Information Society Technologies Information Society Technologies Proposal submission in IST – Five golden rules Research Infrastructures/Research networking testbeds Information Day Information Day Brussels – 26 th May 2005

Workprogramme Workprogramme Describes in detail the work requested Call text Call text Gives the main legal conditions of the call Guides for proposers Guides for proposers Explains how to write a proposal EPSS manuals EPSS manuals Explains how to submit a proposal electronically Guidance notes for evaluators Guidance notes for evaluators Explains how your proposal will be evaluated All available from Sources of information

Choose the right instrument for your idea ! Integrated Infrastructure Initiatives Integrated Infrastructure Initiatives Integrated project Integrated project Specific targeted research project (STREP) Specific targeted research project (STREP) Network of excellence Network of excellence Coordination action Coordination action Specific support action Specific support action Rule no. 1

Purpose: Ambitious objective-driven research with a ‘programme’ approach Target audience: Industry (incl. SMEs), research institutions. Universities – and in some cases potential end-users Typical duration: months Optimum consortium: participants Optimum consortium: participants Total EU contribution: €4-25m (average around €10m) Flexibility in implementation: Yearly update of workplan, possibility for competitive calls for enlargement of consortium Integrated projects

 Scale of ambition is limited, reflected in limited activities, duration, size of consortium more typical of a STREP  Goals are ambitious. The proposers include key industry players. A full range of activities covering a substantial part of the development chain is envisaged. Broad industry sector impact is foreseen. SME participation has been sought/achieved. Effective project management plans are in place Integrated projects

Purpose: Objective-driven research more limited in scope than an IP Target audience: Industry incl. SMEs, research institutes, universities Typical duration: months Optimum consortium: 6-15 participants Total EU contribution: €0.8-3m (average around €1.9m) Fixed workplan and fixed partnership for the duration Specific targeted research projects

 The work is unoriginal, not scientifically and technically excellent  A well-focused and well-planned research project by capable partners which will extend the state-of-the-art Specific targeted research projects

Purpose: Durable integration of participants’ research activities Target audience: research institutions, universities, Mainly indirectly: industry – through governing boards etc Typical duration: months (but indefinite integration!) Optimum consortium: 6-12 participants Total EU contribution: €4-15m (average around €7m) Flexibility in implementation: Yearly update of workplan, possibilities for enlargement of consortium Networks of excellence

 Proposal for ad hoc co-operation between organisations for a specific purpose - no evidence of durable integration. The participants are going to continue to work as they have always done with no significant changes of structures, portfolios and organisations  The research area is fragmented and would gain in excellence by re-structuring; and all the participants intend to undertake a major effort to re-structure and re-organise the way research in the area is carried out in Europe and establish durable integration of their research capacities Networks of excellence

Purpose: Co-ordination of research activities Target audience: Research institutions, universities, industry incl. SME Typical duration: months Optimum consortium: participants Total EU contribution: € m (average around €1m) Fixed overall workplan and partnership for the duration Coordination actions

 The work is “stand alone”, it doesn’t involve real cooperation and networking The added value of coordinating the activities isn’t evident, or it isn’t to the benefit of IST/RI  Clear added value to IST/RI. Projects/activities to be coordinated are ongoing, they are doing quality work and their motivation to participate is clear Coordination actions

Purpose: Support to programme implementation, preparation of future actions, dissemination of results Target audience: Research organisations, universities, industry incl. SME Typical duration: 9-30 months Optimum consortium: 1-15 participants Total EU contribution: €0.03-1m (average around €0.5m) Fixed overall workplan and partnership for the duration Specific support actions

 While it may be worthwhile in other respects, there is no evident benefit to the objectives of IST/RI as described in the Workprogramme The proposal is for a research or a cooperation activity  A well-planned support action with clear and achievable aims which directly supports the work of IST/RI Specific support actions

