kk0214243enn_002

Deliverable 9

Deliverable 9

Lithuania RTD Technological Audit – Simplified Report

March 2011 Copying or distribution is strictly forbidden

Lithuania ICT RTD Technological Audit ║ of 74

"The views expressed are those of the authors and not nec-

essarily those of the European Commission or any of its offi-

cials"

© European Communities, 2011

Reproduction is not authorised.


Contents

1 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 6

2 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 17

3 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 18

4 Macroeconomic Situation .......................................................................................... 19

5 Policy Analysis ................................................................................................................ 23

6 Lithuanian’s Participation in FP7 ICT Theme .............................................................. 26

6.1 Participation trends ................................................................................... 27

6.2 Success and failure rates in proposals .................................................... 29

6.3 Competence Areas .................................................................................. 31

6.4 Project continuation analysis ................................................................... 34

6.5 Main findings of FP7 ICT Theme analysis ................................................. 36

7 Scientific Excellence and Potential in ICT ................................................................. 38

7.1 Ranking of ICT institutions .......................................................................... 42

7.2 Scientific potential in ICT RTD ................................................................... 44

8 Business Potential in ICT RTD ........................................................................................ 46

8.1 Relevance of Business Potential to FP7 Objectives ............................... 48

8.2 Consolidated scientific excellence and business potential ................ 49

9 Barriers to participation ................................................................................................ 54

10 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 63

11 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 64

11.1 At national level .................................................................................... 64

11.2 At EU level ............................................................................................... 65

11.3 At stakeholders level ............................................................................. 65

Annex1. Major Centres of Excellence ................................................................................. 67

Annex 2. Potential Centres of Excellence .......................................................................... 70


List of abbreviations

CCR Compound Competence Ratio (see Definition of Terms)

CCS Current Competence Share (see Definition of Terms)

COST European Cooperation in Science and Technology

EPO European Patent Office

ERA European Research Area

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

EU European Union

EU12 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland,

Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia

EU15 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lux-

embourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom

EU27 EU15 and EU12

FET Future and Emerging Technologies

FIS Future Interest Share (see Definition of Terms)

FP European Union Framework Programme

FP6 European Union 6th Framework Programme

FP7 European Union 7th Framework Programme

GDP Gross Domestic Product

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IS Information Society

IST Information Society Technologies

IT Information Technologies

MITA The Agency for Science, Innovation and Technology

NCP National Contact Point

PHARE The Programme of Community aid to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe

R&D Research and Development

RTD Research and Technical Development

SF Structural Funds

UAB Private limited company

VšĮ Private non-profit company


Definition of main terms

Term Definition

BCG matrix Boston Consulting Group Matrix is a generic chart for categorizing units of

analysis on the basis of a growth-share matrix

Centre of Excel-

lence

An institutional structure where RTD is performed at international level in

terms of measurable scientific production (including training) and/or tech-

nological innovation

Competence

matrix

A matrix used for visualising the self-declared competences of individual

researchers according to two indicators: CCR (Compound competence

ratio) and CCS (Current competence share) as related to the indicated

FP7 ICT Objectives

CCR A ratio between experts with current and future expertise in relation to a

specific FP7 ICT Objective

CCS A share of experts with current competences in relation to a specific FP7

ICT Objective from the total of current experts

FIS A share of experts with future competences in relation to a specific FP7 ICT

Objective from the total of future experts

High /low com-

petence

A nominal indicator of the level of CCR (Compound competence ratio) in

relation to a specific FP7 ICT Objective where “high” indicates the value of

CCR as 1.0 and above

High/ low com-

petence share

A nominal indicator of the level of CCS (Current competence share) in re-

lation to a specific FP7 ICT Objective where “high share” indicates the va l-

ue of CCS as 15% and above

ISI publications A list of scholarly journals maintained by the Institute for Scientific Infor-

mation (ISI) for citation indexing and analysis.

Research infra-

structures

Facilities, resources and services that are needed by the ICT research

community to carry out their research in ICT scientific and technological

fields.


1 Executive Summary

The report presents the shorter version of the final report of the ICT technological au-

dit in Lithuania which was carried out on behalf of the European Commission by the

team of UAB Europarama consultants.

The report sums up and highlights the results from the following deliverables:

Deliverable 1 – Review of studies and strategy papers;

Deliverable 2 – Review of activities and capabilities of entities in Lithuania car-

rying out ICT RTD;

Deliverable 3 – Analysis of the participation of Lithuania in the FP6-IST and FP7-

ICT Theme – Desk Research;

Deliverable 4 – Present and planned infrastructure in Lithuania for ICT-RTD –

Desk Research;

Deliverable 5 – Analysis of the ICT-RTD capabilities in Lithuania and the

measures to maximize the country’s potential in the FP7-ICT Theme – Live In-

terviews;

Deliverable 6 – Delphi survey to identify latent ICT-RTD potential in Lithuania;

Deliverable 7 – Opportunities and barriers for increasing the contribution of

Lithuania to the FP7-ICT Theme;

Deliverable 8 – Lithuania – RTD Technological audit – Detailed report.

The main observations highlighted in the study cover economic situation and

policy support to ICT RTD development, Lithuania’s participation in FP7 ICT

Theme and the existing barriers to participation, scientific excellence in ICT

RTD, scientific and business potential in ICT, and the recommendations at na-

tional, the EU and stakeholders’ levels.

Economic situation

Lithuania has been an above-average performer in terms of ICT expenditure per

capita on ICT (similar to most EU12) but is much behind in terms of exports of high-

tech products in the total exports (4.7% versus the EU’s average of 16.7%). This was

also reflected in a very low ICT R&D intensity (ICT BERD in Lithuania is one of the low-

est among EU12 countries – only 0,05% comparing to 0,13% in Estonia, 0,19% - Slove-

nia, 1,06% - Czech Republic, the best performer).


Policy support

ICT RTD policy lacks a political backing which reflects in the existing policy strategies

and programmes comparing to other RTD fields in terms of funding allocations. The

involvement of ICT researchers in policy planning has been occasional and nominal,

while the main interest groups represent the service sector. More so, there are no in-

centives in place to support FP participation.

Lithuania’s participation in FP7 ICT Theme

Lithuania is the least active participant in the FP7 ICT Theme both in EU12 and

EU27 according to participation per number of researchers.

The participation trend shows that Lithuania’s participation in the FP7 ICT

Theme has been decreasing in numbers since the start of FP6 with exception

of peaks achieved in mid-FP6 due to specially targeted calls.

The decrease in the initially high success rate and the level participation in the

FP6 and FP7 ICT Theme could be attributed to (if not necessarily caused by) a

high “drop-out” rate of participants from Lithuania from follow-up projects.

There are no major topics or areas where Lithuanian teams can have a com-

petitive advantage in FP.

Highest participation was achieved in the areas which have not been themat-

ically defined (such as FET Proactive Initiatives or ERA inclusion-related

measures) or were related to horizontal or networking activities.

There is a serious lack of involvement of representatives of ICT RTD community

in Lithuania in participation in evaluation of FP proposals and the tacit

knowledge about the work programme’s requirements.

Participation Competence Matrix

The competence areas which witnessed the highest participation and success levels

in the FP ICT Theme have been aggregated in a Participation Competence Matrix

indicating the relation between participation and success levels in FP7 ICT Objec-

tives.

High participation – low success: High participation – high success:

1.3 – The Network of the Future

1.7 - Critical Infrastructure Protection (ICT secu-

rity)

3.5 – Engineering of network and moni-

toring and control systems

6.3 – ICT for mobility of the future


4.3 – Intelligent information management

5.1 – Personal health systems

FET Proactive Initiatives1

Low participation – low success: Low participation – high success:

1.5 – Networked media & 3D Internet

3.2 - Design of Semiconductor Components

and Electronic-based Miniaturised Systems

3.4 – Embedded systems design

5.2 – Advanced ICT for risk assessment and

patient safety

5.3 – Virtual Physiological Human

7.1 – ICT and ageing

-

Consolidated Competence Matrix

In order to identify potential cause-effect relations between the self-declared com-

petences by ICT RTD community vis-à-vis the FP7 ICT Objectives (Competence Ma-

trix) and the FP7 ICT participation-success levels (Participation Matrix) the two matri-

ces were compared.

High competence – low share: High competence – high share

1.2 – Internet of services, software & virtualiza-

tion;

2.2 – Language based interaction;

3.6 – Computing systems;

3.7 – Photonics;

4.2 – Technology enhanced learning.


1 Since FET Proactive initiatives cover a wide range of topics it is not possible to link the high

level of participation to any particular technological area. Thus it‘s inclusion in the matrix only

indicates the expressed interest in bottom-up research calls.


3.2 – Design of semiconductor components

and electronic based miniature systems;

Low competence – low share: Low competence – high share:


patient safety


-

Centres of Excellence

The major Centres of Excellence are located at the largest universities (Vilnius Univer-

sity, Kaunas University of Technology and Vilnius Gediminas Technical University)

which have resources to pursue collaborative research as partners in most of the FP7

ICT areas from software development to optoelectronics. The identified Centres are

the following:

Institution, areas of activity, main scientists Relevant FP7 ICT Objectives2

1. Faculty of Informatics, Kaunas University of Technology

Departments: Information Systems, Computer Networks, Com-

puter Engineering, Software Engineering, Business Informatics

Main scientists: Prof. E.Kazanavičius, Prof. Rimantas Gatautis, Prof. Tar-

gamadzė, Prof. R. Plėštys, Prof. H. Pranevičius, Prof. V. Rėklaitis, Prof. R.

Butleris, Prof. R.Barauskas, Prof. R. Šeinauskas

[1.1, 1.2], 1.3, [3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6,

4.1, 4.2, 4.3], 5.1, 6.1, [6.2], 6.3,

7.3

2. Vilnius University Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics

Main departments: Department of Software Engineering, De-

partment of Computer Science 1, Department of Computer

Science 2

Main scientists: Prof. R. Baronas, Prof. F.Ivanauskas, Dr. A.Mitašiūnas,

Prof. Š.Raudys, Prof. A.Juozapavičius

[1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4], 1.5, [3.1], 3.5,

[3.6], [3.9], [4.1], [4.3], 5.1, [5.3,

6.3,7.2]

3. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Faculty of Fundamental

Sciences [1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2,

2 KEY: An underline indicates the Objectives which attracted multiple proposals; the Objectives with retained pro-

posals are highlighted in bold. The Objectives in square brackets show self-declared competences in the ICT RTD

community survey by more than two leading researchers unless the total sample for an institution is less than 4, in

which case all individually indicated current competences are counted as institutional competences.


Departments: Nuclear Hydrophysics, Physics, Information Sys-

tems, Digital Simulation and Investigation of Constructions,

Strength Mechanics

Main scientists: Prof. Raimundas Čiegis, Prof. Antanas Čenys, Prof. Ole-

gas Vasilecas, Doc. Dalius Mažeika

3.5, 3.6, 3.9, 4.2, 4.3, 6.3, 7.2]

4. Institute of Mathematics and Informatics

Departments: Computer Networks, Data Analysis, Informatics

Methodology, Numerical Analysis, probability Theory and Statis-

tics, Recognition Processes, Software Engineering, Systems

Analysis

Main scientists: Prof. Gintautas Dzemyda, Prof. Antanas Žilinskas, Dr Jul-

ius Žilinskas, Prof. Valentina Dagienė, Prof. Albertas Čaplinskas, Prof.

Laimutis Telksnys

1.1, [1.2], 1.6, [2.2, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1,

4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 7.1, 7.3]

5. Vilnius University Institute of Applied Research

Departments: New Materials Research and Measurement

Technology, Semiconductor Optoelectronics, Advanced

Technology, Liquid Crystals Laboratory

Main scientists: Prof. Artūras Žukauskas, Prof. Roland Tomašiūnas, Prof.

