Roma 02/07/1997
To: The chairmen of: ESPRIT, ACTS, TELEMATICS. Management Committees
From: Relevant Italian Delegates and Experts (from now on called:
I-WG) (*)
a) The Financial Resources.
It has been unanimously remarked the key role of RTD to promote the industrial competitivness (which Europe strongly need in the global market) as well as a sustainable growth and a balanced progress of our society towards the new millennium. However in the new globalized context, social progress and industrial competitiveness cannot be measured just locally but must be challenged on a worldwide scale. Both the USA and Japan have fully recognized this situation and are increasing their public RTD budgets in general by 2% and 8% respectively.
There has been therefore in the I-WG (*) an unanimous concern about the Commission proposal to dedicate to its RTD V FP, whose main objective is actually the same, less funds, in real terms, than to the previous FPs.
The same concern in relation to the ICT Programme for the coming Information Society (IS) whose growth rate is 3 to 5 times higher than the overall average in the USA and Japan and in other major Europe competitors countries. This also in view of the role of enabler and facilitator that ICT plays in all fields.
The position of the I- WG (*) is therefore that the share of the total budget dedicated to the 2deg. Thematic Programme (TP) : "Creating a User-friendly Information Society" should be up to the 35% and in no case less than 5 Becu (see also in the following paragraphs relevant to the 2deg. TP).
b) The Citizen at the Focus of the RTD programme conception and construction.
Technologies are for the citizen first. He must be in the position to master them and not to be their servant or victim.
While aknowledging the substantial adhesion to this "principle" of the 1deg. and 3deg. TP the I-WG is very much concerned about the absence of significant "room" for technologies in support of the Human Culture that should find in the 2deg.TP its right positionig, adequate to its full priority. A more detailed request for Human Culture topics is described in the subsequent paragraph relevant to the 2deg. TP.
c) Positioning and relative importance of the basic (or exploratory/ visionary) research.
Besides the request for a more precise definition, as stated below, it is necessary to
(*) The Italian Working Group (It.WG) contributing to this document is made up from:
- National Experts to the present 3 Specific programmes: ESPRIT, ACTS, TELEMATICS
and to their relevant "preparatory" Panels (both strategic and thematic).
- Some of the more "informed" Sector Actors representatives (Industries, Universities,
Research Centres, Network Operators, Service Providers and Users).
specify (the text of the Commission proposal is rather ambiguous) whether this kind of
research should find its "room" in the relevant Key Actions and whether, in case such research, while of great future interest, has no direct relation with the actual applications referred to in the Key Action, it might be included among the topics specified in the b) activity
Urgent clarifications are needed on this question. In fact the amount of resources devoted to this research may be appreciated only if a very clear cut definition on the above matter is assumed. In the case of the definition proposed by the I-WG (see the foot note in the previous page) no Key Action could house such research. The relevant budget might than be proposed in consequence.
d) The general Frame/Structure of the Programme.
- Concentration/Flexibility.
Concerns are to be expressed about the basic choice to concentrate the whole RTD activities in only 3 TPs. This could result in a squeezing of all the previously existing dishomogeneous topics alltogether, rather than in a deeply evaluated and real selection for priorities and the simplification achieved risk to seem much more than to be a real simplification. Difficulties then could arise in the management of disomogeneous RTD areas clustered toghether as well as in a non clear reference picture for the potential partecipants.
The I-WG has nothing against the RATIONALE of the newly proposed V FP schematic structure but they want to remark that "Concentration" and "Simplification" are not automatically resulting just from a new scheme drawn on the paper. They are consequence of a difficult, bold and (too) often painful selection process.
The same applies to to the flexibility concept. To put aside some resources in view of unforeseen needs is absolutely wise. To master them correctly in their occurrence without jeopardizing "the certainties" for the potential partecipants.
The I-WG think that the "Flexibility" management, while of paramount importance for the whole V FP, must be definetely kept in the hands of the Member States decisional capability.
- Barriers/Compartimentalization/Coordination.
