How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal Webinar

www.ktn-uk.org
Innovate UK KTN Global Alliance and
Horizon Europe UK National Contact Points
How to Create a Good
Horizon Europe Proposal
Webinar
7th December 2021

Welcome and Housekeeping
• Due to the large number of people registered all
participants will be muted.
• After testing your speakers, please do remember to
connect your audio by using the “Join Audio” icon at the
bottom left of the screen or dial in via phone using the
number provided in the joining instructions.
• If you have any technical problems, please use the chat to
seek advice from the host (Jess Dobbyne).
• Questions and Answers there is a separate Q&A box, any
questions please use this function
• Please use the chat function to introduce yourself, please
note due to GDPR we cannot share the chat. Capture
what you need
PLEASE NOTE – THE WEBINAR IS BEING RECORDED
The recording and slides will be made available via the
KTN website
Welcome to our How to Create a Good Horizon
Europe Proposal Webinar

• 10:00 – Welcome and Introduction | Jane Watkins, Innovate UK KTN
• 10:05 – How to read a topic and understand the requirements | Louise Mothersole UK Horizon
Europe National Contact Point for Mobility
• 10:25 – Roles and responsibilities in the consortium Introduction to Part A | Chris Young, UK
Horizon Europe National Contact Point for Legal and Financial
• 10:45 – Case Study | Jenny Rainbird and Takis Katsoulakos - Inlecom Systems
• 10:50 – Q&A
• 11.00 – Break
• 11:10 – Part B – Impact, Implementation and Excellence | Nic Wallet, UK Horizon Europe National
Contact Point Climate
• 11:35 – The Evaluation | Catherine Holt, UK Horizon Europe National Contact Point for Space
• 11:45 – An Evaluator’s personal perspective | Dr Erica Yang, Managing Director – Chilton
Computing Limited
• 12:05 – NCP Panel discussion and Q&A | UK Horizon Europe National Contact Points
Overview

Horizon Europe – How to read a
topic and understand the
requirements
Louise Mothersole
Horizon Europe UK National Contact Point for Mobility
louise.mothersole@iuk.ukri.org

Team of country based, sector specific, advisors to support everyone to successfully
participate in EU Framework Programmes
Horizon Europe National Contact Points (NCPs)
Full list of UK
National Contact
Points
NCPs for Europe
and the rest of the
world
2
• RaisingAwarenessoftheprogramme
• FindingtherightTopic
• Identifyingthebestwaystofindpartners
• Navigatingtheportal
• Developingtheproposal
• Answeringquestions
• Supportingyoutosucceed!

Horizon Europe
€95.5bn funding agreed for 2021-2027
Budget figures exclude UK and other Associate Country contributions

• The most recent guidance issued by the European Commission on 4th October states that the UK’s association to the
programme is imminent. https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-
2027/common/guidance/list-3rd-country-participation_horizon-euratom_en.pdf
• The General Annexes referred to in the above guidance states “For the purposes of the eligibility conditions, applicants
established in Horizon 2020 Associated Countries or in other third countries negotiating association to Horizon Europe will
be treated as entities established in an Associated Country” https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-
tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-call/2021-2022/wp-13-general-annexes_horizon-2021-2022_en.pdf
• EC has published a Q&A on UK association that states “Thanks to the Associated Country status, UK participants will have
the same rights as EU participants, with the very limited aforementioned exceptions. UK entities are eligible for funding at
the same rates and under the same conditions. They can lead project consortia. They also count towards the minimum
number of countries in calls for transnational projects.”
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/research_and_innovation/strategy_on_research_and_innovation/document
s/ec_rtd_uk-participation-in-horizon-europe.pdf
• To provide reassurance, the government has guaranteed funding for the first wave of eligible, successful applicants to
Horizon Europe, but who have been unable to sign grant agreements with the EU
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-provides-financial-safety-net-for-horizon-europe-applicants
Status of UK Association to Horizon Europe

A quick look at ‘The Portal’

Funding & tender opportunities

Funding & Tender Opportunities

Register so that you have your own,
personal, account

Participant Identification Code (PIC)

Understanding the Topic
requirement

Topic details in the Work Programme
§ Always worth
looking at the
Work
Programme
itself for
additional
details

Background to the Topic
§ Read up the relevant parts of the Work Programme:
Introduction, Destination, etc.
§ If any previous projects mentioned, look them up on Cordis
§ e.g. “Project(s) is/are expected to co-operate closely with the Horizon 2020
project MOSES which is already addressing aspects of robotic cargo handling
and autonomous vessel manoeuvring and docking”
§ Find out about other initiatives mentioned in the Topic or
Destination
§ e.g. “Furthermore, in the context of the EU’s digital strategy “A Europe Fit for
the Digital Age” the waterborne transport sector will have to embrace a wide-
ranging digitalisation…”

Topic Description
§ Expected Outcome
§ Some mandatory and so must be achieved
§ Some desirable – evaluation will reward more of these being
addressed
§ Scope
§ Some mandatory
§ Some desirable – again evaluation rewards scope coverage
§ Additional requirements, some examples:
§ International cooperation
§ Technology Readiness Level
§ Extended proposal length

Click on Start submission early

The Proposal
The proposal contains two parts:
§ Part A of the proposal is generated by the IT system.
§ It is based on the information entered by the participants through the submission
system in the Funding & Tenders Portal.
§ The participants can update the information in the submission system at any time
before final submission.
§ Part B of the proposal is the narrative part that includes three sections that
each correspond to an evaluation criterion.
§ Part B needs to be uploaded as a PDF document following the templates
downloaded by the applicants in the submission system for the specific call or topic.

