2nd stage proposal writing sessionfor Marie Curie RTNs: 2nd stage proposal writing session for Marie Curie RTNs Estelle Kane Martin Penny UK Research Office Friday 8th April 2005


Outline of the session: Outline of the session General introduction Technicalities of the submission process Scientific content of the proposal Quality of training activities/transfer of knowledge Added value to the Community Management and feasibility Financial issues


Introduction : Introduction UK Research Office Friday 8th April 2005


UKRO’s Sponsors: UKRO’s Sponsors Particle Physics and Astronomy Research 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 Council


UKRO’s mission: UKRO’s mission UKRO’s mission is to promote effective UK participation in EU-funded research programmes, higher education programmes, and other related activities by: supporting sponsors and subscribers through early insight and briefing on developments in European programmes and policies; disseminating timely and targeted information on EU funding opportunities; providing high quality advice, guidance and training on applying for and managing EU projects; and exchanging information between the UK research and higher education community, the Institutions of the European Union, and other countries participating in EU programmes


UKRO services: UKRO services Web: http://www.ukro.ac.uk Information Management System (IMS) Advice to European Officers & researchers UK Mobility National Contact Point UK Briefing visits Brussels: Meeting room


National Contact Point: First point of contact for applicants Advice, guidance and information on applying for funding, contract management, report writing etc Website and helpline service Training events, publicity actions Liaison between the Member State and the Commission National Contact Point


Technicalities of the submission process: Technicalities of the submission process


Key documents: Key documents The Call Text ‘A Rough Guide to the Marie Curie Actions’ The Work Programme of the HRM Activity The Handbook The Guide for Proposers for Guidance Notes for Evaluators Sources UKRO NCP website: http://www.ukro.ac.uk/mobility Commission http://www.cordis.lu/mariecurie-actions/ Your European Liaison Officer


Technicalities of proposal submission : Technicalities of proposal submission Part A and Part B Electronic submission – same password and username Deadline is 17:00 Brussels Time on Thursday 28th April


Approaching your proposal writing (1): Approaching your proposal writing (1) Note the different weightings (impact on overall score) Don’t forget inter-disciplinarity and inter-sectoral 60% to be rejected or 40% accepted As many of same evaluators as possible Talk to the Project Officer if unclear comments


Approaching your proposal writing (2): Approaching your proposal writing (2) “The criteria B1/ B2, already examined at the outline proposal stage, will be re-evaluated in the context of the full proposal. You are free to take into account the comments of the evaluation summary report for these two areas and re-craft these sections as necessary.” Keep Guide for Proposers, ESR and Evaluation Criteria in front of you Ask a colleague to read it through – do they understand it?


General points on a good proposal: General points on a good proposal Meet the deadline Characteristics of success/ failure: 90%+ well detailed, excellent and clear training programme and great science of clear EU wide benefit and potential in a new area 80-90% good project, lacking some detail on training, evaluating output and perhaps clashes with existing programmes 70-80% Some obvious omissions, consortium design needs adjusting, some science issues not addressed, concerns over transfer of knowledge 60 - 70% Serious omissions, lack of detail, poor management plans, no milestones, consortium partners too similar


What are RTNs? a reminder (1): What are RTNs? a reminder (1) These [Networks] provide the means for research teams of recognised international stature to link up, in the context of a well-defined collaborative research project, in order to formulate and implement a structured training programme for researchers in a particular field of research. Networks will provide a cohesive, but flexible framework for the training and professional development of researchers, especially in the early stages of their research career. Networks also aim to achieve a critical mass of qualified researchers, especially in areas that are highly-specialised and/or fragmented; and to contribute to overcoming institutional and disciplinary boundaries, notably through the promotion of multidisciplinary research. They will also provide a straightforward and effective means to involve the less-favoured regions of the EU and Associated Candidate Countries in internationally recognised European research co-operation. [section 2.3.1.1 of HRM work programme]


