Participating in FP7 (ICT) Stephen O’Reilly - ICT National Contact Point

Participating in FP7 (ICT) Funding Schemes Evaluation Criteria Rules of Participation Submission and Selection of proposals

Funding schemes “Instruments”  Collaborative Projects (CP)*  Large Scale Integrating Projects (“IP”)  Small or medium scale focused research actions (“STREP”)  Networks of Excellence (NoE)  Coordination and Support Actions (CSA)  Coordinating or networking actions (“CA”)  Support Actions (“SSA”)

Large Scale Integrated Projects “IPs”  IPs are designed to generate the knowledge required to respond to the Challenges of ICT in FP7  by integrating the critical mass of activities and resources needed to achieve ambitious, clearly defined scientific and technological objectives of a European dimension  Each IP should  integrate the types of activities needed to obtain the goals  integrate the critical mass of resources needed to obtain the goals  integrate elements of the development chain to attain high-impact goals  support industry-academia collaboration including SMEs

Integrated Project Activities  research and technology development activities  demonstration activities  technology transfer or take-up activities  training activities  dissemination activities  knowledge management and exploitation  consortium management activities  cooperation with other programmes (e.g. Eureka)  project management

Small and medium scale focussed projects “STREPS”  STREPs are designed to generate the knowledge required to improve European competitiveness and to meet the needs of society or Community policies:  by improving existing or developing new products, processes or services and/or  by proving the viability of new technologies offering potential economic advantage

STREP activities  STREPs combine any of the following types of activities:  targeted, well defined and precisely focused research and technological development  demonstration component(s) as appropriate  project management  Dissemination and IPR protection activities are classified under project management, STREPs do not do training or coordination

Networks of Excellence  NoEs are an instrument to overcome the fragmentation of the European research landscape in a given area  Their purpose is to reach a durable restructuring/shaping and integration of efforts and institutions or parts of institutions  The success of an NoE is not measured in terms of scientific results but by the extent to which the social fabric for researchers and research institutions in a given field has changed due to the project, and the extent to which the existing capacities become more competitive as a result of this change

Networks of Excellence Activities The main activities of an NoE are integrating activities and activities to spread excellence  coordinated programming of the partners’ activities  sharing of research platforms/tools/facilities  joint management of the knowledge portfolio  staff mobility and exchanges  relocation of staff, teams, equipment  reinforced electronic communication systems  training researchers and other key staff  dissemination and communication activities  networking activities to help transfer knowledge  where appropriate, promoting the exploitation of the results generated within the network  where appropriate, innovation-related activities  (project management) An NoE may also carry out joint research activities to support its goals

Networks of Excellence Activities  The Joint Programme of Activities (JPA) contains a range of “additional to normal business” activities:  Integrating activities  coordinated programming of the partners’ activities  sharing of research platforms/tools/facilities  joint management of the knowledge portfolio  staff mobility and exchanges  relocation of staff, teams, equipment  reinforced electronic communication systems  Activities to support the network’s goals  Development of new research tools and platforms for common use  Generating new knowledge to fill gaps in or extend the collective knowledge portfolio  Activities to spread excellence  training researchers and other key staf  dissemination and communication activities  networking activities to help transfer knowledge to outside of the network  where appropriate, promoting the exploitation of the results generated within the network  where appropriate, innovation-related activities  Management Activities

Coordination Action  Coordination actions are designed to promote and support the networking and co-ordination of research and innovation activities at national, regional and European level over a fixed period  by establishing in a coherent way coordinated initiatives of a range of research and innovation operators, in order to achieve improved integration of the European research

Coordination Action Activities  organisation of conferences, of meetings  performance of studies, analysis  exchanges of personnel  exchange and dissemination of good practice  setting up of common information systems  setting up of expert groups  definition, organisation, management of joint or common initiatives project management Coordination actions do not conduct S&T research!

Support Action Support actions are designed to  underpin the implementation of the programme  complement the other instruments,  help in preparations for future Community research and technological development policy activities and  stimulate, encourage and facilitate the participation of SMEs, small research teams, newly developed and remote research centres, as well as organisations from International Cooperation Partner Countries in the activities of the ICT theme Support action proposal may be presented by a consortium or a single organisation, from any country or countries

Support Action Activities  Conferences, seminars, working groups and expert groups;  Studies, analysis;  Fact findings and monitoring;  Trans-national technology transfer and take-up related services;  Development of research or innovation strategies;  High level scientific awards and competitions;  Operational support and dissemination, information and communication activities  (project management) Support Actions do not conduct S&T research !

Evaluation Criteria  Three evaluation criteria are used:  Scientific and technical quality  Implementation  Impact  All proposal coordinators receive an Evaluation Summary Report  Funding follows successful evaluation, selection and detailed contract negotiations

Evaluation Criteria – Integrated Projects \ STREPs 1.Scientific and technical quality:  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

Evaluation Criteria – Integrated Projects \ STREPs 2. Implementation:  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)

Evaluation Criteria – Integrated Projects \ STREPs 3. Impact:  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.

