ARTEMIS. Minutes of the Executive Board Meeting

Transcription

1 ARTEMIS Advanced Research and Technology for Embedded Intelligence and Systems Embedded Systems Technology Platform Minutes of the Executive Board Meeting 17 th January 2005 Commission Offices, Brussels Page 1 of 9

2 List of Participants Emile Aarts Jan van den Biesen Andrea Cuomo Laila Gide Yrjö Neuvo (Chair) Dominique Potier Eric Schutz Bob Malcolm Kostas Glinos Alkis Konstantellos Javid Khan Philips Research Philips Research ST Micro THALES NOKIA THALES STMicroelectronics ideo (Rapporteur) DG INFSO DG INFSO DG INFSO Page 2 of 9

3 Introduction The Chairman opened the meeting by saying that the Artemis platform had made a remarkable amount of progress within the past year since the first meeting with Mr Liikanen. Latest developments KG talked about the meeting on Technology Platforms held in December Artemis represented by EA and was well received. The first meeting of the Mirror Group will be held on 17 th Feb. in Vienna which is also the kick-off meeting for the COSINE support action. Artemis should be well represented at this meeting. A general workshop on Embedded Systems will be held the next day. Legal and financial structure Jan van den Biesen of Philips, chair of the Funding Strategy WG, presented the first analysis of options arising from discussions in the WG (Minutes of the meeting on 10 th December 2004 are available on the Artemis web site.) The initial setting out of the options was accepted by the Executive Board. The tentatively recommended top up option, in which Member States contributions could be topped-up with EU funding on the proviso that participating countries mutually synchronise and harmonise their procedures was considered by the Executive Board to be novel and no objections were raised at this time. The suggestion by the WG that some existing projects should, more or less immediately, be brought under the umbrella of the nascent Artemis was favourably received, as long as it is feasible and attractive to all parties. (This process was already started in June with the Rome event, organised by Artemis, at which 14 ITEA, MEDEA and Framework Programme projects exchanged information.) Earlier optimistic anticipation that JTIs will not be subject to the Commission s Financial Regulation and other related red tape is now tempered with caution. An official decision is still awaited within the Commission. E! and FP synergy The Working Group had focussed on ways to achieve more synergy between Eureka and the Framework Programme in the domain of embedded systems and at the same time improve the efficiency of the Eureka system within the ERA through better synchronisation and harmonization of funding processes between the Eureka countries concerned. However, the Executive Board felt that the ultimate goal should be full integration of Eureka and Framework Programme support for Embedded Systems not just better synchronization and harmonization between Eureka countries or even between Eureka and Framework Programme. It was emphasized that no-one should lose out from such integration. And it was recognised that achieving such integration may be a long term aim through a very gradual process. Although not within the remit of the Funding Strategy WG, the Executive Board recognised the role of the SRA in achieving greater coherence across European RTD in Embedded Systems and sees a 2-pronged approach to integration: Page 3 of 9

4 of content: top-down, via the SRA jointly defined by ARTEMIS stakeholders, including ITEA and MEDEA of regulation: bottom-up, through synchronization and harmonization of funding, processes, etc. Ideally, the common pan-european SRA should be sufficiently compelling that it will naturally align RTD across Eureka, FP and national programmes. However, bottom-up synchronization and harmonization between these programmes are vital steps to full integration; or else there is only coordination via the SRA. The Executive Board felt that it would be necessary for the key industrial stakeholders to be aligned, before approaching either the Commission or Member States with any vision of integration. To this end, it was suggested to hold a meeting of key people in the key companies involved in FP/IST and MEDEA/ITEA projects on embedded systems (rather than the Chairs of those Eureka cluster projects) including, if possible, those associated with the nanoelectronics TP. The Board considered whether there is an existing industrial association that might host such a discussion, but none was identified. (E.g. EICTA is primarily FP-oriented.) IT WAS AGREED THAT a short paper should be prepared (by Bob Malcolm) in order to focus the discussion at this meeting. This will draw on input from members of the Executive Board. This should not in any way be pre-emptive in stating a preferred position. Summarizing, the Chairman praised the WG for its good work, and advised them to go further in thinking about specific approaches and mechanisms that might lead towards better synergy and integration between programmes. Strategic Research Agenda Bob Malcolm presented a proposed plan for evolution of the SRA. After discussion, four phases (for now) are recognised: immediate restructuring and refinement version for Steering Board, March 3rd (that must be ready by February 20th) version for June conference post-conference evolution Immediate restructuring and refinement Integrate a revised executive summary (and reduce the prominence of the threat of domination by non-european suppliers) Section 1, introduction : reduce - especially the landscape and demote the descriptions of existing projects Section 2, application contexts : o from the executive summary, reverse engineer a rationale for the application contexts, based on their being a way to achieve efficient infrastructural support across domains with some commonality of needs o integrate manufacturing Page 4 of 9

