FET-Open in Horizon2020 Work Programme Roumen Borissov Future and Emerging Technologies FET-Open Research Executive Agency

Transcription

1 FET-Open in Horizon2020 Work Programme Roumen Borissov Future and Emerging Technologies FET-Open Research Executive Agency

2 Content Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) in Horizon 2020 FET-Open according to Work Programme an overview Evaluation criteria for proposals submitted to the current call of FET-Open Evaluation procedure for FET-Open RIA FET-Open CSA 2

3 FET in Horizon 2020 Excellent Science pillar in H European Research Council (13B ) Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (6,1B ) Future and Emerging Technologies Research infrastructures programme (2,4B ) FET: 2,7 B "Future and emerging technologies shall support collaborative research in order to extend Europe s capacity for advanced and paradigm-changing innovation. It shall foster scientific collaboration across disciplines on radically new, high-risk ideas and accelerate development of the most promising emerging areas of science and technology as well as the Union wide structuring of the corresponding scientific communities." HORIZON THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION ( )

4 FET in Horizon 2020 FET mission 4 To promote and support the emergence of radically new technology areas that will renew the basis for future European competitiveness and growth and will make a difference for society in the decades to come. To initiate and shape the development of European research and innovation eco-systems around such future and emerging technologies, as seeds of future industrial leadership and potential solutions for societal challenges. To turn Europe into the best environment for responsible and dynamic multi-disciplinary collaborations on such future and emerging technologies, including facilitating the wider training of researchers in new areas.

5 FET in Horizon 2020 Open, light and agile Roadmap based research FET-Open FET Proactive FET Flagships Early Ideas Individual research projects Exploration and Incubation Topical clusters of research projects Large-Scale Partnering Initiatives Common research agendas Exploring Developing Addressing novel ideas topics & communities grand challenges 5

7 FET Open in WP FET-Open : novel ideas for radically new technologies FET-Open is open! No thematic restriction, not necessarily ICT emphasis o New areas: space research, medicine, energy o TRL 1-3, successful FET project result is a proof of a concept in a lab Bottom-up, but targeted - not blue sky research Collaborative research Total budget: ~160M in Instrument o Research and Innovation Action - 154M o Coordination and Support actions (CSA) 6M 7

8 FET Open in WP FET-Open call Submission & Evaluation 8 o 1 step submission - 1 step evaluation based on FET specific evaluation criteria o High quality peer review 4 experts per proposals to best address multi-disciplinary nature of FET Grant Agreement Preparation (GAP) the grants are based on the submitted proposals o The information necessary for the preparation of the Description of action (DoA) has to be in the proposal o During GAP certain details are fixed, like project periods, starting date, addressing the ethics recommendations, financial issues, like third parties Time to contract of max. 8 months from cut-off date o ESR within 5 months, contracts within 3 extra months

9 FET Open in WP FETOPEN 1: FET-Open research projects Specific challenge Supporting a large set of early stage, high risk visionary science and technology collaborative research projects is necessary for the successful exploration of new foundations for radically new future technologies. Nurturing fragile ideas requires an agile, risk-friendly and highly interdisciplinary research approach, expanding well beyond the strictly technological disciplines. Recognising and stimulating the driving role of new high-potential actors in research and innovation, such as women, young researchers and high-tech SMEs, is also important for nurturing the scientific and industrial leaders of the future. Funding per project: approximately 2 to 4M Budget: 154M Deadlines 30/09/ /03/ /09/2015 Budget 77 M 38,5 M 38,5M 9

10 FET Open in WP Results from cut-off dates 1&2 643 RIA proposals submitted by cut-off date 1 24 proposals selected for funding from the first evaluation, some of them already started work Success rate for RIA~3,7% 670 proposals submitted by cut-off date 2 Expected number of funded proposals ~ 12 -> ~1,8% success rate 10

11 FET Open in WP

12 FET Open in WP FET gatekeepers - the kind of research that FET is looking for Long-term vision: a new, original or radical long-term vision of technologyenabled possibilities going far beyond the state of the art Breakthrough S&T target: scientifically ambitious and technologically concrete breakthroughs plausibly attainable within the life-time of the project. Foundational: the breakthroughs must be foundational in the sense that they can establish a basis for a new line of technology not currently anticipated. Novelty: new ideas and concepts, rather than the application or incremental refinement of existing ones. High-risk: the potential of a new technological direction depends on a whole range of factors that cannot be apprehended from a single disciplinary viewpoint. Interdisciplinary: the proposed collaborations must go beyond current mainstream collaboration configurations in joint S&T research, and must aim to advance different scientific and technological disciplines together and in synergy towards a breakthrough. 12

13 FET Open in WP Composition of proposals Part A: Administrative part of the proposal Part B : Scientific part of the proposal 16 pages core proposal Cover page Section 1: S&T Excellence Section 2: Impact Section 3: Implementation Additional information Section 4: Members of the consortium E.g. legal entity, CV, subcontract, third party Section 5: Ethics and Security Ethics self-assessment & supporting documents Security checklist Cover page strictly limited to 1 page Section 1,2 & 3 are strictly limited to 15 pages! Section 4 & 5 are not covered by the page limit. 13

15 Evaluation criteria RIA Excellence Impact Implementation 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. Threshold: 4/5 Weight: 15 60% 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. Threshold: 3,5/5 Weight: 20% Quality of the workplan and clarity of intermediate targets. Relevant expertise in the consortium. Appropriate allocation and justification of resources (personmonths, equipment, budget). Threshold: 3/5 Weight: 20%

