How to write a competitive proposal for FP7 Health/Cooperation?

Barbara RebecchiUfficio Ricerca e Relazioni Internazionali

Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia

How to write a competitive proposal for FP7 Health/Cooperation?

Cooperation

HealthFood, Agriculture and Fisheries, Biotechnology

Information & communication technologiesNanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials&new production

EnergyEnvironment (including Climate Changes)

Transport (including aeronautics)Socio-economic sciences and the Humanities

SpaceSecurity

Cooperation is the core strand of FP7 Programme. The Cooperation programme benefits from two thirds of the FP7 budget. This program promotes collaborative research in Europe and other countries between partners through transnational projects consortia between industry and academia. It addresses the following ten major themes:

Cooperation

Health 2007-2013

3 simple criteria (0-5):

1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the call)

2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management

3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results

The evaluation

1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevance to the topics addressed by the call)

The most important criteriaDemonstrate the knowledge of the state of the art

Why it is innovative?The proposal must be relevant to the call

workflow, risk analysis & contingency plan

The evalutaion

1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the call)

Concepts and the objectives are very sound. It is demonstrated that a [...] does not exist. It will bring a valuable contribution to the [...], an area not yet well understood.

The innovation value of this research and the proposed concepts and objectives is high. Moreover, it is commendable that the project intends to build on previous knowledge.

The methodology and related work plan are detailed and well defined.

The evaluation: positive remarks

1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the call)

The overall structure of the project is not clear enough and very traditional

The actual content of different WPs are not very precise and many things remain open

The plan is professionally written in an academic sense andincludes good literature review. However, the proposal lacks user aspects

The evaluation: negative remarks

2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management

A resonable distribution of effort & budget

Importance of the reputation of the coordinator

It must be very clear Who does what (e.g. he/she represents excellence in that field - past

projects approved)

The evaluation

2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management

Individual participants from 8 different countries (members and associated members) are qualified and experienced in their respective area of expertise and resources are appropriately allocated.

The consortium represents all the relevant areas: academic, SME, airport, training developers, companies with extensive expertise in social & behaviour sciences, aviation and aviation security.

The coordination institution is well respected.

The evaluation: positive remark

2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management

The consortium covers a range of relevant fields of expertise, but there is not much specific and practical expertise.

Academic and more pragmatical science expertise is notenough balanced.

The consortium is not large, including 6 European participants.

The evaluation: negative remarks

3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results

Impact (e.g. greater competitiveness of Europe) - quantifiable

Dissemination of results

Exploitation of the results

Intellectual Property Rights

The evaluation

3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results

Advancing the state-of-the-art research leads to potential increase of efficiency of international civil air transportation by decreasing false alarms, increased safety through training and increased coordination for all stakeholders in cases of emergency and security threat.

Moreover, clear and explicit reference is made to the relations with other programmes underway.

The consortium foresees an exploitation plan at M12, which we believe to be a commendable undertaking.

The evaluation: positive remarks

3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results

There is not much information how case studies and findings are going to be disseminated to key professional audiences in Europe.

This plan only meets basic professional requirements but it is not an excellent dissemination plan. The plan adresses only academic audiences, not other professional audiences.

There could be a lot of academic knowledge to be disseminated in this project, but practical impacts for European cluster are not clear.

The evaluation: negative remarks

The project design must consider two issues :

formal

Parts that, even you do not understand the usufulness,

must be presented in anycase

substantial

explain in convincingly, assertive and argued ways the

reasons you believe important for the project

The proposal writing

No precise and steady rules

(no 'silver bullet')

At least 3 month for the proposal writing

(and a lot of emails)

Organize meetings in the project start up

phase,

information from Bruxelles, from national

contact points, and from your research office

The proposal writing

It is a narrative description ,

clear and readable (bold and indented texts)

Division of the work :

Agencies for management, tracking of versions

Researchers for the scientific part

The proposal writing

consistency, coeherence, conciseness

emphasis (moderately enthusiastic) on

innovation

emphasis on results and implications (policies,

products)

