Transcript Diapositiva 1

How to write a competitive proposal
for FP7 Health/Cooperation?
Barbara Rebecchi
Ufficio Ricerca e Relazioni Internazionali
Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia
Cooperation
Cooperation is the core strand of FP7 Programme.
The Cooperation programme benefits from two thirds of the FP7 budget.
This program promotes collaborative research in Europe and other countries
between partners through transnational projects consortia
between industry and academia. It addresses the following ten major themes:
Cooperation
Health
Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Biotechnology
Information & communication technologies
Nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials&new production
Energy
Environment (including Climate Changes)
Transport (including aeronautics)
Socio-economic sciences and the Humanities
Space
Security
Health 2007-2013
The evaluation
3 simple criteria (0-5):
1. Scientific and/or technological excellence
(relevant to the topics addressed by the call)
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the
management
3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and
use of project results
The evalutaion
1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevance
to the topics addressed by the call)
The most important criteria
Demonstrate the knowledge of the state of the art
Why it is innovative?
The proposal must be relevant to the call
workflow, risk analysis & contingency plan
The evaluation: positive remarks
1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant
to the topics addressed by the call)
Concepts and the objectives are very sound. It is demonstrated that a [...]
does not exist. It will bring a valuable contribution to the [...], an area not
yet well understood.
The innovation value of this research and the proposed concepts and
objectives is high. Moreover, it is commendable that the project intends to
build on previous knowledge.
The methodology and related work plan are detailed and well defined.
The evaluation: negative remarks
1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant
to the topics addressed by the call)
The overall structure of the project is not clear enough and very
traditional
The actual content of different WPs are not very precise and many
things remain open
The plan is professionally written in an academic sense and
includes good literature review. However, the proposal lacks user
aspects
The evaluation
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the
management
A resonable distribution of effort & budget
Importance of the reputation of the coordinator
It must be very clear Who does what (e.g. he/she
represents excellence in that field - past projects
approved)
The evaluation: positive remark
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and
the management
Individual participants from 8 different countries (members and
associated members) are qualified and experienced in their
respective area of expertise and resources are appropriately
allocated.
The consortium represents all the relevant areas: academic, SME,
airport, training developers, companies with extensive expertise in
social & behaviour sciences, aviation and aviation security.
The coordination institution is well respected.
The evaluation: negative remarks
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation
and the management
The consortium covers a range of relevant fields of expertise,
but there is not much specific and practical expertise.
Academic and more pragmatical science expertise is not
enough balanced.
The consortium is not large, including 6 European participants.
The evaluation
3. Potential impact through the development,
dissemination and use of project results
Impact (e.g. greater competitiveness of Europe) quantifiable
Dissemination of results
Exploitation of the results
Intellectual Property Rights
The evaluation: positive remarks
3. Potential impact through the development,
dissemination and use of project results
Advancing the state-of-the-art research leads to potential increase of
efficiency of international civil air transportation by decreasing false
alarms, increased safety through training and increased coordination
for all stakeholders in cases of emergency and security threat.
Moreover, clear and explicit reference is made to the relations with
other programmes underway.
The consortium foresees an exploitation plan at M12, which we believe
to be a commendable undertaking.
The evaluation: negative remarks
3. Potential impact through the development,
dissemination and use of project results
There is not much information how case studies and findings are going
to be disseminated to key professional audiences in Europe.
This plan only meets basic professional requirements but it is not an
excellent dissemination plan. The plan adresses only academic
audiences, not other professional audiences.
There could be a lot of academic knowledge to be disseminated in this
project, but practical impacts for European cluster are not clear.
