EU Funding: The Good, the Bad &

the UglyDr Andrew Robertson – Senior Vice PresidentOctober 7 2013

PRELIMINARY RESULTS – 30 SEPTEMBER 2012 PAGE 2 OCTOBER 2013

EU Funding Overview

• Advantages (Good)

• Disadvantages (Bad)

• Process (Ugly)

• Examples

PRELIMINARY RESULTS – 30 SEPTEMBER 2012 PAGE 3 OCTOBER 2013

Advantages

• Money for R&D– Labour & materials– Management & dissemination– % funding differs for large company, SME & University– But basically it pays for itself

• Projects large & long-term (2, 3, or 4 years)– Excellent visibility

• Security of funding (large fraction given up front)• EU project management very “light touch”• Good training ground for junior engineers

– Project management• Alignment Strategy Roadmap with customer requirements• Take on more risky development programs

PRELIMINARY RESULTS – 30 SEPTEMBER 2012 PAGE 4 OCTOBER 2013

Disadvantages

• Extremely competitive• No money for proposal writing

– Good proposals take time– Particularly if you are project co-ordinator– May involve travel

• From initial call for proposal to project start can be 1-2 years– 8-12 months probably best– 2 years plus if project idea recycled

• Once you have project you are committed to do project– Your objectives may have changed– You may be another company!

• Changing direction of project difficult– Sometimes difficult for universities to grasp

• Proposal writing and reporting process very daunting• If you have several, they tend to have the same annual

pattern− Meetings, reports all at same time

PRELIMINARY RESULTS – 30 SEPTEMBER 2012 PAGE 5 OCTOBER 2013

The process – part I

• Setting up consortium needs time & effort• Proposal writing process takes some getting used to

- EU Participant Portal• Writing the proposal has two parts

− Technical proposal (~100 pages)− Management (Work-package breakdown, financial)

• Needs multiple people involved (from each partner)− Legal representative (contract manager)− Technical lead− Management lead− EU gets nervous if same person has multiple roles!

• Need to provide audited accounts• Need to demonstrate resource capability

• If project co-ordinator – you have to herd the cats (partners)

PRELIMINARY RESULTS – 30 SEPTEMBER 2012 PAGE 6 OCTOBER 2013

The process – part II

• Projects reviewed by independent EU technical experts• Given mark out of 15 (if less than 14 – success unlikely)• If you fail

− bid can be recycled on a later call• If borderline

− co-ordinator will be asked to go to Brussels− Dance-off between borderline projects

• If you pass− You enter “negotiation” phase− Trip to Brussels to meet Project Officer (PO)− Grant Preparation Forms (GPFs) to be prepared− Consortium Agreement (CA) to be agreed (IP)

• Negotiation phase− EU PO provides review document with ~30-40 changes − As simple consortium member – relatively painless− As project co-ordinator – you do all the work

• EU sign-off− Typically Sept for October start

PRELIMINARY RESULTS – 30 SEPTEMBER 2012 PAGE 7 OCTOBER 2013

The process – part III

• Establish payment schedule (e.g. 65% up front)• Organize meetings – best done up front

− Kick-off, EU reviews (9 month, 21 month, 36 month)• Maintain regular contact/meetings over 1st 6 months

− Conference call every week or every 2 weeks− You get to know the partners− You quickly identify the weaknesses/problems− Leave it too late and problems difficult to recover!

• Establish time-sheet procedure for claiming• Organize material spend timeline (load at project front-end)• EU Review meetings

− These are serious go/no-go decisions− Boxes ticked related to milestones/timelines

• Claim the money!− Claim periods can be 6, 12, 18, 21 months− Spend the money then claim− 15% held back at the end of project− Only receive last payment once all partners have

claimed

PRELIMINARY RESULTS – 30 SEPTEMBER 2012 PAGE 8 OCTOBER 2013

Tips

• If you are newcomer− Do not take on co-ordinator role!− Tag on to decent consortium

• Include companies specialising in project management– They know latest EU process/paperwork/portal– They will manage project best – it is their job

• Get commitment from all stakeholders within your company– Financial – are there resources that can be committed?– Technical – can you really do the project?– Leadership – is this aligned with long-term strategy?