The proposal writing

For all programmes

Policy usefulness of research findings is a key objective ('evidence-based policies')

Dissemination from the earliest stages of the project

Define the potential users of your projects right from the beginning

To sum-up

The difference: not just research,

but:

cohesion (e.g. new Member States)

competitiveness (industries, SME)

cooperation

Sustainable development

The policy makers

(Member States)

UE

Researchers and enterprises

Policy

FP7 + CIP

Legislation

You do not apply funding only for your own research but in order to propose solutions to problems that EU POLICY MAKERS have identified and to which the proposed research represents a step forward at European/world-class level.

The proposal must be formulated to solve a common and shared problem at EU level, for which individual efforts and national/regional resources are not enough, or not effective.

Change your approach: Change your approach: focus on the policy-makers sidefocus on the policy-makers side

Principles

> Eligibility> Subsidiarity = decisions are made as close as possible to the citizens, the actions

undertaken at European level must be justified in light of the possibilities available at national, regional or local. According to this principle the EU can come into play only if the proposed objectives can not be sufficiently achieved by individual Member States, or regional or local entities, but can be better achieved only at European level.

> European added value= European dimension of the project and its impact> S&T excellence of the partners/project (significant changes/advances, innovation)> Equal treatment and equal opportunities (inclusiveness)> Principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness: only necessary costs, managing

capacity, "good house keeping", and appropriateness of resources mobilized.> Public Private Partnership (public/private consortia)> Financial capacity of the contractors> Operational capacity of the contractors> Just 1 single contribution may be granted for the same action.

Official documents

Call for proposal

Work programme

Guide for applicant

Rules for the participation

Model Grant Agreement

Financial Guidelines

Essential documents!

Useful documents

Structure the workplan of your project idea

• Before you start writing, you can answer these questions

WHY

WHO?

HOW?

WHEN?

Establish clear objectives. Goals, NOT results!!

Allocate costs to appropriate cost categories – reasonable and economic

Schedule the project activities (timeline)

Plan carefully the project activities

Responsibility (?) choice of the partnership.For each partner = 1 clear role e responsibility – linked to a project result to deliver

WHAT ?

Define the results in a measurable way “deliverables”

HOW MUCH?

Allocate and breakdown of resources per WP, activity and partners

Projec Application Forms: an example

• PART A ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION• FORM A1: FORM A1: General information (coordinator)• FORM A2: FORM A2: Participant information, (1 each partner)• FORM A3.1: FORM A3.1: Budget (one each partner, completed by the

coordinator)• FORM A 3.2 FORM A 3.2 Budget overview

• PART B TECHNICAL INFORMATION• in PDF format• The sections follow the evaluation criteria

Forms: an example

• 1: Scientific and/or technical quality, relevant to the topics addressed by the call

• 1.1 Concept and objectives• 1.2 Progress beyond the state of the art• 1.3 S/T methodology and associated work plan

• Maximum length for the whole of Section 1: 20 pages, plus the tables

Forms: an example

• 2. Implementation• 2.1 Management structure and procedures• 2.2 Individual participants• 2.3 Consortium as a whole• 2.4 Resources to be committed

> Clear management structure > Clear rights & responsibilities for each partner> Describe why this partnership is the best to achieve the scope of

the project> Clear financial plan: Budget + Cofinancing

Forms: an example

• 3. Impact• 3.1 Expected impacts listed in the work programme• 3.2 Dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and

management of intellectual property

• 4. Ethical issues

• 5. Consideration of gender aspects

Application and Negotiation Process

Final Work

Programme

Consortium

Application

Activities

Decision(via EC to Coord)

Negotiation

ProjectStart

Preparation ofGrant Agreement

Authorisation

Project Account

StaffRecruitment

GrantAgreement

ConsortiumAgreement

Budget

Ranking

ConsortiumAgreement

‘FP7 Funding Schemes’

FP7 Funding Scheme

Keyword ‘Optimum’ Characteristics

?(as per FP6)

‘Optimum’ Budget?

