How to write a competitive project proposal under Horizon 2020

COSMOS2020 – JEUPISTE Workshop on SPACE in HORIZON 2020 Tokyo 19 May 2016

How to write a competitive project proposal under

Horizon 2020 Monique Bossi

APRE- Italy

Content

• How to write a good proposal: tips and tricks

• The proposal template

How to write a good proposal

Credits: Maria Lodovica Gullino, Università degli Studi di Torino

Award criteria: Research and Innovation Actions; Innovation Actions; SME instrument

Excellence Clarity and pertinence of the objectives;

Credibility of the proposed approach;

Soundness of the concept, including trans-disciplinary considerations, where relevant;

Extent that proposed work is ambitious, has innovation potential, and is beyond the state of the art (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches).


Impact The expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic;

Enhancing innovation capacity and integration of new knowledge;

Strengthening the competitiveness and growth of companies by developing innovations meeting the needs of European and global markets, and where relevant, by delivering such innovations to the markets;

Any other environmental and socially important impacts;

Effectiveness of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results (including management of IPR), to communicate the project, and to manage research data where relevant.


Quality and efficiency of implementation

Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources;

Complementarity of the participants within the consortium (when relevant);

Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management.

• Core partners (about 10) agreement on the topic • commitment letters • accurate analysis of topic and legislation framework • choice of partners with all required skills (e.g. companies) • meeting with old and new partners:

• decision about structure and general strategy • selection of pathogens/key crops based on priority and

representativeness • check ongoing projects on selected pathogens • selection of WP Leaders and partners vs WP

• WP leaders prepare WP + input for full proposal • English proof – reading!

Credits: Maria Lodovica Gullino, Università degli Studi di Torino

Proposal preparation

Coordinating (or participating into) projects lacking needed expertise

Submitting a not excellent or poorly innovative project

Having confused or no objectives

Non diversified expertise and roles among partners

Randomly selected companies and not really involved and active

Not effective management

Poor knowledge of legislative trends in the field (European added value)

Mistakes to Avoid

STRENGTHS: a consolidated network

SOME EMPHASIS PARTNERS ALREADY COLLABORATED WITH AGROINNOVA IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED BIOSECURITY PROJECTS AND BUILT THE CORE OF THE PARTNERSHIP

• NIAB • National Institute of Agricultural Botany,

Cambridge (UK)

• FERA • Food and Environment Research Agency,

York, UK •

• IMPERIAL COLLEGE • College of Science, Technology and

Medicine, Londra (UK)

• INRA • Institut National de la Réchérche Agronomique,

Grignon (FR)

• UdL • Universidad de Lleida, Lleida (ES)

• REC • Regional Environmental Center for Central

and Eastern Europe, Budapest (HU)

STRENGTHS: infrastructures

Investing in research infrastructures – to be competitive operational capacity and research potential should be demonstrated

STRENGTHS: equipment

Investing in research equipment: research requires up-to-date equipment

Servizi

Three certified centres are active at Agroinnova providing services to companies

STRENGTHS: relations with companies

http://www.bayercropscience.com/

Servizi

Fondi

A strong and solid team: significant and recognised coordination experience right mix of young and senior researchers investing in an experienced Project Manager

accurate administrative and financial management

STRENGTHS: the team

Servizi

Fondi

Accurate analysis of the call topic

Perfect knowledge of potential competitors

Wide and recognised international experience in leading and managing complex projects

Accurate selection of partners to cover the full value-chain

Humility and self-criticism in the choice of topic and role

Training and promotion of women

STRENGTHS: other igredients

‘Call for proposal’ ‘Work programme’ ‘H2020 Manual Online’

‘Rules for the participation’

‘Model Grant Agreement’

Essential

Documents

Now you can start writing the proposal…

17

1: Excellence

1.1 Objectives

1.2 Relation to work programme

1.3 Concept and approach

1.4 Ambition

2. Impact

2.1 Expected impacts

2.2 Misure to maximase impact

a) Dissemination and exploitation of results

b) Communication activities

3. Implementation

3.1 Work plan – work packages, deliverables and milestones

3.2 Management structure and procedures

3.3 Consortium as a whole

3.4 Resources to be committed

Writing the part B

4. Individual participants 5. Ethics and security

1. Excellence

1.1 Objectives



1.4 Ambition

2. Impact





3. Implementation





4. Members of the consortium

5. Ethics and Security

Standard proposal template(s)

What does the European Commission expect in the section Excellence?

