1. No category

Marie Curie:
- Initial Training Networks
- Industry-Academia Partnership
and Pathways
Emma Carey
University of Bristol, 20 October 2010
UK National Contact Point
mariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk
http://www.ukro.ac.uk
Arts and Humanities Research Council
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
UK Research Office
Economic and Social Research Council
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Medical Research Council
Natural Environment Research Council
Science and Technology Facilities Council
UK Research Office
UKRO’s Services
‘Core’ subscriber services
Open to non-subscribers
Query service
(Majority of) training courses and
information events
Annual briefing visits
(for UK subscribers)
Annual Conference
News updates
ims.ukro.ac.uk
Marie Curie UK National Contact
Point
Subscriber website
www.ukro.ac.uk/subs
European Research Council UK
National Contact Point
Meeting room in Brussels
British Council
European RTD Insight publication
Framework Programme 7 and the
‘People’ specific programme
UK NCP for Marie Curie
mariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk
http://www.ukro.ac.uk/mariecurie
Framework Programme 7
FP7 Specific Programmes
Co-operation – Collaborative Research
European Research Council
Marie Curie Actions
Capacities – Research Capacity
JRC
EURATOM
FP7 – Marie Curie Actions
Marie Curie Actions
Objectives and Policy Context:
• Make Europe more attractive to researchers
• Structuring effect on the European Research Area
through transnational and intersectoral mobility in order
to create a European labour market for researchers
• Strengthen human potential by:
• Encouraging people to become researchers
• Encouraging researchers to carry out their research
in Europe
• Trans-national and inter-sectoral mobility
• €4.7 Billion
FP7 – Marie Curie Actions
Marie Curie Actions
Objectives and Policy Context:
“The People Work programme actively supports
the Commission’s Europe 2020 Strategy, and in
particular 3 flagship initiatives: ‘Innovation
Union’, ‘Youth on the Move’ and ‘An Agenda for
new skills and jobs’” (2011 Work programme)
EU 2020: http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/index_en.htm
Innovation Union:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovationunion/index_en.cfm
Youth on the Move:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/news2540_en.htm
People Specific Programme
Overview of Marie Curie Actions
Actions for
Organisations
Actions for Individuals
Initial Training Networks
Industry Academia
Partnerships and Pathways
International Research Staff
Exchange Scheme
CO-FUND
Intra- European
Fellowships
International Incoming
Fellowships
International Outgoing
Fellowships
Career Integration Grants
FP7 – People – Marie Curie
2011 Deadlines
Industry Academia Partnerships and
Pathways (IAPP)
20 July 2010 – 7 December 2010
Researchers’ Night
28 September 2010 – 12 January 2011
Initial Training Networks (ITN)
20 July 2010 – 26 January 2011
COFUND
20 October 2010 – 17 February 2011
Career Integration Grants (CIG)
20 October 2010 – 8 March 2011 and 6
September 2011
International Research Staff Exchange
Scheme (IRSES)
20 October 2010 – 17 March 2011
Intra- European Fellowships (IEF)
International Incoming Fellowships
(IIF)
International Outgoing Fellowships
(IOF)
16 March 2011 – 11 August 2011
FP7 – Marie Curie Actions
Definition of researchers
Early-Stage Researchers
0 - 4 years (FTE)
from obtaining degree that
qualified them to embark
on a doctorate
Experienced Researchers
i) in possession of a PhD
or
i) at least 4 years
experience (FTE)
FP7 – Marie Curie Actions
Transnational Mobility
Requirements
• Must not have been resident in host country for more
than 12 months in the last 3 years date of recruitment
or secondment
• Researchers can return to the country of their
nationality if the mobility rule is respected
• For international organisations the country mobility
rule does not apply – BUT the fellow must not have
spent more than
• 12 months in the previous 3 years at the host
international organisation.
• Note – IOF 3rd country nationals have to have spent 5 years
before the deadline in Member States or countries
associated to FP7
Industry Academia Partnerships and
Pathways (IAPPs)
http://www.ukr
IAPPs – 2011 call info
FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP
• Publication date: 20 July 2010
• Call deadline: 7 December 2010
• Indicative budget: €80 million
• Indicative timetable:
• Results expected 4 months after deadline
• Grants agreement signature from 9 months after
deadline
FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP
IAPPs in context
“ Transnational and intersectoral mobility is a
key feature and strong participation by
enterprises, in particular SMEs, is considered
an important added value. The enhancement
of industry-academia co-operation in terms of
research training, career development and
knowledge-sharing is encouraged.”
Indicative budget share for IAPPS 20072013 = 5-10% of overall people budget
FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP
What is an Industry–Academia
Pathways and Partnership?
