Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal Webinar

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad

Check these out next

1 of 135 Ad

How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal Webinar

Download to read offline

This webinar provides you with the essential hands-on knowledge and skills to transform your innovative project ideas into competitive project proposals in response to calls under Horizon Europe.

This webinar provides you with the essential hands-on knowledge and skills to transform your innovative project ideas into competitive project proposals in response to calls under Horizon Europe.

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Similar to How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal Webinar (20)

Advertisement

More from KTN (18)

Advertisement

How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal Webinar

  1. 1. www.ktn-uk.org Innovate UK KTN Global Alliance and Horizon Europe UK National Contact Points How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal Webinar 7th December 2021
  2. 2. Welcome and Housekeeping • Due to the large number of people registered all participants will be muted. • After testing your speakers, please do remember to connect your audio by using the “Join Audio” icon at the bottom left of the screen or dial in via phone using the number provided in the joining instructions. • If you have any technical problems, please use the chat to seek advice from the host (Jess Dobbyne). • Questions and Answers there is a separate Q&A box, any questions please use this function • Please use the chat function to introduce yourself, please note due to GDPR we cannot share the chat. Capture what you need PLEASE NOTE – THE WEBINAR IS BEING RECORDED The recording and slides will be made available via the KTN website Welcome to our How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal Webinar
  3. 3. • 10:00 – Welcome and Introduction | Jane Watkins, Innovate UK KTN • 10:05 – How to read a topic and understand the requirements | Louise Mothersole UK Horizon Europe National Contact Point for Mobility • 10:25 – Roles and responsibilities in the consortium Introduction to Part A | Chris Young, UK Horizon Europe National Contact Point for Legal and Financial • 10:45 – Case Study | Jenny Rainbird and Takis Katsoulakos - Inlecom Systems • 10:50 – Q&A • 11.00 – Break • 11:10 – Part B – Impact, Implementation and Excellence | Nic Wallet, UK Horizon Europe National Contact Point Climate • 11:35 – The Evaluation | Catherine Holt, UK Horizon Europe National Contact Point for Space • 11:45 – An Evaluator’s personal perspective | Dr Erica Yang, Managing Director – Chilton Computing Limited • 12:05 – NCP Panel discussion and Q&A | UK Horizon Europe National Contact Points Overview
  4. 4. Horizon Europe – How to read a topic and understand the requirements Louise Mothersole Horizon Europe UK National Contact Point for Mobility louise.mothersole@iuk.ukri.org
  5. 5. Team of country based, sector specific, advisors to support everyone to successfully participate in EU Framework Programmes Horizon Europe National Contact Points (NCPs) Full list of UK National Contact Points NCPs for Europe and the rest of the world 2 • RaisingAwarenessoftheprogramme • FindingtherightTopic • Identifyingthebestwaystofindpartners • Navigatingtheportal • Developingtheproposal • Answeringquestions • Supportingyoutosucceed!
  6. 6. Horizon Europe €95.5bn funding agreed for 2021-2027 Budget figures exclude UK and other Associate Country contributions
  7. 7. • The most recent guidance issued by the European Commission on 4th October states that the UK’s association to the programme is imminent. https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021- 2027/common/guidance/list-3rd-country-participation_horizon-euratom_en.pdf • The General Annexes referred to in the above guidance states “For the purposes of the eligibility conditions, applicants established in Horizon 2020 Associated Countries or in other third countries negotiating association to Horizon Europe will be treated as entities established in an Associated Country” https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding- tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-call/2021-2022/wp-13-general-annexes_horizon-2021-2022_en.pdf • EC has published a Q&A on UK association that states “Thanks to the Associated Country status, UK participants will have the same rights as EU participants, with the very limited aforementioned exceptions. UK entities are eligible for funding at the same rates and under the same conditions. They can lead project consortia. They also count towards the minimum number of countries in calls for transnational projects.” https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/research_and_innovation/strategy_on_research_and_innovation/document s/ec_rtd_uk-participation-in-horizon-europe.pdf • To provide reassurance, the government has guaranteed funding for the first wave of eligible, successful applicants to Horizon Europe, but who have been unable to sign grant agreements with the EU https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-provides-financial-safety-net-for-horizon-europe-applicants Status of UK Association to Horizon Europe
  8. 8. A quick look at ‘The Portal’
  9. 9. Funding & tender opportunities
  10. 10. Funding & Tender Opportunities
  11. 11. Register so that you have your own, personal, account
  12. 12. Funding & Tender Opportunities
  13. 13. Participant Identification Code (PIC)
  14. 14. Participant Identification Code (PIC)
  15. 15. Participant Identification Code (PIC)
  16. 16. Participant Identification Code (PIC)
  17. 17. Register your organisation
  18. 18. Understanding the Topic requirement
  19. 19. Other Tabs on the Portal
  20. 20. Narrow down the options
  21. 21. Finding your Topic
  22. 22. Finding your Topic
  23. 23. The Topic Webpage
  24. 24. Expected Outcome and Scope
  25. 25. Topic details in the Work Programme § Always worth looking at the Work Programme itself for additional details
  26. 26. Background to the Topic § Read up the relevant parts of the Work Programme: Introduction, Destination, etc. § If any previous projects mentioned, look them up on Cordis § e.g. “Project(s) is/are expected to co-operate closely with the Horizon 2020 project MOSES which is already addressing aspects of robotic cargo handling and autonomous vessel manoeuvring and docking” § Find out about other initiatives mentioned in the Topic or Destination § e.g. “Furthermore, in the context of the EU’s digital strategy “A Europe Fit for the Digital Age” the waterborne transport sector will have to embrace a wide- ranging digitalisation…”
  27. 27. Topic Description § Expected Outcome § Some mandatory and so must be achieved § Some desirable – evaluation will reward more of these being addressed § Scope § Some mandatory § Some desirable – again evaluation rewards scope coverage § Additional requirements, some examples: § International cooperation § Technology Readiness Level § Extended proposal length
  28. 28. Click on Start submission early
  29. 29. Funding: Submission Service
  30. 30. The Proposal The proposal contains two parts: § Part A of the proposal is generated by the IT system. § It is based on the information entered by the participants through the submission system in the Funding & Tenders Portal. § The participants can update the information in the submission system at any time before final submission. § Part B of the proposal is the narrative part that includes three sections that each correspond to an evaluation criterion. § Part B needs to be uploaded as a PDF document following the templates downloaded by the applicants in the submission system for the specific call or topic.
