1. 1 Information Society Technologies Information Society Technologies Proposal submission in IST – Five golden rules Collaborative Working Environments Information Day Brussels – 2 nd June 2005

2. 2 IST Workprogramme 2005-2006 IST Workprogramme 2005-2006 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 IST Guidance notes for evaluators IST Guidance notes for evaluators Explains how your proposal will be evaluated All available from http://www.cordis.lu/ist Sources of information

3. 3 Choose the right instrument for your idea ! Integrated project Integrated project Specific targeted research project (STREP) Specific targeted research project (STREP) Coordination action Coordination action Specific support action Specific support action Rule no. 1

4. 4 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: 36-60 months 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

5. 5  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

6. 6 Purpose: Objective-driven research more limited in scope than an IP Target audience: Industry incl. SMEs, research institutes, universities Typical duration: 18-36 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

7. 7  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

8. 8 Purpose: Co-ordination of research activities Target audience: Research institutions, universities, industry incl. SME Typical duration: 18-36 months Optimum consortium: 13-26 participants Total EU contribution: €0.5-1.8m (average around €1m) Fixed overall workplan and partnership for the duration Coordination actions

9. 9  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  Clear added value to the IST Priority. Projects/activities to be coordinated are ongoing, they are doing quality work and their motivation to participate is clear Coordination actions

10. 10 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

11. 11  While it may be worthwhile in other respects, there is no evident benefit to the objectives of the IST Priority as described in the IST 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 the IST Priority Specific support actions

12. 12 IP 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

13. 13 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

14. 14 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

15. 15 Use the IST 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

16. 16 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

17. 17 1. On the IST Call 5 page, the coordinator registers for the correct instrument, and obtains coordinator and partner user ids and passwords by return email 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 email confirming submission Online preparation (recommended)

18. 18 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

19. 19 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

20. 20 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

21. 21 Manualshttp://www.cordis.lu/fp6/find-doc.htm#userguides EPSS Helpdesk support@epss-fp6.org tel + 32 2 233 3760 EPSS help

22. 22 Commission contact person for each objective open in call link from call page on Cordis A help desk for proposers´ questions ist@cec.eu.int tel +32 2 296 8596 A network of National Contact Points http://www.cordis.lu/ist/ncps.htm Idealist partner search service http://www.ideal-ist.net http://www.ideal-ist.net Other support services listed in the Guides for proposers General help and advice