RR_FP7 03 04 Props Strat Impact Eval


Published on

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • ETIP= European Technology & Innovation PlatformICPC=International Cooperation Partner CountriesMPC=Mediterranean Partner Countries
  • ETIP= European Technology & Innovation PlatformICPC=International Cooperation Partner CountriesMPC=Mediterranean Partner Countries
  • SME-Small & Medium EnterpriseABS= annual balance sheetResSMEs= research for SMEsResSME-AGs= research for SME Associations
  • RR_FP7 03 04 Props Strat Impact Eval

    1. 1. www.imperial-consultants.co.uk
    3. 3. 3.1 Best Practice: Phases of Proposal Writing www.imperial-consultants.co.uk Submission PRE-CALL (3-6MO.) FP7 CALL Future DRAFT Work CORE /Proposals Programmes CONSORTIUM Meetings Parts A Network DRAFT Ideas DESIGNATE WP CHECK Ideas leaders Part B (NCPs, EU , DGs) DISTRIBUTE WORKConferences Short IDENTIFY Partners Outline NECESSARY Expertise START WRITING CONTINUOUS ACTIVITY 3
    4. 4. 3.2 BEST PRACTICE: STEPS TO SUCCESS www.imperial-consultants.co.uks1 • Register on CORDIS and formulate a STRATEGY/ RISKS • Navigate the INFO and FIND a CALL / AREAs2 (Work Programmes/Call Fiche)> special requirements?s3 • Formulating a project IDEA and a WORKPLAN • Identify suitable PARTNERS • Build a CONSORTIUM /s4 CORE contributors/ Preliminary RISK ASSESSMENT • Identify RESOURCES needed – realistic budgets/ corrects5 funding rates and OH/ resources ‘in kind’ • Technical Part (Part B)- CLEAR/ CONCISE- attention tos6 IMPACT section!/ PERT/GANTT/ Risks/ Governance-Mgm • Timely SUBMISSION > Evaluation points for Stage 2>s7 NEGOTIATIONS (Consortium Agreement build up> GA 4
    5. 5. www.imperial-consultants.co.ukhttps://webgate.ec.europa.eu/cas/ec/index.jsp 5
    6. 6. www.imperial-consultants.co.uk European Commission (Head of Unit) Project Officer > (Scientific Officer) Previous experience (Project Scientific/Technical Advisor) Advisory BoardScientific (Project) Coordinator Project Manager (Administrator) (Deputy) Stakeholders Technology Developers / Direct Users of 3rd PartiesP1-Principal Results (SMEs) (Subcontractors)Investigator Integrators 6
    7. 7. Navigate the INFO and FIND a CALL/AREA www.imperial-consultants.co.ukhttp://cordis.europa.eu/eu-funding-guide/home_en.html http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/participate_en.html 7
    8. 8. Navigate the INFO and FIND a CALL/AREA (Work Programmes) www.imperial-consultants.co.ukhttp://cordis.europa.eu/eu-funding-guide/home_en.html http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/participate_en.html 8
    9. 9. Navigate the INFO and FIND a CALL/AREA (Work Programmes/ Call Fiche/ Guides) www.imperial-consultants.co.ukCall Fiche Guide for Applicants WP2012 CP Guide for Applicants KBBE CSA-CA Guide for Applicants CSA-SA 9
    10. 10. Navigate the INFO and FIND a CALL/AREA (Work Programmes/ Detailed Area) www.imperial-consultants.co.ukAdditional eligibility criteria? 10
    11. 11. Navigate the INFO and FIND a CALL/AREA(Work Programmes/ Specific Guides) www.imperial-consultants.co.uk 11
    12. 12. Navigate the INFO and FIND a CALL/AREA (Instruments / Funding Regime) www.imperial-consultants.co.uk NO RESEARCH FUNDED !!!!! (€2mil-€16mil, average <€10 mil) RTD 50-75% (€0.3mil-€1mil, average €0.5mil) (€0.3mil-€3mil, average €1 mil) DEMO 50%Workshops/Expert OTHER 100% Workshop/Event Series Groups Conferences/ Common Information (€0.8mil-€4mil, Seminars Systems average <€3 mil) Monitoring/ minimum 3 MS/AC Studies Research StrategiesDevelopment Research Networks / Personnel (€0.8mil-€6mil,& Innovation Strategies Exchanges average <€4 mil) min 2 MS/AC + 2-6 ICPC FP6••••••••••••••FP7•••••••••••HORIZON2020 (€4mil-€12mil, average €5 mio) Collaborative Research Joint Programming 12
