IST 2002 Partnerships for the future

IST 2002 Partnerships for the future
HOW TO MAKE A PROPOSAL IN IST
WORKPROGRAMME 2003/04
Integrated Projects
Networks of Excellence
Specific targeted research Projects
Co-ordination Actions
Specific Support Actions
Information Package IST Call 1
IST 2002 - HOW TO MAKE A PROPOSAL
TIMETABLE - MONDAY 4 NOVEMBER:
14.30: Introduction - Morten Møller
14.35: IST Workprogramme 2003/04 - Khalil Rouhana
15.30: Integrated projects - Morten Møller
16.00: Coffee break
16.15: Networks of Excellence - Khalil Rouhana
16.45: Traditional Instruments - Morten Møller
17.15: Information package Call 1 - Tom McKinlay
QUESTIONS
&
ANSWERS
Information Society Technologies
in the 6th Framework Programme
Context, rationale, Content of IST in FP6
WP2003-2004 main features
Outline of presentation
FP6 Overview
– Structure, budget & timetable
– The European Research Area
The IST Priority
– Overview of objectives, vision & content
Outline of IST workprogramme 2003-2004
–
–
–
Response to IST Expressions of Interest
Focus and priorities
Roadmap of calls and budget
Next steps & sources of information
The 6th Framework Programme
Instrumental for creation of a ‘European Research Area’ ...
• Towards a European research policy,
• an ‘internal market’ for science & technology R&D
• Community funding to help aggregate RTD effort
• EU, Member State & private funded effort(s)
• ‘open coordination’:
• European initiatives + FP + national / regional activities
Basic principles
• Focus and integration, fewer priorities, ‘critical mass’, improve impact
• Lasting, structuring impact
• to avoid ‘end of project, end of consortium’
• Multiple projects ⌫ coherent programmes
• Problem-solving ⌫ confronting challenges & exploiting opportunities
ERA - implies a new way of “thinking”
Develop Europe-wide approaches
New instruments
is
no
t
– “Integrated Projects” & “Networks of Excellence”
– More “strategic” thinking
bu
s in
es
sa
su
su
al
!
– making sure that Community funding helps
aggregate EU, Member State & private funded effort(s)
– it is not just supporting a particular RTD work…
FP
6
Different way of describing content and calls
– a lighter workprogramme, different sequencing of calls, ...
The components of FP6
IN T E G R A T IN G E U R O P E A N R E S E A R C H
S T R U C T U R IN G
R e s e a rc h
and
in n o v a tio n
H um an
re s o u rc e s &
m o b ility
A N T IC IP A T IN G
THE
in the knowledge society
Citizens and governance
and global change
R e s e a rc h fo r p o lic y
s u p p o rt
Sustainable development
Food safety and health risks
Aeronautics and space
new production processes
Nanotechnologies, intelligent mat.,
Information society technologies
for health
Genomic and biotechnology
P R IO R IT Y T H E M A T IC A R E A S
F ro n tie r re s e a rc h ,
u n e x p e c te d
d e v e lo p m e n ts
S p e c ific S M E a c tiv itie s
S p e c ific in te rn a tio n a l c o o p e r a tio n a c tiv itie s
J R C a c tiv itie s
S T R E N G T H E N IN G
THE
F O U N D A T IO N S O F E R A
ERA
R e s e a rc h
in fra s tru c tu r e s
S /T N E E D S
S c ie n c e a n d
s o c ie ty
C o o rd in a tio n
o f re s e a rc h
a c tiv itie s
D e v e lo p m e n t
o f re s e a rc h /
in n o v a tio n
p o lic ie s
FP6 Budget breakdown
Focusing and Integrating
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Genomics
Information Society Technologies
Nanotechnologies, int..
Aeronautics and space
Food quality and safety
Sustainable development
Citizens and governance ..
Anticipation of S&T needs
• Anticipating needs
• SMEs
• Specific INCO
Strengthening ERA foundations
Structuring ERA
–
–
–
–
Research and Innovation
Human resources
Research Infrastructures
Science/Society
Joint Research Centre
2255 M€
3625 M€
1300 M€
1075 M€
685 M€
2120 M€
225 M€
~100M€ for GEANT/GRID
555 M€
430 M€
315 M€
320 M€
290 M€
1580 M€
655 M€
80 M€
760 M€
16270 M€
~200M€ for GEANT/GRID
Outline of presentation
FP6 Overview
– Structure, budget & timetable
– The European Research Area
The IST Priority
– Overview of objectives, vision & content
Outline of IST workprogramme 2003-2004
–
–
–
Response to IST Expressions of Interest
Focus and priorities
Roadmap of calls and budget
Next steps & sources of information
IST in FP6 - objectives & strategy
Main objectives
– Strengthening Europe’s competitiveness & technology base
– Building the information and knowledge society for ALL
Strategy
–
–
–
–
–
Concentration and focus, building critical mass
Capitalise on Europe’s strengths
Visionary, forward looking (longer term / high risk)
Combine flexibility with greater speed in implementation
Scope of activities: core technologies & “pull-through” applications
The IST vision
Bringing the users, “people”, to the foreground…..
….. to the “centre of our attention”
– building trustful technologies for the background (almost invisible)
Moving to an era where …..
“Our surroundings” is the interface to IST applications & services”
Exploring beyond “the PC, screens & keyboard interfaces”...
Enabling multi-sensorial dialogues …..
– supported by computing & networking
– ‘everywhere’, embedded in everyday objects
(eg: furniture, clothes, vehicles, smart materials, …)
Towards an “all inclusive knowledge society”
IST today
“Ambient Intelligence” tomorrow
• PC-based ………………………………… “Our surroundings” is the interface
• “Writing and reading” ….…………….…. Use all senses, intuitive
• “Word” based information search ….…… Context-based knowledge handling
• Low bandwidth, separate networks …..…. Infinite bandwidth, convergence, ..
