For sustainable funding of public-interest, open digitalisation projects

We support the funding requirements in principle, but propose the following changes: 

Article 2: For the sake of clarity, it should be stated comprehensibly, at least in the call documents, which funding requirements must be met (“and” vs. ”or”).

Paragraph 1, letter a: Digital sovereignty is not conclusively defined in either scientific or public discourse. We would therefore suggest adding at least a working definition or a reference in the explanatory notes/call documents.
With regard to the Digital Switzerland Strategy, we suggest that the submission deadline and the publication of the focus topics of the Digital Switzerland Strategy should be coordinated.

Paragraph 1, letter b:
Number 2: We propose also taking into account other dimensions of inequality (e.g. social) or discrimination.
Number 3: We welcome the promotion of sustainable development, not least because environmental sustainability is highly relevant in connection with digitalisation (net effect).
Number 5: We suggest defining the term democratic participation as broadly as possible and refer in this context to the Prototype Fund’s page on “Digital Participation and Democracy”.
Number 7: The explanatory notes here mainly discuss the relationship between companies and authorities. The present wording, however, can be understood much more broadly (digital transformation of companies in general). We therefore propose adapting the wording of number 7. We also suggest 
Number 10 (new): The digital skills of our population play a decisive role in the digital transformation – not least in connection with digital self-determination. At present, however, one in three people in Switzerland lacks even basic digital skills.

Paragraph 2: We suggest clarifying/defining what a project is and whether a project may be submitted (in modified form) more than once.

Paragraph 3 (new): From many years of practice, we notice a limiting gap: cooperation with existing vehicles, in particular with the proven innovation vehicles for prototyping potential flagship projects, is not envisaged in the ordinance, although it is likely to correspond to the intention of the legislator.
We therefore propose taking this point into account in a further paragraph (paragraph 3 (new)). 
This would, for example, make cooperation with Prototype Fund Switzerland or the Civic Tech Hackathons of Opendata.ch possible on a clear basis in future.

Art. 3 Calculation of financial assistance
1 Financial assistance amounts to a maximum of 50 per cent of the eligible project costs.

2 Eligible costs are those incurred during the development and set-up phase of the project and required to achieve the project objective. These include in particular the costs of:

a. planning, coordination and implementation;
b. studies, data collection and evaluations;
c. project and risk management

3 The following are not eligible:

a. taxes, capital costs, imputed interest, depreciation, profit and risk surcharges;
b. costs for the maintenance and operation of existing infrastructures and IT systems.

Paragraph 1: A threshold of 50 per cent self-financing can disadvantage civil society or non-profit projects compared with commercial projects: non-profit projects (i.e. of high public interest) often cannot be financed through the market.

Paragraph 3: The ineligibility of depreciation interferes heavily with the accounting of the respective project: projects that procure their own hardware (e.g. servers) are grossly disadvantaged compared with those that rent/lease (aka “cloud”), because this provision rules out (insofar as these costs cannot be counted towards the total project costs) buying the hardware oneself and depreciating it over the duration of the project.
We propose clarifying that costs for the set-up, maintenance and operation of new infrastructures and IT systems are eligible.

Art. 4 Duration of support
Financial assistance is granted for the development and set-up phase of the projects, but for no more than four years.

After initial funding, non-profit and open source projects often have difficulty obtaining further funds. One reason is that foundations prefer to fund entirely new projects. This creates false incentives in the funding landscape and runs counter to an orientation towards sustainability and often also impact. In the spirit of subsidiarity, the Confederation could fill this gap by reserving the option of continuing to fund individual projects after four years – if necessary via other funding instruments.

Section 3: Procedure 

Art. 5 Application

1 Financial assistance is granted on application by the Digital Transformation and ICT Steering Sector of the Federal Chancellery (DTI Sector of the FCh).

2 Applications for financial assistance must be submitted by 31 October each year.

3 The application must contain the following information and documents:

a. contact details of the applicants;
b. a description of the project, including the project objective and the overall planning with the main stages of the development and set-up phase;
c. a justification of the extent to which the project meets the funding requirements under Article 2;
d. information on whether the project contributes to one of the focus topics of the Digital Switzerland Strategy of the current or the two preceding years;
e. information on how the results will be published for free use;
f. the total costs of the project, in particular the costs of the development and set-up phase, a business plan, a liquidity plan;
g. the amount of financial assistance requested;
h. information on project partnerships and on financial participation by third parties;
i. a self-declaration that the project has not so far received support from other federal funding instruments and will not accept any such support during the period of support;
j. information on other pending applications for support from the Confederation or the cantons;
k. information on the legal, economic and technical feasibility of the project;
l. an assessment of the main project risks, of the measures taken or planned to reduce risks and to secure the financing of the project after the end of the development and set-up phase;
m. any vested interests / relationships with the jury 
n. description of the project team / the sponsoring organisation

4 The DTI Sector of the FCh may request further information and documents if this is necessary for the assessment of a project.

