1. Morten Møller ICT Programme coordination Unit Tips for writing a successful proposal in H2020 Vilnius 26 November, 2015

2. Outline Guidance and information Submit your proposal Evaluation process Cross-cutting features Summary tips

3. 3 Guidance and information

4. 4 Call and all necessary documentation are published on the Research Participant Portal http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal H2020 Calls

5. Home page

6. Horizon 2020 calls

7. Horizon 2020 calls – Topic details: submission service

8. When opened,to start submission you first need to select the Type of Action you would like to apply -Research and Innovation Action -Innovation Action -Coordination and Support Action

9. 9 Submit your proposal

10. 10 Admissibility conditions for participation Submitted in the electronic submission service Readable, accessible and printable Complete Includes a draft plan for the exploitation and dissemination of the results Page limits will apply

11. 11 Electronic Submission Electronic Submission System accessed from the call page 1. ECAS password 2. Participant Identification Code (PIC) compulsory for all partners 3. Prepare proposal On-line for structured part – Administrative forms Upload non-structured part – Technical annex - pdf files 4. Validation checks 5. Submit the proposal before the 17h00 deadline Submission failure rate = + 1% Only reason for failure: waiting till the last minute Technical problems Panic-induced errors (uploading the wrong proposal) Starting the uploading too late  running out of time

12. 12 Administrative forms 1/2 Section 1: General information Title, acronym, topic, etc. Fixed and free keywords 2000 character proposal abstract Previous/current submission Declarations Section 2: Participants & contacts (one form per partner) PIC to identify the partner Department Dependencies Contact information

13. 13 Administrative forms 2/2 Section 3: Budget and requested grant Section 4: Ethics' questionnaire Section 5: Call specific questions Clinical trial, Stage 2, SME instrument, Open Data Pilot, ERANET, PCP, PPI

14. Technical annex – 2 pdf files 1/2 1 st PDF: Sections 1 - 3 Based around evaluation criteria: Section 1: Excellence E.g. Objectives, concept, progress beyond state-of-art,... Section 2: Impact E.g. Potential impact (incl. with reference to WP); measures to maximise impact (dissemination, communication, exploitation) Section 3: Implementation Including work packages descriptions Information on third parties and subcontractors 14

15. Section 4: Members of the consortium Section 5: Ethics and Security Templates supplied by the submission system and available on Participant Portal (under topic conditions) Technical annex – 2 pdf files2/2 2 nd PDF: Sections 4 - 5 15

16. Submission in H2020 Simpler but tougher page limits: - 70 pages for RIA and IA full proposals - 50 pages for CSA - also for SME Instrument, PCP, PPI, ERANET co-fund,... apply only to sections 1-3 of the Technical Annex (1 st PDF)  check page limit in topic conditions or proposal template  “warn and watermark” in first round of calls Self-check for SME status, financial viability 16

17. 17 Successful electronic submission Each submission overwrites the previous one Make an early submission to check out the procedure and your proposal Make your final submission in good time...... then look at what you submitted while there is still time to resubmit a correct version Never (ever!) plan to submit in the last 30 minutes of the call! If in trouble, immediately call the submission service helpdesk For calls with fixed deadline

18. 18 Evaluation process

19. 19 Evaluation process Process monitored by independent experts Evaluators Individual Evaluation Reports (Usually done remotely) Consensus Report (May be done remotely) Panel report Evaluation Summary Report Panel ranked list Eligibility check Allocation of proposals to evaluators Final ranked list

20. Same process as in FP7… but adapting to Horizon 2020 Coherence across the programme New types of calls; new types of proposals multi-disciplinary and multi-sectorial; more emphasis on innovation and close-to-market Simplification, for applicants, experts, and for streamlined operations; 8 months time to grant: 5 months to evaluate and inform applicants on evaluation outcome 3 months for grant preparation and signing 20

21. No grant negotiation phase! −A proposal is evaluated as submitted not on its potential if certain changes were to be made −Shortcomings are reflected in a lower score for the corresponding criterion. −Shortcomings are mentioned, but no recommendations made −Proposals with significant weaknesses that prevent the project from achieving its objectives or with resources being seriously over-estimated must not receive above-threshold scores; any proposal with scores above thresholds can be selected as submitted 21

22. Evaluation of proposals Evaluation carried out by independent experts Award criteria Excellence Impact Quality and efficiency in the implementation Details, e.g. the sub-criteria, weightings and thresholds are described in the Workprogramme 22

