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

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

Post on 18-Jan-2016

212 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p>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</p><p>Marion HaberfellnerCentre for Social Innovation (ZSI), Vienna</p></li><li><p>Overview of Monitoring Activities:Monitoring Plan established and external monitoring expert contracted (Jan 07)</p><p>Thematic conferences monitored: Belgrade conference attended, questionnaires analysed and presentation of results at Bucharest Rep-SEE meeting (Feb-Mai 07)</p><p>PJC documents and data studied and preliminary analysis (Jun-Oct 07)</p><p>PJC survey: questionnaire elaborated and finalised in cooperation with SEE-ERA.NET consortium and INTAS (Sep-Oct 07)</p><p>Sofia quality assurance meeting, Thessaloniki Steering Board (Oct 07): discussing PJC and PJC survey</p><p>Interim monitoring report (Nov 07) including PR monitoring, PJC monitoring and PJC survey analysis</p><p>End monitoring report (August 2009)</p></li><li><p>Remarks on PJC results: country participation</p><p>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%</p></li><li><p>Remarks on PJC results: country participationIn absolute numbers, most teams have participated from Serbia (227), Greece (192) and Croatia (142)</p><p>Number of teams compared to number of inhabitants per SEE country: Montenegro, Slovenia and FYROM show highest participation to population ratio</p><p>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</p><p>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</p></li><li><p>PJC Survey - Results: Comments on positive aspectsEstablished cooperation with colleagues in the region</p><p>Perspective of future projects with higher budgets</p><p>Knowledge and results sharing</p></li><li><p>RECOMMENDATIONS/Funding and Call Budget</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>Increase funding per project and the call budget overall (feedback of participants)</p></li><li><p>RECOMMENDATIONS/Procedures</p><p>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)</p><p>Consider establishing one single multilateral contract per project, to reduce administrative procedures for scientists.</p><p>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.</p></li><li><p>RECOMMENDATIONS/Procedures</p><p>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.</p></li><li><p>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.</p><p>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</p></li><li><p>Remarks on PJC results: procedural weaknesses in the evaluationSome assessment/evaluation procedures of the PJC were not fully appropriate.</p><p>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</p></li><li><p>RECOMMENDATIONS/PROCEDURES:EVALUATION </p><p>Consider establishing a scientific council (SC), composed of well renowned scientists. </p><p>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. </p><p>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)</p></li><li><p>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 &amp; 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)</p><p>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).</p></li><li><p>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. </p><p>Another option for steering the success rate would be to have a more narrow topical focus of the call. </p></li><li><p>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. </p><p>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.</p></li><li><p>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. </p><p>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.</p><p>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</p></li><li><p>Remarks on PJC results: Success rate per instrument</p><p>Chart2</p><p>19215</p><p>770</p><p>536</p><p>31321</p><p>Funded projects</p><p>Eligible projects</p><p>Funded prop. type&amp;country</p><p>CountryResearch ProjectsNetworksSummer SchoolsTotal</p><p>Albania0</p><p>Austria11</p><p>Bosnia &amp; Herzegovina0</p><p>Bulgaria235</p><p>Croatia11</p><p>France1214</p><p>Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia0</p><p>Germany112</p><p>Greece628</p><p>Hungary325</p><p>Montenegro0</p><p>Romania11</p><p>Serbia22</p><p>Slovenia213</p><p>Total197632Zahlen korrigieren fr SS</p><p>Research