COST: benefit analysis
President of the COST Association Dr Ángeles Rodríguez Peña met with Portal in Žilina, Slovakia, where she outlined some of the ways in which COST is evolving
DrÁngeles Rodríguez Peña, president of the COST Association, has a strong vision for the organisation’s future, and one that centres on the evolution of COST as the premier networking tool in Europe. Of course, while many would argue that the association is close to that already, when Portal met with Rodríguez Peña in Žilina, Slovakia, on the sidelines of the ‘Intelligent Transport Systems: a Tool or a Toy?’ event, she outlined some of the ways in which she hopes to be able to build on the COST’s core strengths in order to meet the recently defined strategic goals.
According to Rodríguez Peña, COST’s core strength lies in its ability to empower its researchers. It does this, she said, by not being “overly prescriptive”, by allowing the researchers to identify what they see as the problems that require addressing, and by the means and methods through which they can be tackled. This, of course, is best achieved by the creation of a network which fosters collaboration and co-operation across disciplines and borders.
She said: “You empower the researchers to think by themselves, and then you provide them with a tool through which they can connect. This is crucial, because in most instances they are aware that the problem goes beyond what they can achieve alone; they are aware that they need to incorporate expertise from other disciplines as well as from stakeholders, policy makers, civil society, or regulators, and a COST Action allows them to do that.
“People are at the very core of COST; they are the drivers behind what we do. We simply provide a platform for them to come together, and we give them the freedom for them to think for themselves.”
Popularity versus budget
Given the unique way in which COST operates – there is, quite simply, no other networking tool in Europe which offers the same degree of independence and freedom – COST Actions are extremely popular with the research community, so much so that the success rate for the last call was just 5%, and not because of a lack of excellent proposals, but a lack of budget.
Indeed, Rodríguez Peña revealed that COST receives just €300m from Horizon 2020, which means that, frustratingly, so few new COST Actions receive funding. She added: “This is frustrating for both COST and the research community, who come to us with a wealth of great ideas, but who we have to turn away; what is more, we have lost an important part of our budget because of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI).
“Because of this, we perhaps run the risk of disappointing too many members of the community to the point where they may not return with a new application when subsequent calls are announced, which is something we really want to avoid.”
The relatively low level of funding made available to COST through the framework programme does indeed seem somewhat short sighted in that the COST Actions require little – in terms of funding or other support – in comparison to the projects funded under H2020 proper and yet have a tremendous effect.
Given the fact that H2020 and much of EU-funded science are geared towards the commercialisation of results, there is, perhaps, a sense that COST may be at a disadvantage here, as turning research into commercially viable products is not as high on its list of priorities.
Fostering communication
Moreover, for Rodríguez Peña, the way in which the framework programme is designed, essentially following a linear model of innovation, is now outdated. She explained: “Innovation does not happen in a ‘linear fashion’ – it happens in a more serendipitous way, and one of the most important issues inherent in attempting to get products to the markets is the establishment of a clear communication pathway, from the knowhow to the implementation to the users. An idea can be great, but if the market is not there, then the commercialisation of any results is all-but pointless.”
This communication pathway is now beginning to emerge, with, for instance, universities increasingly developing technology parks where industry and SMEs can plug in. However, as Rodríguez Peña highlighted, this is only having an impact at the local level. “While that is, of course, a positive beginning, when these activities are successful they naturally want to grow, and then they must look at the common market, and so they are looking at the EU level, but there we have complete failure because the necessary instruments quite simply don’t exist,” she said.
“While COST may be unable to completely fill that void, its unique research-driven, bottom-up approach can play a major role. Indeed, 50% of our Actions have industrial participation, which clearly demonstrates our ability to attract industry.
“This level of industry involvement is also something that has evolved naturally, and is something that is also happening, although to a lesser degree, with other relevant stakeholders within the European community. However, we are not as successful at attracting larger businesses, and this is perhaps for the best, in that they can often be quite myopic in their approaches and, indeed, many sectors – such as pharmaceuticals, for instance – are heavily subsidised. As such they can often have less concern over project failures as they know they are able to absorb the cost later on,” the COST president continued.
For Rodríguez Peña, jobs and growth are kick-started by SMEs at the local level. COST is there to enable networks to begin here but also to be able to grow, to reach the European level, and to prosper. It is here, she told Portal, that communication really is key, with the networks enabled by COST creating communication platforms of all kinds. But, she added, “you need to have enough networks. Not 300, but 3,000 or even 30,000. When we reach that level, we will be able to have a truly significant impact.”