  31. 31. @UKRI_news UK Research and Innovation UK Research and Innovation
  32. 32. Roles and responsibilities in the consortium - Introduction to Part A Chris Young Horizon Europe UK National Contact Point Legal and Financial chris.young@iuk.ukri.org
  33. 33. Roles and responsibilities - general principles § Depending on the programme and type of action, organisations can participate in various roles: as coordinator, beneficiaries, affiliated entities, associated partners, in-kind contributors, subcontractors or recipients of financial support to third parties. § Sufficient capacity must be demonstrated in the proposal and be available at the moment of the implementation of the work (i.e. not necessarily at the moment of submitting the proposal or signing the GA, but at least when the work starts). § It is the beneficiaries that remain fully responsible towards the European Commission (the Commission) (since they are the ones that sign the Grant Agreement (GA)). For all the other consortium members, the obligations under the GA are indirect (meaning that in case of non-compliance the Commission will turn to the beneficiaries to enforce).
  34. 34. Roles and responsibilities – Coordinator v beneficiary § Beneficiaries are entities that sign the Grant Agreement § The coordinator is the beneficiary who is the central contact point for the Commission and represents the consortium (towards the Commission). For mono-beneficiary grants, the mono-beneficiary also has the coordinator role. § Ideally, the work should be done by the beneficiaries and their affiliated entities themselves, but if needed, they may involve other partners and rely on outside resources (purchase new equipment, goods, works or services, subcontract a part of the work or involve associated partners, etc).
  35. 35. Roles and responsibilities – Beneficiary v affiliated entity § Affiliated entities (new for 2021-2027; previously called ‘linked third parties’) are in practice treated largely like beneficiaries (except that they don’t sign the GA). § They have a link (e.g. legal or capital) with a beneficiary which goes beyond the implementation of the action. § They must fulfil the same conditions for participation and funding as the beneficiaries and need to have a validated participant identification code (PIC) Example (implementation by affiliated entity): Company X and company Y do not control each other, but they are both fully owned by company Z. Company X is beneficiary in the grant and company Y implements some of the action tasks described in Annex 1(testing and analysis of the resistance of a new component under high temperatures).
  36. 36. Roles and responsibilities – Associated partners § Associated partners – they implement action tasks but do not receive EU funding § They do not sign the Grant Agreement but are actively involved in the consortium § The Grant Agreement mentions them and defines their role but they are NOT beneficiaries § The consortium is responsible for the implementation of the actions tasks by the Associated partner § They do not have to account for their costs but applicants should include their costs in the budget of their proposal under other sources of finance, financial contributions and own resources headings
  37. 37. Roles and responsibilities – Third parties providing in-kind contributions § Beneficiaries may use in-kind contributions provided by third parties if necessary to implement the action § The third party does not sign the Grant Agreement § In-kind contributions refers only to the case where a third party makes available some of its resources to a beneficiary for FREE (ie no payment) § The beneficiary makes no payment and therefore there is NO cost to the beneficiary (therefore costs are not usually eligible). § In contrast, if there is any payment between the third party and the beneficiary related to the in-kind contribution provided, the beneficiary can declare the costs eg personnel, equipment, purchase of goods works or services etc § In-kind contributions and the third party contributing them must be mentioned in Annex 1
  38. 38. Roles and responsibilities – Subcontractor § Subcontracts – these concern the implementation of ”action tasks” as set out in Annex I of the Grant Agreement ie part of the project/project tasks that have been outsourced. § The price for the subcontracts will be declared as subcontracting costs in the financial statement. § Subcontractor’s motivation is financial, not the project itself and is paid by the beneficiary in exchange for its work § Subcontracting is limited and certain tasks are excluded (eg. Coordination) Example : Subcontract to organise a conference that is set as part of the tasks in the description of the action
  39. 39. Roles and responsibilities – recipients of financial support to third parties § Recipients of financial support to third parties (grants, prizes etc) - they do not sign the Grant Agreement and are not part of the consortium § They do not take part in action tasks but do benefit from them and receive (indirectly) a part of EU funding and therefore the GA mentions them and defines their role. § The beneficiaries are responsible for the proper use of the funds by the recipient and ensure they comply with certain obligations (eg confidentiality, ethics etc)
