eu

Document Sample
eu Powered By Docstoc
					     How to improve your chances of
             success in FP5



                           Linda Polik
                             UKRO


Tel +322 286 9054
Fax +322 230 4803
Email: Linda.Polik@bbsrc.ac.uk
           UK Research Office

       Rue de la Loi 83, B-1040 Brussels
             tel: +32 2 230 5275
             fax: +32 2 230 4803
           email: ukro@bbsrc.ac.uk
         web: http://www.ukro.ac.uk

Head of UKRO:                 Alison Douglas
European Advisors:            Zoé de Linde
                              Ramon Noguera
                              Martin Penny
                              Linda Polik
IS Manager:                   Cindy Mertens
IT Manager:                   Kim Schotanus
              UKRO - Our services

   Electronic Publications:
    – FP5 Calls
    – FP5 Spotlight (to ELO)
    – European Funds
     – European News (to ELO)
   Web http://www.ukro.ac.uk
   Advice to ELOs & researchers
   UK Briefing Visits
   Brussels: Offices & Meeting Room
   Annual Conference for ELOs
                    Comparative Success Rates
50
                                                                        43.72
45
                                        39.13
40                                                              36.38
                                33.12
35

30          25.93                                       24.75                           25.13
                            22.68                                               24.62                           Proposals
25                  22.09
                                                19.84                                                   20.22   UK Instituions
20   18.1

15                                                                                              10.61
10

 5

 0
       QOL             IST          CSG            EESD             IHP            SEKA            INCO
FP5 - Average Consortia / Budgets
                                     Budget
Programme   Number of Participants
                                     (MEuro)
  QOL                9-10              1.6
   IST                8                 1.7
  CSG                 10                2.2
  ENV                 9                 1.5
  NRG                 5                 0.8
  INCO               3.9                0.4
                       7                0.3
   IHP
                 (INF 3; SE 7)       (0.8; 0.9)
                        QoL - Success Rates (1st call)

                1                                   20.5%

                2                   31%
                                                                           10.2%
                3


                                               15.5%
Action line




                4


                5                                                        23.5%

                6                                          13.1%

              GEN

                                                                            16.2%
              INF
                        25%

                    0   50    100     150        200        250    300      350     400
                                          Proposals Submitted
                 QoL - Overview


   Larger and more integrated projects, with greater
    multidisciplinarity than FP4.
   „New‟ research areas had low coverage.
   Industrial penetration ranges from 28 to 73%
   Good non-EU participation.
   Disappointing social-scientific dimension.
   Overall threshold of 4 implemented
                              IST - Success Rates

           KA1                                                               13.5%


           KA2                                                   20.5%


           KA3
                                                                         18.6%
Activity




           KA4

                                                                     29.7%

           CPA             34.3%


           FET
                      46.2%

                 0   100           200        300        400   500         600

                                         Number of Proposals
                  IST - Overview


   High over-subscription (1:6)
   High rejection rates (high thresholds)
   Dissemination needs to be strengthened
   User-pull to be stressed further
   Key Actions redrafted for 2000 Calls
   Moving towards an “ambient intelligence”
    landscape
                            Growth - Success Rates


             KA1                                                                 20.7%


             KA2                                         50%


             KA3                                 32.3%
Activities




                                      46.8%
             KA4




             MAT                                         31.5%


             M&T                   36.0%

                   0   50    100       150         200         250   300   350    400

                                           Number of Proposals
                Growth - Overview


   Socio-economic threshold is particularly severe
   Adequate participation of industry (58%)
   New Evaluation Guidelines document
   Industrial co-ordination is recommended
   New EU-US Co-operation in Materials Design
                            EESD - Success Rates

             KA1                                     17.2%

             KA2                                                     17.3%

             KA3                  17.4%

                                     11.6%
Activities




             KA4


             KA5                                                             16.1%

             KA6

                                                                          28.5%
             GEN                  15.9%

             INF        37.1%

                   0   50   100    150       200    250       300   350      400     450

                                         Number of Projects
                 EESD - Overview


   High over-subscription (Env 1:6, Energy 1:7)
   Larger an more customer-oriented proposals.
   Low involvement of SME/Industry.
   8% participation of Accession Countries
   Disappointing S&T quality of socio-economic
    dimension (esp. City of Tomorrow)
                            INCO - Success Rates

             A1        34.5%



             A2
                                                                    2.7%
Activities




             A3                              19.8%


                                                                           9.2%
             A4




             B2
                           33.3%


                  0   50           100          150           200   250      300

                                         Number of Projects
                 INCO - Overview


   A1 and A2 are effectively closed
   S&T agreement with Russia is on hold
   INCO-Development will provide more information
    in the March call
   UK was involved in 28 out of 34 projects in INCO
    Development
   CEC is seeking S&T Agreement with Brazil
                           IHP - Success Rates

   MC-I                                                       39%

  MC-H                        32.6%

   RTN                                   37.3%

  SEKA                     29.1%

    INF                     62.7%

 S/T - C                     85.7%

S/T - PA       53.7%

     SA        50%

           0         200           400     600   800   1000   1200
                   IHP - Overview

   UK Government wants to encourage UK researchers
    to apply for Marie Curie Fellowships
   Low participation by SMEs in Industry Host
    Fellowships (18% of those evaluated)
   UK has 25% of co-ordination in SEKA projects (14.2%
    of total applicants)
   SEKA projects highly relevant to policy
   No successful proposals in “Governance and Media”
    (SEKA 12)
                The Selection Criteria
       Scientific & Technological Excellence

  STAGE 1                              STAGE 2
 Scientific &                   European    Contribution     Economic
                Management
Technological                    Added     to Community    Development
                    and
 Excellence                      Value         Social      S&T prospects
                Partnership
                                             Objectives




        •   The quality of the proposal
        •   The originality, degree of innovation and progress
            beyond the state of the art
        •   The adequacy of the chosen approach, methodology
            and workplan
                 The Selection Criteria
        Scientific & Technological Excellence

   STAGE 1                             STAGE 2
                                European    Contribution     Economic
  Scientific &   Management                to Community
                                 Added                     Development
 Technological       and                       Social
                                 Value                     S&T prospects
  Excellence     Partnership                 Objectives


Key problems:
  • “lacks relevance to programme objectives”
  • “leads to improvement rather than innovation”
  • “not enough information to evaluate the feasibility of the
    innovation”
  • “achievements and dissemination plans are not mentioned”
                 The Selection Criteria
                Management & Partnership

   STAGE 1                              STAGE 2
 Scientific &   Management       European    Contribution     Economic
Technological       and           Added     to Community    Development
 Excellence     Partnership       Value         Social      S&T prospects
                                              Objectives




       • The quality of the management and project approach
         proposed
       • The quality of the partnership and involvement of users
         and/or other actors in the field when appropriate
       • The appropriateness of the resources
                  The Selection Criteria
                 Partnership & Management

    STAGE 1                               STAGE 2
  Scientific &   Management        European    Contribution     Economic
 Technological       and            Added     to Community    Development
  Excellence     Partnership        Value         Social      S&T prospects
                                                Objectives


Key Problems:
   •“the role of the coordinator is unclear”
   •“it is unclear how the exchange of information between the
    partners will be established”
   •“it includes too many targets, which will be difficult to accomplish
    in a short time, i.e. no clear priority has been set”
   •“interaction between work-packages is not clearly demonstrated”
                The Selection Criteria
                   European Added Value

   STAGE 1                              STAGE 2
 Scientific &   Management        European    Contribution     Economic
Technological       and            Added     to Community    Development
 Excellence     Partnership         Value        Social      S&T prospects
                                               Objectives




      • The European dimension of the problem
      • The European added value of the consortium
      • The contribution to the implementation or the evolution of
        one or more EU policies
                The Selection Criteria
                   European Added Value

   STAGE 1                              STAGE 2
                                              Contribution
 Scientific &   Management        European   to Community      Economic
Technological       and            Added         Social      Development
 Excellence     Partnership         Value      Objectives    S&T prospects


Key Problems:
     • “does not explicitly describe the importance of solving the
     problem in an European context”
     • “since the project is not focussed enough, it is difficult to
     assess its community added value”
     • “how the consortium will contribute to the community added
     value is not clearly described”
                The Selection Criteria
                        Social Objectives

   STAGE 1                            STAGE 2
                               European    Contribution     Economic
 Scientific &   Management      Added     to Community    Development
Technological       and         Value         Social      S&T prospects
 Excellence     Partnership                 Objectives



• Contributions to:
    • improving the quality of life and health and safety
    • improving employment prospects and the use and
    development of skills
    • preserving and/or enhancing the environment (EIA
    where relevant)
                The Selection Criteria
                        Social Objectives

   STAGE 1                               STAGE 2
                                  European    Contribution     Economic
 Scientific &   Management                   to Community
Technological       and            Added                     Development
                                   Value         Social      S&T prospects
 Excellence     Partnership                    Objectives




Key problems:
     • “the contribution to increase the employment in Europe is
     only weak or insignificant”
     • “no indication of impact on the quality of life of European
     citizens is given”
                The Selection Criteria
                   Economic Development

   STAGE 1                              STAGE 2
                                 European    Contribution
 Scientific &   Management                  to Community      Economic
Technological       and           Added                      Development
                                  Value         Social
 Excellence     Partnership                   Objectives    S&T prospects



Contributions to:
• Growth, in particular the usefulness and range of
  applications and quality of the exploitation plans
• European technological progress and the dissemination
  strategies for the expected results
• Strategic impact of the proposed project and its potential
  to improve competitiveness
                 The Selection Criteria
                    Economic Development

    STAGE 1                              STAGE 2
                                              Contribution
  Scientific &   Management       European                     Economic
                                             to Community
 Technological       and           Added                      Development
                                                 Social
  Excellence     Partnership       Value                     S&T prospects
                                               Objectives

Key problems:
    • “the industrial pull is lacking”
    • “the industrial partners are not potential users so that
      dissemination plans should be elaborated further”
    • “the project appeared distant to practical application”
    • “exploitation plans should have been presented in more
      detail”
                                 QoL - Evaluation & Thresholds

                           STAGE 1                          STAGE 2




                                                                                                 Overall Threshold (4)
Pre-eligibility Check




                                                                  Contribution
                         Scientific &   Management    European   to Community      Economic
                        Technological       and        Added         Social       Development
                         Excellence     Partnership     Value      Objectives    S&T prospects




                             4             4          3.5           3.5            3.5

                         30%            20%           20%         20%             10%
                             Growth - Evaluation & Thresholds




                                                                                                    Overall Threshold (18 points)
                              Stage 1                              Stage 2
                         Scientific &   Management     European      Contribution     Economic
Pre-eligibility Check




                                                                                                     Overall Threshold (18)
                        Technological       and         Added       to Community     Development
                         Excellence     Partnership      Value          Social      S&T prospects
                                                                      Objectives


                                                                                    4 (KA 1,3,4)
                             3             3             3              3
                        (4 in Mat)                    (4 in KA2)    (4 in KA2)      3 (KA2, GA)



                         20%            20%            20%           20%              20%
      QoL - Evaluation Procedure

                               Overall
                              Threshold
                                 (4)


5      3


5      5     3     1      5   (3.8)


4      4     4     5      2    (4)

30%   20%   20%   20%   10%
            Preparing a Proposal (1)

      • Is there an open call in this area?
      • Does the project meet the objectives?
            • Scientific & Technological: Does the project count as
              “innovative science”?
            • Socio-economic: Does the project address the wider
              policy-context?
      • Talk to your ELO, NCP, UKRO and/or Desk Officer.



Documents
   and            Consortium        Proposal          Self-
 Contacts          Design            Writing        evaluation
            Preparing a Proposal (2)

• “Critical Mass” of complementary expertise, disciplines,
  nationality and financial/human resources.
• Manage risk! Define the STRUCTURES, MECHANISMS and
  TOOLS of management.
• Coordinator must possess necessary management abilities and
  resources
• Meet ALL your partners!



Documents
   and          Consortium      Proposal          Self-
 Contacts        Design          Writing        evaluation
            Preparing a Proposal (3)

• Make the “problem-solving approach” evident: Whose need
  are you addressing? What impact will this have?
• Use diagrams and charts
• Explain the limitations of the „state of the art‟.
• Anonymity! Evaluators should not be able to make an
  educated guess.
• Clarify role of partners and management structure.
• Dissemination plans are crucial.


Documents
   and          Consortium      Proposal          Self-
 Contacts        Design          Writing        evaluation
            Preparing a Proposal (4)

• Read the evaluation manual and
 guidelines (CSG).
• Beware: Evaluators become very critical!
• Evaluators check for resources, NOT costs
• Use a trustworthy colleague and ELO.
• Have you got the right signatures?



Documents
   and          Consortium     Proposal         Self-
 Contacts        Design         Writing       evaluation
         7 Steps to a Good Proposal

 Make sure the project has a sufficient European-
  wide aspect.
 Make it clear who the users are and what needs the
  project will satisfy.
 Provide a firm plan to involve users & exploit results.
 Demonstrate good knowledge of the state of the art.
 Draw up a realistic timetable and deliverables.
 Don‟t make the management of the project too
  complex or too simple.
 Make sure full financial information and correct
  signatures are supplied.
        Calendar of Calls 20000
          Deadlines 2000                 Deadline early 2001

QOL            11 Oct 2000                        Mar 2001
                 Sept 2000
IST              Dec 2000                         Mar 2001

CSG            15 Sept 2000                      15 Mar 2001
                 Sept 2000                 Dec00/Jan01 (Energy)?
EESD          (Infrastructures)           April 2001 (Environment)?
                                        Feb 2001 (Infrastr/Conferences)
        13 Sept 2000 (Individual Fel)      Mar 2001 (Individual Fel)
IHP    3 Oct 2000 (Industry Host Fel)    Apr 2001 (Public Awareness)
                                        May 2001 (RTN/Training Sites)

SEB            28 June 2000                       Sept 2001
                Sept 2000                          Sept 2001
INCO          (Development)              (Mediterranean/Development)

				
DOCUMENT INFO