• Mobile telephony (voice) ……………….. Mobile/Wireless full multimedia
• Micro scale ……………………………… Nano-scale
• Silicon based ….………………………… + new materials
• eServices just emerging …………………
Wide adoption (eHealth, eLearning, …)
•Only 5% of global population on-line ….
>70% of world-wide population on line
Generic
Pervasive, mobile,
wireless, trustful
infrastructures
Miniaturised,
low cost low power
components & µsystems
Natural interactions
with ‘knowledge’
IST priority in the Specific Programme
Three technology building blocks + applied research
Building blocks
Anywhere anytime natural and
enjoyable access to IST services for ALL
Integration
Specific
Applied IST for major societal and economic challenges
Security, privacy
IPRs, dependability
Smart cards,...
Health, eInclusion,
mobility, environment
safety, cultural heritage
Trust &
Security
IST for societal
challenges
GRIDS for
E and m business,
science, engineering
e and m work,
Learning, egovernment business and society
IST for work & business
challenges
Demanding
applications
Applied IST for major societal and economic challenges
‘anywhere, anytime, anywhere, any service, for all’
core technologies & “pull-through” applications
Communication, computing
& software technologies
Communication
& networking
•Mobile: beyond 3G
•Fixed:All optical
•Integrated (IPv6)
•Audiovisual systems
Software
•Embedded
•Distributed
•Reliability
•Adaptability
components & µsystems
µ, nano & opto
electronics
•CMOS: the limit
•System-on-Chip
•Nano-scale
•New materials
µ and nano
systems
Knowledge & interface
technologies
Knowledge
technologies
•Multidisciplines •Context based
•New Sensing •Semantic based
•Agent based
•Networked
•New materials •Scaleable
•Nano-scale
interfaces
•All senses
•Multilingual
•Intuitive
•‘Surrounding’
Future & Emerging Technologies
More exploratory and visionary research
Helping new IST-related S&T fields and communities to
emerge
Complementary to
– other IST strategic objectives
– other FP6 ‘Anticipating S&T needs / frontier research’
(new fields / multidisciplinary work)
Open scheme: openness to unforeseeable ideas
Proactive initiatives: critical mass where focus is needed
– e.g. ‘beyond robotics’, ‘complex systems research’
GEANT + GRIDs in FP6
FP5 results
GÉANT
10 Gigabit/s,
EU + NAS
Mediterranean
International & Latin America
GRIDs
Test-beds
Initial pilots
IPv6,
Quality of Service
FP6 goals
100+ Gigabit/s, Terabit/s,
- progressive inclusion in schools
Global connectivity
Large scale GRIDs platforms
(virtual communities)
Next Generation Internet solutions
for the Research Community
IST in FP6 and eEurope 2005
Longer term vision
Best practices
Research infrastructure
IST in FP6
eEurope 2005
By 2005, Europe should have:
•modern online public services
•a dynamic e-business environment
•widespread availability of broadband
•a secure information infrastructure
ERA
- Wider adoption of IST
- Stimulating demand
- Identifying user needs
Interlinked objectives but different timescales
Outline of presentation
FP6 Overview
– Structure, budget & timetable
– The European Research Area
The IST Priority
– Overview of objectives, vision & content
Outline of IST workprogramme 20032004
– Response to IST Expressions of Interest
– Focus and priorities
– Roadmap of calls and budget
Next steps & sources of information
Workprogrammes in FP6 - main content
Provides further details on …
the Scientific and technical content of the calls
– based on the Specific Programme text
Defines the evaluation and selection criteria
– common set derived from the rules for participation
– additional criteria depending on objectives
Defines the terms of the calls for proposals
–
–
–
objectives to be called for
distribution of budget between old and new instruments
weights and thresholds of criteria to be used
• including participation eligibility criteria
Updated as appropriate
– every year for IST
Workprogramme 2003-4: Process
Legal basis
– Framework Programme, Specific Programme
– Rules for Participation
Wide consultation
–
–
–
–
–
ISTC - IST Committee
ISTAG - IST Advisory Group
Programme Consultation Meetings
Call for Expressions of Interest
‘Internal Reflection Groups’ and workshops
Portfolio & Lessons Learned
– IPPA - Integrated Programme Portfolio Analysis
– Responses to previous Calls for Proposals
– Experience from past and on-going projects
Reports on the WEB
www.cordis.lu/ist
IST Workprogramme for FP6
The information on the following slides
is
PROVISIONAL
and provided for guidance ONLY
pending the adoption of the Workprogramme
!
PROVISIONAL
IST Workprogramme - approach
!
PROVISIONAL
A two year WP to ensure concentration of effort and
visibility for the research Community
More limited number of calls (three over two years)
Concentration on a limited set of « Strategic Objectives »
– selection and focus based on Europe’s options..
A total of 23 strategic objectives for the two years
– 12 in 2003, 11 in 2004 (one of which in common with Priority 3)
Addresses technologies and applications
Instruments
– ~2/3 of budget to new instruments
– for each Objective: ~2 to 3 IPs, 2 to 3 NoEs and some STREPS,..
IST Workprogramme - budget phasing
!
PROVISIONAL
Planning over 4 years
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
Indicative
Budget
835,000
891,000
935,000
964,000
Two calls drawing
Calls per year on 2003 and 2004
budgets
One call
drawing
on 2005
budget
Second WP
(covers also all topics of SP)
with updated focus
First WP covers all topics of the SP
Strategic Objectives: what do they describe?