(as per FP6)

Collaborative Projects (CP)

(IP/STREP)Deliverables

New Knowledge

3-20 participants24-36 months

(S/M)Up to 60 Months

(L)

€0.8-25 Million(average < €10

Million)

Network of Excellence (NoE)

(NoE)Integration

6-12Up to 60 Months

€4-15 Million(€7 Million)

Co-ordination and Support Actions

(CSA)

(CA)Co-ordination

(SSA)Laying the

Groundwork

13-26Up to 36 months

1-15Up to 12 months

€0.5-1.2 Million (€1

Million)

€0.03-1 Million (€0.5 Million)

Maximum Reimbursement Rates

FP7 – LargeIndustry

FP7 – Public Bodies,

Universities, SMEs, etc.

RTD 50% 75%

Demonstration

50% 50%

Other* 100% 100%

ERC Proposing 100% direct costs plus 20% flat rate for indirect costs

* Co-ordination and Support Actions (CSA), Dissemination, Training, Management

The PCM is based on the principles of management by The PCM is based on the principles of management by objectivesobjectives

The PCM is based on the principles of management by The PCM is based on the principles of management by objectivesobjectives

What is the Project Cycle Management?

Set of tools and techniques to ensure greater effectiveness of projects and programmes and an overall improvement of their management.

What is the Project Cycle Management ?

The PCM is designed to ensure that projects are: RelevantRelevant for the needs of partners and beneficiaries FeasibleFeasible – from a technical, financial and economic point of view Effective Effective and efficientefficient (well managed)

and therefore

Aimed at generating sustainable/transferable results

Project Cycle Management

Implementation Formulation

IdentificationEvaluation and audit

Programming

Programming

The national and sectoral contexts are analyzed to The national and sectoral contexts are analyzed to identify problems and opportunities to be tackled identify problems and opportunities to be tackled through international cooperation, taking into account through international cooperation, taking into account the lessons of previous experiencethe lessons of previous experience

The goals areThe goals are:

identify and agree the main objectives and sectorial priorities of cooperation

Provide an adequate framework to enable the identification and preparation of individual projects

Regional SectoralCountryStrategy

Programming

The EU project must be The EU project must be compliant to:compliant to: National Development National Development (i.e.

Strategies for poverty reduction).

EU policies for EU policies for development development and country country strategy papers.strategy papers.

National Programmes National Programmes (i.e. Sanità pubblica, istruzione etc.)

The key concepts

Project area Project area

Development objective

Immediate objective

Activities

Inputs Outputs

National Sector area

Present situationPresent situation Future situationFuture situation

National Sector area

Identification

Stakeholder analysis Stakeholder analysis – identification and assessment of major groups, identification of problems and possible solutions.

Problem analysis Problem analysis – identification of key issues, barriers & opportunities; determining the cause-effect relationships (problem problem treetree).

Objective analysis Objective analysis – formulate objectives (solutions) starting from the problems previously identified.

Strategy analysis– Strategy analysis– identify the most appropriate strategy for solution to the problem / the previously identified.

The ideas are identified and analyzed through…The ideas are identified and analyzed through…

Formulation

Planning the structure of the interventionPlanning the structure of the intervention – define the builduing blocks of the project, formulation of measurable and veriable objectives.

Assumptions and risksAssumptions and risks – identification of external factors that may affect project implementation and are outside the control of Project Management- RISK MANAGEMENT.RISK MANAGEMENT.

IndicatorsIndicators – formulation of indicators, identification of means and methods to measure progress.

Activity ScheduleActivity Schedule – determining the logical sequence of activities and their interdependencies.

BudgetBudget – identification of the necessary material and financial contributions, preparation of a detailed budget.

