Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Information Society Technologies (IST) KA1 Systems and Services for the Citizen 7th Call, Information Day - Tuesday 3rd July, 2001 GENERAL INFORMATION.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Information Society Technologies (IST) KA1 Systems and Services for the Citizen 7th Call, Information Day - Tuesday 3rd July, 2001 GENERAL INFORMATION."— Presentation transcript:

1 Information Society Technologies (IST) KA1 Systems and Services for the Citizen 7th Call, Information Day - Tuesday 3rd July, 2001 GENERAL INFORMATION DG Information Society European Commission M. Richonnier

2 2 IST -KA1 - Info Day DISCLAIMER Aspects of these presentations interpret legal documents. It is the legal documents and not the presentations that are legally binding. M. Richonnier

3 3 Objectives of the Information Day To help you make a better proposal To help you make a better proposal To receive quality proposals To receive quality proposals To explain the process from proposal to contract To explain the process from proposal to contract To answer any questions To answer any questions To allow you to network To allow you to network The slides will be on Cordis.lu The slides will be on Cordis.lu The participants list will be published on Cordis.lu (if no objections) The participants list will be published on Cordis.lu (if no objections) M. Richonnier

4 4 Agenda: Morning 09h15 – 09h45Objectives/focus in 7th Call- M. Richonnier Novelties and timetable for the negotiation of succesful proposals 09h h15How to participate and- W. Van Puymbroeck walk through the preparation of a proposal 10h15 – 10h30Presentation of Protool- A. Burgueno 10h h00Questions and Answers 11h h30Coffee Break + move to parallel sessions 11h h00Parallel sessions by area – –Content of open Action Lines – –Work in hand – –Evaluation on feedback M. Richonnier

5 5 Agenda: Afternoon 13h h00Lunch 14h h30Ad-Hoc meetings by area * Partnering, marriage brokerage.. * Discussions with Commission staff *... 16h h00Parallel sessions by area * Final discussion M. Richonnier

6 6 Vision of the IST programme Create an ambient intelligence landscape (for seamless delivery of services and applications) in Europe relying also upon testbeds and open source software, develop user-friendliness, and develop and converge the networking infrastructure in Europe to world-class" Create an ambient intelligence landscape (for seamless delivery of services and applications) in Europe relying also upon testbeds and open source software, develop user-friendliness, and develop and converge the networking infrastructure in Europe to world-class" M. Richonnier

7 7 Vision of the IST - KA1 Ambient intelligence Beyond the screen and keyboard interface Beyond the screen and keyboard interface A knowledge society for ALL A knowledge society for ALL Our surrounding is the interface to IST applications and servicesOur surrounding is the interface to IST applications and services Multi-sensorial interfaces supported by computing and networking: Multi-sensorial interfaces supported by computing and networking: –everywhere –in everyday objects –offering natural interactions (voice, gesture etc.) M. Richonnier

8 8 IST KA1 R&D paradigms M. Richonnier From data telematics (3rd FP) to multi-media telematics (4th FP) to ambient intelligence (5th FP) From data telematics (3rd FP) to multi-media telematics (4th FP) to ambient intelligence (5th FP) Ambient intelligence = ubiquitous computing + ubiquitous communication + intelligent interfaces which will allow… Ambient intelligence = ubiquitous computing + ubiquitous communication + intelligent interfaces which will allow… The realisation of innovative, user-friendly, intelligent and communicating application systems that will improve delivery of services to users The realisation of innovative, user-friendly, intelligent and communicating application systems that will improve delivery of services to users

9 9 Key Action 1:Focus Improving impact: Improving impact: –Critical mass: Open to larger projects - no one size fits allOpen to larger projects - no one size fits all –Concentration on strategic issues –Significant exploitation potential Focus on the vision of ambient intelligence Focus on the vision of ambient intelligence Fostering longer-term and/or high-risk effort Fostering longer-term and/or high-risk effort –Progress state of the art –Innovation: systems that will be new at the end of the project Reinforcing the e-Europe momentum beyond 2002 Reinforcing the e-Europe momentum beyond 2002 M. Richonnier

