1. Jan Weitzenböck, DNV Research 20.01.2004
EU proposals: some useful hints for the GROWTH programme, by Jan Weitzenböck
Jan Weitzenböck, DNV Research

2. Most important parts of the proposal
B3: confidential proposal summary
B4: state of the art
WHY? - justification of project
discuss competing technologies
don't leave out any important developments!
reviewers don't like this!
Overview tables:
Jan Weitzenböck, DNV Research

3. Jan Weitzenböck, DNV Research 20.01.2004
Tables
Very important
Make them clear
All on 1 page
Make them easy to find
Partner overview (Part C)
Part B (anonymos)
WP description
deliverables
partners
Gantt diagram
man month distribution
WP description
use forms
OVERVIEW
aims
role of partners
deliverables
man months
Links
Jan Weitzenböck, DNV Research

4. Jan Weitzenböck, DNV Research 20.01.2004
Boring but important!
Exploitation:
Short description
Total about 1-2 pages
appoint exploitation manager
not the same as project manager!
prepares TIP
done by many
Budget:
EC usually applies ~20% cut
Less for small projects
Socio/Economic evaluation:
give some realistic numbers
e.g. economic impact
involvement of users
Jan Weitzenböck, DNV Research

5. Jan Weitzenböck, DNV Research 20.01.2004
General notes
Every reviewer gets Part B + C
The recommended length of sections is too long
many write shorter & it is still ok!
Previous proposal
almost impossible to find out if not mentioned
worth mentioning if comments from previous evaluation are taken into account
Write for:
non-experts
academics with little appreciation of industrial problems
Jan Weitzenböck, DNV Research

6. Hints Expert group is unique Element of luck
Example => fire protection of compsites
Failed in last round of FP5
Failed again in first round of FP6 (even though they responded to all the comments from the reviewers
Element of luck
have good idea which is presented clearly
good project structure => decision taking
Remember about the reviewers:
not more than 1-2 h per proposal
English may not be his/her mother tongue
Need more “industrial” evaluators!
=> review is dominated by academics
Jan Weitzenböck, DNV Research