Proposal writing
“Tips and tricks”
Ann Moerenhout
Belgian COST event, Brussels, 14 March 2014
COST is supported
by the EU Framework Programme
ESF provides the COST Office
through a European Commission contract
I: Overview
COST is supported
by the EU Framework Programme
ESF provides the COST Office
through a European Commission contract
COST (Open Call) Proposals
•
Preliminary proposal submission at any time at
www.cost.eu/opencall - next “collection date” :
•
•
•
Key documents:
•
•
•
Friday 28 March 2014 (new Actions to start early 2015)
No collection date in September 2014
Action Proposal Submission, Evaluation, Selection and
Approval (COST doc 4113/13)
COST Action Proposal Submission, Evaluation, Selection and
Approval (SESA) Guidelines
Information on current/previous Actions:
http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions
3
COST (Open Call) Proposals
Preliminary proposals
Full proposals
~ 1 500 words
~ 11 000 words
New Actions
By Collection date:
COST
400-600
80-120
30-46
4
COST vs FP7/H2020
Attribute
COST
Funding for
Networking (meetings,
conferences, sci exchanges,
training schools)
Bottom-up
Scope
Budget
Participation
According to number of
participants
Open during Action life
Participants
Same and complementary
expertise
Members
36 COST countries
+ others in the mutual
benefit
FP7/H2020
Research + some
other activities
Policy-driven (topdown)
Proposer makes
budget request
Closed once project
starts
Mainly
complementary
expertise
EU+
+ others when
necessary for the
project
5
II: Preliminary Proposals
COST is supported
by the EU Framework Programme
ESF provides the COST Office
through a European Commission contract
Evaluation Criteria: Preliminary Proposals
I.1
RIGHT FOR COST?
Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the
Action's objectives?
yes
no

6 5432 1
I.2
PUBLIC UTILITY/SCIENCE
Does the proposed Action address real current
problems/ scientific issues?
yes
no

6 5432 1
I.3
INNOVATION
Is the proposed Action innovative?
yes
no

6 5432 1
I.4
IMPACT
Would the proposed network make a significant
difference in terms of knowledge, capacity building,
social impacts, etc?
yes
no

6 5432 1
I.5
NETWORKING
Are networking aspects well motivated and
developed in the proposal?
yes
no

6 5432 1
I.6
PRESENTATION
Is the proposed Action presented in a clear and
understandable way?
yes
no

6 5432 1
7
Preliminary Proposal
evaluation
RIGHT FOR COST?
Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the Action's
Objectives?
I.1
• High marks are given to proposals for which COST is the
best adapted mechanism.
• Lower marks are given otherwise.
PUBLIC UTILITY/SCIENCE
Does the proposed Action address real current problems/
scientific issues?
I.2
• High marks are given to highly exciting and interesting
proposals on a very important and/or timely topic.
• Lower marks are given otherwise.
INNOVATION
Is the proposed Action innovative?
I.3
• High marks are given to highly innovative proposals.
• Lower marks are given otherwise.
yes
no
654321
yes
no
654321
yes
no
654321
8
Preliminary Proposal
evaluation
IMPACT
Would the proposed network make a significant difference in
I.4 terms of knowledge, capacity building, social impacts, etc?
• High marks are given to proposals with high potential impact.
• Lower marks are given otherwise.
NETWORKING
Are networking aspects well motivated and developed in the
proposal?
I.5 • High marks for proposals that both motivate the need for
networking in the field and show how the proposed networking
will add value to the current state-of-the-art.
• Lower marks are given otherwise.
PRESENTATION
Is the proposed Action presented in a clear, rational and
understandable way?
I.6
• High marks for proposals that are presented in a clear,
rational and understandable way.
• Lower marks are given otherwise.
yes
no
654321
yes
no
654321
yes
no
654321
9
Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks”
1. Read the preliminary proposal evaluation criteria
and maximise score for each
–
In the design of the proposed Action, and
–
reflect the evaluation language in your proposal AND justify,
eg “ The topic of this proposal is very important and timely because .
. .” “The proposed approach is highly innovative in that it . . .”
2. Ask Chairs of recent running COST Actions for a
copy of their (obviously successful) Preliminary
Proposal
10
Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks”
3. Get people (eg colleague/ DC Expert/ DC
Member) to “assess” your proposal before you
submit it, and revise the proposal according to
their feedback
4. 6 (out of 36) marks for presentation:
 Get (near) native speaker to proof read the proposal
 Get someone outside the network/field to read the
proposal – is it clear without “inside knowledge”
 Follow the template AND clearly address each
criterion (difficult!)
11
Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks”
PROPOSAL TEMPLATE
EVALUATION CRITERIA
• BACKGROUND, PROBLEMS
I.1 RIGHT FOR COST?
• BENEFITS
• OBJECTIVES,
DELIVERABLES AND
EXPECTED SCIENTIFIC
IMPACT
Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the
Action's objectives?
I.2 PUBLIC UTILITY/SCIENCE
Does the proposed Action address real current
problems/ scientific issues?
I.3 INNOVATION
Is the proposed Action innovative?
I.4 IMPACT
• SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME
AND INNOVATION
Would the proposed network make a significant
difference in terms of knowledge, capacity
building, social impacts, etc?
• ORGANISATION
I.5 NETWORKING
Are networking aspects well motivated and
developed in the proposal?
I.6 PRESENTATION
Is the proposed Action presented in a clear and
understandable way?
12
III: Full Proposals
COST is supported
by the EU Framework Programme
ESF provides the COST Office
through a European Commission contract
Full Proposals: “tips and tricks”
1. Read the full proposal evaluation criteria and
mark point descriptors and maximise score for
each
•
•
•
In the design of the proposed Action, and
reflect the mark point descriptor (1/2/3/4) language in your
proposal AND justify ,
eg “. . . important impacts very likely in several respects . . .”
Again note the difference between the template (which must
be followed) and the evaluation criteria (which must be
addressed while following the template).
2. Read the MoUs of recent new COST Actions
(MoU text = Full Proposal text)
3. Full proposals: A (Science & Networking) and
B (Impact) are double weighted – these MUST
be strong to succeed (each point = 2/75)
14
Full Proposals: “tips and tricks”
4. Differentiate your proposal from existing
Actions, networks and (EU/ regional) projects
5. Get people outside the network/proposal
(especially DC Experts) to “evaluate” your full
proposal before submission and revise it taking
into account their feedback
6. BEFORE you submit a proposal send your cv
to Science Officer and DC Chair to express
interest in being an EEP Member (= insight
into full proposal evaluation process)
15
Full Proposal Template
•
•
•
A. ABSTRACT AND KEYWORDS
B. BACKGROUND
• B.1 General background
• B.2 Current state of knowledge
• B.3 Reasons for the Action
• B.4 Complementarity with other research
programmes
C. OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS
• C.1 Aim
• C.2 Objectives
• C.3 How networking within the Action will yield the
objectives?
• C.4 Potential impact of the Action
• C.5 Target groups/end users
•
•
•
•
•

D. SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME
• D.1 Scientific focus
• D.2 Scientific work plan - methods and
means
E. ORGANISATION
• E.1 Coordination and organisation
• E.2 Working Groups
• E.3 Liaison and interaction with other
research programmes
• E.4 Gender balance and involvement of
early-stage researchers (ESR)
F. TIMETABLE
G. ECONOMIC DIMENSION
H. DISSEMINATION PLAN
• H.1 Who?
• H.2 What?
• H.3 How?
Templates available in Document COST
Action Proposal Submission, Evaluation,
Selection and Approval (SESA) Guidelines
16
Evaluation Criteria: Full Proposals
A
A.1
SCIENCE AND NETWORKING (Weight 2)
Does the proposed Action address real current problems/scientific issues?
A.2
Does the proposed Action show awareness of the state-of-the-art of the relevant scientific/technical/socio-economic fields?
A.3
Is the proposed Action innovative?
A.4
Does the proposed Action answer a need for the networking of experts in the field?
B
B.1A
IMPACT (Weight 2)
If the proposed Action aims primarily to meet European economic or societal needs, how likely is it to achieve useful impacts?
B.1B
If the proposed Action aims primarily to contribute to the development of the scientific or technological field, how likely is it to
achieve useful impacts?
If the proposed Action aims BOTH to meet European economic or societal needs, AND to contribute to the development of the
scientific or technological field, how likely is it to achieve useful impacts?
Are there clear plans for stimulating the production of high quality outputs?
B.1C
B.2
B.3
C
C.1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1
Is attention given to the involvement of stakeholders in order to increase the potential application of results (including, where
appropriate, fostering their commercial exploitation)?
STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION (Weight 1)
Is the proposal presented in a clear, convincing, and appropriate way?

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

3 2 1

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1
4
C.2
Are the workplan and organisation appropriate?
C.3
Are the time schedule and the setting of milestones appropriate?
C.4
Are appropriate plans made for monitoring and evaluating the achievement of objectives?
D
D.1
CONTRIBUTION TO WIDER COST GOALS (Weight 1)
How well does the proposed Action aim to involve early stage researchers?
D.2
How well does the proposed Action aim at gender balance?
D.3
Does the proposed Action have the potential to contribute to the solution of global challenges in a global dimension?

