success factors in grant applications and research projects: seminar
DESCRIPTION
Success factors in grant applications and research projects: seminar. To describe the initiation, design and delivery of a successful project grant funded through the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme. OR. A year in the lives of some European academics. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Success factors in Success factors in grant applications and grant applications and research projects: research projects: seminarseminar
To describe the initiation, design and delivery of a successful project grant funded through the European
Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme
OR
A year in the lives of some European academics
European Commission Framework Programmes
http://cordis.europa.eu/home_en.html
The Framework Programmes are the European Union’s chief instrument for funding research
Major element:
Collaborative projects through transnational consortia of academics and industry
•Health •Food, agriculture and fisheries, and biotechnology •Information and communication technologies •Nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and new production technologies •Energy •Environment (including climate change) •Transport (including aeronautics) •Socio-economic sciences and the humanities •Space •Security
“FP7” Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development 2007-2013
€50 billion
Plus
€2.7 billion (EURATOM)
Euratom FP7-Fission-2007 call
22 December 2006
Radiation Protection:Medical uses of radiation
Topic-2007-3.2.1:
“Enhanced safety and efficacy in the medical uses of radiation”
Objective of Topic Fission-2007-3.2.1: “Enhance the safety and efficacy of the uses of radiation in diagnosis and therapy through new technological developments and achieving a proper balance between the benefits and risks of radiation”
Cone Beam CT
(CBCT)
What could be funded?
Collaborative projects from 24-60 months duration
Up to €2.5 million EC contribution
At least 3 independent legal entities required in different EU states
The review process
Evaluation criteria applicable to Collaborative project proposals
S/T QUALITY “Scientific and/or
technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed
by the call)”
IMPLEMENTATION “Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management”
IMPACT “Potential impact
through the development,
dissemination and use of project results”
• Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives • Progress beyond the state-of-the-art • Quality and effectiveness of the S/T methodology and associated work plan
• Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures • Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants • Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarity, balance) • Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment)
• Contribution, at the European [and/or international] level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic/activity • Appropriateness of measures for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property.
Each of the three criteria awarded score out of 5
0 - The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information. 1 - Very poor. The criterion is addressed in a cursory and unsatisfactory manner. 2 - Poor. There are serious inherent weaknesses in relation to the criterion in question. 3 - Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses that would need correcting. 4 - Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although certain improvements are possible. 5 - Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
Scoring criteria
Wednesday 31st January 2007: CDMA Building, Brussels: Information Meeting
Information about the Call
Opportunity to “network” and find partners
To be seen!
To be heard!
Encouraged by Brussels meeting
Build a multi-part project dealing with:
•Justification of CBCT use
•Dosimetry
•Quality Assurance
•Diagnostic Accuracy
•Cost Effectiveness
•Training and dissemination
Building the team
Multidisciplinary (dentists, radiologists, physicists, methodologists, health economists)
Participant no.
Participant organisation name
Town Country
1 (Coordinator)
University of Manchester
Manchester UK
2 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Athens Greece
3 “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Cluj-Napoca
Cluj Romania
4 Leeds Test Objects Ltd.
Boroughbridge UK
5 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Leuven Belgium
6 Malmö University Malmö Sweden 7 Vilnius University Vilnius Lithuania
Lead scientists to draft their own “Work Packages”
To define “Deliverables”
The Coordinator to try to mould these together; add “Milestones”.
Meeting arranged in Malmő for 23 March 2007
SEDENTEX CT Project PERT chart
WP3Participant
Responsible:NKUA
Startdate Month 1
Enddate
Month36
WP4Participant
Responsible:KULeuven
Startdate Month 1
Enddate
Month36
WP 2Participant
Responsible:KULeuven
Startdate Month 1
Enddate
Month36
WP1Participant
Responsible:UNIMAN
Startdate
Month1
Enddate
Month40
WP5Participant
ResponsibleMAHOD
Startdate
Month1
Enddate
Month36
WP6Participant
Responsible:UNIMAN
Startdate
Month1
Enddate
Month42
Stakeholder input
to WP1 at: M38-M41to WP6 at: M3-M8,
M24-M36
36M
36M
36M
36M
12M40M
23T
26T
Building the methodology
GENERAL INFORMATION
Project title Safety and Efficacy of a New and Emerging Dental X-ray Modality
Starting date January 1st 2008 Duration in months 42 Call (part) identifier FP7-Fission-2007 Activity code(s) most relevant to your topic
Fission-2007-3.2-01
Free keywords Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Diagnostic Imaging; Radiation Dosimetry; Guidelines; Radiation Protection
Abstract The aim of this proposal is the acquisition of the key information necessary for sound and scientifically based clinical use of dental Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). In order that safety and efficacy are assured and enhanced in the ‘real world’, the parallel aim is to use the information to develop evidence-based guidelines dealing with justification, optimisation and referral criteria and to provide a means of dissemination and training for users of CBCT. The objectives and methodology of the collaborative project are: 1. To develop evidence-based guidelines on use of CBCT in dentistry, including referral criteria, quality assurance guidelines and optimisation strategies. Guideline development will use systematic review and established methodology, involving stakeholder input. 2. To determine the level of patient dose in dental CBCT, paying special attention to paediatric dosimetry, and personnel dose. 3. To perform diagnostic accuracy studies for CBCT for key clinical applications in dentistry by use of in vitro and clinical studies. 4. To develop a quality assurance programme, including a tool/tools for quality assurance work (including a marketable quality assurance phantom) and to define exposure protocols for specific clinical applications. 5. To measure cost-effectiveness of important clinical uses of CBCT compared with traditional methods. 6. To conduct valorisation, including dissemination and training, activities via an ‘open access’ website. At all points, stakeholder involvement will be intrinsic to study design.
.... is the acquisition of the key information necessary for sound and scientifically based clinical use of dental Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)
.....to use the information to develop evidence-based guidelines dealing with justification, optimisation and referral criteria and to provide a means of dissemination and training for users of CBCT
Safety and Efficacy of a New and Emerging Dental X-ray Modality
Deliverables list Del. No.
Deliverable name WP no.
Nature Dissemination level
Delivery date
D0.1 Consortium agreement 0 R CO T2 D1.1 Search strategies defined 1 R PU T2 D5.1 Design and sending out
protocol for information of time and costs for different CBCT examinations.
5 O RE T4
D1.2 Literature searches complete
1 R PU T4
D3.1 Phantom 1st prototype design and manufacture
3 P CO T7
D6.1 Report of needs analysis of major stakeholders
6 R PU T7
D1.3 Systematic review complete
1 R PU T8
D5.2 Analysis of time and cost spent on different CBCT examinations in all participating radiology departments
R PU T8
D0.2 Project annual report 0 R CO T11
List of milestones Milestone number
Milestone name Work package(s) involved
Expected date
Means of validation
0.1 First Project Management meeting
0 T0 Report available to Commission
1.1 First Guideline Development Panel meeting
1 T0 Provisional guideline development procedure agreed
6.1 First WP6 Group Meeting 6 T0 Website content list defined
0.2 Consortium agreement signed off
0 T2 Report available to Commission
1.2 Search strategies defined 1 T2 Written protocols
5.1 Cost analysis protocols completed
5 T2 Written protocols
6.2 Round 1 Delphi process 6 T2 Material sent to respondents
1.3 Literature search completed 1 T4 List of studies finalised
0.3 Second Project Management meeting
0 T5 Report available to Commission
Task - 1 2008Q - 2 2008 - 3 2008Q - 4 2008Q - 1 2009 - 2 2009 - 3 2009 - 4 2009 - 1 2010 - 2 2010 - 3 2010 - 4 2010 - 1 2011 - 2 2011
January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December January February March April May June
0WP
1WP
2WP 1.
2 .2
2 .3
2 .4
2 .5
3WP 1.
3 .2
3 .3
4WP 1.
4 .2
4 .3
5WP 1.
5 .2
5 .3
6WP 1.
6 .2
6 .3
- Gantt Chart Quarter by Month
Legend
Milestonemarker Gantt bar
0T 1T 2T
0T - 11T3T 4T 5T 6T 7T 8T 9T 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
12-23 24-35 36-41
M11.
M22.
M13
M14
M16
M17
M18
M19
M110
M21.
M22.
M23.
M25
M26.
M24.
M31.
M33.
M34.
M35.
M36.
M32.
M33.
M34.
M35.
M36.
M37.
M37.
M41.
M43.
M42.
M44.
M45
46.
M47.
M51.
M52.
M56.
M57.
M55.
M54.
M53.
M58.
M61.
M62.
M63.
M64.
M65.
M66.
M67.
M68.
M15.
M65.
M01.
M03.
M04.
M05.
M0.6M07.
M08.
M09.
M02.
Buy SmartDraw!- purchased copies print this document without a watermark .
Visit www.smartdraw.com or call 1-800-768-3729.
SEDENTEXCT Gantt chart
Grant application complete mid-April 2007
Peer review
Submitted on 29 April 2007
Grant Deadline 2 May 2007
Final timeline
The result
26 July 2007
14/15 score
The next stage: conversion from an application into a contract
But!..... Ethics review
Issues related to:
X-ray exposures to children
Use of animal material
Addition of a substantially enlarged “Ethics” section
Negotiation Meeting: Brussels, October 2007
•Minor error corrections to “Description of Work”
•Finalisation of annual budgets and initial “pre-financing”
•Clarification over third party involvement
•Set project start date
Leuven “kick-off” meeting: January 2008
Then the real work starts.......!