Horizon 2020 LEIT-Space

Transcription

1 Horizon 2020 LEIT-Space Rules for participation, proposal submission, evaluation procedure Carmen Aguilera H2020 Galileo Call Coordinator European GNSS Agency Market Development Department

2 2

3 Types of action in 2017 and co-funding rates Research and Innovation Action (RIA) - EO-COMPET Up to 100% of eligible costs Innovation Action (IA) - EO-GALILEO Up to 70% of eligible costs (exception: up to 100% for non-profit organisations) Coordination and Support Action (CSA) EO-GALILEO- COMPET Up to 100% of eligible costs 3

4 Evaluation process for each call Max. 5 months Evaluators Receipt of proposals Individual evaluation Consensus group Panel Review Finalisation Eligibility/ admissibility check Allocation of proposals to evaluators Individual Evaluation Reports (Usually done remotely) Consensus Report (May be done remotely) Panel report Evaluation Summary Report Panel ranked list At the same time: Ethics Screening Final ranked list Evaluation results sent to applicants Initiation Grant Agreement Preparation

5 Standard admissibility criteria 1. Submitted in the electronic submission system before the deadline Acknowledgement of Receipt 2. Complete (requested administrative forms + proposal description + supporting documents) 3. Readable, accessible and printable 4. Respecting page limit (RIA/IA: 70 pages; CSA:50 pages) o Outside the limit: participating organisations (operational capacity check) CV or profile description of staff carrying out the work A list of up to 5 publications and/or other research or innovation products A list of up to 5 relevant previous projects/activities Relevant available infrastructure/equipment description Description of additional third parties contributing to the work ethics self assessment, data management plan (open access to peer-reviewed scientific publications) 5

6 Standard eligibility criteria Non-eligibility can also be discovered during/after evaluation 1) Content corresponds, wholly or in part, to the topic description against which it is submitted 2) Proposal complies with the minimum participation and any other eligibility conditions set out for the type of action: Can be supplemented or modified in the call conditions Research & innovation action Innovation action Coordination & support action a. Three legal entities. b. Each of the three shall be established in a different Member State or associated country. c. All three legal entities shall be independent of each other. One legal entity established a Member State or associated country. 6

7 Countries eligible to receive funding WP General Annex A EU-Member States The Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) linked to the MS: Anguilla, Aruba, Bermuda, Bonaire, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Curaçao, Falkland Islands, French Polynesia, Greenland, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Pitcairn Islands, Saba, Saint Barthélémy, Saint Helena, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Sint Eustatius, Sint Maarten, Turks and Caicos Islands, Wallis and Futuna. Horizon 2020 associated countries Check Funding Guide for up-to-date information whether agreements are signed (15 associated countries as of April 2016): Third countries listed in General Annex A International organisation of European interest* *International organisation not of European interest can be eligible for funding only exceptionally 7

8 Other countries eligible to receive funding Legal entities established in countries not listed in Annex A and international organisations will only be eligible for funding: o if explicitly mentioned in the call text, or o when funding for such participants is provided for under a bilateral scientific and technological agreement or any other arrangement between the Union and an international organisation or a third country, or o when the Commission deems participation of an entity essential for carrying out the action funded through Horizon

9 Evaluation process for each call Max. 5 months Evaluators Receipt of proposals Individual evaluation Consensus group Panel Review Finalisation Eligibility/ admissibility check Allocation of proposals to evaluators Individual Evaluation Reports (Usually done remotely) Consensus Report (May be done remotely) Panel report Evaluation Summary Report Panel ranked list Final ranked list composed and information sent to applicants

10 Proposal evaluation basic principles Excellence, transparency, fairness and impartiality and efficiency and speed Done by independent experts selected by REA/GSA/EASME from Experts database on Participant Portal o Balance in terms of 1. Skills, experience and knowledge 2. Other factors geographical diversity gender where appropriate, the private and public sectors an appropriate turnover from year to year o No conflict of interest! 10

11 Evaluation: Selection criteria Operational capacity: Assessed by the experts during evaluations Check if the consortium partners have the basic capacity to carry out the proposed work: experience, expertise, availability of infrastructure, equipment, human resources etc. to carry out proposed activity Based on information provided by the applicant in the proposal (Part B): CVs, publications, references, explanation of available infrastructure, etc. If something is missing at the time of the proposal, include explanation on how to have it available for the project: recruitment plans, plans on how to access missing equipment or infrastructure etc. 11

12 Excellence Evaluation criteria: Research and Innovation Actions/Innovation Actions/ SME instrument Extent that proposed work corresponds to the topic description in the work programme o Clarity and pertinence of the objectives o Soundness of the concept, and credibility of the proposed methodology o Extent that proposed work is beyond the state of the art, and demonstrates innovation potential (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches, new products, services or business and organisational models) o Appropriate consideration of interdisciplinary approaches and, where relevant, use of stakeholder knowledge.