Key objectives and breakthroughs to aim at, eg
– ‘to develop semiconductor devices shrunk by an order of magnitude
down to the 5 nm size’
Demanding research tasks to focus on, eg
– ‘pushing the limits of lithography including mask-less pattern transfer’
Guidance on types of instruments to be used, eg
– ‘Integrated Projects on ‘lithography’ including equipment assessments’
Reference to related member states’ and int’l activities, eg
– ‘enhance and complement work under EUREKA/MEDEA’
Identification of links with related policies, eg
– ‘satellite communications versus space policy’
Defining the SOs: five main groups (1)
Reinforce leadership where Europe has demonstrated
strengths, eg
– mobile communications and services, broadband communications
– micro-opto electronics & µsystems,
– networked audiovisual systems...
Seize new opportunities that arise from the ‘AmI’ vision and
address weaknesses / threats critical for its realisation, eg
–
–
–
–
embedded systems, integration of sensing & actuating devices, ...
multimodal interfaces, semantic-based knowledge handling, content...
Security and dependability, open standards and development tools
Knowledge and computing GRIDs
Defining the SOs: five main groups (2)
Continued support to leading / challenging applications,
responding to emerging needs, eg
–
–
–
eHealth, eInclusion, IST for safety in transport, risk management,..
eLearning and culture, Entertainment and leisure content
business support tools, networked organisations,...
Support to research at the frontier of knowledge
– FET open
– FET proactive
– Cognitive science
Support to infrastructure development
– Research networking test beds
– Open platforms
– Safety, etc…
i
Indicative call sequence & topics (1)
!
PROVISIONAL
Strategic objectives addressed in Call 1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Pushing the limits of CMOS, preparing for post-CMOS
Micro & nano-systems
Broadband access for All
Mobile & wireless systems beyond 3G
Towards a global dependability & security framework
Multimodal interfaces
Semantic-based knowledge systems
Networked audiovisual systems & home platforms
Networked business & government
eSafety for road and air transport
eHealth
Technology-enhanced learning & access to cultural heritage
+ FET proactive + Accompanying actions
Technology
components
Integrated
systems
Sectorial
Applications
Indicative call sequence & topics (2)
Strategic objectives covered in Call 2
1.
Advanced displays
2.
Optical, opto-electronic, photonic functional components
3.
Open development platforms for software and services
4.
Cognitive systems
5.
Embedded systems
6.
Applications & services for the mobile user & worker
7.
Cross-media content for leisure and entertainment
8.
GRID-based Systems & solving complex problems
9.
Improving Risk management
10. eInclusion
11. Product design & manufacturing 2010
+ FET proactive + Research Networking + Accompanying actions
Technology
components
Integrated
systems
Sectorial
Applications
WP 2003-4: Strategic Objectives and the SP
- dependability
& security
- eHealth
- eInclusion
- eSafety of transport
- environmental risk mgmt
- learning & culture
- networked organisations
- services for mobile user
- service & product
engineering
- GRID-based systems
& complex pb solving
Applied IST research for major societal and economic challenges
‘anywhere, anytime, anywhere, any service, for all’
core technologies & “pull-through” applications
Communication, computing
& software technologies
- mobile: beyond 3G
- software & services
- broadband access
development
- networked audio- embedded systems
visual systems
Components
& microsytems
- [post-]CMOS
- micro & nano
- optical, opto-el.,
systems
photonics
- displays
Knowledge
& interface technologies
- semantic-based
knowledge
- cross-media
content
- multi-modal
interfaces
- cognitive systems
Example of implementation in IST
Integrated Projects
Current Industrial
strength / presence
Incremental
« Monolithic »
Integrated Projects
Targeted Research Projects
Networks of Excellence
Fundamental
research
Basic
research
Industry-driven
research
Industrial
exploitation
Conclusions: Opportunities & challenges
Realising ERA requires …..
–
–
new “thinking”
concentration, critical mass & flexibility are key
FP6 provides a key opportunity to shape and improve
the impact of IST research in Europe
–
–
–
–
A new generation of technologies & applications is emerging
Europe is well positioned to shape the future & compete
The pace of development is increasingly fast
The aim is “people first” in an all-inclusive knowledge society
Simplification of procedures and fast reactivity
– an extensive effort needed to mobilise the constituency
– to address the (steep) learning-curve FP5 FP6
Next Steps on the Commission Side
Preparations for the first call
– Support for information days and proposers
– FP6 Launch Event in Brussels (11-13 Nov)
– Complete & publish Workprogramme 2003-4
– Complete & publish Call related documentation
(Call details, Guide for Proposers, Guide for Evaluators, Evaluation Manual, ...)
– Retrofit internal procedures to FP6
(Committee, Advisory Structure, Informatics Support, ...)
i
IST in FP6: Sources of Information
IST on CORDIS
http://www.cordis.lu/ist/fp6/fp6.htm
FP6 web main page
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/index_en.html
New Instruments
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html
Model Contracts
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/working-groups/model-contract/index_en.html
Frequently asked Questions
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/faq.html
The European Research Area
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/era/index_en.html
CORDIS RTD beyond 2002
http://www.cordis.lu/rtd2002/
IST helpdesk
Fax : +32 2 296 83 88
http://www.cordis.lu/ist/istag.htm
-Mail : [email protected]
IST in FP6 (including consultation meeting reports & E
workshops)
http://www.cordis.lu/ist/fp6/fp6.htm
http://www.cordis.lu/ist/fp6/pcms.htm
http://www.cordis.lu/ist/fp6/workshops.htm
ISTAG on CORDIS
QUESTIONS
&
ANSWERS
Information Society Technologies
In the 6th Framework Programme
Integrated Projects
IST 2002 Copenhagen 4-6 November
A range of better differentiated instruments
New instruments
Integrated projects (IP) - objective driven
Networks of excellence (NoE) - exploratory research
Article 169 (joint implementation of national
programmes)
Traditional instruments
Specific targeted research projects (STREPs)
Co-ordination actions (CAs)
Specific Support Actions (SSAs)
Principles guiding their design
Simplification and streamlining
– to minimise the overheads for all concerned whether applicant,
contractor or the Commission
– to speed up procedures, especially time-to-contract
Flexibility and adaptability
– to enable instruments to be applicable throughout the priority
themes
– to enable projects to evolve
Increased management autonomy
– to eliminate unnecessary micro-management
While preserving public accountability and protecting
interests of the Community
Instruments to be used in the IST priority
Calls for proposals will identify which instruments are to
be used, which have priority, and for what
From the outset, IPs and NoE will be the priority means
– for implementing those themes where it is already deemed
appropriate
– while maintaining the use of specific targeted research projects
and coordination actions
In 2004, the Commission will arrange an independent
evaluation of the use of the instruments
– may lead to an adjustment of their relative weightings
Integrated Projects - purpose
Designed to generate the knowledge required to implement
the priority thematic areas of FP6
– by integrating the critical mass of activities and resources needed
– to achieve ambitious, clearly defined scientific and technological
objectives of a European dimension
Each IP should
–
–
–
–
integrate the types of activities needed to obtain the goals
integrate the critical mass of resources needed to obtain the goals
integrate all elements of technology chain to attain high-impact goals
support industry-academia collaboration including SME’s
Integrated Projects - activities
Activities integrated in a project may cover the full
research spectrum
–
–
–
–
–
–
research and technology development activities
demonstration activities
technology transfer or take-up activities
training activities
dissemination activities
knowledge management and exploitation
An Integrated Project should comprise
– a coherent set of activities
– with an appropriate management structure
Integrated Project - what is critical mass? 1
Concerning resources: each IP must assemble the
critical mass of resources needed to achieve its
ambitious objectives
– activities integrated may range up to € several tens of millions
(but no minimum threshold, provided necessary ambition and
critical mass is achieved)
Integrated Project - what is critical mass? 2
Concerning its partnership: minimum of three
participants from three different Member States or
Associated States, of which at least two should be
Member States or Associated candidate countries
–
–
–
but in practice likely to be substantially more
SME participation is strongly encouraged
‘Third country’ participants may be included, with a possibility of
Community financial support for certain groups of countries
Concerning its duration: typically three to five years
– but more if necessary to deliver the objectives
Integrated Project - financial regime
Community support will be in the form of a “grant to the
budget”
Paid as a contribution to actual costs
–
–
that are necessary and economic for the project
that are recorded in the accounts of the participants
• or, when provided for in the contract, in the accounts of third parties
– that exclude indirect taxes, duties, interest…
Annually, each participant to provide a summary cost
statement supported by:
– certification of total costs by an independent auditor
– management-level justification of costs
– corresponding activity report
Rolling advance scheme throughout duration
Integrated Projects - Cost models
A single family of three closely related cost models
– FC: all actual direct and indirect costs;
– FCF:all actual direct costs plus 20% of these direct costs
(excluding subcontracting) to cover related indirect costs; and
– ACF: additional actual direct costs plus 20% of these direct
costs (excluding subcontracting) to cover related indirect costs
Each organisation may use only one of the models for
all its FP6 participations, where they are relevant
– The same cost methodologies will be used for all instruments
implemented through ‘grant to the budget’
IPs - Rates of Community Support
Maximum rates of support for FC and FCF participants:
– 50% for RTD and innovation-related components
– 35% for any demonstration component
– 100% for any training activities
– 100% for consortium management
AC participants: supported at up to 100% for all
components of the project (except for consortium
management which will be supported as under FCF)
For IPs, no more than 7% of the Community
contribution can be used to support consortium
management costs reimbursed at up to 100%
Integrated Project - submission process
Through calls for proposals
– may be preceded by expressions of interest to help focus calls
and assist in consortium building
Simplified proposal-making
– but with sufficient detail to allow proper evaluation
– reflecting evolutionary nature of the project
• summary description of activities for entire duration
• detailed implementation plan only for first 18 months reflecting
evolutionary nature of the project if appropriate
– Items to be covered
• S&T objectives, socio-economic impact
• global budget estimate
• justification of resources and budget
• ethical, safety and gender issues...
Integrated Project - evaluation process
Evaluation by a strengthened peer-review system
– involving one step written submission. 5 individual evaluators,
panel sessions with hearings of proposals that pass all
thresholds
Key issues to be addressed during evaluation:
–
–
–
–
–
–
relevance to the objectives of the specific work programme
scale of ambition and potential impact
S&T excellence
quality of the consortium
quality of the project and ‘knowledge’ management
critical mass in terms of activities and resources
Integrated Project - contractual aspects #1
The contract will specify the maximum Community
contribution, but not its distribution among participants
– consortium autonomy
– elimination of major source of micro-management
An annex contains
– overall description of the project
– detailed implementation plan only for first 18 months
Advance payment: equal to 85% of the Community
contribution anticipated for the first 18 months
Integrated Projects - contractual aspects #2
Participants share
– Joint & several technical responsibility
– Joint & several financial liability (exemption for public entities)
• integral part of internal flexibility and autonomy
• applied by Commission at last resort
Model contract will specify general conditions
Consortium agreement
– mandatory - except if other wise specified in the call
– should cover
• Internal organisation of consortium (settlement of internal disputes)
• IPR arrangements
– to be signed as early as possible
IPs - Reporting and Payment schedule
The consortium submits annual report containing:
– an outline of previous 12 months’ activities
– financial documents on the costs incurred (including cost
certificates and management-level justification)
– a detailed implementation plan and associated financial plan
for the following 18 months
Upon acceptance of above by the Commission:
– final settlement of payment for period concerned (subject to
any ex-post audit)
– outstanding advance supplemented up to 85% of the
anticipated Community contribution for following 18 months
Integrated Projects - payment & report schedule
Example of 4 year contract
Reporting
Accepted costs
Reporting
Detailed work plan
Accepted costs
Adjusted advance
Accepted costs
Detailed work plan
Reporting
Adjusted advance
Reporting
Adjusted advance
Accepted costs
Detailed work plan
Initial advance
Detailed work plan
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
48 Months
Integrated Projects - flexibility & autonomy
For the implementation plan, each year, the consortium
– proposes a detailed plan for the coming 18 months
– and may propose to update the overall plan
• both need approval of the Commission to enter into force
For changes in the consortium
– the consortium may itself decide to take in new participants
(though without additional funding)
• the contract will specify when this must involve a competitive call
– the Commission may decide to launch calls to add activities and
participants (with additional funding)
• e.g. to enhance SME participation
Integrated Projects - three possible implementations
“Monolithic”
• Partners known at outset
• Tasks identified
• budget known
“Incremental” participation
•Tasks identified
• budget known
• not all participants are in
“Incremental” funding
• objectives known
• technology roadmap known
• tasks to be completed
• budget to be changed
• Participants as well
IPs: addressing all needed elements of the value chain (1)
Ex: Multi-sensorial interfaces
Integrated project
Current projects
Knowledge & Data bases
Intelligent Assistants & Vir tual Humans
Intelligent Virtual Worlds
Virtual & Augmented Realities
Physical Virtual World
Gesture & Fa cial Recognition
Interface Layer
Body Sensors
Taste Speech
Haptic Devices
Displays
Actuators
Smell
All needed elements of the value chain (3): Technology-applications
IP
MST
MSTand
[email protected]
[email protected]
basedapplications
applications//systems
systems
nano-microsystems
nano-microsystemsas
ascomponents
components
(nano- micro-) Packaging, Interconnect & Assembly
nano
nano&&micro
micro
Passive
Passive
Structures
Structures
Techniques,
Techniques,
&&
Materials,
Materials,
&&
Effects.
Effects.
nano
nano&&micro
micro
Sensing
Sensing
Devices
Devices
nano
nano&&micro
micro
Actuating
Actuating
Devices
Devices
nano
nano&&micro
micro
Processing
Processing
Devices
Devices
nano-micro-optics
nano-micro-optics
nanonano-micro-magnetic
micro-magnetic
nano-micro-mechanics
nano-micro-mechanics
nano-micro-electronics
nano-micro-electronics
nanonano-micro-fluids
micro-fluids
nano-micro-biomedical
nano-micro-biomedical
nano-micro-chemical
nano-micro-chemical
nanonano-.........................
.........................
Integration along the innovation cycle
Adoption
Best practice
Take-up, trials
IP
Industry driven research
Basic research
Time
Potential evolution of an Integrated Project
–
–
–
technology / application RTD project
roadmap + single objective
RTD + demonstration + take-up
Workpackage
Workpackage
Workpackage
Workpackage
Workpackage
Workpackage
Proposed project roadmap
Call for
IP’s in
application
domain
Spin-off results
Call for trials
Add partners
e.g. SMES
Call for trials
Add partners e.g.
SMEs
Call to extend
and complete
Call for integration
of results
Application
Vision
2008-2010
QUESTIONS
&
ANSWERS
Information Society Technologies
In the 6th Framework Programme
Networks of Excellence
IST 2002 Copenhagen 4-6 November
Networks of Excellence - objectives
to reinforce or strengthen scientific and technological excellence
on a given research topic
– by integrating the critical mass of expertise needed to provide European
leadership and be a world force
– around a Joint programme of activity (JPA)
to help structuring European research by integrating research
capacities across Europe.
– Durable integration
– So as to progress knowledge on a particular theme
to Overcome the fragmentation of European research
to act as a “Virtual Centre of Excellence”
to spread excellence beyond the partners
NoE - what is the scale of critical mass?
Critical mass of effort
– the network must assemble the critical mass needed
to address key challenges in the network field
– will vary from topic to topic
– largest networks may involve several hundreds of researchers
• but networks may be much smaller
Concerning its partnership:
– minimum of 3 participants
– from 3 different countries (Member or Associated States)
– in practice more are foreseen
Concerning duration of Community support
– typically five years
– but more if needed to create a durable integration
Budget wise
– several M€ per year
NoE - the “joint programme of activity” (JPA)
The JPA contains a range of “additional” activities
Integrating activities
–
–
–
–
–
–
coordinated programming of the partners’ activities
sharing of research platforms/tools/facilities/software libraries
joint management of the knowledge portfolio - sharing of IPR
staff mobility and exchanges
relocation of staff, teams and equipment
reinforced electronic communication systems
Joint research activities
– a programme of joint research to support the network’s goals
Activities to spread excellence
– training of researchers and other key staff
– dissemination and communication - technology transfer to industry
All within a unified management structure
NoE - implementation
Selection on the basis of calls for proposals
– possibly preceded by calls for “expression of interest”
– selection criteria
• Potential impact on strengthening Europe’s excellence
• Collective excellence & ambition of the network as a whole, the JPA, the
individual members
• Extent, depth and lasting character of the integration
• Contribution to spreading of excellence
• Management and governance of the network…
Greater degree of autonomy
– possibility to modify plans, work allocation, launch call for participation
A “strengthened” peer evaluation system:
– in various stages, possibly involving individual reviews,
panel sessions, hearings of applicants…
Funding (grant for integration)
– funding is NOT a ratio of the total cost
i
NoE - flexibility & autonomy
For the joint programme of activities, each year
– detailed JPA for the coming 18 months
– possible updating of the overall JPA
• both need approval by the Commission to enter into force
For the allocation of the Community grant
– distribution among partners & activities
on an autonomous basis (consortium agreement)
For changes in the network partnership
– the partnership may decide to take in new partners
(without additional funding)
• the contract will specify when this must involve a competitive call
– the Commission may decide to launch calls to add partners
(with additional funding)
NoE -financial regime, general principles
Community support must be targeted at overcoming
the barriers to durable integration
– these barriers are often organisational, cultural & human
(cannot be quantified in normal accounting terms)
Has led to the concept of an incentive ….