1 0

1 0

1 0
Threshold: 55 points
17
out of 75
Evaluation Criteria: Full Proposals
A SCIENCE AND NETWORKING (Weight 2)
A.1 Does the proposed Action address real current problems/scientific issues?
4. The topic is very important and /or timely and proposal presents the correct approaches.
3. The topic is very important and /or timely, but proposal fails to present the correct approaches.
2. The topic is not important nor timely, although proposal presents the correct approaches.
1. Serious lack of substance and/or relevance.
A.2 Does the proposed Action show awareness of the state-of-the-art of the relevant
scientific/technical/socio-economic fields?
4. Excellent and up to date awareness of relevant scientific/technical fields
3. Good awareness of relevant fields.
2. Defective awareness of relevant fields.
1. Serious lack of awareness of relevant fields.
A.3 Is the proposed Action innovative?
4. Highly innovative: identifies a significant new problem and/or a significant new approach.
3. Innovative in some notable aspects.
2. Not very innovative: the topic is already well-studied and/or the proposal largely follows a well-trodden
approach.
1. Not at all innovative.
A.4 Does the proposed Action answer a need for the networking of experts in the field?
4. Networking in this field ranks amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art and the
proposal uses such a mechanism in a sound manner.
3. Networking in this field ranks amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art, but the
proposal fails to use such a mechanism in a sound manner.
2. Networking in this field is not amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art, although the
proposal uses such a mechanism in a sound manner.
1. Networking in this field is not amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art and the
18
proposal fails to use such a mechanism in a sound manner.
Tips and Tricks: FP Section A
1.
2.
Choose a very important and/or timely topic and
propose the correct approaches
Excellent and up to date awareness of relevant
scientific/technical fields
–
3.
4.
If resubmitting proposal UPDATE the SOTA with any new
Actions/ projects since previous submission even if previous
SOTA was excellent
Make proposal highly innovative: a significant new
problem and/or a significant new approach
Ensure (and prove) that networking in this field
ranks amongst the best mechanisms to progress
the state-of-the-art and the proposal uses such a
mechanism in a sound manner.
19
Evaluation Criteria: Full Proposals
B IMPACT (Weight 2)
B.1 If the proposed Action aims at (choose between a, b, or c.): a. meeting European
economic or societal needs / b. developing the scientific or technological field / c. both
a and b, how likely is it to achieve useful impacts?
4. Important impacts very likely in several respects.
3. Some notable impacts likely.
2. May make some minor impacts.
1. Unlikely to make useful impacts.
B.2 Are there clear plans for stimulating the production of high quality outputs?
4. Plans for outputs are clear, wide-ranging and ambitious.
3. Plans for outputs are reasonable.
2. Plans for outputs are unambitious or defective.
1. Plans for outputs are minimal or absent.
B.3 Is attention given to the involvement of stakeholders in order to increase the
potential application of results (including, where appropriate, fostering their
commercial exploitation)?
4. Stakeholders are already part of experts who took part in the preparation of the proposal.
3. Plans for implication of stakeholders are clear, wide-ranging and feasible.
2. Plans for implication of stakeholders are reasonable.
1. Plans for implication of stakeholders are unambitious or defective.
20
Tips and Tricks: FP Section B
1.
2.
3.
Ensure that important impacts are very likely in
several respects and describe these impacts also
in terms of scientific/ technical/ economic/ societal/
environmental,
Clearly describe plans for wide-ranging and
ambitious outputs,
Involve as many groups of relevant stakeholders
as possible in the preparation of the proposal (and
ensure that they are listed as having participated in
the proposal).
•
Or, at least ensure that plans for implication of
stakeholders are clear, wide-ranging and feasible
21
Evaluation Criteria: Full Proposals
C STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION (Weight 1)
C.1 Is the proposal presented in a clear, convincing, and appropriate way?
4. Very clearly written with compelling argument; fully appropriate format.
3. Well written; argument is easy to follow; appropriate format but may need minor changes;
2. Poorly written, but argument can be followed with effort; and/or defective format.
1. Poorly written; argument is unclear; and/or inappropriate format.
C.2 Are the workplan and organisation appropriate?
4. Workplan and organisation make full, productive and cost-effective use of COST opportunities.
3. Workplan and organisation are reasonable, any defects are minor.
2. Workplan and/or organisation show significant defects.
1. Workplan and/or organisation are lacking or inappropriate or unclear.
C.3 Are the time schedule and the setting of milestones appropriate?
4. Schedule and milestones are well-defined and practical.
3. Schedule and milestones are reasonable.
2. Schedule and/or milestones show some defects.
1. Schedule and/or milestones are lacking or inappropriate or unclear.
C.4 Are appropriate plans made for monitoring and evaluating the achievement of
objectives?
4. Monitoring and evaluation plans are well-defined and practical.
3. Monitoring and evaluation plans are reasonable.
2. Monitoring and evaluation plans show some defects.
1. Monitoring and evaluation plans are lacking or inappropriate or unclear.
22
Tips and Tricks: FP Section C
1.
Ensure proposal is very clearly written with compelling
argument and fully appropriate format (follow template):
•
•
2.
Ensure workplan and organisation make full, productive
and cost-effective use of COST opportunities.
•
3.
Ensure all COST instruments (various meetings, STSMs,
Training Schools, Dissemination are used)
Include clear time schedule and appropriate
milestones
•
4.
Get (near) native speaker to proof read proposal
Get someone external to the proposal to check for clarity
Milestones enable the monitoring of progress (milestones are
not the same thing as deliverables)
Include well-defined and practical monitoring and
evaluation plans
23
Evaluation Criteria: Full Proposals
D CONTRIBUTION TO WIDER COST GOALS (Weight 1)
D.1 How well does the proposed Action aim to involve early stage
researchers?
1. An innovative plan is presented in addition to the standard template in Section E.4 of Full
Proposal
0. Otherwise.
D.2 How well does the proposed Action aim at gender balance?
1. An innovative plan is presented in addition to the standard template in Section E.4 of Full
Proposal
0. Otherwise.
D.3 Does the proposed Action have the potential to contribute to the solution
of global challenges in a global dimension?
1. Proposal will certainly attract interest from a wide range of non-COST Countries if approved
0. Otherwise.
24
Tips and Tricks: FP Section D
1.
Present an innovative plan for ESR involvement in addition to the
standard template in Section E.4 of Full Proposal:
•
•
•
2.
Present an innovative plan for gender balance in addition to the
standard template in Section E.4 of Full Proposal:
•
•
•
3.
Refer to COST 295/09 (CSO Strategy for ESRs) and set targets (eg 20%
of annual budget) for STSMs, at least one Training School per year,
ESRs as Leaders of at least ½ the WGs
Set target for % of meeting reimbursement places given to ESRs
ESR as Chair/ Vice Chair of the Action
Eg guarantee that at least 40% of the Core Group (Chair, Vice Chair, WG
leaders, STSM manager) will be of either gender
Guarantee that at least 40% of STSMs and Training School places will
be allocated to either gender
Gender balance in Chair and Vice Chair roles
Prove that proposal will certainly attract interest from a
wide range of non-COST Countries if approved
•
Include institutions from a wide range (eg different regions) of non-COST
countries in the proposal
25
Full Proposals: tips and tricks
 Get geographical balance in the network: cover N S E W


Ask DC Members from “missing” countries to suggest contacts
http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions
Ask MC Members from those countries in relevant Actions for
suggestions http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions
(but don’t just recycle the same people into your proposal)
 Do not just resubmit an unsuccessful FP7 proposal as
COST Action proposal


FP7 = research funding; COST = networking funding
FP7 has Work Packages (WP), COST has Working Groups (WG)
 Dissemination: best to have a transversal Dissemination
Task Force that draws people from each WG, NOT a WG
Dissemination
26
IV: DC Hearings
COST is supported
by the EU Framework Programme
ESF provides the COST Office
through a European Commission contract
Proposals: tips and tricks
 DC Hearings
 Follow the instructions in invitation email
 Short overview of objectives, outcomes and
impact of proposal
 Focus on addressing issues raised by the EEP
 Practice the presentation
 Questions:
 Listen to the full question (don’t interrupt
the questioner)
 Give calm clear concise (non-defensive)
answer.
28
Proposals: tips and tricks
 Who can help you:
 CNC BE + other Belgian contact points

http://www.belspo.be/belspo/cost/contact_en.stm
 Chairs of running Actions
 from BE
 relevant to your area
 DC Members
 from BE
 from countries that you need
contacts in
29
Belgian contact points
Cost National
Coordinator (CNC)
Lieve Van Daele
Lieve.VANDAELE@belspo.be
Federal science
institutions
Lieve Van Daele
Lieve.VANDAELE@belspo.be
Flemish institutions
Ann Moerenhout
cost@fwo.be
Karel Goossens
karel.goossens@ewi.vlaanderen.be
Universities and
Benjamin Monnoye
colleges French
Speaking Community
benjamin.monnoye@cfwb.be
Brussels institutions
cchristiaens@innoviris.irisnet.be
Christophe Christiaens
Industry and SMEs in Thierry Lemoine
Walloon region
thierry.lemoine@spw.wallonie.be
30
www.cost.eu
-
Open Call: www.cost.eu/opencall
Networking tools: http://www.cost.eu/participate/networking
Domain pages: http://www.cost.eu/domains_actions
FAQ: www.cost.eu/service/faq
Reciprocal Agreements:
www.cost.eu/about_cost/reciprocal_agreements
- Library: www.cost.eu/media
- Events: www.cost.eu/events
31
Thank you for your attention
Good luck with your application
Ann Moerenhout
Belgian COST event, Brussels, 14 March 2014
COST is supported
by the EU Framework Programme
ESF provides the COST Office
through a European Commission contract