The advantage of synergies
COST’s ability to generate synergy is also one of its defining features, and, again, this is perhaps also something that is lacking at the EU level. Rodríguez Peña explained: “In Europe, there are numerous initiatives and funding mechanisms for science-related activities, but there is nothing to provide the glue to hold them together, and so they run on without connecting. At COST, we bring people together at the grass roots level and let it evolve naturally into something more powerful.”
The ITS event in Žilina was a great example of how, for instance, COST is able to create such synergies amongst various stakeholders. Yet, while the association is indeed very good at this, it is not one of its core focuses; rather, this again is something that has grown organically from the way in which COST operates.
The organisation’s president added: “In this sense, I see COST as a contributor, and we are happy to be able to contribute in our own humble way to create the necessary synergies at the EU level.”
A further area in which COST has a role to play is in creating and sustaining a feedback loop to the European Commission. That is, in order to ensure future calls are relevant, those designing them require feedback from those involved in answering them, and as COST is independent and, indeed, not led by any single country, therefore avoiding any kind of bias, the commission is always keen to hear what COST has to say about where future priorities should lie.
Trial and error
Given the ability of COST to provide a communication platform from which to build networks and form synergies, the fields of intelligent transport systems and smart cities are amongst those which stand to benefit significantly from the work of relevant COST Actions.
Indeed, smart cities and their constituent parts – from smart lighting, to transport, buildings, health, leisure and everything in between – will require a multistakeholder approach at a level never seen before, as sectors (some of which are not traditionally ‘smart’) need to come together for the success of the greater whole.
For Rodríguez Peña, however, the challenges posed by the transition to a smarter future are too great to be tackled in any one single way, and so numerous approaches to the various elements must all be tried. She told Portal: “This is something that, quite simply, has to be achieved, and the only way of doing that will be to break the overall challenge down into manageable elements.
“For a scientist, this is quite natural, and they will go on to formulate a hypothesis and conduct experiments on the areas they feel require attention. Here, as in many others, a ‘trial-and-error’ approach will be necessary, but, of course, if we don’t try then we won’t succeed. Pilot cities, and indeed projects, also have a clear role to play as they will enable the researchers to see what works where and to share best practice.”
This, she added, is important, because Europe’s strength is often said to lie in its diversity, and this very diversity will mean that a ‘one size fits all’ approach will find little success; flexibility and diversity in the work being done to tackle smart city-related problems, however, will be vital to their realisation.
Once the over-arching challenge has been broken down it will also be important to ensure synergy between the various initiatives and, finally, to bring the diverse elements back together once more. Again, COST can play a role here. Rodríguez Peña explained: “We are able to create networks of networks, and these are extremely successful in reaching out and connecting with not only other COST Actions, but also other networks within other programmes, such as the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, and others. This is something that, moving forwards, COST needs to become much more active in; we aim to help our Actions with more support, more funding, logistic support and contacts.”
Future objectives
COST’s future has been under scrutiny by the organisation in recent months, with an assessment being made of what it does, why it does it, and what it would like to do in the future. This has been compiled into a document entitled ‘Vision and Strategic Goals’ and while, according to Rodríguez Peña, they currently remain just that – ‘visions’ and ‘goals’ – the exercise has been useful in that now objectives have been identified, work towards them can begin.
She said: “We have identified four strategic goals. Firstly, we want COST to be the networking tool in Europe – the most relevant in the sense of being the front runner by covering things that others cannot because of cost or any other reason.
“There are other networking tools in Europe, but none can offer the same as COST: the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions have a very specific purpose, the Networks of Excellence are no longer functioning, and the ERA-NETs have no clear networks. We want to be able to provide a lens through which it is possible to view a snapshot of a specific field or area so as to be able to quickly map that area, rather than relying on lengthy and often expensive exercises which are never truly complete.”
The second strategic goal concerns the empowerment of researchers, which is to be widened so as to also include capacity building. “COST has always been very good at capacity building, but we need this to be applied to everyone, and that includes a substantial amount of support for young researchers,” the organisation’s president said, adding: “We have to provide the necessary skills and opportunities for developing leadership and strengths, which should be available for everyone so that we can ensure that the next generation can surpass their predecessors in terms of both their creativity and their output and results.
