Executive Agencies

and

their role in H2020

Virginia PuzzoloHead of the Project Management Sector

European Commission Research Executive Agency B1 Space Research Unit

What is Horizon 2020?

• The biggest EU Research and Innovation Programme ever

• Nearly €80 billion

• Timespan between 2014 and 2020

• Diverse programmes, actions and actors: from space foundations to SME innovation; from post-doc researchers to large industries

2

The three priorities of Horizon 2020

ExcellentScience

SocietalChallenges

IndustrialLeadership

ERC

FET

MSCA

Infrastructures

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Environment

Europe in changing world

Security

Leadership in industrial technologies

Space, ICT, materials, nanotechnology,biotechnology, manufacturing, etc.

Access to risk finance

Innovation in SMEs

Specific objectives and other Programme sections

3

Budget share per H2020 section (in € billion)

JRC

1,9

Science w/f society

462

Spreading excellence & widening participation

816EIT

2,7

Excellent science

24,4

Industrial leadership

17

Societal challenges

29,7

4

European CommissionDGs (RTD, etc..)

Executive Agencies

- Definition of policies

- Drafting of Work Programme

- Implementation of calls for proposals

- Management of funded projects

5

H2020 budget share per implementing body

PPP's10%

P2P's2%

EA's55%

EIT4%

EIB4%

DG's

25%

Managed by European Commission: 25%Managed by EAs and other bodies: 75% 6

Executive Agencies involved in H2020

ExcellentScience

SocietalChallenges

IndustrialLeadership

Specific objectives and other Programme sections

REA Research Executive Agency

EASMEExecutive Agency for Small & Medium-sized enterprises

INEAInnovation & Networks Executive Agency

ERCEAEuropean Research Council

Executive Agency

7

Staff: 580 for 2014

764 by 2020

Budget: € 13,903 M

Executive Agencies involved in H2020

Staff: 380 for 2014

529 by 2020

Budget: € 12,666 M

INEA

Staff: 162 for 2014

318 by 2020

Budget: € 6,421 M

EASME

Staff: 308 for 2014

498 by 2020

Budget: € 6,890 M

8

Programme management REA: Horizon 2020

ExcellentScience

SocietalChallenges

IndustrialLeadership

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions

FET Open

Sustainable Resources for

Food Security and Growth

Europe in changing world

Inclusive, Innovative and

Reflective Societies

Security research

Leadership in technologies

Space

Specific objectives: Spreading Excellence & Widening ParticipationScience with and for Society

9

H2020 Rules for participation, proposal submission, evaluation procedure

Receipt of proposals

Individualevaluation

Consensusgroup

Panel Review Finalisation

Evaluators

IndividualEvaluationReports

(Usually done

remotely)

ConsensusReport

(May be done remotely)

Panel report

Evaluation Summary Report

Panel ranked list

At the same time: Ethics Screening

Eligibility/admissibility

check

Allocation of proposals to evaluators

Final ranked list

Evaluation results sent to applicants

Initiation Grant Agreement Preparation

Max. 5 months

Evaluation process for each call

11

• Research and Innovation Action (RIA)

Up to 100% of eligible costs

• Innovation Action (IA)

Up to 70% of eligible costs

(exception: up to 100% for non-profit organisations)

• Coordination and Support Action (CSA)

Up to 100% of eligible costs

12

Types of Actions

Standard admissibility criteria

1. Submitted in the electronic submission system before the deadline Acknowledgement of Receipt

2. Complete (requested administrative forms + proposal description + supporting documents)

3. Readable, accessible and printable

4. Respecting page limit (RIA/IA: 70 pages; CSA:50 pages)• Outside the limit:

participating organisations (operational capacity check)CV or profile description of staff carrying out the work

A list of up to 5 publications and/or other research or innovation products

A list of up to 5 relevant previous projects/activities

Relevant available infrastructure/equipment descriptionDescription of additional third parties contributing to the work

ethics self assessment, data management plan (open access to peer-reviewedscientific publications)

13

Coordination &

support action

One legal entity established a Member State or

associated country.

