1. COFUND Proposal 2017
7th March 2017
EUSC

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. Back-up slides
7th March 2017
EUSC

14. COFUND 2016 – options? Submission deadline 29.9.2016
Slide Seamus Hegarty EUSC 09 March 2016
COFUND 2016 – options? Submission deadline
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)