overview

DYNSTOCH+ WorkshopDYNSTOCH+ Workshop

Preparing an Initial Training Network Preparing an Initial Training Network proposal in FP7proposal in FP7

Solange BlaszkowskiSolange Blaszkowski7 June 20077 June 2007

2 Solange Blaszkowski, DYNSTOCH+ Workshop, 7 June 2007

OverviewOverview

PART I: Preparing an Initial Training Network proposal in FP7 TASMAN: reviewing reviewers comments RTN in FP6 vs. ITN in FP7 ITN (calls, objectives, size, etc.)

PART II: Proposal evaluation


TASMAN: reviewing the reviewers TASMAN: reviewing the reviewers commentscomments

Statistics:

CALLBudgetMEuros

Submitted 1st phase

Passed 1st phase

Success Rate 1st ph

Final Accepted

Success Rate

overall

2003 230 652 --- --- 37 5.7%

2004 45 371 47 12.7% 15 4.0%

2005 220 901 208 23% 70 7.8%



SCIENTIFIC QUALITY OF THE COLLABORATIVE PROJECT (Mark 4.1 // 1.0)*The objectives are well specified; in particular the issues of integration and overcoming of fragmentation are well described in the project.The joint program is of high scientific quality and well articulated; however, because of the diversity of the research goals, some of them may not be attainable.The methodology is largely appropriate and uses modern tools for the stochastic modeling of dynamical systems.The project goals are not completely original; nevertheless the methods stand at the forefront of modern stochastic modeling and demonstrate a sound knowledge of the state of the art.Strengths of the proposals: high scientific quality of the researchers and of the proposal; the size of the network is also especially appropriate to have a real research impact. Further positive aspects are the integration of different disciplines, and the state-of-the art methodology that is being envisaged.Weaknesses of the proposal: some goals might not be attainable because of diversity; the network should perhaps focus on fewer problems. This would also benefit the applied side which is currently not sufficiently emphasized.Overall comment: this is a very good project which addresses important and timely problems using state-of-the-art methods and tools.* Threshold 3,00/5,00



QUALITY OF THE TRAINING / TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE (ToK) ACTIVITIES (Mark 4.0 // 1.0)*

The training program is well described and consistent with the research project. In particular the ratio between ESR and ER is appropriate. On the other hand the content of the ToK part is not sufficiently described.The training and ToK programme addresses very important and timely issues, although no specific instruments for industry-academia cooperation are indicated.The local and network-wide training / ToK activities are well covered and described.Although the standard methods and instruments that will be employed are traditional, the benefits to researchers are well described and elaborated.Strengths of the proposals: the structure of the training component and the plan for career development.Weaknesses of the proposal: the content of the ToK part, together with industry-academia cooperation, is not sufficiently described.Overall comment: the program promises to provide very good training for highly demanded young statisticians; however the content of the training/ToK requires further elaboration.

* Threshold 3,00/5,00



Conclusions Total score 4.1 too low in overall competition Project Goals: too diverse and not original Applications not sufficiently emphasized Transfer of Knowledge not sufficiently described no specific instruments for industry-academia cooperation

are indicated methods and instruments to be employed are traditional content of the training/ToK requires further elaboration


Marie Curie in FP6Marie Curie in FP6

RTN ToK

EST

Teams

Chairs

Awards

Reint. grantsERG

Conf &Courses

Intern.fellows.

EIF

Intern.fellows.

IIF

Intern.fellows.

OIF

Reint. grantsIRG


ERC’s

Marie Curie in FP7Marie Curie in FP7

RTN

ToK

EST

Teams

Chairs

Awards

Reint. grantsERG

Conf &Courses

Intern.fellows.

EIF

Intern.fellows.

IIF

Intern.fellows.

OIF

Reint. grantsIRG

Initial Initial Training Training

Industry-Industry-AcademiAcademi

a a

Internat. Internat. DimensioDimensio

nn

LifelonLifelong g

TraininTraining g

SpecifiSpecific c

ActionActions s


CALLSCALLS


Initial Training Network (ITN)Initial Training Network (ITN)

CALLS Yearly calls for all mobility programs 2 phases submission (outline + full proposal)

Keep in mind that the outline must cover info of whole proposal!

First Call CLOSED!Deadline 7 May 07 (1st ph) and 25 Sep 07 (2nd ph), Budget = 240 ME FP6/’05: RTN=220ME, EST=170, C&C=12.2 , Chairs=10 (412ME)

2nd Call: Deadline: expected early 2008 (April - May)Budget: ?


ITN: The basicsITN: The basics

OBJECTIVE Contribute to the structuring of existing high-quality initial research

training capacity throughout Europe in both public and private sectors. It is about research TRAINING ! Industry very important in the consortium !

INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION Full network partner: if appropriate to the network and taking into

consideration the research discipline; Provider of research training and complementary training including

secondment Members of the supervisory board of the network, which would be

expected to define the skills requirements for the early-stage researchers. In the heavy competition, full network partner is stronger !

Weak

OK Strong


ITN Size and budget of the network ITN Size and budget of the network

Normally a network will be composed of at least three participants (multi-site networks). Manageable size would be in the range of 6 to 10 partners (based on past experience). Average budget is € 2,5 million for the typical multi-site network. Advise: keep it under the 10 partners …

Large networks may be important to provide training in e.g. fragmented fields of research having many smaller groups active in different locations. Must demonstrate a very high degree of organization. Budget of up to € 4,5 million for the largest multi-sites. or up to 12 if very well justified!

Mono-sites and twinnings are also possible under certain conditions… Budget will range from € 1,5 million for mono-sites and twinnings.… ITNs with less than three participants can also be considered, provided that the organisation(s) involved have well-established trans-national collaborations with other research institutes that can contribute to the research training programme without being formal (contractual) participant(s) in the ITN.


ITN Activities (1)ITN Activities (1)

Training activities Training of early stage researchers for up to 36 months (PhD) Training of researchers in the period immediately after the PhD

(experienced researchers), and limited to 24 months max. Networking Secondments Management & Recruitment

“Visiting scientists” positions: for experienced researchers in both in public sector and enterprise partners. Typically multiple stays within the network, each with a duration of at least one month.

Training events may be offered (e.g. conferences, summer schools, etc.). Also to researchers from outside the netw.


ITN Activities (2)ITN Activities (2)

JOINT RESEARCH TRAINING PROGRAMME Due attention should be paid to… provision for supervision and mentoring arrangements and career guidance exposing the researchers to other disciplines and sectors represented in the

network through visits, secondments and other training events.

PERSONAL CAREER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Each researcher will establish, together with her/his personal supervisor in

the host organisation, a Personal Career Development Plan comprising his/her training needs (including complementary skills) and scientific objectives and will later on report upon the success with which these objectives were met. Training program, specially training that is common to all students, should be detailed in the proposal ! Timeline for Personal Career Development Plan development important


OtherOther

Consortium agreement: Participants are not required to conclude a consortium agreement, HOWEVER… Industry will require a consortium agreement. Be prepared to sign one!

Before start writing your proposal Read Guide for applicants (Chapter 2.4 Typical Activities of an ITN is a must!)


Important DocsImportant Docs

Guide for Applicants Work Programme Etc. Marie Curie website:

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/people/home_en.html

DYNSTOCH+ WorkshopDYNSTOCH+ Workshop

Proposal EvaluationProposal Evaluation

Solange BlaszkowskiSolange Blaszkowski7 June 20077 June 2007


Evaluation ProcessEvaluation Process

Briefing of Briefing of independent expertsindependent experts

Individual evaluation Individual evaluation of proposalsof proposals

ConsensusConsensus

Panel EvaluationPanel Evaluation

Evaluation Evaluation Summary Summary ReportsReports


Selection of expertsSelection of experts

Different procedure for different Priorities & Instruments Minimum 3 Independent Experts per proposal For IP’s and NoE’s: at least 5 Experts (up to 10+) Marie Curie: 3-4 Experts per proposal

A search is made in database for experts in specific areas (keywords) according to expected proposals

“Politically” correct choice of reviewers By the time the call is closed, reviewers are already

selected: pre-registration/lobby is thus important!


Selection of expertsSelection of experts: Marie Curie… : Marie Curie…

NA = n sin

CD, DVD, DVR, …

Magnetic storage

(harddisk)…


Briefing Independent expertsBriefing Independent experts

Evaluation procedure public info: official guidelines for evaluators are part of the call documentation

Briefing can be done orally or in written Briefing may influence the review in e.g comments like

“we would like to have as many as possible proposals” or “area X must be fully covered”

Reviewers are requested to be as neutral as possible towards the proposers, country where they come from, etc., but…

Only what is actually written can be evaluated


Evaluation of proposalsEvaluation of proposals

In Brussels/Luxemburg or remotely IST: mainly in Brussels. FET-Open is remote Marie Curie: remote Life Sciences: remote

In average 1 hour (up to 2 hours max.) per proposal IST/IP: 6-8 proposals of ca. 120-150 pages each per day MC: 1 week, ca. 10 proposals

Evaluation criteria: common criteria (S&T excellence, management, mobilization of

resources, relevance to the objective of the call, European added value, dissemination/exploitation)

specific criteria for different priorities/instruments per call (integration of activities, training, transfer of knowledge, etc.)


