Nanosciences, nanotechnologies,

materials and new production

technologies (NMP)

EVALUATION PROCESS

NMP thematic

priority

Nanotechnology – studying phenomena and manipulation of matter at the nanoscale and developing nanotechnologies leading to the manufacturing of new products and services – a flagship for the next industrial revolution;

Multifunctional knowledge-based materials – developing fundamental knowledge; using the technologies associated with the production and transformation, including processing of knowledge-based multifunctional materials and of biomaterials as well as support for engineering – all those as important innovation drivers;

New production processes and devices – creating conditions for continuous innovation and for developing generic production technologies, organization and production facilities as well as human resources, while meeting safety and environmental requirements – the answer to sustainable development.

Integration of technologies for industrial applications – focusing on new technologies, materials and applications to address the needs identified by the different European Technology Platforms

Funding Schemes:

• Large Scale Collaborative Projects

•

• Small Scale Research Projects

• SME

• CSA

Proposal Submission:

Full/Short proposal

Administrative forms

Individual Evaluation

IER –

Individual

Evaluation Report

Consensus Meeting

Consensus

Report

Panel Review (Hering is optional)

Evaluators/Rapporteur/EC

ESR – Evaluation Summary Report

Priority lists:

- Projects for funding/- Reserved list/- NO-GO list

FP 7 – Evaluation Procedure

Two-stages proposals:

• Short version of proposal is submitted &

evaluated: not all criteria are applied at this

stage.

• If evaluated positively: submission full second

stage proposal & evaluated applying all the 3

criteria.

Criteriu Threshold Max.

Score

Scientific

Quality

4 5

Implemen

tation

Impact 3 5

TOTAL 7 10

A. First stage:

Criteriu Threshold Max.

Score

Scientific

Quality

4 5

Implemen

tation

3 5

Impact 3 5

TOTAL 10 15

B. Second stage:

FP7 Evaluation Criteria

1. Scientific and/or technological excellence

(relevant to the topics addressed by the call)

– soundness of concept and quality of objectives

– progress beyond the state – of – the – art

– quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan

Threshold 3/5

2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management

-appropriateness of the management structure and procedures quality

-relevant experience of the individual participants

-quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarily, balance)

- appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be

committed (budget, staff, equipment)

Threshold 3/5

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

project results Note: Refer to the applicable list of impacts specified in the work programme

- contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected

impacts listed in the work programme and relevant topic/activity

-appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of

project results

-and management of intellectual property

Threshold 3/5

Overall score: 10/15

General Negative Factors:

-Proposal does not demonstrate to

be “self-contained”

-Applicant does not take care of

details in order to assure a good

presentation

A!!!! The difference

between winning &

losing could be of 0,5

points

- Abstract is not well

presented.

A!!!! First impression

is very important

Specific Negative Factors:

Concept & objectives:

– general objective is not

properly correlated to the objective of the program;

– specific objectives are not realistic and could not be achievable in the period of the project

– the objectives are not real measurable and its achievement does not demonstrate to have a proper contribution to the European value

Criterion 1

Project idea is not properly

correlated with the call/topic.

A!!!!! Topics are prescriptive,

not suggestions

State of the art:

is described in a general manner

and the key barriers are not

properly identified and presented.

the proposal does not

demonstrate a significant advance

beyond the current state of the art

- well-managed research not sufficiently

demonstrated;

-WPs are not well defined and interconnected;

- feasibility of the project, risk identification &

contingency plan are not properly provided.

-methodology to

reach objectives

is not clearly

described.

- proposed S&T

does not enable

the achievement

of the proposed

objectives.

- proposals does not

demonstrate high-

quality &

multidisciplinary

research proposals

perfectly in line with

the call;

- original, innovative,

& ambitious

research is not

properly sustained

(innovative in

approaches,

methodology ,

solutions etc.);

Criterion 2

Individual participants without outstanding records & expertise

Consortium is not suitable for achieving project objectives: not

properly balanced (geography, type of organisation),

complementarity, multidisciplinarity, European dimension).

• management structure/procedures are not clear presented and do not convince that the objectives will be reached

-coordinator not enough experienced to manage the project

• allocation & justification of resources not enough balanced (budget, personnel & equipment). Value for money should be demonstrated

Criterion 3

Exploitation Plan of project results:

involvement of stakeholders/end users not

consistently addressed

PAY ATTENTION TO:

Tangible and intangible – results (e.g. information and

knowledge) generated under the project. Such results include rights

related to copyright, design rights, patent rights, plant variety rights,

and similar forms of protection.

Types of use:

• General advancement of knowledge

• Commercial exploitation of R&D results

• Exploitation of R&D results via standards

• Exploitation of results through EU policies

• Exploitation of results through (social) innovation

• Dissemination Plan not well

thought & detailed

• IPR issues not addressed

• Contribution at EU & International level not sufficiently addressed (projects should solve a clear problem, address real needs)

- Real Impact is not enough justified &

persuasive

- No consistent information regarding the impact

at different levels: scientific/knowledge, policies,

societal (health impact, economical impact)

Thank you for

your attention!!!

Alexandra Ene

alexandra.ene@certex.ro