I fattori di successo delle proposte

vincitrici

Dr Luigi Pari

Roma, 30 Novembre 2015

L’ITALIA E IL PRIMO ANNO DI HORIZON 2020 Societal Challenge 2: Food Security, Sustainable

Agriculture and Forestry, Marine, Maritime and Inland Water Research and the bioeconomy

Overview of the Evaluation Process

Receipt of proposals

Individual evaluation

Consensus group

Panel Review Finalisation

Evaluators

Individual Evaluation Reports

(Done remotely)

Consensus Report

(May be done remotely)

Panel report

Panel ranked list

Eligibility check

Allocation of proposals to evaluators

Final ranked list

Evaluation Process

Individual Evaluation

Report

Individual Evaluation

Report Individual Evaluation

Report

Consensus group

Consensus Report

Individual Evaluation

Report

Individual Evaluation

Report

Expert Expert Expert Expert Expert Minimum 3 experts … but can be more

Individual evaluation

Consensus

Proposal Eligible proposal

Evaluation criteria

Excellen

ce

Im

pact

Clarity and pertinence of the objectives Soundness of the concept, including trans-disciplinary considerations, where relevant Extent that proposed work is ambitious, has innovation potential, and is beyond the state of the art (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches) Credibility of the proposed approach

The expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic

Enhancing innovation capacity and integration of new knowledge

Strengthening the competitiveness and growth of companies by developing innovations meeting the needs of European and global markets; and, where relevant, by delivering such innovations to the markets

Any other environmental and socially important impacts (not already covered above)

Effectiveness of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results (including

management of IPR), to communicate the project, and to manage research data where relevant

Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources Complementarity of the participants within the consortium (when relevant) Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management

Im

ple

men

tati

on

Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and

resources

Complementarity of the participants within the consortium (when relevant)

Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management

Scores

The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.

Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.

Fair. The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses.

Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present.

Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present.

Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor.

0

1

2

3

4

5

• Calls are challenge-based, and therefore more open to innovative proposals

• There is a greater emphasis on impact, in particular through each call or topic

impact statements

• There is more emphasis on innovation

• Proposals may bring together different disciplines, sectors and actors to tackle

specific challenges

• A balanced approach to research and innovation

• Activities closer to the market emphasise the widest possible use of knowledge

generated by the supported activities up to the commercial exploitation of that

knowledge

Eu indication in H2020

Suggerimenti per la costuzione di un progetto

Prima di scrivere una proposal nell’ambito di una call di

interesse bisogna fare alcune riflessioni:

- Capire chiaramente le esigenze di innovazione descritte nella

call - Specific Challenge, Scope, Expected Impact

- Essere a conoscenza dello stato dell’arte ed avere una idea

innovativa

- Costituire un partenariato forte che copra a 360° tutti gli

aspetti legati all’idea progettuale, con singoli ruoli definiti

- Un partenariato che abbia un CV che dimostri le competenze

specifiche richieste

Alcuni punti chiave da tenere a mente

Chiarezza e la rilevanza degli obiettivi Ricerca oltre lo stato dell’arte

e innovativa

Credibilità dell'approccio proposto.

Rafforzare la capacità di innovazione e integrazione delle nuove

conoscenze nonché la competitività e la crescita.

Efficacia delle misure di valorizzazione e di diffusione dei risultati

del progetto.

Adeguatezza della ripartizione dei compiti e delle risorse

Adeguatezza delle strutture e delle procedure di gestione, tra cui

l’adeguata valutazione del rischio.

Un uso bilanciato di punti, tabelle, flow chart ecc.. è utile a rendere

un idea più immediata dell’oggetto e dell’organizzazione della

proposta di ricerca

01/12/2015

9

Idea chiara, innovativa, coerente, fattibile

Consorzio coerente con la proposta

Evitare che un partner (o un paese) abbia un ruolo

preponderante

Filiera, partner commerciali presenti, multi-actor approach

Utilizzatori dei risultati; i ricercatori difficilmente sono inclini

a includere associazioni di produttori, allevatori etc…)

Dimensione europea

Seguire rigorosamente i modelli (template) e non trascurare

alcun sotto-criterio di valutazione

Rileggere la call dopo aver concluso la scrittura della Proposta

e interrogarsi se si è data risposta a tutti gli obiettivi indicati

Alcuni punti chiave da tenere a mente

Budget: importante definirlo subito e motivarlo

Budget sommario ma completo già al primo Stage

Motivare la richesta economica in maniera coerente tra task e Work

Packages

Evitare da subito conflitti e incomprensioni

• Attenzione , in H2020 non c’è più la “grant negotiation phase”!

−The time from submission of a proposal, evaluation and

signature of the grant has been reduced to a maximum of 8

months (max. 5 months for evaluation + max. 3 months for grant signature)

Che significa questo?

Non essendoci più la fase di negoziazione, una sovra stima dei

costi di Progetto si rifletterà sul punteggio della voce

Implementation

Punti deboli in un progetto

Proposte troppo lunghe con una descrizione poco

incisiva

Il proponente ha idee poco chiare

Proposte con obiettivi confusi

Scarsa transdisciplinarietà

Partners con profilo non “eccellente” e con competenze

non complementari

Mancanza di applicabilità dei risultati

Costi sovrastimati

Un’esperienza personale

SFS-18-2015: Small farms but global markets: the

role of small and family farms in food and

nutrition security

Extract from the call:

The project intends to understand the role of small farms in the target

countries around the Mediterranean basin helping to evaluate the

potential benefits of this type of agriculture, namely regarding issues

such as the global increase in demand for food, the development of

biofuels, the rise in food prices, the climate changes.

Evaluation Summary Report ESR

Impact: score 4,5/5

• The proposal addresses the expected impacts listed in the work

programme very well.

• The dissemination plan is solid and coherent, and addresses the

full range of potential users.

• The research on precision agriculture may yield many relevant

recommendations for sustainable production, renewable energies,

water preservation and agriculture soil safety. However, the

approach to researching water-use practices on farms is only

partially developed.

• The dissemination plan is solid and coherent, and addresses the

full range of potential users. However, the plan for deriving policy

recommendations for the wider Mediterranean region from the

extensive variety of very localized case studies is not so well

developed.

Quality and efficiency of the implementation: Score 5/5

The overall structure of the work plan is excellent, with good linkages between the WP objectives and the overall objectives.

The consortium description is clear and comprehensively shows that the partners have the right expertise and skills, they are strongly complementary

The project shows a clear management structure and procedures.

The risk assessment is very good (including risks identified for each work package)

The overall objective is in line with the main requirements of

the Call and the pertinence of the specific objectives is

adequately demonstrated. They are logical and they fit with the

global drivers of food security. However, the vast number of

proposed case studies is a significant shortcoming because it

undermines the consistency of the approach.

A well organized and appropriately proactive approach is

centred on specific and well-identified supporting measures.

The overall approach and methodology are well described.

However the proposal does not give enough information to

convince of the feasibility of investigating the very diverse

indicators suggested for each case study.

Excellence: score 3,5/5

Finally we scored 13/15

The project was rejected!

Lessons learned: you must convince the evaluators of

the feasibility of your approach

Thank you and

good luck!!! Luigi Pari CREA ING