S. Juršėnas, Prof. K. Jarašiūnas, Prof. G. Tamulaitis

[3.2], 3.5, [3.7], 3.8


The potential Centres of Excellence are located both at public research institutes

(Centre for Physical Sciences and Technology, Lithuanian Institute of Energy) and re-

gional universities (Vytautas Magnus University, Klaipeda University). All possess niche

competences suitable for participating in FP ICT Theme. The identified potential Cen-

tres of Excellence are the following:

Institution, areas of activity, main scientists Relevant FP7 ICT Objectives

1. Semiconductor Physics Institute (part of Centre for Physical Sci-

ences and Technology)

Departments: Microwave Laboratory, Sensors Laboratory, La-

boratory of Terahertz Electronics, Fluctuation Research Labora-

tory

Main scientists: Prof. Žilvinas Kancleris, Dr Arūnas Šetkus, Prof. Arūnas

Krotkus, Dr Gintaras Valušis

3.1, [3.2], 3.6, [3.7], 8.0 (FET)

2. Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Telemedicine Centre

Departments: n/a

Main scientists: Prof. Alvydas Paunksnis, Dr. Valerijus, Barzdžiukas, Prof.

Arūnas Lukoševičius (also Biomedical Engineering Institute, Kaunas Uni-

versity of Technology)

5.1, 4.3, 5.3

3. Kaunas University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engi-

neering and Mechatronics

Departments: n/a

Main scientists: Prof. Ramutis Bansevičius, Prof. V. Ostaševičius, Prof. A.

Žiliukas

2.1, 2.2, 6.1, 7.2

4. Klaipėda University, Faculty of Natural Science and Mathemat-

ics

Departments: Informatics, Statistics, Mathematics, Ecology, Ma-

rine Seascape Research

Main scientists: Prof. Antanas Andrius Bielskis, Dr Vitalij Denisov

[3.6, 4.2], 5.1, 6.3, [6.4], [7.1], 7.2,

[10.2]

5. Vytautas Magnus University, Faculty of Informatics

Departments: Systems Analysis, Applied Informatics, Mathemat-

ics and Statistics

Main scientists: Prof. Algirdas Avižienis, Dr. Aušra Saudargienė, Dr Gailius

Raškinis, Prof. Vladislav Fomin, Dr Ričardas Krikštolaitis

1.7, 3.4, 9.2


6. Lithuanian Energy Institute

Departments: Laboratory of Systems Control and Automation,

Laboratory of Nuclear Installation Safety

Main scientists: Dr Artūras Klementavičius, Dr Robertas Alzbutas,

Dr Romualdas Škėma, Prof. Liudvikas Pranevičius

1.7, 6.3

SWOT analysis

The SWOT analysis of individual ICT RTD entities and the sector as a whole has

showed an overwhelming number of weaknesses that creates barriers for the inte-

gration of ICT RTD community into European Research Area. However, the identified

opportunities (such as the availability of EU Structural Funds for RTD and innovation

projects) outweigh threats and show the way forward.

STRENGTHS

1. There are good examples of participa-

tion in FP6 ICT Theme with a real impact

on company performance

2. There is a potential of motivated and

competent developers in private ICT

RTD sector;

3. Strong participation of both public and

private ICT RTD in the bottom-up fund-

ing schemes (such as COST and Eureka

programmes);

4. High current competence levels in

some topics of FP7 ICT Theme (such as

engineering of network monitoring and

control systems, optoelectronics, com-

puting systems);

5. High interest of researchers in acquiring

competences in the future technology

areas (as evident in the numerous ap-

plications for the Future Emerging

Technologies calls).

WEAKNESSES

1. Perceived risk of failure in FP projects is

very high (most of the researchers have a

perception that is almost impossible to

obtain funding from FP7 ICT programme);

2. Lack of integration into competitive Euro-

pean consortia which generate the most

successful proposals in FP7 ICT Theme

(most explain this by pointing out that on-

ly weak, less competitive consortia are

open to Lithuanian researchers);

3. Weak integration of ICT RTD (infrastructure

and human resources scattered across

many public and few private ICT RTD

create duplications);

4. Lack of motivation, skills and compe-

tences at the individual level (participa-

tion in the FP projects is not supported at

administrative level, thus creating a bur-

den for researchers);

5. Evaluation of RTD is not linked to contribu-

tion to the ERA, including participation in

FP7;

6. Lack of financial support for project

preparation at public ICT RTD institutions


(no effective provisions are in place to

support project preparation and man-

agement at professional level);

7. Lack of national programme-based fund-

ing to support the ERA-relevant ICT RTD;

8. The lack of cross-field competences that

link up industry/technology needs with

wider socio economic fields

9. The untapped existing research infrastruc-

ture (especially in private ICT RTD);

10. The insufficient research infrastructure po-

tential in public ICT RTD institutions;

11. Project planning for the FP7 ICT Theme is

not fully aligned to infrastructure (many

projects are being submitted in the areas

where no or little infrastructure exists);

12. Weak links between the national tech-

nology platforms in ICT and their EU coun-

terparts contributing to a widening gap

between national and EU ICT RTD;

13. The insufficient reliability of the service-

oriented Grid infrastructure to support pri-

vate and public ICT RTD.

OPPORTUNITIES

1. Opportunity to start aligning national

ICT RTD priorities to those of the ERA by

implementing the national complex

programme in ICT (due to start in March

2010);

2. Opportunity to concentre ICT RTD re-

sources in few centres of excellence as

a result of the ongoing study and sci-

ence reform (which has started in 2009);

3. Opportunity to increase support for ERA-

relevant horizontal activities (through

additional support for participation in

COST and Eureka activities) by leverag-

ing the Structural Funds;

4. Opportunity to develop an Open Grid

THREATS

1. Threat of a further decrease in motivation

to participate in FP7 ICT Theme as success

rates continue to drop;

2. Threat of failure to implement the ongoing

study and science reform in relation to

the concentration of ICT RTD potential;

3. Threat of a further widening gap between

national ICT RTD priorities and those of the

ERA if no rectifying actions are taken to

close this gap;

4. Threat of a waning political support for ICT

RTD as a national priority which can result

in a further decrease in funding for ICT

RTD, including the Grid infrastructure.


Service Infrastructure to support public

and private ICT RTD as part of the

planned research infrastructures (to be

funded from the Structural Funds in

2010-2013);

5. Opportunity to significantly upgrade the

existing computing capacity of the Grid

and to enable the running of large-

scale parallel computing tasks.

Conclusions

The ICT RTD technological audit in Lithuania has showed the following:

No policy exists at national level that specifically supports development of

more favourable environment for ICT RTD; the operational measures such as

the implementation of various e-government and e-services related support

programmes are not tied up in a single strategic vision;

ICT RTD potential is fragmented and not specialised with most of the research

potential being tied up in teaching some general purpose informatics courses

at various universities; the lack of specialization of the ICT RTD community also

contributes to the lack of cooperation;

ICT companies in Lithuania lack access to export markets and the RTD re-

sources employed in the industry are meagre with only a handful of develop-

ment companies participating in international supply chains.

The participation of Lithuanian entities in FP ICT Theme has been on decrease

due to the discontinuation of participants and high drop-out rates caused by

multiple factors: from lack of skills to weak consortia;

The present and planned infrastructure in Lithuania (such as Grid) is underused

due to the lack of demand for tasks requiring high computing power, lack of

service-oriented architecture and unstable performance due to the meagre

resources dedicated to the maintenance;

EU Structural Funds provide the opportunity to create a demand for RTD inten-

sive ICT sector and make a spill-over effect into FP ICT which has been ob-

served: most of FP ICT participants are active participants in EU Structural

Funding schemes supporting research and innovation.


Recommendations at national level

To restructure national funding in favour of competition-based funding and to

reshape public RTD entities’ evaluation criteria system as to provide additional

incentives for FP participation.

To establish a framework for a wider national participation in new types of EU

level RTD collaboration such as Joint Technology Initiatives or ERANETs.

To establish a dedicated project assistance scheme based on a grant or a

voucher system.

To support the formation of clusters which are able to produce commercially

viable results, especially in the areas matching the EU priorities or in the areas

where existing/planned infrastructure both in private and public sectors might

be integrated into cluster activities.

To establish competence building schemes for scientists with the focus on skills

building, simulation processes, product development tasks and cross-field hori-

zons relevant to FP.

To initiate national programmes for valorisation of FP project results and to

deepen the social and economical benefits gained during the FP projects

through specially targeted actions for SMEs.

Recommendations at EU level

To negotiate favourable conditions for increasing EU12 participation in Joint

Technological Initiatives.

To organise specific calls for supporting actions for alignment of strategic re-

search agendas of the EU technology platforms and national counterparts.

To use FET Objective under FP7 ICT programme to provide funding for EU12 for

decreasing the gap in the knowledge, use and adoption.

To involve a larger number of ICT RTD experts from Lithuania in evaluation of

FP7 ICT proposals.

Recommendations at stakeholders’ level

To increase the number of coordinators in FP ICT Theme through the targeted

campaign aimed at the existing and the emerging technology clusters based

around the cooperation between science and industry along a specific indus-


try value chain with ties to EU partners, where cluster organisations could act

as coordinators of future consortia;

To increase the number of participants from industry in FP ICT Theme through

the partner search activities conducted with the help and through the na-

tional associations in ICT such as Infobalt, Knowledge Economy Forum and in-

volving them as stakeholders in FP programming;

To increase the number of participants from science in FP ICT Theme through

the scientific societies in ICT such as Lithuanian Computer Society, Lithuanian

Mathematical Society and other professional associations which are part of

larger international umbrella organisations and can act as a pool of research-

ers to be recruited into FP ICT consortia.


2 Introduction

The development of European Research excellence depends on the full integration

of all technological resources within the EU27 into a common European Research

Area (ERA).

However, in the case of the newer Member States (EU12), it does not appear that

these resources are fully integrated into the ERA. The participation of the EU 12 in the

FP7 ICT Theme is rather weak and does not reflect the available RTD capacities in

those countries.

In 2009 the European Commission initiated a series of Technological Audits (studies)

of the ICT theme across the EU12 countries and 5 Associated Countries. The aim of

the audits was to identify untapped potential and current technological expertise in

order to promote the rebuilding of research and technological development (RTD)

capabilities in each new EU Member State and facilitate collective integration into

the ERA as measured by participation in FP7 ICT programme.

This Policy Brief highlights policy lessons from the ICT audit performed in Lithuania and

suggests the guiding principles to overcome the identified key challenges for suc-

cessful integration of Lithuania into the ERA in general and the FP7 ICT Theme in par-

ticular.

It builds upon the results of eight reports produced during the audit period of 2009-

2010 by the team of experts from the consultancy company UAB Europarama, a

non-governmental organization Knowledge Economy Forum and the Institute of

Mathematics and Informatics.

The policy brief covers the results from the analysis of ICT RTD policy environment in

Lithuania, the status of ICT RTD activities, the major and potential centres of excel-

lence, possible links with FP7 and the actions that need to be taken at national and

European level to increase the participation of both public and private organizations

carrying out ICT RTD.

The report does not address the issues related to the service side of ICT RTD. Although

some of the ICT service aspects such as e-government and e-literacy are important

factors behind the demand side for ICT RTD solutions, these has remained outside the

scope of the audit.


3 Methodology

The ICT audit in Lithuania has been carried out according to the following steps:

First, the review of studies and strategy papers was done by analysing internal

and external drivers of growth in ICT business sector, describing ICT RTD policy

environment and main actors with the emphasis on the national policy obliga-

tions as regarding the participation in ERA;

Second, the review of activities and capabilities of entities in Lithuania carry-

ing out ICT RTD was done by conducting a survey of researchers (total number

of respondents – 194), analysing the research output of each ICT RTD institu-

tions in terms of ISI articles and projects and matching them against the FP ICT

Challenges and Objectives;

Third, the analysis of the participation of Lithuania in the FP6-IST and FP7-ICT

Theme was carried out by analysing each successful project with participation

of entity from Lithuania and establishing the track record of that entity in FP,

showing the level of continuation in the programme;

Fourth, the Present and planned infrastructure in Lithuania for ICT-RTD – Desk

Research was analysed both in terms of computing power units and the

headcount of personnel overseeing it; the infrastructure hosting institutions

were further matched against the FP ICT Challenges and Objectives;

Fifth, in order to assess the ICT-RTD capabilities in Lithuania and the measures

to maximize the country’s potential in the FP7-ICT Theme live Interviews were

conducted with the identified research leaders (25 interviewees) and the

main drivers and obstacles for participation in FP were established;

Sixth, the opinions gathered from the interviews were further elaborated and

validated through a Delphi survey (number of participants – 64) which was

conducted online and involved institutional competence assessment, Assess-

ment of factors having impact on participation in FP and Assessment of rec-

ommended policy actions;

Seventh, a SWOT analysis was conducted (number of participants – 35) to fi-

nally assess the identified opportunities and barriers for increasing the contri-

bution of Lithuania to the FP7-ICT Theme.


