OBSTACLES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PECS INDUSTRY TO PARTICIPATE IN ESA PROGRAMMES SPACE4SME PROJECT. Prague April 25, 2008

Transcription

1 OBSTACLES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PECS INDUSTRY SPACE4SME PROJECT Prague April 25, 2008 Silvia Ciccarelli (AIPAS) - SPACE4SME Project Manager

2 THE SPACE4SME PROJECT Commissioned by Project Coordinator (Italy) Partner (UK) With the collaboration of and THE PURPOSE: A)to identify the difficulties facing SMEs in their efforts to participate in ESA programmes; B) to derive possible recommendations on how to overcome these difficulties,

3 SPACE4SME PROGRESS MEETING Paris March 7, 2008 THE STRUCTURE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE 6 SECTIONS 1.ACCESS TO ESA PROCUREMENT INFORMATION 2.THE FRAMEWORK ITTS CONTENT OF REFERENCE: (2.1 Have SMEs you of ever all ESA considered Member States bidding and companies for ESA of work? if not go to Section 6) 3.BIDDING PERIOD (3.1 Have you ever submitted a bid for ESA TWO work? MAIN if not ASPECTS: go to section 6) 4.CONTRACT AWARD (4.1 Have you ever won an ESA bid? if not go to Section 6) THE SPACE4SME PROJECT the 4 ESA Cooperating Countries (Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Romania); - SMEs participation in ESA programmes (AIPAS) - contractual and programmatic issues (ASTOS) 5.AFTER THE CONTRACT METHODOLOGY: 6.FUTURE INVOLVEMENT IN ESA PROGRAMMES - A questionnaire was sent to more than SMEs - Two Workshops: 569 companies started the questionnaire 320 companies Prague (April completed 2008): ESA the Cooperating questionnaire States Athens (June 2008): Improving SMEs Participation in ESA Programmes (focusing on new ESA Member States)

4 THE STRUCTURE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE 6 SECTIONS 1.ACCESS TO ESA PROCUREMENT INFORMATION 2.THE ITTs CONTENT (2.1 Have you ever considered bidding for ESA? If not Section 6) 3.BIDDING PERIOD (3.1 Have you ever submitted a bid for ESA work? If not Section 6) 4.CONTRACT AWARD (4.1 Have you ever won an ESA bid? If not Section 6) 5.AFTER THE CONTRACT 6.FUTURE INVOLVEMENT IN ESA PROGRAMMES 569 companies started the questionnaire 333 companies completed the questionnaire

5 QUESTIONNAIRE FEEDBACK - The questionnaire has been sent in the middle of January 2008 to SMEs answers (23% of the total) - The geographical distribution of the answers 250 % ANSWERS Total sent Country 23% answers received % % 50 20% 14% 22% 28% 0 21% 17% 20% 21% Austria Belgium Canada Switzerland Germany Denmark 38% 26% Spain France Finland 23% reat Britain Greece 50% 32% Italy Ireland uxembourg 0 12% Norway Holland 22% 27% 100% Portugal Sweden USA

6 Majority Small and Micro-SME 53% < 1MEuro 88% < 10MEuro SUMMARY OF RESPONDENTS - almost 90% of the companies have considered to bid to ESA - 78% have actually submitted a bid for a project - 67% of companies that tried to bid managed to win TURNOVER COMING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM ESA ACTIVITIES IN THE LAST 3 YEARS: - 30% no benefits (in terms of turnover) - 38% less than 20% of the turnover coming from ESA activities - 15% between 40% and 60% of the turnover coming from ESA activities - 17% more than 40% THE ROLE OF SMES IN ESA PROGRAMMES: - on average the companies of the sample operate as subcontractors in 52% of cases; - 48% act as Prime, bid-leader or project coordinator.

