Interim assessment of the future internet public private partnership

Interim Assessment of the
Future Internet
Public-Private Partnership
May 2012

Communications
Networks, Content
and Technology

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

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Interim Assessment of the
Future 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)

5
T a b l e o f c o n t e n t s

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. ecommendations for the Commission concerning Public-Private
R
Partnerships in Horizon 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.2. Recommendations for present partners in the programme . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7.3. ecommendations for the Commission concerning
R
the present programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

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

Interim Assessment of the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership

6
E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

Executive Summary
The Panel that performed this Interim infrastructure enabled by the future
Assessment of the Future Internet internet are still valid.
Public-Private Partnership (FI-PPP)
finds that: However the Panel also finds that:

• he FI-PPP has been a valuable ex-
t • he industrial participants in the FI-PPP
t
periment in attempting to achieve are not, in concert, fulfilling the role
impact similar to that of Joint Tech- envisaged for them in a public-pri-
nology Initiatives (JTIs)1 but in a vate partnership;
much shorter timescale than JTIs by • he projects supported within the FI-PPP
t
using the existing instruments of the are, generally, making progress toward
7th Framework Programme; their own goals but not co-operating
• he decision to use the instruments
t sufficiently so as to achieve the goals
and processes of the 7th Framework of the programme.
Programme to establish the pro-
gramme was valid in enabling a rapid The table below summarises the full
response by the EU to technological set of recommendations, indicating
and market developments; those which could and should be im-
• he market and technological situation
t plemented during the life of the FI-PPP
is such that the aims of the FI-PPP to and recommendations for any follow-on
accelerate technological development initiative.
and take-up by engaging early-adop-
ter users to identify their needs for

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 WP2014
a coordinated manner.

4 Re-design the process of calls for and selection of proposals to focus on achieving WP2014
greater ‘impact’.

5 Participants in projects within programmes must collaborate fully so as to achieve WP2014
programme objectives.

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

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 June 2012
that is not a co-ordinator of any FI-PPP project.

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

9 The programme should engage more energetically - and more visibly - with the Now and
wider community of both users and technology providers 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 Now and
broad community - industrial associations, public-sector associations, consumer continuing
associations, etc, and, where appropriate, regulators.

13 Engage the innovative SME community better. Now

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


8
I N T R O D U C T I O N

1. Introduction
This document comprises the report by The Objectives of the FI-PPP and the
an independent panel of experts on an present status of its Implementation
Interim Assessment of the Future Inter- are described in the next two sections.
net Public-Private Partnership (FI-PPP)2.
This is followed by a major section that
The objectives of this assessment are to summarises the Findings of the Panel.

• valuate the concept of the FI-PPP;
e There is then a special section to address
• ssess progress in the first year;
a the performance of the programme as
a Public-Private Partnership.
• ffer recommendations to the European
o
Commission and to articipants in the The findings of the Panel are summa-
FI-PPP; rised in the Conclusions section, which
•
bring forward proposals for how is followed by Recommendations for
to further develop the FI-PPP; both the present programme, to en-
hance achievement of their objectives,
•
contribute to the guidelines for
and for future programmes with similar
public-private partnerships in Horizon
ambitions that may be considered in
2020.
Horizon 2020.
The Panel was asked to assess the FI-PPP
The Panel comprised a mix of experts,
with respect to:
including some with knowledge of the
technology and of its use in modern
• elevance: whether the original aims
R
infrastructures, and some with general
of the FI-PPP are still valid and wheth-
expertise in RD strategy and man-
er the programme architecture is still
agement. (See Annex 5)
appropriate for realising those aims;
• ffectiveness: progress towards the
E The Panel drew upon published infor-
objectives; mation, interviews with participants in
• Efficiency: of the management and the projects of which the programme is
operation of the programme; comprised, representatives of the com-
munity addressed by the programme
• uality: of research and innovation,
Q
but not participating, and staff of the
and of the actors attracted to the
European Commission. (See Annex 6)
programme.3

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

2. Objectives of the fi-ppp
The Future Internet Public Private Part- The public contribution to the partner-
nership (FI-PPP) aims to significantly ship comes from part-funding via the
advance the implementation and uptake European Commission for projects, pro-
of a European-scale market for ‘smart gramme design, management of calls
infrastructures’.4 The intention is to for proposals and programme monitoring,
accelerate technological development and the participation of public sector
for the future internet and in parallel, organisations as users in the develop-
synergistically, accelerate its adoption ment of requirements and in trials.
in ‘smart infrastructures’ - such as
smart energy grids, smart cities, smart The private sector contributed during the
environmental management systems, formulation of the concept of the PPP5
and smart systems for mobility. Ulti- with significant input from an indus-
mately the ambition is to make public trial grouping6 that presented their vision
service infrastructures and business to the European Commission in January
processes significantly smarter (i.e. 2010. During the operation of the PPP, the
more intelligent, more efficient, more private sector contributes in the form of
sustainable) through tighter integra- financial support for their participation in
tion with Internet networking and com- projects and from their co-operation across
puting capabilities. the programme (not just within projects).

