Corso 21e22 - 11 - 13 Mecella PDF

Collaborative Research
How to write a successful

proposal (hopefully)
Massimo Mecella (mecella@dis.uniroma1.it)
Assistant professor PhD in Computing Science & Engineering
School of Information Engineering, Computer Science and Statistics
Based on personal experience and

slides, but also on material and
ideas freely available on the Web by
Crispin Kirkman, Serena Borgna,
Johan Lindberg, Ruben Riestra, Joe
Gorman, Sen McCarthy, Eleni
Christodoulou, Mari Habicht
Who am I ?
Assistant professor in Computer Science
and Engineering [Ingegneria Informatica]
PhD in early 2002
Postdoc & associate researcher 2002
2006
Assistant professor since Nov. 2006
Visiting scholar in Telcordia Technologies
(formerly Bellocore, US) during summer
1999 and in Purdue University, US CS &
CERIAS during winter semester 2005
Massimo Mecella Collaborative Research
How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

Rome, Italy - 22 November 2013 (afternoon)
Who am I ?
Research interests in Data Management and Service
Oriented Computing/Architectures, Distributed Systems
and Middleware Technologies, Human-Computer
Interaction
Wide experience on EU projects:
EU-PUBLI.com (FP5, 2002 2005)

SemanticGov (FP6, 2006 2009) Unit leader
WORKPAD (FP6, 2006 2009) Principal proposer and technical
manager (de-facto coordinator)
SM4All (FP7, 2008 2011) Principal proposer and technical manager
(de-facto coordinator)
GreenerBuildings (FP7, 2010 ongoing) Unit leader
SmartVortex (FP7, 2010 ongoing) Unit leader / PCA leader
Participants in about other 20 ( unsuccessful ! ) proposals, one of
them as principal proposer

Outline
How to write a successful proposal
Case studies
SM4All / LUDENS / a FET proposal from a colleague
Overview of Horizon 2020 LEIT Program

(mainly for those interested in ICTs)
Schedule
14.00 15.15
15 break
15.30 16.45
15 break
17.00 18.00

The news
H2020 has been approved by the EU Parliament
Cf.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressrelease_IP-13-1133_en.htm
Published more drafts of the Workprogrammes

http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/
index_en.cfm?pg=h2020-documents

Your objective is not to describe your good project idea,

but to persuade the funding source to give you the money!
Why should they decide to give the money to you
when there will be lots of other good proposals they could
select instead of yours?
Learn how to be competitive.
HOW TO WRITE A
SUCCESSFUL PROPOSAL
How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza, Rome, Italy 22 November 2013 (afternoon)
Collaborative research
The one carried out by a Consortium consisting of members
from (generally) at least 3 member states
In FP7 : Cooperation Programme (cf.
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/cooperation/)
In the old FP7 ICT jargon, projects were classified as

IP Integrated Projects: large scale with strong industrial
leadership and presence of SMEs
STReP - Specific Targeted Research Projects: small/medium
size, more focused on specific scientific and technological
advancements
NoE Network of Excellence not to conduct research, but
rather to contribute to the clarification of the concepts in
the covered field not further addressed in this talk

The big picture

Preliminaries
How to find calls ?
Be used to read and give attention to each single
word of the workprogramme and call text
They are not there by an accident
Be used to visit EU sites, list of past projects,

etc.

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html
https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/fp7_calls
From call to deadline

Make a plan for the proposal
weeks

10
It is an investment []

11
It is an investment []

12
Project definition
Before you start writing, you should have a
concrete and confined project idea
What problem are you trying to solve and why right
now ?
What are the project objectives and what are NOT the
project objectives
How can you reach these objectives ? Define a rough
work-plan

13
One-page proposal
Before writing a full proposal, summarize your
project in a one page proposal
In the one page proposal you are summarizing your
project idea and getting it down on paper
The one-page proposal is very helpful for
communicating with your partners, for team building
and for future partner searches
It serves as a basis for discussions with your NCP and
with EC Officials (Scientific/Project Officers)
Case study: SM4All fact sheet and contact with EU


14
What does a proposal look like ?

(on the basis of FP7 experience)
Part A - Forms submitted on Electronic Proposal Submission

Service
A1: General information (ex topic, title, summary)
A2: Partner description (ex PIC, name, address, contact person)
A3: Budget (per partner and consolidated)
Part B - Project description (approx 60p)
Cover page (title, topic etc)

Concept and objectives
Progress beyond state-of-the-art
Work plan and timing
Work package descriptions
Deliverables, milestones, effort in man months
Implementation (organization and management, partner description)
Major cost motivation
Impact (effects on economy, society, health, environment etc.)
Ethical/gender issues

15
The new structure ?

16
Key questions and structure []

Project objectives
(& non-objectives)
Background
Expected results and lead users
Work-plan / phases of work
Consortium
Expected costs
Expected duration

17

Project objectives
What are the objectives ?

