Lech Michalczuk Instytut Sadownictwa i Kwiaciarstwa Centrum Doskonalosci w Dziedzinie Sadownictwa Zr

1
Lech Michalczuk
Instytut Sadownictwa i Kwiaciarstwa
Centrum Doskonalosci w Dziedzinie
Sadownictwa Zrównowazonego
Projekty badawcze 6PR w ocenie recenzenta
(eksperta) - implikacje dla projektodawców
2
Kryteria i sposób oceny projektów 6PR
3

• 1. Relevance
• Czy tematyka i cel badan pokrywaja sie z
  priorytetami 6PR? Czy uwzgledniono wsparcie dla
  SME!
• W jakim stopniu projekt uwzglednia szczególowe
  cele konkursu?

4

• 2. Potential impact
• Czy projekt przyczyni sie do zwiekszenia
  konkurencyjnosci gospodarki europejskiej (w
  szczególnosci SME!) lub rozwiaze istotne problemy
  spoleczne?
• Czy projekt wniesie wartosc dodana na poziomie
  europejskim i czy uwzglednia badania prowadzone
  na poziomie krajowym?
• Jakie jest prawdopodobienstwo uzyskania
  zalozonych celów?
• Czy wlasciwie zaplanowano wdrozenie/upowszechnieni
  e wyników?

5

• 3. ST excellence (najwazniejsze kryterium przy
  ocenie projektów STREP)
• Czy hipoteza(y) robocze i plan pracy oparte sa na
  racjonalnych przeslankach? Czy cele badawcze sa
  jasno i precyzyjnie sformulowane?
• Czy planowane badania sa innowacyjne?
• W jakim stopniu oczekiwane wyniki poszerza
  wiedze w danej dziedzinie/dyscyplinie i/lub
  przyczynia sie do rozwoju nowych technologii?
• Czy zaplanowany zakres badan pozwoli osiagnac
  wszystkie zaplanowane cele?

6

• 4. Quality of consortium
• Czy partnerzy konsorcjum maja wiedze i
  doswiadczenie wystarczajace do realizacji
  zaplanowanych badan (publikacje, patenty, udzial
  w miedzynarodowych i krajowych projektach o
  zblizonej tematyce)?
• Czy doswiadczenie partnerów jest komplementarne?
  Czy wystepuje overlaping?
• Czy uwzgledniono udzial SME w projekcie? Jezeli
  tak, czy ich wklad do projektu jest znaczacy?
• Czy zachowana jest równowaga plci wykonawców na
  wszystkich poziomach?
• Czy konsorcjum ma wymiar europejski?
• Czy wspólpraca miedzynarodowa jest dobrze
  zaplanowana?

7

• 5. Quality of management (w projektach CA
  Quality of coordination - najwazniejsze
  kryterium oceny)
• Czy zarzadzanie projektem jest dobrze zaplanowane
  (kompetencje kierownika projektu i partnerów,
  wzajemne zobowiazania i rozliczenia,
  sprawozdawczosc, komunikacja miedzy partnerami
  etc.)?
• Czy kierownik projektu ma doswiadczenie w
  zarzadzaniu projektami krajowymi i
  miedzynarodowymi?
• Czy istnieje dobry plan ochrony wlasnosci
  intelektualnych?

8

• 6. Mobilisation of resources
• Czy ogólny plan finansowy jest dobrze uzasadniony
  i czy pozwoli na osiagniecie zalozonych celów?
• Czy sprzet i aparatura bedace na wyposazeniu
  partnerów sa wystarczajace do osiagniecia
  zamierzonych celów (wskazana komplementarnosc)?
  Jezeli planowany jest zakup aparatury, czy jest
  on dobrze uzasadniony? Czy wzieto pod uwage
  mozliwosc lizingu aparatury?
• Czy personel zaangazowana w projekcie jest
  odpowiedni (ilosciowo i jakosciowo) do
  osiagniecia zamierzonych celów?

9
Korzysci z bycia ekspertem (recenzentem) Komisji
Europejskiej
10
Jak zostac ekspertem Komisji Europejskiej?
11
Example of comments

• ..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.

12
Example of comments

• 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.

13
Example of comments

• 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

14
Example of comments

• 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.

15
Example of comments

• reflecting excellent ST 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.

16
Example of comments

• reflecting poor ST 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.

17
Example of comments

• 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.

18
Example of comments

• 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.

19
Example of comments

• 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.

20
Example of comments

• 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.

21
Example of comments

• 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.

22
Example of comments

• 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.

23
Evaluating Coordination Action
24
What are the criterion Relevance and Quality of
Coordination?

• Relevance identical to STREP (threshold 3/5)
• 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

Differences from the STREP are in this colour !!
25
What is the criterion POTENTIAL IMPACT ?

• 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

26
What is the criterion Quality of Consortium ?

• 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