Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
http://www.ukro.ac.uk
Marie Curie:- Initial Training Networks- Industry-Academia Partnership and Pathways
Emma CareyUniversity of Bristol, 20 October 2010
UK National Contact [email protected]
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Economic and Social Research Council
Medical Research Council
Natural Environment Research Council
Arts and Humanities Research CouncilU
K R
esea
rch
Off
ice
UKRO’s ServicesU
K R
esea
rch
Off
ice
‘Core’ subscriber services Open to non-subscribers
Query service (Majority of) training courses and information events
Annual briefing visits
(for UK subscribers)
Annual Conference
News updates
ims.ukro.ac.uk
Marie Curie UK National Contact Point
Subscriber website
www.ukro.ac.uk/subs
European Research Council UK National Contact Point
Meeting room in Brussels British Council
European RTD Insight publication
http://www.ukro.ac.uk/mariecurie
Framework Programme 7 and the ‘People’ specific programme
UK NCP for Marie Curie
FP7 Specific Programmes
Co-operation – Collaborative Research
European Research Council
Marie Curie Actions
Capacities – Research Capacity
Fra
mew
ork
Pro
gra
mm
e 7
JRC EURATOM
Objectives and Policy Context:
• Make Europe more attractive to researchers• Structuring effect on the European Research Area
through transnational and intersectoral mobility in order to create a European labour market for researchers
• Strengthen human potential by:• Encouraging people to become researchers• Encouraging researchers to carry out their research
in Europe
• Trans-national and inter-sectoral mobility• €4.7 Billion
Marie Curie Actions F
P7
– M
arie
Cu
rie
Act
ion
s
Objectives and Policy Context: “The People Work programme actively supports the Commission’s Europe 2020 Strategy, and in particular 3 flagship initiatives: ‘Innovation Union’, ‘Youth on the Move’ and ‘An Agenda for new skills and jobs’” (2011 Work programme)
EU 2020: http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/index_en.htmInnovation Union: http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfmYouth on the Move: http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/news2540_en.htm
Marie Curie Actions F
P7
– M
arie
Cu
rie
Act
ion
s
Overview of Marie Curie ActionsP
eopl
e S
peci
fic P
rogr
amm
e
Actions for Organisations
Actions for Individuals
Initial Training Networks
Industry Academia Partnerships and Pathways
International Research Staff Exchange Scheme
CO-FUND
Intra- European Fellowships
International Incoming Fellowships
International Outgoing Fellowships
Career Integration Grants
2011 Deadlines
Industry Academia Partnerships and Pathways (IAPP)
20 July 2010 – 7 December 2010
Researchers’ Night 28 September 2010 – 12 January 2011
Initial Training Networks (ITN) 20 July 2010 – 26 January 2011
COFUND 20 October 2010 – 17 February 2011
Career Integration Grants (CIG) 20 October 2010 – 8 March 2011 and 6 September 2011
International Research Staff Exchange Scheme (IRSES)
20 October 2010 – 17 March 2011
Intra- European Fellowships (IEF)
International Incoming Fellowships (IIF)
International Outgoing Fellowships (IOF)
16 March 2011 – 11 August 2011
FP
7 –
Peo
ple
– M
arie
Cu
rie
Definition of researchers
Early-Stage Researchers 0 - 4 years (FTE)
from obtaining degree that qualified them to embark on a doctorate
Experienced Researchers i) in possession of a PhD
or
i) at least 4 years experience (FTE)
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
urie
Act
ions
Transnational Mobility Requirements• Must not have been resident in host country for more
than 12 months in the last 3 years date of recruitment or secondment
• Researchers can return to the country of their nationality if the mobility rule is respected
• For international organisations the country mobility rule does not apply – BUT the fellow must not have spent more than
• 12 months in the previous 3 years at the host international organisation.