@UKRI_news UK Research and Innovation UK Research and Innovation

Roles and responsibilities in the
consortium - Introduction to Part A
Chris Young
Horizon Europe UK National Contact Point
Legal and Financial
chris.young@iuk.ukri.org

Roles and responsibilities - general principles
§ Depending on the programme and type of action, organisations can participate in various roles: as
coordinator, beneficiaries, affiliated entities, associated partners, in-kind contributors, subcontractors or
recipients of financial support to third parties.
§ Sufficient capacity must be demonstrated in the proposal and be available at the moment of the
implementation of the work (i.e. not necessarily at the moment of submitting the proposal or signing the
GA, but at least when the work starts).
§ It is the beneficiaries that remain fully responsible towards the European Commission (the Commission)
(since they are the ones that sign the Grant Agreement (GA)). For all the other consortium members, the
obligations under the GA are indirect (meaning that in case of non-compliance the Commission will turn to
the beneficiaries to enforce).

Roles and responsibilities – Coordinator v beneficiary
§ Beneficiaries are entities that sign the Grant Agreement
§ The coordinator is the beneficiary who is the central contact point for the Commission
and represents the consortium (towards the Commission). For mono-beneficiary grants,
the mono-beneficiary also has the coordinator role.
§ Ideally, the work should be done by the beneficiaries and their affiliated entities
themselves, but if needed, they may involve other partners and rely on outside resources
(purchase new equipment, goods, works or services, subcontract a part of the work or
involve associated partners, etc).

Roles and responsibilities – Beneficiary v affiliated entity
§ Affiliated entities (new for 2021-2027; previously called ‘linked third parties’) are in
practice treated largely like beneficiaries (except that they don’t sign the GA).
§ They have a link (e.g. legal or capital) with a beneficiary which goes beyond the
implementation of the action.
§ They must fulfil the same conditions for participation and funding as the beneficiaries and
need to have a validated participant identification code (PIC)
Example (implementation by affiliated entity): Company X and company Y do not control each other, but
they are both fully owned by company Z. Company X is beneficiary in the grant and company Y implements
some of the action tasks described in Annex 1(testing and analysis of the resistance of a new component
under high temperatures).

Roles and responsibilities – Associated partners
§ Associated partners – they implement action tasks but do not receive EU funding
§ They do not sign the Grant Agreement but are actively involved in the consortium
§ The Grant Agreement mentions them and defines their role but they are NOT
beneficiaries
§ The consortium is responsible for the implementation of the actions tasks by the
Associated partner
§ They do not have to account for their costs but applicants should include their costs in the
budget of their proposal under other sources of finance, financial contributions and own
resources headings

Roles and responsibilities – Third parties providing in-kind
contributions
§ Beneficiaries may use in-kind contributions provided by third parties if necessary to
implement the action
§ The third party does not sign the Grant Agreement
§ In-kind contributions refers only to the case where a third party makes available some of
its resources to a beneficiary for FREE (ie no payment)
§ The beneficiary makes no payment and therefore there is NO cost to the beneficiary
(therefore costs are not usually eligible).
§ In contrast, if there is any payment between the third party and the beneficiary related to
the in-kind contribution provided, the beneficiary can declare the costs eg personnel,
equipment, purchase of goods works or services etc
§ In-kind contributions and the third party contributing them must be mentioned in Annex 1

Roles and responsibilities – Subcontractor
§ Subcontracts – these concern the implementation of ”action tasks” as set out in Annex I
of the Grant Agreement ie part of the project/project tasks that have been outsourced.
§ The price for the subcontracts will be declared as subcontracting costs in the financial
statement.
§ Subcontractor’s motivation is financial, not the project itself and is paid by the beneficiary
in exchange for its work
§ Subcontracting is limited and certain tasks are excluded (eg. Coordination)
Example : Subcontract to organise a conference that is set as part of the tasks in the description of the action

Roles and responsibilities – recipients of financial support to
third parties
§ Recipients of financial support to third parties (grants, prizes etc) - they
do not sign the Grant Agreement and are not part of the consortium
§ They do not take part in action tasks but do benefit from them and receive
(indirectly) a part of EU funding and therefore the GA mentions them and
defines their role.
§ The beneficiaries are responsible for the proper use of the funds by the
recipient and ensure they comply with certain obligations (eg confidentiality,
ethics etc)

Part A and the evaluation
Evaluation – the evaluator will have both Part A and Part B
Quality of the participants and the consortium as a whole – important information on the
role of individual participants and previous experience.
The evaluation committee will take position on the operational capacity of the
consortium and individual participants to properly implement the tasks planned. This
assessment will be based on the competence and experience of the participants,
including operational resources (human, technical and other)

1. General
Information (1)
Note the importance of the
abstract

2. Participants (4)
Consider the number of
contact persons

2. Participants (5)
Include only researchers involved in the action NOT
other persons

2. Participants (8)
Gender Equality Plan - applicable to:
Public bodies, research organisations and higher
education establishments;
Member States and Associated Countries;
calls with deadlines in 2022 and thereafter

3. Budget for the proposal
• Only the white cells need to be filled in (the grey cells are not applicable or automatically filled by the
system).
• Cross-check with Part B to see if you will also need to submit a detailed budget table or outline
budgetary details in Part B.
• The budget categories to be used for the call are set out in the call conditions and explained in the
AGA — Annotated Grant Agreement.
• The budgeted costs should be based on a detailed and accurate estimation of your estimated project
costs (based on the cost eligibility rules set out in the Grant Agreement). They should include all your
estimated costs.
• Keep your estimates on file — you may be required to produce them later on.