IP/I 3 NoE STREP CA SSA Relevance XXXXX Potential impact XXXXX Scientific & tech excellence XX Degree of integration & the JPAX Quality of the coordinationX Quality of the support actionX Quality of the consortium XXX Excellence of participantsX Quality of management XXXX Organisation and managementX Mobilisation of resources XXXX Roles and definitions - Evaluation criteria

Score consistently high marks on all criteria ! Score consistently high marks on all criteria ! 1. Divide your effort over the evaluation criteria. Don’t neglect any part of your proposal 2. Make it easy for the evaluators to give you high marks. Don’t make them work at it ! Don’t write too little; cover what is requested Don’t write too little; cover what is requested Leave nothing to the evaluators’ imagination Leave nothing to the evaluators’ imagination Don’t write too much Don’t write too much Don’t leave them to figure out why it’s good, tell them why it’s good Don’t leave them to figure out why it’s good, tell them why it’s good Rule no. 2

Remember every half-mark will count ! Think of the finishing touches which signal quality work: in content Part B sections directly reflect the evaluation criteria Part B sections directly reflect the evaluation criteria ethical issues ethical issues in presentation clear language clear language well-organised contents well-organised contents useful diagrams and summary tables useful diagrams and summary tables no typos, no inconsistencies, no obvious paste-ins, no numbers which don’t add up, no missing pages …….. no typos, no inconsistencies, no obvious paste-ins, no numbers which don’t add up, no missing pages …….. Rule no. 3

Use the Guidance notes for evaluators ! 1. Give the Guidance notes and your draft proposal to experienced colleagues 2. Then re-write your proposal following their recommendations Rule no. 4

Succeed with submission ! Two ways to prepare your proposal “Online preparation” - on our server using your normal Internet access “Online preparation” - on our server using your normal Internet access “Offline preparation”- on your own PC using our EPTool “Offline preparation”- on your own PC using our EPTool But always online submission Rule no. 5

1. On the Call page, the coordinator registers for the correct instrument, and obtains coordinator and partner user ids and passwords by return 2. Consortium completes the Part A on our server, accessed from our Cordis website Coordinator completes the A1 and A3 form Coordinator completes the A1 and A3 form Each partner completes his own A2 Each partner completes his own A2 3. Coordinator prepares the Part B on his own PC using the (.rtf) template provided Finally saved as.pdf file Finally saved as.pdf file 4. The coordinator uploads his Part B to our server, joining the existing Part A, and signals his proposal is now complete by pressing the submit button 5. Coordinator receives an confirming submission Online preparation (recommended)

Each new submission of your proposal over-writes the previous one ! Make a trial submission several days in advance, so you practice the procedure and have plenty of time to correct any problems Make a trial submission several days in advance, so you practice the procedure and have plenty of time to correct any problems (You can make a trial submission of a partly-written proposal : error messages about missing fields or partners do not block submission!) Submit a refined version of your proposal each day in the last days of the call Submit a refined version of your proposal each day in the last days of the call Aim to submit your final version at mid-day on the last day Aim to submit your final version at mid-day on the last day Plan for a successful submission

Registering for the wrong instrument Registering for the wrong instrument Registering for the wrong call Registering for the wrong call Confusing online and offline preparation Confusing online and offline preparation If you make a registration error, just abandon these passwords and register again Virus infected files Virus infected files Excessively long files (> 10Mb) Excessively long files (> 10Mb) Providing a Part B as other than a.pdf file Providing a Part B as other than a.pdf file Your submission will be refused, you will be asked to correct the problem and try again EPSS - Errors and problems

Incomplete/unreadable Part Bs Incomplete/unreadable Part Bs We can only evaluate as much as we can read….. Delegating the task of submission Delegating the task of submission Failing to press the “submit” button Failing to press the “submit” button Leaving submission till the last minute ! Leaving submission till the last minute ! EPSS - Errors and problems

Manualshttp:// EPSS Helpdesk tel EPSS help

Commission contact person for each objective open in call link from call page on Cordis A help desk for proposers´ questions tel A network of National Contact Points Idealist partner search service Other support services listed in the Guides for proposers General help and advice