• It is a two-way partnership with at least one
commercial enterprise and one academic
organisation in two different Member or
Associated Countries
• An IAPP aims to increase industry-academia
co-operation by:
• Supporting the creation, development, reinforcement
and execution of strategic partnerships
• Creating diverse career possibilities and experience for
researchers
• Knowledge sharing/cultural exchange, especially SMEs
• Aiming for longer term co-operation between both
sectors
FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP
What can you do with an IAPP?
• Projects funded for up to 48 months
• Staff exchange – early stage or experienced
researchers (and possibly technical staff and
research managers!) for between 2 months and 2
years (mandatory)
• Recruit experienced researchers for between 12
months and 2 years (optional)
• Newly recruited experienced researchers must be
appointed under employment contracts only
• Focus of the scheme is on inter-sectoral mobility
• Organise common workshops/conferences
• For SMEs, a contribution towards small equipment
costs (up to 10% of project total)
FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP
Definitions of eligible organisations
Each IAPP must involve at least one university/research
centre in the non-commercial sector and at least one entity
from the commercial sector. An IAPP project can be coordinated by a partner from either of the two sectors
Commercial sector partners:
• must be organisations operating on a commercial
enterprise, gaining the majority of their revenue through
competitive means with exposure to commercial markets.
• may include: incubators; start-ups; spin-offs; venturecapital companies; etc.
• may range in size from the smallest- micro-companies
with research capacity to very large multi-national
enterprises
Definitions of eligible organisations
FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP
Non-commercial sector partners can include;
• National organisations, e.g., universities, public noncommercial research centres
• Non-profit or charitable organisations (e.g., NGOs, trusts,
etc.)
• International European interest organisations (e.g. CERN)
• The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission
• Other international organisations (e.g. WHO, UNESCO,
etc.)
FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP
Statistics (1)
2007
2008
2009
Submitted
103
141
358
Evaluated
102
141
356
Selected
41
51
59
Budget (M
Euro)
38.5
45
65
Success rate
40 %
36 %
16.6 %
Statistics (2)
FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP
Industry/Academia ratio (A list)
Industry
Academia
Participants
Coord.
131 (54%)
23 (24%)
110 (46%)
36 (76%)
SME participation
Participants
Coord.
Total
536 (36.4 %)
81 (22.8 %)
A list
78 (32.4 %)
11 (18.6 %)
FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP
Size of consortia:
“There is no predefined maximum number of
participants. However under similar schemes in the
past the most common number of participants was 23. Largest projects ranged from 4 to 6 participants.
Past experience has shown that this is a manageable
size.”(2011 Guide to Applicants)
Size of grants in 2007
•
•
•
•
Funding model flexible: smallest €270,000, largest > €2.2m
Smallest consortium = 2 partners
Largest consortium = 15 partners
Average consortium size = 3.7 partners
Submission and Evaluation
http://www.ukr
FP7 – Marie Curie – Your Proposal
Your project is mainly defined in ….
…PART B of the proposal forms
(Part A is administrative info)
• PART B addresses the evaluation criteria
• …which vary according to MCA
• …and have different weightings and thresholds
• General structure of Part B for individual
fellowships is:
•
•
•
•
•
Cover Page, Table of Contents
S & T Quality
Transfer of Knowledge
Implementation
Impact
MCA – Submission & Evaluations
Evaluation of proposals
• Evaluation by competent experts in the field
• Need to address all of the issues to maximise
scores
• Total score is 100%
• Overall threshold (70%)
• Some criteria have a threshold
• Each area is weighted
• Science counts for 25%; Impact counts for
30%!!
• You must focus on the objectives of the
activity to be successful
MCA – Submission & Evaluations
Process timetable
Publication of call
20-07-2010
Deadline for submission of
proposals
7 December 2010 at
17.00.00,
Brussels local time
Mid March-2011
Evaluation of proposals
Evaluation Summary Reports sent to End April-2011
proposal coordinators ("initial
information letter")
Invitation letter to successful
coordinators to launch grant
agreement
negotiations with REA services
Letter to unsuccessful applicants
Mid June-2011
Signature of first grant agreements
From September-2011
From August-2011
Maximising Your Chances of
Success
http://www.ukr
Marie Curie – What’s required
What does the Commission want?
A project that matches “their” objectives:
“This action seeks to enhance industry-academia co-operation
in terms of research training, career development and
knowledge sharing, in particular with SMEs, and including
traditional manufacturing industries. It is based on longer-term
co-operation programmes with a high potential for increasing
mutual understanding of different cultural settings and skill
requirements of both the industrial and academic sectors.
The IAPP action in 2010 will provide EUR 80 million to support
the ‘Innovation Union’ flagship initiative by strengthening
research and business performance and by promoting
innovation and knowledge transfer throughout the EU.”
