proposal preparation and evaluation criteria · 18.02.2014 budapest proposal preparation and...

Proposal preparation and Evaluation criteria

18.02.2014 | Budapest, Hungary

Dr Frank Heemskerk | Research &Innovation Management Services bvba

18.02.2014 BUDAPEST

Proposal Preparation and Evaluation

Global Policy Context:

2 © Fit for Health 2.0, 2014

18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


Knowledge triangle:

Knowledge for Growth: Socio-Economic return

Research

Education Innovation

jobs, growth Intellectual

Social

Economical


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


Also, Europe can’t do this alone either:

•Science is global activity •Competition is global •Challenges are common and global •Problems are increasingly complex/ require complex infrastr. •Problems in e.g. Africa directly affect Europe too •Local assets and environments are unique => Need for international cooperation


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


Proposal writing: issues to be considered

1. How might I develop my project ideas into viable proposals?

2. How do I align my project with donor’s objectives? 3. What do reviewers look for in winning project

proposals? 4. What are key funding do’s and don’ts? 5. How best to protect & commercialize my research

results? Need for partners, you can’t do this alone: teamwork


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


Step 1: Register your organization and get a PIC:


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST

Proposal Preparation and Evaluation Step 2: Find Open Calls:


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


If you are a SME:


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST

Proposal Preparation and Evaluation http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/index_en.htm


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


PHC-18 Work Programme 2014-2015: example

'PHC 18 – 2015'

'Specific challenge'

'Scope'

'Expected impact'

'Type of action'


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


How to prepare a PROPOSAL: Take it as a project in itself:

• Scope, tasks/ delegation, time, resources…. • READ the Workprogram, call text, additional documents • Templates • Submit ALL elements on time !

Lobbying: • use NCP’s, local support

Follow-up: • Timing, evaluation, negotiation • Use your partners, trust your Coordinator! but defend your own

position ! • IPR !! • Websites, tools • get professional help.....


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


How to start?

Define the problem (e.g. medical need) Identify the stakeholders (patients, industry, etc)

Define the requirements (e.g. Drug, quality, state of the art) Define resources needed (costs, people, partners)

Identity risks (failure, competition,) Work to process (what, who, when, how, what if)

Evaluation, managing and control the structure


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


Project aims – Project results A clear coherence between project aims and project results is the foundation for describing the impact

Milestones

It must be clear which results are expected!

Overall Aims

Specific Aims

Work packages / Tasks

Project Results


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


Just writing some Objectives is not enough: complex projects are based on agreement between the right teams ....


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


Why R&D funding?

• Where is the Value in joint R&D projects? • Innovate products (#, quality, etc) and processes • Feed pipeline with new/ improve products (students, courses, tools) • Diversify portfolio (projects), enter new markets, higher visibility

• Why collaborate?:

• Access to new knowledge • Access to unique infrastructure • Access to valuable materials, information dbases • Achieve critical mass (work faster/disseminate wider/ increase visibility) • Access to new experts (future staff?)

• obtain public funding to lower risk

Invest Innovate

Internationalise


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST



18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


Know-How ComponentsMaterials

Prototypes Products Services

Business Cases Distributeurs

Market TRL9 TRL6

Innovation Chain

TRL6 TRL1

Users

VALUE CHAIN


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


Structure Part B:

Administrative form templates : • -a general section where the basic proposal details are filled in by the coordinator • -a list of declarations • -participants' and contact persons' data • -budget breakdown by organization and cost category • -ethical issues table: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-

funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/ethics_en.htm • -call specific questions (if relevant) and gender aspects

Science/Technology part: fill in core of your proposal (next slide)

Stage 1

Step 3+4: pre-register with PIC and enter organizational/ admin data in online structured templates:


http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/ethics_en.htm



18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


Structure Part B:

1: Scientific and/or technical Excellence, related to the topics in the call • 1.1 Objectives • 1.2 Relation to the work programme • 1.3. Concept and approach • 1.4. Ambition

2: Impact • 2.1 Expected impacts • 2.2 Measures to maximise impact

o a)Dissemination and exploitation of results o Communication activities

3:Implementation • 3.1 Work plan – Work Packages, deliverables and milestones • 3.2 Management structure and procedures • 3.3 Consortium as a whole • 3.4 Resources to be committed

4: Members of the consortium • 4.1 Participants (applicants) • 4.2 Third parties involved in the project (including use of third party resources)

5: Ethics and Security 5.1 Ethics 5.2 Security

Administrative form templates :

Science/Technology part: in Technical ANNEX (download from system

Stage 1

Stage 2

Step 5: enter organizational/ admin data in online structured template:


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


mostly 2 stage submissions: 7 page only in stage 1 very strict page limits (for sections 1-3) template will provide context related help information (no Guide for

Applicants anymore) work packages now in Part 3 new tables for risk and costs partner description in Part 4 (with CVs!) section on Ethics security and gender issues in the Annexes See H2020 Manual: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-

guide/grants/applying-for-funding/submit-proposals_en.htm The following parts of the proposal do not have page limits: the administrative information description of the consortium the ethics annex including any supporting documents.

