Multinational calls for 'fundamental overhaul' of framework programmes

Brussels, 02 Jun 2005

A 'fundamental overhaul is in order of the entire procedural financial and administrative implementation system of the Framework Programme,' according to Philips, the multinational electronics company.

Philips has participated in nearly 1,000 research projects under successive EU framework programmes since they were first launched in 1984. Participation has declined in recent years, however, and with the hope of changing some of the aspects impacting upon involvement, Philips has submitted its comments on the Commission's proposals for the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7).

Philips calls for regulatory reform, arguing that 'Economically speaking, the associated transaction costs (public and private) have grown completely out of proportion, with marginal costs of controls, checks and balances exceeding their marginal benefits.'

In order to get to the root of what Philips terms 'the notorious FP red tape', the Commission should introduce the notion of 'responsible partnering', the company states. This would restore trust within consortia and between the Commission and consortium partners.

Regulatory changes suggested by Philips include the avoidance of financial collective responsibility, which the company believes causes major complications, as well as burdens for consortia. Philips would also like to see the introduction of fast redress procedures, to be implemented, for example, in the form of second opinions following 'unjust proposal rejections' and for complaints about 'exaggerated micromanagement, excessive requests, inappropriate procedures, malfunctioning tools'.

A proposal that is likely to be controversial among smaller players within EU research is a call for the introduction of special treatment for large multinationals, frequent users and major framework programme participants. Philip's justification for such a change is that it would avoid unnecessary questions or identical questions in multiple proposals and projects.

Requested changes that might be easier to implement include the identification of best practices among Directorates-General dealing with the framework programmes, and the application of these as a uniform way of working for all project officers. Philips would also like to see calls for proposals published more evenly over time and more frequently so as to avoid peak loads.

During the project proposal phase, Philips calls for the abandonment of calls for expressions of interest, which the company believes led to a lot of extra work within FP6 without clear benefits. The paper also contains an appeal for the appointment of more proposal evaluators from industry.

In an unusual call for restraint with EU funding, Philips also advises: 'Don't reward oversubscription with larger budges in subsequent calls - oversubscription may reflect lack of focus and constituency building.'

In contrast to many other position papers on FP7, Philips proposes a refrain from the general application of the two-step procedure for proposal submission on account of the extra work it implies.

The company also recommends that the Commission 'Skip questions about gender and ethical issues if not relevant for the call'.

Philips pushes for a stronger focus on innovation within FP7, stating that to become the world's most dynamic and knowledge-based economy, 'Europe's key challenge is not only acquiring more knowledge, but also turning knowledge into more economic value.' The company therefore welcomes the new Commission focus on 'knowledge for growth', but adds that 'growth from knowledge will only result if also applications, valorisation and innovation get adequate attention throughout FP7.' To access this and other position papers on FP7, please visit: http://www.cordis.lu/fp7/debate.htm

CORDIS RTD-NEWS / © European Communities
Item source: http:///dbs.cor dis.lu/cgi-bin/srchidadb?C ALLER=NHP_EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN= EN_RCN_ID:23916 Previous Item Back to Titles Print Item