    13. 13. Formulating a project IDEA and a WORKPLAN Original IDEA needs to www.imperial-consultants.co.uk be worked around CALL TEXT! PROJECT OBJECTIVES based on CALL/AREA OBJECTIVES Draft a WORKPLAN based on EXPECTED IMPACT!!!Start build the CONSORTIUM based onADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA !!!! 13
    14. 14. Formulating a WORKPLANKEY: Manage by WORKPACKAGE (WP) – NOT by PARTNER www.imperial-consultants.co.ukSEPARATE WPs for MANAGEMENT and forDISSEMINATION/TRAINING (OTHER activities)Identify WP Leader and Partners in order of priority andcontribution/responsibilityDesignate DEPUTIES for continuityAVOID: Everyone in every WPAVOID: Partner per WP (except non-RTD= MGM & OTHER)AVOID: Doing work in every WP (too dispersed)AVOID/CHECK: ‘FLOATING PARTNERS’ or ‘TOKENPARTNERS’IDEAL: Lead one WP, be involved in a couple more. 14
    15. 15. Identify suitable PARTNERS & build a CONSORTIUM / add CORE contributors WHERE to find the ‘BEST PARTNERS’ ? CONTACTS & LINKS : www.imperial-consultants.co.ukBest Scientists • Journals / Conferences/ R&D National Contact Points Cttees ICT Support NetworkYour • Existing Projects ENTERPRISE Europe NetworkNETWORKS • Coordination / COST Actions • NCP-SME Network • EU R& D Associations/ ETIPs Thematic Area Support NetworksExperts/ • European Technology & ETIPsAdvisors Innovation Platforms • Evaluators • High Level Groups • EU Desk Officers (for lobbying) • Faculty Research Services/ ICONStrategic • SMEsPartners • ICPC countries/ MPC countries • New Member States/AC • 3rd Countries 15
    16. 16. Search for PARTNERS / THEMATIC AREAS NETWORKS www.imperial-consultants.co.uk PEOPLEHEALTH Health-NCP- www.healthncpnet.eu PEOPLE People www.fp7peoplenetwork.eu Net NetworkKBBE BIONET www.ncp-bio.net CAPACITIESICT IdealIST2011 www.ideal-ist.net RESEARCH EuroRIs- www.euroris-net.eu INFRASTRUCTURE NetNMP NMP TeAm www.nmpteam.com NCP SME www.ncp-sme.net SMEENERGY C-Energy + www.c-energyplus.eu REGIONS OF TRANS www.transregncp.eu KNOWLEDGE REG NCPENVIRO ENV-NCP- http://env-ncp-together.eu RESEARCH ResPotNet www.respotnet.eu TOGETHER POTENTIALTRANSPORT ETNA www.transport-ncps.net SCIENCE IN EUROSIS www.eurosis-project.eu SOCIETYSSH NET4SOCIETY www.net4society.eu INCONTACT www.ncp-incontact.eu INCOSPACE COSMOS www.fp7-space.eu EURATOMSECURITY SEREN www.serenproject.eu EURATOM NUCL-EU www.nucleu.net 16
    17. 17. Research for SMEs and SME AssociationsResearch for SMEs ‘Bottom-up’ scheme- any research topic across www.imperial-consultants.co.ukSME Definition • Employ ≤ 250 persons • Annual turnover ≤ EUR 50 mil or ABS ≤ EUR 43 mil • Autonomy conditionsMinimum • ResSMEs: 3 independent SMEs from 3MS/ACrequirements + 2 independent RTD Performers (plus other enterprises/ end- users to contribute) • Projects between 1-2 years; EUR 0.5 to 1.5 million • ResSME-AGs:3 indep.SME-AGs from 3MS/AC or EU + 2 indep. RTD Perform (& enterprises/ end-users) • Projects between 2-3 years; EUR 1.5 to 4 millionIPR Rules & • Cost & payment modalities should reflect the value of IPR rightsCosting • Special Agreements on ownership and IPR to SMEs/SME-Ags • Price of licences lower than price of ownership of results! • RTD Performers’ costs for RTD/Demo would be subcontracted to SMEs under RTD (paid 100%) • RTD can also charge Management / Other activities (i.e. training/dissemination) as eligible costs as partners • Overall EU financial support limited to 110% of subcontracting by SMEs to RTD Performers (to be invoiced by RTD-P to SMEs) 17
    18. 18. Best Practice: Preliminary Risk Assessment (1)Proposal Risks • Not enough time to cover the necessary time/ input www.imperial-consultants.co.uk • Over-enthusiastic initial approach and not timely delivery of work for the proposalFinancial Risks • Under-evaluation of resources, wrong budget/work ratio • Severe budget cuts during the length of project; £/€ fluctuations • Cashflow, mainly for SMEs ! • Late/wrong claims, very late payments, Financial AUDITSLegal risks • Restructuring the company/institution • Non-viable partners • Defective/Incomplete Consortium AgreementPartners / • ‘weak’ or non-delivering partnersCoordinator Risk • Non-performing or ‘weak’ Coordinator (Main Beneficiary) 18
