Priority 3 – NMP in FP6

NANOTECHNOLOGIES AND NANO-SCIENCES, KNOWLEDGE-BASED MULTIFUNCTIONAL MATERIALS AND NEW PRODUCTION PROCESSES AND DEVICES

Priority 3 – NMP in FP6Priority 3 – NMP in FP6

Ewa JędrykaNanosciences and Nanotechnologies Unit

European CommissionResearch DG

Disclaimer: Note that these slides are not legally binding and do not represent any commitment on behalf of the European Commission

[email protected]


• Transition towards knowledge-based society & sustainable development, from resource-based to knowledge-based enterprises

• Strong impacts aimed at EU level• Promotion of real industrial breakthroughs

not incremental research • Integrated, multidisciplinary and holistic

approach• SME emphasis

Overall approach Overall approach and objectives of Priority and objectives of Priority

33


* As in 2004 : “Stage 1” IP proposals are “Incomplete”, i.e: 20 pages strict maximum – Font 12

3 Evaluation criteria: Relevance to call; Potential Impact;

S/T Excellence

• Go/No-go after “Stage 1” Full proposal for “Stage 2” Hearings

• N.B. – Electronic submission !

NMP calls in 2005NMP calls in 2005


Integrated Projects (IP)

Aim: flagship, ambitious, leading to radical innovation and transformation of industry in the long term

• Strong industrial participation and preferred leadership

• Clear deliverables - new “knowledge” / new application of existing knowledge… (need for breakthroughs)

• Positive image of industrial research

• Include all inter-related activities - ”mini programme”

New Instruments


Integrated Projects For SMEs

(IP SMEs)

Aim: flagship projects leading to long term transformation of industry, involving high-tech SMEs and serving the needs of more traditional, SME-intensive industrial sectors

• Provide high-tech SMEs with an opportunity to have a leading and decisive role in an Integrated Project.

• Substantial industrial participation

• IPs to provide the integrated approach shaped to the needs of identified sectors

New Instruments


Traditional Instrumentsunchanged…

• Specific Targeted REsearch Projects (STREP) at frontiers of knowledge: support long-term innovation and transformation of industry

• Coordination Actions (CA) to strengthen links between national, regional and EC RTD projects, co-ordination with EUREKA, COST and ESF actions: CA NE!!!

• Specific Support Actions (SSA) to prepare future research activities, roadmaps and scenarios, effective communication


Full/short Proposal

Proposalforms

Evaluators

Criteria

Eligibility

Evaluators

Criteria

Evaluators

Criteria

Final rankinglist

Panelwith optional

HearingsSubmission Consensus

Individual reading

Proposals insuggestedpriority order

Rejection list

CommissionFollow-up

Questions

Overview Evaluation Process


Role of experts and officials in the evaluation

Experts provide individual reports on proposals and defend their opinions in the discussions

Officials in teams of two run an evaluation group, having shared responsibilities:

• As organisers: harmonised procedures • As knowledgeable moderators: building the

consensus and running discussions• As rapporteurs: Writing the CR and ESR


Successful proposal submission

• Understand the context of the call– Read the call text– Read and understand the part of the work

programme linked to the call– Read and use the Guide for Proposers– Read and understand the evaluation criteria– Read the Guidance Notes for Evaluators for

the call– All of these can be found on CORDIS

(http://www.cordis.lu/fp6)



• Your proposal:– Is it complete?– Is the partnership right?

• can we all work together?• clear roles responsibilities, critical mass, etc.

– Have you understood the purpose of the instruments of FP6?

– Does it address all the questions? • see Guide for Proposers



• Your proposal:– Does it address the work programme?

• check with the call!– Are the objectives clear?

• Can a non-specialist understand them?– Is the novelty clear?

• Say why it is novel– Is it clear how the project will be managed?

• Requires very particular attention in the case of the new instruments (IPs and NoEs)

• “A picture is worth a thousand words”



• Common misunderstandings:– Credible NoEs should not involve very large

numbers of laboratories• Goal is durable integration

– IPs do not need to involve very large consortia or budgets• They need to be manageable• Scope of the problem and the approach

proposed are the key factors



• Common misunderstandings:– STREPs are not small IPs

• They have a different purpose• May be specific requirements for some

priorities– NoEs are not large Coordination Actions

• Their purpose is to change the way people work together



• Common mistakes:– Not reading the call and work programme

• Leads to proposals that are out of scope– “Optimistic” reading of the work programme

• Also leads to proposals that are out of scope

• Read and understand what is written, not what you hope is written


For more information:…http://……

europa.eu.int/comm/research/industrial_technologies

europa.eu.int/comm/research/

www.cordis.lu/fp6/nmp.htm

www.cordis.lu/fp6/contractpreparation/

www.cordis.lu/nanotechnology

Date post:	30-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	holmes-king
View:	39 times
Download:	0 times

Priority 3 – NMP in FP6

Documents