from lab to launch: the exploitation strategy

Do you know what happens at the end of an EU-funded research project?

When the money is gone, each partner has done their job, the project is audited, and the last year of the project unfolds between a list of headache-inducing deliverables, the pursuit of KPIs according to the most recent indications from reviewers, and the crazy attempt to make effective communication that also involves decision makers and regulators, without neglecting the mass public.

But above all,… partners need to give substance to the exploitation plan.

What does the exploitation plan of a European project include?

First of all: the idea of how the research results become products, services, and other future projects funded by the private or public sector (replication) or how these results participate in creating new standards.

Then, the plan contains a framework for the protection of intellectual property in the exploitation of rights, as well as a strategy of licensing agreements that allow organizations and partnerships to use the results in exchange for royalties and other means of compensation. Then there is the whole part of the facilitation of what in the jargon of Euro project planning is called replication: training and editorial activities to transfer what has been learned during the project to other researchers and professionals.

Finally, the whole DECO strategy, or rather the communication and dissemination plan to make everyone aware of the results, is a very important step for the European institutions that must make known how public funds have been used.

In European projects, for example, Horizon, having a clear vision of this strategy is essential for the current formal obligations, but in my experience, many partnerships when they reach this phase are disoriented, as if being outside the market has made them lose contact with the real purpose of research which is to improve solutions for people in the real world.

Context problems

Then there are also collateral problems in the European market that are not present in the USA, Draghi says so in his Report, the lack of sufficiently developed venture capital leads all innovations to flee to the USA, where exactly this gap is filled. This is true for startups, for which even bureaucracy is a problem. Moreover, European public funding programs are often complex and slow. Startups, which need to be agile and fast, find themselves held back by long and complex bureaucratic processes, which slow down the growth phase. And this is how the market moves forward behind Europe which chases it with its regulation that is always too restrictive and not up to par.

Possible solutions are a burden of responsibility for everyone

A proposed solution could be the creation of mixed public-private funds that aim to finance the commercialization phase. These funds could be fueled by both public resources and private investors, with the public taking on part of the risk to attract private capital. By doing this, the gap between R&D and the market is filled, and startups would have the resources to expand. It also mentions a Capital Markets Union as a solution to allow companies to access capital on a continental scale would reduce dependence on the USA.

A central theme for me, even if rather practical, is the need for cooperation between universities, startups, and investors to fill the gap between research and commercialization: many universities are involved in research and collaborations with the private sector, but the point is that the topic of commercialization is dramatically far from their thoughts.

If you are an EU project manager, you will agree with me and you too will have gone through dramatic months of project termination due to this problem which is structural and affects your ability to perform, bringing your consortium and your project towards a soft landing in the market of commercial products.

Another thing, simplifying the procedures for accessing and managing funds would make it easier for companies to take advantage of available funding, and I would add that, in the selection phase, projects should be evaluated and deemed worthy of receiving a grant based on more stringent criteria relating to go-to-market strategies.

Finally, I believe that providing stronger tax incentives to private investors, who put money into the growth phases of startups and EU-funded projects, especially in the post-R&D phases, could help close the gap.

Finally, we European project managers and comms must take up our responsibility to bridge the two worlds and make them communicate despite the difficulties.