Erasmus+: Knowledge Alliances and Sector Skills Alliances Infoday 12 November 2014 1 Knowledge Alliances Corinne Leveque Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency 2 Table of Contents • • • • • • • Knowledge Alliances – Specific features Applications submitted in April 2014 - Overview Award Criteria and advice Selection 2014 - Lessons learnt Examples of good practices Examples of on-going Knowledge Alliances Last tips and recommendations before the submission deadline 3 Knowledge Alliances Specific Features 4 What are Knowledge Alliances? Knowledge Alliances are: • transnational projects between HEIs and businesses • open to any discipline, sector and to cross-sectoral cooperation • meant to have a short and long-term impact on the wide range of stakeholders involved, at individual, organisational and systemic level The partners share common goals and work together towards mutually beneficial results and outcomes. 5 Minimum partnership requirements • At least 6 organisations from 3 different Programme Countries • At least 2 HEIs and 2 companies 6 Pay special attention to: Mobility: Optional Knowledge Alliances may organise mobility activities of students, researchers and staff in so far as they support/complement the other activities of the Alliance and bring added value in the realisation of the project's objectives. Mobility activities do not constitute the main activities of a Knowledge Alliance; extending and scaling- up these activities would need to be supported via the Key Action 1 of this Programme or other funding instruments. NB: The budget planned for mobility activities can not be used to finance ordinary costs for travels and susbistence (e.g attendance costs, partnership meetings) 7 Pay special attention to: Partner countries • If applicable, the involvement of a participating organisation from a Partner Country must bring an essential added value to the project 8 Pay special attention to: The 'ECHE charter' requirement • HEIs established in a Programme Country must hold a valid Erasmus Charter for Higher Education (ECHE) 9 Applications Submitted in April 2014 Overview 10 150 applications were initially expected …230 applications were submitted 11 Submitted applications Countries of applicant organisations 12 Submitted applications 13 Submitted applications Average partnership size 14 Submitted applications Type of organisations involved 979 1000 900 800 700 585 600 500 400 272 300 200 100 115 12 16 28 26 28 30 12 30 13 87 5 105 23 0 15 Submitted applications Sectors and topics • Wide diversity of sectors: health, tourism, environment, engineering, transport, SME support, food sector, textile, etc. • Entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial attitude and skills in >50 % of applications • >70% of the proposals have put forward new curricula, study programmes, courses or training • modules Among the less represented expected results: new cooperation arrangements/funding (9,6%) 16 Selection outcomes With the budget available + substantial additional funding: 6+3 (4) projects = 9 (10) selected projects for a total amount of more than 8,4 M€ 17 Award Criteria and Advice 18 4 Award criteria for Knowledge Alliances • Relevance of the project • Quality of the project design and implementation • Quality of the project team and the cooperation arrangements • Impact and dissemination Relevance of the project Key points • Proposal relevant to the objectives of the Action • Objectives based on a sound needs analysis, clearly defined, realistic • Innovation: Proposal considers state-of-the-art methods and techniques, and leads to project-specific innovative results and solutions • European added value: proposal demonstrates added value through trans-nationality and potential transferability 20 Quality of the project design & implementation Key points • Comprehensive set of appropriate activities to meet the identified needs and lead to the expected results • Work programme clear, covers all phases • Management: timelines, organisation, tasks and responsibilities well defined and realistic. Appropriate resources allocated to each activity • Specific measures for evaluation of processes and deliverables 21 Quality of the project team and the cooperation arrangements Key points • Involvement of appropriate mix of HEIs and businesses; contributions of HEIs and businesses, pertinent and complementary; each participating organisation demonstrates full involvement • Arrangements for decision-making, conflict resolution, reporting and communication between organisations • Involvement of Partner Countries: if applicable, shall bring an essential added value to the project 22 Impact and dissemination Key points • Exploitation: how outcomes will be used within project lifetime and after • Dissemination of results, appropriate activities, tools and channels to ensure the results are spread to stakeholders and non-participating audience • Impact: societal and economic relevance and outreach; measures to monitor progress and assess the ST and LT impact • Sustainability: appropriate measures and resources