Äîêóìåíò âçÿò èç êýøà ïîèñêîâîé ìàøèíû. Àäðåñ îðèãèíàëüíîãî äîêóìåíòà : http://www.msu.ru/science/details/2010/101021-moscow-how.pdf Äàòà èçìåíåíèÿ: Tue Nov 9 11:12:38 2010 Äàòà èíäåêñèðîâàíèÿ: Fri Feb 11 04:53:15 2011 Êîäèðîâêà: Ïîèñêîâûå ñëîâà: europa

Proposals and projects in FP7
ICT Information Day
Moscow 21st October, 2010

1. The Rules of the Programme


FP7 basic principles
· Proposals can only be submitted in response to publicly-announced calls for proposals
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict

· · · ·

All proposals* are presented by multinational consortia of organisations/individuals Proposals are evaluated by independent experts All proposal coordinators receive an Evaluation Summary Report Funding follows successful evaluation, selection and negotiation of grant agreement
* except certain Support actions
··· 2


Who can participate
· Three independent legal entities from three different EU Member States or Associated countries (presently:

Albania (AL), Bosnia-Herzegovina (BA), Croatia (HR), the Faroes (FO), Iceland (IS), Israel (IL), Liechtenstein (LI), FYR of Macedonia (MK), Montenegro (ME), Norway (NO), Serbia (SR), Switzerland (CH), Turkey (TR)

· EEIGs composed of members that meet the criteria above can participate · International (intergovernmental) organisations can participate · Participants from third countries if in addition to minima · Collaborative projects for specific cooperation actions (SICA) dedicated to international cooperation partner countries (ICPC): minimum 4 participants of which 2 in different MS or AC and 2 in different ICPC countries unless otherwise specified · Support actions; no restrictions
··· 3


Community funding
Eligibility for Funding:
· · · Legal entities from MS and AC or created under Community law (and the JRC) International European interest organisations Legal entities established in international cooperation partner countries (ICPC-INCO) and · Legal entities established in 3rd countries other than ICPC-INCO, if provided for in SP or WP; or if essential for carrying out action; or if provision for funding is provided for in a bilateral agreement between Community and that country
··· 4


Reimbursement of eligible costs
Cost reporting models eliminated; all participants report direct and indirect (overhead) eligible costs Eligible costs
· Actual · Incurred during the project · Determined according to usual accounting and management principles/practices · Used solely to achieve project objectives · Consistent with principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness · Recorded in accounts (or the accounts of third parties) · Exclusive of non-eligible costs · Average personnel costs may be used if consistent with above and do not differ significantly from actual
··· 5


Direct costs IP, STREP, NoE
· Research and technological development activities: ­ 50% funding of eligible costs except for:
Public bodies (non-profit): ­ 75% Secondary and higher education establishments: ­ 75% Research organisations (non-profit): ­ 75% Small and Medium sized Enterprises - SMEs: ­ 75%

· Demonstration activities: ­ 50% of eligible costs · Other activities: ­ 100% including e.g. consortium management

Direct costs CA, SA
· Coordination and support actions ­ 100%
··· 6


Indirect costs IP, STREP, NoE
Any participant
· Actual indirect costs (participants may use a simplified method of calculation)
or

· Flat-rate of direct eligible costs excluding subcontracts (to be established by the Commission ­ currently 20%)

Non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs unable to identify real indirect costs
· Flat-rate of 60% of total direct eligible costs (until end of FP7)

Indirect costs CA, SA
Flat rate of indirect costs: 7%
··· 7


Guarantee mechanism
Replaces financial collective responsibility and financial guarantees
· · Commission establishes and operates a participant guarantee fund At the start of the project an additional advance payment of 5% of the EC contribution is transferred for each participant into the guarantee fund, to be returned at the end of the project If interests generated not sufficient to cover sums due to EC, retention of max. 1% of EC contribution (except for public bodies, higher and secondary education establishments, legal entities guaranteed by a MS/Ac) Ex-ante financial viability checks limited to coordinators and participants requesting > EUR 500.000 (unless exceptional circumstances)
··· 8