Evaluation Criteria – NoE 1.Scientific and technical quality:  Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives  Contribution to long-term integration of high quality S/T research  Quality and effectiveness of the joint programme of activities and associated work plan

Evaluation Criteria – NoE 2. Implementation:  Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures  Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants  Quality of the consortium as a whole (including ability to tackle fragmentation of the research field and commitment towards a deep and durable institutional integration  Adequacy of resources for successfully carrying out the joint programme of activities

Evaluation Criteria – NoE 3. Impact:  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 spreading excellence, exploiting results and disseminating knowledge through engagement with stakeholders and the public at large

Evaluation Criteria – CSA 1.Scientific and technical quality:  Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives  Contribution to the coordination of high quality research  Quality and effectiveness of the coordination mechanisms and associated work plan

Evaluation Criteria – CSA 2. Implementation:  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)

Evaluation Criteria – CSA 3. Impact:  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 spreading excellence, exploiting results and disseminating knowledge through engagement with stakeholders and the public at large

ICT Work Programme approach and structure  A limited set of Challenges that  respond to well-identified industry and technology needs and/or  target specific socio-economic goals  A Challenge is addressed through a limited set of Objectives that form the basis of Calls for Proposals  An Objective is described in terms of  target outcome - in terms of characteristics  expected impact - in terms of industrial competitiveness, societal goal, technology progress  A total of 25 Objectives expressed within 7 Challenges

ICT Work Programme Challenges Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) 2. Cognitive systems, interaction, robotics 1. Network and service infrastructures 3. Components, systems, engineering 4. Digital libraries and content 5. ICT for health 6. ICT for mobility & sustainable growth 7. ICT for independent living and inclusion Socio-economic goals Industry/Tech needs

Budget split per objective For each Work Programme objective:  A reserved amount for CSAs  support activities won’t need to compete against research projects for funding  A reserved amount for NoE  Will not fund multiple NoEs to compete with each other  Remaining (main) part of budget committed to Collaborative Projects  minimum percent Integrating Projects,  minimum percent Focused Research Actions,  the remainder distributed by quality of the proposals

Rules of Participation  Minimum conditions for participation  Consortia  Grant agreement  Community financial contribution  Forms of grants  Reimbursement of eligible costs  Indirect costs  Maximum funding rates  Guarantee mechanism  Certificates on financial statements

Minimum conditions for participation General:  3 independent legal entities from 3 different Member States (MS) or Associated countries (Ac)  Natural persons may participate  Sole participants composed of members that meet the criteria above can participate  Collaborative projects for specific cooperation actions (SICA) dedicated to international cooperation partner countries (ICPC) identified in WP: minimum 4 participants of which 2 in different MS or Ac and 2 in different ICPC countries unless otherwise specified in work programme  Participation of international organisations and participants from third countries if in addition to minima

 Consortium agreements obligatory unless exempted by call for proposals, Commission to publish guidelines  Coordinator acts as efficient interface between consortium and Commission (verifies accession, monitors compliance, receives and distributes EC contribution, keeps financial records and ensures timely delivery of reports)  Tacit approval for changes in consortium membership, except if associated with other changes  Written approval for change of coordinator Consortia

Grant agreement Model grant agreement to be drawn up:  to establish rights and obligations of participants (including submission of reports, termination, access rights);  to identify whether and what part of EC financial contribution is based on reimbursement of eligible costs, lump sums or flat rates;  to identify which changes in the consortium require prior publication of competitive call;  shall reflect general principles of the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers  specific provisions for certain types of actions (IPR particularly)  grant agreement comes into force upon signature by coordinator and Commission and applies to each participant that accedes

Community financial contribution Eligibility for Funding:  Legal entities from MS and AC or created under Community law (and the JRC)  International European interest organisations  Legal entities established in international cooperation partner countries (ICPC-INCO) And  International organisations  Legal entities established in 3 rd countries other than ICPC-INCO, if provided for in SP or WP or essential for carrying out action; if or provision for funding is provided for in a bilateral agreement between Community and that country

Forms of grant  Reimbursement of eligible costs  Flat rates: a percentage for indirect costs or scales of unit costs  Lump sum amounts  Combination of the above  Scholarships or prizes Forms of grants to be used are specified in WP/calls for proposals ICPC participants may opt for lump sum financing.

