Presentation on theme: "Barbara Rebecchi Ufficio Ricerca e Relazioni Internazionali Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia How to write a competitive proposal for FP7 Health/Cooperation?"— Presentation transcript:
Barbara Rebecchi Ufficio Ricerca e Relazioni Internazionali Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia How to write a competitive proposal for FP7 Health/Cooperation?
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 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
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 evaluation
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 evalutaion
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: positive 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: negative remarks
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
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: positive remark
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: negative remarks
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
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: positive 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 evaluation: negative remarks
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) The proposal writing
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
The policy makers (Member States) UE Researchers and enterprises Policy FP7 + CIP Legislation 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. Change your approach: focus on the policy-makers side
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 Call for proposal Work programme Guide for applicant Rules for the participation Model Grant Agreement Financial Guidelines Essential documents! Useful documents
Structure the workplan of your project idea Before you start writing, you can answer these questions WHY WHO? HOW? WHEN? Establish clear objectives. Goals, NOT results!! Allocate costs to appropriate cost categories – reasonable and economic Schedule the project activities (timeline) Plan carefully the project activities Responsibility (?) choice of the partnership. For each partner = 1 clear role e responsibility – linked to a project result to deliver WHAT? Define the results in a measurable way “deliverables” HOW MUCH? Allocate and breakdown of resources per WP, activity and partners
Projec Application Forms: an example PART A ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION FORM A1:FORM A1: General information (coordinator) FORM A2:FORM A2: Participant information, (1 each partner) FORM A3.1:FORM A3.1: Budget (one each partner, completed by the coordinator) FORM A 3.2FORM 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 Consortium Application Activities Decision (via EC to Coord) Negotiation Project Start Preparation of Grant Agreement Authorisation Project Account Staff Recruitment Grant Agreement Consortium Agreement Budget Ranking Consortium Agreement
‘ FP7 Funding Schemes ’ FP7 Funding SchemeKeyword‘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 (SSA) Laying the Groundwork 13-26 Up to 36 months 1-15 Up to 12 months €0.5-1.2 Million (€1 Million) €0.03-1 Million (€0.5 Million)
Maximum Reimbursement Rates FP7 – Large Industry FP7 – Public Bodies, Universities, SMEs, etc. RTD 50%75% Demonstration 50% Other* 100% ERCProposing 100% direct costs plus 20% flat rate for indirect costs * Co-ordination and Support Actions (CSA), Dissemination, Training, Management
The PCM is based on the principles of management by objectives 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.
What is the Project Cycle Management ? The PCM is designed to ensure that projects are: Relevant Relevant for the needs of partners and beneficiaries Feasible Feasible – from a technical, financial and economic point of view Effective efficient Effective and efficient (well managed) and therefore Aimed at generating sustainable/transferable results
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 The goals are: identify and agree the main objectives and sectorial priorities of cooperation Provide an adequate framework to enable the identification and preparation of individual projects Regional Sectoral Country Strategy
Programming The EU project must be compliant to: National Development National Development (i.e. Strategies for poverty reduction). EU policies for development country strategy papers. EU policies for development and country strategy papers. National Programmes National Programmes (i.e. Sanità pubblica, istruzione etc.)
The key concepts Project area Development objective Immediate objective Activities InputsOutputs National Sector area Present situation Future situation National Sector area
Identification Stakeholder analysis Stakeholder analysis – identification and assessment of major groups, identification of problems and possible solutions. Problem analysis problem tree Problem analysis – identification of key issues, barriers & opportunities; determining the cause-effect relationships (problem tree). Objective analysis Objective analysis – formulate objectives (solutions) starting from the problems previously identified. Strategy analysis– Strategy analysis– identify the most appropriate strategy for solution to the problem / the previously identified. The ideas are identified and analyzed through…
Formulation Planning the structure of the intervention Planning the structure of the intervention – define the builduing blocks of the project, formulation of measurable and veriable objectives. Assumptions and risks RISK MANAGEMENT. Assumptions and risks – identification of external factors that may affect project implementation and are outside the control of Project Management- RISK MANAGEMENT. Indicators Indicators – formulation of indicators, identification of means and methods to measure progress. Activity Schedule Activity Schedule – determining the logical sequence of activities and their interdependencies. Budget Budget – identification of the necessary material and financial contributions, preparation of a detailed budget. The project ideas are developed into operational plans
Implementation Preparation of deliverables Preparation of deliverables – the project team working on the preparation of project deliverables Monitoring Monitoring – while deliverables are finalised, the project manager takes care of: Cost Management - Cost Management - identification and recording of costs in accordance with the project budget Change Management Change Management – examination and adoption of necessary changes for better implementation of the project Quality Management Quality Management – review the quality of deliverables and of the management Risk Management Risk Management – risk assessment for the project and adoption of measures to reduce those risks Communication Management Communication Management – keeping stakeholders constantly informed on the progress of the project Reporting The projects shall be implemented and executed
implementation - phasesInizio Stipula dei contratti Mobilizzazione delle risorse Organizzazione del kick-off meeting(s) Analisi e revisione del piano di realizzazione del progetto Adozione di sistemi e procedure di monitoraggio e valutazione Esecuzione Procurement e mobilizzazione delle risorse Realizzazione delle attività e relativa produzione di risultati e deliverables Monitoraggio e verifica dell’andamento del progetto Riadattamento dei piani operativi del progetto a seconda delle necessità contingenti Reporting Conclusione Progressivo passaggio di responsabilità ai partner locali Trasferimento di conoscenza e competenze …. Grant/Consortium Agreement signature. Mobilisation of resources. Kick Off Meeting organisation. Analysis and revision of the project workplan. Adoption of systems and procedures for monitoring and evaluating the action. BEGINIMPLEMENTATION Procurement and mobilisation of the resources Realisation of the activities and generation of the results/deliverables Monitoring and evaluation of the project Retargeting of operation plans if necessary Reporting. CONCLUSION Use and Transfer of knowledge and skills. After project sustainability Further research
Evaluation & Audit 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). e Activities usually carried out at the end of the project, or during the implementation phase (= mid-term evaluation) European Countries Financing Body
Monitoring, evaluation and audit Analisi dell’andamento del progetto Analisi dell’andamento del progetto in relazione al piano originario al fine di permettere per tempo l’identificazione dei problemi di realizzazione e l’adozione di opportune misure correttive Monitoraggio efficienzaefficaciaimpatto rilevanzasostenibilitàAnalisi dell’ efficienza, efficacia, impatto, rilevanza e sostenibilità Valutazione Essenzialmente di natura finanziaria Essenzialmente di natura finanziaria Accertamento della legalità e della regolarità delle spese del progetto Valutazione se i fondi del progetto sono stati spesi in maniera efficiente ed efficace ed economica Accertamento che i fondi del progetto sono stati spesi per le finalità individuate nel progetto Audit Evaluation Monitoring Audit Analysis of the efficiency, cost effectiveness, impact, relevance and sustainability of the project. Has a financial nature. Assurance of the compliance of the project expenditure against the Programme/National accouting rules. Assessment that the resources are employes according to the needs of the project (necessary). Analysis of the project progress compared to the original workplan given in the Grant Agreement in order to enable the identification of problems and to adopt solution and corrective measures.
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 pre- existing 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
Proposal submission Eligibility check Commission: final ranking list and decision If above threshold eligible Priority list Evaluation procedure 1. Individual evaluation 2. Consensus Group meeting 3. Panel Evaluation Reserve listRejectionFunding If below threshold not eligible Ethical review (if necessary)
CriterionScore Threshold 1. S&T excellence* 0 to 53 2. Implementation and management0 to 53 3. Potential impact**0 to 53 TOTAL 0 to 15 10 Scoring criteria *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 firstname.lastname@example.org