COFUND Proposal 2017 7th March 2017 EUSC

Outline Brief presentation of results of previous COFUND proposal What next? - Analysis of strengths and weaknesses - Decide on future application - Roadmap - Proposal

Analysis of results in the past Quality selection Implementation Relevance & impact TOTAL COFUND 2007 4.7 4.5 4.8 93.6% COFUND 2010 4.6 93% COFUND 2011 95.4% COFUND 2012 4.2 4.4 85.2% COFUND 2013 3.5 3 67% Excellence Impact COFUND 2014 4.9 95.2% COFUND 2016 4 86.4% 7th March 2017 EUSC

Results COFUND 2016 Overall success rate for both panels (doctoral and fellowship): 29.7% DP: 33% / FP: 22.7% 75 proposals submitted for the Fellowship programme 17 proposals on the main list 4 on reserve list 29 refused (over threshold) CERN 27th; total score: 86.4% Total score: 90.6% Total score: 87.8% 7th March 2017 EUSC

Results COFUND 2016 analysis of evaluation Criterion 1: excellence: 4/5 weight 50% Criterion 2: impact: 4.80/5 weight 30% Criterion 3: quality and efficiency of the implementation: 4.4/5 weight 20% 7th March 2017 EUSC

Excellence: 4/5 Solid advertisement plan STRENGTHS Solid advertisement plan Eligibility criteria clearly stated / selection based on international peer review Equal opportunities issues clearly addressed Scientific level is high / ample research options / good inter-sectorial network Inter-sectorial aspects clearly addressed (secondments) Well established training programme WEAKNESSES Selection process varies according to different subfields of the programme (TH/EP: national advisory panels) Supervision arrangements lack details No written feedback to non-selected candidates (redress under discussion within MCSG) Inter-disciplinarity aspects of research options not convincingly addressed 7th March 2017 EUSC

Impact: 4.8/5 Impact on career perspective is good STRENGTHS Impact on career perspective is good Possibility to work in industry for up to 12 months Knowledge transfer to entrepreneurial activities Participation in EU Human Resources Strategy for Researchers practice Added value of proposed programme clearly presented Open science / dissemination Help on exploitation of results (KT) IP issues taken into account and appropriate WEAKNESSES Communication plan insufficiently tailored / targeted dissemination strategies lack details 7th March 2017 EUSC

Quality & efficiency of implementation: 4.4/5 STRENGTHS Appropriate milestones and deliverables Competitive appointment conditions Excellent research environment Applicant institution fully competent to implement the programme Excellent link with industry / partner network (letters of intent) WEAKNESSES Corrective measures for probation period are not clear First application deadline is one month after publication of the call Risk and contingency plan does not include dealing with conflicts between researcher and mentors / supervisors 7th March 2017 EUSC

What next? Analysis of strengths & weaknesses Understanding what went well and what can be improved in a future application Some weaknesses can easily be corrected - detail supervision arrangements - detail Gantt chart (with application deadline) Some weaknesses can be improved with some work - enhance risks table (including conflicts for example) - build a more tailored communication plan Some weaknesses cannot be corrected in the short term (but we can better explain the context and reasons) - no written feedback to candidates Examples of strengths and weaknesses identified in evaluation of EU 7th March 2017 EUSC

What next? Decide on future application Effort involved: - a lot of work (more details in roadmap) - reduced success rate Added value: - last time we asked for 6.3 MCHF (out of total cost of 18.9 MCHF for the CERN COFUND) - centrally selected category of personnel that guarantees high level - three-year contract - important impact on CV of fellows - prestigious image: good for CERN and its fellowship programme 7th March 2017 EUSC

April – September 2017 prepare proposal What next? Roadmap April – September 2017 prepare proposal Call opening 5 April 2017 Call deadline 28 Sep. 2017 Update all chapters Contact all CERN services concerned (i.e KT, communication, T&A, diversity, L&D, library, FAP…) Adapt content to potential new EU template Contact industries for secondments Update statistics Work on weaknesses identified by EU Enhance chapter on added value of proposal (...) 7th March 2017 EUSC

What next? Proposal Two possibilities: - Option1: resubmission of proposal addressing thoroughly evaluation’s comments = original programme shifted by one year - Option 2: changes in resubmission with innovative elements - technological development with obligatory secondments - limited size of the programme - a lot of work with no guarantee of success => we propose: - to go for option 1 and resubmit this year with the same format as last year - move to option 2 next year if successful 7th March 2017 EUSC

Back-up slides 7th March 2017 EUSC

COFUND 2016 – options? Submission deadline 29.9.2016 Slide Seamus Hegarty EUSC 09 March 2016 COFUND 2016 – options? Submission deadline 29.9.2016 Option 1 – along lines of previous successes Application based on new features following 5YR Extended maternity leave cover at end of contract More comprehensive recognition of partnerships Tele-working for Fellows Introduction of probation period We expect to have EC's HR Excellence logo in 2016 COFUND questionnaire scheduled in 2016 Option 2 – thematic proposal on technological development Would need to start preparation immediately to put agreements in place and sort out potential IP issues Restrictive in terms of Fellow target population (on top of the Mobility Rule)