Writing the Proposal: Scientific and technological objectives

PHOENIX Training CourseLaulasmaa, Estonia

02.09.2007

2

Concept and objectives

• Explain the concept of your project. What are the main ideas that led you to propose this work?– Describe in detail the S&T objectives. – Show how they relate to the topics addressed by

the call. – The objectives should be those achievable within the

project, not through subsequent development. – They should be stated in a measurable and verifiable

form, including through the milestones.

3

Progress beyond the stat-of-the-art

• Describe the state-of-the-art in the area concerned, and the advance that the proposed project would bring about.

• Show how the project is beyond the state-of-the-art, be clear and precise but remember that the evaluator may be a scientist in a neighbouring field.

4

Example: SURPASS

• Collaborative research will constitute the bulk and the core of European Union research funding. The ambitious idea to be the most successful knowledge based society by 2010 calls for attracting not only European resources but also resources from all around the world. Promoting international research cooperation will be the main guarantee of success.

• The concept of SURPASS is to show how quantitative studies of science help to find and surpass barriers in the way of research cooperation, and the role of SSH in it.

• The general objective of SURPASS is to support the development of the European Research Area, to boost and improve scientific and technological collaboration through quantitative studies, to enrich the European research landscape with new ideas worked out in emerging research societies, and to support the generation of common understanding within different research communities.

• The main objective of SURPASS is to improve the world wide access to the results of studies about collaboration in S&T. Besides the expertise of MS partners, the skills and knowledge of emerging INCO countries and the existing collaboration networks will be taken into account.

• “The concepts and the objectives are stated in a very general and vague way so that it looks difficult to understand its potential.”

5

S/T methodology and associated work plan

• A detailed work plan should be presented, broken down into work packages which should follow the logical phases of the implementation of the project, and include consortium management and assessment of progress and results.

• Please present your plans as follows:

6

Describe the overall strategy of the work plan• To achieve the above aims different modern technologies for communication and dissemination will be

used, like video links, Skype forums, project blogs and news feed RSS format. • An important task is to attract young researchers into implementation of the project in all its phases, and via

this to form the basis for future collaboration activities between the currently active and emerging generation of researchers.. To support established practitioners, distance learning course on S&T collaboration studies will be organized.

• SURPASS will link different target groups (academia, decision makers, industry and research progeny), and will disseminate the achieved results through verious events and the electronic media. The project goal is to increase the impact of research by empowering the target groups with the information they need to accelerate discovery.

• The planned activities of the project are split into 7 work packages...

• In theory the activities spelt out in the project are above reproach: annual conferences with a clear thematic orientation, doctoral forums and masters courses. However, there are some problems in the organisation of the work. The work package on dissemi-nation is the first one and starts in month 3, but the kick-off meeting only comes in month 5. Master courses are planned on e-learning technologies (mostly WebCT and Skype), but a more detailed description of these activities might have been given (accreditation of the courses, exams, etc.).

» Mark:3

7

Show the timing of the different WPs and their components(Gantt chart or similar )

Example: Net4SOCIETY

8

Provide a detailed work description broken down into work packages:

• Work package list

9

Deliverables list

10

Description of each work package, and summary

11

Summary effort table

12

List of milestones

13

Provide a graphical presentation of the components showing their interdependencies (Pert diagram or similar)

Net4Society SURPASS

14

S/T methodology and associated work plan• The number of work packages used must be

appropriate to the complexity of the work and the overall value of the proposed project.

• The planning should be sufficiently detailed to justify the proposed effort and allow progress monitoring by the Commission.

• Any significant risks should be identified, and contingency plans described.– (Maximum length – 20 pages, plus the tables)

15

Evaluation criteria: “Scientific and/or technological excellence

• Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives• Progress beyond the state-of-the-art• Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated

work plan• The relevance of a proposal will be considered in relation to the

topic(s) of the work programme open in a given call, and to the objectives of a call. – These aspects will be integrated in the application of the criterion "S/T

quality ", and the first subcriterion under "Impact" respectively. – When a proposal is partially relevant because it only marginally addresses

the topic(s) of the call, or if only part of the proposal addresses the topic(s), this condition will be reflected in the scoring of the first criterion.

– Proposals that are clearly not relevant to a call ("out of scope") will be rejected on eligibility grounds.

16

Evaluation• Each criterion will be scored out of 5. Half marks can be given.

– 0 - The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information

– 1 - Very poor. The criterion is addressed in a cursory and unsatisfactory manner.– 2 - Poor. There are serious inherent weaknesses in relation to the criterion in

question.– 3 - Fair.While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant

weaknesses that would need correcting.– 4 - Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although certain

improvements are possible.– 5 - Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the

criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.• Thresholds will be applied to the scores. The threshold for individual criteria

will be 3,0. The overall threshold, applying to the sum of the three individual scores plus one, will be 10,0.