RR_FP7 03 04 Props Strat Impact Eval

www.imperial-consultants.co.uk

Best Practice: Strategy & Proposals

3.1 • PHASES OF PROPOSAL WRITING

3.2 • STEPS TO SUCCESS

3.3 • MODELS OF PARTICIPATION (ICON)

3.4 • RISKS ASSESSMENT • STAGE-GATE© APPROACH

3.5 • PARTICIPATION CONCERNS

3.6 • ICON SUPPORT • ADVICE • PARTICIPATION

2

3.1 Best Practice: Phases of Proposal Writing

Submission
PRE-CALL (3-6MO.) FP7 CALL

Future DRAFT Work CORE /
Proposals Programmes CONSORTIUM
Meetings Parts A
Network DRAFT Ideas DESIGNATE WP
CHECK Ideas leaders Part B
(NCPs, EU , DGs) DISTRIBUTE
WORK
Conferences Short
IDENTIFY Partners Outline
NECESSARY Expertise START WRITING

CONTINUOUS ACTIVITY

3

3.2 BEST PRACTICE: STEPS TO SUCCESS

s1 • Register on CORDIS and formulate a STRATEGY/ RISKS

• Navigate the INFO and FIND a CALL / AREA
s2 (Work Programmes/Call Fiche)> special requirements?

s3 • Formulating a project IDEA and a WORKPLAN

• Identify suitable PARTNERS • Build a CONSORTIUM /
s4 CORE contributors/ Preliminary RISK ASSESSMENT
• Identify RESOURCES needed – realistic budgets/ correct
s5 funding rates and OH/ resources ‘in kind’

• Technical Part (Part B)- CLEAR/ CONCISE- attention to
s6 IMPACT section!/ PERT/GANTT/ Risks/ Governance-Mgm

• Timely SUBMISSION > Evaluation points for Stage 2>
s7 NEGOTIATIONS (Consortium Agreement build up> GA
4

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/cas/ec/index.jsp

5

European Commission (Head of Unit)
Project Officer > (Scientific Officer)

Previous experience
(Project Scientific/Technical Advisor)

Advisory
Board
Scientific (Project)
Coordinator Project Manager
(Administrator)
(Deputy)

Stakeholders
Technology
Developers / Direct Users of 3rd Parties
P1-Principal Results (SMEs) (Subcontractors)
Investigator Integrators

6

Navigate the INFO and FIND a CALL/AREA

http://cordis.europa.eu/eu-funding-guide/home_en.html

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/participate_en.html
7

(Work Programmes)

http://cordis.europa.eu/eu-funding-guide/home_en.html

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/participate_en.html
8

(Work Programmes/ Call Fiche/ Guides)

Call Fiche
Guide for Applicants

WP2012 CP
KBBE
CSA-CA
CSA-SA 9

(Work Programmes/ Detailed Area)

Additional eligibility criteria?
10

(Work Programmes/ Specific Guides)

11

(Instruments / Funding Regime)

NO RESEARCH FUNDED !!!!!
(€2mil-€16mil,
average <€10 mil)
RTD 50-75%
(€0.3mil-€1mil, average €0.5mil) (€0.3mil-€3mil, average €1 mil) DEMO 50%
Workshops/Expert OTHER 100%
Workshop/Event Series
Groups
Conferences/ Common Information (€0.8mil-€4mil,
Seminars Systems average <€3 mil)
Monitoring/ minimum 3 MS/AC
Studies Research Strategies

Development Research Networks / Personnel (€0.8mil-€6mil,
& Innovation Strategies Exchanges average <€4 mil)
min 2 MS/AC + 2-6 ICPC

FP6••••••••••••••FP7•••••••••••HORIZON2020

(€4mil-€12mil, average €5 mio)

Collaborative Research Joint Programming

12

Formulating a project IDEA
and a WORKPLAN
Original IDEA needs to

be worked around
CALL TEXT!

PROJECT OBJECTIVES based
on CALL/AREA OBJECTIVES

Draft a WORKPLAN based
on EXPECTED IMPACT!!!

Start build the CONSORTIUM based on
ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA !!!!

