Where are the Big Dogs in the scene of FET and U-CEP?

[rainer93138]

Where are the Big Dogs in the scene of the Future and Emerging Technologies (FET)-Flagship Initiative and U-CEP?

Already since a while there is a discussion behind the scenes about and with some "Big Dogs" and "Small Cats"; I was asked to share it here (BTW: it seems that it's too complicated or inconvenient for the most to register for own posts?), perhaps an interesting new aspect about the needed "Big Dogs" and the generation of a 1 billion budget for ten years per flagship which a flagship would have to generate:
---------------
Am 04.02.2011 16:47, schrieb Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov:
The recent discussion about VPH (by Ed.: see http://www.vph-noe.eu/, the discussion is about the VPH FET flagship proposal which received the ESR (Evaluation Report) regarding a CSA project) shows that FET (team of the European Commission) knows quite well their priorities.

There are two possibilities left for the applicants: either to wait for the right call and submit a proposal that matches exactly each one of its requirements, or to invoke a call by lobbying & intensively discussing with FET. The latter approach is the more secure one, but I see this as a task of the "big dogs" according to Opher's classification (IBM) http://epthinking.blogspot.com/2010/05/on-small-vendor-big-vendors-individual.html. They finally have to truly engage in such initiatives (as they surely do in other areas like QuantumComputing) and not just wait for somebody else (perhaps a "small cat" like me or ... (Ed.: a list of some more)) to do the job and than to hook up to a half-ready procedure. The final outcome of the U-CEP flagship proposal was a good lecture for me in this respect and I do not wish to waste my time in discussions without real engagement.
You guys from Siemens, IBM, SAP, Oracle, Google etc. (Ed.: VPH FET should be based on Google Body Browser http://bodybrowser.googlelabs.com/ but there is a controversial discussion now) have to sit down and do your homework. Then, we can discuss (Ed.: because another telco should be organized in this week and Plamen is annoyed in the meantime as it seems;-).
...
Best,
Plamen
------------
Perhaps I'll add some comments later, what a Big Dog actually is and so on...

[rainer93138]

(a seeming Big Dog commented, anonymously, because "... nobody knows who can kill me for that you know that companies likes to have friendly faces, but everyone defends his own position", so let's keep her/him anonymously):

Hello Plamen,
I totally agree with you, my only feeling is that FET might not be so "sexy" for "big dogs".
I mean that big dogs are, as you know, composed from a lot of small groups (Ed.: often as acquired small cats or smaller dogs), with various targets.
Now, usual calls are OK to be targeted by a certain group on a topic, in order to get the pulse of the community or test against target groups some concepts.
And this can be productive for a 3 to 5 year perspective over the market.
10 years means a lot of time and force companies to reveal strategies, and this is not a very desirable thing.
Also, be sure that for strategic lines, the funding already exist.
My idea was to simply facilitate some contacts since, if a group want to do a FET, I think that is necessary prove some links within "big dogs", I mean a common base review.
So the ecosystem can be to have big dogs supporting FET, not integrated in FET.
As I said, I don't think that big dogs consider FET a good business.

this is my view on the topic, maybe is wrong.

all the best
...

[rainer93138]

(Plamen comments inline:)

> Hello Plamen,
> I totally agree with you, my only feeling is that FET might not be so "sexy" for "big dogs".
>
> I mean that big dogs are, as you know, composed from a lot of small groups, with various targets.

I agree. So, let us do something else. Look for another programme?
Or even create it, why not.

> Now, usual calls are OK to be targeted by a certain group on a topic, in order to get the pulse of the community or test against target groups some concepts.
> And this can be productive for a 3 to 5 year perspective over the market.
> 10 years means a lot of time and force companies to reveal strategies, and this is not a very desirable thing.

I know, but this is exactly what the FET guys expected to get in building 1-2 big flagships.
They either were wrong in their expectations to get big dogs in a PPP scheme, or were were/are wrong in our interpretation of these expectations.
You know, EC English is a special kind of a dialect with hidden semantics (like the one of the Bible).
So, I invested some time to read the documents and understand them. I do not think that they wish large companies to reveal their plans for the future.
they only expect them to share the responsibility with the EC and the local governments in that they engage and invest in new upcoming technologies.
I think that the major difference between the decision making processes in FET and companies like (Ed.: Big Dog) is that the first one is vision driven,
whereas the second one needs business plans, i.e. well-defined markets and motivated customer needs with clear numbers.

> Also, be sure that for strategic lines, the funding already exist.
> My idea was to simply facilitate some contacts since, if a group want to do a FET, I think that is necessary prove some links within "big dogs",
> I mean a common base review.

OK, that's a different thing then.

> So the ecosystem can be to have big dogs supporting FET, not integrated in FET.

Did you communicate this to the INFSO FET Directorate?

> As I said, I don't think that big dogs consider FET a good business.

This is also my impression, but the message has to reach FET, so we can start thinking of other options for cooperation.
We small cats also need a clear-cut decision line which can be formed in the dialogue between big dogs and FET.
I am not sure that this happened so far. This is also a homework task.

> this is my view on the topic, maybe is wrong.

No, it is correct. Companies like (Big Dog) and Microsoft have other ways to invest in future technology than FET, e.g. in Research Centers like yours.
The challenge is how to consolidate these two different strategies without affecting the interests of both sides.
Not an easy task at all. I have not found a solution to it, but what appears to be appropriate is a conference at top level between the leaders of the EC
and the CEOs and CTOs of the big dogs to clear the borders and define the common strategy at least 5 years before starting such an initiative as the FET
flagships. Perhaps there is already such a directive, but we are not aware of it.

Best!

Plamen

[rainer93138]

Good discussion.

EC has just published a Green Paper and a consultation until May
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAct ... anguage=en

Another question to be discussed might be what you mean with "good business"? An EU project could never be a "good business" per definitionem, it's not allowed to make profit and each partner of a consortium has to invest, depending on its bigness. So, what are the reasons to participate in an EU project?

[rainer93138]

This recent dialogue might fit to this thread:
http://epthinking.blogspot.com/2011/12/ ... anies.html

[rainer93138]

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/untern ... 88,00.html
http://www.golem.de/news/ibms-stellenab ... 89564.html

Why are the Big Dogs needed when we actually work with "cloud workers" respectively freelancers?

[rainer93138]

Some interesting threads on the LinkedIn FP7 forum about innovation impact, calculating (in)direct costs at Big Dogs and Small Cats, etc.:

http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view= ... gmp_164166

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Horizon- ... mp_4270510

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Scientif ... fBpjm6RR41

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Horizon- ... mp_4270510