Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 1/ 35 ESC to go back to main page Lech Michalczuk Instytut Sadownictwa i Kwiaciarstwa Centrum Doskonałości w Dziedzinie Sadownictwa Zrównoważonego Lech Michalczuk Instytut Sadownictwa i Kwiaciarstwa Centrum Doskonałości w Dziedzinie Sadownictwa Zrównoważonego Projekty badawcze 6PR w ocenie recenzenta (eksperta) - implikacje dla projektodawców

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 2/ 35 ESC to go back to main page Kryteria i sposób oceny projektów 6PR

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 3/ 35 ESC to go back to main page 1. Relevance –Czy tematyka i cel badań pokrywają się z priorytetami 6PR? Czy uwzględniono wsparcie dla SME! –W jakim stopniu projekt uwzględnia szczegółowe cele konkursu?

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 4/ 35 ESC to go back to main page 2. Potential impact –Czy projekt przyczyni się do zwiększenia konkurencyjności gospodarki europejskiej (w szczególności SME!) lub rozwiąże istotne problemy społeczne? –Czy projekt wniesie wartość dodaną na poziomie europejskim i czy uwzględnia badania prowadzone na poziomie krajowym? –Jakie jest prawdopodobieństwo uzyskania założonych celów? –Czy właściwie zaplanowano wdrożenie/upowszechnienie wyników?

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 5/ 35 ESC to go back to main page 3. S&T excellence (najważniejsze kryterium przy ocenie projektów STREP) –Czy hipoteza(y) robocze i plan pracy oparte są na racjonalnych przesłankach? Czy cele badawcze są jasno i precyzyjnie sformułowane? –Czy planowane badania są innowacyjne? –W jakim stopniu oczekiwane wyniki poszerzą wiedzę w danej dziedzinie/dyscyplinie i/lub przyczynia się do rozwoju nowych technologii? –Czy zaplanowany zakres badań pozwoli osiągnąć wszystkie zaplanowane cele?

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 6/ 35 ESC to go back to main page 4. Quality of consortium –Czy partnerzy konsorcjum mają wiedzę i doświadczenie wystarczające do realizacji zaplanowanych badań (publikacje, patenty, udział w międzynarodowych i krajowych projektach o zbliżonej tematyce)? –Czy doświadczenie partnerów jest komplementarne? Czy występuje overlaping? –Czy uwzględniono udział SME w projekcie? Jeżeli tak, czy ich wkład do projektu jest znaczący? –Czy zachowana jest równowaga płci wykonawców na wszystkich poziomach? –Czy konsorcjum ma wymiar europejski? –Czy współpraca międzynarodowa jest dobrze zaplanowana?

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 7/ 35 ESC to go back to main page 5. Quality of management (w projektach CA Quality of coordination - najważniejsze kryterium oceny) –Czy zarządzanie projektem jest dobrze zaplanowane (kompetencje kierownika projektu i partnerów, wzajemne zobowiązania i rozliczenia, sprawozdawczość, komunikacja między partnerami etc.)? –Czy kierownik projektu ma doświadczenie w zarządzaniu projektami krajowymi i międzynarodowymi? –Czy istnieje dobry plan ochrony własności intelektualnych?

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 8/ 35 ESC to go back to main page 6. Mobilisation of resources –Czy ogólny plan finansowy jest dobrze uzasadniony i czy pozwoli na osiągniecie założonych celów? –Czy sprzęt i aparatura będące na wyposażeniu partnerów są wystarczające do osiągnięcia zamierzonych celów (wskazana komplementarność)? Jeżeli planowany jest zakup aparatury, czy jest on dobrze uzasadniony? Czy wzięto pod uwagę możliwość lizingu aparatury? –Czy personel zaangażowana w projekcie jest odpowiedni (ilościowo i jakościowo) do osiągnięcia zamierzonych celów?

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 9/ 35 ESC to go back to main page Korzyści z bycia ekspertem (recenzentem) Komisji Europejskiej

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 10/ 35 ESC to go back to main page Jak zostać ekspertem Komisji Europejskiej?

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 11/ 35 ESC to go back to main page..reflecting an excellent relevance The proposal fits perfectly within the scientific, technical, socio-economic and policy objectives of the specific call of this Work Programme and Topic specification. It provides a clear description for the selection of the molecules as a complex chemical mixture and the relevance to the food chain, with emphasis on genotoxic effects. The proposal has clear goals with respect to risk assessment and the development of preventive measures. Vulnerable groups are also addressed through the selection of a sampling site in the countries with high contamination. Example of comments

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 12/ 35 ESC to go back to main page … reflecting poor relevance The proposal mainly describes applied studies including specific species survey, screening for specific plant volatiles and the establishment of molecular phylogeny for only one crop. The proposal has only a few elements that fit within the Topic 99 of the work programme, but these are not considered to be sufficient, since only a loose relevance with other key elements can be found, such as food safety/quality, risk assessment, standardisation, and economic impact for the EU. The relevance aspects are nowhere directly described in the proposal. Example of comments

