2 nd stage proposal writing session for Marie Curie by qau19822

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 65

									2nd stage proposal writing session
       for Marie Curie RTNs


            Estelle Kane
           Martin Penny
         UK Research Office
          Friday 8th April 2005
Outline of the session

     General introduction
     Technicalities of the submission process
     Scientific content of the proposal
     Quality of training activities/transfer of
      knowledge
     Added value to the Community
     Management and feasibility
     Financial issues
   Introduction




UK Research Office
 Friday 8th April 2005
UKRO‟s Sponsors

        Arts and Humanities Research Council


        Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council


        Economic and Social Research Council


        Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council


        Medical Research Council


        Natural Environment Research Council


        Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council
UKRO‟s mission

  UKRO‟s mission is to promote effective UK participation in EU-
  funded research programmes, higher education programmes, and
  other related activities by:
    supporting sponsors and subscribers through early insight and
    briefing on developments in European programmes and
    policies;
    disseminating timely and targeted information on EU funding
    opportunities;
    providing high quality advice, guidance and training on applying
    for and managing EU projects; and
    exchanging information between the UK research and higher
    education community, the Institutions of the European Union,
    and other countries participating in EU programmes
UKRO services


    Web: http://www.ukro.ac.uk

    Information Management System (IMS)

    Advice to European Officers & researchers

    UK Mobility National Contact Point

    UK Briefing visits

    Brussels: Meeting room
National Contact Point


First point of contact for applicants
Advice, guidance and information on applying for
funding, contract management, report writing etc
Website and helpline service
Training events, publicity actions
Liaison between the Member State and the
Commission
Technicalities of the submission
             process
Key documents

    The Call Text
    „A Rough Guide to the Marie Curie Actions‟
    The Work Programme of the HRM Activity
    The Handbook
    The Guide for Proposers for
    Guidance Notes for Evaluators

 Sources
  UKRO NCP website: http://www.ukro.ac.uk/mobility
  Commission http://www.cordis.lu/mariecurie-actions/

  Your European Liaison Officer
Technicalities of proposal submission

     Part A and Part B

     Electronic submission – same password and
      username

     Deadline is 17:00 Brussels Time on Thursday
      28th April
Approaching your proposal writing (1)

     Note the different weightings (impact on overall score)

     Don‟t forget inter-disciplinarity and inter-sectoral

     60% to be rejected or 40% accepted

     As many of same evaluators as possible

     Talk to the Project Officer if unclear comments
Approaching your proposal writing (2)

     “The criteria B1/ B2, already examined at the outline
      proposal stage, will be re-evaluated in the context of
      the full proposal. You are free to take into account the
      comments of the evaluation summary report for these
      two areas and re-craft these sections as necessary.”

     Keep Guide for Proposers, ESR and Evaluation
      Criteria in front of you

     Ask a colleague to read it through – do they
      understand it?
General points on a good proposal

     Meet the deadline
     Characteristics of success/ failure:
      ─   90%+ well detailed, excellent and clear training programme
          and great science of clear EU wide benefit and potential in a
          new area
      ─   80-90% good project, lacking some detail on training,
          evaluating output and perhaps clashes with existing
          programmes
      ─   70-80% Some obvious omissions, consortium design needs
          adjusting, some science issues not addressed, concerns over
          transfer of knowledge
      ─   60 - 70% Serious omissions, lack of detail, poor management
          plans, no milestones, consortium partners too similar
What are RTNs? a reminder (1)

     These [Networks] provide the means for research teams
      of recognised international stature to link up, in the
      context of a well-defined collaborative research project,
      in order to formulate and implement a structured training
      programme for researchers in a particular field of
      research. Networks will provide a cohesive, but flexible
      framework for the training and professional
      development of researchers, especially in the early
      stages of their research career. Networks also aim to
      achieve a critical mass of qualified researchers, especially
      in areas that are highly-specialised and/or fragmented;
      and to contribute to overcoming institutional and
      disciplinary boundaries, notably through the promotion of
      multidisciplinary research. They will also provide a
      straightforward and effective means to involve the less-
      favoured regions of the EU and Associated Candidate
      Countries in internationally recognised European research
      co-operation. [section 2.3.1.1 of HRM work programme]
What are RTNs? a reminder (2)