2.1. Objectives
The aims and objectives of the FI-PPP trial partnerships built around Future
evolved during the formation of the Internet value chains, involving users
programme. The Panel has taken as and public authorities at local, regional
the objective of the programme the and national levels, and providing
expected impact - over all 3 phases - SME players with opportunities to
as set out in the Work Programme offer new products, equipments, ser-
2011-2012. This is a précis: vices and applications;
• reation of new European-scale markets
C
• ignificant increase of the effectiveness
S for smart infrastructures contributing
of business processes and novel to European leadership in global ICT
approaches to the operation of infra- applications markets;
structures and applications of high
economic and/or societal value. • Evolution of Future Internet infra-struc-
ture compatible with the emergence of
• einforced industrial capability on nov-
R open, secure and trusted service;
el service architectures and platforms;
• comprehensive approach towards
A
• ew opportunities for novel business
N regulatory and policy issues.
models based on cross-sector indus-

4
“White paper on the Future Internet PPP Definition”, January 2010 (http://www.future-internet.eu/uploads/media/May2009.pdf)
ibid.
5

The ‘European Future Internet Initiative Founder Members’: a group of 16 companies supporting a Call for Action
6


10
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. mplementation of the fi-ppp
I
3.1. Legal Framework

In order to implement the FI-PPP rap- facilitate collaboration and programme
idly - in recognition of the very dynamic coordination. This clause requires fore-
nature of this field - it was established ground knowledge to be sharable across
within the 7th Framework Programme. In all projects and it requires project benefi-
consequence, the FI-PPP is subject to the ciaries to participate in joint coordination
Regulations of the 7th Framework Pro- activities. (See Annex 2.)
gramme and must use the same project
instruments, the same call and evaluation Also, all participants have agreed to the
processes, and the same project review terms of a Collaboration Agreement that,
and programme monitoring processes. in addition to the standard terms of the
Framework Programme agreement, sets
However, in the grant agreement for each out the governance arrangements for
project in the programme the Commission the FI-PPP.7
introduced a special clause intended to

3.2. Programme Architecture
The programme has four major ‘building blocks’ (see diagram below)

7

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

11

The four building blocks are: still shared within those domains) and
then instantiate their own domain-spe-
• echnology Foundation - the devel-
T cific platforms.
opment of components for a Core
Platform, initially in the FI-WARE project; The Infrastructure support project is in-
• se cases trials - to establish user
U tended initially, in Phase 1, to identify
requirements in 8 sectors, especially existing and future advanced experi-
for common components; mental infrastructures across Europe.
However, the scope of the Phase 1
• nfrastructure support - making best use
I project (awarded to INFINITY) has been
of existing European infrastructures; expanded to encompass other studies
• rogramme facilitation support.
P of value to the FI-PPP. A subsequent
project, planned for Phase 2, is intend-
It is intended that the use cases and ed to integrate, federate and upgrade
trials projects should establish their [existing infrastructures] towards serving
various requirements for enabling large-scale trials8.
technology components and that in
liaison with the core platform project The Programme Facilitation and Sup-
they should agree a set of ‘Generic port project (awarded to CONCORD)
Enablers’ common to some or all of should facilitate the development of an
the usage areas. The core platform overall programme view and collabora-
project(s) will develop these and make tion across all FI-PPP projects, support
them available to the use case projects standardisation, SME involvement, links
as the Core Platform. The Use Case with regulatory and other relevant policy
projects will in parallel be developing activities, dissemination and awareness
the ‘Specific Enablers’ that they believe raising9
necessary for their domains (though

3.3. Programme Schedule
The programme is planned to be im- • stablish the programme support and
E
plemented in three phases over five coordination structures.
years (as indicated in the diagram
above). The content of each phase is: 3.3.2. Phase 2 (April 2013 – March 2015)

3.3.1. hase 1 (April 2011 – March 2013)
P • nsure availability of test infrastructure
E
for early trials,
•
Define usage area requirements from • Develop the core platform and use case
which the architecture and common specific functionalities, and instantiate
enablers of the core platform will be them on the test infrastructure.
derived; start developing components.
• elect and run early trials for all use
S
• tart evaluation of test infrastructures
S cases and prepare large scale trials.
and identify what must be done to
bring infrastructures to the level nec-
essary to enable trials.

8
From the FI-PPP Work Programme 2011-2012
ibid.
9


12

3.3.3. hase 3 (May 2014 – October 2015)
P • ncrease the involvement of SMEs as
I
developers and providers of services
• rovide and enrich a stable infrastruc-
P and applications.
ture for large scale trials populated
with a variety of applications to
prove the viability of the concept.

