1. Proof of Concept IGLO Veronica Beneitez Pinero March 2015
First of all, I would like to thank you all for being here. Today we have a mixture of reviewers. Some of you are going to review for the ERC for the third or fourth year, some of you stepped in last year to evaluate the proposals for DL2 other have not yet seen an ERC PoC application yet.
To all of you thank you for your attention today, I hope I will be able to shed some light.

2. The Scientific Management Department in the ERC Executive Agency
I HOPE BY NOW MOST OF YOU KNOW WHAT IS THE ERC ABOUT. THE ERCE IS A PUBLIC RESEACRH FUNDED AGENCY ; The core of the work of the agency is to select the best project that will later be funded. This is done in department B, the Scientific mangement department.

3. Functions of the Scientific Managament Department
Evaluation of the proposals of ERC calls
Scientific evaluation
Ethics clearance of proposals proposed for funding
Project follow-up
Scientific project follow-up
Ethics follow-up
Ex-post qualitative assessment of the research funded
IT and BP support in the evaluation process
Expert management recruitment and support
Redress
Implementation of international agreements
│ 3

4. Structure of the Scientific Management DepartmentB
Scientific Management Department
Process Management and Review
Call and Project Follow-up Coordination
Life Sciences
Physical Sciences and Engineering
Social Sciences and Humanities B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
44, 39 y 17
Antes 40, 35, 15, 10
PoC
Staff of the Department: 165
│ 4

5. Role of independent experts
Independent experts, evaluate proposals submitted in response to a given call.
The experts are responsible for carrying out the evaluation of the proposals themselves.
They are not allowed to delegate the work to another person!
Significant funding decisions will be made on the basis of their assessment.

6. Objective and activities
PoC : Principles
Objective and activities
Objective: The ERC Proof of Concept Grants aim to maximise the value of the excellent research that the ERC funds, by funding further work to verify the innovation potential of ideas arising from ERC funded projects.
What kind of activities that can be financed:
establishing viability, technical issues and overall direction
market research
clarifying IPR strategy
investigating business opportunities
Initial expenses for start-up

7. Financial contribution and duration
PoC : Principles
Financial contribution and duration
The financial contribution will be up to a maximum of EUR for a period of 18 months.
"The ERC expects that normally, proof of concept projects should be completed within 12 months. However, to allow for those projects that require more preparation time, projects will be signed for 18 months. Given this initial flexibility, extensions of the duration of proof of concept projects may be granted only exceptionally."
The ERC contribution will take the form of the reimbursement of up to 100% of the total eligible and of flat-rate financing of indirect costs of a maximum of 25% of the total eligible direct costs

8. PoC : Evaluation Flow Reception of proposals - SEP submission
Remote Evaluation (SEP)
Preliminary evaluation results
Evaluation results
Panel meeting
Feedback to applicants
Eligibility check

9. Reception of proposals - SEP submission
PoC : Submission of proposals
Reception of proposals - SEP submission
ERCEA published the call on the Participant Portal
- Work Programme
- Guide for Applicants
- Templates
- Frequently Asked Questions
The work programme is a legally binding document.
It is a dynamic document , published annually, set out the evaluation criteria.
Main Changes 2015 WP:
Increase of PoC budget : €20 million
Resubmission restriction: 1 PoC application per year.
Simplification of evaluation criteria

10. PoC : Submission of proposals
The applicant must submit the required documents before the call deadline
The documents are :
Administrative data
Part B ( 7 pages + budget table Max)
Host Support Letter
Additional documents: Annexes ( Not relevant for the evaluation)

11. PoC : Structure of the submitted proposal (1/2)
Section 1: The idea - Innovation potential (max. 2 pages)
a. Succinct description of the idea to be taken to proof of concept
b. Demonstration of Innovation Potential
Section 2 – Expected Impact (max. 2 pages):
a. Economic and/or societal benefits
b. Commercialisation process and/or any other exploitation process
c. Proposed plans for :
- Competitive analysis
- Testing, technical reports (where applicable)
- IPR position and strategy (where applicable)
- Industry/sector contacts (where applicable)

