Barbara Rebecchi

1
How to write a competitive proposal for FP7
Health/Cooperation?

• Barbara Rebecchi
• Ufficio Ricerca e Relazioni Internazionali
• Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia

2
(No Transcript)
3
Cooperation
Cooperation is the core strand of FP7 Programme.
The Cooperation programme benefits from two
thirds of the FP7 budget. This program promotes
collaborative research in Europe and other
countries between partners through transnational
projects consortia between industry and
academia. It addresses the following ten major
themes
Cooperation
Health
Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Biotechnology
Information communication technologies
Nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materialsnew
production
Energy
Environment (including Climate Changes)
Transport (including aeronautics)
Socio-economic sciences and the Humanities
Space
Security
4
(No Transcript)
5
Health 2007-2013
6
(No Transcript)
7
The evaluation

• 3 simple criteria (0-5)
• Scientific and/or technological excellence
• (relevant to the topics addressed by the call)
• 2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation
  and the management
• 3. Potential impact through the development,
  dissemination and use of project results

8
The evalutaion

• Scientific and/or technological excellence
  (relevance to the topics addressed by the call)
• The most important criteria
• Demonstrate the knowledge of the state of the art
• Why it is innovative?
• The proposal must be relevant to the call
• workflow, risk analysis contingency plan

9
The evaluation positive remarks

• Scientific and/or technological excellence
  (relevant to the topics addressed by the call)
• Concepts and the objectives are very sound. It is
  demonstrated that a ... does not exist. It will
  bring a valuable contribution to the ..., an
  area not yet well understood.
• The innovation value of this research and the
  proposed concepts and objectives is high.
  Moreover, it is commendable that the project
  intends to build on previous knowledge.
• The methodology and related work plan are
  detailed and well defined.

10
The evaluation negative remarks

• Scientific and/or technological excellence
  (relevant to the topics addressed by the call)
• The overall structure of the project is not clear
  enough and very traditional
• The actual content of different WPs are not very
  precise and many things remain open
• The plan is professionally written in an academic
  sense and
• includes good literature review. However, the
  proposal lacks user aspects

11
The evaluation
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation
and the management A resonable distribution of
effort budget Importance of the reputation of
the coordinator It must be very clear Who does
what (e.g. he/she represents excellence in that
field - past projects approved)
12
The evaluation positive remark
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation
and the management Individual participants from
8 different countries (members and associated
members) are qualified and experienced in their
respective area of expertise and resources are
appropriately allocated. The consortium
represents all the relevant areas academic, SME,
airport, training developers, companies with
extensive expertise in social behaviour
sciences, aviation and aviation security. The
coordination institution is well respected.
13
The evaluation negative remarks
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation
and the management The consortium covers a
range of relevant fields of expertise, but there
is not much specific and practical
expertise. Academic and more pragmatical science
expertise is not enough balanced. The consortium
is not large, including 6 European
participants.
14
The evaluation
3. Potential impact through the development,
dissemination and use of project results Impact
(e.g. greater competitiveness of Europe) -
quantifiable Dissemination of results Exploitati
on of the results Intellectual Property Rights
15
The evaluation positive remarks
3. Potential impact through the development,
dissemination and use of project
results Advancing the state-of-the-art research
leads to potential increase of efficiency of
international civil air transportation by
decreasing false alarms, increased safety through
training and increased coordination for all
stakeholders in cases of emergency and security
threat. Moreover, clear and explicit reference
is made to the relations with other programmes
underway. The consortium foresees an
exploitation plan at M12, which we believe to be
a commendable undertaking.
16
The evaluation negative remarks
3. Potential impact through the development,
dissemination and use of project results There
is not much information how case studies and
findings are going to be disseminated to key
professional audiences in Europe. This plan only
meets basic professional requirements but it is
not an excellent dissemination plan. The plan
adresses only academic audiences, not other
professional audiences. There could be a lot of
academic knowledge to be disseminated in this
project, but practical impacts for European
cluster are not clear.
17
The proposal writing
The project design must consider two issues
formal Parts that, even you do not understand
the usufulness, must be presented in
anycase substantial explain in convincingly,
assertive and argued ways the reasons you believe
important for the project
18
The proposal writing
No precise and steady rules (no 'silver
bullet') At least 3 month for the proposal
writing (and a lot of emails) Organize meetings
in the project start up phase, information from
Bruxelles, from national contact points, and from
your research office
19
The proposal writing
It is a narrative description , clear and
readable (bold and indented texts) Division of
the work Agencies for management, tracking of
versions Researchers for the scientific part
20
The proposal writing
consistency, coeherence, conciseness emphasis
(moderately enthusiastic) on innovation emphasis
on results and implications (policies, products)
21
For all programmes

