dieter brigitta bio-based industries joint …...• horizon 2020 methodology –3 main evaluation...
TRANSCRIPT
Bio-based IndustriesJoint Undertaking
How to write a good proposal?
Project Officer
Brussels, 22 April 2020
Dieter BRIGITTA
• « Can you please share concrete examples of well-written
and badly written proposals? »
• Confidentiality is key → we tried to anonymise the
requested examples / proposals…
• …but anonymised proposals are not concrete enough
Dear BBI JU…
• Call 2016-2019 Brussels info days
– « Think like / write for an evaluator »
– Which information would you need to check if the proposal ‘ticks all
the boxes’, i.e. is in line with the (whole) topic text?
– How can you best structure this information, taking into account the
proposal template & page limits (50p for CSAs, 70p for RIA/IA)?
• This presentation:
– Frequently voiced comments from experts during past evaluations…
– …and how to proactively solve them
What can and can’t we share?
• Horizon 2020 methodology
– 3 main evaluation criteria: Excellence, Impact, Implementation
– Each main criterion: different evaluation subcriteria
– Differences per type of action (CSA, RIA, IA)
• BBI JU-specific subcriteria
– Although the same main criteria and all H2020 subcriteria are
applicable…
– …BBI JU also uses some specific subcriteria
BBI JU evaluation principles
« This part is written in a (too) vague / broad way »
Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?
Excellence
/
Impact
Dissemination, exploitation,
communication plans, IPR
management
• Be specific (e.g. which conferences / journals?)
• Use quantification if relevant (amount of videos, newsletters,…)
• Explicitly mention / describe IPR management
Implementation
• Management structures /
procedures
• Risk & innovation
management
• Be specific; don’t overuse ‘this will be further defined in the consortium
agreement’
• If relevant, also include non-scientific/technical risks (e.g. business,
social, project management,...)
• Include credible risks & risk mitigation measures («it will not
happen» is not a mitigation measure)
« The proposal does more than the topic requires »
Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?
Excellence
Overall concept (topic requires
A, proposal does A & B)
Main question: how ‘big’ is B? If too big, then the proposal might be
partially out of scope, and (too many) resources might be used on
activities not requested by the topic → lower score
Impact
Expected impacts listed in the
topic text
E.g. topic text requires 50% greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction,
and proposal mentions 70% reduction.
• 70% reaches the target → positive evaluation, higher score
• …but the 70% needs to be credible (via e.g. a calculation).
→ A credible 50% reduction is better than a non-credible 70%!
Implementation
Work plan
E.g. overall concept only talks about A, but the work plan included
activities linked to A & B → work plan not in line with concept → lower
score
« What is the proposal’s benchmark? »
Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?
Excellence
(Going beyond the) state of the art
(SOTA)
• Use a table format: where we are now, and where we want to go
• Ideally, add TRLs (Technology Readiness Levels) in this table
Impact
Expected impacts listed in the topic
text
Clearly describe the current situation (e.g. « we will reduce energy
use with 30% ». Compared to which benchmark?)
Implementation
/
« The ‘consortium own contribution’ is unclear »
Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?
Excellence
/
Impact
(RIA/IA) Consortium own
contribution
Understand the BBI JU terminology, and include the 3 potential
‘consortium own contribution’ parts in the correct part of the proposal:
• ‘In kind’ contributions = total costs minus total requested funding
(→ budget should reflect this)
• Financial (in cash’) contributions: to be included in part A
(quantification) and part B (section 3.4: qualitative description)
• Additional investments: to be included in part A (quantification) and
part B (section 3.4: qualitative description)
Implementation
/
« Where is the business case/plan info?»
Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?
Excellence
/
Impact
/
Implementation
Business case / business plan (IA)
IA-specific evaluation subcriterion: ‘business case and plan’
• (Only) in IAs, you can add a comprehensive business case and
plan after part B’s section 5 → not included in page limit!
• Make cross-references between this ‘extra’ section and section
2, where you typically should describe the exploitation plan
• ‘Standard requirements’ for proposals for the different actions– Annual Work Plan, Table 3, p. 30-32
– Per type of action (excl. CSAs): standard requirements, on top of the topic-specific requirements found in the topic texts
« How to evaluate the ‘standard requirements’? »
Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?
Excellence
Most standard requirements fit best under
‘Excellence’ (logistics, relationship with other
projects,…)
Use a table (left: standard requirement; right: how the
proposal tackles this)
Implementation
• Work plan (standard requirement
‘sustainability assessment – LCA’)
• Business plan / business models
Use a table, explicitly mentioning the ‘standard
requirements’ (→ the expert-evaluator knows that you
have tackled this), potentially referring / cross-
referencing to other parts of the proposal (page limits!)
• « Think like / write for an evaluator »
• Read / use the Annual Work Plan, which contains:– Topic texts
– ‘Standard requirements’ (table 3)
– A topics glossary (definitions applicable to Call 2020)
– The evaluation (sub)criteria per type of action (CSA/RIA/IA)
• Please consult the BBI JU website:– The Guide for Applicants (GfA), which contains examples and the
proposal template
– The Call 2020 ‘FAQ for Applicants’
– The SIRA (which contains e.g. the definitions of BBI JU KPIs)
How to write a good BBI JU proposal?
Thank you