Post on 15-Apr-2017
Polymer and Nanomaterials Analysis Research Group
Polymer and Nanomaterials Analysis
Research Group
Department of Analytical Chemistry, Nutrition and Food Sciences
Faculty of Sciences
University of Alicante
Campus Sant Vicent
P.O. Box 99
E-03080, Alicante
REMOTE EVALUATION
• Individual assessment
•Remote consensus
CENTRAL EVALUATION
•Consensus Meetings
•Quality Checks
•Thematic Panel Review
PANEL REVIEW
• Final ranked list by activity
Call deadline15 November 2014
1387 proposals submitted
[] ineligible proposals & [] withdrawn
December-January January – February Brussels
EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS
EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS
REMOTE
Each proposal is assessed independently and individually by 3 expertsagainst 3 pre-determined evaluation criteria
Individual opinions are recorded in an Individual Assessment Report (IAR),giving scores and comments against the evaluation criteria
Once all IARs are finalized, a fourth expert intervenes, the rapporteur
She/he is in charge of arriving at a consensus between the individual viewsof the evaluators who will discuss the proposal between themselves anddrafting a consensus report (CR)
CENTRAL
If no consensus can be reached remotely, the proposal is discussed duringa meeting in Brussels.
The meeting is moderated by an EU official (the Project Officer), with thehelp of the rapporteur
EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS
EVALUATORS RAPPORTEURS
MISSION • Read and assess the proposal
• Write an individual assessment report (IAR)
• Participate actively to reach consensus, in remote and/or central
• Quality check of IARs
• Lead the process to arrive at a consensus between the individual views of the evaluators once their IARs are finalized
• Draft the consensus report (CR)
• Participate and help in consensus meeting
• Finalize the consensus report after the consensus meeting
NO OPINION
EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS
EVALUATORS ROLE
Assess each proposal and record individual opinion in an IndividualAssessment Report (IAR), giving scores and providing commentsagainst the evaluation criteria
Draft the IAR and submit it for review to the rapporteur (who canrequest clarifications but cannot challenge the opinion of theevaluator)
If applicable, revise IAR based on rapporteur’s comments
Once the CR is drafted by the rapporteur, approve or reject it
In case of rejection, the decision needs to be motivated and justified(with comments)
Multiple versions of a CR can be drafted; and in case no consensus canbe reached remotely, the proposal is discussed in Brussels
Respect given deadlines
EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS
RAPPORTEURS ROLE
Lead the process to arrive at a consensus between the individualviews of the evaluators (once IARs are finalized and checked)
Draft the consensus report (CR) based on the assessment made byeach evaluator & score the proposal based on the comments (NOOPINION)
Open the discussion with the evaluators with a view in reaching aconsensus
If no consensus can be reached during the remote evaluation, theproposal is discussed in Brussels
Prepare the points that need to be discussed during the consensusmeeting and inform the REA Officer
Once a consensus is reached, the rapporteur drafts the final version ofthe CR
EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS
Part A
A1 : snapshot of the proposal
A2 : partners administrative information
A3 : deals with budgetary matters
Part B:
Section 1: Scientific and/or technologicalexcellence
Section 2: Implementation, management,consortium, resources
Section 3: Impact - The potential impactthrough the development, disseminationand use of project results
Section 4: Ethical issues
Section 5: Consideration of genderaspects
Enforce page
limitation
(excessive
pages must be
disregarded)
Proposals have
2 parts
Both parts need
to be assessed
EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS
Evaluation criteria for RIA
Each proposal will be assessed independently by 3 experts against 3 evaluation criteria
EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS
Evaluation criteria for DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES
The evaluation criteria are the same as for SME & SME AGs, except for one sub-criterion
Apply each sub-criterion to assess the DEMO activity keeping in mind its objectives as specified in the Work Programme
EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS
Scoring definition:
0 – The proposal fails to address the criterionunder examination or cannot be judged dueto missing or incomplete information
1 – Poor. The criterion is addressed in inadequatemanner, or there are significant weaknesses
2 – Fair. While the proposal broadly addressesthe criterion, there are significantweaknesses
3 – Good. The proposal addresses the criterionwell, although improvements would benecessary.
4 – Very Good. The proposal addresses thecriterion very well, although certainimprovements are still possible.
5 – Excellent. The proposal successfullyaddresses all relevant aspects of the criterionin question. Any shortcomings are minor.
Each criterion will be scored out of 5.
Half marks are possible.
USE THE FULL RANGE OF SCORES
EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS
IPR principle:
The default regime is full ownership of allproject results ("foreground") and IPRs bythe SMEs or SME Associations.
The consortium may however reach a different agreement, provided that:
- Companies are provided with all the rights that are required for their intended use and dissemination of project results;
- value of the IPR is clearly reflected in the price of services provided by RTD performers (Transaction);
- the commercial interest of the companies is safeguarded.
Contents:
Main objectives
Activities – SMEActivities – SME-AGActivities – Demo
SME&AG – Actors
SME&AG – Transaction
SME&AG – Impact
SME&AG – IPR
Demonstration