3.4. Activities (July 2010 - April 2012)
The total notional EC budget for the for additional organisations to join the
FI-PPP is €300M. The Commission consortium to provide certain components
has earmarked €170M of funding for of the core platform11. The FI-WARE
projects in the first two phases of the open calls are funded to the level of
FI-PPP and, subject to budgetary ap- € 12.4 million, or 30% of FI-WARE
proval, €130M for phase 3. funding and 14 % of Phase 1 funding,
and are entirely managed and run by
The first call for proposals was the FI-WARE consortium, independent
launched in July 2010 and closed in of the Commission. The open call will
December 2010. The first projects of follow the general guidelines for open
the FI-PPP, selected from that call, began calls within FP7 projects12. To ensure
(in principle10) in April 2011. fair competition, present members of
the FI-WARE consortium are excluded
3.4.1. Distribution of FI-PPP Call 1 from participation.
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

10
ee section 4.3
S
11
he first such Open Call was made on two topics: Middleware for efficient and QoS/Security-aware invocation of services and exchange of
T
messages; and Business Models and Business Elements Definition and Simulation.
12
See http://www.fi-ware.eu/open-call/

13

A call for proposals for Phase 2 is due of additional use cases domains such as
to be launched in May 2012, closing at Ambient Assisted Living and eHealth,
the end of October 2012. This phase will
extend participation in the programme It is intended to make a final call for
through mergers and re-alignment of ex- proposals for Phase 3 projects in 2013.
isting user domains and the incorporation


14

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

The Steering Board is the highest FI PPP •
requires replies by the Steering Board
Program governing body. It: to its recommendations and advice;
• represents the FI-PPP owners; • omprises 8 people at the time of this
c
• meets monthly (real or virtual); assessment, meeting twice per year14.
• ust make decisions unanimously13,
m Members of the Advisory Board are also
without any option of escalation. expected to be ‘Ambassadors’ of the PPP
and represent them at high level events
The Architecture Board: (e.g. in the Council and Parliament).
• s a forum for meetings of technical
i
managers; The PPP Secretariat (provided by CON-
• eets monthly (either physically or
m CORD):
by video conference); • ndertakes day-to-day facilitation of
u
• s consensus driven, with unanimous
i the governance processes;
decision making; • acilitates the operation of ‘Working
f
•
escalates to the Steering Board in the Groups’, which are ‘temporary groups
event of decisions that cannot be re- established for the performance of a
solved by consensus. specific task and not a fixed part of
the permanent FII Program govern-
The Advisory Board: ance structure’.15
• s independent, with no access to de-
i
liverables per se;

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

15
F I N D I N G S O F T H E P A N E L

4. Findings of the panel
4.1. Continuing relevance

The opinion of those interviewed by the • uropean society to benefit from early
E
panel is that the programme is still rel- provision of internet-enhanced services.
evant. The assertion of the 2008 ISTAG
report16 remains valid: There has been a significant internet-en-
abled development in the market-place
“A critical interdependence for the suc- since the original formulation of the
cess of the Web-based service industry Future Internet vision. This is the recent
will be the extension of the Future In- rapid take-up of ‘Cloud Computing’ and
ternet by offering very rich ‘horizontal services which make extensive use of
services’. These services will foster an data and functionality (applications) ‘in
interoperability and trust framework the cloud’.17 The FI-WARE project does
for service integration, authentication, include work packages that address both
privacy and security. This framework cloud hosting and interoperation with
will enable the Web-based service in- third-party cloud facilities, so the
dustry to procure, extend and repur- programme has recognised this phe-
pose services to new markets.” nomenon and has, in principle, the
means to accommodate it.
The evolution of this concept into the
vision of the Future Internet that in- However, the continuing relevance of
spired the FI-PPP - of the evolution the specific structure and architecture
of the internet from mere communi- of the FI-PPP, with a project dedicated
cations network to an enabling smart to the development of standard re-us-
infrastructure - is still valid. able components for a ‘core platform’
is less clear. As will be discussed in the
Furthermore, the proposition that following section, some Use Case pro-
development of standard re-usable jects have plans to develop or acquire
components for a multi-sector common their own ‘enablers’ - ‘specific’ and ‘ge-
(‘core’) platform will accelerate both neric’ - so that they are not reliant on
technological development and take-up the core platform project. Also, some
also, according to the evidence gained Use Case projects are collaborating in
by the panel, remains valid. order to develop common Use Case en-
ablers that are outside the scope of the
Despite difficulties and delay - and core platform project - such enablers
possibly further delays still to come being neither ‘specific’ not ‘generic’.
- the work supported by the FI-PPP is This raises the possibility that common
still valuable in helping: enablers might be better encouraged
• uropean industry to accelerate its
E to emerge from such collaborations
contribution to the technological across domains, instead of having
development required to realise the a dedicated core platform project. A
vision of the Future Internet, and Technology Foundation project could

eport of the Information Society Technologies Advisory Group Working Group on “Web-based Service Industry”, February 2008
16
R
17
Notwithstanding the long ‘cloud’ gestation period since the late 1950s/1960s


16

still have a role in this by providing that enablers. But such responsibilities do
encouragement and by facilitating the not appear to be within the present re-
emergence of well-supported generic mit of FI-WARE.

4.2. Progress toward the objectives
The underlying concept of the programme engaging with the broader community
is that the synergistic development of a beyond participants in the programme.
core platform and its use in early take- And despite leading industrial compa-
up trials will be achieved through the nies being partners in the various Use
projects in the programme working in Cases, long term sustainable exploitation
concert - particularly the core-platform plans were considered vague or even
project and the set of Use Case projects non-existent, implying that the repre-
(supported by the other two projects). sentatives of the companies might not
be well-coupled to their strategic plan-
It is not in the Terms of Reference for ning or marketing departments.
this panel to evaluate the individual
projects, for which there are already The ‘core platform’ project (FI-WARE)
standard Framework Programme review should be liaising satisfactorily with the
processes. However, the panel has used Use Case projects and providing techni-
the reports generated in that review cally well-constructed Generic Enablers
process to inform its understanding of in a timely fashion. However, the quality
the operation of the programme. The of liaison with the Use Case projects has
set of reviews made at the 6-month been very variable and reflects closely
stage of the programme shows a mixed the performance of those projects.
picture, with some Use Cases progress- This suggests that FI-WARE has relied
ing well and achieving interim targets, upon dealing with well-organised user-
while others had start-up problems and communities and has not been able to
were lagging badly at the time of the resolve difficulties with less well-organ-
first review.18 ised communities. Also (at the time of
this report) FI-WARE is 2 months late
4.2.1. Progress of projects
overall, at the end of its first year.
towards their objectives
The Programme Facilitation and Sup-
The ‘Use Case’ projects are concerned port project (CONCORD) is expected
with the identification of requirements to facilitate the development of an
for enablers that truly reflect the needs overall programme view and col-
of the community of the application laboration across all FI-PPP projects,
sector of the project. The 6-month support standardisation, develop key
review reports indicated that at the performance indicators, SME involve-
time of the review - during October ment, links with regulatory and other
and November 2011 - about half the relevant policy activities, dissemination
projects were performing reasonably and awareness raising. However, as the
well in this regard, that others needed Description of Work for the CONCORD
to try harder, and that one project was project clearly (and correctly) states
in serious trouble. However, almost all “the FI-PPP Programme deliverables
Use Case projects were criticised for not are not those of CONCORD project, but

18
ee also section 4.3.1 ‘Efficiency of operation’
S

17

results that all FI-PPP Projects jointly (so far) are organisations that have not
contribute towards”. Yet CONCORD’s been involved in those calls20. This sug-
very central role implies significant re- gests that the programme has been
sponsibility for attempting to resolve successful in attracting the participation
programme management problems of a broader community than that of
that inhibit achievement of the pro- the traditional Framework Programme.
gramme’s goals. There is evidence that
while CONCORD was slow to take on However, most of the ‘new’ partici-
this responsibility and made a slow pants have only single participations
start in establishing the arrangements in the FI-PPP whereas, by comparison,
for programme management, it is now organisations among the original 16
perceived to be making serious efforts to ‘Founder Members’ have a 43% share
improve the situation. of total participations in phase 1 of the
programme and have been allocated
The Infrastructure support project c. 44% of FI-PPP funding of phase 1,
(INFINITY) is expected to maximise excluding the allocation for FI-WARE
synergy with infrastructural develop- Open Calls.21 The new industrial par-
ments outside the FI-PPP. The Panel is ticipants that have not participated in
concerned that the project participants Calls 5 and 7 of Challenge 1 of FP7 have
do not fully share this view. Indeed the been allocated c. 13% of FI-PPP funding.
6-month programme-level reviewers
commented that INFINITY was ex- Specific objectives
pending effort on activities that were
not fully focused on helping the PPP The Use Case projects vary consider-
achieve its aims, and that it was not ably in their effectiveness in establishing
performing its role as an external face common requirements for their domains
of the FI-PPP. and in their relationship with the core-
platform project (FI-WARE) so that their
4.2.2. rogress of the programme
P needs for ‘generic enablers’ will be satis-
toward programme-level fied by FI-WARE.
objectives
Some Use Case projects have successfully
Global objectives identified their needs, communicated ef-
fectively with FI-WARE and are confident
According to data provided by the Com- that their needs will be met by FI-WARE.
mission, industry has been extremely Other Use Cases projects have not yet
responsive to the FI-PPP, with the con- agreed which of their needs will be met
sequence that in the FI-PPP, excluding by FI-WARE. And some who have identi-
the FI-WARE Open Call, industry has fied their needs for generic enablers have
taken a much higher share of availa- low confidence in FI-WARE’s ability to de-
ble funds - c. 66% compared with less liver them in time to enable them to fulfil
than 50% in recent calls of Challenge their (use case) project commitments and
1 of the 7th Framework Programme19. the terms of their funding contracts. Con-
sequently, some of these projects have
Moreover, approximately 64% of in- a contingency plan to supply or acquire
dustrial participants in the programme their own alternative components. This