taking the form of a global “fixed grant for integration”
– calculated on basis of the total number of researchers that make up the
research capacities of the partners on the topic of the network
– where a “researcher” has a PhD or at least four years research experience
– with a bonus for registered PhD students
Payments in the form of annual disbursements of the grant
will be paid on the basis of results
– will depend on a progressive advance towards a durable integration
– with an additional check that costs of at least the value of the grant were
incurred in implementing the JPA
NoE - financial regime
Grant for integration based on:
–
–
–
–
the degree of integration proposed by the consortium
the number of researchers that all participants intend to integrate
the characteristics of the field of research concerned
the joint programme of activities
a lump sum per researcher ‘involved’
– starts from 20K€ per researcher
– diminishes as the number of researchers increases
Payments
–
–
–
–
–
disbursed in annual instalments
according to planned progress in the JPA
including the effort towards lasting integration
possibly degressive to avoid dependence
can be used by the network for any activity
Grant for integration - illustration
The average annual grant to a network could vary
with the number of researchers as follows
50 researchers …………………….
€ 1 million/year
100 researchers ……………………...
€ 2 million/year
150 researchers …………………..….
€ 3 million/year
250 researchers ……………………… € 4 million/year
500 researchers ……………………… € 5 million/year
1000 researchers & above …………… € 6million/year
for intermediate numbers the grant would be calculated by linear interpolation
In this illustration a network of 200 researchers supported
over 5 years would therefore receive a fixed grant of
€17.5M (plus bonus for registered PhD students)
NoE - governance and monitoring
A network’s governance must ensure institutional
engagement by the partner organisations
– through e.g. a “governing council” of …
senior representatives from the partners
• to oversee integration of the partners’ activities
Robust output monitoring by the Commission, involving
external experts at all stages
– annual reviews
• basis for payment by results
• triggering a yellow flag/red flag, if a review is failed
– end-of-term review
• to assess impact of network on strengthening and spreading excellence
NoE - aims at integrating & shaping research
The NoE field
The JPA
Partner 2
Partner 2
Partner1
Par
tn
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner1
Partner 4
er 3
RTD activities in Europe
before the NoE(today)
Partner 4
Partner 3
Integrating activities
“Binding”
Partner 3
with the NoE
Coordinated
Partner 4
Example
Situation before the network:
– good isolated research teams in Europe
– fragmented effort, redundancy of work, multiplication of effort on basic
research tools such as software libraries etc…
– a huge gap with US, Japan in terms of quality of deliverables and
impact
– links to industry very sparse
The network:
– Brings together between 8 to 15 the best teams in Europe
– Between 50 and 150 researchers per year
– EU funds are a small part of the total effort
– Helps emerge common research work between ALL team members
– Fosters exchange of knowledge, coordination of activities,
– buillds links with the US, Japan,…
– Common deliverables, co-written papers and common research tools
Example
Main outcomes
– Solid research community with coordinated activities
– common software libraries incorporating all advances brought by
all teams
– agreement on common open standards, methodologies for data
representations, for visualisation , for problems handling....
– From coordination to common programmes..
– Wider dissemination of activities to SMEs, etc..
QUESTIONS
&
ANSWERS
Information Society Technologies
In the 6th Framework Programme
Traditional Instruments
Specific Targeted Research Projects
Co-ordination Actions
Specific Support Actions
IST 2002 Copenhagen 4-6 November
Objectives and Activities of STREPs
Designed to generate the knowledge required to
improve European competitiveness and to meet the
needs of society or Community policies:
– by improving existing or developing new products, processes
or services and/or
– by proving the viability of new technologies offering potential
economic advantage
May combine any of the following types of activities:
– Targeted, well defined and precisely focused research
and technological development
– Demonstration component(s) as appropriate
– Project management
Objectives and Activities of CAs
Designed to promote and support the networking and
co-ordination of research and innovation activities at
national, regional and European level.
– by establishing in a coherent way co-ordinated initiatives of a
range of research and innovation operators, in order to achieve
improved integration of the European research.
May combine the following two types of activities
– Co-ordination activities
– Project management activities
Types of Co-ordination activities
Each CA shall consist of a work plan, incorporating all or
some of the following types of mid/long term collaborative
activities:
• Organisation of conferences, of meetings;
• Performance of studies, analysis;
• Exchanges of personnel;
• Exchange and dissemination of good practice;
• Setting up of common information systems
• Setting up of expert groups;
• Definition, organisation, management of joint or common initiatives.
Objectives and Activities of SSAs
Designed to
– complement the other FP6 instruments,
– help in preparations for future Community research and
technological development policy activities and
– stimulate, encourage and facilitate the participation of SMEs,
small research teams, newly developed and remote research
centres, as well as those organisations from the Candidate
Countries in the activities of the priority thematic areas.
May combine the following two types of activities
– Support activities
– Project management activities
Types of Support activities
Each SSA shall have a work plan, which may consist of
one or more (as appropriate on a case by case basis) of
the following activities:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Conferences, seminars, working groups and expert groups;
Studies, analysis;
Fact findings and monitoring;
Trans-national technology transfer and take-up related
services;
Development of research or innovation strategies;
High level scientific awards and competitions;
Operational support and dissemination, information and
communication activities.
Expected scale for STREPs, CAs and SSAs
Resources: each project must assemble the resources
needed to achieve its objectives
– activities included may range up to several millions of €
• but no minimum threshold
Partnership: minimum of three participants from three
different countries (for an SSA a single one eligible)
– but in practice likely to be more
• SME participation is strongly encouraged
• ‘Third country’ participants may be included, with a possibility of
Community financial support for certain groups of countries
Duration: typically two to three years
– but exceptionally more if duly justified as necessary to deliver
the objectives
Financial regime for STREPs, CAs and SSAs
Designed to generate the knowledge required to
Community support will be in the form of a “grant to the
budget”
Paid as a contribution to actual costs
– that are incurred, economic and necessary for the project, determined
according to own rules
– that are recorded in the accounts of the participants
• or, when provided for in the contract, in the accounts of third parties
– that exclude indirect taxes, duties, interest, profit…
Annually, each participant to provide a summary cost
statement
– certified by an independent auditor (if required)
– supported by a management-level justification of costs
Cost models for STREPs, CAs and SSAs
A single family of closely related cost models
– full costs (FC),
– variation of full-costs (FCF), incorporating a flat-rate component
of 20% of all direct costs apart from subcontracting
– additional costs (ACF), incorporating a flat-rate component of
20% of all direct costs apart from subcontracting
– Each organisation may use only one of the models for all its FP6
participations, can move from FCF to FC but not visa versa
STREPS: Use all three cost models FC, FCF, ACF
CAs and SSAs: Use only two cost models: FCF and ACF
Rates of EC support for STREPs, CAs and SSAs
Maximum rates of support for FC and FCF participants:
–
–
–
Up to 50% for RTD components (STREPs)
Up to 35% for any demonstration component (STREPs)
Up to 100% for any co-ordination and/or support activities
(CAs-SSAs)
– 100% for project management (up to 7% of EC contribution; all
three instruments)
ACF participants supported at up to 100% of additional
costs for all components of the project, irrespectively of
instrument type (+ recurring project management costs
as above)
Evaluation process for STREPs, CAs and SSAs
Calls for proposals (STREPs, CAs and SSAs)
– published in the OJ, via CORDIS web-site, via NCPs
Calls for tender for SSAs
– where the legal entities are identified in the WP
– for purchase of a service
Simplified proposal-making
– limited to sufficient “management level” detail
Evaluation by a peer-review system similar to the one in
FP5 (SSAs also by EC staff)
6 Key issues to be considered for the evaluation of
STREPs-CAs, 5 Key issues for SSAs
Key issues in the evaluation of STREPs
Relevance to the objectives of the programme
– S&T, S-E, policy objectives of WP
S&T excellence
– focus, progress beyond state-of-art, S&T approach
Potential impact
– competitiveness, societal problems, European dimension,
optimal use of results
Quality of the consortium
– commitment, suitability, complementarity, SMEs
Quality of the management
– project, knowledge, IPR, innovation
Mobilisation of resources
– necessity, coherence, financial plan
Key issues in the evaluation of CAs
Relevance to the objectives of the programme
– S&T, S-E, policy objectives of WP
Quality of the co-ordination
– progress beyond state-of-art, robustness of mechanisms
Potential impact
– European dimension, Community support, critical mass
mobilisation, optimal use of results
Quality of the consortium
– suitability, complementarity
Quality of the management
– project, knowledge, IPR, innovation
Mobilisation of resources
– necessity, coherence, financial plan
Key issues in the evaluation of SSAs
Relevance to the objectives of the programme
– support objectives of WP, Call, SPs, ERA
Quality of the support action
– soundness and quality of design, competencies, innovationoriginality
Potential impact
– European dimension, Community support, optimal use of
results
Quality of the management
– credibility of capacity to deliver
Mobilisation of resources
– necessity, financial plan
Implementation of STREPs, CAs and SSAs
For the work plan, the consortium
–
–
proposes a detailed plan for the whole duration
and may propose to modify the detailed work plan
• but needs approval of the Commission to enter into force and
• without modifying the overall objectives and deliverables
For the Community contribution
– the contract will not specify its distribution between participants
For changes in the consortium
– the consortium may modify its composition (subject to Commission
approval, without additional funding, infrequent occurrence)
Payments and reporting schedule
Example of a three year STREP, CA or SSA project
Final activity report
Final payment
Reported costs +
audit certificate (mandatory)
Periodic activity report
(mid-term review : optional)
Reported costs
+ (audit certificate if required)
Intermediate
payment/
settlement
Detailed work plan
Initial advance
0
6
12 14
18
20
24 26
Months
30
36 38
Monitoring of STREPs, CAs and SSAs
Follow-up scheme:
Commission PO assigned
may foresee mid-term review with assistance of experts
(e.g. if duration 3 years or more), with a go/no go
decision to continue the project
may include various types of audits as appropriate
STREPs main characteristics
STREPs compared to IPs:
– The STREP scale of ambition is much more limited than that
of IPs, consequently :
– Different: Value of activities, Duration, Size of the consortium,
Types of activities, Types of Calls (EOI-Calls), Evaluation
process/key issues (partly), Negotiation, Consortium
agreement, Implementation (partly), Foolow-up (partly)
STREPs compared to FP5 RTD projects :
– Similar: Objectives, Scale of ambition, Value, Duration, Size of
consortium, Types of participants, Calls, Evaluation,
Negotiation, Follow-up, Audits
– Different: Financial regime, Simplified Proposals, Contractual
aspects, Consortium agreement, Collective responsibility,
Implementation, IPR
CAs main characteristics
CAs compared to NoE:
– Instrument for ad hoc co-operation between organisations for a
specific purpose - no requirement for durable integration of all
activities
– A networking instrument for research funded from other sources
(EC/national/regional)
CAs compared to SSAs:
– Instrument for more longer term co-operation and networking
compared to the more stand alone activities to be funded by
SSAs
CAs compared to IPs and STREPs:
– CA is not an instrument to fund research
SSAs main characteristics
SSAs compared to CAs:
– Instrument to support the implementation of the programme,
priority or research objective - in most cases - stand alone
events (meetings, conferences, studies etc.)
