Horizon exploitation: name the owner and user of every key result

Horizon Europe proposals frequently promise dissemination and exploitation before the consortium has agreed what the key results are, who is likely to own them or which user decision would move them into practice. The resulting plan becomes a list of channels rather than a route to use.

The current RIA/IA and CSA forms ask applicants to describe measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts through dissemination, exploitation and communication. They also ask for an intellectual-property management strategy and note the importance of consortium arrangements for ownership and access to key knowledge.

The European Commission's research-results guidance distinguishes making results available from their actual use. Communication can build awareness and engagement, but exploitation concerns use in further research, products, processes, services, standards, policy or other applications.

PRINCEPS recommends one result-to-use map for every material result. Fields should include: result definition; contributing partners; likely owner or joint owners; background and access dependencies; protection or openness decision; intended user; use decision; transfer mechanism; evidence of uptake; and post-project owner.

Define the result precisely. 'Platform', 'model' or 'knowledge' is too broad. State the version, components, validation state, documentation, data dependencies and boundary between pre-existing background and project-generated result.

Ownership should not be guessed from work-package leadership. The final arrangement depends on contributions, applicable grant rules, contracts and consortium decisions. Joint development, employee rights, third-party inputs and data licences can complicate the position.

Protection and openness are not binary opposites. A consortium may publish research while protecting code, designs, data access, confidential know-how or a patentable invention where appropriate. The decision should support the intended exploitation route and comply with grant and legal obligations.

The intended user must be specific enough to act. Instead of 'industry', identify the buyer, operator, standards body, investor, research group, ministry unit or other user and the decision it controls. Then select dissemination or exploitation measures that support that decision.

African partners should be recognised as result contributors, potential owners and exploitation actors where their work creates or validates the result. Local data, field methods, user relationships and implementation know-how should not disappear into a generic consortium asset description.

The map should connect to budget and tasks. Protection searches, legal review, standards engagement, business modelling, licensing, repository preparation, training and policy uptake require named effort and timing. An unfunded exploitation promise is unlikely to survive implementation.

Use decision dates that precede publication, demonstration or commercial engagement where those actions could prejudice protection or negotiating options. The map should flag confidential reviews, partner approvals and third-party permissions without turning sensitive details into public proposal text. The objective is controlled readiness, not premature disclosure.

Before submission, check for conflicts between open-science commitments, confidentiality, personal data, security, publication plans, commercialisation and partner expectations. Record unresolved decisions with an owner and deadline rather than hiding them under a generic future consortium agreement.

This analysis is strategic and editorial. It is not intellectual-property, competition, data-protection, licensing or legal advice and does not determine ownership or exploitation rights. The live grant rules, contracts and qualified advice remain controlling.

Editorial note: This is PRINCEPS analysis for general information. It does not replace the official work programme, topic conditions, submission system, grant rules or professional advice specific to an application.