• Note – IOF 3rd country nationals have to have spent 5 years before the deadline in Member States or countries associated to FP7
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
urie
Act
ions
http://www.ukr
Industry Academia Partnerships and Pathways (IAPPs)
IAPPs – 2011 call info
• Publication date: 20 July 2010• Call deadline: 7 December 2010
• Indicative budget: €80 million
• Indicative timetable:• Results expected 4 months after deadline• Grants agreement signature from 9 months after
deadline
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
urie
- IA
PP
IAPPs in contextF
P7
– M
arie
Cur
ie -
IAP
P
“ Transnational and intersectoral mobility is a key feature and strong participation by enterprises, in particular SMEs, is considered an important added value. The enhancement of industry-academia co-operation in terms of research training, career development and knowledge-sharing is encouraged.”
Indicative budget share for IAPPS 2007-2013 = 5-10% of overall people budget
What is an Industry–Academia Pathways and Partnership?
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
urie
- IA
PP
• It is a two-way partnership with at least one commercial enterprise and one academic organisation in two different Member or Associated Countries
• An IAPP aims to increase industry-academia co-operation by: • Supporting the creation, development, reinforcement
and execution of strategic partnerships• Creating diverse career possibilities and experience for
researchers• Knowledge sharing/cultural exchange, especially SMEs• Aiming for longer term co-operation between both
sectors
What can you do with an IAPP?F
P7
– M
arie
Cur
ie -
IAP
P
• Projects funded for up to 48 months• Staff exchange – early stage or experienced
researchers (and possibly technical staff and research managers!) for between 2 months and 2 years (mandatory)
• Recruit experienced researchers for between 12 months and 2 years (optional)
• Newly recruited experienced researchers must be appointed under employment contracts only
• Focus of the scheme is on inter-sectoral mobility• Organise common workshops/conferences• For SMEs, a contribution towards small equipment
costs (up to 10% of project total)
Definitions of eligible organisationsF
P7
– M
arie
Cur
ie -
IAP
P
Each IAPP must involve at least one university/research centre in the non-commercial sector and at least one entity from the commercial sector. An IAPP project can be co-ordinated by a partner from either of the two sectors
Commercial sector partners:• must be organisations operating on a commercial
enterprise, gaining the majority of their revenue through competitive means with exposure to commercial markets.
• may include: incubators; start-ups; spin-offs; venture-capital companies; etc.
• may range in size from the smallest- micro-companies with research capacity to very large multi-national enterprises
Definitions of eligible organisationsF
P7
– M
arie
Cur
ie -
IAP
P
Non-commercial sector partners can include;
• National organisations, e.g., universities, public non-commercial research centres
• Non-profit or charitable organisations (e.g., NGOs, trusts, etc.)
• International European interest organisations (e.g. CERN)• The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission• Other international organisations (e.g. WHO, UNESCO,
etc.)
Statistics (1)
2007 2008 2009
Submitted 103 141 358
Evaluated 102 141 356
Selected 41 51 59
Budget (M Euro)
38.5 45 65
Success rate 40 % 36 % 16.6 %
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
urie
- IA
PP
Industry/Academia ratio (A list)
Participants Coord.
Industry 131 (54%) 23 (24%)
Academia 110 (46%) 36 (76%)
SME participation
Participants Coord.
Total 536 (36.4 %) 81 (22.8 %)
A list 78 (32.4 %) 11 (18.6 %)
Statistics (2)F
P7
– M
arie
Cur
ie -
IAP
P
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
urie
- IA
PP
Size of consortia:“There is no predefined maximum number of participants. However under similar schemes in the past the most common number of participants was 2-3. Largest projects ranged from 4 to 6 participants. Past experience has shown that this is a manageable size.”(2011 Guide to Applicants)
Size of grants in 2007• Funding model flexible: smallest €270,000, largest > €2.2m• Smallest consortium = 2 partners• Largest consortium = 15 partners• Average consortium size = 3.7 partners
http://www.ukro.ac.uk
Submission and Evaluation
Your project is mainly defined in ….
…PART B of the proposal forms(Part A is administrative
info)
• PART B addresses the evaluation criteria• …which vary according to MCA• …and have different weightings and thresholds
• General structure of Part B for individual fellowships is:• Cover Page, Table of Contents• S & T Quality • Transfer of Knowledge • Implementation • Impact
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
uri
e –
Yo
ur
Pro
po
sal
Evaluation of proposals
• Evaluation by competent experts in the field
• Need to address all of the issues to maximise scores
• Total score is 100%
• Overall threshold (70%)
• Some criteria have a threshold
• Each area is weighted
• Science counts for 25%; Impact counts for 30%!!
