Polymer and Nanomaterials Analysis Research Group

Polymer and Nanomaterials Analysis

Research Group

Department of Analytical Chemistry, Nutrition and Food Sciences

Faculty of Sciences

University of Alicante

Campus Sant Vicent

P.O. Box 99

E-03080, Alicante

REMOTE EVALUATION

• Individual assessment

•Remote consensus

CENTRAL EVALUATION

•Consensus Meetings

•Quality Checks

•Thematic Panel Review

PANEL REVIEW

• Final ranked list by activity

Call deadline15 November 2014

1387 proposals submitted

[] ineligible proposals & [] withdrawn

December-January January – February Brussels

EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS

EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS

REMOTE

Each proposal is assessed independently and individually by 3 expertsagainst 3 pre-determined evaluation criteria

Individual opinions are recorded in an Individual Assessment Report (IAR),giving scores and comments against the evaluation criteria

Once all IARs are finalized, a fourth expert intervenes, the rapporteur

She/he is in charge of arriving at a consensus between the individual viewsof the evaluators who will discuss the proposal between themselves anddrafting a consensus report (CR)

CENTRAL

If no consensus can be reached remotely, the proposal is discussed duringa meeting in Brussels.

The meeting is moderated by an EU official (the Project Officer), with thehelp of the rapporteur

EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS

EVALUATORS RAPPORTEURS

MISSION • Read and assess the proposal

• Write an individual assessment report (IAR)

• Participate actively to reach consensus, in remote and/or central

• Quality check of IARs

• Lead the process to arrive at a consensus between the individual views of the evaluators once their IARs are finalized

• Draft the consensus report (CR)

• Participate and help in consensus meeting

• Finalize the consensus report after the consensus meeting

NO OPINION

EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS

EVALUATORS ROLE

Assess each proposal and record individual opinion in an IndividualAssessment Report (IAR), giving scores and providing commentsagainst the evaluation criteria

Draft the IAR and submit it for review to the rapporteur (who canrequest clarifications but cannot challenge the opinion of theevaluator)

If applicable, revise IAR based on rapporteur’s comments

Once the CR is drafted by the rapporteur, approve or reject it

In case of rejection, the decision needs to be motivated and justified(with comments)

Multiple versions of a CR can be drafted; and in case no consensus canbe reached remotely, the proposal is discussed in Brussels

Respect given deadlines

EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS

RAPPORTEURS ROLE

Lead the process to arrive at a consensus between the individualviews of the evaluators (once IARs are finalized and checked)

Draft the consensus report (CR) based on the assessment made byeach evaluator & score the proposal based on the comments (NOOPINION)

Open the discussion with the evaluators with a view in reaching aconsensus

If no consensus can be reached during the remote evaluation, theproposal is discussed in Brussels

Prepare the points that need to be discussed during the consensusmeeting and inform the REA Officer

Once a consensus is reached, the rapporteur drafts the final version ofthe CR

EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS

Part A

A1 : snapshot of the proposal

A2 : partners administrative information

A3 : deals with budgetary matters

Part B:

Section 1: Scientific and/or technologicalexcellence

Section 2: Implementation, management,consortium, resources

Section 3: Impact - The potential impactthrough the development, disseminationand use of project results

Section 4: Ethical issues

Section 5: Consideration of genderaspects

Enforce page

limitation

(excessive

pages must be

disregarded)

Proposals have

2 parts

Both parts need

to be assessed

EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS

Evaluation criteria for RIA

Each proposal will be assessed independently by 3 experts against 3 evaluation criteria

EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS

Evaluation criteria for DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES

The evaluation criteria are the same as for SME & SME AGs, except for one sub-criterion

Apply each sub-criterion to assess the DEMO activity keeping in mind its objectives as specified in the Work Programme

EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS

Scoring definition:

0 – The proposal fails to address the criterionunder examination or cannot be judged dueto missing or incomplete information

1 – Poor. The criterion is addressed in inadequatemanner, or there are significant weaknesses

2 – Fair. While the proposal broadly addressesthe criterion, there are significantweaknesses

3 – Good. The proposal addresses the criterionwell, although improvements would benecessary.

4 – Very Good. The proposal addresses thecriterion very well, although certainimprovements are still possible.

5 – Excellent. The proposal successfullyaddresses all relevant aspects of the criterionin question. Any shortcomings are minor.

Each criterion will be scored out of 5.

Half marks are possible.

USE THE FULL RANGE OF SCORES

EVALUATION PROCESSEVALUATION PROCESS

IPR principle:

The default regime is full ownership of allproject results ("foreground") and IPRs bythe SMEs or SME Associations.

The consortium may however reach a different agreement, provided that:

- Companies are provided with all the rights that are required for their intended use and dissemination of project results;

- value of the IPR is clearly reflected in the price of services provided by RTD performers (Transaction);

- the commercial interest of the companies is safeguarded.

Contents:

Main objectives

Activities – SMEActivities – SME-AGActivities – Demo

SME&AG – Actors

SME&AG – Transaction

SME&AG – Impact

SME&AG – IPR

Demonstration

Polymer and Nanomaterials Analysis Research Group

Gracias / Thank you

EVALUATION PROCESS