4 Macroeconomic Situation

The analysis of the innovation and research-related macro-economic statistics for the

Structural Indicators, as defined by the Lisbon European Council and collected by

Eurostat, has revealed the fundamentals of Lithuanian economy in relation to R&D

and innovation system.

Expenditure on education and R&D: though the number of tertiary graduates in sci-

ence and technology per 1000 of population is well above the EU27 average and

has been growing, yet the level of public expenditure on education and R&D as a

percentage of GDP has been stagnating. This indicates that the growth in student

numbers was not supported by public funding and might have come at the cost of

quality of education and R&D performed at universities.

This corresponds with a very low number of patent applications to the European Pa-

tent Office and patents granted from both EPO and US PTO (though in the case of

the US the number of patents granted is much higher – probably due to lower patent

costs).

Figure 1: Contribution

of ICT sector to total

R&D intensity ICT

BERD/GDP (source:

IPTS).

ICT expenditure as percentage of GDP: the level of expenditure on the expenditure

for telecommunication hardware, equipment, software and other services as a per-

centage of GDP in Lithuania in 2009 (3.1%) was slightly above the EU27 average

(3.0%) and the EU15 average (2.9%). However, Lithuania is much more behind its ex-


ports of high-tech products in the total exports – 4.7% versus the EU’s average of

16.7%, as reported by the World Bank in its Lithuania’s Research, Development and

Innovation System - Benchmarking & Effectiveness Analysis (May, 2009). This indicates

that the national economy lacks a crucial supply-and-demand mechanism for ICT

RTD relevant sectors.

The comparative analysis of the ICT sector in Lithuania and EU has shown (see Figure

2) that Lithuania has been lagging behind most of the EU countries in terms of ICT

expenditure per capita on ICT (similar to most EU12), but was an above-average per-

former comparing to ICT spending in relation to GDP spending.

Figure 2: Lithuanian

ICT expenditure per

capita in comparison

with the EU.

The high spending on ICT during the period, which coincided with the membership in

the EU, and has been driven by the need to modernize public infrastructure and im-

prove business processes, has resulted in the rapid growth of the ICT market. In terms

of value added/GDP Lithuania’s ICT market has even outgrown those of Denmark or

Belgium (see Figure 3).


Figure 3: Lithuanian

spending on ICT in

comparison with the

EU.

The impact of ICT/IS policy initiatives addressing the needs of rural areas in terms of

infrastructure development was tremendous. Comparing to the situation in 2001 the

number of Internet users in rural areas increased 18 times: from a barely 1% to 18% in

2005 (according to TNS Gallup data). The PHARE project “Rural Internet Access

Points” (2003-2006) directly impacted on about half a million of people and created

benefits for the whole rural population – 1.3 million people. Upon the completion of

the follow-up project in 2008 Lithuania became the first European country with the

highest number of public Internet access points (875 in total) per capita.

In terms of broadband coverage Lithuania has made a good progress during the last

few years from 82.2% (in 2005) to 87% (in 2007/2008), and in fact is at the EU27 level.

More spectacular was the rise of the number of mobile cellular subscriptions per 100

inhabitants, which has reached the level high above EU27 average (145% compar-

ing to 116% in EU27). Where Lithuania still lags is the intensity of the use of broadband

for international data communication which is reflected in international internet

bandwidth per Internet use (bit/s) – 9,461 in Lithuania as against 41,924 in EU27.

In terms of Internet use, a number of people who have never used a PC Lithuania

had not been far advanced. Yet there are good indications for future: this number is

decreasing (from 48% in 2005 to 40% in 2007%) at about the same rate as in EU27 (ca.

4% annually). There is still a large gap between take-up of IS by individuals when

compared to their education and income: 38% of individuals with low or no formal

education have used the internet, while this figure for individuals with high formal

education stood at 84%. The gap is especially evident in terms of internet access at

home in different income groups: only 16% of lowest income quartile have access to


internet at home (37% in EU27) while the same holds true for 87% of highest income

quartile which is even above EU average (84%).


5 Policy Analysis

The policy analysis included the assessment of Lithuania’s obligations in ICT RTD poli-

cy as stipulated in the adopted Community acquis (2000-2002) and the EU Accession

Treaty (2003), a review of ICT RTD relevant national strategies and action plans, an

overall assessment of national programmes on ICT RTD in terms of their strengths and

weaknesses impacting Lithuania’s ICT RTD ability to participate in the ERA.

Concerning Lithuania’s obligations to the Community as related to RTD in general

and ICT RTD in particular, it is concluded that the commitment to ensure that nation-

al policies and Community policy are mutually consistent remains largely unfulfilled,

despite early support given by the Government eager to complete the negotiations

over the Community acquis.

A lock-in moment in the national ICT RTD policy development was defined through

analysis of legislature and legal acts, which were adopted after the completion of

the EU negotiations (from 2003 onwards). It was established that the precedence

took place in 2003, when despite having had defined its national RTD priorities ac-

cording to the FP5 thematic areas, the decision was made to set up a parallel set of

RTD priorities according to five national high-tech sectors and their related RTD

communities, namely, biotechnology, lasers, mechatronics, nanoelectronics and

electronics together with ICT. This parallel set of priorities has defined and entrenched

the RTD policy ever since.

ICT RTD community lacks a strong political backing, which reflects in the allocations

of programme-based funding, the existing policy strategies and programmes com-

paring to other more prioritized RTD fields (such as medicine, biotechnology and la-

sers). Hence, the involvement of ICT researchers in policy planning has been occa-

sional and nominal.

The lack of support is due to the following circumstances:

The demise of the electronics industry during the 1990s which debarred ICT

RTD community of industry support basis;

The emergence of software and hardware retail and service sector as the

main player in ICT sector which is traditionally not RTD intensive, but keen on

infrastructure development;

The lack of agreement among RTD and policy makers on what ICT RTD entails

not only in terms of informatics and computer science, but also as the combi-


nations of information technology with other technologies from the related

fields of engineering science such as electronics.

The following barriers have been identified in the ICT RTD policy environment:

The lack of understanding of ICT as an important area of research and no real

commitment to ICT RTD as the national priority;

The lack of focus in defining the national needs in ICT RTD and in making them

mutually consistent with the Community priorities;

The lack of support for cross-disciplinary collaboration between ICT RTD and

the leading technology fields.

Policy bodies: the responsibility for research and innovation policy in Lithuania is

shared by two ministries – the Ministry of Education and Science and the Ministry of

Economy. This is defined by their role as Intermediate Bodies in managing the EU

Structural support for research, innovation and education.

The Ministry of Education and Science is the Intermediate Body for the Human Re-

sources Development Action Programme (including Priority 1.3 – Strengthening ca-

pacities of researchers and scientists), while the Ministry of Economy is Intermediate

Body for the Economic Growth Action Programme (including Priority 2.1 - Direct and

Indirect Assistance to R&D and Innovations and Investment Promotion). A separate

priority dedicated to Information Society (Priority 2.2 – Information Society for all) is

taken care of by Information Society Development Committee under the Ministry of

Transport.

Following the amendment of the Law on Science and Studies in 2007 the Research

Council of Lithuania emerged as the main institution defining research policy in Lith-

uania. Not only the Council acts as advisory body to the Ministry of Education and

Science but also administers programme-based national and EU Structural funding,

and, further, acts as a national NCP for COST programme and some of FP7 Thematic

Areas.

The latter role was taken over by the Council from the Agency for International Sci-

ence and Technology Development Programmes following its reorganisation into the

Agency for Science, Innovation and Technology (MITA) as of 2010. MITA remains a

national NCP for Eureka, Eurostars and some of FP7 Thematic Areas, including ICT

Theme. In addition, on behalf of the Ministry of Economy, it administers various na-

tional innovation support schemes (e.g. innovation vouchers).


The Structural Funds (SF) support scheme has represented an unprecedented public

investment in ICT sector in terms of funding size and scope. Expenditure on IS from

ERDF 2004-2006 in Lithuania per capita was well above EU 27 average and amount-

ed to 14,87 EUR. In comparison this figure for Estonia was lower three-times (4.89 EUR),

for Latvia – 1.7 times (8.59 EUR). Most of the ERDF IS expenditure (60%) went into Ser-

vices & applications for citizens; the rest was allocated to infrastructure. Comparing

to Latvia, where no provisions were made for Services & applications for citizens, and

Estonia, where contrary to both Lithuania and Latvia, no allocations were provided

for infrastructure, the investment in IS in Lithuania was much more balanced.

As regarding the period 2007-2013, the expenditure on Services & applications re-

main around 60%. There has been a decrease in the expenses on infrastructure, in-

cluding broadband which went down from 38% in the previous period to 18% in the

present one. Yet in Latvia this figure is even lower – 10.5% and none of the infrastruc-

ture investment have been planned in Estonia which allocated most of the IS ex-

penditure (84%) to Services & applications for citizens and none for SMEs. Lithuania

has followed the pattern of Estonia in committing a comparably modest share of ex-

penditure to ICT access, security, R&D, content – 23% and 16% respectively, while

Latvia made it by far the largest funding area (87%).


6 Lithuanian’s Participation in FP7 ICT Theme

ICT is critical to improve the competitiveness of European industry and to meet the

demands of its society and economy. In order to leverage the EU potential in ICT to

increase productivity and innovation, to modernize public services and to make ad-

vances in science and technology, the ICT research is supported through the EU’s

Framework Programme (FP). The FP is a multiannual public funding support scheme

enabling public and private participants to attract funds for collaborative RTD pro-

jects.

During the implementation of FP6 (2003-2006) 1598 partners from Lithuania were in-

volved in 1335 submitted proposals of which 492 (involving 593 partners) were above

threshold (the above threshold success rate – 37%). 279 projects involving 254 partic-

ipants from Lithuania were funded (the success rate – 22.2%, the overall success rate

– 19,1%). Lithuanian participants attracted 26.9 million EUR in funding from FP6 (0.15%

of the programme budget). On average one participant in FP6 received a contribu-

tion of 76000 EUR (in Estonia – 89000 EUR, Latvia – 87000 EUR).

Figure 4: Lithuania’s

participation in FP7.

During the implementation of FP7 (as of 15 October 2009) 860 partners from Lithuania

were included in 703 proposals submitted for evaluation. 132 proposals passed the

threshold (19.2%, EU average – 20.9%). The total sum requested was 22.4 million EUR.

Only 89 projects (involving 109 partners from Lithuania) received funding (the success

rate has been down from 19% to 13%). The total budget of Lithuanian partners – 14.9

million EUR, EU contribution – 11.2 million EUR which is 0.12% from the contribution al-


located in the projects from 151 calls. On average one participant received 103 000

EUR (cf. in Estonia – 164 000 EUR, in Latvia – 97 000 EUR).

The participation record in the FP6 IST and the FP7 ICT Themes has showed that the

largest number of proposals was submitted in the following areas:

1. Networked businesses and governments, engineering of network monitoring

and control systems, internet of things, critical infrastructure protection;

2. E-health, integrated biomedical information for better health, assisting living in

aging, e-inclusion, personal health systems, accessible and assistive ICT;

3. Technology-enhanced learning and access to cultural heritage;

4. Intelligent information management;

5. ICT for energy efficiency.

However, the most (if not exclusively) successful areas of participation (excluding

non-RTD related areas) were only the following:

Engineering of network and monitoring and control systems;

ICT mobility of the future.

The analysis of the participation record of Lithuania in the FP7 ICT Theme has includ-

ed the following aspects:

1. Participation trends per challenge and objective starting from the FP6 – IST pri-

ority;

2. Success and failure rates in proposals;

3. Identified reasons for success or failure of participants from Lithuania.

6.1 Participation trends

Lithuania is the least active participant in the FP7 ICT Theme both among the coun-

tries in EU12 and EU27, when participation figures are normalised (Figure 5) by the

number of researchers (per 1000 in Full-time Equivalent of 1.0 which means that the

person is equivalent to a full-time worker).