• You must focus on the objectives of the activity to be successful
MC
A –
Su
bm
issi
on
& E
valu
atio
ns
Publication of call 20-07-2010
Deadline for submission of proposals
7 December 2010 at 17.00.00,Brussels local time
Evaluation of proposals Mid March-2011
Evaluation Summary Reports sent toproposal coordinators ("initialinformation letter")
End April-2011
Invitation letter to successfulcoordinators to launch grant agreementnegotiations with REA services
Mid June-2011
Letter to unsuccessful applicants From August-2011
Signature of first grant agreements From September-2011
Process timetableM
CA
– S
ub
mis
sio
n &
Eva
luat
ion
s
http://www.ukro.ac.uk
Maximising Your Chances of Success
What does the Commission want?
A project that matches “their” objectives:“This action seeks to enhance industry-academia co-operation in terms of research training, career development and knowledge sharing, in particular with SMEs, and including traditional manufacturing industries. It is based on longer-term co-operation programmes with a high potential for increasing mutual understanding of different cultural settings and skill requirements of both the industrial and academic sectors.
The IAPP action in 2010 will provide EUR 80 million to support the ‘Innovation Union’ flagship initiative by strengthening research and business performance and by promoting innovation and knowledge transfer throughout the EU.”
Text taken from 2011 People Work Programme
M
arie
Cu
rie
– W
hat
’s r
equ
ired
IAPPS – Part B
Transfer of knowledge 20%
S & T Quality 25%
Researcher N/A
Implementation
25% Impact 30%
FP
7 –
Peo
ple
– M
arie
Cu
rie
3/5
3/5
3/5
No threshold
Overall threshold 70%
MCA – S&T Quality
Sub-criteria : 3/5 25%
• Scientific/technological objectives of the research programme, including in terms of intersectoral issues• Scientific quality of the joint collaborative research programme• Appropriateness of the research methodology• Originality and innovative aspect of the research programme. Knowledge of state-of-the-art
FP
7 –
Peo
ple
– M
arie
Cu
rie
Assessors’ comments on S & T quality: positive
• The project is very challenging and innovative• The involvement of the private sector is meaningful and
complementary to the academic partners• The proposal is genuinely inter-sectoral and interdisciplinary• Science and Technological objects are clearly described and
detailed• Valuable and innovative scientific advances with respect to the
state-of –the-art are envisaged• The research methodology is appropriate, comprehensive and
well-planned• The research programme and methodology are very well
detailed and integrated with the envisaged transfer of knowledge and training.
M
arie
Cu
rie
– W
hat
’s r
equ
ired
Assessors’ comments on S & T quality: negative
• The research programme lacks a detailed list of workpackages, timetable and particular involvement of each partner is not specifically included.
• The project is not very original since it is based on previous results obtained by academic partners.
• The project research methodology is not properly developed and lacks details as regards risk assessment, milestones and outcomes.
• Presents limited intersectoriality• No previous documented information – articles, scientifc
journals, conferences, and so on.
M
arie
Cu
rie
– W
hat
’s r
equ
ired
MCA – Transfer of Knowledge
Sub-criteria 3/5 20%
• Quality of the transfer of knowledge programme. Consistency with the research programme • Importance of the transfer of knowledge in terms of intersectoral issues.• Adequacy of the role of researchers exchanged and recruited from outside the partnership with respect to the transfer of knowledge programme.
