KK0214243ENN_002

Deliverable 9
Lithuania RTD Technological Audit –
Simplified Report
March 2011Copying or distribution is strictly forbidden

Lithuania ICT RTD Technological Audit ║ Page 2 of 74
"The views expressed are those of the authors and not nec-
essarily those of the European Commission or any of its offi-
cials"
© European Communities, 2011
Reproduction is not authorised.

Contents
1 Executive Summary........................................................................................................6
2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................17
3 Methodology.................................................................................................................18
4 Macroeconomic Situation ..........................................................................................19
5 Policy Analysis................................................................................................................23
6 Lithuanian’s Participation in FP7 ICT Theme..............................................................26
6.1 Participation trends ...................................................................................27
6.2 Success and failure rates in proposals....................................................29
6.3 Competence Areas ..................................................................................31
6.4 Project continuation analysis ...................................................................34
6.5 Main findings of FP7 ICT Theme analysis.................................................36
7 Scientific Excellence and Potential in ICT .................................................................38
7.1 Ranking of ICT institutions..........................................................................42
7.2 Scientific potential in ICT RTD ...................................................................44
8 Business Potential in ICT RTD ........................................................................................46
8.1 Relevance of Business Potential to FP7 Objectives...............................48
8.2 Consolidated scientific excellence and business potential................49
9 Barriers to participation................................................................................................54
10 Conclusions....................................................................................................................63
11 Recommendations.......................................................................................................64
11.1 At national level ....................................................................................64
11.2 At EU level...............................................................................................65
11.3 At stakeholders level.............................................................................65
Annex1. Major Centres of Excellence.................................................................................67
Annex 2. Potential Centres of Excellence ..........................................................................70

List of abbreviations
CCR Compound Competence Ratio (see Definition of Terms)
CCS Current Competence Share (see Definition of Terms)
COST European Cooperation in Science and Technology
EPO European Patent Office
ERA European Research Area
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
EU European Union
EU12 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia
EU15 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lux-
embourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom
EU27 EU15 and EU12
FET Future and Emerging Technologies
FIS Future Interest Share (see Definition of Terms)
FP European Union Framework Programme
FP6 European Union 6th Framework Programme
FP7 European Union 7th Framework Programme
GDP Gross Domestic Product
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IS Information Society
IST Information Society Technologies
IT Information Technologies
MITA The Agency for Science, Innovation and Technology
NCP National Contact Point
PHARE The Programme of Community aid to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe
R&D Research and Development
RTD Research and Technical Development
SF Structural Funds
UAB Private limited company
VšĮ Private non-profit company

Definition of main terms
Term Definition
BCG matrix Boston Consulting Group Matrix is a generic chart for categorizing units of
analysis on the basis of a growth-share matrix
Centre of Excel-
lence
An institutional structure where RTD is performed at international level in
terms of measurable scientific production (including training) and/or tech-
nological innovation
Competence
matrix
A matrix used for visualising the self-declared competences of individual
researchers according to two indicators: CCR (Compound competence
ratio) and CCS (Current competence share) as related to the indicated
FP7 ICT Objectives
CCR A ratio between experts with current and future expertise in relation to a
specific FP7 ICT Objective
CCS A share of experts with current competences in relation to a specific FP7
ICT Objective from the total of current experts
FIS A share of experts with future competences in relation to a specific FP7 ICT
Objective from the total of future experts
High /low com-
petence
A nominal indicator of the level of CCR (Compound competence ratio) in
relation to a specific FP7 ICT Objective where “high” indicates the value of
CCR as 1.0 and above
High/ low com-
petence share
A nominal indicator of the level of CCS (Current competence share) in re-
lation to a specific FP7 ICT Objective where “high share” indicates the val-
ue of CCS as 15% and above
ISI publications A list of scholarly journals maintained by the Institute for Scientific Infor-
mation (ISI) for citation indexing and analysis.
Research infra-
structures
Facilities, resources and services that are needed by the ICT research
community to carry out their research in ICT scientific and technological
fields.

1 Executive Summary
The report presents the shorter version of the final report of the ICT technological au-
dit in Lithuania which was carried out on behalf of the European Commission by the
team of UAB Europarama consultants.
The report sums up and highlights the results from the following deliverables:
 Deliverable 1 – Review of studies and strategy papers;
 Deliverable 2 – Review of activities and capabilities of entities in Lithuania car-
rying out ICT RTD;
 Deliverable 3 – Analysis of the participation of Lithuania in the FP6-IST and FP7-
ICT Theme – Desk Research;
 Deliverable 4 – Present and planned infrastructure in Lithuania for ICT-RTD –
Desk Research;
 Deliverable 5 – Analysis of the ICT-RTD capabilities in Lithuania and the
measures to maximize the country’s potential in the FP7-ICT Theme – Live In-
terviews;
 Deliverable 6 – Delphi survey to identify latent ICT-RTD potential in Lithuania;
 Deliverable 7 – Opportunities and barriers for increasing the contribution of
Lithuania to the FP7-ICT Theme;
 Deliverable 8 – Lithuania – RTD Technological audit – Detailed report.
The main observations highlighted in the study cover economic situation and
policy support to ICT RTD development, Lithuania’s participation in FP7 ICT
Theme and the existing barriers to participation, scientific excellence in ICT
RTD, scientific and business potential in ICT, and the recommendations at na-
tional, the EU and stakeholders’ levels.
Economic situation
Lithuania has been an above-average performer in terms of ICT expenditure per
capita on ICT (similar to most EU12) but is much behind in terms of exports of high-
tech products in the total exports (4.7% versus the EU’s average of 16.7%). This was
also reflected in a very low ICT R&D intensity (ICT BERD in Lithuania is one of the low-
est among EU12 countries – only 0,05% comparing to 0,13% in Estonia, 0,19% - Slove-
nia, 1,06% - Czech Republic, the best performer).

Policy support
ICT RTD policy lacks a political backing which reflects in the existing policy strategies
and programmes comparing to other RTD fields in terms of funding allocations. The
involvement of ICT researchers in policy planning has been occasional and nominal,
while the main interest groups represent the service sector. More so, there are no in-
centives in place to support FP participation.
Lithuania’s participation in FP7 ICT Theme
 Lithuania is the least active participant in the FP7 ICT Theme both in EU12 and
EU27 according to participation per number of researchers.
 The participation trend shows that Lithuania’s participation in the FP7 ICT
Theme has been decreasing in numbers since the start of FP6 with exception
of peaks achieved in mid-FP6 due to specially targeted calls.
 The decrease in the initially high success rate and the level participation in the
FP6 and FP7 ICT Theme could be attributed to (if not necessarily caused by) a
high “drop-out” rate of participants from Lithuania from follow-up projects.
 There are no major topics or areas where Lithuanian teams can have a com-
petitive advantage in FP.
 Highest participation was achieved in the areas which have not been themat-
ically defined (such as FET Proactive Initiatives or ERA inclusion-related
measures) or were related to horizontal or networking activities.
 There is a serious lack of involvement of representatives of ICT RTD community
in Lithuania in participation in evaluation of FP proposals and the tacit
knowledge about the work programme’s requirements.
Participation Competence Matrix
The competence areas which witnessed the highest participation and success levels
in the FP ICT Theme have been aggregated in a Participation Competence Matrix
indicating the relation between participation and success levels in FP7 ICT Objec-
tives.
High participation – low success: High participation – high success:
1.3 – The Network of the Future
1.7 - Critical Infrastructure Protection (ICT secu-
rity)
3.5 – Engineering of network and moni-
toring and control systems
6.3 – ICT for mobility of the future

4.3 – Intelligent information management
5.1 – Personal health systems
FET Proactive Initiatives1
Low participation – low success: Low participation – high success:
1.5 – Networked media & 3D Internet
3.2 - Design of Semiconductor Components
and Electronic-based Miniaturised Systems
3.4 – Embedded systems design
5.2 – Advanced ICT for risk assessment and
patient safety
5.3 – Virtual Physiological Human
7.1 – ICT and ageing
-
Consolidated Competence Matrix
In order to identify potential cause-effect relations between the self-declared com-
petences by ICT RTD community vis-à-vis the FP7 ICT Objectives (Competence Ma-
trix) and the FP7 ICT participation-success levels (Participation Matrix) the two matri-
ces were compared.
High competence – low share: High competence – high share
1.2 – Internet of services, software & virtualiza-
tion;
2.2 – Language based interaction;
3.6 – Computing systems;
3.7 – Photonics;
4.2 – Technology enhanced learning.
1 Since FET Proactive initiatives cover a wide range of topics it is not possible to link the high
level of participation to any particular technological area. Thus it‘s inclusion in the matrix only
indicates the expressed interest in bottom-up research calls.

3.2 – Design of semiconductor components
and electronic based miniature systems;
Low competence – low share: Low competence – high share:
patient safety
-
Centres of Excellence
The major Centres of Excellence are located at the largest universities (Vilnius Univer-
sity, Kaunas University of Technology and Vilnius Gediminas Technical University)
which have resources to pursue collaborative research as partners in most of the FP7
ICT areas from software development to optoelectronics. The identified Centres are
the following:
Institution, areas of activity, main scientists Relevant FP7 ICT Objectives2
1. Faculty of Informatics, Kaunas University of Technology
Departments: Information Systems, Computer Networks, Com-
puter Engineering, Software Engineering, Business Informatics
Main scientists: Prof. E.Kazanavičius, Prof. Rimantas Gatautis, Prof. Tar-
gamadzė, Prof. R. Plėštys, Prof. H. Pranevičius, Prof. V. Rėklaitis, Prof. R.
Butleris, Prof. R.Barauskas, Prof. R. Šeinauskas
[1.1, 1.2], 1.3, [3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6,
4.1, 4.2, 4.3], 5.1, 6.1, [6.2], 6.3,
7.3
2. Vilnius University Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics
Main departments: Department of Software Engineering, De-
partment of Computer Science 1, Department of Computer
Science 2
Main scientists: Prof. R. Baronas, Prof. F.Ivanauskas, Dr. A.Mitašiūnas,
Prof. Š.Raudys, Prof. A.Juozapavičius
[1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4], 1.5, [3.1], 3.5,
[3.6], [3.9], [4.1], [4.3], 5.1, [5.3,
6.3,7.2]
3. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Faculty of Fundamental
Sciences [1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2,
2 KEY: An underline indicates the Objectives which attracted multiple proposals; the Objectives with retained pro-
posals are highlighted in bold. The Objectives in square brackets show self-declared competences in the ICT RTD
community survey by more than two leading researchers unless the total sample for an institution is less than 4, in
which case all individually indicated current competences are counted as institutional competences.