• Policy usefulness of research findings is a key
  objective ('evidence-based policies')
• Dissemination from the earliest stages of the
  project
• Define the potential users of your projects
  right from the beginning

22
To sum-up

• The difference not just research, but
• cohesion (e.g. new Member States)
• competitiveness (industries, SME)
• cooperation
• Sustainable development

23
Change your approach focus on the policy-makers
side
Policy
The policy makers (Member States)
UE
Legislation
Researchers and enterprises
FP7 CIP
You do not apply funding only for your own
research but in order to propose solutions to
problems that EU POLICY MAKERS have identified
and to which the proposed research represents a
step forward at European/world-class level. The
proposal must be formulated to solve a common and
shared problem at EU level, for which individual
efforts and national/regional resources are not
enough, or not effective.
24
Principles

• Eligibility
• Subsidiarity decisions are made as close as
  possible to the citizens, the actions undertaken
  at European level must be justified in light of
  the possibilities available at national, regional
  or local. According to this principle the EU can
  come into play only if the proposed objectives
  can not be sufficiently achieved by individual
  Member States, or regional or local entities, but
  can be better achieved only at European level.
• European added value European dimension of the
  project and its impact
• ST excellence of the partners/project
  (significant changes/advances, innovation)
• Equal treatment and equal opportunities
  (inclusiveness)
• Principles of economy, efficiency and
  effectiveness only necessary costs, managing
  capacity, "good house keeping", and
  appropriateness of resources mobilized.
• Public Private Partnership (public/private
  consortia)
• Financial capacity of the contractors
• Operational capacity of the contractors
• Just 1 single contribution may be granted for
  the same action.

25
Official documents
Useful documents

• Call for proposal
• Work programme
• Guide for applicant
• Rules for the participation
• Model Grant Agreement
• Financial Guidelines

Essential documents!
26
Structure the workplan of your project idea

• Before you start writing, you can answer these
  questions

Establish clear objectives. Goals, NOT results!!
WHY
Define the results in a measurable way
deliverables
WHAT ?
Responsibility (?) choice of the partnership. For
each partner 1 clear role e responsibility
linked to a project result to deliver
WHO?
HOW?
Plan carefully the project activities
WHEN?
Schedule the project activities (timeline)
Allocate costs to appropriate cost categories
reasonable and economic
HOW MUCH?
Allocate and breakdown of resources per WP,
activity and partners
27
Projec Application Forms an example

• PART A ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
• FORM A1 General information (coordinator)
• FORM A2 Participant information, (1 each
  partner)
• FORM A3.1 Budget (one each partner, completed by
  the coordinator)
• FORM A 3.2 Budget overview
• PART B TECHNICAL INFORMATION
• in PDF format
• The sections follow the evaluation criteria

28
Forms an example

• 1 Scientific and/or technical quality, relevant
  to the topics addressed by the call
• 1.1 Concept and objectives
• 1.2 Progress beyond the state of the art
• 1.3 S/T methodology and associated work plan
• Maximum length for the whole of Section 1 20
  pages, plus the tables

29
Forms an example

• 2. Implementation
• 2.1 Management structure and procedures
• 2.2 Individual participants
• 2.3 Consortium as a whole
• 2.4 Resources to be committed
• Clear management structure
• Clear rights responsibilities for each partner
• Describe why this partnership is the best to
  achieve the scope of the project
• Clear financial plan Budget Cofinancing