FP
7 –
Peo
ple
– M
arie
Cu
rie
Assessors’ comments on Transfer of Knowledge: positive
• Well-planned strategy for secondments and recruitments providing for effective knowledge transfer between public and private sectors
• The inter-sectoral secondments are planned in detail (names of researchers and scientific areas in which they will be involved)
• The involvement of ESRs in the secondment scheme is important for the advancement of their scientific careers
• The partners demonstrate sound capacity to receive and transfer knowledge; suitable scientific, training and complementary training course are planned
• The researchers who will be recruited have defined research tasks and the requested duration and time of recruitments is appropriate
• The human resources in the proposal are clear, relevant, consistent with the research, well justified and of high quality
M
arie
Cu
rie
– W
hat
’s r
equ
ired
Assessors’ comments on Transfer of Knowledge: negative
• Secondments are only indicated in terms of person/month within a table, but are not described in detail and no additional explanations are given.
• ToK referring to young researchers is not addressed in sufficient detail.
• There is only a limited consistency between the research programme and ToK due to the vague description of the latter.
• Transfer of knowledge is unbalanced with too much emphasis on academic research
• Importance of ToK in terms of intersectorialty is not demonstrated as the industrial partner has limited participation in research
• The precise role in training of the industrial partner is not clearly described.
M
arie
Cu
rie
– W
hat
’s r
equ
ired
MCA – Implementation (1)
Sub-criteria 3/5 25%
• Capacities (expertise/human resources/facilities/infrastructures) to achieve the research and exchange of know-how and experience. Fit between capacity of host and size of support requested• Adequate exploitation of complementarities and synergies among partners in terms of transfer of knowledge.
FP
7 –
Peo
ple
– M
arie
Cu
rie
MCA – Implementation (2)
Sub-criteria 3/5 25%
• Appropriateness of management plans (recruitment strategy, IPR strategy, demarcation of responsibilities, rules for decision making, etc. • How essential is non-ICPC Third Country participation, if any, to the objectives of the research programme.
FP
7 –
Peo
ple
– M
arie
Cu
rie
Assessors’ comments on Implementation: positive
• The partners are complementary and well-suited for the envisaged research and ToK
• The key scientific staff involved are experienced and have an appropriate level of involvement
• Project management and risk assessment are well-structured and approached
• The envisaged work plan is very well thought out and structured, with detailed and suitable deliverables, clear allocation of roles and effective progress reporting measures
• IP generated under this project will be carefully managed and the strategy takes carefully into account development perspectives of the industrial partner
• Facilities and infrastructures are up-to-date and suitable for the project outcomes.
M
arie
Cu
rie
– W
hat
’s r
equ
ired
Assessors’ comments on Implementation: negative
• Secondments are not sufficiently specified• Some aspects of management structure are not described in
detail• The management plan is scarcely defined in some points• Time commitment of the co-ordinator to project activities is
limited• Recruitment strategy and its contribution to research activities
is not detailed• The technical background of the academic partners is not clear• It is not sufficiently detailed on the point of capacities,
specifically in regard to scientific expertise, facilities and infrastructures, to achieve a real experience and know-how exchange
• IPR aspects are unclear.
M
arie
Cu
rie
– W
hat
’s r
equ
ired
MCA – Impact
Sub-criteria
No threshold – but 30%
• Provision to develop new intersectoral and lasting collaboration• Strategy for the dissemination and facilitation of sharing of knowledge and culture between the particpants and external researchers (inc. international conferences, workshops, training events)• Extent to which SMEs contribute to the project• In case of SMEs participation: Adequacy of the available infrastructures for the performance of the project. In case extra equipment is requested, necessity & justification in the context of the partnership.•Impact of proposed outreach activities
FP
7 –
Peo
ple
– M
arie
Cu
rie
Assessors’ comments on Impact: positive
• The project plans for the lasting collaboration between the partners in a field that is still not widely exploited.
• The circulation of information and the exploitation of results is well addressed
• There are possible and promising exploitation routes for the planned results
• It can be foreseen that new and fruitful collaboration will ensue• Dissemination strategy is accurately designed and has
appropriate targets; tools are adequate and of excellent quality• The potential impact of the project is relevant, with a clear
European dimension.
M
arie
Cu
rie
– W
hat
’s r
equ
ired
Assessors’ comments on Impact: negative
• The intersectoriality of the project is not described in detail in terms of future collaborations; indeed, it is specifically mentioned that lasting collaboration will only be foreseen in the case of developing a spin-off project
• Contribution of the SME to the project is limited• Standardisation aspects are not properly addressed• Possible commercial impact, in particular through SME, not
addressed.• Central role of SME is stressed but the need for key extra
equipment seems to contradict the present adequacy and availability of infrastructure
• Details of application are not well described.
