Proposal dra*ing Presenta1on of a call projects proposals dealing - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Proposal dra*ing – Presenta1on of a call

projects proposals dealing with Innova4on

Leonardo Piccine5 Managing Director Europe for Business Ltd

Content 1. Main principles of H2020 2. Type of ac=ons 3. Evalua=on principles 4. Before you start…=ps and lessons learnt 5. Frequent mishaps 6. Where to find informa=on 7. Understanding Innova=on process in H2020 proposal

H2020 – What are the main principles?

• 2-year work programme to allow for be>er prepara?on of applicants
• Challenge-based
• Technology Readiness Levels to specify scope of ac?vi?es
• Indica?ve project size range
• A single funding rate per project
• A single indirect cost model
• A single ?me to grant of 8 months

• One project = One rate

ü For all beneficiaries and all ac?vi?es in the grant. ü Defined in the Work Programme: ‒ Up to 100 % of the eligible costs; ‒ but limited to a maximum of 70 % for innova?on projects (excep?on for non- profit organisa?ons - maximum of 100%)

A single funding rate

ü Flat rate: 25% on total cost

A single indirect cost model

Time to grant

8

Deadline 04 June 2015 Informing Applicants 04 November 2015 Grant Agreement Signature 04 February 2016

5

Months Months

Evaluation GA preparation

H2020: What type of ac=ons?

3 beneficiaries

IA CSA RIA

3 beneficiaries Mostly 3 beneficiaries

(with some exceptions to 1 beneficiary, check the Work Programme)

* 100% for non-profit legal entities

• Fair and equal treatment of all proposers
• Based on the criteria announced in the Work Programme
• Confiden?al process, no conflicts of interest
• Independent external experts
• Compe??ve process
• Indica?ve budget (per topic) as guidance
• Basic steps of the evalua?on process
• Eligibility Admissibility condi?ons
• Award criteria (assessed by external experts)

H2020 Evalua=on principles

• Transparent procedure
• Criteria are published in the General Annexes of the Work Programme
• Instruc?ons and advice are included in the Grants Manual
• Examples of forms and templates are public

H2020 Evalua=on principles

• Award criteria:
• 1. Excellence
• 2. Impact
• 3. Quality & efficiency of

implementation

• Only the best proposals not requiring

negotiations will be selected

Evaluation

Aspects for the EXCELLENCE All ac?ons

• Clarity and per?nence of the objec?ves
• Credibility of the proposed approach

RIA+IA

• Soundness of the concept, including trans-disciplinary considera?ons, where

relevant

• Extent that the proposed work is ambi?ous, has innova?on poten?al, and is

beyond the state of the art (e.g. ground-breaking objec?ves, novel concepts and approaches)

CSA

• Soundness of the concept
• Quality of the proposed coordina?on and support measures

Aspects for the IMPACT

All ac=ons

• The expected impacts listed in the work programme

RIA+IA

• Enhancing innova?on capacity and integra?on of new knowledge
• Strengthening the compe??veness and growth of companies by developing innova?ons

mee?ng the needs of European and global markets; and, where relevant, by delivering such innova?ons to the markets;

• Any other environmental and socially important impacts

RIA+IA+CSA

• Effec?veness of the proposed measures to

ü exploit and disseminate the project results (incl. manag. of IPR), ü communicate the project, ü manage research data, where relevant

Aspects for the QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION All ac?ons

• Coherence and effec?veness of the work plan, including appropriateness of

the alloca?on of tasks and resources

• Complementarity of the par?cipants within the consor?um (when relevant)
• Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including

risk and innova?on management

Ethics

• In addition to the scientific evaluation, an ethical review of the

proposed action is carried out to assess and address the ethical dimension of activities funded under Horizon 2020

• The Ethics Appraisal Procedure ensures that all activities under

H2020 are conducted in compliance with fundamental ethical principles

• A number (10) of ethics issues are checked, e.g. humans cells,

animals, environmental protection, protection of personal data,

• When preparing the proposal, it is required to conduct an Ethics Self-

assessment starting with the completion of an Ethics Issues Table in the Proposal submission forms, and in case, an Ethics Self- Assessment in Part B

