Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) Aspectos prácticos ... · Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions...

Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) Aspectos prácticos para la preparación de una propuesta ITN 2018 Bilbao, 17 de noviembre 2017 Cristina Gómez, NCP MSCA, FECYT

CONTENT

I. Evaluation and redress Procedures

II. Tips on How to write Excellence / Impact / Implementation Section

III. What can we learn from previous Calls

IV. To sum up: general tips

2

Call ID Opens Closes Budget

H2020-MSCA-ITN-2018 12-10-2017 17-01-2018 ETN: 375.00 EID: 32.00 EJD: 35.00

Call ITN 2018: 442.00M€

3

I. Timing and evaluation MSCA – ITN 2018

Publication 12/10/2018

Closing 17/01/2018

Proposals evaluation

March 2018

Evaluation Results

June 2018

GA signature

September 2018

Timetable for the H2020-MSCA-ITN-2018 Call (8 months TTG)

Criteria Weight Priority

(ex.aequo)

Excellence 50% 1

Impact 30% 2

Implementation 20% 3

Evaluation Criteria

Overall Threshold 70% No individual overall

I. MSCA: Evaluation Process

4

FULL REMOTE EVALUATION • 3 evaluators per proposal; • 2 Vice-Chairs (VCs) of which 1 is

rapporteur, and 1 cross-reader; • SEP Hands-on Training for VCs; • Improved briefing for experts:

web-briefing (unconscious bias added), Q&A chat sessions, evaluators guide, SEP guidance movie;

• SEP workflow and functionalities adjusted to ease the remote consensus discussion;

• Minority views: Specific slots for teleconferences will be foreseen in order to solve critical cases remotely, before the central phase.

Full scoring scale consistent with the comments

5

I. Evaluation: Scoring the proposal

5

Each expert draft a IER (individual evaluation report) for each proposal assigned

In the IER:

List strengths and weaknesses in bullet point format

•Under each sub-criterion

•For each criterion (excellence, Impact and Implementation)

They will Score each Criterion

6

I. Evaluation: Individual Evaluation Report

6

No of

evaluated proposals

No of submitted requests

% Result A Result B Result C Funded after re-

evaluation

% of upheld cases (B+C)

ITN 2014 1153 10 0,9% 10 0 0 0 0,0%

ITN 2015 1563 18 1,2% 15 1 2 0 0,2%

ITN 2016 1565 22 1,4% 11 8 3 0 0,7%

IF 2014 6389 115 1,8% 90 16 9 0 0,4%

IF 2015 8380 124 1,5% 81 19 23 1 0,5%

RISE 2014 200 1 0,5% 1 0 0 0 0,0%

RISE 2015 361 2 0,6% 2 0 0 0 0,0%

COFUND 2014 90 2 2,2% 2 0 0 0 0,0% COFUND 2015 117 0 0,0% 0 0 0 0 0,0%

NIGHT 2014 46 6 13,0% 6 0 0 0 0,0%

NIGHT 2016 42 7 16,7% 7 0 0 0 0,0% Summary of REA Evaluation Review process in Horizon 2020

7

I. Evaluation Review procedure

When to submit a request for Evaluation Review:

When you have spotted a clear contradiction in the ESR

When you consider there is a factual mistake in the ESR

When you feel that experts were not suitably qualified to assess your proposal

When you suspect that the evaluation procedure was not followed

When NOT to submit a request for Evaluation Review:

X You are not happy with the result of the evaluation, you have expected positive comments

X When you disagree with the opinion of the experts

X When you find your score too low

X When your resubmitted proposal scores lower than the one from the previous year

8

I. Evaluation Review procedure

Chemistry (CHE)

Physics (PHY)

Mathematics (MAT)

Life Sciences (LIF)

Economic Sciences (ECO)

ICT and Engineering (ENG)

Social Sciences & Humanities (SOC)

Earth & Environmental Sciences (ENV)

European Joint Doctorate (EJD)

European Industrial Doctorate (EID)

I. MSCA – ITN 2018: Evaluation panels

9

ETN: 8 scientific panels EID + EJD: multidisplinar panels • Choose from 1 of the 8 panels • Choose your descriptors (3 at least)

1 and 2: specific panel 3-4-5: any of the scientific panels

• Descriptors will helpe matching the

proposal to evaluators with adecuate expertise

• A list of Descriptors = Guide for Applicants

II. Document 1 – Part B – List of Participants

10

ITN

II. MSCA ITN 2018: Evaluation Criteria

11

Excellence

50%

Impact

30%

Quality and Efficiency of the

Implementation

20% Quality, innovative aspects and

credibility of the research

programme (including inter /

multidisciplinary, intersectoral and,

where appropriate, gender aspects)

Enhancing the career perspectives and employability of

researchers and contribution to their skills development

Coherence and effectiveness of the work

plan, including appropriateness of the

allocation of tasks and resources

(including awarding of the doctoral

degrees for EID and EJD projects)

Quality and innovative aspects of

the training programme

(including transferable skills,

inter/multidisciplinary, intersectoral

and, where appropriate, gender

aspects)

Contribution to structuring doctoral / early-stage

research training at the European level and to

strengthening European innovation capacity, including

the potential for:

a) meaningful contribution of the non-academic sector to

the doctoral/research training, as appropriate to the

implementation mode and research field

b) developing sustainable joint doctoral degree structures

(for EJD projects only)

Appropriateness of the management

structures and procedures, including

quality management and risk

management (with a mandatory joint

governing structure for EID and EJD

projects)

Quality of the supervision (including

mandatory joint supervision for EID

and EJD projects)

Quality of the proposed measures to exploit and

disseminate the project results

Appropriateness of the infrastructure of

the participating organisations

Quality of the proposed interaction

between the participating

organisations

Quality of the proposed measures to communicate the

project activities to different target audiences

Competences, experience and

complementarity of the participating

organisations and their commitment to

the programme

ITN

II. Excellence section (ITN 2018)

12

Excellence 50%

1.1. Quality, innovative aspects and credibility of the research programme

(including inter / multidisciplinary, intersectoral and, where applicable, gender

aspects)

1.2. Quality and innovative aspects of the training programme (including

transferable skills, inter/multidisciplinary, intersectoral and, where applicable,

gender aspects)

1.3. Quality of the supervision (including mandatory joint supervision for EID

and EJD projects)

1.4. Quality of the proposed interaction between the participating

organisations

DOCUMENT 1

ITN

II. Excellence section (ITN 2018): what goes under 1.1.

13

Establish clear, measurable research objectives: in relation with the State of the Art Make sure the SoA is up to date Include a list of bibl. references (foot notes) Break down the research programme into

WPs that link to your research objectives (3-4 WPs is typical, give a brief WP summary, explain how ESR projects into WPs)

Describe the research methodology used: what techniques, methods, instrumentation will be used in addressing the research objectives (visual….)

Highlight the originality and innovative aspects of the project: why does Europe need this ITN in this

research area? Check for similar ITNs: what are the sinergies,

what are the differences? Don´t ignore gendered innovations

Enhance multi/disciplinarity aspects

1.1 QUALITY OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAMME

14

II. Excellence section (ITN 2018): what goes under 1.1. EXAMPLES

https://indico.cern.ch/event/443637/contributions/1935896/attachments/1150132/1650582/H2020-MSCA-ITN-2015_675077_SIGNED_PROPOSAL.pdf

15


Concrete information on Phd training, networking activities… = Tables available!

Explain the Local training first and then the network-wide training

Network Wide training: When? Where? Content? Duration? Who will

deliver it? Open up some events to the wider research

community. Typical to have a final conference for example.

16


17


VITAE Research Development Framework Career Development Plan

18


19


Examples of transferable skills


20

Examples of transferable skills


II. MSCA ITN 2018: RRI aspects

Engagement

Science Education Ethics

Open Access

Gender Equality

22

Gendered Innovations: any gender aspects in relation to the research e.g. cardiovascular research, crash-test dummies, ITC devices, voice recognition

Gender Training: training in gender balance/gendered innovations for the ESRs

23

Ha permitido comprobar y prevenir las consecuencias sobre mujeres y fetos de los impactos de coches a alta velocidad.

Ha llevado a desarrollar un gel microbicida para prevenir el VIH en mujeres en África al tener en cuenta las relaciones de poder en parejas heterosexuales

http://www.rri-tools.eu/

http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu

II. Excellent Section (ITN 2018): gender aspects

24


1.3. QUALITY OF SUPERVISION Demonstrate the quality of the research supervisor (s) / institution (s) with regards to

training of researchers: nº of PhDs graduated, nº postdocs mentored…. Describe the joint supervision arrangements (EJD and EID, but also ETN). Each researcher should have a non-academic co-supervisor

25


1.4. INTERACTION OF PARTICIPANTS Describe what tasks each participant (including P.O) will untertake with regards

training and research. Use a table Describe the synergies and “added value” of working together to deliver the

programme (i.e: refer to previous collaborations, joint publications…) Exposure of ESRs to different research environments:

Describe secondments and information (table) summarising them EID: make sure the 50% requirement in non-academic institutions is clear

26

II. Excellence section (ITN 2018): EU policies

27

II. Impact section (ITN 2018) DOCUMENT 1

• Increased set of skills (research-related and transferable ones), leading to improved employability and career prospects both in and outside academia

• Increase in higher impact R&I output and more knowledge and ideas converted into products and services

RESEARCHER LEVEL

• Enhanced cooperation and better transfer of knowledge between sectors and disciplines

• Improvement in the quality of training programmes and supervision arrangements

• Increased internationalisation of participating organisations

ORGANISATION LEVEL

• Increase in international, interdisciplinary and intersectoral mobility of researchers in Europe

• Increase in Europe´s attractiveness as a leading research destination, accompanied by a rise in the number of talented researchers attracted and retained from abroad

• More structured and innovative doctoral training, enhanced implementation of the European Charter and Code and the EU Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training

SYSTEM LEVEL

Impact 30%

Enhancing the career perspectives and employability of researchers and contribution to their

skills development

Contribution to structuring doctoral / early-stage research training at the European level and

to strengthening European innovation capacity, including the potential for:

a) meaningful contribution of the non-academic sector to the doctoral/research training,

as appropriate to the implementation mode and research field

b) developing sustainable joint doctoral degree structures (for EJD projects only)

Quality of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results

Quality of the proposed measures to communicate the project activities to different target

audiences

28

II. Impact section (ITN 2018) DOCUMENT 1

29

Show how the ESR will be employable, and by who, and why

Analyse and explain how the elements of the programme will make them employable, how will them impact their careers: research training transferable skills gained Communication and dissemination activities exposure to other organisations, secondments…

Emphasize the triple “i” aspects of the programme

(take into account how the 7 Principles of Innovative Doctoral Programme fit in…)

Look for EU policies on research with refer to training / careers for researchers but do not cut and paste: analyse how your ITN fits in with their objectives

II. Impact section (ITN 2018): what goes under 2.1 / 2.2.

Refer to EU policies (Innovation Capacity: refer to the impact of the research, link it with Innovation Union objectives, research roadmaps)

Explain how your programme will help the further development of European Collaborative research training programmes

Describe how you will continue the programme after the ITN is over (all modes)

Explain how the contribution of the Non Academic sector is essential to improving intersectoral collaboration in research training in this area

European Joing Doctorates(EJD): articulate how the programme will contribute to

developing sustainable EJD structures Indicate how your programme will help with

developing the consistency of the doctoral experience (unified selection, recruitment, awarding processes…)

30

II. Impact section (ITN 2018): what goes under 2.1

Examples: skills needed and obtained

II. MSCA ITN 2018: sections 2.3 / 2.4 - RRI aspects

Engagement


Open Access Gender Equality

31

Communication Dissemination

About the project and results About results only

Multiple audiences beyond the project's own community (include the media and the public)