16 Evaluation criteria RIA Excellence 1. Clarity of targeted breakthrough and its specific science and technology contributions towards a long-term vision. 16 Is there a clearly defined long-term vision? Is there a clear description of the proposed breakthrough research? The breakthrough could be related to a problem that has resisted resolution for years and the proposal suggests a plausible idea for a solution Relevance of the targeted breakthrough for the long-term vision it should be outlined how the breakthrough would lead to the long-term vision

17 Evaluation criteria RIA Excellence 2. Novelty, level of ambition and foundational character. Is the research proposed novel? it should be more than continuation of research going on for years Is the research proposed ambitious and far-reaching, not just another small incremental step along a path already being followed? Does the research proposed have a potential to start a new line of investigation, which can be followed for years and can lead to completely new technologies? 17

18 Evaluation criteria RIA Excellence 3. Range and added value from interdisciplinarity. 18 To what extent the main idea requires involvement of knowledge and methodology from different disciplines? How are these different disciplines intertwined and how the ideas from different disciplines support the scientific breakthrough? 4. Appropriateness of the research methods. Is the analysis of the state-of-the-art comprehensive and complete? Relevance of the chosen methods for the achieving the project objectives

19 Evaluation criteria RIA Impact 1. Importance of the new technological outcome with regards to its transformational impact on technology and/or society. Is the long-term technological outcome clearly defined? Is the transformational impact on technology, on society or on both convincingly argued? It is not sufficient to have just a scientific impact based simply on peer reviewed publications! 19

20 Evaluation criteria RIA Impact 2. Quality of measures for achieving impact on science, technology and/or society. Are the "standard" measures (scientific publications, website) properly described and planned? Does the proposal goes sufficiently far beyond the "standard" measures? For example, are there additional measures, based on new media included? Is it clearly explained how the dissemination measures would support achieving the expected impact? 20

21 Evaluation criteria RIA Impact 3. Impact from empowerment of new and high potential actors towards future technological leadership. 21 Are there young researchers in the consortium, especially principle investigators, who would keep up the research in a long run? Are there SMEs in the consortium with sufficient budget, who would take up the results from the project and would eventually carry them over towards innovation and market realization? Are there new actors, who are usually underrepresented in the specific tasks to be performed by the project (for example, is there a proper gender balance)?

22 Evaluation criteria RIA Implementation 1. Quality of the work plan and clarity of intermediate targets. Are the objectives specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART)? Is there a clear description of work packages, project periods, tasks and deliverables? Are the intermediate targets (milestones) properly defined and timely? It is very important to remember that the work plan, described in the proposal will become Description of action in case the proposal is selected for funding! 22

23 Evaluation criteria RIA Implementation 2. Relevant expertise in the consortium. Is the expertise in the consortium of high enough quality in order to tackle all proposed tasks? Is the interdisciplinarity at the ideas level properly reflected in the composition of the consortium? Is the consortium well-balanced, without redundancies? 23

24 Evaluation criteria RIA Implementation 3. Appropriate allocation and justification of resources (person-months, equipment, budget). Do the person-months allocated correspond to the proposed tasks to be performed? Is the necessary equipment present or properly described and budgeted? Is the overall budget comprehensive, well-balanced, and convincing? 24

26 Evaluation procedure One step submission and evaluation Proposal submission Eligibility check Expert selection Remote evaluation Quality check Cross- reading Panel review Ethics screening Feedback 26

27 Evaluation procedure Feedback ESR sent to the proposers (1) Contains the collated individual comments per subcriterion from the four remote evaluators. We are completely transparent and present to the proposers all individual expert opinions without modifications. This means that some comments could be mutually contradicting we believe that consensus is not always possible, especially for frontier interdisciplinary research 27

28 Evaluation procedure Feedback ESR sent to the proposers (2) The intermediate score from the remote evaluation, which is the input for the panel discussion, is the median from the individual scores assigned to the proposal. This takes care of any extreme scores, when they are "outliers." The panel has the power to modify, either by consensus or via voting, the scores from the remote evaluation and to provide additional comments. 28

29 Evaluation procedure Additional important details on proposal preparation 29 Operational capacity reflected in the score for Criterion 3 In/out of scope not in terms of topics; reflected in the scores for Criteria 1 & 2 Ethics assessment not part of the evaluation Horizon 2020 Open Research Data Pilot not part of the evaluation but the participation in the pilot is very important in order to ensure maximal efficiency from the EC investments in research

31 FET Open CSA Coordination and Support Actions 2015 Specific challenge: The challenge is to make Europe the best place in the world for collaborative research on future and emerging technologies that will renew the basis for future European competitiveness and growth, and that will make a difference for society in the decades to come. Scope: Proposals shall address one of the following topics: FET Exchange: structuring an emerging FET-relevant topic and communities FET Take-Up: actions for stimulating take-up of FET research results towards impact and innovation Project size: approximately 0,3 to 0,5M per topic Budget & Deadline: 1,5M -> 29/9/

32 FET Open CSA One step submission and evaluation Part A: Administrative part of the proposal Part B : Scientific part of the proposal 50 pages core proposal Cover page Section 1: S&T Excellence Section 2: Impact Section 3: Implementation Additional information Section 4: Members of the consortium E.g. legal entity, CV, subcontract, third party Section 5: Ethics and Security Ethics self-assessment & supporting documents Security checklist Cover page strictly limited to 1 page Section 1,2 & 3 are limited to 50 pages) Section 4 & 5 are not covered by the page limit. 32

33 Place to be: 33

34 Thank you for your attention! H2020 website: Participant portal: portunities/h2020/index.html FET Work Programme call text : 014_2015/main/h2020-wp1415-fet_en.pdf 34