IST 2002 Partnerships for the future
IST 2002 Partnerships for the future HOW TO MAKE A PROPOSAL IN IST WORKPROGRAMME 2003/04 Integrated Projects Networks of Excellence Specific targeted research Projects Co-ordination Actions Specific Support Actions Information Package IST Call 1 IST 2002 - HOW TO MAKE A PROPOSAL TIMETABLE - MONDAY 4 NOVEMBER: 14.30: Introduction - Morten Møller 14.35: IST Workprogramme 2003/04 - Khalil Rouhana 15.30: Integrated projects - Morten Møller 16.00: Coffee break 16.15: Networks of Excellence - Khalil Rouhana 16.45: Traditional Instruments - Morten Møller 17.15: Information package Call 1 - Tom McKinlay QUESTIONS & ANSWERS Information Society Technologies in the 6th Framework Programme Context, rationale, Content of IST in FP6 WP2003-2004 main features Outline of presentation FP6 Overview – Structure, budget & timetable – The European Research Area The IST Priority – Overview of objectives, vision & content Outline of IST workprogramme 2003-2004 – – – Response to IST Expressions of Interest Focus and priorities Roadmap of calls and budget Next steps & sources of information The 6th Framework Programme Instrumental for creation of a ‘European Research Area’ ... • Towards a European research policy, • an ‘internal market’ for science & technology R&D • Community funding to help aggregate RTD effort • EU, Member State & private funded effort(s) • ‘open coordination’: • European initiatives + FP + national / regional activities Basic principles • Focus and integration, fewer priorities, ‘critical mass’, improve impact • Lasting, structuring impact • to avoid ‘end of project, end of consortium’ • Multiple projects ⌫ coherent programmes • Problem-solving ⌫ confronting challenges & exploiting opportunities ERA - implies a new way of “thinking” Develop Europe-wide approaches New instruments is no t – “Integrated Projects” & “Networks of Excellence” – More “strategic” thinking bu s in es sa su su al ! – making sure that Community funding helps aggregate EU, Member State & private funded effort(s) – it is not just supporting a particular RTD work… FP 6 Different way of describing content and calls – a lighter workprogramme, different sequencing of calls, ... The components of FP6 IN T E G R A T IN G E U R O P E A N R E S E A R C H S T R U C T U R IN G R e s e a rc h and in n o v a tio n H um an re s o u rc e s & m o b ility A N T IC IP A T IN G THE in the knowledge society Citizens and governance and global change R e s e a rc h fo r p o lic y s u p p o rt Sustainable development Food safety and health risks Aeronautics and space new production processes Nanotechnologies, intelligent mat., Information society technologies for health Genomic and biotechnology P R IO R IT Y T H E M A T IC A R E A S F ro n tie r re s e a rc h , u n e x p e c te d d e v e lo p m e n ts S p e c ific S M E a c tiv itie s S p e c ific in te rn a tio n a l c o o p e r a tio n a c tiv itie s J R C a c tiv itie s S T R E N G T H E N IN G THE F O U N D A T IO N S O F E R A ERA R e s e a rc h in fra s tru c tu r e s S /T N E E D S S c ie n c e a n d s o c ie ty C o o rd in a tio n o f re s e a rc h a c tiv itie s D e v e lo p m e n t o f re s e a rc h / in n o v a tio n p o lic ie s FP6 Budget breakdown Focusing and Integrating – – – – – – – – Genomics Information Society Technologies Nanotechnologies, int.. Aeronautics and space Food quality and safety Sustainable development Citizens and governance .. Anticipation of S&T needs • Anticipating needs • SMEs • Specific INCO Strengthening ERA foundations Structuring ERA – – – – Research and Innovation Human resources Research Infrastructures Science/Society Joint Research Centre 2255 M€ 3625 M€ 1300 M€ 1075 M€ 685 M€ 2120 M€ 225 M€ ~100M€ for GEANT/GRID 555 M€ 430 M€ 315 M€ 320 M€ 290 M€ 1580 M€ 655 M€ 80 M€ 760 M€ 16270 M€ ~200M€ for GEANT/GRID Outline of presentation FP6 Overview – Structure, budget & timetable – The European Research Area The IST Priority – Overview of objectives, vision & content Outline of IST workprogramme 2003-2004 – – – Response to IST Expressions of Interest Focus and priorities Roadmap of calls and budget Next steps & sources of information IST in FP6 - objectives & strategy Main objectives – Strengthening Europe’s competitiveness & technology base – Building the information and knowledge society for ALL Strategy – – – – – Concentration and focus, building critical mass Capitalise on Europe’s strengths Visionary, forward looking (longer term / high risk) Combine flexibility with greater speed in implementation Scope of activities: core technologies & “pull-through” applications The IST vision Bringing the users, “people”, to the foreground….. ….. to the “centre of our attention” – building trustful technologies for the background (almost invisible) Moving to an era where ….. “Our surroundings” is the interface to IST applications & services” Exploring beyond “the PC, screens & keyboard interfaces”... Enabling multi-sensorial dialogues ….. – supported by computing & networking – ‘everywhere’, embedded in everyday objects (eg: furniture, clothes, vehicles, smart materials, …) Towards an “all inclusive knowledge society” IST today “Ambient Intelligence” tomorrow • PC-based ………………………………… “Our surroundings” is the interface • “Writing and reading” ….…………….…. Use all senses, intuitive • “Word” based information search ….…… Context-based knowledge handling • Low bandwidth, separate networks …..…. Infinite bandwidth, convergence, .. • Mobile telephony (voice) ……………….. Mobile/Wireless full multimedia • Micro scale ……………………………… Nano-scale • Silicon based ….