monitoring of the see-era.net pilot joint call (pjc) and the implementation of the lessons learnt in...

Download Monitoring of the SEE-ERA.NET Pilot Joint CALL (PJC) and the implementation of the Lessons learnt in the SEE-ERA.NET PLUS JOINT CALL Marion Haberfellner

If you can't read please download the document

Post on 18-Jan-2016

212 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • Monitoring of the SEE-ERA.NET Pilot Joint CALL (PJC) and the implementation of the Lessons learnt in the SEE-ERA.NET PLUS JOINT CALL

    Marion HaberfellnerCentre for Social Innovation (ZSI), Vienna

  • Overview of Monitoring Activities:Monitoring Plan established and external monitoring expert contracted (Jan 07)

    Thematic conferences monitored: Belgrade conference attended, questionnaires analysed and presentation of results at Bucharest Rep-SEE meeting (Feb-Mai 07)

    PJC documents and data studied and preliminary analysis (Jun-Oct 07)

    PJC survey: questionnaire elaborated and finalised in cooperation with SEE-ERA.NET consortium and INTAS (Sep-Oct 07)

    Sofia quality assurance meeting, Thessaloniki Steering Board (Oct 07): discussing PJC and PJC survey

    Interim monitoring report (Nov 07) including PR monitoring, PJC monitoring and PJC survey analysis

    End monitoring report (August 2009)

  • Remarks on PJC results: country participation

    Country No teams in eligible proposals% of SEE eligible teamsSEE inhabitants in Mio% of SEE inhabitantsRatio: teams/Mio inhabitantsAlbania614,30%3,601,55%16,94Austria594,15%8,203,54%7,20Bosnia Herzegovina835,85%4,551,96%18,24Bulgaria1258,80%7,323,16%17,08Croatia14210,00%4,491,94%31,63France443,10%63,7127,49%0,69FYROM1188,31%2,050,88%57,56Germany735,14%82,0435,40%0,89Greece19213,52%10,714,62%17,93Hungary624,37%9,964,30%6,22Montenegro503,52%0,680,29%73,53Romania835,85%22,289,61%3,73Serbia22715,99%10,154,38%22,36Slovenia1017,11%2,010,87%50,25SUM1420100,00%231,75100,00%

  • Remarks on PJC results: country participationIn absolute numbers, most teams have participated from Serbia (227), Greece (192) and Croatia (142)

    Number of teams compared to number of inhabitants per SEE country: Montenegro, Slovenia and FYROM show highest participation to population ratio

    All WBC countries have a high participation rate. Due to: - PJC targeted at these countries - consortium condition: at least one WBC per application - but shows also that ALL WBC took advantage of the PJC and that there is huge interest for developing scientific cooperation in the region and with EU members

    EU member states: - Slovenia, Greece and Bulgaria show highest participation closer to region, established scientific networks - other EU member states relatively lower participation, especially the bigger countries FR, DE low budget, consider awareness raising measures for RJC in these countries

  • PJC Survey - Results: Comments on positive aspectsEstablished cooperation with colleagues in the region

    Perspective of future projects with higher budgets

    Knowledge and results sharing

  • RECOMMENDATIONS/Funding and Call Budget

    Better steering of financial resources of the call: countries should foresee reserves to prop up their share of call funding, if necessary. Such adding of financial resources would allow funding more and the most excellent projects, and prevent exhaustion of funds.

    Another alternative to avoid exhaustion of funds would be a real common pot scheme, where each country transfers its contribution to the call in a common pot. In this scheme the joint funds would be used irrespective of national origin and be distributed to the most excellent top ranking project proposals. The principle of juste retour, where each country receives the funds back that it invests in such a call, could not be guaranteed any more. But administrative procedures and project selection procedures would be much simplified.

    Increase funding per project and the call budget overall (feedback of participants)

  • RECOMMENDATIONS/Procedures

    Consider simplifications of the electronic submission for project applications (too much information requested for size of projects, duplication of requested information on the submission system)

    Consider establishing one single multilateral contract per project, to reduce administrative procedures for scientists.

    Adapt the number of different instruments to the call budget; keep the call simple and avoid offering a too broad range of instruments. Too many instruments add complexity and increase administrative cost and procedures.

  • RECOMMENDATIONS/Procedures

    Make the rules of the game sufficiently clear and avoid changing them during call implementation, project selection and contracting (virtual common pot concept, eligibility and evaluation criteria)All of this needs to be made sufficiently clear and published with the call document. Evaluation criteria should be adapted to the funding instrument. Transparency of evaluation should be increased overall.

  • Remarks on PJC results: Rules of the gameNot all important rules of the game for the PJC call were fully made clear to the applicants.

    Examples: - which entities are eligible for receiving funding - project selection: VCP procedure has not been made clear in call guidelines - Summer Schools: rule of 50% minimum participation from WBC had not been outlined in call guidelines

  • Remarks on PJC results: procedural weaknesses in the evaluationSome assessment/evaluation procedures of the PJC were not fully appropriate.

    Examples: - the same assessment (evaluation) criteria were applied for all three different instruments (RP, NP, SS) - different weights were applied for evaluation criteria - discrepancies between two evaluations: when shall a third evaluation be requested? - technical: an evaluator mixed up the evaluation sheets of two projects for SS

  • RECOMMENDATIONS/PROCEDURES:EVALUATION

    Consider establishing a scientific council (SC), composed of well renowned scientists.

    This council would support the project selection process by screening those remote evaluations for appropriateness, which show high discrepancies in scores and by checking and adjusting the ranking list of proposals selected for funding.

    Call: in relation to the size of the call in financial terms and in terms of projects to be funded. (small scale call: few colleagues, might consist of scientists not originating of countries involved in the consortium so as to keep this institution neutral)

  • RECOMMENDATIONS/PR and Awareness raising activities:Promotional conferences for a call: useful tool for consortium building and networking. Adapt the number and duration of such conferences to the size of call; (a call with a modest budget & a limited number of projects to be funded: promotional measures accordingly be limited and well targeted at countries with low participation in the pilot call)

    Take additional promotional measures for the call in those countries, where turnout of scientists was rather low, budget was not exhausted and which participation is essential for network-building for scientists from WBC (e.g. DE, FR).

  • RECOMMENDATIONS/Success rates:Better steering of the success rate: consider implementing a future call in a two step procedure. In a first step only short outline proposals of few pages, in which the scientific idea and approach is briefly described, shall be requested. These outline proposals shall be evaluated and only best ranked project consortia be invited to submit a full proposal. This procedure helps steering the success rate, reduces administrative effort on the side of scientists and avoids frustration.

    Another option for steering the success rate would be to have a more narrow topical focus of the call.

  • RECOMMENDATIONS/Success rates:In general it seems sensible to make a more profound analysis of possible topics of the call, by considering for example the scientific strengths of the WBC. Results of ongoing networking projects for the WBC region (e.g. INCO-NET WBC) should be taken into account here.

    Support of a call implementation agency (INTAS) proved essential for the pilot call and will be sensible also for the success of a larger scale joint call. Synergies with other regional ERA.NETs funded under FP7 should be considered here.

  • Remarks on PJC results: Success rateSuccess rate is rather low. Certainly it can be justified with the argument of the Pilot phase (testing for interest in such an activity); to a lesser extent with the limited effort for preparing a proposal.

    For the Real Joint Call the expectations will be a bit different. Target a better success rate, e.g. by calling for still more focussed topics, by limiting the number of different instruments, etc.

    Team success rate: - in absolute figures Greece, Serbia, FYROM most successful - in relation to eligible teams France, Germany and Hungary; - countries with high number of eligible teams pay to a certain extent price of this success: teams cannot be funded, exhaustion of funds - VCP

  • Remarks on PJC results: Success rate per instrument

    Chart2

    19215

    770

    536

    31321

    Funded projects

    Eligible projects

    Funded prop. type&country

    CountryResearch ProjectsNetworksSummer SchoolsTotal

    Albania0

    Austria11

    Bosnia & Herzegovina0

    Bulgaria235

    Croatia11

    France1214

    Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia0

    Germany112

    Greece628

    Hungary325

    Montenegro0

    Romania11

    Serbia22

    Slovenia213

    Total197632Zahlen korrigieren fr SS

    Research ProjectsNetworksSummer SchoolsTotal

    Funded projects197531

    Eligible projects2157036321

    Success rate8.84%10.00%13.89%9.66%

    &L&"Arial,Bold"&12SEE-ERA-NET Pilot Joint Call&C

    &"Arial,Bold"&12Funded proposals by type and country of the co-ordinator&R&"Arial,Bold"&11 27/06/07

    &L&"Arial,Bold"&12Prepared by INTAS

    Funded prop. type&country

    Funded projects

    Eligible projects

Recommended

View more >