10 10 Key Action 1 in Call 7 Open: June 2001 Open: June 2001 Deadline: 17 October 2001 Deadline: 17 October 2001 –do not wait until the last minute! –pre-register your proposal! Evaluation: November 2001 Evaluation: November 2001 Evaluation Summary Reports: before 28 November 2001 Evaluation Summary Reports: before 28 November 2001 Negotiation: December January 2002 (one month if good technical Annex / good consortium!) Negotiation: December January 2002 (one month if good technical Annex / good consortium!) Signature:January 2002 for first contract to start on 1 February 2002 Signature:January 2002 for first contract to start on 1 February 2002 M. Richonnier

11 11 Key Action 1 in Call 7 - ( indicative budget range ) Administrations Administrations RTD ± 9.0Meuro (± 5 projects) Environment Environment Trials & Best Practices ± 3.0Meuro (± 6 projects) Transport & Tourism ± 47.5Meuro (± 21 RTD projects, ± 10 BT/Trials) Transport & Tourism ± 47.5Meuro (± 21 RTD projects, ± 10 BT/Trials) Research and Development Demonstration & Combined projects Trials and Best Practice TOTAL ± 59.5MEuro TOTAL ± 59.5MEuro M. Richonnier

12 12 Attract RTD proposals with critical mass, strategic impact and real economic value, e.g. an average EU funding of 2.0 MEuro KEY Action 1: Our goals M. Richonnier GOAL1 GOAL 1

13 13 Attract Consortia that are manageable and where all partners have a clear role and a significant task in contribution, e.g.: Consortia of not more than 6 partners is ideal Consortia of not more than 6 partners is ideal No partner with microscopic input (such as per year!) No partner with microscopic input (such as per year!) KEY Action 1: Our goals M. Richonnier GOAL 2

14 14 In order to avoid cost on your and our side, only high quality proposals should be submitted, e.g.: Over-subscription not more than a factor of 4 Over-subscription not more than a factor of 4 KEY Action 1: Our goals M. Richonnier GOAL 3

15 15 KA1: Some statistics M. Richonnier

16 16 KA1: Cluster management Administrations Administrations –Smart Government –e-democracy Environment Environment –Intelligent Systems for Risk and Disaster Management –Intelligent Environmental Monitoring and Management Systems Transport & Tourism Transport & Tourism –Mobility and Intelligent Infrastructures for Transport –Intelligent Vehicles –Intelligent Systems for Tourism M. Richonnier

17 17 KA1: Cluster Management Contd Make sure your proposal fits well with the cluster concept fits well with the cluster concept does not duplicate existing projects does not duplicate existing projects (Look at Cordis!) M. Richonnier

18 18 KA1: 7th Call GOOD LUCK! M. Richonnier

19 19 Call for Proposals & Eligibility Call for Proposals & Eligibility Guide for Proposals & Evaluation Criteria Guide for Proposals & Evaluation Criteria Feedback from previous Evaluations Feedback from previous Evaluations Highlights Highlights – Viability – Audit certificates Further opportunities and Concluding remarks Further opportunities and Concluding remarks Proposal Preparation W. Van Puymbroeck

20 20 Call for Proposals published in June 2001 It defines: Call for Proposals published in June 2001 It defines: – the Action Lines that are open Reference to the Workprogramme 2001 Reference to the Workprogramme 2001 – the Type of Actions called for See Guide for Proposers See Guide for Proposers – the deadline and method of delivery of a proposal – refers to Manual of Proposal Evaluation Procedures ³ Proposals have to be in Brussels on 17 October 2001 before 17:00 Call for Proposers & Eligibility

21 21 A proposal has 3 parts: A proposal has 3 parts: è Part A: Administrative, budgetary information (Forms A0-A4) è Part B: Description of contribution to scientific/technical objectives and workplan è Part C: Description of EC policies, Economic development, management and participants m There are 5 blocks of Evaluation Criteria: è Scientific/technological quality and innovation è Community added value and contribution to EC policies è Contribution to Community social objectives è Economic development and S&T prospects è Resources, Partnership and management Guide for Proposers & Evaluation Criteria