Departments: Nuclear Hydrophysics, Physics, Information Sys-
tems, Digital Simulation and Investigation of Constructions,
Strength Mechanics
Main scientists: Prof. Raimundas Čiegis, Prof. Antanas Čenys, Prof. Ole-
gas Vasilecas, Doc. Dalius Mažeika
3.5, 3.6, 3.9, 4.2, 4.3, 6.3, 7.2]
4. Institute of Mathematics and Informatics
Departments: Computer Networks, Data Analysis, Informatics
Methodology, Numerical Analysis, probability Theory and Statis-
tics, Recognition Processes, Software Engineering, Systems
Analysis
Main scientists: Prof. Gintautas Dzemyda, Prof. Antanas Žilinskas, Dr Jul-
ius Žilinskas, Prof. Valentina Dagienė, Prof. Albertas Čaplinskas, Prof.
Laimutis Telksnys
1.1, [1.2], 1.6, [2.2, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1,
4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 7.1, 7.3]
5. Vilnius University Institute of Applied Research
Departments: New Materials Research and Measurement
Technology, Semiconductor Optoelectronics, Advanced
Technology, Liquid Crystals Laboratory
Main scientists: Prof. Artūras Žukauskas, Prof. Roland Tomašiūnas, Prof.
S. Juršėnas, Prof. K. Jarašiūnas, Prof. G. Tamulaitis
[3.2], 3.5, [3.7], 3.8

The potential Centres of Excellence are located both at public research institutes
(Centre for Physical Sciences and Technology, Lithuanian Institute of Energy) and re-
gional universities (Vytautas Magnus University, Klaipeda University). All possess niche
competences suitable for participating in FP ICT Theme. The identified potential Cen-
tres of Excellence are the following:
Institution, areas of activity, main scientists Relevant FP7 ICT Objectives
1. Semiconductor Physics Institute (part of Centre for Physical Sci-
ences and Technology)
Departments: Microwave Laboratory, Sensors Laboratory, La-
boratory of Terahertz Electronics, Fluctuation Research Labora-
tory
Main scientists: Prof. Žilvinas Kancleris, Dr Arūnas Šetkus, Prof. Arūnas
Krotkus, Dr Gintaras Valušis
3.1, [3.2], 3.6, [3.7], 8.0 (FET)
2. Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Telemedicine Centre
Departments: n/a
Main scientists: Prof. Alvydas Paunksnis, Dr. Valerijus, Barzdžiukas, Prof.
Arūnas Lukoševičius (also Biomedical Engineering Institute, Kaunas Uni-
versity of Technology)
5.1, 4.3, 5.3
3. Kaunas University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engi-
neering and Mechatronics
Departments: n/a
Main scientists: Prof. Ramutis Bansevičius, Prof. V. Ostaševičius, Prof. A.
Žiliukas
2.1, 2.2, 6.1, 7.2
4. Klaipėda University, Faculty of Natural Science and Mathemat-
ics
Departments: Informatics, Statistics, Mathematics, Ecology, Ma-
rine Seascape Research
Main scientists: Prof. Antanas Andrius Bielskis, Dr Vitalij Denisov
[3.6, 4.2], 5.1, 6.3, [6.4], [7.1], 7.2,
[10.2]
5. Vytautas Magnus University, Faculty of Informatics
Departments: Systems Analysis, Applied Informatics, Mathemat-
ics and Statistics
Main scientists: Prof. Algirdas Avižienis, Dr. Aušra Saudargienė, Dr Gailius
Raškinis, Prof. Vladislav Fomin, Dr Ričardas Krikštolaitis
1.7, 3.4, 9.2

6. Lithuanian Energy Institute
Departments: Laboratory of Systems Control and Automation,
Laboratory of Nuclear Installation Safety
Main scientists: Dr Artūras Klementavičius, Dr Robertas Alzbutas,
Dr Romualdas Škėma, Prof. Liudvikas Pranevičius
1.7, 6.3
SWOT analysis
The SWOT analysis of individual ICT RTD entities and the sector as a whole has
showed an overwhelming number of weaknesses that creates barriers for the inte-
gration of ICT RTD community into European Research Area. However, the identified
opportunities (such as the availability of EU Structural Funds for RTD and innovation
projects) outweigh threats and show the way forward.
STRENGTHS
1. There are good examples of participa-
tion in FP6 ICT Theme with a real impact
on company performance
2. There is a potential of motivated and
competent developers in private ICT
RTD sector;
3. Strong participation of both public and
private ICT RTD in the bottom-up fund-
ing schemes (such as COST and Eureka
programmes);
4. High current competence levels in
some topics of FP7 ICT Theme (such as
engineering of network monitoring and
control systems, optoelectronics, com-
puting systems);
5. High interest of researchers in acquiring
competences in the future technology
areas (as evident in the numerous ap-
plications for the Future Emerging
Technologies calls).
WEAKNESSES
1. Perceived risk of failure in FP projects is
very high (most of the researchers have a
perception that is almost impossible to
obtain funding from FP7 ICT programme);
2. Lack of integration into competitive Euro-
pean consortia which generate the most
successful proposals in FP7 ICT Theme
(most explain this by pointing out that on-
ly weak, less competitive consortia are
open to Lithuanian researchers);
3. Weak integration of ICT RTD (infrastructure
and human resources scattered across
many public and few private ICT RTD
create duplications);
4. Lack of motivation, skills and compe-
tences at the individual level (participa-
tion in the FP projects is not supported at
administrative level, thus creating a bur-
den for researchers);
5. Evaluation of RTD is not linked to contribu-
tion to the ERA, including participation in
FP7;
6. Lack of financial support for project
preparation at public ICT RTD institutions

(no effective provisions are in place to
support project preparation and man-
agement at professional level);
7. Lack of national programme-based fund-
ing to support the ERA-relevant ICT RTD;
8. The lack of cross-field competences that
link up industry/technology needs with
wider socio economic fields
9. The untapped existing research infrastruc-
ture (especially in private ICT RTD);
10. The insufficient research infrastructure po-
tential in public ICT RTD institutions;
11. Project planning for the FP7 ICT Theme is
not fully aligned to infrastructure (many
projects are being submitted in the areas
where no or little infrastructure exists);
12. Weak links between the national tech-
nology platforms in ICT and their EU coun-
terparts contributing to a widening gap
between national and EU ICT RTD;
13. The insufficient reliability of the service-
oriented Grid infrastructure to support pri-
vate and public ICT RTD.
OPPORTUNITIES
1. Opportunity to start aligning national
ICT RTD priorities to those of the ERA by
implementing the national complex
programme in ICT (due to start in March
2010);
2. Opportunity to concentre ICT RTD re-
sources in few centres of excellence as
a result of the ongoing study and sci-
ence reform (which has started in 2009);
3. Opportunity to increase support for ERA-
relevant horizontal activities (through
additional support for participation in
COST and Eureka activities) by leverag-
ing the Structural Funds;
4. Opportunity to develop an Open Grid
THREATS
1. Threat of a further decrease in motivation
to participate in FP7 ICT Theme as success
rates continue to drop;
2. Threat of failure to implement the ongoing
study and science reform in relation to
the concentration of ICT RTD potential;
3. Threat of a further widening gap between
national ICT RTD priorities and those of the
ERA if no rectifying actions are taken to
close this gap;
4. Threat of a waning political support for ICT
RTD as a national priority which can result
in a further decrease in funding for ICT
RTD, including the Grid infrastructure.

Service Infrastructure to support public
and private ICT RTD as part of the
planned research infrastructures (to be
funded from the Structural Funds in
2010-2013);
5. Opportunity to significantly upgrade the
existing computing capacity of the Grid
and to enable the running of large-
scale parallel computing tasks.
Conclusions
The ICT RTD technological audit in Lithuania has showed the following:
 No policy exists at national level that specifically supports development of
more favourable environment for ICT RTD; the operational measures such as
the implementation of various e-government and e-services related support
programmes are not tied up in a single strategic vision;
 ICT RTD potential is fragmented and not specialised with most of the research
potential being tied up in teaching some general purpose informatics courses
at various universities; the lack of specialization of the ICT RTD community also
contributes to the lack of cooperation;
 ICT companies in Lithuania lack access to export markets and the RTD re-
sources employed in the industry are meagre with only a handful of develop-
ment companies participating in international supply chains.
 The participation of Lithuanian entities in FP ICT Theme has been on decrease
due to the discontinuation of participants and high drop-out rates caused by
multiple factors: from lack of skills to weak consortia;
 The present and planned infrastructure in Lithuania (such as Grid) is underused
due to the lack of demand for tasks requiring high computing power, lack of
service-oriented architecture and unstable performance due to the meagre
resources dedicated to the maintenance;
 EU Structural Funds provide the opportunity to create a demand for RTD inten-
sive ICT sector and make a spill-over effect into FP ICT which has been ob-
served: most of FP ICT participants are active participants in EU Structural
Funding schemes supporting research and innovation.

