EXPERIENCES OF THE EVALUATOR

1. EXPERIENCES OF THE EVALUATOR RNDr. Zuzana BOUKALOVÁ CROSSCZECH, CCSS, GEO Group

2. Professional Experience • Charles University, Faculty of Science, Dept. of Hydrogeology, Civil Engineering • Geological Institute of Czechoslovak Academy of Science - hydrogeologist • University Politecnica de Valencia, Spain – groundwater modelling • HR Wallingford Ltd. – water management

3. Back in Prague from 1996 • GEO Group, a.s.: • participation in the management, design and realization of groundwater and non-saturated zone pollution survey and remediation projects • supervising expert in the team for government remediation programmes in groundwater and soil pollution. • PHARE, PHARE-CREDO, ISPA and SAPARD project coordinator • 5- th and 6-th FP projects managing director (CEGRMOMA, IRON CURTAIN, IMPACT, TRANSCAT, FLOODsite)

4. From the year 2000 • VZ GLS, a.s. as the 5.FP projects LOWRGREP and ENERGY FOREST managing director • CROSSCZECH a.s.: Head of the Department, Hydrogeologist, Consultant • Czech Center for Strategic Studies (CCSS), the member of the Managing Board, ARMONIA project WP leader • EDUCEUM– the pool of 6 experts having a long lasting experience in different areas of European research and EU funding.

5. Evaluator, Rapporteur • Marie Curie Actions(2003, 2004) • eContent (2003, 2005) • Member of the „Sounding Board“ of the Commissioner Janez Potočnik, responsible for Science and Research within the European Commission (simplification of Framework Programme procedures, FP7), 2005

6. Marie Curie Actions • Marie Curie Excellence Grants: Excellence Grants, Awards, Chairs (remote evaluation) • Marie Curie Conferences and Training Courses (remote evaluation)

7. Marie Curie Actions • For the evaluation, the proposals are divided to 8 areas (disciplines): • CHE: chemistry • ECO: economics • ENG: engineering • ENV: environment • LIFE: life sciences • MAT: mathematics and information society • PHY: physics • SOC: social sciences and humanities • Section Z: multidisciplinar projects

8. Marie Curie Actions • Year 2004:

9. MC Actions – SCORE (evaluations by experts) • 0 – the proposal fails or cannot be judget against the criteria due to missing or uncomplete information • 1 – poor • 2 – fair • 3 – good • 4 – very good • 5 – excellent

10. MC actions EVALUTION • Remote evaluation (3 evalators -independent experts- per 1 proposal); confidentiality and non-conflict of interest: individual report forms (IRF) • A rapporteur will be nominated to prepare the Consensus Report (CR) for a given proposal and obtain approval from the other evaluators • Panel meeting in Brussel; for each proposal a consensus should be reached and a CR will be prepared and signed by the triplet. One CR form per proposal. • The experts will make a list of the proposals ranked • The experts’ conclusions are examined by the EC • Evaluation Summary Report(ESR) giving the opinion of the evaluators to the Coordinator of the proposal, on the basis of the Consensus Report

11. eContent program • A multiannual Community programme to simulate the development and use of European digital content on the global networks and to promote the linguistic diversity in the Information Society • eContenplus programme (May 2005) • Call for experts!!!

12. eContent evaluation • LUXEMBOURG • 1 week evaluation • Score 1 – 5 • Triplet per 6 – 10 proposals • Panel meetings • Evaluation and reports, all finished in Luxembourg

13. Review Procedureof the eContent proposals • 1=Unsatisfactory, • 2=Poor, • 3=Satisfactory, • 4=Good, • 5=Excellent

14. Agenda of the review • Introduction, Objectives, context and purpose of a final review by PO • Presentation: Aim and progress of work (coordinator) • Individual Work-packages Presentation and discussion (WP leaders) • Demonstration of the Web/CD-ROM product (prototype) – consortium • Questions and answer session • PO + reviewers – evaluation • PO close, recommendations • Successful completion – Modify – Rejected • Review reports finished by experts from home till 1 month

15. „Sounding Board“ • smaller actors in the context of simplification of Framework Programme procedures and implementation • to incorporate the views of experienced stakeholders into the development of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) • 3 – 4 meetings per year • 1-st meeting: 17.3. 2005

16. SB meeting • Commission first ideas to achieve substantial simplification of the FP7 • FP Action Plan on Rationalisation and Acceleration • I. Actions to simplify and accelerate • II. Actions to improve quality and effectiveness

17. Actions to improve quality and effectiveness 1 • The established sets of uniform beings will be the basis for briefing all external evaluators to ensure consistency of approach • DONE: standard briefing available on internal website

18. Actions to improve quality and effectiveness 2 • Evaluation Summary Reports sent to proposersMUSTalways be of high quality • EC will closely monitor the output from consensus groups and panels • DONE: introduced in evaluation workshops and briefings

19. Actions to improve quality and effectiveness 3 • Quality of evaluators!!! • may include contacts by senior officials with industrial umbrella groups, requesting them to nominate highly qualified individuals – experts • ONGOING

20. Actions to improve quality and effectiveness 4 • Further use of two stage proposal submission and evaluation (for IP, NoE,…? STREP ?) more experts for evaluations • Guidelines - revised: first stage is to be as light as possible, based on limited number of criteria with limited administrative data • The second stage will be based on FULL SETof evaluation criteria • DONE

21. Actions to improve quality and effectiveness 5 • Rules on annual reviews of the projects will be developed • ONGOING • Review guidelines to be finalised and put on CORDIS

22. THANKS for your attention ! Zuzana Boukalova Contact: Zuzana.boukalova@crossczech.cz boukalova@geo-praha.cz