The project ideas are developed into operational plansThe project ideas are developed into operational plans

Implementation

Preparation of Preparation of deliverablesdeliverables – the project team working on the preparation of project deliverables

MonitoringMonitoring – while deliverables are finalised, the project manager takes care of: Cost Management - Cost Management - identification and recording of costs in accordance with the

project budget Change Management Change Management – examination and adoption of necessary changes for better

implementation of the project Quality Management Quality Management – review the quality of deliverables and of the management Risk ManagementRisk Management – risk assessment for the project and adoption of measures to

reduce those risks Communication Management Communication Management – keeping stakeholders constantly informed on the

progress of the project

ReportingReporting

The projects shall be implemented and executedThe projects shall be implemented and executed

implementation - phases

• Grant/Consortium Agreement signature.

• Mobilisation of resources.

• Kick Off Meeting organisation.

• Analysis and revision of the project workplan.

• Adoption of systems and procedures for monitoring and evaluating the action.

BEGIN IMPLEMENTATION

• Procurement and mobilisation of the resources

• Realisation of the activities and generation of the results/deliverables

• Monitoring and evaluation of the project

• Retargeting of operation plans if necessary

• Reporting.

CONCLUSION

• Use and Transfer of knowledge and skills.

• After project sustainability

• Further research

Evaluation & Audit

Aimed at:Aimed at: Performing a systematic and rigorous analysis of the project and its effects, to

verify and resolve problems of implementation extracting useful information to identify and resolve problems of implementation

(schedule of programs and future projects or to reorient the implementation of a project).

eActivities usually carried out at the end of the project, or during Activities usually carried out at the end of the project, or during the implementation phase the implementation phase (= mid-term evaluation)(= mid-term evaluation)

European Countries

Financing Body

Monitoring, evaluation and auditMonitoring, evaluation and audit

EvaluationEvaluation

Monitoring Monitoring

AuditAudit

Analysis of the efficiency, cost effectiveness, impact, relevance and sustainability of the project.

• Has a financial nature.

• Assurance of the compliance of the project expenditure against the Programme/National accouting rules.

• Assessment that the resources are employes according to the needs of the project (necessary).

• Analysis of the project progress compared to the original workplan given in the Grant Agreement in order to enable the identification of problems and to adopt solution and corrective measures.

Key points

• Learn how to read the workprogramme

• Find a place in the sun for your own favorite topic, and help to define its content (networking and lobbying)

• Knowing the evaluation mechanisms

Key points

• Learn how to read the work-programme

• Find a place in the sun for your own favorite topic, and help to define its content (networking and lobbying – Learn how to write or influence the work-programme)

• Knowing the evaluation mechanisms

FP7 Cooperation Work Programme: Health-2011Internal working document CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

2.4 TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH IN OTHER MAJOR DISEASESHEALTH.2011.2.4.1-3: Epidemiology and aetiology of infection-related cancers.

FP7-HEALTH-2011-single-stage.

Collaborative research should address one or more of the prevalent infectious agents that cause cancers of major public health importance in India as well as Europe, such as human papilloma virus, hepatitis B and C viruses, and/or Helicobacter pylori. The project must integrate different disciplines relevant to study both infection and cancer and include aspects such as prevalence of infection in different population groups, determinants of infection, clearance and re-infection, environmental cofactors in the carcinogenic process, mechanisms of infection-related cancers, and development of new testing and screening methods applicable to the wider community. In addition, the project must take advantage of the diversity of risk factors, cofactors and cancer incidence in different population groups of Europe and India. The project should focus on the prevention and early detection of infection-related cancers in Europe and India, addressing both established and putative associations between infectious agents and cancers. Active participation of research-intensive SMEs could lead to an increased impact of the research proposed and this will be considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Note: Limits on the EU financial contribution apply. These are implemented strictly as formal eligibility criteria.

HEALTH.2011.2.4.1-3: Epidemiology and aetiology of infection-related cancers. FP7-HEALTH-2011-single-stage.