By no means less essential concentration and flexibility is to eliminate the traditional burocratic barriers among complementary or even only adjacent Key Actions (KA) or activities . This must be achieved also for RTD areas pertaining to different Thematic Programmes (e.g. between the 2deg. TP and 3deg. TP), without jeopardizing clear definition and clear bounds of each part of the V FP. In terms of compartimentalization's elimination the very ultimate result should be to allow for a single proposal to addess tasks in more than one segment of the Programme and, in some cases. also in more than one Thematic Programme (e.g. IMS projects spanning over the 3deg. TP and the 2deg.TP for instance "micro or nanoelectronics).
On the Coordination activity, a very difficult and risky job, the I-WG want only to bring up to the Commission attention that in the Proposal text there is a rather astonishing absence in the listing of the Commission Programmes to be kept in coordination with the V FP RTD activities, say: the STRUCTURAL FUNDS Programme that seems to us the most important one to be considered in this respect.
- Clearness and Consistency allthrough.
There is an absolute need for the V FP as a whole, to be clearly and consistently defined and consistently managed.
Consistent definition means: No misunderstandings: one word one meaning allthrough. Some unclear terms such as: "Generic technologies" or "Visionary Research" (*) and others like "Intelligent agents" having different meaning for different research areas, must be precisely and univocally defined.
Consistent definition requirements apply not only to RTD matter but also to the management and Programme implementation phase, e.g.: "criteria", "requirements", "procedures " etc. referred to the projects presentation, evaluation, auditing , etc..
Consistent management means: a unique or at least very homogeneous process for the Programme implementation handling in terms of specific programmes definition and of supporting documents (Workprogrammes, Information packages, OJ pubblications and so on) to be diffused. The same applies to the implementation steps, timing, procedures etc.. No need to say that the same concepts should be applied to the Horizontal Programmes which should be implemented as much as possible inside or strictly connected with each Thematic Programme and adopting the same criteria for the TPs.
Consistent management means for instance equal (as much as possible), fully explicit and transparent ways of proposing, evaluating, contracting and managing the projects. Exceptions must be kept to a minimum, transparently communicated and diffused and never on a case by case negotiation. Call for proposals should be unique for the various KAs and activities and the projects evaluation should be joint for all open tasks regardless on which Programme segment they belong to.
Procedures. (In particular the TWO STEPS PROCEDURE) From the Commission proposal text it can be gathered that the so called two steps procedure might be generally adopted. The Italian delegations and Experts are fully against the two steps procedure as it is currently implemented. In fact it is in no way reasonable to take ultimate decisions on something that is intended to be a preliminary and incomplete intention. Presently the so called first step is not thoroughly nor precisely defined so that every proposer has a different understanding of what is required and the result is that very disomogeneous first step proposals are submitted (e.g. some proposals documents are only of two pages while some others are over 15 pages) leaving to much room to the individual evaluators interpretation resulting in a FEELINGS rather than beeing an objective evaluation.
e) The role of the national representatives Committees (National Delegations as of today).
Apart from the unpleasant impression at the reading of the Commission proposal text the I-WP think that some kind of simplification in respect to the past is necessary. No doubt, for instance, that it is inappropriate for the Mcs to get down to every detail of the Programmes and Projects management process. On the other hand it is likewise unacceptable for the Member States do not to have any visibility or control on the very handling of their money in such a critical area as the RTD area is. For this reason the I-WG invites the Commission to better balance and armonise the need for the Commission of having less burocratic constraints with the equally right need for the Member States to have access to the single Programme's and project's management acts on a (for instance) by exception base. A second and more substantial reason for a deeper involvement of the national representatives is the
(*) The explanation given in the Commission proposal for "generic technologies" does not comply with the examples shown e.g. in the 2deg. TP. We suggest the following definition: "Generic Technologies are intended not to be contiguous to the State of the art in RTD. Their industrial impact while not presently evident, may be expected on a 5 (or more) yearshorizon. This could avoid the need to identify the GTs singularly (sometimes in a non appropriate way e.g. "photonic"). This may allow to promote RTD on basic processes, devices and systems concepts that will fuel the applications (e.g. for the IS) from, say, 2003 on.
need for the Commission to take proper account of every Member State RTD main policies and and activities
a) The financial Resources.