Standard eligibility criteria

1) Content corresponds, wholly or in part, to the topic description against which it is submitted

2) Proposal complies with the minimum participation and any other eligibility conditions set out for the type of action:

Research &

innovation actiona. Three legal entities.

b. Each of the three shall be established in a

different Member State or associated country.

c. All three legal entities shall be independent of

each other.Innovation action

14

Can b

e s

upple

mente

d o

r modifie

d

in th

e c

all c

onditio

ns

Non-e

ligib

ility c

an a

lso b

e d

iscovere

d d

uring/a

fter

evalu

ation

Countries eligible WP General Annex A

to receive funding

EU-Member States

• The Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) linked to the MS: Anguilla, Aruba, Bermuda, Bonaire, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Curaçao, Falkland

Islands, French Polynesia, Greenland, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Pitcairn Islands, Saba, Saint Barthélémy, Saint Helena, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Sint Eustatius, Sint Maarten, Turks and Caicos Islands, Wallis and Futuna .

• Horizon 2020 associated countries Check Funding Guide for up-to-date information whether agreements are signed (15 associated countries as of April 2016): http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/international-cooperation_en.htm

• Third countries listed in General Annex A

• International organisation of European interest*

*International organisation not of European interest can be eligible for funding only exceptionally

15

Receipt of proposals

Individualevaluation

Consensusgroup

Panel Review Finalisation

Evaluators

IndividualEvaluationReports

(Usually done

remotely)

ConsensusReport

(May be done remotely)

Panel report

Evaluation Summary Report

Panel ranked list

Eligibility/admissibility

check

Allocation of proposals to evaluators

Final ranked list composed and

information sent to applicants

Max. 5 months

Evaluation process for each call

17

• Excellence, transparency, fairness and impartiality and efficiency and speed

• Done by independent experts selected by REA/GSA/EASME from

Experts database on Participant Portal

• Balance in terms of

1. Skills, experience and knowledge

2. Other factors

geographical diversity

gender

where appropriate, the private and public sectors

an appropriate turnover from year to year

• No conflict of interest !

Proposal evaluation basic principles

18

Individual Evaluation

Report

IndividualEvaluation

Report Individual Evaluation

Report

Consensus group

Consensus Report

Draft Consensus

Report

Expert Expert ExpertRapporteur

Minimum 3 experts + 1 rapporteurbut can be more

Individual evaluation

Consensus

Proposal Eligible proposal

19

• Evaluation scores are awarded per criterion, scale from 0 to 5, half point scores may be given

• Maximum score: 15

• Individual criteria threshold: 3

• Total score threshold: 10

Proposal scoring

20

1. Per criterion: Assessment, comments, justifications

Excellence: "The objectives ….."

Impact: "The innovation capacity….."

Quality and efficiency of the implementation: "The management ….."

4,0 4,5

3,5 Σ 12,0 out of 15,0

2. Matching scores

The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information.

Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.

Fair. The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses.

Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present.

Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present.

Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor.

21

0

1

2

3

4

5

Proposal scoring

Receipt of proposals

Individualevaluation

Consensusgroup

Panel Review Finalisation

Evaluators

IndividualEvaluationReports

(Usually done

remotely)

ConsensusReport

(May be done remotely)

Panel report

Evaluation Summary Report

Panel ranked list

Eligibility/admissibility

check

Allocation of proposals to evaluators

Final ranked list composed and

information sent to applicants

Max. 5 months

Evaluation process for each call

22

• Done by experts in panel review

• 1 ranked list per topic or per group of topics with a dedicated budget

• Preparation: "cross-reading" in order to calibrate the treatment of the proposals

Rankingof proposals

23

11,514,513,5

14,0

• Priority criteria

1. RIA - excellence>impact ; IA - impact>excellence

2. other criteria such as:

SMEs (budget)

gender (% and role)

other criteria such as: Additional rules for selection specified in the WP

Ethics Review

• Only proposals that comply with the ethical principles and legislation may receive funding

