Interim assessment of the future internet public private partnership

Communications Networks, Content and Technology

Interim Assessment of theFuture Internet

Public-Private PartnershipMay 2012

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet: http://europa.eu

© European Union, 2012

The opinions expressed in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.

ISBN: 978-92-79-19895-3doi: 10.2759/84215

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Interim Assessment of theFuture Internet

Public-Private Partnership

4

Assessment Panel Report

On behalf of the panel that performed the interim assessment of the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership I am pleased to present to the European Commission our report.

Luke Georghiou (Chair)

Anna Asimakopoulou

Piet Bel

Graham Vickery

Bob Malcolm (Rapporteur)

Piet Bel

5

Interim Assessment of the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership

Table of contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE FI-PPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.1. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FI-PPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1. Legal Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2. Programme Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3. Programme Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.4. Activities (July 2010 - April 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.5. Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4. FINDINGS OF THE PANEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.1. Continuing relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.2. Progress toward the objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3. Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.4. Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.5. Summary of findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

5. THE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP MECHANISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.1. The FI-PPP in comparison with other PPPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

6. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

7. RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7.1. Recommendations for the Commission concerning Public-Private

Partnerships in Horizon 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7.2. Recommendations for present partners in the programme . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7.3. Recommendations for the Commission concerning

the present programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

ANNEX 1: PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN HORIZON 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33ANNEX 2: COMPLEMENTARY GRANT AGREEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35ANNEX 3: OBJECTIVES OF THE INTERIM ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36ANNEX 4: QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE PANEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37ANNEX 5: COMPOSITION OF THE PANEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39ANNEX 6: EVIDENCE BASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

T a b l e o f c o n t e n t s

6

The Panel that performed this Interim Assessment of the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership (FI-PPP) finds that:

• the FI-PPP has been a valuable ex-periment in attempting to achieve impact similar to that of Joint Tech-nology Initiatives (JTIs)1 but in a much shorter timescale than JTIs by using the existing instruments of the 7th Framework Programme;

• the decision to use the instruments and processes of the 7th Framework Programme to establish the pro-gramme was valid in enabling a rapid response by the EU to technological and market developments;

• the market and technological situation is such that the aims of the FI-PPP to accelerate technological development and take-up by engaging early-adop-ter users to identify their needs for

infrastructure enabled by the future internet are still valid.

However the Panel also finds that:

• the industrial participants in the FI-PPP are not, in concert, fulfilling the role envisaged for them in a public-pri-vate partnership;

• the projects supported within the FI-PPP are, generally, making progress toward their own goals but not co-operating sufficiently so as to achieve the goals of the programme.

The table below summarises the full set of recommendations, indicating those which could and should be im-plemented during the life of the FI-PPP and recommendations for any follow-on initiative.

Executive Summary

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

No. Summary of recommeNdatioN time-frame

recommeNdatioNS for the commiSSioN coNcerNiNg PPPS iN horizoN 2020

1 Establish guidance on governance of PPPs WP2014

2 Ensure that each PPP has an effective central governing body WP2014

3 PPPs should be able to use the widest range of innovation-oriented instruments in a coordinated manner.

WP2014

4 Re-design the process of calls for and selection of proposals to focus on achieving greater ‘impact’.

WP2014

5 Participants in projects within programmes must collaborate fully so as to achieve programme objectives.

WP2014

1 See http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/jtis

7


E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

No. Summary of recommeNdatioN time-frame

recommeNdatioNS for PreSeNt aNd future PartNerS iN the fi-PPP

6 Industrial participants should fulfil the role expected of them in a PPP. Now

7 The chairman of the Steering Board should be a senior executive of a company that is not a co-ordinator of any FI-PPP project.

June 2012

8 The Advisory Board should focus their advice on bringing the results of the FI-PPP to market.

Now and continuing

9 The programme should engage more energetically - and more visibly - with the wider community of both users and technology providers

Now and continuing

recommeNdatioNS for the euroPeaN commiSSioN coNcerNiNg the PreSeNt Programme

10 Calls for tender should be considered for future ‘horizontal’ actions Now

11 Future calls should emphasize the importance of take-up Now

12 Future calls should explicitly seek the engagement of representatives of the broad community - industrial associations, public-sector associations, consumer associations, etc, and, where appropriate, regulators.

Now and continuing

13 Engage the innovative SME community better. Now

14 Make greater effort to achieve co-ordinated, co-operative behaviour of participants to achieve programme objectives.

Now

8

1. Introduction

I N T R O D U C T I O N

This document comprises the report by an independent panel of experts on an Interim Assessment of the Future Inter-net Public-Private Partnership (FI-PPP)2.

The objectives of this assessment are to

• evaluate the concept of the FI-PPP;

• assess progress in the first year;

• offer recommendations to the European Commission and to articipants in the FI-PPP;

• bring forward proposals for how to further develop the FI-PPP;

• contribute to the guidelines for public-private partnerships in Horizon 2020.

The Panel was asked to assess the FI-PPP with respect to:

• Relevance: whether the original aims of the FI-PPP are still valid and wheth-er the programme architecture is still appropriate for realising those aims;

• Effectiveness: progress towards the objectives;

• Efficiency: of the management and operation of the programme;

• Quality: of research and innovation, and of the actors attracted to the programme.3

The Objectives of the FI-PPP and the present status of its Implementation are described in the next two sections.

This is followed by a major section that summarises the Findings of the Panel.

There is then a special section to address the performance of the programme as a Public-Private Partnership.

The findings of the Panel are summa-rised in the Conclusions section, which is followed by Recommendations for both the present programme, to en-hance achievement of their objectives, and for future programmes with similar ambitions that may be considered in Horizon 2020.

The Panel comprised a mix of experts, including some with knowledge of the technology and of its use in modern infrastructures, and some with general expertise in R&D strategy and man-agement. (See Annex 5)

The Panel drew upon published infor-mation, interviews with participants in the projects of which the programme is comprised, representatives of the com-munity addressed by the programme but not participating, and staff of the European Commission. (See Annex 6)

2 This assessment took place toward the end of the first year of operation of the programme, approximately half-way through Phase 1.3 Annex 4 sets out in greater detail the questions addressed by the panel in their consideration of these issues.

9


2. Objectives of the FI-PPP

O B J E C T I V E S O F T H E F I - P P P

The Future Internet Public Private Part-nership (FI-PPP) aims to significantly advance the implementation and uptake of a European-scale market for ‘smart infrastructures’.4 The intention is to accelerate technological development for the future internet and in parallel, synergistically, accelerate its adoption in ‘smart infrastructures’ - such as smart energy grids, smart cities, smart environmental management systems, and smart systems for mobility. Ulti-mately the ambition is to make public service infrastructures and business processes significantly smarter (i.e. more intelligent, more efficient, more sustainable) through tighter integra-tion with Internet networking and com-puting capabilities.

The public contribution to the partner-ship comes from part-funding via the European Commission for projects, pro-gramme design, management of calls for proposals and programme monitoring, and the participation of public sector organisations as users in the develop-ment of requirements and in trials.

The private sector contributed during the formulation of the concept of the PPP5 with significant input from an indus-trial grouping6 that presented their vision to the European Commission in January 2010. During the operation of the PPP, the private sector contributes in the form of financial support for their participation in projects and from their co-operation across the programme (not just within projects).

4 “White paper on the Future Internet PPP Definition”, January 2010 (http://www.future-internet.eu/uploads/media/May2009.pdf)5 ibid.6 The ‘European Future Internet Initiative Founder Members’: a group of 16 companies supporting a Call for Action

2.1. Objectives

The aims and objectives of the FI-PPP evolved during the formation of the programme. The Panel has taken as the objective of the programme the expected impact - over all 3 phases - as set out in the Work Programme 2011-2012. This is a précis:

• Significant increase of the effectiveness of business processes and novel approaches to the operation of infra-structures and applications of high economic and/or societal value.

• Reinforced industrial capability on nov-el service architectures and platforms;

• New opportunities for novel business models based on cross-sector indus-

trial partnerships built around Future Internet value chains, involving users and public authorities at local, regional and national levels, and providing SME players with opportunities to offer new products, equipments, ser-vices and applications;

• Creation of new European-scale markets for smart infrastructures contributing to European leadership in global ICT applications markets;

• Evolution of Future Internet infra-struc-ture compatible with the emergence of open, secure and trusted service;

• A comprehensive approach towards regulatory and policy issues.

10

3. Implementation of the FI-PPP

3.1. Legal Framework

In order to implement the FI-PPP rap-idly - in recognition of the very dynamic nature of this field - it was established within the 7th Framework Programme. In consequence, the FI-PPP is subject to the Regulations of the 7th Framework Pro-gramme and must use the same project instruments, the same call and evaluation processes, and the same project review and programme monitoring processes.

However, in the grant agreement for each project in the programme the Commission introduced a special clause intended to

facilitate collaboration and programme coordination. This clause requires fore-ground knowledge to be sharable across all projects and it requires project benefi-ciaries to participate in joint coordination activities. (See Annex 2.)

