Funding

PART B: VALORISATION PLAN

SECTION I: ESTIMATION OF COSTS

 

1

Taking into account the rest of the cost evaluation please provide an overall estimation of the total costs for full deployment/production of the R & D result.
… in terms of IPR protection
The product should be protected by a user license or a patent.

Although costs can be considered not relevant, at the moment no patents have been realized.

 

 

…in terms of product development
The product has been developed internally to the Research team (staff costs). Costs have been covered through National funds.

 

 

…in terms of mass production
Te product is not oriented to the mass production.

 

 

… in terms of marketing
No marketing investments have been done till now.

As the product is not going to address a large market/mass production at least in the starting phase, there isn’t the need of huge investments in marketing.

The costs in this phase can be considered not relevant.

 

 

 

2

Based on the above assessment as well as the marketing information please provide the correct estimation of the price for R&D product in correlation with costs

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Fixed costs

Personnel

Other running costs

Marketing costs

TOTAL EXPECTED COSTS

Price per Unit

Type of Unit

Number of Units

TOTAL Expected Revenues

CASH FLOW REQUIRED (REVENUES-COSTS)

n.a.

TOTAL CAPITAL required for five years

n.a.

 

SECTION 2: QUALITATIVE FACTORS

 

3

Dimension of identified target groups
The PRIME project is targeting the Public Administration and Foundations dealing with Art / Multimedia Arts.

The product can address both public and private art sector.

The target group is very specific.

 

 

4

Evaluation of financial Risks for R&D result
No particular financial risks to be underlined for R&D result as costs for production are not relevant and mainly related to staff costs.

Contents are depending by the partners contribution in terms of

a) providing large amounts of musical material to be used as test-bed,

b) working on the analysis of the related multimedia data,

c) addressing all the related cognitive musicological aspects.

 

 

 

SECTION 3: IDENTIFICATION OF FINANCING SOURCES

After evaluating all the above mentioned criteria, please tick the best financing source for the achievement of R&D result (i.e. own capitals, banking credits, venture capital, business angels, etc)

 

1. European Funding

Define relevance of the product with the following potential funding sources and comment

1. FP7 – ICT work programme to be explored with attention to Cooperation calls

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/home_en.html

In particular, calls related to Digital Preservation should be addressed to further proceed with the Research in cooperation with other EU partners.

  1. 2.  EU Culture programme

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/culture/index_en.php  

Also Structural Funds (trough Interreg programmes) should be addressed which are more cooperation oriented then Research, and give the possibility to transfer the knowledge at interregional level and start pilot actions, involving i.e. Lead Users from the private and public sector.

 

 

 

2. National Funding

A collaboration with the Ministry of Culture and/or the Regional Directorate for Culture also in terms of funding would be useful.

 

 

3. Private funding

A collaboration with a private foundation (for ex the Biennale of Venice) is useful also in terms of funding in order to further develop the project.

 

 

4. Other

n.a.

 

 

SECTION 3: FINAL EVALUATION

It is requested a final evaluation considering the funding opportunities you believe most suitable for the exploitation of the R&D result, considering the possibility of the creation of a spin-off, further research, in particular, a cost/benefit analysis and a financial projection for the R&D result, type of collaboration identified (i.e. Licensing Agreement, Technical Cooperation, Joint Venture, Manufacturing Agreement, Commercial Agreement with Technical Assistance, Creation of a spin-off, Joint further development)…
The R&D has a high potential of exploitation.

It’s representing a specific need that all multimedia archives have in common

The presentation of the research results during several public workshops generated interest among the target group, so a specific market is already identified.

The more difficult is addressing a public sector because it’s depending on public funds and therefore have difficulties in facing any kind of investment, easier could be addressing first the private sector that could invest in the development of specific preservation and repository tools.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decision of evaluation (Please keep only the appropriate)

  • The R&D has a high potential of exploitation
  • The R&D result needs minor revisions
  • The R&D result needs moderate revisions
  • The R&D result needs major revisions
  • The R&D result has no potential of exploitation

 

 

 

Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Request a proposal

Valorisation Plan Authors

Related Documents

There in no related documents

Visit the other applications of the INTERVALUE Platform: R&D Repository | IP Agreements

© 2009-2010 INTERVALUE Project