January 26, 2005

1
eBusiness
Prof. Dr. Asuman Dogac, SRDC, METU
2
Ana Mesaj

• eBusiness konusunda KOBIler için Avrupa
  Komisyonu projeleri büyük firsatlar yaratmaktadir
• Bu konusmada sizlerle bu deneyimleri paylasacagim

3
Outline of the Talk

• METU-SRDC European Commission Supported Projects
• Funding mechanisms
• The basic steps
• What helped us The Tips!
• How Proposals are Evaluated?
• SATINE, ARTEMIS, MEDFORIST

4
METU-SRDC FP6 Projects
 
5
METU-SRDC FP5Projects
6
METU-SRDC Completed Commission Projects
7
Outline of the Talk

• METU-SRDC European Commission Supported Projects
• Funding mechanisms
• The basic steps
• What helped us The Tips!
• How Proposals are Evaluated?
• SATINE, ARTEMIS, MEDFORIST

8
Funding Mechanisms

• Depends on the project type
• Mostly 100 funding for the academic institutes
  (called Shared Cost, also called Additional Cost)
• 50 funding plus overhead for partners from
  industry (called Full Cost)

9
More Detailed Steps in Preparing a Proposal

• Types of Proposals (STREP, IP, NoE)
• Proposal preparation steps
• Parts of a proposal
• How to maximize success rate?

10
Outline of the Talk

• METU-SRDC European Commission Supported Projects
• Funding mechanisms
• The basic steps
• What helped us The Tips!
• How Proposals are Evaluated?
• SATINE, ARTEMIS, MEDFORIST

11
START
Project IDEA ?
Check with Work Programme and Find Action Line
and the closing datehttp//www.cordis.lu/
12
2003-2004 Work Program eBusiness

• Objective To develop ICTs supporting
• Organisational networking,
• Process integration, and
• Sharing of resources
• This shall enable networked organisations,
  private and public
• To build faster and more effective partnerships
  and alliances,
• To re-engineer and integrate their processes,
• To develop value added products and services, and
  
• To share efficiently knowledge and experiences

13
2005-2006 Work Program eBusiness

• To develop software solutions
• adaptable to the needs of local/regional SMEs,
• supporting organisational networking and
• process integration as well as
• improving adaptability and responsiveness to
  rapidly changing market demands and customer
  requirements.

14
Try to Form a Consortium
Check ideal-ist http//www.ideal-ist.net
For RTD projects each consortium must have
partners from at least 3 different EU or
Associated countries with at least the following
roles
1. Technology Developer
2. End User
15
Write Down a Proposal
Check Guide for Proposers
Download Electronic Proposal Submission System
(EPSS) https//www.epss-fp6.org/epss/welcome.jsp
Prepare Parts A, B
16
Check Your Proposal with the Evaluation Manual
Send it To Brussels Postal submissions are not
accepted for some action lines it has to be
through EPSS
17
Decision by the Commission
Accepted ?!
Rejected ?!
Prepare Contract with CPF (Contract Preparation
Form) Editorhttp//www.cordis.lu/fp6/contract-pr
ep.htm
Read the Evaluation Reports
Refine Your Proposal
START AgainAND NEVER GIVE UP!
18
Outline of the Talk

• METU-SRDC European Commission Supported Projects
• Funding mechanisms
• The basic steps
• What helped us The Tips!
• How Proposals are Evaluated?
• SATINE, ARTEMIS, MEDFORIST

19
Originality, degree of innovation

• Does the proposal clearly identify the novelty of
  the proposed result, for example by including a
  comparison with the state of the art world-wide?
• The level of risk and scientific and technical
  handling of these risk
• Is there a reasonable balance between risks and
  potential benefits

20
The adequacy of the chosen approach

• Is the approach, methodology and work plan
  adequate and credible for achieving the planned
  results?
• Are self-assessment procedures
• incorporated? (milestones, yard sticks to
  measure the progress, )

21
Community added value and contribution to EC
policies

• Is there clear added value in carrying out the
  proposed action at European level (as opposed to
  national level)?
• What are the problems addressed at European
  level?
• What is the expected impact at European level?

22
Contribution to EU policies

• To which EU policies could the proposed action
  contribute?
• Does the proposal address standardisation or
  regulation, and if so in a credible way?

23
Economic development and ST prospects

• Will the proposed action contribute to growth and
  is it likely to have a wider economic impact
  directly or indirectly?
• Will the action improve competitiveness or create
  market opportunities?
• Are exploitation plans outlined for individual
  participants, for the consortium as a whole?

24
Exploitation

• Are the exploitation plans well planned, timely
  and likely to come through?
• Are they concrete, for example detailing user
  groups involvement?
• Is the exploitation plan critically dependent on
  one or more partners if so, which ones?

