Lessons learned from 2014 calls: proposal
management and best practices
Massimo Busuoli
Head ENEA – EU Liaison Office, Bruxelles
About ENEA
• ENEA is the Italian National Agency for New
Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic
Development.
• It is a Public Research Institution operating in the fields
of energy, environment and new technologies to support
Country’s competitiveness and sustainable development.
• ENEA’s mission is to search for new technological
solutions to meet the societal challenges, fostering
transition to the Green Economy.
• The institutional mandate of the Agency is to
disseminate and transfer knowledge, innovation and
technology to industry, institutions and civil society at
large.
ENEA Activities
ENEA mainly operates to promote and carry out basic
and applied research and innovation technology
activities:
• Research: basic, mission-oriented, and industrial
research, also through development of prototypes and
product industrialization
• Technology Transfer: dissemination and transfer of
research results to industry and exploitation for
production purposes
• Advanced services: studies, measurements, tests and
assessements to both public and private bodies and
enterprises
• Training and information: activities aimed at
broadening sector expertise and public knowledge and
awareness
ENEA’s Research facilities and staff
Research facilities
•
•
•
•
•
•
9 Research Centres
5 Research Laboratories
43 pilot plants and test facilities
11 local offices
Brussels Liason Office
Headquarters in Rome
Human Resources
2641 permanent staff (30/06/14):
•
1921 in Technical Units
•
396 in Research Centres Directorates
•
300 in Central Unit
•
24 in other staff Units
Research and Development
First Call general outcomes for us...
Presented proposals (up to February 2015): 116
Currently evaluated: 61
Funded: 17
Reserve list: 8
Not eligible for funding: 36
Some lessons learned and considerations
GENERAL ISSUES (coming from internal feedbacks)
Still complex to manage information of the Participant Portal (need
for an enhanced presentation of calls)
Some templates related to reporting still missing (first contract of
H2020 effect?)
NCPs need more support from EC side (overwhelmed by requests)
Overall decrease of success rate due to:
.Increase of topics wideness leading to an increase of participation
and success rate reduction
Increase of frustration among colleagues presenting proposals (got
rejected a proposal with a 14,5!!!.....but that’s life)
Some lessons learned and considerations
Specific Issues per area: Excellent Science
EUROPEAN RESEARCH COUNCIL (ERC)
ENEA participates in 2 ERC projects (multibeneficiary)
“The ERC encourages in particular proposals that cross disciplinary boundaries,
pioneering ideas that address new and emerging fields and applications that
introduce unconventional, innovative approaches. “
 The ERC scheme is particularly addressed to Universities (“blue sky research”)
. related to fundamental research.
 The ERC technological projects are just 4-5% of the total.
 The Proof of Concept (PoC) projects are just the 5% of the financed ERC projects.
Some lessons learned and considerations
Specific Issues per area: Excellent Science
MARIE SKŁODOWSKA-CURIE ACTIONS (MSCA)
In the last 3 years 3 ENEA researchers were funded for individual
MSCA projects in excellent research institutions (Europe and USA).
“The programme funds worldwide and cross-sector mobility that
implements excellent research in any field (a "bottom-up" approach).”
.
 Insufficient Business-Academic collaborations. The researchers
should be given adequate skills and opportunities to contribute to
SMEs and other business growth.
Some lessons learned and considerations
Specific Issues per area: Excellent Science
FUTURE AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES (FET)
“The Future & Emerging Technologies (FET) programme invests in
transformative frontier research and innovation with a high potential
impact on technology, to benefit our economy and society.”
The programme is very ambitious and should go beyond the
.
conventional
boundaries of ICT (as it was in FP7).
 It seems to be still too linked to the ICT and HPC research fields.
 Evaluation: just remote evaluation, no panels.
Some lessons learned and considerations
Specific Issues per area: Societal Challenges
«No nego» approach in some cases not completely applied. Got a cut
in a proposal’ budget and at the meantime, got the request to add an
«ethics board» (additional expenses not considered and at charge of
the consortium)
Appreciated Commission approach to conflict of interest in case of
already performed evaluations: a proposal rejected in a first evaluation
(afterwards
considered «invalid») has been positively evaluated in the
.
re-organised evaluation
Capability of winning proposal more and more increased by active
participation in existing EU reference initiatives (PPPs, JTIs, Alliances,
etc…)
Some lessons learned and considerations
Specific Issues per area: Industrial leadership
Innovation in SMEs instrument currently perceived more like a lottery
rather than an opportunity.
Main concerns:
• Low success rate
• Applied evaluation methodology not including consensus
• ESR contents need to be improved in clarity
•. Budget foreseen for the Coachs seems to be insufficient compared
to the role’s needs
Some Recommendations
Enhance presentation of calls in Participant Portal
Reinforce NCPs support and consider the option of re-opening the
possibility of external stakeholders to contact Pos
Make sure to clarify the meaning of «no-nego» approach
Consensus in proposal evaluation should not be avoided (otherwise
too much power in negative terms on a single evaluator)
.
Improve ESR contents and consitency between scores and comments
ENEA – EU Liaison Office, Bruxelles
Thank you for your attention