  40. 40. Part A and the evaluation Evaluation – the evaluator will have both Part A and Part B Quality of the participants and the consortium as a whole – important information on the role of individual participants and previous experience. The evaluation committee will take position on the operational capacity of the consortium and individual participants to properly implement the tasks planned. This assessment will be based on the competence and experience of the participants, including operational resources (human, technical and other)
  41. 41. Part A – Contents
  42. 42. 1. General Information (1) Note the importance of the abstract
  43. 43. 1. General Information (2)
  44. 44. 2. Participants (1)
  45. 45. 2. Participants (2)
  46. 46. 2. Participants (3)
  47. 47. 2. Participants (4) Consider the number of contact persons
  48. 48. 2. Participants (5) Include only researchers involved in the action NOT other persons
  49. 49. 2. Participants (6)
  50. 50. 2. Participants (7)
  51. 51. 2. Participants (8) Gender Equality Plan - applicable to: Public bodies, research organisations and higher education establishments; Member States and Associated Countries; calls with deadlines in 2022 and thereafter
  52. 52. 3. Budget for the proposal
  53. 53. 3. Budget for the proposal
  54. 54. 3. Budget for the proposal • Only the white cells need to be filled in (the grey cells are not applicable or automatically filled by the system). • Cross-check with Part B to see if you will also need to submit a detailed budget table or outline budgetary details in Part B. • The budget categories to be used for the call are set out in the call conditions and explained in the AGA — Annotated Grant Agreement. • The budgeted costs should be based on a detailed and accurate estimation of your estimated project costs (based on the cost eligibility rules set out in the Grant Agreement). They should include all your estimated costs. • Keep your estimates on file — you may be required to produce them later on.
  55. 55. 4. Ethics and Security (1)
  56. 56. 4. Ethics and Security(2)
  57. 57. 4. Ethics and Security (3)
  58. 58. 4. Ethics and Security (4)
  59. 59. 5. Other questions
  60. 60. @UKRI_news UK Research and Innovation UK Research and Innovation
  61. 61. 2021 2019 Spin-out of commercialisation centre of competency (Inlecom Commercial Pathways Ireland) Spinout of key technical “Connected Intelligence” patents and technologies (Konnecta Ireland) 2015 Expanded R&D and Project/Program management expertise in Athens, Greece (Inlecom Innovation) 1996 Originally established a core R&D team in in United Kingdom (Inlecom Systems) 2016 Subsequent expansion to Group & Corporate HQ in Brussels, Belgium (Inlecom Group) INLECOM Group History Inlecom Group Mission Statement Supporting the European Commission in evidencing commercial and economic outputs from EC funded Research & Innovation
  62. 62. Themes: Transport & Logistics ICT and Robotics Security Green buildings / cities Health Food Manufacture Energy Track record in winning & managing EU projects circa 70% H2020 proposal success rate vs EU <10% average 6 Projects currently coordinated 20 EU-funded completed projects 7 EU-funded projects coordinated + 8 as technical coordinator in the top 1% of EU SMEs for winning EC R&D grant funding >350 successfully granted patents (100% success rate) vs EU 40% avg New PROBONO Green Buildings - ZEROW Zero Food waste - ERATOSTHENIS Data Privacy and Cybersecurity
  63. 63. Why were our proposals funded? Our Approach
  64. 64. Inlecom pay attention to the key EC areas of impact focus Awareness Raising General Interests Website, Leaflets, Targeted Events Academic Research Community Scientific Publications, Journals, Conferences… Business Stakeholders (Knowledge Contributors, Users, SMEs, Advisors) Commercial Workshops, Industry Onboarding/Training Economic/Industrial/ Commercialisation Knowledge Transfer and IP Exploitation Business Stakeholders (Multipliers) Target Group Tools, Means, Channels VC brokerage events Commercial Accelerators Impact Focus Broader Public/Society General Community Press, Media, YouTube, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Public Events, EC Events International Cooperation USA, Japan, China, Canada, etc where appropriate Adding to advisory board, PhD Secondments, Involvement in Project (funded/unfunded) Societal EU Citizens & Stakeholders Community Intersection, Focused Events, EU Policy KPIs, Societal Impact KPIs EU Projects Have Typically Focused Here for broad project dissemination and communications I M P A C T
  65. 65. How do we typically find partners? • Previous Inlecom collaborations where partners supported strong outputs • Leaders of projects from previous calls who reach out to merge efforts • Prominent industry partners with compelling R&D vision who reach out for our help • Classifications of actors/partners that we know the EC is keen to support • Recommendations from partners who join Inlecom projects/proposals • Deserving early stage SMEs made know to us by e.g. Enterprise Ireland, Science Foundation Ireland and other EU Gov bodies
