6. Concluding Remarks and Recommendations
6.2. How consortium composition comes about and subsequently changes can be
Project Coordinators and EC project officers are able to respond
to it
FP6 and FP7 consortia come in many different shapes and sizes. They are formed in a process that is largely based on existing networks and relationships of researchers, followed by the search for the types of organisations or competencies in a consortium that are still missing in comparison to the Commission’s call for proposals. A clear tendency exists to form sequential consortia with (mostly) the same partners. When existing networks dominate this process and relatively few new partners are included, it creates the risk of low research management performance in the project. Although we have established that a clear correlation exists between these two concepts, it is not yet clear to us how limiting the introduction of new partners works to reduce research management performance. This is suggested as a topic for further study in section 7.
Size does matter; larger projects (i.e. projects with more consortium partners and more individual participants) are more difficult to manage. The “basic” management structure (i.e. the simplest appropriate structure respective to size and complexity of the research tasks at hand) increases research management performance.27 Good Project Coordinators design simple project structures. From a management point of view, these structures are both relatively effective and efficient.
It was also found that consortia that have made use of EC-provided matchmaking instruments, such as the CORDIS database or matchmaking events organised by the Commission, are generally not among the highest performing projects.
As stated before, our study clearly shows that research management is first and foremost the business of people, not of complex management models and management tools. In the last couple of years the European Commission has decreased the number of project officers, and has replaced several of their roles with e.g. administrative ICT tools. Without doubt these tools come with some advantages; however they probably come with a larger number of disadvantages, as we have shown in section Error! Reference source not found..
We therefore recommend the following.
First Recommendation to the European Commission: The European Commission and its agencies should increase their capacity in terms of the number and capabilities of project officers and set up a structured account management approach (as defined in section 5.5) that could help assist the consortia in several ways, including coping with inevitable changes in their composition. It would also enable the European Commission and its agencies to simplify the administrative requirements associated with consortium composition and/or project course amendments that are now too high.
Second Recommendation to the European Commission: The European Commission should critically review currently offered matchmaking instruments, like the CORDIS partner search function and matchmaking events, as these do not contribute to better performing FP consortia. Instead the European Commission and its agencies should focus on developing other instruments to achieve the objective of creating high-performing consortia, such as networking events at conferences and social media-based communication.
27 Complexity has been checked for in terms of the number of work packages, the project
Third Recommendation to Project Coordinators: Project Coordinators should be aware that a management structure that stays close to the call text is conducive to project performance. They should avoid overly complex management structures, and clearly define roles and responsibilities. Roles and responsibilities in the project should be awarded based on proven competence for the role, not because of status or hierarchical reasons.
FP consortia are relatively dynamic partnerships. In about one third of the projects, changes in the consortium occur. A substantial proportion of them is beyond the control of FP project managers. These are the result of the natural evolution of the FP project itself (making specific partners redundant and/or less motivated) or of external circumstances, such as researchers moving from one institute to another, changes in the legal structure of partners reshaping the project, or industry partners that are merged, taken over, going bankrupt or facing tax or legal issues. Knowing this, changes in the composition of consortia should be considered a potential fact of life in any FP project. The study also shows that excluding partners from consortia reduces the likelihood of high project performance. What is not clear at this point is why project performance suffers. This may be – first and most straightforward – the result of changes in consortium composition that limit the consortium’s ability to deliver the project objectives set out in the Grant Agreement. Second, it may also be the case that the (internal) evolution of the research made certain consortium partners redundant and, separately, also may require an adjustment of the project objectives. If the project objectives cannot be changed, because of the structure imposed by the Framework Programme, it is likely that the original project objectives cannot be met due to the new direction the research is taking. Third, the project may be less successful due to delays in the research caused by the financial and administrative adjustments that are necessary to accommodate the change in consortium composition, as well as consortium members’ attention that is drawn away from the research tasks by the unrest caused by a consortium member leaving.
Although it is not certain that these three explanations are all that there is to the relationship, understanding that there may be different causes to changes in consortium composition will help to mitigate their negative effects. In each of the three explanations described above, both the Project Coordinator and the EC Project Officer can contribute to working towards a solution. A shared understanding by both of them (e.g. through implementation of the second recommendation to project coordinators indicated below) of which cause is at work is crucial for mitigating the negative effects of the change in consortium composition.
We therefore recommend the following.
Fourth Recommendation to Project Coordinators: Project Coordinators should communicate pro-actively to the Commission’s project officer about all aspects of their project, including about expected or upcoming changes in the composition of the consortium. Such communication would not only result in clear benefits on the part of the Commission. Our study clearly shows that informing the project officer well in advanced and in an informal manner – instead of waiting until the deadline of a progress report a couple of months later – allows the project officer room for a more flexible and tailored approach that decreases administrative burdens on the part of the consortium.