Programme

1
Programme

• A FP6 and the 3rd call of NMP for 2005
• B About participation
• C Writing a proposal and past experiences

2
Results of previous call
3
Organisatons in IPs and STREPs
4
B.2 Relevance to the objectives

• Versus workprogramme topic
• Industrial relevance
• Radical innovation

5
B.2 Comments

• Relevance is good or wrong

6
B.3 Potential impact

• General economic impact
• Economic impact of consortium
• Only if relevant environment, health,
  employment, skills development

7
B.3 Comments

• Lack of clear strategic aims
• Limited strategic industrial impact
• No added value at EU level
• Evaluators look particularly at economic impact,
  give data on EU and world market and if possible
  a projection of expected market share
• Not too elaborated, stay clear and focussed
• Unsatisfactory description of exploitation
• Societal issues only highlights

8
B.4 Scientific and Technological excellence

• ST quantified objectives
• Radical innovations
• State of the art
• RTD approach
• Implementation plan
• Exploitation and dissemination

9
B.4 Comments

• No quantified objectives, no clear finish
• Unsatisfactory description of state-of-the-art,
  no starting point
• No convergence of research-directions
• No risk analysis, no contingencies
• Mainly evaluators are not experts, so technical
  and scientifiic content not too specialised

10
B.5 Description of consortium

• Overview of partners
• Complementarity
• Availability of resources

11
B.5 Comments

• Weak industrial motivation for exploitation
• Strong dominance by 1 partner, or country
• Unsatisfactory complementarity between partners,
  fragmentation of RD, overlap between tasks
• Only cosmetical SME participation
• Large consortia are difficult to manage

12
B.6 Description of project management

• Organisation, management, governance, structure,
  decision-making proces
• exploitation plan

13
B.6 Comments

• No efficient decision making structure, no
  procedure to solve conflicts
• IPR policy not described
• Copy a good structure from a succesfull proposal

14
B.7 Project resources

• Overview of resources, critical mass
• Manmonths table
• Key personnel

15
B.7 Comments

• Lack of data
• No balance between objectives and costs
• Evaluators look at significant variations from
  what is common
• Evaluators look at the guarantee of matching
  financing

16
General comments

• Size of proposals
• Evaluators have 1- 2 hours to analyse the
  proposal, so keep text complete but concise and
  stay within number of pages.
• Contents
• Evaluators score per item, so stick to sequence
  of the Guide for Proposers
• Text
• Often evaluators are not experts in the field of
  the proposal, so keep the technical/scientific
  description clear and not too detailed.
• PR
• In the first 3 pages the attention must be
  caught. That is where you first sell your
  project.
• A good proposal has about 40 pages, is compact
  and clear, has a reader-friendly lay-out and
  enough illustrations.

17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)