In particular, the ultimate goal of the LEEP-SME project is to give public RFOs a set of tools to offer SMEs a better support. Specific objectives of the project have been: 

• Simplifying the process of applying for funding and the evaluation process for the SMEs.  

• Developing an efficient method to select SME projects with the highest potential to utilise their innovation.  

• Improving and increasing the effectiveness of the existing project interim and ex-post monitoring methodology and related supporting services in order to increase the applicability of the SME projects’ results.  

• Enhancing the same skills for other European RFOs.  

Knowledge relevant to these goals was transferred by 'twinning+' methodology among project partners: TA CR, EUREKA, FUNDECYT-PCTEX and FICYT. Having conducted this practice sharing exercise, the main conclusions and recommendations worth highlighting for the application of the results by other RFOs are: 

• Compared to academic beneficiaries, SMEs are a very specific group with specific demands. Client-centred approach is recommended.  

• Researchers often resist thinking about the market potential and applicability of their results and it is the task of the RFOs to bring to their attention that if they apply for funding for applied research, there must be an impact.  

• Six practices exchanged refer to the project proposal preparation stage. It seems that the exploitation potential can be a standard part of eligibility criteria for proposal submission. There are a number of ways to achieve this and all are rooted in the project proposal preparation phase. They are not particularly difficult to implement, as they consist mostly of asking the right questions and requiring a certain type of information.  

• Four practices refer to the project evaluation stage. Specifically, they describe the evaluation process applied in the Eurostars programme managed by Eureka, including the expert database and evaluation criteria. It also offers a number of methods to speed up the project proposal control and evaluation process in order to decrease the time between proposal submission and reception of the support or grant. For successful implementation of the methodologies referring to shortening of the evaluation period, the consortium recommends to: i. intensify the use of artificial intelligence in the evaluation process; ii. find a balance between a friendly approach and time effective management of tasks and always consult respective legislation; iii. listen to the client while selecting the changes to be implemented on the current processes. 

• Four practices refer to the project implementation phase. These describe different approaches to project monitoring from the perspective of exploitation of results (personalized close-up and online large scale overview) including methods to help projects to achieve the results they planned. 

• Seven practices refer to the ex-post stage. They cover a range of aftercare services including support for projects to find further funding or to scale-up, ex-post monitoring of results, and tools to map results and impact in order to better shape programmes and future calls.  

• The provided good practices (GPs) must not be approached categorically. One must be flexible in their implementation. There are significant differences between agencies and the situations they find themselves in, so there is no one best practice but many good practices anyone can be inspired by and apply them on the basis of what works in their condition. The implementation should be approached with a systematic, efficient, and agile approach that does not harm other functioning processes. 

• One should be aware of the fact that every change in the direction of the provided methodology will require time and funding. For example, many of the GPs require engagement of specialized experts whose involvement increases personnel costs. Similarly, many GPs bring in additional administrative burden for all parties, the RFO and the applicant. 

• For some GPs, it is convenient to have some level of influence on the local government to be able to impact the set-up of the programmes and the respective calls.  

• In order to avoid difficulties in the implementation of the GP due to fragmentation of the agenda in the local ecosystem of service and funding providers, collaboration with other public organisations is recommended. At least, one should consider sharing the GPs, engaging in working groups or using a shared database. 

More information can be found below: 

LEEP-SME DOP - https://fundecyt-pctex.es/upload/web/DOP-LEEP-SME.pdf  

LEEP-SME Leaflet - https://fundecyt-pctex.es/upload/web/LEEP-SME-leaflet.pdf  

LEEP-SME Web - http://www.fundecyt-pctex.es/index.php?pagina=5&seccion=14&tag=transferencia&idioma=en#50