22 22 Guide for Proposers & Evaluation Criteria Contd Part B of Proposal B1 Title page B2 Content list B3 Objectives B4 Contribution to programme Key Action objectives B5 Innovation B6 Project Workplan Evaluation Criteria 1 Scientific Technological quality and innovation deliverables (incl. Workpackage list, deliverables list, workpackage description) For RTD proposals this part needs to be anonymous

23 23 Guide for Proposers & Evaluation Criteria Contd Part C of Proposal C1 Title page C2 Content list C3 Community added value and contribution to EC policies C4 Contribution to Community social objectives Evaluation Criteria 2 Community added value and contribution to EC policies Evaluation Criteria 3 Contribution to Community social objectives

24 24 Guide for Proposers & Evaluation Criteria Contd Part C of Proposal contd C5 Project management C6 Description of the consortium C7 Description of the participants C8 Economic development and scientific and technological prospects Evaluation Criteria 4 Economic development and S&T prospects Evaluation Criteria 5 Resources, partnership and management

25 25 Criteria Weight (1) Threshold (2) Scientific/Technological Quality and innovation4 >= 3 Community Added Value and contribution to EU policy1 >= 2 Contribution to Comm. Social objectives1 - Economic Dev; S&T prospects (range of applications, exploitation, strategic impact, dissemination)2 >= 3 Resources, Partnership, Management2 >= 2 1) Weight on a scale of 10 (sum 10) 2) Threshold with respect to score 0-5 Guide for Proposers & Evaluation Criteria Contd For RTD

26 26 Guide for Proposers & Evaluation Criteria Contd Evaluation criterion 1: Evaluation criterion 1: Scientific/Technological quality and innovation (for RTD) Quality Quality Innovation and risk Innovation and risk Adequacy Adequacy Evaluation criterion 2: Evaluation criterion 2: Community added value and contribution to EC policies (for RTD) European Dimension of the problem European Dimension of the problem European Added Value European Added Value EU policy EU policy

27 27 Guide for Proposers & Evaluation Criteria Contd Evaluation criterion 3: Evaluation criterion 3: Contribution to Community social objectives (for RTD) Quality of Life and Health and Safety Quality of Life and Health and Safety Employment Employment Preserving and/or enhancing the environment Preserving and/or enhancing the environment Evaluation criterion 4: Evaluation criterion 4: Economic development and S & T prospects (for RTD) Usefulness and range of applications, exploitations plans Usefulness and range of applications, exploitations plans Strategic impact Strategic impact Dissemination strategies Dissemination strategies

28 28 Guide for Proposers & Evaluation Criteria Contd Evaluation criterion 5: Evaluation criterion 5: Management and resources (for RTD) Quality of management and project approach Quality of management and project approach Quality of partnership, involvement of users and other actors Quality of partnership, involvement of users and other actors Appropriateness of resources Appropriateness of resources

29 29 Feedback from previous Evaluations Evaluators consider all aspects of the proposal and have different backgrounds Evaluators consider all aspects of the proposal and have different backgrounds –Experts in IST, knowledgeable in application area, understand business issues Proposers have to make convincing case of innovation and present very clear objectives Proposers have to make convincing case of innovation and present very clear objectives –Your strategic objectives matter most Proposal has to be realistic and exciting at the same time Proposal has to be realistic and exciting at the same time Make the case for Community funding Make the case for Community funding –i.e. both European level and need for public money

30 30 Feedback from previous Evaluations Contd All partners must have a clear role and the consortium has to reach critical mass All partners must have a clear role and the consortium has to reach critical mass –importance of Consortium engineering Carefully consider release level of deliverables Carefully consider release level of deliverables –note e.g. the objective to foster the development and use of open source software Management has to consider all issues e.g. Management has to consider all issues e.g. –risk management –handling of conflict –communication strategy

