Proposal writing

Proposal writing “Tips and tricks”

Melae Langbein (Science Officer) Belgian COST event, Brussels, 15 March 2013 COST is supported by the EU Framework Programme

ESF provides the COST Office through a European Commission contract

I: Overview

COST is supported by the EU Framework Programme


COST (Open Call) Proposals •

Preliminary proposal submission at any time at www.cost.eu/opencall - next “collection dates” are: • •

•

Guidelines for Assessment of applications of COST Actions (COST 4111/11): • • • •

•

Friday 29 March 2013 (new Actions to start early 2014) Friday 27 September 2013 (new Actions to start late 2014)

Annex A (pg 10) Assessment Criteria for Preliminary Proposals Annex B (pg11-15) Assessment Criteria for Full Proposals Annex C (pg16-17) Template for Preliminary Proposals Annex D (pg18-29) Template for Full Proposals

Information on current/ previous Actions in the FPS Domain: www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps/Actions/(all) 3

COST (Open Call) Proposals Preliminary proposals

Full proposals

~ 1 500 words

~ 11 000 words

New Actions

By Collection date: COST

400-600

80-120

30-46

4

COST vs FP7 – how to decide Attribute

COST

Funding for

Networking (meetings, conferences, sci exchanges, training schools) Bottom-up

Scope Budget Participation

According to number of participants Open during Action life

Participants

Same and complementary expertise

Members

36 COST countries + others in the mutual benefit

FP7 Research + some other activities Policy-driven (topdown) Proposer makes budget request Closed once project starts Mainly complementary expertise EU+ + others when necessary for the project 5

II: Preliminary Proposals PP->FP success rate ~ 20% (10%-65%)



Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks” 1. Read the preliminary proposal assessment

criteria and maximise score for each –

In the design of the proposed Action, and

–

reflect the assessment language in your proposal AND justify eg “ The topic of this proposal is very important and timely because . . .” “The proposed approach is highly innovative in that it . . .”

2. Ask Chairs of recent running COST Actions for a

copy of their (obviously successful) Preliminary Proposal

7

Assessment Criteria: Preliminary Proposals I.1

RIGHT FOR COST? Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the Action's objectives?

yes no  6 5432 1

I.2

PUBLIC UTILITY/SCIENCE Does the proposed Action address real current problems/ scientific issues?

yes no  6 5432 1

I.3

INNOVATION Is the proposed Action innovative?

yes no  6 5432 1

I.4

IMPACT Would the proposed network make a significant difference in terms of knowledge, capacity building, social impacts, etc?

yes no  6 5432 1

I.5

NETWORKING Are networking aspects well motivated and developed in the proposal?

yes no  6 5432 1

I.6

PRESENTATION Is the proposed Action presented in a clear and understandable way?

yes no  6 5432 1 8

Preliminary Proposal assessment RIGHT FOR COST? Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the Action's Objectives? I.1 • High marks are given to proposals for which COST is the best adapted mechanism. • Lower marks are given otherwise. PUBLIC UTILITY/SCIENCE Does the proposed Action address real current problems/ scientific issues? I.2 • High marks are given to highly exciting and interesting proposals on a very important and/or timely topic. • Lower marks are given otherwise. INNOVATION Is the proposed Action innovative? I.3 • High marks are given to highly innovative proposals. • Lower marks are given otherwise.

yes no 654321

yes no 654321

yes no 654321 9

Preliminary Proposal assessment IMPACT Would the proposed network make a significant difference in I.4 terms of knowledge, capacity building, social impacts, etc? • High marks are given to proposals with high potential impact. • Lower marks are given otherwise. NETWORKING Are networking aspects well motivated and developed in the proposal? I.5 • High marks for proposals that both motivate the need for networking in the field and show how the proposed networking will add value to the current state-of-the-art. • Lower marks are given otherwise. PRESENTATION Is the proposed Action presented in a clear, rational and understandable way? I.6 • High marks for proposals that are presented in a clear, rational and understandable way. • Lower marks are given otherwise.

yes no 654321

yes no 654321

yes no 654321 10

Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks” 3. Get people (eg colleague/ DC Expert/ DC

Member) to “assess” your proposal before you submit it, and revise the proposal according to their feedback

4. 6 (out of 36) marks for presentation:  Get (near) native speaker to proof read the proposal

 Get someone outside the network/ field to read the proposal – is it clear without “inside knowledge”  Follow the template AND clearly address each

criterion (difficult!) 11

Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks” PROPOSAL TEMPLATE

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

• BACKGROUND, PROBLEMS ADDRESSED

I.1 RIGHT FOR COST?