Reimbursement of eligible costs Co-financing, no profit. Cost reporting models eliminated Participants charge direct and indirect eligible costs Eligible costs Actual; Incurred during the project; Determined according to usual accounting and management principles/practices; Used solely to achieve project objectives; Consistent with principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness; Recorded in accounts (or the accounts of third parties); Exclusive of non-eligible costs Average personnel may be used if consistent with above and do not differ significantly from actual

Indirect costs All participants:  Actual indirect costs (participants may use a simplified method of calculation) or  Flat-rate of direct eligible costs excluding subcontracts and reimbursement of third parties’ costs (to be established by the Commission) – currently 20% Non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs unable to identify real indirect costs:  Flat-rate of 60% of total direct eligible costs (until end 2009)  Flat rate of minimum 40%, to be established by the Commission (as of 2010)

Maximum funding rates Research and technological development activities: – 50% of eligible costs except for: - Public bodies (non-profit): – 75% - Secondary and higher education establishments: – 75% - Research organisations (non-profit): – 75% - Small and Medium sized Enterprises - SMEs: – 75% Demonstration activities: – 50% of eligible costs Other activities: – 100% including e.g. consortium mgmt Coordination and support actions – 100% Flat rate indirect costs: 7% Receipts are taken into account to determine the final Community financial contribution

Guarantee mechanism Replaces financial collective responsibility  Commission establishes and operates a participant guarantee fund  Contribution to guarantee fund of max. 5% of the EC contribution by each participant, to be returned at the end of the project  If interests generated not sufficient to cover sums due to EC, retention of max. 1% of EC contribution  Exemption of retention for public bodies, higher and secondary education establishments, legal entities guaranteed by a MS/Ac  Ex-ante financial viability checks limited to coordinators and participants requesting > EUR (unless exceptional circumstances)  Guarantee fund replaces financial guarantees

Certificates on financial statements  Mandatory whenever cumulative amount of interim and balance payments equal to or more than EUR  For projects of a duration of max. 2 years: only one certificate at the end of the project  No certificates for actions entirely financed by lump sums or flat rates

Submission and Selection  Information for proposers  Submission of proposals  Eligibility checks  Evaluation process  Specific rules for FET Open  Writing your proposal  Experts  Getting help Submission Selection Evaluation Eligible?

Information for proposers  Workprogramme  Guide for Applicants now including the Guidance notes for evaluators and the Background note on the funding schemes  Evaluation forms with notes  EPSS manual  Model grant agreement  Rules on submission of proposals, and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures

Submission of proposals  Fixed deadline calls* 17h00 Tuesdays  One stage submission*  Electronic submission only (*Special rules for FET Open scheme)

Electronic Submission EPSS - Electronic Proposal Submission System Online preparation only!  Improved validation checks before submission is accepted  FP6 Failure rate = + 1%  Main reason for failure - waiting till the last minute  Submit early, submit often!

Proposal Part A (online)  A1  Title, acronym, objective etc.  free keywords  2000 character proposal abstract  previous/current submission (in FP7)  A2 (per participant)  Legal address/administrator address/R&D address  Clear identification as SME/Public body/Research centre/ Educ. establishment  Proposer identification code PIC (later calls)  A3  More cost details (direct/indirect costs distinguished)

Proposal Part B (pdf format only)  Part B format directly linked to evaluation criteria  Summary  S&T quality (bullet points = sections)  Implementation (idem)  Impact (idem)  Ethics  Section lengths recommended

Eligibility checks  Date and time of receipt of proposal on or before deadline  Firm deadlines - except for Continuously Open Calls  Minimum number of eligible, independent partners  As set out in work programme/call  Completeness of proposal  Presence of all requested administrative forms (Part A) and the content description (Part B)

Panel (with optional Hearings?) Consensus Individual reading Eligibility Check? Evaluation Process  On-site evaluation  One step evaluation  Independent experts

Evaluation criteria scoring  Scale of 1-5 (and 0)  No weighting  except FET Open  Criterion threshold 3/5  Overall threshold 10/15

Special rules for FET Open Scheme For Collaborative research actions in the FET Open Scheme  Initially prepare a short (five page) outline proposal  Submission at any time  Short proposals are evaluated in batches (three or four times per year)  Successful short proposals develop their idea and submit a full proposal at a later date  Specific weighting of the evaluation criteria

When writing your proposal….1 Divide your effort over the evaluation criteria Many proposers concentrate on the scientific element, but lose marks on project implementation or impact description Think of the finishing touches which signal quality work: clear language well-organised contents, following the Part B structure useful and understandable diagrams no typos, no inconsistencies, no obvious paste-ins, no numbers which don’t add up, no missing pages …

When writing your proposal….2 Make it easy for the evaluators to give you high marks. Don’t make it hard for them!  Don’t write too little; cover what is requested  Don’t write too much  Don’t leave them to figure out why it’s good, tell them why it’s good  Leave nothing to the imagination

Experts  Register as an expert \ evaluator

Getting help with your proposal  Proposers’ days and briefings  Partner search facilities  A supporting website of advice, information and documentation:  Pre-proposal check  Network of National Contact Point:

Enterprise Ireland support funding  For Academics  Travel Grant  Proposal Preparation Support (Co-ordinators)  For Companies  Feasibility Grant Scheme

Useful websites etc  Cordis FP7  ICT on Cordis  Hyperion  EPF

ICT National Contact Points Stephen O’Reilly EI Cork Gerard Kennedy EI Limerick