Proof of Concept IGLO Veronica Beneitez Pinero March 2015.
-
Upload
joshua-miller -
Category
Documents
-
view
229 -
download
0
Transcript of Proof of Concept IGLO Veronica Beneitez Pinero March 2015.
Proof of ConceptIGLO
Veronica Beneitez Pinero
March 2015
Established by the European Commission
│ 2
The Scientific Management Department in theERC Executive Agency
Established by the European Commission
│ 3
Functions of the Scientific Managament Department
• Evaluation of the proposals of ERC calls Scientific evaluation Ethics clearance of proposals proposed for funding
• Project follow-up Scientific project follow-up Ethics follow-up
• Ex-post qualitative assessment of the research funded
• IT and BP support in the evaluation process• Expert management recruitment and support• Redress• Implementation of international agreements
Established by the European Commission
│ 4
B
Scientific Management Department
Process Management and Review
Call and Project Follow-up
Coordination
Life Sciences
Structure of the Scientific Management Department
Physical Sciences and Engineering
Social Sciences
and Humanities
Staff of the Department: 165
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5
PoC
Established by the European Commission
│ 5
• Independent experts, evaluate proposals submitted in response to a given call.
• The experts are responsible for carrying out the evaluation of the proposals themselves.
• They are not allowed to delegate the work to another person!
• Significant funding decisions will be made on the basis of their assessment.
Role of independent experts
Established by the European Commission
│ 6
Objective: The ERC Proof of Concept Grants aim to maximise the value of the excellent research that the ERC funds, by funding further work to verify the innovation potential of ideas arising from ERC funded projects.
What kind of activities that can be financed: • establishing viability, technical issues and overall direction• market research • clarifying IPR strategy • investigating business opportunities• Initial expenses for start-up
PoC : Principles Objective and activities
Established by the European Commission
│ 7
The financial contribution will be up to a maximum of EUR 150 000 for a period of 18 months.
"The ERC expects that normally, proof of concept projects should be completed within 12 months. However, to allow for those projects that require more preparation time, projects will be signed for 18 months. Given this initial flexibility, extensions of the duration of proof of concept projects may be granted only exceptionally."
The ERC contribution will take the form of the reimbursement of up to 100% of the total eligible and of flat-rate financing of indirect costs of a maximum of 25% of the total eligible direct costs
PoC : Principles Financial contribution and duration
Established by the European Commission
│ 8
PoC : Evaluation Flow
Reception of proposals -
SEP submission
Eligibility check
Remote Evaluation (SEP)
Evaluation results
Panel meeting
Feedback to
applicants
Preliminary evaluation
results
Established by the European Commission
│ 9
PoC : Submission of proposals
Reception of proposals -
SEP submission
ERCEA published the call on the Participant Portal
- Work Programme- Guide for Applicants- Templates- Frequently Asked Questions
The work programme is a legally binding document. It is a dynamic document , published annually, set out the evaluation criteria.Main Changes 2015 WP:
Increase of PoC budget : €20 millionResubmission restriction: 1 PoC application per year.Simplification of evaluation criteria
Established by the European Commission
│ 10
PoC : Submission of proposals
The applicant must submit the required documents before the call deadline
The documents are :
Administrative dataPart B ( 7 pages + budget table Max)Host Support Letter
Additional documents: Annexes ( Not relevant for the evaluation)
Established by the European Commission
│ 11
PoC : Structure of the submitted proposal (1/2)
Section 1: The idea - Innovation potential (max. 2 pages) a. Succinct description of the idea to be taken to proof of conceptb. Demonstration of Innovation Potential
Section 2 – Expected Impact (max. 2 pages): a. Economic and/or societal benefitsb. Commercialisation process and/or any other exploitation process c. Proposed plans for :- Competitive analysis - Testing, technical reports (where applicable)- IPR position and strategy (where applicable)- Industry/sector contacts (where applicable)
Established by the European Commission
│ 12
Section 3: The proof of concept plan (max 2 pages) a. Plan of the activitiesb. Project-management planc. Description of the team Section 4: The budget (max 1 page + costing table)a. Resources (incl. project costs)
b. Justification (description of the budget)
Only the material that is presented within this limit will be evaluated
PoC : Structure of the submitted proposal (2/2)
Established by the European Commission
│ 13
PoC : Elegibility Check 1/2
Eligibility check
Done in house by ERCEA Scientific Officers
Eligible Project: Proposal complete and submitted on time The content of the proposal must relate to the
objectives and to the grant type set out in the call Demonstrate the relation between the idea to be
taken to PoC and the ERC research grant.
Eligible Principal Investigator: The PI has to be in an ERC frontier research that
is either ongoing or has ended less than 12 months before the opening date of the call.
The PI is subject to resubmission restrictions ( one eligible application per call)
Eligible Host Institution: In a Member State or Associated Country
Established by the European Commission
│ 14
PoC : Elegibility Check 2/2
The check is done in parallel to the evaluation. So a proposal can be declare ineligible at any stage.
If ineligible, you will be informed and the proposal will dissapear from your list of assigned proposal.