ProjectsNetworksSummer SchoolsTotal</p><p>Funded projects197531</p><p>Eligible projects2157036321</p><p>Success rate8.84%10.00%13.89%9.66%</p><p>&amp;L&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12SEE-ERA-NET Pilot Joint Call&amp;C</p><p>&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12Funded proposals by type and country of the co-ordinator&amp;R&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;11 27/06/07</p><p>&amp;L&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12Prepared by INTAS</p><p>Funded prop. type&amp;country</p><p>Funded projects</p><p>Eligible projects</p><p>Funded prop. type&amp;country C</p><p>AlbaniaAlbaniaAlbania</p><p>Austria1Austria</p><p>Bosnia &amp; HerzegovinaBosnia &amp; HerzegovinaBosnia &amp; Herzegovina</p><p>2Bulgaria3</p><p>1CroatiaCroatia</p><p>121</p><p>Former Yugoslav Republic of MacedoniaFormer Yugoslav Republic of MacedoniaFormer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia</p><p>11Germany</p><p>62Greece</p><p>3Hungary2</p><p>MontenegroMontenegroMontenegro</p><p>1RomaniaRomania</p><p>2SerbiaSerbia</p><p>21Slovenia</p><p>&amp;L&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12SEE-ERA.NET Pilot Joint Call&amp;C&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12</p><p>Funded Proposals by country of the co-ordinator&amp;R&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;11 &amp;12 27/06/2007</p><p>&amp;L&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12Prepared by INTAS</p><p>Research Projects</p><p>Networks</p><p>Summer Schools</p><p>Funded prop. field&amp;country</p><p>FIELDResearch ProjectsNetworksSummer SchoolsTotal Proposals</p><p>05 - Computer Sciences0</p><p>19 - Environmental Chemistry0</p><p>22 - Ecology22</p><p>23 - Plant Biology11</p><p>24 - Zoology11</p><p>25 - Microbiology22</p><p>26 - Molecular Biology11</p><p>27 - Biotechnology44</p><p>31 - Geophysics11</p><p>32 - Atmospheric Studies0</p><p>33 - Hydrology &amp; Marine Sciences0</p><p>34 - Environment4239</p><p>37 - Telecommunication0</p><p>40 - Economics0</p><p>47 - SEE-ERA.NET Sustainable Production4217</p><p>48 - SEE-ERA.NET ICT213</p><p>49 - SEE-ERA.NET Environment11</p><p>TOTAL197632</p><p>&amp;L&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12SEE-ERA.NET Pilot Joint Call&amp;C&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;14</p><p>Funded proposals by type and by scientific fields&amp;R&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;11 &amp;12 27/06/2007</p><p>&amp;L&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12Prepared by INTAS</p><p>Funded prop. field&amp;country C</p><p>05 - Computer Sciences05 - Computer Sciences05 - Computer Sciences</p><p>19 - Environmental Chemistry19 - Environmental Chemistry19 - Environmental Chemistry</p><p>222 - Ecology22 - Ecology</p><p>123 - Plant Biology23 - Plant Biology</p><p>24 - Zoology124 - Zoology</p><p>225 - Microbiology25 - Microbiology</p><p>26 - Molecular Biology126 - Molecular Biology</p><p>427 - Biotechnology27 - Biotechnology</p><p>31 - Geophysics131 - Geophysics</p><p>32 - Atmospheric Studies32 - Atmospheric Studies32 - Atmospheric Studies</p><p>33 - Hydrology &amp; Marine Sciences33 - Hydrology &amp; Marine Sciences33 - Hydrology &amp; Marine Sciences</p><p>423</p><p>37 - Telecommunication37 - Telecommunication37 - Telecommunication</p><p>40 - Economics40 - Economics40 - Economics</p><p>421</p><p>248 - SEE-ERA.NET ICT1</p><p>49 - SEE-ERA.NET Environment49 - SEE-ERA.NET Environment1</p><p>&amp;L&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12SEE-ERA.NET Pilot Joint Call&amp;C&amp;14&amp;"Arial,Bold"Funded proposals by type and scientific fields&amp;R&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12 27/06/2007</p><p>&amp;L&amp;"Arial,Bold"Prepared by INTAS</p><p>Research Projects</p><p>Networks</p><p>Summer Schools</p><p>Funded teams by country</p><p>CountryNo teams in funded proposalsTeam success rate fundedNo teams in eligible proposalsTeam success rate eligible</p><p>Albania85%6113%</p><p>Austria85%5914%</p><p>Bosnia &amp; Herzegovina85%8310%</p><p>Bulgaria138%12510%</p><p>Croatia149%14210%</p><p>France85%4418%</p><p>Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia1510%11813%</p><p>Germany117%7315%</p><p>Greece1812%1929%</p><p>Hungary96%6215%</p><p>Montenegro64%5012%</p><p>Romania64%837%</p><p>Serbia1812%2278%</p><p>Slovenia138%10113%</p><p>Sum155142011%</p><p>Italy1</p><p>Moldova1</p><p>Czech