31 31 Feedback from previous Evaluations Contd The proposal may not have a weak point The proposal may not have a weak point –thresholds and weighting –each evaluation criteria discussed on its own merits Avoid easy criticism Avoid easy criticism –ask colleagues to critique early versions Proposals which are incontournable have up to now always been funded Proposals which are incontournable have up to now always been funded Evaluators evaluate what is written, not what is in your mind Evaluators evaluate what is written, not what is in your mind Evaluators look more for content than style Evaluators look more for content than style

32 32 Feedback from previous Evaluations Call 4 Evaluation results Contd

33 33 Further opportunities:(AL VIII.1.6) Proposals for extension with NAS partners All IST project types can be extended All IST project types can be extended New WPs or inclusion in existing WPs New WPs or inclusion in existing WPs Extension should be useful: minimum 1 year Extension should be useful: minimum 1 year New partners/work should add value New partners/work should add value Submitted by co-ordinator of existing project together with all existing and new NAS partners Submitted by co-ordinator of existing project together with all existing and new NAS partners

34 34 Further opportunities:(AL VIII.1.6) Proposals for extension with NAS partners Contd Large majority of extension budget to new NAS partners Large majority of extension budget to new NAS partners Include existing Annex I Include existing Annex I Proposals indicate VIII.1.6 and AL of existing project Proposals indicate VIII.1.6 and AL of existing project Extension proposal will be evaluated as a new proposal Extension proposal will be evaluated as a new proposal Only projects can be extended - not actions in negotiation! Only projects can be extended - not actions in negotiation! Implemented through contract amendment Implemented through contract amendment Appendix in Guide for Proposers Appendix in Guide for Proposers

35 35 Highlights: Viability Legal existence Legal existence –A document that proves the formal registration of the organisation –The legal existence of an organisation must predate the contract signature date for all contractors Financial viability Financial viability –Annex 2 in Contract Preparation Forms –Audited financial accounts not older than 18 months only for commercial organisations Appropriate resources (personnel) Appropriate resources (personnel)

36 36 Highlights: Viability Contd Financial Financial Evaluation Evaluation Good Good Acceptable Acceptable Weak WeakCo-financing Weak Acceptable Good Capacity Weak Acceptable Good Capacity

37 37 Highlights: Viability Contd Potential contractors for which the LFV is negative should demonstrate that they have additional financial resources sufficient to finance their share of the project costs Potential contractors for which the LFV is negative should demonstrate that they have additional financial resources sufficient to finance their share of the project costs A potential contractor for which the LFV is negative cannot be a financial/administrative co-ordinator of the project A potential contractor for which the LFV is negative cannot be a financial/administrative co-ordinator of the project Potential contractors that do not have the financial resources to finance their cost shares can be rejected or their participation can be decreased Potential contractors that do not have the financial resources to finance their cost shares can be rejected or their participation can be decreased

38 38 Highlights: Viability Contd Further protective measures include: Further protective measures include: –The Commission will not pay an advance to the company –The company has to provide a financial guarantee * from i) a bank/insurance company ori) a bank/insurance company or ii) from the parent company or an affiliated company orii) from the parent company or an affiliated company or iii) from another consortium memberiii) from another consortium member –Direct payment to individual contractors * the cost of a financial guarantee is an eligible cost under the category other specific costs * the cost of a financial guarantee is an eligible cost under the category other specific costs

39 39 Highlights: Audit certificates Requested in the IST programme from Call 6 onwards as a Pilot Requested in the IST programme from Call 6 onwards as a Pilot Only for RTD i.e. research, demonstration and combined research and demonstration projects Only for RTD i.e. research, demonstration and combined research and demonstration projects In order to In order to –reduce the number of misunderstandings and errors in the submission of cost statements –speed up payments –improve the system of control in respect of the costs reimbursed to the contractors –reinforce the protection of the financial interests of the Community

