1. Practicalities and Technical Implementation of a Synchronised Call Christian Listabarth

2. INSO 12-2014 Elements (scope) New instrument/pilot within ERA (no precedence) Impact: call text & to be defined by consortium Implementation: technical & practical solutions

3. Summary of INSO 12-2014 Objectives / Elements – 1 call, synchronized, based on bundled national calls – peer review evaluation  minimum implications: agreed topic, one language, joint evaluation Background/input – your national call, peer review evaluation, joint calls Foreground/outcome – practice of implementation (feasibility and practicality) – technical modalities (solutions for implementation) – proof of concept (efforts v. added value)

4. Mechanics national call v. synchronized call => bundle nat. calls joint call v. synchronized call => no new set-up – no transnational dimension of projects – no fresh money needed – BUT: consider experience & good practice of joint calls national tasks & joint tasks => coordinate – timeline – evaluation practical implications along a standard timeline

5. Hypothetical timeline (flexible) Call cycle national & joint calls have same cycle (in principle) synchronized call has very same cycle call cycle is a generic matter and involves certain essential aspects (ERA-LEARN cycle) use it as a standard use it as a draft, but not literally Joint activties major joint actions in synchronized call: planning, evaluation, (submission) agreed call timeline partly joint actions (dependent on settings): call preparation (submission) 1 planning 2 preparation 3 submission 4 evaluation 5 decision 6 aftercall

6. http://netwatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/web/lp/learning-platform/toolbox/call-implementation

7. Phase 1 – 3 (example)

8. Phase 4 – 6 (example)

9. Synchronization of national calls Call planningCall preparationSubmissionEvaluationFunding decisionAfter the Call National timelines: same principle, but individual characteristics (position and length of phases) Submission deadline: eligibility check and start of evaluation Deadline and eligibility: could be planned as a (short) phase Approach: optimized (negotiated) date of funding decision fixed: evaluation must be ready at that date (minimum requirement) national timelines flexible: => optimize for joint evaluation

10. Planning I (for proposal) Consortium building – compatible participating nat. programs? Management/coordination – who/how/which tasks – plan meetings Call topic (apt for all?) Timeline for the action period (feasibility) Number of expected proposals (cost estimate) Evaluation scheme (basics at least) Confidentiality of proposals/results (is there a problem?)

11. Planning II (for proposal) Evaluation procedure – centralized v. decentralized (but identical within consortium) – 1-step v. 2-step – with/without panel – selection of evaluators (EC database) – costs for evaluation (data from practice)

12. Evaluation: 1 or 2-step Synchronized Call OfficeNational programs Pros: legal constraints, tradition less in depth evaluation effort Cons: longer timeline double administrative effort Evaluation outcome: proposals assessed project quality compared above threshold

13. Planning III (for proposal) Electronic Evaluation and Submission System – national v. central – which systems, what can they do? – availability (within / outside consortium) – interaction with provider, desired complexity

14. Workflow of a call & role of electronic Evaluation and Submission System (ESS) Call announcementSubmissionProposal Evaluation ResultDecision Start………………………..…….…Call life cycle………………………………………End Start Project life cycle… ESS: Interface between actors/activities and deliverables (documents) ESS functionality: Interface established Data administrated and managed Database / documentation generated ESS: Information hub for: proposal up- and download (actors: applicants, agencies and evaluators) evaluation results up- and download (actors: agencies and evaluators)

15. Participating agencies ESS Provider Outcome: tailor-made ESS and explanation of use Using ESS for submission Provide list of evaluators for access distribution Define call specifications Develop evaluation procedure and timeline Define access rights accordingly (general and specific to each phase) Formulate order for ESS Provide consult and experience to client (feasibility of procedure and timeline, constraints, additional functions) Design ESS from existing system for specified variables, explain operation to client Initiation Return access rights Prepare database Perform evaluation download of projects by respective referees upload of reviews by referees administrate data for consensus meeting trouble shooting for agencies help-desk for applicants / evaluators Outcome: evaluation report (with scores) Operation Workflow of interaction with ESS provider Everything you expect from operation must be specified here

16. Budget Evaluation budget – Variable costs (fees for experts, panel) – Fixed costs (secretariat) Coordination budget – Preparation and coordination (PM costs) – Call promotion (PM, material) – Meetings (travel) – IT Tool / ESS (subcontracting) Dependent on: – Number of proposals expected, fees, in-kind – Consider Call settings: 0.2-0.5 Mio €

17. Planning IV (for proposal) Competition for excellence Quality and efficiency of implementation  consider/resolve state of the art as many aspects as possible impact on costs

18. Implementation I (start of project) Install management and task forces Refine all previous issues, particularly: – topic (agreed range of eligible topics, definitions) – timeline, fix dates – eligibility: national and joint criteria – evaluation criteria (identical) – submission and evaluation process

19. Implementation II (start of project) Call preparation (promotion and documents) – intrinsically dependent on national v. central setting – usually, applicants are attracted mainly by national promotion national elements – inform applicants on your purpose for synchronized call – inform on validity of national standards – argue for positioning of national science community within ERA central elements – announce call and focus on joint image – explain the European dimension of the call – refer to national program owners for details (national rules apply) – Documents may differ, but must contain the same elements

20. Summary no precedence – much room for creativity take professional help (ERA-LEARN) main joint task (general): manage call operatively main challenge (specific): agree and accept evaluation procedure (and results) main prerequisites: trust and commitment main factors (technical): sound concept and compliant coordinator

21. Thank you for your attention http://netwatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/web/lp/learning-platform/toolbox/call-implementation