………………………… + new materials • eServices just emerging ………………… Wide adoption (eHealth, eLearning, …) •Only 5% of global population on-line …. >70% of world-wide population on line Generic Pervasive, mobile, wireless, trustful infrastructures Miniaturised, low cost low power components & µsystems Natural interactions with ‘knowledge’ IST priority in the Specific Programme Three technology building blocks + applied research Building blocks Anywhere anytime natural and enjoyable access to IST services for ALL Integration Specific Applied IST for major societal and economic challenges Security, privacy IPRs, dependability Smart cards,... Health, eInclusion, mobility, environment safety, cultural heritage Trust & Security IST for societal challenges GRIDS for E and m business, science, engineering e and m work, Learning, egovernment business and society IST for work & business challenges Demanding applications Applied IST for major societal and economic challenges ‘anywhere, anytime, anywhere, any service, for all’ core technologies & “pull-through” applications Communication, computing & software technologies Communication & networking •Mobile: beyond 3G •Fixed:All optical •Integrated (IPv6) •Audiovisual systems Software •Embedded •Distributed •Reliability •Adaptability components & µsystems µ, nano & opto electronics •CMOS: the limit •System-on-Chip •Nano-scale •New materials µ and nano systems Knowledge & interface technologies Knowledge technologies •Multidisciplines •Context based •New Sensing •Semantic based •Agent based •Networked •New materials •Scaleable •Nano-scale interfaces •All senses •Multilingual •Intuitive •‘Surrounding’ Future & Emerging Technologies More exploratory and visionary research Helping new IST-related S&T fields and communities to emerge Complementary to – other IST strategic objectives – other FP6 ‘Anticipating S&T needs / frontier research’ (new fields / multidisciplinary work) Open scheme: openness to unforeseeable ideas Proactive initiatives: critical mass where focus is needed – e.g. ‘beyond robotics’, ‘complex systems research’ GEANT + GRIDs in FP6 FP5 results GÉANT 10 Gigabit/s, EU + NAS Mediterranean International & Latin America GRIDs Test-beds Initial pilots IPv6, Quality of Service FP6 goals 100+ Gigabit/s, Terabit/s, - progressive inclusion in schools Global connectivity Large scale GRIDs platforms (virtual communities) Next Generation Internet solutions for the Research Community IST in FP6 and eEurope 2005 Longer term vision Best practices Research infrastructure IST in FP6 eEurope 2005 By 2005, Europe should have: •modern online public services •a dynamic e-business environment •widespread availability of broadband •a secure information infrastructure ERA - Wider adoption of IST - Stimulating demand - Identifying user needs Interlinked objectives but different timescales Outline of presentation FP6 Overview – Structure, budget & timetable – The European Research Area The IST Priority – Overview of objectives, vision & content Outline of IST workprogramme 20032004 – Response to IST Expressions of Interest – Focus and priorities – Roadmap of calls and budget Next steps & sources of information Workprogrammes in FP6 - main content Provides further details on … the Scientific and technical content of the calls – based on the Specific Programme text Defines the evaluation and selection criteria – common set derived from the rules for participation – additional criteria depending on objectives Defines the terms of the calls for proposals – – – objectives to be called for distribution of budget between old and new instruments weights and thresholds of criteria to be used • including participation eligibility criteria Updated as appropriate – every year for IST Workprogramme 2003-4: Process Legal basis – Framework Programme, Specific Programme – Rules for Participation Wide consultation – – – – – ISTC - IST Committee ISTAG - IST Advisory Group Programme Consultation Meetings Call for Expressions of Interest ‘Internal Reflection Groups’ and workshops Portfolio & Lessons Learned – IPPA - Integrated Programme Portfolio Analysis – Responses to previous Calls for Proposals – Experience from past and on-going projects Reports on the WEB www.cordis.lu/ist IST Workprogramme for FP6 The information on the following slides is PROVISIONAL and provided for guidance ONLY pending the adoption of the Workprogramme ! PROVISIONAL IST Workprogramme - approach ! PROVISIONAL A two year WP to ensure concentration of effort and visibility for the research Community More limited number of calls (three over two years) Concentration on a limited set of « Strategic Objectives » – selection and focus based on Europe’s options.. A total of 23 strategic objectives for the two years – 12 in 2003, 11 in 2004 (one of which in common with Priority 3) Addresses technologies and applications Instruments – ~2/3 of budget to new instruments – for each Objective: ~2 to 3 IPs, 2 to 3 NoEs and some STREPS,.. IST Workprogramme - budget phasing ! PROVISIONAL Planning over 4 years Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 Indicative Budget 835,000 891,000 935,000 964,000 Two calls drawing Calls per year on 2003 and 2004 budgets One call drawing on 2005 budget Second WP (covers also all topics of SP) with updated focus First WP covers all topics of the SP Strategic Objectives: what do they describe? Key objectives and breakthroughs to aim at, eg – ‘to develop semiconductor devices shrunk by an order of magnitude down to the 5 nm size’ Demanding research tasks to focus on, eg – ‘pushing the limits of lithography including mask-less pattern transfer’ Guidance on types of instruments to be used, eg – ‘Integrated Projects on ‘lithography’ including equipment assessments’ Reference to related member states’ and int’l activities, eg – ‘enhance and complement work under EUREKA/MEDEA’ Identification of links with related policies, eg – ‘satellite communications versus space policy’ Defining the SOs: five main groups (1) Reinforce leadership where Europe has demonstrated strengths, eg – mobile communications and services, broadband communications – micro-opto electronics & µsystems, – networked audiovisual systems... Seize new opportunities that arise from the ‘AmI’ vision and address weaknesses / threats critical for its realisation, eg – – – – embedded systems, integration of sensing & actuating devices, ... multimodal interfaces, semantic-based knowledge handling, content... Security and dependability, open standards and development tools Knowledge and computing GRIDs Defining the SOs: five main groups (2) Continued support to leading / challenging applications, responding to emerging needs, eg – – – eHealth, eInclusion, IST for safety in transport, risk management,.. eLearning and culture, Entertainment and leisure content business support tools, networked organisations,... Support to research at the frontier of knowledge – FET open – FET proactive – Cognitive science Support to infrastructure development – Research networking test beds – Open platforms – Safety, etc… i Indicative call sequence & topics (1) ! PROVISIONAL Strategic objectives addressed in Call 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Pushing the limits of CMOS, preparing for post-CMOS Micro & nano-systems Broadband access for All Mobile & wireless systems beyond 3G Towards a global dependability & security framework Multimodal interfaces Semantic-based knowledge systems Networked audiovisual systems & home platforms Networked business & government eSafety for road and air transport eHealth Technology-enhanced learning & access to cultural heritage + FET proactive + Accompanying actions Technology components Integrated systems Sectorial Applications Indicative call sequence & topics (2) Strategic objectives covered in Call 2 1. Advanced displays 2. Optical, opto-electronic, photonic functional components 3. Open development platforms for software and services 4. Cognitive systems 5. Embedded systems 6. Applications & services for the mobile user & worker 7. Cross-media content for leisure and entertainment 8. GRID-based Systems & solving complex problems 9. Improving Risk management 10. eInclusion 11. Product design & manufacturing 2010 + FET proactive + Research Networking + Accompanying actions Technology components Integrated systems Sectorial Applications WP 2003-4: Strategic Objectives and the SP - dependability & security - eHealth - eInclusion - eSafety of transport - environmental risk mgmt - learning & culture - networked organisations - services for mobile user - service & product engineering - GRID-based systems & complex pb solving Applied IST research for major societal and economic challenges ‘anywhere, anytime, anywhere, any service, for all’ core technologies & “pull-through” applications Communication, computing & software technologies - mobile: beyond 3G - software & services - broadband access development - networked audio- embedded systems visual systems Components & microsytems - [post-]CMOS - micro & nano - optical, opto-el., systems photonics - displays Knowledge & interface technologies - semantic-based knowledge - cross-media content - multi-modal interfaces - cognitive systems Example of implementation in IST Integrated Projects Current Industrial strength / presence Incremental « Monolithic » Integrated Projects Targeted Research Projects Networks of Excellence Fundamental research Basic research Industry-driven research Industrial exploitation Conclusions: Opportunities & challenges Realising ERA requires ….. – – new “thinking” concentration, critical mass & flexibility are key FP6 provides a key opportunity to shape and improve the impact of IST research in Europe – – – – A new generation of technologies & applications is emerging Europe is well positioned to shape the future & compete The pace of development is increasingly fast The aim is “people first” in an all-inclusive knowledge society Simplification of procedures and fast reactivity – an extensive effort needed to mobilise the constituency – to address the (steep) learning-curve FP5 FP6 Next Steps on the Commission Side Preparations for the first call – Support for information days and proposers – FP6 Launch Event in Brussels (11-13 Nov) – Complete & publish Workprogramme 2003-4 – Complete & publish Call related documentation (Call details, Guide for Proposers, Guide for Evaluators, Evaluation Manual, ...) – Retrofit internal procedures to FP6 (Committee, Advisory Structure, Informatics Support, ...) i IST in FP6: Sources of Information IST on CORDIS http://www.cordis.lu/ist/fp6/fp6.htm FP6 web main page http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/index_en.html New Instruments http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html Model Contracts http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/working-groups/model-contract/index_en.html Frequently asked Questions http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/faq.html The European Research Area http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/era/index_en.html CORDIS RTD beyond 2002 http://www.cordis.lu/rtd2002/ IST helpdesk Fax : +32 2 296 83 88 http://www.cordis.lu/ist/istag.htm -Mail : [email protected] IST in FP6 (including consultation meeting reports & E workshops) http://www.cordis.lu/ist/fp6/fp6.htm http://www.cordis.lu/ist/fp6/pcms.htm http://www.cordis.lu/ist/fp6/workshops.htm ISTAG on CORDIS QUESTIONS & ANSWERS Information Society Technologies In the 6th Framework Programme Integrated Projects IST 2002 Copenhagen 4-6 November A range of better differentiated instruments New instruments Integrated projects (IP) - objective driven Networks of excellence (NoE) - exploratory research Article 169 (joint implementation of national programmes) Traditional instruments Specific targeted research projects (STREPs) Co-ordination actions (CAs) Specific Support Actions (SSAs) Principles guiding their design Simplification and streamlining – to minimise the overheads for all concerned whether applicant, contractor or the Commission – to speed up procedures, especially time-to-contract Flexibility and adaptability – to enable instruments to be applicable throughout the priority themes – to enable projects to evolve Increased management autonomy – to eliminate unnecessary micro-management While preserving public accountability and protecting interests of the Community Instruments to be used in the IST priority Calls for proposals will identify which instruments are to be used, which have priority, and for what From the outset, IPs and NoE will be the priority means – for implementing those themes where it is already deemed appropriate – while maintaining the use of specific targeted research projects and coordination actions In 2004, the Commission will arrange an independent evaluation of the use of the instruments – may lead to an adjustment of their relative weightings Integrated Projects - purpose Designed to generate the knowledge required to implement the priority thematic areas of FP6 – by integrating the critical mass of activities and resources needed – to achieve ambitious, clearly defined scientific and technological objectives of a European dimension Each IP should – – – – integrate the types of activities needed to obtain the goals integrate the critical mass of resources needed to obtain the goals integrate all elements of technology chain to attain high-impact goals support industry-academia collaboration including SME’s Integrated Projects - activities Activities integrated