·


Payment example
3 year project receiving 3.000.000 in EC contribution:
Advance payment: Guarantee fund contribution: Advance to consortium: Cost claimed after year 1, 2 and 3: Payment year 1 to consortium: Payment year 2 to consortium: Final Payment to consortium: + Reimbursement from Guarantee Total Final payment:
1) 2) 3)

1.600.000 -150.000 1.450.000 1m 1.000.000 100.000 300.000 F 150.000 450.000

1) 2) 3

)

160% of average contribution pr. Period=year 5% of total EC contribution Up to retention rate = 10% of total EC contribution (2.7m)

··· 9


Intellectual Property Provisions

Ownership: each participant owns the foreground it generates Joint ownership: in absence of a specific agreement, a default regime is defined in grant agreement Transfer of ownership of foreground: simplified Protection, use, dissemination (publication):
Foreground capable of industrial or commercial application must be protected taking into account legitimate interests Foreground must be used and disseminated Prior notice of dissemination (including publication) to be given to other participants Publications and patent applications must indicate the Community financial assistance ··· 10


Intellectual Property Provisions

Access rights conditions

Access rights to background

Access rights to foreground

Needed for carrying out the project

Royalty-free unless otherwise agreed before accession to the grant agreement

Royalty-free

Needed for use of own foreground [ *]

Fair and reasonable conditions or royalty-free to be agreed at any time

[*] Unless otherwise foreseen, an affiliate entity established in a MS or AC will also enjoy s·ch a11ess rights u ·· cc


Proposals and projects in FP7

2. The Funding schemes


3 funding schemes ­ 5 "instruments"
2216 m ~92,5% of 2011/12 budget

· Collaborative Projects (CP)*
Small or medium scale focused research actions ("STREP") Large Scale Integrating Projects ("IP")
32.5 m ~1,5% of 2011/12 budget

· Networks of Excellence (NoE)

· Coordination and Support Actions (CSA)
Coordinating or networking actions ("CA") 151 m Support Actions ("SSA") ~6% of 2011/12 budget

ICT Workprogramme shows budget pre-allocation to instruments
*include SICA ­ Specific International Co-operation Actions
··· 13


Integrating Projects (IPs)
Ambitious objective driven research with a `programme approach' Activities in an Integrating Project may cover
· · · · · · · · research and technology development activities demonstration activities Some figures: technology transfer or take-up activities typically 36-60 months training activities dissemination activities 7-36 participants ­ avg 15 knowledge management and exploitation 4-19 m funding ­ avg 8.3 consortium management activities other activities

An Integrating Project comprises
· a coherent set of activities · and an appropriate management structure
··· 14


Focused projects (STREPs)
· Targeting a specific objective in a clearly defined project approach · Fixed overall work plan with stable deliverables that do not change over the life-time of the project · Contain two types of activity or combination of the two:
· research and technological development activity e.g. to generate new knowledge, to improve competitiveness, Some figures: to address major societal needs typically 18-36 months · demonstration activity 4-24 participants ­ avg 8 to prove the viability of new technologies but which can not be commercialised directly 1-6 m funding ­ avg 2.7 (e. g. testing of product like prototypes)
as well as

· Consortium management activities (including innovation related activities like protection of knowledge dissemination and exploitation
··· 15


Networks of excellence
to overcome the fragmentation of the European research landscape in a given area and remove the barriers to integration to reach a durable restructuring and integration of efforts and institutions or parts of institutions The success of an NoE is not measured in terms of scientific results Some figures:
typically 48-60 months .....but by the extent to which the 4-49 participants ­ avg 18 social fabric for researchers and 2-8 m funding ­ avg 4.6 research institutions in a field has changed due to the project, ....and the extent to which the existing capacities become more competitive as a result of this change
··· 16


Networks of excellence
The JPA contains a range of "additional to normal business" activities:
Integrating activities
· · · · · · coordinated programming of the partners' activities sharing of research platforms/tools/facilities joint management of the knowledge portfolio staff mobility and exchanges relocation of staff, teams, equipment reinforced electronic communication systems

Activities to support the network's goals
· Development of new research tools and platforms for common use · Generating new knowledge to fill gaps in or extend the collective knowledge portfolio

Activities to spread excellence
· · · · · training researchers and other key staff dissemination and communication activities networking activities to help transfer knowledge to outside of the network where appropriate, promoting the exploitation of the results generated where appropriate, innovation-related activities

Consortium management activities
··· 17


Coordination actions
Designed to
· promote and support the ad hoc networking and coordination of research and innovation activities at national, regional and European level over a fixed period for a specific purpose · by establishing in a coherent way coordinated initiatives of a range of research and innovation operators, in order to achieve improved cooperation of the European research

May combine the following two types of activities
· Co-ordination activities · Consortium management activities

Some fig typically 3-40 part 0.3-3 m

ures: 19-36 months icipants ­ avg 11 funding ­ avg 1

(Coordination actions do not conduct·S&8 ·· 1T research !)


Support actions
Designed to
· underpin the implementation of the programme · complement the other FP7 funding schemes, · help in preparations for future Community research and technological development policy activities and · stimulate, encourage and facilitate the participation of SMEs, civil society organisations, small research teams, newly developed and remote research centres, as well as setting up research clusters across Europe · Cover one off events or single purpose activities

May combine the following two types of activities
· Support activities · Consortium management activities

Some fig typically 1-21 part 0.2-3 m

ures: 9-30 months icipants ­ avg 8 funding ­ avg 0.9

(Support actions do not conduct S&T research !)

··· 19


Proposals and projects in FP7

3. Submission and selection


Overview
· How to submit a proposal · · · · · · · · Experiences - Calls overview Information for proposers Pre-proposal check Submission of proposal Proposal structure Evaluation process Writing your proposal Getting help
Submission

Eligible?

Evaluation

Selection
··· 21


Experiences so far

Six main Calls for proposals (+ FET Open + Joint Calls) in 2007-10
· · · · ~ ~ ~ ~ 4.2 B of EU funding, 8600 proposal received 3600 above threshold 1:2.4 (31%) 1200 projects launched 1:7 (14%)

HIGHLY COMPETITIVE !
··· 22


Information for proposers · ICT Workprogramme 2011-2012
(CIP-ICT PSP WP, RI WP)

· Guides for Applicants

including the Guidance notes for evaluators

· Forms for self-evaluation · EPSS manual · Model grant agreement · Guidelines ­ financial, IPR, project management etc..
··· 23


Pre-proposal checks
· Pre-proposal check (see Annexes 1 and 6 of the Guides for applicants), giving feedback from Commission on the eligibility of your consortium, and whether your idea is in scope of the call · Deadline for asking for pre-proposal check normally 3 weeks before deadline for call (but
do it earlier!)

· "Contact person" coordinates also provided
(informal discussion)

··· 24


Electronic Submission
EPSS - Electronic Proposal Submission System
· Proposal Part A forms prepared on document prepared offline and upl Commission server · Improved validation checks before accepted · Submission failure rate = + 1% Only reason for failure; waiting till line; Part B text oaded to submission is the last minute

Technical problems Panic-induced errors Too late starting upload of Part B, run out of time

Submit early, submit often! · 25 If in trouble, call the EPSS helpd·e·sk !


Proposal Part A (online)

A1
· · · · Title, acronym, objective etc. free keywords 2000 character proposal abstract previous/current submission (in FP7)

A2
· Legal address/administrator address/R&D address · Clear identification as SME/Public body/Research centre/ Educational establishment · Participant identification code PIC

A3
· More cost detail (direct/indirect costs distinguished)
··· 26


Participant Identification Code
· Participants possessing a PIC use this number to identify themselves in the Electronic Proposal Submission system. On entering the PIC, parts of the proposal forms will be filled in automatically The process for assigning a PIC is triggered by a self-registration of an organisation at the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/urf On this website you will also find a search tool for checking if your organisation is already registered (and thus already has a PIC) A PIC is optional
··· 27

·

·


Proposal Part B (pdf format only) Structure described in the Guide for applicants: template provided by the EPSS Part B structure directly linked to the evaluation criteria
Summary · S&T quality (bullet points = sections) · Implementation (idem) · Impact (idem)

··· 28


Other issues in your proposal
· Use of subcontracting if any (non-core activities) · Justification and integration of any Third country* participation · Ethical issues: Post-evaluation review for any selected proposals which have ethical issues
(* other than the EU Member states and FP7 Associated countries and ICPC countries)

··· 29


After submission - Eligibility checks
· Date and time of receipt of proposal on or before deadline
Firm deadlines - except for continuously open call FET Open

· Minimum number of eligible, mutually-independent partners
As set out in work programme/call fiche

· Completeness of proposal
Presence of all requested administrative forms (Part A) and the content description (Part B)

· In scope of the call

··· 30


Evaluation process
· · · · Independent experts Individual reading may be remote One step evaluation (whole proposal evaluated) Evaluation Summary Report supplied

Eligibility Check? Individual reading Consensus Panel
(with Hearings)

··· 31


Evaluation Criteria
SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL QUALITY

IMPLEMENTATION

IMPACT

3/5
· Soundness of concept and quality of objectives · Acknowledgement of, and development beyond, the `state-of-the-art' · Methodology and Work Plan · Quality of co-ordination · Innovative character · Quality and effectiveness of methodology and plan · Quality and effectiveness of the support action mechanisms and work plan

3/5

3/5

· Management · Expected impacts structure and listed in Work procedures Programme per topic · Quality, complementarity and · Measures for ­ Dissemination balance of the ­ Exploitation of consortium project results · Matching between ­ IPR management consortium and ­ Spreading excellence proposal objectives ­ Disseminating · Appropriateness of knowledge through allocation of
­ Staff resources ­ Equipment

stakeholder and public engagement

OverrallThrreshold= 10 > ((3)+ ((3) + ((··) Ove all Th eshold = 10 > 3) + 3) + 3)· 3

32


Scoring Scale

1. 2.

Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary Very good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor
··· 33

3. 4.

5.


Special rules for FET Open

For research actions (STREPs) · Initially prepare a short (five page) anonymous outline proposal · Submission at any time · Successful short proposers develop their ideas and submit a full proposal at a fixed later date (in batches) · Specific description and weighting of the evaluation criteria, specific thresholds

··· 34


Special rules for SME Initiative on Digital Content

· Initially prepare a short (five page) anonymous outline proposal · Stage 1 submission deadline 28 April 2011 · Successful short proposers develop their ideas and submit a full proposal (max 50 pages) · Stage 2 submission deadline 28 September 2011 · Specific thresholds

··· 35


When writing your proposal....
Divide your effort over the evaluation criteria
Many proposers concentrate on the scientific element, but lose marks on project planning or impact description

Think of the finishing touches which signal quality work:
· clear language · well-organised contents, following the Part B structure · useful and understandable diagrams · no typos, no inconsistencies and obvious paste-ins, no numbers which don't add up, no missing pages ...
··· 36


When writing your proposal....
Make it easy for the evaluators to give you high marks. Don't make it hard for them!
· Make sure you submit the latest, complete version of your proposal · Don't write too little; cover what is requested · Don't write too much · Don't leave them to figure out why it's good, tell them why it's good · Leave nothing to the imagination
··· 37


Success factors
· Preserve your credibility: select one proposal and make it a winner · Show both innovation and exploitation potential · Full depth of participation rather than long list of organisations with limited involvement · Key individuals, expertise and achievements rather than long list of previous projects · Make the proposal compelling for the reader (the first 5-10 pages are key!)
··· 38


Reasons for failure
RTD content
too narrow scope little (or no) EU dimension lack of focus: aims too general or too diverse lack of innovation, current state of art missing

Planning
links missing between objectives and workplan risk factors not addressed, no contingency plans no monitorable indicators, milestones, metrics

Management
consortium not balanced, gaps in the skills mix lack of integration between partners vague management structure weak or narrow dissemination plans ill-defined exploitation prospects
··· 39


Experts
Appropriately qualified individuals may apply to work as experts in FP7 evaluations · · Application via website https://cordis.europa.eu/emmfp7/ Selection per call to ensure broad ranging and expert group; avoiding conflicts of interest

··· 40


ICT Proposers' Day 2011 19 - 20 May, Budapest Networking for European ICT R&D

·

Aim of the event: to prepare for Calls 8 and 9 (together >1 billion ) ­ by networking and partnerships building ­ by first-hand information from >100 EC officials Structure: ­ thematic sessions with presentations of proposal ideas ­ information stands & meeting points

·

·

Registration: free of charge, open from January 2011

http://ec.europa.eu/ictproposersday
··· 41


··· 42