Evaluation: In Brussels… (e.g. IST)Evaluation: In Brussels… (e.g. IST)


Evaluation: remote… (e.g. MC)Evaluation: remote… (e.g. MC)


Evaluation: how many proposals?Evaluation: how many proposals?


1. Scientific Quality of Project

Scientific/technological quality of the project or research training area…..Are the scientific objectives of the project or training area important, timely and relevant …………………………………………………………….Assessment of the research method, ……………………………………….Assessment of the interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects………..Assessment of the originality and innovative nature of the project ………

2. Quality Training Activities

Quality of the training programme including complementary training ……Impact of the training in the relevant field and, where applicable, in fostering Euro Ph.D.s …………………………………………………………

… … …7.Added Value to the Commu nity

Extent to which the proposed fellowship contributes towards the objectives of the European Research Area …………………………………Extent by which long term synergies or structuring effects are built throughout the fellowship by carrying out the proposed research or training at a European level.…………………………………………………..Extent to which the proposal increase the attractiveness of Europe for researchers and improve gender balance in the scientific/training areaExtent to which the proposal is important and relevant in terms of European competitiveness and other Community policies ………………..………

Evaluation Criteria: example Marie Curie Evaluation Criteria: example Marie Curie ESTEST

gender balance

score

score


Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation Criteria


Evaluation Criteria: example Marie Curie EST


Evaluation Criteria: example Marie Curie Evaluation Criteria: example Marie Curie ESTEST

1. Scientific Quality of Project

Scientific/technological quality of the project or research training area…..Are the scientific objectives of the project or training area important, timely and relevant …………………………………………………………….Assessment of the research method, ……………………………………….Assessment of the interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects………..Assessment of the originality and innovative nature of the project ………

2. Quality Training Activities

Quality of the training programme including complementary training ……Impact of the training in the relevant field and, where applicable, in fostering Euro Ph.D.s …………………………………………………………

… … …7.Added Value to the Commu nity

Extent to which the proposed fellowship contributes towards the objectives of the European Research Area …………………………………Extent by which long term synergies or structuring effects are built throughout the fellowship by carrying out the proposed research or training at a European level.…………………………………………………..Extent to which the proposal increase the attractiveness of Europe for researchers and improve gender balance in the scientific/training areaExtent to which the proposal is important and relevant in terms of European competitiveness and other Community policies ………………..………

gender balance

score

score


Evaluation Criteria ITN (1/2)Evaluation Criteria ITN (1/2)((Guide for Applicants for Marie Curie Initial Training Networks, P40)


Evaluation Criteria ITN (2/2) Evaluation Criteria ITN (2/2) ((Guide for Applicants for Marie Curie Initial Training Networks, P40)


ITN Evaluation Criteria (Weighting and ITN Evaluation Criteria (Weighting and Thresholds)Thresholds)


Good summary and B1 ? The rest is Good summary and B1 ? The rest is easier…easier…

Relevance Potential Impact

S&T Excellence QConsort QManag Resources

IP IC’s

4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.0

IP eHealth 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.5


ConsensusConsensus

Brussels: consensus meeting can be called up few times during the day

Remote evaluation: through the e-mail if scores of different reviewers is similar Physical meeting (in Brussels) if large differences exist

After remote evaluation, reviewers are requested to discard the proposal. Few weeks (a month) latter, they meet in Brussels for consensus meeting

At consensus meeting of remote evaluation, reviewers do not have the proposals anymore. The only instrument they have to justify their remarks and scores is the summary. Summary has to be excellent!


Conclusions: How to Write your proposalConclusions: How to Write your proposal

Start with a few A4’s outline with your project idea: societal needs, objective, innovation, partners, etc. Keep in mind the objectives of the call

Approach the EU project officers: Check Commission’s “Hidden Agenda” Check content, consortium, instrument, etc. Help selecting the right reviewers

When writing the proposal, keep an eye in the evaluation criteria

Use an easy to understand language (as such that you can talk to your neighbours about)

Make sure your summary is the best part of the proposal


Conclusions: How to Write your proposalConclusions: How to Write your proposal

Tell a nice story (like a romance) specially in Chapter B1 – S&T

Make use of all graphic tools available like figures, tables, diagrams, bullets, text boxes, etc. (no colours!)

Check readability: copy of the copy (recycling paper)! Ask advise to National Contact Point about your draft

proposal Be a reviewer yourself: call for experts at

https://cordis.europa.eu/emmfp7/

overview

Documents

training program

good training

training component

research project

fp7 tasman

good project

proposal evaluation

research goals