How to prepare a good application for EU research funds (FP7 – NMP focus) ARTTIC 58 A rue du Dessous des Berges F - 75013 Paris Tel: + 33 1 53 94 54 72 Fax: + 33 1 53 94 54 70 email: triay@arttic.fr http://www.arttic.com

Evaluation criteria in mind Key aspects and hurdles

Evaluation criteria – full proposal Individually: 4, 3 and 3 Totally: 12 / 15

Stage 1 for NMP Stage 1 overall threshold 8/10 ST/quality: 4/5 Impact: 3/5

Stage 1 for NMP Stage 1 proposals will be evaluated only against those sub-criteria underlined (see previous page) As indicated in the work programme, stage 1 proposals must not exceed 10 pages, font size 12: This does not mean it is easy! Budget simplified at this stage: only a single set of budget figures and the corresponding requested EU funding is required for the whole project.

Stage 1 proposal 1.1 Concept and objectives Explain the concept of your project. What are the main ideas that led you to propose this work? Describe in detail the S&T objectives in a measurable and verifiable form. Show how they relate to the topics addressed by the call. 1.2 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art Describe the state-of-the-art in the area concerned, and the advance that the proposed project would bring about. 1.3 S/T methodology and associated work plan An overview of the work plan to be adopted should be proposed. 3.1 Expected impacts listed in the work programme Describe how your project will contribute towards the expected impacts listed in the work programme in relation to the topic or topics in question. Mention the steps that will be needed to bring about these impacts. Explain why this contribution requires a European (rather than a national or local) approach. Indicate how account is taken of other national or international research activities. Mention any assumptions and external factors that may determine whether the impacts will be achieved. 6 Partnership and Budget (Additional to 10 pages) Describe the partnership and the estimated financial resources in the two tables.

Stage 2 and in general 7

S/T Excellence Research oriented Evaluation criteria S/T Excellence Research oriented Clear, demonstrable and measurable progress against the state of the art Not a series of small improvements Innovation oriented Research should lead to New products, new services Impact on the industry (market, employment, etc.) Impact for the citizen (environment) Consistency Clear starting basis taking into account previous work (especially if financed by the EC) Sound approach with intermediary steps (“milestones”) and risk management Ambitious objectives and results addressing work programme and related industry programme

S/T Excellence Evaluation criteria Large activity related to the validation of results can be considered as Not really innovative Close to development Not “component or sub-system” validation COSTLY Incremental improvements are useful for the industry but Not sexy research to communicate on Industrial non risky business: no need for public money Purely technical developments are Not easy to explain to the average European citizen why should we pay taxes to solve leakage problems? Unclear workplan, absence of milestones, no measurable results, obscure deliverables Funding high tech SMEs better addresses EU policy than supporting large industrial groups

Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Evaluation criteria Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Experience of the partners Make sure you have the right partners Expertise and know-how Capacity to perform the work Capacity to exploit results Visibility: “excellence”: among the best in Europe “politically correct”: SME, new member states, ICPC* “The right people at the right place” Proper justification of resources Person months Does it make sense to have 1 pm on a task: should be significant enough for a real contribution (3-6 pm mini.) Why “so many” or “so few” pm? Subcontracting Justification, cost and selection of subcontractors: absolutely needed and best value for money Other costs Why ? How much ? Good value for money? *ICPC: International Cooperation Partner Country

Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Evaluation criteria Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Too many participants in a tasks No significant contributions from partners Unclear role Wrong profile of participants “Second zone” organisations Unjustified expenses or costs too high Imbalanced expenses between pure R&D, testing and subcontracts Complex and heavy management

Potential impact Evaluation criteria Addressing EC policy Read carefully the “expected impact” section of each area of the workprogramme White papers, related “vision” papers from the industry Dissemination, exploitation and IPR management How will the partners exploit the results (When? After what ? Etc.) How will the partners disseminate results (publication policy, transfer to the chain of suppliers, etc.)? Any specific issue or process to handle IPRs?

Potential impact Connection to EU policies Evaluation criteria Potential impact Connection to EU policies Development not addressing any impact listed in the workprogramme No European dimension: could be done in Germany alone for example Dissemination, exploitation and IPR management Keep all results inside one participant No clear use of the results Potential IPR problems with the partners not addressed

Workpackage description

Objectives and results Workpackage description Objectives and results Rationale Why the work is needed: scientific, technical, industrial, economic & societal reasons? Why is it a good idea to do it NOW and not last year or next year (“window” of opportunity)? Overall objectives Measurable technical objectives vs. related Industrial “vision”, state of the art, competition and other projects? Any BREAKTROUGH? Industrial objectives: when will industry benefit from it as per the planned roadmaps Results Main WP output and deliverables Milestones Crystal clear checkpoints whenever possible every 6 months

Approach Workpackage description State-of-the-art What has already been done? In previous projects, outside the consortium In Europe, how far are we from the related industrial “vision” plan and how far will we be after the project How do you MEASURE the breakthroughs / progress vs the state of the art Why do you think you will succeed? Any feasibility test performed? Methodology Main elements correspond to WPs Requirement analysis Specification Development and integration Tests List of tasks and rationale behind the tasks

Expected contributions from a SP/WP Workpackage description Expected contributions from a SP/WP For each WP: about 3-5 pages Objectives ½ page Approach 1 ½ page + figures WP description 1 ½ page Results ½ page Milestones (table) 1 every 6 months Reference Name Expected date Means of verification WP form: see next slide