Recommendations at national level
 To restructure national funding in favour of competition-based funding and to
reshape public RTD entities’ evaluation criteria system as to provide additional
incentives for FP participation.
 To establish a framework for a wider national participation in new types of EU
level RTD collaboration such as Joint Technology Initiatives or ERANETs.
 To establish a dedicated project assistance scheme based on a grant or a
voucher system.
 To support the formation of clusters which are able to produce commercially
viable results, especially in the areas matching the EU priorities or in the areas
where existing/planned infrastructure both in private and public sectors might
be integrated into cluster activities.
 To establish competence building schemes for scientists with the focus on skills
building, simulation processes, product development tasks and cross-field hori-
zons relevant to FP.
 To initiate national programmes for valorisation of FP project results and to
deepen the social and economical benefits gained during the FP projects
through specially targeted actions for SMEs.
Recommendations at EU level
 To negotiate favourable conditions for increasing EU12 participation in Joint
Technological Initiatives.
 To organise specific calls for supporting actions for alignment of strategic re-
search agendas of the EU technology platforms and national counterparts.
 To use FET Objective under FP7 ICT programme to provide funding for EU12 for
decreasing the gap in the knowledge, use and adoption.
 To involve a larger number of ICT RTD experts from Lithuania in evaluation of
FP7 ICT proposals.
Recommendations at stakeholders’ level
 To increase the number of coordinators in FP ICT Theme through the targeted
campaign aimed at the existing and the emerging technology clusters based
around the cooperation between science and industry along a specific indus-

try value chain with ties to EU partners, where cluster organisations could act
as coordinators of future consortia;
 To increase the number of participants from industry in FP ICT Theme through
the partner search activities conducted with the help and through the na-
tional associations in ICT such as Infobalt, Knowledge Economy Forum and in-
volving them as stakeholders in FP programming;
 To increase the number of participants from science in FP ICT Theme through
the scientific societies in ICT such as Lithuanian Computer Society, Lithuanian
Mathematical Society and other professional associations which are part of
larger international umbrella organisations and can act as a pool of research-
ers to be recruited into FP ICT consortia.

2 Introduction
The development of European Research excellence depends on the full integration
of all technological resources within the EU27 into a common European Research
Area (ERA).
However, in the case of the newer Member States (EU12), it does not appear that
these resources are fully integrated into the ERA. The participation of the EU 12 in the
FP7 ICT Theme is rather weak and does not reflect the available RTD capacities in
those countries.
In 2009 the European Commission initiated a series of Technological Audits (studies)
of the ICT theme across the EU12 countries and 5 Associated Countries. The aim of
the audits was to identify untapped potential and current technological expertise in
order to promote the rebuilding of research and technological development (RTD)
capabilities in each new EU Member State and facilitate collective integration into
the ERA as measured by participation in FP7 ICT programme.
This Policy Brief highlights policy lessons from the ICT audit performed in Lithuania and
suggests the guiding principles to overcome the identified key challenges for suc-
cessful integration of Lithuania into the ERA in general and the FP7 ICT Theme in par-
ticular.
It builds upon the results of eight reports produced during the audit period of 2009-
2010 by the team of experts from the consultancy company UAB Europarama, a
non-governmental organization Knowledge Economy Forum and the Institute of
Mathematics and Informatics.
The policy brief covers the results from the analysis of ICT RTD policy environment in
Lithuania, the status of ICT RTD activities, the major and potential centres of excel-
lence, possible links with FP7 and the actions that need to be taken at national and
European level to increase the participation of both public and private organizations
carrying out ICT RTD.
The report does not address the issues related to the service side of ICT RTD. Although
some of the ICT service aspects such as e-government and e-literacy are important
factors behind the demand side for ICT RTD solutions, these has remained outside the
scope of the audit.

3 Methodology
The ICT audit in Lithuania has been carried out according to the following steps:
 First, the review of studies and strategy papers was done by analysing internal
and external drivers of growth in ICT business sector, describing ICT RTD policy
environment and main actors with the emphasis on the national policy obliga-
tions as regarding the participation in ERA;
 Second, the review of activities and capabilities of entities in Lithuania carry-
ing out ICT RTD was done by conducting a survey of researchers (total number
of respondents – 194), analysing the research output of each ICT RTD institu-
tions in terms of ISI articles and projects and matching them against the FP ICT
Challenges and Objectives;
 Third, the analysis of the participation of Lithuania in the FP6-IST and FP7-ICT
Theme was carried out by analysing each successful project with participation
of entity from Lithuania and establishing the track record of that entity in FP,
showing the level of continuation in the programme;
 Fourth, the Present and planned infrastructure in Lithuania for ICT-RTD – Desk
Research was analysed both in terms of computing power units and the
headcount of personnel overseeing it; the infrastructure hosting institutions
were further matched against the FP ICT Challenges and Objectives;
 Fifth, in order to assess the ICT-RTD capabilities in Lithuania and the measures
to maximize the country’s potential in the FP7-ICT Theme live Interviews were
conducted with the identified research leaders (25 interviewees) and the
main drivers and obstacles for participation in FP were established;
 Sixth, the opinions gathered from the interviews were further elaborated and
validated through a Delphi survey (number of participants – 64) which was
conducted online and involved institutional competence assessment, Assess-
ment of factors having impact on participation in FP and Assessment of rec-
ommended policy actions;
 Seventh, a SWOT analysis was conducted (number of participants – 35) to fi-
nally assess the identified opportunities and barriers for increasing the contri-
bution of Lithuania to the FP7-ICT Theme.

4 Macroeconomic Situation
The analysis of the innovation and research-related macro-economic statistics for the
Structural Indicators, as defined by the Lisbon European Council and collected by
Eurostat, has revealed the fundamentals of Lithuanian economy in relation to R&D
and innovation system.
Expenditure on education and R&D: though the number of tertiary graduates in sci-
ence and technology per 1000 of population is well above the EU27 average and
has been growing, yet the level of public expenditure on education and R&D as a
percentage of GDP has been stagnating. This indicates that the growth in student
numbers was not supported by public funding and might have come at the cost of
quality of education and R&D performed at universities.
This corresponds with a very low number of patent applications to the European Pa-
tent Office and patents granted from both EPO and US PTO (though in the case of
the US the number of patents granted is much higher – probably due to lower patent
costs).
Figure 1: Contribution
of ICT sector to total
R&D intensity ICT
BERD/GDP (source:
IPTS).
ICT expenditure as percentage of GDP: the level of expenditure on the expenditure
for telecommunication hardware, equipment, software and other services as a per-
centage of GDP in Lithuania in 2009 (3.1%) was slightly above the EU27 average
(3.0%) and the EU15 average (2.9%). However, Lithuania is much more behind its ex-

ports of high-tech products in the total exports – 4.7% versus the EU’s average of
16.7%, as reported by the World Bank in its Lithuania’s Research, Development and
Innovation System - Benchmarking & Effectiveness Analysis (May, 2009). This indicates
that the national economy lacks a crucial supply-and-demand mechanism for ICT
RTD relevant sectors.
The comparative analysis of the ICT sector in Lithuania and EU has shown (see Figure
2) that Lithuania has been lagging behind most of the EU countries in terms of ICT
expenditure per capita on ICT (similar to most EU12), but was an above-average per-
former comparing to ICT spending in relation to GDP spending.
Figure 2: Lithuanian
ICT expenditure per
capita in comparison
with the EU.
The high spending on ICT during the period, which coincided with the membership in
the EU, and has been driven by the need to modernize public infrastructure and im-
prove business processes, has resulted in the rapid growth of the ICT market. In terms
of value added/GDP Lithuania’s ICT market has even outgrown those of Denmark or
Belgium (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Lithuanian
spending on ICT in
comparison with the
EU.
The impact of ICT/IS policy initiatives addressing the needs of rural areas in terms of
infrastructure development was tremendous. Comparing to the situation in 2001 the
number of Internet users in rural areas increased 18 times: from a barely 1% to 18% in
2005 (according to TNS Gallup data). The PHARE project “Rural Internet Access
Points” (2003-2006) directly impacted on about half a million of people and created
benefits for the whole rural population – 1.3 million people. Upon the completion of
the follow-up project in 2008 Lithuania became the first European country with the
highest number of public Internet access points (875 in total) per capita.
In terms of broadband coverage Lithuania has made a good progress during the last
few years from 82.2% (in 2005) to 87% (in 2007/2008), and in fact is at the EU27 level.
More spectacular was the rise of the number of mobile cellular subscriptions per 100
inhabitants, which has reached the level high above EU27 average (145% compar-
ing to 116% in EU27). Where Lithuania still lags is the intensity of the use of broadband
for international data communication which is reflected in international internet
bandwidth per Internet use (bit/s) – 9,461 in Lithuania as against 41,924 in EU27.
In terms of Internet use, a number of people who have never used a PC Lithuania
had not been far advanced. Yet there are good indications for future: this number is
decreasing (from 48% in 2005 to 40% in 2007%) at about the same rate as in EU27 (ca.
4% annually). There is still a large gap between take-up of IS by individuals when
compared to their education and income: 38% of individuals with low or no formal
education have used the internet, while this figure for individuals with high formal
education stood at 84%. The gap is especially evident in terms of internet access at
home in different income groups: only 16% of lowest income quartile have access to

internet at home (37% in EU27) while the same holds true for 87% of highest income
quartile which is even above EU average (84%).