5 Section 3, research agenda : clarify (cf. Airbus concerns and others expressed at the Steering Board); move section 6 to an annex; differentiate reference models, glueware, etc, from remaining 2 sections Section 4: making it happen : integrate new material on education and training Smooth all the text Financing mechanisms and instruments: for now leave a place-holder, indicating ongoing deliberations Research infrastructure: AK to provide a new version for consideration by the Steering Board Regulatory issues should receive proper attention International co-operation: get material from Innovation WG. Version for Steering Board, March 3 rd Note that this version must be available by February 20 th for timely distribution to the SB. Section 2, Application Contexts : add medical context (s?) Section 3, Research Agenda : seek to at least characterise the specific research requirements of the application contexts. In the first instance this will be attempted by Bob Malcolm, by going back to the providers of material on application contexts with some common framework within which to revise the content. 4.3 Governance: proposal and project management do not address Collect and consolidate quantified targets for: o Market impact o Socio-economic impacts: job creation, environment; quality of life,... o technological challenges Add placeholder on Enabling industrial participation and Growth Open Source vis-à-vis Patents : do not, at least yet, attempt resolution; leave as separate items Version for June conference restructure to bring out (to extent possible in time available) the common features and differences of application contexts Add section on Recommendations for FP7 In addition, it is proposed to develop a modified version of the Executive Summary as separate document. Longer term post-conference While all aspects of the SRA will evolve over time, it will be critical to add a technology and market roadmap. (It is expected that this will draw extensively on roadmaps from other initiatives, like ITEA, MEDEA, and ARTIST). In addition, from the specific requirements of the application contexts, we should more precisely define the particular research requirements. The SRA should also address the need to overcome barriers to deployment especially in the context of the Lisbon agenda. This could draw on the ISTAG EARCS material, for instance, and Page 5 of 9

6 also address support for SMEs, such as incubators, teaching, and take up actions. The schedule for incorporation of such material has still to be decided. International Cooperation Dominique Potier presented the recommendations on International Cooperation from the WG on the Innovation Environment. The WG has first established a set of principles to guide collaboration which were presented in the slides. Collaboration policy should be based on ARTEMIS strength. So before entering into discussions with potential international collaborators, Artemis must build its profile. This will require that Artemis: Develops and communicates its vision (SRA) Develops brain magnet capabilities that is to say, develop Artemis in such a way that it will draw participation of the best brains throughout the world. Maximise efficacy of resource utilisation through concentration (e.g. in Centres of Excellence, as recommended by the WG on Research Infrastructure) Develop visibility through Communication, Web site, Annual International conference, etc Collaboration should be based on win-win situations and each collaboration should have a specific aim. There should therefore be criteria for collaboration. The added value of collaboration might, for instance, be achieved through.. opening of new markets, such as Asia, based on existing strengths compensation for weaknesses in specific areas where there is no European equivalent mutualisation of resources for the development of non-differentiating (business-wise) technologies (cf. The Commons) completion of the resources of ecosystems. The Working group also considered different types of collaboration and the instruments that might be used to facilitate each type. Thus: Mobility of experts, internationally, between academia and industry might be supported by Marie Curie type instruments Academic collaboration could be supported by EC instruments such as Networks of Excellence and existing mechanisms for international collaborations (with US, Korea, Canada, etc.) Industrial collaboration could be achieved by setting up industrial consortia focussed on specific domains or technologies for activities such as development of common platforms and standardization. These could be either open or restricted. The specific issue of collaboration with China was discussed, and particularly the possibility of inviting Chinese representatives to the June Artemis Conference, and the possibility of introducing them to Mrs Reding at that conference. IT WAS AGREED to raise the issue at the next Steering Board meeting. Artemis Membership David Levin was no longer able to represent Symbian as he has left - they should be asked to nominate a replacement representative. Page 6 of 9