2021
2019
Spin-out of commercialisation
centre of competency
(Inlecom Commercial
Pathways Ireland)
Spinout of key technical “Connected
Intelligence” patents and
technologies (Konnecta Ireland)
2015
Expanded R&D and Project/Program
management expertise in Athens,
Greece (Inlecom Innovation)
1996
Originally established a core
R&D team in in United
Kingdom (Inlecom Systems)
2016
Subsequent expansion to Group
& Corporate HQ in Brussels,
Belgium (Inlecom Group)
INLECOM Group History
Inlecom Group Mission Statement
Supporting the European Commission in evidencing commercial
and economic outputs from EC funded Research & Innovation

Themes:
Transport & Logistics
ICT and Robotics
Security
Green buildings / cities
Health
Food
Manufacture
Energy
Track record in winning & managing EU projects
circa 70% H2020 proposal success rate vs EU <10% average
6 Projects currently coordinated 20 EU-funded completed projects
7 EU-funded projects coordinated + 8 as technical coordinator
in the top 1% of EU SMEs for winning EC R&D grant funding
>350 successfully granted patents (100% success rate) vs EU 40% avg
New PROBONO Green Buildings - ZEROW Zero Food waste -
ERATOSTHENIS Data Privacy and Cybersecurity

Why were our proposals funded? Our Approach

Inlecom pay attention to the key EC areas of impact focus
Awareness Raising General Interests Website, Leaflets, Targeted Events
Academic Research Community
Scientific Publications, Journals,
Conferences…
Business Stakeholders (Knowledge
Contributors, Users, SMEs,
Advisors)
Commercial Workshops, Industry
Onboarding/Training
Economic/Industrial/
Commercialisation
Knowledge Transfer and
IP Exploitation
Business Stakeholders
(Multipliers)
Target Group Tools, Means, Channels
VC brokerage events
Commercial Accelerators
Impact Focus
Broader Public/Society General Community
Press, Media, YouTube, LinkedIn,
Twitter, Facebook, Public Events,
EC Events
International
Cooperation
USA, Japan, China, Canada, etc
where appropriate
Adding to advisory board, PhD
Secondments, Involvement in
Project (funded/unfunded)
Societal EU Citizens & Stakeholders
Community Intersection, Focused
Events, EU Policy KPIs, Societal
Impact KPIs
EU
Projects
Have
Typically
Focused
Here
for
broad
project
dissemination
and
communications
I
M
P
A
C
T

How do we typically find partners?
• Previous Inlecom collaborations where partners supported strong outputs
• Leaders of projects from previous calls who reach out to merge efforts
• Prominent industry partners with compelling R&D vision who reach out for our help
• Classifications of actors/partners that we know the EC is keen to support
• Recommendations from partners who join Inlecom projects/proposals
• Deserving early stage SMEs made know to us by e.g. Enterprise Ireland, Science
Foundation Ireland and other EU Gov bodies

Issues at submission and delivery
• The principal reason for poor success rates in EU programs is actors starting
proposals too late, and submitting as moderately or insignificantly incomplete
• A second reason is not allowing sufficient time for partners to contribute to and
assist in a well thought out submission that intersects with EC’s interests and
objectives
• A third reason is some partners are trying to partner/participate in too many
proposal submission, and quality/contributions in each is weak
• At Inlecom, we ensure to focus on a small number and we ask our partners to
support us by working exclusively with us on the given proposal
• this approach has led to 4 back-to-back consecutive success in 2021 (and similar pattern of
success in previous years)

Hints on proposal writing
• Grant writers with previous experience are essential, who also understand the EC
program and what the EC are trying to achieve
• Have a compelling innovation, clearly written objectives that align with the EC’s
call text, and a commensurately strong Impact commitment
• Start with clear but ‘interesting’ overview/concept with a clear conclusion as to
why your concept is important
• Use simple/clear language in the main, and convincing scientific language in SOTA
and research sections that is also written clearly

ZEROW ‘Zero Food waste’ Overview

PRBONO
Green
Buildings
and
Neighbourhoods
Stakeholder engagement in
the co-design and co-creation
of GBN interventions,
Innovation Support Clusters
E2 Social Engagement and
Innovation Clusters
in spatial, economic, technical,
environmental, regulatory and
social context, aligned to the
EU Taxonomy
E1 GBN Strategic Planning
PROBONO GBNs Real- Life Demonstrators Implementation
PROBONO GBN Transition Acceleration Enablers
Scale Up, Transferability, Transition
European Alliance of GBN Innovation Clusters
GBN Planning & LCA Evaluation
Framework, Impact
Assessment Validation
GBN Climate Neutral
Energy Systems
E5 GBNs
Digital Twins
Knowledge
Integrator
Smart Green Building
Materials and Lifecycle
Workflows and Controls
Systemic Innovations
E4 GBN Construction &
Rennovation
Maturing Innovations for GBN
Energy Monitoring &Clean
Energy Production, Storage
and Distribution (Bioclimatic
measures towards energy
positive GBNs)
E3 GBN Green Energy
Data
Monitoring
Decision
Support
Control
GBN
Optimisation

Summary
• The key ingredients for success :
• Ensure to start early (at least 4-5 months before submission)
• Assemble the correct/winning consortium (or ask for help in building this)
• Ensure a strong/proven grant writer and proposal coordinator leading the proposal
• Take advantage of the heterogeneity and skills of the partners, ask each to make a small
contribution specific to their area of interest and expertise
• Allow time for iterative reviews, improvements, refinement for all sections
• Ensure 3rd party reviews (in your own team is fine) to experts who have not seen/read
the proposal before and are taking the position of a friendly evaluation
• Submit with confidence of at least a decent score and a good chance of a winning bid !!

