FP6 PROPOSAL WRITING

1
FP6 PROPOSAL WRITING
2

• What makes a good proposal
• - A strong proposal idea
• - Avoiding common weaknesses and pitfalls
• What to know about evaluation
• - Process
• - Criteria
• - Their application to specific Calls

3

• What goes where
• - Parts carrying the key messages
• - Selling the team
• - Program objectives vs project
• objectives, milestones and deliverables

4
WHAT MAKES A GOOD PROPOSAL

5
Motivation of Commission Officials

• To find out those proposals that have the
  consortia to conduct potentially useful work
• in a way that stands a reasonable chance of
  delivering valuable results
• CONSORTIUM
• USEFUL WORK
• REASONABLE CHANCE (RISK)
• VALUABLE RESULTS

6
Project Proposal

• Lets say that
• There is a suitable objective in the workprogram
  covering your project...
• There is a Call for Proposals including the type
  of instrument (contract) that suits your
  project...
• You have a suitable and eligible consortium...
• You can get prepare it before the closing
  date...
• You have thought of the management plans...

7
What to Provide in the Proposal

• Summary of the proposal
• Rationale/justification (ST objectives, program
  objectives, potential impact,consortium members)
• Details of the participant
• Details of the budget
• Work/Implementation plan
• Management structures
• List of deliverables

8
Where to Find Supporting Documentation

• Workprogram
• Guidelines on proposal evaluation and selection
  procedures
• Guidance notes for evaluators (call-specific)
• Guide for proposers (call/instrument-specific)

9
Instruments (project types)

• Integrated Projects (IP)
• Specific Targeted Research Projects (STREP)
• Networks of Excellence (NoE)
• Coordination Actions (CA)
• Specific Support Actions (SSA)
• Article 169

10
WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT EVALUATION
11
Some Basics About Proposals

• YOUR PROPOSAL MUST
• meet certain eligibility criteria
• fall within the scope of the
• Call for Proposals
• prioritys workprogram,
• specific workprogram
• YOUR PROPOSAL WILL
• be read by a team of independent evaluators

12

• Consensus is required within the evaluation team
  as to which proposals are to be considered
  further
• Proposals selected by each evaluation team are
  then read by people from other teams evaluating
  the Call
• They are ranked at a meeting involving all teams
  and a funding scenario is then produced by the EC
• A panel hearing, is used for IPs and NoEs
• Results of the evaluation then form the basis of
  contract negotiation

13
Evaluation Criteria

• Relevance
• Potential impact
• Scientific and technological excellence
• Quality of the consortium
• Quality of the management
• Mobilization of the resources

14

• Evaluators give a mark between 0 and 5 to each
  criterion
• 0 the proposal fails to address the issue
  under examination or cannot be judged
  against the criterion due to missing or
  incomplete information
• 1 poor
• 2 fair
• 3 good
• 4 very good
• 5 excellent
• There are thresholds to be passed
• Marks may be weighted to calculate the final
  score

15
CRITERIA IP thresholds STREP

• Relevance 3/5 3/5
• Potential Impact 3/5 3/5
• S T Excellence 4/5 4/5
• Quality of Consortium 3/5 3/5
• Quality of Management 3/5 3/5
• Mobilization of Resources 3/5 3/5
• OVERALL SCORE THRESHOLD
• IP 24/30
• STREP 21/30

16
Potential Impact

• suitably ambitious in terms of its strategic
  impact on reinforcing competitiveness (including
  that of SMEs) or on solving societal problems
• adequate innovation-related activities,
  exploitation and dissemination plans (to ensure
  optimal use of the project results)
• demonstrating a clear added value in carrying out
  the work at European level

17
ST Excellence

• The project has clearly defined and well-focused
  objectives
• The objectives represent clear progress beyond
  the current state-of-the-art
• The proposed ST approach is likely to enable the
  project to achieve its objectives in research and
  innovation

18
Quality of Consortium

• adequate industrial involvement to ensure
  exploitation of results (esp. In IPs)
• constitution of a consortium of high quality
• well-suited participants, committed to the tasks
  assigned to them
• good complementarity between participants
• real involvement of SMEs

19
Quality of the Management

• Project management is demonstrably of high
  quality
• There is a satisfactory plan for the management
  of knowledge, of intellectual property and other
  innovation-related activities
• The organizational structure is well matched to
  the complexity of the project and to the degree
  of integration required

20
Mobilization of the Resources

• The project mobilizes the minimum critical mass
  of resources (personnel, equipment, finance...)
  necessary for success
• The resources are convincingly integrated to form
  a coherent project
• The overall financial plan for the project is
  adequate

21
WHAT GOES WHERE
22
Proposal Structure

• B.1. ST objectives and state-of-the-art
• - up to 3 pages
• B.2. Relevance to the objectives of the priority
• - up to 3 pages
• B.3. Potential Impact
• up to 3 pages
• plus one page on contribution to standards

23

• B.4. The consortium and project resources
• - up to 5 pages STREP Project Effort Form
• - plus one page to justify subcontracting
• - plus one page to justify other countries
• B.5. Project Management
• - up to 3 pages
• B.6. Work Plan
• - (as many pages as it needs)
• B.7. Other (horizontal) issues
• - e.g. ethical, gender, EC policies, education

24
B.1. ST Objectives and State-of-the-Art

• What are you going to do?
• How will you know when you have done it?
• What value will it add to the state-of-the-art?
• How well do you understand the problems?

25
B.2. Relevance to Priority Objectives

• Justify your request for money allocated to
  those specific objectives within this priority
  area
• N.B. The Commission may argue for adequate
  coverage of all relevant objectives

26
B.3. Potential Impact

• What type of impact are you expecting to achieve?
• - what is the expected consequence of funding?
• Explain how you will achieve this impact
• - innovation- related activities
• - dissemination activities
• - exploitation activities
• Why do you need European money?
• - European added value
• - role of national/other initiatives

27
B.4. Consortium

• Participants are of high quality
• Participants are well-suited and committed to
  their tasks, including
• - research
• - demonstration
• - dissemination
• - exploitation
• - management, etc.
• Participants are complementary with each other

28
B.5.Project Management

• The project management is demonstrably of high
  quality
• - key partner(s) with suitable resources?
• - CV of key individuals?
• - appropriate methodology?
• - work plan capable of being managed?
• Managing knowledge, IPR, innovation

29
B.6. Work Plan

• Introduction structure of the workplan and how
  the plan will lead participants to achieve
  objectives
• Timing and components of workpackages (GANNT)
• Interdependencies between components (PERT)
• Workpackage list (form)
• - lead contractor - timing
• - effort - outputs
• Workpackage description (template)
• - participants/effort - timing
• - objectives - description of work
• - deliverables - milestones

30
Designing Workpackages

• Major sub-divisions of overall project
  appropriate to complexity and value of project
• Sufficiently detailed to allow progress
  monitoring by the EC
• ...AND SO
• - keep different types of activity separate
• - reflect logical phases of project
• - provide clearly-defined end-points
• (e.g. deliverable or project milestone)

31

• SOME TIPS

32
General TIPS on Proposal Writing

• Apply the mindset of an evaluator to your own
  work
• View the proposal as a whole, not as a set of
  separate elements
• Identify and sell the special features of a
  proposal
• Communicate in simple and well-structured
  language

33
TIPS Concerning Evaluators

• Your proposal will be read by a team of
  evaluators of whom it should be assumed that
• English need not be their first language
• Your specific research interest may not be their
  specialist area
• They have many other proposals to read
• Define the work youll do in a way to make them
  understand it
• Initial impressions count...

34
TIPS Concerning Writing Certain Parts of Proposal

• POTENTIAL IMPACT use OECD reports, EU policy
  papers
• ST EXCELLENCE refer to the workprogram
• QUALITY OF CONSORTIUM find diverse partners
• QUALITY OF MANAGEMENT is hard job. Do not jump on
  it!

35
CONCLUSION

• Project writing is not easy. It is a hard job
• It consumes your time, energy and confidence
• The result can be negative
• BUT, DO NOT FORGET...
• So many people have tried it and been
  successful
• Believe in yourself! You can do it, too!

36

• Thank you
• and
• Good Luck
• METU Office of EU Affairs
• Middle East Technical University
• 06531 Ankara / Turkey
• Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
• http//www.euoffice.metu.edu.tr
• February 2005