Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
(Wersja PowerPoint)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

(Wersja PowerPoint)

280
views

Published on


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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
280
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
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. Proposals and projects in FP7 Submission and evaluation of proposals in FP 7 European Commission – DG INFSO Belgrade 20/21 February 2008
  • 2. Information for proposers
    • Workprogramme 2007-2008
    • Guide for Applicants
      • now including the Guidance notes for evaluators and the Background note on the funding scheme
    • Evaluation forms with notes
    • EPSS manual
    • Model grant agreement
  • 3. Pre-proposal checks
    • Pre-Proposal Check available for all objectives (see Annex 1 to Guides of applicants)
    • Pre-proposal check gives feed back from Commission on eligibility of consortium, whether the idea is in scope or not
    • Use annex 6 in Guides for Applicants
    • Deadline for asking for pre-proposal check: 3 weeks before deadline for call = 18 March, 2008
  • 4. Electronic Submission
    • EPSS - Electronic Proposal Submission System
    • Online preparation only
    • Improved validation checks before submission is accepted
    • FP6 Submission failure rate = + 1%
    • Main reason for failure; waiting till the last minute
        • Technical problems
        • Panic-induced errors
        • Too late starting upload, run out of time
    • Submit early, submit often!
    • If in trouble, call the helpdesk !
  • 5. Proposal Part A (online)
    • A1
      • Title, acronym, objective etc.
      • free keywords
      • 2000 character proposal abstract
      • previous/current submission (in FP7)
    • A2
      • Legal address/administrator address/R&D address
      • Clear identification as SME/Public body/Research centre/ Educ. establishment
      • Proposer identification code PIC (later calls)
    • A3
      • More cost detail (direct/indirect costs distinguished)
  • 6. Proposal Part B (pdf format only)
    • Part B format directly linked to evaluation criteria
      • Summary
      • S&T quality (bullet points = sections)
      • Implementation (idem)
      • Impact (idem)
      • Ethics
    • Section lengths recommended
    • Part B templates are also available from your National Contact Point (NCP) !
  • 7. Eligibility checks
    • Date and time of receipt of proposal on or before deadline
      • Firm deadlines - except for Continuously open calls
    • Minimum number of eligible, independent partners
      • As set out in work programme/call
    • Completeness of proposal
      • Presence of all requested administrative forms (Part A) and the content description (Part B)
    • In scope of the call
  • 8. Evaluation process
    • On-site evaluation
    • Independent experts
    • One step evaluation
    • Remote Individual reading in call 3
    Panel (with Hearings) Consensus Individual reading Eligibility Check? yes
  • 9. Evaluation criteria 1. Scientific and technical quality
      • Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives (ALL)
      • Progress beyond the state-of-the-art (CP)
      • Contribution to long term integration of high quality S/T research (NoE)
      • Contribution to the coordination of high quality research (CSA)
      • Quality and effectiveness of the S & T methodology and associated workplan (CP)
      • Quality and effectiveness of the joint programme of activities and associated workplan (NoE)
      • Quality and effectiveness of the coordination/support action mechanisms and associated workplan (CSA )
  • 10. Evaluation criteria 2. Implementation
      • Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures (ALL)
      • Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants (ALL)
      • Quality of the consortium as a whole*
        • (including complementarity, balance) (CP)
        • (including ability to tackle fragmentation of the research field and commitment towards a deep and durable institutional integration) (NoE )
      • Appropriate allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment) (CP and CSA)
      • Adequacy of resources for successfully carrying out the joint programme of activities (NoE)
            • *for Support actions, only if relevant
  • 11. Evaluation criteria 3. Impact
      • Contribution at the European or international level to the expected impacts listed in the workprogramme under the relevant activity (ALL)
      • Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property (CP)
      • Appropriateness of measures for spreading excellence, exploiting results and disseminating knowledge through engagement with stakeholders and the public at large (NoE and CSA)
  • 12. Evaluation criteria scoring
    • Scale of 1-5 (and 0)
    • Criterion threshold 3/5
    • Overall threshold 10/15
  • 13. Other issues
    • Subcontracting – “core” activities cannot be subcontracted
    • Justification and integration of any third country participation
    • Ethical issues
  • 14. Ethical issues
    • Annex “ICT-Ethics” in the Guide for Applicants.
    • Post-evaluation review for any selected proposals which have ethical issues, based on the contents of the original proposal
    • Does your proposal show…?
    • that you fully understand the ethical issues involved in your planned action
    • that you have adequate plans to deal with them
    • that there are clear lines of responsibility
    • that you will review and report on these issues on a regular basis
  • 15. When writing your proposal….
    • Divide your effort over the evaluation criteria
      • Many proposers concentrate on the scientific element, but lose marks on project planning or impact description
    • Think of the finishing touches which signal quality work:
      • clear language
      • well-organised contents, following the Part B structure
      • useful and understandable diagrams
      • no typos, no inconsistencies and obvious paste-ins, no numbers which don’t add up, no missing pages …
  • 16. When writing your proposal….
    • Make it easy for the evaluators to give you high marks. Don’t make it hard for them!
    • Make sure you submit the latest , complete version of your proposal
    • Don’t write too little; cover what is requested
    • Don’t write too much
    • Don’t leave them to figure out why it’s good, tell them why it’s good
    • Leave nothing to the imagination
  • 17.
    • RTD content
      • narrow scope, little or no EU dimension
      • lack of focus, aims too general
      • lack of innovation, current state of art missing
    • planning
      • l inks missing between objectives & work plan
      • milestones missing or too general
      • risk factors not addressed, no contingency plans
      • no monitorable indicators, no metrics
    • management
      • consortium not balanced, gaps in the skills mix
      • lack of integration between partners
      • vague management structure
      • weak or narrow dissemination plans
      • ill-defined exploitation prospects
    Reasons for failure
  • 18.
    • Quality
    • Impact
    • Effectiveness
    • but also
    • Relevance wrt. WP (remember: 150 to 200 proposals!)
    • Credibility
    • Contrary to earlier calls, evaluators will have access to Web sources: previous projects, teams & skills, background & reference documents …
    Success factors .1
  • 19.
    • It’s a project, not a dissertation:
      • problem?
      • user?
      • data?
      • outputs (incl. public ones)?
      • metrics?
      • impact?
      • exploitation channels?
    Success factors .2
  • 20. Success factors .3
    • preserve your credibility : select one proposal & make it win
    • ensure that the proposal brings out both innovation & exploitation potential
    • full depth of participation rather than long list of organisations with limited involvement
    • key individuals , expertise & achievements rather than long list of previous projects
    • make the proposal compelling for a busy reader (the first 5-10 pages are key!)
  • 21. Getting help with your proposal
    • The ICT theme supports
    • Information days and briefings in Brussels and elsewhere
    • Partner search facilities (http://www.ideal-ist.net/)
    • A supporting website of advice, information and documentation (http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/)
    • A Helpdesk for proposers’ questions, reachable by email or phone (and a Helpdesk for electronic proposal submission)
    • A list of contact persons for the objectives in each call
    • And a network of National Contact Points in Europe and beyond:
    • http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ncp_en.html
  • 22. Thank you for your attention Questions?