Which aspects need to be covered, and where in the proposal?

Credits: Dr. Michaela Pöter and Dr. Alexandros Theodoridis Project Management Juelich, Germany

• Objectives clear and in accordance with the work programme

• very well founded rationale for the selection of the pathosystems

• bvery clearly formulated • avoidance of duplications with existing projects • trans-disciplinary concept, offers technically and

economically feasible options for multiple stakeholders • highly ambitious project • simple but very effective structure • use of highly sophisticated technologies • high innovation potential • beyond the state of art.

STRENGHTS: Excellence

Excellence section

Your proposal must address a work programme topic for this call for proposals.

1.1 Objectives: Important questions

• The right question:

– What do I plan to achieve?

• The wrong question:

– What am I going to do?

Objectives ≠ work plan / to-do list

What is the challenge / what are the problems in the specific field?

Why is this relevant?

What shall be reached; which problem shall be adressed and solved (see topic text)?

What is the consortiums‘ vision ?

What are the benefits?

What needs to be delivered in order to reach the expected impact?

Ask questions to cross-check the „central theme of the proposal“ :

Are the objectives of the project useful to reach the expected impact ?

Which approach have they chosen? What is their underlying concept (hypothesis, main assumptions) (needs to be adressed and cross-checked with 1.3)

1.1 Objectives: Important questions

The proposal is meant to address four major objectives, but there is no overall objective linking them. The so-called objectives are not expressed as objectives, but rather as activities. This leaves doubt as to the actual objective. The individual activities – described as objectives – are not drawn together into one whole project.

The objectives are clear. However, their pertinence in relation to the scope of the topic is limited.

1.1 Objectives: comments from ESR

The objectives are extremely clear and very pertinent to the call topic.

The objectives are well stated and the proposal gives an excellent overview of the state-of-the-art and expected progress beyond.

1.1 Objectives: comments from ESR

Excellence: Subsections

1.1 Objectives

1.2 Relation to the work programme


1.4 Ambition

1.2 Relation to the work programme: Important questions


– How does the proposal address the issues raised in challenge and scope?


– What exactly will be done and when? What is the underlying idea/hypothesis?

Relation to the work programme ≠ work plan/approach or concept


1.1 Objectives



1.4 Ambition (not for CSAs)

1.3 Concept: Important questions


– What is the underlying model/ hypothesis/ assumption, and how does that offer a novel (first time or better) solution to the problem?


– What exactly will be done and when?

Concept ≠ work plan

Several questions which should be answered:

(The reader is expecting facts, figures, numbers, e.g.!)

What is the state-of-the-art? What are the current (insufficient) options and their drawbacks

Where do we stand?

What are the gaps/ the needs (of consumers/ markets/ industry/ farmers/ researchers/ society…)/ the problem(s)?

On which novel/ innovative hypothesis / assumptions is the project based on?

Which are the groundbreaking findings that have lead to the hypothesis that an alternative way might be suitable – best if partners of the applying consortium have contributed to these findings, (incl. references, preliminary results etc.)

What is the positioning of the project in the current stage of development??

Does the project has a relevant gender dimension?

1.3 Concept

How does the project connect to the rest of the world?

EC and evaluators want to make sure that with the public funding money that projects are not going to reinvent the wheel, but cross-fertilize with recent an ongoing projects in the field

Best, if partners in the consortium have already close links to these other projects, e.g., because they participate there as well, and that exchange of know-how will be realized

If not, a plan should be presented how this could be done (e.g. take other projects in your advisory group etc.)