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 13/ 35 ESC to go back to main page … reflecting excellent potential impact The potential impact is very high because the elimination of this compound using a mild enzymatic approach reinforces EU competitiveness and solves a societal problem that recently arose from the extensive studies in processed food. The enzymatic aspect of this compound reduction not covered by the other proposals dealing with the same subjects makes it important to complete all the aspects of this research and brings an added value at EU level. The exploitation and dissemination plan are adequately described and convincing Example of comments

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 14/ 35 ESC to go back to main page … reflecting poor potential impact The results of the proposed project could solve important problems having a big impact on the competitiveness of the milling industry in Europe and involving considerably important aspects of consumer health and safety. However, important information is missing from the project proposal, which would have allowed a better evaluation of the possibilities to achieve the stated objectives and the consequent impact. The exploitation/dissemination plan is not adequate to ensure optimal use of the project. The inclusion in the consortium of consumers association, SMEs and advisory group is requested to achieve the objective of dissemination. The European added value is not demonstrated. Example of comments

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 15/ 35 ESC to go back to main page … reflecting excellent S&T excellence Objectives are well defined and structured into the different WPs. The thorough study of modes of action, activity stimulation possibilities and of ecological fitness will constitute a excellent scientific base for achieving better and more stable efficacy. The project is ambitious and takes into account major problems likely to hinder efficacy/introduction. Example of comments

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 16/ 35 ESC to go back to main page … reflecting poor S&T excellence Objectives, approach, methodology and the description of the knowledge of the health benefits of sunflower are poorly presented. The proposal does not provide an adequate critical assessment of the state-of-the art with respect to the biomarkers to be measured. In view of the several critical reviews already available and the considerable debate in the biomarker area, the proposal should have provided some details of this debate and robust argument on the choice of measurements. Example of comments

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 17/ 35 ESC to go back to main page … reflecting an excellent quality of the consortium The consortium includes partners who are very experienced, well known and into good track records. Less experienced members of the consortium will benefit from their association (knowledge transfer). Skills within the very heterogeneous consortium were considered complementary with roles well defined. Five SMEs have been included in the consortium and had been given an appropriate role. Example of comments

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 18/ 35 ESC to go back to main page … reflecting poor quality of the consortium The lack of evidence of the experience of the Consortium raised doubts about the ability to achieve the expected results. Lack of bibliographic references made the quality of the Consortium difficult to determine and there appeared to be little complementary between partners (but some overlap between partners). Potential for SME involvement was not adequately considered. Example of comments

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 19/ 35 ESC to go back to main page … reflecting excellent quality of the management Management of the research activity is of high quality. All the organisational aspects are covered. Meeting and midterm evaluations are well addressed. The plan to manage the knowledge and the intellectual property is clear and well organised. The consortium has a clear plan to organise meetings and a clear strategy for dissemination of the results is already set up. Example of comments

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 20/ 35 ESC to go back to main page … reflecting poor management Management plan is basic reflecting the mono partner Work Package approach. Integration of partners was not well defined and management of the intellectual property not well described. Overall the management plan was not convincing. Example of comments

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 21/ 35 ESC to go back to main page … reflecting excellent quality of the resources The budget is generally well developed and argued and is appropriate to achieve the successful conclusion of the project. Individual partner budgets are well defined and the resources are very well distributed between partners. Example of comments

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 22/ 35 ESC to go back to main page … reflecting poor quality of the resources There is insufficient information to accurately assess this criterion. The project is extremely ambitious for the resources requested. The funds are unevenly distributed between the partners and not justified. The individual partner budgets should be better defined. The management costs are exagerated. Example of comments

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 23/ 35 ESC to go back to main page Evaluating Coordination Action

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 24/ 35 ESC to go back to main page 1.Relevance : identical to STREP (threshold 3/5) 2.Quality of the coordination (threshold 4/5) –Quality of the coordination –Coordination of research actions/programmes of high quality –Coordinations mechanisms proposed are sufficiently robust to ensure the objectives of the action –Is the main criterion for CA What are the criterion Relevance and Quality of Coordination? Differences from the STREP are in this colour !!

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 25/ 35 ESC to go back to main page 3. Potential impact (threshold 3/5) –Added value in carrying out the work at European level and takes account of research activities at national level and under European initiatives (e.g. Eureka) –Critical mass of resources in Europe –Community support have a real impact on the action, ambition and outcome –Optimal use of project results via exploitation/dissemination plans What is the criterion POTENTIAL IMPACT ?

Slide show 4/5 Slide N° 26/ 35 ESC to go back to main page 4.Quality of consortium (threshold 3/5) –Consortium of high quality –Complementary expertise to generate added value with respect to the individual participants programmes –Participants well-suited to the tasks assigned to them What is the criterion Quality of Consortium ?