12. PoC : Structure of the submitted proposal (2/2)
Section 3: The proof of concept plan (max 2 pages)
a. Plan of the activities
b. Project-management plan
c. Description of the team
Section 4: The budget (max 1 page + costing table)
Resources (incl. project costs)
Justification (description of the budget)
Only the material that is presented within this limit will be evaluated

13. Done in house by ERCEA Scientific Officers
PoC : Elegibility Check 1/2
Eligible Project:
Proposal complete and submitted on time
The content of the proposal must relate to the objectives and to the grant type set out in the call
Demonstrate the relation between the idea to be taken to PoC and the ERC research grant.
Eligibility check
Done in house by ERCEA Scientific Officers
Eligible Principal Investigator:
The PI has to be in an ERC frontier research that is either ongoing or has ended less than 12 months before the opening date of the call.
The PI is subject to resubmission restrictions
( one eligible application per call)
Eligible Host Institution:
In a Member State or Associated Country

14. PoC : Elegibility Check 2/2
The check is done in parallel to the evaluation. So a proposal can be declare ineligible at any stage.
If ineligible, you will be informed and the proposal will dissapear from your list of assigned proposal.
Applicants will be informed as soon as the decistion is taken.
Applicants can redress on the elegibility decision.

15. Remote Evaluation (SEP)
PoC : Remote evaluation 1/4
Remote Evaluation (SEP)
5 reviews/proposal
No discussions between reviewers
Report any Conflict of Interest (CoI)
Remote, using SEP
PASS/FAIL mark on each criterion
Succinct explanatory comment for each mark
Sign and submit your reviews

16. PoC : Remote evaluation 2/4
We have aligned the template of Part B with the evaluation criteria to make the review process a bit more simple.
Evaluation Criteria 1
Excellence (Innovation potential)
Section 1: The idea - Innovation potential (max. 2 pages)
Does the proposed proof of concept activity greatly help move the output of research
towards the initial steps of a process leading to a commercial or social innovation?
Demonstration of Innovation Potential

17. PoC : Remote evaluation 3/4
2. Impact
Section 2 – Expected Impact:
2.1 Is the project to be taken to proof of concept expected to generate economic and/or
societal benefits which are appropriately identified in the proposal?
2.2 Does the proposal indicate a suitable process that is designed to result in a concrete
application, including outlining a process of commercialisation or a process of generating
social benefits?
a. Economic and/or societal benefits
b. Commercialisation process and/or any other exploitation process
c. Proposed plans for :
The proposal should include:
- plans for the analysis of whether the project’s outcomes are innovative or distinctive
compared to existing solutions;
- plans for seeking confirmation of the actual effectiveness of the project’s results;
- plans to clarify the IPR position and strategy33;
- plans for setting up contacts with industry partners, societal organisations or potential ‘end
users’ of the projects’ results.
- Competitive analysis
- Testing, technical reports (where applicable)
- IPR position and strategy (where applicable)
- Industry/sector contacts (where applicable)

18. PoC : Remote evaluation 4/4
3. Quality and efficiency of the implementation (Quality of the proof of concept plan)
Section 3: The proof of concept plan (max 2 pages)
Section 4: The budget (max 1 page + costing table)
Does the proposal provide a reasonable and acceptable plan of activities against clearly
identified objectives and towards establishing the feasibility of the project?
This should include:
- a sound project-management plan, including appropriate risk and contingency planning;
- demonstration that the activities will be conducted by persons well qualified for the
purpose;
-demonstration that the budget requested is necessary for the implementation of the
project and properly justified.
a. Plan of the activities
b. Project-management plan
c. Description of the team

19. Preliminary evaluation results
PoC : Preliminary Results ranking 1/3
Proposals which fail a criterion will not be ranked
Proposal’s score = S PASS marks
Same number of reviews for each proposal
Every mark has an impact
Proposals will be funded up to depletion of budget
6,6 M€ for each deadline = ~44 proposals
Preliminary evaluation results

20. PoC : Preliminary Results ranking 2/3
If there is not enough budget to fund all the proposals which pass all three evaluation criteria, those proposals which pass all three evaluation criteria will be sorted by the number of pass marks awarded by peer reviewers to criterion 1 (Excellence- Innovation potential), then by the number of pass marks awarded to criterion 2 (Impact), then by the number of pass marks awarded to criterion 3 (Quality and efficiency of the implementation). Proposals will be funded in order of the ranking resulting from this 3-level sorting exercise until depletion of the available budget per evaluation round.

21. PoC : Preliminary Results ranking 3/3
If there is a group of equally ranked fundable proposals that crosses the budget cut off line, the panel will proceed as follows:
All the experts involved in the evaluation of at least one proposal in this group will be sent the reviews of all the proposals in the group. They will then examine all the proposals in the group and the existing reviews, and decide on their own personal ranking.
The ERCEA will compile a sub-ranking within the group taking into account the CoIs1, and will then come up with an overall final ranking list.

22. PoC : Panel meeting Panel meeting
After the evaluation, all the experts will have to confirm by sending an e mail that they agree with the results of the evaluation.
Only in the case a consensus cannot be reached, the ERCEA can call for a panel meeting in order to discuss the ranking order of the proposals.

23. Feedback to applicants
PoC : Feedback to applicants
Applicants are informed on the results of the evaluation:
- Status of their proposal (Retained, Rejected, Failed)
- Scores (pass/ failed) + Comments
Ethical
Granting
Feedback to applicants

26. PoC : Evaluation Process Redress
Who? PI / PI host institution
Deadline? within 1 month of feedback
How? online form
Scope? Formal review = procedural errors only
No scientific judgment
No evaluation of the proposal on the substance
Successful redress ≠ financed project !

27. PoC : Evaluation Process Cases that may lead to re-evaluation
Wrong eligibility decision ( 2 cases 2014 DL1)
Application of irrelevant criteria (2 cases 2014 DL2)
Incorrect application of criteria
Wrong thresholds or scoring
Clear conflicts of interest
Unqualified experts
Factual errors affecting whole evaluation

28. PoC : Tentative Evaluation Calendar ( depending on workload)
DEADLINE 1
DEADLINE 2
DEADLINE 3
Deadline for submission of proposals : 05/02/2015
Deadline for submission of proposals : 28/05/2015
Deadline for submission of proposals : 01/10/2015
Allocation of proposals in SEP: 16/02/2015
Allocation of proposals in SEP: 08/06/2015
Allocation of proposals in SEP: 12/10/2015
Deadline Remote evaluation: 16/03/2015
Deadline Remote evaluation: 08/07/2015
Deadline Remote evaluation: 12/11/2015
Ranking etc 25/03/2015
Ranking etc 15/07/2015
Ranking etc 20/11/2015
Expected feedback to applicants: April 2015
Expected feedback to applicants: July 2015
Expected feedback to applicants: January 2016
When they will be informed about the elegibility….

29. ERC PoC 2014 - Overview Call published in December 2013.
ERC received 442 proposals
182 proposals DL1
260 proposals DL2
167 LS (79 DL1/ 88 DL2)
215 PE (75 DL1/140 DL2)
60 SH (28 DL1/32 DL2)
2 Synergy proposal (1DL1/1DL2)

30. ERC PoC 2014 - Overview 205 proposals passed all the thresholds
91 DL1 / 114 DL2
The SC decided to increase the budget by 20% . Finally 121 proposals funded
61 proposals DL1
60 proposals DL2
Success rate 27% DL1/ 20% DL2
Publication of results in the website: list of projects , PI and Host Institutions

31. ERC Proof of Concept Evolution of Success rates and Budget used

32. ERC Proof of Concept 2011-2012-2013-2014 - Success rates by domain

33. Number of PoC Projects SIGNED per panel as at January 2015

34. ERC Proof of Concept 2014- DL1- DL2
# of Funded proposals by panel.

35. Proof of Concept Grant PoC 2014: all the applicants have been informed
4 redress cases submitted ( to be dealt with)

36. Number of PoC proposals submitted by deadline until now

37. % of PoC submissions by domain

38. ERC PoC 2015: Submissions by panel %

39. Number of PoC proposals submitted by HI country

40. PoC Challenges What is the life after the PoC? Applicants behaviour
Fairness of the process
Get good SH applications

41. Thank you for your attention