Continuing my work of the previous blog post, I’ve added a little more raw data to the basic spreadsheet containing information on EU funded research projects on Future Networks. The additions include the call that the project was funded under, more accurate financials, information on the coordinators and some more info on project durations.
I also did a little more analysis of the data set, although I seemed to spend more time trying to figure out how to do things in Google Spreadsheet than actually making any insights from the data.
The data is in the embedded spreadsheet below:
and is available here – feel free to copy and work with it.
Some general observations from the data:
- Call 1 had a larger budget, but if you sum the total budget for Call 4 and Call 5, it comes to about the Call 1 budget – this is not news to anyone playing in the space;
- The lion’s share of the budget was allocated to STREPs and IPs, although there was a large allocation to NOEs in Call 1;
- In Call 1 and Call 4 IPs got a larger allocation than STREPs but in Call 5 this was not the case – this is probably because some of the priorities involved development of radio or optical technologies which can be very costly and requires significant input from a substantial set of partners.
I started some partner analysis – for now, I’ve just included info on the number of partners and more detail on the co-ordinator. In my experience, the role of the co-ordinator is very important and understanding their motivations is important in understanding how the system works. Also, getting info on the co-ordinator was a little easier than digging up more info on all the partners.
Analysis of the co-ordinators does yield some interesting observations:
- France was most successful in terms of projects co-ordinated, with just over 25% of the projects co-ordinated by French organizations;
- Interestingly, many of the French co-ordinators were industrials, although it is worth noting that some of these industrial are some kind of consultants that simply co-ordinate projects and have little skin in the game so to speak;
- Germany was next – I expected to see a similar pattern in German participation, but in fact German academic institutions led more projects than their industrial compatriots;
- Overall, most of the projects were led by industrials (54%), but again some of these were consultant types – academics led 37% and public bodies, eg research or standardization institutes led 9% of the projects.
- Spain and Italy had reasonable representation, although significantly behind France and Germany;
- Greece seemed to be punching considerably above its weight, co-ordinating 5 projects, although it’s worth noting that these were all led by Greek academics.
Next, I plan to do a little more analysis of the partners…