What are RTNs? a reminder (2): What are RTNs? a reminder (2) Proposals must address the first 2 objectives Integrating different disciplines - bringing together and integrating different disciplines, especially towards the derivation of novel concepts, approaches and frameworks Industry-academia cooperation - establishing or furthering co-operation in research and research training between academia and industry and/or other relevant economic actors;


Weightings and thresholds for RTNs: Weightings and thresholds for RTNs


Proposal structure for RTNs: Proposal structure for RTNs B1 Scientific Quality of the Project or Research Training Area B2 Quality of Training Activities B3 Quality / Capacity of the Host(s) B4 Management and Feasibility B5 Added Value to the Community and Relevance to the objectives of the activity Indicative financial information Previous proposals and contracts Other Issues


Slide18: Any questions? Is the submission process clearer?


Science and Training criteria: Science and Training criteria UK Research Office Friday 8th April 2005


Scientific Quality of Project or Research Training Area - evaluation criteria: Scientific Quality of Project or Research Training Area - evaluation criteria THRESHOLD 3 WEIGHTING 50% (Stage 1) and 15% (Stage 2) Scientific/technological objectives well specified, including in terms of inter/multi-disciplinary , intersectoral and/or fragmentation issues? Is the joint collaborative research project of high scientific quality, realistic and well described? Is the research methodology appropriate? Is the project original and innovative? Does it demonstrate sound knowledge of the state-of-the art?


Scientific Quality of Project or Research Training Area - complementary note: Scientific Quality of Project or Research Training Area - complementary note In view of the [evaluation] criteria the narrative should clearly show the reasons for carrying out further interdisciplinary and intersectoral research in the selected topic and explain if major breakthroughs could be anticipated. Please describe any novel concepts, approaches or methods that will be employed and explain why these are likely to succeed.


Feedback from evaluators – science (1): Feedback from evaluators – science (1) Science is well specified and relevant Each specific aim is well supported Innovative element is clear


Feedback from evaluators – science (2): Feedback from evaluators – science (2) Cutting-edge elements need to be made clearer Size of network References Unclear research methodologies


Quality of Training Activities/Transfer of Knowledge - evaluation criteria: Quality of Training Activities/Transfer of Knowledge - evaluation criteria THRESHOLD 4 WEIGHTING 50% (Stage 1) and 20% (Stage 2) Is the training / ToK programme precisely described, well articulated and consistent with the collaborative research project? Does it address important and timely training / ToK needs (e.g. multidisciplinary, and intersectoral. Is it adapted to the targeted researchers? (ESR/ER) Does it combine local specialist training with network-wide training / ToK activities? Benefit to the researcher in terms of the acquisition of relevant complementary skills (e.g. Management, Communication, IPR, ethics, etc.)?


Quality of Training Activities/Transfer of Knowledge – complementary note: Quality of Training Activities/Transfer of Knowledge – complementary note The description of the training programme should precisely state how you intend to exploit the network’s potential to add value to the training of the researchers over and above that which could be provided within a single research organisation and national context. The training measures should emphasise the interdisciplinary and intersectoral nature of the project.


Feedback from evaluators - Training and Transfer of Knowledge (1): Feedback from evaluators - Training and Transfer of Knowledge (1) Impact of training is clear Training programme is clear and well described Profile of researchers well described Several methods of training Clear benefit to researchers Training quality evidenced by content Detailed and exhaustive (credible activities) Detail on collaborations between ESR and ER Flexible, adaptable and well monitored


Feedback from evaluators - Training and Transfer of Knowledge (2): Feedback from evaluators - Training and Transfer of Knowledge (2) Unclear on benefits for short term researchers Lack of clarity differences between ESRs and ERs Secondments Ambitious but not tourist exchanges Linked well with work plan and exact schedule Complementary and interdisciplinary skills must be well described Balanced training for all in RTN – must be no disadvantage for some nodes Participation in events while important, does not constitute training in itself


Quality of training programme: Quality of training programme 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 etc


Slide29: Any questions? Do you have a clearer understanding of how you will approach the science and training sections?


