Performance indicators must be output and not input oriented, and should as far as possible be directly related to what is achieved by the EU intervention. Suitable indicators (depending on the support area) include patents, articles ready for publication, commercialised products and services, turnover increase, cooperation going beyond the initial project period, leveraging of other capital sources. Such indicators are of particular importance to long projects (more than 2 years long), featuring a considerable investment of public funds. For smaller projects or for project with “mild” objectives (such as support or coordination actions) service-oriented criteria may be considered or the current deliverable-evaluation system may be kept. On the macro level, the ultimate measure of success is European growth and wellbeing, but intermediate measures include progress towards meeting the 3% target (RDI expenditure as part of EU aggregate GDP), share of national RDI programmes coordinated at European level, and more generally the very relevant indicators in the Innovation Union barometer.
Factors that should not be considered performance indicators but tools to check coherence between outcome and policy objectives include private sector participation, SME participation and international cooperation. Geographic distribution of funds among Member States may be interesting reading an important to build political support for an enhanced financial envelope, but is in principle relevant. By no means should there be a hidden agenda to give preference to a fair geographic distribution rather than excellence, without, however, ignoring the need for funded actions to demonstrate Europe-wide relevance and impact.
Innovation indicator (Europe 2020) should be an indicator ex ante, rather than ex post. It is important to have contributions also by industry experts for the definition of the indicators and the quality of the outputs. New products, new services, rate of innovation, dynamic of SMEs.
The level of financing of research projects could be modified at the negotiation level taking into account the project deliverables.
Performance indicators must be output and not input oriented, and should as far as possible be directly related to what is achieved by the EU intervention. Suitable indicators (depending on the support area) include patents, articles ready for publication, commercialised products and services, turnover increase, cooperation going beyond the initial project period, leveraging of other capital sources. Such indicators are of particular importance to long projects (more than 2 years long), featuring a considerable investment of public funds. For smaller projects or for project with “mild” objectives (such as support or coordination actions) service-oriented criteria may be considered or the current deliverable-evaluation system may be kept. On the macro level, the ultimate measure of success is European growth and wellbeing, but intermediate measures include progress towards meeting the 3% target (RDI expenditure as part of EU aggregate GDP), share of national RDI programmes coordinated at European level, and more generally the very relevant indicators in the Innovation Union barometer. Factors that should not be considered performance indicators but tools to check coherence between outcome and policy objectives include private sector participation, SME participation and international cooperation. Geographic distribution of funds among Member States may be interesting reading an important to build political support for an enhanced financial envelope, but is in principle relevant. By no means should there be a hidden agenda to give preference to a fair geographic distribution rather than excellence, without, however, ignoring the need for funded actions to demonstrate Europe-wide relevance and impact. Innovation indicator (Europe 2020) should be an indicator ex ante, rather than ex post. It is important to have contributions also by industry experts for the definition of the indicators and the quality of the outputs. New products, new services, rate of innovation, dynamic of SMEs. The level of financing of research projects could be modified at the negotiation level taking into account the project deliverables.