SPOTKANIE INFORMACYJNE
Download
1 / 14

- PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 78 Views
  • Uploaded on

SPOTKANIE INFORMACYJNE FUNDUSZU BADAWCZEGO WĘGLA I STALI Katowice, 21 luty 2013r. Doświadczenia z oceny wniosków w Komisji UE Główny Instytut Górnictwa – mgr inż. Jacek Skiba. SPOTKANIE INFORMACYJNE FUNDUSZU BADAWCZEGO WĘGLA I STALI Katowice, 21 luty 2013r.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - madison


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Do wiadczenia z oceny wniosk w w komisji ue

SPOTKANIE INFORMACYJNE

FUNDUSZU BADAWCZEGO WĘGLA I STALI

Katowice, 21 luty 2013r.

Doświadczenia z oceny wniosków w Komisji UE

Główny Instytut Górnictwa – mgr inż. Jacek Skiba


Do wiadczenia z oceny wniosk w w komisji ue

SPOTKANIE INFORMACYJNE

FUNDUSZU BADAWCZEGO WĘGLA I STALI

Katowice, 21 luty 2013r

Total of the 5 criteria (maximum 25)

Criterion (each scored 0 to 5)*

If the proposal addresses an annual priority,

please add 1 point

TOTAL SCORE (maximum 26)


Do wiadczenia z oceny wniosk w w komisji ue

SPOTKANIE INFORMACYJNE

FUNDUSZU BADAWCZEGO WĘGLA I STALI

Katowice, 21 luty 2013r


Do wiadczenia z oceny wniosk w w komisji ue

SPOTKANIE INFORMACYJNE

FUNDUSZU BADAWCZEGO WĘGLA I STALI

Katowice, 21 luty 2013r

Criterion 1. Scientific and technical approach

(there is an eliminating threshold for this criterion)

1.1Does the proposal address the scientific and technological issues of the RFCS Programme objectives?

1.2To what extent do the applicants demonstrate their knowledge of the international state-of-the-art of related work (adequate documentary evidence, including results of current or completed RTD projects)?

Failure to provide the reference of previous projects of major relevance to the objectives of the proposal may result in the rejection of the proposal.


Do wiadczenia z oceny wniosk w w komisji ue

SPOTKANIE INFORMACYJNE

FUNDUSZU BADAWCZEGO WĘGLA I STALI

Katowice, 21 luty 2013r.

1.3Is the feasibility of the proposed work convincingly addressed?

1.4Are the proposed methods and techniques clearly described and well explained? Is the overall approach suitable for achieving the project objectives?

Criterion mark (0 to 5)*


Do wiadczenia z oceny wniosk w w komisji ue

SPOTKANIE INFORMACYJNE

FUNDUSZU BADAWCZEGO WĘGLA I STALI

Katowice, 21 luty 2013r

Criterion 2. Innovative content

(there is an eliminating threshold for this criterion)

2.1Please summarise the innovative aspects of the proposal.

2.2Does the proposal have an appropriate level of innovative value / originality?

i.e. does it indicate how the intended results could lead to progress beyond

the state-of-the-art, be it of incremental or breakthrough nature, through eitherthe development of new or improved products, processes or technologiesa significant progress in the existing knowledge or technologies?


Do wiadczenia z oceny wniosk w w komisji ue

SPOTKANIE INFORMACYJNE

FUNDUSZU BADAWCZEGO WĘGLA I STALI

Katowice, 21 luty 2013r.

2.3 Does the proposal clearly describe its innovative aspects ?

2.4Please assess the span of the expected findings: Do these offer the perspective of a wider and general use or are their innovative value of restricted use for a specific application and/or product?

Criterion mark (0 to 5)*


Do wiadczenia z oceny wniosk w w komisji ue

SPOTKANIE INFORMACYJNE

FUNDUSZU BADAWCZEGO WĘGLA I STALI

Katowice, 21 luty 2013r.

Criterion 3. Consistency of resources and quality

of the partnership

3.1 Is the work plan adequate? Is it clearly described & well defined?

Are the scheduled tasks responding to the set objectives?

To what extent are the manpower, technical and financial resources appropriate

for the tasks described in the different Work Packages?

3.2Do the partners fulfil complementary tasks without duplication of work?

3.3Is the partnership appropriate to achieve the expected results? To what extent are the profiles and the skills of the partners complementary?


Do wiadczenia z oceny wniosk w w komisji ue

SPOTKANIE INFORMACYJNE

FUNDUSZU BADAWCZEGO WĘGLA I STALI

Katowice, 21 luty 2013r.

3.4 Do bar charts clearly show partner/task inter-dependencies?

Is the project scheduling realistic and adequate?

3.5If applicable: Is the need to organise a workshop within the proposed research work

clearly identified? Is the estimated cost realistic?

Criterion mark (0 to 5)*


Do wiadczenia z oceny wniosk w w komisji ue

SPOTKANIE INFORMACYJNE

FUNDUSZU BADAWCZEGO WĘGLA I STALI

Katowice, 21 luty 2013r.

Criterion 4 Industrial interest and scientific/

technical prospects

4.1 What are the industrial benefits for the related sector?

Are the main project deliverables in terms of industrial interest, scientific/technical prospect and strategic relevance clearly identified?

4.2What impact will the expected project results have on the competitiveness of the related sector? Is this clearly explained?

4.3Are issues on the use and/or implementation of the results addressed and credible?

Do these include modelling, simulation and/or field testing?

Are aspects of dissemination and/or standardisation (if applicable) convincingly addressed?


Do wiadczenia z oceny wniosk w w komisji ue

SPOTKANIE INFORMACYJNE

FUNDUSZU BADAWCZEGO WĘGLA I STALI

Katowice, 21 luty 2013r.

4.4 Does the proposal include relevant industrial participation?

Criterion mark (0 to 5)*


Do wiadczenia z oceny wniosk w w komisji ue

SPOTKANIE INFORMACYJNE

FUNDUSZU BADAWCZEGO WĘGLA I STALI

Katowice, 21 luty 2013r.

Criterion 5. Added value for the European Union

and contribution to EU Policies

5.1 Is there a clear need and clear benefit to carry out the project at European level instead of at national or private level?

5.2Does the proposal show strategic importance to the related sector?

Will the expected results be transferable throughout the European coal or steel industry?

5.3Will the expected project results have a positive impact on occupational health and safety in and around the workplace?


Do wiadczenia z oceny wniosk w w komisji ue

SPOTKANIE INFORMACYJNE

FUNDUSZU BADAWCZEGO WĘGLA I STALI

Katowice, 21 luty 2013r.

5.4 How might the project impact the preservation of natural resources, energy and the environment?

Criterion mark (0 to 5)*


Do wiadczenia z oceny wniosk w w komisji ue

Dziękuję za Państwa uwagę…

Jacek Skiba

Zakład Zwalczania Zagrożeń Gazowych KD-1

GIG, Kopalnia Doświadczalna „Barbara”

ul. Podleska 72, Mikołów

jskiba@gig.eu

SPOTKANIE INFORMACYJNE

FUNDUSZU BADAWCZEGO WĘGLA I STALI

Katowice, 21 luty 2013r.