Thank you for your attention
Mrs. Jenny Rainbird
Dr. Takis Katsoulakos
Mr. Yash Chadha
Inlecom.eu
Tel: +44 (0) 20 8989 1341
contact@inlecom.com
Inlecom Systems
60 Mansfield Road
London E11 2JN

Part B: Impact / Implementation / Excellence
Nicolas Wallet
Horizon Europe UK National Contact Point
@NicolasWallet
Nicolas.wallet@iuk.ukri.org

Part B of the
proposal
• Part B of the proposal is the narrative part that includes
three sections that each correspond to an evaluation
criterion.
• Part B needs to be uploaded as a PDF document following
the templates downloaded by the applicants in the
submission system for the specific call or topic.
• The templates for a specific call may slightly differ from the
example provided. Template is to be used in a single-stage
submission procedure or at the 2nd stage of a two-stage
submission procedure.

Part B: You
MUST think
about what
the Evaluator
will read &
only Read
• Evaluator only score what is on the
paper – NOT the potential!
• Only proposals that successfully
address all the required aspects will
have a chance of being funded
• NO significant changes to content,
budget and consortium composition
during grant preparation

… of course formatting is important…
Think also spaces, line breaks etc.
Readability MUST be easy

Excellence
Impact
Implementation
Content: How to create a good Horizon Europe proposal - Part B
“Science is a way of thinking much
more than it is a body of knowledge.”
Carl Sagan
“Everybody has a plan until they get
punched in the face.”
Mike Tyson
“Measure what is measurable, and
make measurable what is not so”
Galileo Galilei
2
1
3

Impact
• Credibility of the pathways to
achieve the expected outcomes
and impacts specified in the
work programme, and the likely
scale and significance of the
contributions from the project
• Suitability and quality of the
measures to maximise expected
outcomes and impacts, as set
out in the dissemination and
exploitation plan, including
communication activities.

Pathway
to
impact
Logical steps towards the achievement of the expected impacts of
the project over time, in particular beyond the duration of a
project.
A pathway begins with the projects’ results, to their dissemination,
exploitation and communication, contributing to the expected
outcomes in the work programme topic, and ultimately to the
wider scientific, economic and societal impacts of the work
programme destination.

What change
will the
achievement of
the objectives
bring?
Why the project is
necessary?
• Address a challenge
What the project
will achieve?
• Specific objective
How will the
project achieve its
specific objectives?
• Implementation &
workplan
IMPACT

THREE TYPES OF IMPACT BASED ON OBJECTIVES
Scientific impact
Promote scientific excellence, support the creation and diffusion of high-quality
new fundamental and applied knowledge, skills, training and mobility of
researchers, attract talent at all levels, and contribute to full engagement of
Union's talent pool in actions supported under the Programme.
Societal impact
Generate knowledge, strengthen the impact of R&I in developing, supporting and
implementing Union policies, and support the uptake of innovative solutions in
industry, notably in SMEs, and society to address global challenges, inter alia the
SDGs
Economic impact
Foster all forms of innovation, facilitate technological development, demonstration
and knowledge transfer, and strengthen deployment of innovative solutions

Scientific
Impact
Economic/
Technological
Impact
1. Creating high-quality new knowledge
2. Strengthening human capital in R&I
3. Fostering diffusion of knowledge and Open Science
7. Generating innovation-based growth
8. Creating more and better jobs
9. Leveraging investments in R&I
Societal
Impact
4. Addressing EU policy priorities & global challenges through R&I
5. Delivering benefits & impact via R&I missions
6. Strengthening the uptake of R&I in society
HORIZON EUROPE LEGISLATION defines three types of impact,
tracked with Key Impact Pathways
Article 50 & Annex V ‘Time-bound indicators to report on an annual basis on progress of the
Programme towards the achievement of the objectives referred to in Article 3 and set in Annex V along
impact pathways’
Provide a
narrative
tailored to
YOUR project
explaining how
the project
result EXPECT
to make a
difference
beyond its
scope

HORIZON EUROPE IMPACT IMPLEMENTATION
EC POLICY PRIORITIES Political Guidelines for the European Commission 2019-2024 (and other key
strategic documents - e.g. Green Deal)
KEY STRATEGIC
ORIENTATIONS FOR R&I
Set of strategic objectives within the EC policy priorities where R&I investments
are expected to make a difference
IMPACT AREAS Group of expected impacts highlighting the most important transformation to be
fostered through R&I
EXPECTED IMPACTS
ÞDESTINATIONS
= General objectives
Wider effects on society (incl. the environment), the
economy and science enabled by the outcomes of R&I
investments (long term).
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
=>TOPICS
= Specific objectives
Effects of Horizon Europe projects such as uptake,
diffusion, use and deployment of the projects’ results
by direct target groups (medium term)
PROJECT RESULTS
= Operational objectives
What is produced during the project implementation, such as innovative solutions,
algorithms, new business models, guidelines, policy recommendations,
methodologies, publications, database, prototypes, trained researchers, new
infrastructures, proof of feasibility, networks, etc. (short term)
STRATEGIC
PLAN
WORK
PROGRAMME
PROJECT
European
Commission
DG
Research
&
Innovation
(Angelica
Marino,
DG
R&I-G2)