40 40 Highlights: Audit certificates Contd When the contractor has When the contractor has –A cost of more than Euros for the first 12 month period of the project, the audit certificate to be provided with first interim cost statement (or Euros for the first 6 months) –A total project cost exceeding Euros for the total project costs, the audit certificate to be provided (covering all the periodic cost statements) together with the cost statement for the final period, also for those that have provided audit certificates with their first interim cost statement –In case a contractor as result of restrictions in its statutes or other national legislation is not in a position to provide an Audit certificate, no Audit certificate will be required

41 41 Highlights: Audit certificates Contd Eligible costs (under the specific cost categorie) Eligible costs (under the specific cost categorie) –Community financial contribution shall not exceed 4000 Euros per audit certificate Guarantee retention shall be 20% of the maximum amount of the EU contribution Guarantee retention shall be 20% of the maximum amount of the EU contribution In all cases where a certification in an Audit certificate is required, costs for which there is no such certification shall not be considered as eligible costs In all cases where a certification in an Audit certificate is required, costs for which there is no such certification shall not be considered as eligible costs As part of the Pilot the Commission (or any representative authorised by it) would like to reserve the right to assess the Audit work performed. As part of the Pilot the Commission (or any representative authorised by it) would like to reserve the right to assess the Audit work performed. A model for an Audit certificate is available A model for an Audit certificate is available

42 42 Further opportunities: Call 7 - CPAs Multimodal and multisensorial dialogue modes (RTD) Multimodal and multisensorial dialogue modes (RTD) Use of Geographic Information (RTD & Support activities) Use of Geographic Information (RTD & Support activities) Next generation networks (RTD & Take-up) Next generation networks (RTD & Take-up) e-Learning for European youth in a digital age (RTD) e-Learning for European youth in a digital age (RTD) Next generation micro- and nanotechnologies for highly integrated miniature applications (RTD & Take-up) Next generation micro- and nanotechnologies for highly integrated miniature applications (RTD & Take-up) Application services provision (RTD & Take-up) Application services provision (RTD & Take-up) Advanced signal processing systems and applications (RTD & Support activities) Advanced signal processing systems and applications (RTD & Support activities)

43 43 Further opportunities: Call 7 bis (to be decided) Initiative on 2.5-3G mobile applications and services that draws on the Action Lines for take- up and support measures in WP 2001 Initiative on 2.5-3G mobile applications and services that draws on the Action Lines for take- up and support measures in WP 2001 Focus: Focus: –interoperability/inter-working and roaming issues –seamless end-to-end provision of value-added services and applications –QoS and service customisation –user identification, billing and payment issues –Security, safety and privacy

44 44 Further opportunities: Call 7 bis (to be decided) (Contd) Possible services an applications include: Possible services an applications include: –location based, personalised and context-sensitive services –m-commerce and m-business and mobile work applications and services –mobile enter-/infotainment, mobile learning, mobile access to cultural heritage and m-advertising –emergency assistance services and mobile health applications and services

45 45 Concluding remarks Importance of innovation Exploitation potential Consortia composition European and beyond What is new at the end of the project? Project 100% in line with business interest

46 46 Concluding remarks Contd In order to help us, In order to help us, –please pre-register your proposal –please submit the full proposal in good time and ensure all forms are duly completed and signed –ensure that budget figures add up –use Pro-Tool –if available use your registration number with the IST Programme

47 47Announcements Area meetings (starting at 11:30): Area meetings (starting at 11:30): – AdministrationsS1 – EnvironmentS2 – Transport & TourismeS3 Please do not forget to return the participant questionnaire to Commission staff at the end of the Information Day Please do not forget to return the participant questionnaire to Commission staff at the end of the Information Day Many thanks

48 48 Important details - keep up to date ! IST helpdesk Fax : Official Journal (call text) - Workprogramme - Guide for Proposers - Evaluation manual


Download ppt "Information Society Technologies (IST) KA1 Systems and Services for the Citizen 7th Call, Information Day - Tuesday 3rd July, 2001 GENERAL INFORMATION."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google