    19. 19. Best Practice: Preliminary Risk Assessment (2)Technology Risk • Model/Software/ Pilot (DEMO) not www.imperial-consultants.co.uk performing/incompleteReputation • Damage to Brand or ImageStrategic Risk • Give away ideas, missing opportunities (proposal) • Reduced Role in the project (negotiation) • Project non-relevant to organization, no support, poor outcomeIPR Risks • No access rights to Background IPR during the project, extra costs • Bad negotiation on access rights to Foreground IPR post-closure 19
    20. 20. Identify RESOURCES needed www.imperial-consultants.co.ukProposal & • Allocate appropriate personnel and time resources (non-Negotiation Stages recoverable on the project!!!!)Correct Funding • Different Funding Rates > different TYPE of OrganisationsRates • Different TYPE of activities RTD -DEMO- MGM-OTHCorrect rate of OH • Public Organisations / SME (check conditions) allowed 60%(indirect costs) • REAL indirect costs (could be audited)Realistic Budgets • Staff Costs taking in account category of staff/ inflation rate • To reflect specific front-loaded /back-loaded workEquipment • Purchase only if necessary- consider leasing/rental • Depreciation has to be taken in account for short projects!!!In-kind Resources • Identify in the Proposal stage ‘in-kind’ resources of available equipment / personnel / support / use of facilities, etc.Post-closure • Necessary travel, also expenses for maintenance (web), etc. 20
    21. 21. s6 www.imperial-consultants.co.ukOverall strategy of Workplan, PERT chart Coordinator and Core TeamWP description, objectives, deliverables and milestones WP Leaders with inputList of deliverables and milestones Project Manager with inputGANTT Chart, Summary Effort Table Project Manager with inputRisk & Contingency Plans Core Team & PMIndividual Partners description PIs for each PartnerConsortium as a Whole Coordinator with input ALLResources to be committed PM with input from ALLIMPACT Section, including dissemination, exploitation, Core Team with PM formanagement , IPR, Ethical & Gender issues dissemination/exploitation 21
    22. 22. Stage 1 Submission EVALUATION SUBMISSION (single-stage) Stage 2 Submission EVALUATION EVALUATION CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT Negotiation GA GRANT AGREEMENT SIGNING START22 www.imperial-consultants.co.uk
    23. 23. www.imperial-consultants.co.uk (coordinated) (partnership) (coordinator) (secondment) (service provider/ subcontractor) Main Partner Partner Main = Beneficiary Beneficiary Different Different Organisation Organisation Non-RTD Non-RTD Coordination Secondment Non-RTD RTD Partner Partner Non-RTD (Mgm-Diss) Partner provider + (Mgm-Diss- (Mgm-Diss- (Mgm-Diss- Special clause (Mgm- Other Trg) Trg) Trg) Limited RTD 38GA Diss-Trg) activitiesFunding 100% funded 100% funded Non-RTD 100% funded 100% 50-100%(Imperial 93% OH 93% OH (100% funded, 60% OH (IMP) funded fundedConsultants) 93% OH) 93% OH Admin/ RTD (50% dissem/ funded, training 93% OH) 93% OHProject Large- Strategic SME-targeted Small Industrial- Commercial /Types Medium CP/IP CP/IP CP / IP/ STREPs / IP / led PPP STREPs CSAs Strategic CP/IP 23
    24. 24. 24 www.imperial-consultants.co.uk
    25. 25. 3.5 PARTICIPATION CONCERNS -Vision/Strategy College Mgm Board Concerns -Scientific Reputation www.imperial-consultants.co.uk ICON Board / CEO Heads of Department/ -Implement Strategy Imperial Consultants Concerns -Increase Income -Improve ReputationCollege Support Services Concerns -Clear Procedures -Risks & Liabilities Research Groups / -Resources Academics Concerns -Funding -Academic Freedom Proposals 25
    26. 26. 3.6 IMPERIAL CONSULTANTS SUPPORT – ADVICE - PARTICIPATION Evaluation Project PossibleProposal Negotiation www.imperial-consultants.co.uk Delivery AuditIdentify most suitable ‘Topics’ and Funding Schemes /Link to NCPAdvice on selecting strategic partners + role in projectsAdditional eligibility criteria • SME/INCO partners • Risk assessm.‘IMPACT’ / ‘IMPLEMENTATION’ EPSS, Templates, SpreadsheetsPre-check Proposal (Management, Dissemination, Financial, IPR)Call for Proposals Alert Service Sample Proposals/ ‘Clinic’ 26
    27. 27. 3.6 IMPERIAL CONSULTANTS SUPPORT – ADVICE - PARTICIPATION Evaluation Project Possible www.imperial-consultants.co.ukProposal Negotiation Delivery AuditReview of Evaluators Comments / RecommendationsSupport for FP7 software tools (GPF, Excel spreadsheets, etc.)Contributions to re-writing ANNEX 1 to GA (DoW)Advice on Model Grant Agreements/Consortium AgreementsFinancial Forms (calculating budgets and signing forms)Attend Grant Negotiation meetings in Brussels 27
    28. 28. 3.6 IMPERIAL CONSULTANTS SUPPORT – ADVICE - PARTICIPATION Evaluation Project Possible www.imperial-consultants.co.ukProposal Negotiation Delivery AuditAdvice on Legal and Financial IssuesAdvice on Preparation/Review of ‘Claims’ (Form C + Certs)Event Management (Kick-off / Annual Meetings/Training Workshops)Troubleshooting (‘Fire fighting’) • Emergency ManagementAnnual Reps, Mid-Term Reviews, Final Reviews, Dissemination, IPR MgmDay to Day Consortium Mgm & Admin • Closure Management 28
    29. 29. QUESTIONS ?www.imperial-consultants.co.uk
    30. 30. 4. BEST PRACTICE: IMPACT & EVALUATION www.imperial-consultants.co.uk4.1 • IMPACT4.2 • EVALUATION4.3 • THE EVALUATORS4.4 • COMMON MISTAKES & TIPS 30
    31. 31. 4.1 BEST PRACTICE: IMPACT (1) www.imperial-consultants.co.ukBackground to the Proposal Inform (‘Educate’) the Evaluators• What Gaps/ Problems is the PROPOSAL trying to fill / solve ?• Is it a European PRIORITY ? Can be solved at National/ Regional level ?• Are SOLUTIONS already available ? (Products- Services- Technologies)• How will the PROPOSAL advance things BEYOND the state of the art ?• Why NOW? What happens if it is planned / achieved in the future ?• Why YOUR CONSORTIUM ? Do you have the best lined-up partnership?• Any LINKS with ongoing work / research ? NETWORKING synergies?• Who will use the outcome/ results ? End-Users ? Stakeholders ? 31
    32. 32. 4.1 BEST PRACTICE: IMPACT (1) www.imperial-consultants.co.ukEXPECTED IMPACT (Call text) Questions to Assess IMPACT Expected Results- WHAT will come out of the Project ? End Users – WHO would want the RESULTS of your Project ? Lead Users – WHY would want they want the OUTCOME? Stakeholders– HOW do you plan to disseminate results ? Further Development – WHAT steps will be needed ? EXPLOITATION ? HOW? WHOM ? 32
    33. 33. 4.1 BEST PRACTICE: IMPACT (3)EXPECTED IMPACT (Call text) EXPECTED OUTPUTS www.imperial-consultants.co.uk Researchers PhDs • Publications • Recognition • New research Ideas Industry / Patents • Licenses • Know-how • Problems solved• SMEs Models Policy Makers Data/Studies to support policy • Advice • Workshops Officials Standards Draft Protocols • Solid support data • Harmonization Society Data & Studies • Workshops • Support • Validation OUTPUTS (RESULTS) OUTCOMES IMPACTS 33
    34. 34. 4.2 BEST PRACTICE: EVALUATION (1) www.imperial-consultants.co.uk EVALUATIONHEALTH2013-INNO.1/2 * ICT-FET OPEN * NMP2013 * ENERGY2013-2STG * ENV2013-2STG 34
    35. 35. 4.2 BEST PRACTICE: EVALUATION (2) • RELEVANCE to the TOPIC (CALL/AREA) www.imperial-consultants.co.uk • Soundness of CONCEPT & quality of OBJECTIVESS/T QUALITY • Progress BEYOND state of the art • Quality & Effectiveness of S/T METHODOLOGY & WORKPLAN • PERT & GANTT chartsIMPLEMENTATIONIMPACT 35
