Successfully Setting Up a Proposal: Understanding Common Mistakes in the Commission's Evaluation Process

1. methodology for setting up a successful proposal and understanding the most common mistakes through an analysis of the Commission’s evaluation process Massimo BusuolI Head of ENEA LIAISON OFFICE IN BRUXELLES

2. 12 Centres all over the country • About 3,000 Employees • One liaison office in Bruxelles – The door to Europe for ENEA colleagues - the door to ENEA for European partners • Multidisciplinary research activities operating in the fields of energy, environment and innovation

3. ENEA research activities are focused on the following sectors: • ENERGY EFFICIENCY : Support to Public Administration, Information and Training; Advanced Technologies for Energy and Industry • RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES: Concentrated Solar Thermal Energy; Photovoltaics; Biomass and Biofuels; Solar Thermal Energy at low and medium temperatures; Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Energy Storage Systems • NUCLEAR ENERGY: Nuclear Fusion; Nuclear Fission • CLIMATE AND THE ENVIRONMENT: Environmental Characterization, Prevention and Recovery; Environmental Technologies; Energy and Environmental Modeling; Marine environment and Sustainable Development; Antarctic Expeditions and Research in Polar Areas • SAFETY AND HUMAN HEALTH:  Seismic Protection; Radiation Biology and Human Health; Radiation Protection; Metrology of Ionizing Radiation • NEW TECHNOLOGIES: Materials Technologies; Radiation Applications; Sustainable Development and Innovation of the Agro-Industrial System; ICT • ELECTRIC SYSTEM RESEARCH: Studies and research, under a Programme Agreement with the Italian Ministry of Economic Development, aimed at innovating the National Electric System to make it cheaper, safer and more environmentally-friendly.

4. PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN FP7 • 152 Projects granted • About 45 Million Euros of funding • Success Rate of about 30% • 26th place in the Ranking related to R&D Organisations* *source: European Commission sixth monitoring report 2012

5. Index • Requirements • Establishment of consortium • How to find information and documents • Funding tools selection • Contents: the first meeting • The evaluation process and the most common mistakes

6. Good news! Introduction In Brussels there is a lot of money and you can: work in an international context cooperate to create a critical mass, sharing risks work with the major experts in a single, specific sector open up or explore new markets using the latest technologies enhance your credit and reputation

7. Introduction Bad news ! Hardcopy production is heavy Leading a big project is complex Writing an excellent proposal is economically expensive Many months are needed to know if the project will be financed bad-performing partners might ruin your proposal It is not always simple to collaborate with certain partners / countries arriving second … could not be enough!

8. Introduction Basic rule N. 1 To have more possibilities to be successful (in every funding framework) is mandatory to fully understand the objectives (also social / economic / political) and the rationale of the institution that finance them AND ACCEPT THEM! Basic rule N. 2 The participation in a specific topic has to fit in the strategy of your organization (and it has to be supported!)

9. Introduction “Good ideas are always financed” NO!

10. Index • Requirements • Establishment of consortium • How to find information and documents • Funding tools selection • Contents: the first meeting • Lobbying: some advice • The evaluation process and the most common mistakes

11. Requirements • Right idea • Right call • Right consortium

12. I have a good project idea…… • Understand where you want to arrive, from a good idea, with clear and feasible objectives • According to the objective, it’s necessary to determine the typology of project among the available EU instruments (Large R&D project, Small R&D project, Industry oriented project, SA, CA, etc.) • Verify the degree of innovation of the project, comparing it to past projects (Cordis database) or existing results/products

13. Finding the funding framework: the call • Search the possible call on EC participants’ portal http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/funding Where you will find the templates and instructions for proposal writing

14. This is the call for me!!! GREAT! But, before starting to prepare the proposal, complete the consortium, making meetings etc……. • Foresee a cognitive and preventive discussion with the Project Officer (PO) responsible for your target topic. • To checkifyour idea fits with the call objectives (savingmonths of work in case not) • To clarifyanydoubtrelated to the call • No contacts in Brussels? Consider to exploit your liaison office

15. Index • Requirements • Establishment of consortium • How to find information and documents • Funding tools selection • Contents: the first meeting • Lobbying: some advice • The evaluation process and the most common mistakes

16. Big Europe(and not only…) EU-27: • Austria • Belgium • Denmark • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Ireland • Italy • Luxembourg • Netherlands • Spain • Sweden • Portugal • UK • Cyprus • Estonia • Hungary • Latvia • Lithuania • Malta • Poland • Czech Republic • Slovenia • Slovakia • Romania • Bulgaria Candidate countries • Turkey • Croatia • FYR Macedonia Min: 3 MS/AS Associated countries • Norway • Switzerland • Iceland • Israel

17. 7° Framework Programme Participation of thirdcountries’ legalentities EU + Associated ‘Partner countries » (ICPC) Other countries, no funding No cooperation

18. They might find you!! Where to look for partners 1/2 Stable contacts Previous or ongoing projects partners Data-base 6/7 FP financed projects : http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/home_en.html Commercial partners International and internal-to-your institution networks Private research of partners Public research of partners / CORDIS, IDEALIST, IGLO, etc. European Technology Platforms