WP form Workpackage description Meaningful WP title Person months for each participant Objective if possible described as “active” verbs To specify … / To develop … / To achieve … / To test … Description of work Short introduction (3 lines) if needed Task description: bullet list again starting with active verbs - specify the leader in the title One-two sentence on main risk and mitigation Very short description of roles, e.g. Partner 1: WP leader; specification and validation Partner 2: specification and development Partner 3: test Partner 4: material expertise Deliverables: reference - month of delivery - short description Avoid too many deliverables Avoid too small deliverables (=> should be intermediary results) Avoid not delivering anything for very long period Meaningful title

Proposal structure and expected contributions Part A Part B

Proposal Proposal Electronic submission using EPSS Proposal similar to FP6 made of two parts: Part A - Administrative details - 3 parts A1 Summary A2 Participants (minimum administrative information) A3 Budget Part B - Project proposal - 5 parts Scientific and/or technical quality , relevant to the topics addressed by the call Implementation Impact Ethical issues Consideration of gender aspects

Proposal Part A Three forms (EPSS tool normally available by March 19th) A1 proposal summary=> the coordinator Check it! A2 to be filled by each participant with EPSS tool Administrative info Make sure it is done! A3 budget Agreed distribution, person-months, sub contracts and other identified costs According to cost categories: R&D (50% - 75%) Demonstration (50%) Management, dissemination, training, etc. (100%)

Proposal 1 Scientific and/or technical quality, relevant to the topics addressed by the call 1.1 Concept and objectives Concept and rationale Ensure that the project is justified and fits with your expectations Make sure your contribution fully contribute and is properly included S&T objectives in the project, measurable and verifiable through milestones Your key objective(s) should appear here Relation to the topics addressed by the call Check if the text of the call seems fully relevant 1.2 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art Ensure that State of the art is properly summarised including what has been/is done in other projects The project starts from this basis and does not re-invent the wheel The project is a significant progress and - better - will deliver real breakthroughs Not too many details but an overall picture Part B

Proposal 1 Scientific and/or technical quality, relevant to the topics addressed by the call Part B 1.3 S/T methodology and associated work plan Overall strategy of work plan Starting basis properly described Methods, techniques and tools to reach the objectives and deliver the results properly described Approach justified with experience, risk management, etc. Approach clarified with easy to understand figures and pictures (=> black & white only in case evaluators use poor photocopiers) Main developments to be done in the WPs properly described Key milestones and means of verification provided How are the achievements measured (energy saving, weight reduction, maintenance costs, safety, etc.) Organisation and interdependencies (PERT) + timing (GANTT) Detailed WP description with List of tasks / List of Deliverables / WP description (forms) / Summary effort table List of milestones #, Name, WPs involved, Expected date, means of verification Risks & contingency plans

Part B 2 Implementation Proposal 2.1 Management structure and procedure Make sure the SP/WP leaders have NAMES (always possible to change them afterwards) Make sure that quality control and risk management are addressed Make sure the management structure corresponds to the organisation of the project - not cut&paste from previous projects - not too complex - not oversimplified 2.2 Individual participants Description of the organisation 1/3 page if possible emphasising what is done in the project A few line on previous experience and know-how related to the project A few lines on the role, expected impact for the partner and exploitation Extremely short CV of the key person (s) - WP leader => “the right person at the right place” Name / diploma / position in the organisation Experience and know how in the field 2.3 Consortium A few contributions to the overall Industrial and commercial commitment to ensure explotation 2.4 Resources to be committed Sub contracting: justify if any, provide budget and the way you will select subcontractors, if possible you should already have a short list of potential ones Other major costs than personnel: equipment, consumables, etc.: why and how much Part B

3 Impact Part B 3.1 Expected impact as described in the workprogramme Proposal 3 Impact 3.1 Expected impact as described in the workprogramme How will your activity contribute? Anything specific at Industrial level (competitiveness) Societal level (environment, competitiveness, employment, etc.) 3.2 Dissemination and/or exploitation of project results and management of Intellectual Property How will the consortium / each partner exploit the results How will the consortium / each partner disseminate the results (supply chain, universities, research centres, etc.) How will the consortium / each partner protect the results Part B

4 Ethical issues 5 Consideration of gender aspects Proposal 4 Ethical issues 5 Consideration of gender aspects 4 Ethical issues None in general 5 Consideration of gender aspects Any activity or contribution from the participants on the promotion of gender equality in the project improving the gender balance in the consortium measures to help reconcile work and private life awareness raising within the consortium events organised in schools or universities Part B

Planning - Example Planning Step 1: Close core group agreement on Scope of the project and story WPs title and scope Budget Check project definition with EC and relevant bodies Step 2: Finalise consortium & WP definition Produce initial WP definition Choose partners Agree on WP definition and partners Sign letter of commitment Step 3: Proposal writing Your contributions to Parts A and B Proof reading & quality assurance Submission T0= D-3 months T0 T0+1 week T0+2 weeks T1= D-2 months T1+2 weeks T1+4 weeks T1+6 weeks T2=D-1 month T2 T2+2/3 weeks Deadline D

More information ARTTIC: www.arttic.com EU web sites: go to and read carefully The “Guide for applicant” The Workprogramme http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/cooperation/nanotechnology_en.html