that some difficulties do arise from the way in which the programmes are managed at present, namely:
- a very high level of experts chosen for the selection of proposals
- well publicized selection criteria in some programmes of FP4 (e.g. MAST, Environment and Climate...)
- fair management by Commission programme managers.
Most Euroscience members, however, believe that some difficulties do arise from the way in which the programmes are managed at present, namely:
- creativity does not receive enough encouragement in research undertaken within the FP
- too long delays in the selection procedure (sometimes more than one year)
- insufficient transparency in the evaluation of proposals, even though the process involving external independent experts is usually considered to be fair.
- heterogeneity of selection criteria and too many of them : scientific excellence is mixed up with potential social and economic impact, perspectives of SME creation and employment, exploitation plans and/or technical and administrative issues which could be solved during contract negotiation
- insufficient follow-up of projects and exploitation of results.
3.1. For a selection process which encourages the expression of creativity
In FP5, besides the management committee for each specific programme (government representatives), an advisory panel will be formed for each key action (made up of independent experts), both groups to be chaired by a Commission manager.
Within each specific programme, calls for proposals are issued on the basis of work programmes agreed upon by the EC and the management committee.
Before commenting on the selection process, Euroscience recognizes that:
Euroscience underlines the need to allow the formation of truly innovative projects and for the spirit of originality to be alive in each proposal. Creativity is a broader concept than scientific excellence - which remains mandatory. The expression of creativity is a major stake for Europe, the only hope for advantage in world competition, the only way to guarantee the long-term success of Framework Programmes. Exploratory R&D should be present in all key actions, their main thrust being in hard science and technology or in social sciences for the benefit of European societies. Industry also needs creativity.
In order to encourage the expression of creativity:
Within each specific programme, calls for proposals are issued on the basis of work programmes agreed upon by the EC and the management committee.
Before commenting on the selection process, Euroscience recognizes that:
- The institution of advisory panels involving independent experts is a very good step forward.
- The targeting of priorities underlying key actions is welcome, but it is essential to preserve the margin of liberty open by the research and technological development of "generic nature".
Euroscience underlines the need to allow the formation of truly innovative projects and for the spirit of originality to be alive in each proposal. Creativity is a broader concept than scientific excellence - which remains mandatory. The expression of creativity is a major stake for Europe, the only hope for advantage in world competition, the only way to guarantee the long-term success of Framework Programmes. Exploratory R&D should be present in all key actions, their main thrust being in hard science and technology or in social sciences for the benefit of European societies. Industry also needs creativity.
In order to encourage the expression of creativity:
- Calls for proposals should not be so narrowly focused as to discourage creativity. They should specify that the boundaries may be extended to accommodate particularly innovative projects. Calls for proposals should also remain open on the same terms of reference over a limited period of time, one year for instance, with several intermediate deadlines for examination by the EC. This period could correspond to the interval between revisions of the work programme by the management committee. Applicants would thus have more time to focus their projects and negotiate interaction with potential partners.
- Selection criteria should deter neither originality nor the willingness to take risks. Creativity does imply some risk and coping with risks is a major justification of public support at State and Community level. Thus the expert group screening the proposals should have the capacity to support a few promising projects which keep within the broad objectives of the key action even if they diverge somehow from the work programme.
3.2 For a speedier treatment of proposals and more flexibility in project management
The two most time-consuming steps in the cycle are the processing of the call for proposals and the contract negotiation.
The improvement of the first phase of the proposal cycle is the responsibility of the Commission. Euroscience proposes however that the first step be simplified, for instance by :
For the contract negotiation phase Euroscience proposes that :
Project co-ordinators and programme managers are natural partners in project management. In general, there would be more flexibility if the responsibilities of the project co-ordinator were increased.
The improvement of the first phase of the proposal cycle is the responsibility of the Commission. Euroscience proposes however that the first step be simplified, for instance by :
- Limiting the use of extensive application forms to very large contracts. Applicants would thus not rely on using quasi-professional proposal writers, a practice which may prove counterproductive where creativity is sought.
- Notifying promptly applicants whose proposals are ineligible so that they can take advantage of the open call and resubmit at a later stage.
For the contract negotiation phase Euroscience proposes that :
- The group of experts in charge of scientific evaluation and ranking of projects should be invited to comment on the level of funds requested and in some particular cases even on fund allocation. This would help the programme manager and in several cases could allow the project co-ordinators to revise the budget themselves and approve fund sharing between partners in the consortium, provided appropriate reporting is ensured.