Added Value : Added Value UK Research Office Friday 8th April 2005


Added value to the Community and relevance to the objectives of the activity - evaluation criteria: Added value to the Community and relevance to the objectives of the activity - evaluation criteria WEIGHTING 35% Relevance of the proposal to one or more of the specific objectives of the action as specified in section 2.3.1.1 of [the workprogramme] and in particular for the 2004 December deadline as specified in the first two indents of that section Anticipated impact of the proposed research, training and/or ToK programme on the career development of the recruited researchers Anticipated impact of the proposed research, training and/or ToK programme on the partner organisations' capabilities in these domains, and in fostering longer term collaborations among them Extent to which other objectives of European policies and actions are met (e.g. structuring the European Research Area; attractiveness of science; European competitivity; promoting women in science; cohesion and regional policy) Extent to which the proposal integrates research partners from Less Favoured Regions, New Member States and Associated Candidate Countries


Added value… complementary note: Added value… complementary note To address the evaluation criteria please describe carefully why there is a special interest or need at the European level to promote research and training in the particular area and to which extent the project will increase the attractiveness of Europe for researchers and European competitiveness. Furthermore, please outline the expectation of the network project in terms of fostering long-term durable intersectorial and interdisciplinary collaborations.


Added value – what does it mean?: Added value – what does it mean? Related to: European research policy both HRM and in general Relevance to the objectives of the activity – see work programme text E.g. ERA – “Towards a European Research Area: COM (2000) 6, 18.1.00” European policy – your research Does proposal align with any of the thematic priorities of FP6 e.g. Global Change & Ecosystems? Other EU policies – e.g. Water Framework Directive (europa.eu.int/comm/index_en.htm)


An introduction to European Research Policy: An introduction to European Research Policy European Research Area Mobility Strategy Human Resources and Mobility Work Programme Bologna


European Research Area (ERA) Rationale: European Research Area (ERA) Rationale Need to bring national initiatives closer together, and help them achieve greater coherence This is the aim of the ERA project, the reference framework for European research since the Lisbon European Council in March 2000


Key political objectives: Key political objectives Lisbon Objectives to become the most dynamic and most competitive knowledge-based economy Barcelona Objectives education and training, innovation, 3% GDP Gothenburg Objectives sustainable development (environment, economy, employment) Stockholm Objectives fostering entrepreneurship and harnessing new technologies All underpinned by the ERA Objectives


European Researcher Policy: European Researcher Policy Mobility Strategy 2001 ‘..present a strategy to create a favourable environment for the mobility of researchers in the ERA, in order to develop, attract and retain human resources in research and promote innovation’ --- FP6 Marie Curie Actions Researchers in the ERA: One Profession, Multiple Careers July 2003 ‘...defines the various factors which condition the development of researchers’ careers at European level, namely: the role and nature of research training, the differences in recruitment methods, the contractual and budgetary dimension, and, finally, the evaluation mechanisms and the progress perspectives within the career’ ---European Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct


Framework Programme 6: Framework Programme 6 Specific Activities Covering a Wider Field of Research Life Sciences, Genomics and Biotechnology for Health Information Society Technologies Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences, Knowledge-Based Multifunctional Materials and New Production Processes and Devices Aeronautics and Space Food Quality and Safety Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems Citizens and Governance in the Knowledge Society Co-ordination of Research Activities Development of RTD/Innovation Policies Science and Society New/Emerging S&T and Policy Support SME Activities International Co-operation Innovation and SMEs Human Resources and Mobility Research Infrastructures Thematic Horizontal Underpinning


What are Marie Curie Actions?: What are Marie Curie Actions? Human Resources and Mobility Programme’s aim is: “…to provide broad support for the development of abundant and dynamic world-class human resources in the European research system, taking into account the inherent international dimension of research.” …by supporting a series of fellowships (Marie Curie Actions) to support the training and mobility of researchers, within the context of promoting excellence in European Research… ….and geared to the development and transfer of research competencies, the consolidation and widening of researchers' career prospects, and the promotion of excellence in European research


