Morten Møller ICT Programme coordination Unit

1. Morten MøllerICT Programme coordination Unit Tips for writing a successful proposal in H2020 Bratislava12 October, 2015

2. Outline • Guidance and information • Submit your proposal • Evaluation process • Cross-cutting features • Summary tips

3. Guidance and information ••• 3

4. Call and all necessary documentation are published on the Research Participant Portal http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal H2020 Calls ••• 4

5. Home page

6. Horizon 2020 calls

7. Horizon 2020 calls – Topic details: submission service

8. When opened,to start submission you first need to select the Type of Action you would like to apply • Research and Innovation Action • Innovation Action • Coordination and Support Action Horizon 2020 calls – Topic details: submission service

9. Submit your proposal ••• 9

10. Admissibility conditions for participation • Submitted in the electronic submission service • Readable, accessible and printable • Complete • Includes a draft plan for the exploitation and dissemination of the results • Page limits will apply ••• 10

11. Electronic Submission Electronic Submission System accessed from the call page ECAS password Participant Identification Code (PIC) compulsory for all partners Prepare proposal On-line for structured part – Administrative forms Upload non-structured part – Technical annex - pdf files Validation checks Submit the proposalbefore the 17h00 deadline Submission failure rate = + 1% Only reason for failure: waiting till the last minute Technical problems Panic-induced errors (uploading the wrong proposal) Starting the uploading too late  running out of time ••• 11

12. Administrative forms 1/2 Section 1: General information Title, acronym, topic, etc. Fixed and free keywords 2000 character proposal abstract Previous/current submission Declarations Section 2: Participants & contacts (one form per partner) PIC to identify the partner Department Dependencies Contact information ••• 12

13. Administrative forms 2/2 Section 3: Budget and requested grant Section 4: Ethics' questionnaire Section 5: Call specific questions Clinicaltrial, Stage 2, SME instrument, Open Data Pilot, ERANET, PCP, PPI ••• 13

14. Technical annex – 2 pdf files 1/2 1st PDF: Sections 1 - 3 Based around evaluation criteria: • Section 1: Excellence • E.g. Objectives, concept, progress beyond state-of-art,... • Section 2: Impact • E.g. Potential impact (incl. with reference to WP); measures to maximise impact (dissemination, communication, exploitation) • Section 3: Implementation • Including work packages descriptions • Information on third parties and subcontractors ••• 14

15. Technical annex – 2 pdf files 2/2 2nd PDF: Sections 4 - 5 • Section 4: Members of the consortium Section 5: Ethics and Security Templates supplied by the submission system and available on Participant Portal (under topic conditions) ••• 15

16. Submission in H2020 • Simpler but tougher page limits: • - 70 pages for RIA and IA full proposals • - 50 pages for CSA • - also for SME Instrument, PCP, PPI, ERANET co-fund,... • apply only to sections 1-3 of the Technical Annex (1st PDF) • check page limit in topic conditions or proposal template • “warn and watermark” in first round of calls • Self-check for SME status, financial viability ••• 16

17. Successful electronic submission Each submission overwrites the previous one Make an early submission to check out the procedure and your proposal Make your final submission in good time ... ... then look at what you submitted while there is still time to resubmit a correct version Never (ever!) plan to submit in the last 30 minutes of the call! If in trouble, immediately call the submission service helpdesk For calls with fixed deadline ••• 17

18. Evaluation process ••• 18

19. Evaluation process Evaluators Receipt of proposals Individual evaluation Panel Review Finalisation Consensus group Eligibility 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 Processmonitored by independent experts •••19

20. Same process as in FP7…but adapting to Horizon 2020 • Coherence across the programme • New types of calls; new types of proposals • multi-disciplinary and multi-sectorial; more emphasis on innovation and close-to-market • Simplification, for applicants, experts, and for streamlined operations; • 8 months time to grant: • 5 months to evaluate and inform applicants on evaluation outcome • 3 months for grant preparation and signing ••• 20

