(Wersja PowerPoint)

459 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
459
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

(Wersja PowerPoint)

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

×