Impact is about the
future and it should
be measured
“Measure what is measurable, and
make measurable what is not so”
Galileo Galilei

Excellence: section 2 Impact
• Project’s pathways towards impact
• Also mention barriers and how you will overcome them
• Describe the scale/significance project contribution to expected outcomes &
impacts – Use baseline/benchmark
• Only use your project impact - NO other actions can count here.
• Measure to maximise impact - Dissemination, exploitation and communication
• To whom, What, How and Who does it?
• Horizon, CORDIS, Innovation Radar and other platform are useful to
communicate/disseminate/Exploitation
• If exploitation is expected primarily in non-associated third countries, explain how
this is STILL in EU’s interest
• Outline your strategy for Ips etc. and this support the Exploitation

COMMUNICATION, DISSEMINATION AND EXPLOITATION

Communication VS Dissemination
- About the project and results
- Multiple audiences
Beyond the project's own community
(include the media and the public)
- Inform and reach out to society, show the
benefits of research
- About results only
- Audiences that may use the results in their
own work
e.g. peers (scientific or the project's own community),
industry and other commercial actors, professional
organisations, policymakers)
- Enable use and uptake of results

Dissemination VS Exploitation
Describe and make results visible
To audiences that may use the results
That may enable their use and uptake
Actual use of the results for scientific,
societal, economic purposes or for policy
making
All results generated during the project
lifetime but also after its end

KPI: Pathway To Impact &
Climate!
• Climate Impact Pilot
• The EU aims to be climate-neutral by
2050 and 35% of Horizon Europe
investment is committed to tackling
climate change.
If relevant, you could
consider it but focus on
the Work Programme!

More in depth –
watch EU
Commission
webinar here.

Excellence
Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives,
and the extent to which the proposed work is
ambitious, and goes beyond the state of the art.
Soundness of the proposed methodology,
including the underlying concepts, models,
assumptions, inter-disciplinary approaches,
appropriate consideration of the gender
dimension in research and innovation content,
and the quality of open science practices,
including sharing and management of research
outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society
and end users where appropriate.
Grants world
motivation is to have
a proposal text ‘lean
and mean’!

Excellence: section 1.1
Objectives and ambition
• Briefly describe the objectives of your proposed work. Why are
they pertinent to the work programme topic? Are they measurable
and verifiable? Are they realistically achievable?
• Describe how your project goes beyond the state-of-the-art, and
the extent the proposed work is ambitious. Indicate any exceptional
ground-breaking R&I, novel concepts and approaches, new products,
services or business and organisational models.
• Where relevant, illustrate the advance by referring to products
and services already available on the market. Refer to any patent or
publication search carried out.
• Describe where the proposed work is positioned in terms of R&I
maturity (i.e. where it is situated in the spectrum from ‘idea to
application’, or from ‘lab to market’). Where applicable, provide an
indication of the Technology Readiness Level, if possible
distinguishing the start and by the end of the project.

Excellence: section 1.1 Objectives and ambition
• State of the art – Keep text lean and mean! No lengthy literature review.
• Scan, analyse and present the field of interest to clearly show the State of the Art
and its current implications
• Describe any national or international research and innovation activities which
will be linked with the project, especially where the outputs from these will feed
into the project
• Defines and establishes the knowledge gap, and then how the project plans to go
beyond this state of the art
• Describe existing R&D, products & services available (inc. patent search if
relevant) to finds shortcomings, solutions, gaps of knowledge, and the ways these
limiting science and society. Stressing this will make the motivation for your
project clearer

Excellence: section 1.1 Objectives and ambition
• Start thinking SMART objectives
• Take time to formulate SMART objectives, which should relate to the expected
impact sought and will in turn link to the work package structure
• Avoid having too many objectives (5-8 will normally be optimum) and make sure
they are framed correctly as objectives rather than the tasks to be carried out
• Describe the innovation potential (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts
and approaches, new products, services or business and organisational
models) which the proposal represents. Where relevant, refer to products and
services already available on the market. Please refer to the results of any patent
search carried out.
• Describe the advance your proposal would provide beyond the state-of-the-
art, and the extent the proposed work is ambitious.
Specific / Measurable / Achievable / Relevant / Time bound

EU Commission TRLs
definition
• TRL 1 – basic principles observed
• TRL 2 – technology concept formulated
• TRL 3 – experimental proof of concept
• TRL 4 – technology validated in lab
• TRL 5 – technology validated in relevant environment (industrially
relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies)
• TRL 6 – technology demonstrated in relevant environment (industrially
relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies)
• TRL 7 – system prototype demonstration in operational environment
• TRL 8 – system complete and qualified
• TRL 9 – actual system proven in operational environment (competitive
manufacturing in the case of key enabling technologies; or in space)

Excellence: section 1.2 Methodology
• The logic and the principles – Not the details of the tasks
• only initial references will do, since a detailed description is expected only in
section 3 - Implementation
• Instead of “how”, explain the scientific and/or technological methods
• e.g. for research, demonstration, piloting, first market replication, etc;
• Identify any inter-disciplinary considerations and, where relevant, use of
stakeholder knowledge; where relevant, include measures taken for public/societal
engagement on issues related to the project
• Refer to the main challenges identified in the methodology and how you will
overcome them
if relevant, include how the project methodology complies with
the ‘do no significant harm’ principle as per Article 17 of
Regulation (EU) No 2020/852

Excellence: section 1.2 Methodology
• Other collaborative aspect
• Open science
• If you use Data – the Data Management Plan
• Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable = FAIR
• Gender
• Gender Equality Plan = GEP > It is a PUBLIC document sign by top
management of your organisation
• Identify problems seek to solve, detail activities and indicator to
monitor
• Work-life balance and organisational culture
• Gender balance in leadership and decision-making
• Gender equality in recruitment and career progression
• Integration of the gender dimension into research and teaching content
• Measures against gender-based violence, including sexual harassment
• Support Gear Action Toolbox, Factsheet
• Horizon Europe guidance on gender equality plans
Member State
& Associated
only and only
public bodies;
research
organisations;
higher
education
establishments

Self-declaration by
Horizon Europe
applicants through
GEP eligibility
criterion
questionnaire*
The GEP must be in
place for the
signature of the
Grant Agreement
(for calls with
deadlines from
2022 onwards)
Equivalent
strategic
documents
may meet
the GEP
eligibility
criterion
Grant Agreement commits
beneficiaries to taking
measures to promote
gender equality in
implementation of action
and, where applicable, in
line with their GEP
Random
eligibility
compliance
checks on
beneficiaries
during Horizon
Europe
The eligibility criterion steps

PROBLEM to be
addressed or the
OPPORTUNITY to
be exploited, and
the nature of the
SOLUTION being
proposed.
•Aim as high as possible
but:
•Pertinent to Work
Programme?
•Measurable and shown in
application?
•Realistically achievable?

Implementation
Quality and effectiveness of the
work plan, assessment of risks,
and appropriateness of the effort
assigned to work packages, and
the resources overall.
Capacity and role of each
participant, and the extent to
which the consortium as a whole
brings together the necessary
expertise.

Implementation 3.1 Work plan and resources
Work Plan
Work package 1
Objective
Task
Deliverable
Milestone
Work package 2
etc.
Etc.
Work package: a logical and manageable
division of work with a specific end result
(usually a deliverable or a milestone)

The basics
• Gantt & Perth chart
• What is the logic? Is explain
and visible in the structure?
• WPs should be proportionate
scale/complexity projects
• Resource assigned make
sense? Pers.month explained
• List of milestones & List of
critical risks & mitigation
• SMART objectives (Impact
and Excellence)

1. Do NOT repeat who are the partners!
2. What the Consortium brings? Inter-disciplinary knowledge/skills,
access to key infrastructure/assets
3. How each complement each other and what are the roles of each?
Is it logical, explained, adequate resource?
4. What link to exploitation? Industrial/Commercial, access to market
etc.
5. Third Country: why the participation of the entity in question is
essential to successfully carry out the project.
Implementation 3.2 Capacity of participants and
consortium as a whole

@NicolasWallet nicolas.wallet@iuk.ukri.org

Evaluation summary: Score 0 to 5 each criteria, threshold 3/5
Impact evaluation criteria (RIA & IA)
•Credibility of the pathways to achieve
the expected outcomes and impacts
specified in the work programme, and
the likely scale and significance of the
contributions due to the project
•Suitability and quality of the measures
to maximise expected outcomes and
impacts, as set out in the dissemination
and exploitation plan, including
communication activities
Excellence evaluation criteria (RIA & IA)
•Clarity and pertinence of the project’s
objectives, and the extend to which the
proposed work is ambitious, and goes
beyond the state of the art
•Soundness of the proposed
methodology, including the underlaying
concepts, models, assumptions, inter-
disciplinary approaches, appropriate
consideration of the gender dimension
in research and innovation content, and
the quality of open science practices
including sharing and management of
research outputs and engagement of
citizen, civil society and end users
where appropriate
Implementation evaluation criteria (RIA
& IA)
•Quality and effectiveness of the work
plan, assessment of the risks and
appropriateness of the effort assigned
to work packages and the resource
overall
•Capacity and role of each participant
and extend of which the consortium as
a whole brings together the necessary
expertise

Horizon Europe - Evaluation
Catherine Holt
UK National Contact Point – Horizon Europe

Expert selection
Your abstract is used to identify experts – before the deadline!
§ Background and education
§ Gender balance – ideally 50/50
§ Rotation - no more than 4 years consecutive evaluations
§ No conflict of interest
§ Range of backgrounds and organisations
§ Nationality

Experts assess proposals
individually. Minimum of
three experts per proposal
(but often more than three).
All individual experts discuss
together to agree on a
common position, including
comments and scores for each
proposal.
The panel of experts reach
an agreement on the scores
and comments for all
proposals within a call,
checking consistency
across the evaluations.
if necessary, resolve cases
where evaluators were
unable to agree.
Rank the proposals with the
same score
Individual
evaluation
Consensus
group
Panel
review
Finalisation
The Commission/Agency
reviews the results of the
experts’ evaluation and puts
together the final ranking
list.
Standard evaluation process

Individual evaluation
§ Experts evaluate proposals against strict criteria independently
§ Scores are made on the proposal as it is not on its potential: 0-5
§ Shortcomings are reflected in a lower score, significant
weaknesses are scored below the threshold
§ Thresholds apply to individual criteria and to the total score, normally
3/5 and 10/15 overall
§ Comments to explain shortcomings but no recommendations
are made
§ Specific calls or topics may have different rules regarding
thresholds and weighting – IAs weight of 1.5 for Impact

Evaluation criteria (RIAs and IAs)
QUALITY AND
EFFICIENCY OF THE
IMPLEMENTATION
ü Quality and effectiveness
of the work plan,
assessment of risks, and
appropriateness of the
effort assigned to work
packages, and the
resources overall.
ü Capacity and role of each
participant, and extent to
which the consortium as
a whole brings together
the necessary expertise.
EXCELLENCE
ü Clarity and pertinence of the project’s
objectives, and the extent to which the
proposed work is ambitious, and goes
beyond the state-of-the-art.
ü Soundness of the proposed
methodology, including the underlying
concepts, models, assumptions, inter-
disciplinary approaches, appropriate
consideration of the gender dimension
in research and innovation content, and
the quality of open science practices
including sharing and management of
research outputs and engagement of
citizens, civil society and end users
where appropriate.
IMPACT
ü Credibility of the pathways to
achieve the expected
outcomes and impacts
specified in the work
programme, and the likely
scale and significance of the
contributions due to the
project.
ü Suitability and quality of the
measures to maximize
expected outcomes and
impacts, as set out in the
dissemination and exploitation
plan, including communication
activities.
Proposals aspects are assessed to the extent that the proposed work is within the scope of the work programme topic

Right-to-react (Rebuttal)
● Objective is to increase transparency, to correct any factual or major misunderstandings
by experts at an early stage and provide more detailed feedback to applicants.
● Applicants will send their reactions to draft experts comments
● Experts will take applicants’ reaction into account before finalising their final
assessment.
Piloting new processes based on lessons learnt
Individual
evaluation
Consensus
group
Panel review Finalisation
Reaction

Blind evaluation (in 1st stage)
● There is no evidence that the current proposal evaluation system is systematically biased.
● There are understandable concerns that evaluation experts may be swayed – perhaps unconsciously –
in favour of proposals from well-known organisations in countries with better performing R&I systems.
● ‘Blind’ evaluation is a way to remove any real or perceived effect of such reputational bias.
● Experts evaluate without knowing the identity of participants.
● The work programme will include an additional admissibility criterion: applicants can not be disclosed in
the narrative part of the proposal.
Piloting new processes based on lessons learnt

Ethics review
Adapted following lessons learnt
● Focus mainly on complex/serious cases
● Reduce number of ethics requirements in funded projects.
Same criteria as in H2020
For all activities funded, ethics is an integral part of research from beginning to end, and
ethical compliance is essential to achieve real research excellence. An ethics review
process is carried out systematically in all Horizon Europe proposals, based on a self-
assessment included in the proposal.
Ethical research conduct implies the application of fundamental ethical principles and
legislation in all possible domains of research. This includes the adherence to the highest
standards of research integrity as described in the European Code of Conduct for
Research Integrity.

Security scrutiny
The checks based on the self-assessment may trigger an in-depth security scrutiny.
New in Horizon Europe
Security issues will be checked systematically in all Horizon Europe proposals (in H2020
only proposals submitted to topics flagged as ‘security-sensitive’ were checked). The
checks are based on a self-assessment included in the proposal. The focus is on:
● Whether the proposal uses or generates EU classified information
● Potential of misuse of results (that could be channeled into crime or terrorism)
● Whether activities involve information or materials subject to national security
restrictions

The best way to learn is by
doing
You can register in the EU
experts database at any time.
Click here to register!
… one final point

Any Questions?
Catherine Holt - ncp-space@iuk.ukri.org

InnovateUK & KTN “How to Create a Good Horizon Europe
Proposal” Webinar: An evaluator's personal perspective
An Evaluator’s Personal Perspective
How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal Webinar
(an event organised by KTN, InnovateUK)
Dr Erica Yang
Managing Director, Chilton Computing Ltd
Tue 07 Dec 2021 10.00 - 12.30
Disclaimer: this talk only represents my personal perspective.

Agenda
1. A bit about me
2. A piece of homework (especially for the new comers)
3. How do you start looking at a proposal?
4. What are you looking for when evaluating proposals?
5. What do you like, what is an instant turn-off?
6. How do you distinguish between high quality applications?
7. How do you look at the consortium make-up?
8. The evaluation process
9. Benefits of being an evaluator
10. One tip, if there is only one tip
2

A bit about me
• ~20 years in research
• Background in computer science
• Held various positions at UK universities (Durham, Leeds & Oxford) and Rutherford
Appleton Lab (UK’s national laboratory, STFC, UKRI)
• ~4 years in technology startup business building Chilton Computing Ltd, an
Oxford-based AI company
• Evaluator experience: involved in several Horizon2020 programme,
including ICT, space, and societal challenges
• Proposal+project experience: FP7, Horizon2020, InnovateUK
• Proposal role played: as a coordinator (or partner) from a big research
institute, and as a SME
3

Read this, and think about it from
an evaluator perspective
If there is only one take-away message from my talk…
4

How do you start looking at a proposal?
• Get a big picture of the proposal – what is the proposal about?
• Drivers/trends
• Problem
• Main (proposal-level) objectives, main idea, and main approach
• Partners - consortium composition
• Understand the pertinence of the proposal - focus on the ‘Excellence’ section
• Is it relevant to the call? And how
• Is it clearly addressing the key priority of the call topic, heading/destination, cluster
• Are the evidences clearly presented? For example,
• Starting & target TRLs for various technologies
• Evaluation KPIs
• Novelty (differences between RIA and IA)
• To gain a sense of the overall quality of the proposal
5