23. Evaluation criteria…...remain the same (ie. Excellence, Impact, Quality & efficiency of the implementation) Some fine-tuning of the 'aspects to be taken into account' to improve clarity, for example: Excellence - clearer message on 'inter-disciplinarity' Impact – better signalling of both work programme 'expected impacts' and 'other possible impacts; communication aspects separated out Implementation – reference to resources being in line with objectives The proposal template reflects the criteria, and provides further guidance (e.g. on draft plan for dissemination and exploitation) 23

24. 24 Excellence (to the extent that the proposal addresses the WP topic) Impact Quality and efficiency of the implementation Clarity and pertinence of the objectives; Soundness of the concept, and credibility of the proposed methodology; Extent that the proposed work is beyond the state of the art, and demonstrates innovation potential (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches, new products, services or business and organisational models) Appropriate consideration of interdisciplinary approaches and, where relevant, use of stakeholder knowledge. The extent to which the outputs of the project would contribute to each of the expected impacts mentioned in the work programme under the relevant topic; Any substantial impacts not mentioned in the work programme, that would enhance innovation capacity; create new market opportunities, strengthen competitiveness and growth of companies, address issues related to climate change or the environment, or bring other important benefits for society; Quality of the proposed measures to: Exploit and disseminate the project results (including management of IPR), and to manage research data where relevant. Communicate the project activities to different target audiences Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, including extent to which the resources assigned to work packages are in line with their objectives and deliverables; Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management; Complementarity of the participants and extent to which the consortium as whole brings together the necessary expertise; Appropriateness of the allocation of tasks, ensuring that all participants have a valid role and adequate resources in the project to fulfil that role. Evaluation criteria(RIA/IA), WP 2016/17: Aspects to be taken into account (red=first stage only)

25. Selection criteria Operational capacity (no specific provisions) Operational capacity means that the applicants must have the professional competencies and qualifications required to complete the proposed action or work programme: it may be assessed on the basis of specific qualifications, professional experience and references in the field concerned. checked against the information provided in −Curriculum Vitae or description of the profile of the applicant −Relevant publications or achievements −Relevant previous projects or activities −Description of any significant infrastructure or any major items of technical equipment Financial capacity −Only coordinator of actions asking for 500 kEUR or more, except specific cases −No verification of public bodies, entities guaranteed by a MS or AC and higher and secondary education establishments 25

26. 26 Selection of proposals In each topic, all above threshold proposals are listed in descending order of overall scores The Commission select proposals starting from the top of the list until the available budget is consumed Hence, the ranking of proposal is very important

27. 27 Cross-cutting features -Standardisation -Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and -Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) -Dissemination -Communication

28. Lessons Learned Increased Emphasis on Innovation – Close to Market Solutions Participation from Industry in Consortia highly valued Impact pursued on different, equally important levels Need for use of Metrics to quantify Impact Mentioned in most ESRs with high score, but outside available budget ‘The Consortium lacks major industrial partners to back standards and enable commercial exploitation’ ‘The Consortium is biased towards academic and research institutions’ ‘The proposal does not provide a convincing analysis of the current market and competitors, nor a sufficiently concrete plan on how to bring the achieved innovations to the market’ Commercial, Academic, Social etc.

29. Sumary Tips A proposal is not an academic paper or a thesis! Commission has its own language and analytical structure. Following it gives proposers an advantage! The EC publishes the topics, but the Proposal is evaluated by external Expert Evaluators…both audiences are important. Ideal Proposals strictly follow the template and include a clear Work Plan with sufficient Contingency Planning. Proposals need to be presented against the background of the relevant Policy Context (Digital Single Market, Specific Strategies, PPP Roadmaps, Initiatives, Directives, Communications, White/Green Papers, etc). Proposals need to be... S pecific M easurable A chievable R elevant T imely

30. Summary Tips Keep in mind that timing in ICT is crucial, 8-month period until the signing of the Grant Agreement must be considered (new apps, technologies, new ICT solutions introduced on a daily basis). ICT proposals are increasingly multidisciplinary, involvement of SSH actors is important. Cross-cutting issues need to be considered (Social Dimension/Impact, Gender, SME Participation, International Cooperation etc.). Participation of End-users/Industry is crucial in all Consortia (as a ‘success factor’ for impact). European Technology Platforms / PPPs play a key role in setting the scene for the Work Programmes.

31. First impressions matter: consistent, well-written proposals following guidelines/templates are more likely to get funding. AVOID emphatic statements and claims that are unsubstantiated, typos, inconsistencies, obvious cut & paste, numbers which don’t add up, missing pages! ALWAYS PROOF-READ...and make sure you submit the latest, complete version! WARNING!!

32. 32 Experts Appropriately qualified professional should apply to work as experts in H2020 evaluations Application via the Participant Portal The selection per call is made to ensure broad ranging and expertise, and avoiding conflicts of interest

33. 33