5 Policy Analysis
The policy analysis included the assessment of Lithuania’s obligations in ICT RTD poli-
cy as stipulated in the adopted Community acquis (2000-2002) and the EU Accession
Treaty (2003), a review of ICT RTD relevant national strategies and action plans, an
overall assessment of national programmes on ICT RTD in terms of their strengths and
weaknesses impacting Lithuania’s ICT RTD ability to participate in the ERA.
Concerning Lithuania’s obligations to the Community as related to RTD in general
and ICT RTD in particular, it is concluded that the commitment to ensure that nation-
al policies and Community policy are mutually consistent remains largely unfulfilled,
despite early support given by the Government eager to complete the negotiations
over the Community acquis.
A lock-in moment in the national ICT RTD policy development was defined through
analysis of legislature and legal acts, which were adopted after the completion of
the EU negotiations (from 2003 onwards). It was established that the precedence
took place in 2003, when despite having had defined its national RTD priorities ac-
cording to the FP5 thematic areas, the decision was made to set up a parallel set of
RTD priorities according to five national high-tech sectors and their related RTD
communities, namely, biotechnology, lasers, mechatronics, nanoelectronics and
electronics together with ICT. This parallel set of priorities has defined and entrenched
the RTD policy ever since.
ICT RTD community lacks a strong political backing, which reflects in the allocations
of programme-based funding, the existing policy strategies and programmes com-
paring to other more prioritized RTD fields (such as medicine, biotechnology and la-
sers). Hence, the involvement of ICT researchers in policy planning has been occa-
sional and nominal.
The lack of support is due to the following circumstances:
 The demise of the electronics industry during the 1990s which debarred ICT
RTD community of industry support basis;
 The emergence of software and hardware retail and service sector as the
main player in ICT sector which is traditionally not RTD intensive, but keen on
infrastructure development;
 The lack of agreement among RTD and policy makers on what ICT RTD entails
not only in terms of informatics and computer science, but also as the combi-

nations of information technology with other technologies from the related
fields of engineering science such as electronics.
The following barriers have been identified in the ICT RTD policy environment:
 The lack of understanding of ICT as an important area of research and no real
commitment to ICT RTD as the national priority;
 The lack of focus in defining the national needs in ICT RTD and in making them
mutually consistent with the Community priorities;
 The lack of support for cross-disciplinary collaboration between ICT RTD and
the leading technology fields.
Policy bodies: the responsibility for research and innovation policy in Lithuania is
shared by two ministries – the Ministry of Education and Science and the Ministry of
Economy. This is defined by their role as Intermediate Bodies in managing the EU
Structural support for research, innovation and education.
The Ministry of Education and Science is the Intermediate Body for the Human Re-
sources Development Action Programme (including Priority 1.3 – Strengthening ca-
pacities of researchers and scientists), while the Ministry of Economy is Intermediate
Body for the Economic Growth Action Programme (including Priority 2.1 - Direct and
Indirect Assistance to R&D and Innovations and Investment Promotion). A separate
priority dedicated to Information Society (Priority 2.2 – Information Society for all) is
taken care of by Information Society Development Committee under the Ministry of
Transport.
Following the amendment of the Law on Science and Studies in 2007 the Research
Council of Lithuania emerged as the main institution defining research policy in Lith-
uania. Not only the Council acts as advisory body to the Ministry of Education and
Science but also administers programme-based national and EU Structural funding,
and, further, acts as a national NCP for COST programme and some of FP7 Thematic
Areas.
The latter role was taken over by the Council from the Agency for International Sci-
ence and Technology Development Programmes following its reorganisation into the
Agency for Science, Innovation and Technology (MITA) as of 2010. MITA remains a
national NCP for Eureka, Eurostars and some of FP7 Thematic Areas, including ICT
Theme. In addition, on behalf of the Ministry of Economy, it administers various na-
tional innovation support schemes (e.g. innovation vouchers).

The Structural Funds (SF) support scheme has represented an unprecedented public
investment in ICT sector in terms of funding size and scope. Expenditure on IS from
ERDF 2004-2006 in Lithuania per capita was well above EU 27 average and amount-
ed to 14,87 EUR. In comparison this figure for Estonia was lower three-times (4.89 EUR),
for Latvia – 1.7 times (8.59 EUR). Most of the ERDF IS expenditure (60%) went into Ser-
vices & applications for citizens; the rest was allocated to infrastructure. Comparing
to Latvia, where no provisions were made for Services & applications for citizens, and
Estonia, where contrary to both Lithuania and Latvia, no allocations were provided
for infrastructure, the investment in IS in Lithuania was much more balanced.
As regarding the period 2007-2013, the expenditure on Services & applications re-
main around 60%. There has been a decrease in the expenses on infrastructure, in-
cluding broadband which went down from 38% in the previous period to 18% in the
present one. Yet in Latvia this figure is even lower – 10.5% and none of the infrastruc-
ture investment have been planned in Estonia which allocated most of the IS ex-
penditure (84%) to Services & applications for citizens and none for SMEs. Lithuania
has followed the pattern of Estonia in committing a comparably modest share of ex-
penditure to ICT access, security, R&D, content – 23% and 16% respectively, while
Latvia made it by far the largest funding area (87%).

6 Lithuanian’s Participation in FP7 ICT Theme
ICT is critical to improve the competitiveness of European industry and to meet the
demands of its society and economy. In order to leverage the EU potential in ICT to
increase productivity and innovation, to modernize public services and to make ad-
vances in science and technology, the ICT research is supported through the EU’s
Framework Programme (FP). The FP is a multiannual public funding support scheme
enabling public and private participants to attract funds for collaborative RTD pro-
jects.
During the implementation of FP6 (2003-2006) 1598 partners from Lithuania were in-
volved in 1335 submitted proposals of which 492 (involving 593 partners) were above
threshold (the above threshold success rate – 37%). 279 projects involving 254 partic-
ipants from Lithuania were funded (the success rate – 22.2%, the overall success rate
– 19,1%). Lithuanian participants attracted 26.9 million EUR in funding from FP6 (0.15%
of the programme budget). On average one participant in FP6 received a contribu-
tion of 76000 EUR (in Estonia – 89000 EUR, Latvia – 87000 EUR).
Figure 4: Lithuania’s
participation in FP7.
During the implementation of FP7 (as of 15 October 2009) 860 partners from Lithuania
were included in 703 proposals submitted for evaluation. 132 proposals passed the
threshold (19.2%, EU average – 20.9%). The total sum requested was 22.4 million EUR.
Only 89 projects (involving 109 partners from Lithuania) received funding (the success
rate has been down from 19% to 13%). The total budget of Lithuanian partners – 14.9
million EUR, EU contribution – 11.2 million EUR which is 0.12% from the contribution al-

located in the projects from 151 calls. On average one participant received 103 000
EUR (cf. in Estonia – 164 000 EUR, in Latvia – 97 000 EUR).
The participation record in the FP6 IST and the FP7 ICT Themes has showed that the
largest number of proposals was submitted in the following areas:
1. Networked businesses and governments, engineering of network monitoring
and control systems, internet of things, critical infrastructure protection;
2. E-health, integrated biomedical information for better health, assisting living in
aging, e-inclusion, personal health systems, accessible and assistive ICT;
3. Technology-enhanced learning and access to cultural heritage;
4. Intelligent information management;
5. ICT for energy efficiency.
However, the most (if not exclusively) successful areas of participation (excluding
non-RTD related areas) were only the following:
 Engineering of network and monitoring and control systems;
 ICT mobility of the future.
The analysis of the participation record of Lithuania in the FP7 ICT Theme has includ-
ed the following aspects:
1. Participation trends per challenge and objective starting from the FP6 – IST pri-
ority;
2. Success and failure rates in proposals;
3. Identified reasons for success or failure of participants from Lithuania.
6.1 Participation trends
Lithuania is the least active participant in the FP7 ICT Theme both among the coun-
tries in EU12 and EU27, when participation figures are normalised (Figure 5) by the
number of researchers (per 1000 in Full-time Equivalent of 1.0 which means that the
person is equivalent to a full-time worker).

Figure 5: Comparison of Lithuania’s partic-
ipation in EU12 and EU27 normalised by
the number of researchers.
The participation trend shows that Lithuania’s participation in the FP7 ICT Theme has
been decreasing in numbers since the start of FP6 and the only peaks were regis-
tered in the mid-FP6 period (Figure 6); they resulted from the specially targeted calls.
Figure 6: Participation
levels of Lithuanian
entities in FP6 and FP7
ICT Theme (calls 1-4)3:
red indicates number
of granted proposals,
blue – a total number
of submitted pro-
posals; the black lines
show linear trends for
both.
The analysis of the participation record of the members of the National Technology
Platforms in ICT in Lithuania has showed that the country’s overall participation level
in the FP7 ICT Theme has largely depended on the participation of the members of
four National Technology Platforms, which have generated most of the proposals to-
3 At the time of the analysis the results of Call 5 were not known. This call produced 32 partici-
pations, of which 5 were granted. This resurgence in the interest in FP7 could be attributed to
the cumulative effect of the following: the dissemination efforts by DG INFSO (Dr Stephan
Pascall) and the awareness raised through the implementation of the technological audit.

date (Figure 7). The national technology platforms in ICT RTD are: Embedded sys-
tems, Nanoelectronics and electronics, Software and services and Mass media,
communication and electronic technologies.
Figure 7: Participation
of members of Lithu-
anian National Tech-
nology Platforms in
ICT in FP5, FP6 and
FP7 Theme.
The thematic analysis of Lithuanian participation in FP7 ICT Theme has shown that
there are no major topics or areas where Lithuanian teams can have a competitive
advantage in FP. The success rates for each Objective in FP6 IST Theme has showed
that the best performance was achieved in the areas which have not been themat-
ically defined (such as FET Proactive Initiatives or inclusion in the ERA) or were related
to horizontal or networking activities.
The analysis of the involvement of Lithuanian ICT RTD experts in evaluation of the
proposals submitted in FP6 IST and FP7 ICT Themes have shown a serious lack of in-
volvement of representatives of the ICT RTD community in Lithuania in evaluation of
FP proposals: only four experts having relation to ICT RTD have been involved and
only few of them coming from ICT RTD.
6.2 Success and failure rates in proposals
Lithuania’s participation in the FP7 ICT Theme has been the least successful compar-
ing to other thematic areas in FP7 both in terms of overall success rates and the EC
contribution received (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Lithuania’s
participation success
rate and received EC
contribution in FP7.
Individual success levels for participation in the FP7 ICT Theme identified (on the basis
of the evaluation marking) show that the majority of the proposals failed to reach
multiple thresholds. The most unsuccessful were public RTD institutions: they are low
success performers (that is reaching only one of thresholds) with exception of the
very few successful ones. Participating SMEs are more successful in reaching multiple
thresholds (Figure 9) which could be attributed to their involvement in projects with
more competitive RTD entities from other countries.
Figure 9: Success lev-
els of Lithuanian enti-
ties in FP7 ICT Theme
calls 1-4 by type of
organization.

6.3 Competence Areas
When analysing the participation record in the FP6 IST and the FP7 ICT Themes, it was
found that the largest number of proposals was submitted in the following areas:
 Networked businesses and governments, Engineering of network monitoring
and control systems, Internet of things, Critical Infrastructure Protection;
 E-health, integrated biomedical information for better health, assisting living in
aging, e-inclusion, personal health systems, accessible and assistive ICT;
 Technology-enhanced learning and access to cultural heritage;
 Intelligent information management;
 ICT for energy efficiency.
However, the largely (if not exclusively) successful areas of participation (excluding
non-RTD related projects) were only the following:
 Engineering of network and monitoring and control systems;
 ICT mobility of the future.
Participation Matrix
On the basis of the number of proposals submitted and the number of proposals re-
tained for each Objective in the FP7 ICT Theme (Calls 1-4) a matrix have been con-
structed, indicating the R&D capacity fit with the FP7. The level of participation was
regarded as high if more than 5 proposals were submitted with Lithuanian participa-
tion for an Objective.
The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Matrix indicating the relation between participation and success levels in FP7
ICT Objectives
High participation – low success: High participation – high success:
1.3 – The Network of the Future
1.7 - Critical Infrastructure
Protection (ICT security)
5.1 – Personal health systems
FET Proactive Initiatives4
3.5 – Engineering of network and moni-
toring and control systems
6.3 – ICT for mobility of the future
Low participation – low success: Low participation – high success:
1.5 – Networked media &
3D Internet
3.2 - Design of Semiconductor Components and
Electronic-based Miniaturised Systems
3.4 – Embedded systems design
5.2 – Advanced ICT for
risk assessment and patient safety
7.1 – ICT and ageing
-
Competence Matrix
The Participation Matrix was compared with the Competence Matrix (Figure 10) cre-
ated with the data obtained from the national ICT RTD community survey organised
as part of ICT RTD technology audit.
4 Since FET Proactive initiatives cover a wide range of topics it is not possible to link the high
level of participation to any particular technological area. Thus it‘s inclusion in the matrix only
indicates the expressed interest in bottom-up research calls.

Figure 10: Compe-
tence Matrix visualisa-
tion showing the self-
declared compe-
tence fit with FP7 ICT
Objectives.
The Competence Matrix was calculated on the basis of an expert survey carried out
in June-July 2009 by the audit team in Lithuania. During the survey 50 experts cover-
ing all Objectives of FP7 ICT Theme were interviewed and asked to nominate the
best experts in their fields – in total 194 experts their nominated. All were approached
by email and phone and asked to indicate their current and field competences as
matching the FP7 ICT Theme Objectives. 105 respondents provided their answers
which served as data for calculating two measures and constructing a matrix as
above, namely:
 The Current Competence Share (CCS) measure was calculated as a percent-
age of experts with current competences from the whole number of experts
with current competences. The ratio indicates the number of experts in rela-
tion to the whole pool of available experts.
 The compound competence ratio (CCR) was calculated as a ratio between
experts with current expertise and the experts with future expertise. The ratio
below 1 indicates that there are less current competencies than future,
planned ones. Hence, these competence areas are important for future de-
velopment but do not relate to the current competences

Consolidated Competence Matrix
In order to identify potential cause-effect relations between the self-declared com-
petences by ICT RTD community vis-à-vis the FP7 ICT Objectives (Competence Ma-
trix) and the FP7 ICT participation-success levels (Participation Matrix) the two matri-
ces were compared.
Table 2: Consolidated Competence Matrix
High competence – low share: High competence – high share
1.2 – Internet of services, software & virtualiza-
tion;
2.2 – Language based interaction;
3.6 – Computing systems;
3.7 – Photonics;
4.2 – Technology enhanced learning.
3.2 – Design of semiconductor components
and electronic based miniature systems;
Low competence – low share: Low competence – high share:
patient safety
-
The analysis has showed that Lithuanian entities have competence and are able to
compete in the FP7 ICT only in Objective 4.2 (Intelligent information management).
The obvious mismatch between the self-declared competences and the results from
Calls 1-5 of the FP7 ICT Theme indicates that the participation and success factors for
Lithuanian entities could depend also on external RTD sources.
6.4 Project continuation analysis
In order to evaluate the relations between the participation and success levels and
external factors (such as continuous project participation in follow-up activities) the
Project Continuation Analysis was carried out. 58 Lithuanian entities participating in
successful proposals in the FP6 and FP7 ICT Themes were analysed and the linkages

between the related projects they took part prior and after their involvement in suc-
cessful proposals for FP6 and FP7 were established.
The analysis has revealed that the decrease in the initially high success rate and the
level participation in the FP6 and FP7 ICT Theme could be attributed to (if not neces-
sarily caused by) a high “drop-out” rate of participants from Lithuania from follow-up
projects (Figure 11).
Figure 11: Number of
partners in previous,
follow-up and suc-
cessful projects in FP6
and FP7.
Comparing the involvement of Lithuanian participants in the FP projects that directly
preceded the ones they took part and the follow-up projects it became evident
(Table 3) that the Lithuanian partners discontinued their involvement in further pro-
jects by ca. 9% (in the case of projects coordinated by RTD partners) and by 35% (in
the case of projects coordinated by consultancy companies). Only where govern-
mental agencies or associations where in charge of coordination the participation in
follow-up projects increased (by 16%).

Table 3: Number of previous related and follow-up projects according to the type of
coordinating institution
Type of
institution
Number
of
projects
Number
of
projects
with LT
partner
%
Number
of
projects
Number
of
projects
with LT
partner
% Change
Previous related projects Follow-up projects
Coordinated by
RTD
13 4 30.77% 9 2 22.22% -8.55%
Coordinated by
Consultancy
8 6 75.00% 10 4 40.00% -35.00%
Coordinated by
Association or
governmental
body
3 1 33.33% 4 2 50.00% 16.67%
TOTAL: 24 11 45.83% 23 8 34.78% -11.05%
The above confirmed weak ties between Lithuanian participants and both RTD insti-
tutions and industry and, in at least 1/3 of the cases, the unsatisfactory (in view of the
coordinators) performance of Lithuanian teams and/or the lack of will on their part
to further participate in the ERA. This explains why Lithuanian teams continued either
in networks of excellence (having 20-70 partners), where the demand for resources
from partners was negligible, or in smaller and medium-scale STREPs (around 10 par-
ticipants) where the input resources were provided by the strongest Lithuanian teams
in terms of scientific knowledge and expertise.
On the other hand, the analysis of the participation of Lithuanian ICT RTD in other Eu-
ropean funding schemes such as COST and EUREKA has showed the higher success
rates due to the lower entry requirements in terms of research and less competition
(because of a dual funding nature of these schemes where competition at EU level is
regulated at national level through the decision to co-fund the programme activi-
ties).
6.5 Main findings of FP7 ICT Theme analysis
Lithuanian participation in FP7 ICT Theme analysis has showed that:
1. Kaunas University of Technology was central in the participation in FP6 IST and
FP7 ICT Theme.
2. Public ICT RTD institutions are closely linked to businesses participating in FP7
ICT Theme.

3. Lithuanian entities in FP7 ICT Calls 1-4 shared most projects partners from major
EU countries (Germany, UK, France, Italy) while the links with other new EU
countries were weak; there is a notably negligent share of links with the Nordic
countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway).
4. The proposals that Lithuanian entities take part mostly are constituted by the
major ICT RTD institutions in Europe such as Fraunhofer, VTT, and IBM who are
gatekeepers in most of the projects that Lithuanian entities participate.
5. In terms of projects there is evidence to suggest that most of the projects con-
sortia that Lithuanian entities get involved are closely interlinked and none of
them were successful; while success was achieved with those consortia where
links with Lithuanian entities are weak; this supports the hypothesis that Lithua-
nian ICT RTD institutions are not integrated into the competitive, leading net-
works.
6. When comparing the links between projects, in which Lithuanian entities took
park in FP6 IST Theme, and projects with Lithuanian participation in FP7 ICT
Theme it becomes clear that most of the projects funded in FP6 were shared
by the limited number of public institutions involved in networking projects;
hence such a high density of the network of consortia in the FP6 IST calls.
7. Additional analysis of links between companies pursuing ICT RTD through FP7
ICT Theme and the EU Structural Funds has shown that the overwhelming ma-
jority of ICT companies which participate in publicly co-funded RTD activities
have R&D projects supported through the EU Structural Funds and almost all
companies participating in FP ICT are also participating in the EU Structural
Funds support schemes. The Structural Funds thus act not as a competitor to
the FP but as a facilitator of FP participation.