    36. 36. 4.2 EVALUATION (3) BEST PRACTICE: EVALUATION (3) www.imperial-consultants.co.ukS/T QUALITY • Quality and Efficiency of IMPLEMENTATION • Appropriateness of MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE & GOVERNANCE • Appropriate PROCEDURES • Quality & Relevant Experience of PARTICIPANTSIMPLEMENTATION • Quality of CONSORTIUM as a whole • PRIOR COLLABORATIONS & LINKS • Appropriate allocation & JUSTIFICATION of RESOURCES (budget, staff, equipment) & ‘in kind’ resources • RISK ASSESSMENT & ContingencyIMPACT Plans 36
    38. 38. 4.2 BEST PRACTICE: EVALUATION (5) www.imperial-consultants.co.uk ESR Eligibility letter Pre-check Individual Individual Individual ESR Commission Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Rankingletters Consensus meeting Scores, ESR Ethical Panel Review Review (optional hearing- Thresholds ESR (if needed) IP/NoE) letter 38
    39. 39. 4.3• Evaluators work individually, no communication allowed www.imperial-consultants.co.uk• Each proposal evaluated by 3 to 5 evaluators• Evaluators fill in IAR forms (Individual Assessment Report)• Each evaluator has 3 to 6 proposals/day with max. 2h per proposal• First impressions: • Title • ABSTRACT • Objectives • Partnership • Consistency, Formatting & Length• First 15-30 minutes of evaluation are CRUCIAL 39
    40. 40. 4.3 www.imperial-consultants.co.uk• Detailed reading for each specific criterion• ‘Within scope’ assessment• Objectives and soundness of S/T concepts• ‘Make-or-break’ evaluation: • Technical issues • Management structures • Consortium complementarity • Finances/ Resources justification • IMPACT • Ethical & Security considerations• Decide SCORE and complete IAR (Individual Assessment Report) 40
    41. 41. 4.3• CONSENSUS MEETING www.imperial-consultants.co.uk • Minutes recorded by a Rapporteur • Commission represented by a Moderator • Reading and understanding each other EXPERT’s individual comments• Preliminary discussions• Roundtable discussion on each CRITERIA• Consensus obtained (NOT a mathematical average of individual scores!)• Explanation text and justification• CONSENSUS REPORT (drafted by Rapporteur) 41
    42. 42. 4.3• PANEL MEETING to assess/compare Consensus Reports www.imperial-consultants.co.uk• Overall quality and number of proposals evaluated• Special attention: • Proposals that scored very high but failed ONE non-S/T criteria • Proposals with equal scores near funding thresholds• Proposals with equal scores will be ranked: • Objectives > Relevance > Impact > Resources > >Horizontal issues• FINAL RANKING• Commission prepares FINAL DECISION > NEGOTIATION LIST• RESERVE LIST (for withdrawals, unsuccessful negotiations) 42
    43. 43. 4.4 COMMON MISTAKES & TIPS (1) Best Practice: Common Mistakes Best Practice: Problems www.imperial-consultants.co.uk• Excellent S/T- Poor Consortium / • EC requested contribution EXCEEDS Implementation/ POOR IMPACT the limit (no evaluation!)• Does NOT address the text of CALL • EPSS crashed due to last minute submissions• General/ Vague IDEAS • Overlap of research ALREADY funded• Proposal NOT edited/ NOT Proof Read • Incomplete TABLES of effort, deliverables• Unclear relation between WPs / • TOO LONG- exceeds prescribed PERT? pagination• Incongruous Proposal- looks patched • Part A not validated properly together • Budget does not tally! 43
    44. 44. 4.4 COMMON MISTAKES & TIPS (2) BEST PRACTICE: www.imperial-consultants.co.uk TIPS for SUCCESSFUL PROPOSALSCREDIBILITY IDEA convincing and achievableCOMMUNICATION Clear description of work and what/how will be doneCONCRETE Very specific (not general) concepts WHO will do WHAT, WHEN and HOW!CONSISTENCY High quality documentation (proof-read) edited 44
    45. 45. www.imperial-consultants.co.uk QUESTIONS ?THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION !