Robotics in Horizon 2020: Rules for participation Cécile Huet, Deputy Head of Unit Unit A2 - Robotics Directorate-General for Communication Networks, Content and Technology European Commission Brokerage Event Brussels December 9, 2014
Horizon 2020 Characteristics Some points to note Terminology Eligibility Criteria Types of action Types of contribution Horizon 2020 grant agreement some features Submission Proposal content - Evaluation Impact Last tips
Horizon 2020 Terminology Project = "action" Contract = "Grant Agreement" Types of action (instruments) Research and Innovation Actions (RIA) Innovation Actions (IA) Pre-commercial Procurement (PcP) Coordination and Support Actions (CSA) 5
Rules for participation: who? Countries Eligible for funding (see Annex A): Member States Countries Associated to H2020 - Iceland, Norway, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey, Israel, Moldova - Note: Switzerland is not associated to LEIT (this part of H2020) Developing countries Others: participants cover their own costs. Exceptions: - bilateral agreement - participation essential ASSESSED AT EVALUATION STAGE
Horizon 2020 Eligibility Criteria Type of ACTION Eligibility Criteria: RIA & IA PcP CSA - At least 3 Independent legal entities - From 3 different Member States (MS)/Associated Countries(AC) Idem RIA + minimum 2 independent public procurers from 2 different MA/AC CSA: at least 1 legal entities established in a MS/AC
DEFINITIONS OF ACTIONS
Horizon 2020 Types of action Research and Innovation Actions (RIA) Actions primarily consisting of activities aiming to establish new knowledge and/or to explore the feasibility of a new or improved technology, product, process, service or solution. May include basic and applied research, technology development and integration, testing and validation on a small-scale prototype in a laboratory environment
Horizon 2020 Types of action Research and Innovation Actions (RIA) IN ICT24 - ROBOTICS May include basic and/or applied research AND technology development and integration, necessary to advance abilities and technologies contributing to the prioritized market domains (healthcare/consumer/transport)
Horizon 2020 Types of action Research and Innovation Actions(RIA) IN ICT24 - ROBOTICS Testing and validation on a small-scale prototype in a laboratory environment Laboratory test and simulation possible but only as an intermediary step / no heavy investment in simulations "Simulated environment" sufficiently realistic/challenging Necessary activities validating results in realistic or real-world environments to demonstrate progress in abilities/technologies RELEVANT to these market domains
Horizon 2020 Types of action Innovation Actions (IA) Actions primarily consisting of activities directly aiming at producing plans and arrangements or designs for new, altered or improved products, processes or services. May include prototyping, testing, demonstrating, piloting, large scale product validation and market replication May include limited research and development activities
Horizon 2020 Types of action Innovation Actions (IA) IN ROBOTICS Actions primarily consisting of activities directly aiming at producing plans and arrangements or designs for new, altered or improved products, processes or services. May include prototyping, testing, demonstrating, piloting, large scale product validation and market replication May include limited research and development activities Technology transfer: (b) Industry-academia cross-fertilisation (c) Robotics use cases NO MAJOR RESEARCH COMPONENT
Horizon 2020 Types of action Pre-commercial Procurement (PcP) Demand driven innovation lead by public procurers Gathering public procurers with common needs 2 major components - Refining requirements; selection of suppliers and evaluation of progress - RTD work to be procured
Horizon 2020 Types of action Pre-commercial Procurement (PcP) Procurement of R&D services Involving risk-benefit sharing Under market conditions Competitive development in phases (solution design/prototype/testing) http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/pcp/docs/pcp-ppi-instruments-h2020.pdf
Horizon 2020 Types of action Coordination and Support Actions (CSA) Accompanying measures such as - standardisation, dissemination, awareness-raising and communication, networking, coordination or support services, policy dialogues and mutual learning exercises and studies, including design studies for new infrastructure, and - may also include complementary activities of strategic planning, networking and coordination between programmes in different countries
Horizon 2020 Types of projects in terms of contribution Expressed in terms of indicative budget (requested funding) Cut-off point 4-5 million Small Contribution (<4M ) vs. Large Contribution (>5M ) The distinction does not correspond to the old distinction IP vs. STReP The Work Programme may varyingly call for either large or small projects or both important to check
Horizon 2020 funding rates Research and Innovation Actions (RIA) + Coordination and Support Actions (CSA) up to 100% Innovation Actions (IA) up to 70% up to 100% (non-profit entities) Pre-commercial Procurement (PcP) up to 70% Indirect Costs: 25% of eligible direct costs less subcontracting
PROPOSAL: Submission, Content and Evaluation
Horizon 2020 Proposal Submission Admissibility Conditions (Annex B): - Submitted via the portal - http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/ - BEFORE DEADLINE: 14-04-2015 17:00:00 (Brussels local time) TIP: don't wait the last minute already prepare draft in the system PUSH SUBMIT BUTTON - Readable/Printable - COMPLETE: - Operational capacity - Draft plan for exploitation and dissemination of the results - NB: PAGE LIMITS (70 pages except for CSA: 50 pages) excess pages ignored
Horizon 2020 Proposal Submission Part A of the proposal, administrative part + Budget Self-check of SME status & financial viability: do it carefully as might be very critical at a later stage Page limit for technical content in Part B (excluding partner descriptions) 70 pages (50 pp for Coordination Actions) Pages exceeding the limit will be ignored
Horizon 2020 Proposal content Demonstrate your operational capability competence and availability of resources Thoroughly describe ethical issues and how they are dealt with Impact section of primary importance See proposal template on the Participant Portal & follow the advices
Horizon 2020 Proposal content A short grant preparation phase No negotiation proposal = final project work plan, not a sales brochure The maturity, specificity and completeness of the work plan will be taken into account at the evaluation stage weaknesses will be penalised Specific well-defined and challenging yet realistic objectives and how they will be reached Great idea not enough credible work plan essential
Horizon 2020 EVALUATION Selection Criteria Coordinator financial capacity -> self-assessment tool Operational Capacity (competence/experience) Proposal submission evaluation criteria 3 criteria: Excellence, Impact, Implementation NOT ORTHOGONAL!!! Innovation aspect more strongly incorporated 0-5 points, threshold 3 pts for individual criteria Overall threshold 10 points For Innovation Actions, weighting of Impact 1.5
PROPOSAL PART B vs Evaluation Criterion (RIA/IA) 1. Excellence (! Relevant to the call) 1.1 Objectives 1.2 Relation to the work programme 1.3 Concept and approach 1.4 Ambition EVALUATION Excellence Clarity and pertinence of the objectives Soundness of the concept, including trans-disciplinary considerations, where relevant Credibility of the proposed approach Extent that proposed work is ambitious, has innovation potential, and is beyond the state of the art (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches)
PROPOSAL 2. Impact PART B vs Evaluation Criterion (RIA/IA) 2.1 Expected impacts (incl. list in the workprogramme) 2.2 Measures to maximise impact a) Dissemination and exploitation of results b) Communication activities EVALUATION Impact - The expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic (! Not all have to be addressed by each proposal) - Enhancing innovation capacity and integration of new knowledge - Strengthening the competitiveness and growth of companies by developing innovations meeting the needs of European and global markets; and, where relevant, by delivering such innovations to the markets - Any other environmental and socially important impacts - Effectiveness of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results (including management of IPR), to communicate the project, and to manage research data where relevant
PROPOSAL 3. Implementation PART B vs Evaluation Criterion (RIA/IA) 3.1 Work plan Work packages, deliverables and milestones 3.2 Management structure and procedures 3.3 Consortium as a whole 3.4 Resources to be committed EVALUATION Implementation - Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources - Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management - Complementarity of the participants within the consortium (when relevant)
PART B Section 4: Members of the consortium Section is not covered by the page limit. Information used to judge the operational capacity. 4.1. Participants (applicants) 4.2. Third parties involved in the project (including use of third party resources) Section 5: Ethics
Ethics Review Goal: check: compliance with ethical rules and std (National, EU, Intl) authorizations and ethics approvals proportionality of the research methods applicants' awareness of the ethical aspects and social impact Outcome: If ethics requirements contractual obligations
Important points note Impact Assess the expected impact given the whole package: the objectives, approach, work plan, consortium, dissemination & exploitation activities, etc. i.e., what can be realistically achieved within the timeframe of the project Value for money is an important factor
Frequently misunderstood issues (1) European level does not mean having a spread of partners from countries all over Europe without proper justification regarding the project in hand means cross-border collaboration that promises to achieve more than could have been achieved within one single Member State Presence of one or more SMEs is not to be taken as a must or as a de facto plus point SMEs are treated just as any other partner in a consortium in terms of having the necessary competence and a clearly defined role