7 Scientific Excellence and Potential in ICT
The scope of analysis of scientific excellence in ICT RTD was defined by the ICT Work
Programme under the specific programme “Cooperation” as part the EU’s Seventh
Framework Programme (2007-2013). The following aspects of ICT fall under this scope
and involve the scientific disciplines of computer science, mathematics and infor-
matics, photonics and laser technologies:
 Challenge 1 - Pervasive and Trusted Network and Service Infrastructures
 Challenge 2 - Cognitive Systems and Robotics
 Challenge 3 - Alternative Paths to Components and Systems
 Challenge 4 - Technologies for Digital Content and Languages
 Challenge 5 - ICT for Health, Ageing Well, Inclusion and Governance
 Challenge 6 - ICT for low carbon economy
 Challenge 7 - ICT for the Enterprise and Manufacturing
 Challenge 8 - ICT for Learning and Access to Cultural Resources
 Future and Emerging Technologies (FET)
Lithuania has 18 active public research institutions working in the field of ICT RTD. The
analysis of ICT RTD institutions on the basis of the following analyses:
 Number of ISI publications and projects (2008) per faculty or institute as listed in
the database “Science Potential of Lithuania”;
 Expert survey of ICT RTD community identifying research leaders;
 Amount of research infrastructure resources committed per Grid and the esti-
mated number of personnel administering those resources at faculty or insti-
tute level (on the basis of interviews conducted with Grid network coordina-
tors and administrators of the infrastructures);
 Number of participations in the FP7 ICT Theme as measured by the number of
submitted proposals in FP7 ICT Calls 1-4.
The top 10 results from each analysis (as above) were established, ranked for each
analysis and the overall result was calculated by giving the same weight (0.25) for
each of the result. On the basis of that all institutions which scored above 0 in all four

rankings (i.e. were listed among top 10 in each category of analysis) were identified
as major Centres of Excellence, the rest which scored above 0 in relation to Partici-
pation in FP7 as Potential Centres of Excellence. The details of the identified institu-
tions are provided below.
1. Major Centres of Excellence: the Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics and
the Institute of Material and Applied Science – both at Vilnius University, the
Faculty of Informatics, Kaunas University of Technology, the Institute of Math-
ematics and Informatics, which as of January of 2010 was merged with Vilnius
University, Faculty of Fundamental Sciences of Vilnius Gediminas Technical
University;
2. Potential Centres of Excellence: Faculty of Control Engineering and Faculty of
Telecommunications – both at Kaunas University of Technology, Faculty of In-
formatics at Vytautas Magnus University, Faculty of Natural Sciences and
Mathematics (which includes Department of Informatics) at Klaipeda Universi-
ty and Faculty of Informatics at Šiauliai University.
The relevance of each of the identified Centres of Excellence to FP7 Objectives and
Challenges is provided below (the full details provided in Annex).
Table 4: The main Centres of Excellence in relation to FP7 Objectives
Major Centres of Excellence Relevant FP7 ICT Objectives
1. Faculty of Informatics, Kaunas University of Technology
Departments: Information Systems, Computer Networks,
Computer Engineering, Software Engineering, Business
Informatics
Main areas: Information Systems, Networks, Computer
and Software Engineering
[1.1, 1.2], 1.3, [3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 4.1, 4.2,
4.3], 5.1, 6.1, [6.2], 6.3, 7.3
2. Vilnius University Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics
Main departments: Department of Software Engineering,
Department of Computer Science 1, Department of
Computer Science 2
Main areas: Informatics and Software Engineering
[1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4], 1.5, [3.1], 3.5, [3.6],
[3.9], [4.1], [4.3], 5.1, [5.3, 6.3,7.2]
3. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Faculty of Fun-
damental Sciences
Departments: Nuclear Hydrophysics, Physics, Information
Systems, Digital Simulation and Investigation of Con-
[1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.9,
4.2, 4.3, 6.3, 7.2]

Major Centres of Excellence Relevant FP7 ICT Objectives
structions, Strength Mechanics
Main areas: Computational Mechanics, Information Sys-
tems, Computer Modelling
4. Institute of Mathematics and Informatics
Departments: Computer Networks, Data Analysis, Infor-
matics Methodology, Numerical Analysis, probability
Theory and Statistics, Recognition Processes, Software
Engineering, Systems Analysis
Main areas: Software Engineering, Grid Computing, Da-
ta Mining, Decision Support, Optimization, Data Visuali-
zation, Operational Research, Recognition Processes,
Signal Processing, Language and Multimedia Technolo-
gies, Interactive Systems, Web Mining, Fundamentals of
Informatics, ICT in Education, Ontology-Based Engineer-
ing of Component Applications, Computer Networks.
1.1, [1.2], 1.6, [2.2, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3,
5.1, 7.1, 7.3]
5. Vilnius University Institute of Applied Research
Departments: New Materials Research and Measure-
ment Technology, Semiconductor Optoelectronics, Ad-
vanced Technology, Liquid Crystals Laboratory
Main areas: Semiconductor materials and devices for
light technologies
[3.2], 3.5, [3.7], 3.8

Table 5: The potential Centres of Excellence in relation to FP7 Objectives
Potential Centres of Excellence Relevant FP7 ICT Objectives
1. Centre for Physical Sciences and Technology, Semicon-
ductor Physics Institute
Departments: Microwave Laboratory, Sensors Laborato-
ry, Laboratory of Terahertz Electronics, Fluctuation Re-
search Laboratory,
Main areas: Electromagnetic Waves Interaction with
Material, Fluctuations and Chaos, sensors and energy
saving technologies, information technologies, devel-
opment and investigation of national measurement
standards
3.1, [3.2], 3.6, [3.7], 8.0 (FET)
2. Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Telemedicine
Centre
Departments: n/a
Main areas: the use of remote medical expertise at the
point of need. It includes two major areas: Home care,
as the care at the point of need through connected
sensors, hubs, middleware and reference centres; and
co-operative working, as a network of medical expertise
linked together
5.1, 4.3, 5.3
3. Kaunas University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering and Mechatronics
Departments: n/a
Main scientists: Prof. Ramutis Bansevičius, Prof. V.
Ostaševičius, Prof. A. Žiliukas
Main areas: mechatronics systems with piezomechani-
cal elements, composite materials with implanted pie-
zoelectric sensors, adaptive multi-degree-of-freedom
actuators-sensors
2.1, 2.2, 6.1, 7.2
4. Klaipėda University, Faculty of Natural Science and
Mathematics
Departments: Informatics, Statistics, Mathematics, Ecol-
ogy, Marine Seascape Research
Main areas: Spatial statistics, statistical methods of clas-
[3.6, 4.2], 5.1, 6.3, [6.4], [7.1], 7.2, [10.2]

Potential Centres of Excellence Relevant FP7 ICT Objectives
sification, optimal control of dynamic systems, modelling
and information technology application in environmen-
tal, life science and technology fields
5. Vytautas Magnus University, Faculty of Informatics
Departments: Systems Analysis, Applied Informatics,
Mathematics and Statistics
Main areas: systems analysis, modelling, control and op-
timization, signal recognition, biosignal analysis and
modelling of learning mechanism in biosystems, digital
language resource tools, system risk and reliability analy-
sis
1.7, 3.4, 9.2
6. Lithuanian Energy Institute
Departments: Laboratory of Systems Control and Auto-
mation, Laboratory of Nuclear Installation Safety
Main areas: Investigations in the fields of thermal physics,
fluid mechanics and metrology, simulation of complex
systems, development of their control methods and
technologies
1.7, 6.3
7.1 Ranking of ICT institutions
In terms of ISI publications and RTD projects the following ranking of the institutions
carrying out ICT RTD was established:
1. Faculty of Informatics, Kaunas University of Technology;
2. Faculty of Fundamental Science, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University;
3. Faculty of Electric and Control Engineering, Kaunas University of Technology;
4. Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Vilnius University;
5. Institute of Material and Applied Sciences, Vilnius University;
6. Institute of Mathematics and Informatics (now part of Vilnius University);
7. Faculty of Telecommunications, Kaunas University of Technology;

8. Faculty of Informatics, Vytautas Magnus University;
9. Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Šiauliai University;
10. Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Klaipeda University.
Figure 12: Number of
ISI publications.
The survey of top 32 peer-recommended scientists in the total peer sample (n=193)
was performed. It was based on an innovative peer-driven snowball survey method-
ology for data gathering. With a high response rate (54%); the gathered data was
put into matrices and network analysis produced network visualizations, which
helped to identify competence clusters.
Three indicators have been computed for each FP7 ICT Challenge based on the
aggregated responses:
1. Compound Competence Ratio (CCR) calculated as a ratio between a num-
ber of experts with current expertise and a number of experts with planned,
future expertise;
2. Current Competence Share (CCS) calculated as a percentage of experts with
current competences from the whole number of experts with current compe-
tences;
3. Future Interest Share (FIS) calculated as a percentage of experts with future in-
terest in individual areas from the whole number of experts with future interest
in FP areas.
The competence assessment matrix was constructed on the basis of the BCG Matrix
(Boston Consulting Group Matrix) as below. Based on the CCR, CCS and FIS indica-
tors the competence matrix was prepared. Further analysis of the matrix has showed
that Lithuanian ICT RTD community has high current competence levels relative to
the overall compound competence in:

1. Design of semiconductor components and electronic based miniature sys-
tems;
2. Photonics (including lasers);
3. Trustworthy ICT;
4. Flexible, organic and large area electronics;
5. Language-based interaction;
6. Digital libraries and digital presentation.
Study has identified 5 Major Centres of Excellence in Lithuanian ICT RTD:
1. Faculty of Informatics, Kaunas University of Technology;
2. Vilnius University Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics;
3. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Faculty of Fundamental Sciences;
4. Institute of Mathematics and Informatics (part of Vilnius University);
5. Vilnius University Institute of Applied Research.
Their profiles are included in Annex 1.
7.2 Scientific potential in ICT RTD
Expenditure on Human Resources: the level of total public expenditure on education
as a percentage of GDP has been decreasing from 6.37% in 1999 to 4.67% in 2007
which is still slightly below average of EU27 (4.98%).
Gross domestic expenditure on R&D: the level of expenditure on R&D has been stag-
nating since the accession to the EU and in 2008 was 0.8% which is more than twice
less than the EU27 average (1.91%), yet slightly above the average for EU12 (0.71%).
Science and technology graduates: the number of tertiary graduates in science and
technology per 1000 of population aged 20-29 years in 2007 (18.1) was well above
the EU27 average (12.5 in 2004) and such countries as Germany (11.4 in 2007).
Study has identified 6 Potential Centres of Excellence in Lithuanian ICT RTD:
1. Semiconductor Physics Institute (part of the state research institute Centre for
Physical Sciences and Technology);
2. Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Telemedicine Centre;

3. Kaunas University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and
Mechatronics;
4. Klaipėda University, Faculty of Natural Science and Mathematics;
5. Vytautas Magnus University, Faculty of Informatics;
6. Lithuanian Energy Institute.
Their profiles are included in Annex 2.