• For proposals above threshold and considered for funding, an ethics screening and, if necessary, an ethics assessment is carried out by independent ethics experts in parallel with the scientific evaluation or soon after

• Proposals involving the use of human embryonic stems cells automatically undergo an ethics assessment

• For those proposals in which one or more ethical issues have been identified, the experts will assess whether the ethics issues are adequately addressed

• The ethics experts will produce an ethics report and give an opinion on the proposal, including:

• granting ethics clearance (or not)

• recommending the inclusion of ‘ethics requirements’ in the grant agreement, or

• recommending a further Ethics Assessment and/or an Ethics Check or Audit

24

Information is sent to applicants max 5 months from call deadline: trigger for Grant Agreement Preparation phase

Total of 8 months from evaluation closure until the signature of the Grant Agreement

Close interaction with beneficiaries:

Minor modifications in content, only if necessary

Administrative procedure (e.g., validations, financial viability check, if needed) with minimised administrative burden for applicants and high reliance on electronic submissions

Internal procedure: award decision, budgetary commitment

Grant Agreement signature

Pre-financing to consortium

After the evaluation…

25

Lessons learnt:

How to write a good

proposal

• Carefully read the Call topics text and additional documents: proposal content and consortium composition should answer scope and expected impacts of the Call topic.

Know your success factors

• Your idea may fit better in other calls?Check the Calls launched within

• the "Excellent Science" Programme • the "Societal Challenges" Programme• SME actions • Fast track to Innovation Pilot

• Resubmissions: • The call topic may have slightly changed from previous call • Update it as 2-3 years is a

long time in science / technology

27

28

TopicsTopics

Calls for proposalsCalls for proposals

Topics

Specific challenge

Scope

Expected Impact

The 'problem'

Identifies the aspects of the challenge that needs to be tackled.

WP text does not outline the expected solutions to the problem, nor the approach to be taken by the applicant ("non-prescriptive" approach)

Calls for proposals

H2020 SpaceWork Programme

The 'problem in detail'

Provides more details on the specific challenge by specifying a perimeter to the problem described

The 'change' to be achieved

Provides a broad description of what is the impact to be achieved through the project(s) to be funded.

The dissemination and exploitation of future research results are vital for the impact

WP structure of the 'calls‘ & ‘topics’

29

PART B

1. Excellence

1.1 Objectives1.2 Relation to the work programme1.3 Concept and methodology1.4 Ambition

2. Impact

2.1 Expected impacts2.2 Measures to maximise impacta) Dissemination and exploitation of resultsb) Communication activities

3. Implementation

3.1 Work plan, Work packages, deliverables3.2 Management structure, milestones and procedures3.3 Consortium as a whole3.4 Resources to be committed

4. Members of the consortium4.1. Participants (applicants)4.2. Third parties involved in the project (including use of third party resources)

5. Ethics and Security

Topics

Specific challenge

Scope

Expected Impact

WP structure of the 'calls‘ & ‘topics’

Crt 1.1 - Clarity and pertinence of the objectives

1. EXCELLENCE

PART B - 1. Excellence

Crt 1.2 - Soundness of the concept, and credibility of the proposed methodology

Crt 1.3 - Extent that proposed work is beyond the state of the art, and demonstrates innovation potential e.g.• ground-breaking objectives, novel

concepts and approaches – RIA • new products, services or business

and organisational models – IA / RIA

Crt 1.4 - Appropriate consideration of interdisciplinary approaches (where relevant) and, where relevant, use of stakeholder knowledge.• Who are the USERS, Customers? How

their knowledge planned to be used?

1.1 Objectives –clear, measurable, realistic and achievable within project duration

1.2 Relation to the work programmeexplain how your proposal addresses the specific challenge and scope of the work programme topic

1.3 Concept and methodology

(a)Concept

• Describe and explain the overall concept + main ideas, models or assumptions involved.

