1 / 23

Proposal evaluation process in FP7

Proposal evaluation process in FP7. Moldova – Research Horizon 29 January 2013 Kristin Kraav. Evaluation process. Individual evaluation. Panel meeting. Consensus meetings. Commission pre-actions. Commission Follow-up. Commission pre-actions. Individual evaluation. Panel

raziya
Download Presentation

Proposal evaluation process in FP7

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Proposal evaluation process in FP7 Moldova – Research Horizon 29 January 2013 Kristin Kraav

  2. Evaluation process Individual evaluation Panel meeting Consensus meetings Commission pre-actions Commission Follow-up

  3. Commission pre-actions Individual evaluation Panel meeting Consensus meetings Commission pre-actions Commission Follow-up

  4. Commission pre-actions • Appointment of call coordinator and coordinators for the topics • Selection of the independent experts for the Call • FP7 experts database (https://cordis.europa.eu/emmfp7) • personal head-hunt • Proposals eligibility check • eligibility criteriamaybe budget, number of partners, duration … • Formation of the expert panels for each topic of the call • Assignment of proposals to chosen experts

  5. Individual assessment Individual evaluation Panel meeting Consensus meetings Commission pre-actions Commission Follow-up

  6. Individual assessment • Remote evaluation period ~4-6 weeks • Everything happens in online system RIVET • experts can access only assigned proposals • Max 10 proposals per expert, min 3 experts per proposal • Experts have to make their decisions based on: • proposal • Callbackground documents • evaluation criteria • Result – Individual Assessment Report • experts personal opinion • basis for the discussions in the next stage

  7. The evaluation criteria • Three evaluation criteria (Cooperation and Capacities – People and Ideas differ significantly): • Scientific and/or Technological excellence • Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management • The potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results

  8. Scoring the proposals • Each proposal is evaluated against all criteria and scored between 0 and 5 • Threshold per criteria – 3 • Overall threshold per proposal – 10 • This means – if any of the criteria under 3 points or the total scoring of the proposal under 10 points, the proposal will be placed to the list of rejected proposals for reason  under the threshold

  9. Interpretation of the scores • 0 – The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information. • 1 – Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses. • 2 – Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses. • 3 – Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary. • 4 – Very good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible. • 5 – Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.

  10. Consensus meetings Individual evaluation Panel meeting Consensus meetings Commission pre-actions Commission Follow-up

  11. Panel of experts

  12. Consensus meetings • 1 week for face-to-face meetings, 12 hour per day • Consensus meeting • 1.5 hour meeting per proposal gathering all experts who evaluated it, moderated by EC staff-member • basically restart of evaluation • has to end withconsensus on scores and comments for each of the criteria → Consensus Report • On the bases of discussions rapporteur (one of the evaluators) drafts the first version of Consensus Report

  13. Consensus meetings → ESR • First draft of CR turns into Evaluation Summary Reportthrough: • co-operation of all experts involved • comments from Call coordinator and topic coordinator • help of language editor • ~4-5 day parallel process for all proposals submitted under the topic • If the CM does not end with consensus: • additional experts from the panel will evaluate it • new CM is called • If still no consensus → total restart of the process with new panel of experts

  14. Panel meeting Individual evaluation Panel meeting Consensus meetings Commission pre-actions Commission Follow-up

  15. Panel meeting → proposed ranking list • Drawing up the ranking list of the topic • Comparison of scores and ESR • Final marks and comments for each proposal • Suggestions on order of priority, clustering, amendments, etc. • Simple process if the ranking is clear • Tricky process if many proposals have equal score and all of them can not be funded • Priority order ofcriteriaincaseofequalscores • If all scores equal, experts have to decide which score is stronger and support it with relevant arguments

  16. Commission follow-up Individual evaluation Panel meeting Consensus meetings Commission pre-actions Commission Follow-up

  17. Commission follow-up • Draw up final ranking lists • decisions on proposals selected for funding • decisions on rejected proposals • Information and data to the Programme Committee • PC formal agreement needed for financing proposals with budget over 600 000€ • Independent Observers’ report • Invitation to Contract Negotiation and Evaluation Summary Reports sent to coordinators • Contract negotiations

  18. Evaluation process Individual evaluation Panel meeting Consensus meetings Commission pre-actions Commission Follow-up

  19. Evaluation process – lessons learned Individual evaluation Panel meeting Consensus meetings Commission pre-actions Commission Follow-up

  20. Process of evaluation • Evaluationis a deconstruction of proposals • Comparison of different elements of proposal against each other • overall aim → steps to achieve it (activities) → expertise (partners) for managing the process → allocatedresources • Everything should be written as clearly and shortly as possible – still all required parts of Part B have to be there • “A picture is worth more than 100 words” – tables, graphs, schemes help immensely • Do not expect evaluators to assume things

  21. Remember: • Evaluators are humans , they • come from different professional and ethnical backgrounds; • have different beliefs of right and wrong; • speak different languages; • usually are under time pressure • Respect the evaluators: • follow the structure • edit your proposal to eliminate typos and other mistakes • make the proposal legible: font and font size, structured text, test that all graphics can be read in b&w

  22. Conclusions • Fit to the call : read carefully the call topic • Be outstanding on the Scientific and Technology point of view but do not underscore the other criteria • Be credible • Demonstrate an EU added value • Respect the rules : read the Work Programme and GuideforApplicants

More Related