European Research Policy background documents: Towards a European Research Area, Jan 2000 A Mobility Strategy for ERA June 2001 More Research for Europe: Towards 3% of GDP, Sept 2002 ERA: Providing New Momentum, October 2002 Investing in Research: An Action Plan for Europe, June 2003 The Role of Universities in the Europe of Knowledge, Feb 2003 Researchers in the ERA: One Profession, Multiple Careers, July 2003 Europe and Basic Research, Jan 2004 S&T, the Key to Europe’s Future – Guidelines for Future EU Policy to Support Research, June 2004 European Research Policy background documents


Example of European Policy Objectives: Life Sciences and Biotechnology – A Strategy for Europe, Jan 02 Environment 2010: Our Future, Our Choice, July 2002 Stimulating Technologies for Sustainable Development: An Environmental Technologies Action Plan for the EU, Jan 2004 Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology, May 2004 Security Research: The Next Steps, September 2004 Example of European Policy Objectives


Introduction to Bologna Process: Introduction to Bologna Process Adopt a system of easily readable and comparable degrees Adopt a system with two main cycles (undergraduate/graduate) Establish a system of credits (such as ECTS) Promote mobility by overcoming obstacles Promote European co-operation in quality assurance Promote European dimensions in higher education Lifelong learning Involvement of students Enhancing the attractiveness and competitiveness of the EU Higher Education Area to other parts of the world Doctoral studies and synergy between ERA and EHEA Sorbonne 98, Bologna 99, Prague 01, Berlin 03


Slide43: Any questions? Do you have a clearer understanding of how you will approach the added value section?


Management and Feasibility : Management and Feasibility UK Research Office Friday 8th April 2005


Management and Feasibility - evaluation criteria: Management and Feasibility - evaluation criteria THRESHOLD 3 WEIGHTING 15% Are there detailed and appropriate plans (using charts if convenient) for the overall management of the collaborative project (demarcation of responsibilities, delegation or distribution of tasks, rules for decision making, fair participation of all teams …)? Is there a clear recruitment strategy, based on competitive international recruitment and incorporating an equal opportunity policy ? Is there provision for effective networking and dissemination of best practice among partners? Is there a strategy for the dissemination of results during and after completion of the project?


Management and Feasibility - complementary note : Management and Feasibility - complementary note Please outline the financial management strategy of the network, in particular how the Community financial contribution towards management-related expenses will be used. Any relevant project management experience of the participants should be described. Because of the specificity of this call your narrative should describe the approach to be taken regarding any intellectual property that may arise from the research project of the network (background information on such issues can be found at http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org


Role of participants: Role of participants Carry out and monitor work Name the person in control, and advise of changes Provision of required information Participation in relevant meetings Avoid and advise of incompatible commitments Adhere to fundamental ethical principles Promote equal opportunities


Role of co-ordinator: Role of co-ordinator Provide a link between contractors and the Cion Receive and disburse funds Keep overall, management-level project accounts Ensure signature of contract by all contractors No additional rights – only additional responsibility


Feedback - Management & feasibility (1): Feedback - Management & feasibility (1) Management committee Day to day business Co-ordinator plus deputies – share responsibilities/burden Steering training activities Repartition of funds, which must also be flexible Dealing with modifications/progress Management experience Appoint project manager (detail expertise) Appoint ‘HR Rep’ (Career supervision and Gender Issues) Ensure trainees themselves are represented


Feedback - Management & feasibility (2): Feedback - Management & feasibility (2) At least yearly independent evaluation of training programme Early and effective definition of dissemination plan e.g. websites, publications (a book?) IPR splits across network and knowledge protection A clear recruitment strategy e.g. Commission sites, academic networks Let them know you have an equal opportunities policy


Management structures: Other project participants (as needed) Management structures Project Manager Site Manager (Participants) Project Management Board Senior Stakeholder Senior Researcher Project Co-ordinator RTN Consultative Assembly Quality Assurance Functions Project Support Functions Day-to-day management Management by exception NB – Not the same as communication Structures


Communication structure: Communication structure Project Board Co-ordinator Project Manager Participant Participant Participant Project Office Reporting Feedback and Control


Slide53: Any questions? Do you have a clearer understanding of how you will approach the Management section?