19
46% in Call 5 and 34% in Call 7
20
3 out of 83 industrial participants. Also, 86 unique organisations, including industrial participants, out of a total of 149 organisations
5
participating in FI-PPP are not participating in Challenge 1 Calls 5 and 7.
21
ote that these organisations also participate intensively elsewhere in the Framework Programme, with c.30% of participations in Challenge 1.
N


18

is contrary to the notion of the FI-WARE of FI-WARE is accessible to all current
results being truly generic enablers and and future programme participants
of FI-WARE being the primary supplier of as foreground knowledge23. But the
these enablers to the Use Cases. FI-WARE contract does not require
FI-WARE to ‘hand over’ its results in a
Several reasons have been put forward way that they can be used effectively
for this mismatch between some Use by others or to support them in initial
Case projects and FI-WARE, including the adoption of the results or subsequently
relative timing of the project start-dates with maintenance or training. This has
and the methods used by FI-WARE for serious implications for the ‘Core Plat-
requirements elicitation and software form’ - especially when the FI-WARE
development. The lack of an agreed project terminates, leaving no possibility
view on these issues and the different of support around the time that large-
relationships of the Use Case projects scale trials commence.
to FI-WARE reflect three alternative at-
titudes to the development process: There is a serious risk that unless
strong preventive actions are taken
i. ne position is that truly generic
O even the user areas that are for now
enablers can be developed rather planning to use FI-WARE outputs will
independently of the application ar- each have to take separate responsibil-
eas: in this case the general view is ity for maintaining and evolving those
that FI-WARE should have started components for their area, further
six months or a year before the Use undermining the concept of generic ena-
Cases so that the Use Cases would blers and a common core platform.24
have an earlier idea what would be
provided in the core platform. 4.2.3. Direction and management
of the programme
ii. nother position is that the Use Cas-
A
es must identify their needs first and While the CONCORD project is expected
then ‘specify’ their requirements of to ‘facilitate’ the achievement of the
the core platform: in this case the goals of the programme, responsibility
core platform project should have for their achievement lies with the FI-PPP
started later than the Use Cases to projects ‘jointly’. But while the original vi-
give the Use Case projects time to sion of those who brought the FI-PPP
establish their requirements. into existence25 may still be valid, it is not
clear that that vision is shared by all the
iii. third position is that of ‘agile’
A present participants in the programme.
(highly iterative) software develop- As indicated in section 4.2.2 above, the
ment: this requires tight interaction programme has attracted new partici-
between developer and user. This pants, with more than half the budget
situation does not pertain for at allocated to organisations other than
least some Use Case projects22. the Founder Members. Moreover, each
project has its own contract, its own con-
However, there is, potentially, a greater tractual obligations, and its own staffing
barrier to realisation of the concept and management that may not share a
of the FI-PPP. Formally, the outcome 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
I-WARE has indicated its willingness to co-operate so as to ameliorate the difficulties posed by the project not being required to provide
F
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 the whole programme and to monitor
involvement of organisations and person- and maintain progress towards the
nel not originally involved in its formulation objectives of the programme: “The
and it should be open to new participants Steering Board is the highest FI PPP
and their contribution to the evolution of Program governing body.”28 However,
its vision. But to preserve its focus the the Steering Board has not acted with
programme needs rules, processes and urgency to address the difficulties that
mechanisms that enable the emergence the programme faces, and seems not
of an evolving shared vision and the to be doing what it is supposed to do -
commitment of projects to help realise provide overall Steering of the FI-PPP.
that vision. Yet the vision of the ‘Founder
Members’ did not address at all the re- At the operational level the Architecture
quirements for governance appropriate Board has been established and appears
to a public-private partnership (see Section to be working well to address technical
5, below). Indeed, in January 2010, the issues. Various Working Groups have
European Commission told the Founder also been established (or at the time
Members “The companies26 should set of this assessment are in the process
up appropriate governance/manage- of being established)29. However, the
ment structures with full empowerment Steering Board has not demonstrated
from their company executives. This is a ‘ownership’ of the Architecture Board
precondition for the success of the ini- or the Working Groups or responsibil-
tiative”.27 They did not do that. ity for steering them so as to maximise
progress toward the programme ob-
The programme should also be resilient jectives. Communication between the
to changing market and technological Steering Board and the Architecture
environments - especially in such a fast- Board and between the Steering Board
moving field as the Future Internet. This and the Working Groups is lacking in
requires constant monitoring of the state both directions. In fact it is unclear how
of development of the relevant tech- the Working Groups will move from
nologies and markets, and the ability to the current perception of some project
adapt rapidly to any developments that members as an extra burden to be car-
affect the viability of the programme. ried to being seen as a positive source
The panel specifically sought to identify of value added.
who in the programme felt responsibil-
ity for ‘horizon scanning’ but received A number of those interviewed by the
no clear answer - albeit some of those panel commented on the inability of
interviewed considered the Architecture the Steering Board to make decisions
Board to have that responsibility. (But binding on projects that, given the con-
see the next paragraph concerning the tractual arrangements, are in effect
relationship between the Steering Board autonomous. The Commission broke
and the Architecture Board.) new ground in establishing the clause
in each contract to facilitate sharing
The Steering Board is, in principle, the of intellectual property and project
body to maintain coherent action over coordination across the programme.30

26
The 16 ‘Founding Members’
27
“ eport of the meeting between Zoran Stancic, Deputy Director General, DG-Infso, and the Future Internet core group
R
of industrial stakeholders (G16)”, D(10)203076, January 2010
28
“Future Internet Public Private Partner-ship Programme - Collaboration Agreement” June 2010 (article 3.1.2 (i))
29
Gs have so far been agreed on Dissemination, Exploitation Business Modelling, Standardisation, Policy Regulation.
W
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- However, it is not evident to the panel
operation. Indeed the programme-wide that the lack of direction and inability to
Collaboration Agreement states: “The resolve problems demonstrated so far
Steering Board shall however not be en- by the Steering Board derives only from
titled to act or to make legally binding a lack of authority: it also seems to re-
declarations on behalf of any Party, but flect a lack of a sense of responsibility.
shall make recommendations for imple-
mentation in respective FII Projects”.31 The lack of urgency has been exacer-
bated by slowness in establishing Key
There is ongoing discussion in the Performance Indicators for monitoring
Steering Group about the prospects the programme’s progress towards its
for amendment of contracts to accom- objectives. (The KPIs that have been
modate Steering Board authority - if established so far are primarily meas-
not now then possibly for future phas- ures of operational performance rather
es (when decision-making will have than measures of impact.)
more significant commercial impact).

4.3. Efficiency
Only the first call for proposals was work should continue to accelerate the
made during the period evaluated by process still further, though not at the
the present panel. Some project par- expense of rigour in assessing quality
ticipants commented that the overall or viability of proposals.
time from call to contract start was
quicker than usual for the Framework However, according to programme sta-
Programme. They particularly com- tistics provided by the Commission,
mented on more rapid resolution by excluding special cases the ‘time to
the Commission of legal and adminis- contract’32 was approximately 225
trative matters and attributed this to days compared with an overall average
the Commission seeking to meet the for the ‘Pervasive and Trusted Network
tight timescale that it had set. and Service Infrastructures’ theme of
the 7th Framework Programme of 250
Indeed, with one exception (FI-WARE), days for years 2010-2011. So the time
negotiations for the FI-PPP Call 1 projects to contract was also quicker than usual
were all concluded by March 31st 2011, for the Framework Programme - if only
so they could legally start on April 1st. by 10%. Unfortunately, though, while all
That is only 120 days from call closure, projects except FI-WARE were legally
which is extremely rapid. able to start on April 1st, within only 120
days, in practice several did not actually
The panel is unable to judge whether start until contracts were finally signed in
the greater speediness is a consequence June or July. So, given the summer break,
of greater flexibility in interpretation many of the projects actually began wor-
of the rules or more urgent execution king in September. This is quite contrary
of the processes, or both. In any case to the spirit of rapid action requested ini-
greater speed is to be commended tially by industry and achieved to a great
when time-to-market is critical and extent by the Commission.

31
“ uture Internet Public Private Partner-ship Programme - Collaboration Agreement” June 2010 (Article 4) article 3.1.2 (i)
F
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 proposal apart from CONCORD and
in the FI-PPP is different from that for neither proposal scored highly.
conventional Framework Programme
projects. It has been emphasised to For the Capacity Building Objective
proposers, evaluators, reviewers, and there were two eligible proposals (SHIFT
the present Panel that ‘the FI-PPP is not and INFINITY), but SHIFT was scored
about scientific excellence but about below threshold. So INFINITY, which had
making an impact’ in a collaborative only a modest score, was bound to be
multi-sector innovation programme. proposed for selection according to the
evaluation and selection process.
However, the panel notes that the level
of competition for Use Case projects in There was no competition for the Techno-
the first call (a 4:1 ratio), coupled with logy Foundation Objective and FI-WARE
evaluation scores for the higher ranked had a very low score - only just above
proposals that are similar to those of the threshold. Yet it was also bound to
typical FP7 evaluations, indicates that be proposed for selection.
these projects may be considered of
high quality (with the caveat that the The panel has also (as indicated in
subsequent implementations may not section 4.2) examined the 6-month re-
match up to the quality of the proposals). view reports. These give support to the
indications above from the proposal
However, among the ‘horizontal’ pro- evaluations, with at least half the Use
jects there was much less competition. Case projects performing well, but pro-
For the Programme Facilitation and blems with all the horizontal projects.
Support Objective there was only one