  Proposals must address the first 2 objectives

     Integrating different disciplines - bringing together and
      integrating different disciplines, especially towards the
      derivation of novel concepts, approaches and frameworks

     Industry-academia cooperation - establishing or
      furthering co-operation in research and research training
      between academia and industry and/or other relevant
      economic actors;
Weightings and thresholds for RTNs

                           Weighting              Threshold
  Scientific quality of    Stage 1: 50%           3
  the project              Stage 2: 15%
  Training and/or TOK      Stage 1: 50%           4
  activities               Stage 2: 20%
  Quality/capacity of      Stage 2: 15%           n/a
  the network
  Management &             Stage 2: 15%           3
  feasibility
  Added value &            Stage 2: 35%           n/a
  relevance
                      Overall threshold of 70% applies
Proposal structure for RTNs

  B1   Scientific Quality of the Project or Research
       Training Area
  B2   Quality of Training Activities
  B3   Quality / Capacity of the Host(s)
  B4   Management and Feasibility
  B5   Added Value to the Community and Relevance to
       the objectives of the activity
       Indicative financial information
       Previous proposals and contracts
       Other Issues
         Any questions?

Is the submission process clearer?
Science and Training criteria




     UK Research Office
      Friday 8th April 2005
Scientific Quality of Project or Research Training
Area - evaluation criteria

  THRESHOLD 3 WEIGHTING 50% (Stage 1) and 15%
    (Stage 2)
   Scientific/technological objectives well specified,
    including in terms of inter/multi-disciplinary ,
    intersectoral and/or fragmentation issues?
   Is the joint collaborative research project of high
    scientific quality, realistic and well described?
   Is the research methodology appropriate?

   Is the project original and innovative?

   Does it demonstrate sound knowledge of the state-of-
    the art?
Scientific Quality of Project or Research Training
Area - complementary note

     In view of the [evaluation] criteria the narrative
      should clearly show the reasons for carrying
      out further interdisciplinary and intersectoral
      research in the selected topic and explain if
      major breakthroughs could be anticipated.

     Please describe any novel concepts,
      approaches or methods that will be employed
      and explain why these are likely to succeed.
Feedback from evaluators – science (1)



     Science is well specified and relevant

     Each specific aim is well supported

     Innovative element is clear
Feedback from evaluators – science (2)



     Cutting-edge elements need to be made
      clearer

     Size of network

     References

     Unclear research methodologies
Quality of Training Activities/Transfer of
Knowledge - evaluation criteria

  THRESHOLD 4 WEIGHTING 50% (Stage 1) and 20%
    (Stage 2)
   Is the training / ToK programme precisely described,
    well articulated and consistent with the collaborative
    research project?
   Does it address important and timely training / ToK
    needs (e.g. multidisciplinary, and intersectoral. Is it
    adapted to the targeted researchers? (ESR/ER)
   Does it combine local specialist training with network-
    wide training / ToK activities?
   Benefit to the researcher in terms of the acquisition of
    relevant complementary skills (e.g. Management,
    Communication, IPR, ethics, etc.)?
Quality of Training Activities/Transfer of
Knowledge – complementary note

     The description of the training programme
      should precisely state how you intend to
      exploit the network‟s potential to add value to
      the training of the researchers over and above
      that which could be provided within a single
      research organisation and national context.