New (as compared to FP7):


http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/grants/applying-for-funding/submit-proposals_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/grants/applying-for-funding/submit-proposals_en.htm

18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


a few definitions:

A work package is a major sub-division of the proposed project with a verifiable end-point – normally a deliverable or a milestone in the overall project.

A deliverable represents a verifiable output of the project. Normally, each work package will produce one or more deliverables during its lifetime. Deliverables are often written reports but can also take another form, for example the completion of a prototype etc.

Milestones are control points where decisions are needed with regard to the next stage of the project.


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


Expected impacts as listed in the work program • Contribution towards expected impacts in WP

(European policy, Europe 2020, environment) Social impact: data, statistics.

• Steps needed • why a European (rather than a national or local)

approach? • account of other national or international

research activities? Relations • assumptions and external factors

Expected Impact


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


Basic example Project Management & Organization

Project Advisory Committee

Project Board(WP leaders) (all partners)

Protocol development Team

Working Groups (per workpackages)

Cooördinator Eur. Commission


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


TIP: common issues in Academic collaborations:

•Confidentiality (conferences, students, temp staff, patenting) •Protect vs time to publish (permission)

•Material transfer issues

•Lab records (signatures, consistency) •Quality control issues (originan data, consistency, security)

•Ethics (access vs privacy, animal and human rights)


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


Read all sections of the Work program: background, deadlines, budgets and stage 1/stage 2 criteria are specific for

each call and/or topic: E.g.: PHC 1 – 2014, PHC 2 – 2015, PHC 3 – 2015, PHC 4 – 2015, PHC 5 – 2014, PHC 6 – 2014, PHC 10 – 2014, PHC 11 – 2015, PHC 13 – 2014, PHC 14 – 2015, PHC 16 – 2015, PHC 17 – 2014, PHC 18 – 2015, PHC 22 – 2015, PHC 23 – 2014, PHC 24 – 2015, PHC 32 – 2014, PHC 33 - 2015

The thresholds for each criterion at stage 1 (of a two stage process) will be 4 and 4. The cumulative threshold will be 8.

The thresholds for each criterion at stage 2 (of a two stage process) will be 4, 4 and 3. The cumulative threshold will be 12.

If a proposal fails to achieve the threshold for a criterion at any stage, the evaluation of the proposal will be stopped.

The median of individual evaluator scores may be used at stage 1 to determine the consensus score and when appropriate, the resulting consensus report may comprise elements of these individual reports, or standard phrases representative thereof.

The page limit for stage 1 proposals is 7 pages (including the title page).

Evaluation: useful tips and links


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


Evaluation criteria in SC1

EXCELLENCE “relevant to the topics

addressed by the call and credible approach”

IMPACT “outputs of the project should contribute at the European and/or International level”

IMPLEMENTATION “Quality and efficiency of the

implementation”

• 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)

• Enhancing innovation capacity + new knowledge integration

• Strengthening the competitiveness and growth of companies by developing innovations meeting the needs of European and global markets &, if relevant, to deliver these innovations to their markets

• other environmental and socially important impacts

• Effectiveness of Exploitation /Dissemination of Results (incl. data& IPR management)

• Coherence &effectiveness of work packages in work plan

• Appropriate allocation of tasks and resources (budget, staff, equipment)

• Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance)

• Appropriate management structure and procedures, incl. risk and innovation management

1 2 3 Min threshold: 4/5 Min threshold: 4/5

Evaluation criteria applicable to Collaborative project proposals, see H2020_WP1415_annex H

Min threshold: 3/5

Threshold: 12/15 26

© Fit for Health 2.0, 2014

18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


Evaluation: useful tips and links Eligible proposals: - Submitted through the e-system before deadline !! - Complete (incl. admin part !), readable and printable Financial capacity: see Financial regulations and follow Rules for Participation Operational Capacity check: - CV or profile descript of key persons - List of max 5 publi’s/products/services - List of max 5 key projects/activities relevant to the proposed work - Description of 3rd parties (active working entities that rare not partners: e.g.

hospital pharmacies, provision of access to ICT resources, other facilities) - Descript of any significant infrastructure, major equipment, etc

- Include a draft Exploitation & Dissemination plan (2nd stage)

- very strict page limits within template: excess pages will be marked with

watermark and will be disregarded by evaluators See H2020-WP1415 annex B


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


Evaluation: the entire process


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST



18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/experts/index.html

The best training is to become an expert Evaluator

yourself !


18.02.2014 BUDAPEST


Thank you!

Dr. Frank Heemskerk| Research & Innovation Management

Services bvba, Belgium

[email protected]| www. rimsinernational.eu

The copyright © is owned by the author of this document. Please do not duplicate. Disclaimer: The "Fit for Health2.0" project partners do not assume any legal liability or responsibilities for the information provided in this document.

proposal preparation and evaluation criteria · 18.02.2014 budapest proposal preparation and...

Documents