30
Forms an example

• 3. Impact
• 3.1 Expected impacts listed in the work programme
• 3.2 Dissemination and/or exploitation of project
  results, and management of intellectual property
• 4. Ethical issues
• 5. Consideration of gender aspects

31
Application and Negotiation Process
Final Work Programme
Activities
Application
Ranking
Decision (via EC to Coord)
Consortium
Budget
Consortium Agreement
Authorisation
Negotiation
Grant Agreement
Project Account
Project Start
Preparation of Grant Agreement
Staff Recruitment
Consortium Agreement
32
FP7 Funding Schemes
FP7 Funding Scheme Keyword Optimum Characteristics? (as per FP6) Optimum Budget? (as per FP6)
Collaborative Projects (CP) (IP/STREP) DeliverablesNew Knowledge 3-20 participants 24-36 months (S/M) Up to 60 Months (L) 0.8-25 Million (average lt 10 Million)
Network of Excellence (NoE) (NoE) Integration 6-12 Up to 60 Months 4-15 Million (7 Million)
Co-ordination and Support Actions (CSA) (CA) Co-ordination (SSA) Laying the Groundwork 13-26 Up to 36 months 1-15 Up to 12 months 0.5-1.2 Million (1 Million) 0.03-1 Million (0.5 Million)
33
Maximum Reimbursement Rates
FP7 Large Industry FP7 Public Bodies, Universities, SMEs, etc.
RTD 50 75
Demonstration 50 50
Other 100 100
ERC Proposing 100 direct costs plus 20 flat rate for indirect costs Proposing 100 direct costs plus 20 flat rate for indirect costs
Co-ordination and Support Actions (CSA),
Dissemination, Training, Management
34
What is the Project Cycle Management?
Set of tools and techniques to ensure greater
effectiveness of projects and programmes and an
overall improvement of their management.
The PCM is based on the principles of management
by objectives
35
What is the Project Cycle Management ?

• The PCM is designed to ensure that projects are
• Relevant for the needs of partners and
  beneficiaries
• Feasible from a technical, financial and
  economic point of view
• Effective and efficient (well managed)
• and therefore

Aimed at generating sustainable/transferable
results
36
Project Cycle Management
Programming
Identification
Evaluation and audit
Implementation
Formulation
37
Programming

• The national and sectoral contexts are analyzed
  to identify problems and opportunities to be
  tackled through international cooperation, taking
  into account the lessons of previous experience
• The goals are

identify and agree the main objectives and
sectorial priorities of cooperation
Provide an adequate framework to enable the
identification and preparation of individual
projects
Country Strategy
Regional
Sectoral
38
Programming

• The EU project must be compliant to
• National Development (i.e. Strategies for poverty
  reduction).
• EU policies for development and country strategy
  papers.
• National Programmes (i.e. Sanità pubblica,
  istruzione etc.)

39
The key concepts
Present situation
Future situation
Development objective
National Sector area
National Sector area
Immediate objective
Project area
Project area
Inputs
Outputs
Activities
40
Identification
The ideas are identified and analyzed through

• Stakeholder analysis identification and
  assessment of major groups, identification of
  problems and possible solutions.
• Problem analysis identification of key issues,
  barriers opportunities determining the
  cause-effect relationships (problem tree).
• Objective analysis formulate objectives
  (solutions) starting from the problems previously
  identified.
• Strategy analysis identify the most appropriate
  strategy for solution to the problem / the
  previously identified.

41
Formulation
The project ideas are developed into operational
plans

• Planning the structure of the intervention
  define the builduing blocks of the project,
  formulation of measurable and veriable
  objectives.
• Assumptions and risks identification of
  external factors that may affect project
  implementation and are outside the control of
  Project Management- RISK MANAGEMENT.
• Indicators formulation of indicators,
  identification of means and methods to measure
  progress.
• Activity Schedule determining the logical
  sequence of activities and their
  interdependencies.
• Budget identification of the necessary material
  and financial contributions, preparation of a
  detailed budget.