13

Formulating a WORKPLAN

KEY: Manage by WORKPACKAGE (WP) – NOT by PARTNER

SEPARATE WPs for MANAGEMENT and for
DISSEMINATION/TRAINING (OTHER activities)
Identify WP Leader and Partners in order of priority and
contribution/responsibility
Designate DEPUTIES for continuity
AVOID: Everyone in every WP

AVOID: Partner per WP (except non-RTD= MGM & OTHER)

AVOID: Doing work in every WP (too dispersed)

AVOID/CHECK: ‘FLOATING PARTNERS’ or ‘TOKEN
PARTNERS’
IDEAL: Lead one WP, be involved in a couple more.

14

Identify suitable PARTNERS & build a
CONSORTIUM / add CORE contributors

WHERE to find the ‘BEST PARTNERS’ ? CONTACTS & LINKS :

Best Scientists • Journals / Conferences/ R&D National Contact Points
Cttees ICT Support Network
Your • Existing Projects ENTERPRISE Europe Network
NETWORKS • Coordination / COST Actions • NCP-SME Network
• EU R& D Associations/ ETIPs Thematic Area Support
Networks

Experts/ • European Technology & ETIPs
Advisors Innovation Platforms
• Evaluators
• High Level Groups
• EU Desk Officers (for lobbying)
• Faculty Research Services/ ICON
Strategic • SMEs
Partners • ICPC countries/ MPC countries
• New Member States/AC
• 3rd Countries

15

Search for PARTNERS /
THEMATIC AREAS NETWORKS

PEOPLE
HEALTH Health-NCP- www.healthncpnet.eu PEOPLE People www.fp7peoplenetwork.eu
Net Network
KBBE BIONET www.ncp-bio.net
CAPACITIES
ICT IdealIST2011 www.ideal-ist.net RESEARCH EuroRIs- www.euroris-net.eu
INFRASTRUCTURE Net
NMP NMP TeAm www.nmpteam.com NCP SME www.ncp-sme.net
SME
ENERGY C-Energy + www.c-energyplus.eu REGIONS OF TRANS www.transregncp.eu
KNOWLEDGE REG NCP
ENVIRO ENV-NCP- http://env-ncp-together.eu RESEARCH ResPotNet www.respotnet.eu
TOGETHER POTENTIAL
TRANSPORT ETNA www.transport-ncps.net SCIENCE IN EUROSIS www.eurosis-project.eu
SOCIETY
SSH NET4SOCIETY www.net4society.eu INCONTACT www.ncp-incontact.eu
INCO
SPACE COSMOS www.fp7-space.eu
EURATOM
SECURITY SEREN www.serenproject.eu EURATOM NUCL-EU www.nucleu.net

16

Research for SMEs and
SME Associations

Research for SMEs ‘Bottom-up’ scheme- any research topic across

SME Definition • Employ ≤ 250 persons
• Annual turnover ≤ EUR 50 mil or ABS ≤ EUR 43 mil
• Autonomy conditions
Minimum • ResSMEs: 3 independent SMEs from 3MS/AC
requirements + 2 independent RTD Performers (plus other enterprises/ end-
users to contribute)
• Projects between 1-2 years; EUR 0.5 to 1.5 million
• ResSME-AGs:3 indep.SME-AGs from 3MS/AC or EU + 2 indep.
RTD Perform (& enterprises/ end-users)
• Projects between 2-3 years; EUR 1.5 to 4 million
IPR Rules & • Cost & payment modalities should reflect the value of IPR rights
Costing • Special Agreements on ownership and IPR to SMEs/SME-Ags
• Price of licences lower than price of ownership of results!
• RTD Performers’ costs for RTD/Demo would be subcontracted to
SMEs under RTD (paid 100%)
• RTD can also charge Management / Other activities (i.e.
training/dissemination) as eligible costs as partners
• Overall EU financial support limited to 110% of subcontracting by
SMEs to RTD Performers (to be invoiced by RTD-P to SMEs)

17

Best Practice: Preliminary Risk Assessment (1)

Proposal Risks • Not enough time to cover the necessary time/ input

• Over-enthusiastic initial approach and not timely
delivery of work for the proposal