  66. 66. Issues at submission and delivery • The principal reason for poor success rates in EU programs is actors starting proposals too late, and submitting as moderately or insignificantly incomplete • A second reason is not allowing sufficient time for partners to contribute to and assist in a well thought out submission that intersects with EC’s interests and objectives • A third reason is some partners are trying to partner/participate in too many proposal submission, and quality/contributions in each is weak • At Inlecom, we ensure to focus on a small number and we ask our partners to support us by working exclusively with us on the given proposal • this approach has led to 4 back-to-back consecutive success in 2021 (and similar pattern of success in previous years)
  67. 67. Hints on proposal writing • Grant writers with previous experience are essential, who also understand the EC program and what the EC are trying to achieve • Have a compelling innovation, clearly written objectives that align with the EC’s call text, and a commensurately strong Impact commitment • Start with clear but ‘interesting’ overview/concept with a clear conclusion as to why your concept is important • Use simple/clear language in the main, and convincing scientific language in SOTA and research sections that is also written clearly
  68. 68. ZEROW ‘Zero Food waste’ Overview
  69. 69. PRBONO Green Buildings and Neighbourhoods Stakeholder engagement in the co-design and co-creation of GBN interventions, Innovation Support Clusters E2 Social Engagement and Innovation Clusters in spatial, economic, technical, environmental, regulatory and social context, aligned to the EU Taxonomy E1 GBN Strategic Planning PROBONO GBNs Real- Life Demonstrators Implementation PROBONO GBN Transition Acceleration Enablers Scale Up, Transferability, Transition European Alliance of GBN Innovation Clusters GBN Planning & LCA Evaluation Framework, Impact Assessment Validation GBN Climate Neutral Energy Systems E5 GBNs Digital Twins Knowledge Integrator Smart Green Building Materials and Lifecycle Workflows and Controls Systemic Innovations E4 GBN Construction & Rennovation Maturing Innovations for GBN Energy Monitoring &Clean Energy Production, Storage and Distribution (Bioclimatic measures towards energy positive GBNs) E3 GBN Green Energy Data Monitoring Decision Support Control GBN Optimisation
  70. 70. Summary • The key ingredients for success : • Ensure to start early (at least 4-5 months before submission) • Assemble the correct/winning consortium (or ask for help in building this) • Ensure a strong/proven grant writer and proposal coordinator leading the proposal • Take advantage of the heterogeneity and skills of the partners, ask each to make a small contribution specific to their area of interest and expertise • Allow time for iterative reviews, improvements, refinement for all sections • Ensure 3rd party reviews (in your own team is fine) to experts who have not seen/read the proposal before and are taking the position of a friendly evaluation • Submit with confidence of at least a decent score and a good chance of a winning bid !!
  71. 71. Thank you for your attention Mrs. Jenny Rainbird Dr. Takis Katsoulakos Mr. Yash Chadha Inlecom.eu Tel: +44 (0) 20 8989 1341 contact@inlecom.com Inlecom Systems 60 Mansfield Road London E11 2JN
  72. 72. Part B: Impact / Implementation / Excellence Nicolas Wallet Horizon Europe UK National Contact Point @NicolasWallet Nicolas.wallet@iuk.ukri.org
  73. 73. Part B of the proposal • Part B of the proposal is the narrative part that includes three sections that each correspond to an evaluation criterion. • Part B needs to be uploaded as a PDF document following the templates downloaded by the applicants in the submission system for the specific call or topic. • The templates for a specific call may slightly differ from the example provided. Template is to be used in a single-stage submission procedure or at the 2nd stage of a two-stage submission procedure.
  74. 74. Part B: You MUST think about what the Evaluator will read & only Read • Evaluator only score what is on the paper – NOT the potential! • Only proposals that successfully address all the required aspects will have a chance of being funded • NO significant changes to content, budget and consortium composition during grant preparation
  75. 75. … of course formatting is important… Think also spaces, line breaks etc. Readability MUST be easy
  76. 76. Excellence Impact Implementation Content: How to create a good Horizon Europe proposal - Part B “Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.” Carl Sagan “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.” Mike Tyson “Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so” Galileo Galilei 2 1 3
  77. 77. Impact • Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, and the likely scale and significance of the contributions from the project • Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities.
  78. 78. Pathway to impact Logical steps towards the achievement of the expected impacts of the project over time, in particular beyond the duration of a project. A pathway begins with the projects’ results, to their dissemination, exploitation and communication, contributing to the expected outcomes in the work programme topic, and ultimately to the wider scientific, economic and societal impacts of the work programme destination.