Funding scheme: Collaborative Project (small or medium-scale focused research project).

EU contribution per project: Maximum EUR 3 000 000.

One or more proposals can be selected.

Expected impact: The results of research in this area will have to contribute to the prevention and early detection of infection-related cancers in Europe and India, which might take place through vaccination, early detection and identification of high-risk populations. A close cooperation between Europe and India is expected to result from the projects.

Specific feature: It is expected that the Indian Council of Medical Research will issue a complementary call to support Indian projects in this field and that the funded projects will commence at the same time and will cooperate closely. The cooperation may also include joint meetings, workshops, exchange of scientists, technology transfer, etc.

Call topics specificity:

Are they tailored for pre-existing Consortia?

Who decide the call topics?

Key points

• Learn how to read the workprogramme

• Find a place in the sun for your own favorite topic, and help to define its content (networking and lobbying – Learn how to write or influence the work-programme)

• Knowing the evaluation mechanisms

Who must perform lobbying and briefing of EC?

Networking: the consortium

• Participants

• SMEs

• Management and governance structure

• Added value

• Other parties (i.e.: stakeholders, patients and care takers associations)

• Main criteria: S&T excellence

Key points

• Knowing how to read the work program

• Identificare lo spazio per l’argomento preferito e contribuire a definirlo (networking and lobbying)

• Knowing the evaluation mechanism

Proposalsubmission

Eligibility check

Commission: final ranking list and decision

If abovethreshold

eligible

Priority list

Evaluation procedure

1. Individual evaluation

2. Consensus Group meeting

3. Panel Evaluation

Reserve listRejection Funding

If belowthreshold

noteligible

Ethical review(if necessary)

Evaluation principles

Excellence

Transparency

Confidentiality

Impartiality Efficiency

Criterion Score Threshold

1. S&T excellence* 0 to 5 3

2. Implementation and management 0 to 5 3

3. Potential impact** 0 to 5 3

TOTAL 0 to 15 10

Scoring criteria

*When a proposal is partially relevant/out of scope because it only marginallyaddresses the call topic, or if only part of the proposal addresses the topic,this condition must be reflected in the scoring of the first criterion.

**One of the subcriteria mentions ’Expected impact listed in Work Programme’.

Interpretation of scores

5 EXCELLENT: the proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor

4 GOOD: the proposal addresses the criterion well, although certain improvements are possible

3 FAIR: While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses that would need correcting

2 POOR: There are serious inherent weaknesses in relation to the criterion in question

1 VERY POOR: The criterion is addressed in a cursory and unsatisfactory manner

0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or can not be judged due to missing or incomplete information

General EC policy regarding the participation of industry and SME

• Strongly encouraged wherever appropriate

• Overall, 15% of requested EC budget should be allocated to SMEs (political objective in FP7)

• SMEs may contribute with scientific and technological competence (high-tech SMEs), but also with competence in management, dissemination, transfer of knowledge, training, etc...

SME participation is among the criteria to be assessed !

How to submit a competitive proposal within Cooperation/Health theme?

• Being part of scientific European excellence in the field.

• Studying the work-program in detail.• Become an Evaluator/Reviewer!• Contribute to the project design having a feasible

idea, targeted against the call topic and an excellent consortium that involve at least 1 SME.

• From the beginning pay a duly attention the "Implementation and Management" and "potential impact"!

The promotion of gender equality and the rights of women represent fundamental human rights, as a matter of social justice

The Gender Equality is recognized in the Treaty of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The European Programme on equity between men and women promote the development policies that fall into one of six priority areas in the period 2006 to 2010.

The European strategy for this area aims to help promote equality of political rights, civil, economic, social and cultural differences between men and women, also trying to provide equal

access to elected office to promote and ensure equal political and economic opportunities.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0100en01.pdf

Thank you!!!!!!!

Barbara Rebecchi

Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia

barbara.rebecchi@unimore.it