The document discusses challenges and opportunities for supporting web entrepreneurs (WEs) through European Union programs like Horizon 2020. It notes that WEs thrive on disruptive ideas and flexibility but often find EU programs too bureaucratic and focused on long-term projects. The document proposes making programs more suitable for WEs by focusing on ideas over procedures, providing reusable technologies, allowing WEs to shape programs, and evaluating proposals based on potential impact rather than academic criteria. The goal is to better support the ambition and creativity of WEs and help turn their ideas into real-world impact at large scale.

1. Stuart CampbellStuart Campbell
TIE Chief Technology Officer
Representative of ADVENTURE, PREMANUS and ARUM projects
NESSI SME Lead and Steering Committee Partner
FInES Cluster MeetingFInES Cluster Meeting
Brussels, May 6Brussels, May 6thth
, 2013, 2013
FInES Cluster Position Paper:
Embarking on New Research Orientations towards
Horizon 2020
Web Entrepreneurs

2. Web Entrepreneurs
““Any start-up company for which the webAny start-up company for which the web
is a fundamental part of its offering (thinkis a fundamental part of its offering (think
Spotify, Facebook, Angry Birds and Xing)”Spotify, Facebook, Angry Birds and Xing)”
““Every User can Innovate with the Internet”Every User can Innovate with the Internet”
[Peter Fatelnig (today)]
[http://www.openideo.com]

3. Web Entrepreneurs
Who is one?Who is one?
Entrepreneurs
GeeksGeeks
Young ProfessionalsYoung Professionals
The Bedroom Boys (& Girls)The Bedroom Boys (& Girls)

4. FInES Cluster Meeting, May 6th, 2013 4
Context WE challenge in context of H2020 and “Net Innovation”
•WEs are one part of collective; an innovator who uses web
applications and services to delivers business solutions –
‘innovation with a purpose’
•Just a new EU Buzzword? What really is “Net Innovation” scope
vs others units. “Policy Orientated” “Jobs” “Use Whats There”
“Not to support Directly”?
•How should we meet it?
ImpactImpact
“To turn the ambition and creativity of WEs into impact on
a large and sustainable scale”
•Nice thoughts…but HOW will it happen and HOW to engage?
•A focus on concrete recommendations, O1.3 and WE specific
aspects
•“Policy actions can have more impact”
• Please contribute your (innovative) and concrete thoughts
“To turn the ambition and creativity of WEs into impact on
a large and sustainable scale”
•Nice thoughts…but HOW will it happen and HOW to engage?
•A focus on concrete recommendations, O1.3 and WE specific
aspects
•“Policy actions can have more impact”
• Please contribute your (innovative) and concrete thoughts
Self DefinitionSelf Definition
WebEntrepreneurs and Web WebEntrepreneurs
•WEs should define WEs – Programmes, Instruments, Technical
Aspects
•The Thought. The Motivation.
The Ambition. The Journey.
•The Challenge. The Success.
•Overall: The Idea
WebEntrepreneurs and Web WebEntrepreneurs
•WEs should define WEs – Programmes, Instruments, Technical
Aspects
•The Thought. The Motivation.
The Ambition. The Journey.
•The Challenge. The Success.
•Overall: The IdeaDrlveDrlve
Drive or Driven? Light Touch or Deep Strategy?
•WE thrives on ideas, ambition, disruption and a ‘change-the
world’ approach.
•Do WEs have a “strategic view”? Would “idea” be tethered by
bureaucracy / control limiting creativity OR is a Deep Strategy
needed for WEs to succeed
•David Kelly, Chair IDEO: “Do stuff rather than plan” “All I cared
about was how much we were paid..and if we had enough to keep
everyone busy”
Drive or Driven? Light Touch or Deep Strategy?
•WE thrives on ideas, ambition, disruption and a ‘change-the
world’ approach.
•Do WEs have a “strategic view”? Would “idea” be tethered by
bureaucracy / control limiting creativity OR is a Deep Strategy
needed for WEs to succeed
•David Kelly, Chair IDEO: “Do stuff rather than plan” “All I cared
about was how much we were paid..and if we had enough to keep
everyone busy”