- The project co-ordinator should be allowed more freedom in managing the allotted funds; in some cases this has already proved very beneficial in fostering innovation.
- Signature delegation within the EC should be wider and at least for the FP projects it should be down to the director level.
Project co-ordinators and programme managers are natural partners in project management. In general, there would be more flexibility if the responsibilities of the project co-ordinator were increased.
3.3 For greater transparency in the expertise process
The experts who evaluate and select proposals are presently chosen by the Commission. The criteria used for their selection is fair, but their perception by project applicants and by scientific and industrial users could be improved.
In this respect, Euroscience stresses that:
In view of better identifying and separating the functions of evaluation and of decision, and in view of furthering transparency, Euroscience recommends that:
On all aspects of the expertise process where a wide debate appears desirable, Euroscience is prepared to contribute.
In this respect, Euroscience stresses that:
- Experts should be scientifically active on the international level, fieldworking, experienced in grant reviewing, and have enough time available. They should include a higher proportion of women.
In view of better identifying and separating the functions of evaluation and of decision, and in view of furthering transparency, Euroscience recommends that:
- The complete list of names of the chosen experts for a given programme (but not the names of experts assigned to a given proposal) be made public at the time of the publication of the call for proposals. Experts should be explicitly invited to resist pressure and keep deliberations secret.
- The same group of experts stay in office throughout the whole time of proposal analysis corresponding to one open call for proposals.
- One member of the expert group (possibly elected by the group) act as chairman of the group. At present each proposal is screened by three experts who present in fine a common opinion in front of the group. The chairman would endorse in writing the recommendations made; he should also take the responsibility of promptly giving written and comprehensive arguments for rejected proposals, which would allow them to be improved for later submission. Europe-wide solidarity would thus be created in the group of experts. The chairman could be a member of, or be consulted regularly by the corresponding key-action advisory panel.
- New experiments in project evaluation be considered. The goal remains the same as above: a better, distinct identification of the two major components of science management, namely evaluation and decision. This could be achieved, after study and debate, by the constitution of permanent (for the key-action life time) collectively responsible groups. They would be considered as consultants only. While integrating the conclusions of the evaluating group, managers would retain full executive power and the responsibility to take into account political constraints or other criteria which may be relevant to EU policies.
- While selection criteria are heterogeneous, as pointed out above (sect.2), only one should be eliminatory: the poor scientific or technical quality of a proposal. Other criteria of importance at the level of the experts group work are: the feasibility of the project (technical and human resources), its pertinence with respect to the key-action coherence and objectives, the originality/creativity of the project and its European dimension.
On all aspects of the expertise process where a wide debate appears desirable, Euroscience is prepared to contribute.
Euroscience is concerned by the generally recognized weakness of the last phases of project implementation: follow-up (or monitoring), dissemination of results and ex post evaluation. The preparation of projects before submission could also be improved.
- The monitoring phase. Euroscience suggests that, with the assistance of the key-action advisory panel, the project co-ordinator be given responsibility for site visits, for mid-term project reviews and for following project partners' joint work. He could call on outside experts or on European organizations experienced in international scientific and/or technical assessment. These outside experts or organizations would be subcontracted for the task. Yearly monitoring could be organized along these lines.
- The dissemination/exploitation of results . The same channels could be used for this, with the assistance of EC communication officers. The programme manager, in liaison with project co-ordinators, should identify projects which could lead to marketable developments and might be relevant to European policies. A serious effort of communication should be made towards the European public and actors such as technologists, businessmen, politicians etc. in order that they be informed regularly on the outcome of the EU S&T projects and be made aware of the interest of such projects.
- The ex-post evaluation phase. Euroscience stresses the importance of this phase for EU R&D, for member countries (academic and industrial actors, but also collective needs of society), as well as for the applicants themselves. Euroscience therefore recommends the setting up of an evaluation committee per key action which would last as long as the action itself. In order to maintain a global and integrated perspective of the key actions goals over the whole period of the Framework Programme, this committee could be the key-action advisory panel itself.
- The preparation of proposals. Applicants should be encouraged, when applicable, to prepare joint complementary proposals, to avoid duplication of projects, to promote originality or more generally to improve subsidiarity between member countries. European organizations or national research councils acting in a spirit of co-ordination and mutual support should take this task in hand.
Site by 