Financial Risks • Under-evaluation of resources, wrong budget/work
ratio
• Severe budget cuts during the length of project; £/€
fluctuations
• Cashflow, mainly for SMEs !
• Late/wrong claims, very late payments, Financial
AUDITS
Legal risks • Restructuring the company/institution • Non-viable
partners
• Defective/Incomplete Consortium Agreement
Partners / • ‘weak’ or non-delivering partners
Coordinator Risk • Non-performing or ‘weak’ Coordinator (Main
Beneficiary)

18

Best Practice: Preliminary Risk Assessment (2)

Technology Risk • Model/Software/ Pilot (DEMO) not

performing/incomplete

Reputation • Damage to Brand or Image

Strategic Risk • Give away ideas, missing opportunities
(proposal)
• Reduced Role in the project (negotiation)
• Project non-relevant to organization, no
support, poor outcome

IPR Risks • No access rights to Background IPR during
the project, extra costs
• Bad negotiation on access rights to
Foreground IPR post-closure

19

Identify RESOURCES needed

Proposal & • Allocate appropriate personnel and time resources (non-
Negotiation Stages recoverable on the project!!!!)

Correct Funding • Different Funding Rates > different TYPE of Organisations
Rates • Different TYPE of activities RTD -DEMO- MGM-OTH

Correct rate of OH • Public Organisations / SME (check conditions) allowed 60%
(indirect costs) • REAL indirect costs (could be audited)

Realistic Budgets • Staff Costs taking in account category of staff/ inflation rate
• To reflect specific front-loaded /back-loaded work

Equipment • Purchase only if necessary- consider leasing/rental
• Depreciation has to be taken in account for short projects!!!

In-kind Resources • Identify in the Proposal stage ‘in-kind’ resources of available
equipment / personnel / support / use of facilities, etc.
Post-closure • Necessary travel, also expenses for maintenance (web), etc.

20

s6

Overall strategy of Workplan, PERT chart Coordinator and Core Team

WP description, objectives, deliverables and milestones WP Leaders with input

List of deliverables and milestones Project Manager with input

GANTT Chart, Summary Effort Table Project Manager with input

Risk & Contingency Plans Core Team & PM

Individual Partners description PIs for each Partner

Consortium as a Whole Coordinator with input ALL

Resources to be committed PM with input from ALL

IMPACT Section, including dissemination, exploitation, Core Team with PM for
management , IPR, Ethical & Gender issues dissemination/exploitation

21

Stage 1
Submission
EVALUATION

SUBMISSION (single-stage)
Stage 2
Submission

EVALUATION EVALUATION

CONSORTIUM
AGREEMENT
Negotiation
GA

GRANT AGREEMENT SIGNING

START
22


(coordinated) (partnership) (coordinator) (secondment) (service provider/
subcontractor)

Main Partner Partner Main =
Beneficiary Beneficiary
Different Different Organisation
Organisation

Non-RTD Non-RTD Coordination Secondment Non-RTD RTD
Partner Partner Non-RTD (Mgm-Diss) Partner provider +
(Mgm-Diss-
(Mgm-Diss- (Mgm-Diss- Special clause
(Mgm- Other
Trg)
Trg) Trg) Limited RTD 38GA Diss-Trg) activities

Funding 100% funded 100% funded Non-RTD 100% funded 100% 50-100%
(Imperial 93% OH 93% OH (100% funded, 60% OH (IMP) funded funded
Consultants) 93% OH) 93% OH Admin/
RTD (50% dissem/
funded, training
93% OH) 93% OH
Project Large- Strategic SME-targeted Small Industrial- Commercial /
Types Medium CP/IP CP/IP CP / IP/ STREPs / IP / led PPP
STREPs CSAs Strategic
CP/IP
23

24


3.5 PARTICIPATION CONCERNS

-Vision/Strategy
College Mgm Board Concerns -Scientific Reputation

ICON Board / CEO

Heads of Department/ -Implement Strategy
Imperial Consultants
Concerns -Increase Income
-Improve Reputation

College Support Services Concerns -Clear Procedures
-Risks & Liabilities

Research Groups / -Resources
Academics Concerns
-Funding
-Academic Freedom
Proposals

25

3.6 IMPERIAL CONSULTANTS
SUPPORT – ADVICE - PARTICIPATION

Evaluation Project Possible
Proposal Negotiation

Delivery Audit

Identify most suitable ‘Topics’ and Funding Schemes /Link to NCP

Advice on selecting strategic partners + role in projects

Additional eligibility criteria • SME/INCO partners • Risk assessm.