• All proposals above threshold and considered for funding will

undergo an Ethics Review carried out by independent ethics experts

Before we start: to lift the fog of the terminology

• Proposal: Your application

– Proposal submission forms (e.g. general info, participants, budget, ethics) – Part B Section 1-2-3 (the technical work programme, objectives and impacts) – Part B Section 4-5 (consortium, ethics and security) – Optional: Ethics annex

• Participants Portal: home of the Commission’s

electronic submission tool – obligatory for H2020

proposals

• Consortium: A team of organisations submitting

the proposal – with one defined Coordinator

Before you start… key documents

> " Work Programme’: background, topics and

budgets

> General annexes to the general Work Programme: list of countries, eligibility and

admissibility conditions, evaluation criteria and procedure, scoring and thresholds, etc.

> Submission forms and templates:

essential forms and guides to draw up and submit your proposal

> Guide to the submission and evaluation process

Define your specific objective & target group

• What concretely would you like to achieve?
• Whom do you want to address?
• Make sure you know the current (market)

situa?on and your star?ng point

• For market uptake ac?ons (CSA), make sure you

check the project database

• Take a reality check before you invest your

?me: inves?gate the interest amongst target group and major stakeholders

From the call to the project

1. Publication of the call (> 3 months open) – Submission of the proposal by project coordinator 2. Submission deadline – Evaluation Process (<5 months) => List of proposal for funding => Reserve list 3. Invitation for GA – Preparation and signature of Grant Agreement (<3 months)

• Legal text
• Description of Work (DoW) based on the

proposal text

4. Consortium Agreement – accession of other partners to the GA 5. Execution of the project

International Master in European Project Planning and Management David Kolman Helmholtz Association

Considerations before preparing a proposal – fit for purpose

1. Do I have a topic that has to be addressed in international cooperation? Or is national funding more appropriate? European added value: Why should the EU fund the project? 2. Does my project idea answer the request of an H2020 call? 3. What are the strategic focuses and interests of my institution? What is the EU strategy of it, and how can it be implemented? Why should my institution participate in EU programs at all? 4. Is my institution ready to commit itself to the project obligations, including financial and legal ones? If all answers are positive/supportive, then go ahead and good luck !!!

International Master in European Project Planning and Management David Kolman Helmholtz Association

Home

Funding Opportuni?es

Calls

Search Topics

Call Call descrip?on

Topic Topic Descrip?on

Topic Condi?ons

Call documents Call

Evalua=on Form

Produce a first outline of your idea

> Write a preliminary 2-3 pages about your: > objec?ves > target group > major steps (work packages) > intended consor?um (countries, types of organisa?ons) > Internal reality check: Use it as first base to discuss with poten?al partners > External reality check: Consult with market actors – check their understanding and interest. Profit from their feedback to decide whether to take your idea forward

Design and invite your consor?um

• Be selective – make an appealing choice!
• Stay consistent – keep to your objective & target group
• Do not cover the EU map artificially – make a fitting choice
• Explore alternatives early, but be ready to change plan –

change/renounce a country if you do not secure THE right partner

• Keep your partners motivated - agree a working method

for the proposal phase, make a plan for their contributions

Start writing the detailed proposal – Work Plan

• Fine-tune your aim and your target group
• Take your ?me to decide the best methodology

to be applied – can it deliver? Think impact!

• Define your main working steps
• Follow the guide on number of pages

Finish with the fine-tuning

The technical annex must give a detailed descrip?on of the project idea and work plan, which:

• divides the planned work into work packages,
• assigns the related responsibili?es and resources within the consor?um,
• sets out a project ?me schedule, main milestones and deliverables,
• describes the project management structure,
• describes the communica?on and exploita?on plans.

Establish the budget

• Design your budget “bottom-up”
• Wait until the tasks are

sufficiently specified and agreed – then design the budget

• Check consistency regularly

while advancing on your Work Plan - share of resources, appropriate levels between partners, appropriate weight of man-months between major work steps

Define tasks

Estimate efforts needed (man- months of work) Translate man- months into EUR

Last check: consistency / language

• Ask an “informed outsider” for critical reading and feedback
• Check consistency of your description of activities and budget
• If you have the chance, then have a native speaker check the

English

Frequent mishaps – Eligibility / Admissibility

• Call deadline is unchangeable: use all advantages of

the electronic submission system to make the deadline!