13 Impact Evaluation criteria: Research and Innovation Actions/Innovation Actions/ SME instrument o The extent to which the outputs would contribute to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic o Any substantial impacts not mentioned in the WP, that would enhance innovation capacity; create new market opportunities, strengthen competitiveness and growth of companies, address issues related to climate change or the environment, or bring other important benefits for society o Quality of proposed measures to exploit and disseminate project results (including IPR, manage research data where relevant); communicate the project activities to different target audiences 13

14 Compulsory Preliminary Business Plan GALILEO-1,2,3 What: Demonstrate the commercial potential of the product and/or service and describe how this potential will be realised. Why: It is an input to evaluate the Impact criteria. How: Template available in the participant portal. Define the proposed offering: the product and/or service and target market sector. Review the market sector: structure, size, drivers, market and technology trends. Assess the competition: main players, their current offerings and market share. Describe the innovation of the proposed offering in the context of the competition and the sector s needs Summarise potential business model(s) together with possible entry price(s) and costs Assess the key risks to market entry and possible options for risk mitigation. Outline, graphically, the roll-out of the offering: timescale, sales growth and market share.

15 Implementation Evaluation criteria: Research and Innovation Actions/Innovation Actions/ SME instrument o Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, including extent to which resources assigned in work packages are in line with objectives/ deliverables o Appropriateness of management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management o Complementarity of the participants which the consortium as a whole brings together expertise o Appropriateness of allocation of tasks, ensuring that al participants have a valid role and adequate resources in the project to fulfill that role 15

16 Implementation Impact Excellence Evaluation criteria: Coordination & Support Actions o o o o Extent that proposed work corresponds to the topic description in the work programme Clarity and pertinence of the objectives Soundness of the concept, and credibility of the proposed methodology Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures o o The expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic Quality of proposed measures to: - Exploit and disseminate project results (including IPR, manage data research where relevant); - Communicate the project activities to different target audiences o o o o Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, including extent to which resources assigned in work packages are in line with objectives/deliverables Appropriateness of management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation mgt Complementarity of the participants which the consortium as a whole brings together expertise Appropriateness of allocation of tasks, ensuring that al participants have a valid role and adequate resources in the project to fulfill that role

17 Proposal scoring Excellence: "The objectives.." 4,0 4,5 Impact: "The innovation capacity.." 1. Per criterion: Assessment, comments, justifications 2. Matching scores Quality and efficiency of the implementation: "The management.." 3,5 Σ 12,0 out of 15,0 Evaluation scores are awarded per criterion, scale from 0 to 5, half point scores may be given Maximum score: 15 Individual criteria threshold: 3 Total score threshold: 10 17

18 Evaluation process for each call Max. 5 months Evaluators Receipt of proposals Individual evaluation Consensus group Panel Review Finalisation Eligibility/ admissibility check Allocation of proposals to evaluators Individual Evaluation Reports (Usually done remotely) Consensus Report (May be done remotely) Panel report Evaluation Summary Report Panel ranked list Final ranked list composed and information sent to applicants

19 Ranking of proposals Done by experts in panel review 1 ranked list per topic or per group of topics with a dedicated budget Preparation: "cross-reading" 13,5 14,5 11,5 14,0 20

20 H2020 Space calls 2017 evaluation planning 1 March 2017: Closing of Call June 2017: Ethics screening July August 2017 Inform applicants Remote evaluations April May 2017 Central evaluations May June 2017 November 2017 GAP ending Receipt of proposals Individual evaluation Consensus group Panel Review Finalisation GAP Eligibility check Allocation of proposals to evaluators Individual Evaluation Reports (done remotely) Consensus Report Panel report Evaluation Summary Report Cross-readings Panel ranked list Final ranked list Evaluation results sent to applicants Initiation Grant Agreement Preparation All Grant Agreements signed Time-To-Inform (TTI): 5 months *Legal limit for TTI is Time-To-Grant (TTG): 8 months

21 Successful proposal- some hints and GSA lessons learnt Be focused and specific Build on fairly mature application or business concepts and fill the gap Explain what is new, your added value, how you will move forward Build on technical and market understanding and expertise Ideally, entities with sufficient knowledge of specific markets Consortium bringing all needed competences: clear roles, no overlap Demonstrate a clear motivation to commercialise the products and services Market entry plan (marketing strategy & business plan) Previous achievements in the specific market Show your commitment and capability to go to market Focus on practical impact Include trials, demonstration, testing involving final users in their real life procedures Produce practical tools useful for the GNSS developer community Select applications where EGNOS and Galileo differentiators are key for the product/service success

22 Stand out from the crowd! DO use real EGNOS and Galileo signals. If simulations are needed, explain why and how. DO include references to previous research and results: available technologies, prototypes, infrastructure, results and what/how you will build on them DO use the GSA Market report to build your business plan and be realistic DO involve newcomers. Especially partners with market access and innovation track record in GNSS applications are an asset DON T just integrate a GNSS receiver, but focus on E-GNSS research and its differentiators DON T limit yourself to the GNSS applications listed in the WP, these are examples DON T focus on GNSS receiver development, the objective of the call is applications DON T wait until the last minute to submit your proposal

23 Some myths A good mix of nationalities is important All evaluators are academics with no business experience Letters of interest are important (when they are not ready to become partners) Consortia that are already in a funded project have a much higher probability of success. Focus on expertise and complementarity Mix of evaluators with business and technical background Commitment, resources and role of external participants must be explained Ensure track record of successful innovation and access to the target market. We look for commercially viable projects and do not need follow-on funding

24 Horizon 2020 LEIT-Space How to prepare a good proposal Virginia Puzzolo Head of the Project Management Sector European Commission Research Executive Agency REA.B1 Space Research

25 External vs internal success factors Call Content Open or top-down Topics Budget availability H2020 Rules Eligibility Admissibility Evaluation criteria Proposal structure

26 Know your success factors Carefully read the Call topics text and additional documents: proposal content and consortium composition should answer scope and expected impacts of the Call topic. Your idea may fit better in other calls? Check the Calls launched within the "Excellent Science" Programme the "Societal Challenges" Programme SME actions Fast track to Innovation Pilot Resubmissions: The call topic may have slightly changed from previous call Update it as 2-3 years is a long time in science / technology

27 WP structure of the 'calls & topics 31 H2020 Space Work Programme Calls Callsfor for proposals proposals Calls for proposals Topics Topics Topics Specific challenge Scope Expected Impact The 'problem' Identifies the aspects of the challenge that needs to be tackled. WP text does not outline the expected solutions to the problem, nor the approach to be taken by the applicant ("non-prescriptive" approach) The 'problem in detail' Provides more details on the specific challenge by specifying a perimeter to the problem described The 'change' to be achieved Provides a broad description of what is the impact to be achieved through the project(s) to be funded. The dissemination and exploitation of future research results are vital for the impact

28 Quality = key to success Demonstrate WHAT WHY HOW! An excellent idea is the basis of a good proposal but is not sufficient. The expected impacts and implementation aspects are as important! The proposal should excel in each single criterion! Be specific in your objectives and expected impacts and clearly demonstrate how you aim to implement and sustain them Proposal PART B 1. Excellence 1.1 Objectives 1.2 Relation to the work programme 1.3 Concept and methodology 1.4 Ambition 2. Impact 2.1 Expected impacts 2.2 Measures to maximise impact a) Dissemination and exploitation of results b) Communication activities 3. Implementation 3.1 Work plan Work packages, deliverables 3.2 Management structure, milestones and procedures 3.3 Consortium as a whole 3.4 Resources to be committed

29 1. EXCELLENCE PART B - 1. Excellence 1.1 Objectives -> clear, measurable, realistic and achievable within project duration 1.2 Relation to the work programme explain how your proposal addresses the specific challenge and scope of the work programme topic 1.3 Concept and methodology (a)concept Describe and explain the overall concept + main ideas, models or assumptions involved. Technology Readiness Levels Links with other projects/activities Identify any inter-disciplinary considerations and, where relevant, use of stakeholder knowledge; (a)methodology Describe and explain the overall methodology 1.4 Ambition advance beyond the state-of-the-art extent the proposed work is ambitious Describe the innovation potential Crt Clarity and pertinence of the objectives Crt Soundness of the concept, and credibility of the proposed methodology BE CAREFULL with HIGH TRL and plan well the activities - resources needed to achieve them Crt Appropriate consideration of interdisciplinary approaches and, where relevant, use of stakeholder knowledge. Who are your stakeholders, USERS, CUSTOMERS? How do you plan to use their knowledge? Crt Extent that proposed work is beyond the state of the art, and demonstrates innovation potential

30 Innovation dimension in H2020 Innovation Invention (an invention can grow into innovation by proper exploitation) "Innovation is about satisfying needs and wants and delivering tangible benefits" H2020 aims for a balanced approach to research and innovation, not only limited to the development of new products and services on the basis of scientific and technological breakthroughs (=research dimension), but also incorporating aspects such as the use of existing technologies in novel applications, continuous improvement and non- technological and social innovation (=innovation dimension).

31 Innovation in the Evaluation criteria Innovation potential : (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches, new products, services or business and organisational models). Enhancing innovation capacity : (Any substantial impacts not mentioned in the WP, that would enhance innovation capacity; create new market opportunities, strengthen competitiveness and growth of companies,.. ) Addressing barriers/obstacles, and any framework conditions such as regulation and standards; of the participating organisations/research community by enabling new processes or partnerships beyond the project consortium. Innovation management = is a process which requires an understanding of both market and technical problems, with a goal of successfully transfer the innovations developed. Is innovation management clearly assigned? How will innovation management be taken care of? Are concrete innovation tools identified?...

32 2. IMPACT PART B - 2. Impact 2.1 Expected impacts each of the expected impacts mentioned under the relevant topic any substantial impacts not mentioned in the work programme Describe any barriers/obstacles, and any framework conditions 2.2 Measures to maximise impact a) Dissemination and exploitation of results draft plan for the dissemination and exploitation of the project's results Business plan where relevant Outline the strategy for knowledge management and protection (incl IPR) Open Research Data -> information on how the participants will manage the research data generated and/or collected during the Project a) Communication activities promoting the project and its findings -> tailored to different target audiences, including groups beyond the project's own community Crt The extent to which the outputs would contribute to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic Crt Any substantial impacts not mentioned in the WP, that would enhance innovation capacity; create new market opportunities, strengthen competitiveness and growth of companies, address issues related to climate change or the environment, or bring other important benefits for society Crt Quality of proposed measures to exploit and disseminate project results (including IPR, manage research data where relevant) communicate the project activities to different target audiences

33 Dissemination Communication Dissemination one direction path (mainly presenting results) e.g. presentation to conferences, publication in peer review journal, etc. Dissemination plan: Raise awareness about project outputs Communication two directions path (results & project activities) e.g. organising workshop with users, discuss with customers, etc Communication plan: Tailored to the needs of various audiences, including the public policy perspective of EU research and innovation funding Often only general reference to communication activities made and these consist more of dissemination actions!!!!

34 Exploitation Dissemination Communication Exploitation Exploitation plan: At which technical readiness level (TRL) do you start and how will you reach the TRL you aim for as expressed in the objectives of your proposal? What are the needed business model and marketing activities and how will they be decided amongst partners? Common mistakes in Exploitation: Lack of clear exploitation strategy (especially relevant for IAs) Lack of clear indication which results which will be exploited, in which way, by whom IPR issues (access to background, results exploitation) left to the Consortium Agreement only

35 IPR Management of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR): Demonstration of specific measures in scope ownership, access/use, etc. during and after the project: 1.Identify your own background (data, know-how and/or information held or identified by participants prior to their accession to the action) 2.Verify if background of third parties is needed. If yes, what are their access rights? Need for authorisation to use and exploit the results? 3.Check the state-of-the-art: existing patents? E.g. via database provided by the European Patent Office: Espacenet 1.Specify the ownership of the results: Who owns what? Any transfers? On which conditions? 2.Is there is a need to protect the results? If yes, assign cost. Ensure appropriate access and usage right for key IP during AND after the project (results & background) A short reference on IPR "to be developed in the Consortium Agreement" is not sufficien

36 Open Access to scientific publications Open Access to scientific publications is obligation under H2020= online access at no charge to the user to peer-reviewed scientific publications Two main OA publishing models: o Self-archiving: 'traditional' publication plus deposit of manuscripts in a repository ('Green OA') Both versions contain the same peer-reviewed content, but may be differently formatted / usually, but not always, with embargo o OA publishing: immediate OA provided by publisher ('Gold OA') Usually, but not always, 'Author-pay' model (APC) Some journals offer both subscriptions and open access publishing to selected on-line articles (hybrid journals) ot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf

37 NEW: Open access to research data Open research data sharing applies to the data needed to validate the results presented in scientific publications Additionally, projects can choose to make other data available open access and need to describe their approach in a Data Management Plan (DMP), included as a deliverable in the project Costs related to data management and data sharing are eligible for reimbursement during the project duration Now by default obligatory for all new topics o o except if they decide to opt-out for example for commercial or security reasons (see WP Annex L). Projects can opt-out at any stage. Proposals will not be evaluated more favourably for participating or penalised for opting out.

38 3. IMPLEMENTATION PART B 3. IMPLEMENTATION 3.1 Work plan Work packages, deliverables overall structure of the work plan timing of the different work packages Gantt chart detailed work description (WP, deliverables, etc..) Pert chart or similar (inter-relation of the WPs) 3.2 Management structure, milestones and procedures organisational structure and the decision-making mechanisms + why they are appropriate to the complexity and scale of the project. where relevant, innovation management Describe any critical risks, relating to project implementation + mitigation measures 3.3 Consortium as a whole Describe the consortium Describe the contribution of each partner If a participant requesting EU funding is based in a country or is an international organisation that is not automatically eligible for funding, explain why the participation of the entity in question is essential to carrying out the projectm 3.4 Resources to be committed table showing number of person/months required table showing other direct costs for participants where those costs exceed 15% of the personnel costs Crt 3.1 Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, including extent to which resources assigned in work packages are in line with objectives/ deliverables Crt Appropriateness of management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management Crt Complementarity of the participants which the consortium as a whole brings together expertise Crt Appropriateness of allocation of tasks, ensuring that all participants have a valid role and adequate resources in the project to fulfil that role AVOID EMPTY SHELLS! DO NOT FORGET SUBCONTRACTS and THIRD PARTIES And explain well HIGH OTHER DIRECT COSTS

39 Ethics Self-Assessment by the applicant Each applicant is responsible for: identifying any potential ethics issues handling ethical aspects of their proposal detailing how they plan to address them in sufficient detail already at the proposal stage so to conform to national, European and international regulations Part A in SEP ethics self-assessment Part B section 5 How to complete your ethics self-assessment Guideline for applicants

40 In Space: Dual Use, export licenses, 3 rd countries Does this research have the potential for military applications? o Exclusive civilian focus of the research must be demonstrated Do you need export licenses (for dual use items)? o E.g., GNC, TPS etc. Risk mitigation strategies for: o Mission creep: change of focus toward military o Leak of "sensitive" information (misuse) Does the participation of Third Countries, i.e., non-eu, beneficiaries or other, raise ethical issues? Export/Import Control? The Regulation: Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items:

41 Optimise your chances to success Understand the domain and its challenges R&D but also market, IPR and regulations, competition Be clear and explicit Evaluators must judge only what they read and not on the proposal potential. Thez have limited time. Do a mock evaluation Ask a colleague to conduct a self-assessment of the proposal against each evaluation sub-criterion. If you don't find the right answer easily in the text, the evaluators won't find it either! Optimise available time to prepare your proposal Last minute preparations are often reflected in a lower quality which largely reduces the changes in success; Start a draft early + Submit on time Incomplete submission is not an Obvious Clerical Error Late submission in IT system = inadmissible proposal. Deadlines are strict! Do not be afraid of letting the Commission see the abstract of your proposal in order to help us identify the best possible expert.

42 Need for more information? Contact your NCP (National Contact Point) for assistance. They are there to help you to understand the submission and evaluation process. NCPs have exclusive access to communication lines with the Commission for questions related to the Work Programme. For general questions on Horizon 2020, the Research Enquiry Service Helpdesk can also provide support.

43 Some links Call pages: Work Programme Grants Manual - Section on: Proposal submission and evaluation Guidance for evaluators of Horizon 2020 proposals Templates for mock evaluations: H2020 reference documents: Communication guidelines for projects: Guide on beneficiary registration, validation and financial viability check Manual: ETHICS How to complete your ethics Self-Assessment: Ethics Issues Table template: 47

44 Call for new experts Call for Expression of Interest for new experts for H2020

45 Thank you for your attention!