M
arie
Cu
rie
– W
hat
’s r
equ
ired
ITNs – 2011 call info
• Publication date: 20 July 2010• Call deadline: 26 January 2011
• Indicative budget: €318.41 million
• Indicative timetable:• Results expected 4 months after deadline• Grants agreement signature from 9 months after
deadline
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
urie
- IT
N
What is an ITN?F
P7
– M
arie
Cur
ie -
ITN
• Aims:• Offering a series of fellowships to ESR and EXR
through a Joint Training Programme including complementary skills modules – focus on development of early-stage researchers
• Covers networking costs & the organisation of short training events
• As an option, can recruit ‘visiting scientists’ • Duration of funding for networks = 48 months
• ITNs are in:• Defined scientific fields as well as inter-disciplinary, new
and emerging supra-disciplinary fields
Who can participate in an ITN?F
P7
– M
arie
Cur
ie -
ITN
• At least 3 different research groups from Member or Associated States
• BUT ALSO it can be single sites (in Member or Associated States) if the international context is strong – role of associated partners key
• Third country partners are eligible, in addition to the minimum requirements. International Co-operation Partner Countries (ICPC) may receive funding, whilst those in non-ICPCs may receive funding if absolutely essential for the project
Who participates in an ITN?F
P7
– M
arie
Cur
ie -
ITN
• An ITN has both industrial and academic partners. Industry involvement essential at one of two levels:• As a full partner• Provider of specific training or secondment
opportunities
Note: the third-level option of involvement through membership of an advisory board is no longer available
Who participates in an ITN?F
P7
– M
arie
Cur
ie -
ITN
Private sector partners:• must be organisations gaining the majority of their
revenue through competitive means with exposure to commercial markets.
• Industry representatives can participate but do not satisfy this criterion
• Think broadly about potential private sector partners – end users?
ITN must have Coherent quality standards and mutual recognition of training/ diplomas
Who can you recruit to an ITN?F
P7
– M
arie
Cur
ie -
ITN
• An ITN supports researchers: • With up to 5 years FTE • From all over the world• For periods of 3 - 36 months (ESRs)• For periods of up to 24 months (EXRs)
Researchers can be of any nationality but must comply with the mobility rule
ITNs – key issues
• Ratio ESR/ER:- ‘The total amount of ESRs and ERs should be
reasonable and in line with what is recommended in the Guide for Applicants’ (80/20)
• Visiting Scientists:- Exceptional and duly justified in the context of the
training programme. Even less prominence in 2011 call.
• Conferences:- ‘should be proportionate to the proposed research
training programme’ - ‘is an opportunity for the recruiter researchers to
exchange knowledge with more experienced researchers from outside the network’.
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
urie
- IT
N
ITNs – result of 2007call
PANELEvaluated proposals
Evaluated proposals at stg 2
Funded proposals
Success Rate
LIF 229 51 19 8.3%
ENG 183 38 14 7.6%
PHY 152 37 10 6.6%
CHE 115 26 8 7%
ENV 95 17 8 8.4%
SOC 78 16 5 6.4%
MAT 29 5 2 6.9%
ECO 21 6 2 9.5%
TOTAL 902 196 68 7.5%
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
urie
- IT
N
ITNs – results of 2008 call
Evaluated proposals
Funded proposals
Success Rate Reserve list
LIF 264 30 11.4% 4
ENG 185 21 11.4% 4
PHY 114 11 9.6% 3
CHE 85 8 9.4% 3
ENV 108 10 9.3% 3
SOC 90 10 11% 3
MAT 19 1 5.3% 1
ECO 21 1 4.8% 2
TOTAL 886 92 10.4% 23
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
urie
- IT
N
ITNs – results of 2010 call
Evaluated proposals
Funded proposals
Success Rate
LIF 230 19 8.2%
ENG 199 14 7.0%
PHY 126 8 6.3%
CHE 100 7 7.0%
ENV 95 7 7.4%
SOC 77 6 7.8%
MAT 18 1 5.6%
ECO 21 1 4.8%
TOTAL 863 63 7.4%
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
urie
- IT
N
Publication of call 20-07-2010
Deadline for submission of proposals
26-01-2011 at 17:00:00, Brusselslocal time
Evaluation of proposals Mid April-2011
Evaluation Summary Reports sent toproposal coordinators ("initialinformation letter")
Mid May-2011
Invitation letter to successfulcoordinators to launch grant agreementnegotiations with REA services
July-2011
Letter to unsuccessful applicants From August-2011
Signature of first grant agreements From September-2011
Process timetableM
CA
– S
ub
mis
sio
n &
Eva
luat
ion
s
Who do I need in my consortium?
Bui
ldin
g yo
ur c
onso
rtiu
m
• Depends on topic…• Partners must match activities in proposal• Appropriate balance of sectors – industry,
academia, civil society, user groups, etc• Industry considered essential but others could
also be important for the topic
• Consideration of what the purpose of the scheme is RESEARCH TRAINING
• NOTE – no more than 40% of funding should go to one country
• EU dimension/ added-value!
What is EU added-value?
Bui
ldin
g yo
ur c
onso
rtiu
m
How does the EU benefit from funding your project and why is it required at the EU level?
S&T
• Expertise from other EU countries
• Access to data from other countries
• Different cultural and social perspectives
• Research/training too costly for one country
Implementation
• Avoid having one partner dominate research/training activities and budget
• Appropriate geographic spread for that project
Impact
• Improve competitiveness, health and environment of EU
• Feed into EU-wide policy objectives and their development
• Decrease fragmentation and duplication
Your project is mainly defined in ….
• PART B addresses the evaluation criteria• …which vary according to MCA• …and have different weightings and thresholds
• General structure of Part B for ITNs and IAPPs is:• Cover Page, Table of Contents• S & T Quality • Training/Transfer of Knowledge • Implementation • Impact
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
urie
– Y
our
Pro
posa
l
Weightings and thresholds for ITNs
Weighting Threshold
Scientific quality of the project
30% 3
Training 30% 4
Implementation 20% 3
Impact 20% 4
Overall threshold of 70% applies
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
urie
– IT
Ns
S & T Quality criteria
• S&T objectives of the research programme, including in terms of inter/multi-disciplinary, intersectoral and/ or newly emerging supra-disciplinary fields
• Scientific quality of the research programme • Appropriateness of research methodology• Originality and innovative aspect of the
research programme - Knowledge of the state-of-the-art
• Contribution of the private sector and possible other socio-economic actors
FP
7 -
Mar
ie C
urie
– IT
N c
riter
ia
S&T Quality – positive feedback
• Excellent overview of state-of-the-art in this research area
• Precise and detailed research work plan• Scientific quality and originality of the
proposal are excellent• Research method is appropriate and well
described• The project is timely and novel• A series of well defined and relevant project
objectives• The multidisciplinary is well demonstrated
FP
7 -
Mar
ie C
urie
– IT
N c
riter
ia
S&T Quality : negative feedback
• Interdisciplinary aspect of the project is not very strong
• Clear references to state-of-the-art and scientific originality are missing
• The final research outputs and the practical results of the training programme should be more clearly described
• Role of the industrial partners is not well explained
• A precise description of the research methodology is missing
FP
7 -
Mar
ie C
urie
– IT
N c
riter
ia
Training criteria
• Quality of the training programme; • Consistency with the research programme • Contribution and relevance of private sector training • Transferable skills offered: Management,
Communication, IPR, Ethics, Grant writing, Commercial exploitation of results, Research Policy, entrepreneurship, etc. .
• Importance and timeliness of the training needs (e.g. multidisciplinary, intersectoral , and newly emerging supra-disciplinary fields)
FP
7 -
Mar
ie C
urie
– IT
N c
riter
ia
Training criteria
• a) For multi-site proposals: Adequate combination of local specialist training with network-wide training activities
b) For mono-site proposals: Adequate exploitation of the international network of the participants for the training programme
• Appropriateness of the size of the requested training programme with respect to the capacity of the host
• NEW – Meaningful exposure of each researcher to another sector – particularly secondments
FP
7 -
Mar
ie C
urie
– IT
N c
riter
ia
Training : positive feedback
• The training programme is very well structured and is fully consistent with the research programme
• Local and network wide training will be provided
• Complementary skills training is well thought of
• The training topics are well identified and defined
• The role of the participants are well described and exploitation of the network potential is adequately considered and discussed
FP
7 -
Mar
ie C
urie
– IT
N c
riter
ia
Training: negative feedback
• The role of the Supervisory Board should be better defined
• Reason for the need for Visiting Scientist should be given
• Description of the training project for each researcher is too vague
• Average number of ESRs per partner seems exaggerated
• The role of the associate partners and their participation in the training events should be more clearly defined
FP
7 -
Mar
ie C
urie
– IT
N c
riter
ia
Quality of training - tips
• Training in research methods and techniques• Personal Development Plan• Complementary skills training – ethics, research management• Transferable skills training – cf Roberts • Graduate School Provision – including RC courses• Conferences, seminars, public fora et
FP
7 -
Mar
ie C
urie
– IT
N c
riter
ia
Implementation criteria
• Capacities (expertise / human resources / facilities /infrastructure) to achieve the research and adequate task distribution and schedule
• Adequate exploitation of complementarities and synergies among partners in terms of research and training
• Private sector involvement at the highest possible level appropriate to the research topic & sufficient evidence of commitment
• Non-ICPC participation – essential to the objectives of the research training programme?
FP
7 -
Mar
ie C
urie
– IT
N c
riter
ia
Implementation: positive feedback
• The type and frequency of meetings seem appropriate
• The industrial partners play an essential and active role both in the training and research aspects of the proposal
• The recruitment strategy is clearly defined• The management structure is clear and
appropriate to the proposed project• The plan for dissemination of project results is
well done
FP
7 –
ITN
– Im
plem
enta
tion
Implementation: negative feedback
• The industry involvement is poor in comparison to the industrial importance of the project theme and potential results
• Description of a research PhD theme for each ESR is not provided
• More details should be provided on the milestones and deliverables within the workplan
• Limited rules for decision making
FP
7 –
ITN
– Im
plem
enta
tion
Impact criteria
• Contribution of the proposed training programme to:• Acquisition of skills needed in both the public and
private sectors• Improvement of career prospects• Stimulation of creativity and entrepreneurial thinking
• Contribution of the training programme to the policy objective of structuring the initial research training capacity at European level (through establishing longer-term collaborations and/or lasting structured training programmes between the partners’ organisations) F
P7
- M
arie
Cur
ie –
ITN
crit
eria
Impact criteria
• The contribution of the training programme towards the policy objective of enhancing public-private sector collaborations in terms of research training
• Where appropriate, mutual recognition by all partners of the training acquired, including training periods in the private sector
• NEW – outreach activities such as articles in non-specialised press, public talks, workshops for teachers/students, science fairs, etc.
FP
7 -
Mar
ie C
urie
– IT
N c
riter
ia
Impact: positive feedback
• Clear impact of the involvement of visiting scientists
• Good prospects for potential long term collaborations
• The involvement of industrial partners will be mutually beneficial for the companies and for the ESRs/ERs
• The project can offer great career opportunities to both ESR and ER involved
• The training proposed by the network is such that probably no single institution in Europe would be capable of providing it on its own.
FP
7 -
Mar
ie C
urie
– IT
N c
riter
ia
Impact: negative feedback
• The proposed impact, as described [in the field of science] is not convincing
• The number of visiting scientists is too high and not appropriate for the proposed programme
• The lack of training in an industrial context is a major drawback
• The description of the impact on the scientific community outside the network should be elaborated upon
FP
7 -
Mar
ie C
urie
– IT
N c
riter
ia
Impact: tips
Think about impact on different levels, e.g.
• Personal – what will researcher gain beyond that available at single institution?
• European – address fragmentation, common courses, sustainability of collaboration, including that with private sector
• Discipline – what is available in single country? Why EU level needed? Why need for trained researchers in area?
• Others? FP
7 -
Mar
ie C
urie
– IT
N c
riter
ia
ITNs – final tips
• Industrial participation is key• Addressed under all four criteria: and has been strengthened
with respect to training. Aspects that are assessed under more than one evaluation criteria will count under each of these criteria
• Evaluation criteria • Address thoroughly: make sure you cover each one; do not
bury in text
• Clarity of presentation• Present case clearly: use tables, diagrams and summaries
where appropriate
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
urie
- IT
N
Hints & Tips – ITNs and IAPPs
Approaching your project proposal writing
• Keep the Guide for Applicants in front of you
• Treat the criteria as examination questions
• Think about the way your write• Brainstorm each section• Then focus on a section at a time
• Plan your proposal writing
FP
7 –M
arie
Cu
rie
– H
ints
& T
ips
Approaching your project proposal writing
• It will feel repetitive – addressing issues from different angles
• Stick to the page limit• Think about your evaluators
• Clearly address the main objectives• Use clear and concise language• Explain country specific jargon• Provide them with the evidence they need
• Find colleagues to read it through
FP
7 –M
arie
Cu
rie
– H
ints
& T
ips
http://www.ukro.ac.uk
Financial information – ITNs and IAPPs
Cost Category Comparison F
P7
– M
arie
Cur
ie
Former Cost Categories
Eligible expenses for the activities carried out by the researcher
Eligible expenses for the activities carried out by the host organisations
- A -
Monthly living and mobility allowance
- B -
Travel
Allowance
- C -
Career
exploratory allowance
- D–
Contribution
to the participation expenses of
eligible researchers
- E -
Contribution
to the research/ training
/transfer of knowledge programme expenses
-F -
Contribution
to the organisation
of international conferences, workshops and events
- G -
Management
activities (including
audit certification if applicable)
- H -
Contribution to overheads
- I -
Other
types of eligible
expenses / specific condition
s
Cost Categories from 2011 Work Programme
- 1 -
Monthly living
allowance
- 2 -
Monthly Mobility
allowance
- 3 -
Contribution to the training
expenses of eligible researchers
and research/transfer of
knowledge programme expenses
- 4 -
Management
activities (including audit certification if
applicable)
- 5 -
Contribution to
overheads
- 6 -
Other types of
eligible expenses / specific conditions
• Category 1:• Living allowance (including salary)
Correction factor applied
• Category 2:• Mobility allowance
Without family: €700 per month
With family: €1000 per month
Correction factor applied
• Category 3: • Training / research expenses of eligible researchers
€1800 per research per month
*Category 3 also includes costs for the host
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
urie
- R
ates
Allowance rates – ITNs and IAPPs
Benefits for the institution – ITNs and IAPPs
• Category 3: • Contribution to Research/Training/Transfer of Knowledge
€1800 per research per month
*Category 3 also includes costs for the researcher
• Category 4: • Management Activities
Maximum 10% of the total EC contribution
• Category 5: • Contribution to overheads
10% of direct costs except for subcontractors
• Category 6: Applicable to IAPP and participating SMEs only
• Other types of eligible expenses (small equipment expenses)
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
urie
- R
ates
Researcher Living Allowance for ITNs and IAPPs
Experience Stipend(€/yr)
Employment contract (€/yr)
Early-Stage researchers
50% of full rate
38,000
Experienced researchers (< 10yrs)
58,500
Experienced Researchers (>10yrs)
87,500
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
urie
- R
ates
Salaries are inclusive of all compulsory deductionsCorrection factor applied for cost of living (UK Co-efficient now 120.3%)
Further Information
UKRO NCP website:
http://www.ukro.ac.uk/mariecurie/index.htm
Queries on the schemes:[email protected]
Tel: +32 2 230 0318; Fax +32 2 230 4803
Other useful websites:• http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/people/home_en.html •http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/index.htm
FP
7 –
Mar
ie C
uri
e A
ctio
ns
