However, intermediate users play an equally important role in translating end-user requirements to upstream vendors. Indeed, any vendor focuses his attention to his direct customer. The user-vendor pair is therefore the essential relationship for procurement and market issues.

The personal user: Every person claims to be the real user when he uses the telephone, the terminal or his PC for applications or communication services. His profile is that of a consumer with similar needs at work and at home. The difficulty with consumers is that there are too many to express their individual views.

The executive: For top management ICT-applications are not made for the pleasure of the personnel but to make the enterprise more effective and more efficient. Therefore it is up to them to make final judgments as a user. Heads of industry evaluate the overall effectiveness of the ICT investments in applications and set the level of ICT expenditure. Together they control the total growth of the ICT market.

The operator: The operator controls hardware, software and data in the running of a production service, e.g. a data base or a network. Most of the software in computer applications exists for the sole purpose of managing the system, just as most of the bulk of a bridge is there to carry its own weight. We very often underestimate this aspect. The operator considers himself as the real user, because the system is his tool to provide the service to his customers.

The information systems department: The information systems or ICT executive and his professional staff provide overall support to the users in their company. Inside the enterprise they can hardly be considered as users. Yet for vendors the ICT department is the procurer, choosing between competitors what product to buy. Very often ICT staff also represent the user interests of their company to the outside world, although their professional culture is often closer to the vendors than to the users.

The conclusions we must draw from the complexity of users' and vendors' environments when studying mutual cooperation are the following:

• The user world cannot be separated from the vendor world, because the user-vendor relation depends on the product or service considered.
• Adequate cooperation between users, vendors and the European Commission requires a specific approach for each subject of common interest. There is no simple structure which can support the working relationships for all subjects.
• The subject determines which users and vendors should participate for a given type of cooperation.

There are associations of many different types: vendors, users, ICT professionals and mixed compositions. The members of an association generally correspond with some, but not all, at the user roles described above. For instance, users such as business managers are seldom members of computer associations, they would rather join associations with a broader interest.

For associations with a mixed membership, the type and the size of the consultation base should correspond with the user views being expressed. The motivation of members joining an association is often to obtain information and training or to meet colleagues of companies, more than to express user views.

When it comes to the discussion on user-vendor relations, we should remember that some vendor associations play an important role as intermediate users, as explained above. They need to be involved when user interests are on the table. We should also pay attention to how associations deal with user-vendor relations. Some prefer discussions between user and vendor associations Mixed user-vendor associations generally organise an internal dialogue. Both approaches are valid and have different advantages and drawbacks.

For all these reasons it is necessary to have a good insight in the characteristics of the various associations.

Members: Membership may be personal or by enterprise. There are associations and federations of associations. Sometimes members have a particular user profile, but generally an association becomes a meeting place for wider interests. Also the position of members in their own company is important.

Scope: Associations may be local, national, community-wide or have a world-wide coverage. Ideally, the scope of the association should match the scope of the issues at stake. Coverage may also be by activity sector, such as government administrations, petrochemical industry, banking, aerospace industry. The participation of small and medium enterprises should also be taken into account.

Objectives: The objectives of an association may be to offer services to its members, to defend their common interest, or both. Consequently their activities may include studies, training, information, discussion, promotion, lobbying, etc. The identification of objectives and activities is important to find common ground for successful cooperation.

As a result, there is a great diversity of associations. Users and vendors are free to associate as they wish and the Commission intends to work with all of them, but we must find a method to do this with limited resources. At present they are too many to have close relations with each of them.

Besides the diversity of associations there is an even more serious problem: most user associations, in particular federations of national associations, are poor compared with vendor associations. This has two causes that will not disappear overnight. As already explained in point 1, users are slow to become aware of their role in the market. The second is more fundamental: companies do not like to pay large membership fees for a supporting function that is not part of their core business. Nor do they wish to show a strong profit on something that is not essential for their image. This may change when top become aware of the strategic value of ICT for the survival of their company. User associations have to convince user executives of their interest to join forces and to spend some resources to do this efficiently.

In the mean time, the position of user associations is weak compared with their partners. The same is true for associations of smaller ICT vendors. They wish to see the playing field being levelled by creating equal access to cooperation, information and resources.

Leading edge users have been participating in RTD projects for a long time, especially for sectoral ICT applications A fruitful approach to project structure is the concept of user-vendor pairs working on the same technology, but users and vendors remaining in their respective role. We wish to encourage such user-vendor RTD consortia, in particular when the vendor is an innovative SME in search of a broad market.

The vendor should not always have the leading role in a user-vendor pair. There are many advantages in having the user taking the lead. With the customer as the prime contract and the vendor developing the technology in a subcontracting role, the project structure reflects the natural customer-vendor relationship and this brings the results closer to market.

However, when we want a broader impact on the market, such as for the exploitation of research, the transfer of technology and knowledge and the application of best practice then we need to involve many more organisations: not only users and vendors, but also consultants, business schools, etc. Networks of cooperation are necessary and this is where associations can play an important role, because they can make the link with many individual companies and persons.

Associations should explore and test all methods to join forces, such as: liaison functions, cross-membership, common projects. The Commission should create equal opportunities for associations to make proposals and launch Round table meetings are a flexible method to explore common views and interests of autonomous organisations. In the past, round table meetings have on many occasions led to consensus and coordinated action. However, m most cases the Commission has been the initiator of such meetings, whereas there are good reasons for associations to meet without or before seeing Commission representatives. The Commission wishes to age round tables to which it is invited rather than being the host. It is an appropriate way to fulfil its role as a broker of Community interests, without intervening unnecessarily. In addition, the Comlmssion will continue to host and chair round table meetings as it thinks fit to support its work programme.