21. No grant negotiation phase! • A proposal is evaluated as submitted not on its potential if certain changes were to be made • Shortcomings are reflected in a lower score for the corresponding criterion. • Shortcomings are mentioned, but no recommendations made • Proposals with significant weaknesses that prevent the project from achieving its objectives or with resources being seriously over-estimated must not receive above-threshold scores; any proposal with scores above thresholds can be selected as submitted ••• 21

22. Evaluation of proposals • Evaluation carriedout by independent experts • Award criteria • Excellence • Impact • Quality and efficiency in the implementation Details, e.g. the sub-criteria, weightings and thresholds are described in the Workprogramme ••• 22

23. Evaluation criteria… ...remain the same (ie. Excellence, Impact, Quality & efficiency of the implementation) • Some fine-tuning of the 'aspects to be taken into account' to improve clarity, for example: • Excellence - clearer message on 'inter-disciplinarity' • Impact – better signalling of both work programme 'expected impacts' and 'other possible impacts; communication aspects separated out • Implementation – reference to resources being in line with objectives • The proposal template reflects the criteria, and provides further guidance (e.g. on draft plan for dissemination and exploitation)

24. Evaluation criteria(RIA/IA), WP 2016/17: Aspects to be taken into account (red=first stage only)

25. Selection criteria Operationalcapacity (no specific provisions) • Operational capacitymeans that the applicants must have the professional competencies and qualifications required to complete the proposed action or work programme: it may be assessed on the basis of specific qualifications, professional experience and references in the field concerned. • checked against the information provided in • Curriculum Vitae or description of the profile of the applicant • Relevant publications or achievements • Relevant previous projects or activities • Description of any significant infrastructure or any major items of technical equipment • Financial capacity • Only coordinator of actions asking for 500 kEUR or more, except specific cases • No verification of public bodies , entities guaranteed by a MS or AC and higher and secondary education establishments ••• 25

26. Selection of proposals In each topic, all above threshold proposals are listed in descending order of overall scores The Commission select proposals starting from the top of the list until the available budget is consumed Hence, the ranking of proposal is very important ••• 26

27. Cross-cutting features • Standardisation • Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and • Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) • Dissemination • Communication ••• 27

28. ‘The Consortium lacks major industrial partners to back standards and enable commercial exploitation’ ‘The proposal does not provide a convincing analysis of the current market and competitors, nor a sufficiently concrete plan on how to bring the achieved innovations to the market’ Lessons Learned ‘The Consortium is biased towards academic and research institutions’ Mentioned in most ESRs with high score, but outside available budget Commercial, Academic, Social etc.

29. Sumary Tips •A proposal is not an academic paper or a thesis! Commission has its own language and analytical structure. Following it gives proposers an advantage! •The EC publishes the topics, but the Proposal is evaluated by external Expert Evaluators…both audiences are important. •Ideal Proposals strictly follow the template and include aclear Work Plan with sufficient Contingency Planning. •Proposals need to be presented against the background of the relevant Policy Context (Digital Single Market, Specific Strategies, PPP Roadmaps, Initiatives, Directives, Communications, White/Green Papers, etc). Proposals need to be... Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant Timely

30. Summary Tips • Keep in mind that timing in ICT is crucial, 8-month period until the signing of the Grant Agreement must be considered (new apps, technologies, new ICT solutions introduced on a daily basis). • ICT proposals are increasingly multidisciplinary, involvement of SSH actors is important. • Cross-cutting issues need to be considered (Social Dimension/Impact, Gender, SME Participation, International Cooperation etc.). • Participation of End-users/Industry is crucial in all Consortia (as a ‘success factor’ for impact). • European Technology Platforms / PPPs play a key role in setting the scene for the Work Programmes.

31. WARNING!! • First impressions matter: consistent, well-written proposals following guidelines/templates are more likely to get funding. • AVOID emphatic statements and claims that are unsubstantiated, typos, inconsistencies, obvious cut & paste, numbers which don’t add up, missing pages! • ALWAYS PROOF-READ...and make sure you submit the latest, complete version!

32. Experts Appropriately qualified professional should apply to work as experts in H2020 evaluations Application via theParticipant Portal The selection per call is made to ensure broad ranging and expertise, and avoiding conflicts of interest •••32

33. ••• 33