Figure 5: Comparison of Lithuania’s partic-

ipation in EU12 and EU27 normalised by

the number of researchers.

The participation trend shows that Lithuania’s participation in the FP7 ICT Theme has

been decreasing in numbers since the start of FP6 and the only peaks were regis-

tered in the mid-FP6 period (Figure 6); they resulted from the specially targeted calls.

Figure 6: Participation

levels of Lithuanian

entities in FP6 and FP7

ICT Theme (calls 1-4)3:

red indicates number

of granted proposals,

blue – a total number

of submitted pro-

posals; the black lines

show linear trends for

both.

The analysis of the participation record of the members of the National Technology

Platforms in ICT in Lithuania has showed that the country’s overall participation level

in the FP7 ICT Theme has largely depended on the participation of the members of

four National Technology Platforms, which have generated most of the proposals to-

3 At the time of the analysis the results of Call 5 were not known. This call produced 32 partici-

pations, of which 5 were granted. This resurgence in the interest in FP7 could be attributed to

the cumulative effect of the following: the dissemination efforts by DG INFSO (Dr Stephan

Pascall) and the awareness raised through the implementation of the technological audit.


date (Figure 7). The national technology platforms in ICT RTD are: Embedded sys-

tems, Nanoelectronics and electronics, Software and services and Mass media,

communication and electronic technologies.

Figure 7: Participation

of members of Lithu-

anian National Tech-

nology Platforms in

ICT in FP5, FP6 and

FP7 Theme.

The thematic analysis of Lithuanian participation in FP7 ICT Theme has shown that

there are no major topics or areas where Lithuanian teams can have a competitive

advantage in FP. The success rates for each Objective in FP6 IST Theme has showed

that the best performance was achieved in the areas which have not been themat-

ically defined (such as FET Proactive Initiatives or inclusion in the ERA) or were related

to horizontal or networking activities.

The analysis of the involvement of Lithuanian ICT RTD experts in evaluation of the

proposals submitted in FP6 IST and FP7 ICT Themes have shown a serious lack of in-

volvement of representatives of the ICT RTD community in Lithuania in evaluation of

FP proposals: only four experts having relation to ICT RTD have been involved and

only few of them coming from ICT RTD.

6.2 Success and failure rates in proposals

Lithuania’s participation in the FP7 ICT Theme has been the least successful compar-

ing to other thematic areas in FP7 both in terms of overall success rates and the EC

contribution received (Figure 8).


Figure 8: Lithuania’s

participation success

rate and received EC

contribution in FP7.

Individual success levels for participation in the FP7 ICT Theme identified (on the basis

of the evaluation marking) show that the majority of the proposals failed to reach

multiple thresholds. The most unsuccessful were public RTD institutions: they are low

success performers (that is reaching only one of thresholds) with exception of the

very few successful ones. Participating SMEs are more successful in reaching multiple

thresholds (Figure 9) which could be attributed to their involvement in projects with

more competitive RTD entities from other countries.

Figure 9: Success lev-

els of Lithuanian enti-

ties in FP7 ICT Theme

calls 1-4 by type of

organization.


6.3 Competence Areas

When analysing the participation record in the FP6 IST and the FP7 ICT Themes, it was

found that the largest number of proposals was submitted in the following areas:

Networked businesses and governments, Engineering of network monitoring

and control systems, Internet of things, Critical Infrastructure Protection;

E-health, integrated biomedical information for better health, assisting living in

aging, e-inclusion, personal health systems, accessible and assistive ICT;

Technology-enhanced learning and access to cultural heritage;

Intelligent information management;

ICT for energy efficiency.

However, the largely (if not exclusively) successful areas of participation (excluding

non-RTD related projects) were only the following:

Engineering of network and monitoring and control systems;

ICT mobility of the future.

Participation Matrix

On the basis of the number of proposals submitted and the number of proposals re-

tained for each Objective in the FP7 ICT Theme (Calls 1-4) a matrix have been con-

structed, indicating the R&D capacity fit with the FP7. The level of participation was

regarded as high if more than 5 proposals were submitted with Lithuanian participa-

tion for an Objective.

The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 1.


Table 1: Matrix indicating the relation between participation and success levels in FP7

ICT Objectives

High participation – low success: High participation – high success:

1.3 – The Network of the Future

1.7 - Critical Infrastructure

Protection (ICT security)


5.1 – Personal health systems

FET Proactive Initiatives4

3.5 – Engineering of network and moni-

toring and control systems

6.3 – ICT for mobility of the future

Low participation – low success: Low participation – high success:

1.5 – Networked media &

3D Internet

3.2 - Design of Semiconductor Components and

Electronic-based Miniaturised Systems

3.4 – Embedded systems design

5.2 – Advanced ICT for

risk assessment and patient safety


7.1 – ICT and ageing

-

Competence Matrix

The Participation Matrix was compared with the Competence Matrix (Figure 10) cre-

ated with the data obtained from the national ICT RTD community survey organised

as part of ICT RTD technology audit.

4 Since FET Proactive initiatives cover a wide range of topics it is not possible to link the high

level of participation to any particular technological area. Thus it‘s inclusion in the matrix only

indicates the expressed interest in bottom-up research calls.


Figure 10: Compe-

tence Matrix visualisa-

tion showing the self-

declared compe-

tence fit with FP7 ICT

Objectives.

The Competence Matrix was calculated on the basis of an expert survey carried out

in June-July 2009 by the audit team in Lithuania. During the survey 50 experts cover-

ing all Objectives of FP7 ICT Theme were interviewed and asked to nominate the

best experts in their fields – in total 194 experts their nominated. All were approached

by email and phone and asked to indicate their current and field competences as

matching the FP7 ICT Theme Objectives. 105 respondents provided their answers

which served as data for calculating two measures and constructing a matrix as

above, namely:

The Current Competence Share (CCS) measure was calculated as a percent-

age of experts with current competences from the whole number of experts

with current competences. The ratio indicates the number of experts in rela-

tion to the whole pool of available experts.

The compound competence ratio (CCR) was calculated as a ratio between

experts with current expertise and the experts with future expertise. The ratio

below 1 indicates that there are less current competencies than future,

planned ones. Hence, these competence areas are important for future de-

velopment but do not relate to the current competences


Consolidated Competence Matrix

In order to identify potential cause-effect relations between the self-declared com-

petences by ICT RTD community vis-à-vis the FP7 ICT Objectives (Competence Ma-

trix) and the FP7 ICT participation-success levels (Participation Matrix) the two matri-

ces were compared.

Table 2: Consolidated Competence Matrix

High competence – low share: High competence – high share

1.2 – Internet of services, software & virtualiza-

tion;

2.2 – Language based interaction;

3.6 – Computing systems;

3.7 – Photonics;

4.2 – Technology enhanced learning.

3.2 – Design of semiconductor components

and electronic based miniature systems;


Low competence – low share: Low competence – high share:


patient safety


-

The analysis has showed that Lithuanian entities have competence and are able to

compete in the FP7 ICT only in Objective 4.2 (Intelligent information management).

The obvious mismatch between the self-declared competences and the results from

Calls 1-5 of the FP7 ICT Theme indicates that the participation and success factors for

Lithuanian entities could depend also on external RTD sources.

6.4 Project continuation analysis

In order to evaluate the relations between the participation and success levels and

external factors (such as continuous project participation in follow-up activities) the

Project Continuation Analysis was carried out. 58 Lithuanian entities participating in

successful proposals in the FP6 and FP7 ICT Themes were analysed and the linkages


between the related projects they took part prior and after their involvement in suc-

cessful proposals for FP6 and FP7 were established.

The analysis has revealed that the decrease in the initially high success rate and the

level participation in the FP6 and FP7 ICT Theme could be attributed to (if not neces-

sarily caused by) a high “drop-out” rate of participants from Lithuania from follow-up

projects (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Number of

partners in previous,

follow-up and suc-

cessful projects in FP6

and FP7.

Comparing the involvement of Lithuanian participants in the FP projects that directly

preceded the ones they took part and the follow-up projects it became evident

(Table 3) that the Lithuanian partners discontinued their involvement in further pro-

jects by ca. 9% (in the case of projects coordinated by RTD partners) and by 35% (in

the case of projects coordinated by consultancy companies). Only where govern-

mental agencies or associations where in charge of coordination the participation in

follow-up projects increased (by 16%).


Table 3: Number of previous related and follow-up projects according to the type of

coordinating institution

Type of

institution

Number

of

projects

Number

of

projects

with LT

partner

%

Number

of

projects

Number

of

projects

with LT

partner

% Change

Previous related projects Follow-up projects

Coordinated by

RTD

13 4 30.77% 9 2 22.22% -8.55%

Coordinated by

Consultancy

8 6 75.00% 10 4 40.00% -35.00%

Coordinated by

Association or

governmental

body

3 1 33.33% 4 2 50.00% 16.67%

TOTAL: 24 11 45.83% 23 8 34.78% -11.05%

The above confirmed weak ties between Lithuanian participants and both RTD insti-

tutions and industry and, in at least 1/3 of the cases, the unsatisfactory (in view of the

coordinators) performance of Lithuanian teams and/or the lack of will on their part

to further participate in the ERA. This explains why Lithuanian teams continued either

in networks of excellence (having 20-70 partners), where the demand for resources

from partners was negligible, or in smaller and medium-scale STREPs (around 10 par-

ticipants) where the input resources were provided by the strongest Lithuanian teams

in terms of scientific knowledge and expertise.

On the other hand, the analysis of the participation of Lithuanian ICT RTD in other Eu-

ropean funding schemes such as COST and EUREKA has showed the higher success

rates due to the lower entry requirements in terms of research and less competition

(because of a dual funding nature of these schemes where competition at EU level is

regulated at national level through the decision to co-fund the programme activi-

ties).

6.5 Main findings of FP7 ICT Theme analysis

Lithuanian participation in FP7 ICT Theme analysis has showed that:

1. Kaunas University of Technology was central in the participation in FP6 IST and

FP7 ICT Theme.

2. Public ICT RTD institutions are closely linked to businesses participating in FP7

ICT Theme.


3. Lithuanian entities in FP7 ICT Calls 1-4 shared most projects partners from major

EU countries (Germany, UK, France, Italy) while the links with other new EU

countries were weak; there is a notably negligent share of links with the Nordic

countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway).

4. The proposals that Lithuanian entities take part mostly are constituted by the

major ICT RTD institutions in Europe such as Fraunhofer, VTT, and IBM who are

gatekeepers in most of the projects that Lithuanian entities participate.

5. In terms of projects there is evidence to suggest that most of the projects con-

sortia that Lithuanian entities get involved are closely interlinked and none of

them were successful; while success was achieved with those consortia where

links with Lithuanian entities are weak; this supports the hypothesis that Lithua-

nian ICT RTD institutions are not integrated into the competitive, leading net-

works.

6. When comparing the links between projects, in which Lithuanian entities took

park in FP6 IST Theme, and projects with Lithuanian participation in FP7 ICT

Theme it becomes clear that most of the projects funded in FP6 were shared

by the limited number of public institutions involved in networking projects;

hence such a high density of the network of consortia in the FP6 IST calls.

7. Additional analysis of links between companies pursuing ICT RTD through FP7

ICT Theme and the EU Structural Funds has shown that the overwhelming ma-

jority of ICT companies which participate in publicly co-funded RTD activities

have R&D projects supported through the EU Structural Funds and almost all

companies participating in FP ICT are also participating in the EU Structural

Funds support schemes. The Structural Funds thus act not as a competitor to

the FP but as a facilitator of FP participation.


