But isn't this typical to R&D ? that only 1 of N projects gets used for commercial purposes ?
The OP forgot to mention that one of the goals in the Horizon2020 projects is to provide incentives to create pan-european collaborations involving industrial, academic, and institutional organizations.
In short, they are aimed to bridge the gap between academia and industry, and also create synergies between multiple organizations across Europe.
For example, some programs require applicants to partner with research institutions and industrial companies of significant and arbitrary size to be able to even submit a proposal.
Thus, it's disingenuous to evaluate the success of these programs in terms of commercial products being developed out of these programs. The political goals of developing collaborations between member-states is far more important than delivering a gadget or a trinket.
Similarly, we have the Erasmus program that enable higher-education students to spend a year in a school from a member state somewhere in Europe. It's disingenuous to assume the goal of the Erasmus program is solely academic.
I hope you never get to experience how the sausage is made. And where you taxes really go.
Yes, Europeans complain about bureaucracy from the EU and here about the ERC, but the moment someone comes with more 'pragmatic' processes, either you see some 10+MEUR-level abuse quite quickly, or you get some blast about bad management of the tax payers money, and calls for more oversight.
I don't have a solution, and without a united EU military/defense budget I don't see anything DARPA-like emerging. And it seems only European military budgets (still sovereign) and regional budgets (regionalism being, to me, the biggest flaw in the modern EU vision) seem spent on 'low admin we trust you let's try this just convince this panel of scientists and admins' funding. While I think it's great for labs/research funding, for product derisking and creating competitive edges for the local industry, and for SMEs and overall high tech employment, you're not going to create a semiconductor industry like this.
I've seen the results of several ERC consortia projects and am sometimes impressed with what EU-based research (academics+smb+large groups) can do with so little money (on each subject) and, yes, so much admin overhead.
I appreciate your arrogance, but as you might notice by reading my comment I already have more than enough experience making said sausage. Thus your complete lack of arguments, which you tried to hide with snide remarks and an unimpressive attempt to appeal to authority, were dully noted.
I noticed nothing of the sort. No need to lash out – you probably meant to describe your experience but then forgot. I'd be curious to hear. I'm not psychic, and your account is anonymous.
OK, so you've had good experience with the EU bureaucracy and its "innovation funding" schemes. What was you role in them?
But I also see lots of small 'mindshare' changes thanks to those 'it can be done' projects. The important steps seem to be to first unlock the first TRLs, then find PoCs on real products to inspire (and increase TRLs) tech directors and product managers that they need to invest the next millions into an big and still uncertain shift, and to underinvest in other important parts of their products. In the case of tech push you often end up with a new shiny tech that can't be used right away. So, mostly, it's about climbing the maturity ladder, and be ready for the very small openings in the product development cycle to shoe your new tech in.
In the case of customer pull or market pull, the lead time of such projects makes it too late to ask for external help, and no research grant wants to participate in 'product development' (not their job). So the tech is usually badly implemented and leaves a sour taste.
What I see as positive: if you have a great tech idea and available resources, and great academic/labs contacts, you can get the money, with little resistance (but yes, lots of admin work) with either European or national/regional grants.
IIRC the 2014 version of SPARK was designed and developed through a French civilian R&D funding project : http://www.open-do.org/projects/hi-lite/ The project was clearly a success there (although I don't know about ROI or profitability for AdaCore on this tech). Working with innovative SMBs is a great way to get funding in France and most of the projects that I've seen tend to conclude in new products... for the SMB. But the scale is low there (<4MEUR), so it also helps to accept failure ('only' 4m 'wasted'...).
Funny thing, the wiki page explicitly cites horizon2020 (which one of the GPs criticized): "The European Commission advised EU-funded research and innovation projects to adopt the scale in 2010.[1] TRLs were consequently used in 2014 in the EU Horizon 2020 program. In 2013, the TRL scale was further canonized by the ISO 16290:2013 standard.[1] A comprehensive approach and discussion of TRLs has been published by the European Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO).[3] Extensive criticism of the adoption of TRL scale by the European Union was published in The Innovation Journal, stating that the "concreteness and sophistication of the TRL scale gradually diminished as its usage spread outside its original context (space programs)"."