How to score with your H2020
collaborative proposal
Insights in the evaluation process of a Research & Innovation Action (RIA)
11th June 2015, Grant Development Team, Luris
Goal of this meeting
Show you how to write high scoring H2020 collaborative
proposals (RIA) that lead to solid research projects and a
lasting infrastructure
Topics:
Expectations from the EU
Dos & don’ts for the proposal
The evaluator
Highlighted: Ethics, data management & gender
First hand experience: Dr. Antoaneta Dimitrova
Research and Innovation Action
Definition according to EC
Action primarily consisting of activities aiming to establish
new knowledge and/or to explore the feasibility of a new or
improved technology, product, process, service or solution.
For this purpose they may include basic and applied
research, technology development and integration, testing
and validation on a small-scale prototype in a laboratory or
simulated environment
Projects may contain closely connected but limited
demonstration or pilot activities aiming to show technical
feasibility in a near to operational environment
RIAs are always collaborative projects
What does your proposal need?
*And where does it go wrong…
1. Complete
* "If I do not know what they mean, I just leave it blank.”
2. Compliant (fulfilling all criteria)
* Not knowing unwritten rules: Number of partners, countries, diversity
in type of organizations
3. Competitive
To win you need a very high score on each of the
3 evaluation criteria (3x5=15 pts)
* Neglected sections Impact and Implementation.
Too much time is spent on section Excellence.
What does it take to be competitive?
CCC Be in
the top 3
≥ 13.5 pts
CC
Be compliant and reach
the threshold
≥ 10 pts
C Avoid (stupid) mistakes (font size, # of pages,
budget range, # of partners)
not eligible ≤ 9.5 pts
How to become compliant? (1)
The Model Grant Agreement (MGA) defines the rules
Partner or subcontractor & managing IP:
in MGA
Rules for budget:
Art 5 & 6
Partner or not?
Subcontracting or not?
IP
Making the proposal meet EU standards on:
Management
Open access
Gender
Ethics
Data protection
These are minimum requirements!
Art 8-14
Art 10 & 13
Art 24-28 & 30-31
Art
Art
Art
Art
Art
17-23 & 41
29
33
34
39
How to become compliant ? (2)
The EU is looking for:
A solution to their problem
Creating economic benefit
Progress through innovation
The best people to perform the
project
Value for money
The evaluation criteria:
(RIA project)
1. Excellence
2. Impact
3. Implementation
From criteria to the proposal template
Section
1. Excellence relevant to the topics addressed by the call
1.1 Objectives
1.
Excellence
1.2 Relation to the work programme
1.3
– Concept and approach
5 pts
idea,
incl . science
5 pts
expected results
1.4
– Ambition
2.
Impact
2. Impact
2.1 Expected impacts
2.2 Measures to maximise impact
3. Implementation
3.
Implementation
3.1
Work plan — Work
packages, of
deliverables
and milestones
a) Dissemination
and exploitation
results
3.2 Management structure and procedures
3.3
Consortium as activities
a whole
b) Communication
3.4 Resources to be committed
4. Members of the consortium
4.1. Participants (applicants)
5. Ethics and Security
5 pts
execution project
& management
How to become competitive ?
Section
1. Excellence relevant to the topics addressed by the call
1.1 Objectives
1.2 Relation to the work programme
5 pts
1.3
– Concept and approach
1.4
– Ambition
2. Impact
2.1 Expected impacts
5 pts
2.2 Measures to maximise impact
3. Implementation
3.1
Work plan — Work
packages, of
deliverables
and milestones
a) Dissemination
and exploitation
results
3.2 Management structure and procedures
3.3
Consortium as activities
a whole
b) Communication
3.4 Resources to be committed
5 pts
4. Members of the consortium
4.1. Participants (applicants)
5. Ethics and Security
Equally invest in all sections!
2/3 of your total score
is based on factors other than science!
Getting started
The Participant Portal:
Information on the rules & regulations, call, topic, and submission
service:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/home.html
Example templates and evaluation guidelines: bottom of webpage
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/funding/reference_docs.html
Register in Participant Portal
Download call specific template R&I proposal in Submission
Service: p14 onwards part B Technical Annex Section 1-3
Never use old templates or from other calls!
