1 / 30

Structure

Structure. Evaluation steps & how to submit a proposal? - Observations & Most common weak points From paper to electronic submission How to register as an expert in CORDIS? Expert registration in CORDIS. Evaluations. On site evaluation (Brussels) 1 week for coal 4 weeks for steel

wanda-ortiz
Download Presentation

Structure

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. Structure • Evaluation steps & how to submit a proposal? • - Observations & Most common weak points • From paper to electronic submission • How to register as an expert in CORDIS? • Expert registration in CORDIS

  2. Evaluations • On site evaluation (Brussels) • 1 week for coal • 4 weeks for steel • Around 25 to 30 Experts per week + 1 observer • Requirement for experts selection • Expertise & Competences • No conflict of interest • Ca. 50% renewal • Max. 3 consecutive participations • Geographical origins • Gender balance

  3. Eligibility and selection criteria Eligibility - Length and format Selection - R&D projects  5 criteria - Dissemination projects  4 criteria Scoring - For each criteria from 0 to 5 - If annual priority, then 1 bonus point 0=Fails or incomplete 1=Poor 2=Fair 3=Good 4=Very good 5=Excellent BONUS

  4. Research, Pilot&Demonstration projects 5 criteria scored 0 to 5 • Scientific and technical approach • Threshold : if mark < 3, proposal is rejected • 2. Innovative content • Threshold: if mark < 3, proposal is rejected • 3. Consistency of resources and quality of partnership • 4. Industrial interest, scientific/technical prospects • 5. Community added value, contribution to EU-Policies + 1 point if proposal addresses at least one of the annual priorities

  5. Evaluation in 3 steps Each proposal is read and evaluated independently by 3 evaluators

  6. Each proposal is read and evaluated independently by 3 evaluators A meeting is convened by a Commission officer Evaluation in 3 steps

  7. Evaluation in 3 steps Each proposal is read and evaluated independently by 3 evaluators A meeting is convened by a Commission officer with the 3 evaluators Outcome is summarised in a consensus report

  8. Successful consensus report • Agreed text reflecting the experts’ common assessment • No horse trading • Share views and reach agreement • Score according to the common text The final score should reflect the agreed text !

  9. Structure • Observations & Most common weak points

  10. Observation: Rejection of applications • Eligibility Criteria • Length of proposal • Section A0 and A1 – maximum 5 pages • Section A2 – maximum 10 pages • Section A3 – maximum 2 pages • Respect of format • No additional documents in whatever format • if applicable:Resubmitted proposals - mandatory information • Last evaluation report • Summary of changes made

  11. Most common weak points !! State of the art done prior to submission !! • Criterion 1 (Scientific & technical approach) • State-of-the-art • Poorly described – position at European & worldwide level • Existing patents not taken into account or referenced • No prioritisation of reference list (Form A1) • Feasibility • Poor description/lack of vision on development & validation stages • Methods & Techniques, Approach • Experimental activities: link/integration & global objectives unclear • Excessive modelisation & simulation on unvalidated concepts “Threshold” CRITERION

  12. Most common weak points • Criterion 2 (Innovative content) • Real innovative aspects remain unclear • Incremental research & added value • Perspective of a wider & general use of expected results: poorly described “Threshold” CRITERION

  13. Most common weak points • Criterion 3 (Consistency of resources/quality of partnership) • Project scheduling • - Coherence of flow of tasks • - Timing: either lax, either ambitious • Partnerships • - Industrial partners: often only pointed/specific contributions • - Universities: implication in industrial & economic project parts • - Plethoric & redundant partnerships • - « Sleeping » partners without real contribution • - (Real) Participation of industrial partners • Workplan • - Deliverables • Who is responsible for what? • Definition • - (Clear) Overall WP flow diagram is helpful

  14. Most common weak points • Criterion 4 & 5 (Industrial interest & Community added value/policies) • Lack of knowledge of market deployment • Evaluation of impact on competitiveness: poor or inexistant • Quantitative assessment of economic impact: poor or inexistant • Publication strategy (communication, seminars/workshops, website,…): poor

  15. Some remarks & advice • Strong competition • High quality level of proposals • Long process: start early with experienced partners! • Descriptions should be short & concise • Test your application by ‘neutral’ proof-readers • Make use of the RFCS projects synopsis • Enrol as an expert (Evaluator) • Typical projects: • - Focused industrial subjects, almost problem solving • - Dedicated and manageable consortium (5/8 partners) • - Average funding ~ 0.8 – 1.2 M€

  16. Proposals: conclusions • Make use of the RFCS projects synopsis • High quality level of proposals • Long process: start early with experienced partners! • Descriptions should be explicit, short and concise • Test your application by ‘neutral’ proof-readers • Enrol as an expert for evaluations • Typical projects: • Focused industrial subjects, almost problem solving • Dedicated and manageable consortium (5/8 partners) • Average funding ~ 1.2 – 1.8 M€

  17. Structure • From paper to electronic submission

  18. Electronic Proposal Submission Service (EPSS) From paper to electronic system – advantage? - No handling of “heavy” proposals (printing and posting) - Faster reactivity (modifications in proposal before deadline) - It is always clear that the proposal was on time Overall positive comments from trial Oct.-Nov. 2010 – 40 registered coordinators – 11 countries – major BEN of RFCS The system easy to use, with clear and understandable menu No paper copies by mail/courier No unnecessary printing of files Coordinator role is maintained (page counting, completeness, format compliance, etc.)

  19. EPSS looks like this…

  20. How EPSS works ? Administration Only Form that partners can modify: partner details

  21. Structure • How to register as an expert in CORDIS? • Expert registration in CORDIS

  22. Expert Registration (1/6) • 1 dedicated platform: CORDIS • For both FP and RFCS • Simple process • Provide detailed information • In English Demonstration: REGISTER AS AN EXPERT https://cordis.europa.eu/emmfp7/index.cfm

  23. Expert Registration (2/6) - Register - New Expert

  24. Expert Registration (3/6) • Name • Birth date • Email • Password

  25. Expert Registration (4/6) • Account created • Click “Continue”

  26. Expert Registration (5/6) • IMPORTANT • Select • FP7 Expert • AND • Non-FP expert

  27. Expert Registration (6/6) • Fill in: • Personal details • Linguistic skills • Activities & Keywords • Educational background • Experience • Employment history • Interests • Publications

  28. RFCS Weblinks • RFCS website: • - http://cordis.europa.eu/coal-steel-rtd/ • Information Package • - http://cordis.europa.eu/coal-steel-rtd/infopack_en.html • Latest published technical reports: • - http://bookshop.europa.eu/ • - http://cordis.europa.eu/library/ • Synopsis of ongoing RFCS projects: • - http://cordis.europa.eu/coal-steel-rtd/synopsis_en.html

More Related