The proposal writing
The project design must consider two issues :
formal
Parts that, even you do not understand the usufulness, must be
presented in anycase
substantial
explain in convincingly, assertive and argued ways the reasons you
believe important for the project
The proposal writing
No precise and steady rules
(no 'silver bullet')
At least 3 month for the proposal writing
(and a lot of emails)
Organize meetings in the project start up phase,
information from Bruxelles, from national contact
points, and from your research office
The proposal writing
It is a narrative description ,
clear and readable (bold and indented texts)
Division of the work :
Agencies for management, tracking of versions
Researchers for the scientific part
The proposal writing
consistency, coeherence, conciseness
emphasis (moderately enthusiastic) on innovation
emphasis on results and implications (policies,
products)
For all programmes
Policy usefulness of research findings is a key
objective ('evidence-based policies')
Dissemination from the earliest stages of the project
Define the potential users of your projects right
from the beginning
To sum-up
The difference: not just research, but:
cohesion (e.g. new Member States)
competitiveness (industries, SME)
cooperation
Sustainable development
Change your approach:
focus on the policy-makers side
Policy
The policy makers
(Member States)
UE
Researchers and
enterprises
Legislation
FP7 + CIP
You do not apply funding only for your own research but in order to propose solutions
to problems that EU POLICY MAKERS have identified and to which the proposed
research represents a step forward at European/world-class level.
The proposal must be formulated to solve a common and shared problem at EU level, for which
individual efforts and national/regional resources are not enough, or not effective.
Principles
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Eligibility
Subsidiarity = decisions are made as close as possible to the citizens, the actions
undertaken at European level must be justified in light of the possibilities
available at national, regional or local. According to this principle the EU can come
into play only if the proposed objectives can not be sufficiently achieved by individual
Member States, or regional or local entities, but can be better achieved only at European
level.
European added value= European dimension of the project and its impact
S&T excellence of the partners/project (significant changes/advances, innovation)
Equal treatment and equal opportunities (inclusiveness)
Principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness: only necessary costs,
managing capacity, "good house keeping", and appropriateness of resources mobilized.
Public Private Partnership (public/private consortia)
Financial capacity of the contractors
Operational capacity of the contractors
Just 1 single contribution may be granted for the same action.
Official documents
Useful documents
Call for proposal
Work programme
Guide for applicant
Rules for the participation
Model Grant Agreement
Financial Guidelines
Essential documents!
Structure the workplan of your project idea
• Before you start writing, you can answer these questions
WHY
Establish clear objectives. Goals, NOT results!!
WHAT ?
Define the results in a measurable way
“deliverables”
WHO?
Responsibility (?) choice of the partnership.
HOW?
Plan carefully the project activities
WHEN?
Schedule the project activities (timeline)
HOW
MUCH?
For each partner = 1 clear role e responsibility – linked to
a project result to deliver
Allocate costs to appropriate cost categories – reasonable
and economic
Allocate and breakdown of resources per WP,
activity and partners
Projec Application Forms:
an example
•
•
•
•
PART A ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
FORM A1: General information (coordinator)
FORM A2: Participant information, (1 each partner)
FORM A3.1: Budget (one each partner, completed by the
coordinator)
• FORM A 3.2 Budget overview
• PART B TECHNICAL INFORMATION
• in PDF format
• The sections follow the evaluation criteria
Forms:
an example
• 1: Scientific and/or technical quality, relevant to the topics
addressed by the call
• 1.1 Concept and objectives
• 1.2 Progress beyond the state of the art
• 1.3 S/T methodology and associated work plan
• Maximum length for the whole of Section 1: 20 pages, plus the
tables
Forms:
an example
•
•
•
•
•
2. Implementation
2.1 Management structure and procedures
2.2 Individual participants
2.3 Consortium as a whole
2.4 Resources to be committed
> Clear management structure
> Clear rights & responsibilities for each partner
> Describe why this partnership is the best to achieve the scope of
the project
> Clear financial plan: Budget + Cofinancing
Forms:
an example
• 3. Impact
• 3.1 Expected impacts listed in the work programme
• 3.2 Dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and
management of intellectual property
• 4. Ethical issues
• 5. Consideration of gender aspects
Application and Negotiation Process
Final
Work
Programme
Activities
Application
Budget
Consortium
Ranking
Decision
(via EC to Coord)
Consortium
Agreement
Authorisation
Negotiation
Grant
Agreement
Preparation of
Grant Agreement
Consortium
Agreement
Project
Account
Project
Start
Staff
Recruitment
‘FP7
Funding Schemes’
FP7 Funding Scheme
Keyword
‘Optimum’
Characteristics?
(as per FP6)
‘Optimum’
Budget?
