5 th Framework Programme (1998 - 2002) Information Society Technologies

1. 5th Framework Programme (1998 - 2002) Information Society Technologies Key Action 1: Systems and Services for the Citizen 3rd Call Information Day Friday, March 17th DG Information Society European Commission

2. Objectives of the Information Day • To help you to make a better proposal • To ensure that we receive quality instead of quantity • To answer the questions you might have • To allow you to network

3. 3rd Call: Key Action 1 • Vision of the IST Programme • Objectives of Key Action 1 • Focus in Workprogramme 2000 • 3rd Call

4. ISTAG Vision -“orientations for WP2000 and beyond” ”Create an ambient intelligence landscape(for seamless delivery of services and applications)in Europe relying also upon testbeds andopen source software, develop user-friendliness,and develop and converge the networking infrastructure in Europe to world-class" http://www.cordis.lu/ist/istag.htm

5. Key Action 1: Objectives • Foster the creation of the next generation of user-friendly, dependable, cost-effective and interoperable general-interest services • Usability and acceptability of new services…  improve competitiveness & meet user demands & support to relevant EU-Policies

6. Key Action 1:Focus • Innovativeapplicationsbased on innovativesystems • That have significant exploitation potential • Medium-term & Long-term R&D projects integration - progress state of the art IST components

7. Third IST call (First call in 2000) • Open date: February 10 • Deadline: May 10 • Evaluation starts: June 4 - 9 • Quick Evaluation Summary Reports, immediately following the evaluation • Indicative Budget for Key Action 1: 50 M€

8. KEY Action 1 in Call 3 I.1 Health I.1.1, I.1.2, I.1.3  only RTD I.1.4  only Best practice & demonstration I.2 Persons with Special needs, including the disabled and the elderly I.2.1  only RTD I.4 Humanitarian de-mining I.4.2  only RTD Proposals for Support Measures are called for in a continuous submission scheme (up to 15 June 2000 at 5.00 p.m. Brussels local time) Additional Call I.3.1 (WP 1999)

9. KEY Action 1 in Call 3 (indicative budget) I.1 Health (35 M€) I.1.1  10-14 M€ I.1.2  10-14 M€ I.1.3  6-9 M€ I.1.4  3-5 M€ I.2 Persons with Special needs, including the disabled and the elderly (25 M€) I.2.1  12-18 M€ I.3.1  8-12 M€ I.4 Humanitarian de-mining I.4.2  8-12 M€

10. Proposal Preparation • Call for Proposals & Eligibility • Guide for Proposals & Evaluation Criteria • Further details on rules for participation, type of actions and eligible costs. • Final remarks

11. Call for Proposals and Eligibility • Call for Proposals published on 10 February 2000. It defines: • the Action Lines that are open • Reference to the Workprogramme • the type of Actions called for • See Guide for Proposers • the deadline and method of delivery • And refers toManual of Proposal Evaluation Procedures

12. Call for Proposals and Eligibility Cont’d • Ensure that the subject of your proposals relates to Action Line open in the Call for Proposers • Ensure that in the Action Line description the type of action is called for • Ensure that the consortium is eligible for the type of action • Ensure that the proposal is delivered on time and is complete

13. Guide Proposals and Evaluation Criteria Cont’d • A proposal has 3 parts : • Part A: Administrative, budgetary information (Forms A0-A4) • Part B Scientific/Technical content • Part C EU added value, contribution to Community policies, dissemination, exploitation and management • There are 5 blocks of Evaluation Criteria: • Scientific/Technological Quality and Innovation • Community added value and contribution to EU policies • Contribution to Community social objectives • Economic development and S&T prospects • Resources, Partnership and management

14. Guide Proposals and Evaluation Criteria Cont’d Evaluation Criteria 1 Scientific Technological quality and innovation Part B of Proposal B1 Title page B2 Content list B3 Objectives  Quality of the research proposed B4 Contribution to programme Key Action objectives B5 Innovation Degree of innovation B6 Project Workplan  Adequacy of the chosen approach

15. Guide for Proposals and Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criterion 1: Scientific/Technological quality and innovation Quality • Is the proposal sound? • Does it meet the scientific / technological needs of RTD for the target groups of persons? • Have you chosen the most relevant approach for the targeted objectives? • Have you addressed possible alternatives? • Are checks and balances present to measure and verify progress of work?