Also, all participants have agreed to the terms of a Collaboration Agreement that, in addition to the standard terms of the Framework Programme agreement, sets out the governance arrangements for the FI-PPP.7

7 “Future Internet Public Private Partner-ship Programme - Collaboration Agreement” June 2010 (article 3.1.2 (i))

I M P L E M E N T A T I O N O F T H E F I - P P P

3.2. Programme Architecture

The programme has four major ‘building blocks’ (see diagram below)

11


The four building blocks are:

• Technology Foundation - the devel-opment of components for a Core Platform, initially in the FI-WARE project;

• Use cases & trials - to establish user requirements in 8 sectors, especially for common components;

• Infrastructure support - making best use of existing European infrastructures;

• Programme facilitation & support.

It is intended that the use cases and trials projects should establish their various requirements for enabling technology components and that in liaison with the core platform project they should agree a set of ‘Generic Enablers’ common to some or all of the usage areas. The core platform project(s) will develop these and make them available to the use case projects as the Core Platform. The Use Case projects will in parallel be developing the ‘Specific Enablers’ that they believe necessary for their domains (though

3.3. Programme Schedule

The programme is planned to be im-plemented in three phases over five years (as indicated in the diagram above). The content of each phase is:

3.3.1. Phase 1 (april 2011 – march 2013)

• Define usage area requirements from which the architecture and common enablers of the core platform will be derived; start developing components.

• Start evaluation of test infrastructures and identify what must be done to bring infrastructures to the level nec-essary to enable trials.

still shared within those domains) and then instantiate their own domain-spe-cific platforms.

The Infrastructure support project is in-tended initially, in Phase 1, to identify existing and future advanced experi-mental infrastructures across Europe. However, the scope of the Phase 1 project (awarded to INFINITY) has been expanded to encompass other studies of value to the FI-PPP. A subsequent project, planned for Phase 2, is intend-ed to integrate, federate and upgrade [existing infrastructures] towards serving large-scale trials8.

The Programme Facilitation and Sup-port project (awarded to CONCORD) should facilitate the development of an overall programme view and collabora-tion across all FI-PPP projects, support standardisation, SME involvement, links with regulatory and other relevant policy activities, dissemination and awareness raising9

• Establish the programme support and coordination structures.

3.3.2. Phase 2 (april 2013 – march 2015)

• Ensure availability of test infrastructure for early trials,

• Develop the core platform and use case specific functionalities, and instantiate them on the test infrastructure.

• Select and run early trials for all use cases and prepare large scale trials.


8 From the FI-PPP Work Programme 2011-20129 ibid.

12I M P L E M E N T A T I O N O F T H E F I - P P P

3.3.3. Phase 3 (may 2014 – october 2015)

• Provide and enrich a stable infrastruc-ture for large scale trials populated with a variety of applications to prove the viability of the concept.

• Increase the involvement of SMEs as developers and providers of services and applications.

10 See section 4.311 The first such Open Call was made on two topics: Middleware for efficient and QoS/Security-aware invocation of services and exchange of

messages; and Business Models and Business Elements Definition and Simulation.12 See http://www.fi-ware.eu/open-call/

3.4. Activities (July 2010 - April 2012)

The total notional EC budget for the FI-PPP is €300M. The Commission has earmarked €170M of funding for projects in the first two phases of the FI-PPP and, subject to budgetary ap-proval, €130M for phase 3.

The first call for proposals was launched in July 2010 and closed in December 2010. The first projects of the FI-PPP, selected from that call, began (in principle10) in April 2011.

3.4.1. distribution of fi-PPP call 1 funds among member States

The distribution of funds in the FI-PPP (see figure on next page) is generally similar to that of Calls 5 and 7 of Challenge 1 in the ICT Programme of FP7 (also see figure on next page) and approximately reflects their GDP. The exceptions are a relatively low participation in the FI-PPP of the UK and new Member States compared with their participation in Challenge 1 of FP7 (which addresses a similar segment of the RTD community).

Note that the figure below excludes the funding for FI-WARE open calls (which would distort the figures by assigning the allocation of funds to the FI-WARE coordinator). As part of Phase 1, the core platform project (FI-WARE) will extend participation through open calls

for additional organisations to join the consortium to provide certain components of the core platform11. The FI-WARE open calls are funded to the level of € 12.4 million, or 30% of FI-WARE funding and 14 % of Phase 1 funding, and are entirely managed and run by the FI-WARE consortium, independent of the Commission. The open call will follow the general guidelines for open calls within FP7 projects12. To ensure fair competition, present members of the FI-WARE consortium are excluded from participation.

13


A call for proposals for Phase 2 is due to be launched in May 2012, closing at the end of October 2012. This phase will extend participation in the programme through mergers and re-alignment of ex-isting user domains and the incorporation

of additional use cases domains such as Ambient Assisted Living and eHealth,

It is intended to make a final call for proposals for Phase 3 projects in 2013.


14

3.5. Governance

The diagram below indicates the governance structure of the FI-PPP.

The Steering Board is the highest FI PPP Program governing body. It:

• represents the FI-PPP owners;

• meets monthly (real or virtual);

• must make decisions unanimously13, without any option of escalation.

The Architecture Board:

• is a forum for meetings of technical managers;

• meets monthly (either physically or by video conference);

• is consensus driven, with unanimous decision making;

• escalates to the Steering Board in the event of decisions that cannot be re-solved by consensus.

The Advisory Board:

• is independent, with no access to de-liverables per se;

• requires replies by the Steering Board to its recommendations and advice;

• comprises 8 people at the time of this assessment, meeting twice per year14.

Members of the Advisory Board are also expected to be ‘Ambassadors’ of the PPP and represent them at high level events (e.g. in the Council and Parliament).

The PPP Secretariat (provided by CON-CORD):

• undertakes day-to-day facilitation of the governance processes;

• facilitates the operation of ‘Working Groups’, which are ‘temporary groups established for the performance of a specific task and not a fixed part of the permanent FII Program govern-ance structure’.15

13 With one exception: when a party to the Collaboration Agreement is in breach of its obligations they are not expected to contribute to the consensus.14 The members of the Advisory Board were appointed in January, and at the time of this assessment have yet to meet.15 “Future Internet Public Private Partner-ship Programme - Collaboration Agreement” June 2010 (article 3.4)


15


4. Findings of the panel

F I N D I N G S O F T H E P A N E L

4.1. Continuing relevance

The opinion of those interviewed by the panel is that the programme is still rel-evant. The assertion of the 2008 ISTAG report16 remains valid:

“A critical interdependence for the suc-cess of the Web-based service industry will be the extension of the Future In-ternet by offering very rich ‘horizontal services’. These services will foster an interoperability and trust framework for service integration, authentication, privacy and security. This framework will enable the Web-based service in-dustry to procure, extend and repur-pose services to new markets.”

The evolution of this concept into the vision of the Future Internet that in-spired the FI-PPP - of the evolution of the internet from mere communi-cations network to an enabling smart infrastructure - is still valid.

Furthermore, the proposition that development of standard re-usable components for a multi-sector common (‘core’) platform will accelerate both technological development and take-up also, according to the evidence gained by the panel, remains valid.

Despite difficulties and delay - and possibly further delays still to come - the work supported by the FI-PPP is still valuable in helping:

• European industry to accelerate its contribution to the technological development required to realise the vision of the Future Internet, and

• European society to benefit from early provision of internet-enhanced services.

There has been a significant internet-en-abled development in the market-place since the original formulation of the Future Internet vision. This is the recent rapid take-up of ‘Cloud Computing’ and services which make extensive use of data and functionality (applications) ‘in the cloud’.17 The FI-WARE project does include work packages that address both cloud hosting and interoperation with third-party cloud facilities, so the programme has recognised this phe-nomenon and has, in principle, the means to accommodate it.

However, the continuing relevance of the specific structure and architecture of the FI-PPP, with a project dedicated to the development of standard re-us-able components for a ‘core platform’ is less clear. As will be discussed in the following section, some Use Case pro-jects have plans to develop or acquire their own ‘enablers’ - ‘specific’ and ‘ge-neric’ - so that they are not reliant on the core platform project. Also, some Use Case projects are collaborating in order to develop common Use Case en-ablers that are outside the scope of the core platform project - such enablers being neither ‘specific’ not ‘generic’. This raises the possibility that common enablers might be better encouraged to emerge from such collaborations across domains, instead of having a dedicated core platform project. A Technology Foundation project could

16 Report of the Information Society Technologies Advisory Group Working Group on “Web-based Service Industry”, February 200817 Notwithstanding the long ‘cloud’ gestation period since the late 1950s/1960s

16

still have a role in this by providing that encouragement and by facilitating the emergence of well-supported generic

enablers. But such responsibilities do not appear to be within the present re-mit of FI-WARE.

The underlying concept of the programme is that the synergistic development of a core platform and its use in early take-up trials will be achieved through the projects in the programme working in concert - particularly the core-platform project and the set of Use Case projects (supported by the other two projects).

It is not in the Terms of Reference for this panel to evaluate the individual projects, for which there are already standard Framework Programme review processes. However, the panel has used the reports generated in that review process to inform its understanding of the operation of the programme. The set of reviews made at the 6-month stage of the programme shows a mixed picture, with some Use Cases progress-ing well and achieving interim targets, while others had start-up problems and were lagging badly at the time of the first review.18

4.2.1. Progress of projects towards their objectives

The ‘Use Case’ projects are concerned with the identification of requirements for enablers that truly reflect the needs of the community of the application sector of the project. The 6-month review reports indicated that at the time of the review - during October and November 2011 - about half the projects were performing reasonably well in this regard, that others needed to try harder, and that one project was in serious trouble. However, almost all Use Case projects were criticised for not

engaging with the broader community beyond participants in the programme. And despite leading industrial compa-nies being partners in the various Use Cases, long term sustainable exploitation plans were considered vague or even non-existent, implying that the repre-sentatives of the companies might not be well-coupled to their strategic plan-ning or marketing departments.

