Good Practice in proposal writing… further tips
Scientific Excellence
Implementation
Impact
Keji Adunmo
SPACE National Contact Point for ITALY
APRE
Agency for the Promotion of European Research
Section 1 – Scientific Excellence
COMMON ERRORS:
¾ Relevance to the call NOT convincing
¾ Proposal written as a Scientific Paper
¾ Aims & objectives UNCLEAR
¾ Scientific part excellent but management and impact underdeveloped
¾ Page limits NOT respected
¾ Essential parts disregarded
¾ Template structure NOT respected Section 1 – Scientific Excellence
GOOD PRACTICE:
¾ Ensure the proposal can be read by a non‐specialist and it is understandable
¾Explain abbreviations (use a glossary), Do not use jargon
¾ Use diagrams, summary boxes and tables if relevant and understandable
¾ Make the content accurate, verifiable and professional
¾ Address the key questions:
o Why? What problem are you trying to solve?
o What is the European added value?
o Is it a European priority?
o Why now? o Why you? Best consortium?
o Is the project realistic from a scientific viewpoint? Which risks?
¾ Start with a single high level objective that will help the evaluator to immediately relate the proposal to the topic of the call
COMMON ERRORS:
Section 1 – Scientific Excellence
¾ State‐of‐the‐art not properly covered
¾ Some of the methodological issues not clear and detailed enough
¾Innovation is rather limited (in concept, methodology, technology used or solution proposed)
¾ References of the literature are rather limited, missing or outdated
¾ Strategy needs clarification ¾ Links between objectives, WPs and tasks are too weak or not clearly defined
¾ Risk section and quality control inadequate, insufficiently described or missing (risk management, risk strategy, contingency plan)
¾ Risk assessment and contingency plan missing or not properly described
¾ More detail necessary in WPs, methodology and tasks for implementation
¾Deliverables need revision (too many or not timed efficiently)
GOOD PRACTICE:
Section 1 – Scientific Excellence
¾ Sound description of the state‐of‐the‐art in science & knowledge in the specific area
¾ Mention related EU‐funded work (previous and current) – describe how the project is different/better
¾ Indicate gaps in the state‐of‐the‐art that prevent the achievement of the objectives targeted by the project
¾ Indicate how these gaps will be filled ¾ Clear methodology
¾ Appropriate number of WPs depends on the size and complexity of the project
¾ The proposal should contain Gantt and Pert charts consistent with the workplan
¾ Ensure personpower effort for each partner (no under or over‐estimations) COMMON ERRORS:
Section 2 – Implementation
¾ The Consortium is unbalanced (geographically or technically), too small or too large
¾ Unclear roles and responsibilities
¾ Lack of specialised partners, of expertise in certain domain of experience
¾ Lack of integration in the consortium
¾ Limited European coverage
¾ The allocation of resources needs to be revised (too low or too high)
¾ Budget allocation over‐dimensioned
¾ Unbalanced or inconsistent allocation
¾ Management costs should be better justified (too high) Section 2 – Implementation
GOOD PRACTICE:
¾ Ensure well balanced budget
¾ Justify key items expenditures (especially high equipment costs) ¾ Justify human resources allocation (person‐months)
¾ Quality is more important than quantity
Section 3 – Impact
COMMON ERRORS:
¾ Impact is limited (because lack of information or inappropriate methodology)
¾ Objectives are not presented in a clear manner and this may limit the expected impact
¾IPR issues missing or weak
¾ Not clearly targeted stakeholders or late involvement
¾ Weak communication strategy
¾ End‐user community is missing or weak or involvement not demonstrated
Section 3 – Impact
GOOD PRACTICE:
¾ Demonstrate how the project will fill knowledge gaps at EU level and create/maintain competitive advantage
¾ Provide supporting evidence (figures and qualitative indicators)
¾ Demonstrate relevance to European policies
¾Provide description of range of applications which might arise from the project and how they can be disseminated ¾ Describe partners’ capacity to exploit results of the project (inc. IPR management)
¾ Identify key stakeholders and End‐user groups to be targeted
¾ Implement innovative dissemination techniques
COSMOS+
Your Gateway to Space
Funding under FP7
and Horizon 2020
COSMOS+ presentation
Keji Adunmo, APRE –
Keji Adunmo, APRE – IT
COSMOS+ Services
Website with up‐to‐date information on relevant space topics, Space relevant calls, support measures, etc.
www.ncp‐space.net
Newsletter with recent news on Space and FP7 FP7‐Space‐Helpdesk for questions related to Space in FP7 (not specialised for legal & financial)
… will be updated for Horizon2020
Events for matchmaking and information on Space topics => Improved knowledge of backgrounds and
mechanisms leads to higher quality of proposals
COSMOS+ presentation
Keji Adunmo, APRE ‐ IT
Presentations from the speakers and & projects’ ideas and
profiles are available on line
First‐hand information from the EU Commission
Face to face meetings
Participant presentations
Hints on proposal writing
And much more…
The International
FP7 SPACE INFORMATION DAY
20 - 21 June 2012
University of Surrey,
United Kingdom
www.space‐infoday.eu
COSMOS+ presentation
Keji Adunmo, APRE ‐ IT
http://partnersearch.apre.it The APRE Partner Search provides two different types of entry forms for the users to choose from:
PARTNER SEARCH or PROFILE
Quality system A new consortium is coming to build
THANK YOU
APRE
Contatti
Agenzia per la Promozione della Ricerca Europea Keji Adunmo ([email protected])
via Cavour, 71 Punto di Contatto Nazionale SPAZIO
00184 ‐ Roma
www.apre.it
Tel. (+39) 06‐48939993
Fax. (+39) 06‐48902550