     The training measures should emphasise the
      interdisciplinary and intersectoral nature of the
      project.
Feedback from evaluators - Training and
Transfer of Knowledge (1)

     Impact of training is clear
     Training programme is clear and well described
     Profile of researchers well described
     Several methods of training
     Clear benefit to researchers
     Training quality evidenced by content
     Detailed and exhaustive (credible activities)
     Detail on collaborations between ESR and ER
     Flexible, adaptable and well monitored
Feedback from evaluators - Training and
Transfer of Knowledge (2)

     Unclear on benefits for short term researchers
     Lack of clarity differences between ESRs and ERs
     Secondments
      ─   Ambitious but not tourist exchanges
      ─   Linked well with work plan and exact schedule
     Complementary and interdisciplinary skills must be
      well described
     Balanced training for all in RTN – must be no
      disadvantage for some nodes
     Participation in events while important, does not
      constitute training in itself
Quality of training programme



Training in research methods and techniques
Personal Development Plan
Complementary skills training – ethics, research
management
Transferable skills training – cf Roberts
Graduate School Provision – including RC courses
Conferences, seminars, public fora etc
           Any questions?

Do you have a clearer understanding of
 how you will approach the science and
          training sections?
   Added Value




UK Research Office
 Friday 8th April 2005
Added value to the Community and relevance to
the objectives of the activity - evaluation criteria

  WEIGHTING 35%
     Relevance of the proposal to one or more of the specific
      objectives of the action as specified in section 2.3.1.1 of [the
      workprogramme] and in particular for the 2004 December
      deadline as specified in the first two indents of that section
     Anticipated impact of the proposed research, training and/or ToK
      programme on the career development of the recruited
      researchers
     Anticipated impact of the proposed research, training and/or ToK
      programme on the partner organisations' capabilities in these
      domains, and in fostering longer term collaborations among them
     Extent to which other objectives of European policies and actions
      are met (e.g. structuring the European Research Area;
      attractiveness of science; European competitivity; promoting
      women in science; cohesion and regional policy)
     Extent to which the proposal integrates research partners from
      Less Favoured Regions, New Member States and Associated
      Candidate Countries
Added value… complementary note

    To address the evaluation criteria please
     describe carefully why there is a special
     interest or need at the European level to
     promote research and training in the particular
     area and to which extent the project will
     increase the attractiveness of Europe for
     researchers and European competitiveness.
    Furthermore, please outline the expectation of
     the network project in terms of fostering long-
     term durable intersectorial and interdisciplinary
     collaborations.
Added value – what does it mean?


  Related to:
    European research policy both HRM and in general
      ─   Relevance to the objectives of the activity – see work
          programme text
      ─   E.g. ERA – “Towards a European Research Area: COM
          (2000) 6, 18.1.00”


     European policy – your research
      ─   Does proposal align with any of the thematic priorities of FP6
          e.g. Global Change & Ecosystems?
      ─   Other EU policies – e.g. Water Framework Directive
          (europa.eu.int/comm/index_en.htm)
An introduction to European Research Policy



     European Research Area
     Mobility Strategy
     Human Resources and Mobility Work
      Programme
     Bologna
European Research Area (ERA) Rationale



 Need to bring national initiatives closer together, and
 help them achieve greater coherence

 This is the aim of the ERA project, the reference
 framework for European research since the Lisbon
 European Council in March 2000

                   National
                 programmes
                                „Open            European
                              Coordination‟    research policy
                  Framework
                  programme
                                 European
                               organisations
Key political objectives

   Lisbon Objectives
     ─ to become the most dynamic and most competitive

        knowledge-based economy
   Barcelona Objectives
     ─ education and training, innovation, 3% GDP

   Gothenburg Objectives
     ─ sustainable development (environment, economy,

        employment)
   Stockholm Objectives
     ─ fostering entrepreneurship and harnessing new

        technologies
   All underpinned by the ERA Objectives
European Researcher Policy

  Mobility Strategy 2001
   „..present a strategy to create a favourable environment for the
    mobility of researchers in the ERA, in order to develop, attract
    and retain human resources in research and promote innovation‟
   --- FP6 Marie Curie Actions
  Researchers in the ERA: One Profession, Multiple Careers July
    2003
   „...defines the various factors which condition the development of
    researchers‟ careers at European level, namely: the role and
    nature of research training, the differences in recruitment
    methods, the contractual and budgetary dimension, and, finally,
    the evaluation mechanisms and the progress perspectives within
    the career‟
   ---European Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct
Framework Programme 6

   Life Sciences, Genomics and Biotechnology for Health
                                                                                            New/Emerging S&T




                                                             Specific Activities Covering
                                                              a Wider Field of Research
            Information Society Technologies                                                and Policy Support
          Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences,
      Knowledge-Based Multifunctional Materials and
         New Production Processes and Devices                                                 SME Activities
                 Aeronautics and Space
                   Food Quality and Safety
  Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems                                        International
                                                                                               Co-operation
     Citizens and Governance in the Knowledge Society

      Innovation       Human Resources            Research                                    Science and
       and SMEs          and Mobility          Infrastructures                                  Society

    Co-ordination of Research Activities     Development of RTD/Innovation Policies
What are Marie Curie Actions?

  Human Resources and Mobility Programme‟s aim is:

     “…to provide broad support for the development of abundant and
      dynamic world-class human resources in the European research
      system, taking into account the inherent international dimension
      of research.”

     …by supporting a series of fellowships (Marie Curie Actions) to
      support the training and mobility of researchers, within the context
      of promoting excellence in European Research…

     ….and geared to the development and transfer of research
      competencies, the consolidation and widening of researchers'
      career prospects, and the promotion of excellence in European
      research
 European Research Policy background
 documents
Towards a European Research Area, Jan 2000
A Mobility Strategy for ERA June 2001
More Research for Europe: Towards 3% of GDP, Sept 2002
ERA: Providing New Momentum, October 2002
Investing in Research: An Action Plan for Europe, June 2003
The Role of Universities in the Europe of Knowledge, Feb
2003
Researchers in the ERA: One Profession, Multiple Careers,
July 2003
Europe and Basic Research, Jan 2004
S&T, the Key to Europe‟s Future – Guidelines for Future EU
Policy to Support Research, June 2004
Example of European Policy Objectives

Life Sciences and Biotechnology – A Strategy for Europe,
Jan 02
Environment 2010: Our Future, Our Choice, July 2002
Stimulating Technologies for Sustainable Development:
An Environmental Technologies Action Plan for the EU,
Jan 2004
Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology, May
2004
Security Research: The Next Steps, September 2004
Introduction to Bologna Process

     Adopt a system of easily readable and comparable degrees
     Adopt a system with two main cycles (undergraduate/graduate)
     Establish a system of credits (such as ECTS)
     Promote mobility by overcoming obstacles
     Promote European co-operation in quality assurance
     Promote European dimensions in higher education
     Lifelong learning
     Involvement of students
     Enhancing the attractiveness and competitiveness of the EU
      Higher Education Area to other parts of the world
     Doctoral studies and synergy between ERA and EHEA

  Sorbonne 98, Bologna 99, Prague 01, Berlin 03
           Any questions?

Do you have a clearer understanding of
       how you will approach the
        added value section?
Management and Feasibility




    UK Research Office
     Friday 8th April 2005
Management and Feasibility - evaluation criteria

  THRESHOLD 3 WEIGHTING 15%
     Are there detailed and appropriate plans (using charts
      if convenient) for the overall management of the
      collaborative project (demarcation of responsibilities,
      delegation or distribution of tasks, rules for decision
      making, fair participation of all teams …)?
     Is there a clear recruitment strategy, based on
      competitive international recruitment and incorporating
      an equal opportunity policy ?
     Is there provision for effective networking and
      dissemination of best practice among partners?
     Is there a strategy for the dissemination of results
      during and after completion of the project?
Management and Feasibility - complementary
note

     Please outline the financial management strategy of
      the network, in particular how the Community financial
      contribution towards management-related expenses
      will be used.
      Any relevant project management experience of the
      participants should be described.
     Because of the specificity of this call your narrative
      should describe the approach to be taken regarding
      any intellectual property that may arise from the
      research project of the network (background
      information on such issues can be found at
      http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org
Role of participants

   Carry out and monitor work
   Name the person in control, and advise of changes
   Provision of required information
   Participation in relevant meetings
   Avoid and advise of incompatible commitments
   Adhere to fundamental ethical principles
   Promote equal opportunities
Role of co-ordinator

   Provide a link between contractors and the Cion
   Receive and disburse funds
   Keep overall, management-level project accounts
   Ensure signature of contract by all contractors


                  No additional rights
           – only additional responsibility
Feedback - Management & feasibility (1)

     Management committee
      ─   Day to day business
      ─   Co-ordinator plus deputies – share responsibilities/burden
      ─   Steering training activities
      ─   Repartition of funds, which must also be flexible
      ─   Dealing with modifications/progress
     Management experience
     Appoint project manager (detail expertise)
     Appoint „HR Rep‟ (Career supervision and Gender
      Issues)
     Ensure trainees themselves are represented
Feedback - Management & feasibility (2)

     At least yearly independent evaluation of
      training programme
     Early and effective definition of dissemination
      plan e.g. websites, publications (a book?)
     IPR splits across network and knowledge
      protection
     A clear recruitment strategy e.g. Commission
      sites, academic networks
     Let them know you have an equal
      opportunities policy
Management structures

                                RTN Consultative Assembly

  Quality
 Assurance                                                                    Management
                                Project Management Board
 Functions                Senior             Project               Senior     by exception
                       Stakeholder         Co-ordinator          Researcher
                               Other project participants (as needed)




                                       Project Manager

  Project                                                                      Day-to-day
  Support                                                                     management
 Functions
                                Site Manager (Participants)



NB – Not the same as communication Structures
Communication structure


                                  Co-ordinator




                                                                 Feedback and Control
                                 Project Board
  Reporting




              Project
               Office

                                 Project Manager



                   Participant     Participant     Participant
           Any questions?

Do you have a clearer understanding of
         how you will approach
      the Management section?
 Further information

UKRO NCP website:
http://www.ukro.ac.uk/mobility

Queries on the schemes:
mobility@bbsrc.ac.uk
Tel: +32 2 230 0318; Fax +32 2 230 4803

For checking previously funded RTNs, go to:
http://mc-opportunities.cordis.lu/home_prj.cfm and select “project
information”

Other useful websites:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/mariecurie-
actions/researchers/objectives_en.html
http://www.cordis.lu/mariecurie-actions/
 For information




UK Research Office
 Friday 8th April 2005
Index of „for information section‟



     Indicative financial information
     Quality of the host
     Summary statistics from first two calls
Notes for indicative financial information

     Make sure ambitions are realistic given
      resources
     Make sure all parts of project have sufficient
      resources that are well justified
     Not too many resources to one country (note
      the 40% rule)
     Must be some flexibility to account for
      evolution
     Observe 65%:35% rule
Community Contribution for RTNs (1)

  Benefits to researcher
   Monthly Living Allowance* –basic monthly amount
   Travel Allowance – distance as crow flies
   Mobility Allowance* – for additional expenses that are normally
    incurred when working abroad (e.g. relocation; family charges,
    language courses, renting accommodation, etc.) (500/800 €)
   Career Exploration Allowance –2000€ one-off payment e.g.
    attending additional courses or job fairs etc.
   Contribution to the participation expenses of eligible
    researchers – 400€ per person-month. Real cost of their
    training, networking and transfer-of-knowledge activities exclusive
    of the research expenses (e.g. consumables, computing
    etc)
  * Weighted by country
Community Contribution for RTNs (2)

    Living allowance (reference, cost of living index 100)