The ‘core platform’ project (FI-WARE) should be liaising satisfactorily with the Use Case projects and providing techni-cally well-constructed Generic Enablers in a timely fashion. However, the quality of liaison with the Use Case projects has been very variable and reflects closely the performance of those projects. This suggests that FI-WARE has relied upon dealing with well-organised user-communities and has not been able to resolve difficulties with less well-organ-ised communities. Also (at the time of this report) FI-WARE is 2 months late overall, at the end of its first year.

The Programme Facilitation and Sup-port project (CONCORD) is expected to facilitate the development of an overall programme view and col-laboration across all FI-PPP projects, support standardisation, develop key performance indicators, SME involve-ment, links with regulatory and other relevant policy activities, dissemination and awareness raising. However, as the Description of Work for the CONCORD project clearly (and correctly) states “the FI-PPP Programme deliverables are not those of CONCORD project, but

4.2. Progress toward the objectives

18 See also section 4.3.1 ‘Efficiency of operation’


17


results that all FI-PPP Projects jointly contribute towards”. Yet CONCORD’s very central role implies significant re-sponsibility for attempting to resolve programme management problems that inhibit achievement of the pro-gramme’s goals. There is evidence that while CONCORD was slow to take on this responsibility and made a slow start in establishing the arrangements for programme management, it is now perceived to be making serious efforts to improve the situation.

The Infrastructure support project (INFINITY) is expected to maximise synergy with infrastructural develop-ments outside the FI-PPP. The Panel is concerned that the project participants do not fully share this view. Indeed the 6-month programme-level reviewers commented that INFINITY was ex-pending effort on activities that were not fully focused on helping the PPP achieve its aims, and that it was not performing its role as an external face of the FI-PPP.

4.2.2. Progress of the programme toward programme-level objectives

Global objectives

According to data provided by the Com-mission, industry has been extremely responsive to the FI-PPP, with the con-sequence that in the FI-PPP, excluding the FI-WARE Open Call, industry has taken a much higher share of availa-ble funds - c. 66% compared with less than 50% in recent calls of Challenge 1 of the 7th Framework Programme19.

Moreover, approximately 64% of in-dustrial participants in the programme

(so far) are organisations that have not been involved in those calls20. This sug-gests that the programme has been successful in attracting the participation of a broader community than that of the traditional Framework Programme.

However, most of the ‘new’ partici-pants have only single participations in the FI-PPP whereas, by comparison, organisations among the original 16 ‘Founder Members’ have a 43% share of total participations in phase 1 of the programme and have been allocated c. 44% of FI-PPP funding of phase 1, excluding the allocation for FI-WARE Open Calls.21 The new industrial par-ticipants that have not participated in Calls 5 and 7 of Challenge 1 of FP7 have been allocated c. 13% of FI-PPP funding.

Specific objectives

The Use Case projects vary consider-ably in their effectiveness in establishing common requirements for their domains and in their relationship with the core-platform project (FI-WARE) so that their needs for ‘generic enablers’ will be satis-fied by FI-WARE.

Some Use Case projects have successfully identified their needs, communicated ef-fectively with FI-WARE and are confident that their needs will be met by FI-WARE. Other Use Cases projects have not yet agreed which of their needs will be met by FI-WARE. And some who have identi-fied their needs for generic enablers have low confidence in FI-WARE’s ability to de-liver them in time to enable them to fulfil their (use case) project commitments and the terms of their funding contracts. Con-sequently, some of these projects have a contingency plan to supply or acquire their own alternative components. This

19 46% in Call 5 and 34% in Call 720 53 out of 83 industrial participants. Also, 86 unique organisations, including industrial participants, out of a total of 149 organisations

participating in FI-PPP are not participating in Challenge 1 Calls 5 and 7.21 Note that these organisations also participate intensively elsewhere in the Framework Programme, with c.30% of participations in Challenge 1.


18

is contrary to the notion of the FI-WARE results being truly generic enablers and of FI-WARE being the primary supplier of these enablers to the Use Cases.

Several reasons have been put forward for this mismatch between some Use Case projects and FI-WARE, including the relative timing of the project start-dates and the methods used by FI-WARE for requirements elicitation and software development. The lack of an agreed view on these issues and the different relationships of the Use Case projects to FI-WARE reflect three alternative at-titudes to the development process:

i. One position is that truly generic enablers can be developed rather independently of the application ar-eas: in this case the general view is that FI-WARE should have started six months or a year before the Use Cases so that the Use Cases would have an earlier idea what would be provided in the core platform.

ii. Another position is that the Use Cas-es must identify their needs first and then ‘specify’ their requirements of the core platform: in this case the core platform project should have started later than the Use Cases to give the Use Case projects time to establish their requirements.

iii. A third position is that of ‘agile’ (highly iterative) software develop-ment: this requires tight interaction between developer and user. This situation does not pertain for at least some Use Case projects22.

However, there is, potentially, a greater barrier to realisation of the concept of the FI-PPP. Formally, the outcome

of FI-WARE is accessible to all current and future programme participants as foreground knowledge23. But the FI-WARE contract does not require FI-WARE to ‘hand over’ its results in a way that they can be used effectively by others or to support them in initial adoption of the results or subsequently with maintenance or training. This has serious implications for the ‘Core Plat-form’ - especially when the FI-WARE project terminates, leaving no possibility of support around the time that large-scale trials commence.

There is a serious risk that unless strong preventive actions are taken even the user areas that are for now planning to use FI-WARE outputs will each have to take separate responsibil-ity for maintaining and evolving those components for their area, further undermining the concept of generic ena-blers and a common core platform.24

4.2.3. direction and management of the programme

While the CONCORD project is expected to ‘facilitate’ the achievement of the goals of the programme, responsibility for their achievement lies with the FI-PPP projects ‘jointly’. But while the original vi-sion of those who brought the FI-PPP into existence25 may still be valid, it is not clear that that vision is shared by all the present participants in the programme. As indicated in section 4.2.2 above, the programme has attracted new partici-pants, with more than half the budget allocated to organisations other than the Founder Members. Moreover, each project has its own contract, its own con-tractual obligations, and its own staffing and management that may not share a co-operative vision for the programme.

22 The co-ordinator of one project told the panel that, after one year, the project is “now ready for a first face-to-face meeting with FI-WARE”.23 As a consequence of the special clause 41 in all FI-PPP grant agreements (see section 3.1 and Annex 2 of this report).24 FI-WARE has indicated its willingness to co-operate so as to ameliorate the difficulties posed by the project not being required to provide

supported software for User Trials.25 Particularly the European Future Internet Initiative Founder Members: see the introduction to Section 2


19


The programme should be resilient to the involvement of organisations and person-nel not originally involved in its formulation and it should be open to new participants and their contribution to the evolution of its vision. But to preserve its focus the programme needs rules, processes and mechanisms that enable the emergence of an evolving shared vision and the commitment of projects to help realise that vision. Yet the vision of the ‘Founder Members’ did not address at all the re-quirements for governance appropriate to a public-private partnership (see Section 5, below). Indeed, in January 2010, the European Commission told the Founder Members “The companies26 should set up appropriate governance/manage-ment structures with full empowerment from their company executives. This is a precondition for the success of the ini-tiative”.27 They did not do that.

The programme should also be resilient to changing market and technological environments - especially in such a fast-moving field as the Future Internet. This requires constant monitoring of the state of development of the relevant tech-nologies and markets, and the ability to adapt rapidly to any developments that affect the viability of the programme. The panel specifically sought to identify who in the programme felt responsibil-ity for ‘horizon scanning’ but received no clear answer - albeit some of those interviewed considered the Architecture Board to have that responsibility. (But see the next paragraph concerning the relationship between the Steering Board and the Architecture Board.)

The Steering Board is, in principle, the body to maintain coherent action over

the whole programme and to monitor and maintain progress towards the objectives of the programme: “The Steering Board is the highest FI PPP Program governing body.”28 However, the Steering Board has not acted with urgency to address the difficulties that the programme faces, and seems not to be doing what it is supposed to do - provide overall Steering of the FI-PPP.

At the operational level the Architecture Board has been established and appears to be working well to address technical issues. Various Working Groups have also been established (or at the time of this assessment are in the process of being established)29. However, the Steering Board has not demonstrated ‘ownership’ of the Architecture Board or the Working Groups or responsibil-ity for steering them so as to maximise progress toward the programme ob-jectives. Communication between the Steering Board and the Architecture Board and between the Steering Board and the Working Groups is lacking in both directions. In fact it is unclear how the Working Groups will move from the current perception of some project members as an extra burden to be car-ried to being seen as a positive source of value added.

A number of those interviewed by the panel commented on the inability of the Steering Board to make decisions binding on projects that, given the con-tractual arrangements, are in effect autonomous. The Commission broke new ground in establishing the clause in each contract to facilitate sharing of intellectual property and project coordination across the programme.30

26 The 16 ‘Founding Members’27 “ Report of the meeting between Zoran Stancic, Deputy Director General, DG-Infso, and the Future Internet core group

of industrial stakeholders (G16)”, D(10)203076, January 201028 “Future Internet Public Private Partner-ship Programme - Collaboration Agreement” June 2010 (article 3.1.2 (i))29 WGs have so far been agreed on Dissemination, Exploitation & Business Modelling, Standardisation, Policy & Regulation.

A further WG on Security and Privacy is under consideration.30 Clause 4 1 (see Annex 3 to this report)


20

But this is not sufficient to enforce co-operation. Indeed the programme-wide Collaboration Agreement states: “The Steering Board shall however not be en-titled to act or to make legally binding declarations on behalf of any Party, but shall make recommendations for imple-mentation in respective FII Projects”.31

There is ongoing discussion in the Steering Group about the prospects for amendment of contracts to accom-modate Steering Board authority - if not now then possibly for future phas-es (when decision-making will have more significant commercial impact).

4.3. Efficiency

Only the first call for proposals was made during the period evaluated by the present panel. Some project par-ticipants commented that the overall time from call to contract start was quicker than usual for the Framework Programme. They particularly com-mented on more rapid resolution by the Commission of legal and adminis-trative matters and attributed this to the Commission seeking to meet the tight timescale that it had set.

Indeed, with one exception (FI-WARE), negotiations for the FI-PPP Call 1 projects were all concluded by March 31st 2011, so they could legally start on April 1st. That is only 120 days from call closure, which is extremely rapid.

The panel is unable to judge whether the greater speediness is a consequence of greater flexibility in interpretation of the rules or more urgent execution of the processes, or both. In any case greater speed is to be commended when time-to-market is critical and

However, it is not evident to the panel that the lack of direction and inability to resolve problems demonstrated so far by the Steering Board derives only from a lack of authority: it also seems to re-flect a lack of a sense of responsibility.

The lack of urgency has been exacer-bated by slowness in establishing Key Performance Indicators for monitoring the programme’s progress towards its objectives. (The KPIs that have been established so far are primarily meas-ures of operational performance rather than measures of impact.)

work should continue to accelerate the process still further, though not at the expense of rigour in assessing quality or viability of proposals.

However, according to programme sta-tistics provided by the Commission, excluding special cases the ‘time to contract’32 was approximately 225 days compared with an overall average for the ‘Pervasive and Trusted Network and Service Infrastructures’ theme of the 7th Framework Programme of 250 days for years 2010-2011. So the time to contract was also quicker than usual for the Framework Programme - if only by 10%. Unfortunately, though, while all projects except FI-WARE were legally able to start on April 1st, within only 120 days, in practice several did not actually start until contracts were finally signed in June or July. So, given the summer break, many of the projects actually began wor-king in September. This is quite contrary to the spirit of rapid action requested ini-tially by industry and achieved to a great extent by the Commission.

31 “ Future Internet Public Private Partner-ship Programme - Collaboration Agreement” June 2010 (Article 4) article 3.1.2 (i)32 ‘Time to contract’ is the time from closure of a call for proposals until both parties in a selected project have signed the project contract.


21


4.4. Quality

The nature of ‘quality’ for the projects in the FI-PPP is different from that for conventional Framework Programme projects. It has been emphasised to proposers, evaluators, reviewers, and the present Panel that ‘the FI-PPP is not about scientific excellence but about making an impact’ in a collaborative multi-sector innovation programme.

However, the panel notes that the level of competition for Use Case projects in the first call (a 4:1 ratio), coupled with evaluation scores for the higher ranked proposals that are similar to those of typical FP7 evaluations, indicates that these projects may be considered of high quality (with the caveat that the subsequent implementations may not match up to the quality of the proposals).

However, among the ‘horizontal’ pro-jects there was much less competition. For the Programme Facilitation and Support Objective there was only one

4.5. Summary of findings

The FI-PPP is a special (though not unique) case of a public-private par-tnership, being set up within the 7th

Framework Programme. But aside from the performance of individual projects, the panel finds that the participants are not succeeding in cooperating so as to achieve the programme-level objectives.

proposal apart from CONCORD and neither proposal scored highly.

For the Capacity Building Objective there were two eligible proposals (SHIFT and INFINITY), but SHIFT was scored below threshold. So INFINITY, which had only a modest score, was bound to be proposed for selection according to the evaluation and selection process.

There was no competition for the Techno-logy Foundation Objective and FI-WARE had a very low score - only just above the threshold. Yet it was also bound to be proposed for selection.

The panel has also (as indicated in section 4.2) examined the 6-month re-view reports. These give support to the indications above from the proposal evaluations, with at least half the Use Case projects performing well, but pro-blems with all the horizontal projects.

Repeatedly the panel heard that the projects were ‘typical FP7 projects’.

In the next section the FI-PPP is consi-dered in the context of the expectations of public-private partnerships and in comparison with other public-private partnerships.


22

5. The Public Private Partnership Mechanism

Given the timing of this assessment, the work of the panel is expected to contribute to the preparatory work for the detailed work programmes of Ho-rizon 2020, notably the guidelines for public-private partnerships.

In evaluating the FI-PPP the panel has not used for comparison the broad con-cept of PPPs as vehicles which share risk between public authorities and pri-vate providers, most commonly for the delivery of infrastructure and related services. Our interest is confined to those where the principal public input is finance for research and innovation towards goals which are shared with industry. We have therefore consid-ered the FI-PPP in the context of the structures of other PPPs engaged in research and innovation and of related mechanisms such as Joint Technology Initiatives.

The most direct comparators for FI-PPP correspond broadly to what have been called ‘Market-oriented PPPs’33. These include the three Recovery Plan PPPs - Factories of the Future, Energy Efficient Buildings and Green Cars; the Article 171 Joint Technology Initiatives; and the EUREKA clusters.

In general, these PPPs are characterised by:

• industry taking greater responsibility for formulating a research and inno-vation strategy for a domain;

• industry managing the pursuit of that strategy.

The expectation is that if industry is allowed to take leadership the work

supported by the programme will be:

• better aligned with market develop-ments and industrial ambitions and so be

• exploited to a greater extent ..

• with benefits for both the industrial suppliers and their customers, so that ..

• private investment (i.e. by industry) will increase (from the level of the Framework Programme), given the greater value that industry can real-ise from a PPP.

However, for public authorities to give to industry greater authority for the di-rection of public investment (and in the case of some PPPs its disbursement) a PPP must not be a ‘closed shop’. It must have governance arrangements that ensure that:

• its leadership is representative, inclu-sive and authoritative;

• participation in the PPP’s governance bodies is open;

• participation in the evolution of its strategic agenda and in the formula-tion of its work-plans is open to the widest possible community;

• participation in its programme is open;

• competitive calls for participation are managed fairly and transparently;

• a strategic agenda is developed and there is a process for evolving that agenda to accommodate develop-ments in technology and markets;

• the programme is directed and man-aged fairly and effectively;

• the programme is administered effi-ciently and with integrity.

33 OECD (2004), Public/Private Partnerships for Innovation in OECD Science, Technology and Industry (STI) Outlook 2004,OECD- Paris

T H E P U B L I C P R I V A T E P A R T N E R S H I P M E C H A N I S M

23


Typically, these requirements have been satisfied by an open industrial associa-tion (possibly more than one) undertak-ing the management. Where such an association did not exist previously, new associations have been created with the specific purpose of running the PPP.

It has typically taken a long time for the communities of interest behind PPPs to appreciate and assimilate the expectations of them and to establish governance arrangements, including the formation of industrial associa-tions if they did not exist before, that

enable resolution of the conflicting de-mands for coherent coordination and open access.

The following table indicates the ba-sic characteristics of the FI-PPP com-pared with other PPPs. The other PPPs considered are ARTEMIS (Embedded Systems), ENIAC (Nano-Electronics), CLEAN SKY (reducing environmental impact of aviation), FCH (Fuel Cell & Hydrogen), IMI (Innovative Medicine Initiative).34

34 The table is based upon an analysis by the Commission of possible programme models for the FI-PPP during the planning phase “A Public-Private Partnership for the Future Internet”, April 2009. Two PPPs of a very different nature (GALILEO and SESAR) are not included in this comparison.