(as per FP6)
Collaborative
Projects (CP)
(IP/STREP)
Deliverables
New Knowledge
3-20 participants
24-36 months (S/M)
Up to 60 Months (L)
€0.8-25 Million
(average < €10
Million)
Network of Excellence
(NoE)
(NoE)
Integration
6-12
Up to 60 Months
€4-15 Million
(€7 Million)
Co-ordination and
Support Actions
(CSA)
(CA)
Co-ordination
13-26
Up to 36 months
€0.5-1.2 Million
(€1 Million)
(SSA)
Laying the
Groundwork
1-15
Up to 12 months
€0.03-1 Million
(€0.5 Million)
Maximum Reimbursement Rates
FP7 – Large
Industry
FP7 –
Public Bodies,
Universities, SMEs, etc.
RTD
50%
75%
Demonstration
50%
50%
Other*
100%
100%
ERC
Proposing 100% direct costs plus 20% flat rate for
indirect costs
* Co-ordination and Support Actions (CSA), Dissemination, Training,
Management
What is the Project Cycle Management?
Set of tools and techniques to ensure greater effectiveness of
projects and programmes and an overall improvement of their
management.
The PCM is based on the principles of management by
objectives
What is the Project Cycle Management ?
The PCM is designed to ensure that projects are:



Relevant for the needs of partners and beneficiaries
Feasible – from a technical, financial and economic point of view
Effective and efficient (well managed)

and therefore
Aimed at generating sustainable/transferable results
Project Cycle Management
Programming
Programmazione
Evaluation
and&audit
Valutazione
Audit
Implementation
Realizzazione
Identification
Identificazione
Formulation
Formulazione
Programming
 The national and sectoral contexts are analyzed to
identify problems and opportunities to be tackled
through international cooperation, taking into account
the lessons of previous experience
The goals are:
identify and agree the main
objectives and sectorial priorities of
cooperation
Regional
Provide an adequate framework to
enable the identification and
preparation of individual projects
Sectoral
Country
Strategy
Programming
The EU project must be
compliant to:

National Development (i.e.
Strategies for poverty
reduction).

EU policies for
development and country
strategy papers.

National Programmes (i.e.
Sanità pubblica, istruzione
etc.)
The key concepts
Present situation
National
Sector area
Future situation
Development objective
National
Sector
area
Immediate objective
Inputs
Outputs
Project area
Project area
Activities
Identification
The ideas are identified and analyzed through…
 Stakeholder analysis – identification and assessment of major
groups, identification of problems and possible solutions.
 Problem analysis – identification of key issues, barriers &
opportunities; determining the cause-effect relationships (problem
tree).
 Objective analysis – formulate objectives (solutions) starting from
the problems previously identified.
 Strategy analysis– identify the most appropriate strategy for
solution to the problem / the previously identified.
Formulation
The project ideas are developed into operational plans
 Planning the structure of the intervention – define the builduing blocks of
the project, formulation of measurable and veriable objectives.
 Assumptions and risks – identification of external factors that may affect
project implementation and are outside the control of Project
Management- RISK MANAGEMENT.
 Indicators – formulation of indicators, identification of means and
methods to measure progress.
 Activity Schedule – determining the logical sequence of activities and
their interdependencies.
 Budget – identification of the necessary material and financial
contributions, preparation of a detailed budget.
Implementation
The projects shall be implemented and executed
 Preparation of deliverables – the project team working on the preparation
of project deliverables
 Monitoring – while deliverables are finalised, the project manager takes
care of:
 Cost Management - identification and recording of costs in accordance with the
project budget
 Change Management – examination and adoption of necessary changes for better
implementation of the project
 Quality Management – review the quality of deliverables and of the management
 Risk Management – risk assessment for the project and adoption of measures to
reduce those risks
 Communication Management – keeping stakeholders constantly informed on the
progress of the project
 Reporting
implementation - phases
BEGIN
Inizio
IMPLEMENTATION
Esecuzione
•• Grant/Consortium
Stipula dei contratti
signature.
•Agreement
Mobilizzazione
delle
risorse
• Mobilisation
of
•resources.
Organizzazione del kick-off
meeting(s)
• Kick
Off Meeting
•organisation.
Analisi e revisione del
piano di realizzazione
• Analysis
and revisiondel
of
progetto
the project workplan.