In funding practice, alongside third-party funds, the share of in-kind contributions is repeatedly a relevant yardstick. It would therefore make sense to ask for this as well.

Paragraph 3, letter m (new): For reasons of transparency and to prevent potential conflicts of interest, we propose that any vested interests or relationships with jury members be disclosed in the application. 

Paragraph 3, letter n (new): A description of the project team and the sponsoring organisation is usually part of an application, and we would recommend it here too.

Art. 7 Assessment of projects
The DTI Sector of the FCh assesses the projects on the basis of the recommendations of the expert jury and awards points according to the following criteria and weightings:

a. the expected added value for society or the economy under Article 2 paragraph 1 letter b (40 per cent);
b. the expected contribution to one of the focus topics of the Digital Switzerland Strategy of the current or the two preceding years (20 per cent);
c. the potential for reuse of the results under Article 2 paragraph 1 letter d (20 per cent);
d. the innovative character of the project under Article 2 paragraph 1 letter e (10 per cent);
e. the expected impact of the project in relation to the amount of financial assistance requested (10 per cent).

Letter d: We would like to explicitly support the definition of “innovative” in the explanatory notes on Article 2 paragraph 1 letter e and would suggest taking it into account when assessing the projects, in order to do justice to the will of the legislator.

Letter e: The impact of a project is particularly difficult to quantify a priori. This criterion therefore raises the question of how it is operationalised. The explanatory notes propose that projects requesting fewer funds in relation to the eligible costs be rated more highly. In our view, this does not amount to a meaningful operationalisation but merely reflects the ability to raise third-party funds, and would clearly favour commercial over non-profit projects. As an alternative, we therefore propose that the jury reserves the right to fund a project with a lower amount if it considers the expected impact of the project in relation to the amount of financial assistance requested to be too low.

Art. 8 Decision on the granting of financial assistance

1 The DTI Sector of the FCh decides on the granting of financial assistance.

2 For this purpose, it draws up a ranking of the projects received on the basis of the weighted score achieved under Article 7. In the event of a tie, the project ranked higher is the one that, in the order of the criteria under Article 7, first achieves the higher score on a criterion.

3 On the basis of its position in the ranking, the DTI Sector of the FCh allocates to each project a maximum percentage share of financial assistance in relation to the eligible project costs. Higher-ranked projects are entitled to a percentage share that is higher than or equal to that of lower-ranked projects.

4 The planned financial assistance corresponds in each case to the amount of the allocated percentage share or, if a lower amount of financial assistance was requested, to the amount requested. If the total planned financial assistance exceeds the available funds, the lower-ranked applications are rejected.

5 The decision is issued by way of a ruling.

6 There is no legal entitlement to financial assistance under this ordinance. 

For civil society organisations with small budgets, the only partial granting of financial assistance can mean, owing to their low equity ratio, that they are unable to carry out a project. In the Prototype Fund programme, exchanges with (potential) grantees have shown that granting less than 80 per cent of the amount requested makes sense only in rare cases. Against this background, we recommend granting financial assistance to fewer projects and instead approving the maximum percentage share for them wherever possible.
In this context, we also suggest that if applicants whose applications were only partially approved withdraw them, the corresponding financial assistance should not lapse but be granted in the following year.

Section 4: Expert jury  Art. 9 Composition

1 The expert jury consists of:

a. at least three representatives of the departments;
b. no more than five external experts.

2 The departments are represented on the expert jury on a rotating basis. The departments appoint their own representatives. The work of these persons must be related to the digitalisation of official tasks.

3 The Federal Chancellor appoints the external experts. 

4 Women and men must each make up at least 40 per cent of the expert jury. 

We consider the composition of the jury to be central to the credibility of the entire undertaking. 

The Confederation and external parties should be represented to the same extent. A jury consisting of three department representatives and no experts is possible under the current wording, but would by no means serve the purpose. When selecting the external experts, representation of civil society, business and academia must be ensured (at least one person each).

Vested interests of expert jury members must be disclosed. 

A 50 per cent share of women must be achieved, on both the internal and the external side of the jury.

Art. 11 Organisation

1 The expert jury organises itself. The DTI Sector of the FCh approves the rules of procedure.

2 The Federal Chancellor appoints the president of the expert jury.

3 The DTI Sector of the FCh runs the expert jury’s secretariat.