16. Guide for Proposals and Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criterion 1: Scientific/Technological quality and innovation Innovation and risk • Does the proposed work go beyond “state-of-the-art” • Is the proposed system novel (or does it already exist in the EU market)? • Have you described the innovative aspects: - Innovative technologies, OR innovative application, OR an innovativeservice using leading-edge IS technologies and systems

17. Guide for Proposals and Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criterion 1: Scientific/Technological quality and innovation Innovation and risk (continued) • Have you demonstrated awareness of the limits of current knowledge and/or solutions, and justified which direction(s) for development may be plausible? • Will the proposed work be feasible in relation to the application environment? • Does previous work clarify the risk or support the likelihood of success? • Have you shown details of how you will conduct risk analysis or assessment?

18. Guide for Proposals and Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criterion 1: Scientific/Technological quality and innovation Adequacy • Will your approach, methodology and workplan meet the Scientific & Technological objectives? • Will the proposed IST system solve the real problems of disabled and elderly people, which are addressed?

19. Guide Proposals and Evaluation Criteria Cont’d Part C of Proposal C1 Title page C2 Content list C3 Community added value and contribution to EC policies C4 Contribution to Community social objectives Evaluation Criteria 2 Community added value and contribution to EC policies Evaluation Criteria 3 Contribution to Community social objectives

20. Guide Proposals and Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criterion 2: Community added value and contribution to EC policies European dimension • Does the proposal address European-wide issues? European added value • Will the proposal will have impact at the European level? EU policy • Have you shown which EU policies are addressed, e.g. the Amsterdam Treaty (“non-discrimination” clause), employment and “mainstreaming” of disability issues? See: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg05/soc-prot/disable/policies_en.htm • If relevant, are regulation and standardisation issues described?

21. Guide Proposals and Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criterion 3: Contribution to Community social objectives Quality of life and Health and Safety • Have you shown how the proposal will improve the quality of life, and health and safety for the target groups of users? Employment • Will the proposal improve general employment prospects and/or develop the skills of individuals? Preserving and/or enhancing the environment • Will the proposed project contribute to the EU policy relating to preserving and enhancing the environment and the minimum use or conservation of natural resources?

22. Guide Proposals and Evaluation Criteria Cont’d Part C of Proposal cont’d C5 Project management C6 Description of the consortium C7 Description of the participants C8 Economic development and scientific and technological prospects Evaluation Criteria 5 Resources, partnership and managment Evaluation Criteria 4 Economic development and S&T prospects

23. Guide Proposals and Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criterion 4: Economic development and S & T prospects Usefulness and range of applications, exploitations plans • Have you described a plan for (Europe-wide) exploitation beyond the end of the project? • Are partners genuinely committed to exploitation of the results - and capable of ensuring this exploitation ? • Can the results be exploited by others, beyond the partnership? Strategic impact • Will the proposed work improve competitiveness and/or create new markets? What is the size and value of the intended market? Dissemination strategies • How will the proposal contribute to Scientific & Technical progress? • How will the information be presented - and for which target groups?

24. Guide Proposals and Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criterion 5: Management and resources Quality of management and project approach • Have you described the management tools and coordination methods? Quality of partnership, involvement of users and other actors • Have you chosen partners with complementary expertise and roles? • Do you have industrial partners or others who can deliver the intended product or service to the users? Appropriateness of resources • Are the resources you request in balance with the objectives and tasks?