to ensure that partnership, project results will be sustained beyond the project lifetime 23 How to impress Experts • • • • Coherent (issues, solutions, target groups, activities, budget) Evidence-based (needs analysis, state of the art) Clear (objectives, solutions, outputs) Rigorous in its planning (what activities, when, for how long, and with what resources) • Explicit (no information for granted, if it is not in your proposal it cannot be taken into account) • Concise (write efficiently, respect the character limitation- more is not better) • Circumscribed (your proposal should focus on a specific issue) 24 Selection 2014 – Lessons Learnt 25 Recurrent weaknesses Rationale-Objectives: Lack of information on how the application is meeting the KA objectives- Ideas and rationale tend to come from the HEIs perspective only • Consortium- enterprises: Too few companies actively involved and show solid commitment of setting up an alliance with the purpose of building a long lasting partnership with HEIs • Needs analysis: lack of adequate, detailed and convincing explanation • 26 Recurrent weaknesses State of the art-innovation: state of art rarely ventures beyond a superficial consideration of the lead partner's or consortium's own experience – Lack of information on innovation • Impact -sustainability: many proposals underestimated the importance of defining proper impact and sustainability strategy • Weak or undefined exploitation of results • Sustainability: limited to the reviewing of project results, updating of conclusions, maintenance of the project website • 27 Examples of Good Practise 28 Good examples • Balanced cooperation between HEIs, industry "The consortium is large, well balanced, and has the competences needed to deliver the project. The participating organisations' commitment to the project is credibly demonstrated. The HEIs involved are well versed in entrepreneurship education and provide access to a large range of PhD students. The inclusion of a large number of companies with experience along the "innovation chain" is a key strength." 29 Good examples • Needs analysis "Project design is based on relevant studies about current course offerings on entrepreneurship within Europe. The project draws from a number of previous projects and initiatives. The proposal provides links to the relevant European policies and strategies. It also builds on many initiatives from individual institutions." 30 Good examples • Project design and implementation "The proposed methodology is clear. The work plan provides for a logical sequencing of activities, and graphics further illustrate the content and duration of the individual work packages. The proposed project management structure is highly relevant for a project of this size and duration. The project manager, work package leaders, task leaders, and management board each have clear roles and responsibilities. Planned collaboration mechanisms are well suited. Management and delivery is expected to contribute to strong leadership and active decision-making." 31 Good examples • Impact "The project’s target groups are defined and sufficiently quantified. The main target group will take part in the needs analysis stage and in pilot testing. Other target groups include academic and company staff involved in entrepreneurship education, incubation centres, business angel and venture capital investors, business and start-up support organisations and networks as well as national and European decision makers. The project has a potential to provide a step change in entrepreneurship support by disseminating the project to a range of academic, incubation and entrepreneurship centres, and engaging with private capital investors and business support networks." 32 Good examples • Sustainability "Sustainability of project results will be achieved by including the developed tools in the HEIs concerned and beyond. The objectives for sustaining the collaboration between HEIs and the private sector are very ambitious. It is not only intended to maintain and expand the existing partnership, but the aim is also to establish a global innovation competencies network." 33 Ongoing Knowledge Alliances 34 35 36 37 15 Weeks before the Submission Deadline Final Tips and Recommendations 38 Final recommendations • • • • • Check EACEA website on the KA on a regular basis (FAQs) Complete the PIC process in advance Read and understand the eForm package Approval from participating institutions is essential and can take time Use the eForm and official templates to prepare your application package 39 Final recommendations • Do not wait until the last minute to submit • If you have questions: consult EACEA website, read the documents, contact us at: [email protected] • Technical submission: see eForm User Guide. If you experience technical difficulties with the submission of your eForm, contact by email the helpdesk BEFORE the submission deadline, send proof and time of occurrence, and back up copy of your eForm and annexes) 40 Submission Deadline: 26 February 2015, 12:00 noon (midday, Brussels time) Good luck !