7 Scientific Excellence and Potential in ICT

The scope of analysis of scientific excellence in ICT RTD was defined by the ICT Work

Programme under the specific programme “Cooperation” as part the EU’s Seventh

Framework Programme (2007-2013). The following aspects of ICT fall under this scope

and involve the scientific disciplines of computer science, mathematics and infor-

matics, photonics and laser technologies:

Challenge 1 - Pervasive and Trusted Network and Service Infrastructures

Challenge 2 - Cognitive Systems and Robotics

Challenge 3 - Alternative Paths to Components and Systems

Challenge 4 - Technologies for Digital Content and Languages

Challenge 5 - ICT for Health, Ageing Well, Inclusion and Governance

Challenge 6 - ICT for low carbon economy

Challenge 7 - ICT for the Enterprise and Manufacturing

Challenge 8 - ICT for Learning and Access to Cultural Resources

Future and Emerging Technologies (FET)

Lithuania has 18 active public research institutions working in the field of ICT RTD. The

analysis of ICT RTD institutions on the basis of the following analyses:

Number of ISI publications and projects (2008) per faculty or institute as listed in

the database “Science Potential of Lithuania”;

Expert survey of ICT RTD community identifying research leaders;

Amount of research infrastructure resources committed per Grid and the esti-

mated number of personnel administering those resources at faculty or insti-

tute level (on the basis of interviews conducted with Grid network coordina-

tors and administrators of the infrastructures);

Number of participations in the FP7 ICT Theme as measured by the number of

submitted proposals in FP7 ICT Calls 1-4.

The top 10 results from each analysis (as above) were established, ranked for each

analysis and the overall result was calculated by giving the same weight (0.25) for

each of the result. On the basis of that all institutions which scored above 0 in all four


rankings (i.e. were listed among top 10 in each category of analysis) were identified

as major Centres of Excellence, the rest which scored above 0 in relation to Partici-

pation in FP7 as Potential Centres of Excellence. The details of the identified institu-

tions are provided below.

1. Major Centres of Excellence: the Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics and

the Institute of Material and Applied Science – both at Vilnius University, the

Faculty of Informatics, Kaunas University of Technology, the Institute of Math-

ematics and Informatics, which as of January of 2010 was merged with Vilnius

University, Faculty of Fundamental Sciences of Vilnius Gediminas Technical

University;

2. Potential Centres of Excellence: Faculty of Control Engineering and Faculty of

Telecommunications – both at Kaunas University of Technology, Faculty of In-

formatics at Vytautas Magnus University, Faculty of Natural Sciences and

Mathematics (which includes Department of Informatics) at Klaipeda Universi-

ty and Faculty of Informatics at Šiauliai University.

The relevance of each of the identified Centres of Excellence to FP7 Objectives and

Challenges is provided below (the full details provided in Annex).

Table 4: The main Centres of Excellence in relation to FP7 Objectives

Major Centres of Excellence Relevant FP7 ICT Objectives


Departments: Information Systems, Computer Networks,

Computer Engineering, Software Engineering, Business

Informatics

Main areas: Information Systems, Networks, Computer

and Software Engineering

[1.1, 1.2], 1.3, [3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 4.1, 4.2,

4.3], 5.1, 6.1, [6.2], 6.3, 7.3


Main departments: Department of Software Engineering,

Department of Computer Science 1, Department of

Computer Science 2

Main areas: Informatics and Software Engineering

[1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4], 1.5, [3.1], 3.5, [3.6],

[3.9], [4.1], [4.3], 5.1, [5.3, 6.3,7.2]

3. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Faculty of Fun-

damental Sciences

Departments: Nuclear Hydrophysics, Physics, Information

Systems, Digital Simulation and Investigation of Con-

[1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.9,

4.2, 4.3, 6.3, 7.2]


Major Centres of Excellence Relevant FP7 ICT Objectives

structions, Strength Mechanics

Main areas: Computational Mechanics, Information Sys-

tems, Computer Modelling


Departments: Computer Networks, Data Analysis, Infor-

matics Methodology, Numerical Analysis, probability

Theory and Statistics, Recognition Processes, Software

Engineering, Systems Analysis

Main areas: Software Engineering, Grid Computing, Da-

ta Mining, Decision Support, Optimization, Data Visuali-

zation, Operational Research, Recognition Processes,

Signal Processing, Language and Multimedia Technolo-

gies, Interactive Systems, Web Mining, Fundamentals of

Informatics, ICT in Education, Ontology-Based Engineer-

ing of Component Applications, Computer Networks.

1.1, [1.2], 1.6, [2.2, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3,

5.1, 7.1, 7.3]


Departments: New Materials Research and Measure-

ment Technology, Semiconductor Optoelectronics, Ad-

vanced Technology, Liquid Crystals Laboratory

Main areas: Semiconductor materials and devices for

light technologies

[3.2], 3.5, [3.7], 3.8


Table 5: The potential Centres of Excellence in relation to FP7 Objectives

Potential Centres of Excellence Relevant FP7 ICT Objectives

1. Centre for Physical Sciences and Technology, Semicon-

ductor Physics Institute

Departments: Microwave Laboratory, Sensors Laborato-

ry, Laboratory of Terahertz Electronics, Fluctuation Re-

search Laboratory,

Main areas: Electromagnetic Waves Interaction with

Material, Fluctuations and Chaos, sensors and energy

saving technologies, information technologies, devel-

opment and investigation of national measurement

standards

3.1, [3.2], 3.6, [3.7], 8.0 (FET)

2. Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Telemedicine

Centre

Departments: n/a

Main areas: the use of remote medical expertise at the

point of need. It includes two major areas: Home care,

as the care at the point of need through connected

sensors, hubs, middleware and reference centres; and

co-operative working, as a network of medical expertise

linked together

5.1, 4.3, 5.3

3. Kaunas University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical

Engineering and Mechatronics

Departments: n/a

Main scientists: Prof. Ramutis Bansevičius, Prof. V.

Ostaševičius, Prof. A. Žiliukas

Main areas: mechatronics systems with piezomechani-

cal elements, composite materials with implanted pie-

zoelectric sensors, adaptive multi-degree-of-freedom

actuators-sensors

2.1, 2.2, 6.1, 7.2

4. Klaipėda University, Faculty of Natural Science and

Mathematics

Departments: Informatics, Statistics, Mathematics, Ecol-

ogy, Marine Seascape Research

Main areas: Spatial statistics, statistical methods of clas-

[3.6, 4.2], 5.1, 6.3, [6.4], [7.1], 7.2, [10.2]


Potential Centres of Excellence Relevant FP7 ICT Objectives

sification, optimal control of dynamic systems, modelling

and information technology application in environmen-

tal, life science and technology fields


Departments: Systems Analysis, Applied Informatics,

Mathematics and Statistics

Main areas: systems analysis, modelling, control and op-

timization, signal recognition, biosignal analysis and

modelling of learning mechanism in biosystems, digital

language resource tools, system risk and reliability analy-

sis

1.7, 3.4, 9.2


Departments: Laboratory of Systems Control and Auto-

mation, Laboratory of Nuclear Installation Safety

Main areas: Investigations in the fields of thermal physics,

fluid mechanics and metrology, simulation of complex

systems, development of their control methods and

technologies

1.7, 6.3

7.1 Ranking of ICT institutions

In terms of ISI publications and RTD projects the following ranking of the institutions

carrying out ICT RTD was established:

1. Faculty of Informatics, Kaunas University of Technology;

2. Faculty of Fundamental Science, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University;

3. Faculty of Electric and Control Engineering, Kaunas University of Technology;

4. Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Vilnius University;

5. Institute of Material and Applied Sciences, Vilnius University;

6. Institute of Mathematics and Informatics (now part of Vilnius University);

7. Faculty of Telecommunications, Kaunas University of Technology;


8. Faculty of Informatics, Vytautas Magnus University;

9. Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Šiauliai University;

10. Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Klaipeda University.

Figure 12: Number of

ISI publications.

The survey of top 32 peer-recommended scientists in the total peer sample (n=193)

was performed. It was based on an innovative peer-driven snowball survey method-

ology for data gathering. With a high response rate (54%); the gathered data was

put into matrices and network analysis produced network visualizations, which

helped to identify competence clusters.

Three indicators have been computed for each FP7 ICT Challenge based on the

aggregated responses:

1. Compound Competence Ratio (CCR) calculated as a ratio between a num-

ber of experts with current expertise and a number of experts with planned,

future expertise;

2. Current Competence Share (CCS) calculated as a percentage of experts with

current competences from the whole number of experts with current compe-

tences;

3. Future Interest Share (FIS) calculated as a percentage of experts with future in-

terest in individual areas from the whole number of experts with future interest

in FP areas.

The competence assessment matrix was constructed on the basis of the BCG Matrix

(Boston Consulting Group Matrix) as below. Based on the CCR, CCS and FIS indica-

tors the competence matrix was prepared. Further analysis of the matrix has showed

that Lithuanian ICT RTD community has high current competence levels relative to

the overall compound competence in:


1. Design of semiconductor components and electronic based miniature sys-

tems;

2. Photonics (including lasers);

3. Trustworthy ICT;

4. Flexible, organic and large area electronics;

5. Language-based interaction;

6. Digital libraries and digital presentation.

Study has identified 5 Major Centres of Excellence in Lithuanian ICT RTD:

1. Faculty of Informatics, Kaunas University of Technology;

2. Vilnius University Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics;

3. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Faculty of Fundamental Sciences;

4. Institute of Mathematics and Informatics (part of Vilnius University);

5. Vilnius University Institute of Applied Research.

Their profiles are included in Annex 1.

7.2 Scientific potential in ICT RTD

Expenditure on Human Resources: the level of total public expenditure on education

as a percentage of GDP has been decreasing from 6.37% in 1999 to 4.67% in 2007

which is still slightly below average of EU27 (4.98%).

Gross domestic expenditure on R&D: the level of expenditure on R&D has been stag-

nating since the accession to the EU and in 2008 was 0.8% which is more than twice

less than the EU27 average (1.91%), yet slightly above the average for EU12 (0.71%).

Science and technology graduates: the number of tertiary graduates in science and

technology per 1000 of population aged 20-29 years in 2007 (18.1) was well above

the EU27 average (12.5 in 2004) and such countries as Germany (11.4 in 2007).

Study has identified 6 Potential Centres of Excellence in Lithuanian ICT RTD:

1. Semiconductor Physics Institute (part of the state research institute Centre for

Physical Sciences and Technology);

2. Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Telemedicine Centre;


3. Kaunas University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and

Mechatronics;

4. Klaipėda University, Faculty of Natural Science and Mathematics;

5. Vytautas Magnus University, Faculty of Informatics;

6. Lithuanian Energy Institute.

Their profiles are included in Annex 2.


8 Business Potential in ICT RTD

Exports of high technology products as a share of total exports: the level of exports of

high technology products in 2006 (4.65%) was among the lowest in the EU on par

with Slovenia (4.662%) and slightly higher than that of Latvia (4.2%), Romania (3.8%),

Bulgaria (3.3%), Poland (3.1%) but more than three-and-a-half times lower than the

EU27 average (16.6%).

This indicator is calculated as share of exports of all high technology products of total

exports. High technology products are defined as the sum of the following products:

aerospace, computers-office machines, electronics-telecommunications, pharma-

cy, scientific instruments, electrical machinery, chemistry, non-electrical machinery,

armament. The total exports for the EU do not include the intra-EU trade.

Sales dynamics: most of the revenue of Top 20 IT companies in the Baltic countries

(11 of which have been based in Lithuania) came from the sales within the Baltic

markets (93% of all reported sales) and only 13% - from export sales. The saturation of

these markets had reached its limit between 2007 and 2008, when the sales of hard-

ware and IT services of the 20 largest Baltic IT companies collapsed from a 30% com-

pound annual growth rate to almost zero.

Figure 13: Contribu-

tion of ICT sector to

total R&D intensity ICT

BERD/GDP (Source:

IPTS).


Figure 14: Investments

in ICT infrastructure

and services (Source:

Baltic IT&T Review).

The Figure 14 shows that already in 2006, comparing to the EU27, all the Baltic coun-

tries had reached the above-average investment levels in ICT infrastructure. Howev-

er, Lithuania was below EU average in terms of R&D intensity ICT BERD/GDP and to-

gether with Poland and Romania were the worst performers in EU25.

The growth of the expenditure for ICT hardware, equipment, software and other ser-

vices had placed Lithuania at the level of Poland and Slovakia. In terms of this ex-

penditure as a proportion of GDP all new EU countries had been beating EU15. Lat-

via’s ICT expenditure in 2007 stood at 7.6%. Other high performers were Bulgaria

(7.1%), Estonia (6.8%) and Romania (6.2%). Lithuania’s expenditure on IT relative to

GDP figure was the same as Hungary’s and stood at 5% which was almost twice

higher than in all EU15 countries for which this figure varied between 2.3% and 3.3%.

However, as concerning the size of the national ICT sector weighted as Value add-

ed/GDP Lithuania was doing reasonably well in EU27 - being ahead of Estonia, Den-

mark.

The major segments of the ICT sector in Lithuania were postal and telecommunica-

tion services and (to a lesser extent) components, telecom- and multimedia equip-

ment. The dominance of the telecommunication sector, following the liberalization

of the market in 2003, has become a path-defining moment in further development

of the ICT sector in Lithuania.

Most of the path-breaking innovations which had been brought about in the Baltic

countries, including Lithuania, were linked to the telecommunication and mobile

application markets. In Estonia Skype has become the major global IT success story,

while in Lithuania - GetJar, the company which runs a global WAP and web portal

for downloading mobile phone and PDA applications with over 14 million downloads

per month worldwide. In the 2009 Mobile Peer Awards Finals GetJar was selected to

the finals together with three other companies from Denmark, Sweden and Estonia,

thus becoming a Europe-wide acknowledged flagship IT start-up from Lithuania,

which has offices in London and infrastructure in Palo Alto, California.


On the basis of the analysis of the number of RTD staff employed by IT companies for

new product development the following companies with “hidden potential” were

identified (numbers provided indicate the number of RTD staff as self-declared by

the companies in a phone and email survey in December 2010):

1. UAB VTEX, http://www.vtex.com (15) - a LaTeX-based technical typesetter

and data supplier for science publishers, including Elsevier Science.

2. UAB Neurotechnology, http://www.neurotechnology.com (13) – SDK devel-

oper for fingerprint, face, iris and object recognition implemented, among

others, in Lenovo computer access systems.

3. UAB GetJar Baltic, http://www.getjar.com (12) – a mobile phone application

store platform with offices in San Mateo, California and Vilnius.

4. UAB No Magic Europe, http://www.bpi.lt (10) – together with the US company

No Magic develops product MagicDraw.

5. VšĮ Aukštieji algoritmai, http://pharma-algorithms.com (10) – develops suite of

physicochemical predictors for the North American chemistry software com-

pany ACD/Labs with whom its offshoot merged in 2006.

6. UAB MitSoft, http://www.mitsoft.lt/lt (8) – a spin-off from Vilnius University, de-

veloping software for public and private sector, including SAP AG.

7. UAB Algoritmų sistemos, http://www.algoritmusistemos.lt/ (7) – a software solu-

tion provider for public and private sector, mainly in Lithuania.

8. UAB Baltec CNC technologies, www.baltec-cnc.com (7) – a metal processing

company with expertise in mechatronics and ICT, active in FP.

9. UAB Rubedo sistemos, http://www.rubedo.lt (6) – develops software for El-

ekta’s (Sweden) radiation oncology and neurosurgery systems.

10. UAB DocLogix, http://www.doclogix.com (3) – develops solutions for infor-

mation and business management, sales in the Baltics and Poland.

8.1 Relevance of Business Potential to FP7 Objectives

The relevance of each of the identified companies to FP7 Objectives and Challeng-

es is provided below (based on self-declared competences).


Table 6: Business entities pursuing ICT RTD in relation to FP7 ICT Objectives

Business entities Relevant FP7 ICT Objectives

1. UAB VTEX

Main areas: tools and services for scientific publishing

4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 6.4, 6.5

2. UAB Neurotechnology

Main areas: biometric systems

2.1, 6.1

3. UAB GetJar Baltic

Main areas: mobile applications and services

1.2, 6.2

4. UAB No Magic Europe

Main areas: architecture modelling software

4.3

5. VšĮ Aukštieji algoritmai

Main areas: bioinformatics

5.3

6. UAB MitSoft

Main areas: software development, IT system analysis

1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 4.1, 4.3, 7.3

7. UAB Algoritmų sistemos

Main areas: information management systems, prod-

ucts and solutions

1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 6.2,

6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3

8. UAB Baltec CNC technologies

Main areas: IT systems and electronics-related products

3.4, 3.5, 5.1, 7.1

9. UAB Rubedo sistemos

Main areas: Couch motion compensation for real-time

motion adaptive radiation therapy and other related

challenges of moving target radiation therapy

2.1

10. UAB DocLogix

Main areas: document management systems

1.2, 1.3, 4.1, 6.2


8.2 Consolidated scientific excellence and business potential

The relevance of both scientific excellence and potential in ICT and business poten-

tial in ICT to FP7 Objectives has been consolidated in order to identify the areas with

potential in both science and business. The match between scientific excellence

and business potential has been identified where there was an overlap between

more than two entities from public or private sector.

Table 7: Consolidated list of public and private ICT RTD entities in relation to FP7 ICT

FP7 ICT

Objective Relevant institutions and companies

1.1 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Faculty of Fundamental Sciences

Vilnius University Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics

Vilnius University Institute of Mathematics and Informatics

Kaunas University of Technology Faculty of Informatics

UAB Algoritmų sistemos






UAB Doclogix

UAB GetJar

UAB MitSoft

1.3 Kaunas University of Technology Faculty of Informatics



UAB Doclogix



FP7 ICT


Kaunas University Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Mechatronics

UAB Neurotechnology

UAB Rubedo sistemos






Vytautas Magnus University, Faculty of Informatics

UAB Baltec CNC technologies

3.5 Vilnius University Institute of Mathematics and Informatics


Vilnius University Institute of Applied Research


4.1 Vilnius University Institute of Mathematics and Informatics



UAB Doclogix

UAB Mitsoft

UAB VTEX





FP7 ICT


Klaipėda University Faculty of Natural Science and Mathematics

UAB VTEX





Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Telemedicine Centre

UAB Mitsoft

UAB No Magic Europe

UAB VTEX


Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Telemedicine Centre





5.3 Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Telemedicine Centre


VšĮ Aukštieji algoritmai



UAB Neurotechnology



FP7 ICT



UAB Doclogix

UAB GetJar




Lithuanian Energy Institute








UAB Mitsoft


9 Barriers to participation

The following barriers presenting obstacles for Lithuania‘s participation in FP7 ICT

Theme have been identified:

Barrier 1: Perceived risk of failure in FP projects is very high

The success rate of Lithuanians participating and getting FP projects is very

low. That has an impact for the motivation of others, especially when success

rate of participating in Structural Funds projects is much higher. Most re-

searchers have a perception that it is almost impossible to obtain funding from

FP7 ICT programme.

Most of FP projects are long-term projects, where commercialization can be

done only after 5 and more years after the project proposal submission. Time

span for Lithuanian companies when they might agree to share the risk is not

more than 2-3 years. Especially in ICT sector where the market is changing

very fast. Hence the companies perceive the participation in FP as a time-

wasting opportunity for their businesses.

Lithuanian companies are still too weak to co-invest in RTD projects, though

the co-financing rate in FP7 are higher (75%) than in the projects co-funded

from EU Structural Funds where the co-funding rates in RTD are between 60%

and 65%.

Barrier 2: Lack of integration into the most competitive consortia

Some form of discrimination from EU15 partners was mentioned as one of the

main obstacles for participation. In some cases this idea about the alleged

discrimination came from a perception that FP has been mainly the game for

consortia from EU15.

Most participants who tried to write projects to FP had difficulties in joining

closed consortia. Most of the already formed consortia are not willing to open

up to new partners. In some cases the reason for ignorance was indeed a

previous bad experience with Lithuanian partners. Because of difficulties join-

ing "good" consortia Lithuanian participants usually chose weak or accidental

partners which failed to obtain funding.

Closed Lithuanian institutional structures and lack of cooperation, leadership

and entrepreneurial competences create communication barriers and ob-


stacles for knowledge sharing and finding of partners - both at international

and at domestic level

Most companies interested in FP are multinationals who are not interested in

Lithuanian science, because they already have well established links with sci-

ence institutions from EU15 countries.

EU15 countries have good representation and lobby in Brussels and Lithuanian

representation/lobbying even at general level is very weak.

Most interviewees agreed that success rate in FP is highly dependent on good

personal networks, previous collaboration experience, accessibility to other

networks and contact lists. Most Lithuanian success stories are based on per-

sonalities and their networks rather than on "pure science" and competencies.

Lack of necessary networking skills and cooperation culture might also be a

problem. Lithuanian scientists are used to work in small closed teams and are

not very eager to cooperate. And those who participate, for example, in

COST projects or go to various networking events are usually selected by their

professional competences and not by networking skills.

Barrier 3: Meagre human resources in ICT RTD

Lithuanian ICT RTD in general is not very competitive. There are no easily seen

projects within the public ICT RTD institutions which could be brought closer to

commercialization with the help of FP projects. There is a lack of competence

to create commercially viable results and the trends in knowledge transfer are

still negative. The explanation to this is a faulty Lithuanian system of evaluation

of science results. As an outcome of such evaluations best scientists are ori-

ented towards publishing articles in scientific journals within their narrow fields

of expertise rather than using their skills and knowledge towards problem-

solving in applied research projects.

The total number of researchers working intensively in ICT RTD is not very high in

comparison with other European countries. And this small amount of experts is

further divided into small groups which hardly cooperate.

Brain drain of young researchers and lack of time necessary for research due

to high teaching loads influence general competence as well.

Mentioned competence issues are being addressed by Lithuanian Govern-

ment through the ongoing study and science reform. But reform has only

started (2009) and it is too early to have even preliminary results.


Barrier 4: Lack of motivation, skills and competences at the individual level

Several problems were identified at individual level explaining the lack of mo-

tivation to participate in FP projects. Many Lithuanian scientists lack self-

confidence, especially those who were educated in Soviet education system.

This shall be applicable to all post-communist countries. The lack of coopera-

tion culture and narrow fields of interests lead to small groups of highly special-

ised scientists.

Narrowness of interests is sustained by current Lithuanian system of evaluation

of science results as it supports narrow specialisation and creates obstacles for

flexible and multidisciplinary research. In most scientific institutions scientists

are paid for process and not for result. On the other hand, most scientists have

too much administrative work and high teaching loads. As they are not moti-

vated by universities in any way to participate in FP, a lot of good opportuni-

ties are missed, unless there are motivated students who can drive projects as

part of their learning processes.

Scientists lack product development skills which are necessary for achieving

results-oriented project outcomes. And business product developers are not

interested to participate in FP project system, as they perceive them as having

too much bureaucracy connected with the projects. More so, public ICT RTD

institutions have difficulties in attracting experts from business on short-term

business due to public procurement or internal administrative rules.

Barrier 5: Individual academic evaluation not linked to the assessment of one’s con-

tribution to the ERA

ICT is developing by penetrating into other sectors and there are difficulties to

create a common understanding what ICT science really means in Lithuania.

Participating in FP projects does not give any bonus or advantage for scien-

tists’ career when his/her scientific results are evaluated.

Projects made with business companies are usually strictly confidential and

scientists cannot use their work either.

FP projects are oriented to European needs while Lithuanian scientists (those

involved in developing technologies for market) mostly address local needs. In

many cases research topics are different and the gap between national ICT

RTD and EU ICT RTD thematically is widening. The gap is reinforced by gradu-

ate students which have no choice than to specialize within the narrow topics


of their supervisors, and thus to become even narrower specialized than their

predecessors.

Lithuanian research topics are usually much smaller and the results of such re-

search can be used only in creation of niche products.

Barrier 6: Lack of financial support for project preparation

Preparation of the project takes a lot of time. Since there is no support for the

preparation of projects neither from the government nor from the ICT RTD insti-

tutions, participants have to use their own resources. Universities and other

public institutions do not provide research support services at professional lev-

el. Hence the most interested persons in participating and/or initiating FP pro-

jects are graduate students who, as anecdotal evidence suggests, agree to

write proposals for free. In some cases professors even sent their doctoral stu-

dents to training courses to acquire project writing skills.

General financing of RTD activities in universities is rather small and the facul-

ties and departments lack financial resources to launch internal research pro-

jects that could lead onto bigger projects at national or EU level.

There is no financial support for project preparation at public ICT RTD institu-

tions. Some universities have set up dedicated project support offices, but

these mainly deal with the projects for the Structural Funds which are of rele-

vant to the Rector’s Office.

There is no financial and professional support to attract product developers

from business companies.

The support for networking activities (such as participation in international bro-

kerage events) is small.

Neither science institutions nor businesses have their representatives in Brussels.