Rep.1</p><p>Sweden1</p><p>the Netherlands1</p><p>United Kingdom1</p><p>Total316</p><p>&amp;L&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12SEE-ERA.NET Pilot Joint Call&amp;C</p><p>&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12Number of teams by country in eligible proposals (all types)&amp;R&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;11 27/06/2007</p><p>&amp;L&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12Prepared by INTAS</p><p>Funded teams by country C</p><p>8</p><p>8</p><p>8</p><p>13</p><p>14</p><p>8</p><p>15</p><p>11</p><p>18</p><p>9</p><p>6</p><p>6</p><p>18</p><p>13</p><p>1</p><p>1</p><p>1</p><p>1</p><p>1</p><p>1</p><p>&amp;L&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12SEE-ERA.NET Pilot Joint Call&amp;C</p><p>&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12Number of teams by country in funded proposals (all types)&amp;R&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;11 27/06/2007</p><p>&amp;L&amp;"Arial,Bold"Prepared by INTAS</p><p>N teams in funded proposals</p><p>Funded teams by Field</p><p>FieldN teams in funded proposals</p><p>05 - Computer Sciences</p><p>19 - Environmental Chemistry</p><p>22 - Ecology8</p><p>23 - Plant Biology3</p><p>24 - Zoology6</p><p>25 - Microbiology6</p><p>26 - Molecular Biology8</p><p>27 - Biotechnology13</p><p>31 - Geophysics13</p><p>32 - Atmospheric Studies</p><p>33 - Hydrology &amp; Marine Sciences</p><p>34 - Environment47</p><p>37 - Telecommunication</p><p>40 - Economics</p><p>47 - SEE-ERA.NET Sustainable Production38</p><p>48 - SEE-ERA.NET ICT15</p><p>49 - SEE-ERA.NET Environment4</p><p>Total161</p><p>&amp;L&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12SEE-ERA.NET Pilot Joint Call&amp;C</p><p>&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12Number of teams by scientific field in funded proposals &amp;R&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;11 26/06/2007</p><p>&amp;L&amp;"Arial,Bold"Prepared by INTAS</p><p>Funded teams by Field C</p><p>05 - Computer Sciences</p><p>19 - Environmental Chemistry</p><p>8</p><p>3</p><p>6</p><p>6</p><p>8</p><p>13</p><p>13</p><p>32 - Atmospheric Studies</p><p>33 - Hydrology &amp; Marine Sciences</p><p>47</p><p>37 - Telecommunication</p><p>40 - Economics</p><p>38</p><p>15</p><p>4</p><p>&amp;L&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12SEE-ERA.NET Pilot Joint Call&amp;C</p><p>&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;12Number of teams by scientific field in funded proposals &amp;R&amp;"Arial,Bold"&amp;11 27/06/2007</p><p>&amp;L&amp;"Arial,Bold"Prepared by INTAS</p><p>N teams in funded proposals</p></li><li><p>Remarks on PJC results: Success rate per country</p><p>Country No teams in funded proposalsTeam success rate fundedNo teams in eligible proposalsTeam success rate eligibleAlbania85%6113%Austria85%5914%Bosnia &amp; Herzegovina85%8310%Bulgaria138%12510%Croatia149%14210%France85%4418%Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia1510%11813%Germany117%7315%Greece1812%1929%Hungary96%6215%Montenegro64%5012%Romania64%837%Serbia1812%2278%Slovenia138%10113%Sum155142011%</p></li><li><p>SEE-ERA.NET contactsMonitoring teamManfred Spiesberger (external expert)Email1: m.spiesberger@openmedicalinstitute.orgEmail2: manfred_spiesberger@yahoo.de</p><p>Centre for Social Innovation:Marion Haberfellner (previously Peter B. Mayr)</p><p>CNRS:Jean-Luc TeffoCeline-Delacourt Gollain</p><p>National Authority for Scientific Research in RomaniaIulia Mihail, Anca Ghinescu, Alexandra Gurau</p></li><li><p>*Lessons learnt for the SEE-ERA.NET PLUS Joint Call</p></li><li><p>*LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE PJC 1/1FUNDINGFunding increased for the complete call budget and for each individual projectNot feasible:Virtual common pot:No national reserves for propping up of funds due to financial crisis</p><p>PROCEDURESOnly one instrument (research projects)one single multilateral contract per projectRules of the game clearHowever: Different national eligibility criteria</p></li><li><p>*LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE PJC 1/2EVALUATIONScientific Council established</p><p>PR/AWARENESS RAISI...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >