http://

Building links with partners and

FP7 Proposal Writing

Royal Holloway, University of London

6 November 2012

Inga Benner inga.benner@bbsrc.ac.uk

Why Participate?

• Internationalisation of research

• Benchmarking performance in European context

• Range of project types (multi-disciplinary, industrial)

• Networking opportunities – research and teaching

• Opening up new opportunities

• Mobility of staff and students

• Research capacity

• Pan-European university networks

EU

Re

se

arc

h

Who do I need in my consortium?

B

uild

ing y

our

co

nso

rtiu

m

• Depends on topic…

• Partners must match activities in proposal

• Appropriate balance of sectors – industry,

academia, civil society, user groups, etc

• Consideration of expected impact of project

• Commission may stipulate or offer advice on

types of partner or country involvement

• EU dimension/ added-value!

Who do I need in my consortium?

B

uild

ing y

our

co

nso

rtiu

m

• Have you worked with the partner institutions

before?

• Can you trust them?

• Make clear from the beginning what will be

expected from them

• Talk about the budget early on

What is expected of a co-ordinator?

• Administers EU financing, makes payments to partners

• Needs to keep record of how the financing is distributed

• Reviews reports to the Commission

• Monitors compliance of partners with grant agreement

• Is the only point of contact for the Commission

None of these tasks can be subcontracted!

C

o-o

rdin

ation

of F

P p

roje

cts

How do I find partners?

• Existing contacts

• FP6/ FP7 Projects

• http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/projects.htm

• http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/projects_en.html

• EU/national conferences and project evaluation

• European Technology Platforms

http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms

• Partner searches:

• UKRO can distribute partner profiles

• NCPs

• CORDIS

Note! Use partner searches with caution

Ch

oosin

g P

art

ne

rs

EU Conferences & Information Days

• Announced under ‘Events’ on UKRO information

services

• Usually held in Brussels, but also in UK locations

• Information days normally free; conferences

generally have a registration fee attached

• Always include networking and brokerage

opportunities; presentation of projects, proposal

ideas, etc.

Ch

oosin

g P

art

ne

rs

Eu

rop

ea

n T

ech

no

log

y P

latf

orm

s

Advanced Engineering Materials and Technologies – EuMaT

Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe – ACARE

Embedded Computing Systems – ARTEMIS

European Biofuels Technology Platform – Biofuels

European Construction Technology Platform – ECTP

European Nanoelectronics Initiative Advisory Council – ENIAC

European Rail Research Advisory Council – ERRAC

European Road Transport Research Advisory Council – ERTRAC

European Space Technology Platform – ESTP

European Steel Technology Platform – ESTEP

European Technology Platform for the Electricity Networks of the Future

European Technology Platform for Wind Energy – TPWind

European Technology Platform on Smart Systems Integration – EPoSS

European Technology Platform on Sustainable Mineral Resources

Farm Animal Breeding and Reproduction Technology Platform

Food for Life – Food

Forest based sector Technology Platform – Forestry

Future Manufacturing Technologies – MANUFUTURE

Future Textiles and Clothing – FTC

Global Animal Health – GAH

Industrial Safety ETP – IndustrialSafety

Integral Satcom Initiative – ISI

Mobile and Wireless Communications – eMobility

Nanotechnologies for Medical Applications – NanoMedicine

Networked and Electronic Media – NEM

Networked European Software and Services Initiative – NESSI

Photonics21 – Photonics Photovoltaics – Photovoltaics

Plants for the Future – Plants Robotics – EUROP

Sustainable Nuclear Technology Platform – SNETP

Sustainable Chemistry – SusChem

Water Supply and Sanitation Technology Platform – WSSTP

Waterborne ETP – Waterborne

Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants – ZEP

Agree

Common

Vision

Define

Strategic

Research

Agenda

Implement

Strategic

Agenda

Industry-led stakeholder forums on

Europe’s key research challenges

http://www.ukro.ac.uk

Getting started on proposal writing

The whole process

1. Speak to Research Support Office

2. Consult the Work Programmes

3. Identify a topic

4. Consider the requirements of the funding scheme

5. Check deadline in WP and Call Text

6. Identify activities

7. Identify partners

8. Meet, allocate activities, develop a short proposal

9. Understand the application forms and plan submission carefully

10. Write the full proposal…

G

ett

ing S

tart

ed

Who shapes the Work Programmes?

Advisory

Groups

Programme

Committee

Work

Programme

Agencies

European Technology

Platforms

(e.g. Food for Life)

Other Sources

(FP Projects, literature,

conferences...)

Other

Commission

Services

What is EU added-value?