The co-financing of RTD projects from the Structural Funds that could compli-

ment projects in FP is more complicated than in other countries and is not

widely used.

Lack of professional FP related consultancy services - too many general infor-

mation and too difficult to find support in particular cases.


Barrier 7: Lack of national programme-based funding linked to the FP7 ICT Theme

Lithuanian science system, including ICT RTD, is capable of delivering high

quality research, but fragmented structures and rigidity of public research in-

stitutions very often pose barriers to collaboration and optimal use of human

resources.

Large number of RTD related institutions and low levels of funding together

with outdated funding approaches.

There is overemphasis of public-sector driven RTD based on institutional fund-

ing.

Lack of programmes based public funding and lack of private funding result-

ed in unsatisfactory R&D output (patents, publications, commercialised re-

search).

ICT as a sector is very horizontal and without clear research priorities, the

fragmentation each year becomes bigger and bigger.

Barrier 8: Lack of cross-field competences

Participation in FP7 programmes needs a better understanding on how exist-

ing knowledge and competences in Lithuanian ICT RTD could be used in in-

dustry-relevant applications.

Multidisciplinary research is not supported and there is lack of good and moti-

vated PhD students.

Lithuanian ICT RTD competence areas do not match the FP7 ICT areas.

Barrier 9: The untapped existing research infrastructure and know-how in private ICT

RTD

In some areas there is no or very low effort from ICT RTD community in terms of

the number of submitted proposals for FP7 ICT calls although there is a high

level of infrastructure resources in terms of laboratories and staff numbers.

The audit has identified the untapped potential in ICT RTD in the areas of:

o The network of the future;

o Organic photonics and other disruptive photonics;

o Microsystems and smart miniaturised systems;

o ICT for mobility of the future;


o ICT for governance and policy modelling.

The potential in the following areas is rather weak as well:

o Engineering of network monitoring and control systems;

o Digital libraries and digital preservations;

o Computing systems.

Barrier 10: The insufficient research infrastructure potential in public ICT RTD

There is a high or medium effort from ICT RTD community in terms of the number of

submitted proposals for FP7 ICT in some areas, but low or no infrastructure resources

in terms of laboratories and staff numbers.

The audit has identified areas where the needs for such infrastructure are the big-

gest, namely:

Microsystems and smart miniaturised systems;

ICT for mobility of the future;

ICT for governance and policy modelling;

Organic photonics and other disruptive photonic technology;

The network of the future.

Barrier 11: Project planning not fully aligned to the existing infrastructure

As stipulated in Task 4 report the FP7 ICT results from Calls 1-4 show that most of

the proposals are being submitted in those areas where there is no adequate

infrastructure or where human resources are below average comparing to the

areas where no or less proposals are being generated.

The success in the FP7 ICT participation is evident in those areas where there is

a match between the research infrastructure in terms of human resources and

the project proposal effort by ICT RTD community (measured as a number of

proposals submitted per Objective).

The lack of proposals in a number of areas where the research infrastructures

are in place (both in private and public RTD institutions) points out to missed

opportunities for participation in FP7 ICT and call for adequate policy actions.


Barrier 12: Weak links between the national technology platforms in ICT and their EU

counterparts

The main link between the FP ICT research agenda and the national research

agendas is provided by the EU technology platforms in ICT and (through their

mirror groups) by the National Technology Platforms. Yet the links between the

national platforms and their EU counterparts are very weak. This is because

after the initial support provided by the Ministry of Economy to the National

Technology Platforms in 2005-2006 (when five National Technology Platforms

were set up by public and private ICT RTD) further support was removed and

the platforms became ineffective as a result. To some extent the continuation

of a national platform existence has been secured through the national com-

plex programme in ICT which was prepared by the Association “National

software and services cluster”, which administered the national software and

service platform (a counterpart of NESSE – Networked European Software and

Services Initiative). It was thanks to the linkage between NESSE and its national

counterpart that Lithuania’s national complex programme has included the

research topics relevant to Challenge 1 – Pervasive and Trustworthy Network

and Service Infrastructure, namely, Internet of Things and Internet services and

software.

It has been noted that weak links between other National Technology Plat-

forms and their EU counterparts have contributed to a widening gap between

national ICT RTD and EU ICT RTD in terms of thematic scope.

Barrier 13: The insufficient reliability of the service-oriented Grid infrastructure

A number of experts, both from public and private ICT RTD institutions, raised

their concerns about the usability of Grid infrastructure for industry-academy

collaboration due to the insufficient reliability of the Grid and the lack of hu-

man resources linked to it. In the current setup the maintenance of the Grid

server clusters is provided by part-time, under-paid graduate students.

No adequate competence exists among Grid developers in creating a ser-

vice-oriented infrastructure which could offer a value to ICT companies.

The consolidated SWOT is presented in the table below.


STRENGTHS

1. There are good examples of participa-

tion in FP6 ICT Theme with a real impact

on company performance (such as the

project AXMEDIS in the case of compa-

nies VRS and TEO);

2. There is a potential of motivated and

competent developers in private ICT

RTD sector (as attested, for example, by

the acclaimed success of Vilnius-based

GetJar);

3. Strong participation of both public and

private ICT RTD in the bottom-up fund-

ing schemes (such as COST and Eureka

programmes);

4. High current competence levels in

some topics of FP7 ICT Theme (such as

engineering of network monitoring and

control systems, optoelectronics, com-

puting systems);

5. High interest of researchers in acquiring

competences in the future technology

areas (as evident in the numerous ap-

plications for the Future Emerging Tech-

nologies calls).

WEAKNESSES

1. Perceived risk of failure in FP projects is

very high (most of the researchers have a

perception that is almost impossible to

obtain funding from FP7 ICT programme);

2. Lack of integration into competitive Euro-

pean consortia which generate the most

successful proposals in FP7 ICT Theme

(most explain this by pointing out that on-

ly weak, less competitive consortia are

open to Lithuanian researchers);

3. Weak integration of ICT RTD (infrastructure

and human resources scattered across

many public and few private ICT RTD

create duplications);

4. Lack of motivation, skills and compe-

tences at the individual level (participa-

tion in the FP projects is not supported at

administrative level, thus creating a bur-

den for researchers);

5. Evaluation of RTD is not linked to contribu-

tion to the ERA, including participation in

FP7;

6. Lack of financial support for project

preparation at public ICT RTD institutions

(no effective provisions are in place to

support project preparation and man-

agement at professional level);

7. Lack of national programme-based fund-

ing to support the ERA-relevant ICT RTD;

8. The lack of cross-field competences that

link up industry/technology needs with

wider socio economic fields

9. The untapped existing research infrastruc-

ture (especially in private ICT RTD);

10. The insufficient research infrastructure po-

tential in public ICT RTD institutions;

11. Project planning for the FP7 ICT Theme is


not fully aligned to infrastructure (many

projects are being submitted in the areas

where no or little infrastructure exists);

12. Weak links between the national tech-

nology platforms in ICT and their EU coun-

terparts contributing to a widening gap

between national and EU ICT RTD;

13. The insufficient reliability of the service-

oriented Grid infrastructure to support pri-

vate and public ICT RTD.

OPPORTUNITIES

1. Opportunity to start aligning national

ICT RTD priorities to those of the ERA by

implementing the national complex

programme in ICT (due to start in March

2010);

2. Opportunity to concentre ICT RTD re-

sources in few centres of excellence as

a result of the ongoing study and sci-

ence reform (which has started in 2009);

3. Opportunity to increase support for ERA-

relevant horizontal activities (through

additional support for participation in

COST and Eureka activities) by leverag-

ing the Structural Funds;

4. Opportunity to develop an Open Grid

Service Infrastructure to support public

and private ICT RTD as part of the

planned research infrastructures (to be

funded from the Structural Funds in

2010-2013);

5. Opportunity to significantly upgrade the

existing computing capacity of the Grid

and to enable the running of large-

scale parallel computing tasks.

THREATS

1. Threat of a further decrease in motivation

to participate in FP7 ICT Theme as success

rates continue to drop;

2. Threat of failure to implement the ongoing

study and science reform in relation to

the concentration of ICT RTD potential;

3. Threat of a further widening gap between

national ICT RTD priorities and those of the

ERA if no rectifying actions are taken to

close this gap;

4. Threat of a waning political support for ICT

RTD as a national priority which can result

in a further decrease in funding for ICT

RTD, including the Grid infrastructure.


10 Conclusions

No policy exists at national level that specifically supports development of

more favourable environment for ICT RTD; the operational measures such as

the implementation of various e-government and e-services related support

programmes are not tied up in a single strategic vision;

ICT RTD potential is fragmented and not specialised with most of the research

potential being tied up in teaching some general purpose informatics courses

at various universities; the lack of specialization of the ICT RTD community also

contributes to the lack of cooperation;

ICT companies in Lithuania lack access to export markets and the RTD re-

sources employed in the industry are meagre with only a handful of develop-

ment companies participating in international supply chains.

The participation of Lithuanian entities in FP ICT Theme has been on decrease

due to the discontinuation of participants and high drop-out rates caused by

multiple factors: from lack of skills to weak consortia;

The present and planned infrastructure in Lithuania (such as Grid) is underused

due to the lack of demand for tasks requiring high computing power, lack of

service-oriented architecture and unstable performance due to the meagre

resources dedicated to the maintenance;

EU Structural Funds provide the opportunity to create a demand for RTD inten-

sive ICT sector and make a spill-over effect into FP ICT which has been ob-

served: most of FP ICT participants are active participants in EU Structural

Funding schemes supporting research and innovation.


11 Recommendations

11.1 At national level

To create conditions for increased motivation to participate in FP activities in

public sector by restructuring national funding in favour to competition based

funding and reshaping public RTD entities evaluation criteria system accord-

ingly.

To establish framework conditions for aligning national ICT priorities with those

of EU through supporting networking activities between EU Technology Plat-

forms and their counterparts in Lithuania and involving experts having exper-

tise on EU ICT priorities in setting up national ICT priorities and programmes.

To reinforce existing science-industry partnerships and their linkages with EU

counterparts in ICT RTD field establishing framework for wider national partici-

pation in new types of EU level RTD collaboration such as Joint Technology Ini-

tiatives or ERANETs. Lithuanian financial contribution to Joint Undertakings or

other structures activities must be based on periodic evaluation of strengths

existing on national level and benefits for nationally situated ICT businesses.

To utilize the potential of bottom-up research activities in ICT RTD through in-

creased national funding for COST and EUREKA programmes in ICT field as

most effective way for bottom-up push of nationally relevant topics to EU lev-

el.

To establish national framework for proactive position of Lithuanian entities in

project preparatory activities through dedicated project assistance grant

scheme or other means available to governmental institutions for both public

and private RTD.

To support the formation of clusters which are able to produce commercially

viable results, especially in the areas matching the EU priorities or in the areas

where existing/planned infrastructure both in private and public sectors might

be integrated into cluster activities. Make a higher use of science and tech-

nology parks as drivers for such clusters, especially where there is potential for

technology transfers in ICT RTD.

To establish competence building schemes for scientists based not on the

formal learning or acquiring of information about FP, but with the focus on skills


building, simulation processes, product development tasks and cross-field hori-

zons.

To initiate national programmes for valorisation of FP project results and to

deepen the social and economical benefits gained during the FP projects

through specially targeted actions for SMEs.

11.2 At EU level

To support EU12 businesses participation in ICT related Joint Technology Initia-

tives negotiating favourable conditions for EU12 entities participation in their

activities.

To reinforce EU15 science-industry partnerships and their linkages with EU12

counterparts in ICT RTD field through targeted measures (specific calls for

supporting actions) for alignment of strategic research agendas of the EU

technology platforms and national counterparts.

To use FET Objective as most open to new topics not covered by ICT Work

Programme scheme under FP7 ICT programme to provide funding for EU12 for

decreasing the gap in the knowledge, use and adoption of the future emerg-

ing technologies generated through FET between EU12 and EU15.

To involve a larger number of ICT RTD experts from Lithuania in evaluation of

FP7 ICT proposals to increase pull of competence having good understanding

of the evaluation criteria and acquainted with the decision making processes

in the Framework Programme as highly effective way building human poten-

tial for competent participation in FP7 ICT.

