Ocena indywidualna projektów – kryteria i zasady oceny projektów (działalności wspomagającej) PASR pierwszej edycji Bruksela 5-10 lipca 2004 Ocena indywidualna projektów – kryteria i zasady oceny projektów (działalności wspomagającej) PASR pierwszej edycji Bruksela 5-10 lipca 2004 r. Oceniający projekty PASR-2004 z ramienia Polski: Prof. dr hab. inż. Jacek ROŃDA – doradca Ministra Nauki Płk dr inż. Maciek MROCZKOWSKI – kierownik zakładu w Instytucie Optoelektroniki (IOE) Wydziału Techniki Wojskowej (WTW) WAT Płk rez. dr inż. Lech SURAŻYŃSKI – adiunkt w IOE WTW WAT Sebastian SERWIAK – ekspert z ramienia Centralnego Biura Śledczego

Ocena indywidualna projektów Ocena indywidualna projektów Uwagi wstępne Unia nie opłaca ekspertów w ramach PASR-2004 Unia jedynie zwraca koszty pobytu (przejazd, zakwaterowanie, wyżywienie) do wskazanej w zaproszeniu kwoty W ramach opiniowania Unia udostępnia pomieszczenia, długopisy, formularze, notatniki, zimne i gorące napoje Ponadto do oceny projektów Unia zapewnia: Dostęp do internetu Telefon

Ocena indywidualna projektów Ocena indywidualna projektów Individual Assessment Report for Projects Karta oceny Acronym : Proposal No. :

Ocena indywidualna projektów Ocena indywidualna projektów 1. Relevance of the proposal to the Programme of Work of the PASR (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1) The extent to which the proposed project is - mission-oriented and/or - pre-normative in areas relating to standards and internationally interoperable systems and/or - contributes to the understanding of human factors, social and ethical values. the proposed project addresses one or more of the priority missions the proposed project is instrumental in the preparation of the future ESRP the proposed project addresses multi-disciplinary, multi purpose (civil / defence applications) or multi-stakeholders RTD issues the European added value of funding this project by PASR is evident. Mark:....

Ocena indywidualna projektów Ocena indywidualna projektów 2. Reinforcement of the competitiveness for European industry and potential for exploitation (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1) The extent to which the proposed project is capable to produce tangible results during the timeframe of the project the effective usage of the results at the end of the project is convincing the European scientific and technological base is strengthened the proposed project enhances and complements other existing projects (national, European, international) in the field of security Mark:....

Ocena indywidualna projektów Ocena indywidualna projektów 3. Scientific and/or technological excellence and contribution to tangible and demonstrable improvements in security (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1) The extent to which the proposed project delivers tangible results contributing to demonstrable improvements in security the proposed project has clearly defined objectives and addresses immediate security challenges of the European citizen and society the proposed project seeks the state of the art of research, application of research in non-explored areas, or in integrating existing results in innovative applications clear account is given of existing projects in Member States or Community programmes the proposed S&T approach is likely to enable the project to achieve its objectives Mark:....

Ocena indywidualna projektów Ocena indywidualna projektów 4. Building of effective partnerships between (public) users, industry and research (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1) The extent to which the partners collectively constitute a consortium of high quality, with involvement of end users the partnership is sustainable and effective and establishes working methodologies between (public) users, industry and research organisations the range of capabilities and expertise covered by the project partners is convincing the partners are well-suited and committed to the tasks assigned to them there is complementarity between partners there is adequate industrial involvement to ensure exploitation of results Mark:....

Ocena indywidualna projektów Ocena indywidualna projektów 5. Ability of the consortium to carry out the project successfully and to ensure its efficient management, including the ability to protect classified information if necessary, and clear plans for the management of intellectual property (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1) The extent to which the organisational structure is well matched to the level of complexity of the project the project management approach is convincing and is demonstrably of high quality there is a satisfactory plan for the management of knowledge, of intellectual property, of other innovation-related activities and of classified information if relevant (security clearance of staff?) the project mobilises the required critical mass of resources (personnel, equipment, finance …) necessary for success the overall financial plan for the supporting activity is adequate. Mark:....

Ocena indywidualna projektów Ocena indywidualna projektów Overall remarks (Threshold 18/25) Does this proposal have ethical issues that need further attention? NO YES Overall score: Horizontal issues (comment if applicable) If there gender issues associated with the subject of the proposal, have they been adequately taken into account? Have the applicants identified the potential ethical and/or safety aspects of the proposed research regarding its objectives, the methodology and the possible implications of the results? Have other EC-policy issues relevant to the proposal been taken into account?

Ocena zespołowa projektu Ocena zespołowa projektu Consensus Meeting Minute Describe how the decisions regarding the evaluation results were reached. Always provide comments if the consolidated evaluation differs significantly from the individual scores on given criteria or if scores have moved above or below thresholds. Record dissenting views, if any. The information on this form is retained in the proposal archive as a record of the evaluation decision

Ocena zespołowa projektu Ocena zespołowa projektu Consensus Report 1.Relevance of the proposal to the Programme of Work of the PASR (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1) Mark: Reinforcement of the competitiveness for European industry and potential for exploitation (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1) Mark: Scientific and/or technological excellence and contribution to tangible and demonstrable improvements in security (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1) Mark:

Ocena zespołowa projektu Ocena zespołowa projektu Consensus Report – ciąg dalszy 5. Ability of the consortium to carry out the project successfully and to ensure its efficient management, including the ability to protect classified information if necessary, and clear plans for the management of intellectual property Threshold 3/5; Weight 1) Mark: Overall remarks (Threshold 18/25) Overall score:.... Does this proposal have ethical issues that need further attention? NO YES 4. Building of effective partnerships between (public) users, industry and research (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1) Mark:

Ocena zespołowa projektu – ocena od strony moderatora Ocena zespołowa projektu – ocena od strony moderatora Dodatkowe strony Consensus Report Criteria Weight & (Threshold) 1/(3) 1/(3) 1/(3) 1/(3) 1/(3) Total Score Evaluator names Initial averages: Consensus marks:

Wnioski z oceny indywidualnej projektów Spostrzeżenia indywidualne na temat kryteriów i zasad oceny projektów PASR pierwszej edycji członka zespołu oceniającego projekty rozwiązań systemowych zawarte są w Uwagach na temat.... Lecha Surażyńskiego

Dziękuję za uwagę