5. FInES Cluster Meeting, May 6th, 2013 5
The Thought
• Solution first market later – à la Google 20% time
• Crowdsourcing of “Problems to be solved”
• Provide technical expertise/knowledge to test that thought
• Every thought has a market
• Talent breeds talent; ideas breed ideas
The MotivationThe Motivation • Crowdfunding
• Technology Provision
• Foster for Failure
• Pioneer new Technologies
• Reward for success
• FI-PPP Programme basis to self-start
• Crowdfunding
• Technology Provision
• Foster for Failure
• Pioneer new Technologies
• Reward for success
• FI-PPP Programme basis to self-start
The AmbitionThe Ambition • Everything has a solution
• Educate for business success
• WEs will find a solution but won’t read documents of more
than 10 pages to do so
• Everything has a solution
• Educate for business success
• WEs will find a solution but won’t read documents of more
than 10 pages to do soThe JourneyThe Journey • Nothing is a barrier
• Crowdsourced “Feedback and Adaptation”
• Reutilise what other have built as a kickstart
• Help along the way
• Advanced functionalities of the net
• Minimise administration / assumptions of companies
• Nothing is a barrier
• Crowdsourced “Feedback and Adaptation”
• Reutilise what other have built as a kickstart
• Help along the way
• Advanced functionalities of the net
• Minimise administration / assumptions of companies
The ChallengeThe Challenge • Prizes for results and use
• Competitions…but light weight one
• Prizes for results and use
• Competitions…but light weight one
The SuccessThe Success
• Tell the world you made it; Tell Europe how you made it
• Even better: Be so successful that the world knows without
telling them
• Innovative services for businesses and citizens
• Publicity
• Nurturing the next generation
• Tell the world you made it; Tell Europe how you made it
• Even better: Be so successful that the world knows without
telling them
• Innovative services for businesses and citizens
• Publicity
• Nurturing the next generation
The IdeaThe Idea
• Ideas matter: all ideas should be encouraged, especially
“disruptive” ones
• Encourage people to show stuff in early phases
• Foster the exchange of ideas and reuse of results/ideas
• Ideas matter: all ideas should be encouraged, especially
“disruptive” ones
• Encourage people to show stuff in early phases
• Foster the exchange of ideas and reuse of results/ideas
Play and look at things with a
childs mind [David Kelly]

6. 6
Reuse
• Software and technologies are not necessarily easy to
get/reuse
• Partner mentality and IPR restrictions limit openness and use
• Project deliveries look good on paper...
• Outcomes are promoted but often the quality is dubious
ShapingShaping • If most innovation is by SMEs…allow them to shape the
innovation needs rather presented solution to them
• If most innovation is by SMEs…allow them to shape the
innovation needs rather presented solution to them
BusinessBusiness
• Review proposals and project deliverables, which typically state
they will make impact and have openness, with a mind-set of
whether a business could use the results and create further
opportunities
• Review proposals and project deliverables, which typically state
they will make impact and have openness, with a mind-set of
whether a business could use the results and create further
opportunitiesIdeasIdeas • Do not kill ideas early or because they are unstable
• Do all ideas need to be supported? Focus on winners
• Not seed-corn finance but the fear of failure in paying back
• Not “socio economic space”...just the ‘bright idea’
• Do not kill ideas early or because they are unstable
• Do all ideas need to be supported? Focus on winners
• Not seed-corn finance but the fear of failure in paying back
• Not “socio economic space”...just the ‘bright idea’ProgrammesProgrammes • WEs are not focused on long-term programs….open innovation
• Major effort to ‘know’ what to do and then to do to it
• Needing an existing financial record
• Long default length of projects
• WEs are not focused on long-term programs….open innovation
• Major effort to ‘know’ what to do and then to do to it
• Needing an existing financial record
• Long default length of projectsInstrumentsInstruments
• Do not stifle by insisting on SOTA progress, Perfect PM
• Identikit evaluations and Preference to household names
• Assumption WE/SMEs too small to have impact
• More flexibility to shape along the way
• Expectation of certain size, funding contribution <> WE
• Do not stifle by insisting on SOTA progress, Perfect PM
• Identikit evaluations and Preference to household names
• Assumption WE/SMEs too small to have impact
• More flexibility to shape along the way
• Expectation of certain size, funding contribution <> WEEU DilemmaEU Dilemma
• Account for all funding vs fast cash
• Detailed and bound by agreements vs no time to comply
• Startup fail vs Fragile ideas can explode
• Account for all funding vs fast cash
• Detailed and bound by agreements vs no time to comply
• Startup fail vs Fragile ideas can explode