Applicants will be informed as soon as the decistion is taken.
Applicants can redress on the elegibility decision.
Established by the European Commission
│ 15
PoC : Remote evaluation 1/4
Remote Evaluation (SEP)
5 reviews/proposal No discussions between reviewers Report any Conflict of Interest (CoI) Remote, using SEP
• PASS/FAIL mark on each criterion
• Succinct explanatory comment for each mark
• Sign and submit your reviews
Established by the European Commission
│ 16
PoC : Remote evaluation 2/4
We have aligned the template of Part B with the evaluation criteria to make the review process a bit more simple.
Evaluation Criteria 1 Excellence (Innovation potential)
Section 1: The idea - Innovation potential (max. 2 pages)
Does the proposed proof of concept activity greatly help move the output of researchtowards the initial steps of a process leading to a commercial or social innovation?
Demonstration of Innovation Potential
Established by the European Commission
│ 17
PoC : Remote evaluation 3/4
2. Impact Section 2 – Expected Impact:
2.1 Is the project to be taken to proof of concept expected to generate economic and/orsocietal benefits which are appropriately identified in the proposal?2.2 Does the proposal indicate a suitable process that is designed to result in a concreteapplication, including outlining a process of commercialisation or a process of generatingsocial benefits?
a. Economic and/or societal benefitsb. Commercialisation process and/or any other exploitation process c. Proposed plans for :
The proposal should include:- plans for the analysis of whether the project’s outcomes are innovative or distinctivecompared to existing solutions;- plans for seeking confirmation of the actual effectiveness of the project’s results;- plans to clarify the IPR position and strategy33;- plans for setting up contacts with industry partners, societal organisations or potential ‘endusers’ of the projects’ results.
- Competitive analysis - Testing, technical reports (where applicable)- IPR position and strategy (where applicable)- Industry/sector contacts (where applicable)
Established by the European Commission
│ 18
PoC : Remote evaluation 4/4
3. Quality and efficiency of the implementation (Quality of the proof of concept plan)
Section 3: The proof of concept plan (max 2 pages)Section 4: The budget (max 1 page + costing table)
Does the proposal provide a reasonable and acceptable plan of activities against clearlyidentified objectives and towards establishing the feasibility of the project?This should include:- a sound project-management plan, including appropriate risk and contingency planning;- demonstration that the activities will be conducted by persons well qualified for thepurpose;-demonstration that the budget requested is necessary for the implementation of theproject and properly justified.
a. Plan of the activitiesb. Project-management planc. Description of the team
Established by the European Commission
│ 19
PoC : Preliminary Results ranking 1/3
Preliminary evaluation
results
Proposals which fail a criterion will not be ranked
Proposal’s score = S PASS marks
Same number of reviews for each proposal
Every mark has an impact
Proposals will be funded up to depletion of budget6,6 M€ for each deadline = ~44 proposals
Established by the European Commission
│ 20
PoC : Preliminary Results ranking 2/3
If there is not enough budget to fund all the proposals which pass all three evaluation criteria, those proposals which pass all three evaluation criteria will be sorted by the number of pass marks awarded by peer reviewers to criterion 1 (Excellence- Innovation potential), then by the number of pass marks awarded to criterion 2 (Impact), then by the number of pass marks awarded to criterion 3 (Quality and efficiency of the implementation). Proposals will be funded in order of the ranking resulting from this 3-level sorting exercise until depletion of the available budget per evaluation round.
Established by the European Commission
│ 21
PoC : Preliminary Results ranking 3/3
If there is a group of equally ranked fundable proposals that crosses the budget cut off line, the panel will proceed as follows:
All the experts involved in the evaluation of at least one proposal in this group will be sent the reviews of all the proposals in the group. They will then examine all the proposals in the group and the existing reviews, and decide on their own personal ranking.
The ERCEA will compile a sub-ranking within the group taking into account the CoIs1, and will then come up with an overall final ranking list.
Established by the European Commission
│ 22
PoC : Panel meeting
Panel meeting
After the evaluation, all the experts will have to confirm by sending an e mail that they agree with the results of the evaluation.
Only in the case a consensus cannot be reached, the ERCEA can call for a panel meeting in order to discuss the ranking order of the proposals.
Established by the European Commission
│ 23
PoC : Feedback to applicants
Feedback to applicants
Applicants are informed on the results of the evaluation:
- Status of their proposal (Retained, Rejected, Failed)
- Scores (pass/ failed) + Comments
Ethical
Granting
Established by the European Commission
│ 24
Established by the European Commission
│ 25
Established by the European Commission
│ 26
Who? PI / PI host institution
Deadline? within 1 month of feedback
How? online form
PoC : Evaluation ProcessRedress
Scope? Formal review = procedural errors only
No scientific judgment
No evaluation of the proposal on the substance
Successful redress ≠ financed project !
Established by the European Commission
│ 27
• Wrong eligibility decision ( 2 cases 2014 DL1)• Application of irrelevant criteria (2 cases 2014 DL2)• Incorrect application of criteria• Wrong thresholds or scoring• Clear conflicts of interest• Unqualified experts• Factual errors affecting whole evaluation
PoC : Evaluation Process Cases that may lead to re-evaluation
Established by the European Commission
│ 28
PoC : Tentative Evaluation Calendar( depending on workload)
DEADLINE 1 DEADLINE 2 DEADLINE 3
Deadline for submission of proposals : 05/02/2015
Deadline for submission of proposals : 28/05/2015
Deadline for submission of proposals : 01/10/2015
Allocation of proposals in SEP: 16/02/2015
Allocation of proposals in SEP: 08/06/2015
Allocation of proposals in SEP: 12/10/2015
Deadline Remote evaluation: 16/03/2015
Deadline Remote evaluation: 08/07/2015
Deadline Remote evaluation: 12/11/2015
Ranking etc 25/03/2015 Ranking etc 15/07/2015 Ranking etc 20/11/2015
Expected feedback to applicants: April 2015
Expected feedback to applicants: July 2015
Expected feedback to applicants: January 2016
ERC PoC 2014 - Overview
• Call published in December 2013.• ERC received 442 proposals
182 proposals DL1 260 proposals DL2
• 167 LS (79 DL1/ 88 DL2)
• 215 PE (75 DL1/140 DL2)
• 60 SH (28 DL1/32 DL2)
• 2 Synergy proposal (1DL1/1DL2)
• 205 proposals passed all the thresholds• 91 DL1 / 114 DL2
• The SC decided to increase the budget by 20% . Finally 121 proposals funded
61 proposals DL1 60 proposals DL2
• Success rate 27% DL1/ 20% DL2
• Publication of results in the website: list of projects , PI and Host Institutions
ERC PoC 2014 - Overview
ERC Proof of Concept Evolution of Success rates and Budget used
DL1 DL2 DL1 DL2 DL1 DL2 DL1 DL22011 2012 2013 2014
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
41%
33%
55%
45%
24% 24%27%
20%
88%
57%
96%
79%
97% 99% 99% 100%Success rates Budget used
ERC Proof of Concept 2011-2012-2013-2014 - Success rates by domain
PE PE PE PE LS LS LS LS SH SH SH SH2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
67%
58%
30%
37%
23%
54%
18%
25%
10%
50%
5%11%
77%
65%
32%
24%18%
30%
20%16%
5%
27%
9%3%
DL1 DL2
PE
5
LS
7
PE
6
PE
8
PE
4
PE
7
PE
2
LS
5
LS
9
PE
3
LS
2
LS
1
SH
4
SH
2
SH
5
LS
8
LS
4
PE
10
SH
3
LS
3
SY
G6
LS
6
PE
9
SH
1
PE
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
31
25
18 18
16 1615
13
11
9
76
54 4 4 4
32 2
1 1 1 1 1
Number of PoC Projects SIGNED per panel as at January 2015
ERC Proof of Concept 2014- DL1- DL2 # of Funded proposals by panel.
PE
8
LS
7
PE
5
PE
7
PE
4
PE
3
PE
6
LS
5
LS
4
LS
1
PE
2
LS
2
LS
6
SH
4
LS
3
LS
8
LS
9
PE
1
SH
1
SH
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6 6
4
5
4
2
5
4
2 2
1
2 2
1 1 1 1 1
8
4
6
4 4
5
2 2
3
2
3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
# FUNDED PROPOSALS DL 1
# FUNDED PROPOSALS DL 2
Established by the European Commission
Proof of Concept Grant
PoC 2014: all the applicants have been informed
4 redress cases submitted ( to be dealt with)
│ 35
Established by the European Commission
Number of PoC proposals submitted by deadline until now
DL1 DL2 DL1 DL2 DL1 DL2 DL1 DL2 DL12011 2012 2013 2014 2015
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
78 73 72 67
146 147
183
260
97
Established by the European Commission
│ 37
2014 DL1
2014 DL2
2015 DL1
2014 DL1
2014 DL2
2015 DL1
2014 DL1
2014 DL2
2015 DL1
PE LS SH
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
41%
54%51%
43%
33% 34%
15% 13%9%
% of PoC submissions by domain
Established by the European Commission
│ 38
LS1
LS3
LS5
LS7
LS9
PE1PE3
PE5PE7
PE9SH2
SH4SH6
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
2%
4%
1%
5%4%
3%
9%
2%
4%3%
4%
1%
6%
9%
4%
12%
10%
1%2%
3%4%
1%1%
2014 DL1 2014 DL2
2015 DL1
ERC PoC 2015: Submissions by panel %
Established by the European Commission
│ 39
UK DE FR NL ES IL BE CH SE IT EL AT CY DK FI IE PL TR02468
101214161820
18
14
9 97 7
6 6 65
21 1 1 1 1 1 1
# of proposals
Number of PoC proposals submitted by HI country
Established by the European Commission
│ 40
PoC Challenges
What is the life after the PoC?
Applicants behaviour
Fairness of the process
Get good SH applications
Thank you for your attention