– Instrument for future oriented activities: research roadmaps,
identification of future research objectives
– Instrument for dissemination and uptake of programme results
SSAs compared to IPs and STREPs:
– SSA is not an instrument to fund research activities
Characteristics of the instruments
Instrument
Purpose
Primary
deliverable
Scale
IP
objectivedriven research
knowledge
med-high
NoE
tackle
fragmentation
structuring
med-high
169
joint MS
programmes
knowledge and/or
structuring
high
STRP
research
knowledge
low-med
CA
coordination
coordination
low-med
SSA
support
support
low-med
For further information
Regularly updated website on the instruments:
europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html
http://www.cordis.lu
http:// www.cordis.lu/ist
http:// www.cordis.lu/ist/fp6/fp6.htm
http:// www.cordis.lu/rtd2002
IST helpdesk
Fax : +32 2 296 83 88
E-Mail : [email protected]
QUESTIONS
&
ANSWERS
Proposal submission and evaluation
for the IST Priority
in the 6th Framework Programme
IST 02
Conference and Exhibition
Copenhagen 4-6 November 2002
IST Priority Infopack for Call 1
IST Priority Workprogramme 2003-2004
Call for proposals text Call 1 (Official Journal)
Brochure “The 6FP in Brief”
Guides for proposers Call 1
Evaluation Manual
Guidelines for Evaluators for IST Call 1
IST Priority Workprogramme 2003-2004
For the IST Priority 2003-2004
Technical description of the Research objectives
Gives the call “roadmap” and indicative total budgets
Identifies instruments applicable to each Research objective
For each instrument
Identifies the 5/6 evaluation criteria
Assigns weights
Indicates threshold scores required *
(*threshold on Overall score also)
Call for proposals text (Official Journal)
Identifies the Research objectives open in Call
Identifies the instruments applicable to each objective
Repeats the indicative budget information
Notes the consortium eligibility rules
Specifies modalities/address for submission of proposals
Fixes call deadline *
(*based on time of arrival of proposal)
Brochure and Guides for proposers
Brochure “The 6FP in Brief” - An overview
Guide for proposers - Call 1 - Integrated projects
Guide for proposers - Call 1 - Networks of excellence
Guide for proposers - Call 1 - Spec. targeted research proj.
Guide for proposers - Call 1 - Coordination actions
Guide for proposers - Call 1 - Specific support measures
Guide for proposers - Continuous Call - FET Open
Guide for proposers - Continuous Call - Grant applications
Guide for proposers
Type of submission and evaluation
One step submission - a written proposal *
One step evaluation for IPs and NOEs, based on written
material and a hearing for all above-threshold proposals
One step evaluation for other instruments, based on written
material only
(* FET Open in Continuous call - two step submission)
Guide for proposers
How to prepare a proposal
Pre-registration - highly recommended
Part A (forms)
Part B (format for text document)
Acknowledgment of receipt
Guide for proposers
Proposal Part A
Form A1 - General information on Proposal
Type of instrument
Proposal no., Acronym, Full title
Duration in months
Call id
Research objective (s)
Proposal abstract, keywords
One A1 form per proposal
Guide for proposers
Proposal Part A
Form A2 - Information on participants
Participant no *., Name, Address etc.
(* Coordinator is participant no. 1)
Activity type, Legal status, SME
Dependencies with other participants
Person in charge - Name, Address etc.
Proposal previously submitted
As many A2 forms as there are consortium members
Guide for proposers
Proposal Part A
Form A3 - Cost breakdown
All instruments except NOE
Activity type
Cost Req grant
Participant 1
Participant 2 etc
Total
One A3 form per proposal
Activity type…...
Cost Req grant….
Total
Cost Req grant
Guide for proposers
Proposal Part A
Form A3 - Cost breakdown
Networks of excellence
No. of researchers to be integrated
Female
Male
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2 etc
Total
No. of PhD students to be integrated
table as above
Guide for proposers
Proposal Part B
All instruments
Title page
Links to Priority (Research objectives)
Criterion 1 aspects
Criterion 2 aspects etc
Other aspects (ethics, safety, gender issues….)
Overall workplan of project
IPs, NOEs additionally provide
18 month Implementation plan/JPA (detailed)
Guide for proposers
Proposal submission
Electronically via the Internet (from early 2003)
On CD/diskette, with paper backup (from early 2003)
On paper (one copy) to the ADDRESS SET OUT IN THE
CALL TEXT
NOT to the address used in FP5: NOT to any other Commission office !
Submission and parts of proposals
PART A
PART B
PROPOSAL
CONTENT
• Objectives and expected impact
•Work plan and associated
budget
•The consortium and the project
resources
•Project management
•Exploitation and dissemination
plans
•Ethics, safety and other issues
(where relevant)
See Info-Pack/“Guide for
Proposers” for precise details
IST Guidelines for Evaluators and Eval. manual
Overview of evaluation process
Commission eligibility check :
Complete, eligible consortium, in scope, timely arrival
Experts’ individual reading
Consensus group
3-5 experts per proposal
IP and NOE hearings
Panel discussion
full panel
PROPOSAL SELECTION PROCEDURE
CALL FOR
PROPOSALS
Eligibility Check: Commission
EVALUATION: Peer review principles/
independent experts
•Official Journal
•CORDIS
•NCPs
INFORMATION
Programme Committee
MARKING AND
PRIORITY ORDER
OF PROPOSALS
NEGOTIATION
Panel (optional)
FUNDING
SCENARIO(s)
Commission
SIGNATURE OF CONTRACT
IST Calls 2003-2004
(provisional) Call roadmap
Call 1
Open 17th December 2002
Close 17h00 24th April 2003
Continuous call (FET Open & Grants)
Publication 17th December 2002
Open by February 2003
Call 2
Open 15th June 2003
Close 17h00 17th October 2003
IST Calls 2003-2004
More information at
http://www.cordis.lu/ist
and:
IST infodesk
Phone: +32 2 296 85 96
Fax: +32 2 296 83 88
E-Mail: [email protected]
Held Og Lykke !
(Good Luck !)
QUESTIONS
&
ANSWERS