24

eval

uati

on

crit

eria

art

emiS

eNia

cfc

hcL

eaN

SK

yim

ifi

-PPP

Leve

l of

deta

il of

obj

ecti

ves

(cle

ar, s

peci

fic

mea

sura

ble)

Broa

d te

chni

cal

obje

ctiv

es (t

hen

deta

iled

calls

for

pr

opos

al)

Broa

d te

chni

cal

obje

ctiv

es (t

hen

deta

iled

calls

for

pr

opos

al)

Broa

d te

chni

cal

obje

ctiv

esSp

ecifi

ed t

echn

ical

ob

ject

ives

Broa

d sc

ient

ific

obje

ctiv

esSp

ecifi

c w

ork-

prog

ram

me

with

de

taile

d ob

ject

ives

; ca

lls f

or p

ropo

sals

w

ithin

FP7

Leve

l of

defin

itio

n of

m

embe

rshi

p

EC +

indu

stry

as

soci

atio

n an

d M

embe

r st

ates

EC +

indu

stry

as

soci

atio

n an

d M

embe

r st

ates

EC +

indu

stry

gr

oupi

ng (+

res

earc

h gr

oupi

ng)

EC +

98

nam

ed

orga

nisa

tions

EC +

indu

stry

as

soci

atio

nIn

dust

rial,

acad

emic

an

d pu

blic

-sec

tor

orga

nisa

tions

. (N

.b. n

o fo

rmal

ly

cons

titut

ed

asso

ciat

ion)

gov

erni

ng

stru

ctur

eG

over

ning

Boa

rd,

Exec

utiv

e D

irect

or,

Publ

ic A

utho

ritie

s Bo

ard,

Indu

stry

an

d Re

sear

ch

Com

mitt

ee

Gov

erni

ng B

oard

, Ex

ecut

ive

Dire

ctor

, Pu

blic

Aut

horit

ies

Boar

d, In

dust

ry a

nd

Rese

arch

Com

mitt

ee

Gov

erni

ng B

oard

, Ex

ecut

ive

Dire

ctor

Gov

erni

ng B

oard

, Ex

ecut

ive

Dire

ctor

, Te

chni

cal S

teer

ing

Com

mitt

ees,

Gen

eral

Fo

rum

Boar

d, E

xecu

tive

Offi

ce, S

cien

tific

Com

mitt

ee

Stee

ring

Boar

d

advi

sory

bod

ies

Publ

ic A

utho

ritie

s Bo

ard,

Indu

stry

an

d Re

sear

ch

Com

mitt

ee

Publ

ic A

utho

ritie

s Bo

ard,

Indu

stry

and

Re

sear

ch C

omm

ittee

Stat

es

Repr

esen

tativ

es

Gro

up, S

cien

tific

Com

mitt

ee

Mem

ber

Stat

esM

embe

r St

ates

G

roup

, Sta

keho

lder

Fo

rum

Advi

sory

Boa

rd (s

till

to m

eet a

fter

1 ye

ar)

fund

ing

- m

odel

, pr

oces

ses

and

allo

cati

ons

Nat

iona

l fina

ncia

l co

ntrib

utio

n fr

om

MS

, EC

55%

vi

a JT

I, pr

ivat

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts

Nat

iona

l fina

ncia

l co

ntrib

utio

n fr

om

MS

, EC

55%

vi

a JT

I, pr

ivat

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts

EC 5

0%, I

ndus

try

50%

Mem

ber

stat

es a

nd

regi

ons

can

allo

cate

bu

dget

to

indi

vidu

al

proj

ects

EC a

nd M

embe

rs,

75%

pre

-allo

cate

d,

25%

ope

n ca

lls

EC 5

0% (i

n ca

sh

for

SME,

Aca

dem

ia,

Regu

lato

rs a

nd

patie

nts)

, Ind

ustr

y 50

% (i

n ki

nd f

or

SME…

) Ind

ustr

y do

esn’

t re

ceiv

ed E

C fu

ndin

g

FP7

mod

el


25


ec f

undi

ng

(meu

ro)

420

450

470

800

1000

300

Lega

l sta

tus

Com

mun

ity B

ody,

ar

t 17

1Co

mm

unity

Bod

y,

art

171

Com

mun

ity B

ody,

ar

t 17

1Co

mm

unity

Bod

y,

art

171

Com

mun

ity B

ody,

ar

t 17

1FP

7: a

rtic

les

164

&

166

iPr

prov

isio

nsFo

llow

s EC

re

gula

tion

and

is

prov

ided

in d

etai

l

Follo

ws

EC

regu

latio

n an

d is

pr

ovid

ed in

det

ail

Hig

h le

vel p

rinci

ples

m

odel

led

after

FP7

Hig

h-le

vel g

ener

al

prov

isio

n, m

odel

led

after

FP7

Hig

h le

vel p

rinci

ples

m

odel

led

after

FP7

FP7

plus

a

cont

ract

ual

clau

se r

equi

ring

prog

ram

me-

wid

e sh

arin

g of

fo

regr

ound

IP

Prep

arat

ory

acti

ons

Indu

stria

l As

soci

atio

n pu

t in

pl

ace

Indu

stria

l As

soci

atio

n pu

t in

pl

ace

“Brid

ging

str

uctu

re”

(an

FP7

CSA)

put

in

pla

ce w

ith t

he

Indu

stry

Gro

upin

g

Enco

urag

ed t

o fa

cilit

ate

a qu

ick

star

t-up

“Tak

e al

l nec

essa

ry

prep

arat

ory

actio

ns”

until

the

JU

is s

etup

16 c

ompa

nies

pr

epar

ed a

“Whi

te

pape

r on

the

Futu

re In

tern

et P

PP

Defi

nitio

n” (2

010)


26

In order to establish the FI-PPP rapidly, it was set up using the instruments and processes of FP7. In this respect the objective of a rapid response by the community to technological and mar-ket developments was achieved in a way that could not have been achieved had the Joint Technology Initiative (JTI) approach of establishing legal entities been adopted.

Moreover, as noted in section 4.2.2 above, while using the same instru-ments as FP7 it is notable that the FI-PPP has succeeded in attracting in-dustrial involvement. In FI-PPP Call 1, private companies receive c. 66% of total funding, compared with only 34% in Call 7 of FP7 Challenge 1 and 46% in Call 535.

A similar approach using FP7 instru-ments was taken in the establishment of the PPPs for Energy-efficient Build-ings, Factories of the Future, and the European Green Cars Initiative. However, the interim evaluation of these PPPs states that:

“While this has permitted the fast start-up of activities and rapid im-plementation of programmes, the understanding of the structures and mechanisms in the wider stakeholder community needs to be improved”36

That comment is equally applicable to the Future Internet community.

A critical difference between the FI-PPP and the other PPP’s is that there is no body that comprehensively repre-

sents the community of interest and is actively engaged in the manage-ment of guidance of the programme. Most of the other PPPs have some form of (open) industrial association both to undertake management of the programme and to engage with the wider community, beyond the original ‘thought leaders’.37

Another major difference is that the FI-PPP governance arrangements to meet its obligation to be ‘the highest FI-PPP Program governing body’ are much less evident.

It might be argued that the way in which responsibilities are distributed through the separate projects in the programme inhibits the establishment of a coherent system of governance, but it is clearly the responsibility of the Steering Board to govern and it is not doing so.

The FI-PPP compares favourably in the spectrum of European PPPs in that user-engagement is central to its approach. Nonetheless, in the coming phases when SME participation is intended to become a key feature its actions will benefit from extending support to other aspects of innovation, and in general to an engagement with the likely demand environment, including involvement of those responsible for regulation.

One clear opportunity would be to link this activity with the emerging instru-ments of pre-commercial and innovation procurement which could secure for in-novative SMEs the crucial first customer.

5.1. The FI-PPP in comparison with other PPPs


35 The figure of 66% excludes the results of the FI-WARE Open Call. These may boost the industrial participation further.36 Interim Assessment of the Research PPPs in the European Economic Recovery Plan, 201137 There are several European Technology Platforms whose scope is included within or overlaps with that of the FI-PPP, notably Net!Works, NEM

and NESSI, ISI and EPOSS. And there is also the original industrial grouping of the European Future Internet Initiative Founding Members. But these organisations have neither together nor individually established anything equivalent to those of the Industrial Associations of other PPPs - with equivalent or similar governance arrangements.

27


6. Conclusions

C O N C L U S I O N S

The Panel believes that the FI-PPP has been a valuable experiment in at-tempting to achieve JTI-like impact in a much shorter timescale, using existing instruments.

The panel finds that:

• the market and technological situation is such that the aims of the FI-PPP to accelerate technological development and take-up by engaging early-adopter users to identify - and satisfy - their needs are still valid;

• the Commission moved very quickly to establish this PPP within FP7 and to the extent to which, as a consequence, it has undertaken administration of the programme (formulation of work-programme, management of calls for proposals, reviews, etc.) it has executed those functions quickly and efficiently;

• most of the Use Case projects are performing well within their own do-mains although the majority have been implemented more slowly than initially planned;

• the core platform project will be of value to at least some of the user-domains;

• the programme support project (CONCORD) is, after a slow start, trying to facilitate the operation of the PPP so that it will be more likely to achieve the programme-level objectives.

However the Panel also finds that:

• the industrial participants in the FI-PPP are clearly not doing enough to fulfil their role as envisaged for a public-private partnership: they are not taking sufficient responsibility for the PPP;

they are not exhibiting leadership; they are not doing enough to encourage wider participation;

• in particular, the Steering Board is not performing adequately its role as ‘the highest FI-PPP Program governing body’. While the lack of authority in the present arrangements weakens the position of the Steering Board, that is no excuse for a failure to take responsibility;

• some of the Use Case projects are not meeting expectations in their perfor-mance so far and the Steering Board is not taking programme-level respon-sibility for addressing their problems;

• the relationships between the Use Case projects and the core platform project (FI-WARE) are ‘mixed’ and the Steer-ing Board is not taking responsibility to achieve satisfactory interoperation between them;

• the process for selection of projects that are intended to facilitate and support programme coordination, us-ing the instruments and processes of the 7th Framework Programme, has exacerbated the difficulty of achieving programme coordination among separately selected projects.

The basic premise of the FI-PPP is that it will accelerate technological develop-ment and take-up to support innovative services. It is too early to tell whether this will be achieved.

It is also too early to tell whether the FI-PPP is likely to achieve more impact than could be achieved via conventional Framework Programme actions. While the FI-PPP lacks several of the expected

28

characteristics of a research and inno-vation public-private partnership (see Section 5), and some of the important ambitions of the FI-PPP are not being realised, it is a reasonable expectation that a significant mass of co-ordinated

user-oriented activities (technology-oriented user pull) will achieve benefits that could not be achieved via the ‘nor-mal’ Framework Programme.

C O N C L U S I O N S

29


7. Recommendations

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

In summary, the Panel recommends that the attempt to accelerate develop-ment and take-up of the Future Internet should continue into Horizon 2020. But the requirements for proper governance of a public-private partnership, and best practice in satisfying those require-ments (gained from analysis of PPPs to date) should be recognised and built into any such plans in Horizon 2020 and into the next phases of the FI-PPP.

Given the commitments in the present programme - including both projects already contracted and calls for future projects yet to be contracted - attempts should be made to bring the FI-PPP ac-tivities closer in line with the ambitions

Recommendation 1: the Commission should establish clear guidance on the requirements for proper govern-ance of PPPs and insist upon them being fulfilled. Public-private part-nerships should be encouraged. They engage industry to a greater extent than standard Framework Programme projects in both strategic input and in project participation. They therefore increase market focus and can, with appropriate management arrange-ments, offer a clearer mechanism for the programme to be coordinated so that the whole is more than the sum of the individual projects. But while Article 19 of the proposed future Regulation on Horizon 2020 (see An-nex 1) provides an open framework for Public-Private Partnerships, clear rules of practice within that frame-

of a properly governed public-private partnership.

We begin our recommendations with a focus at the highest level - the les-sons learned for structuring future research and innovation PPPs in both Future Internet and other domains (7.1 Recommendations 1-5). We follow this with a series of recommendations di-rected at the present partners in FI-PPP (7.2 Recommendations 6-9) and con-clude with further recommendations for the direction of the current pro-gramme, this time addressed to the Commission (7.3 Recommendations 9-13).

work are required. Otherwise PPPs risk having a lack of strategic direction or the means to achieve that direction and to gain synergy between projects: it is extremely difficult if not impossi-ble to correct inappropriate structures and behaviours once they have been established.

Recommendation 2: any public-private partnership must have an effective cen-tral internal governing body to manage its governance arrangements. We now have experience of several forms of PPP and their governance. Good practices should be learned from them.

The JTIs, for instance, have developed good models for governance, manage-ment and administration, and processes whereby the industrial participants are

7.1. Recommendations for the Commission concerning Public-Private Partnerships in Horizon 2020

30

able to establish (and evolve) a collec-tive strategic view on key issues and ensure that this view prevails within the partnership and guides the activities of the partnership. However, for the future the cumbersome ‘Joint Undertaking’ ar-rangement is an unnecessary and coun-ter-productive burden on a PPP.

Recommendation 3: future public-pri-vate partnerships should be enabled to use the widest range of innovation-oriented instruments in a coordinated manner. PPPs should not be restricted to FP7-like instruments, but should take advantage of the opportunity of-fered by Horizon 2020 to use the full range of EU instruments for the sup-port of innovation. However in PPPs it is important that the use of such in-struments be coordinated, rather than projects running independently.

Recommendation 4: re-design the whole process of calls for and selec-tion of proposals to better reflect a focus on achieving greater ‘impact’.

The whole Framework Programme approach needs to be re-thought and restructured to move towards bet-ter identification and assessment of ‘impacts’. In particular, the scientific experts that perform proposal evalua-tions find it difficult to judge impact. The kinds of economic and social impacts that are desirable should be clarified along with the nature of the outcomes of research and innovation projects to achieve them.

Recommendation 5: participation in programmes should be dependent on the agreement and actions of partici-pants to collaborate fully, across the programme rather than just within their own project, so as to achieve pro-gramme objectives. This includes, for example, participation in coordination activities and governance bodies, willing-ness to adapt project direction to better fulfil programme objectives, provision of deliverables to other projects, and compli-ance with IP arrangements to facilitate sharing and wide-scale take-up.

Recommendation 6: the industrial participants in the FI-PPP should rec-ognise the role expected of them in a public-private partnership (see sec-tion 5) and reconstitute the Steering Board and its membership to perform that role effectively. In particular (but not only) the Steering Board should:

• put in place processes for much closer liaison between the Steering Board and both the Architecture Board and the Working Groups;

• ensure that there is within the pro-gramme a process for horizon-scan-ning and proper revision of programme strategy and steering of the programme in response to external developments;

• ensure that the programme has output-oriented Key Performance Indicators derived from the desired programme-level impacts and that these are used to measure progress and to steer the programme and the projects within the programme.

Recommendation 7: the participants in the FI-PPP should appoint as chair-man of the Steering Board a senior executive of a company that is not a co-ordinator of any FI-PPP project. This would avoid a conflict of inter-est. The chairmanship of the Steering Board is due soon to be renewed: this presents an opportunity.

7.2. Recommendations for present partners in the programme


31


Recommendation 10: calls for tender should be considered for future ‘hori-zontal’ actions. The functions provided by the horizontal projects - specifically programme facilitation and support and infrastructure support, but possibly also the technology foundation - are critical to the success of the programme. The conventional calls for proposals and evaluation processes of the Framework Programme do not allow for iteration to gradually ‘down-select’ offers and to clarify the requirements. The pub-lic procurement process using calls for tender would be more likely than the Framework Programme process to yield effective ‘horizontal’ projects whose actions are well defined in ad-vance and critical to the performance of the programme. This would also give greater opportunity for negotiation so as to achieve more efficient and cost-effective programme management.

Recommendation 11: future calls should seek not just trials but real ef-forts to stimulate take-up. In phases 1 and 2 the Use Cases are intended to develop real solutions based on Future Internet technologies for a number of selected market segments while the ‘large-scale trials’ intended in Phase 3 are intended to stimulate and encourage market take-up. The panel recommends that greater effort should be made in future phases to achieve market take-up. For instance, the Use Cases should be encouraged in phase 3 to come up with sustainable innovative business mod-els. In particular the industrial partners in the Use Cases should be stimulated to launch innovative business solutions, using all their industrial resources, not only their research and technology de-velopment departments. The Use Cases should also be encouraged to try to gain synergies between Use Case solutions

7.3. Recommendations for the Commission concerning the present programme

Recommendation 8: the Advisory Board should focus their advice on helping the participants in the FI-PPP bring the results of the FI-PPP to market most effectively. This will help the participants in the FI-PPP to under-stand how best to steer the programme to achieve impact. Since members of the Advisory Board are ‘renewed’ af-ter two years there are implications for Advisory Board membership: their replacements should be familiar with the relevant markets and with bringing technology to the market.

Recommendation 9: the participants in the FI-PPP should pro-actively seek to engage significantly more with the wider community. The Use Case projects, for example, are meant to be

catalytic in encouraging many other potential customers for infrastructures to get involved as part of the drive to accelerate take-up. They should engage with other users of infrastructures, reg-ulators (where appropriate to overcome barriers to adoption and interoperation), and ‘added value service suppliers’ (often SMEs). They should also spe-cifically seek the involvement of the community in countries that are not so far well-represented in the FI-PPP. INFINITY should clarify its role as the interface to owners and users of ex-isting infrastructures, infrastructure providers and regional innovation, and make more determined and visible ef-forts to promote their engagement with the FI-PPP.


32

and to combine innovative Future Internet solutions from two or more separate Use Cases. Industrial par-ticipants should also be encouraged to involve their existing ecosystem of SME partners to develop Future Inter-net solutions to the market. Moreover, efforts should be made in this direc-tion as early as possible - in Phase 2 as well as Phase 3.

Recommendation 12: future calls should explicitly seek the engagement of industrial associations, public-sector associations and, where appropriate, regulators. Cf. Recommendation 9

Recommendation 13: in Phase 3, spe-cific SME-oriented actions should be taken so as to engage the innovative SME community better. Pro-active planning needs to start now drawing on best practice from other programmes on all legal options available to en-able effective and efficient participation of innovative SMEs. Examples include working with regional innovation organ-isations and with public actors, such as cities, on the basis of their procurement of services from innovative SMEs, and requiring large organisations to commit to engaging their supply chains (and specifically SMEs in their supply chains) to an agreed level.

Recommendation 14: the Commis-sion should make even greater effort to achieve co-ordinated, co-operative behaviour of participants to achieve

programme objectives rather than just project objectives. The purpose of a programme is to achieve selec-tion and conduct of projects with a view to achieving collective as well as individual goals against the backdrop of a common strategic framework. The basis of the FI-PPP is that the Future Internet is a market in which coordina-tion between users and suppliers could be critical. A programmatic approach can give European actors an acceler-ated start in understanding each others’ needs.

Specific measures for future phases and future calls for proposals might include:

• introduction of co-operation require-ments for projects during the negotia-tion stage once the likely selection of projects after an evaluation is known (with advance warning in the call that this would happen);

• educating (even more) proposal eval-uators and project reviewers in the expectations of the programme so as to ensure better alignment of pro-posal selection with the aims of the programme and better mid-course correction;

Cf. recommendations of the CIP-ICT-PSP Interim Evaluation Report concern-ing ‘Tightening selection processes, strengthening project reviews and making them more systematic’.38

38 CIP ICT PSP Final (Second Interim) Evaluation Final report July 2011, available from: http://ec.europa.eu/cip/files/cip/docs/cip_ict_psp_interim_evaluation_report_2011_en.pdf


33


Annex 1. Public-Private Partnerships in Horizon 2020

A N N E X 1

Horizon 2020 contains provision for public-private partnerships. Specifically, the (proposed) Council Decision for Ho-rizon 2020 includes Future Internet in the set of public-private partnerships supported under FP7 for which further support may be provided39.

“The objective is to reinforce the com-petitiveness of European industry in developing, mastering and shaping the next generation Internet that will gradually replace the current Web, fixed and mobile networks and service infrastructures, and enable the inter-connection of trillions of devices (IoT) across multiple operators and domains that will change the way we communi-cate, access and use knowledge. This includes R&I on networks, software and services, cyber security, privacy and trust, wireless communication and all optical networks, immersive interactive multimedia and on the connected en-terprise of the future.”40

The legal basis of public-private part-nerships is Article 19 of the proposed Regulation to establish Horizon 202041. It reads:

Public-Private Partnerships

1. Horizon 2020 may be implemented through public-private partnerships where all the partners concerned commit to support the development and implementation of research and

innovation activities of strategic im-portance to the Union’s competitiveness and industrial leadership or to ad-dress specific societal challenges.

2. Involvement of the Union in those partnerships may take one of the following forms:

(a) financial contributions from the Union to joint undertakings estab-lished on the basis of Article 187 TFEU under the Seventh Frame-work Programme, subject to the amendment of their basic acts; to new public-private partnerships set up on the basis of Article 187 TFEU; and to other funding bod-ies referred to in Article [55(1)(b)(v) or (vii)] of Regulation (EU) No XX/2012 [New Financial Regula-tion]. This form of partnerships shall only be implemented where the scope of the objectives pur-sued and the scale of the resourc-es required justify it;

(b) entering a contractual agreement between the partners referred to in paragraph 1, which specifies the objectives of the partnership, respective commitments of the partners, key performance indica-tors, and outputs to be delivered including the identification of re-search and innovation activities that require support from Horizon 2020.

39 Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION establishing the Specific Programme Implementing Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) COM(2011) 808 (p24)

40 ibid. (p39)41 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing Horizon 2020 - The Framework

Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) COM(2011) 809

34

3. Public-private partnerships shall be identified in an open and transparent way based on all of the following criteria:

(a) the added value of action at Union level;

(b) the scale of impact on industrial competitiveness, sustainable growth and socio-economic issues;

(c) the long-term commitment from all partners based on a shared vi-sion and clearly defined objectives;

(d) the scale of the resources involved and the ability to leverage addi-tional investments in research and innovation;

(e) a clear definition of roles for each of the partners and agreed key performance indicators over the period chosen.

A N N E X 1

35


Annex 2: Complementary Grant Agreement

A N N E X 2

The text of the special clause is reproduced here:

Special clause n°4 1 - Complementary grant agreements

1. In addition to the provisions of Article II. 1, the following definitions shall apply to this grant agreement:

(a) Complementary grant agreements means agreements concluded with the Union in respect of work complementary to the project and referred to in paragraph 2 below.

(b) Complementary beneficiary means a beneficiary of a complementary grant agreement to this grant agreement.

2. This grant agreement is complementary to the grant agreement(s) resulting from the selection of Calls under the Future Internet PPP*: FP7-2011-ICT-FI; FP7-2012-ICT-FI; FP7-2013-ICT-F1.

3. Complementary beneficiaries enjoy the rights and bear the obligations of beneficiaries with regard to Articles 11.32, 11.33 and 11.34 of Annex II** {Access Rights}. However, for comple-mentary beneficiaries, these rights and obligations are limited to foreground only and do not extend to background. Complementary beneficiaries are not members of the consortium for the purpose of this grant agreement.

4. The coordinator shall provide copies of the reports referred to in Articles 11.4.1 a), 11.4.2 a) and 11.4.2 b) of Annex II to the coordinator(s) of the complementary grant agreement(s). Complementary beneficiaries shall treat this information in accordance with Article 11.9 {Confidentiality} and Part C of Annex II {Intellectual Property Rights, Use and Dissemination}.

5. Coordination between complementary grant agreements:

(a) The complementary beneficiaries are deemed to have concluded a written agreement regarding the coordination between complementary grant agreements.

(b) In order to ensure coherence of the work undertaken under complementary grant agreements, beneficiaries will be required to create and participate in boards and advisory structures together with representatives from complementary grant agreements. The beneficiaries of these complementary grant agreements shall collectively address collaboration and synchronisation of activities, including on issues such as management of outcomes, com-mon approaches towards standardisation, SME involvement, links with regulatory and policy activities, and commonly shared dissemination and awareness raising activities.

36

Annex 3. Objectives of the Interim Assessment

A N N E X 3

The objectives of the Future Internet Public Private Partnership Programme42 interim assessment are:

• to evaluate the concept developed for the FI-PPP

• to assess the overall progress achieved in the first year from the launch, including the cost-effec-tiveness and efficiency of the PPP’s mechanisms and structures as well as the prospect for the PPP’s reach-ing its objectives

• to come up with conclusions and recommendations to the European

Commission and to the participants in the FI PPP Programme

• to bring forward proposals for how to further develop the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership Programme

• to contribute to the preparatory work for the detailed work programmes of Horizon 2020 (the European Union Framework Programme for Research and Innovation from 2014 to 2020), notably the guidelines for public-pri-vate partnerships.

42 Extracted from the Terms of Reference for the Panel.

37


Annex 4. Questions addressed by the Panel

A N N E X 4

relevanceAre the FI-PPP Programme major build-ing blocks, each of them implemented through one objective (Core Platform, Use case and trials, Infrastructure support, Programme facilitation and support) ap-propriate for developing key competencies across different areas to strengthen the competitive position of European indus-try in domains like telecommunications, mobile devices, software and service industries, content providers and media?

Are the original aims of the FI-PPP Pro-gramme still in line with the changing market?

Are the original aims of the FI-PPP Pro-gramme still in line with the funding schemes in the next framework pro-gramme H2020?

What it is the strategic position of FI-PPP with respect to the global policy context?

effectivenessAs far as can be seen at this point, has the FI-PPP Programme made progress towards its objectives?

Are the procedures appropriate and ef-fective to deliver the objectives?

Has the FI-PPP made a difference; did it induce participants to activities that would not have been carried out with-out the programme (additionality and sustainability/exploitation)? Is the FI-PPP Programme inspiring activities outside the programme?

efficiencyWere the overall legal framework and the modalities for implementation of

the FI-PPP Programme efficiently im-plemented?

Were the activities of the FI-PPP Pro-gramme carried out efficiently and were they cost effective? Are procedures simple enough?

Were the levels of funding and other available resources adequate?

Is the FI-PPP governance structure ap-propriate and efficient? Have all relevant stakeholders been adequately involved in the FI-PPP Programme governance structures?

Were the targeted industrial and re-search communities able to respond appropriately? In particular, was the participation of SMEs and user organi-sations satisfactory? Are there any barriers for NGOs, charity foundations, non-profit organisations, etc for them to participate in the FI-PPP Programme?

Has there been progress on implement-ing non-research activities including on programme key performance indicators, standardisation, innovation environ-ments, public and stakeholder relations, and SME support activities?

QualityIs the quality of innovation and research under way satisfactory (as far as can be seen at this early stage)? What are the relevant indicators? (Are we funding excellent research?)

Did the FI-PPP attract actors and or-ganisations capable of achieving the programme objectives?

38

Has there been progress towards achieving the technological targets set in the FI-PPP Programme, notably the work programme 2011-2012?

What has been done and could further be done to ensure Europe’s best in-

novators are involved in projects and subsequent phases of the PPP? What has been done and could further be done to ensure that Europe’s industry is involved in the PPP?

A N N E X 4

39


Annex 5. Composition of the Panel

A N N E X 5

The views expressed in this report are those of the panel members as independ-ent experts and they do not necessarily represent the views of their employers.

Anna Asimakopoulou (GR) received her J.D. in law, cum laude from Cor-nell University with specialisation in International Legal Affairs in 1991 and her B.A. from Bryn Mawr College (USA) in Economics in 1988. She is cur-rently the Director of an NGO in Greece (www.egnatia epirusfoundation.org) and Business Development Director for Computer Resources International in Luxembourg and Brussels (www.cri.lu). She is the former Deputy Mayor of the city of Ioannina in N.W. Greece and currently a member of the Municipal Council. She is a candidate for parlia-ment in the Greek National Elections. She has worked on projects dealing with ICTs, sustainable development, SME-support and international coop-eration as a manager and consultant since 1995. She has acted as reviewer, evaluator and monitor for the Euro-pean Commission (DG INFSO) since the ESPRIT programme. She previously worked as an attorney in New York, and Sydney. She is fluent in English, French, Spanish and Greek.