                  Experience       Option 1: Employment   Option 2: Fixed-
                                     contract (€/year)    amount stipend
                                                              (€/year)
         Early stage researchers
                                          30 550               15 275
         (<4 years)

         Experienced researchers          47 000               23 500
         (4-10 years)

         Experienced researchers          70 500               35 250
         (>10 years)

        Correction factor for cost of living to be applied
                           UK 112.5%
Community Contribution for RTNs (3)

  Benefits to the host
   Contribution to the research/networking/training/transfer of
    knowledge programme expenses –actual expenses incurred by
    the host institutions
   Management activities (including audit certification) –
    maximum 7% towards project management and the expenses
    related to the auditing of the financial reports
   Contribution to overheads –a flat rate payment of 10%
    (excluding costs for subcontracts) of the direct costs;
   Other types of eligible expenses/specific conditions –the
    provision and use of equipment if essential for the execution of
    the project. Prior approval from the Commission

  Budgets typically in the range 1.5 – 3 million € (65% of costs must be
                         allocated to the researchers)
Quality of the Host - evaluation criteria


     Has the network, collectively the necessary expertise, facilities,
      and infrastructures to achieve the project scientific objectives and
      if the tasks distribution and the schedule are well thought out?
     Have the partners the capacity to provide high quality training and
      tutoring to the requested ESRs?
     Are the complementarities and the synergies among partners in
      terms of research and training well exploited?
     Have the partners the experience with ToK and international
      research collaboration in the area of the project?
     Is the size of the network in relation to the research/ training/ ToK
      objectives?
     If applicable, how essential is third country participation in order
      to achieve the project‟s objectives?
Quality of the Host – complementary note

     Please explain how, in practical terms, the research
      teams will collaborate, and complement each other,
      stating for each team its specific role in the project?
     Each team should supply a list of the key scientific
      staff who will be involved in the research and note, for
      each person, their individual expertise and the
      foreseen extent of their involvement (in percentage of
      full time employment)?
     List the three most significant recent publications for
      each of the teams in the network?
     If one or more of the network teams is based outside
      of the EU Member and Associated States, explain in
      terms of the project‟s objectives why their involvement
      is required for the implementation of the project?
Quality of Host - tools


Quality of the research group / organisation
Networking with other organisations / research groups
Infrastructure / equipment available
International collaborations
Supervision arrangements
Mentoring arrangements
Assistance with living requirements of Fellows
Summary statistics RTNs: 1st call

                    Proposals        Participants   Researcher     Selected   Success
  Panel             evaluated                        months                     rate

      CHE                       50            472         22,422      7        14.0%
      ECO                       20            194         10,917      2        10.0%
      ENG                       37            399         18,637      6        16.2%
      ENV                       38            440         20,295      3        7.9%
       LIF                      67            626         32,755      9        13.4%
      MAT                       39            571         23,105      4        10.3%
      PHY                       68            791         36,036      9        13.2%
      SOC                       7              69          3,131      1        14.3%
          TOTAL             326              3562        167,298     41        12.6%


                 Average consortium size: 10 partners
                 Average number of fellow months: 448
                 Average budget: 2.2 M€ (0.62 to 4.8 M€)
First Call FP6
Summary statistics RTNs: 2nd call

                         Proposals         Average number    Selected   Success
                         evaluated             Researcher                 rate
  Panel                                        months
          CHE                        79                498      4        5.06%
          ECO                        21                445      1        4.76%
          ENG                        84                523      6        7.14%
          ENV                        64                555      3        4.69%
          LIF                        176               516     10        5.68%
          MAT                        70                519      5        7.14%
          PHY                        116               546      7        6.03%
          SOC                        34                591      1        2.94%
            TOTAL                    644               524     37        5.43%


                   Average consortium size: 11 partners (6-25)
                   Average budget: 2.6 M€ (1.3 to 4.5 M€)

First Call FP6

								
To top