No need to repeat that within the V FP total availability of financial resources the share for the 2deg. Thematic Programme "Infosoc" should be higher and not equal to the ones for the rest of the FP. This not for a mere "club-like" flag. No other Thematic Research Programme has in fact a similar impact on the priorities at the basis of the V FP Commission proposal, say: the employment; the quality of life and the globalization of the economy. It is evident even at a first simple reading of the TP's Key Actions that the Information and Communication technologies, both directly and indirectly via their pervasive role of enabler and facilitator, are more and more a condition "sine qua non" to achieve valuable results all over. It is also obvious that some specific RTD activity like the one in c) INTERNET 2, are basic for the whole V FP and for the overall research activity.
As mentioned in the first part of thi contribution the I-WG think that to avoid losing ground with respect to Europe's global competitors the budget share for the 2deg. TP should be at a level of 35% of the total V FP Budget and in no case less than 5 Becu. This is also the position of the Round Table EITIRT.
NB. The financial resources allocation among the KAs and the Activities b) and c) of this 2deg. TP is addressed down below as a conclusive recommendation of this para.
b) The citizen as the Focus of the 2deg. TP RTD activity.
Cultural Heritage. No repetition here of the previous considerations but the firm request from the I-WG to consider CULTURE as the very first Citizen's interest. The marginal hint made to this fundamental pillar of our human condition in the 3deg. KA is absolutely inadequate. We therefore ask that an entire KA is devoted to the cultural needs in terms of Information and Communication supporting technologies, as well as in terms of Horizontal Actios. As a second option we might accept the reshaping of the iii) KA as follows:
- Renaming he iii) KA as "Systems for creating and accessing Culture, Information and Knowledge through MM systems and contents".
- Rewording the first alinea as follows: "Cultural Heritage (and not only museums and libraries) valorization in view of an easy access to it and a more diffused fruition of it also through the creation of a suitable and friend multimedia environment (objects, ad hoc structured broadband communication supporting system and a suitable and possibly personalised accessing and filtering management system).
Tourism. Is a significant part of Culture and of mutual people friendship and knowledge besides beeing also a more and more important economic issue. Even if some main aspects of it may be considered in the present i) KA (transport and environment) and also in the iv) KA (multilingual education, geographical information system) the I-WG think that a focused RTD area should be devoted to it.
This cold be done in the i) KA "Systems and Services to the citizen" through a new alinea as follows:
An intelligent system for tourism promotion targeted to the best fruition of the local cultural and artistic patrimony, suitably valorized in the frame of its natural, geographic and traditions environment could allow everybody to easily enjoy both direct and virtual access to it. That could be achieved through a suitable information, transport and MM objects system.
c) Positioning and relative importance of the basic research (exploratory /visionary).
There is no need to say that it sounds unreasonable to locate a basic research totally or mainly relevant to a specific KA, outside it. On the opposite it seems necessary to locate in the 2deg. TP separate activity b) the basic research having no direct relevance to any of the 4 KAs objectives but having a high potential industrial impact in a 5 to 10 years horizon. A definite choice on this matter cannot but have a substantial impact on:
- The allocation of the 2deg. TP budget to the single Kas and to the b) and c) Activities.
- A more precise definition of the b) Activity as it has been asked many times here, and may be different from the one of the Commission proposal (see the foot note at page 3)
d) 2deg. TP general structure and management.
Ther is nothing to be added to the previous general comments for the whole VFP in terms of Concentration, Clearness and Consistency allthrough.
In terms of management coordination and consistency ther is a WARNING and a strong recommentation to suggest.
WARNING: In relation to the primary finalizzation toward socio-economic objectives of the whole V FP in general and of the 2deg. TP "INFOSOC" in particular there is a great risk to duplicate the more or less identical technology developments required for two or more KAs. This may lead to the wasting of precious resources and time. This might result in a real great challenge for the management of the Programmes and of the single projects. An automatic protective screen against this occurrence should be put in action and a continuous monitoring and minds alerting system should be created to assist the officers, the experts and may be also the Committees.
