Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
15/02/2011
1
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Why bids fail: Bidding for EU ICT research projects
Stephen Brown, 20 May 2010
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Overview• FP7 ICT call 1 results• Project types• The evaluation process• Evaluation criteria
• Scoring• Good proposals• Bad proposals
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Most proposals fail
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
FP7 ICT call1 results• 188 eligible proposals submitted
• 12 proposals funded (52m Euros)
6% s ccess
• 6% success
Most proposals fail…..
……but not because they are bad
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
FP7 ICT call1 results
Project type Funding requested
Funding published
IPs 181.5 M€ 20-32.5 M€
STREPs 506 8 M€ 10-22 M€
STREPs 506.8 M€ 10-22 M€
NoEs 15.6 M€ 5 M€
CSAs 14.2 M€ 2.5 M€
Most proposals have to fail
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Project types
• STREPs• IPs• NoEs
• CAs• SAs
15/02/2011
2
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
STREPs• Focused objectives• Clearly identified problem• Research and demonstration activities• Scope for competing approaches to solving
problems
problems• Small scale (2-4 M€ over 1-2 years)
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
IPs• Integration of projects within a coherent set of
activities• Outreach and validation are important• Include training, innovation, takeup and
dissemination activities• Active partners with substantial roles and clear
• Active partners with substantial roles and clear responsibilities
• Large IPs (average range is 6-9 M€ over 3-4 years) need to show very clearly how they will make a significant impact in their target area
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
NoEs• Aim is the durable integration of high
calibre research capacity• NoEs should involve the stakeholders,
especially industry
p y y• Funding is for convergence and
embedding, not research• Size and funding of NoEs much smaller
than in FP6 (2-3M€ over 3 years)
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
CSAs
• Bringing researchers together either in new areas (as forerunner of eventual NoEs)
• Supporting workshops and communities of
pp g ppractice – eg in creating framework conditions for take up of research work
• Support for building and maintaining the body of evidence of research
• <1M € each
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
The evaluation process
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
The evaluation process
STREPs• Individual expert• Consensus Group• Panel meeting
IPs & NoEs• Individual expert• Consensus Group• Interim panel meeting
• Panel meeting • Interim panel meeting• Hearing• Panel meeting
Plenty of opportunities to fail
15/02/2011
3
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Evaluation criteria
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
S/T QUALITY“Scientific and/ortechnological excellence(relevant to the topics addressed by the call)”
IMPLEMENTATION“Quality and efficiency of theimplementation and themanagement”
IMPACT“Potential impact through thedevelopment, disseminationand use of project results”
• 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
• Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures• Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance)
Quality and relevant
• Contribution, at the European and / or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under relevant topic/activity• Appropriateness of
associated work plan • Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants• Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment)
• Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Scoring0 - The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or
cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information.1 - Very poor. The criterion is addressed in a cursory and
unsatisfactory manner.2 - Poor. Serious inherent weaknesses in relation to the criterion in
question.3 - Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are
3 Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there aresignificant weaknesses that would need correcting.4 - Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although certainimprovements are possible.5 - Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects
of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Funding thresholds
• Proposals must score at least 3 on any criterion to be funded
• Proposals scoring 10 or above can be considered for funding
considered for funding• 35% above threshold but not funded• Proposals scoring 13.5 or above are
usually considered for funding• You need drop only 3 half marks to fail
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
FP7 ICT call1 results• 67% failed on multiple thresholds
• of these 43% failed on criterion 1 – scientific excellence relevant to the objectives
• 52% IPs and 40% STREPS failed criterion 3 -impact
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Don’t give up
15/02/2011
4
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
What good proposals look like
• Describe your problem, explain why it is relevant and how you will tackle it
• Describe the specific state-of-the-art with referenced evidence, as well as the technical baseline, and expected advancements against
p gwhich progress can be measured
• Show you understand the state of the art –don’t just list projects and articles
• Check the timelines and anticipated outputs of ongoing research in defining your starting point and the advances you will make – don’t replicate existing work
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
What good proposals look like
• Explain how you will ensure impact• Adopt a scientifically sound approach to
involving users in the research, including to the assessment and validation necessary to build the evidence of impact
p• Find the right partners – not necessarily the
nearest or most convenient. Do justice to the multi-disciplinary nature of the area – ensure the expertise and the roles are balanced and appropriate.
• Cost out work packages clearly and realistically
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Relevance
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Work Programme
• Target outcomes• Fifth call results
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Common mistakes
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
• Provide yet another training solution for a particular set of users (eg training for engineers) with no new work on how people acquire skills and competences, in different contexts
p ,• Develop a Learning Management System,
Content Delivery Platform or VLE – these are mainstream eLearning products
• Develop something for a specific language, geography, history and don’t justify how ICTs will improve learning in that field
15/02/2011
5
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
• Describe a “technology driven” type of project• Fail to leverage a balance of research across
the contributing disciplines• Fail to identify what the different disciplines
y pcontribute
• Produce a proposal that tries to do everything and is just not credible. Often less is more
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Critical questions youshould ask yourselves
• Does the proposal address the right published target outcomes?
• Does the proposal address a new problem or offer different and innovative insights into an existing one?
d e e a d o a e s g s o a e s g o e• How far is the problem you intend to address already
being tackled elsewhere?• Which communities are likely to benefit from the project /
how are they involved?• What will the benefits / impact of the project be?• What are the challenges and potential risks and how are
they tackled?
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Further information• Comprehensive EC guide to “How to fail”
– ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/ist/docs/telearn/what-not-to-do_en.pdf
• Introduction to Cultural Heritage & Technology
Enhanced Learning, including links to programme descriptions, publications that describe currently funded projects and links to commission / project web sites and contacts.– http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/telearn-
digicult/home_en.html
http://kmd.dmu.ac.uk
Stephen Brown
For further information contact
Stephen Brown