19. Where to look for partners 2/2 And also Scientific publications Patent and licences database Conferences and scientific workshops Information days (Info Day) and other EC events National Contact Points & Enterprise Europe Network (former Innovation Relay Centres) http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/nationalcontactpoint KEEP YOURSELF UP TO DATE

20. Possible options 1/3 Stable contacts Main method based on ‘word of mouth’ and on previous collaborations and exchanges MAIN ADVANTAGES: quick access, confidence and common working language based on previous or ongoing experiences DISADVANTAGES: the lack of openness to new interlocutors reduces the own database to poor and inappropriate contacts

21. Possible options 2/3 Private search for partners A profile for every kind of partner is established and confidentially sent to select personal and professional contacts MAIN ADVANTAGES: high-quality partners DISADVANTAGES: slow procedure, limited impact on the number of partners

22. Possible options 3/3 Public search for partners To be used when the confidentiality of the project is not crucial or when the project description is unclear to the possible competitors (to avoid stealing of ideas) MAIN ADVANTAGES: very quick, higher output DISADVANTAGES: many inappropriate or off topic candidates, informations not directly comparable Website examples: https://cordis.europa.eu/partners/ http://partnersearch.apre.it/ http://www.iglortd.org/services/partner.html http://www.fitforhealth.eu/participate.aspx

23. Recommendations Be active Persist Be initially flexible on your idea: external contributions can enrich it Plan activities and priorities Keep close relationships with the potential partners Frankness and confidence are a must Consider European projects as an opportunity for business: “Is it suitable to invest on your planning idea?”

24. What to write (for the partnership search) Who in the Consortium? General informations Name of proposal (acronym – title) Object Information about the proposer body / Institution / Enterprise Description of the idea Profile of the sought partner Contact (to receive the answer) • It depends on the objectives of the project • Partners have to perfectly cover the RST activities contained in the proposal • It is linked also to the impact that the proposal has to have • Balanced and diversified consortium • European dimension • Active partners, with a clear role No ‘sleeping’, ‘token’ or ‘alibi’ partners • Some target partners can be requested: SMEs, Third countries, ICPC

25. Selection criteria to identify partners Strategic interest on results and motivation Pertinent to the proposal capabilities or specific RST activities Complementarity, interdisciplinarity, excellence, committment Previous experiences on european RST projects Many sectors: industry-academy-final users… Access to local markets, contacts and other cathegories (stakeholders) Proficiency in English Availability / Capacity to invest resources / infrastructures Critical mass (related to the project structure and dimension)

26. The consortium: basics International, as required by the call Balanced, according to the objectives «end user»? fundamental! (often also in R&D oriented projects)

27. Index • Requirements • Establishment of consortium • How to find information and documents • Funding tools selection • Contents: the first meeting • Lobbying: some advice • The evaluation process and the most common mistakes

28. News service on research and community policy Information Services on specific areas of activity 7° FP website Search engine 7°FP guidelines Links to policy documents Web links calls, key documents database– partners, projects, results, FAQ, acronym

29. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/it/index.htm http://cordis.europa.eu/guidance/notifications_en.html automatic e-mail notification for registered users announced in the Official Journal of the European Union http://cordis.europa.eu/home_en.html • Calls • Work Programmes • Guidelines for applicants (for funding system) In addition.. • Constitutive act of the programme • Rules for participation • Rules for proposal submission and procedures for the evaluation, selection and funding • EPSS User Guide Information

30. Information EU research:http://ec.europa.eu/research 7FQ: http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm Calls: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/fp7_calls Email POs: <first name>.<last name>@ec.europa.eu Rules for Participation: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/find-doc_en.html •Background on instruments: http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/understanding/fp7inbrief/funding-schemes_en.html Experts candidature:http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/experts_en.html Meeus: http://www.meeusfp7.eu/using-this-blog/ Training sulla progettualità - ENEA CR Trisaia 28-29 maggio 2008

31. Forum

32. Intellectual Property Rights http://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/

33. Index • Requirements • Establishment of consortium • How to find information and documents • Funding tools selection • Contents: the first meeting • Lobbying: some advice • The evaluation process and the most common mistakes

34. Territorial cooperation programmes National programmes Coordination of National Research Programmes Intergovernmental Programmes NATO Structural funds Transfrontier Transnational Inter-regional Cooperation Ideas, People, Capacities H2020 ERA-NET, ERA-NET plus, EMRP, Bonus 169 Programmi inter- governamentali (Eureka, COST) EUREKA,AAL, COST,ESA … An Internal Market for research • an area of free movement of knowledge, researchers and technology • To strenghten cooperation, overtaking fragmentation for a distribution of resources Training sulla progettualità - ENEA CR Trisaia 28-29 maggio 2008

35. Basic research / Applied research / Networking Private-Private Coordination Bottom up / top down Public-Private Coordination Industrial leadership / market-oriented (SMEs > RST) Types of research ETPs JTIs

36. Top Down Top Down vs Bottom-up in FP7 Health IDEAS frontier research European Research Council Bottom-Up Food products, Agriculture and Fishing, Biotechnology Initial training Cooperation Collaborative research PEOPLE Human potential Life-long training Information Society Industry academia International dimension Nanoscience, nanotechnologies, materials & production Specific actions Research infrastructures CAPACITIES Research capacity Energy Research for the benefit of SMEs Regions of knowledge Environment (climate change included) Research potential Science in society Transport (aeronautic included) Support to the coherent development of research policies Socio-economic sciences International cooperation Joint Research Centre (non-nuclear) Space Security

37. Top Down Top Down vs Bottom-up in H2020 Bottom-Up

38. Index • Requirements • Establishment of consortium • How to find information and documents • Funding tools selection • Contents: the first meeting • Lobbying: some advice • The evaluation process and the most common mistakes

39. Contents: the first meeting Of crucial importance at least one Meeting with the partners (at least the core ones) in which to fix: Shared vision on the project Objectives Definition of WPs, Milestones and Deliverables GANTT & PERT

40. The proposal • The project idea must be an answer to the Call requests • Essential: • A good plan of dissemination • A good analysis of the impact and output on european level

41. The proposal • Furthermore, if it is not a basic research project: • END-USER at the center of the project • Example of approach often used: UCD (User Centered Design) • UCD answers questions about users and their tasks and goals, then use the findings to make decisions about development and design. UCD seeks to answer the following questions: • Who are the users of the product ? • What are the users tasks and goals? • What are the users experience levels with the product, and products like it ? • What functions do the users need from the product ? • What information might the users need, and in what form do they need it ? • How do users think the product should work ? • Exploitation • Fundamental (even more in H2020) it’s the demonstration to the EU that the received financing could allow the development of business opportunities

42. WPs and Task typical structure • Management • User requirement • Implementation • Alpha prototype • Refinement • Beta prototype • Refinement • Validation • Dissemination • Exploitation

43. Suggestions • Avoid to be long-winded • Be synthetic and exhaustive • Don't take anything for granted (also the acronyms) • Underline the benefits: meaningful evaluations on European value • Keyword: End user

44. Example of structure (taken from an FP7 proposal) • 1 Introduction • 1.1 Concept and Objectives • 1.2 Progress beyond the State-of-the-Art and the PROJECT contribution • 1.3 Methodology and work plan • 2 Implementation • 2.1 Project Management • 2.2 Individual participants • 2.3 Consortium as a Whole • 3 Impact • 3.1 Expected Impacts Listed in the Work Program • 3.2 How PROJECT Addresses Extended Objectives • 3.3 Dissemination and/or Exploitation of Results, Management of Intellectual Property • 4 Ethical Issues • 4.2 Ethical issues form • 4.1 Ethical and gender issues • 5 Bibliography

45. GANTT

46. WP2 WP1 WP9 Software WP3 Biology WP4 Robotics WP’s 6, 7 and 8 Mathematics WP5 PERT

47. Contents: the first meeting Arrive to a sharedclearvision of the proposal and build a ‘core group’ able to lead the proposalwriting Establish a regular and directinteraction with the EC Project Officer, responsible for the topic of reference Communication: videoconference, periodicmeetings, one or twochecks with the Project Officer Clear and sharedcommittment, accountability and roleof the partners (stablecontactsamongpartners)

48. Problems 1/3 Lack of a long-termvision (the visionisonly “wewantthisproject” or “wewantEuropean Union money”) The planning idea hasnotanypotentialimpact on RST and on relevant community policies (itisinterestingonly for the proposer) Universitieswouldlike to makeonlybasicresearch and consider the industrial partnersas a nuisance The industrial partnerswouldlike to easilymonetize to developtheirproducts (with fewresearchcontents) The partners of the projects are friends instead of partners (...ifyou do notselecthim/her, he/sheisoffended, ifyouselectboth the projectmakesworse…)

49. Problems 2/3 Imbalancesamongpartners (in terms of resources and activities) Coordination in the preparatoryphaseistoo ‘anarchical’ (everybodyboost for the own idea, the coordinator hasnot authority or a sufficientknowledge of the issues) contributions / suggestions from otherpartners are ignored, notassuringconsequently the consistency of the project A clear and common languageisnotused «small things» are forgot: presence of SMEs (big enterprisescouldnothave a greatinterest on certainsubjects), IPR, dissemination, EU contribution, equalopportunities ... evaluationcriteria are nottakeninto account in the preparation

50. Problems 3/3 Dear partners, after busy weeks working on the XXX proposal and with some of you in parallel on the YYY proposal I have to admit that I have underestimated the work and organizational efforts. At the end we missed the deadline only by some hours after working also the last night very hard without stop. I take the responsibility for the bad situation.Many thanks to you all for your engagement especially ... We have become a good team and I hope this will enable us to use the proposal for the next call ... timing: waiting for the last moment to complete the Consortium and for the projectdrafting (the preparation of the projectbecomes a neurotic copy/paste of manyothertexts)