Audiences that may use the results in their own work e.g. peers (scientific or the project's own community), industry and other commercial actors, professional organisations, policymakers

Inform and reach out to society, show the benefits of research

Enable use and uptake of results

Grant Agreement art. 38.1

Grant Agreement art. 29

Starts at the outset of the project When results are available

II. Impact section (ITN 2018): what goes under 2.3/2.4.

32

Dissemination and exploitation

• Target multiple audiences, e.g. other researchers, policy makers (can link to European excellence), industry, government science advisors, “think tanks”, legislative bodies…..

• OPEN ACCESS and OPEN DATA

• Outline plans to exploit any IP arising from the programme

Public Engagement / Communication

• P.E engage a large audience, bring knowledge to the general public and imply interaction between sender /receiver

• Communication requires a clear and accessible language

• Include specifics (what – who – when) in a readable format

• Possible Activities: Marie Sklodowska Curie Ambassadors, Workshop Days, Open Doors, Public Talks, articles, E-newsletters, multimedia releases, European Researchers´ Night, EC Events, conferences, Marie Curie Alumni Assocation (MCAA), MSCA “Fellow of the Week” on Facebook

http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/documents/documentation/publications/guidelines_en.pdf

33

II. Impact section (ITN 2018): what goes under 2.3/2.4.

Semana de la ciencia/Zientzia astea: an annual event open to the general public

organized by the UPV/EHU including activities such as scientific corners, workshops, guided visits or talks. http://zientzia-astea.org/es/

WeekINN: San Sebastian Town Hall organizes this annual event includinga wide range of activities

about the city’s innovation strategies, as approached from multiple perspectives: business, education, public administration, research and technology, entrepreneurship and citizens at large. http://www.fomentosansebastian.eus/donostiainn/es/iniciativas-destacadas/semana-de-la-innovacion

Eureka Zientzia Museoa: scientific activities for children are organized and scientist are invited to

participate. http://www.eurekamuseoa.es/

H2020 Promotion activities: InfoDays or workshops to promote participation in H2020 are organized

regularly each year by the European Projects Office at the UPV/EHU and by Ikerbasque in which the PIs are invited to participate.

II. Impact section (ITN 2018): Tools and Initiatives

34

http://www.fomentosansebastian.eus/donostiainn/es/iniciativas-destacadas/semana-de-la-innovacion














http://www.eurekamuseoa.es/

35

https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf

II. Impact section (ITN 2018): what goes under 2.3

Open Access

Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation 20%

Overall coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the

allocation of tasks and resources (including awarding of the doctoral degrees for EID and

EJD projects)

Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including quality

management and risk management (with a mandatory joint governing structure for EID

and EJD projects)

Appropriateness of the infrastructure of the participating organisations

Competences, experience and complementarity of the participating organisations and

their commitment to the programme

36

II. Implementation section (ITN 2018)

DOCUMENT 1

37

II. Implementation section (ITN 2018): what goes under 3.1.

38

3.1. COHERENCE AND EFECTIVENESS OF THE WORK PLAN

“European Jargon”: use it! Use the standard tables provided, include a reasonable number of

Milestones: control points, completion to key deliverables, next phases of work… Deliverables: output of the project, meaningful in term of objectives (report,

document, technical diagram, software…) . Remember to keep themfeasible and to a minimum, you will have to deliver them!

Apart from Research Work Packages, include: Management Training Dissemination, Exploitation and Public Engagement

Gantt Chart: evaluated here, included under section 4: important! Ensure everything matches the details given elsewhere in the application


II. Implementation Section: Ex. KESTCELLS Gantt Chart

39

III. Implementation Section: Ex. RAGSAGA Gantt Chart

40

Typical deliverables used in designing a MSCA research proposal


41

II. Implementation Section: a good Gantt Chart

Project at a glance in one page Should Include:

• ESR Recruitment • Secondments • Training Activities and

Events • Management Activities

and Meetings • Communication Activities • Dissemination and

Exploitation Activities • Public Engagement

Activities Should be coherent with the

proposal text Avoid negative comments from

evaluators

42

43


44

3.2. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES

Clear management plan, explain who will do what and when Tasks include:

Recruitment (OTM-r, link to C&C…) Supervisory board (all beneficiaries, P.O, ESR rep, external stakeholders….) Risk Management: of research and management (use table) Gender aspects: decision taking, balance, recruitment efforts IPR Who will support the participation of the institution (support for financial

aspects, European offices expertise…) Has your institution been awarded the HR Logo? Is your institution part of

EURAXESS? Say it! PERT Chart to illustrate who will be responsible for what: templates

(http://www.hyperion.ie/template.htm


Supervisory Board External Advisory

Group

ESR Committee

Project Management

Team

Training Committee

Dissemination & Outreach

Committee

Research Coordination Committee

IP & Exploitation Committee


Example of a Management Structure

45

II. Horizontal Issues: HR Excellence in Research

2 Key Documents: “Charter and Code”

• European Charter for Researchers

• The Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers

http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/pdf/brochure_rights/eur_21620_es-en.pdf

HR Excellence in Research (HRS4R)

• Have the organisations implemented it? In the process of obtaining the HR Excellence in Research? Explain it.

• Use the OTM-R toolkit!

http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/index.cfm/rights/strategy4Researcher

47




http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/index.cfm/rights/strategy4Researcher

48

II. Implementation section (ITN 2018): what goes under 3.3/3.4.

3.3 and 3.4

Infrastructure: technical equipment, other such as office space, access to library, IT

facilities….customize to scientific/technical needs You can include under 3.2. or 3.3. the support and help for the institution (european

ofices…) + EURAXESS Explain complementarities between participants (can use a table) Important to enphasize the commitment of non-academic sector If Beneficiaries / p.O from TC, explain why they are important

FORM B TECHNICAL PROPOSAL:

2 DOCUMENTS

II. MSCA – ITN 2018: Submission structure

1. Excellence 2. Impact 3. Implementation

Page limit: 30

No limit per section

DOCUMENT 1

DOCUMENT 2

4. Gantt Chart 5. Capacities of the Participating Organisations (tables) 6. Ethical Aspects 7. Letters of Commitment

49

II. MSCA – ITN 2018: Document 2

• Stick to the limits • “Play” with section 5 and section 1 (quality of supervision)

50

II. MSCA ITN 2018: RRI aspects

Engagement


Open Access

Gender Equality

51

All proposals will undergo an ethics review

52

• Human Embryos / Foetuses • Humans • Human Cells / Tissues • Protection of Personal Data • Animals • Third Countries • Environmental Protection and safety • Dual Use • Misuse • Other Ethics Issues

Participants have to:

• Identify all potential ethical aspects

• Explain their future management

• Give a detailed explanation at proposal stage

Description on Ethics:

• Ethic Issues Table en part A

• Ethics Self-Assessment en part B

II. MSCA – ITN 2018: Document 2 - Ethical Aspects

Participant Portal H2020 Ethics section: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/ethics_en.htm Ethics issues table-Checklist: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/doc/call/h2020/h2020-msca-itn-2014/1597698-itn_2014_-_ethics_issues_checklist_en.pdf Ethics Guidance http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/doc/call/h2020/h2020-msca-itn-2015/1620147-h2020_-_guidance_ethics_self_assess_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/ethics_en.htm









http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/doc/call/h2020/h2020-msca-itn-2014/1597698-itn_2014_-_ethics_issues_checklist_en.pdf











http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/doc/call/h2020/h2020-msca-itn-2015/1620147-h2020_-_guidance_ethics_self_assess_en.pdf











• The proposed methodologies are not always well specified and most methodological details regarding XXX are missing.

• Innovation is minimal in the research programme, which is mainly concerning reviewing and applying existing modelling techniques. References to literature are very limited: state-of-the-art is not supported by evidences.

• Overall description of the training program is not sufficiently detailed and not convincing; schedule, content, and contributors to the various training sessions are minimally described

• The scientific content of the three proposed summer schools is not provided. In particular, no course in XXX is proposed ,although it is a key aspect of the research.

• The supervision arrangements are not described with sufficient detail. The skills and background of the supervisory team is not sufficiently specified. The training experience of the supervisors is insufficiently detailed.

III. What can we learn from previous calls Excellence Section: Evaluation Summary Reports 2017

• The proposal presents an innovative research project that focuses on a fundamental issue of increasing relevance in Europe and with clear potential for development.

• The research programme is based on a previous market research that reinforces the credibility of the proposal.

• Gender issues are a central element of the research programme and are adequately included in the proposal.

• The training plan covers international and multidisciplinary approach and offers a well balanced combination of common and specific courses for ESRs to integrate results while offering specific expertise for each of them.

• Commitment of the partners to the programme is strongly demonstrated. Roles and planned interactions are very clearly defined for each academic and non-academic partner. All participants are strongly involved at both individual and network-wide level in the research and training programs.

The description of the state-of-the-art in the field is not comprehensive and the originality and innovative aspects of the proposal are not documented.

Superficial or unconvincing description of the research methodology. Lack of synergies between the proposed individual projects. Insufficient interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary dimensions of the research training

program. Unsatisfactory presentation of the intersectorial aspects of the network & the

role(s) of the industrial partners in research & training activities. Inadequate exposure of the ESRs to another sector and lack of meaningful

secondments. Insufficient network-wide and complementary skills training. Unsatisfactory quality of supervision.

III. Evaluator’s feedback on EXCELLENCE: Some common criticisms

54

• The rather limited contribution of the non-academic sector to the training program fails to provide a blend of transferable skills that will significantly improve the ESR employability in the non-academic sector.

• The proposal is not convincing enough on the contribution of the programme to structuring doctoral/early-stage research training at the European level and to strengthening European innovation capacity. The contribution to structuring doctoral/early-stage research training at European level remains limited to a series of citation of major EU policies the research and training program will address.

• The proposal fails to convincingly highlight the innovative and specific added value of this particular ETN towards better structuring European doctoral training, beyond conventional transnational collaborations.

• The proposed outreach activities are described in insufficient detail. They lack originality and interest for wide audiences.

• Measures for scientific dissemination of results are standard and their description is not sufficiently detailed, lacking indication of specific scientific meetings and journals that will be targeted.

• The proposal does not sufficiently analyze job potential related to the research field

III. What can we learn from previous calls Impact Section: Evaluation Summary Reports 2017

• The proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results are adequate. The planned blog will trigger useful discussions among the ESRs.

• The consortium will strengthen both the academic and industrial European leadership in XXXX with a high potential for direct as well as longer term valorisation opportunities, thus strengthening European innovation capacity.

• The quality of the proposed measures to communicate the project activities to different target audiences is very good and adequate.

55

The network benefits to the researchers’ career prospects are not sufficiently highlighted.

Lack of clear description of the Network’s contribution to European scientific excellence, innovation and competitiveness, especially in areas relevant to both the public and private sectors.

Inadequate demonstration of the Network’s contribution to building long-lasting collaborations between European institutions.

Insufficient attention to enhancing public-private sector collaborations on research and training.

Absence of clear plans for exploitation of the results and protection of IPR. No clear measures to ensure dissemination of the Network’s results and a lack of

outreach activities to educate the general public on: a) The benefits of the research training program, and b) The EU contribution to the project.

III. Evaluator’s feedback on IMPACT: Some common criticisms

• Risk management aspects related to potential disputes, human resources issues, and/or handling of potential scientific misconduct are not sufficiently addressed. Scientific risks related to the experimental plan and relative to each ESR are not properly considered.

• The deliverables of the individual ESRs projects are not sufficiently identified and the late time of some secondments may reduce the efficiency of their goals.

