1. How to prepare a good application for EU research funds
(FP7 – NMP focus)
ARTTIC
58 A rue du Dessous des Berges
F Paris
Tel: Fax:

2. Evaluation criteria in mind
Key aspects and hurdles

3. Evaluation criteria – full proposal
Individually: 4, 3 and 3
Totally: 12 / 15

4. Stage 1 for NMP Stage 1 overall threshold 8/10
ST/quality: 4/5 Impact: 3/5

5. Stage 1 for NMP
Stage 1 proposals will be evaluated only against those sub-criteria underlined (see previous page)
As indicated in the work programme, stage 1 proposals must not exceed 10 pages, font size 12: This does not mean it is easy!
Budget simplified at this stage: only a single set of budget figures and the corresponding requested EU funding is required for the whole project.

6. Stage 1 proposal 1.1 Concept and objectives
Explain the concept of your project. What are the main ideas that led you to propose this work?
Describe in detail the S&T objectives in a measurable and verifiable form. Show how they relate to the topics addressed by the call.
1.2 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art
Describe the state-of-the-art in the area concerned, and the advance that the proposed project would bring about.
1.3 S/T methodology and associated work plan
An overview of the work plan to be adopted should be proposed.
3.1 Expected impacts listed in the work programme
Describe how your project will contribute towards the expected impacts listed in the work programme in relation to the topic or topics in question.
Mention the steps that will be needed to bring about these impacts. Explain why this contribution requires a European (rather than a national or local) approach.
Indicate how account is taken of other national or international research activities.
Mention any assumptions and external factors that may determine whether the impacts will be achieved.
6 Partnership and Budget (Additional to 10 pages)
Describe the partnership and the estimated financial resources in the two tables.

7. Stage 2 and in general 7

8. S/T Excellence Research oriented
Evaluation criteria
S/T Excellence
Research oriented
Clear, demonstrable and measurable progress against the state of the art
Not a series of small improvements
Innovation oriented
Research should lead to
New products, new services
Impact on the industry (market, employment, etc.)
Impact for the citizen (environment)
Consistency
Clear starting basis taking into account previous work (especially if financed by the EC)
Sound approach with intermediary steps (“milestones”) and risk management
Ambitious objectives and results addressing work programme and related industry programme

9. S/T Excellence Evaluation criteria
Large activity related to the validation of results can be considered as
Not really innovative
Close to development
Not “component or sub-system” validation
COSTLY
Incremental improvements are useful for the industry but
Not sexy research to communicate on
Industrial non risky business: no need for public money
Purely technical developments are
Not easy to explain to the average European citizen
why should we pay taxes to solve leakage problems?
Unclear workplan, absence of milestones, no measurable results, obscure deliverables
Funding high tech SMEs better addresses EU policy than supporting large industrial groups

10. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management
Evaluation criteria
Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management
Experience of the partners
Make sure you have the right partners
Expertise and know-how
Capacity to perform the work
Capacity to exploit results
Visibility:
“excellence”: among the best in Europe
“politically correct”: SME, new member states, ICPC*
“The right people at the right place”
Proper justification of resources
Person months
Does it make sense to have 1 pm on a task: should be significant enough for a real contribution (3-6 pm mini.)
Why “so many” or “so few” pm?
Subcontracting
Justification, cost and selection of subcontractors:
absolutely needed and best value for money
Other costs
Why ? How much ? Good value for money?
*ICPC: International Cooperation Partner Country

11. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management
Evaluation criteria
Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management
Too many participants in a tasks
No significant contributions from partners
Unclear role
Wrong profile of participants
“Second zone” organisations
Unjustified expenses or costs too high
Imbalanced expenses between pure R&D, testing and subcontracts
Complex and heavy management

12. Potential impact Evaluation criteria Addressing EC policy
Read carefully the “expected impact” section of each area of the workprogramme
White papers, related “vision” papers from the industry
Dissemination, exploitation and IPR management
How will the partners exploit the results (When? After what ? Etc.)
How will the partners disseminate results (publication policy, transfer to the chain of suppliers, etc.)?
Any specific issue or process to handle IPRs?

13. Potential impact Connection to EU policies
Evaluation criteria
Potential impact
Connection to EU policies
Development not addressing any impact listed in the workprogramme
No European dimension: could be done in Germany alone for example
Dissemination, exploitation and IPR management
Keep all results inside one participant
No clear use of the results
Potential IPR problems with the partners not addressed

14. Workpackage description

15. Objectives and results
Workpackage description
Objectives and results
Rationale
Why the work is needed: scientific, technical, industrial, economic & societal reasons?
Why is it a good idea to do it NOW and not last year or next year (“window” of opportunity)?
Overall objectives
Measurable technical objectives vs. related Industrial “vision”, state of the art, competition and other projects?
Any BREAKTROUGH?
Industrial objectives: when will industry benefit from it as per the planned roadmaps
Results
Main WP output and deliverables
Milestones
Crystal clear checkpoints whenever possible every 6 months

16. Approach Workpackage description State-of-the-art
What has already been done?
In previous projects, outside the consortium
In Europe, how far are we from the related industrial “vision” plan and how far will we be after the project
How do you MEASURE the breakthroughs / progress vs the state of the art
Why do you think you will succeed?
Any feasibility test performed?
Methodology
Main elements correspond to WPs
Requirement analysis
Specification
Development and integration
Tests
List of tasks and rationale behind the tasks

17. Expected contributions from a SP/WP
Workpackage description
Expected contributions from a SP/WP
For each WP: about 3-5 pages
Objectives ½ page
Approach 1 ½ page + figures
WP description 1 ½ page
Results ½ page
Milestones (table) 1 every 6 months
Reference
Name
Expected date
Means of verification
WP form: see next slide

18. WP form Workpackage description Meaningful WP title
Person months for each participant
Objective if possible described as “active” verbs
To specify … / To develop … / To achieve … / To test …
Description of work
Short introduction (3 lines) if needed
Task description: bullet list again starting with active verbs - specify the leader in the title
One-two sentence on main risk and mitigation
Very short description of roles, e.g.
Partner 1: WP leader; specification and validation
Partner 2: specification and development
Partner 3: test
Partner 4: material expertise
Deliverables: reference - month of delivery - short description
Avoid too many deliverables
Avoid too small deliverables (=> should be intermediary results)
Avoid not delivering anything for very long period
Meaningful title

19. Proposal structure and expected contributions
Part A
Part B

20. Proposal Proposal Electronic submission using EPSS
Proposal similar to FP6 made of two parts:
Part A - Administrative details - 3 parts
A1 Summary
A2 Participants (minimum administrative information)
A3 Budget
Part B - Project proposal - 5 parts
Scientific and/or technical quality , relevant to the topics addressed by the call
Implementation
Impact
Ethical issues
Consideration of gender aspects

21. Proposal
Part A
Three forms (EPSS tool normally available by March 19th)
A1 proposal summary=> the coordinator
Check it!
A2 to be filled by each participant with EPSS tool
Administrative info
Make sure it is done!
A3 budget
Agreed distribution, person-months, sub contracts and other identified costs
According to cost categories:
R&D (50% - 75%)
Demonstration (50%)
Management, dissemination, training, etc. (100%)

22. Proposal
1 Scientific and/or technical quality, relevant to the topics addressed by the call
1.1 Concept and objectives
Concept and rationale
Ensure that the project is justified and fits with your expectations
Make sure your contribution fully contribute and is properly included
S&T objectives in the project, measurable and verifiable through milestones
Your key objective(s) should appear here
Relation to the topics addressed by the call
Check if the text of the call seems fully relevant
1.2 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art
Ensure that
State of the art is properly summarised including what has been/is done in other projects
The project starts from this basis and does not re-invent the wheel
The project is a significant progress and - better - will deliver real breakthroughs
Not too many details but an overall picture
Part B

23. Proposal
1 Scientific and/or technical quality, relevant to the topics addressed by the call
Part B
1.3 S/T methodology and associated work plan
Overall strategy of work plan
Starting basis properly described
Methods, techniques and tools to reach the objectives and deliver the results properly described
Approach justified with experience, risk management, etc.
Approach clarified with easy to understand figures and pictures (=> black & white only in case evaluators use poor photocopiers)
Main developments to be done in the WPs properly described
Key milestones and means of verification provided
How are the achievements measured (energy saving, weight reduction, maintenance costs, safety, etc.)
Organisation and interdependencies (PERT) + timing (GANTT)
Detailed WP description with
List of tasks / List of Deliverables / WP description (forms) / Summary effort table
List of milestones
#, Name, WPs involved, Expected date, means of verification
Risks & contingency plans

24. Part B 2 Implementation Proposal
2.1 Management structure and procedure
Make sure the SP/WP leaders have NAMES (always possible to change them afterwards)
Make sure that quality control and risk management are addressed
Make sure the management structure corresponds to the organisation of the project - not cut&paste from previous projects - not too complex - not oversimplified
2.2 Individual participants
Description of the organisation
1/3 page if possible emphasising what is done in the project
A few line on previous experience and know-how related to the project
A few lines on the role, expected impact for the partner and exploitation
Extremely short CV of the key person (s) - WP leader => “the right person at the right place”
Name / diploma / position in the organisation
Experience and know how in the field
2.3 Consortium
A few contributions to the overall Industrial and commercial commitment to ensure explotation
2.4 Resources to be committed
Sub contracting: justify if any, provide budget and the way you will select subcontractors, if possible you should already have a short list of potential ones
Other major costs than personnel: equipment, consumables, etc.: why and how much
Part B

25. 3 Impact Part B 3.1 Expected impact as described in the workprogramme
Proposal
3 Impact
3.1 Expected impact as described in the workprogramme
How will your activity contribute?
Anything specific at
Industrial level (competitiveness)
Societal level (environment, competitiveness, employment, etc.)
3.2 Dissemination and/or exploitation of project results and management of Intellectual Property
How will the consortium / each partner exploit the results
How will the consortium / each partner disseminate the results (supply chain, universities, research centres, etc.)
How will the consortium / each partner protect the results
Part B

26. 4 Ethical issues 5 Consideration of gender aspects
Proposal
4 Ethical issues 5 Consideration of gender aspects
4 Ethical issues
None in general
5 Consideration of gender aspects
Any activity or contribution from the participants on the promotion of gender equality in the project
improving the gender balance in the consortium
measures to help reconcile work and private life
awareness raising within the consortium
events organised in schools or universities
Part B

27. Planning - Example Planning Step 1: Close core group agreement on
Scope of the project and story
WPs title and scope
Budget
Check project definition with EC and relevant bodies
Step 2: Finalise consortium & WP definition
Produce initial WP definition
Choose partners
Agree on WP definition and partners
Sign letter of commitment
Step 3:
Proposal writing
Your contributions to Parts A and B
Proof reading & quality assurance
Submission
T0= D-3 months T0
T0+1 week
T0+2 weeks
T1= D-2 months
T1+2 weeks
T1+4 weeks
T1+6 weeks
T2=D-1 month T2
T2+2/3 weeks
Deadline D

28. More information ARTTIC: www.arttic.com
EU web sites: go to and read carefully
The “Guide for applicant”
The Workprogramme