5. All 3 firmly in the ‘established players’ club (FP6)
6. Austria: Motives for participating in the FP *) *) Arithmetic mean on a scale from 1=not important to 5=very important Sources: Main online survey, n=319
7. Austria: Motives for participating in the FP compared to other international R&D cooperation *) *) Arithmetic mean on a scale from 1=not important to 5=very important Sources: Sources: Main online survey, n = 319; control group survey, n = 175
8. Austria: Comparison of outputs’ importance between FP participants and control group *) Arithmetic mean on a scale from 1=not relevant to 4=highly relevant Sources: Main online survey, n=291; control group survey, n=180
9. Austria: Impacts for FP participants *) *) Arithmetic mean on a scale from 1=no impact to 4=high impact Sources: Main online survey, n = 275
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15. Thank you technopolis |group| has offices in Amsterdam, Ankara, Brighton, Brussels, Frankfurt/Main, Paris, Stockholm, Tallinn and Vienna
Notes de l'éditeur
Very similar results for all EU15 MS. Answers more of less the same across Western Europe. EU 12 MS don’t do evaluation studies, so we do not know much about them. As a consequence, they lack the strategic intelligence needed.
However, if we normalise by a country’s expenditure, things look different: EU12 MS actually do quite well. So for the money invested in R&D, EU12 MS do quite well.
Average amount of money projects took out of the FP pot much lower in the EU12 MS this is a function of experience. The FP is a programme of networks, i.e. you have to know people and you have to show that you are good. (--> COST)
Results more or less the same in every FP evaluation Market-orientated motives less important. Exception: SME participants have shorter-term, more market-orientated goals than others
Control group: more or less the same motives, a little bit more market-orientated goals FP: to tackle issues that are not adequately addressed by national programmes, to tackle problems that have a European dimension, to access research funding
Again, differences small. For FP participants scientific outputs a bit more important (publications, newly trained/qualified staff)
‘ radical’ innovation not possible in FP
Decentralised instruments: ETP, JTIs, ERA-Nets
Closed clubs: how can Slovak researchers get into them?
![Table of Content ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()