1. FP6 PROPOSAL WRITING

2. What makes a good proposal - A strong proposal idea - Avoiding common weaknesses and pitfalls What to know about evaluation - Process - Criteria - Their application to specific Calls

3. What goes where - Parts carrying the key messages - Selling the team - Program objectives vs project objectives, milestones and deliverables objectives, milestones and deliverables

4. WHAT MAKES A GOOD PROPOSAL

5. Motivation of Commission Officials To find out those proposals that have the consortia to conduct potentially useful work in a way that stands a reasonable chance of delivering valuable results CONSORTIUM USEFUL WORK REASONABLE CHANCE (RISK) VALUABLE RESULTS

6. Project Proposal Let’s say that: There is a suitable objective in the workprogram covering your project... There is a Call for Proposals including the type of instrument (contract) that suits your project... You have a suitable and eligible consortium... You can get prepare it before the closing date... You have thought of the management plans...

7. What to Provide in the Proposal Summary of the proposal Rationale/justification ( S&T objectives, program objectives, potential impact,consortium members) Details of the participant Details of the budget Work/Implementation plan Management structures List of deliverables

8. Where to Find Supporting Documentation Workprogram Guidelines on proposal evaluation and selection procedures Guidance notes for evaluators (call-specific) Guide for proposers (call/instrument-specific)

9. Instruments (project types) Integrated Projects (IP) Specific Targeted Research Projects (STREP) Networks of Excellence (NoE) Coordination Actions (CA) Specific Support Actions (SSA) Article 169

10. WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT EVALUATION

11. Some Basics About Proposals YOUR PROPOSAL MUST:  meet certain eligibility criteria  fall within the scope of the Call for Proposals priority’s workprogram, specific workprogram YOUR PROPOSAL WILL :   be read by a team of independent evaluators

12. Consensus is required within the evaluation team as to which proposals are to be considered further Proposals selected by each evaluation team are then read by people from other teams evaluating the Call They are ranked at a meeting involving all teams and a funding scenario is then produced by the EC A panel hearing, is used for IPs and NoEs A panel hearing, is used for IPs and NoEs Results of the evaluation then form the basis of contract negotiation

13. Evaluation Criteria Relevance Potential impact Scientific and technological excellence Quality of the consortium Quality of the management Mobilization of the resources

14. Evaluators give a mark between 0 and 5 to each criterion 0 – the proposal fails to address the issue under examination or cannot be judged against the criterion due to missing or incomplete information 1 – poor 2 – fair 3 – good 4 – very good 5 – excellent There are thresholds to be passed Marks may be weighted to calculate the final score

15. IP thresholds STREP CRITERIAIP thresholds STREP Relevance 3/5 3/5 Potential Impact3/5 3/5 S & T Excellence4/5 4/5 Quality of Consortium3/5 3/5 Quality of Management3/5 3/5 Mobilization of Resources 3/5 3/5 OVERALL SCORE THRESHOLD IP : 24/30 STREP : 21/30

16. Potential Impact suitably ambitious in terms of its strategic impact on reinforcing competitiveness (including that of SMEs) or on solving societal problems adequate innovation-related activities, exploitation and dissemination plans (to ensure optimal use of the project results) demonstrating a clear added value in carrying out the work at European level

17. S&T Excellence The project has clearly defined and well- focused objectives The objectives represent clear progress beyond the current state-of-the-art The proposed S&T approach is likely to enable the project to achieve its objectives in research and innovation

18. Quality of Consortium adequate industrial involvement to ensure exploitation of results (esp. İn IPs) constitution of a consortium of high quality well-suited participants, committed to the tasks assigned to them good complementarity between participants real involvement of SMEs

19. Quality of the Management Project management is demonstrably of high quality There is a satisfactory plan for the management of knowledge, of intellectual property and other innovation-related activities The organizational structure is well matched to the complexity of the project and to the degree of integration required

20. Mobilization of the Resources The project mobilizes the minimum critical mass of resources (personnel, equipment, finance...) necessary for success The resources are convincingly integrated to form a coherent project The overall financial plan for the project is adequate

21. WHAT GOES WHERE

22. Proposal Structure B.1. S&T objectives and state-of-the-art - up to 3 pages B.2. Relevance to the objectives of the priority - up to 3 pages B.3. Potential Impact - - up to 3 pages - - plus one page on contribution to standards

23. B.4. The consortium and project resources - up to 5 pages + ‘STREP Project Effort Form’ - plus one page to justify subcontracting - plus one page to justify ‘other countries’ B.5. Project Management - up to 3 pages B.6. Work Plan - (as many pages as it needs) B.7. Other (horizontal) issues - e.g. ethical, gender, EC policies, education

24. B.1. S&T Objectives and State-of-the-Art What are you going to do? How will you know when you have done it? What value will it add to the state-of-the-art? How well do you understand the problems?

25. B.2. Relevance to Priority Objectives Justify your request for money allocated to those specific objectives within this priority area N.B. The Commission may argue for adequate coverage of all relevant objectives

26. B.3. Potential Impact What type of impact are you expecting to achieve? - what is the expected consequence of funding? Explain how you will achieve this impact - innovation- related activities - dissemination activities - exploitation activities Why do you need European money? - European added value - role of national/other initiatives

27. B.4. Consortium Participants are of high quality Participants are well-suited and committed to their tasks, including: - research - demonstration - dissemination - exploitation - management, etc. Participants are complementary with each other

28. B.5.Project Management The project management is demonstrably of high quality - key partner(s) with suitable resources? - CV of key individuals? - appropriate methodology? - work plan capable of being managed? Managing knowledge, IPR, innovation

29. B.6. Work Plan Introduction – structure of the workplan and how the plan will lead participants to achieve objectives Timing and components of workpackages (GANNT) Interdependencies between components (PERT) Workpackage list (form) - lead contractor- timing - effort- outputs Workpackage description (template) - participants/effort- timing - objectives- description of work - deliverables- milestones

30. Designing Workpackages Major sub-divisions of overall project appropriate to complexity and value of project Sufficiently detailed to allow progress monitoring by the EC...AND SO - keep different types of activity separate - reflect logical phases of project - provide clearly-defined end-points (e.g. deliverable or project milestone) (e.g. deliverable or project milestone)

31. SOME TIPS

32. General TIPS on Proposal Writing Apply the mindset of an evaluator to your own work View the proposal as a whole, not as a set of separate elements Identify and sell the special features of a proposal Communicate in simple and well-structured language

33. TIPS Concerning Evaluators Your proposal will be read by a team of evaluators of whom it should be assumed that English need not be their first language Your specific research interest may not be their specialist area They have many other proposals to read Define the work you’ll do in a way to make them understand it Initial impressions count...

34. TIPS Concerning Writing Certain Parts of Proposal POTENTIAL IMPACT use OECD reports, EU policy papers S&T EXCELLENCE refer to the workprogram QUALITY OF CONSORTIUM find diverse partners QUALITY OF MANAGEMENT is hard job. Do not jump on it!

35. CONCLUSION Project writing is not easy. It is a hard job It consumes your time, energy and confidence The result can be negative BUT, DO NOT FORGET... So many people have tried it and been successful So many people have tried it and been successful Believe in yourself! You can do it, too! Believe in yourself! You can do it, too!

36. Thank you and Good Luck METU – Office of EU Affairs Middle East Technical University 06531 Ankara / Turkey Phone: 0 312 210 3834Fax: 0 312 210 1348 http://www.euoffice.metu.edu.tr February 2005