‘IMPACT’ / ‘IMPLEMENTATION’ EPSS, Templates, Spreadsheets

Pre-check Proposal (Management, Dissemination, Financial, IPR)

Call for Proposals Alert Service Sample Proposals/ ‘Clinic’

26



Delivery Audit

Review of Evaluators Comments / Recommendations

Support for FP7 software tools (GPF, Excel spreadsheets, etc.)

Contributions to re-writing ANNEX 1 to GA (DoW)

Advice on Model Grant Agreements/Consortium Agreements

Financial Forms (calculating budgets and signing forms)

Attend Grant Negotiation meetings in Brussels

27



Delivery Audit

Advice on Legal and Financial Issues

Advice on Preparation/Review of ‘Claims’ (Form C + Certs)

Event Management (Kick-off / Annual Meetings/Training Workshops)

Troubleshooting (‘Fire fighting’) • Emergency Management

Annual Reps, Mid-Term Reviews, Final Reviews, Dissemination, IPR Mgm

Day to Day Consortium Mgm & Admin • Closure Management

28

QUESTIONS ?


4. BEST PRACTICE: IMPACT & EVALUATION

4.1 • IMPACT

4.2 • EVALUATION

4.3 • THE EVALUATORS

4.4 • COMMON MISTAKES & TIPS

30

4.1 BEST PRACTICE: IMPACT (1)

Background to the Proposal

Inform (‘Educate’) the Evaluators
• What Gaps/ Problems is the PROPOSAL trying to fill / solve ?
• Is it a European PRIORITY ? Can be solved at National/ Regional level ?
• Are SOLUTIONS already available ? (Products- Services- Technologies)
• How will the PROPOSAL advance things BEYOND the state of the art ?
• Why NOW? What happens if it is planned / achieved in the future ?
• Why YOUR CONSORTIUM ? Do you have the best lined-up
partnership?
• Any LINKS with ongoing work / research ? NETWORKING synergies?
• Who will use the outcome/ results ? End-Users ? Stakeholders ?

31


EXPECTED IMPACT (Call text)

Questions to Assess IMPACT

Expected Results- WHAT will come out of the Project ?

End Users – WHO would want the RESULTS of your Project ?

Lead Users – WHY would want they want the OUTCOME?

Stakeholders– HOW do you plan to disseminate results ?

Further Development – WHAT steps will be needed ?
EXPLOITATION ? HOW? WHOM ?

32

EXPECTED IMPACT (Call text)

EXPECTED OUTPUTS

Researchers PhDs • Publications • Recognition • New research
Ideas

Industry / Patents • Licenses • Know-how • Problems solved•
SMEs Models

Policy Makers Data/Studies to support policy • Advice • Workshops
Officials
Standards Draft Protocols • Solid support data • Harmonization

Society Data & Studies • Workshops • Support • Validation

OUTPUTS (RESULTS) OUTCOMES IMPACTS

33

4.2 BEST PRACTICE: EVALUATION (1)

EVALUATION

HEALTH2013-INNO.1/2 * ICT-FET OPEN * NMP2013 * ENERGY2013-2STG * ENV2013-2STG

34


• RELEVANCE to the TOPIC
(CALL/AREA)

• Soundness of CONCEPT & quality
of OBJECTIVES
S/T QUALITY • Progress BEYOND state of the art
• Quality & Effectiveness of S/T
METHODOLOGY & WORKPLAN
• PERT & GANTT charts
IMPLEMENTATION

IMPACT

35

4.2 EVALUATION (3)
BEST PRACTICE: EVALUATION (3)

S/T QUALITY • Quality and Efficiency of
IMPLEMENTATION
• Appropriateness of MANAGEMENT
STRUCTURE & GOVERNANCE
• Appropriate PROCEDURES
• Quality & Relevant Experience of
PARTICIPANTS
IMPLEMENTATION • Quality of CONSORTIUM as a whole
• PRIOR COLLABORATIONS & LINKS
• Appropriate allocation &
JUSTIFICATION of RESOURCES
(budget, staff, equipment) & ‘in kind’
resources
• RISK ASSESSMENT & Contingency
IMPACT Plans

