1 / 36

Overview

DYNSTOCH+ Workshop Preparing an Initial Training Network proposal in FP7 Solange Blaszkowski 7 June 2007. Overview. PART I: Preparing an Initial Training Network proposal in FP7 TASMAN: reviewing reviewers comments RTN in FP6 vs. ITN in FP7 ITN (calls, objectives, size, etc.)

aurelia-herrera
Download Presentation

Overview

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. DYNSTOCH+ WorkshopPreparing an Initial Training Network proposal in FP7Solange Blaszkowski7 June 2007

  2. Overview PART I: Preparing an Initial Training Network proposal in FP7 • TASMAN: reviewing reviewers comments • RTN in FP6 vs. ITN in FP7 • ITN (calls, objectives, size, etc.) PART II: Proposal evaluation Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  3. TASMAN: reviewing the reviewers comments Statistics: Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  4. TASMAN: reviewing the reviewers comments SCIENTIFIC QUALITY OF THE COLLABORATIVE PROJECT (Mark 4.1 // 1.0)* The objectives are well specified; in particular the issues of integration and overcoming of fragmentation are well described in the project. The joint program is of high scientific quality and well articulated; however, because of the diversity of the research goals, some of them may not be attainable. The methodology is largely appropriate and uses modern tools for the stochastic modeling of dynamical systems. The project goals are not completely original; nevertheless the methods stand at the forefront of modern stochastic modeling and demonstrate a sound knowledge of the state of the art. Strengths of the proposals: high scientific quality of the researchers and of the proposal; the size of the network is also especially appropriate to have a real research impact. Further positive aspects are the integration of different disciplines, and the state-of-the art methodology that is being envisaged. Weaknesses of the proposal: some goals might not be attainable because of diversity; the network should perhaps focus on fewer problems. This would also benefit the applied side which is currently not sufficiently emphasized. Overall comment: this is a very good project which addresses important and timely problems using state-of-the-art methods and tools. * Threshold 3,00/5,00 Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  5. TASMAN: reviewing the reviewers comments QUALITY OF THE TRAINING / TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE (ToK) ACTIVITIES (Mark 4.0 // 1.0)* The training program is well described and consistent with the research project. In particular the ratio between ESR and ER is appropriate. On the other hand the content of the ToK part is not sufficiently described. The training and ToK programme addresses very important and timely issues, although no specific instruments for industry-academia cooperation are indicated. The local and network-wide training / ToK activities are well covered and described. Although the standard methods and instruments that will be employed are traditional, the benefits to researchers are well described and elaborated. Strengths of the proposals: the structure of the training component and the plan for career development. Weaknesses of the proposal: the content of the ToK part, together with industry-academia cooperation, is not sufficiently described. Overall comment: the program promises to provide very good training for highly demanded young statisticians; however the content of the training/ToK requires further elaboration. * Threshold 3,00/5,00 Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  6. TASMAN: reviewing the reviewers comments Conclusions • Total score 4.1 too low in overall competition • Project Goals: too diverse and not original • Applications not sufficiently emphasized • Transfer of Knowledge not sufficiently described • no specific instruments for industry-academia cooperation are indicated • methods and instruments to be employed are traditional • content of the training/ToK requires further elaboration Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  7. Marie Curie in FP6 ToK RTN Reint. grants IRG Conf & Courses EST Reint. grants ERG Intern. fellows. OIF Chairs Teams Intern. fellows. IIF Intern. fellows. EIF Awards Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  8. Marie Curie in FP7 Industry-Academia ToK Initial Training RTN Reint. grants IRG Conf & Courses EST Internat. Dimension Chairs Reint. grants ERG Intern. fellows. OIF Specific Actions ERC’s Awards Intern. fellows. IIF Intern. fellows. EIF Teams Lifelong Training Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  9. CALLS Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  10. Initial Training Network (ITN) CALLS • Yearly calls for all mobility programs • 2 phases submission (outline + full proposal) Keep in mind that the outline must cover info of whole proposal! • First Call CLOSED! Deadline 7 May 07 (1st ph) and 25 Sep 07 (2nd ph), Budget = 240 ME   FP6/’05: RTN=220ME, EST=170, C&C=12.2 , Chairs=10 (412ME) • 2nd Call: Deadline: expected early 2008 (April - May) Budget: ? Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  11. ITN: The basics OBJECTIVE • Contribute to the structuring of existing high-quality initial research training capacity throughout Europe in both public and private sectors. It is about research TRAINING ! Industry very important in the consortium ! INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION • Full network partner: if appropriate to the network and taking into consideration the research discipline; • Provider of research training and complementary training including secondment • Members of the supervisory board of the network, which would be expected to define the skills requirements for the early-stage researchers. In the heavy competition, full network partner is stronger ! Strong OK Weak Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  12. ITN Size and budget of the network • Normally a network will be composed of at least three participants (multi-site networks). Manageable size would be in the range of 6 to 10 partners (based on past experience). Average budget is € 2,5 million for the typical multi-site network. Advise: keep it under the 10 partners … • Large networks may be important to provide training in e.g. fragmented fields of research having many smaller groups active in different locations. Must demonstrate a very high degree of organization. Budget of up to € 4,5 million for the largest multi-sites. or up to 12 if very well justified! • Mono-sites and twinnings are also possible under certain conditions… Budget will range from € 1,5 million for mono-sites and twinnings. … ITNs with less than three participants can also be considered, provided that the organisation(s) involved have well-established trans-national collaborations with other research institutes that can contribute to the research training programme without being formal (contractual) participant(s) in the ITN. Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  13. ITN Activities (1) • Training activities • Training of early stage researchers for up to 36 months (PhD) • Training of researchers in the period immediately after the PhD (experienced researchers), and limited to 24 months max. • Networking • Secondments • Management & Recruitment • “Visiting scientists” positions: for experienced researchers in both in public sector and enterprise partners. Typically multiple stays within the network, each with a duration of at least one month. • Training events may be offered (e.g. conferences, summer schools, etc.). Also to researchers from outside the netw. Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  14. ITN Activities (2) JOINT RESEARCH TRAINING PROGRAMME • Due attention should be paid to… • provision for supervision and mentoring arrangements and career guidance • exposing the researchers to other disciplines and sectors represented in the network through visits, secondments and other training events. PERSONAL CAREER DEVELOPMENT PLAN • Each researcher will establish, together with her/his personal supervisor in the host organisation, a Personal Career Development Plan comprising his/her training needs (including complementary skills) and scientific objectives and will later on report upon the success with which these objectives were met. Training program, specially training that is common to all students, should be detailed in the proposal ! Timeline for Personal Career Development Plan development important Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  15. Other • Consortium agreement: Participants are not required to conclude a consortium agreement, HOWEVER… Industry will require a consortium agreement. Be prepared to sign one! • Before start writing your proposal Read Guide for applicants (Chapter 2.4 Typical Activities of an ITN is a must!) Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  16. Important Docs • Guide for Applicants • Work Programme • Etc. • Marie Curie website: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/people/home_en.html Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  17. DYNSTOCH+ WorkshopProposal EvaluationSolange Blaszkowski7 June 2007