4.5. Summary of findings
The FI-PPP is a special (though not Repeatedly the panel heard that the
unique) case of a public-private par- projects were ‘typical FP7 projects’.
tnership, being set up within the 7th
Framework Programme. But aside from In the next section the FI-PPP is consi-
the performance of individual projects, dered in the context of the expectations
the panel finds that the participants are of public-private partnerships and in
not succeeding in cooperating so as to comparison with other public-private
achieve the programme-level objectives. partnerships.


22
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

5. The Public Private Partnership Mechanism
Given the timing of this assessment, supported by the programme will be:
the work of the panel is expected to • etter aligned with market develop-
b
contribute to the preparatory work for ments and industrial ambitions and
the detailed work programmes of Ho- so be
rizon 2020, notably the guidelines for
public-private partnerships. • exploited to a greater extent ..
• ith benefits for both the industrial
w
In evaluating the FI-PPP the panel has suppliers and their customers, so that
not used for comparison the broad con- ..
cept of PPPs as vehicles which share • rivate investment (i.e. by industry)
p
risk between public authorities and pri- will increase (from the level of the
vate providers, most commonly for the Framework Programme), given the
delivery of infrastructure and related greater value that industry can real-
services. Our interest is confined to ise from a PPP.
those where the principal public input
is finance for research and innovation However, for public authorities to give
towards goals which are shared with to industry greater authority for the di-
industry. We have therefore consid- rection of public investment (and in the
ered the FI-PPP in the context of the case of some PPPs its disbursement)
structures of other PPPs engaged in a PPP must not be a ‘closed shop’. It
research and innovation and of related must have governance arrangements
mechanisms such as Joint Technology that ensure that:
Initiatives. • ts leadership is representative, inclu-
i
sive and authoritative;
The most direct comparators for FI-PPP
correspond broadly to what have been • articipation in the PPP’s governance
p
called ‘Market-oriented PPPs’33. These bodies is open;
include the three Recovery Plan PPPs - • articipation in the evolution of its
p
Factories of the Future, Energy Efficient strategic agenda and in the formula-
Buildings and Green Cars; the Article tion of its work-plans is open to the
171 Joint Technology Initiatives; and widest possible community;
the EUREKA clusters. • articipation in its programme is open;
p
• ompetitive calls for participation are
c
In general, these PPPs are characterised managed fairly and transparently;
by:
• strategic agenda is developed and
a
• ndustry taking greater responsibility
i there is a process for evolving that
for formulating a research and inno- agenda to accommodate develop-
vation strategy for a domain; ments in technology and markets;
• ndustry managing the pursuit of that
i • he programme is directed and man-
t
strategy. aged fairly and effectively;
• he programme is administered effi-
t
The expectation is that if industry is
ciently and with integrity.
allowed to take leadership the work

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

23

Typically, these requirements have been enable resolution of the conflicting de-
satisfied by an open industrial associa- mands for coherent coordination and
tion (possibly more than one) undertak- open access.
ing the management. Where such an
association did not exist previously, new The following table indicates the ba-
associations have been created with the sic characteristics of the FI-PPP com-
specific purpose of running the PPP. pared with other PPPs. The other PPPs
considered are ARTEMIS (Embedded
It has typically taken a long time for Systems), ENIAC (Nano-Electronics),
the communities of interest behind CLEAN SKY (reducing environmental
PPPs to appreciate and assimilate the impact of aviation), FCH (Fuel Cell
expectations of them and to establish Hydrogen), IMI (Innovative Medicine
governance arrangements, including Initiative).34
the formation of industrial associa-
tions if they did not exist before, that

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


24

Evaluation
ARTEMIS ENIAC FCH CLEAN SKY IMI FI-PPP
Criteria

Level of detail Broad technical Broad technical Broad technical Specified technical Broad scientific Specific work-
of Objectives objectives (then objectives (then objectives objectives objectives programme with
(clear, specific detailed calls for detailed calls for detailed objectives;
measurable) proposal) proposal) calls for proposals
T H E

within FP7

Level of EC + industry EC + industry EC + industry EC + 98 named EC + industry Industrial, academic
definition of association and association and grouping (+ research organisations association and public-sector
Membership Member states Member states grouping) organisations.
P U B L I C