Participant Portal
call
general
rules &
regulations
topic
Participant Portal
call
topic
specific
rules &
regulations
start
submission
Submission Service start page
navigation
2x
Submission Service download template
navigation
From call to proposal
Section
1. Excellence relevant to the topics addressed by the call
1.1 Objectives
1.2 Relation to the work programme
1.3
– Concept and approach
1.4
– Ambition
2. Impact
2.1 Expected impacts
2.2 Measures to maximise impact
3. Implementation
3.1
Work plan — Work
packages, of
deliverables
and milestones
a) Dissemination
and exploitation
results
3.2 Management structure and procedures
3.3
Consortium as activities
a whole
b) Communication
3.4 Resources to be committed
4. Members of the consortium
4.1. Participants (applicants)
5. Ethics and Security
One simple rule:
help the evaluator
Take the template guidelines very literally. The evaluator expects to
find everything at the designated place.
(tip: read the entire template before you start dividing the work 17 )
All sections are related. Make cross-references & connections.
Repetition can be functional to stress important things, but avoid
redundancy.
Use consistent names / words / partner abbreviations throughout.
Keep it short and concise.
The template
The starting point: call topic
WASTE-2-2014: A systems approach for the reduction, recycling and reuse of food
waste
Specific challenge: …………………….Technologies for the collection, sorting/grading, stabilisation
and valorisation of food waste, by-products and packaging material need improvement or
development. The aim is to optimise the performance of the whole food system, including
packaging, catering and consumers, and achieve a secure and sustainable food supply, also for
the poor.
Scope: ……………A comprehensive methodology for evaluating food waste in
all its components should be developed addressing quality, safety, sustainability, legislation and costs.
Inter-disciplinary research methods include practical, close-to-market approaches for characterising
possible new foods and feeds and identifying the risks and benefits related to the new production
processes.
A database/inventory should be developed of recyclable materials, valuable molecules, substances
and materials originating from waste and by-products, also in view of future life cycle assessments
(LCAs). Solid involvement of social sciences and humanities and civil society is a prerequisite to
better understanding the socio-economic, cultural and environmental dimension of food waste and
promoting change in the business and consumer environment for social innovation, while the use
of ICT tools is expected to accelerate this.
“………..proposals are encouraged to include third country participants, especially those
established in China.
The Commission considers that proposals requesting a contribution from the EU in the range of
EUR 9 million would allow this specific challenge to be addressed appropriately.
Expected impact:
• A significant contribution to achieving the European policy target of reducing food waste by 50%
by 2030, including at the consumer level.
• A reduction in waste management costs, and in environmental impacts, including emission of
greenhouse gases.
Type of action: Research and innovation actions
aim
partners
work package
commercial
partner
deliverable
partners
dissemination
deliverables
China partner
budget
objectives
The proposal
Section
1. Excellence relevant to the topics addressed by the call
1.1 Objectives
1.2 Relation to the work programme
1.3
– Concept and approach
1.4
– Ambition
2. Impact
2.1 Expected impacts
2.2 Measures to maximise impact
3. Implementation
3.1
Work plan — Work
packages, of
deliverables
and milestones
a) Dissemination
and exploitation
results
3.2 Management structure and procedures
3.3
Consortium as activities
a whole
b) Communication
3.4 Resources to be committed
4. Members of the consortium
4.1. Participants (applicants)
5. Ethics and Security
1. Excellence
1.1 Objectives
Analyze the topic’s Expected impact -> Your objectives
should correspond with EU objectives
Link! mention words expected impact in your objectives
Main aim & 3-6 objectives, one sentence each
SMART (specific, measurable, achievable/assignable, realistic,
time-related)
No long introduction, how you got to this will be described in
1.3 & 1.4
1. Excellence
Example to do:
In three years build and disseminate an open access sound
library that will form part of an integrated framework of data on
ambient noise with over 10 thousands of individual recordings to
support marine science and ocean discovery.
Example don’t:
Build an open access sound library.
1. Excellence
1.2 Relation to the work programme
Show maximum fit with the specific challenge and scope.
Tip: itemize specific challenge and scope, and describe fit per item
Tip: use wording from the call or clearly connect your own wording to
their wording
Also fit your proposal in the broader framework of
challenges and scope using keywords of:
the introduction of the Work Programme
the text of the call above your topic
23
1. Excellence
1.3 Concept and approach (1)
Introduce the concept (what) & approach (how) clearly
Frame in research landscape:
Description of current state of field
Connect to running or to be funded nat./ EU/ int. projects
Tip: for EU projects search on Cordis:
http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/home_en.html
Highlighted in template & instructions for evaluators:
‘Trans-disciplinary considerations/ discuss cross-cutting issues’
‘Gender issues and gendered innovations’
1. Excellence
1.3 Concept and approach (2)
Link!