Coordination/Barriers.
In the Commission proposal most, but not all of ICT related RTD is concentrated in the 2deg. TP. However it is quite evident that some ICT related RTD will have to be carried out alsoinside the other two Tps (e.g.: "systems for surveillance, monitoring and communication of environmental data" - 1deg. TP; "digital cities" - 3deg. TP etc.. To avoid risk of gaps, overlaps and likely divergence of approaches and solutions and to allow a more effective and useful job and result we strongly advise that the operational coordination and management of all ICT related RTD activities within the V FP is assigned by competence to the same Commission office and to the same Management Committee that will be in charge of the 2deg. TP regardless of which TP is requesting or funding it.
Barriers.
Calls for proposals within the 2deg. TP should be unique and the evaluation of the projects should be joint for all open tasks regardless to which Programme segment they belong to; it should be possible for a single proposal to address tasks in more than one segment or KA.
Procedures/Fundings
No need to confirm here the I-WG negative position in relation to the present (IV FP) way of implementing the so called TWO STEPS PROCEDURE. There is no evidence, right now, that a simplified FIRST STEP could assure EQUITY of Judgement nor TRANSPARENCY of decisions. This kind of TWO STEPS PROCEDURE could be viable and usable only if the FIRST STEP has a consultancy meaning and not the role of GO-NO GO gate. It could then be intended and used, for instance, as a general "ELIGIBILITY" preanalysis on topics like: adhesion to the programme objective and tasks, validity of the basic project's idea; adequcy of the general lay out, and so on.
As far as fundings is concerned the Commission proposes (see ANNEX IV): "demonstration projects to prove technical viability of technologies (why not of solutions?), which cannot be commercialized directly" will be financed at a level of 35% of the eligible costs. This statement sounds in contradiction with the RATIONALE of the whole V FP which explicitely supports the RTD targeted to and effective for a USEFUL APPLICATION.
The I-WG strongly supports the precompetitive nature of the RTD but explicitely think that the validation phase of the RTD has the same nature and importance (jerarchical level) of the main research activity. It is moreover to be stressed that a "functional validation phase" is in no way closer to the market than the relevant research activity; besides that it is much more resources consuming. The financial intervention of 35% of the eligible costs may suggest the working team to avoid validation demos or to reduce them at useless level thus depriving the Community of the most important result of the money spent.
We therefore suggest the Commission to predefine steps and criteria for a correct validation phasee and to perform severe control over it and its relevant costs, and then to maintain for it the same funding level than for the main research activity.
Concertation among complementary (vertical/horizontal) or convergent projects.
The I-WG think that the concertation action, whether performed by the Commission offices or directly by the project actors is absolutely necessary to assure real effectiveness to the V FP. The identification of the guidelines and goals of this activity must be rapidly and effectively defined, made known to everybody and included among the project's contract obbligations.
Financial resources distribution among the Kas and the b) and c) Activities.
The I-WG:
- Having considered as of today the relative weight and resources requirement of each KA and of each Activity..
- Supposing that the proposals about CULTURAL HERITAGE - iii) KA - and about TOURISM - i) KA - are acceptable by the Commission.
- Having taken into account that the "essential technologies and infrastructure" topics portion directly or mainly related to each KA is to be funded on the account of said KA.
- Having deemed the same as far as the basic research (or generic technologies or visionary research) is concerned.
- Having consequently supposed that basic research having an expected significant impact on the industrial competitivity within a 5 to 10 years horizon, might be accepted, regardless to its predefinition in the V FP definitive description, within the b) Activity.
| 1) K A | ii) K A | iii) K A | iv) K A | b) Activity | c) Activity |
| 25 % | 15 % | 15 % | 35 % | 5 % | 5 % |
iv) Key Action: "essential technologies and infrastructure".
