32
Ann Moerenhout Belgian COST event, Brussels, 14 March 2014 Proposal writing “Tips and tricks”
Ann MoerenhoutBelgian COST event, Brussels, 14 March 2014
Proposal writing “Tips and tricks”
I: Overview
3
COST (Open Call) Proposals• Preliminary proposal submission at any time at
www.cost.eu/opencall - next “collection date” :• Friday 28 March 2014 (new Actions to start early 2015)• No collection date in September 2014
• Key documents:• 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
4
COST (Open Call) Proposals
New Actions
30-46
Full proposals
~ 11 000 words
Preliminary proposals
~ 1 500 words
80-120400-600
By Collection date:
COST
5
COST vs FP7/H2020Attribute COST FP7/H2020
Funding for Networking (meetings, conferences, sci exchanges, training schools)
Research + some other activities
Scope Bottom-up Policy-driven (top-down)
Budget According to number of participants
Proposer makes budget request
Participation Open during Action life Closed once project starts
Participants Same and complementary expertise
Mainly complementary expertise
Members 36 COST countries+ others in the mutual benefit
EU++ others when necessary for the project
II: Preliminary Proposals
7
Evaluation Criteria: Preliminary ProposalsI.1 RIGHT FOR COST?
Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the Action's objectives?
yes no
6 5 4 3 2 1I.2 PUBLIC UTILITY/SCIENCE
Does the proposed Action address real current problems/ scientific issues?
yes no
6 5 4 3 2 1I.3 INNOVATION
Is the proposed Action innovative?yes no
6 5 4 3 2 1
I.4 IMPACTWould the proposed network make a significant difference in terms of knowledge, capacity building, social impacts, etc?
yes no
6 5 4 3 2 1I.5 NETWORKING
Are networking aspects well motivated and developed in the proposal?
yes no
6 5 4 3 2 1I.6 PRESENTATION
Is the proposed Action presented in a clear and understandable way?
yes no
6 5 4 3 2 1
8
Preliminary Proposal evaluation
I.1
RIGHT FOR COST?Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the Action's Objectives?• High marks are given to proposals for which COST is the best adapted mechanism.• Lower marks are given otherwise.
yes no6 5 4 3 2 1
I.2
PUBLIC UTILITY/SCIENCEDoes the proposed Action address real current problems/ scientific issues?• High marks are given to highly exciting and interesting proposals on a very important and/or timely topic.• Lower marks are given otherwise.
yes no6 5 4 3 2 1
I.3INNOVATIONIs the proposed Action innovative?• High marks are given to highly innovative proposals.• Lower marks are given otherwise.
yes no6 5 4 3 2 1
9
Preliminary Proposal evaluation
I.4
IMPACTWould the proposed network make a significant difference in terms of knowledge, capacity building, social impacts, etc?• High marks are given to proposals with high potential impact.• Lower marks are given otherwise.
yes no6 5 4 3 2 1
I.5
NETWORKINGAre networking aspects well motivated and developed in the proposal?• 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.
yes no6 5 4 3 2 1
I.6
PRESENTATIONIs the proposed Action presented in a clear, rational and understandable way?• High marks for proposals that are presented in a clear, rational and understandable way.• Lower marks are given otherwise.
yes no6 5 4 3 2 1
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”
12
PROPOSAL TEMPLATE• BACKGROUND, PROBLEMS
• BENEFITS
• OBJECTIVES, DELIVERABLES AND EXPECTED SCIENTIFIC IMPACT
• SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME AND INNOVATION
• ORGANISATION
EVALUATION CRITERIAI.1 RIGHT FOR COST?Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the Action's objectives?I.2 PUBLIC UTILITY/SCIENCEDoes the proposed Action address real current problems/ scientific issues? I.3 INNOVATIONIs the proposed Action innovative?I.4 IMPACTWould the proposed network make a significant difference in terms of knowledge, capacity building, social impacts, etc? I.5 NETWORKINGAre networking aspects well motivated and developed in the proposal?I.6 PRESENTATIONIs the proposed Action presented in a clear and understandable way?
