"Förderanträge verständlich formulieren

Transcription

1 "Förderanträge verständlich formulieren - Ein Erfahrungsbericht - Karlheinz Blankenbach Hochschule Pforzheim 4. Fachforum Wissensregion Nordschwarzwald : EU-Fördermittel für Innovation und Forschung 9. Juli 2014, Bad Wildbad Prof. Dr. Karlheinz Blankenbach Phone : Pforzheim University Fax : Tiefenbronner Str kb@displaylabor.de D Pforzheim, Germany Web : 1

2 Overview Introduction Evaluation Process Criteria for Evaluation with comments and hints Summary 2

3 Overview 3

4 Prof. Dr. Karlheinz Blankenbach - Chairman of - Chairman Applications DFF (German Flat Panel Forum) - Speaker of display group of VDE/ITG - Chairman of steering committee (EU project) Spiegel Sep PROFES- SIONAL SYSTEM 5/2011 FOCUS Nov

5 Are There Lessons Learned From Displays? George Harry Heilmeier (born May 22, 1936) is an American engineer and businessman, who was a pioneering contributor to LCDs. In 1971 he was appointed Assistant Director for Defense Research and Engineering, (source: SID Informationdisplay). Electronic and Physical Sciences, overseeing all research and exploratory development in electronics and the physical sciences. In 1975 he was named Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). In December 1977 Heilmeier become vice president at Texas Instruments; in 1983 he was promoted to Chief Technical Officer. (source: wikipedia) 5

6 Heilmeier's Catechism (source: wikipedia, adapted). A set of questions credited to Heilmeier that anyone proposing a research project or product development effort should be able to answer: What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using no jargon. How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice? What's new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful? Who cares? (markets, customers, visions, ) If you're successful, what difference will it make? (progress beyond ) What are the risks and the payoffs? (detailed analysis, invest, ) How much will it cost? (budget, personal, invest, ROI, ) How long will it take? (schedule, resources, milestones, quality, ) What are the midterm and final "exams" to check for success? 6

7 Timetable for Proposals "Förderanträge verständlich formulieren" Fixed Deadline Call by EU Submission of proposal before deadline Precheck by EU Commission ( fits to call, form OK, ) Evaluation by external experts (common criteria) Highest ranked proposals: Negotiations with EU Commission 8

8 External Experts Evaluators (source: EU commission, adapted) Role of evaluators: - Independent (your represent yourself, not your employer or country) - Objective (evaluate the proposal as written) - Accurate (use the official evaluation criteria only) - Consistent (same standard of judgment to each proposal) - Conflicts of interest (when involved in proposal or company, ) - Before start of evaluation: communicate conflict to EU commission - During evaluation: alert EU evaluation staff Many experts with your topics are involved in proposals They are excluded from evaluation (not involved is OK) Proposals will also be evaluated by people having expertise within call Heilmeier catechism: Describe at the beginning your idea using no jargon! 9

9 Evaluation and Selection of Proposals Stage Individual reading per proposal 1 of 3-5 evaluators Evaluators from both academia and industry! Individual Assessment Reports (IAR) 2 Consensus Meeting of evaluators with moderation of Commission staff Consensus Reports (CR) 3 Panel Meeting of evaluators to review Consensus Reports Evaluation Summary Reports (ESR) Proposal selection (source: EU commission, adapted) 10

10 (STREP) Criteria for Evaluation by Experts (I) 1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the call) 2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management 3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results All 3 criteria have the same weight and score (0 5.0)! A threshold (3.0) is set for each criteria no compensation An overall threshold (10.0) must be reached (source: EU commission, adapted) 11

11 (STREP) Criteria for Evaluation by Experts (II) 1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the call) Make, e.g., a table in your proposal Soundness of concept and quality of objectives Progress beyond the state-of-the-art Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan Many proposals fail due to Concept / objectives unclear Older state-of-the-art Generic work plan (source: EU commission, adapted) 12

12 (STREP) Criteria for Evaluation by Experts (III) (source: EU commission, adapted) 2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance) Many proposals fail due to weak consortium! Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment) Many proposals fail due to weak description of resources! 14

13 (STREP) Criteria for Evaluation by Experts (IV) 3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under relevant topic/activity Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property Many proposals fail due to generic terms used in impact, dissemination and use! (source: EU commission, adapted) 15

14 (STREP) Criteria for Evaluation by Experts (source: EU commission, adapted) 1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the call) 2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Same weight as 1. but often less effort in proposals! 3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results We experienced proposals, where S/T excellence was outstanding but implementation, management and impact were only described in brief with some paragraphs missing 5 / 2 / 2 points < 10 16

15 (STREP) Scale for Score 0 The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information; 1 Poor : The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses; 2 Fair : While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, Threshold there are significant weaknesses; 3 Good : The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary; 4 Very good : The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible; 5 Excellent : The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor. (source: EU commission, adapted) 17

16 Scientist & Evaluator / Evaluation Process He should easily catch the idea of YOUR proposal! Idea Technology Excellence Management E Equipment Staff Impact Ranking This could happen because of different awareness of criteria 18

17 Summary for a successful proposal: - Sparkling idea - Proposal fits to call - Eligible consortium - Well made proposal what not: - Number and quality of other proposals - Budget allocation good to have this guy in your team: 19

18 Thank your for your attention and good luck for your proposals! Contact (pdf on request): 20