What are you looking for when
evaluating proposals? (pillar 2 only!)
6
6
Research and innovation actions (RIA) — Activities that aim
primarily to establish new knowledge or to explore the feasibility of
a new or improved technology, product, process, service or
solution. This may include basic and applied research, technology
development and integration, testing, demonstration and validation
of a small-scale prototype in a laboratory or simulated
environment.
Innovation Action (IA) — Activities that aim directly to produce
plans and arrangements or designs for new, altered or improved
products, processes or services. These activities may include
prototyping, testing, demonstrating, piloting, large-scale product
validation and market replication.
Example Example
Programme/Cluster
Heading/Destination
Proposals
…
Topic
The only definitive guide!

What do you like, what is an instant turn-off?
üClear and pertinent description with supporting evidence
(for example, KPIs with starting baseline info and targets)
üPresentation is ‘navigate friendly’, offering information in
the expected place
üKnowing the big picture but also backed by concrete
evidences and solid execution
Extra small fonts, tight spacing
Poor presentation, incomplete sentences, paragraphs!
Lack of illustrations
Misplaced information (impacts appear in ‘Excellence’)
‘Bold but empty’ KPIs: starting points and end goals missing
Blindly ‘copied and pasted’ content without even changing
the format!
7
Your proposal

How do you distinguish between high quality
applications?
• Again, I will use the ‘map’ given by the commission, illustrated below.
8
Programme/Cluster
Heading/Destination
Proposals
…
Topic

The process: all in the public domain
• The above is only my own individual evaluation (report). All evaluators are independent, i.e., not
representing any organisation.
• My assessment will be calibrated in the following meetings:
• Consensus meeting (3-5 evaluators) to eliminate bias and mistakes
• Panel meeting for other evaluators to review.
• The process is the same across different programme, regardless of the clusters, destinations, call
topics.
• The whole evaluation procedure and ranking (prioritisation) process is described in Annex F. –
Check!
• ‘Excellence’ has higher priority than ‘impact’ – RIA
• Further ranking criteria (where relevant!): Gender balance, then geographical diversity, then others, e.g.,
SMEs
• The process is further detailed in the public HorizonEurope ‘Online Manual’. – Check!
• The commission
• Has a very well defined and rigidly followed process
• Is constantly looking for improvements of the process
9

Consortium make-up
• That depends, for example:
• The type of calls (RIA vs IA)
• RIA typically starts at TRL 2/3, i.e., needs to be driven by innovative early-stage
laboratory ideas;
• IA typically starts at TRL3/4/5 and aims at TRL6/7, i.e., needs to be proven; and
reaching demonstration at scale/in real-world environment
• Call specific requirements (heading/programme)
• Some H2020 RIA calls emphasis greatly the importance of having end-
user/solution oriented impacts à industry labs and standard bodies
involvements
• Some are more research oriented à more research institutes
• Good to involve SMEs, but you need to demonstrate what benefits they bring
in and have a clear role in the project (e.g., some explicitly indicates ‘key SMEs
needed’)
• I will pay close attention to the partners who receive exceedingly
large (or small) allocation of resources
• These always need justification. If not, there will be a question asked.
• Pay attention to the evaluation and ranking process in Annex F
and call specific requirements!
10

Benefits of being an evaluator?
• As a result of several years being an evaluator
• I often have a sense of whether a proposal (including my own proposal!) is going to win…
• Score is relative – for some, you need to have 13.5 to ‘have a good chance’. For others, for example, very multidisciplinary focused calls, i.e., not
many applications, you might win by a ’12.5’! It all depends.
• Choose the right call is also very important!
• A good idea/technology is just the starting point - The importance to have all the elements (tech, impact, implementation, team) in place
• Impact on my own research and projects
• Project collaborators
• See and meet a wider range of experts from many other countries, from other academic fields and industrial sectors, very different styles, but all
interesting and highly intelligent people!
• Exchange thoughts, contacts, and opportunities (e.g., invited to keynote speech in conference)
• Networking
• Boost of self-confidence
• Good friends and good fun - Every year to Brussels! You get paid to do that!
• Proposal writing skills
• After reading so many proposals, you truly understand the importance of:
• The call topic text!
• The award criteria – 3 criteria, the evaluators score a proposal strictly following the criteria (and sub-criteria)!
• The evaluation process, including the scoring method as well!
• What a good or bad proposal should look like! Innovation | Impact | Consortium | Presentation | Execution/Implementation …
11

One-tip for the audience
• “You've got to be in it to win it!” BUT, don’t forget - it should also be
a strategic decision from you!
• You need to know what role you could play and what contributions you can
offer to the party
• There are ’a lot of boxes to tick’ in a proposal, so there are many
opportunities for the ‘big’ and the ‘small’
• Choose where to ‘play’ – which call will you have the best chance to win and
fulfil your organisation objective?
12

Thank you for listening!
The End
13
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericayang-digitaltwinexpert/
Search ‘Erica Yang Chilton Computing’

How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal Webinar

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (7)

Similar to How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal Webinar

Similar to How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal Webinar (20)

More from KTN

More from KTN (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

How to Create a Good Horizon Europe Proposal Webinar