• Completeness: one sec?on missing makes your

proposal inadmissible

• Partnerships: remember the principle of 3

par?cipants from MS or AC )

• Page limit of 50 pages: is applied strictly during

evalua?on!

Frequent mishaps – Excellence

• Evalua?on Results: Proposal oien miss explana?on of the

concept and added value and Innova?on falls short

• Be courageous – take choices, focus and innovate
• "Explain the overall concept underpinning the project" ð Do this

not only from the perspec?ve of the Coordinator… input from your partners is key

• Your opportunity for a unique selling point - do not assume that

evaluators know your specific context

• You win by explaining!

Frequent mishaps – Impact

• Evalua?on results: Ambi?on is not quan?fied / not realis?c / not

supported by ac?on

• Keep your 'challenge' in mind!
• Quan?fy! Describe in a concise, yet robust, manner your baseline,

benchmarks and assump?ons

• Plan ac?vi?es to monitor your performance
• Be aware: keep the link to actual ac?vi?es in your work plan!

Frequent mishaps – Resources

• Evalua?on results: Work plan not

sufficiently detailed / Budgets not jus?fied / Budgets seem top-down

• Make sure work descrip?on

sufficiently detailed and clear

• Invest ?me into this: this is the
• pportunity to convince evaluators

that you can materialise your vision

• Invest ?me into your resource

planning –bo>om up: Indicative Budget Partners and Work Packages

While perfect proposals do not exist…

• We look out for

"excellence" proposals

• Submi>ed by mo?vated

and inspired project teams

• Aiming to deliver and

make a “change”

• Read carefully the correct version of the Guide for applicants:
• Call iden?fier (e.g. 2014 ICT Green Cars)
• Project type (e.g. Innova?on Ac?ons)
• Proposal structure in H2020:
• Part A – administra?ve/summary part (online forms; not to be

evaluated)

• Part B – template for the narra?ve descrip?on of the proposed work

itself (first three sec?ons to be evaluated)

• Follow exactly the format specifica?ons: Outline, tables, maximum number
• f pages…

Proposal structure in H2020

International Master in European Project Planning and Management David Kolman Helmholtz Association

Part A Collaborative Projects

1. General Information: title, acronym, duration, fixed and free keywords, abstract (max. 2000 characters) 2. Administrative data of all participants: Participant Identification Code (PIC), contact info 3. Budget for all participants (personal costs, other direct costs, subcontracting…) 4. Ethics (use of personal data, animal testing, stem cells…) 5. Call specific questions (e.g. partner organisations in MSCA…)

International Master in European Project Planning and Management David Kolman Helmholtz Association

Part B Collaborative Projects I

• 1. Excellence
• 1.1 Project Objectives
• 1.2 Link to Work Program
• 1.3 Concept and methodology
• 1.4 Ambition (incl. Innovation potential)
• 2. Impact
• 2.1 Expected impact
• 2.2 Measures to maximize impact

2.2.1 Exploitation & dissemination of results 2.2.3 Project communication activities

• 3. Implementation
• 3.1. Project Plan
• 3.2. Management structure and procedures
• 3.3. Consortium as a whole
• 3.4. Resources to be committed
• + related tables

Part B Collaborative Projects II

4. Detailed description of participants

• 4.1. Participants (applicants)
• Organization
• CVs
• List of publications
• …
• 4.2. Third parties involved in the project

5. Ethics and Security

• 5.1. Ethics – only of any ethics issue entered in Form A
• 5.2. Security – only if either results raise security issues or

project works with classified info

International Master in European Project Planning and Management David Kolman Helmholtz Association

Take your ?me to develop a concise, integral, convincing high-quality text:

• 1. Understand how evalua?on criteria are applied, what the evaluators are

looking for. Help them as much as you can!

• 2. Respect the Guides for Applicants, e.g. structure of the proposal, max. no. of

pages, fonts, pictures. Compliance with the formal guidelines helps the evaluator to concentrate on the merits of the proposal.

• 3. Title, acronym, abstract and first page sell or kill the project! You have to catch

the a>en?on of the evaluators!

• 4. Clearly arrange and structure every part of the proposal. You can’t allow

yourself to loose the evaluator!

• 5. Easy to follow text and easy to find informa?on makes your evaluator’s life
• easier. Evaluators are humans and have a lot of proposals to read.
• 6. Every statement/sentence has to have its raison d’etre.
• 7. Be specific, quan?fy wherever possible.

writing tips I

9. Include reference to EU policies and to exis?ng projects/work, jus?fy why your projects is needed and what it will achieve.

• 10. Prepare a jus?fied work breakdown structure, milestone plan and a detailed

list of deliverables for the whole project period.

• 11. Include GANTT (work packages and their ?meline) and PERT charts

(interdependencies among project components) as instructed.

• 12. Integrate further graphic presenta?ons and graphic illustra?ons of key facts

in the text. Meaningful diagrams and pictures facilitate reading.

• 13. Not all evaluators are experts in your niche field – proposal should be both

understandable for generalists and have something to chew for experts.

• 14. Par?cipa?ng industry, SMEs and other par?cularly desired partners and

their role should be duly described in the text.

• 15. Impact and proper discussion thereof is a MUST. Be confident but realis?c.

writing tips II

writing tips III

• 15. Don’t forget to discuss the risks and you con?ngency plans.
• 16. Budget should be calculated according to the specifica?on as precisely and

realis?cally as possible. Do not adapt project to the maximum budget specified in the Call.

• 17. Include necessary discussion of ethical, gender or security aspects as instructed by

the Guide for Applicants.

• 18. Proposal should be draied in well understandable English - have the final version

edited by a na?ve speaker.

• 19. Someone not involved should cri?cally read the proposal, at least checking the

structure/logic, summaries, diagrams and cap?ons.

• 20. Do NOT assemble your proposal by using prefabricated, unrevised text modules.
• 21. Do NOT postpone organiza?onal, legal and budgetary problems up to the star?ng
• f the project – solve them right away!

Gannt chart

45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 WP1 Task 1.1 Task 1.2 WP2 Task 2.1 Task 2.2 Task 2.3 WP3 Task 3.1 Task 3.2 Task 3.3 Task 3.4 Task 3.5 Task 3.6 WP4 Task 4.1 Task 4.2 Task 4.3 Task 4.4 WP5 Task 5.1 Task 5.2 Task 5.3 Task 5.4 Task 5.5 Task 5.6 WP6 Task 6.1 Task 6.2 Task 6.3 Task 6.4 WP7 Task 7.1 Task 7.2 Task 7.3 Task 7.4 Task 7.5 WP8 Task 8.1 Task 8.2 Task 8.3 Task 8.4 Task 8.5 Task 8.6 Task 8.7 Task 8.8 Task 8.9

Pert chart

International Master in European Project Planning and Management David Kolman Helmholtz Association

Proposal submission process

• All is done electronically via Participant Portal, directly from the

topic page

• Select the proper funding scheme for your project if necessary

(R&I, Innovation action, CSA…)

• Each proposal is to be registered de novo/separately by the

coordinator.

• All institutions have a unique Participant Identification Code (PIC),

thus administrative data of the applicants are already in the system

• Register the proposal ASAP and resubmit your textual part (Part B)

as frequently as you wish

International Master in European Project Planning and Management David Kolman Helmholtz Association

Upload your Part B as frequently as you wish

Don‘t forget to validate and submit!

Succesfull submission

Understanding Innova=on process in H2020 proposal

Technology Transfer: Valley of death – basic R&D far from market: Needs further development/

• rienta?on and more funds

to be more “usable ” – The private sector/investors will not yet pick up this R&D because it is too risky (has not been fully “applied” yet)

Dif%iculties in translating ideas into marketable products

Bridging the valley of death also means solving societal challenges

What are critical issues to bridge the gap

– Resources

• Financial
• Skills & Expertise
• Facilities & Equipment: i.e. tooling, production, validation,

modelling,…

• viable production,….

– Consider other subjects

• protection of IP,
• regulatory expertise
• Marketing & commercialization,…

Technology Transfer: Valley of death

Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

• is a measure used to assess the maturity of

evolving technologies (materials, components, devices, etc.) prior to incorporating that technology into a system

• r subsystem.
• It is also useful to:
• evaluate the development status of a

given technology/material etc;

• make decisions concerning technology

funding;

• make decisions concerning transfer of

technology.

NASA Technology Readiness Levels

UNDERSTANDING TECHNOLOGY READINESS LEVELS Today, the TRLs scale is used as a tool for decision making on RDI investments at EU level. Proper implementa?on of this scheme requires different ways of making this tool opera?onal by adjus?ng the defini?ons (or understanding) of the TRLs levels. The scale needs to be adapted to the specific purpose of EU funding for RDI programmes as it does not address the well-known feedback mechanisms intrinsic to innova?on processes. This chapter provides an overview of the historical, conceptual and contextual background to the TRL scale to allow further adapta?on of the scale to fit the purpose of European policymakers. The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale was developed during the 1970-80’s. The Na?onal Aeronau?cs and Space Administra?on (NASA) introduced the scale as “a discipline-independent, program figure of merit (FOM) to allow more effec?ve assessment of, and communica?on regarding the maturity of new technologies”.

DIFFERENT WAYS TO DEFINE READINESS AT EU LEVEL

Basic Research: TRL 1 Technological research: TRLs 2-4 (pillar 1) Product development: TRS 5-8 (pillar 2)

EUROPE

Technology Transfer: measure

Assessment of the maturity of technology is used in different EU instruments in various ways Horizon 2020 work programs (e.g., Drai work programme 2014 – 2015 NMP) now make use of the TRL scale to make decision on which type of projects to be funded with the proposed TRL level given in call descrip?ons and (poten?ally) for use in evalua?on. At this stage, despite its inclusion, no sound defini?on

• f the individual levels has yet been fully explained

and exemplified. It is clear that the adapta?on gives li>le a>en?on to the manufacturing challenges, although in TRL9 the element of “compe??ve manufacturing” has been included. The EC adapta?on s?ll implicitly focuses on a single

• technology. The aspect of research solu?ons that will

need various technologies is not addressed and such ac?vi?es are not described.

From TRL 1 to TRL 3, the close connec?on

• f RTOs to industry gives them first-hand

informa?on on the needs of industry and thus the ability to create innova?ve concepts of industrial relevance. Further, the close connec?on of RTOs to academia gives them access to state-of-the-art scien?fic development and the exper?se to make the transla?on from academic results towards applica?ons. RTOs’ research and development infrastructure plays a key role in the formula?on of the technology scale as well as in the experimental proof of concept for RDI in exis?ng industries, start-ups, spin-offs, SMEs, and large enterprises seeking growth and/or renewal.

From TRL 4 to TRL 7, this is believed to be the most prominent RTOs area. Also here, RTOs typically do not work alone but in collabora?on with industrial partners including SMEs, academia and other RTOs. RTOs support the crossing of the valley of death in R&D by providing different physical research infrastructures, exper?se, and their unique mul?disciplinary approach. Further, RTOs support this crossing by their knowledge of industrial environments, prac?cali?es, and limita?ons allowing them to be the ideal project lead in certain situa?ons. In this area RTOs typically support exis?ng companies in developing their ideas towards real-world applica?ons. RTOs also develop ideas perhaps origina?ng from basic research or their preceding research towards spin-offs and solu?ons for industry needs. The crea?on of whole new industries cannot happen without experience of the en?re TRL chain. Technology assessment supports the further shaping of innova?ons that are more accepted by society.

From TRL 8 to 9, RTOs oien perform foresight ac?vi?es that are needed, for example, when introducing new technologies to market. These studies are part of analysing the opera?onal environment and the introduc?on of emerging technology to it. Ac?vi?es here are mainly performed by industrial partners with a support of but for a non-commercial applica?on (space for instance), RTOs have the research facili?es to allow the development of specific products or systems proven in an opera?onal environment. Also various user experience studies and analyses are performed by RTOs to support the deployment of technology in its actual

• pera?onal environment.

Demonstra?on in opera?onal environments may, especially in the case of new technologies and new manufacturing, require fine- tuning on-site. Here RTOs have a suppor?ng role and research is used to find the final seyngs.

Explota?on and dissemina?on of project results

• If results are capable of commercial applica?on and

protec?on is reasonable, they must be protected

• Results must be
• exploited (= in further research or commercially)
• and disseminated (= disclosure by appropriate means,

including publica?ons)

• Further exploita?on or dissemina?on obliga?ons may be

required by the Work Program or the Grant Agreement

International Master in European Project Planning and Management David Kolman Pixel

EXAMPLES OF RTOS WORKING ALONG THE WHOLE VALUE CHAIN

The idea of printed intelligence originated from RTOs and companies rather than from basic research. Idea development required formula?on of the scale (What kind of material can be used as ink? What kind of components would be needed? On what kind of material can the inks be printed?). All of those were crucial ques?ons that needed to be answered before massive pilot lines could be thought of. Nowadays this research has led to a whole new industrial

• branch. Aier basic scales of prin?ng process and materials were

assessed, the actual components were designed and constructed at VTT in Oulu in order to validate the technology. First product ideas were formulated and a manufacturing line for their pilot produc?on prepared. The research and development work has led to a unique collec?on of several pilot produc?on that enable even pilo?ng mass produc?on. Several product families have been tested (photovoltaics, bio-based printable power sources, printable diagnos?cs). A total of 14 spin-off companies have been or are currently supported by the pilot facility, and new ideas and refinements are constantly developed

Lå>ra Farm Bioproducts is an agricultural business which has been opera?ng a small-scale commercial briqueyng plant in Sweden since 1994. In light of increasing woodchip prices and growing compe??on for raw material, the plans to start local produc?on of reed canary grass (RCG) brique>es began in 2003. Today, the company has equipment to incorporate RCG as raw material in brique>e produc?on; but, more work was needed to achieve an op?mal produc?on chain for commercial

• pera?ons. SP Technical Research Ins?tute of Sweden has

worked together with Lå>ra Farm and local energy providers to develop and op?mize the produc?on and briqueyng of RCG to achieve high-grade solid fuel which can be used in new and exis?ng hea?ng plants. Work is con?nuing to further improve the efficiency produc?on and briqueyng as a sustainable use of processed biomass from the field to commercial applica?on in building hea?ng.

Roll-to-Roll OLED & Solar PV Factory of the Future - technological infrastructure for shared material supplier, equipment builders and manufacturer pilot use

At the Eindhoven Hightech Campus the Solliance building is a factory

• f the future type of pilot line where materials suppliers, equipment

builders and producers of OLED (organic LED)/SolarPV devices operate in a shared environment set-up by a collec?on of RTOs supported by universi?es. The roll-2-roll environment is meant for OLED and Solar PV produc?on with a focus on low-cost products for energy applica?ons (sustainable electricity genera?on and ligh?ng). To be successful it needed to be shown that ul?mately the products can be manufactured at very low cost levels meaning minimal usage of material and a con?nuous flow produc?on. Remarkable is that RTOs worked together to realize this Future of Factory (FoF) pilot environment as a technological infrastructure example. Together the RTOs realized a world-class environment that is a>rac?ve for SME partners in combina?on with oien large manufacturing companies. This environment is currently being used to execute different research programs with several industrial partners.

More info

EXCHANGING VALUE: Very helpful to start with technology licensing h>p://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/guides/technology_licensing.html NANOCOM Open Innova?on Model and Best prac?ces in investments and c

• m

m e r c i a l i z a ?

• n
• f

n a n

• :

h>p://www.nanocom-eu.org/NanoCom/Dissemina?on.html PRONANO Best prac?ces to lower the barriers for commercialisa?on: h>p://www.pronano.eu/node/15 E u r o p e a n S p a c e A g e n c y T e c h n o l o g y T r a n s f e r f o r u m : h>p://www.technology-forum.com/ Enterprise Europe Network :www.enterprise-europe-network.ec.europa.eu)

Patents:

European Patent office: www.european-patent-office.org World IP organisation: www.wipo.int Espacenet (free Access to patents): www.epo.org/searching/free/espacenet.html

Thank you for the a>en?on! www.e4business.eu info@e4business.eu