42
Implementation
The projects shall be implemented and executed

• Preparation of deliverables the project team
  working on the preparation of project
  deliverables
• Monitoring while deliverables are finalised,
  the project manager takes care of
• Cost Management - identification and recording of
  costs in accordance with the project budget
• Change Management examination and adoption of
  necessary changes for better implementation of
  the project
• Quality Management review the quality of
  deliverables and of the management
• Risk Management risk assessment for the project
  and adoption of measures to reduce those risks
• Communication Management keeping stakeholders
  constantly informed on the progress of the
  project
• Reporting

43
implementation - phases
CONCLUSION
BEGIN
IMPLEMENTATION

• Procurement and mobilisation of the resources
• Realisation of the activities and generation of
  the results/deliverables
• Monitoring and evaluation of the project
• Retargeting of operation plans if necessary
• Reporting.

• Grant/Consortium Agreement signature.
• Mobilisation of resources.
• Kick Off Meeting organisation.
• Analysis and revision of the project workplan.
• Adoption of systems and procedures for
  monitoring and evaluating the action.

• Use and Transfer of knowledge and skills.
• After project sustainability
• Further research

44
Evaluation Audit
Activities usually carried out at the end of the
project, or during the implementation phase (
mid-term evaluation)
e

• Aimed at
• Performing a systematic and rigorous analysis of
  the project and its effects, to verify and
  resolve problems of implementation
• extracting useful information to identify and
  resolve problems of implementation (schedule of
  programs and future projects or to reorient the
  implementation of a project).

European Countries
Financing Body
45
Monitoring, evaluation and audit

• Analysis of the project progress compared to the
  original workplan given in the Grant Agreement in
  order to enable the identification of problems
  and to adopt solution and corrective measures.

Monitoring
Evaluation
Analysis of the efficiency, cost effectiveness,
impact, relevance and sustainability of the
project.

• Has a financial nature.
• Assurance of the compliance of the project
  expenditure against the Programme/National
  accouting rules.
• Assessment that the resources are employes
  according to the needs of the project
  (necessary).

Audit
46
Key points

• Learn how to read the workprogramme
• Find a place in the sun for your own favorite
  topic, and help to define its content (networking
  and lobbying)
• Knowing the evaluation mechanisms

47
Key points

• Learn how to read the work-programme
• Find a place in the sun for your own favorite
  topic, and help to define its content (networking
  and lobbying Learn how to write or influence
  the work-programme)
• Knowing the evaluation mechanisms

48
FP7 Cooperation Work Programme
Health-2011Internal working document
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT 2.4 TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH
IN OTHER MAJOR DISEASES

• HEALTH.2011.2.4.1-3 Epidemiology and aetiology
  of infection-related cancers.
• FP7-HEALTH-2011-single-stage.
• Collaborative research should address one or more
  of the prevalent infectious agents that cause
  cancers of major public health importance in
  India as well as Europe, such as human papilloma
  virus, hepatitis B and C viruses, and/or
  Helicobacter pylori. The project must integrate
  different disciplines relevant to study both
  infection and cancer and include aspects such as
  prevalence of infection in different population
  groups, determinants of infection, clearance and
  re-infection, environmental cofactors in the
  carcinogenic process, mechanisms of
  infection-related cancers, and development of new
  testing and screening methods applicable to the
  wider community. In addition, the project must
  take advantage of the diversity of risk factors,
  cofactors and cancer incidence in different
  population groups of Europe and India. The
  project should focus on the prevention and early
  detection of infection-related cancers in Europe
  and India, addressing both established and
  putative associations between infectious agents
  and cancers. Active participation of
  research-intensive SMEs could lead to an
  increased impact of the research proposed and
  this will be considered in the evaluation of the
  proposal. Note Limits on the EU financial
  contribution apply. These are implemented
  strictly as formal eligibility criteria.