Users may wish to meet without vendors to reach a common position. It may also be the other way round. However, the Commission particularly encourages user-vendor round tables to reach a common understanding.

A series of round table meetings on the same subject should have a limited life. It preferably concentrates on a well-defined initiative (e.g. a recommendation, a negotiation, a common activity) and concludes with a memorandum of understanding between partners. Such memoranda of understanding can specify the commitments accepted by participants, future actions and possibly a permanent structure of coordination among the parties. For example, this paper and the corresponding 'Memorandum of Understanding on Partnership in ICT', are the result of two such round table meetings.

Associations do not necessarily have to set up umbrella organisations to meet and to cooperate. All they need is a common practice for the organisation of meetings. A permanent and neutral secretariat for meeting logistics, having no ties or interests with any partner at the table, can be useful if all participants agree to pay for its services. Such a secretariat may also set up a documentation centre on issues of common interest. It should not become an interface between partners and in particular not with the Commission.

Whereas round table meetings are appropriate for initiating cooperation, ongoing actions need more permanent management structures, such as formal and informal advisory and management committees, with subcommittees and working groups, concentrating their action on a particular subject, programme, project or a policy implementation. Many suchstructures exist, but not all associations know them and some may have to adapt their rules to make user participation easier.

In many cases, we see a weak representation of users compared with the vendors The Commission is ready to help users to put the balance right. As a principle, users should be able to convey their requirements at the highest level of a committee structure and use their own terminology To apply this principle, users must prepare and show determination to take up their role at the right decision level. User representatives in advisory committees and working groups are the right contact for individual user organisations and associations wishing to contribute Their list will be made available.

To solve this problem, the Commission proposes to improve the accessibility of existing sources of information on ICT, to publish its work plan and to provide focused and fresh information on those subjects which are on the agenda of round table meetings.

Also associations have to provide information to the other associations and the Commission on a more regular basis, in particular on members, objectives, organisation and work plans, as described in point 3. This information is necessary to explore common interests and possible synergy.

When an association wishes to prepare recommendations for the Commission, it should proceed similarly and invite other associations with the same interests, e.g. users of the same type, to a round table meeting to collect their opinion and reach a consensus. The Commission can be invited as an observer. In this way recommendations get a large support before they are addressed to the Commission.

In both cases, it is the opinion of the members on the proposed policy that matters. It is therefore essential that the representatives of associations provide evidence on the size and the profile of their consultation base. The Commission believes that it is important for the spokesman to have himself a user profile when he represents user interests. Making the distinction between the different user roles as described in point 2 is even better.

This list covers only those subjects for which the associations expressed the largest common interest during the meeting. This list is not final and may eventually change. Some associations felt that environmental problems with ICT will become of growing importance. Many other subjects were discussed and, according to the Memorandum of Understanding, associations are free to launch initiatives on any of them. This includes also associations which were not present at the first round table meetings of this kind, but signed the Memorandum of Understanding. The list of common actions becomes even longer when we add existing cooperation structures and committees where users are represented:

The RTD Framework programme, including exploitation of research (VALUE), with its management and advisory committees, in particular IRDAC (Industrial RD Advisory Committee),SPRINT (Strategic Programme for Innovation and Technology Transfer),PPG (Public Procurement Group)
ONP-CCP (Open Network Provision Consultation and Coordination Platform)
EURO-ISDN USER FORUM (EIUF)
IBAG (INFOSEC (Information Security) Business Advisory Group)
TEDIS (Trade Electronic Data Interchange)
CIM-EUROPE (Computer Integrated Manufacturing)
OMI Advisory Panel (Open Microprocessor System Initiative)
TAG (Telematics in Administration Group)

The comparison of both lists clearly demonstrates the need for coordination between associations and participants in Community programmes. For example, cooperation with the ONP-CCP on subject 3 and with PPG on subject 4 seems to be straightforward. Both lists also reflect the importance of procurement and standards in many proposed and ongoing common actions. The participants agreed that user-vendor cooperation should be supportive of the Community policy of open systems and standards for a free and competitive market.

Direct or indirect financial help coming from vendors or from other parties may solve the cash problems of a user association, but it reduces at the same time its independence in expressing its views. Moreover, it does not incite its members, who are the only resources it can offer, to participate in the common actions.

A better approach is to find activities which are interesting for members and at the same time are a valuable and tangible contribution to a Community programme or policy. If, in addition, the association can join forces and share resources with other associations, then funding by Community money may be well justified.

The definition of such activities should obviously result from the analysis of common actions as explained in point 7. Adaptation of mutual plans and calls for proposals will be necessary to take into account user contributions. Individual companies can participate in RTD-work, which is generally funded for 50%. Associations do not have a research activity of their own but they can involve some of their members. However, an important contribution of associations could be the organisation of networks with business schools, consultants and others for the dissemination of best practices and the transfer of knowledge for the use of ICT.

With the suggestions of the associations, the Commission will make their best efforts to integrate user contributions in Community programmes. It might also consider horizontal programmes for associations funded by different Community programmes and launch a specific call for proposals for that purpose.