1 / 40

Framework Programme 7 Overview

Framework Programme 7 Overview. Marko Grobelnik Jozef Stefan Institute (adapted presentation from EC + some slides of my own) WYS-CEC Workshop, Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, 16 Feb 2007. Overview. Framework Programme, Specific Programmes. Work Programme. “Rules and

malaya
Download Presentation

Framework Programme 7 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. Framework Programme 7Overview Marko Grobelnik Jozef Stefan Institute (adapted presentation from EC + some slides of my own) WYS-CEC Workshop, Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, 16 Feb 2007

  2. Overview Framework Programme, Specific Programmes Work Programme “Rules and Funding Schemes” Calls Proposal Writing Evaluation of proposals Context

  3. R&D Expenditureas % of GDP • Other regions spend more on R&D than Europe • Large differences within Europe Source: Eurostat http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-NS-05-002/EN/KS-NS-05-002-EN.PDF

  4. ICT R&D expenditure by industry • EU’s R&D by businesses • Top 50 spenders in the world Source: Financial Times, 21 March 2005

  5. Europe is spending less than other regions in ICT R&D Public ICT Spending is Fragmented across Europe  Framework Programmes ICT ICT R&D expenditure Comparative spending on ICT R&D in 2000 (Billion Euro) Annual ICT R&D Expenditure (% GDP) Japan United States European Union Finland Sweden The Netherlands Spain United Kingdom Germany France 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2%

  6. Budgets of the EU Framework Programmes (1984-2013) NB: Budgets in current prices Source: Annual Report 2003, plus FP7 revised proposal

  7. Overview Framework Programme, Specific Programmes Work Programme “Rules and Funding Schemes” Calls Proposal Writing Evaluation of proposals Context

  8. 7th Framework Programme (2007-2013) COOPERATION 1. Health 2. Food, Agriculture Biotechnology 3. ICT 4. Nano, Materials, Production Techn. 5. Energy 6. Environment 7. Transport 8. Socio-economic Research 9. Security & Space € 32 B IDEAS European Research Council € 7.5 B PEOPLE Marie Curie Actions € 4.7 B CAPACITIES ResearchInfrastruc-tures Research for the benefit of SMEs Regions of Know-ledge Research Potential Science in Society InternationalCo-operation € 4.2 B http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/

  9. FP7 2007-2013 ‘Cooperation’ budget Budget (€ million, I. Cooperation current prices) 1. Health 6 100 2. Food, agriculture and biotechnology 1 935 3. Information and communication technologies 9 050 4. Nanotechnologies, materials and 3 475 production 5. Energy 2 350 6. Environment 1 890 7. Transport 4 160 8. Socio - economic research 623 9. Security and space 2 830 Total 32 413 * * Not including non-nuclear activities of the Joint Research Centre: €1 751 million

  10. Ideas – Frontier Research • Key driver to innovation and economic performance • European Research Council (ERC) • Autonomous scientific governance (Scientific Council) • Support investigator-driven frontier research over all areas of research • Support projects of individual teams • Excellence as sole criterion • European added-value through competition at European level • Budget ~ €1bn p.a. (2007-2013 ~ €7.46)

  11. People – Marie Curie Actions • Initial training of researchers • Marie Curie Networks • Life-long training and career development • Individual Fellowships • Co-financing of regional/national/international programmes • Industry-academia pathways and partnerships • Industry-Academia Knowledge–sharing Scheme* • International dimension • Outgoing & Incoming International Fellowships • International Cooperation Scheme • Reintegration grants; • Support to researcher ‘diasporas’ • Specific actions • Mobility and career enhancement actions • Excellence awards

  12. Capacities – Research Capacity • Research infrastructures • Research for the benefit of SMEs • Regions of Knowledge • Research Potential • Science in Society • Coherent development of policies • Activities of International Cooperation

  13. Overview Framework Programme, Specific Programmes Work Programme “Rules and Funding Schemes” Calls Proposal Writing Evaluation of proposals Context

  14. Terminology changes

  15. ICT Types of projects – instruments 5 “instruments” • Collaborative Projects • Small or medium scale focused research actions (“STREP”) • Large Scale Integrating Projects (“IP”) • Networks of Excellence (“NoE”) • Coordination and Support Actions • Coordinating or networking actions (“CA”) • Support Actions (“SSA”)

  16. Classification of the instruments

  17. Collaborative Projects –Focused projects (STREP) Experience of STREPs in FP6 • Purpose: Objective driven research more limited in scope than an IP • Target audience: Industry incl. SMEs, research institutes, universities • Typical duration: 18-36 months • Optimum consortium: 6-15 participants • Total EU contribution: €0.8 - 3 m (average €1.9m) • Fixed workplan and fixed partnership for duration

  18. Networks of excellence (NoE) Experience of NoEs in FP6 • Purpose: Durable integration of participants’ research activities • Target audience: research institutions, universities, mainly indirectly: industry – trough governing boards etc • Typical duration: 48-60 months (but indefinite integration!) • Optimum consortium: 6-12 participants • Total EU contribution: €4-15m (average around €7m) • Flexibility in implementation: • Update of workplan • Possibility to add participants through competitive calls

  19. Coordination or Networking actions (CA) Experience of CAs in FP6 • Purpose: Co-ordination of several research activities • Target Audience: Research institutions, universities, industry incl. SMEs • Typical duration: 18-36 months • Optimum consortium: 13-26 participants • Total EU contribution: €0.5-1.8m (average €1m) • Fixed overall workplan and partnership for the duration

  20. Collaborative Projects –Integrating Projects (IP) Experience of IPs in FP6 • Purpose: Ambitious objective driven research with a ‘programme approach’ • Target audience: Industry (incl. SMEs), research institutions, universities, and end-users • Typical duration: 36-60 months • Optimum consortium: 10-20 participants • Total EU contribution: €4-25m (average €10m) • Flexibility in implementation: • Update of workplan • Possibility for competitive calls for enlargement of consortium

  21. Support actions Experience of SSAs in FP6 • Purpose: Support to programme implementation, preparation of future actions, dissemination of results • Target audience: Research organisations, universities, industry incl. SMEs • Typical duration: 9-30 months • Optimum consortium: 1-15 participants • Total EU contribution: €0.03-1m (average €0.5m) • Fixed overall workplan and partnership for the duration

  22. Overview Framework Programme, Specific Programmes Work Programme “Rules and Funding Schemes” Calls Proposal Writing Evaluation of proposals Context

  23. Cooperation Calls22 December 2006 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm

  24. IDEAS Calls22 December 2006 Starting Independent Researcher Grant: € 290 M, 25 April (17 Sept) IDEAS European Research Council PEOPLE Marie Curie Actions CAPACITIES ResearchInfrastruc-tures Research for the benefit of SMEs Regions of Know-ledge Research Potential Science in Society InternationalCo-operation http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm

  25. People Calls22 December 2006 Initial Training Networks: € 240 M, 7 May (25 Sept) European Reintegration Grants: € 9.5 M, 25 April (17 Oct) International Reintegration Grants: € 14.5 M, 25 April (17 Oct) Researchers' night: € 3 M, 3 April Marie Curie Awards: € 0.25 M, 26 April IDEAS European Research Council PEOPLE Marie Curie Actions CAPACITIES ResearchInfrastruc-tures Research for the benefit of SMEs Regions of Know-ledge Research Potential Science in Society InternationalCo-operation http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm

  26. Capacities Calls22 December 2006 Research Infrastructures: € 164 M, 2 May Research for SMEs: € 100 M, 4 Sept Research for SME Associations: € 10 M, 1 June (28 Nov) Coordination and Support Actions: € 2 M, 10 May CAPACITIES ResearchInfrastruc-tures Research for the benefit of SMEs Regions of Know-ledge Research Potential Science in Society InternationalCo-operation Analysis and integration of research actors: € 8.8 M, 24 April Facilitating emergence of new clusters: € 0.8 M, 24 April Trans-national co-operation among NCPs: € 0.4 M, 24 April http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm

  27. Capacities Calls22 December 2006 Activities of International Cooperation INCO-NET: € 17 M, 2 May Trans-national co-operation among NCPs: € 0.37 M, 2 May Science in Society: € 22 M, 23 May CAPACITIES ResearchInfrastruc-tures Research for the benefit of SMEs Regions of Know-ledge Research Potential Science in Society InternationalCo-operation Unlocking and developing the research potential in the EU´s convergence regions and outermost regions: € 23.5 M, 24 April Providing evaluation facilities for research organisation in the EU´s convergence regions and outermost regions: € 1 M, 24 April International Co-operation: € 8 M, 24 April Trans-national co-operation among NCPs: € 0.5 M, 24 April Unlocking and developing the research potential in the EU´s convergence regions and outermost regions: € 23.5 M, 24 April http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm

  28. Overview Framework Programme, Specific Programmes Work Programme “Rules and Funding Schemes” Calls Proposal Writing Evaluation of proposals Context

  29. Proposal Submission and evaluation in FP7 Eligibility Individual evaluation Security Scrutiny (if needed) Consensus Thresholds Applicants informed of results of expert evaluation* Panel review with hearing (optional) Ethical Review (if needed) Commission ranking • invitation to submit second-stage • proposal, when applicable Negotiation Commission rejection decision Consultation of programme committee (if required) Applicants informed of Commission decision Commission funding and/or rejection decision

  30. ICT Evaluation criteria scoring • Scale of 1-5 (and 0) • Criterion threshold 3/5 • Overall threshold 10/15 • Post-evaluation review for any selected proposals which have ethical issues

  31. FP7 has three main evaluation criteria • 1. Scientific and technical quality • Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives • 2. Implementation • Appropriateness of the management • Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants • 3. Impact • Contribution at the European or international level to the expected impacts listed in the workprogramme under the relevant activity

  32. Proposal preparation

  33. What helps when preparing proposal? • Clear vision created and led by a small number of people – core group (no anarchy!) • To have direct connection and regular communication with responsible Brussels officers (to ask them about all the details) • …officers are usually friendly and responsive, but one needs to contact them • Protocol: weekly phone conferences, monthly physical meetings, one or two check with officers • Clear commitmentsand responsibilities (constant contact between the partners) • Efficient communication between project partners • …long and ineffective communication can make partners tired and uninterested

  34. Problems (1) • No vision (vision is just “we want that project” or “we want money from EU”) • Project idea has no potential (it is interesting just for the proposer) • Academics would like to do just basic science and consider industrial partners as nuisance • Industrial partners would like to get easy money to develop their product (having almost no research component) • Project partners are friends instead of partners (...if you don’t take him, he/she is offended, if you take him the project gets worse)

  35. Problems (2) • Coordination of proposal preparation is to anarchic (everybody is able to push his own idea, coordinator has no authority or not enough knowledge) • Forgetting small things: gender balance, having SMEs (large companies like to forget about a small fish), EU contribution, ... • Ignoring criteria for project evaluation • Waiting with the proposal writing till the last moment before the submission (...project preparation becomes collecting of text pieces in panic and putting them together).

  36. Problems (3) • Final consistency check need – evaluators notice inconsistencies and imbalances very fast • …this is evaluator’s main tool to find difficulties • Proposal writing doesn’t take into account that evaluators are usually just well informed technicians and not experts for that particular area • …use clear and common language whenever possible • Proposal message is spread around the proposal document and concentrated at one clearly designated place

  37. Problems (4) • When preparing proposal be aware of the conditions how the proposal will be evaluated: • …evaluators have just a few hours per proposal • …all the proposals seem to evaluators after couple of days very similar to each other – small things decide • …if you pre-communicated with the Commission officers, the officer at the consensus meeting can be your proposal’s ally • …you can be unlucky with the selection of the evaluators: • they can be either too academic or to technical or too tired or too negative or too perfectionist, … • ...try to put into the proposal some cookies for each one of those psychological profiles

  38. Problems (5)...being late just for a couple of hours or minutes Dear partners,after busy weeks working on the XXX proposal and with some of youin parallel on the YYY proposal I have to admit that I haveunderestimated the work and organisational efforts.At the end we missed the deadline only by some hours after working also the last night very hard without stop.I take the responsibility for the bad situation.Many thanks to you all for your engagement especially ... We have become a good team and I hope this will enable us to use theproposal for the next call ...

  39. To conclude … Calls for Proposals in 2007

  40. EU research: http://ec.europa.eu/research Seventh Framework Programme: http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7 Information on research programmes and projects: http://cordis.europa.eu/ RTD info magazine: http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo/ Information requests: http://ec.europa.eu/research/enquiries/ Email: <first name>.<last name>@ec.europa.eu Information

More Related