• Technology Readiness Levels • Links with other projects/activities• Identify any inter-disciplinary considerations and,

where relevant, use of stakeholder knowledge;

(a)Methodology

• Describe and explain the overall methodology

1.4 Ambition• advance beyond the state-of-the-art • extent the proposed work is ambitious• Describe the innovation potential

The information can also be found elsewhere in the proposal!

30

2. IMPACT

PART B - 2. Impact Crt 2.1 - The extent to which the outputs would contribute to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic

Crt 2.2 - Any substantial impacts not mentioned in the WP, that would enhance innovation capacity; create new market opportunities, strengthen competitiveness and growth of companies, address issues related to climate change or the environment, or bring other important benefits for society

2.1 Expected impacts• each of the expected impacts mentioned under

the relevant topic• any substantial impacts not mentioned in the

work programme• Describe any barriers/obstacles, and any framework

conditions

2.2 Measures to maximise impacta) Dissemination and exploitation of results• draft ‘plan for the dissemination and exploitation

of the project's results’• Business plan where relevant• Outline the strategy for knowledge management

and protection (incl IPR)• Open Research Data -> information on how the

participants will manage the research data generated and/or collected during the Project

a) Communication activities• promoting the project and its findings -> tailored to different target audiences, including groups beyond the project's own community

Crt 2.3 - Quality of proposed measures to

• exploit and disseminate project results (including IPR, manage research data where relevant)

BUSINESS PLAN – IA

• communicate the project activities to different target audiences

• Open Access to scientific publications or Open access to research data should not be taken into consideration in the evaluation.

31

Dissemination – one direction path (mainly presenting results)

e.g. presentation to conferences, publication in peer review journal, etc.

• Dissemination plan: Raise awareness about project outputs

Communication – two directions path (results & project activities)

e.g. organising workshop with users, discuss with customers, etc…

• Communication plan: Tailored to the needs of various audiences, including

the public policy perspective of EU research and innovation funding

–Often only general reference to communication activities made and these consist

more of dissemination actions !!!!

Dissemination ≠ Communication

32

Exploitation plan: • At which technical readiness level (TRL) do you start and how will

you reach the TRL you aim for as expressed in the objectives of your proposal?

• What are the needed business model and marketing activities and how will they be decided amongst partners?

Common mistakes in Exploitation: • Lack of clear exploitation strategy (especially relevant for IAs)• Lack of clear indication which results which will be

exploited, in which way, by whom• IPR issues (access to background, results exploitation) left to the

Consortium Agreement only

Dissemination ≠ Communication ≠ Exploitation

Exploitation

33

…does it seem they took our advice?

• Management of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR): Demonstration of specific measures in scope ownership, access/use, etc. during and after the project:

A short reference to the IPR "to be developed in the Consortium Agreement" is not sufficient

IPR: this is how we adviced the proposers

1.Identify your own background (data, know-how and/or information held or identified by participants prior to their accession to the action)

2.Verify if background of third parties is needed. If yes, what are their access rights? Need for authorisation to use and exploit the results?

3.Check the state-of-the-art: existing patents? E.g. via database provided by the European Patent Office: Espacenet

1.Specify the ownership of the results: Who owns what? Any transfers? On which conditions?

2.Is there a need to protect the results? If yes, assign cost. Ensure appropriate access and usage right for key IP during AND after the project (results & background)

34

3. IMPLEMENTATION

PART B – 3. IMPLEMENTATION

Crt 3.1 Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, including extent to which resources assigned in work packages are in line with objectives/ deliverables

Crt 3.2 - Appropriateness of management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management*

Crt 3.3 - Complementarity of the participants which the consortium as a whole brings together expertise• Are there empty shells in the

consortium?

Crt 3.4 - Appropriateness of allocation of tasks, ensuring that all participants have a valid role and adequate resources in the project to fulfil that role• Are subcontracts justified? • Are high "Other Direct Costs" justified?

3.2 Management structure, milestones and procedures• organisational structure and the decision-making

mechanisms + why they are appropriate to the complexity and scale of the project.

