The ICT Theme in FP7

1
The ICT Theme in FP7

• Submission and Evaluation
• (preliminary information)
• ICT-NCP Information Day
• 19th October 2006

2
Funding schemes

• Collaborative projects
• Large scale integrating projects (IP)
• Small/medium scale focused research projects (FP)
• Networks of excellence
• Coordination and support actions
• Coordination actions (CA)
• Support actions (SA)

3
Budget split per objective

• A reserved amount for CSAs
• Support activities wont need to compete against
  research projects for funding
• A reserved amount for (normally one) NoE
• we wont fund multiple NoEs to compete with each
  other
• Remaining (main) part of budget committed to
  Collaborative projects
• minimum percent Integrating projects, minimum
  percent Focused projects, the remainder
  distributed by quality of the proposals

4
Information for proposers

• Workprogramme 2007-2008
• Guide for Applicants
• now including the Guidance notes for evaluators
  and the background note on funding scheme
• Evaluation forms
• EPSS manual
• Model grant agreement

5
Submission

• Electronic submission via EPSS
• Online preparation only
• Improved validation checks
• FP6 Failure rate 1
• Eligibility Committee

6
Evaluation methodology

• Fixed deadline calls
• 17h00 Tuesdays
• One stage submission
• No anonymity
• On-site evaluation
• except FET Proactive initiatives
• One step evaluation
• Hearings ?
• (FET Open as FP6)

7
Experts

• New calls for experts for FP7
• to individuals
• to organisation
• Current FP6 experts will be invited to transfer
  to FP7
• with a request to update their information

8
Evaluation criteria

• Scientific and technical quality
• (ST excellence)
• Implementation
• (Quality of the consortium)
• (Quality of the management)
• (Mobilisation of the resources)
• Impact
• (Potential impact)
• (Relevance)
• Criteria supported by descriptive bullet points

9
Collaborative projects

• Scientific and technical quality
• Sound concept, and quality of objectives
• Progress beyond the state-of-the-art
• Quality and effectiveness of the S T
  methodology and associated workplan

10
Collaborative projects

• Implementation
• Appropriateness of the management structures and
  procedures
• Quality and relevant experience of the individual
  participants
• Quality of the consortium as a whole (including
  complementarity, balance)
• Appropriate allocation and justification of the
  resources to be committed

11
Collaborative projects

• Impact
• Contribution at the European or international
  level to the expected impacts listed in the
  workprogramme under the relevant activity
• Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination
  and/or exploitation of project results, and
  management of intellectual property

12
Evaluation criteria scoring

• Scale of 1-5 (and 0)
• No weighting
• except FET Open
• Criterion threshold 3/5
• Overall threshold 10/15
• Half-marks

13
Ethical issues

• New annex ICT-Ethics in the Guide for
  Applicants
• Post-evaluation review for any selected proposals
  which have ethical issues
• Procedure for problem cases ?

14
Other issues

• Subcontracting
• Third country participation
• (Subcontracting)
• (Justification and integration of any third
  country participation)
• (Gender issues)
• (Gender action plan IPs and NoEs)
• (Readiness to engage with actors beyond the
  research community and the public as a whole, to
  spread awareness and knowledge and to explore the
  wider societal implications of the work)
• (Synergies with education at all levels)

15
Proposal Part A

• A1
• free keywords
• 2000 character proposal abstract
• previous/current submission (in FP7)
• A2
• Legal address/administrator address/RD address
• Proposer identification code PIC
• A3
• More detailed costs (direct/indirect) as CPF
  forms

16
Proposal Part B

• Revised Part B format directly linked to
  evaluation criteria
• Summary
• ST quality (bullet points sections)
• Implementation (idem)
• Impact (idem)
• Ethics
• Section lengths recommended

17
Redress

• The Commission will establish a committee to
  review all justified complaints about the
  evaluation procedures