Programme for the Promotion of the Economy and Employment in Romania (WBF-RO)

Results and Transferable Products for Technology Transfer and Innovation Agents

Project Generation Seminars (Development of projects to be financed within public support schemes)

1.

Framework Conditions in Romania

Since January 1, 2007 Romania is a member of the European Union. In the framework of its further integration into the support schemes of the EU, Romania now has to manage and implement the European Structural Funds. Until 2013 the country will benefit from enormous EU transfers. The Union will allocate around 30 billion EUR in the frame of the Structural Funds (SFs). In addition to that come other European programmes. Most prominently the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7) or the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP). In the border regions Romania will implement cross-border programmes with neighbouring candidate countries (Serbia) or with Newly Independent States (Ukraine and Republic of Moldova) and on top come trans-national cooperation programmes like the Black Sea Cooperation Programme. Without exaggerating things too much, it is clear that Romania generally as well as the public administrations, multiplier organisations, NGOs and other socio-economic actors will be confronted with an incredible number of different projects of different kinds. At the same time, the WBF experience in the country revealed only limited skills and capacities in project generation strategies throughout the different administrations and actors' scene. Furthermore, in the technology and innovation part of the WBF interventions the development of highly competitive project ideas was an issue from the very beginning as Romania's participation in the R&D Framework Programmes was weak. One of the findings of the field work within WBF was, that general information about funding schemes was widely spread and more or less known by the relevant actors. Also, general ideas for projects could be identified in the scene. However, the actors had

gtz 2 ____________________________________________________________________ problems to come up with concise project descriptions and with fully fledged proposals particularly. As a result, participation of Romanian researchers in the European research funding schemes was somehow marginal. Against this background and with the clear objective to increase Romania's participation in FP7, project generation seminars were conceptualised and conducted. The concept was built on the experiences gained from numerous information workshops on R&D funding opportunities which were implemented between 2004 and 2006. The instrument of project generation seminars was also applied for the development of a project pipeline for the cross border programme between Romania, Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova.

2.

Description of the instrument Project Generation Seminars

The project generation seminars were originally designed as a tool to develop and to elaborate ideas for research projects to be funded under the European Framework Programmes for R&D. However, as the tool uses a simplified project cycle management approach as a general frame, it can be regarded as an instrument for the development of all kind of projects for public funding schemes. The usual standard setting of the workshop would be a seminar at one particular faculty of a university or at a given research institute (or enterprise). Participants should be around 15 persons. For the project pipeline of the cross border programme the seminars represented only one single tool within a complex process (see graphic below). Figure 1: Building up a project pipeline
1. Preparation Phase 6. Training on the job for MEI and JTS staff

2. Information and Call 5. Continuous support for applicants

3. Assessment of proposals

4. Up-grading of proposals

Tools for Technology Transfer and Innovation in Romania

ZENIT GmbH

gtz 3 ____________________________________________________________________

The project generation seminars were used in phase 5 after the first round of assessment of proposals (phase 3) revealed the need for more and better quality project proposals. In this paper we will focus on the seminars themselves. Only in selected cases we will demonstrate their integration into the whole process. The reason why is, that our target group for the "transfer" of this tool (the project generation workshops) will for the most part be concerned with the generation of a limited number of projects for their own organisation rather than with the development of project pipelines. Thematically we will concentrate on project generation actions for research and innovation orientated projects. However, the tool is applicable in other contexts as well.

2.1

Brief description Seminars for the generation of ideas and concrete project descriptions for research projects were organised for one faculty at a single university or for a specific research institution. In some cases, seminars were offered for a group of potential applicants (e.g. with a chamber and a regional development agency). The first setting turned out to be particularly helpful for the development of individual projects whereas the latter was more powerful in organising local or regional partnerships.

Overview 1:
First Day 5 minutes 15 minutes 30 minutes 15 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes 45 minutes 90 minutes 30 minutes Second Day 15 minutes 15 minutes 30 minutes 45 minutes

General structure of a project generation seminar

Welcome Presentation of the FP7 programme How to start (call concept, electronic submission, cost models, project briefs...) Presentation of the call Moderated session: strengths and weaknesses of the institute in view of the call topics Introduction of the "project" concept and of simplified project management cycle (PCM) Moderated creativity session: potential project approaches Group work: elaboration of a project structure according to main steps of PCM (3-4 different groups) Presentation of group work results

Summary of day one Questions Administrative details of the call Group work: Formulation of project briefs

Tools for Technology Transfer and Innovation in Romania

ZENIT GmbH

gtz 4 ____________________________________________________________________
15 minutes 90 minutes 30 minutes Presentation of results Group work: elaboration of a description of a measure/work package Presentation

