Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Bidding for EU ICT research projects
Stephen Brown, 15 June 2008
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
• Project types• FP7 ICT call 1 results• The evaluation process• Evaluation criteria• Scoring• How the criteria are applied• What good proposals look like• Further information• TEL and DL
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
STREPs
• As with FP6 – focused objectives• Clearly identified problem• Research and demonstration activities• Scope for competing approaches to solving
problems• Small scale (2-4 M€ over 1-2 years)
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
IPs
• Integration – across a coherent set of activities – is what differentiates from STREPs
• Assess and exploit to the maximum the range of activities allowed – eg training, innovation and takeup and dissemination activities. Outreach and validation are important aspects for this Objective
• Don’t inflate the consortium for the sake of the budget Involve partners with real roles and clear responsibilities
• Large IPs (average range is 6-9 M€ over 3-4 years) need to show very clearly how they will make a significant impact in their target area
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
NoEs
• Aim is the durable integration of high calibre research capacity
• NoEs should involve the stakeholders, especially industry
• Funding is for convergence and embedding, not research
• Size and funding of NoEs much smaller than in FP6 (2-3M€ over 3 years)
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
CSAs
• Bringing researchers together either in new areas (as forerunner of eventual NoEs)
• Supporting workshops and communities of practice – eg in creating framework conditions for take up of research work
• Support for building and maintaining the body of evidence of research
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
FP7 ICT call1 results
Funding requested
Funding published
IPs 181.5 M€ 20-32.5 M€
STREPs 506.8 M€ 10-22 M€
NoEs 15.6 M€ 5 M€
CSAs 14.2 M€ 2.5 M€
Conclusion: most proposals have to fail
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
FP7 ICT call1 results
• 188 eligible proposals submitted• 12 proposals funded (52m Euros)• 67% failed on multiple thresholds• 43% of these failed on criterion 1 – scientific
excellence relevant to the objectives• 52% IPs and 40% STREPS failed criterion 3 -
impact• 35% above threshold but not funded• Conclusions – most proposals do fail –
meeting the threshold is not enough to succeed
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
The evaluation process
STREPs• Individual expert• Consensus Group• Panel meeting• Combined panel
meeting
IPs & NoEs• Individual expert• Consensus Group• Interim panel meeting• Hearing• Panel meeting
Conclusion: plenty of opportunities to fail
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Evaluation criteria
What projects fail on……
1. Scientific/technological excellence relevant to the call
2. Quality and efficiency of implementation and management
3. Potential impact
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Scoring0 - 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. Serious inherent weaknesses in relation to the criterion in
question.3 - Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there aresignificant weaknesses that would need correcting.4 - Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although certainimprovements are possible.5 - Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant
aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
The threshold for individual criteria is 3.The overall threshold, applying to the sum of the three individual scores, is 10.
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Funding threshold
• Proposals scoring 10 or above can be considered for funding
• Proposals scoring 14 or above were considered for funding in call 3
• Conclusion: you need drop only 3 half marks to fail
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
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 of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance)• Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants• 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 relevant topic/activity• Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
What good proposals look like
• Describe your problem, explain why it is an important problem and how you will tackle it
• Describe the specific state-of-the-art with referenced evidence, as well as the technical baseline, and expected advancements against which progress can be measured
• Show you understand the state of the art – don’t just list projects and articles
• Check the timelines and anticipated outputs of ongoing research in defining your starting point and the advances you will make – don’t replicate existing work
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
What good proposals look like
• Adopt a scientifically sound approach to involving users in the research, including to the assessment and validation necessary to build the evidence of impact
• Do justice to the multi-disciplinary nature of the area – ensure the expertise and the roles are balanced and appropriate. Find the right partners – not necessarily the nearest or most convenient
• Cost out work packages clearly and realistically• Explain how you will ensure impact
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Critical questions youshould ask yourselves
• Is the proposal addressing a new problem or offering different and innovative insights into an existing problem?
• How far is the problem you intend to address already being tackled?
• Which communities are likely to benefit from the project / how are they being brought into the discussion?
• What are the substantive benefits / impact of the project?• What are the potential risks and how are they tackled?
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Further information
• Comprehensive EC guide to “How to fail”– ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/ist/docs/telearn/what-not
-to-do_en.pdf
• Introduction to Cultural Heritage & Technology Enhanced Learning, including links to programme descriptions, publications that describe currently funded projects and links to commission / project web sites and contacts.– http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/telearn-digicult/
home_en.html
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
How to fail with your technologyenhanced learning proposal
The workprogramme is not looking for proposals which:
• Provide yet another training solution for a particular set of users (eg training for engineers) with no new work on how people acquire skills and competences, in different contexts
• Develop a Learning Management System, Content Delivery Platform or VLE – these are mainstream eLearning products
• Develop something for a specific subject – specific language, geography, history and don’t justify how ICTs will improve learning in that field
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
How to fail with a TechnologyEnhanced Learning Proposal
• Describe your solution and end product in great detail – but omit the problem and the research
• Subscribe to “the technologies looking for a home” type of project
• Fail to leverage a balance of research across the contributing disciplines
• Fail to identify what the different disciplines contribute
• Produce a proposal that tries to do everything and is just not credible. Often less is more
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
How to fail with your digitallibraries proposal
The workprogramme is not looking for proposals which:
• Propose an electronic or multimedia publishing project – all about the content and not focusing on innovative practices of use
• Develop yet another digital library, aggregating content for a specific group of users – no advance on the state of the art
• Create a false marriage between digital libraries and technology enhanced learning - “because cultural resources have an educational value”
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
How to fail with your digitallibraries proposal
• Window dress the partnership – ie have a mis-match between the technological development and the cultural application or test bed
• Describe the solution and end product in great detail but omit the problem and the research
• Confuse digitisation “preserving heritage” with digital preservation – digital preservation is about the “preservation of what is digital”
• Produce a proposal that tries to do everything and loses credibility. Often less is more