What problems are you trying to solve ?
What are NOT the objectives ?
Project background
Is the solution already available ? Will the project go

beyond the state of the art ?
Is it a priority or could it be solved at national level ?
Why right now ? What would happen if we did not do
this now ?
Expected results and lead users
Which results are you expecting and who will use

them ?

18

(rough) Work-plan / phases of work
How can we reach these objectives
Consortium
Which expertise do you need to reach your objectives ?
Do you really need an international team or could you
solve the problem on your own ?
Are you the best people to perform this work ?
Expected costs / duration

Are these within the limits / rules of the Call ?

19
Objectives []
Never lose sight of your general and specific
objectives

20
Objectives []
Almost all programmes (former FP7 and now H2020) aim to promote
translational research so an objective would mostly be usable by others
in the form developed by the project.
It can also be dissemination, if this is done thoroughly.
Especially in the current financial climate, Europe wants to see its

research lead to commercial success and economic growth as well as
better health so an objective can be a step towards commercialisation,
such as IP protection or marketing route development
An objective must work in the real world dangerous pathogen detection
kits may have to work at 20 metres, used by people in plastic suits with
massive gloves, in any weather and environment
Another example food contaminant assays have to be very cheap
because cost margins on food are so low. If not they will never be used.
Management of the project is a means to an end the end is that the
project avoids all risk of failure due poor planning e.g. time over-run,
failure of science first time around because of the unexpected

21
Objectives []
Quality criteria SMART

S specific
M measurable
A achievable, attainable
R realistic, relevant
T time-related

22
Examples
Development of a diagnostic test in a tested prototype form that
can be licensed to a global company for commercialisation
Proof of concept of a therapeutic approach to address an unmet
medical need
Establishment of coordination mechanism bringing together the
epidemiological data for a disease from several sources and
deriving some early conclusions of statistical significance
Producing an array of accessible markers that cover a wide range
of diseases and conditions, distinguishing easily between them
Creating a network and support instrument for researchers into a
particular field
Protecting the intellectual property emerging from the project,
in accordance with the consortium agreement, so that it can be
commercialised successfully

23
Objectives ?
Non-objectives
Inclusion of so-called International Cooperation
Partner Countries into the consortium
Bringing together diverse technologies to make a
successful project

24
EXAMPLE: Objectives vs. Results
Objective:
To develop a new, faster compiler for C++
Result:
New, faster compiler for C++
Objective:
Enable practical adoption of iterative development methods,

involving frequent re-compilation of programs
Result:
New, faster compiler for C++
27
Distinguish between what will be

done in the project and what it will
make possible afterwards
Objective: "The project will allow car journeys to be made
with 20% less fuel consumption than is typical today"
Does this project deliver:
A car with a more fuel efficient engine?
Detailed design documents for a new type of
engine - but leave it up to others to actually
manufacture the engines/cars?
Reports surveying the latest research in the
area - but leave it up to others to produce
engine designs and still others to
manufacture the car?
28
Project structure []
Division of the project into plannable and
controllable sub-tasks
Essential part of the project starting phase!
Creates a common basis and understanding of the
project scope for the consortium
Complete hierarchy of the work packages and
project tasks
In practice, the definition of work packages
could be carried out through a brainstorming
session of consortium members

25
Suggestions
Avoid having one partner dominate the thinking
Try to get to know your partners even before
the call
Discuss your separate ambitions and constraints
Explore what extras each can bring to project
preparation
grants
travel
video-conferencing
low cost project writing
prior drafts of similar projects
experience in bidding for EU funds

26
Participants []
Preferred that participants have a significant
role and make a contribution of a reasonable size
It must be clear what the benefits to each
participant might be
Each participant needs to have a corporate
strategy that values the project and protects
the priority into the future, against the time
when funds could be available
Ownership of the intellectual property and other
commercial opportunities from the project
should be agreed early on