Further information: Further information UKRO NCP website: http://www.ukro.ac.uk/mobility Queries on the schemes: mobility@bbsrc.ac.uk Tel: +32 2 230 0318; Fax +32 2 230 4803 For checking previously funded RTNs, go to: http://mc-opportunities.cordis.lu/home_prj.cfm and select “project information” Other useful websites: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/mariecurie-actions/researchers/objectives_en.html http://www.cordis.lu/mariecurie-actions/


For information : For information UK Research Office Friday 8th April 2005


Index of ‘for information section’: Index of ‘for information section’ Indicative financial information Quality of the host Summary statistics from first two calls


Notes for indicative financial information : Notes for indicative financial information Make sure ambitions are realistic given resources Make sure all parts of project have sufficient resources that are well justified Not too many resources to one country (note the 40% rule) Must be some flexibility to account for evolution Observe 65%:35% rule


Community Contribution for RTNs (1) : Community Contribution for RTNs (1) Benefits to researcher Monthly Living Allowance* –basic monthly amount Travel Allowance – distance as crow flies Mobility Allowance* – for additional expenses that are normally incurred when working abroad (e.g. relocation; family charges, language courses, renting accommodation, etc.) (500/800 €) Career Exploration Allowance –2000€ one-off payment e.g. attending additional courses or job fairs etc. Contribution to the participation expenses of eligible researchers – 400€ per person-month. Real cost of their training, networking and transfer-of-knowledge activities exclusive of the research expenses (e.g. consumables, computing etc) * Weighted by country


Community Contribution for RTNs (2): Community Contribution for RTNs (2) Living allowance (reference, cost of living index 100) Correction factor for cost of living to be applied UK 112.5%


Community Contribution for RTNs (3): Community Contribution for RTNs (3) Benefits to the host Contribution to the research/networking/training/transfer of knowledge programme expenses –actual expenses incurred by the host institutions Management activities (including audit certification) –maximum 7% towards project management and the expenses related to the auditing of the financial reports Contribution to overheads –a flat rate payment of 10% (excluding costs for subcontracts) of the direct costs; Other types of eligible expenses/specific conditions –the provision and use of equipment if essential for the execution of the project. Prior approval from the Commission Budgets typically in the range 1.5 – 3 million € (65% of costs must be allocated to the researchers)


Quality of the Host - evaluation criteria: Quality of the Host - evaluation criteria Has the network, collectively the necessary expertise, facilities, and infrastructures to achieve the project scientific objectives and if the tasks distribution and the schedule are well thought out? Have the partners the capacity to provide high quality training and tutoring to the requested ESRs? Are the complementarities and the synergies among partners in terms of research and training well exploited? Have the partners the experience with ToK and international research collaboration in the area of the project? Is the size of the network in relation to the research/ training/ ToK objectives? If applicable, how essential is third country participation in order to achieve the project’s objectives?


Quality of the Host – complementary note: Quality of the Host – complementary note Please explain how, in practical terms, the research teams will collaborate, and complement each other, stating for each team its specific role in the project? Each team should supply a list of the key scientific staff who will be involved in the research and note, for each person, their individual expertise and the foreseen extent of their involvement (in percentage of full time employment)? List the three most significant recent publications for each of the teams in the network? If one or more of the network teams is based outside of the EU Member and Associated States, explain in terms of the project’s objectives why their involvement is required for the implementation of the project?


Quality of Host - tools: Quality of Host - tools Quality of the research group / organisation Networking with other organisations / research groups Infrastructure / equipment available International collaborations Supervision arrangements Mentoring arrangements Assistance with living requirements of Fellows


Summary statistics RTNs: 1st call: Summary statistics RTNs: 1st call First Call FP6 Average consortium size: 10 partners Average number of fellow months: 448 Average budget: 2.2 M€ (0.62 to 4.8 M€)


Summary statistics RTNs: 2nd call: Summary statistics RTNs: 2nd call First Call FP6 Average consortium size: 11 partners (6-25) Average budget: 2.6 M€ (1.3 to 4.5 M€)