III: Full Proposals
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
16
• 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
Full Proposal Template• 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
17
Evaluation Criteria: Full ProposalsA SCIENCE AND NETWORKING (Weight 2) A.1 Does the proposed Action address real current problems/scientific issues?
4 3 2 1 A.2 Does the proposed Action show awareness of the state-of-the-art of the relevant scientific/technical/socio-economic fields?
4 3 2 1 A.3 Is the proposed Action innovative? A.4 Does the proposed Action answer a need for the networking of experts in the field?
4 3 2 1 B IMPACT (Weight 2) B.1A 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?
4 3 2 1 B.1C 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?
4 3 2 1 B.2 Are there clear plans for stimulating the production of high quality outputs?
4 3 2 1 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 3 2 1 C STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION (Weight 1) C.1 Is the proposal presented in a clear, convincing, and appropriate way?
4 3 2 1 C.2 Are the workplan and organisation appropriate?
4 3 2 1 C.3 Are the time schedule and the setting of milestones appropriate?
4 3 2 1 C.4 Are appropriate plans made for monitoring and evaluating the achievement of objectives?
D CONTRIBUTION TO WIDER COST GOALS (Weight 1) D.1 How well does the proposed Action aim to involve early stage researchers?
1 0 D.2 How well does the proposed Action aim at gender balance?
1 0 D.3 Does the proposed Action have the potential to contribute to the solution of global challenges in a global dimension?
1 0
Threshold: 55 points out of 75
18
Evaluation Criteria: Full ProposalsA 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 fields3. 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 proposal fails to use such a mechanism in a sound manner.
Tips and Tricks: FP Section A1. Choose a very important and/or timely topic and
propose the correct approaches2. Excellent and up to date awareness of relevant
scientific/technical fields– If resubmitting proposal UPDATE the SOTA with any new
Actions/ projects since previous submission even if previous SOTA was excellent
3. Make proposal highly innovative: a significant new problem and/or a significant new approach
4. 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
20
Evaluation Criteria: Full ProposalsB 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.
Tips and Tricks: FP Section B1. Ensure that important impacts are very likely in
several respects and describe these impacts also in terms of scientific/ technical/ economic/ societal/ environmental,
2. Clearly describe plans for wide-ranging and ambitious outputs,
3. 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
22
Evaluation Criteria: Full ProposalsC 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.
Tips and Tricks: FP Section C1. Ensure proposal is very clearly written with compelling
argument and fully appropriate format (follow template):• Get (near) native speaker to proof read proposal• Get someone external to the proposal to check for clarity
2. Ensure workplan and organisation make full, productive and cost-effective use of COST opportunities.
• Ensure all COST instruments (various meetings, STSMs, Training Schools, Dissemination are used)
3. Include clear time schedule and appropriate milestones
• Milestones enable the monitoring of progress (milestones are not the same thing as deliverables)
4. Include well-defined and practical monitoring and evaluation plans
23
24
Evaluation Criteria: Full Proposals
D CONTRIBUTION TO WIDER COST GOALS (Weight 1)D.1 How well does the proposed Action aim to involve early stageresearchers?1. An innovative plan is presented in addition to the standard template in Section E.4 of Full Proposal0. 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 Proposal0. 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 approved0. Otherwise.
Tips and Tricks: FP Section D1. Present an innovative plan for ESR involvement in addition to
the standard template in Section E.4 of Full Proposal:• 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
2. Present an innovative plan for gender balance in addition to the standard template in Section E.4 of Full Proposal:
• 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
3. 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
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 pointsCost National Coordinator (CNC)
Lieve Van Daele [email protected]
Federal science institutions
Lieve Van Daele [email protected]
Flemish institutions Ann Moerenhout [email protected]
Karel Goossens [email protected]
Universities and colleges French Speaking Community
Benjamin Monnoye [email protected]
Brussels institutions Christophe Christiaens [email protected]
Industry and SMEs in Walloon region
Thierry Lemoine [email protected]
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
Ann MoerenhoutBelgian COST event, Brussels, 14 March 2014
Thank you for your attention
Good luck with your application
