1. © Services GmbH Proposal writing: Part B 2/1/2016 1 St. Petersburg, May 18, 2011 Dr. Andrey Girenko www.giraf-pm.com

2. © Services GmbH General remarks… Guide for applicants – make sure you use the right one… Proposal consists of 2 parts: A and B... Part A – administrative forms (will be demonstrated) Part B – description of the project, critically important 2/1/2016 2

3. © Services GmbH Part B: General advices… Imagine: tired evaluator, Friday afternoon, your proposal is the last in the pile… make it easy-to-read... – Simple, clear, consistent English – Use convinient outline (font, spacing,...) – Use graphics, tables, diagrams... – Stay within recommended limits – Do not make the evaluator look for aswers – make them explicit and visible... 2/1/2016 3

4. © Services GmbH Critically important… First 10 pages of the proposal (1.1) Progress beyond state-of-the-art (1.2) Graphics in 1.3 Work Plan Consortium (2.2 and 2.3) Impact (3.1) 2/1/2016 4

5. © Services GmbH Writing 1.1 Concepts and objectives Your goal: to give to the evaluator the understanding of the project as soon as possible Try to limit 1.1 to 10 pages Suggested sub-headings – Abstract – 1 page giving the general idea of the whole project (short background, what will be provided, a snapshot of how it will be provided) – See hand out 6 2/1/2016 5

6. © Services GmbH Writing 1.1 Concepts and objectives – Background: status quo and its limitations. Highlight economic and social aspects ahead of pure technical. – The vision: what shall happen after the project… Present a vision statement, give scenarios (see hand out 7) 2/1/2016 6

7. © Services GmbH Objectives Overall objective(s) – socio-economic, broader than the project Specific objectives – achievable within the project 2/1/2016 7 Specific Measurable Attainable Relevant Time-bound S M A R T

8. © Services GmbH Relevance Read carefully “Expected Impacts”, background information – try to understand what the EC wants to acquire… Try to use the same wording as in the Objective description Select most innovative aspects of your project and use them as examples 2/1/2016 8

9. © Services GmbH Writing 1.2 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art Be within 8-9 pages Goal: not only to delineate the area, but, above all, to highlight the innovations First - give an overview List the most visible and relevant initiatives (global and European). Always show limitations and how they will be addressed. Do not give 100s references… 2/1/2016 9

10. © Services GmbH 1.3 S/T Methodology and associated work plan General introduction – 1 page of text Use graphics (see the presentation on the WP) Outline the underlying methodology Explain why you have this particular WP structure (do not describe what is within workpackages) Pay attention to timing… 2/1/2016 10

11. © Services GmbH WP description table See hand out 8 2/1/2016 11

12. © Services GmbH 2. Implementation 2.1 Management structures and procedures General principles Project management structure (1 paragraph per body) Management tools Decision making and conflict resolution Risk identification and management 2/1/2016 (c) 2009 12

13. © Services GmbH Example 1 2/1/2016 13

14. © Services GmbH Example 2 2/1/2016 14

15. © Services GmbH 2.2 Individual participants 1-page profile per partner Includes information on the organization, tasks, experiences, CV of key personnel. Include only relevant information, do not use „one-size-fits-all“ profiles See example (hand out 9) 2/1/2016 15

16. © Services GmbH 2.3 Consortium as a whole (2-3 pages) Show complementarity of partners Show how critically important expertise is represented (links between objectives and expertise) Involvement of SMEs, industry in general Third countries and subcontracting 2/1/2016 16

17. © Services GmbH 2.3 Consortium as a whole (2-3 pages) 2/1/2016 (c) 2009 17

18. © Services GmbH 2.4 Resources to be committed (max. 2 pages) Do not repeate form A3.2… Use diagrams to show different cost categories List most visible costs (e.g. equipment, OSC) Explain how you estimated travel costs Justify that the budget corresponds to the work plan 2/1/2016 18

19. © Services GmbH 3. Impact (up to 10 pages) What the Community buys for its money… What will be provided and how impacts will be delivered Why the project delivers what is expected... 2/1/2016 19

20. © Services GmbH 3.1 Expected impacts listed in the work programme Potential sub-headings – Strategic impacts – Impact on economy (incl. impact on competitiveness of companies) – Impact on European research (global competitiveness) – Benefits to European citizens – Impact on standards 2/1/2016 20

21. © Services GmbH 3.1 Expected impacts listed in the work programme European dimension – Why the project shall be funded on the European level rather than on national? No one single country has full spectrum of necessary competencies The project addresses problems typical Europe-wide Benefits to Europe as a whole Criteria for European funding (addresses the area of particular importance, delivers a significant added value, contributes to the progress of all Member States, etc.) 2/1/2016 21

22. © Services GmbH 3.2 Dissemination Dissemination – obligatory Ensure consistence between this part and 1.3 Dissemination strategy: What are the objectives of dissemination? Who are target groups for dissemination? What are the most appropriate channels? Tools and activities (project website, publications, workshops and conferences, liaisons with standardization and regulatory bodies, exhibitions, etc.) 2/1/2016 22

23. © Services GmbH 3.2 Exploitation NOTE! FP7 funds pre-commercial RTD… Preparation for or/and planning of exploitation is compulsory Deliverable Plan for Using and Disseminating Foreground Exploitable results Ownership and IPRs Potential markets, products, services Time-to-market, technology transfer 2/1/2016 23 You might need a special expertise for that…

24. © Services GmbH 4. Ethical Issues Important if the project deals with: – Biotechnologies (sensitive biomaterials) – Human beings (e.g. patients) – Animals – Personal data If yes, you need a partner with special expertise Ethical review 2/1/2016 24