The seminars were organised in connection to specific research topics or even calls. Normally the programme was structured for a 1.5 days event. The general outline is being presented above. The content of the workshops may change according to specific requests of the research organisation. One key factor for the success of such a workshop is the moderator/facilitator. We made good experiences with two moderators, although this increases the costs. The facilitator should be expert in public funding schemes and should have a good record in moderation skills. For FP7 projects a good insight into the rules of FP7 would be most desirable. What is not so important is a facilitator who is high level expert in the research topic in question. However, the facilitator must at least be aware of the current research topics under discussion in the given domain. The underlying concept of PCM leads to project descriptions of a generic nature. The positive aspect here is, that for that reason the workshops represent a universal tool to be applied for almost any funding scheme. The black point is, that the project descriptions stemming from this tool need to be modified according to the specific requirements of the funding programme in question. 2.2 Main Goals Participants are aware of the funding opportunities in a specific programme; Participants are familiar with application procedures and with important administrative features; The research entity participating is aware of its own opportunities regarding a given call or research topic within a public support programme; Participants have developed 3 5 ideas which have the potential to be further elaborated to a proposal; Subsequently, 3 - 5 project briefs were elaborated; Participants have selected at least 2 ideas for up-grading; For 1 2 project ideas the content of the work packages was elaborated, formulated and presented to all participants; The participants are able to work further on the text parts (parts of the proposal) formulated in the seminar; One project proposal will be submitted.

2.3

Most important measures

Preparation

Tools for Technology Transfer and Innovation in Romania

ZENIT GmbH

gtz 5 ____________________________________________________________________ A good preparation is key for the success of the seminar. At the side of the research institutions the participants must be identified and invited. A room for a group of 15-20 persons must be available. Best is to have at least one additional small room for the group work. The rooms need chairs/tables, a video projector and some moderation boards. Internet access is desirable. The facilitator must study the call and investigate current research topics. Maybe even themes of current projects which received funding in an earlier call.

2.4

Some quantitative results

The seminars as they were described above represent the result of an on-going evolution in the development of workshop format: The first seminars about the framework programme were more simple

information/awareness events. Some 20 seminars with 500 participants were reached. However, after the first year of implementation it became obvious the format needed to adapted towards a clear project generation approach. The new setting was tested first with a seminar for a chamber and a regional development agency. And after that some modifications were made in the programme. E.g. clear focus on one particular call. Then the new format was integrated into the project pipeline development for the cross border programme and five further events were organised. In the last months we turned back to the research projects and could organise further two seminars on this topic. Within our approach we were always able to identify and formulate new project ideas. Not all of them were presented to the relevant authorities but most of them. And todate some of the projects are already running (e.g. a cluster orientated project under the Regions of Knowledge part of FP 7).

3.

Short SWOT assessment

Criteria

Strengths (Present)

Weaknesses (Present)

Opportunities (Future)

Threats (Future)

Tools for Technology Transfer and Innovation in Romania

ZENIT GmbH

gtz 6 ____________________________________________________________________
Criteria
Intensity of knowledge transfer between university and industry

Strengths (Present)

Weaknesses (Present)

Opportunities (Future)

Threats (Future)

Knowledge transfer Knowledge transfer The tool offers room Technology transfer can be reached in is not in the focus of for further evolution actions may focus cases when both this tool. It thus towards the too much on the industry partners cannot be regarded development of acquisition of public and academia as a specific TTI transfer ideas money for the develop together a tool. between industry development of new project. But this Focus and academia. knowledge, rather on the does not represent a than on the actual acquisition of public specific goal for the transfer work. money, not so much tool. on transfer of results. The tool can be used Business in the In milieus where the The struggle for for a group of people sense of enterprises partners trust each public money may from different actors may not be willing to other and share a hinder a deeper (e.g. at regional cooperate in such a common code of cooperation of the level). Local setting. ethics this tool can actors. partnerships and Latent be a powerful fear of innovative milieus instrument to stealing of ideas and can arise from that. generate more joint know how. project ideas.

Creations of links amongst business actors

Cost/benefit ratio

Applying the tool is The money for the Organisation which Organisations may an investment. We workshops could be have gone through orientate themselves calculate with 8 9 better invested in the it, are able to do the only towards publicly consultant days. formulation of a process for a second financed projects However, as competitive project round themselves. and forget to serve compared to the proposal. We have a rather the private market. total costs for the Preparation efforts in sustainable tool. elaboration of a the target proposal it is good organisation and value for money. logistics come in Organisation which addition to the have gone through consultancy costs. it, are often able to do the process for a second round themselves. The tool already It is a tool which .The tool seems to The general threat is proofed its requires a certain be particularly to focus to much on applicability for a level of public relevant for TTI the acquisition of variety of different programmes and entities which plan to projects while programmes. calls. In circumenhance their putting aside the stances where those service offers. actual core business project calls do not of the partners. exist it is useless.

Options for generalisation of actions

Elaborated by:

Michael Guth ZENIT GmbH (D) T. +49 208 3000456 mg@zenit.de www.zenit.de

Daniel Cosnita INNO CONSULT SRL (RO) T. +40 722 312135 daniel.cosnita@innoconsult.ro www.innoconsult.ro

Tools for Technology Transfer and Innovation in Romania

ZENIT GmbH