25. Guide Proposals and Evaluation Criteria CriteriaWeight(1)Threshold(2) Scientific/Technological Qualityand innovation 4>= 3 Community Added Valueand contribution to EU policy 1>= 2 Contribution to Comm. Social objectives 1- Economic Dev; S&T prospects(range of applications, exploitation, strategic impact, dissemination)2>= 3 Resources, Partnership, Management 2>= 2 1) Weight on a scale of 10 (sum 10) 2) Threshold with respect to score 0-5

26. Rules for participation • Normally (RTD): - at least 2 EU partners - or 1 EU + 1 Associated State • Under normal funding conditions/obligations • EU (+JRC) - From associated country • Self financing - conform with Community interests • Non-associated European and Mediterranean partner countries • Countries with S&T agreement • International organisations • Self financing - conform with Community interest& substantial added value for programme • other countries • Accompanying Measures and most Take-UP: • 1 Contractor (EU or Associated State) possible

27. Rules for participation cont’d Associated states • EEA: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway • EU candidate member states: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Rep, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia • Other: Israel • Not yet (15.02.2000) ratified Switzerland Before Association agreement is ratifiedparticipation is possible on self-financing basis.

28. Types of actions • Proposals for RTD, Demonstration and combined TRD/demonstration projects (Fixed deadline) • Proposals for Take-Up actions and Support Measures (fixed deadline) • Proposals for Support Measures (Continuous submission scheme) Note that rules for participation, guide for proposers, interpretation of Evaluation criteria-thresholds and weights and eligible costs are dependent on the type of action

29. Full cost, actual overhead(funded at 50 %) 1 Full cost, flat overhead rate(funded at 50 %). Under this model overheads are fixed at 80 % of the labour cost claimed. 2 Additional costs(funded at 100 %). This model is limited to those organisations whose accounting system is based on disbursals and not on costs (universities, governmental organisations, etc.) 3 Models of Funding - RTD • 3 funding models are available :

30. Eligible Cost categories - RTD • Personnel, • Durable equipment, • Consumables, • Travel and Subsistence, • Computing, • Subcontracting, • IPR protection, • Other specific costs, • Overheads, • Coordination costs

31. Final remarks • Evaluators evaluate what is written, they do not evaluate what can be read into the proposal • Evaluators look more for content than for style • Thresholds and weightings make that all elements of the proposal need to be of high quality • Ask somebody not involved in your proposal to critically evaluate the draft proposal • In order to help us, • please pre-register your proposal (no lather than 19 April 2000), • please submit the full proposal in good time and ensure all forms that need to be signed are signed, • ensure that budget figures add up.

32. Experiences from Previous Calls • Good management practice • Innovation • Exploitation • Key Messages

33. Good management practice • Projects should have critical mass, strategic impact and real economic value • Our target projects of 1.5 - 2.0 M€ • Projects should be manageable and all partners should have a clear role and a significant contribution • Our targets project of not more than 8 partners • In order to avoid cost on your and our side, only high quality proposals should be proposed. • Our targets: oversubscription not more than 4 times

34. KA1: Over-subscription ratio: 1st Call  

35. Statistics

36. KA1: The Meaning of Innovation • Innovation in proposals can be in the form of novel products, services orapplications • KA1 Focuses on innovativeapplications • Suchapplicationswill be based on innovative systems (e.g. new user- assistance systems for improving the access to government on-line services, monitoring of transport etc.) Work may involve: • Innovative integration of state-of-the-art IST systems and tools (e.g. UMTS, GNSS2, new software agents capable ofrecognising individuals and learning their specific needs and abilities over time) • May require research and development of dedicated IST components and tools (e.g. new sensors, interfaces)

37. KA1: The Meaning of Innovation…Part 2 • The application system to be developed is not yet on the market • The proposal doesn’t duplicate 4th FP or 5th FP (1st or 2nd call). • “Clear demonstration of novelty” should naturally include a comparison with the “state-of-the-art” ***We want a new system at the end of the Project***

38. KA1: Exploitation Planning • Fight the European paradox: Good research : no exploitation • Consortia composition is crucial. No profit driven industrialists means weak exploitation prospects • Exploitation potential should be Europe wide. In the past too many type partners didn’t care if the application was commercialised elsewhere: lost opportunity.

39. Key Messages • Innovation (see Workprogramme 2000, page 10) • ‘Users’ include public & private organisations • Exploitation and strong industrial participation • Mainly long-term & medium-term R&D projects