Ingemar Pongratz

Information om den forskning som Ingemar Pongratz

Horizon 2020 och Storbritanniens EU votering

by

Horizon 2020 och Storbritanniens EU votering

Av Ingemar Pongratz

 

En månad har nu passerat och Storbritanniens EU omröstning har verkloige skapat en hel del tumult. Effekterna av Brexit som resultat kallas verkar kunna bli rätt stora och omfattande och ingen vet riktigt vad som kommer att hända. Men det är helt klart att mycket kommer att förändras.

 

UK har inte formellt ansökt om utträde ifrån EU vilket kanske inte är så märkligt. Konstigt nog verkar myndigheterna i Storbritannien helt oförberedda på valresultatet. Kanske inte så konstigt med tanke på att det finns en ny regering som skall samla resterna. Vidare har Skottland hotat med att lämna Storbritannien vilket skapar ännu mer förvirring. Enligt de senaste nyheter vill Storbritannien’s regering försäkra sig om tillgång till EU inre marknad innan den formella ansökan om utträde lämnas in vilket verkar helt verklighetsfrämmande.

 

Tillgång till EU inre marknad innebär också att andra länder kommer att erbjudas tillgång till Storbritannien’s marknad vilket var en stor del av motståndet mot EU i Storbritannien. Så risken är att det kommer att ta lång till innan förhandlingarna överhuvudtaget kommer igång.

 

Detta är förstås olyckligt, eftersom det skapar osäkerhet. Storbritannien’s ekonomi har redan tagit stryk och finansmarknaden är orolig. Det brittiska pundet har tappat betydligt i värde gentemot andra valutor vilket naturligtvis påverkar den inhemska köpkraften negativt.

 

För Horizon 2020 betyder denna osäkerhet att brittiska partners möts med skepsis. Ingen vet vad resultatet av förhandlingarna mellan EU och Storbritannien kommer att gå och vilket status brittiska universitet kommer att få. Kommer de att ses som tredje part eller som associerade partners. Ingen vet hur det kommer att sluta. Positivt förstås är att Storbritannien regering har uttryckt att deltagandet i Horizon 2020 kommer att prioriteras vilket är bra för både EU och Storbritannien.

Så mycket lite substans och mycket osäkerhet. Hoppas läget klarnar snart.

Ingemar Pongratz är forskare och entreprenör. Ingemar Pongratz etablerade Fenix Scientific AB och Pongratz Consulting AB. Vi hjälper företag och universitet att söka Horizon 2020 finansiering. För att komma i kontakt med använd gärna vår online kontaktformulär eller skicka en epost till

Ingemar.Pongratz (a) pongratzconsulting.com

Molnspel over Nacka av Ingemar Pongratz

Molnspel over Nacka av Ingemar Pongratz

Reflections on Horizon 2020 and Marie Curie

by

Reflections on Horizon 2020 and Marie Curie

By Ingemar Pongratz

 

Ingemar Pongratz from Fenix Scientific AB / Pongratz Consulting has participated in several meetings focused on Marie Sklodowska Curie projects, part of Horizon 2020, organized by the European Commission, NCP’s and other stakeholder throughout 2015 and it is interesting to note that there seems to be a rather interesting view on the role of industry.

In most workshops the important role for industry as a partner in different types of Marie Curie actions is highlighted and many workshops state over and over again that industry and in particular SME play a critical role in Marie Curie projects.

However, it is rather strange that at many of the workshops, SME and Industry are not taking part. Does it mean that this sector in not interested?

I had a couple of discussions with SME owners and there seems to be consensus that the structure of Marie Curie is interesting. The SME representatives are also well aware of the purpose of Marie Curie actions to provide training and improve the career opportunities for researchers.

In general the feeling among these SME’s owners is that this is OK, and they do not see this as a major issue. In fact, many SME are interested to collaborate with Universities and they see Marie Curie projects as a natural way in.

So where is the problem?

In one of the Marie Curie workshops I participated, University representatives expressed suggestions such as “Industry should pay to join these projects” or “Is it advisable to involve industry in Marie Curie?” I do not believe this is the European Commission position, however the feeling that the Academic Community does not see the possible contribution of industry and SME as valuable may clearly be part of the answer why industry and SME are better represented in Horizon 2020 Marie Curie projects.

Clearly, it will be important to educate Universities and other organizations that industry are very important participants and should therefore not be excluded from Marie Sklodowska Curie projects in the future. Clearly, Industry participation should be a very important evaluation point in future Marie Curie proposals as well.

Night Sky over Nacka by Ingemar Pongratz

Night Sky over Nacka by Ingemar Pongratz

First Results of Horizon 2020

by

First Results of Horizon 2020

By Ingemar Pongratz

The European Commission has published an analysis on the Horizon 2020 funding scheme. The publication includes a number of interesting facts about the outcome of the 2014-2015 calls and in many ways a very interesting way of reading the statistics.

The Commission has recently shown considerable concern regarding the low success rate for Horizon 2020. The report puts the figure to a success rate to 14%.

The basis according to the report is based on the following numbers, which they Report calls Key Concepts:

  • The Commission has funded 4315 proposal in total
  • The Commission has received almost 37.000 proposals

Based on these figures the success rate is indeed 14%, which should be compared to close to 20% for the previous Framework FP7.

However, the Commission bases this success rate on full proposals only (one stage proposals and second stage full proposals). The Commission writes that in fact the total number of proposals including the applicants that submitted the applications for the first stage is above 120.000 submitted proposals.

Considering this number the success rate drops considerably, to around 3%.

We assume that the report is under the impression that since the first stage of the Two-Stage approach is rather short (7-15 pages depending on the topic), this stage does not represent an added workload for the applicants.

This is simply completely incorrect. In fact the time required to write a “short” proposal is quite considerable and the work to gather the partners, structure the proposal and integrate the proposed work into a cohesive proposal is very demanding.

In addition, the evaluation process of these short proposals has received a lot of criticism in different forums. At best, the evaluation summary reports includes 1-2 lines which do not provide any constructive criticism.

This is of course problematic as the applicants are more and more loosing confidence in the process.

On the positive side it appears that the Commission is aware on the problem, however it is important to work on the actual figures and not overly positive interpretation.

If you want to contact Ingemar Pongratz from Pongratz Consulting please use the Online Contact Form and send your comments.

View from Tyreso Slott by Ingemar Pongratz

View from Tyreso Slott by Ingemar Pongratz