•• Adoption
Adozione di
sistemi e
of systems and
procedure di monitoraggio
procedures for monitoring
e valutazione
and
evaluating the action.
• Procurement
Procurement eand
mobilisation
of the
mobilizzazione
delle
resources
risorse
of delle
the attività
• Realisation
Realizzazione
activities
generation
e relativaand
produzione
di of
the
results/deliverables
risultati
e deliverables
• Monitoring
and
evaluation
Monitoraggio
e verifica
ofdell’andamento
the project
del
progetto
• Retargeting
of operation
if necessary
•plans
Riadattamento
dei piani
operativi del progetto a
• Reporting.
seconda delle necessità
contingenti
• Reporting
CONCLUSION
Conclusione
Progressivo
passaggio
di
• •Use
and Transfer
of
responsabilità
ai partner
knowledge
and skills.
locali
• After project
• Trasferimento di
sustainability
conoscenza e competenze
• ….
• Further research
Evaluation & Audit
Activities usually carried out at the end of the project, or during
e
the implementation
phase (= mid-term evaluation)
Aimed at:


Performing a systematic and rigorous analysis of the project and its effects, to
verify and resolve problems of implementation
extracting useful information to identify and resolve problems of implementation
(schedule of programs and future projects or to reorient the implementation of a
project).
Financing Body
European
Countries
Monitoring, evaluation and audit
• Analisi dell’andamento del progetto in
workplan
given al
in the
Grant
Agreement
order
to enable the
relazione
piano
originario
al in
fine
di permettere
identification
of problems
and to adopt
anddicorrective
per tempo
l’identificazione
deisolution
problemi
measures.
realizzazione e l’adozione di opportune misure
correttive
• Analysis of the project progress compared to the original
Monitoraggio
Monitoring
Evaluation
Valutazione
the efficiency,
cost effectiveness,
•Analysis
Analisi of
dell’efficienza,
efficacia,
impatto,
impact,
relevance
and sustainability of the project.
rilevanza
e sostenibilità
Audit
Audit
•• Has
Essenzialmente
di natura finanziaria
a financial nature.
• Accertamento della legalità e della regolarità delle
• Assurance of the compliance of the project expenditure
spesethedel
progetto
against
Programme/National
accouting rules.
• Valutazione se i fondi del progetto sono stati spesi
in manierathat
efficiente
ed efficace
ed economica
• Assessment
the resources
are employes
according to
needs of the project
•theAccertamento
che i(necessary).
fondi del progetto sono stati
spesi per le finalità individuate nel progetto
Key points
• Learn how to read the workprogramme
• Find a place in the sun for your own
favorite topic, and help to define its
content (networking and lobbying)
• Knowing the evaluation mechanisms
Key points
• Learn how to read the work-programme
• Find a place in the sun for your own favorite
topic, and help to define its content
(networking and lobbying – Learn how to
write or influence the work-programme)
• Knowing the evaluation mechanisms
FP7 Cooperation Work Programme: Health-2011
Internal working document
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
2.4 TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH IN OTHER MAJOR
DISEASES
HEALTH.2011.2.4.1-3: Epidemiology and aetiology of infection-related cancers.
FP7-HEALTH-2011-single-stage.
Collaborative research should address one or more of the prevalent infectious agents
that cause cancers of major public health importance in India as well as Europe, such
as human papilloma virus, hepatitis B and C viruses, and/or Helicobacter pylori. The
project must integrate different disciplines relevant to study both infection and cancer
and include aspects such as prevalence of infection in different population groups,
determinants of infection, clearance and re-infection, environmental cofactors in the
carcinogenic process, mechanisms of infection-related cancers, and development of
new testing and screening methods applicable to the wider community. In addition, the
project must take advantage of the diversity of risk factors, cofactors and cancer
incidence in different population groups of Europe and India. The project should focus
on the prevention and early detection of infection-related cancers in Europe and India,
addressing both established and putative associations between infectious agents and
cancers. Active participation of research-intensive SMEs could lead to an increased
impact of the research proposed and this will be considered in the evaluation of the
proposal. Note: Limits on the EU financial contribution apply. These are implemented
strictly as formal eligibility criteria.
HEALTH.2011.2.4.1-3: Epidemiology and aetiology of infection-related cancers.
FP7-HEALTH-2011-single-stage.
Funding scheme: Collaborative Project (small or medium-scale focused
research project).
EU contribution per project: Maximum EUR 3 000 000.
One or more proposals can be selected.
Expected impact: The results of research in this area will have to
contribute to the prevention and early detection of infection-related cancers
in Europe and India, which might take place through vaccination, early
detection and identification of high-risk populations. A close cooperation
between Europe and India is expected to result from the projects.
Specific feature: It is expected that the Indian Council of Medical
Research will issue a complementary call to support Indian projects in this
field and that the funded projects will commence at the same time and will
cooperate closely. The cooperation may also include joint meetings,
workshops, exchange of scientists, technology transfer, etc.
Call topics specificity:
Are they tailored for preexisting Consortia?
Who decide the call topics?
Key points
• Learn how to read the workprogramme
• Find a place in the sun for your own favorite
topic, and help to define its content
(networking and lobbying – Learn how to
write or influence the work-programme)
• Knowing the evaluation mechanisms
Who must perform lobbying and briefing of EC?
Networking: the consortium
•
•
•
•
•
Participants
SMEs
Management and governance structure
Added value
Other parties (i.e.: stakeholders,
patients and care takers associations)
• Main criteria: S&T excellence
Key points
• Knowing how to read the work program
• Identificare lo spazio per l’argomento
preferito e contribuire a definirlo
(networking and lobbying)
• Knowing the evaluation mechanism
Evaluation procedure
Eligibility check
Proposal
submission
1. Individual evaluation
2. Consensus Group meeting
If above
threshold
3. Panel Evaluation
Priority list
Ethical review
(if necessary)
Commission: final ranking list and decision
Rejection
Reserve list
Funding
Evaluation principles





Excellence
Transparency
Confidentiality
Impartiality
Efficiency
Scoring criteria
Criterion
Score
1. S&T excellence*
2. Implementation and management
3. Potential impact**
0 to 5
0 to 5
0 to 5
TOTAL
0 to 15
Threshold
3
3
3
10
*When a proposal is partially relevant/out of scope because it only marginally
addresses the call topic, or if only part of the proposal addresses the topic,
this condition must be reflected in the scoring of the first criterion.
**One of the subcriteria mentions ’Expected impact listed in Work Programme’.
Interpretation of scores
5
EXCELLENT: the proposal successfully addresses all relevant
aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor
4
GOOD: the proposal addresses the criterion well, although certain
improvements are possible
3
FAIR: While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are
significant weaknesses that would need correcting
2
POOR: There are serious inherent weaknesses in relation to the
criterion in question
1
VERY POOR: The criterion is addressed in a cursory and
unsatisfactory manner
0
The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or
can not be judged due to missing or incomplete information
General EC policy regarding the participation of
industry and SME
• Strongly encouraged wherever appropriate
• Overall, 15% of requested EC budget should be allocated to
SMEs (political objective in FP7)
• SMEs may contribute with scientific and technological
competence (high-tech SMEs), but also with competence in
management, dissemination, transfer of knowledge, training,
etc...
SME participation is among the criteria to be
assessed !
How to submit a competitive proposal
within Cooperation/Health theme?
• Being part of scientific European excellence in the
field.
• Studying the work-program in detail.
• Become an Evaluator/Reviewer!
• Contribute to the project design having a feasible
idea, targeted against the call topic and an excellent
consortium that involve at least 1 SME.
• From the beginning pay a duly attention the
"Implementation and Management" and "potential
impact"!
The promotion of gender equality and the rights of women represent fundamental human rights,
as a matter of social justice
The Gender Equality is recognized in the Treaty of the European Union and the Charter of
Fundamental Rights.
The European Programme on equity between men and women promote the development
policies that fall into one of six priority areas in the period 2006 to 2010.
The European strategy for this area aims to help promote equality of political rights, civil,
economic, social and cultural differences between men and women, also trying to provide equal
access to elected office to promote and ensure equal political and economic opportunities.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0100en01.pdf
Thank you!!!!!!!
Barbara Rebecchi
Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia
[email protected]