36


S/T QUALITY

IMPLEMENTATION • Potential/Expected IMPACT through
DEVELOPMENT, DISSEMINATION,
USE OF RESULTS
• Appropriate DISSEMINATION PLAN
• EXPLOITATION PLAN of results
and MANAGEMENT of IPR
IMPACT • Separate CRITERIA > MARIE CURIE
& FET (Frontier Res)

37


ESR Eligibility
letter Pre-check

Individual Individual Individual
ESR Commission Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation
Ranking
letters
Consensus meeting
Scores, ESR

Ethical Panel Review
Review (optional hearing- Thresholds ESR
(if needed) IP/NoE) letter

38

4.3
• Evaluators work individually, no communication allowed

• Each proposal evaluated by 3 to 5 evaluators
• Evaluators fill in IAR forms (Individual Assessment Report)
• Each evaluator has 3 to 6 proposals/day with max. 2h per
proposal
• First impressions:
• Title
• ABSTRACT
• Objectives
• Partnership
• Consistency, Formatting & Length
• First 15-30 minutes of evaluation are CRUCIAL

39

4.3

• Detailed reading for each specific criterion
• ‘Within scope’ assessment
• Objectives and soundness of S/T concepts
• ‘Make-or-break’ evaluation:
• Technical issues
• Management structures
• Consortium complementarity
• Finances/ Resources justification
• IMPACT
• Ethical & Security considerations
• Decide SCORE and complete IAR
(Individual Assessment Report)
40

4.3
• CONSENSUS MEETING

• Minutes recorded by a Rapporteur
• Commission represented by a Moderator
• Reading and understanding each other EXPERT’s
individual comments
• Preliminary discussions
• Roundtable discussion on each CRITERIA
• Consensus obtained (NOT a mathematical
average of individual scores!)
• Explanation text and justification
• CONSENSUS REPORT (drafted by Rapporteur)

41

4.3
• PANEL MEETING to assess/compare Consensus Reports

• Overall quality and number of proposals evaluated
• Special attention:
• Proposals that scored very high but failed ONE non-S/T criteria
• Proposals with equal scores near funding thresholds
• Proposals with equal scores will be ranked:
• Objectives > Relevance > Impact > Resources >
>Horizontal issues
• FINAL RANKING
• Commission prepares FINAL DECISION > NEGOTIATION LIST
• RESERVE LIST (for withdrawals, unsuccessful negotiations)

42

4.4 COMMON MISTAKES & TIPS (1)

Best Practice: Common Mistakes Best Practice: Problems

• Excellent S/T- Poor Consortium / • EC requested contribution EXCEEDS
Implementation/ POOR IMPACT the limit (no evaluation!)

• Does NOT address the text of CALL • EPSS crashed due to last minute
submissions

• General/ Vague IDEAS • Overlap of research ALREADY funded

• Proposal NOT edited/ NOT Proof Read • Incomplete TABLES of effort,
deliverables
• Unclear relation between WPs / • TOO LONG- exceeds prescribed
PERT? pagination
• Incongruous Proposal- looks patched • Part A not validated properly
together • Budget does not tally!

43

4.4 COMMON MISTAKES & TIPS (2)

BEST PRACTICE:

TIPS for SUCCESSFUL PROPOSALS
CREDIBILITY IDEA convincing and achievable

COMMUNICATION Clear description of work and
what/how will be done

CONCRETE Very specific (not general) concepts
WHO will do WHAT, WHEN and
HOW!

CONSISTENCY High quality documentation
(proof-read) edited

44

QUESTIONS ?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION !

RR_FP7 03 04 Props Strat Impact Eval

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à RR_FP7 03 04 Props Strat Impact Eval

Similaire à RR_FP7 03 04 Props Strat Impact Eval (20)

RR_FP7 03 04 Props Strat Impact Eval

Notes de l'éditeur