FET Open: an evaluator s view

Transcription

1 FET Open: an evaluator s view Bart Preneel Dept. Electrical Eng. ESAT COSIC 1 The funding landscape fundamental understanding ERC Marie Curie FWO/FNRS DOC FET IWT SBO EU Industrial Leadership Societal Challenges IWT/FRIA bilateral consideration of use 2 1

2 Who is your audience Criteria and reviewers very different for ERC (1800 M /y) Marie Skłodowska-Curie (880 M /y) FET Open (80/40/40 M /y) Societal Challenges/Industry Leadership FET Open budget will increase after 2016 Networking (and lobbying) Bureaucratic culture 3 How to write a FET Open proposal a unique combination of research that is high-risk long-term multidisciplinary collaborative with the structuring of more mature ideas and communities fostering radically new technologies by exploring novel and high-risk ideas prepare for the conversion of novel proofs of concepts into mainstream research and innovation and ultimately industrial applications and systems 4 2

3 How to write a FET Open proposal Comply with the rules Background: why (include state of the art) Objectives: what will you achieve Methodology: how will you achieve this Timely: why now? Evaluation: how can success be measured and monitored Team: with whom (and what are their roles) Detailed plan with workpackages, tasks, milestones, deliverables Keep it understandable: one or a few pictures shorter can be better but 1 personyear needs some substance (5-10 lines) 5 Evaluation criteria (1) Excellence (60%) Clarity of targeted breakthrough and its specific science and technology contributions towards a long-term vision; Novelty, level of ambition and foundational character; Range and added value from interdisciplinarity; Appropriateness of the research methods. no incremental research note: not the excellence of the researchers or the team! 6 3

4 Evaluation criteria (2) Impact (20%) Importance of the new technological outcome with regards to its transformational impact on technology and/or society; Quality of measures for achieving impact on science, technology and/or society; Impact from empowerment of new and high potential actors towards future technological leadership. 2 approaches create ecosystem for next steps technological development with impact on society industry; this likely needs companies and not the research division dissemination exploitation consider legal ethical business - users 7 Evaluation criteria (3) Quality and efficiency of the implementation (20%) Quality of the work plan and clarity of intermediate targets; Relevant expertise in the consortium; Appropriate allocation and justification of resources (person-months, equipment, budget). plan can have decision points that stop certain parts management and decision structure including risk management conflict resolution IPR and publication policy 8 4

5 Is big beautiful? FET open is small scale compared to Societal Challenges/Industry Leadership 2-4 M 3-6 partners international collaboration planning and coordination reporting Offers opportunities to bring research from lab closer to practice Trend towards ever larger projects Integrated Projects, Platforms, FET Flagships Ecosystem of trainers, consultants, managers, NGOs, dissemination companies 9 Administration and Reporting Rules have been simplified for H2020 A small FET can be managed by a researcher, but do not underestimate the administrative overhead strong support from lab or university recommended Audits are very bureaucratic and time consuming rules keep changing (and not for the better) 10 5

6 Reviewing Only one phase but still short proposal (15 pages) Remote review by experts extremely competitive (FET open in FP7 ended with 4% acceptance rate) overall quality of reviews has been good but sometimes bias from competing areas In past: reconciliation and remote consensus report New system: all proposals go to an expert panel for ranking not clear that experts will be able to see and/or comment on each other s review like in the past submitters will not see comments before they go the panel 11 Note about timescales Write proposal: 3-6 months Review: 3-6 months Negotiation: 3 months This means: 9-12 months Research: months Does this time scale with the developments in the field? How will the research/business/societal context develop? 12 6

7 Good luck with your application Follow your dreams If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it? 13 7