• BENEFITS

I.2 PUBLIC UTILITY/SCIENCE

• OBJECTIVES, DELIVERABLES AND EXPECTED SCIENTIFIC IMPACT • SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME AND INNOVATION • ORGANISATION

Is COST the best mechanism for achieving the Action's objectives? Does the proposed Action address real current problems/ scientific issues?

I.3 INNOVATION Is the proposed Action innovative?

I.4 IMPACT Would the proposed network make a significant difference in terms of knowledge, capacity building, social impacts, etc?

I.5 NETWORKING Are networking aspects well motivated and developed in the proposal?

I.6 PRESENTATION Is the proposed Action presented in a clear and understandable way? 12

Prelim Proposals: “tips and tricks” 1.

Read the preliminary proposal assessment criteria and maximise score for each – –

In the design of the proposed Action, and reflect the assessment language in your proposal AND justify eg “ The topic of this proposal is very important and timely because . . .” “The proposed approach is highly innovative in that it . . .”

2.

Ask Chairs of recent running COST Actions for a copy of their (obviously successful) Preliminary Proposal

3.

Get people (eg colleague/ DC Expert/ DC Member) to “assess” your proposal before you submit it, and revise the proposal according to their feedback

4.

6 (out of 36) marks for presentation:  Get (near) native speaker to proof read the proposal  Get someone outside the network/ field to read the proposal – is it clear without “inside knowledge”  Follow the template AND clearly address each criterion (difficult!) 13

III: Full Proposals FP->DCH success rate ~ 60% (40%-82%)



Full Proposals: “tips and tricks” 1. Read the full proposal assessment criteria and mark point descriptors and maximise score for each • •

•

In the design of the proposed Action, and reflect the mark point descriptor (1/2/3/4) language in your proposal AND justify eg “. . . important impacts very likely in several respects . . .” Again note the difference between the template (which must be followed) and the assessment criteria (which must be addressed while following the template).

2. Read the MoUs of recent new COST Actions (MoU text = Full Proposal text)

3. Full proposals: A (Science & Networking) and B (Impact) are double weighted – these MUST be strong to succeed (each point = 2/75) 15

Full Proposals: “tips and tricks” 4. Differentiate your proposal from existing Actions, networks and (EU/ regional) projects 5. Get people outside the network/ proposal (especially DC Experts) to “assess” your full proposal before submission and revise it taking into account their feedback 6. BEFORE you submit a proposal send your cv to Science Officer and DC Chair to express interest in being an EEP Member (= insight into full proposal assessment process)

16

Full Proposal Template • •

•

A. ABSTRACT AND KEYWORDS B. BACKGROUND • B.1 General background • B.2 Current state of knowledge • B.3 Reasons for the Action • B.4 Complementarity with other research programmes C. OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS • C.1 Aim • C.2 Objectives • C.3 How networking within the Action will yield the objectives? • C.4 Potential impact of the Action • C.5 Target groups/end users

•

•

• • •



D. SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME • D.1 Scientific focus • D.2 Scientific work plan methods and means E. ORGANISATION • E.1 Coordination and organisation • E.2 Working Groups • E.3 Liaison and interaction with other research programmes • E.4 Gender balance and involvement of early-stage researchers (ESR) F. TIMETABLE G. ECONOMIC DIMENSION H. DISSEMINATION PLAN • H.1 Who? • H.2 What? • H.3 How? Templates available in Document COST 4111/11 “Guidelines for Assessment of applications for COST Actions”, Annex C) 17

Assessment Criteria: Full Proposals A A.1

SCIENCE AND NETWORKING (Weight 2) Does the proposed Action address real current problems/scientific issues?

A.2

Does the proposed Action show awareness of the state-of-the-art of the relevant scientific/technical/socio-economic fields?

A.3

Is the proposed Action innovative?

A.4

Does the proposed Action answer a need for the networking of experts in the field?

B B.1A

IMPACT (Weight 2) If the proposed Action aims primarily to meet European economic or societal needs, how likely is it to achieve useful impacts?

B.1B

If the proposed Action aims primarily to contribute to the development of the scientific or technological field, how likely is it to achieve useful impacts? If the proposed Action aims BOTH to meet European economic or societal needs, AND to contribute to the development of the scientific or technological field, how likely is it to achieve useful impacts? Are there clear plans for stimulating the production of high quality outputs?

B.1C B.2 B.3 C C.1

 4 3 2 1  4 3 2 1  4 3 2 1

Is attention given to the involvement of stakeholders in order to increase the potential application of results (including, where appropriate, fostering their commercial exploitation)? STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION (Weight 1) Is the proposal presented in a clear, convincing, and appropriate way?

 4 3 2 1  4 3 2 1  4 3 2 1  4 3 2 1  3 2 1  4 3 2 1  4 3 2 1 4

C.2

Are the workplan and organisation appropriate?

C.3

Are the time schedule and the setting of milestones appropriate?

C.4

Are appropriate plans made for monitoring and evaluating the achievement of objectives?

D D.1

CONTRIBUTION TO WIDER COST GOALS (Weight 1) How well does the proposed Action aim to involve early stage researchers?

D.2

How well does the proposed Action aim at gender balance?

D.3

Does the proposed Action have the potential to contribute to the solution of global challenges in a global dimension?

 1 0  1 0  1 0

18 Threshold: 55 points

Assessment Criteria: Full Proposals A SCIENCE AND NETWORKING (Weight 2) A.1 Does the proposed Action address real current problems/scientific issues? 4. The topic is very important and /or timely and proposal presents the correct approaches. 3. The topic is very important and /or timely, but proposal fails to present the correct approaches. 2. The topic is not important nor timely, although proposal presents the correct approaches. 1. Serious lack of substance and/or relevance.

A.2 Does the proposed Action show awareness of the state-of-the-art of the relevant scientific/technical/socio-economic fields? 4. Excellent and up to date awareness of relevant scientific/technical fields 3. Good awareness of relevant fields. 2. Defective awareness of relevant fields. 1. Serious lack of awareness of relevant fields.

A.3 Is the proposed Action innovative? 4. Highly innovative: identifies a significant new problem and/or a significant new approach. 3. Innovative in some notable aspects. 2. Not very innovative: the topic is already well-studied and/or the proposal largely follows a well-trodden approach. 1. Not at all innovative.

A.4 Does the proposed Action answer a need for the networking of experts in the field? 4. Networking in this field ranks amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art and the proposal uses such a mechanism in a sound manner. 3. Networking in this field ranks amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art, but the proposal fails to use such a mechanism in a sound manner. 2. Networking in this field is not amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art, although the proposal uses such a mechanism in a sound manner. 1. Networking in this field is not amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art and the 19 proposal fails to use such a mechanism in a sound manner.

Tips and Tricks: FP Section A 1. 2.

Choose a very important and /or timely topic and propose the correct approaches Excellent and up to date awareness of relevant scientific/technical fields –

3.

4.

If resubmitting proposal UPDATE the SOTA with any new Actions/ projects since previous submission even if previous SOTA was excellent

Make proposal highly innovative: a significant new problem and/or a significant new approach Ensure (and prove) that networking in this field ranks amongst the best mechanisms to progress the state-of-the-art and the proposal uses such a mechanism in a sound manner. 20

Assessment Criteria: Full Proposals B IMPACT (Weight 2) B.1 If the proposed Action aims BOTH to meet European economic or societal needs, AND to contribute to the development of the scientific or technological field, how likely is it to achieve useful impacts? 4. Important impacts very likely in several respects. 3. Some notable impacts likely. 2. May make some minor impacts. 1. Unlikely to make useful impacts.

B.2 Are there clear plans for stimulating the production of high quality outputs? 4. Plans for outputs are clear, wide-ranging and ambitious. 3. Plans for outputs are reasonable. 2. Plans for outputs are unambitious or defective. 1. Plans for outputs are minimal or absent.

B.3 Is attention given to the involvement of stakeholders in order to increase the potential application of results (including, where appropriate, fostering their commercial exploitation)? 4. Stakeholders are already part of experts who took part in the preparation of the proposal. 3. Plans for implication of stakeholders are clear, wide-ranging and feasible. 2. Plans for implication of stakeholders are reasonable. 1. Plans for implication of stakeholders are unambitious or defective.

21

Tips and Tricks: FP Section B 1.

2. 3.

Ensure that important impacts are very likely in several respects and describe these impacts also in terms of scientific/ technical/ economic/ societal/ environmental, Clearly describe plans for wide-ranging and ambitious outputs, Involve as many groups of relevant stakeholders as possible in the preparation of the proposal (and ensure that they are listed as having participated in the proposal). •

Or, at least ensure that plans for implication of stakeholders are clear, wide-ranging and feasible 22

Assessment Criteria: Full Proposals C STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION (Weight 1) C.1 Is the proposal presented in a clear, convincing, and appropriate way? 4. Very clearly written with compelling argument; fully appropriate format. 3. Well written; argument is easy to follow; appropriate format but may need minor changes; 2. Poorly written, but argument can be followed with effort; and/or defective format. 1. Poorly written; argument is unclear; and/or inappropriate format.

C.2 Are the workplan and organisation appropriate? 4. Workplan and organisation make full, productive and cost-effective use of COST opportunities. 3. Workplan and organisation are reasonable, any defects are minor. 2. Workplan and/or organisation show significant defects. 1. Workplan and/or organisation are lacking or inappropriate or unclear.

C.3 Are the time schedule and the setting of milestones appropriate? 4. Schedule and milestones are well-defined and practical. 3. Schedule and milestones are reasonable. 2. Schedule and/or milestones show some defects. 1. Schedule and/or milestones are lacking or inappropriate or unclear.

C.4 Are appropriate plans made for monitoring and evaluating the achievement of objectives? 4. Monitoring and evaluation plans are well-defined and practical. 3. Monitoring and evaluation plans are reasonable. 2. Monitoring and evaluation plans show some defects. 1. Monitoring and evaluation plans are lacking or inappropriate or unclear. 23

Tips and Tricks: FP Section C 1.

Ensure proposal is very clearly written with compelling argument and fully appropriate format (follow template): • •

2.

Ensure workplan and organisation make full, productive and cost-effective use of COST opportunities. •

3.

Ensure all COST instruments (various meetings, STSMs, Training Schools, Dissemination are used)

Include clear time schedule and appropriate milestones •

4.

Get (near) native speaker to proof read proposal Get someone external to the proposal to check for clarity

Milestones enable the monitoring of progress (milestones are not the same thing as deliverables)

Include well-defined and practical monitoring and evaluation plans 24

Assessment Criteria: Full Proposals D CONTRIBUTION TO WIDER COST GOALS (Weight 1) D.1 How well does the proposed Action aim to involve early stage researchers? 1. An innovative plan is presented in addition to the standard template in Section E.4 of Full Proposal 0. Otherwise.

D.2 How well does the proposed Action aim at gender balance? 1. An innovative plan is presented in addition to the standard template in Section E.4 of Full Proposal 0. Otherwise.

D.3 Does the proposed Action have the potential to contribute to the solution of global challenges in a global dimension? 1. Proposal will certainly attract interest from a wide range of nonCOST Countries if approved 0. Otherwise.

25

Tips and Tricks: FP Section D 1.

Present an innovative plan for ESR involvement in addition to the standard template in Section E.4 of Full Proposal: •

• •

2.

Present an innovative plan for gender balance in addition to the standard template in Section E.4 of Full Proposal: • • •

3.

Refer to COST 295/09 (CSO Strategy for ESRs) and set targets (eg 20% of annual budget) for STSMs, at least one Training School per year, ESRs as Leaders of at least ½ the WGs Set target for % of meeting reimbursement places given to ESRs ESR as Chair/ Vice Chair of the Action

Eg guarantee that at least 40% of the Core Group (Chair, Vice Chair, WG leaders, STSM manager) will be of either gender Guarantee that at least 40% of STSMs and Training School places will be allocated to either gender Gender balance in Chair and Vice Chair roles

Prove that proposal will certainly attract interest from a wide range of non-COST Countries if approved •

Include institutions from a wide range (eg different regions) of non-COST countries in the proposal 26

Full Proposals: tips and tricks  Get geographical balance in the network: cover N S E W  

Ask DC Members from “missing” countries to suggest contacts www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps?dc_members Ask MC Members from those countries in relevant Actions for suggestions www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps/Actions www.cost.eu/domains_actions/fps/Actions/FP1207?management (but don’t just recycle the same people into your proposal)

 Do not just resubmit an unsuccessful FP7 proposal as COST Action proposal  

FP7 = research funding; COST = networking funding FP7 has Work Packages (WP), COST has Working Groups (WG)

 Dissemination: best to have a transversal Dissemination Task Force that draws people from each WG, NOT a WG Dissemination

27

IV: DC Hearings DCH-> New Action success rate ~ 53% (44%-80%)



Proposals: tips and tricks  DC Hearings  Follow the instructions in invitation email  Short overview of objectives, outcomes and impact of proposal  Focus on addressing issues raised by the EEP  Practice the presentation  Questions:  Listen to the full question (don’t interrupt the questioner)  Give calm clear concise (non-defensive) answer. 29

COST Actions - examples Biosafety of forest transgenic trees: improving the scientific basis for safe tree development and implementation of EU policy directives - FP0905 To evaluate and substantiate the scientific knowledge relevant for genetically modified tree (GMT) biosafety protocols by putting together already existing information generated in various European countries as the basis for future EU policy and regulation for the environmental impact assessment and the safe development and practical use of GMTs. 30

COST Actions - examples Experimental and Computational MicroCharacterisation Techniques in Wood Mechanics – FP0802 Exploiting emerging experimental and computational techniques for improving the knowledge of microstructural features of wood and their impact on macroscopic material behaviour will create new possibilities for the development and engineering design of innovative wood-based products in the future.

Stimulating the use of wood as a renewable and CO2 neutral raw material will contribute to a sustainable development in Europe.

31

COST Actions - examples Impact of Renewable Materials in Packaging for Sustainability - Development of Renewable Fibre and Bio-based Materials for New Packaging Applications FP1003 To enhance knowledge concerning materials derived from the forest sector and thus identify potential new renewable packaging solutions. • Issue a set of guidelines explaining the different end-of life technologies that are available for renewable packaging solutions. • Build four technology roadmaps to direct future research. 32

BMBS

FA

PP

75

44

20

39

20

61

42

30

146

98

575

FP

15

10

8

9

13

11

12

9

14

13

114

PP-FP

DC H FP-DCH

FPS MPNS CMST ESSEM ICT TUD ISCH TDP

TOTAL

23% 40% 23% 65% 18% 29% 30% 10% 13%

10 67%

6

5

9

9

9

6

8

20%

6

68

75% 56% 69% 82% 75% 67% 57% 46%

60%

New Action 5 DCH-New Action 50%

50% 80% 44% 44% 44% 50% 63% 67%

53%

PP-New Action

15% 10% 20%

7%

7%

3

4

4

4

4

3

5

7% 10% 10% 3%

4

36

4% 33

Proposals: tips and tricks  Who can help you:  CNC BE  Chairs of running Actions  from BE  relevant to your area  DC Members  from BE  from countries that you need contacts in

34

Action Chairs from BE domai n code FA12 FA 01 IS090 ISCH 6 IS120 ISCH 5

contact_e mail ann.vanso om@ugen t.be

name Prof Ann Van Soom patriarche Dr Geoffroy @fusl.ac. Patriarche be licata@ul Dr Laurent b.ac.be Licata

Facultés universitaires SaintLouis (FUSL)

contact_ph city one Merelbek ++32 e 92647550 + 32 (0)2 Brussels 787 93 23

Université libre de Bruxelles

Brussels

name Ghent University

26503237

MPN MP09 S 01

carla.bitte ncourt@u mons.ac.b e

Dr Carla Bittencourt

University of Mons

Mons

326537385 1

MPN MP11 S 04

herve.lam y@aerono mie.be

Dr Herve Lamy

Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy

Brussels

322373041 8

MPN MP11 S 05

paul.kieke ns@UGe nt.be

Prof. Paul Kiekens

Faculty of Engineering Ghent University

Gent +32 9 (Zwijnaar 2645735 de)

Prof Victor Moshchalkov

KU Leuven

Leuven

Dr Patrick Flammang

Université de Mons

Mons

MPN MP12 S 01 MPN TD09 S 06

TUD

TU09

victor.mos hchalkov @fys.kule uven.ac.b e Patrick.Fl ammang @umons. ac.be jan.belis @UGent.

321632761 8 +32-65373439 35

Prof Jan Belis

Ghent University

Ghent

329264547

www.cost.eu Domain pages: e.g. www.cost.eu/fps Open Call: www.cost.eu/opencall Guidelines: www.cost.eu/guidelines FAQ: www.cost.eu/service/faq

Reciprocal Agreements: www.cost.eu/about_cost/reci procal_agreements Library: www.cost.eu/library Events: www.cost.eu/events

36

COST News by e-mail? Sign up at http://www.cost.eu/notification

www.cost.eu http://www.facebook.com/ COST.Programme http://twitter.com/COSToffice

http://www.linkedin.com/ groupRegistration?gid=1699127

COST Office Avenue Louise 149 1050 Brussels, Belgium T: +32 (0)2 533 3800 F: +32 (0)2 533 3890 [email protected]