“That will be achieved through networks, as this enables the sharing of skills as well as providing the chance to learn new things and to then put these things into practice. You cannot be a leader if you don’t lead anything, and the networks in which we help the research community to develop will ensure that the next generation of leaders has the skillset necessary for success.”
Third, Rodríguez Peña explained, COST will work to become better at providing policy advice. COST has some 50,000 researchers all around Europe, who can be used “to feed the political debate,” she said, by highlighting the needs of the research community. “This,” she added, “is something that will also be able to benefit the policy makers at the member state level, which is often missed when research-based policy is discussed.”
The formation of synergies forms the basis of the fourth and final strategic goal, and the COST president explained that this now needs to go beyond the synergies between COST Actions to include a much broader focus and so include other initiatives. Rodríguez Peña said: “We can do this by looking at how we can provide added value and help other, previously existing synergies. We are planning a strategic approach to this, and hope that, in the future, this will be something we will not have to actually actively pursue; it will happen by default.”
COST hopes to have made significant progress towards achieving these goals by the time that the successor to Horizon 2020, Framework Programme 9, is rolled out. Discussing her hopes for the future, Rodríguez Peña said: “For FP9 we want to be the leading network in Europe, which will mean that any researcher who feels they need a network will know where to go.
“By that time, COST will also be able to provide a range of networks, whether large or small, for instance, and applied to any number of topics. By doing this, we will create added value by creating synergies and complementarities with other EU initiatives, and will also have an impact at the member state level.”
These goals are, of course, quite ambitious – especially given the timeframe in which the association hopes to achieve them – but, as Rodríguez Peña pointed out, “ambition is important”. Nevertheless, in the same way as she believed the challenges posed by the smart cities of the future must be tackled, the COST president revealed that the organisation will work towards its strategic goals by breaking them down into more achievable ones that comprise the whole, whilst also ensuring that these tasks are properly prioritised.
Visibility, reach and impact
The future of COST was also discussed at a recent ministerial conference in Slovakia’s capital, Bratislava, where, despite receiving praise and positive feedback for the work done thus far, it was also decided that the association needed to enhance its visibility and impact. Outlining some of these comments, Rodríguez Peña said: “It became evident that while we are doing well, this impact is diminished somewhat by the fact that we are simply not visible enough; not enough people know what we do and how we do it.
“Similarly, we have concluded that we must do more to support the next generations of researchers and, alongside this, must do more to ensure the inclusion of SMEs. As such, we are now changing our documents and perspectives and are enhancing the dialogue we have with stakeholders and participants with regard to what research is taking place. By doing so, we hope to ensure that those reading our material will see that, no matter their area of professional expertise, they can become involved in one of our COST Actions.”
Administration
As COST is not a part of the European Commission’s framework programme, there is also potential, Rodríguez Peña said, for the organisation to become a very effective administration. She said: “We can work to protect the interests of researchers, ensure that they are not overwhelmed with regulatory hurdles and bureaucracy, and we can actually run processes and make pilots.
“For instance, one thing that COST is doing now is exploring how to evaluate interdisciplinarity, which is a challenge. Having a bottom-up approach can be difficult in some senses because it means that we can potentially receive proposals of any kind. Indeed, most of our networks are highly interdisciplinary, and so we need to be able to evaluate that, which has been quite challenging. We are now trying to put in processes which are incredibly important because, essentially, the nature of the end product will depend on the process it has been subject to.”
There is also, Rodríguez Peña added, a need for a paradigm shift on the part of service providers. According to the COST president, it is often easier to provide funding for a single, large project, as opposed to several smaller ones of lesser cost. Yet, with the latter option, if one project fails all is not lost. This, she said, needs to be better recognised, which will depend on a change of mentality. She concluded: “Being a service provider, you have to understand that you are there to serve a purpose and, moreover, that you are there to ensure that the end user is receiving the proper support.
“Many administrations manage to somehow implement layer after layer of processes, making it increasingly difficult for the end user to navigate. For COST, the opposite approach will be taken, with the superfluous layers pared away so as to streamline the entire process.”
FP9 is just around the corner, and while COST’s goals are ambitious, the association has a strong, focused and proactive approach through Rodríguez Peña and the rest of her team; as such, the association is more than capable of achieving them.
Dr Ángeles Rodríguez Peña
President
COST Association
This article first appeared in issue 13 of Horizon 2020 Projects: Portal, which is now available here.