Connect concept diagram (1.3) to Pert & Gantt (3.1)
Approach -> elaborate in WP descriptions (3.1a)
Tip: clearly link using consistent names & terminology
Important: not of research exclusively, but for all activities
(demonstration, piloting, testing, dissemination etc.)
Summary of progress beyond state of the art -> elaborate in
1.4 Ambition
Expected results -> link to 1.1 Objectives
The difference between
Excellence (1) and Implementation (3)
1) Description of the conceptual
relations between the various
research questions (objectives),
and the ‘umbrella’ hypothesis (main
aim).
Example: Main hypothesis, to be approached
via research questions 1, 2, and 3. Results of
1 feed into 2 and 3. The PI writes the
synthesis.
3) Practical aspects of the various
relations:
GANTT: time-frame, feedback
sessions, deliverables, milestones
PERT: components inter-relations
Example: 3 work packages; wp1 starts (and
ends) first, followed after 1 year by wp 2 and 3.
Wp 4 (the synthesis) starts near to the point of
completion of wp 2 and 3.
1. Excellence
Evaluators comments
'The proposal only marginally addresses the concept of the call topic
(focus on one system)’.
‘Because large parts of the proposal are outside the remit of the call, the
overall methodology and work plan is not appropriate.’
‘The project outline would have benefitted from a clarification and more
systematic implementation of the research hypotheses within the
substantial WPs.’
'The concept and overall objective is only broadly described, but how it will
be implemented is not explained in sufficient detail. Technologies to be
used are barely mentioned.'
1. Excellence
1.4 Ambition
(= FP7: Progress beyond the state-of-the-art)
Instructions for evaluators:
‘Extent that proposed work is ambitious, has innovation
potential, and is beyond the state-of-the-art’
Tip: Make a bullet list of all innovative aspects of the proposal.
Describe in detail per item:
a) the current state-of-the art,
b) what constitutes beyond the state-of the art,
c) and justify how this is achieved within the project.
What will be enabled that is not possible right now and HOW will this
be achieved?
1. Excellence
1.4 Ambition
Example to do:
For the first time it will be possible to address the fragmentation
of sources and tools currently available. In addition, as described
below, the platform to be developed will offer new tools to
analyze xxx, which was hitherto with xxx and xxx (current tools)
impossible, because…
Example don’t:
The project is innovative, because this has not been done before
1. Excellence
Evaluators comments
'The “state of the art” is too succinct and does not provide enough
explanation to ascertain the added value.’
‘The claimed innovation aspects of the proposed effort are not clearly
demonstrated due to “high level” descriptions of what will be
accomplished and how. There is no clear explanation of new techniques that
will be developed and how such developments go beyond the state- of-theart.’
‘The current state-of-the-art has been well described and what constitutes
beyond the state-of-the-art has been clearly identified.’
FET-Open!
‘The work has a limited long-term vision and does not go far beyond the
state of the art. Whilst the idea of xxx will bring us one step further towards
xxx, it cannot be considered a major breakthrough.’
The proposal
Section
1. Excellence relevant to the topics addressed by the call
1.1 Objectives
1.2 Relation to the work programme
1.3
– Concept and approach
1.4
– Ambition
2. Impact
2.1 Expected impacts
2.2 Measures to maximise impact
3. Implementation
3.1
Work plan — Work
packages, of
deliverables
and milestones
a) Dissemination
and exploitation
results
3.2 Management structure and procedures
3.3
Consortium as activities
a whole
b) Communication
3.4 Resources to be committed
4. Members of the consortium
4.1. Participants (applicants)
5. Ethics and Security
2. Impact
2.1 Expected impacts
Impacts as described in the topic (but then in your own
words)
Impact key words from the introduction of work programme
and of call above topic
Consider societal impact, economic impact, environmental
impact, etc. (Grand Challenges)
Contribution to Europe and world (market) (‘European
excellence’. Not only academic!!!)
Be realistic. Describe conditions and potential barriers (‘if’)
2. Impact
2.2 Measures to maximise impact (1)
Separate WP on Dissemination & Exploitation
(Allocate around 10% of PMs/€)
Get your stakeholders involved from the start, (preferably) as
partners
SMEs (exra credit), industry, NGOs, international/EU organisations
GOs, branch organisations and private foundations are also
important -> dissemination channel
If not partners give stakeholders power to influence the project
-> Advisory Board
Identify your end users, organise their feedback
No bla bla. Specify & quantify activities & stakeholders!
2. Impact
2.2 Measures to maximise impact (2)
Dissemination plan (FAQ 8 Guidance for evaluators 54 )
Exploitation plan (e.g. exploitable results table)
Management of Intellectual Property Rights
Data management plan (including protection and open
access)
Link!
