EUROPEAN COMMISSIONInterim Assessment of the Future InternetPublic-Private Partnership
4Assessment Panel ReportOn behalf of the panel that performed the interim assessmentof the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership I am pleased topresent to the European Commission our report.Luke Georghiou (Chair)Anna AsimakopoulouPiet BelGraham VickeryBob Malcolm (Rapporteur)
6 E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r yExecutive 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/jtis1
7 E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r yNo. Summary of recommendation Time-frame Recommendations for present and future partners in the FI-PPP6 Industrial participants should fulfil the role expected of them in a PPP. Now7 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. continuing9 The programme should engage more energetically - and more visibly - with the Now and wider community of both users and technology providers continuingRecommendations for the European Commission concerning the present programme10 Calls for tender should be considered for future ‘horizontal’ actions Now11 Future calls should emphasize the importance of take-up Now12 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. Now14 Make greater effort to achieve co-ordinated, co-operative behaviour of participants Now to achieve programme objectives. Interim Assessment of the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership
8 I N T R O D U C T I O N1. 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.32 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 P2. Objectives of the fi-pppThe Future Internet Public Private Part- The public contribution to the partner-nership (FI-PPP) aims to significantly ship comes from part-funding via theadvance the implementation and uptake European Commission for projects, pro-of a European-scale market for ‘smart gramme design, management of callsinfrastructures’.4 The intention is to for proposals and programme monitoring,accelerate technological development and the participation of public sectorfor 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 assmart energy grids, smart cities, smart The private sector contributed during theenvironmental management systems, formulation of the concept of the PPP5and smart systems for mobility. Ulti- with significant input from an indus-mately the ambition is to make public trial grouping6 that presented their visionservice infrastructures and business to the European Commission in Januaryprocesses significantly smarter (i.e. 2010. During the operation of the PPP, themore intelligent, more efficient, more private sector contributes in the form ofsustainable) through tighter integra- financial support for their participation intion with Internet networking and com- projects and from their co-operation acrossputing capabilities. the programme (not just within projects).2.1. ObjectivesThe aims and objectives of the FI-PPP trial partnerships built around Futureevolved during the formation of the Internet value chains, involving usersprogramme. The Panel has taken as and public authorities at local, regionalthe objective of the programme the and national levels, and providingexpected impact - over all 3 phases - SME players with opportunities toas 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 Action6 Interim Assessment of the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership
10 I M P L E M E N T A T I O N O F T H E F I - P P P3. 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 I M P L E M E N T A T I O N O F T H E F I - P P PThe 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 upgradetrials projects should establish their [existing infrastructures] towards servingvarious requirements for enabling large-scale trials8.technology components and that inliaison 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 anthe usage areas. The core platform overall programme view and collabora-project(s) will develop these and make tion across all FI-PPP projects, supportthem available to the use case projects standardisation, SME involvement, linksas the Core Platform. The Use Case with regulatory and other relevant policyprojects will in parallel be developing activities, dissemination and awarenessthe ‘Specific Enablers’ that they believe raising9necessary for their domains (though3.3. Programme ScheduleThe programme is planned to be im- • stablish the programme support and Eplemented in three phases over five coordination structures.years (as indicated in the diagramabove). 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 Interim Assessment of the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership
12 I M P L E M E N T A T I O N O F T H E F I - P P P 3.3.3. 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 calls10 ee section 4.3 S11 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 I M P L E M E N T A T I O N O F T H E F I - P P PA call for proposals for Phase 2 is due of additional use cases domains such asto be launched in May 2012, closing at Ambient Assisted Living and eHealth,the end of October 2012. This phase willextend participation in the programme It is intended to make a final call forthrough mergers and re-alignment of ex- proposals for Phase 3 projects in 2013.isting user domains and the incorporation Interim Assessment of the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership
14 I M P L E M E N T A T I O N O F T H E F I - P P P 3.5. 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. W14 he members of the Advisory Board were appointed in January, and at the time of this assessment have yet to meet. T15 “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 L4. Findings of the panel4.1. Continuing relevanceThe opinion of those interviewed by the • uropean society to benefit from early Epanel is that the programme is still rel- provision of internet-enhanced services.evant. The assertion of the 2008 ISTAGreport16 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 thecess of the Web-based service industry Future Internet vision. This is the recentwill be the extension of the Future In- rapid take-up of ‘Cloud Computing’ andternet by offering very rich ‘horizontal services which make extensive use ofservices’. These services will foster an data and functionality (applications) ‘ininteroperability and trust framework the cloud’.17 The FI-WARE project doesfor service integration, authentication, include work packages that address bothprivacy and security. This framework cloud hosting and interoperation withwill enable the Web-based service in- third-party cloud facilities, so thedustry 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 thevision of the Future Internet that in- However, the continuing relevance ofspired the FI-PPP - of the evolution the specific structure and architectureof the internet from mere communi- of the FI-PPP, with a project dedicatedcations 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 theFurthermore, the proposition that following section, some Use Case pro-development of standard re-usable jects have plans to develop or acquirecomponents for a multi-sector common their own ‘enablers’ - ‘specific’ and ‘ge-(‘core’) platform will accelerate both neric’ - so that they are not reliant ontechnological development and take-up the core platform project. Also, somealso, according to the evidence gained Use Case projects are collaborating inby the panel, remains valid. order to develop common Use Case en- ablers that are outside the scope of theDespite difficulties and delay - and core platform project - such enablerspossibly further delays still to come being neither ‘specific’ not ‘generic’.- the work supported by the FI-PPP is This raises the possibility that commonstill 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 200816 R17 Notwithstanding the long ‘cloud’ gestation period since the late 1950s/1960s Interim Assessment of the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership
16 F I N D I N G S O F T H E P A N E L 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, but18 ee also section 4.3.1 ‘Efficiency of operation’ S
17 F I N D I N G S O F T H E P A N E Lresults that all FI-PPP Projects jointly (so far) are organisations that have notcontribute towards”. Yet CONCORD’s been involved in those calls20. This sug-very central role implies significant re- gests that the programme has beensponsibility for attempting to resolve successful in attracting the participationprogramme management problems of a broader community than that ofthat inhibit achievement of the pro- the traditional Framework Programme.gramme’s goals. There is evidence thatwhile CONCORD was slow to take on However, most of the ‘new’ partici-this responsibility and made a slow pants have only single participationsstart in establishing the arrangements in the FI-PPP whereas, by comparison,for programme management, it is now organisations among the original 16perceived to be making serious efforts to ‘Founder Members’ have a 43% shareimprove the situation. of total participations in phase 1 of the programme and have been allocatedThe Infrastructure support project c. 44% of FI-PPP funding of phase 1,(INFINITY) is expected to maximise excluding the allocation for FI-WAREsynergy with infrastructural develop- Open Calls.21 The new industrial par-ments outside the FI-PPP. The Panel is ticipants that have not participated inconcerned that the project participants Calls 5 and 7 of Challenge 1 of FP7 havedo not fully share this view. Indeed the been allocated c. 13% of FI-PPP funding.6-month programme-level reviewerscommented that INFINITY was ex- Specific objectivespending effort on activities that werenot 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 establishingperforming its role as an external face common requirements for their domainsof the FI-PPP. and in their relationship with the core- platform project (FI-WARE) so that their4.2.2. 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 successfullyGlobal objectives identified their needs, communicated ef- fectively with FI-WARE and are confidentAccording 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 yetresponsive to the FI-PPP, with the con- agreed which of their needs will be metsequence 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 havetaken 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 fulfilthan 50% in recent calls of Challenge their (use case) project commitments and1 of the 7th Framework Programme19. the terms of their funding contracts. Con- sequently, some of these projects haveMoreover, approximately 64% of in- a contingency plan to supply or acquiredustrial participants in the programme their own alternative components. This19 46% in Call 5 and 34% in Call 720 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 Interim Assessment of the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership
18 F I N D I N G S O F T H E P A N E L 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 F I N D I N G S O F T H E P A N E LThe programme should be resilient to the the whole programme and to monitorinvolvement of organisations and person- and maintain progress towards thenel not originally involved in its formulation objectives of the programme: “Theand it should be open to new participants Steering Board is the highest FI PPPand 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 withprogramme needs rules, processes and urgency to address the difficulties thatmechanisms that enable the emergence the programme faces, and seems notof 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 ‘FounderMembers’ did not address at all the re- At the operational level the Architecturequirements for governance appropriate Board has been established and appearsto a public-private partnership (see Section to be working well to address technical5, below). Indeed, in January 2010, the issues. Various Working Groups haveEuropean Commission told the Founder also been established (or at the timeMembers “The companies26 should set of this assessment are in the processup appropriate governance/manage- of being established)29. However, thement structures with full empowerment Steering Board has not demonstratedfrom their company executives. This is a ‘ownership’ of the Architecture Boardprecondition 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 theto changing market and technological Steering Board and the Architectureenvironments - especially in such a fast- Board and between the Steering Boardmoving field as the Future Internet. This and the Working Groups is lacking inrequires constant monitoring of the state both directions. In fact it is unclear howof development of the relevant tech- the Working Groups will move fromnologies and markets, and the ability to the current perception of some projectadapt 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 sourceThe 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 theno clear answer - albeit some of those panel commented on the inability ofinterviewed considered the Architecture the Steering Board to make decisionsBoard to have that responsibility. (But binding on projects that, given the con-see the next paragraph concerning the tractual arrangements, are in effectrelationship between the Steering Board autonomous. The Commission brokeand the Architecture Board.) new ground in establishing the clause in each contract to facilitate sharingThe Steering Board is, in principle, the of intellectual property and projectbody to maintain coherent action over coordination across the programme.3026 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 201028 “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) Interim Assessment of the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership
20 F I N D I N G S O F T H E P A N E L 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) F32 ‘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 F I N D I N G S O F T H E P A N E L4.4. QualityThe nature of ‘quality’ for the projects proposal apart from CONCORD andin the FI-PPP is different from that for neither proposal scored highly.conventional Framework Programmeprojects. It has been emphasised to For the Capacity Building Objectiveproposers, evaluators, reviewers, and there were two eligible proposals (SHIFTthe present Panel that ‘the FI-PPP is not and INFINITY), but SHIFT was scoredabout scientific excellence but about below threshold. So INFINITY, which hadmaking an impact’ in a collaborative only a modest score, was bound to bemulti-sector innovation programme. proposed for selection according to the evaluation and selection process.However, the panel notes that the levelof 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-WAREevaluation scores for the higher ranked had a very low score - only just aboveproposals that are similar to those of the threshold. Yet it was also bound totypical FP7 evaluations, indicates that be proposed for selection.these projects may be considered ofhigh quality (with the caveat that the The panel has also (as indicated insubsequent 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 proposalHowever, among the ‘horizontal’ pro- evaluations, with at least half the Usejects 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 one4.5. Summary of findingsThe FI-PPP is a special (though not Repeatedly the panel heard that theunique) case of a public-private par- projects were ‘typical FP7 projects’.tnership, being set up within the 7thFramework Programme. But aside from In the next section the FI-PPP is consi-the performance of individual projects, dered in the context of the expectationsthe panel finds that the participants are of public-private partnerships and innot succeeding in cooperating so as to comparison with other public-privateachieve the programme-level objectives. partnerships. Interim Assessment of the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership
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 M5. 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 work33 OECD (2004), Public/Private Partnerships for Innovation in OECD Science, Technology and Industry (STI) Outlook 2004,OECD- Paris
23 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 MTypically, these requirements have been enable resolution of the conflicting de-satisfied by an open industrial associa- mands for coherent coordination andtion (possibly more than one) undertak- open access.ing the management. Where such anassociation 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 (EmbeddedIt has typically taken a long time for Systems), ENIAC (Nano-Electronics),the communities of interest behind CLEAN SKY (reducing environmentalPPPs to appreciate and assimilate the impact of aviation), FCH (Fuel Cell expectations of them and to establish Hydrogen), IMI (Innovative Medicinegovernance arrangements, including Initiative).34the 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-Private34 T Partnership for the Future Internet”, April 2009. Two PPPs of a very different nature (GALILEO and SESAR) are not included in this comparison. Interim Assessment of the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership
24Evaluation ARTEMIS ENIAC FCH CLEAN SKY IMI FI-PPPCriteriaLevel 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 CommitteeAdvisory 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 25Interim Assessment of the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership
26 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 5.1. 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. T36 nterim Assessment of the Research PPPs in the European Economic Recovery Plan, 2011 I37 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.