in a project may cover the full research spectrum – – – – – – research and technology development activities demonstration activities technology transfer or take-up activities training activities dissemination activities knowledge management and exploitation An Integrated Project should comprise – a coherent set of activities – with an appropriate management structure Integrated Project - what is critical mass? 1 Concerning resources: each IP must assemble the critical mass of resources needed to achieve its ambitious objectives – activities integrated may range up to € several tens of millions (but no minimum threshold, provided necessary ambition and critical mass is achieved) Integrated Project - what is critical mass? 2 Concerning its partnership: minimum of three participants from three different Member States or Associated States, of which at least two should be Member States or Associated candidate countries – – – but in practice likely to be substantially more SME participation is strongly encouraged ‘Third country’ participants may be included, with a possibility of Community financial support for certain groups of countries Concerning its duration: typically three to five years – but more if necessary to deliver the objectives Integrated Project - financial regime Community support will be in the form of a “grant to the budget” Paid as a contribution to actual costs – – that are necessary and economic for the project that are recorded in the accounts of the participants • or, when provided for in the contract, in the accounts of third parties – that exclude indirect taxes, duties, interest… Annually, each participant to provide a summary cost statement supported by: – certification of total costs by an independent auditor – management-level justification of costs – corresponding activity report Rolling advance scheme throughout duration Integrated Projects - Cost models A single family of three closely related cost models – FC: all actual direct and indirect costs; – FCF:all actual direct costs plus 20% of these direct costs (excluding subcontracting) to cover related indirect costs; and – ACF: additional actual direct costs plus 20% of these direct costs (excluding subcontracting) to cover related indirect costs Each organisation may use only one of the models for all its FP6 participations, where they are relevant – The same cost methodologies will be used for all instruments implemented through ‘grant to the budget’ IPs - Rates of Community Support Maximum rates of support for FC and FCF participants: – 50% for RTD and innovation-related components – 35% for any demonstration component – 100% for any training activities – 100% for consortium management AC participants: supported at up to 100% for all components of the project (except for consortium management which will be supported as under FCF) For IPs, no more than 7% of the Community contribution can be used to support consortium management costs reimbursed at up to 100% Integrated Project - submission process Through calls for proposals – may be preceded by expressions of interest to help focus calls and assist in consortium building Simplified proposal-making – but with sufficient detail to allow proper evaluation – reflecting evolutionary nature of the project • summary description of activities for entire duration • detailed implementation plan only for first 18 months reflecting evolutionary nature of the project if appropriate – Items to be covered • S&T objectives, socio-economic impact • global budget estimate • justification of resources and budget • ethical, safety and gender issues... Integrated Project - evaluation process Evaluation by a strengthened peer-review system – involving one step written submission. 5 individual evaluators, panel sessions with hearings of proposals that pass all thresholds Key issues to be addressed during evaluation: – – – – – – relevance to the objectives of the specific work programme scale of ambition and potential impact S&T excellence quality of the consortium quality of the project and ‘knowledge’ management critical mass in terms of activities and resources Integrated Project - contractual aspects #1 The contract will specify the maximum Community contribution, but not its distribution among participants – consortium autonomy – elimination of major source of micro-management An annex contains – overall description of the project – detailed implementation plan only for first 18 months Advance payment: equal to 85% of the Community contribution anticipated for the first 18 months Integrated Projects - contractual aspects #2 Participants share – Joint & several technical responsibility – Joint & several financial liability (exemption for public entities) • integral part of internal flexibility and autonomy • applied by Commission at last resort Model contract will specify general conditions Consortium agreement – mandatory - except if other wise specified in the call – should cover • Internal organisation of consortium (settlement of internal disputes) • IPR arrangements – to be signed as early as possible IPs - Reporting and Payment schedule The consortium submits annual report containing: – an outline of previous 12 months’ activities – financial documents on the costs incurred (including cost certificates and management-level justification) – a detailed implementation plan and associated financial plan for the following 18 months Upon acceptance of above by the Commission: – final settlement of payment for period concerned (subject to any ex-post audit) – outstanding advance supplemented up to 85% of the anticipated Community contribution for following 18 months Integrated Projects - payment & report schedule Example of 4 year contract Reporting Accepted costs Reporting Detailed work plan Accepted costs Adjusted advance Accepted costs Detailed work plan Reporting Adjusted advance Reporting Adjusted advance Accepted costs Detailed work plan Initial advance Detailed work plan 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 Months Integrated Projects - flexibility & autonomy For the implementation plan, each year, the consortium – proposes a detailed plan for the coming 18 months – and may propose to update the overall plan • both need approval of the Commission to enter into force For changes in the consortium – the consortium may itself decide to take in new participants (though without additional funding) • the contract will specify when this must involve a competitive call – the Commission may decide to launch calls to add activities and participants (with additional funding) • e.g. to enhance SME participation Integrated Projects - three possible implementations “Monolithic” • Partners known at outset • Tasks identified • budget known “Incremental” participation •Tasks identified • budget known • not all participants are in “Incremental” funding • objectives known • technology roadmap known • tasks to be completed • budget to be changed • Participants as well IPs: addressing all needed elements of the value chain (1) Ex: Multi-sensorial interfaces Integrated project Current projects Knowledge & Data bases Intelligent Assistants & Vir tual Humans Intelligent Virtual Worlds Virtual & Augmented Realities Physical Virtual World Gesture & Fa cial Recognition Interface Layer Body Sensors Taste Speech Haptic Devices Displays Actuators Smell All needed elements of the value chain (3): Technology-applications IP MST MSTand andM@NT M@NTbased basedapplications applications//systems systems nano-microsystems nano-microsystemsas ascomponents components (nano- micro-) Packaging, Interconnect & Assembly nano nano&µ micro Passive Passive Structures Structures Techniques, Techniques, && Materials, Materials, && Effects. Effects. nano nano&µ micro Sensing Sensing Devices Devices nano nano&µ micro Actuating Actuating Devices Devices nano nano&µ micro Processing Processing Devices Devices nano-micro-optics nano-micro-optics nanonano-micro-magnetic micro-magnetic nano-micro-mechanics nano-micro-mechanics nano-micro-electronics nano-micro-electronics nanonano-micro-fluids micro-fluids nano-micro-biomedical nano-micro-biomedical nano-micro-chemical nano-micro-chemical nanonano-......................... ......................... Integration along the innovation cycle Adoption Best practice Take-up, trials IP Industry driven research Basic research Time Potential evolution of an Integrated Project – – – technology / application RTD project roadmap + single objective RTD + demonstration + take-up Workpackage Workpackage Workpackage Workpackage Workpackage Workpackage Proposed project roadmap Call for IP’s in application domain Spin-off results Call for trials Add partners e.g. SMES Call for trials Add partners e.g. SMEs Call to extend and complete Call for integration of results Application Vision 2008-2010 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS Information Society Technologies In the 6th Framework Programme Networks of Excellence IST 2002 Copenhagen 4-6 November Networks of Excellence - objectives to reinforce or strengthen scientific and technological excellence on a given research topic – by integrating the critical mass of expertise needed to provide European leadership and be a world force – around a Joint programme of activity (JPA) to help structuring European research by integrating research capacities across Europe. – Durable integration – So as to progress knowledge on a particular theme to Overcome the fragmentation of European research to act as a “Virtual Centre of Excellence” to spread excellence beyond the partners NoE - what is the scale of critical mass? Critical mass of effort – the network must assemble the critical mass needed to address key challenges in the network field – will vary from topic to topic – largest networks may involve several hundreds of researchers • but networks may be much smaller Concerning its partnership: – minimum of 3 participants – from 3 different countries (Member or Associated States) – in practice more are foreseen Concerning duration of Community support – typically five years – but more if needed to create a durable integration Budget wise – several M€ per year NoE - the “joint programme of activity” (JPA) The JPA contains a range of “additional” activities Integrating activities – – – – – – coordinated programming of the partners’ activities sharing of research platforms/tools/facilities/software libraries joint management of the knowledge portfolio - sharing of IPR staff mobility and exchanges relocation of staff, teams and equipment reinforced electronic communication systems Joint research activities – a programme of joint research to support the network’s goals Activities to spread excellence – training of researchers and other key staff – dissemination and communication - technology transfer to industry All within a unified management structure NoE - implementation Selection on the basis of calls for proposals – possibly preceded by calls for “expression of interest” – selection criteria • Potential impact on strengthening Europe’s excellence • Collective excellence & ambition of the network as a whole, the JPA, the individual members • Extent, depth and lasting character of the integration • Contribution to spreading of excellence • Management and governance of the network… Greater degree of autonomy – possibility to modify plans, work allocation, launch call for participation A “strengthened” peer evaluation system: – in various stages, possibly involving individual reviews, panel sessions, hearings of applicants… Funding (grant for integration) – funding is NOT a ratio of the total cost i NoE - flexibility & autonomy For the joint programme of activities, each year – detailed JPA for the coming 18 months – possible updating of the overall JPA • both need approval by the Commission to enter into force For the allocation of the Community grant – distribution among partners & activities on an autonomous basis (consortium agreement) For changes in the network partnership – the partnership may decide to take in new partners (without additional funding) • the contract will specify when this must involve a competitive call – the Commission may decide to launch calls to add partners (with additional funding) NoE -financial regime, general principles Community support must be targeted at overcoming the barriers to durable integration – these barriers are often organisational, cultural & human (cannot be quantified in normal accounting terms) Has led to the concept of an incentive …. taking the form of a global “fixed grant for integration” – calculated on basis of the total number of researchers that make up the research capacities of the partners on the topic of the network – where a “researcher” has a PhD or at least four years research experience – with a bonus for registered PhD students Payments in the form of annual disbursements of the grant will be paid on the basis of results – will depend on a progressive advance towards a durable integration – with an additional check that costs of at least the value of the grant were incurred in implementing the JPA NoE - financial regime Grant for integration based on: – – – – the degree of integration proposed by the consortium the number of researchers that all participants intend to integrate the characteristics of the field of research concerned the joint programme of activities a lump sum per researcher ‘involved’ – starts from 20K€ per researcher – diminishes as the number of researchers increases Payments – – – – – disbursed in annual instalments according to planned progress in the JPA including the effort towards lasting integration possibly degressive to avoid dependence can be used by the network for any activity Grant for integration - illustration The average annual grant to a network could vary with the number of researchers as follows 50 researchers ……………………. € 1 million/year 100 researchers ……………………... € 2 million/year 150 researchers …………………..…. € 3 million/year 250 researchers ……………………… € 4 million/year 500 researchers ……………………… € 5 million/year 1000 researchers & above …………… € 6million/year for intermediate numbers the grant would be calculated by linear interpolation In this illustration a network of 200 researchers supported over 5 years would therefore receive a fixed grant of €17.5M (plus bonus for registered PhD students) NoE - governance and monitoring A network’s governance must ensure institutional engagement by the partner organisations – through e.g. a “governing council” of … senior representatives from the partners • to oversee integration of the partners’ activities Robust output monitoring by the Commission, involving external experts at all stages – annual reviews • basis for payment by results • triggering a yellow flag/red flag, if a review is failed – end-of-term review • to assess impact of network on strengthening and spreading excellence NoE - aims at integrating & shaping research The NoE field The JPA Partner 2 Partner 2 Partner1 Par tn Partner 1 Partner 2 Partner1 Partner 4 er 3 RTD activities in Europe before the NoE(today) Partner 4 Partner 3 Integrating activities “Binding” Partner 3 with the NoE Coordinated Partner 4 Example Situation before the network: – good isolated research teams in Europe – fragmented effort, redundancy of work, multiplication of effort on basic research tools such as software libraries etc… – a huge gap with US, Japan in terms of quality of deliverables and impact – links to industry very sparse The network: – Brings together between 8 to 15 the best teams in Europe – Between 50 and 150 researchers per year – EU funds are a small part of the total effort – Helps emerge common research work between ALL team members – Fosters exchange of knowledge, coordination of activities, – buillds links with the US, Japan,… – Common deliverables, co-written papers and common research tools Example Main outcomes – Solid research community with coordinated activities – common software libraries incorporating all advances brought by all teams – agreement on common open standards, methodologies for data representations, for visualisation , for problems handling.... – From coordination to common programmes.. – Wider dissemination of activities to SMEs, etc.. QUESTIONS & ANSWERS Information Society Technologies In the 6th Framework Programme Traditional Instruments Specific Targeted Research Projects Co-ordination Actions Specific Support Actions IST 2002 Copenhagen 4-6 November Objectives and Activities of STREPs Designed to generate the knowledge required to improve European competitiveness and to meet the needs of society or Community policies: – by improving existing or developing new products, processes or services and/or – by proving the viability of new technologies offering potential economic advantage May combine any of the following types of activities: – Targeted, well defined and precisely focused research and technological development – Demonstration component(s) as appropriate – Project management Objectives and Activities of CAs Designed to promote and support the networking and co-ordination of research and innovation activities at national, regional and European level. – by establishing in a coherent way co-ordinated initiatives of a range of research and innovation operators, in order to achieve improved integration of the European research. May combine the following two types of activities – Co-ordination activities – Project management activities Types of Co-ordination activities Each CA shall consist of a work plan, incorporating all or some of the following types of mid/long term collaborative activities: • Organisation of conferences, of meetings; • Performance of studies, analysis; • Exchanges of personnel; • Exchange and dissemination of good practice; • Setting up of common information systems • Setting up of expert groups; • Definition, organisation, management of joint or common initiatives. Objectives and Activities of SSAs Designed to – complement the other FP6 instruments, – help in preparations for future Community research and technological development policy activities and – stimulate, encourage and facilitate the participation of SMEs, small research teams, newly developed and remote research centres, as well as those organisations from the Candidate Countries in the activities of the priority thematic areas. May combine the following two types of activities – Support activities – Project management activities Types of Support activities Each SSA shall have a work plan, which may consist of one or more (as appropriate on a case by case basis) of the following activities: • • • • • • • Conferences, seminars, working groups and expert groups; Studies, analysis; Fact findings and monitoring; Trans-national technology transfer and take-up related services; Development of research or innovation strategies; High level scientific awards and competitions; Operational support and dissemination, information and communication activities. Expected scale for STREPs, CAs and SSAs Resources: each project must assemble the resources needed to achieve its objectives – activities included may range up to several millions of € • but no minimum threshold Partnership: minimum of three participants from three different countries (for an SSA a single one eligible) – but in practice likely to be more • SME participation is strongly encouraged • ‘Third country’ participants may be included, with a possibility of Community financial support for certain groups of countries Duration: typically two to three years – but exceptionally more if duly justified as necessary to deliver the objectives Financial regime for STREPs, CAs and SSAs Designed to generate the knowledge required to Community support will be in the form of a “grant to the budget” Paid as a contribution to actual costs – that are incurred, economic and necessary for the project, determined according to own rules – that are recorded in the accounts of the participants • or, when provided for in the contract, in the accounts of third parties – that exclude indirect taxes, duties, interest, profit… Annually, each participant to provide a summary cost statement – certified by an independent auditor (if required) – supported by a management-level justification of costs Cost models for STREPs, CAs and SSAs A single family of closely related cost models – full costs (FC), – variation of full-costs (FCF), incorporating a flat-rate component of 20% of all direct costs apart from subcontracting – additional costs (ACF), incorporating a flat-rate component of 20% of all direct costs apart from subcontracting – Each organisation may use only one of the models for all its FP6 participations, can move from FCF to FC but not visa versa STREPS: Use all three cost models FC, FCF, ACF CAs and SSAs: Use only two cost models: FCF and ACF Rates of EC support for STREPs, CAs and SSAs Maximum rates of support for FC and FCF participants: – – – Up to 50% for RTD components (STREPs) Up to 35% for any demonstration component (STREPs) Up to 100% for any co-ordination and/or support activities (CAs-SSAs) – 100% for project management (up to 7% of EC contribution; all three instruments) ACF participants supported at up to 100% of additional costs for all components of the project, irrespectively of instrument type (+ recurring project management costs as above) Evaluation process for STREPs, CAs and SSAs Calls for proposals (STREPs, CAs and SSAs) – published in the OJ, via CORDIS web-site, via NCPs Calls for tender for SSAs – where the legal entities are identified in the WP – for purchase of a service Simplified proposal-making – limited to sufficient “management level” detail Evaluation by a peer-review system similar to the one in FP5 (SSAs also by EC staff) 6 Key issues to be considered for the evaluation of STREPs-CAs, 5 Key issues for SSAs Key issues in the evaluation of STREPs Relevance to the objectives of the programme – S&T, S-E, policy objectives of WP S&T excellence – focus, progress beyond state-of-art, S&T approach Potential impact – competitiveness, societal problems, European dimension, optimal use of results Quality of the consortium – commitment, suitability, complementarity, SMEs Quality of the management – project, knowledge, IPR, innovation Mobilisation of resources – necessity, coherence, financial plan Key issues in the evaluation of CAs Relevance to the objectives of the programme – S&T, S-E, policy objectives of WP Quality of the co-ordination – progress beyond state-of-art, robustness of mechanisms Potential impact – European dimension, Community support, critical mass mobilisation, optimal use of results Quality of the consortium – suitability, complementarity Quality of the management – project, knowledge, IPR, innovation Mobilisation of resources – necessity, coherence, financial plan Key issues in the evaluation of SSAs Relevance to the objectives of the programme – support objectives of WP, Call, SPs, ERA Quality of the support action – soundness and quality of design, competencies, innovationoriginality Potential impact – European dimension, Community support, optimal use of results Quality of the management – credibility of capacity to deliver Mobilisation of resources – necessity, financial plan Implementation of STREPs, CAs and SSAs For the work plan, the consortium – – proposes a detailed plan for the whole duration and may propose to modify the detailed work plan • but needs approval of the Commission to enter into force and • without modifying the overall objectives and deliverables For the Community contribution – the contract will not specify its distribution between participants For changes in the consortium – the consortium may modify its composition (subject to Commission approval, without additional funding, infrequent occurrence) Payments and reporting schedule Example of a three year STREP, CA or SSA project Final activity report Final payment Reported costs + audit certificate (mandatory) Periodic activity report (mid-term review : optional) Reported costs + (audit certificate if required) Intermediate payment/ settlement Detailed work plan Initial advance 0 6 12 14 18 20 24 26 Months 30 36 38 Monitoring of STREPs, CAs and SSAs Follow-up scheme: Commission PO assigned may foresee mid-term review with assistance of experts (e.g. if duration 3 years or more), with a go/no go decision to continue the project may include various types of audits as appropriate STREPs main characteristics STREPs compared to IPs: – The STREP scale of ambition is much more limited than that of IPs, consequently : – Different: Value of activities, Duration, Size of the consortium, Types of activities, Types of Calls (EOI-Calls), Evaluation process/key issues (partly), Negotiation, Consortium agreement, Implementation (partly), Foolow-up (partly) STREPs compared to FP5 RTD projects : – Similar: Objectives, Scale of ambition, Value, Duration, Size of consortium, Types of participants, Calls, Evaluation, Negotiation, Follow-up, Audits – Different: Financial regime, Simplified Proposals, Contractual aspects, Consortium agreement, Collective responsibility, Implementation, IPR CAs main characteristics CAs compared to NoE: – Instrument for ad hoc co-operation between organisations for a specific purpose - no requirement for durable integration of all activities – A networking instrument for research funded from other sources (EC/national/regional) CAs compared to SSAs: – Instrument for more longer term co-operation