It goes without saying that the objectives of social priority presented in the previous KAs may be achieved only through suitable technologies. Innovative and User-friendly Information Society APPLICATIONS are more and more based on better and sometimes new technologies and specifically on a mix of technologies traditionally ranked in the two main DOMAINS of Computing and Telecommunications. While it is absolutely necessary (and as a matter of fact it is since long time "a fact") that most of the APPLICATIONS in both DOMAINS are a result of the convergence of the two traditionally separated "technologies" (*), there is no need to force these technologies themselves to MERGE. They have already shown "in the facts" a marvelous complementarity and thi is what we really need.
The conclusion is that there is no need to force and mix up the two basic technologies together within the same iv) KA: "essential technologies and infrastructure" item.
The second consideration regards the very dishomogeneous relative "weight" of the six iv) KA listed items. In fact the first item includes the whole scene of computing and telecom sciences and technologies while, for instance, the fourth and the fifth ones are much more specific and limited and may pertain, with no drawbacks, to a unique subsector.
Therefore in consequence of the previous considerations and reminding the statements both in this contribution and in the Commission proposal (say that every KA includes all the RTD specific themes necessary to achieve the relevant objectives), the I-WG recommend that:
- The iv) KA should be assigned in principle the highest share of the available budget of the 2deg. TP,
- That the priority items to be inserted in the iv) KA be defined as follows:
* Network broadband technologies including all photonic networks, full network interoperabilty and intelligence, services independent network platforms as well as network independet services systems to the user allowing personal optimized services and allowing customer access for the control of the needed telecom resources (infrastructure).
* Computing technologies for the MM processing, storing and retrieving (including moving images, MM databases etc), resource management and surveillance systems, decision support systems.
* Technologies and engineering for high quality software and systems.
* Communication applications and services including common presentation of personalised services all through, including customer control
* Interfaces making use of the various senses (**), including voice and image recognition ; subsystems and microsystems; peripherals including mobile terminals (TLC/Comp), smart cards, set top boxes etc.
(*) COMPUTING DOMAIN - systems and equipments- have made use of traditional telecommunication technologies since the very beginning (analog technologies) and continue nowadays (lines/cables/fiber optics, photonic technologies and even radio technologies). TLC DOMAIN - systems and equipments - are making intensive use since long time of computing specific technologies (digital signal processing, storing and retrieving, software technologies and so on.
(**) With the exclusion of the RTDs ranging in the "Visionary Research" or "Generic technologies of the b) Activity
* Mobile and personal communications and systems, especially satellite-related communication and services.
* microelectronics (technologies, expertise, equipment and hardware necessary for the design and manufacture of circuits and the development of applications), nanoelectronics.
b) Activities for the research and development of generic technologies..
If we refer to previous I-WG comments (see the footnote at page 3) relevant to the need of a precise definition of "generic technologies" , "visionary research" the I-WG think that the b) Activity should be defined accordingly and it should not identify any single "generic technology" that might be included there unless for exemplification purposes. In fact some of these technologies might be identified today but others may not. Furhter to that the I-WG think that some of the "generic technologies" proposed in the Commission text do not seem to be really "visionary research". In particular: photonic, technologies for very large scale integration and superintelligent networks are today's RTD areas and should then be included within the iv) KA and not in b).
The I-WG then recommend the following wording of the second sentence in b):
"From a visionary perspective, covering future and emerging technologies and applications, research will focus on technologies not contiguous to the state of the art, which are expected to have an important industrial impact in a 5 to 10 years horizon as, for instance:
* technologies for representation, creation and handling of knowledge;
* real-time and large scale simulation and visualization technologies and virtual presence technologies.
c) Support for research infrastructure
The I-WG think that this Activity is of basic importance for the Europe social development and industrial/economic competitivity, they think also that:
- the name given to this activity, say INTERNET 2 that while being very effective to the end of explain the topic, is certainly not very agreable for our european feelings.
- the "INTERNET 2" technological platform and infrastructure should be open to any RTD requirement and activity, including the present "JAMES" role and function, and not ly , as it can be gathered from the text explanation, only to the academic world.
- the "INTERNET 2" activity beeing in suport of the whole RTD world should receive contribution of resources (human and financial) also from the 1deg. and the 2deg. TPs.