Piet Bel (NL) is a senior Innovation Con-sultant at Philips Innovation Services in the Innovation Management Consulting Group. Previously, Piet has fulfilled several roles in Business Development and Sales Management in the ICT in-dustry. In particularly Piet has a large experience in the Corporate Networking, Cloud Computing and Data Protection market. Piet works also as external ad-visor for more than 10 years for the FP7 European Commission Innovation programmes. In particularly he advises

the EC on Public Private Partnerships and large EU funded Research projects to stimulate Innovation in Europe. Piet has evaluated a large number of EU Calls, reviewed EU projects and acted as panellist of large scale EU Pro-grammes.

Piet works with Philips and external companies in various industries, such as Future Internet, Smart Energy, Healthcare, Consumer Lifestyle and Building Solutions. He supports compa-nies to identify new areas of growth, supports decision making processes in the front end of innovation and facili-tates in creating innovation roadmaps. Beside this he advises companies to move legacy ICT architectures to vir-tual Cloud Computing infrastructures. In particularly Piet is an expert in pro-tecting these infrastructures against CyberCrime.

Luke Georghiou (Chair) (UK) is Vice-President for Research and Innovation at the University of Manchester and also Professor in the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research at Manchester Business School. He is responsible for the University’s research strategy and its implementation and for business engagement and commercialisation activities. He has chaired several in-ternational panels examining research and innovation issues including chair-ing the Strategic Review of Eureka in 1999, being a member of DG Infso’s ICT Competitiveness and Uptake Task Force in 2006, rapporteur for the influential report to European leaders, Creating an Innovative Europe (Aho Group report) which put demand-side innovation policy onto the political agenda, and Chairman of the High-level Expert Group on Rationales for the European

40

Research Area which recommended a refocusing of European research and innovation support on a series of grand challenges. He is on the editorial board of eight journals. In 2011 he was elected to membership of the Academia Europaea.

Bob Malcolm (Rapporteur) (UK) has for over 20 years been the principal of the consultancy ideo limited, specialising in research and innovation strategy and management. This followed 20 years experience in systems engineering in the aerospace and computing services industries during which he worked as systems engineer, research manager, quality manager, project manager, and business manager. Bob has advised in-dustry, universities, and local, national and international governmental agencies.

Bob has been associated with the EU R&D Programmes from the mid-1980’s as project director, reviewer, evaluator, and consultant to the European Com-mission. He has managed national UK industrial and academic research programmes and helped develop R&D strategies for the UK and the EU. Bob has chaired and participated in many industrial, academic, professional, na-tional and international committees and advisory groups. He is a visiting professor at the University of Surrey

and a Past-Chairman of the Research and Development Society.

Graham Vickery (AU) was formerly head of the OECD Information Economy Group, in charge of areas including infor-mation technology, ICT and environment, digital content, e-business, ICT skills and employment, country policy reviews and the OECD Information Technology Outlook. He is currently an independ-ent consultant on ICT-related policy and policy evaluation, and most recently chaired the European Commission’s CIP ICT PSP Final Evaluation and the FP7 ICT Call 8 Independent Monitoring Panel, as well as undertaking a review of the re-use of Public Sector Information.

Expertise includes: public policy, informa-tion economy, environment, growth and employment, public sector information, intangibles and intellectual capital, new technologies, industry performance, and industry globalisation.

Author of numerous publications and articles on information technology, digital content industries, public sector information, business services, environ-ment industry, globalisation, advanced manufacturing technology, information technology development and diffusion, technology and investment, high tech industries and work organisation.

A N N E X 5

41


Annex 6. Evidence Base

A N N E X 6

The Panel:

• reviewed web-based and documentary evidence;• conducted interviews with a range of stakeholders;• analysed statistics (with the help of the Commission);• observed a meeting of the FI-PPP Steering Board.

main web-sites:

Principal FI-PPP site (with links to all the project sites and more): www.fi-ppp.eu

European Future Internet Portal: www.future-internet.eu

documentary evidence

Foundations of the FI-PPP

2008 ISTAG Report on Web-based Service Industry

2008 Cross-ETP Strategic paper on Industry Policy

2008 Report by the National ICT Directors on the Future Internet

2009 High Level Panel Report: Future Internet Vision 2020

April 2009: an internal report of the European Commission on their analysis of possible models for an FI-PPP

October 2009: the ‘Communication’ of the European Commission - COM(2009)479 - that laid the foundations for the FI-PPP

Jan 2010: White paper on the Future Internet PPP Definition (produced by the ‘European Future Internet Initiative Founder Members’)

January 2010: Report of a Meeting of the Commission with the ‘European Future Internet Initiative Founder Members’

August 2010: Commission Communication on a ‘Digital Agenda for Europe’ - COM(2010) 245

June 2010: Report on Usage Area Workshop

Operation of the FI-PPP

Future Internet Public-Private Partnership, Work Programme 2011-12

Description of the governance arrangements for the FI-PPP

Study Report on the European Internet Industry & Market

FI-PPP Collaboration Agreement

FI-PPP Special Clause on Complementary Grant Agreement

Evaluation Summary Reports for proposals to Call 1

Call 1 Integrated Programme Portfolio Analysis

Monitoring Report for the 1st Call

Draft of FI-PPP Work Programme, Phase 3 (not yet in public domain)

Statistics• Call 1 Statistics on participation (before negotiation)• Call 1 Detailed statistics on participation (after negotiation)

42

7th Framework ProgrammeCouncil Decision on FP7

FP7 Rules for Participation

Update to FP7 to accommodate PPPs including FI-PPP

“Towards Horizon 2020” ISTAG Recommendations on FP7 ICT Work Programme 2013

Horizon 2020: the Framework Programme 2014 - 2020Commission Presentation introducing H2020

Commission Communication introducing H2020 - COM(2011) 808

Commission Proposal for a Regulation establishing the H2020 Specific Pro-gramme - COM(2011) 809

Proposal for a Council Decision on the H2020 Specific Programme - COM(2011) 811

Rules for Participation

FIREPortfolio of FIRE facilities and experiments using those facilities as of Oct. 2011

A leaflet on FIRE 8th Call for Proposals that opened July 2011 and closed Jan 2012

The FIRE website: cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/fire/home_en.html

FI-PPP Project detailsFor all projects, the Panel has reviewed:

Descriptions of Work

Progress and Project Management Reports (where they exist)

Reports on specific activities of particular projects

6-month review reports

Project web-sites

FI-PPP 6-month Programme ReviewThe Panel reviewed:

January 2012, FI-PPP Programme Review Full Report (a review of the whole programme based on the collection of individual reviews)

Review follow-up responsibilities (who should respond to which recommendations)

Letters from the Commission to the PPP (requesting co-operation in respond-ing to the review)

FI-PPP Steering Board response to the FI-PPP Programme Review Full Report

Other documents July 2011, CIP ICT PSP Final (2nd Interim) Evaluation report

February 2012, (Draft) report on ‘The economic and societal impact of the Future Internet PPP’ SMART 2009/0044

A N N E X 6

43


Interviews

The Panel received input from, conducted interviews with, and corresponded with project participants, representatives of the ‘European Future Internet Initiative Founder Members’, senior executives of both participating and non-participating organisations in this field, and Commission officials. These included:

Federico Alvarez, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, INFINITY Coordinator

Maria Concepcion Anton Garcia, EC, FI-PPP Task Force member and Evaluation Officer

Robin Arak, reviewer of CONCORD project

Alberto Bonetti, reviewer of programme at 6-month stage

Takis Damaskopoulos, EIIR & Steering Board representative for CONCORD

Patrick Gatellier, Thales, Chair of the Steering Board and Instant Mobility Coordinator

Peter Fatelnig, EC, FI-PPP Task Force Leader

Peter Friess, FI-PPP Task Force member, Project Officer

Rod Franklin, Kuehne + Nagel, FINEST Coordinator

Dominic Greenwood, reviewer of programme at 6-month stage

Uros Janko, reviewer of CONCORD project

Jose Jimenez Delgado, Telefonica Research & Development, FIWARE Coordinator

Isidro Laso Ballesteros, EC, FI-PPP Task Force member & Project Officer

Nuria de Lama Sanchez, AtoS & Steering Board representative for FI-WARE

Jose Lorenzo Mon, AtoS Research, ENVIROFI Coordinator

Jaques Magen, InterInnov, Steering Board representative of INFINITY

Ruediger Martin, EC, FI-PPP Task Force member & Project Officer

Mikko Riepula, Aalto University & Steering Board representative for CONCORD

George Rittenhouse, Alcatel-Lucent, member of the ‘G16’

Giorgios Tselentis, EC, FI-PPP Task Force member & Project Officer (also responsible F.I.R.E. initiative)

Petra Turkama, Aalto University, CONCORD Project Leader

Nick Wainwright, HP Labs

Arian Zwegers, EC, Task Force member & FI-WARE Project Officer

A N N E X 6

44

Notes

N O T E S

45


N O T E S

46

Notes

47


Notes

N O T E S

48N O T E S

49


Notes

50

Notes

N O T E S

European CommissionCommunications Networks, Content and Technology

The Directorate General helps to harness information & communications technologies in order to create jobs and generate economic growth; to provide better goods and services for all; and to build on the greater empowerment which digital technologies can bring in order to create a better world, now and for future generations.

Future Internet Public-Private Partnership

http://ec.europa.eu/foi

KK-3

1-12

-682

-EN

-C

doi: 10.2759/84215

Interim assessment of the future internet public private partnership

Technology

Transcript of Interim assessment of the future internet public private partnership