• The non-academic partners appear to play a minor role in the program. For instance, the role of partner XXX appears only once, and marginally, in the project of ESR2. As another example, the role of XXX, and the impact of the program in such a large company, is unconvincingly developed.

• The Supervisory Board will be in charge of basically all management procedures related to research, training and possibly communication. No dedicated committees are clearly defined.

• The description of the Work Packages is vague. Expected results and progress indicators for WPs are vaguely discussed and the beneficiaries involved in the research WPs are not clearly allocated to the specific tasks.

• It is not sufficiently elaborated how the joint degree structure EJD) would be expanded beyond in this project.

III. What can we learn from previous calls Implementation Section: Evaluation Summary Reports 2017

• All project activities are appropriately considered in the timeline of the Gantt chart.

• The management structures and procedures, including quality management are appropriate to implement the project. Composition, roles and responsibilities of the project participants are clearly outlined.

• The recruitment strategy and selection procedures are sufficiently explained. The recruitment will be conform to principles of the "Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers" considering gender balance and equality.

• The competences, experience and complementarity of the participating organisations are excellent.

• The EJD-project and its training section are well grounded on a previous Erasmus-project 57

Poorly described Work Plan lacking a credible time plan, and/or

deliverables, and/or milestones, and/or Gantt chart, etc.

The credibility of the Work Plan is low due to the lack of contingency

planning for potential pitfalls and possible failures.

No description of the individual ESR projects is provided.

The presentation of the management structure, including the decision

making process, is inadequate.

III. Evaluator’s feedback on IMPLEMENTATION: Some common criticisms

IV. General aspects: language and layout of proposal

59

SMART Simple – Measurable - Achievable –Relevant - Timely

As a consortium:

Capacity of the participants: clearly demostrated

Evidence of Partner Organisations Commitment

Involvement of non-academic sector

As a coordinator:

Start writing early the proposal and if possible, have a physical meeting

Discuss the allocation of Institutional Unit Cost beforehand

Set a rule to solve conflict management in the C.A

Use the LERU template and sign it before the start of the project

Help evaluators:

“A picture is worth a thousand words”: use visuals to provide global information at a glance.

Be aware of all criteria weight, it is not all about Excellence!

Be precise – less is sometimes more; structure the proposal well (follow template)

IV. To sum up: General tips to submit a good proposal (1)

60

Read the Call Documents:

Work Programme, Guide for Applicants, Horizontal Issues: Gender / Ethic Issues, etc, FAQ

Pay attention to the mandatory requirements of particular modes

Ask for support:

Colleagues

European Projects Offices / Transfer of Technology Offices / HR Departments …

National Contact Points

Do not leave it for the last minute!

Get familiar with the Participants´Portal

Upload a version, you will be able to rewrite it.

….and success doesn´t always come on the first attempt

IV. To sum up: General tips to submit a good proposal (2)

61

MSCA support in Spain

USEFUL LINKS

• Research and Innovation Participants´Portal : http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/home.html

• Web and Blog Marie Curie Sklodowska-Curie Actions: http://mariecurieactions.blogspot.com.es/ - http://www.madrimasd.org/blogs/msca

• European Charter & Code: http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/pdf/brochure_rights/eur_21620_es-en.pdf

• EURAXESS Spain: http://www.euraxess.es/ ([email protected])

• Oficina Europea MINECO/FECYT: http://eshorizonte2020.es

Cristina Gómez

[email protected]

Oficina Europea MINECO / FECYT

Jesús Rojo

[email protected]

Fundación para el Conocimiento Madri+d

National Contact Points MSCA

62

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

http://mariecurieactions.blogspot.com.es/

http://mariecurieactions.blogspot.com.es/

http://www.madrimasd.org/blogs/msca




http://www.euraxess.es/

mailto:[email protected]

http://eshorizonte2020.es/



Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) Aspectos prácticos ... · Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions...

Documents

Transcript of Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) Aspectos prácticos ... · Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions...