FET-Open Novel ideas for radically new technologies Criterion 1 Excellence, critical aspects of evaluated proposals and main strengths of a successful proposal Loredana Zollo Laboratory of Biomedical Robotics and Biomicrosystems A Step closer to success in FET Open Workshop 23 Novembre 2016 Via Cavour 71, Roma CAMPUS BIO-MEDICO UNIVERSITY OF ROME Via Álvaro del Portillo, 21-00128 Rome - Italy
Outline Experience in H2020 Fet Open What to know when writing a proposal Evaluation Criterion 1 Eccellence and subcriteria Structuring Sect. 1 Excellence of FET Open proposals Interpretation of Scores Main weaknesses of FET proposals Conclusions CAMPUS BIO-MEDICO UNIVERSITY OF ROME
Experience in H2020 Fet Open Selected as expert in 2014 and Served for two calls H2020-FETOPEN-2014-2015-RIA call with the cut-off on 31st of March 2015 Number of proposals: 670 Number of funded proposals: 11 (1.6%) H2020-FETOPEN-2014-2015-RIA call with the cut-off on 30 September 2014 Number of proposals: 644; Number of funded proposals: 24 (3.7%). Selected as Vice-chair in 2015 H2020-FETOPEN-2014-2015-RIA call with the cut-off on 30th of September 2015 Number of proposals: 800 Number of funded proposals: 11 (1.4%) 3
THINK AS AN EVALUATOR WHEN WRITING A PROPOSAL CAMPUS BIO-MEDICO UNIVERSITY OF ROME
Evaluation Criterion 1 Excellence: it is the main criterion for the evaluation with a threshold of 4 out of 5 and a relative weight of 60%! There are four sub-criteria: 1. Clarity and novelty of long-term vision, and ambition and concreteness of the targeted breakthrough towards that vision. 2. Novelty, non-incrementality and plausibility of the proposed research for achieving the targeted breakthrough and its foundational character. 3. Appropriateness of the research methodology and its suitability to address high scientific and technological risks. 4. Range and added value from interdisciplinarity, including measures for exchange, cross-fertilisation and synergy. 5
Evaluation Criterion 1: Excellence Look at the substance: Some proposals might be handicapped by language difficulties, others deceptively well written A good proposal clearly presents the breakthrough and the rationale behind the proposed idea. Analogously, the specific objectives are well posed, with clear progressive investigations that pave the way to science and technological advancement in the long-term. 6
Kipling Method 7
Why this project? Key scientific question Unexplored or poorly explored topic High risk - High gain Clear description of objectives and experimental steps (list of objectives and sub-objectives) Feasibility Preliminary results/evidence and expertise for each objective (possibly) Expected milestones Possible (international) collaborations 8 Such aspects can mostly be traced in the first section of the part B of the proposals Excellence: 1.1 Long-term vision and targeted breakthrough towards that vision 1.2 Novelty, non-incrementality, plausibility and foundational character 1.3 Research methodology 1.4 Interdisciplinarity
1.1 Long-term vision and targeted breakthrough towards that vision General Objectives Long term; beyond the duration of the project Improve, strenght, facilitate, realize Specific Objectives To be realized during the project implementation Testing, pilot plant, develop new knowledge, The objectives should be consistent with the expected impact of the project and coherent with the implementation. 9
1.1 Long-term vision and targeted breakthrough towards that vision Describe the long-term vision of the proposal. Describe the targeted scientific breakthrough to be achieved by the proposal. Describe how this targeted breakthrough represents an ambitious and concrete step towards the longterm vision of the proposal. Describe the objectives for the project, which should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound within the duration of the project. 10
1.2 Novelty, non-incrementality, plausibility and foundational character Discuss the relevant state-of-the-art. Describe the advance your proposal would provide beyond the state-of-the-art, and to what extent the proposed research is based on cutting edge knowledge, new ideas and concepts. Demonstrate the plausibility of the proposed research for achieving the targeted breakthrough. Provide arguments for the foundational nature of the breakthrough, in the sense that, if achieved, it would establish an essential basis for a new line of scientific and/or technological research and its future uses, not currently anticipated. Keep in mind that new ideas and concepts are expected, rather than the application or incremental refinement of well established ones. 11
1.3 Research methodology Describe the overall research approach, the methodology and explain its relevance to the proposal's objectives. Explain how the research methodology is suitable to address high scientific and technological risks, allowing the exploration of alternative directions and options. Where relevant, describe how sex and/or gender analysis is taken into account in the project s content 12
1.4 Interdisciplinarity Describe the research disciplines supporting the targeted breakthrough of the proposal. Explain the added value from the interdisciplinarity. Describe the measures for exchange, mutual learning, cross-fertilization and synergistic advances among involved disciplines in order to explore new areas of investigation and directions for joint research. 13
Interpretation of the scores 0 The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information. 1 Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses. 2 Fair. The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses. 3 Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present. 4 Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present. 5 Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor. 14
Excellence: Main weaknesses Novelty: the proposed vision does not appear really novel; it seems more an incremental refinement of already ongoing activities and existing technologies. Targeted breakthrough: the targeted breakthrough is often not coherent with the research methods and the rationale is poorly described. Ambition: The proposal lacks a clear overview of the state-ofthe-art in all the involved disciplines. The provided novelty and correspondingly state of the art is limited to one specific field (typically the field of expertise of the Coordinator) The foundational character (i.e. the potential to become the basis for a new line of technology not currently available) is weakly addressed. High-risk: The proposal fails to address the high-risk vision 15
Conclusions The Evaluation Process Thought to be fair Designed by humans, carried out by humans, so always improvable The number of submitted proposals is very high and, consequently, competition is tight. The assignment of individual evaluators is crucial, each one with his own background, and none of them is immune from errors Evaluators Consensus Report automatically generated Evaluators / Vice Chairs Receipt of proposals Individual evaluation Consensus group Panel Review Finalisation 16
Conclusions Preparing a proposal in 5 easy steps 1. Ask yourself if Horizon 2020 is the right fit for you 2. Get intimate with your call 3. Create the best consortium you can possibly imagine 4. Put together your application from the point of view of the evaluator 5. Submit your Proposal early and often If the idea is good and the background is rational and solid resubmission can be an option. Don t give up! 17
THANK YOU! CAMPUS BIO-MEDICO UNIVERSITY OF ROME