and networking compared to the more stand alone activities to be funded by SSAs CAs compared to IPs and STREPs: – CA is not an instrument to fund research SSAs main characteristics SSAs compared to CAs: – Instrument to support the implementation of the programme, priority or research objective - in most cases - stand alone events (meetings, conferences, studies etc.) – Instrument for future oriented activities: research roadmaps, identification of future research objectives – Instrument for dissemination and uptake of programme results SSAs compared to IPs and STREPs: – SSA is not an instrument to fund research activities Characteristics of the instruments Instrument Purpose Primary deliverable Scale IP objectivedriven research knowledge med-high NoE tackle fragmentation structuring med-high 169 joint MS programmes knowledge and/or structuring high STRP research knowledge low-med CA coordination coordination low-med SSA support support low-med For further information Regularly updated website on the instruments: europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html http://www.cordis.lu http:// www.cordis.lu/ist http:// www.cordis.lu/ist/fp6/fp6.htm http:// www.cordis.lu/rtd2002 IST helpdesk Fax : +32 2 296 83 88 E-Mail : [email protected] QUESTIONS & ANSWERS Proposal submission and evaluation for the IST Priority in the 6th Framework Programme IST 02 Conference and Exhibition Copenhagen 4-6 November 2002 IST Priority Infopack for Call 1 IST Priority Workprogramme 2003-2004 Call for proposals text Call 1 (Official Journal) Brochure “The 6FP in Brief” Guides for proposers Call 1 Evaluation Manual Guidelines for Evaluators for IST Call 1 IST Priority Workprogramme 2003-2004 For the IST Priority 2003-2004 Technical description of the Research objectives Gives the call “roadmap” and indicative total budgets Identifies instruments applicable to each Research objective For each instrument Identifies the 5/6 evaluation criteria Assigns weights Indicates threshold scores required * (*threshold on Overall score also) Call for proposals text (Official Journal) Identifies the Research objectives open in Call Identifies the instruments applicable to each objective Repeats the indicative budget information Notes the consortium eligibility rules Specifies modalities/address for submission of proposals Fixes call deadline * (*based on time of arrival of proposal) Brochure and Guides for proposers Brochure “The 6FP in Brief” - An overview Guide for proposers - Call 1 - Integrated projects Guide for proposers - Call 1 - Networks of excellence Guide for proposers - Call 1 - Spec. targeted research proj. Guide for proposers - Call 1 - Coordination actions Guide for proposers - Call 1 - Specific support measures Guide for proposers - Continuous Call - FET Open Guide for proposers - Continuous Call - Grant applications Guide for proposers Type of submission and evaluation One step submission - a written proposal * One step evaluation for IPs and NOEs, based on written material and a hearing for all above-threshold proposals One step evaluation for other instruments, based on written material only (* FET Open in Continuous call - two step submission) Guide for proposers How to prepare a proposal Pre-registration - highly recommended Part A (forms) Part B (format for text document) Acknowledgment of receipt Guide for proposers Proposal Part A Form A1 - General information on Proposal Type of instrument Proposal no., Acronym, Full title Duration in months Call id Research objective (s) Proposal abstract, keywords One A1 form per proposal Guide for proposers Proposal Part A Form A2 - Information on participants Participant no *., Name, Address etc. (* Coordinator is participant no. 1) Activity type, Legal status, SME Dependencies with other participants Person in charge - Name, Address etc. Proposal previously submitted As many A2 forms as there are consortium members Guide for proposers Proposal Part A Form A3 - Cost breakdown All instruments except NOE Activity type Cost Req grant Participant 1 Participant 2 etc Total One A3 form per proposal Activity type…... Cost Req grant…. Total Cost Req grant Guide for proposers Proposal Part A Form A3 - Cost breakdown Networks of excellence No. of researchers to be integrated Female Male Total Participant 1 Participant 2 etc Total No. of PhD students to be integrated table as above Guide for proposers Proposal Part B All instruments Title page Links to Priority (Research objectives) Criterion 1 aspects Criterion 2 aspects etc Other aspects (ethics, safety, gender issues….) Overall workplan of project IPs, NOEs additionally provide 18 month Implementation plan/JPA (detailed) Guide for proposers Proposal submission Electronically via the Internet (from early 2003) On CD/diskette, with paper backup (from early 2003) On paper (one copy) to the ADDRESS SET OUT IN THE CALL TEXT NOT to the address used in FP5: NOT to any other Commission office ! Submission and parts of proposals PART A PART B PROPOSAL CONTENT • Objectives and expected impact •Work plan and associated budget •The consortium and the project resources •Project management •Exploitation and dissemination plans •Ethics, safety and other issues (where relevant) See Info-Pack/“Guide for Proposers” for precise details IST Guidelines for Evaluators and Eval. manual Overview of evaluation process Commission eligibility check : Complete, eligible consortium, in scope, timely arrival Experts’ individual reading Consensus group 3-5 experts per proposal IP and NOE hearings Panel discussion full panel PROPOSAL SELECTION PROCEDURE CALL FOR PROPOSALS Eligibility Check: Commission EVALUATION: Peer review principles/ independent experts •Official Journal •CORDIS •NCPs INFORMATION Programme Committee MARKING AND PRIORITY ORDER OF PROPOSALS NEGOTIATION Panel (optional) FUNDING SCENARIO(s) Commission SIGNATURE OF CONTRACT IST Calls 2003-2004 (provisional) Call roadmap Call 1 Open 17th December 2002 Close 17h00 24th April 2003 Continuous call (FET Open & Grants) Publication 17th December 2002 Open by February 2003 Call 2 Open 15th June 2003 Close 17h00 17th October 2003 IST Calls 2003-2004 More information at http://www.cordis.lu/ist and: IST infodesk Phone: +32 2 296 85 96 Fax: +32 2 296 83 88 E-Mail: [email protected] Held Og Lykke ! (Good Luck !) QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
© Copyright 2024