1.3 Concept: linked activities

Where relevant, describe how sex and/or gender analysis is taken into account in the project’s content.

1.3 Concept: gender dimension

1.3 Approach: Important questions


– How will the goals be reached? Why is (only) this consortium capable of solving the problem the way they are proposing?


– What exactly will be done and when?

Approach ≠ work plan

Very helpful:

A flow chart visualizing the phases of the project and their interconnection.


The concept is not fully credible.

A significant weakness of this proposal is the credibility of the approach and the soundness of the concept. It is uncertain whether this novel idea may represent a significant step forward.

The concept appears generally sound, albeit not innovative, but focuses on a specific segment of a specific value chain and carries a number of limitations in its capacity to integrate the whole value chain. The approach is rather narrow and leads us to assume that there are already technologies and processes available that can be proposed but these are not described.

The project presents a credible but relatively conventional approach.

1.3 Concept and approach: Comments from ESRs (I)

The approach and concepts are highly innovative and in many instances set the standard in the field. The research has transdisciplinarity combining leading academic research units and innovative SMEs.

The multi-actor approach is strong and based on a balanced composition of innovative farmers and SMEs, farmers representatives and research teams from various disciplines within experimental and social sciences.

1.3 Concept and approach: Comments from ESRs (I)


1.1 Objectives



1.4 Ambition (not for CSAs)

1.3 Approach: Important questions

• The right questions:

– What is the progress beyond the state-of-the-art? What are the user benefits? Why will the “product” be successful on the market? Does it solve a problem that is relevant and important to a customer?


– What is the ambition of the consortium to execute the project?

Ambition ≠ Objectives

39

What is the progress beyond state-of-the-art?

What is new? What is a breakthrough?

In which areas will the current scientific/ technological knowledge be extended?

What is especially challenging?

How will a user benefit from the outcome of the project?

Will the project fulfill currently unmet needs/ user demands?

What are the market needs? How does the market look like (patent etc.)?

Will the project offer a first solution? A better one (cheaper, more reliable, faster, less unwanted effects, …)?

Why will the product / the service/ the solution be successful?

Difference between RIA and IA!

1.4 Ambition: Important questions

However, the innovation potential at a higher geographical scale is limited. The academic innovation is not convincing, as the precision in the concepts used is missing.

The innovation potential is not well substantiated in the proposal. The advantages of the proposed concept are already known.

The novelty of these algorithms and the extent that these go beyond the state-of-the-art is not clearly explained.

1.4 Ambition: Comments from ESRs (I)

The work is very ambitious.

The innovation potential of … has been clearly outlined.

The device will be provided free of charge to any possibly interested end user. As such, delivery of innovatıon is expected to be outstanding.

1.4 Ambition: Comments from ESRs (I)

Cover page

1. Excellence

1.1 Objectives



1.4 Ambition

2. Impact





3. Implementation








• meets the expected impacts of the call topic

• effective solutions to support the development of relevant

EU policies

• foster increased product quality and lower environmental

impact

• lead strategy (predict, protect, prevent)

• integrates all stakeholder levels in its consortium

• able to provide a broad knowledge base valid for and

disseminated to the European public

• management of IPR and communication are excellent.

STRENGHTS: Impact


• Describe how your project will contribute to:

– the expected impacts set out in the work programme,

under the relevant topic;

– improving innovation capacity and the integration of

new knowledge (strengthening the competitiveness

and growth of companies by developing innovations

meeting the needs of European and global markets;

and, where relevant, by delivering such innovations to

the markets;

– any other environmental and socially important

impacts (if not already covered above) 44

Impact (1)


Describe any barriers/obstacles, and any

framework conditions (such as regulation and

standards), that may determine whether and to

what extent the expected impacts will be achieved.

(This should not include any risk factors

concerning implementation, as covered in section

3.2.)

45

Impact (2)

2.2 Measures to maximise impact


• Provide a draft ‘plan for the dissemination and exploitation of the project's results’ (unless the work programme topic explicitly states that such a plan is not required). For innovation actions describe a credible path to deliver the innovations to the market. The plan, which should be proportionate to the scale of the project, should contain measures to be implemented both during and after the project

• Explain how the proposed measures will help to achieve the expected impact of the project. Include a business plan where relevant.

46

Measures to maximise impact 1

2.2 Measures to maximise impact

• Where relevant, include information on how the participants will manage the research data generated and/or collected during the project, in particular addressing the following issues:

– What types of data will the project generate/collect?

– What standards will be used?

– How will this data be exploited and/or shared/made accessible for verification and re-use? If data cannot be made available, explain why.

– How will this data be curated and preserved?

• Outline the strategy for knowledge management and protection. Include measures to provide open access (free on-line access, such as the ‘green’ or ‘gold’ model) to peer-reviewed scientific publications which might result from the project

47


b) Communication activities – Describe the proposed communication

measures for promoting the project and its findings during the period of the grant. Measures should be proportionate to the scale of the project, with clear objectives. They should be tailored to the needs of various audiences, including groups beyond the project's own community. Where relevant, include measures for public/societal engagement on issues related to the project.

48


Cover page

1. Excellence

1.1 Objectives



1.4 Ambition

2. Impact





3. Implementation








very coherent work plan

straightforward nature of the project structure

tasks and resources well distributed amongst partners

participants complementary in their expertise

excellent management structures

very good involvement of SMEs

risks assigned to each work package, and sound mitigation strategies

management of innovations very well addressed.

STRENGHTS: Implementation

OBJECTIVES

- Identification of 3/4 proposal phases (definition, development, demonstration, evaluation)

- Division of proposal phases into WPs/Tasks

- Establish relationship among different components (WPs)

- WPs timing

- Partners’ roles in each WP/task

- Work allocation (count on WP Leaders contribution! The WP Leader coordinates the collection of partners’ contributions)

WORK PACKAGES LIST DELIVERABLES/MILESTONES LIST WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE (WBS)/PERT GANTT

3.1 Work plan — Work packages, deliverables and milestones

How to organize the work

52

WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

Decomposition of a project into smaller components. It defines and

groups a project's discrete work elements in a way that helps organize

and define the total work scope of the project

WBS is developed by starting with the end objective and successively

subdividing it into manageable components in terms of size, duration

and responsibility (e.g. tasks, subtasks and work packages) which

include all steps necessary to achieve the objective

TABLE 3.1a workpackages

WORK PACKAGE WP

A WP per each (main) project result

Structure and numbers of WPs based on the work complexity

Precise description of the work to be carried out

Identification of duration

WPs numbering: WP1, WP2 etc.

TASK T (ACTIVITIES)‏

Detailed definition of work

Number Task/Activities in line with concerned WP:

WP1 – Task 1.1, Task (T) 1.2

DELIVERABLE D (RESULTS)‏

One result per each Task/Activity

Number “Deliverables” in line with Tasks/Activities Task 1.1 – Deliverable (D) 1.1

‘WORK PACKAGE’ MEANS A MAJOR SUB-DIVISION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

54

Successful proposals need to be clear, credible and understandable to a broad range of evaluators with different backgrounds and from different areas of expertise

Many applicants have difficulties to formulate their objectives

Ask yourself: does chapter 1 of the proposal create curiosity and stimulates to carry-on reading?

Does the layout encourage reading (with pleasure)?

Check consistency across chapter 1, and across entire proposal

Are abbreviations explained (when first occuring)?

Are figures self-explanatory (applicants tend to have too many figures in chapter 1, and also the wrong figures!)

Take an Helicopter view on the proposed project: do you get all required information? What is missing? What is overdone?

Take home message for NCPs

ありがとう Thank you

Monique Bossi APRE – Agency for the Promotion of

European Research, IT [email protected]

53

mailto:[email protected]







How to write a competitive project proposal under Horizon 2020

Documents

Transcript of How to write a competitive project proposal under Horizon 2020