11.3 At stakeholders level

To increase the number of coordinators in FP ICT Theme through the targeted

campaign aimed at the existing and the emerging technology clusters based

around the cooperation between science and industry along a specific indus-

try value chain with ties to EU partners, where cluster organisations could act

as coordinators of future consortia;

To increase the number of participants from industry in FP ICT Theme through

the partner search activities conducted with the help and through the na-

tional associations in ICT such as Infobalt, Knowledge Economy Forum and in-

volving them as stakeholders in FP programming;


To increase the number of participants from science in FP ICT Theme through

the scientific societies in ICT such as Lithuanian Computer Society, Lithuanian

Mathematical Society and other professional associations which are part of

larger international umbrella organisations and can act as a pool of research-

ers to be recruited into FP ICT consortia.


Annex1. Major Centres of Excellence

Annex 1. Major Centres of Excellence

Institution, areas of activity, main scientists, RTD scope Relevant FP7 ICT

Objectives*


Departments: Information Systems, Computer Networks, Computer Engineer-

ing, Software Engineering, Business Informatics

Main scientists: Prof. E.Kazanavičius, Prof. Rimantas Gatautis, Prof. Tar-

gamadzė, Prof. R. Plėštys, Prof. H. Pranevičius, Prof. V. Rėklaitis, Prof. R. Butler-

is, Prof. R.Barauskas, Prof. R. Šeinauskas

Main areas: Information Systems, Networks, Computer and Software Engi-

neering

ICT RTD scope: IS specification models, object-oriented DB, IS design meth-

ods and tools, distributed IS modelling, design of distributed IS with WEB inter-

faces, applications of network technologies in studies, network technology

research and application, embedded systems, analysis of physical struc-

tures, engineering systems and processes using computational mathematics

and mechanics methods and IT, applications in Medical Informatics, image

processing and analysis based on computational technologies, techniques

of the Artificial Intelligence and model based cognitive technologies.

[1.1, 1.2], 1.3, [3.2, 3.3,

3.4, 3.6, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3],

5.1, 6.1, [6.2], 6.3, 7.3


Main departments: Department of Software Engineering, Department of

Computer Science 1, Department of Computer Science 2

Main scientists: Prof. R. Baronas, Prof. F.Ivanauskas, Dr. A.Mitašiūnas, Prof.

Š.Raudys, Prof. A.Juozapavičius

Main areas: Informatics and Software Engineering

ICT RTD scope: software process, software engineering methods, software

quality management, information systems modelling, semantics of pro-

grams, artificial intelligence, retrieval of logical proofs, real-time systems,

[1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4], 1.5,

[3.1], 3.5, [3.6], [3.9],

[4.1], [4.3], 5.1, [5.3,

6.3,7.2]



Objectives*

GRID infrastructure

3. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Faculty of Fundamental Sciences

Departments: Nuclear Hydrophysics, Physics, Information Systems, Digital

Simulation and Investigation of Constructions, Strength Mechanics

Main scientists: Prof. Raimundas Čiegis, Prof. Antanas Čenys, Prof. Olegas

Vasilecas, Doc. Dalius Mažeika

Main areas: Computational Mechanics, Information Systems, Computer

Modelling

ICT RTD scope: Investigation and application of statistical analysis methods,

parallel numerical solution methods of physical technological methods, de-

velopment and application of computational mechanics, modelling disin-

tegration processes of structural elements, disintegration and adaptability of

structural elements with defects, calculation and optimisation of elastic-

plastic linearly strengthening beam structures by assessing displacement lim-

itations, information systems and technologies, architecture of intellectual-

ised information systems, analysis of finite elements qualitatively assessed, re-

search into charge transfer phenomena in electric equipment and its com-

ponents by using experimental and computer modelling methods

[1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2,

3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.9,

4.2, 4.3, 6.3, 7.2]


Departments: Computer Networks, Data Analysis, Informatics Methodology,

Numerical Analysis, probability Theory and Statistics, Recognition Processes,

Software Engineering, Systems Analysis

Main scientists: Prof. Gintautas Dzemyda, Prof. Antanas Žilinskas, Dr Julius

Žilinskas, Prof. Valentina Dagienė, Prof. Albertas Čaplinskas, Prof. Laimutis

Telksnys

Main areas: Software Engineering, Grid Computing, Data Mining, Decision

Support, Optimization, Data Visualization, Operational Research, Recogni-

tion Processes, Signal Processing, Language and Multimedia Technologies,

1.1, [1.2], 1.6, [2.2, 3.5,

3.6, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1,

7.1, 7.3]



Objectives*

Interactive Systems, Web Mining, Fundamentals of Informatics, ICT in Educa-

tion, Ontology-Based Engineering of Component Applications, Computer

Networks.

ICT RTD scope: Analysis of rough functions, applications to finance, asymp-

totic analysis of statistics, automated reasoning methods for knowledge and

agent-based logics, econometric models of time series and statistical infer-

ences, integration of statistical and neural approaches to design pattern

recognition algorithms, ontology-based engineering of component applica-

tions, information systems and business systems, relationships between com-

plexity of pattern recognition algorithms, amount of training data and algo-

rithms' performance, and utilizations of this knowledge while solving real-

world problems


Departments: New Materials Research and Measurement Technology, Sem-

iconductor Optoelectronics, Advanced Technology, Liquid Crystals Labora-

tory

Main scientists: Prof. Artūras Žukauskas, Prof. Roland Tomašiūnas, Prof. S. Ju-

ršėnas, Prof. K. Jarašiūnas, Prof. G. Tamulaitis

Main areas: Semiconductor materials and devices for light technologies

ICT RTD scope: Bioinformatics and behavioural systems, Biomedical optics:

fundamental, applied and clinical research, Non-destructive control and

metrology of materials, Semiconductor technologies of light

[3.2], 3.5, [3.7], 3.8


Annex 2. Potential Centres of Excellence


Objectives

1. Centre for Physical Sciences and Technology, Semiconductor Physics In-

stitute

Departments: Microwave Laboratory, Sensors Laboratory, Laboratory of

Terahertz Electronics, Fluctuation Research Laboratory,

Main scientists: Prof. Žilvinas Kancleris, Dr Arūnas Šetkus, Prof. Arūnas Krot-

kus, Dr Gintaras Valušis

Main areas: Electromagnetic Waves Interaction with Material, Fluctuations

and Chaos, sensors and energy saving technologies, information technol-

ogies, development and investigation of national measurement standards

ICT RTD scope: Mobile system for non-invasive wound state monitoring, Te-

rahertz Radiation Systems, Development of Very-Broad-Frequency-Band

Detectors of Electromagnetic Radiation

3.1, [3.2], 3.6, [3.7], 8.0

(FET)

2. Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Telemedicine Centre

Departments: n/a

Main scientists: Prof. Alvydas Paunksnis, Dr. Valerijus, Barzdžiukas, Prof.

Arūnas Lukoševičius (also Biomedical Engineering Institute, Kaunas Univer-

sity of Technology)

Main areas: the use of remote medical expertise at the point of need. It

includes two major areas: Home care, as the care at the point of need

through connected sensors, hubs, middleware and reference centres;

and co-operative working, as a network of medical expertise linked to-

gether

ICT RTD scope: information technology tools of clinical decision support

and citizens wellness for e-health system, Information technologies for hu-

man health – clinical decision support, technical infrastructure develop-

ment for telemedicine in Lithuania

5.1, 4.3, 5.3

3. Kaunas University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and

Mechatronics

2.1, 2.2, 6.1, 7.2


Departments: n/a

Main scientists: Prof. Ramutis Bansevičius, Prof. V. Ostaševičius, Prof. A. Žili-

ukas

Main areas: mechatronics systems with piezomechanical elements, com-

posite materials with implanted piezoelectric sensors, adaptive multi-

degree-of-freedom actuators-sensors

ICT RTD scope: mechatronics systems with piezomechanical elements,

composite materials with implanted piezoelectric sensors, methods and

devices for tactile information transfer, alternating pressure hydraulic sys-

tems, adaptive multi-degree-of-freedom actuators/ sensors, develop-

ment of “intelligent” mechanisms, self-repairing mechanisms, devices

based on direct piezoeffect, precise microvalves with piezoactuators,

Precise microvalves with piezoactuators for control of alternating pressure

systems applied in medical equipment, navigation of the robots in the un-

constrained area, analysis and simulation of the mechatronics system’s

components dynamics.

4. Klaipėda University, Faculty of Natural Science and Mathematics

Departments: Informatics, Statistics, Mathematics, Ecology, Marine Sea-

scape Research

Main scientists: Prof. Antanas Andrius Bielskis, Dr Vitalij Denisov

Main areas: Spatial statistics, statistical methods of classification, optimal

control of dynamic systems, modelling and information technology appli-

cation in environmental, life science and technology fields

ICT RTD scope: statistical analysis of financial markets and methods of sta-

tistical modelling, component system model based design of information

technologies

[3.6, 4.2], 5.1, 6.3, [6.4],

[7.1], 7.2, [10.2]


Departments: Systems Analysis, Applied Informatics, Mathematics and Sta-

tistics

Main scientists: Prof. Algirdas Avižienis, Dr. Aušra Saudargienė, Dr Gailius

Raškinis, Prof. Vladislav Fomin, Dr Ričardas Krikštolaitis

1.7, 3.4, 9.2


Main areas: systems analysis, modelling, control and optimization, signal

recognition, biosignal analysis and modelling of learning mechanism in bi-

osystems, digital language resource tools, system risk and reliability analy-

sis

ICT RTD scope: Resilience for Survivability in IST, Learning to emulate per-

ception action cycles in a driving school scenario, Generic Embedded

systems


Departments: Laboratory of Systems Control and Automation, Laboratory

of Nuclear Installation Safety

Main scientists: Dr Artūras Klementavičius, Dr Robertas Alzbutas,

Dr Romualdas Škėma, Prof. Liudvikas Pranevičius

Main areas: Investigations in the fields of thermal physics, fluid mechanics

and metrology, simulation of complex systems, development of their con-

trol methods and technologies

ICT RTD scope: Experimental and numerical investigations of heat and

pulse transfer processes in one-phase and two-phase flows, Investigation

of the weighting method with the aim to achieve international level of the

state primary standard of the air (gas) and flow unit and volume and flow

characteristics of the standards of the water and oil products in final stage

of establishing, Monitoring of the power and heat systems, creation of the

control models and their investigation

1.7, 6.3

Project Quality Control/QA Signature Sheet

Contract Number: 30-CE-0262077/00-53

Project Title: Lithuania - RTD Technological audit

Task Number: 9

Task Title: Lithuania RTD Technological Audit – Simplified Report

Planned Delivery Date: 15 November, 2010

Actual Delivery Date: 7 March, 2011

Tasks for this report Status of validation

To produce a public version of Deliverable 8 in a form acces-

sible to a broad public and decision making constituency

S

Key:

S Meets standards according to the contract, no revisions required

D Discussion needed

L Low degree of revision required

M Moderate degree of revision required

H High degree of revision required

N/A Not applicable

Evaluation & Quality Assurance Officer:

Prof. Habil. Dr. Algis Galdikas

Signature: Date:

07/03/2011

Note:

The report was delayed due to the need to improve the initial and subsequent

drafts following the comments from evaluators and Dr Stephan Pascall.

Project information page

Project name LITHUANIA – RTD TECHNOLOGICAL AUDIT

Project № 30-CE-0262077/00-53

Country LITHUANIA

Client Contractor:

European Commission

Directorate General Information

Society and Media

Directorate Lisbon Strategy and

Policies for the Information Society

UAB EUROPARAMA

Addresses 1160 Bruxelles Saulėtekio al. 15

Tel./fax +32 2 296 81 78

+32 2 298 54 28

+370 5 2500 611

+370 5 2500 616

e-mail [email protected] [email protected]

Contact persons Stephan Pascall,

Adviser International Coopera-

tion, Integration of New Member

States and Regional Aspects for

RTD

Linas Eriksonas,

Project Team Leader

Authors Linas Eriksonas

Edgaras Leichteris

Juras Ulbikas

Contributors Saulius Maskeliūnas

Name of report Lithuania - ICT RTD Technological Audit - Simplified Report

Period December, 2009 – December, 2010

Date 7 March, 2011

kk0214243enn_002

Documents