(N.b. no formally
constituted
association)
P R I V A T E

Governing Governing Board, Governing Board, Governing Board, Governing Board, Board, Executive Steering Board
structure Executive Director, Executive Director, Executive Director Executive Director, Office, Scientific
Public Authorities Public Authorities Technical Steering Committee
Board, Industry Board, Industry and Committees, General
and Research Research Committee Forum
Committee

Advisory bodies Public Authorities Public Authorities States Member States Member States Advisory Board (still
P A R T N E R S H I P

Board, Industry Board, Industry and Representatives Group, Stakeholder to meet after 1 year)
and Research Research Committee Group, Scientific Forum
Committee Committee

Funding National financial National financial EC 50%, Industry EC and Members, EC 50% (in cash FP7 model
- model, contribution from contribution from 50% 75% pre-allocated, for SME, Academia,
M E C H A N I S M

processes and MS , EC 55% MS , EC 55% 25% open calls Regulators and
allocations via JTI, private via JTI, private Member states and patients), Industry
participants participants regions can allocate 50% (in kind for
budget to individual SME…) Industry
projects doesn’t received EC
funding

EC funding 420 450 470 800 1000 300
(MEuro)

Legal status Community Body, Community Body, Community Body, Community Body, Community Body, FP7: articles 164
art 171 art 171 art 171 art 171 art 171 166

IPR provisions Follows EC Follows EC High level principles High-level general High level principles FP7 plus a
regulation and is regulation and is modelled after FP7 provision, modelled modelled after FP7 contractual
T H E

provided in detail provided in detail after FP7 clause requiring
programme-
wide sharing of
foreground IP
P U B L I C

Preparatory Industrial Industrial “Bridging structure” Encouraged to “Take all necessary 16 companies
actions Association put in Association put in (an FP7 CSA) put facilitate a quick preparatory actions” prepared a “White
place place in place with the start-up until the JU is setup paper on the
P R I V A T E

Industry Grouping Future Internet PPP
Definition” (2010)
P A R T N E R S H I P
M E C H A N I S M
25


26

5.1. The FI-PPP in comparison with other PPPs
In order to establish the FI-PPP rapidly, sents the community of interest and
it was set up using the instruments and is actively engaged in the manage-
processes of FP7. In this respect the ment of guidance of the programme.
objective of a rapid response by the Most of the other PPPs have some
community to technological and mar- form of (open) industrial association
ket developments was achieved in a both to undertake management of the
way that could not have been achieved programme and to engage with the
had the Joint Technology Initiative (JTI) wider community, beyond the original
approach of establishing legal entities ‘thought leaders’.37
been adopted.
Another major difference is that the
Moreover, as noted in section 4.2.2 FI-PPP governance arrangements to
above, while using the same instru- meet its obligation to be ‘the highest
ments as FP7 it is notable that the FI-PPP Program governing body’ are
FI-PPP has succeeded in attracting in- much less evident.
dustrial involvement. In FI-PPP Call 1,
private companies receive c. 66% of It might be argued that the way in
total funding, compared with only 34% which responsibilities are distributed
in Call 7 of FP7 Challenge 1 and 46% through the separate projects in the
in Call 535. programme inhibits the establishment
of a coherent system of governance,
A similar approach using FP7 instru- but it is clearly the responsibility of the
ments was taken in the establishment Steering Board to govern and it is not
of the PPPs for Energy-efficient Build- doing so.
ings, Factories of the Future, and the
European Green Cars Initiative. However, The FI-PPP compares favourably in the
the interim evaluation of these PPPs spectrum of European PPPs in that user-
states that: engagement is central to its approach.
Nonetheless, in the coming phases
“While this has permitted the fast when SME participation is intended to
start-up of activities and rapid im- become a key feature its actions will
plementation of programmes, the benefit from extending support to other
understanding of the structures and aspects of innovation, and in general to
mechanisms in the wider stakeholder an engagement with the likely demand
community needs to be improved”36 environment, including involvement of
those responsible for regulation.
That comment is equally applicable to
the Future Internet community. One clear opportunity would be to link
this activity with the emerging instru-
A critical difference between the FI-PPP ments of pre-commercial and innovation
and the other PPP’s is that there is procurement which could secure for in-
no body that comprehensively repre- novative SMEs the crucial first customer.

35
he figure of 66% excludes the results of the FI-WARE Open Call. These may boost the industrial participation further.
T
36
nterim Assessment of the Research PPPs in the European Economic Recovery Plan, 2011
I
37
here are several European Technology Platforms whose scope is included within or overlaps with that of the FI-PPP, notably Net!Works, NEM
T
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.

Interim assessment of the future internet public private partnership

Interim assessment of the future internet public private partnership

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Interim assessment of the future internet public private partnership

Ähnlich wie Interim assessment of the future internet public private partnership (20)

Mehr von Ed Dodds

Mehr von Ed Dodds (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Interim assessment of the future internet public private partnership