  18. Evaluation Process Briefing of independent experts Individual evaluation of proposals Consensus Panel Evaluation Evaluation Summary Reports Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  19. Selection of experts • Different procedure for different Priorities & Instruments • Minimum 3 Independent Experts per proposal • For IP’s and NoE’s: at least 5 Experts (up to 10+) • Marie Curie: 3-4 Experts per proposal • A search is made in database for experts in specific areas (keywords) according to expected proposals • “Politically” correct choice of reviewers • By the time the call is closed, reviewers are already selected: pre-registration/lobby is thus important! Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  20. Selection of experts: Marie Curie… Magnetic storage (harddisk)… CD, DVD, DVR, … NA = n sin  Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  21. Briefing Independent experts • Evaluation procedure public info: official guidelines for evaluators are part of the call documentation • Briefing can be done orally or in written • Briefing may influence the review in e.g comments like • “we would like to have as many as possible proposals” or • “area X must be fully covered” • Reviewers are requested to be as neutral as possible towards the proposers, country where they come from, etc., but… • Only what is actually written can be evaluated Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  22. Evaluation of proposals • In Brussels/Luxemburg or remotely • IST: mainly in Brussels. FET-Open is remote • Marie Curie: remote • Life Sciences: remote • In average 1 hour (up to 2 hours max.) per proposal • IST/IP: 6-8 proposals of ca. 120-150 pages each per day • MC: 1 week, ca. 10 proposals • Evaluation criteria: • common criteria (S&T excellence, management, mobilization of resources, relevance to the objective of the call, European added value, dissemination/exploitation) • specific criteria for different priorities/instruments per call (integration of activities, training, transfer of knowledge, etc.) Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  23. Evaluation: In Brussels… (e.g. IST) Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  24. Evaluation: remote… (e.g. MC) Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  25. Evaluation: how many proposals? Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  26. Evaluation Criteria: example Marie Curie EST      score score gender balance Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  27. Evaluation Criteria Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  28. Evaluation Criteria: example Marie Curie EST Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  29. Evaluation Criteria: example Marie Curie EST score score gender balance  Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  30. Evaluation Criteria ITN (1/2)(Guide for Applicants for Marie Curie Initial Training Networks, P40) Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  31. Evaluation Criteria ITN (2/2) (Guide for Applicants for Marie Curie Initial Training Networks, P40) Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  32. ITN Evaluation Criteria (Weighting and Thresholds) Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  33. Good summary and B1 ? The rest is easier… Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  34. Consensus • Brussels: consensus meeting can be called up few times during the day • Remote evaluation: • through the e-mail if scores of different reviewers is similar • Physical meeting (in Brussels) if large differences exist • After remote evaluation, reviewers are requested to discard the proposal. Few weeks (a month) latter, they meet in Brussels for consensus meeting • At consensus meeting of remote evaluation, reviewers do not have the proposals anymore. The only instrument they have to justify their remarks and scores is the summary. Summary has to be excellent! Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  35. Conclusions: How to Write your proposal • Start with a few A4’s outline with your project idea: • societal needs, objective, innovation, partners, etc. • Keep in mind the objectives of the call • Approach the EU project officers: • Check Commission’s “Hidden Agenda” • Check content, consortium, instrument, etc. • Help selecting the right reviewers • When writing the proposal, keep an eye in the evaluation criteria • Use an easy to understand language (as such that you can talk to your neighbours about) • Make sure your summary is the best part of the proposal Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

  36. Conclusions: How to Write your proposal • Tell a nice story (like a romance) specially in Chapter B1 – S&T • Make use of all graphic tools available like figures, tables, diagrams, bullets, text boxes, etc. (no colours!) • Check readability: copy of the copy (recycling paper)! • Ask advise to National Contact Point about your draft proposal • Be a reviewer yourself: call for experts at https://cordis.europa.eu/emmfp7/ Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

More Related