• where relevant, innovation management• Describe any critical risks, relating to project

implementation + mitigation measures

3.4 Resources to be committed• table showing number of person/months required • table showing ‘other direct costs’ for participants where

those costs exceed 15% of the personnel costs

3.3 Consortium as a whole• Describe the consortium • Describe the contribution of each partner• If a participant requesting EU funding is based in a

country or is an international organisation that is not automatically eligible for funding, explain why the participation of the entity in question is essential to carrying out the projectm

3.1 Work plan — Work packages, deliverables• overall structure of the work plan• timing of the different work packages Gantt chart • detailed work description (WP, deliverables, etc..)• Pert chart or similar (inter-relation of the WPs)

*see slide on innovation

Risk management: internal and external risks, likelihood and measures to manage them

35

This section is not covered by the page limit. Discard information

that should be in Part 1-3!

4. IMPLEMENTATION cont. & OPERATIONAL CAPACITY

PART B – 4. Members of the consortium

4.2. Third parties involved in the project (including use of third party resources)• Does the participant plan to subcontract certain tasks

(please note that core tasks of the project should not be sub-contracted)

• Does the participant envisage that part of its work is performed by linked third parties

• Does the participant envisage the use of contributions in kind provided by third parties (Articles 11 and 12 of the General Model Grant Agreement)

4.1. Participants (applicants)

• a description of the legal entity and its main tasks• a curriculum vitae + profile of the persons• a list of up to 5 relevant publications, and/or products,

services • a list of up to 5 relevant previous projects or activities• a description of any significant infrastructure and/or any

major items of technical equipment

OPERATIONAL CAPACITY = a

participant's experience, expertise, availability of infrastructure, equipment, human resources etc. to carry out proposed activity based on the information provided

1. Flagging the issue as part of the Individual Evaluation: give your view on whether each applicant has the necessary basic operational capacity

2. Dealing with the issue at the Consensus Meeting: consider whether an applicant lacks basic operational capacity. If yes, you make comments and score the proposal without taking into account this applicant and its associated activity(ies).

36

The Participant Portal

37

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/home.html

ProposalSubmission -Step-By-Step

38

2: Topic/Funding Scheme 3: Create Draft 4: Parties

6: Submit!!!!5: Edit Proposal5: Edit Proposal

START SUBMISSION

DOWNLOADTEMPLATES

ADD PARTNERS

ENTER COO

ENTERACRONYM

UPLOADPART B

EDITPART A

FILL IN FORMSFOR PART A

REEDIT

WITHDRAW

DOWNLOAD

Demonstrate WHAT – WHY – HOW !

An excellent idea is the basis of a good proposal but is not sufficient….

The expected impacts and implementation aspects

are as important !

The proposal should excel in each single criterion !

Be specific in your objectives and expected impacts and clearlydemonstrate how you aim to implement and sustain them

Quality = key to success

39

o Respect the page limits: excess pages will be watermarked and disregarded by the evaluators.

o Note: All tables must be included within this limit. Minimum font size allowed is 11 points. The page size is A4, and all margins(top, bottom, left, right) should be at least 15 mm (not including any footers or headers).

o Note: Relevant information for Sections 1-3 cannot be moved to sections 4-5 or elsewhere.

Attention Points

40

Understand the domain and its challenges R&D but also market, IPR and regulations, competition

Be clear and explicitEvaluators must judge only what they read and not on the proposal potential. They have limited time

Do a mock evaluation Ask a colleague to conduct a self-assessment of the proposal against each evaluation sub-criterion. If you don't find the right answer easily in the text, the evaluators won't find it either!

Optimise available time to prepare your proposal• Last minute preparations are often reflected in a lower quality which largely

reduces the changes in success; • Start a draft early + Submit on time • Incomplete submission is not an Obvious Clerical Error• Late submission in IT system = inadmissible proposal. Deadlines are strict!

Do not be afraid of letting the Commission see the abstract of your proposal in order to help us identify the best possible expert.

Optimise your chances to success

41

Thank you for your

attention!

Virginia PuzzoloHead of the Project Management Sector

European Commission Research Executive Agency B1 Space Research Unit