7. 7
Web
Entrepreneur
• Supporting innovation serendipity – i.e. fortuitous discoveries
• Open marketplaces of tangible / useable project results
• ‘Bonus’ projects in some way, e.g. greater funding percentages,
for those that provide open/FRAND / useable results
• Projects to change instead of being DOW focused
• If most innovation is by SMEs…allow them to shape the
technical innovation rather than it be presented to them
• Create a TED aimed at WEs and web-SMES based on project
results, business impact and not academic excellence
• Review with a mind-set of “if a business could actually use the
technical results and create further opportunities”
• Consider “Appetions” where 3rd
party WEs take technologies
and build simple –app-like applications in a competition
• Allow WEs to review projects from an outcome rather than the
current administration perspective and do so anonymously
• Install a ‘fear of failure’ for projects rather than a ‘we can’t fail
approach’
Web
Entrepreneur
Web
Entrepreneur
In the context of FI-PPP and similar cross-cutting public initiatives:
•FRAND terms for outputs should be clear, simple, readily
available, provide adequate guarantees etc
•Free to use (at least some part) of technology output including
software, applicable specifications
•Ensure that outcomes will be solid, have guarantees of fitness,
documented and be sustainably maintained or maintainable
•Easy to use off-the-shelf-output which can be reutilised
•Provide toolkits and SDKs, preferably free-of-charge
•Promote WE-buddies to “date” technology players with WEs
•Mandate the realisation of prototypes with independent
anonymized feedback from WEs to judge the results
In the context of FI-PPP and similar cross-cutting public initiatives:
•FRAND terms for outputs should be clear, simple, readily
available, provide adequate guarantees etc
•Free to use (at least some part) of technology output including
software, applicable specifications
•Ensure that outcomes will be solid, have guarantees of fitness,
documented and be sustainably maintained or maintainable
•Easy to use off-the-shelf-output which can be reutilised
•Provide toolkits and SDKs, preferably free-of-charge
•Promote WE-buddies to “date” technology players with WEs
•Mandate the realisation of prototypes with independent
anonymized feedback from WEs to judge the results
• Focus on the Idea, the Entrepreneur, the potential and the
likelihood and not the procedures and administration
• For WE and Ideas orientated proposals, focus evaluations on
the idea and its impact and not academic advancements
• Crowd sourced Innovation Elections – may the best idea win!
• Promotion of innovation prizes & staged incremental projects
• Base programs around the input /outcomes and not vice versa
• WEs have no track record of programs and proposals, thus
process changes eg ‘appointed project managers’, default
procedures, use defined templates, 2-step proposals to
reduce costs, anonymisation to increase chance etc
• Call 10 O4.3 adopted an limit of 20 pages for a STREP - Nice!
• Multistep–allow WEs to throw 2 pages on the idea.
• Pay a bonus (or make a penalty) if a product is in the market
(or not) 2 years after project end.
• Focus on the Idea, the Entrepreneur, the potential and the
likelihood and not the procedures and administration
• For WE and Ideas orientated proposals, focus evaluations on
the idea and its impact and not academic advancements
• Crowd sourced Innovation Elections – may the best idea win!
• Promotion of innovation prizes & staged incremental projects
• Base programs around the input /outcomes and not vice versa
• WEs have no track record of programs and proposals, thus
process changes eg ‘appointed project managers’, default
procedures, use defined templates, 2-step proposals to
reduce costs, anonymisation to increase chance etc
• Call 10 O4.3 adopted an limit of 20 pages for a STREP - Nice!
• Multistep–allow WEs to throw 2 pages on the idea.
• Pay a bonus (or make a penalty) if a product is in the market
(or not) 2 years after project end.
FI-PPPFI-PPP

8. PRESENTER: STUART CAMPBELL
STUART.CAMPBELL@TIEKINETIX.COM
CONTRIBUTORS: STUART CAMPBELL, MAN-SZE LI, LUIS CAMARINHA-
MATOS & FINES CREW
REVIEWERS: JESPER THESTRUP, MARGARETHA MAZURA
“Find your fit in life…people who are happiest
in life fit the day to day” – [David Kelly]