25
Dissemination strategies

• What is the likely contribution to European
  scientific and technological progress?
• Are plans/tools to disseminate results foreseen?
• Are dissemination strategies explained, results
  and target groups identified?
• Be specific provide a list of planned
  activities, journals, conferences!

26
Resources, partnership and management

• The quality of the management and project
  approach proposed, in particular the
  appropriateness, clarity, consistency, efficiency
  and completeness of the proposed tasks, the
  scheduling arrangements (with milestones) and the
  management structure

27
Management of the project

• In addition, the tools to be used for monitoring
  project progress, including the quality of
  specified indicators of impact and performance,
  and ensuring good communication within the
  project consortium

28
Management of the project

• Is an appropriate management structure proposed?
• Are conflict resolution procedures foreseen?
• Has the co-ordinator sufficient expertise in
  managing international projects?

29
Management of the project

• Is the workplan clear, well designed with clear
  and achievable milestones?
• Are adequate tools foreseen for the management?

30
The partnership

• Are the proposer organisations appropriate for
  implementing the proposed action?
• Are there overlaps or gaps in expertise of
  partners?
• Do the partner(s) have the skills and experience
  needed?

31
The partnership

• Is sufficient industrial expertise represented in
  the consortium?
• Are roles and functions clear (in case there are
  several partners)?

32
Building Consortia

• In almost all of the projects partners from three
  different EU or Associated countries is a must
• 4 - 8 participants, 2 - 4 MEuro contribution 2 -
  3 years duration
• 3 - 6 participants, 1 - 2 MEuro contribution 1.5
  - 2 years duration
• More than half of the participants (some times
  all) should be from industry

33
Partner Search

• Most difficult point for new entrants - first
  project is the most difficult
• Sources
• Idealist quality but generally minor players
  http//www.ideal-ist.net
• CORDIS poor quality
• Info days/events best source
• Current projects excellent - major players
• Consultants some are very good
• NCPs some countries give good support
• Concertation events etc can be excellent

34
Roles of Partners

• There must be players for the following roles
• Knowledge producer
• Technology developer
• End user
• A partner with proven market access potential
• What is unique contribution of each partner?
• Do you have more than one technological
  contributor?
• Do you have an end user?
• Do you have a partner with proven market access
  potential?

35
Outline of the Talk

• METU-SRDC European Commission Supported Projects
• Funding mechanisms
• The basic steps
• What helped us The Tips!
• How Proposals are Evaluated?
• SATINE, ARTEMIS, MEDFORIST

36
How the Proposals are Evaluated?

• Sources of information
• Evaluation process RTD
• Evaluation criteria
• Scoring
• Weights Thresholds
• Scientific technical quality innovation
• Economic development ST prospects
• Financial evaluation

37
Sources of information

• Proposers Guide - Parts 1 and 2
• Guidelines for Evaluators participating in the
  evaluation of proposals of the IST Program
• FP6 Evaluation Manual
• Workprogram
• Call for proposals

38
Evaluation Process RTD

• Step 1 Opening, registration preparation
• Step 2 Eligibility check - (deadline, signature,
  consortium eligibility, anonymity of Part B, in
  scope of key action)
• Step 3 Evaluation of the proposal by three
  evaluators
• Step 5 Consensus meeting among the evaluators
• Step 6 Ranking Panel (All the evaluators, project
  officers, head of unit)

39
Scoring

• Evaluators score each criterion 0-5 with 0 being
  low and 5 high
• 0 - Unsatisfactory
• 1 - Poor
• 2 - Fair
• 3 - Good
• 4 - Very good
• 5 - Excellent

40
1. Relevance

• Threshold 3 out of 5
• What is the extent to which the proposal
  addresses the scientific, technical,
  socio-economic and policy objectives of the
  Workprogramme in the areas open in the call?

41
2. Potential impact

• Threshold 3 out of 5
• Is the proposal suitably ambitious in terms of
  strategic impact on reinforcing competitiveness
  or solving societal problems ?
• Are the innovation activities, exploitation and
  dissemination plans adequate to ensure optimum
  use of the project results ?
• Is there demonstrated added-value in carrying out
  the work at a European level and does the
  proposal take account of research activities at
  national level and under European initiatives
  (e.g. Eureka) ?

42
3. Scientific and technical excellence

• Threshold 4 out of 5
• Does the project have clearly defined objectives
  ?
• Do they represent clear progress on the current
  state-of-the-art ?
• Is the proposed ST approach likely to enable the
  project to achieve its objectives in research and
  innovation ?

43
4. Quality of the consortium

• Threshold 3 out of 5
• Are the participants collectively a consortium of
  high quality?
• Are the participants well suited and committed to
  their tasks?
• Is there good complementarity between the
  participants?
• Are the profiles of the consortium members
  clearly described?
• Is there adequate industrial involvement to
  ensure exploitation of results?
• Has the opportunity to involve SMEs been
  adequately addressed?

44
5. Quality of the management

• Threshold 3 out of 5
• Is the organisational structure matched to the
  complexity of the project and to the degree of
  integration required ?
• Is the project management of high quality ?
• Is there is a satisfactory plan for the
  management of knowledge, IPR and
  innovation-related activities arising in the
  project. If the addition of participants during
  the lifetime of the project is foreseen, will the
  management structure adaptable for this ?

45
6. Mobilisation of resources

• Threshold 3 out of 5
• Will the project mobilise the critical mass of
  resources (personnel, equipment, finance etc)
  necessary for success?
• Are the resources convincingly integrated to form
  a coherent project?
• Is the overall financial plan for the project
  adequate?

46
Dissemination strategies

• What is the likely contribution to European
  scientific and technological progress?
• Are plans/tools to disseminate results foreseen?
• Are dissemination strategies explained, results
  and target groups identified?

47
The appropriateness of the resources

• The manpower effort for each partner and task,
• The quality and/or level and/or type of manpower
  allocated,
• Durables,
• Consumables,
• Travel and
• Any other resources to be used

48
The appropriateness of the resources

• Is the proposed action cost-effective in general?
• Is the manpower proposed seen to be adequate if
  not give an estimate of over/under estimation
• Is the equipment, travel etc. reasonable for the
  size and type of project proposed?

49
The appropriateness of the resources

• Is the personnel proposed having the required
  expertise and credibility?
• Are all partners expected to have or to be able
  to create the necessary resources for carrying
  out the proposed project?

50
Outline of the Talk

• METU-SRDC European Commission Supported Projects
• Funding mechanisms
• The basic steps
• What helped us The Tips!
• How Proposals are Evaluated?
• SATINE, ARTEMIS, MEDFORIST

51
Satine Project Objective

• The objective of the project is to develop
• a semantic-based interoperability framework
• for exploiting Web service platforms
• in conjunction with Peer-to-Peer networks
• The application will be demonstrated in travel
  industry

52
Overall Information Flow in Tourism Domain
1000s
Airline Companies
4 10s
Olympic, Air France
100,000s
E-Comm. Site
100s
XML
2
Hotel Chains
Switching Companies
Cryptic
Travel Agency
GDS
Hilton, BW, Utell, E-Rez,
Hotels
Pegasus, Worldres
Amadeus, Galileo, Sabre, Worldspan
Hilton Ankara, Sofitel Paris ...
10,000s
Rent-a-Car Chains
100s
Rent-a-Car Agencies
Avis, Hertz,
53
Major Outcomes/Results Satine Architecture
54
An Overview of Artemis

• The Artemis project addresses the
  interoperability problem in the healthcare domain
• The Syntactic interoperability is handled through
  Web services
• Semantic Interoperability is addressed by
  semantically annotating the Web services

55
Artemis Architecture
Mediator Components
Ontology Server
Semantic Mediator
- Functional Ontology
CEN/HL7/Gehr Encapsulation
Legacy System
VWS
Semantic Mapping via Bridges
- Clinical Concept Ontology
Web Service Enactment
ebXML
UDDI
SuperPeer Services
Hospital B
tModel
KlinikBilgiServisi
Client Interface
BindingTemp
56
Artemis is based on Standards

• CEN TC 251 ENV 13606
• EHRcom
• opnEHR Archetypes
• HL7 Version 3
• HL7 Version 2.x
• IHE RID
• IHE XSD (Cross Enterprise Document Sharing)

57
Medforist Project

• Euro Mediterranean Network for Sharing IST
  Learning Resources
• Eumedis Initiative
• Project duration
• 34 months , starting August 2002
• Objectives
• To build a network of professors in e-business
• To share learning resources in e-business,
  on-line and adapted to the context of each
  country
• To expand the network in each country
• To secure the conditions for the long term
  sustainability of the trainings in ach country

58
It is necessary to be Proactive!

• My apologies if this sounds like preaching but
  slightly modifying the famous saying of JFK
• Think not what European Union can do for you
  think what you can do for the European Union
• In other words be proactive create opportunities
  both for your selves and for the European Union

59
Grab the opportunity!

• In my opinion, when you have a project accepted,
  you should see this as the ultimate opportunity
  and do your very best to make the project a
  smashing success!
• In other words put best possible effort in to
  your work!
• The rest will follow!

60
How to become an expert evaluator for the
European Commission?

• http//www.cordis.lu/expert-candidature/

61
Thank you for your attention!