FP PROJECTS AN EVALUATORS PERSPECTIVE

1
FP PROJECTS AN EVALUATORS PERSPECTIVE

• Vesna Rodic, Ph.D.
• University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Agriculture

2
Presentation objectives

• How to became?
• Being an evaluator
• What it looks like?
• Evaluation process
• What to avoid in preparing a proposal?

3
How to become an evaluator? (1)

• 50,000 experts in the database by end of FP6.
• The list of experts who have participated in FP6
  evaluations is available at http//cordis.europa.
  eu/fp6/experts.htm

4
(No Transcript)
5
How to become an evaluator? (2)

• FP6 - Food Safety and Quality
• Year No. of Evaluators Participated
• 2003 85 (0 from Serbia)
• 2004 243 (1 from Serbia)
• 2005 293 (1 from Serbia)
• 2006 192 (2 from Serbia)

6
How to become an evaluator? (3)

• Call for independent experts for FP7 is open.
• Registration is open up to the 31st of July 2013.
• Applications must be submitted via online
  electronic submission at http//cordis.europa.eu/
  emmfp7.

Click on register as an expert and follow
instructions!
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
Selection

• A reasonable distribution of geographical
  origins
• A reasonable gender balance
• There is a regular rotation of experts.

If an individual is selected He/she receives a
letter from an EC official, requesting interest
and availability.
10
If an expert is interested and available

• A letter of appointment will be issued and he/she
  signs
• Contract
• Confidentiality Agreement
• Conflict of Interest Form.

11
What are requirements?

• Technical and scientific expertise, but dont
  assume that the evaluator will know everything
• Understanding of the proposal submission and
  evaluation process
• Unbiased, no conflict of interest, confidential
• Ability to score a proposal in accordance with
  evaluator guidelines
• Ability to listen to the opinions of the other
  evaluators and to reach a consensus
• Prepared to work hard within very strict time
  allocation

12
(No Transcript)
13
Role of Commission staff

• The Commission is responsible for the evaluation,
  but Commission staff remain impartial!
• In practice, the Commission
• Checks the eligibility of the proposals
• Briefing of evaluators
• Oversees work of experts
• Moderates discussions
• Organises the panel and its work
• Provides information and guidance

14
Role of evaluator(s)

• Typically, an individual reviews 6-8 proposals
  remotely (19 in my case)
• For each one prepares IAR (IER)
• For some has to be a rapporteur (7 in my case)
• Spends a couple of days in Brussels, with other
  experts, where consensus should be reached,
• CRs and ESRs prepared and final ranking list
  agreed
• Some evaluators participate in hearings with
  the consortia

15
(No Transcript)
16
Main guiding principles
Objectivity (each proposal is evaluated as it is
written) Accuracy (judgment against the official
evaluation criteria, and nothing
else) Consistency (the same standard of judgment
to each proposal)
17
The evaluation criteria

• Criteria are adapted to each funding scheme and
• each thematic area specified in the Work
  Programme.

IP
E.G.

• SSA
• Relevance
• Quality of Support Action
• Potential Impact
• Quality of Management
• Mobilisation of Resources

18
New Evaluation Criteria for Collaborative
Projects in FP7
19
Rules for scores and comments

• FP6
• 5 Excellent (not perfect, can have minor
  shortcomings)
• 4 Very good (slight improvements needed)
• 3 Good (acceptable but minor weaknesses)
• 2 Fair (major weaknesses)
• 1 Poor (criteria badly addressed)
• 0 Fail

FP7 5 Excellent 4 Good 3 Fair 2 Poor 1
Very poor 0 Fail
20
Thresholds

• Each criterion has a threshold, and
• the overall proposal score has a threshold.
• The value of the threshold changes depending to
  the type of instrument.

E.G. The overall proposal threshold for a SSA
was 17.5/25. The overall proposal
threshold for an IP was 24/30.
21
Bad start

• Confusing project title
• Unpronounceable project acronym
• Vague or unconvincing proposal summary page
• Proposal is too long or too short
• Unclear how the proposal fits with the Topic Call
• Sections missing or poorly addressed
• Poor editing of final version of proposal
• No diagrams, tables or charts
• Insufficient references for state of the art
• Proposal does not educate the evaluator
• No logical link between the objectives and the
  work plans
• Consortium not described fully
• Over use of acronyms and/or jargon

22
From idea to project execution

• Project idea
• Does the project idea fit exactly?
• Consortium building
• Proposal writing (PDF, never above 10 MB)
• Proposal submission (part A, part B)
• Evaluation and selection
• Start of the project
• Project execution

Please the evaluators!
23
Instead of Conclusion

• Evaluation is really hard work!
• But
• Its also an excellent chance to
• Understand procedures
• Understand what makes a good proposal
• Meet new faces, network and discuss new ideas

GO FOR IT - BE EVALUATOR!
24

• Thank you for your attention, and best of luck
  with
• your proposals and projects
• in FP7!

rodicv_at_polj.ns.ac.yu