Success factors in Success factors in grant applications and grant applications and research projects: research projects: seminarseminar

To describe the initiation, design and delivery of a successful project grant funded through the European

Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme

OR

A year in the lives of some European academics

European Commission Framework Programmes

http://cordis.europa.eu/home_en.html

The Framework Programmes are the European Union’s chief instrument for funding research

Major element:

Collaborative projects through transnational consortia of academics and industry

•Health •Food, agriculture and fisheries, and biotechnology •Information and communication technologies •Nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and new production technologies •Energy •Environment (including climate change) •Transport (including aeronautics) •Socio-economic sciences and the humanities •Space •Security

“FP7” Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development 2007-2013

€50 billion

Plus

€2.7 billion (EURATOM)

Euratom FP7-Fission-2007 call

22 December 2006

Radiation Protection:Medical uses of radiation

Topic-2007-3.2.1:

“Enhanced safety and efficacy in the medical uses of radiation”

Objective of Topic Fission-2007-3.2.1: “Enhance the safety and efficacy of the uses of radiation in diagnosis and therapy through new technological developments and achieving a proper balance between the benefits and risks of radiation”

Cone Beam CT

(CBCT)

What could be funded?

Collaborative projects from 24-60 months duration

Up to €2.5 million EC contribution

At least 3 independent legal entities required in different EU states

The review process

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.

Each of the three criteria awarded score out of 5

0 - The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information. 1 - Very poor. The criterion is addressed in a cursory and unsatisfactory manner. 2 - Poor. There are serious inherent weaknesses in relation to the criterion in question. 3 - Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses that would need correcting. 4 - Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although certain improvements are possible. 5 - Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.

Scoring criteria

Wednesday 31st January 2007: CDMA Building, Brussels: Information Meeting

Information about the Call

Opportunity to “network” and find partners

To be seen!

To be heard!

Encouraged by Brussels meeting

Build a multi-part project dealing with:

•Justification of CBCT use

•Dosimetry

•Quality Assurance

•Diagnostic Accuracy

•Cost Effectiveness

•Training and dissemination

Building the team

Multidisciplinary (dentists, radiologists, physicists, methodologists, health economists)

Participant no.

Participant organisation name

Town Country

1 (Coordinator)

University of Manchester

Manchester UK

2 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

Athens Greece

3 “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Cluj-Napoca

Cluj Romania

4 Leeds Test Objects Ltd.

Boroughbridge UK

5 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Leuven Belgium

6 Malmö University Malmö Sweden 7 Vilnius University Vilnius Lithuania

Lead scientists to draft their own “Work Packages”

To define “Deliverables”

The Coordinator to try to mould these together; add “Milestones”.

Meeting arranged in Malmő for 23 March 2007

SEDENTEX CT Project PERT chart

WP3Participant

Responsible:NKUA

Startdate Month 1

Enddate

Month36

WP4Participant

Responsible:KULeuven

Startdate Month 1

Enddate

Month36

WP 2Participant

Responsible:KULeuven

Startdate Month 1

Enddate

Month36

WP1Participant

Responsible:UNIMAN

Startdate

Month1

Enddate

Month40

WP5Participant

ResponsibleMAHOD

Startdate

Month1

Enddate

Month36

WP6Participant

Responsible:UNIMAN

Startdate

Month1

Enddate

Month42

Stakeholder input

to WP1 at: M38-M41to WP6 at: M3-M8,

M24-M36

36M

36M

36M

36M

12M40M

23T

26T

Building the methodology

GENERAL INFORMATION

Project title Safety and Efficacy of a New and Emerging Dental X-ray Modality

Starting date January 1st 2008 Duration in months 42 Call (part) identifier FP7-Fission-2007 Activity code(s) most relevant to your topic

Fission-2007-3.2-01

Free keywords Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Diagnostic Imaging; Radiation Dosimetry; Guidelines; Radiation Protection

Abstract The aim of this proposal is the acquisition of the key information necessary for sound and scientifically based clinical use of dental Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). In order that safety and efficacy are assured and enhanced in the ‘real world’, the parallel aim is to use the information to develop evidence-based guidelines dealing with justification, optimisation and referral criteria and to provide a means of dissemination and training for users of CBCT. The objectives and methodology of the collaborative project are: 1. To develop evidence-based guidelines on use of CBCT in dentistry, including referral criteria, quality assurance guidelines and optimisation strategies. Guideline development will use systematic review and established methodology, involving stakeholder input. 2. To determine the level of patient dose in dental CBCT, paying special attention to paediatric dosimetry, and personnel dose. 3. To perform diagnostic accuracy studies for CBCT for key clinical applications in dentistry by use of in vitro and clinical studies. 4. To develop a quality assurance programme, including a tool/tools for quality assurance work (including a marketable quality assurance phantom) and to define exposure protocols for specific clinical applications. 5. To measure cost-effectiveness of important clinical uses of CBCT compared with traditional methods. 6. To conduct valorisation, including dissemination and training, activities via an ‘open access’ website. At all points, stakeholder involvement will be intrinsic to study design.

.... is the acquisition of the key information necessary for sound and scientifically based clinical use of dental Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)

.....to use the information to develop evidence-based guidelines dealing with justification, optimisation and referral criteria and to provide a means of dissemination and training for users of CBCT

Safety and Efficacy of a New and Emerging Dental X-ray Modality

Deliverables list Del. No.

Deliverable name WP no.

Nature Dissemination level

Delivery date

D0.1 Consortium agreement 0 R CO T2 D1.1 Search strategies defined 1 R PU T2 D5.1 Design and sending out

protocol for information of time and costs for different CBCT examinations.

5 O RE T4

D1.2 Literature searches complete

1 R PU T4

D3.1 Phantom 1st prototype design and manufacture

3 P CO T7

D6.1 Report of needs analysis of major stakeholders

6 R PU T7

D1.3 Systematic review complete

1 R PU T8

D5.2 Analysis of time and cost spent on different CBCT examinations in all participating radiology departments

R PU T8

D0.2 Project annual report 0 R CO T11

List of milestones Milestone number

Milestone name Work package(s) involved

Expected date

Means of validation

0.1 First Project Management meeting

0 T0 Report available to Commission

1.1 First Guideline Development Panel meeting

1 T0 Provisional guideline development procedure agreed

6.1 First WP6 Group Meeting 6 T0 Website content list defined

0.2 Consortium agreement signed off

0 T2 Report available to Commission

1.2 Search strategies defined 1 T2 Written protocols

5.1 Cost analysis protocols completed

5 T2 Written protocols

6.2 Round 1 Delphi process 6 T2 Material sent to respondents

1.3 Literature search completed 1 T4 List of studies finalised

0.3 Second Project Management meeting

0 T5 Report available to Commission

Task - 1 2008Q - 2 2008 - 3 2008Q - 4 2008Q - 1 2009 - 2 2009 - 3 2009 - 4 2009 - 1 2010 - 2 2010 - 3 2010 - 4 2010 - 1 2011 - 2 2011

January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June

0WP

1WP

2WP 1.

2 .2

2 .3

2 .4

2 .5

3WP 1.

3 .2

3 .3

4WP 1.

4 .2

4 .3

5WP 1.

5 .2

5 .3

6WP 1.

6 .2

6 .3

- Gantt Chart Quarter by Month

Legend

Milestonemarker Gantt bar

0T 1T 2T

0T - 11T3T 4T 5T 6T 7T 8T 9T 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

12-23 24-35 36-41

M11.

M22.

M13

M14

M16

M17

M18

M19

M110

M21.

M22.

M23.

M25

M26.

M24.

M31.

M33.

M34.

M35.

M36.

M32.

M33.

M34.

M35.

M36.

M37.

M37.

M41.

M43.

M42.

M44.

M45

46.

M47.

M51.

M52.

M56.

M57.

M55.

M54.

M53.

M58.

M61.

M62.

M63.

M64.

M65.

M66.

M67.

M68.

M15.

M65.

M01.

M03.

M04.

M05.

M0.6M07.

M08.

M09.

M02.

Buy SmartDraw!- purchased copies print this document without a watermark .

Visit www.smartdraw.com or call 1-800-768-3729.

SEDENTEXCT Gantt chart

Grant application complete mid-April 2007

Peer review

Submitted on 29 April 2007

Grant Deadline 2 May 2007

Final timeline

The result

26 July 2007

14/15 score

The next stage: conversion from an application into a contract

But!..... Ethics review

Issues related to:

X-ray exposures to children

Use of animal material

Addition of a substantially enlarged “Ethics” section

Negotiation Meeting: Brussels, October 2007

•Minor error corrections to “Description of Work”

•Finalisation of annual budgets and initial “pre-financing”

•Clarification over third party involvement

•Set project start date

Leuven “kick-off” meeting: January 2008

Then the real work starts.......!