8 Business Potential in ICT RTD
Exports of high technology products as a share of total exports: the level of exports of
high technology products in 2006 (4.65%) was among the lowest in the EU on par
with Slovenia (4.662%) and slightly higher than that of Latvia (4.2%), Romania (3.8%),
Bulgaria (3.3%), Poland (3.1%) but more than three-and-a-half times lower than the
EU27 average (16.6%).
This indicator is calculated as share of exports of all high technology products of total
exports. High technology products are defined as the sum of the following products:
aerospace, computers-office machines, electronics-telecommunications, pharma-
cy, scientific instruments, electrical machinery, chemistry, non-electrical machinery,
armament. The total exports for the EU do not include the intra-EU trade.
Sales dynamics: most of the revenue of Top 20 IT companies in the Baltic countries
(11 of which have been based in Lithuania) came from the sales within the Baltic
markets (93% of all reported sales) and only 13% - from export sales. The saturation of
these markets had reached its limit between 2007 and 2008, when the sales of hard-
ware and IT services of the 20 largest Baltic IT companies collapsed from a 30% com-
pound annual growth rate to almost zero.
Figure 13: Contribu-
tion of ICT sector to
total R&D intensity ICT
BERD/GDP (Source:
IPTS).

Figure 14: Investments
in ICT infrastructure
and services (Source:
Baltic IT&T Review).
The Figure 14 shows that already in 2006, comparing to the EU27, all the Baltic coun-
tries had reached the above-average investment levels in ICT infrastructure. Howev-
er, Lithuania was below EU average in terms of R&D intensity ICT BERD/GDP and to-
gether with Poland and Romania were the worst performers in EU25.
The growth of the expenditure for ICT hardware, equipment, software and other ser-
vices had placed Lithuania at the level of Poland and Slovakia. In terms of this ex-
penditure as a proportion of GDP all new EU countries had been beating EU15. Lat-
via’s ICT expenditure in 2007 stood at 7.6%. Other high performers were Bulgaria
(7.1%), Estonia (6.8%) and Romania (6.2%). Lithuania’s expenditure on IT relative to
GDP figure was the same as Hungary’s and stood at 5% which was almost twice
higher than in all EU15 countries for which this figure varied between 2.3% and 3.3%.
However, as concerning the size of the national ICT sector weighted as Value add-
ed/GDP Lithuania was doing reasonably well in EU27 - being ahead of Estonia, Den-
mark.
The major segments of the ICT sector in Lithuania were postal and telecommunica-
tion services and (to a lesser extent) components, telecom- and multimedia equip-
ment. The dominance of the telecommunication sector, following the liberalization
of the market in 2003, has become a path-defining moment in further development
of the ICT sector in Lithuania.
Most of the path-breaking innovations which had been brought about in the Baltic
countries, including Lithuania, were linked to the telecommunication and mobile
application markets. In Estonia Skype has become the major global IT success story,
while in Lithuania - GetJar, the company which runs a global WAP and web portal
for downloading mobile phone and PDA applications with over 14 million downloads
per month worldwide. In the 2009 Mobile Peer Awards Finals GetJar was selected to
the finals together with three other companies from Denmark, Sweden and Estonia,
thus becoming a Europe-wide acknowledged flagship IT start-up from Lithuania,
which has offices in London and infrastructure in Palo Alto, California.

On the basis of the analysis of the number of RTD staff employed by IT companies for
new product development the following companies with “hidden potential” were
identified (numbers provided indicate the number of RTD staff as self-declared by
the companies in a phone and email survey in December 2010):
1. UAB VTEX, http://www.vtex.com (15) - a LaTeX-based technical typesetter
and data supplier for science publishers, including Elsevier Science.
2. UAB Neurotechnology, http://www.neurotechnology.com (13) – SDK devel-
oper for fingerprint, face, iris and object recognition implemented, among
others, in Lenovo computer access systems.
3. UAB GetJar Baltic, http://www.getjar.com (12) – a mobile phone application
store platform with offices in San Mateo, California and Vilnius.
4. UAB No Magic Europe, http://www.bpi.lt (10) – together with the US company
No Magic develops product MagicDraw.
5. VšĮ Aukštieji algoritmai, http://pharma-algorithms.com (10) – develops suite of
physicochemical predictors for the North American chemistry software com-
pany ACD/Labs with whom its offshoot merged in 2006.
6. UAB MitSoft, http://www.mitsoft.lt/lt (8) – a spin-off from Vilnius University, de-
veloping software for public and private sector, including SAP AG.
7. UAB Algoritmų sistemos, http://www.algoritmusistemos.lt/ (7) – a software solu-
tion provider for public and private sector, mainly in Lithuania.
8. UAB Baltec CNC technologies, www.baltec-cnc.com (7) – a metal processing
company with expertise in mechatronics and ICT, active in FP.
9. UAB Rubedo sistemos, http://www.rubedo.lt (6) – develops software for El-
ekta’s (Sweden) radiation oncology and neurosurgery systems.
10. UAB DocLogix, http://www.doclogix.com (3) – develops solutions for infor-
mation and business management, sales in the Baltics and Poland.
8.1 Relevance of Business Potential to FP7 Objectives
The relevance of each of the identified companies to FP7 Objectives and Challeng-
es is provided below (based on self-declared competences).

Table 6: Business entities pursuing ICT RTD in relation to FP7 ICT Objectives
Business entities Relevant FP7 ICT Objectives
1. UAB VTEX
Main areas: tools and services for scientific publishing
4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 6.4, 6.5
2. UAB Neurotechnology
Main areas: biometric systems
2.1, 6.1
3. UAB GetJar Baltic
Main areas: mobile applications and services
1.2, 6.2
4. UAB No Magic Europe
Main areas: architecture modelling software
4.3
5. VšĮ Aukštieji algoritmai
Main areas: bioinformatics
5.3
6. UAB MitSoft
Main areas: software development, IT system analysis
1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 4.1, 4.3, 7.3
7. UAB Algoritmų sistemos
Main areas: information management systems, prod-
ucts and solutions
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 6.2,
6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3
8. UAB Baltec CNC technologies
Main areas: IT systems and electronics-related products
3.4, 3.5, 5.1, 7.1
9. UAB Rubedo sistemos
Main areas: Couch motion compensation for real-time
motion adaptive radiation therapy and other related
challenges of moving target radiation therapy
2.1
10. UAB DocLogix
Main areas: document management systems
1.2, 1.3, 4.1, 6.2

8.2 Consolidated scientific excellence and business potential
The relevance of both scientific excellence and potential in ICT and business poten-
tial in ICT to FP7 Objectives has been consolidated in order to identify the areas with
potential in both science and business. The match between scientific excellence
and business potential has been identified where there was an overlap between
more than two entities from public or private sector.
Table 7: Consolidated list of public and private ICT RTD entities in relation to FP7 ICT
FP7 ICT
Objective
Relevant institutions and companies
1.1 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Faculty of Fundamental Sciences
Vilnius University Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics
Vilnius University Institute of Mathematics and Informatics
Kaunas University of Technology Faculty of Informatics
UAB Algoritmų sistemos
UAB Doclogix
UAB GetJar
UAB MitSoft
1.3 Kaunas University of Technology Faculty of Informatics
UAB Doclogix

FP7 ICT
Objective
Kaunas University Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Mechatronics
UAB Neurotechnology
UAB Rubedo sistemos
Vytautas Magnus University, Faculty of Informatics
UAB Baltec CNC technologies
3.5 Vilnius University Institute of Mathematics and Informatics
Vilnius University Institute of Applied Research
4.1 Vilnius University Institute of Mathematics and Informatics
UAB Doclogix
UAB Mitsoft
UAB VTEX

FP7 ICT
Objective
Klaipėda University Faculty of Natural Science and Mathematics
UAB VTEX
Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Telemedicine Centre
UAB Mitsoft
UAB No Magic Europe
UAB VTEX
Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Telemedicine Centre
5.3 Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Telemedicine Centre
VšĮ Aukštieji algoritmai
UAB Neurotechnology

FP7 ICT
Objective
UAB Doclogix
UAB GetJar
Lithuanian Energy Institute
UAB Mitsoft

9 Barriers to participation
The following barriers presenting obstacles for Lithuania‘s participation in FP7 ICT
Theme have been identified:
Barrier 1: Perceived risk of failure in FP projects is very high
 The success rate of Lithuanians participating and getting FP projects is very
low. That has an impact for the motivation of others, especially when success
rate of participating in Structural Funds projects is much higher. Most re-
searchers have a perception that it is almost impossible to obtain funding from
FP7 ICT programme.
 Most of FP projects are long-term projects, where commercialization can be
done only after 5 and more years after the project proposal submission. Time
span for Lithuanian companies when they might agree to share the risk is not
more than 2-3 years. Especially in ICT sector where the market is changing
very fast. Hence the companies perceive the participation in FP as a time-
wasting opportunity for their businesses.
 Lithuanian companies are still too weak to co-invest in RTD projects, though
the co-financing rate in FP7 are higher (75%) than in the projects co-funded
from EU Structural Funds where the co-funding rates in RTD are between 60%
and 65%.
Barrier 2: Lack of integration into the most competitive consortia
 Some form of discrimination from EU15 partners was mentioned as one of the
main obstacles for participation. In some cases this idea about the alleged
discrimination came from a perception that FP has been mainly the game for
consortia from EU15.
 Most participants who tried to write projects to FP had difficulties in joining
closed consortia. Most of the already formed consortia are not willing to open
up to new partners. In some cases the reason for ignorance was indeed a
previous bad experience with Lithuanian partners. Because of difficulties join-
ing "good" consortia Lithuanian participants usually chose weak or accidental
partners which failed to obtain funding.
 Closed Lithuanian institutional structures and lack of cooperation, leadership
and entrepreneurial competences create communication barriers and ob-

stacles for knowledge sharing and finding of partners - both at international
and at domestic level
 Most companies interested in FP are multinationals who are not interested in
Lithuanian science, because they already have well established links with sci-
ence institutions from EU15 countries.
 EU15 countries have good representation and lobby in Brussels and Lithuanian
representation/lobbying even at general level is very weak.
 Most interviewees agreed that success rate in FP is highly dependent on good
personal networks, previous collaboration experience, accessibility to other
networks and contact lists. Most Lithuanian success stories are based on per-
sonalities and their networks rather than on "pure science" and competencies.
Lack of necessary networking skills and cooperation culture might also be a
problem. Lithuanian scientists are used to work in small closed teams and are
not very eager to cooperate. And those who participate, for example, in
COST projects or go to various networking events are usually selected by their
professional competences and not by networking skills.
Barrier 3: Meagre human resources in ICT RTD
 Lithuanian ICT RTD in general is not very competitive. There are no easily seen
projects within the public ICT RTD institutions which could be brought closer to
commercialization with the help of FP projects. There is a lack of competence
to create commercially viable results and the trends in knowledge transfer are
still negative. The explanation to this is a faulty Lithuanian system of evaluation
of science results. As an outcome of such evaluations best scientists are ori-
ented towards publishing articles in scientific journals within their narrow fields
of expertise rather than using their skills and knowledge towards problem-
solving in applied research projects.
 The total number of researchers working intensively in ICT RTD is not very high in
comparison with other European countries. And this small amount of experts is
further divided into small groups which hardly cooperate.
 Brain drain of young researchers and lack of time necessary for research due
to high teaching loads influence general competence as well.
 Mentioned competence issues are being addressed by Lithuanian Govern-
ment through the ongoing study and science reform. But reform has only
started (2009) and it is too early to have even preliminary results.

Barrier 4: Lack of motivation, skills and competences at the individual level
 Several problems were identified at individual level explaining the lack of mo-
tivation to participate in FP projects. Many Lithuanian scientists lack self-
confidence, especially those who were educated in Soviet education system.
This shall be applicable to all post-communist countries. The lack of coopera-
tion culture and narrow fields of interests lead to small groups of highly special-
ised scientists.
 Narrowness of interests is sustained by current Lithuanian system of evaluation
of science results as it supports narrow specialisation and creates obstacles for
flexible and multidisciplinary research. In most scientific institutions scientists
are paid for process and not for result. On the other hand, most scientists have
too much administrative work and high teaching loads. As they are not moti-
vated by universities in any way to participate in FP, a lot of good opportuni-
ties are missed, unless there are motivated students who can drive projects as
part of their learning processes.
 Scientists lack product development skills which are necessary for achieving
results-oriented project outcomes. And business product developers are not
interested to participate in FP project system, as they perceive them as having
too much bureaucracy connected with the projects. More so, public ICT RTD
institutions have difficulties in attracting experts from business on short-term
business due to public procurement or internal administrative rules.
Barrier 5: Individual academic evaluation not linked to the assessment of one’s con-
tribution to the ERA
 ICT is developing by penetrating into other sectors and there are difficulties to
create a common understanding what ICT science really means in Lithuania.
 Participating in FP projects does not give any bonus or advantage for scien-
tists’ career when his/her scientific results are evaluated.
 Projects made with business companies are usually strictly confidential and
scientists cannot use their work either.
 FP projects are oriented to European needs while Lithuanian scientists (those
involved in developing technologies for market) mostly address local needs. In
many cases research topics are different and the gap between national ICT
RTD and EU ICT RTD thematically is widening. The gap is reinforced by gradu-
ate students which have no choice than to specialize within the narrow topics

of their supervisors, and thus to become even narrower specialized than their
predecessors.
 Lithuanian research topics are usually much smaller and the results of such re-
search can be used only in creation of niche products.
Barrier 6: Lack of financial support for project preparation
 Preparation of the project takes a lot of time. Since there is no support for the
preparation of projects neither from the government nor from the ICT RTD insti-
tutions, participants have to use their own resources. Universities and other
public institutions do not provide research support services at professional lev-
el. Hence the most interested persons in participating and/or initiating FP pro-
jects are graduate students who, as anecdotal evidence suggests, agree to
write proposals for free. In some cases professors even sent their doctoral stu-
dents to training courses to acquire project writing skills.
 General financing of RTD activities in universities is rather small and the facul-
ties and departments lack financial resources to launch internal research pro-
jects that could lead onto bigger projects at national or EU level.
 There is no financial support for project preparation at public ICT RTD institu-
tions. Some universities have set up dedicated project support offices, but
these mainly deal with the projects for the Structural Funds which are of rele-
vant to the Rector’s Office.
 There is no financial and professional support to attract product developers
from business companies.
 The support for networking activities (such as participation in international bro-
kerage events) is small.
 Neither science institutions nor businesses have their representatives in Brussels.
 The co-financing of RTD projects from the Structural Funds that could compli-
ment projects in FP is more complicated than in other countries and is not
widely used.
 Lack of professional FP related consultancy services - too many general infor-
mation and too difficult to find support in particular cases.

Barrier 7: Lack of national programme-based funding linked to the FP7 ICT Theme
 Lithuanian science system, including ICT RTD, is capable of delivering high
quality research, but fragmented structures and rigidity of public research in-
stitutions very often pose barriers to collaboration and optimal use of human
resources.
 Large number of RTD related institutions and low levels of funding together
with outdated funding approaches.
 There is overemphasis of public-sector driven RTD based on institutional fund-
ing.
 Lack of programmes based public funding and lack of private funding result-
ed in unsatisfactory R&D output (patents, publications, commercialised re-
search).
 ICT as a sector is very horizontal and without clear research priorities, the
fragmentation each year becomes bigger and bigger.
Barrier 8: Lack of cross-field competences
 Participation in FP7 programmes needs a better understanding on how exist-
ing knowledge and competences in Lithuanian ICT RTD could be used in in-
dustry-relevant applications.
 Multidisciplinary research is not supported and there is lack of good and moti-
vated PhD students.
 Lithuanian ICT RTD competence areas do not match the FP7 ICT areas.
Barrier 9: The untapped existing research infrastructure and know-how in private ICT
RTD
 In some areas there is no or very low effort from ICT RTD community in terms of
the number of submitted proposals for FP7 ICT calls although there is a high
level of infrastructure resources in terms of laboratories and staff numbers.
 The audit has identified the untapped potential in ICT RTD in the areas of:
o The network of the future;
o Organic photonics and other disruptive photonics;
o Microsystems and smart miniaturised systems;
o ICT for mobility of the future;

o ICT for governance and policy modelling.
 The potential in the following areas is rather weak as well:
o Engineering of network monitoring and control systems;
o Digital libraries and digital preservations;
o Computing systems.
Barrier 10: The insufficient research infrastructure potential in public ICT RTD
There is a high or medium effort from ICT RTD community in terms of the number of
submitted proposals for FP7 ICT in some areas, but low or no infrastructure resources
in terms of laboratories and staff numbers.
The audit has identified areas where the needs for such infrastructure are the big-
gest, namely:
 Microsystems and smart miniaturised systems;
 ICT for mobility of the future;
 ICT for governance and policy modelling;
 Organic photonics and other disruptive photonic technology;
 The network of the future.
Barrier 11: Project planning not fully aligned to the existing infrastructure
 As stipulated in Task 4 report the FP7 ICT results from Calls 1-4 show that most of
the proposals are being submitted in those areas where there is no adequate
infrastructure or where human resources are below average comparing to the
areas where no or less proposals are being generated.
 The success in the FP7 ICT participation is evident in those areas where there is
a match between the research infrastructure in terms of human resources and
the project proposal effort by ICT RTD community (measured as a number of
proposals submitted per Objective).
 The lack of proposals in a number of areas where the research infrastructures
are in place (both in private and public RTD institutions) points out to missed
opportunities for participation in FP7 ICT and call for adequate policy actions.

Barrier 12: Weak links between the national technology platforms in ICT and their EU
counterparts
 The main link between the FP ICT research agenda and the national research
agendas is provided by the EU technology platforms in ICT and (through their
mirror groups) by the National Technology Platforms. Yet the links between the
national platforms and their EU counterparts are very weak. This is because
after the initial support provided by the Ministry of Economy to the National
Technology Platforms in 2005-2006 (when five National Technology Platforms
were set up by public and private ICT RTD) further support was removed and
the platforms became ineffective as a result. To some extent the continuation
of a national platform existence has been secured through the national com-
plex programme in ICT which was prepared by the Association “National
software and services cluster”, which administered the national software and
service platform (a counterpart of NESSE – Networked European Software and
Services Initiative). It was thanks to the linkage between NESSE and its national
counterpart that Lithuania’s national complex programme has included the
research topics relevant to Challenge 1 – Pervasive and Trustworthy Network
and Service Infrastructure, namely, Internet of Things and Internet services and
software.
 It has been noted that weak links between other National Technology Plat-
forms and their EU counterparts have contributed to a widening gap between
national ICT RTD and EU ICT RTD in terms of thematic scope.
Barrier 13: The insufficient reliability of the service-oriented Grid infrastructure
 A number of experts, both from public and private ICT RTD institutions, raised
their concerns about the usability of Grid infrastructure for industry-academy
collaboration due to the insufficient reliability of the Grid and the lack of hu-
man resources linked to it. In the current setup the maintenance of the Grid
server clusters is provided by part-time, under-paid graduate students.
 No adequate competence exists among Grid developers in creating a ser-
vice-oriented infrastructure which could offer a value to ICT companies.
The consolidated SWOT is presented in the table below.

KK0214243ENN_002

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to KK0214243ENN_002

Similar to KK0214243ENN_002 (20)

More from Linas Eriksonas

More from Linas Eriksonas (13)

KK0214243ENN_002