B

uild

ing y

our

co

nso

rtiu

m

• Expertise from other EU countries

• Access to data from other countries

• Different cultural and social perspectives

• Research too costly for one country

• Avoid having one partner dominate research activities

and budget

• Appropriate geographic spread for that project

• Feed into EU-wide policy objectives and their

development

• Decrease fragmentation and duplication

http://www.ukro.ac.uk

Writing the proposal

Proposal writing

• Involve both researchers and research support

• Involve all partners

• Think about whose need is being addressed

• Think about the impact of the project

• Ensure that ALL aspects are addressed (science,

socio-economic factors, management, integration,

training, technology transfer, dissemination….)

• Use simple, clear language

• Pay attention to layout

P

ropo

sa

l W

riting

Before you start to write…

• What is the main objective of your proposal?

• How is your proposal unique?

• Whose problem does this solve?

• Why can’t other actors be expected to carry out this

work?

• Which consortium member will provide which skills?

• How will you measure your progress?

• How will you know if you have succeeded?

• What infrastructure and data sets will be needed?

F

P7

– G

oo

d P

ropo

sa

ls

Top tips – preparation

1. Clarify your own goals for participation

2. Read all Call documentation (ie, GfA and WP) - Also consider relevant EU policy documents

3. Fully appreciate the evaluation criteria

4. Discuss with and meet potential partners

5. Use appropriate partnership (including balance of budget and activities)

6. Set aside enough time

7. Research previous and current projects

8. Work with your institution

F

P7

- E

sse

ntials

Completing the Application Forms

F

P7

Fo

rms

Part A

• Basic info – call details, title, summary, partners,

outline budget…

• Standard forms

Part B

• Is a ‘template’ designed to highlight aspects that will

be assessed against the evaluation criteria..

• Core Proposal

• Leave nothing to the imagination

• Goes to ‘expert’ evaluators

Part B: Top tips

• Fully address the evaluation criteria

• Include well worked out plans

• Outline any ‘Plan B’ (risk analysis)

• Appropriate, flexible partnership

• Use tables and diagrams

• Get the right balance (budget, activities, etc)

P

art

B

Evaluation Criteria E

va

luation

crite

ria

Implementation S/T Quality

Excellence

Impact

3/5 3/5 3/5

Overall threshold = 10/15

NOTE – check Work Programme for specific criteria,

weightings and thresholds.

Also different for Marie Curie and ERC

Evaluation criteria applicable to Collaborative project proposals

S/T QUALITY “Scientific

and/or technological

excellence (relevant to the

topics addressed by the

call)”

IMPLEMENTATION

“Quality and efficiency of

the implementation and

the management”

IMPACT “Potential impact

through the development,

dissemination and use of

project results”

• Soundness of concept,

and quality of objectives

• Progress beyond the

state-of-the-art

• Quality and effectiveness

of the S/T methodology and

associated work plan

• Appropriateness of the

management structure and

procedures

• Quality and relevant

experience of the individual

• participants Quality of the

consortium as a whole

(including complementarity,

balance)

• Appropriateness of the

allocation and justification of

the resources to be

committed

(budget, staff, equipment)

• Contribution, at the

European

[and/or international] level,

to the expected impacts

listed in the work

programme under the

relevant topic/activity

• Appropriateness of

measures for the

dissemination and/or

exploitation of project

results, and management of

intellectual property.

Evaluation Criteria E

xa

mple

of To

pic

to

Pro

po

sa

l

• Relevance is considered in relation to the topic(s) in the

Work Programme open in a given call, and to the

objectives of the call

• Integrated into ‘S&T quality’ and ‘Impact’

• This must be addressed in the proposal!

• If it is only partially relevant – it will be reflected in the

scoring

• If it is not relevant – it will be ‘out of scope’ and rejected on

eligibility grounds before the evaluation

F

P7

Pro

po

sa

l P

repa

ration

Relevance

‘S&T Quality’

Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant

to the topics addressed by the call)

• Soundness of concept itself

• Quality of objectives

• Acknowledgement of, and development beyond,

the ‘state-of-the-art’

• Methodology and Work Plan

• Quality of co-ordination

FP

7 P

ropo

sa

l P

repa

ration

‘Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management’

• Management structure and procedures

• Quality, complementarity and balance of the consortium

• Matching of consortium to objectives

• Appropriateness of allocation of: • Staff resources

• Equipment

F

P7

Pro

po

sa

l P

repa

ration

Implementation

Evaluator comments: S&T Quality

“Lacks relevance to programme objectives”

“Scope of the proposed research is rather narrow”

“Proposal lacks focus”

“The work described is not particularly novel”

“Proposal is too broad”

“Given the extent of previous work and patenting in this area, doubts were raised as to whether a novel product could be developed”

F

P7

– Issu

es to

Ad

dre

ss

Evaluator comments: Implementation

“Role of the Co-ordinator is unclear”

“Interaction between work packages is not clearly

demonstrated”

“the standard and experience of partners is variable”

“the management structure is not sufficiently worked

out to guarantee the success of this project”

“unclear how partners will exchange information”

“the role of partner X is unclear”

“the costs are not linked to activities and not well

balanced”

“no formal planning of assessment of milestones”

F

P7

– Issu

es to

Ad

dre

ss

Comments on Impact

“Exploitation and dissemination plans

are not specific to the project”

“the exploitation plan could be better

developed”

“the European added value of the consortium

is limited”

“there is no indication of publication plans”

“Does not explicitly describe the importance

of solving the problem in a European context”

F

P7

– Issu

es to

Ad

dre

ss

Advice for Impact

• Does proposal explicitly address the Impact

section in Work Programme?

• Impact should be measured against other

developments in research area

• Include clear dissemination/ publication plans

• Does it have ‘EU added value’?

• Have plan to track the project’s impact post-

project

• Include plans on how IPR is to be exploited

F

P7

– G

oo

d P

ropo

sa

ls

http://www.ukro.ac.uk

Submitting your proposal

Application Process Overview F

P7

Su

bm

issio

n a

nd

Eva

luation

Call One/two stage

e-submission Eligibility

Check Individual

Evaluation

Panel

Review

Consensus Feedback

(ESR)

Commission

Ranking Report to

PC

Negotiation of

Proposals

FP7 Proposal Submission - PPSS

Participant Portal Submission

System

• New system piloted for some 2012 calls

• Used for most 2013 calls

• Exception: European Research Council

FP

7 P

rop

osal S

ub

mis

sio

n P

PS

S

Proposal registration

• First proposal registration via the Call page in

the Participant Portal

FP

7 P

rop

osal S

ub

mis

sio

n P

PS

S

Proposal registration

• Every applicant needs an ECAS account to

access the system

FP

7 P

rop

osal S

ub

mis

sio

n P

PS

S

Proposal registration

• PIC (Participant Identification Code) now

mandatory for co-ordinators and partners!

FP

7 P

rop

osal S

ub

mis

sio

n P

PS

S

Access to proposals from

Participant Portal

• New “My proposals tab” in Participant Portal

FP

7 P

rop

osal S

ub

mis

sio

n P

PS

S

Access for partners

• Need to be invited by the co-ordinator via the

system

• Can see the entire proposal and can input,

change and validate some information in the

administrative forms

FP

7 P

rop

osal S

ub

mis

sio

n P

PS

S

Drafting and submitting

• Part A forms are completed online in Acrobat

• Part B form is uploaded as PDF

• Resubmission possible until deadline

• PPSS carries out validation before submission

• Submitted proposal can be downloaded with

“digital stamp”.

FP

7 P

rop

osal S

ub

mis

sio

n P

PS

S

Evaluators

• Selected from a wide pool from a database

• Selected per call

• Replace about ¼ in any given area annually

• Sign confidentiality and conflict of interest

declarations

• Names published after evaluation (though not at call or proposal level)

• Target at least 40% female

• Mix of geographical location and background

• To register: https://cordis.europa.eu/emmfp7

FP

7 O

ve

rvie

w

In short, the best proposals…

F

P7

- S

ucce

ss F

acto

rs

• Have an EU added value

• Clearly address the topic and meet objectives

• Push back the frontiers of S&T

• Consist of the right consortium for the project

• Highlight the impact of the project

• Are well budgeted

• Are concise and easy to read

The institutional aspect

• Use experience within the institution – ask

European Office for examples, speak to

successful colleagues

• Standard text / facts on the institutional track-

record?

• Experience of managing FP6 and FP7 projects?

• Use calls strategically – success-rates vary

greatly for different areas!

• Institutional approach to co-ordinating projects?

F

P7

– P

ropo

sa

l T

ips

Further Information UKRO Website: http://www.ukro.ac.uk

UKRO information services: http://ims.ukro.ac.uk

Use advanced search function on the UKRO Information Services!

ERC Website: http://erc.europa.eu

UK Marie Curie NCP: mariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk

UK ERC NCP: erc-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk

Other NCPs: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ncp_en.html

Technology Platforms: http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-

platforms

Cordis FP7 pages: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html

EPSS Helpdesk: e-mail: support@epss-fp7.org Tel: +32 2 233

3760

Lin

ks

Useful links

• Participant Portal:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/porta

l/page/home

• ECAS: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/cas/

• Commission guidance:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/porta

l/ShowDoc/Participant+Portal/portal_content/h

elp/sep_usermanual.pdf

• UKRO Portal Participation pages:

http://www.ukro.ac.uk/subscriber/fps/fp7/parti

cipation/Pages/ProposalPreparationandSubmi

ssion.aspx

FP

7 P

rop

osal S

ub

mis

sio

n P

PS

S

http://

Building links with partners and

FP7 Proposal Writing

Royal Holloway, University of London

6 November 2012

Inga Benner inga.benner@bbsrc.ac.uk