Describe approach here and connect to execution in
3.2 Management structure and procedures
Table 3.1.a. WP Management and WP Dissemination & Exploitation
Deliverables (of WPs and in Table 3.1.c)
2. Impact
Evaluators comments
'Dissemination is rather standard. The strategy for dissemination
does not clearly show how the end-users will benefit from
the project.'
'Dissemination strongly relies on classical tools like "developing of
advertisement material" or "launch and maintenance of project
website".
'The proposal did not lay out a convincing description of
effective ways to access and engage those targets.'
'Impacts might be reduced by the limited connection of the
Consortium with the REDD network and with other policy networks.'
'The project team should consider how end users will access
the resources’
‘There is little evidence of enhancement of competitiveness
of companies, at least directly.’
2. Impact
Evaluators comments
‘A good plan is provided on specific measures to disseminate and
exploit project results across the relevant interested parties.’
‘The steps to approach the concerns of general public are also well
elaborated (raise awareness, ensure transparancy and
demonstrate ways to overcome challenges).’
'Target groups are well defined’.
'The impact of the proposal on European excellence is well
substantiated’.
‘The licensing scheme and exploitation routes are appropriate
for the scope of the proposal. Management of IPR is appropriately
addressed.
The proposal
Section
1. Excellence relevant to the topics addressed by the call
1.1 Objectives
1.2 Relation to the work programme
1.3
– Concept and approach
1.4
– Ambition
2. Impact
2.1 Expected impacts
2.2 Measures to maximise impact
3. Implementation
3.1
Work plan — Work
packages, of
deliverables
and milestones
a) Dissemination
and exploitation
results
3.2 Management structure and procedures
3.3
Consortium as activities
a whole
b) Communication
3.4 Resources to be committed
4. Members of the consortium
4.1. Participants (applicants)
5. Ethics and Security
3. Implementation
3.1 Work plan – work packages (WP), deliverables,
milestones (1)
38
39
Gantt chart
Pert diagram
WP7: Project management
WP1:
Screening of
theoretical
background
and
empirical
evidence
of resilience
WP2: Definition of a
conceptual and methodological
resilience framework
WP3: Participatory
operationalizationand adaptation
of the framework
in representative case studies
WP5: Strategies
to enhance resilience
at different scales
WP4:
Testing
transferability
to complex
systems
WP6: Awareness raising, dissemination and knowledge transfer
http://www.wikihow.com/Create-a-PERT-Chart-Using-Microsoft-Office-2007
3. Implementation
3.1 Work plan – work packages (WP), deliverables,
milestones
Useful numbers:
2 M€ -> ±5 WPs, 6 M€ -> ±9 WPs
Deliverables 2-4 per WP
Milestones 1-6 per project
Ideal WP length 3 pages
Total section 1-3 50 pages (max=70 pages, not a target!)
3. Implementation
3.2 Management structure & procedures
WP Management/Coordination (WP 1 or last)
Allocate 7% (never more!) of person months/budget
Management diagram
Innovation management!!!
tip: lead by business partner/policy partner or societal partner depending
on the topic
Risk table / contingency plan (Table 3.2b.)
tip: include management risks, such as conflict and partner loss
Consortium Agreement and Managing IP
NB: foresee any “legacy” and infrastructure from the project, in terms of
formalised entities that might take up the management of a network
created during the project
3. Implementation
3.3 Consortium as a whole
Explanation on why this is the dream team, no overlap in
specific expertises for this topic, but complementary
Highlight expertise & experience of individual partners in
relation to the research objectives, but also for management,
exploitation and dissemination
Team covers the width of the call:
science -> society, value chain, target groups
geographical balance, include underperforming countries
types of organisations (SMEs!)
3. Implementation
3.4 Budget
Evenly balanced (€ and person months) across partners or
explain
Never >35% to 1 country
WP MGT (7%) and WP Dissemination & Exploitation (around
10%)
Eligible direct costs: Model Grant Agreement
Outline budget whole consortium: ask advise LURIS
Details plus internal budget: ask project office/ IM
3. Implementation
Evaluators comments
'The proposal does not contain a formal structure for ensuring the continued
involvement of participants and the information flow between them.'
'No instrument is planned for ensuring participation of stakeholders into
decision-making processes and for allowing end-user feedback during
the project.'
'The allocation of resources is not appropriate. 128 person months seems too
much to spend on the assessment of xxx (WP3).'
'The panel further would have welcomed the inclusion of an external
scientific advisory board.’
‘The management and coordination budget is relatively high.’