7 In addition, there are vacancies for 2 industrial and 2 academic members. There is a call for applications for these positions, and also for general interest in Artemis. The call should be promoted by all Artemis members to the community. After the deadline for applications, all applications received should be sent to the Executive Board along with a set of criteria for consideration. Members of the Executive Board should make their individual recommendations to the Chairman, who would then make recommendations to the Steering Board. Annual conference The date and location are now fixed for: Thursday 30th June & Friday 1st July Paris: Cité des Sciences de la Vilette The costs of the conference administration are expected to be c. 50K. The way in which these costs will be covered is still to be decided. Public relations The chairman will prepare a letter to invite Mrs. Reding to the June Conference. A press conference should also be considered at the conference. The Commission will invite the chair and vice-chair of the Mirror Group to the March 3 rd meeting of the Steering Board. Links to other platforms The Chairman will invite representatives of each Steering Board member to a meeting to discuss the relationship between Artemis and other technology platforms. Special effort will be made to get participation of those organisations that are involved in more than one platform. It was agreed to hold this meeting before the end of March. Steering Board meeting, March 3 rd An agenda for this meeting is attached to these minutes. Next meeting IT WAS AGREED THAT, if it is possible, the next meeting should be held in April the date will be set via . Actions All JvdB invite applications to join Artemis Take back to Funding Strategy Working Group the request to consider full integration Page 7 of 9

8 BM AC BM YN KG YN YN Draw up a short briefing paper to focus discussion of key industrial stakeholders To supply BM with material (specifically questions) for this paper. revise SRA inline with discussion herein prepare letter inviting Mrs Reding to June conference. invite Mirror Group chair and vice-chair to March 3 rd Steering Board invite SB members to meeting to discuss TP overlaps propose dates for next EB meeting in April References Technology Platforms website: ARTEMIS website: Minutes compiled by Bob Malcolm Page 8 of 9

9 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Information Society and Media Directorate-General Miniaturisation, Embedded Systems, Societal Applications Embedded systems Brussels, 17 January 2005 AGENDA ARTEMIS - Embedded Systems Technology Platform Meeting of the Steering Board Date: March 3 rd, 2005 Time: 10H00 16H30 Venue: Room 0/54, Avenue de Beaulieu 33, BE-1160 Brussels, Belgium Chair: Professor Yrjö Neuvo 10H00 Welcome by Y. Neuvo 10H05 Update on latest developments EC - Update from the Commission (P. Zangl/R. Zobel) 20 min - Update on Mirror Group (K. Glinos) 10 min 10H35 Legal and financial structure J. van den Biesen 11H30 Selection of new members Y. Neuvo 12H15 Update on Annual Conference (June 2005) D. Potier 12H45 14H00 16H00 16H30 Lunch ARTEMIS Strategic Agenda - Presentation (THALES and ST) 30 min - Report from the International Cooperation WG (THALES) 15 min - Report from the Research Infrastructure WG (IMEC) 15 min - Discussion 60 min Any other business, wrap-up and Action Points - Links to other Technology Platforms Closing Remarks by Y. Neuvo Page 9 of 9