Frequently misunderstood issues (2) Management by a professional consultancy is not to be taken for granted must offer a proven added-value and cost efficient solution Applications and products N.B. the different role of applications in ICT24.a and ICT24.b/c nevertheless, we are not looking for commercial product development within the project lifecycle Participation in EU projects in the past is not necessarily to be considered an advantage progress beyond the state of the art including the achievements of previous projects must be clearly demonstrated
EVALUATION PROCESS
Evaluation Process Receipt of proposals Individual evaluation Consensus group Panel Review Finalisation Eligibility check Allocation of proposals to evaluators 3 Independent evaluation reports ½ day per proposal Consensus Meeting At least 2hours/propos al Panel ranked list Calibration Sorting out Ties Funding Selection
Background to the evaluation Evaluators Briefing material ~ information to proposers Excerpts from evaluators briefing, also useful to proposers next slides ESR drafting very delicate
Evaluator briefing Impact of grant preparation on evaluation No grant negotiation phase -> What does this mean for the evaluation of proposal? You evaluate each proposal as submitted not on its potential if certain changes were to be made If you identify shortcomings (other than minor ones and obvious clerical errors), you must reflect those in a lower score for the relevant criterion You explain the shortcomings, but do not make recommendations i.e. do not suggest additional partners, additional work packages, resources cut Proposals with significant weaknesses that prevent the project from achieving its objectives or with resources being seriously overestimated must not receive above-threshold scores Any proposal with scores above the thresholds and for which there is sufficient budget will be selected as submitted
Evaluator briefing Is only marginally relevant in terms of its scientific, technological or innovation content relating to the call or topic addressed, you must reflect this in a lower score for the Excellence criterion No matter how excellent the science! Does not significantly contribute to the expected impacts as specified in the WP for that call or topic, you must reflect this in a lower score for the Impact criterion Would require substantial modifications in terms of implementation (i.e. change of partners, additional work packages, significant budget or resources cut ), you must reflect this in a lower score for the Quality and efficiency of the implementation criterion
IMPACT
Expected impact to be checked No single proposal is expected to address the whole list Check whether the proposal is concrete and specific about what the project results would achieve in the areas described in the Work Programme, during the project lifetime and beyond Do the proposers stress their (competitive) positioning / technical advantage in possible future markets or applications? Assess the need for industry participation and provide evidence of their commitment
Measures to maximise impact dissemination of results Concrete dissemination plan, scientific and nonscientific, with a coherent vision, not just a 'shopping list' Targeting all types of media channels and audiences (website, press releases, publications, exhibits at fairs, social media), as relevant
Measures to maximise impact exploitation of results Should be well thought-out and properly resourced Involves people with the right expertise (for technology transfer, patents etc.)
Measures to maximise impact exploitation of results Exploitation mechanisms for example: Analysis of current market Situation of the project against TRLs Management of the IPR Analysis of existing patents plans for patenting Business plan or business case clearly defined and sufficiently detailed Also projects with a more scientific approach have to make clear what the eventual exploitation outcomes and impact will be.
Role of industries and end users Industry has a far greater role to play in Robotics R&I than before. Involvement of industry as manufacturers, system suppliers, integrators or users is welcome, as appropriate, depending on the needs of the project and on the technology readiness level addressed. The involvement of end users in R&I projects is welcome. In Robotics Use Cases, which target industrial and service sectors, and Precommercial Procurement it is a must. 20
Last but not least Carefully read the Call & adapt to the requirements Appreciate the differences with respect to FP7 Do not rely on previous experience Newcomer's eye Understand the new "innovation" - beyond the technical language of the call Avoid major errors: unfocused proposal, simulations-only, poor presence of the end-users, poor integration... Common good-writing strategies: clear objectives, solid approach, balanced consortium impact-driven research in case of re-submission from standard R&D FP7 proposals - adaptation mandatory (even if "almost made it")
Last but not least - Nothing artificial: Number of partners, geographic coverage, budget, types of partners (SMEs, ) ANY CHOICE DICTATED BY THE PROJECT NEEDS - Extremely competitive Be Outstanding!
More information Background document with Q&A a revised version is now available on the partcipant Portal: ICT24 Topics Conditions & Documents
THANK YOU!