framework programme 7 overview marko grobelnik jozef stefan institute (adapted presentation from ec...
TRANSCRIPT
Framework Programme 7
Overview
Marko Grobelnik
Jozef Stefan Institute(adapted presentation from EC +
some slides of my own)
WYS-CEC Workshop, Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, 16 Feb 2007
Overview
Framework Programme,Specific Programmes
Work Programme
Calls
Proposal Writing
Evaluation of proposals
“Rules and Funding Schemes”
Context
R&D Expenditureas % of GDP
Source: Eurostathttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-NS-05-002/EN/KS-NS-05-002-EN.PDF
0.33
0.97
1.11
1.31
1.35
1.87
1.93
1.99
2.19
2.50
2.68
2.76
3.15
3.51
4.27
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Cyprus
Hungary
Spain
China
Czech Republic
UK
EU25
EU15
France
Germany
Korea
US
Japan
Finland
Sweden
• Other regions spend more on R&D than Europe• Large differences within Europe
R&D expenditure by industry
Source: Financial Times, 21 March 2005
• EU’s R&D by businesses• Top 50 spenders in the world
ICT
ICT R&D expenditure
• Europe is spending less than other regions in ICT R&D
• Public ICT Spending is Fragmented across Europe
Framework Programmes
29.2
93.3
48.8
European Union USA Japan
0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2%
France
Germany
United Kingdom
Spain
The Netherlands
Sweden
Finland
European Union
United States
Japan
Annual ICT R&D Expenditure (% GDP)Comparative spending on ICT R&D in 2000
(Billion Euro)
ICT
Budgets of the EU Framework Programmes (1984-2013)
NB: Budgets in current prices
Source: Annual Report 2003, plus FP7 revised proposal
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012
€ mi l l i on
Overview
Framework Programme,Specific Programmes
Work Programme
Calls
Proposal Writing
Evaluation of proposals
“Rules and Funding Schemes”
Context
InternationalCo-operation
Science in Society
Research Potential
Regions of Know-ledge
Research for the benefit of SMEs
ResearchInfrastruc-tures
CAPACITIES
Marie Curie ActionsPEOPLE
European Research CouncilIDEAS
9. S
ecu
rity &
Space
8. S
ocio
-eco
nom
ic R
ese
arch
7. T
ransp
ort
6. E
nviro
nm
ent
5. E
nerg
y
4. N
ano, M
ate
rials,
Pro
ductio
n T
ech
n.
3. IC
T
2. Fo
od, A
gricu
lture
B
iote
chnolo
gy
1. H
ealth
CO
OPE
RA
TIO
N
7th Framework Programme (2007-2013)
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/
€ 32 B
€ 7.5 B
€ 4.7 B
€ 4.2 B
FP7 2007-2013 ‘Cooperation’ budget
I. Cooperation
Budget (€ million,
current prices)
1. Health 6 1002. Food, agriculture and biotechnology 1 9353. Information and communication technologies 9 0504. Nanotechnologies, materials and
production 3 475
5. Energy 2 3506. Environment 1 8907. Transport 4 1608. Socio-economic research 6239. Security and space 2 830Total 32 413
* Not including non-nuclear activities of the Joint Research Centre: €1 751 million
*
Ideas – Frontier Research
• Key driver to innovation and economic performance
• European Research Council (ERC)– Autonomous scientific governance (Scientific
Council)
• Support investigator-driven frontier research over all areas of research– Support projects of individual teams– Excellence as sole criterion
• European added-value through competition at European level
• Budget ~ €1bn p.a. (2007-2013 ~ €7.46)
People – Marie Curie Actions
• Initial training of researchers– Marie Curie Networks
• Life-long training and career development– Individual Fellowships– Co-financing of regional/national/international programmes
• Industry-academia pathways and partnerships– Industry-Academia Knowledge–sharing Scheme*
• International dimension– Outgoing & Incoming International Fellowships– International Cooperation Scheme– Reintegration grants; – Support to researcher ‘diasporas’
• Specific actions– Mobility and career enhancement actions– Excellence awards
Capacities – Research Capacity
• Research infrastructures• Research for the benefit of SMEs• Regions of Knowledge• Research Potential• Science in Society• Coherent development of policies• Activities of International Cooperation
Overview
Framework Programme,Specific Programmes
Work Programme
Calls
Proposal Writing
Evaluation of proposals
“Rules and Funding Schemes”
Context
Terminology changes
FP6 FP7
Contract Grant Agreement
Contractor Beneficiary
Proposer Applicant
Instrument Funding scheme
Financial Guidelines
Financial Rules
INCO ICPC
Audit Certificates Certificate on the financial statements
Types of projects – instruments
5 “instruments”
• Collaborative Projects– Small or medium scale focused research
actions (“STREP”)– Large Scale Integrating Projects (“IP”)
• Networks of Excellence (“NoE”)• Coordination and Support Actions
– Coordinating or networking actions (“CA”)– Support Actions (“SSA”)
ICT
Classification of the instruments
Instrument Purpose Primary deliverable
Scale Funding
IP Objective-driven research
Knowledge Med-high 50-75-100%
NoE Tackle fragmentation
Structuring Med-high 100%
STREP Research Knowledge Low-med 50-75-100%
CA Coordination Coordination Low-med 100%
SA Support Support Low-med 100%
Collaborative Projects –Focused projects (STREP)
Experience of STREPs in FP6 • Purpose: Objective driven research more limited in
scope than an IP• Target audience: Industry incl. SMEs, research
institutes, universities
• Typical duration: 18-36 months• Optimum consortium: 6-15 participants• Total EU contribution: €0.8 - 3 m (average
€1.9m)
• Fixed workplan and fixed partnership for duration
Networks of excellence (NoE)
Experience of NoEs in FP6 • Purpose: Durable integration of participants’ research
activities• Target audience: research institutions, universities, mainly
indirectly: industry – trough governing boards etc
• Typical duration: 48-60 months (but indefinite integration!)
• Optimum consortium: 6-12 participants• Total EU contribution: €4-15m (average around €7m)
• Flexibility in implementation: – Update of workplan– Possibility to add participants through competitive calls
Coordination or Networking actions (CA)
Experience of CAs in FP6• Purpose: Co-ordination of several research activities• Target Audience: Research institutions, universities,
industry incl. SMEs
• Typical duration: 18-36 months• Optimum consortium: 13-26 participants• Total EU contribution: €0.5-1.8m (average €1m)
• Fixed overall workplan and partnership for the duration
Collaborative Projects –Integrating Projects (IP)
Experience of IPs in FP6• Purpose: Ambitious objective driven research with a
‘programme approach’• Target audience: Industry (incl. SMEs), research
institutions, universities, and end-users
• Typical duration: 36-60 months• Optimum consortium: 10-20 participants• Total EU contribution: €4-25m (average €10m)
• Flexibility in implementation: – Update of workplan– Possibility for competitive calls for enlargement of
consortium
Support actions
Experience of SSAs in FP6 • Purpose: Support to programme implementation,
preparation of future actions, dissemination of results• Target audience: Research organisations, universities,
industry incl. SMEs
• Typical duration: 9-30 months• Optimum consortium: 1-15 participants• Total EU contribution: €0.03-1m (average €0.5m)
• Fixed overall workplan and partnership for the duration
Overview
Framework Programme,Specific Programmes
Work Programme
Calls
Proposal Writing
Evaluation of proposals
“Rules and Funding Schemes”
Context
Cooperation Calls22 December 2006
Themes Budget (M€) Deadline
1. Health 628 19 April
2. Food, Agriculture and Fisheries and Biotechnology 192 2 May
3. Information and Communication Technologies 10190
8 MayFET Open: continuous
4. Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and New Production Technologies IPsSTREPsCPs targeted to SMEsCSAs
200106
7515
4 May (4 Oct)4 May (13 Sept)4 May (4 Oct)4 June
5. Energy 109 + 128 3 May
6. Environment (including Climate Change) 200 2 May
7. Transport (including Aeronautics) Aeronautics and Air TransportSustainable Surface TransportHorizontal activities
153 + 4153 + 60
12
3 May
8. Socioeconomic Sciences and the Humanities 59 10 May
9. Space 35 19 June
10. Security 80 31 May
ERANET 29 31 July
Coordination and cooperation in context of ERA 0.2 31 May
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm
InternationalCo-operation
Science in Society
Research Potential
Regions of Know-ledge
Research for the benefit of SMEs
ResearchInfrastruc-tures
CAPACITIES
Marie Curie ActionsPEOPLE
European Research CouncilIDEAS
IDEAS Calls22 December 2006
Starting Independent Researcher Grant: € 290 M, 25 April (17 Sept)
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm
InternationalCo-operation
Science in Society
Research Potential
Regions of Know-ledge
Research for the benefit of SMEs
ResearchInfrastruc-tures
CAPACITIES
Marie Curie ActionsPEOPLE
European Research CouncilIDEAS
People Calls22 December 2006
Initial Training Networks: € 240 M, 7 May (25 Sept)
European Reintegration Grants: € 9.5 M, 25 April (17 Oct)
International Reintegration Grants: € 14.5 M, 25 April (17 Oct)
Researchers' night: € 3 M, 3 April
Marie Curie Awards: € 0.25 M, 26 April
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm
InternationalCo-operation
Science in Society
Research Potential
Regions of Know-ledge
Research for the benefit of SMEs
ResearchInfrastruc-tures
CAPACITIES
Capacities Calls22 December 2006
Research Infrastructures: € 164 M, 2 May
Analysis and integration of research actors: € 8.8 M, 24 April
Facilitating emergence of new clusters: € 0.8 M, 24 April
Trans-national co-operation among NCPs: € 0.4 M, 24 April
Research for SMEs: € 100 M, 4 Sept
Research for SME Associations: € 10 M, 1 June (28 Nov)
Coordination and Support Actions: € 2 M, 10 May
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm
Capacities Calls22 December 2006
Activities of International Cooperation INCO-NET: € 17 M, 2 May
Trans-national co-operation among NCPs: € 0.37 M, 2 May
Unlocking and developing the research potential in the EU´s convergence regions and outermost regions: € 23.5 M, 24 April
Providing evaluation facilities for research organisation in the EU´s convergence regions and outermost regions: € 1 M, 24 April
International Co-operation: € 8 M, 24 April
Trans-national co-operation among NCPs: € 0.5 M, 24 April
Unlocking and developing the research potential in the EU´s convergence regions and outermost regions: € 23.5 M, 24 April
Science in Society: € 22 M, 23 May
InternationalCo-operation
Science in Society
Research Potential
Regions of Know-ledge
Research for the benefit of SMEs
ResearchInfrastruc-tures
CAPACITIES
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm
Overview
Framework Programme,Specific Programmes
Work Programme
Calls
Proposal Writing
Evaluation of proposals
“Rules and Funding Schemes”
Context
Proposal
Individual evaluation
Consensus
Panel review
Consultation of programme committee (if required)
Commission funding and/or rejection decision
with hearing(optional)
Thresholds
Eligibility
Negotiation
Commission ranking
Commission rejection decision
Ethical Review
(if needed)
Security Scrutiny
(if needed)
Applicants informed of results of expert evaluation*
• invitation to submit second-stage
proposal, when applicable
Submission and evaluation in
FP7
Applicants informed of Commission decision
Evaluation criteria scoring
• Scale of 1-5 (and 0)• Criterion threshold 3/5• Overall threshold 10/15
• Post-evaluation review for any selected proposals which have ethical issues
ICT
FP7 has three main evaluation criteria
• 1. Scientific and technical quality– Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives
• 2. Implementation– Appropriateness of the management– Quality and relevant experience of the individual
participants
• 3. Impact– Contribution at the European or international level
to the expected impacts listed in the workprogramme under the relevant activity
Proposal preparation
What helps when preparing proposal?
• Clear vision created and led by a small number of people – core group (no anarchy!)
• To have direct connection and regular communication with responsible Brussels officers (to ask them about all the details)– …officers are usually friendly and responsive, but one
needs to contact them• Protocol: weekly phone conferences, monthly
physical meetings, one or two check with officers• Clear commitments and responsibilities (constant
contact between the partners)• Efficient communication between project partners
– …long and ineffective communication can make partners tired and uninterested
Problems (1)
• No vision (vision is just “we want that project” or “we want money from EU”)
• Project idea has no potential (it is interesting just for the proposer)
• Academics would like to do just basic science and consider industrial partners as nuisance
• Industrial partners would like to get easy money to develop their product (having almost no research component)
• Project partners are friends instead of partners (...if you don’t take him, he/she is offended, if you take him the project gets worse)
Problems (2)
• Coordination of proposal preparation is to anarchic (everybody is able to push his own idea, coordinator has no authority or not enough knowledge)
• Forgetting small things: gender balance, having SMEs (large companies like to forget about a small fish), EU contribution, ...
• Ignoring criteria for project evaluation• Waiting with the proposal writing till the last
moment before the submission (...project preparation becomes collecting of text pieces in panic and putting them together).
Problems (3)
• Final consistency check need – evaluators notice inconsistencies and imbalances very fast – …this is evaluator’s main tool to find difficulties
• Proposal writing doesn’t take into account that evaluators are usually just well informed technicians and not experts for that particular area– …use clear and common language whenever
possible
• Proposal message is spread around the proposal document and concentrated at one clearly designated place
Problems (4)
• When preparing proposal be aware of the conditions how the proposal will be evaluated:– …evaluators have just a few hours per proposal– …all the proposals seem to evaluators after couple
of days very similar to each other – small things decide
– …if you pre-communicated with the Commission officers, the officer at the consensus meeting can be your proposal’s ally
– …you can be unlucky with the selection of the evaluators:
• they can be either too academic or to technical or too tired or too negative or too perfectionist, …
• ...try to put into the proposal some cookies for each one of those psychological profiles
Problems (5) ...being late just for a couple of hours or minutes
Dear partners,after busy weeks working on the XXX proposal and with some of youin parallel on the YYY proposal I have to admit that I haveunderestimated the work and organisational efforts.At the end we missed the deadline only by some hours after working also the last night very hard without stop.I take the responsibility for the bad situation.Many thanks to you all for your engagement especially ... We have become a good team and I hope this will enable us to use theproposal for the next call ...
To conclude …Calls for Proposals in 2007
Information
• EU research: http://ec.europa.eu/research
• Seventh Framework Programme: http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7
• Information on research programmes and projects: http://cordis.europa.eu/
• RTD info magazine: http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo/
• Information requests: http://ec.europa.eu/research/enquiries/
• Email:<first name>.<last name>@ec.europa.eu