• Ensure project is written the way you can benefit− Keep milestones vague enough for some flexibility− Keep timelines sensible (large gaps between milestones)− Ensure riskiest work is not at beginning of project

• Schedule 2 full days for EU review meetings− Day 1 dry-run without EU− Get story straight prior to EU review!

PRELIMINARY RESULTS – 30 SEPTEMBER 2012 PAGE 9 OCTOBER 2013

G&H today - a vertically integrated photonics business

System Manufacturing

Design Engineering

Spectroscopic Instrumentation

Photonic Subsystems

Fibre Optics

Electro Optics

Acousto Optics

Crystal Optics

Precision Optics

Crystal Growth

Revenues: $100mHeadcount: 6008 manufacturing sites: 6 in the US

2 in the UKEuropean CM partner

PRELIMINARY RESULTS – 30 SEPTEMBER 2012 PAGE 10 OCTOBER 2013

Funded ProgramsUK and Europe• 10 programs totaling ~ £600k/year. These span all 4 Main Markets

Project Summary Other Participants Funding (£k)

% of Total Start End

DAPHNE Developing Aircraft Photonics Networks Airbus, BAE, Westlnd… £276 51%

LIFT Leadership In Fiber Laser Technology Fraunhofer, Rofin, SPI, Quantel £714 52% Aug-13

MUDPAC Maintaining UK Dominance in Polarizatn mAintaining Components FiberCore, Fianium £263 48% Dec-13

TUCAN Tunable CPE for Access Networks ADVA, Oclaro £162 40% Jun-13

PARADIGM Photonic packaging for Telco/Datacom Alctl, Philips, Oclaro £265 51% Sep-14

ISLA Integrated diSruptive Components for 2um fiber Lasers Rofin, ORC, TBWP, Oclaro, Ilminster £597 55% Sep-11 Sep-14

INTASENSE INTegrated Air Quality SENSor for Environmental control C-Tech, UC Tech B.V, £198 52% Sep-11 Sep-14

Light MiLES MIniature Laser Illuminated Eye-safe Sensors Thales £151 46% Nov-12 Nov-14

HALO High power Adaptable Laser beams for materials prOcessing Ilminster, Trumpf, ORC £237 58% Oct-12 Oct-15

Minerva MId- to NEaR infrared spectroscopy for improVed medical diAgnostics Ilminster, NKT, Exeter U, Nottghm U, £384 58% Nov-12 Nov-16

Seed Funding for New Technology• STG program management, Torquay and Ilminster engineering

PRELIMINARY RESULTS – 30 SEPTEMBER 2012 PAGE 11 OCTOBER 2013

Example : ISLA 2mm Wavelength Fibre Lasers

Program Description• Develop a common set of “building blocks” for 2um fibre lasers• High power CW lasers, ns pulses and ultrafast• Target designs for ROFIN-Sinar Laser Industrial material processing

G&H Activity• 3 year funding of £597k, Sep 2011- Sep 2014• Complete alignment with internal R&D programmes

Future Prospects• Marking of plastics, free space communications, Directed Energy

Weapons

G&H’s 2um Faraday Isolator

G&H 2 um Fibre-Q Module

PRELIMINARY RESULTS – 30 SEPTEMBER 2012 PAGE 12 OCTOBER 2013

G&H’s Program Partners

G&H EDFA Module design

Program Description• Satellite to ground optical communications• Miniature fibre optic amplifier• High efficiency, high reliability, low weight

G&H Activity• 6 month funding of £80K, May 2013 – October 2013• Designing optical fibre amplifier, and electrical drive circuit

Future Prospects• All future satellites likely to have optical comms• G&H have technology to provide end to end comms system (fibre

optics, free space optics)• Commercial airframe manufacturers considering fibre optics for IFE

and other avionic systems

Example : TESLA Optel-m Project

PRELIMINARY RESULTS – 30 SEPTEMBER 2012 PAGE 13 OCTOBER 2013

Good Luck!

www.ghphotonics.com