Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

H2020 Infoday Proposals Submission


Published on

H2020 Rules for participation, proposal submission & evaluation procedure
Presented at the: H2020 Workshop, Prague, 14 January 2015

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

H2020 Infoday Proposals Submission

  1. 1. H2020 Rules for participation, proposal submission and evaluation procedure Marta Krywanis-Brzostowska 14/01/2015, Prague
  2. 2. Nice to meet you ! MY NAME IS…. • Proposal preparation and submission process • Rules for participation and evaluation • Novelties in H2020
  3. 3. Agenda • Proposal preparation and submission process • Rules for participation and evaluation • Novelties in H2020
  4. 4. How to prepare & submit a proposal? • Follow strictly the instructions • Read carefully the work programme topic (+ annexes) • Respect admissibility and eligibility criteria – Basic checks by electronic submission system • Be clear and explicit – Evaluators must judge only what they read and have limited time • Convince the evaluation experts regarding ALL selection and award criteria • Let someone do a mock evaluation before submission – No pre-proposal checks • Do not wait until the last minute to submit your proposal 4
  5. 5. Be focused and concrete: Build on fairly mature application or business concepts and fill the gap Think to bring the products / services on the market at the end of the project Successful proposal- some hints Build on market understanding and business expertise: Ideally, coordinator with good expertise in the specific market Demonstrable capability to commercialise the products and services developed Demonstrate a clear motivation to commercialise the products and services: Market entry plan (marketing strategy & business plan) Previous achievements in the specific market Focus on practical impact:  Maximise the use of the available signals  Prefer trials and large scale demonstration, involving final users in their real life procedures  Produce practical tools useful for the GNSS developer community Select applications where EGNOS and Galileo differentiators are key for the product/service success
  6. 6. 6
  7. 7. 8
  8. 8. en/funding/index.html
  9. 9. Agenda • Proposal preparation and submission process • Rules for participation and evaluation • Evaluation process • Award criteria, proposal scoring & ranking • Individual evaluation aspects • Novelties in H2020
  10. 10. Preliminary schedule of the Call
  11. 11. Evaluation Process Eligibility and Admissibility Check Evaluation by experts •Individual evaluation •Consensus meeting •Panel review Commission/Agency ranked list Information on the outcome of the evaluation 4 3 2 1
  12. 12. Evaluation Process Eligibility and Admissibility Check Submitted in the electronic submission system before the deadline? Complete? Readable, accessible and printable? Respecting page limit Eligibility and Admissibility Check 1 Content corresponds to the topic description against which it is submitted? Proposal complies with the minimum participation and any other eligibility conditions set out for the type of action?
  13. 13. 16 Eligibility checks Individual evaluation Consensus group Panel review Commission decision H2020 Space Calls: All "one stage" evaluations Evaluation Process
  14. 14. • Excellence, transparency, fairness and impartiality and efficiency and speed • Done by independent experts selected from EMI – Balance in terms of 1. Skills, experience and knowledge 2. Other factors • geographical diversity • gender • where appropriate, the private and public sectors • an appropriate turnover from year to year 17 2 Evaluation by experts •Individual evaluation •Consensus meeting •Panel review Evaluation Process Evaluation by experts
  15. 15. Award criteria Excellence Impact Quality and efficiency in the implementation • Clarity and pertinence of the objectives; • Credibility of the proposed approach; • Soundness of the concept, including trans disciplinary considerations, where relevant; • Extent that proposed work is ambitious, has innovation potential, and is beyond the state of the art (e.g. ground breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches). • The expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic • Enhancing innovation capacity and integration of new knowledge; • Strengthening the competitiveness and growth of companies by developing innovations meeting the needs of European and global markets; and by delivering such innovations to the markets; • Any other environmental and socially important impacts; • Effectiveness of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results, to communicate the project, and to manage research data where relevant. • Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources; • Complementarity of the participants within the consortium (when relevant) • Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management. 2 Evaluation Process Evaluation by experts
  16. 16. 19 • Operational capacity: • Assessed by the experts during evaluations as part of 'Quality and efficiency of the implementation' • Check if the consortium partners have the capacity to carry out the proposed work • Based on information provided by the applicant in the proposal (Part B): CVs, publications, references, available infrastructure, etc. Evaluation Process Evaluation by experts 2 Source:
  17. 17. 20 Excellence: "The objectives ….." Impact: "The innovation capacity….." Quality and efficiency of the implementation: "The management ….." Evaluation Process Evaluation by experts 2 For Innovation actions to determine the ranking, the score for the criterion ‘impact’ will be given a weight of 1.5. Interpretation of the scores 0—Proposal fails to address the criterion or can’t be assessed due to missing or incomplete information. 1—Poor The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses. 2—Fair Proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses. 3—Good Proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present. 4—Very Good Proposal addresses the criterion very well, a small number of shortcomings are present. 5—Excellent Proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion; any shortcomings minor.
  18. 18.  Done by experts in panel review that will rank the proposals that passed the thresholds according to the results of the evaluation  Award of the grants will be made on the basis of this ranking, and the available budget.  Information on the outcome of the evaluation — Rejection of proposals that are not on the list  If your proposal is successfully evaluated, we will send an ‘evaluation information letter’ to the proposal coordinator, to inform you of the results of the evaluation and to invite you to take part in the grant agreement preparation phase.  Reserve list  We may keep a number of proposals in reserve in case proposals are withdrawn, excluded or extra funding becomes available. 3 4 Evaluation Process Commission/Agency ranked list and Information on the outcome of evaluation
  19. 19. Each applicant is responsible for: • identifying any potential ethical issues • handling ethical aspects of their proposal • detailing how they plan to address them in sufficient detail already at the proposal stage. The Ethics part of each proposal (part A in SEP, part B 5) should include description of issues and arrangements! Ethics self-assessment
  20. 20. - CONSULT ETHICS ASSESSMENT GUIDELINE! For guidance incl. documents to be provided ATTACH THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS Indicate pages in the proposal Ethics self-assessment
  21. 21. Communication in H2020 Dissemination and Communication activities are not the same! The communication activities: - Evaluation under criterion ‘impact’ - Must already be part of the proposal (either as a specific work package for communication or by including them in another work package). - Must make the research activities known to multiple audiences and address the public policy perspective of EU research and innovation funding 24
  22. 22. Agenda • Proposal preparation and submission process • Rules for participation and evaluation • Novelties in H2020
  23. 23. 1) Negotiation becomes Grant Agreement Preparation – No longer "recommendations" in ESR 2) Obvious Clerical Errors – For example Requested EU funding = 0 26 Novelties under H2020 1 Source:
  24. 24. 3) New criteria and sub-criteria – Different from FP7 – use self-evaluation form and carefully check the template (ESR-award criteria)! – Award criteria: More sub-criteria/elements compared to FP7 – Scores: Clear difference between weakness and shortcoming -> above below threshold Novelties under H2020 1 Source:
  25. 25. 4) Page limits 5) Third Country Participation and Funding – Countries outside Annex A/non-associated? 6) Ethics Issues – Self-Assessment – Screening 28 Novelties under H2020 1 Source:
  26. 26. We are waiting for your ideas! High Precision Road Transport Agriculture New markets & technologies Rail LBS Aviation
  27. 27. Thank you for your attention !!! Questions?