49
HEALTH.2011.2.4.1-3 Epidemiology and aetiology
of infection-related cancers. FP7-HEALTH-2011-sin
gle-stage.

• Funding scheme Collaborative Project (small or
  medium-scale focused research project).
• EU contribution per project Maximum EUR 3 000
  000.
• One or more proposals can be selected.
• Expected impact The results of research in this
  area will have to contribute to the prevention
  and early detection of infection-related cancers
  in Europe and India, which might take place
  through vaccination, early detection and
  identification of high-risk populations. A close
  cooperation between Europe and India is expected
  to result from the projects.
• Specific feature It is expected that the Indian
  Council of Medical Research will issue a
  complementary call to support Indian projects in
  this field and that the funded projects will
  commence at the same time and will cooperate
  closely. The cooperation may also include joint
  meetings, workshops, exchange of scientists,
  technology transfer, etc.

50
Call topics specificityAre they tailored for
pre-existing Consortia?Who decide the call
topics?
51
Key points

• Learn how to read the workprogramme
• Find a place in the sun for your own favorite
  topic, and help to define its content (networking
  and lobbying Learn how to write or influence
  the work-programme)
• Knowing the evaluation mechanisms

Who must perform lobbying and briefing of EC?
52
Networking the consortium

• Participants
• SMEs
• Management and governance structure
• Added value
• Other parties (i.e. stakeholders, patients and
  care takers associations)
• Main criteria ST excellence

53
Key points

• Knowing how to read the work program
• Identificare lo spazio per largomento preferito
  e contribuire a definirlo (networking and
  lobbying)
• Knowing the evaluation mechanism

54
Evaluation procedure
Proposal submission
Eligibility check
eligible
1. Individual evaluation
not eligible
2. Consensus Group meeting
If above threshold
3. Panel Evaluation
If below threshold
Ethical review (if necessary)
Priority list
Reserve list
Rejection
Funding
55
Evaluation principles

• ? Excellence
• ? Transparency
• ? Confidentiality
• ? Impartiality
• Efficiency

56
Scoring criteria
Criterion Score Threshold 1. ST
excellence 0 to 5 3 2. Implementation
and management 0 to 5 3 3. Potential
impact 0 to 5 3 TOTAL 0 to 15 10
When a proposal is partially relevant/out of
scope because it only marginally addresses the
call topic, or if only part of the proposal
addresses the topic, this condition must be
reflected in the scoring of the first
criterion. One of the subcriteria mentions
Expected impact listed in Work Programme.
57
Interpretation of scores
5 EXCELLENT the proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor
4 GOOD the proposal addresses the criterion well, although certain improvements are possible
3 FAIR While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses that would need correcting
2 POOR There are serious inherent weaknesses in relation to the criterion in question
1 VERY POOR The criterion is addressed in a cursory and unsatisfactory manner
0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or can not be judged due to missing or incomplete information
58
General EC policy regarding the participation of
industry and SME

• Strongly encouraged wherever appropriate
• Overall, 15 of requested EC budget should be
  allocated to SMEs (political objective in FP7)
• SMEs may contribute with scientific and
  technological competence (high-tech SMEs), but
  also with competence in management,
  dissemination, transfer of knowledge, training,
  etc...
• SME participation is among the criteria to be
  assessed !

59
How to submit a competitive proposal within
Cooperation/Health theme?

• Being part of scientific European excellence in
  the field.
• Studying the work-program in detail.
• Become an Evaluator/Reviewer!
• Contribute to the project design having a
  feasible idea, targeted against the call topic
  and an excellent consortium that involve at least
  1 SME.
• From the beginning pay a duly attention the
  "Implementation and Management" and "potential
  impact"!

60
The promotion of gender equality and the rights
of women represent fundamental human rights, as a
matter of social justiceThe Gender Equality is
recognized in the Treaty of the European Union
and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.The
European Programme on equity between men and
women promote the development policies that fall
into one of six priority areas in the period 2006
to 2010.The European strategy for this area aims
to help promote equality of political rights,
civil, economic, social and cultural differences
between men and women, also trying to provide
equal access to elected office to promote and
ensure equal political and economic
opportunities.http//eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriSer
v/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0100en01.pdf

• Thank you!!!!!!!
• Barbara Rebecchi
• Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia
• barbara.rebecchi_at_unimore.it