27
Participants [] Cross check

Match research groups with topic
Defined role of each group
Whats in it for me?
Clear synergy between the groups
Complementary skills, no major overlaps
No project hotel
Choose recognised partners known to deliver
Need to be a balance between academia and
industry
SMEs if stated in the call text

Work on a European network even before any calls

28
How Consortia are formed ?

(an example from ICT)

29
Hints
Management can be a separate partner, fully
funded. EC understands that partners have
found project management is not their strength
Commercial partners are encouraged, even if
they receive no grant funds because they are too
large. This can help to commercialise after the
project ends.
If a partner drops out, you can submit a bid
showing exactly what the partner would do, and
recruit a replacement while the bid is being
judged

30
Partners differentiation []
Group A - Has a project idea and would like to be
the coordinator
Group B - Has a project idea and does not want
to be the coordinator
Group C - Does not have an idea but would like to
be a beneficiary

31
Group A []
Analyse the needs of your project: try to find the
BEST partners
Your partner should
be eligible
answer the needs of your project
have complementary skills
produce an added value for the project
Where and how can you find the best partner?
Screen you own existing international contacts

Use the network of national contact points
Publish or disseminate your partner search
Attend information days, brokerage events, conferences ...

32
Group B []
Define clearly your project idea and try to find the
MOST EXPERIENCED coordinator & consortium
Again check the eligibility criteria (type of the institution,
geography...)
Screen the former coordinators
Screen your own existing international contacts
Use the network of national contact points
Attend information days, brokerage events, conferences ...
Screen best practices

33
Group C []
Describe yourself : MOTIVATION LETTER
Check if you are eligible for the call

Try to find the coordinators, call your friends & colleagues
Define your potential contributions to the project and the
consortium
Screen the existing projects
and again...
Screen you own existing international contacts

Use the network of national contact points (partner profile
tools)
Publishyourprofile

34
Involvements of a participants
Three tasks : coordinating, writing, budgeting (2-3 persons)
One leader to collect all input!
Budgeting:
Circulate the whole draft as often as possible among partners
Create a core writing team among WPs leaders
Create the interlinkages
Cite all relevant previous projects
Read the call for proposals several times (during the drafting)
Zoom in and out!
Differences between partners?

Differences in hours allocation?
Differences in general budget allocation?
Harmony between hours and tasks!
Signalize: confidence, accommodating of concerns and interests
Deadlines and procedures should be under control

35
About the management

36
Roles

37
About the scientific content

Project must have novelty external assessors will reject
projects that cover fields already explored
Patent databases (e.g.,
http://www.epo.org/searching/free/espacenet.html )
IPR helpdesk ( www.ipr-helpdesk.org )
Previously funded projects FP7 (
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/projects_en.html )
Previously funded projects FP6 (
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/ )
The topics in a call can be very specific. These may not
include the theme of your proposal. But you may be able to
find an aspect of your proposal that matches another
topic. You can ask advice from the Commission staff on
ideas for doing this

38
Should a proposal contain a good

reference list?
A proposal is not an academic paper or a thesis!
It is more of a sales document
To many evaluators, it only matters that references
look plausible
To some evaluators, references dont matter at all
To some evaluators, references are crucial
Not just academic references, also:
industry journals/magazines
popular press
policy documents

39
Commission has been writing guidance for over a decade
Has its own language and analytical structure behind the
process of bidding and of managing projects. If you can
speak their language and use their structure, it makes it
easier for everyone
They require that you present your proposal in their way
They publish the topics but proposals are judged by
external assessors, with comments from the Commission.
So think how it is going to look to both these audiences.
Read the criteria for assessing bids

40
* PM is project management

41
Deliverables
Deliverables are tangible project results !
Possible Deliverables (a few examples)
Reports (guidelines, SOPs)
Prototypes
reliable new biochemistry processes
Data (statistics, data in

databases, trends)
Software
SOPsstandard operating
procedures for actions
relevant to contract
performance, quality
assurance, and quality
control plans.
algorithms, codes, databases, systems
Marketing strategy
IP strategy
Publications (scientific journals, newsletters,
conferences)
Media (websites, videos, CDs)

42
Milestones
control points in a project where decisions are
needed
connected to work packages
often start or end of a work package
milestones refer to project events / major
results
expected date of milestones
means of verification of a milestone
participants may need to collectively sign-off a
milestone so they can move on

43
Deliverables vs. milestones

Deliverables are the items showing the project
results
They are supplied to EC
They are the basis of project reviews by external
experts
Milestones are check points of important steps

in the project and dont require any separate
reports
Limit the number of deliverables and milestones

and distribute them in time

44
Make milestones meaningful

45
Deliverables vs. milestones

This is part of the Grant Agreement

46
Work-plan
How do you want to tackle your work?
description in work plan
Broken down into work packages (WPs) and tasks
Be consistent!
e.g. in descriptions and format
Project objectives must be retrievable in WP

Number of WP clear structure
Show interdependencies of WP

47
Hints []
Be clear of critical elements that contribute to the end
objective
Narrow the scope of these elements (work packages) to
the endpoint (work package objective including
deliverables) that contributes to the end objective
Now you can start to add well-defined additional elements
that may minimise the risk, provide alternative routes and
contingency plans, or increase the understanding that
supports your final objective
Most research assumes instant success! Plan for initial
failure and you may have a realistic plan. Use the ideas and
constructive criticism of all project partners

48
Hints []
Commission accepts that projects will evolve over
time, even between the first bid and the
contract
Research projects cannot predict their results;
so the second phases can be written to depend
upon earlier phases
However, it is vital to allow more time than you
could need for the early phases things can go
wrong (e.g. partners can go out of business)

49
Important tables of the proposal []

Table 1.3a: Work package list

50
Important tables of the proposal []

Table 1.3c: Work package description
For each work package: Table 1.3d: Summary of
staff effort and Table 1.3e: List of milestones

51
Table 1.3d tells a lot to an

experienced reviewer
Pay attention to the numbers

52
Typical Project workplan (personmonths)

WP1
WP2
P1
10
P2
WP3
WP4
WP6
4
2
18
2
P3
P4
WP5
12
12
12
3
28
P5
14
19
P6
11
18
P7
Total
12
18
23
35
104
The work package that does too

much
WP1
WP2
P1
10
P2
WP3
WP4
WP5
WP6
4
2
P3
18
2
12
12
28
P5
14
19
P6
11
18
P4
12
P7
Total
12
18
23
35
104
The partner who doesnt know what

to do
WP1
WP2
P1
10
P2
WP3
WP4
WP5
WP6
4
2
P3
18
2
12
12
28
P5
14
19
P6
11
18
P4
12
P7
Total
12
18
23
35
104
The token SME

WP1
WP2
P1
10
P2
WP3
WP4
WP5
WP6
4
2
P3
18
2
12
12
28
P5
14
19
P6
11
18
P4
12
P7
Total
12
18
23
35
104
and new Member State

WP1
WP2
P1
10
P2
WP3
WP4
WP5
WP6
4
2
P3
18
2
12
12
28
P5
14
19
P6
11
18
P4
12
P7
Total
12
18
23
35
104
The well-lead work packages

which will get results
WP1
WP2
P1
10
P2
WP3
WP4
WP5
WP6
4
2
P3
18
2
12
12
28
P5
14
19
P6
11
18
P4
12
P7
Total
12
18
23
35
104
Graphical representation of the workplan

PERT ( Programme Evaluation and Review Technique ) diagrams
Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_Evaluation_and_Review_Technique
for a quick & dirty introduction

53
Graphical representation of the workplan

GANTT chart
Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gantt_chart for a quick & dirty introduction

54
Main mistakes []
project not really excellent or innovative

state-of-the-art in the field is not described
research methodology is archaic
project objectives remain fuzzy
the approach to reach the project aim is not
clear
high risky project with uncertain outcome
no provisions for the acquisition of new
knowledge

55
Main mistakes []
no diversification of competences
parts of the proposal were addressed during the
PhD project of some applicants
bad match between participants profiles and
project
not a leading coordinating-institution in the
specific field of research
dedication of the coordinating-institution seems
limited
management (structure) of the project is not
clear
European added value what's that?

56
Good points []
important field of research for Europe

high practical value of the project
integration of multidisciplinary aspects
comparison with the experience in the respective
field in the USA and Japan/China
project is timely and relevant
results can be applied to a larger class of
problems

57
Good points []
a well elaborated and feasible work plan
appropriate milestones
project will promote European research

excellence and European competitiveness
project shows potential for the creation of new
jobs in Europe

58
Guidelines
Download (EPSS) proposal template and guidance
notes
The proposal should correspond to call text only
Write stringently and clearly
Educate the evaluator no reading between the lines
If possible put quantifiable facts in tables and

figures
E.g. progress beyond SotA (cf. SM4All boxes)
Emphasize the importance of a European

collaboration
Put the required information in correct paragraphs
Dont duplicate the same information

59
THINK AS AN EVALUATOR
60
Who evaluates ?
Peer review
Evaluators contracted before the call deadline
3 or 5 evaluators assigned to each proposal by EC
staff
Assignments dependent of the proposal nature
based on EC judgement
Proposals are often multidisciplinary while the
evaluators arent educate the evaluator
EC staff doesnt put the scores on the proposals

61
Evaluators
They love to pick on ...
Academics: S/T quality (science)

Consultants: implementation management
Industry reps: impact (applications)
Everybody:
clarity of scope and objectives

compliance with the Commissions recommendation for
proposal length
budget (lack of) realism
You can also be an evaluator: great experience (learn what is going on

in Europe, learn to distinguish what a good proposal is like), excellent
networking opportunity (scientific colleagues, commission staff)

62
Who are evaluators?
Scientist:
Expert, specific
technical knowledge
Generalist/
businessman:
Some technical knowledge
12
Types of evaluators
Good evaluators:
Listen
Can express and defend opinions
Commission officials informally evaluate the evaluators and

intervene to get back on track
The sleeper: does not participate actively
The bully: does not listen but talks a lot

and insists we listen to him
The iron rod: does not necessarily say

much but is completely inflexible
13
Types of evaluators (contd.)

The gunman: too negative; reduces
scores on multiple criteria for same crime
The optimist: too positive/lenient;

assumes all problems can be fixed during
negotiations
The mad professor: ignores business
and exploitation issues, evaluates like it is
a paper for a conference
The blind businessman: ignores the
scientific and technical side
14
Impact of Remote Evaluation: Proposers

You now have 4 types of audience to write for instead of just 2
Expert/
slow read
Expert/
fast read
Generalist/
slow read
Generalist/
fast read
15
Evaluation process - Overview

63
Evaluation process - Thresholds

Call specific, usually at least 3 (4 on some) of 5
on each criterion, and at least 10 (11) in total
Call with 30 mEUR

budget, 30 proposals
above threshold
requesting 111 mEUR
Projects above red line
requests a total of 30
960 004 EUR

64
Evaluation process Evaluation

criteria
The evaluation
criteria are
thematic
priority or call
specific. They
are further
elaborated in
the guide for
applicants of
each call. Notice
the
differences ...
!!! They will
change in
Horizon2020

65
FP7 vs. H2020 Evaluation Criteria

66
How is my proposal read ?
(and when I acted as reviewer, I admit I did the same !)

67
The importance of abstract for

evaluators
Vital to allow evaluators to rapidly understand and position
your proposal
Usually used by rapporteur in giving summary of project at
panel meeting
can be crucial for ranking
An experienced evaluator can often make a good guess at a

proposals score based on the abstract alone
With experience, there are all sorts of signs that show up
in the abstract
Clear idea " easy to write abstract
Muddled idea " hard to write abstract

68
BUDGET
69
The budget (should appears realistic)

70
Project effort (partners/WPs)

Project effort plan used to legitimize the budget
Cost per man month varies dramatically within
Europe

71
PROJECT PROGRESS
(IF FINANCED)
72
Payments
Reporting period: normally 12 months

Periodic Report (60 days after period end)
Scientific report
Management report
Deliverables
Form C (financial report)
Certificates on the financial statements (by
accountant or university centrally) - always if EC
contribution exceeds 375.000 Euro
!!! Rules will change in H2020

73
Grant Agreement (GA)

Grant Agreement signed only by
Coordinator and EC
Key documents of relevance for
negotiation process:
Is negotiated
Core Grant Agreement

Annex I technical annex (project plan proposal) also referred to as DoW
(Description of Work)
Annex II general conditions
Annex IV (= Form A) Accession to Grant
Agreement

74
Consortium Agreement (CA)

Contract between partners in a project; doesnt involve EC
In FP7 Standard DESCA model very common (DEvelopment
of a Simplified Consortium Agreement for FP7)
www.desca-fp7.eu
Regulates the obligations and the rights between the

partners
Ownership of Intellectual Property (IPR: inclusion or
exclusion)
Organisation, communication flow within consortia
Voting principles, decision making structures, Settlement
of disputes
What happens in case of partner default
Financial arrangements
Collective technical responsibility

75
About the IP []
Background information which is held by
beneficiaries prior to their accession to the
grant agreement, and which is needed for
carrying out the project or for using foreground
Foreground - results, including information,
which are generated under the project
IPRs regulated both in Annex II of EC contract
and in consortium agreement
Can be tricky thing for universities due to
professors exemption
University responsible towards other partners but the
scientist has the ownership

76
About the IP []
Access rights
Foreground
Background
For implementation
For use
Main issues to be aware of
Beneficiaries shall enjoy access rights to background, if it is

needed to use their own foreground provided that the
beneficiary concerned is entitled to grant them. Subject to
agreement, such access rights shall be granted either under
fair and reasonable conditions or be royalty-free.
Beneficiaries may define the background needed for the
purposes of the project in a written agreement and, where
appropriate, may agree to exclude specific background

77
HORIZON 2020 FOR ICT

RESEARCHERS
(BUT NOT ONLY )
78
ICT in H2020
(a quick report from Vilnius)
Focus on interdisciplinarity
The open and challenge-based approach in Horizon is
expected to stimulate interdisciplinary proposals and projects
and bring together all the disciplines, knowledge and methods
needed to create impact and to develop the best solutions.
Horizon 2020 should stimulate a break-down of the silos of
different research disciplines and stimulate integration in
order to maximize impact
A challenge-driven approach to the formulation of

topics
Topic texts include the definition of a specific challenge, a
scope which defines the elements addressed by selected
projects and the expected impact of selected projects
More emphasis on industry, innovation and linking

research to deployment, market application and impact

79
Useful documentation
(for self-study)
Overview of topics (we will discuss briefly now)
LEIT ICT 2014/2015 Workprogramme (draft)
ICT 2013 Event in Vilnius
6 8 November 2013
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/ict-2013
Consider in particular the Workprogramme material
and slides
Some guides (providing the general context)

80
WRAP-UP
83
Useful suggestions (in mixed order)

Dont do cut and paste; write the proposal
yourself as much as possible
Present your key ideas in a few seconds at the
beginning of the proposal. BANG!
Study successful proposals
Link to ongoing or future projects/activities/
infrastructures
Put yourself ALWAYS in the mind of a VERY
critical reviewer

84

The scope of the project MUST be in line with the call
topic
The first criteria that is examined is S&T excellence, a
score of min. 4 points has to be achieved
The biggest mistake is: not getting to the point (too many
different objectives)
Objectives must be quantitative and verifiable
Too ambitious projects with too many goals wont get a
higher score
High risk projects are welcome and have a chance of
funding. The contingency plan is important.
What makes a proposal strong: excellent science, well
written and good work plan prooving that work can be
carried out during project duration

85

Get to the point, be clear, explain what you want to do and
with which background
Each work package must make sense and should not have
too many deliverables
Patents should be explained and listed in the state of the
art section, the ones of the participants but also the ones
of possible competitors
Publication list, patents and past collaborations of
participants are essential
Budget and allocated time must be justified
Partner expertise must be clearly explained
SMEs must have experience in the field
Include risk analysis

86

The most important point is the right coordinator, as this
person reflects the strength of the project
Management must be well described and be of high quality.
It reflects how well the consortium is organised and how it
will solve problems.
How decisions are taken and how work is controlled,
reflect the abilities of the coordinator and the
collaboration with the work package leaders
The collaboration between the partners must be clear, too
many partners can make the project weak
The travel budget per partner can show the intensity of
the collaboration with the other partners
Past collaborations, common papers etc should be
presented, as they reflect successful networks

87

Besides the partners in the project the abstract,
deliverables and milestones can be a first deciding factor
of the strength of a project
Integrate the partners for their expertise and
complementarities, not for strategic reasons; have the
best partners on board. There are no politically correct
partners!
It is less important that the top-shots or gurus are in
the project, but that the partners and coordinator are
excellent scientists in their fields
Past experience in the Framework programme makes the
consortium strong and is well perceived
A scientific advisory board should be included. It
guarantees check from outside the consortium

88
Explain advantages
Show societal and economical benefits
Come up with scenarios
Refer to the policy papers of the EC
Summarize the goals, objectives and put them
into a European context. The proposal should
show that it fills a gap.
Read carefully Expected impact in the call text

89

Proposal should address the intellectual property
rights (IPR), not to solve potential problems, but
to show how they might be addressed
The management and IPR are important and
reflect the capabilities of the coordinator
Address possible competition on the market
Involve important stakeholders
Compile a clear dissemination plan

90

Write clearly & simply
Dont use jargon/abbreviations/acronyms/obscure terms
Evaluator may not be a native English speaker
Do not assume knowledge/specific expertise of evaluators
Use diagrams and charts to illustrate your proposal

Pictures are often worth a thousand words!
Keep within guidelines for text length
Stay within scope
Refer back to Call Text & WP on a regular basis
Ensure proposal does not duplicate previous projects, but
builds on them!

91
A figure/table better than 1000 words

92

FP7 / H2020 is highly competitive: the average success
rate is now less than 5% - But it is not a lottery!
Read the documentation (work programme, call fiche,
guides for applicants) - No hidden agenda!
Prepare yourself in good time
Check the eligibility criteria
You must align your proposal with the work programme
Shoe-horning a marginally relevant proposal into the
call never works!
Dont forget the expected impact
Follow the structure in the Guide for Applicants

93

Put yourself in the mind of the experts
Ask a disinterested colleague look at your proposal, using
the Commission criteria
Be clear and concise, and obey the page limits, font, etc.
Submit early, submit often!
Revise your proposal once its uploaded in EPPS
The experts evaluation is based on the content of the
proposal. So be clear and logical concerning progress
beyond state of the art, impacts, methodology, resources,
consortia and work planning

94

Abstract is a very important part of your
proposal
Evaluators are allocated less than 12 day
[4 hours] to read, understand and report on
60-100 pages of text !
Your project idea may be brilliant, HOWEVER,
first impressions count !!
This is a competition: know your enemies, find
out who else is proposing and what, be
complementary (or join them)

95
Still not satisfied ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=o4GAAE5xUsI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n6V-Utoa1E
http://www.slideshare.net/pgroth/thoughts-ona-first-eu-proposal

96

Corso 21e22 - 11 - 13 Mecella PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Corso 21e22 - 11 - 13 Mecella PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Collaborative Research

How to write a successful

Based on personal experience and

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

EU-PUBLI.com (FP5, 2002 2005)

Massimo Mecella Collaborative Research

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

SM4All / LUDENS / a FET proposal from a colleague

Overview of Horizon 2020 LEIT Program

Massimo Mecella Collaborative Research

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

Published more drafts of the Workprogrammes

Massimo Mecella Collaborative Research

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

Your objective is not to describe your good project idea,

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza, Rome, Italy 22 November 2013 (afternoon)

In the old FP7 ICT jargon, projects were classified as

Massimo Mecella Collaborative Research

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

The big picture

Massimo Mecella Collaborative Research

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

Be used to visit EU sites, list of past projects,

Massimo Mecella Collaborative Research

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

From call to deadline

Massimo Mecella Collaborative Research

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

Massimo Mecella Collaborative Research

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

Massimo Mecella Collaborative Research

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

Massimo Mecella Collaborative Research

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

Case study: SM4All fact sheet and contact with EU

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

What does a proposal look like ?

Part A - Forms submitted on Electronic Proposal Submission

Part B - Project description (approx 60p)

Cover page (title, topic etc)

Massimo Mecella Collaborative Research

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

The new structure ?

Massimo Mecella Collaborative Research

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

Key questions and structure []

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

Key questions and structure []

What are the objectives ?

Is the solution already available ? Will the project go

Expected results and lead users

Which results are you expecting and who will use

Massimo Mecella Collaborative Research

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

Key questions and structure []

Expected costs / duration

Massimo Mecella Collaborative Research

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

Massimo Mecella Collaborative Research

How to develop EU proposals - Sapienza,

It can also be dissemination, if this is done thoroughly.

Especially in the current financial climate, Europe wants to see its