‘The consortium is complementary but unbalanced and there is a lack of
explanation of the unbalanced workload.’
‘Industry is sufficiently targeted in the exploitation and dissemination plan. This
is good. However no partner in the consortium represents IT industry
or is an SME.’
4. Members of the consortium
Show that you have all the necessary expertise, including
management, dissemination, exploitation, etc and
infrastructure
Show previous experience in project tasks as well as with
working together
Be aware of gender balance and/or issues
Geographical balance (new member states)
tip: send out template and example to partners -> consistent lay-out
Cover page
Use the cover page as business card of the consortium
Tip: Analyze the competition
Photo by: globaldesignworkshop.com
Do you have knowledge of a competing consortium?
Emphasize the differences / complementarities in the abstract
Will more than one proposal be granted?
Adjust the budget (2 proposals, total 10 M€ then 5 M€ each?)
The summary
Show:
Aim of the project
Specific objectives
Why now?
Why do you have the dream team?
What are the expected results for the EU and why are they
innovative?
What will the impact in the EU be after the project has
finished. And a few years after that!
(repeat this in the first two pages of the
proposal!)
Finally
The acronym
One word, or couple of words without spaces
Preferably relevant to the project
Do not use registered trademarks
Check in google
Make it pronounceable, alliteration is a plus
Goal of this meeting
Show you how to write high scoring H2020 collaborative
proposals (RIA) that lead to solid research projects and a
lasting infrastructure
Topics:
Expectations from the EU
Dos & don’ts for the proposal
The evaluator
Highlighted: Ethics, data management & gender
First hand experience: Dr. Antoaneta Dimitrova
Who are my evaluators?
Independent experts
not only scientific expertise but
also experience with:
commerce and business
specific technologies found in the
topics of the draft work programmes
working multidisciplinary with social
sciences and humanities
innovation
ethics
gender
communication
project management
Evaluation Process
Eligible proposal
Proposal
Expert
Expert
Individual
Evaluation
Report
Individual
Evaluation
Report
Expert
Individual
Evaluation
Report
Consensus
group
Consensus
Report
HORIZON 2020
57
Expert
Expert
Individual
Evaluation
Report
Minimum 3 experts
Individual evaluation
Individual
Evaluation
Report
Consensus
Evaluation criteria
Research and Innovation/Innovation/SME instrument

For the first stage of a two-stage procedure, only the aspects of the criteria in yellow are evaluated
Excellence
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)
Implementation
Impact
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
HORIZON 2020
58
Proposals with identical total scores

For each group of proposals with identical total scores, the panel
considers first proposals that address topics that are not already
covered by more highly-ranked proposals

The panel then orders them according to:
•
first, their score for Excellence,
•
and second, their score for Impact
[for Innovation actions and SME instrument, first their score for Impact and second for
Excellence]


If there are ties, the panel takes into account the following factors:
•
First, the size of the budget allocated to SMEs
•
Second, the gender balance of personnel carrying out the research and/or
innovation activities
If there are still ties, the panel agrees further factors to consider:
•

e.g. synergies between projects or contribution to the objectives of the call or of
Horizon 2020
The same method is then applied to proposals that address topics
that are already covered by more highly-ranked proposals
HORIZON 2020
59
Tools to help yourself focus
on the evaluation
Guidance for evaluators of Horizon 2020 proposals
General briefing for evaluators
Sign up as an evaluator
Review proposals or projects (1-3 days)
Remote or in Brussels
Fee 450 E / day + travel expenses + subsistence
expenses
More info: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/luris-intra/Horizon2020.-.call.for.experts.html
Making a online profile to sign up takes 20 min:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/experts/index.html
Goal of this meeting
Show you how to write high scoring H2020 collaborative
proposals (RIA) that lead to solid research projects and a
lasting infrastructure
Topics:
Expectations from the EU
Dos & don’ts for the proposal
The evaluator
Highlighted: Ethics, data management & gender
First hand experience: Dr. Antoaneta Dimitrova
Grant development support
Poortgebouw Noord
Rijnsburgerweg 10
2333 AA Leiden
+31 (0)71 5 26 55 73
luris@luris.nl
www.luris.nl
Management assistant:
José Zweekhorst
j.b.a.zweekhorst@luris.nl
071-526 5573
Grant Development Advisors:
Anke Klerkx
j.h.e.m.klerkx@luris.nl
Anna Groeninx
a.k.groeninx@luris.nl
Jorrit Kelder
j.m.kelder@luris.nl
071-526 5661
071-526 5567
071-526 5569
Questions?