  79. 79. What change will the achievement of the objectives bring? Why the project is necessary? • Address a challenge What the project will achieve? • Specific objective How will the project achieve its specific objectives? • Implementation & workplan IMPACT
  80. 80. THREE TYPES OF IMPACT BASED ON OBJECTIVES Scientific impact Promote scientific excellence, support the creation and diffusion of high-quality new fundamental and applied knowledge, skills, training and mobility of researchers, attract talent at all levels, and contribute to full engagement of Union's talent pool in actions supported under the Programme. Societal impact Generate knowledge, strengthen the impact of R&I in developing, supporting and implementing Union policies, and support the uptake of innovative solutions in industry, notably in SMEs, and society to address global challenges, inter alia the SDGs Economic impact Foster all forms of innovation, facilitate technological development, demonstration and knowledge transfer, and strengthen deployment of innovative solutions
  81. 81. Scientific Impact Economic/ Technological Impact 1. Creating high-quality new knowledge 2. Strengthening human capital in R&I 3. Fostering diffusion of knowledge and Open Science 7. Generating innovation-based growth 8. Creating more and better jobs 9. Leveraging investments in R&I Societal Impact 4. Addressing EU policy priorities & global challenges through R&I 5. Delivering benefits & impact via R&I missions 6. Strengthening the uptake of R&I in society HORIZON EUROPE LEGISLATION defines three types of impact, tracked with Key Impact Pathways Article 50 & Annex V ‘Time-bound indicators to report on an annual basis on progress of the Programme towards the achievement of the objectives referred to in Article 3 and set in Annex V along impact pathways’ Provide a narrative tailored to YOUR project explaining how the project result EXPECT to make a difference beyond its scope
  82. 82. HORIZON EUROPE IMPACT IMPLEMENTATION EC POLICY PRIORITIES Political Guidelines for the European Commission 2019-2024 (and other key strategic documents - e.g. Green Deal) KEY STRATEGIC ORIENTATIONS FOR R&I Set of strategic objectives within the EC policy priorities where R&I investments are expected to make a difference IMPACT AREAS Group of expected impacts highlighting the most important transformation to be fostered through R&I EXPECTED IMPACTS ÞDESTINATIONS = General objectives Wider effects on society (incl. the environment), the economy and science enabled by the outcomes of R&I investments (long term). EXPECTED OUTCOMES =>TOPICS = Specific objectives Effects of Horizon Europe projects such as uptake, diffusion, use and deployment of the projects’ results by direct target groups (medium term) PROJECT RESULTS = Operational objectives What is produced during the project implementation, such as innovative solutions, algorithms, new business models, guidelines, policy recommendations, methodologies, publications, database, prototypes, trained researchers, new infrastructures, proof of feasibility, networks, etc. (short term) STRATEGIC PLAN WORK PROGRAMME PROJECT European Commission DG Research & Innovation (Angelica Marino, DG R&I-G2)
  83. 83. Impact is about the future and it should be measured “Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so” Galileo Galilei
  84. 84. Excellence: section 2 Impact • Project’s pathways towards impact • Also mention barriers and how you will overcome them • Describe the scale/significance project contribution to expected outcomes & impacts – Use baseline/benchmark • Only use your project impact - NO other actions can count here. • Measure to maximise impact - Dissemination, exploitation and communication • To whom, What, How and Who does it? • Horizon, CORDIS, Innovation Radar and other platform are useful to communicate/disseminate/Exploitation • If exploitation is expected primarily in non-associated third countries, explain how this is STILL in EU’s interest • Outline your strategy for Ips etc. and this support the Exploitation
  85. 85. COMMUNICATION, DISSEMINATION AND EXPLOITATION
  86. 86. Communication VS Dissemination - About the project and results - Multiple audiences Beyond the project's own community (include the media and the public) - Inform and reach out to society, show the benefits of research - About results only - Audiences that may use the results in their own work e.g. peers (scientific or the project's own community), industry and other commercial actors, professional organisations, policymakers) - Enable use and uptake of results
  87. 87. Dissemination VS Exploitation Describe and make results visible To audiences that may use the results That may enable their use and uptake Actual use of the results for scientific, societal, economic purposes or for policy making All results generated during the project lifetime but also after its end
  88. 88. KPI: Pathway To Impact & Climate! • Climate Impact Pilot • The EU aims to be climate-neutral by 2050 and 35% of Horizon Europe investment is committed to tackling climate change. If relevant, you could consider it but focus on the Work Programme!
  89. 89. More in depth – watch EU Commission webinar here.
  90. 90. Excellence Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives, and the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious, and goes beyond the state of the art. Soundness of the proposed methodology, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions, inter-disciplinary approaches, appropriate consideration of the gender dimension in research and innovation content, and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users where appropriate. Grants world motivation is to have a proposal text ‘lean and mean’!
  91. 91. Excellence: section 1.1 Objectives and ambition • Briefly describe the objectives of your proposed work. Why are they pertinent to the work programme topic? Are they measurable and verifiable? Are they realistically achievable? • Describe how your project goes beyond the state-of-the-art, and the extent the proposed work is ambitious. Indicate any exceptional ground-breaking R&I, novel concepts and approaches, new products, services or business and organisational models. • Where relevant, illustrate the advance by referring to products and services already available on the market. Refer to any patent or publication search carried out. • Describe where the proposed work is positioned in terms of R&I maturity (i.e. where it is situated in the spectrum from ‘idea to application’, or from ‘lab to market’). Where applicable, provide an indication of the Technology Readiness Level, if possible distinguishing the start and by the end of the project.
  92. 92. Excellence: section 1.1 Objectives and ambition • State of the art – Keep text lean and mean! No lengthy literature review. • Scan, analyse and present the field of interest to clearly show the State of the Art and its current implications • Describe any national or international research and innovation activities which will be linked with the project, especially where the outputs from these will feed into the project • Defines and establishes the knowledge gap, and then how the project plans to go beyond this state of the art • Describe existing R&D, products & services available (inc. patent search if relevant) to finds shortcomings, solutions, gaps of knowledge, and the ways these limiting science and society. Stressing this will make the motivation for your project clearer
  93. 93. Excellence: section 1.1 Objectives and ambition • Start thinking SMART objectives • Take time to formulate SMART objectives, which should relate to the expected impact sought and will in turn link to the work package structure • Avoid having too many objectives (5-8 will normally be optimum) and make sure they are framed correctly as objectives rather than the tasks to be carried out • Describe the innovation potential (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches, new products, services or business and organisational models) which the proposal represents. Where relevant, refer to products and services already available on the market. Please refer to the results of any patent search carried out. • Describe the advance your proposal would provide beyond the state-of-the- art, and the extent the proposed work is ambitious. Specific / Measurable / Achievable / Relevant / Time bound
  94. 94. EU Commission TRLs definition • TRL 1 – basic principles observed • TRL 2 – technology concept formulated • TRL 3 – experimental proof of concept • TRL 4 – technology validated in lab • TRL 5 – technology validated in relevant environment (industrially relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies) • TRL 6 – technology demonstrated in relevant environment (industrially relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies) • TRL 7 – system prototype demonstration in operational environment • TRL 8 – system complete and qualified • TRL 9 – actual system proven in operational environment (competitive manufacturing in the case of key enabling technologies; or in space)
  95. 95. Excellence: section 1.2 Methodology • The logic and the principles – Not the details of the tasks • only initial references will do, since a detailed description is expected only in section 3 - Implementation • Instead of “how”, explain the scientific and/or technological methods • e.g. for research, demonstration, piloting, first market replication, etc; • Identify any inter-disciplinary considerations and, where relevant, use of stakeholder knowledge; where relevant, include measures taken for public/societal engagement on issues related to the project • Refer to the main challenges identified in the methodology and how you will overcome them if relevant, include how the project methodology complies with the ‘do no significant harm’ principle as per Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 2020/852
  96. 96. Excellence: section 1.2 Methodology • Other collaborative aspect • Open science • If you use Data – the Data Management Plan • Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable = FAIR • Gender • Gender Equality Plan = GEP > It is a PUBLIC document sign by top management of your organisation • Identify problems seek to solve, detail activities and indicator to monitor • Work-life balance and organisational culture • Gender balance in leadership and decision-making • Gender equality in recruitment and career progression • Integration of the gender dimension into research and teaching content • Measures against gender-based violence, including sexual harassment • Support Gear Action Toolbox, Factsheet • Horizon Europe guidance on gender equality plans Member State & Associated only and only public bodies; research organisations; higher education establishments
  97. 97. Self-declaration by Horizon Europe applicants through GEP eligibility criterion questionnaire* The GEP must be in place for the signature of the Grant Agreement (for calls with deadlines from 2022 onwards) Equivalent strategic documents may meet the GEP eligibility criterion Grant Agreement commits beneficiaries to taking measures to promote gender equality in implementation of action and, where applicable, in line with their GEP Random eligibility compliance checks on beneficiaries during Horizon Europe The eligibility criterion steps
  98. 98. PROBLEM to be addressed or the OPPORTUNITY to be exploited, and the nature of the SOLUTION being proposed. •Aim as high as possible but: •Pertinent to Work Programme? •Measurable and shown in application? •Realistically achievable?
  99. 99. Implementation Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources overall. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.
  100. 100. Implementation 3.1 Work plan and resources Work Plan Work package 1 Objective Task Deliverable Milestone Work package 2 etc. Etc. Work package: a logical and manageable division of work with a specific end result (usually a deliverable or a milestone)
  101. 101. The basics • Gantt & Perth chart • What is the logic? Is explain and visible in the structure? • WPs should be proportionate scale/complexity projects • Resource assigned make sense? Pers.month explained • List of milestones & List of critical risks & mitigation • SMART objectives (Impact and Excellence)
  102. 102. 1. Do NOT repeat who are the partners! 2. What the Consortium brings? Inter-disciplinary knowledge/skills, access to key infrastructure/assets 3. How each complement each other and what are the roles of each? Is it logical, explained, adequate resource? 4. What link to exploitation? Industrial/Commercial, access to market etc. 5. Third Country: why the participation of the entity in question is essential to successfully carry out the project. Implementation 3.2 Capacity of participants and consortium as a whole
  103. 103. @NicolasWallet nicolas.wallet@iuk.ukri.org
  104. 104. Evaluation summary: Score 0 to 5 each criteria, threshold 3/5 Impact evaluation criteria (RIA & IA) •Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, and the likely scale and significance of the contributions due to the project •Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities Excellence evaluation criteria (RIA & IA) •Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives, and the extend to which the proposed work is ambitious, and goes beyond the state of the art •Soundness of the proposed methodology, including the underlaying concepts, models, assumptions, inter- disciplinary approaches, appropriate consideration of the gender dimension in research and innovation content, and the quality of open science practices including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizen, civil society and end users where appropriate Implementation evaluation criteria (RIA & IA) •Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of the risks and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages and the resource overall •Capacity and role of each participant and extend of which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise
  105. 105. Nicolas.wallet@iuk.ukri.org
  106. 106. Horizon Europe - Evaluation Catherine Holt UK National Contact Point – Horizon Europe
  107. 107. 2
  108. 108. Expert selection Your abstract is used to identify experts – before the deadline! § Background and education § Gender balance – ideally 50/50 § Rotation - no more than 4 years consecutive evaluations § No conflict of interest § Range of backgrounds and organisations § Nationality
  109. 109. Experts assess proposals individually. Minimum of three experts per proposal (but often more than three). All individual experts discuss together to agree on a common position, including comments and scores for each proposal. The panel of experts reach an agreement on the scores and comments for all proposals within a call, checking consistency across the evaluations. if necessary, resolve cases where evaluators were unable to agree. Rank the proposals with the same score Individual evaluation Consensus group Panel review Finalisation The Commission/Agency reviews the results of the experts’ evaluation and puts together the final ranking list. Standard evaluation process
  110. 110. Individual evaluation § Experts evaluate proposals against strict criteria independently § Scores are made on the proposal as it is not on its potential: 0-5 § Shortcomings are reflected in a lower score, significant weaknesses are scored below the threshold § Thresholds apply to individual criteria and to the total score, normally 3/5 and 10/15 overall § Comments to explain shortcomings but no recommendations are made § Specific calls or topics may have different rules regarding thresholds and weighting – IAs weight of 1.5 for Impact
  111. 111. Evaluation criteria (RIAs and IAs) QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION ü Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources overall. ü Capacity and role of each participant, and extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise. EXCELLENCE ü Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives, and the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious, and goes beyond the state-of-the-art. ü Soundness of the proposed methodology, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions, inter- disciplinary approaches, appropriate consideration of the gender dimension in research and innovation content, and the quality of open science practices including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users where appropriate. IMPACT ü Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, and the likely scale and significance of the contributions due to the project. ü Suitability and quality of the measures to maximize expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities. Proposals aspects are assessed to the extent that the proposed work is within the scope of the work programme topic
  112. 112. Right-to-react (Rebuttal) ● Objective is to increase transparency, to correct any factual or major misunderstandings by experts at an early stage and provide more detailed feedback to applicants. ● Applicants will send their reactions to draft experts comments ● Experts will take applicants’ reaction into account before finalising their final assessment. Piloting new processes based on lessons learnt Individual evaluation Consensus group Panel review Finalisation Reaction
  113. 113. Blind evaluation (in 1st stage) ● There is no evidence that the current proposal evaluation system is systematically biased. ● There are understandable concerns that evaluation experts may be swayed – perhaps unconsciously – in favour of proposals from well-known organisations in countries with better performing R&I systems. ● ‘Blind’ evaluation is a way to remove any real or perceived effect of such reputational bias. ● Experts evaluate without knowing the identity of participants. ● The work programme will include an additional admissibility criterion: applicants can not be disclosed in the narrative part of the proposal. Piloting new processes based on lessons learnt
  114. 114. Ethics review Adapted following lessons learnt ● Focus mainly on complex/serious cases ● Reduce number of ethics requirements in funded projects. Same criteria as in H2020 For all activities funded, ethics is an integral part of research from beginning to end, and ethical compliance is essential to achieve real research excellence. An ethics review process is carried out systematically in all Horizon Europe proposals, based on a self- assessment included in the proposal. Ethical research conduct implies the application of fundamental ethical principles and legislation in all possible domains of research. This includes the adherence to the highest standards of research integrity as described in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.
  115. 115. Security scrutiny The checks based on the self-assessment may trigger an in-depth security scrutiny. New in Horizon Europe Security issues will be checked systematically in all Horizon Europe proposals (in H2020 only proposals submitted to topics flagged as ‘security-sensitive’ were checked). The checks are based on a self-assessment included in the proposal. The focus is on: ● Whether the proposal uses or generates EU classified information ● Potential of misuse of results (that could be channeled into crime or terrorism) ● Whether activities involve information or materials subject to national security restrictions
  116. 116. The best way to learn is by doing You can register in the EU experts database at any time. Click here to register! … one final point
  117. 117. Any Questions? Catherine Holt - ncp-space@iuk.ukri.org
  118. 118. InnovateUK & KTN “How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal” Webinar: An evaluator's personal perspective An Evaluator’s Personal Perspective How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal Webinar (an event organised by KTN, InnovateUK) Dr Erica Yang Managing Director, Chilton Computing Ltd Tue 07 Dec 2021 10.00 - 12.30 Disclaimer: this talk only represents my personal perspective.
  119. 119. InnovateUK & KTN “How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal” Webinar: An evaluator's personal perspective Agenda 1. A bit about me 2. A piece of homework (especially for the new comers) 3. How do you start looking at a proposal? 4. What are you looking for when evaluating proposals? 5. What do you like, what is an instant turn-off? 6. How do you distinguish between high quality applications? 7. How do you look at the consortium make-up? 8. The evaluation process 9. Benefits of being an evaluator 10. One tip, if there is only one tip 2
  120. 120. InnovateUK & KTN “How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal” Webinar: An evaluator's personal perspective A bit about me • ~20 years in research • Background in computer science • Held various positions at UK universities (Durham, Leeds & Oxford) and Rutherford Appleton Lab (UK’s national laboratory, STFC, UKRI) • ~4 years in technology startup business building Chilton Computing Ltd, an Oxford-based AI company • Evaluator experience: involved in several Horizon2020 programme, including ICT, space, and societal challenges • Proposal+project experience: FP7, Horizon2020, InnovateUK • Proposal role played: as a coordinator (or partner) from a big research institute, and as a SME 3
  121. 121. InnovateUK & KTN “How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal” Webinar: An evaluator's personal perspective Read this, and think about it from an evaluator perspective If there is only one take-away message from my talk… 4
  122. 122. InnovateUK & KTN “How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal” Webinar: An evaluator's personal perspective How do you start looking at a proposal? • Get a big picture of the proposal – what is the proposal about? • Drivers/trends • Problem • Main (proposal-level) objectives, main idea, and main approach • Partners - consortium composition • Understand the pertinence of the proposal - focus on the ‘Excellence’ section • Is it relevant to the call? And how • Is it clearly addressing the key priority of the call topic, heading/destination, cluster • Are the evidences clearly presented? For example, • Starting & target TRLs for various technologies • Evaluation KPIs • Novelty (differences between RIA and IA) • To gain a sense of the overall quality of the proposal 5
  123. 123. InnovateUK & KTN “How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal” Webinar: An evaluator's personal perspective What are you looking for when evaluating proposals? (pillar 2 only!) 6 6 Research and innovation actions (RIA) — Activities that aim primarily to establish new knowledge or to explore the feasibility of a new or improved technology, product, process, service or solution. This may include basic and applied research, technology development and integration, testing, demonstration and validation of a small-scale prototype in a laboratory or simulated environment. Innovation Action (IA) — Activities that aim directly to produce plans and arrangements or designs for new, altered or improved products, processes or services. These activities may include prototyping, testing, demonstrating, piloting, large-scale product validation and market replication. Example Example Programme/Cluster Heading/Destination Proposals … Topic The only definitive guide!
  124. 124. InnovateUK & KTN “How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal” Webinar: An evaluator's personal perspective What do you like, what is an instant turn-off? üClear and pertinent description with supporting evidence (for example, KPIs with starting baseline info and targets) üPresentation is ‘navigate friendly’, offering information in the expected place üKnowing the big picture but also backed by concrete evidences and solid execution Extra small fonts, tight spacing Poor presentation, incomplete sentences, paragraphs! Lack of illustrations Misplaced information (impacts appear in ‘Excellence’) ‘Bold but empty’ KPIs: starting points and end goals missing Blindly ‘copied and pasted’ content without even changing the format! 7 Your proposal
  125. 125. InnovateUK & KTN “How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal” Webinar: An evaluator's personal perspective How do you distinguish between high quality applications? • Again, I will use the ‘map’ given by the commission, illustrated below. 8 Programme/Cluster Heading/Destination Proposals … Topic
  126. 126. InnovateUK & KTN “How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal” Webinar: An evaluator's personal perspective The process: all in the public domain • The above is only my own individual evaluation (report). All evaluators are independent, i.e., not representing any organisation. • My assessment will be calibrated in the following meetings: • Consensus meeting (3-5 evaluators) to eliminate bias and mistakes • Panel meeting for other evaluators to review. • The process is the same across different programme, regardless of the clusters, destinations, call topics. • The whole evaluation procedure and ranking (prioritisation) process is described in Annex F. – Check! • ‘Excellence’ has higher priority than ‘impact’ – RIA • Further ranking criteria (where relevant!): Gender balance, then geographical diversity, then others, e.g., SMEs • The process is further detailed in the public HorizonEurope ‘Online Manual’. – Check! • The commission • Has a very well defined and rigidly followed process • Is constantly looking for improvements of the process 9
  127. 127. InnovateUK & KTN “How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal” Webinar: An evaluator's personal perspective Consortium make-up • That depends, for example: • The type of calls (RIA vs IA) • RIA typically starts at TRL 2/3, i.e., needs to be driven by innovative early-stage laboratory ideas; • IA typically starts at TRL3/4/5 and aims at TRL6/7, i.e., needs to be proven; and reaching demonstration at scale/in real-world environment • Call specific requirements (heading/programme) • Some H2020 RIA calls emphasis greatly the importance of having end- user/solution oriented impacts à industry labs and standard bodies involvements • Some are more research oriented à more research institutes • Good to involve SMEs, but you need to demonstrate what benefits they bring in and have a clear role in the project (e.g., some explicitly indicates ‘key SMEs needed’) • I will pay close attention to the partners who receive exceedingly large (or small) allocation of resources • These always need justification. If not, there will be a question asked. • Pay attention to the evaluation and ranking process in Annex F and call specific requirements! 10
  128. 128. InnovateUK & KTN “How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal” Webinar: An evaluator's personal perspective Benefits of being an evaluator? • As a result of several years being an evaluator • I often have a sense of whether a proposal (including my own proposal!) is going to win… • Score is relative – for some, you need to have 13.5 to ‘have a good chance’. For others, for example, very multidisciplinary focused calls, i.e., not many applications, you might win by a ’12.5’! It all depends. • Choose the right call is also very important! • A good idea/technology is just the starting point - The importance to have all the elements (tech, impact, implementation, team) in place • Impact on my own research and projects • Project collaborators • See and meet a wider range of experts from many other countries, from other academic fields and industrial sectors, very different styles, but all interesting and highly intelligent people! • Exchange thoughts, contacts, and opportunities (e.g., invited to keynote speech in conference) • Networking • Boost of self-confidence • Good friends and good fun - Every year to Brussels! You get paid to do that! • Proposal writing skills • After reading so many proposals, you truly understand the importance of: • The call topic text! • The award criteria – 3 criteria, the evaluators score a proposal strictly following the criteria (and sub-criteria)! • The evaluation process, including the scoring method as well! • What a good or bad proposal should look like! Innovation | Impact | Consortium | Presentation | Execution/Implementation … 11
  129. 129. InnovateUK & KTN “How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal” Webinar: An evaluator's personal perspective One-tip for the audience • “You've got to be in it to win it!” BUT, don’t forget - it should also be a strategic decision from you! • You need to know what role you could play and what contributions you can offer to the party • There are ’a lot of boxes to tick’ in a proposal, so there are many opportunities for the ‘big’ and the ‘small’ • Choose where to ‘play’ – which call will you have the best chance to win and fulfil your organisation objective? 12
  130. 130. InnovateUK & KTN “How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal” Webinar: An evaluator's personal perspective Thank you for listening! The End 13 https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericayang-digitaltwinexpert/ Search ‘Erica Yang Chilton Computing’

×