7 SUMMARY OF RESPONDENTS Technology Programmes and Science is the sector with the highest concentration of SMEs activities Other 24% Earth Observation 13% MAIN TECHNOLOGY SECTOR OF ACTIVITY Telecommunications 14% Launchers 1% Space Exploration 6% Satellite navigation 7% Technology Programmes and Science 35% Total average of secondary sectors of activity indicated by all the companies Telecommunications; 16% Launchers; 14% Earth observation; 15% Technology programmes and science; 22% Space exploration; 15% Satellite navigation; 17%

8 THE POSITIONING OF SMES IN THE ESA PROGRAMMES ESA conceptual development of the programmes - 3 main phases: 1. early mission studies/technology development projects; 2. mission development; 3. downstream services and applications. 60% Present Positioning Where would you be able to increase your activities Where would you be able to increase your activities? 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 48% 41% 26% 27% 23% 14% 12% 8% Early Mission Studies Mission Development Downstream Services Other - 9% more in the mission development phase - 2% downstream services and applications - another 41% in the early mission studies/technology development projects

9 SPACE4SME - PROVISIONAL RESULTS THE BENEFITS FOR SMEs COMING FROM THE PARTICIPATION IN ESA PROGRAMMES: -further participation in ESA programmes (33%) -new space markets (23%) -non-space markets (20%) but thanks to themselves and not to ESA -no gain at all (23%) THE BENEFITS FOR ESA COMING FROM A STRONGER INVOLVEMENT OF SMEs IN ESA PROGRAMMES: - Innovation (81% considered this aspect of high or very high importance) - Cost effectiveness (78%) - Increased industrial competition (69%) - Lower delivery time to achieve a higher return on investment and to ensure a more timely responsiveness to user needs (62%)

10 THE LEVEL OF INFORMATION % of companies aw are of C1-C4 policies - in general 55% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 43% 41% 42% 43% 54% 40% 100% unaware of C1-C4 measures; - 46% of these 20% 0% France UK Germany Greece Italy The Netherlands Portugal companies got the information from EMITS Did you benefit of C1-C4 measures in the last 3 years? As general average, only 7% of the companies benefited from these measures, while a large number (34%) did not know. 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 44% 56% 54% 38% 46% 46% Yes No Don't Know 67% 33% 72% 70% 23% 20% 67% 33% 20% 10% 0% 0% 8% 8% 0% 5% 10% 0% France UK Germany Greece Italy The Netherlands Portugal

11 MAIN DIFFICULTIES AND BOTTLENECKS THAT SMEs ENCOUNTERED: - too much administration work with respect to the profitability (68%- very high or high difficulty), especially financial information - competition with large industries even in small contracts (66%) - the introduction of SMEs innovative technologies is under funded (58%) - lack of support by national space agencies or national institutions. In aggregated terms 54% of the sample considered this aspect as a low or medium difficulty, while 46% as a very high or high difficulty. The results are very different from one country to another

12 MAIN DIFFICULTIES AND BOTTLENECKS Has National assistance been helpful in improving your bid submission? 100% Yes No Never Asked For Assistance - In aggregated terms 54% of the sample considered this aspect as a low or medium difficulty, while 46% as a very high or high difficulty. The results are very different from one country to another 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Austria Begium Canada Denmark Finland France UK Germany Greece Ireland Italy The Netherlands Norway Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland

13 CONTRACTUAL AND PROGRAMMATIC ISSUES ESA Successes EMITS >85% satisfied with service Bid content <7% say language is unclear Bid response time 4-8 wks (only 10% >8 weeks) Tech bid length ok (75% 6-20pages 200kEuro) Cashflow 17% find EFIS (the system for the invoice) difficult Milestones (80% 20-30% k.o., 75% 10-20% withheld) Funding Level Only 20% say not enough

14 DIFFICULTIES IN CONTRACTUAL ISSUES IT Technical Specification 60% happy, 25% suggest over specification (10% under) Bid Process 25% Don t Understand Process Financial Data ECOS, 60% not used, >50% who have find it difficult Bid Evaluation 50% Don t Understand Evaluation 60% think < 4 weeks reasonable evaluation time 75% think <4 weeks reasonable award/contract time

15 OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE WITH SMES BETTER Introduce new measures and specific procurement policies for SMEs Simplify tender rules and amount of documentation A better segmentation of ESA programmes in phases available for SMES Improve the involvement of SMEs in the early phases of the missions 35% Not Aware of SME Unit Only 9% had spin-out help Competition with Primes Strengthen C1-C4 Profitability vs Administration Reduce Financial Burden (PSS Forms) Introduction of New Technology Increase TRP spend Fund More Spin-In Broaden Harmonisation Process