Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
33136 eval forms en
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

33136 eval forms en

153
views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
153
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. EVALUATION FORMSInformation and Communication Technologies ICT FP7-ICT-2013-11
  • 2. 2The following forms exemplify those which will be issued to independent expertsemployed as evaluators in the evaluation of proposals received in ICT Call 11 (FP7-ICT-2013-11)In this call there will be strong competition. Therefore, edit your proposal tightly,strengthen or eliminate weak points. Put yourself in the place of an expert evaluator;refer to the evaluation criteria and procedure given in annex 2 of the Guide forApplicants. Arrange for your draft to be evaluated by experienced colleagues; usetheir advice to improve it before submission. CONTENTS EVALUATION REPORT FOR AN INTEGRATED PROJECT ............................................................ 3 EVALUATION REPORT FOR A STREP .................................................................................... 5 EVALUATION REPORT FOR A COORDINATION ACTION OR ERANET PLUS ACTION .................... 7 EVALUATION REPORT FOR A SUPPORT ACTION ..................................................................... 9 EVALUATION REPORT FOR A CP-CSA PROPOSAL IN PRE-COMMERCIAL PROCUREMENT .........11 EVALUATION REPORT FOR AN ERANET ACTION IMPLEMENTED AS A COORDINATION ACTION IN FET FLAGSHIPS .................................................................................................................13FP7-ICT-2013-11 Evaluations forms 18/09/12 v1
  • 3. 3ICT Theme IEREvaluation Report for an Integrated ProjectProposal No. : Acronym :1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the Score:call) (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1) Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives Progress beyond the state-of-the-art Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Score: (Threshold 3/5; Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures Weight 1) Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance) Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment)0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformation; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 FairWhile the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses thecriterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well,although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of thecriterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
  • 4. 4 Evaluation Report for an Integrated Project p.2 3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project Score: results (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1)  Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under relevant topic/activity  Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property. Remarks Overall score: (Threshold 10/15)Does this proposal contain ethical issues that may need further attention ? NO  YES  I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no direct or indirect conflict of interest in the evaluation of this proposal Name Signature Date 0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 Fair While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
  • 5. 5ICT Theme IEREvaluation Report for a STREPProposal No. : Acronym :1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the Score:call) (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1) Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives Progress beyond the state-of-the-art Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Score: (Threshold 3/5; Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures Weight 1) Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance) Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment)0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformation; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 FairWhile the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses thecriterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well,although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of thecriterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
  • 6. 6 Evaluation Report for a STREP p.2 3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project Score: results (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1)  Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under relevant topic/activity  Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property. Remarks Overall score: (Threshold 10/15)Does this proposal contain ethical issues that may need further attention ? NO  YES  I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no direct or indirect conflict of interest in the evaluation of this proposal Name Signature Date 0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 Fair While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
  • 7. 7ICT Theme IEREvaluation Report for a Coordination Action or ERANET Plus actionProposal No. : Acronym :1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the Score:call) (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1) Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives Contribution to the coordination of high quality research Quality and effectiveness of the coordination mechanisms and associated work plan2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Score: (Threshold 3/5; Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures Weight 1) Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance) Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment)0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformation; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 FairWhile the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses thecriterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well,although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of thecriterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
  • 8. 8 Evaluation Report for a Coordination Action or ERANET Plus action p.2 3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project Score: results (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1)  Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under relevant topic/activity  Appropriateness of measures for spreading excellence, exploiting results and disseminating knowledge through engagement with stakeholders and the public at large Remarks Overall score: (Threshold 10/15)Does this proposal contain ethical issues that may need further attention ? NO  YES  I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no direct or indirect conflict of interest in the evaluation of this proposal Name Signature Date 0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 Fair While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
  • 9. 9ICT Theme IEREvaluation Report for a Support ActionProposal No. : Acronym :1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the Score:call) (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1) Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives Quality and effectiveness of the support mechanisms and associated work plan2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Score: (Threshold 3/5; Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures Weight 1) Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance) [only if relevant] Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment)0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformation; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 FairWhile the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses thecriterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well,although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of thecriterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
  • 10. 10 Evaluation Report for a Support Action p.2 3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project Score: results (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1)  Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under relevant topic/activity  Appropriateness of measures for spreading excellence, exploiting results and disseminating knowledge through engagement with stakeholders and the public at large Remarks Overall score: (Threshold 10/15)Does this proposal contain ethical issues that may need further attention ? NO  YES  I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no direct or indirect conflict of interest in the evaluation of this proposal Name Signature Date 0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 Fair While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
  • 11. 11ICT Theme IEREvaluation Report for a CP-CSA proposal in Pre-commercialProcurementProposal No. : Acronym :1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the Score:call) (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1) Soundness of concept and quality of objectives. Progress beyond the state-of-the-art (relevant only to CP part of the proposal). Contribution to the coordination of high quality research (relevant only to CSA part of the proposal). Quality and effectiveness of the CSA mechanisms (mechanisms proposed to achieve the objectives of the networking and coordination CSA part of the project), and associated work plan Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan (relevant only to CP part of the proposal).2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Score: Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures. (Threshold 3/5; Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants. Weight 1) Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance). Appropriate allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (staff, equipment …).0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformation; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 FairWhile the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses thecriterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well,although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of thecriterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
  • 12. 12 Evaluation Report for a CP-CSA in PCP p.2 3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project Score: results (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1)  Contribution at the European level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under relevant topic/activity.  Appropriateness of measures for the exploitation of project results, dissemination of knowledge, through the engagement with stakeholders and the public at large, and the management of intellectual property and for spreading excellence Remarks Overall score: (Threshold 10/15)Does this proposal contain ethical issues that may need further attention ? NO  YES  I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no direct or indirect conflict of interest in the evaluation of this proposal Name Signature Date 0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 Fair While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
  • 13. 13ICT Theme IEREvaluation Report for an ERANET action implemented as aCoordination Action in FET FlagshipsProposal No. : Acronym :1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the Score:call) (Threshold 3/5; Weight 40%) Clarity of objectives Contribution to the coordination of high-risk and high -impact research, for new or emerging areas or horizontally Quality and effectiveness of the coordination activities2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Score: (Threshold 3/5; Quality of workplan and management Weight 20%) Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants Quality of the consortium Appropriate management of the resources to be committed (person months, equipment, budget)0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformation; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 FairWhile the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses thecriterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well,although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of thecriterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
  • 14. 14 Evaluation Report for an ERANET Coordination Action in FET Proactive p.2 3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project Score: results (Threshold 3/5; Weight 40%)  Transformational impact on the communities and/or practices for high-risk and high impact research  Appropriateness of measures for spreading excellence, use of results and dissemination of knowledge, including engagement with stakeholders Remarks Overall score:Does this proposal contain ethical issues that may need further attention ? NO  YES  I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no direct or indirect conflict of interest in the evaluation of this proposal Name Signature Date 0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information; 1 Poor The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 Fair While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.