Text taken from 2011 People Work Programme
FP7 – People – Marie Curie
IAPPS – Part B
S & T Quality
Transfer of knowledge
Researcher
25%
20%
3/5
3/5
N/A
Implementation
25%
3/5
Impact
30%
No threshold
Overall threshold 70%
FP7 – People – Marie Curie
MCA – S&T Quality
Sub-criteria : 3/5
25%
• Scientific/technological objectives of the research
programme, including in terms of intersectoral issues
• Scientific quality of the joint collaborative research
programme
• Appropriateness of the research methodology
• Originality and innovative aspect of the research
programme. Knowledge of state-of-the-art
Marie Curie – What’s required
Assessors’ comments on S & T quality:
positive
• The project is very challenging and innovative
• The involvement of the private sector is meaningful and
complementary to the academic partners
• The proposal is genuinely inter-sectoral and interdisciplinary
• Science and Technological objects are clearly described and
detailed
• Valuable and innovative scientific advances with respect to the
state-of –the-art are envisaged
• The research methodology is appropriate, comprehensive and
well-planned
• The research programme and methodology are very well
detailed and integrated with the envisaged transfer of
knowledge and training.
Marie Curie – What’s required
Assessors’ comments on S & T quality:
negative
• The research programme lacks a detailed list of workpackages,
timetable and particular involvement of each partner is not
specifically included.
• The project is not very original since it is based on previous
results obtained by academic partners.
• The project research methodology is not properly developed
and lacks details as regards risk assessment, milestones and
outcomes.
• Presents limited intersectoriality
• No previous documented information – articles, scientifc
journals, conferences, and so on.
FP7 – People – Marie Curie
MCA – Transfer of Knowledge
Sub-criteria
3/5
20%
• Quality of the transfer of knowledge programme.
Consistency with the research programme
• Importance of the transfer of knowledge in terms of
intersectoral issues.
• Adequacy of the role of researchers exchanged and
recruited from outside the partnership with respect to
the transfer of knowledge programme.
Marie Curie – What’s required
Assessors’ comments on Transfer of
Knowledge: positive
• Well-planned strategy for secondments and recruitments
providing for effective knowledge transfer between public and
private sectors
• The inter-sectoral secondments are planned in detail (names of
researchers and scientific areas in which they will be involved)
• The involvement of ESRs in the secondment scheme is
important for the advancement of their scientific careers
• The partners demonstrate sound capacity to receive and
transfer knowledge; suitable scientific, training and
complementary training course are planned
• The researchers who will be recruited have defined research
tasks and the requested duration and time of recruitments is
appropriate
• The human resources in the proposal are clear, relevant,
consistent with the research, well justified and of high quality
Marie Curie – What’s required
Assessors’ comments on Transfer of
Knowledge: negative
• Secondments are only indicated in terms of person/month
within a table, but are not described in detail and no additional
explanations are given.
• ToK referring to young researchers is not addressed in
sufficient detail.
• There is only a limited consistency between the research
programme and ToK due to the vague description of the latter.
• Transfer of knowledge is unbalanced with too much emphasis
on academic research
• Importance of ToK in terms of intersectorialty is not
demonstrated as the industrial partner has limited participation
in research
• The precise role in training of the industrial partner is not clearly
described.
FP7 – People – Marie Curie
MCA – Implementation (1)
Sub-criteria
3/5
25%
• Capacities (expertise/human
resources/facilities/infrastructures) to achieve the
research and exchange of know-how and experience.
Fit between capacity of host and size of support
requested
• Adequate exploitation of complementarities and
synergies among partners in terms of transfer of
knowledge.
FP7 – People – Marie Curie
MCA – Implementation (2)
Sub-criteria
3/5
25%
• Appropriateness of management plans (recruitment
strategy, IPR strategy, demarcation of responsibilities,
rules for decision making, etc.
• How essential is non-ICPC Third Country
participation, if any, to the objectives of the research
programme.
Marie Curie – What’s required
Assessors’ comments on Implementation:
positive
• The partners are complementary and well-suited for the
envisaged research and ToK
• The key scientific staff involved are experienced and have an
appropriate level of involvement
• Project management and risk assessment are well-structured
and approached
• The envisaged work plan is very well thought out and
structured, with detailed and suitable deliverables, clear
allocation of roles and effective progress reporting measures
• IP generated under this project will be carefully managed and
the strategy takes carefully into account development
perspectives of the industrial partner
• Facilities and infrastructures are up-to-date and suitable for the
project outcomes.
Marie Curie – What’s required
Assessors’ comments on Implementation:
negative
• Secondments are not sufficiently specified
• Some aspects of management structure are not described in
detail
• The management plan is scarcely defined in some points
• Time commitment of the co-ordinator to project activities is
limited
• Recruitment strategy and its contribution to research activities
is not detailed
• The technical background of the academic partners is not clear
• It is not sufficiently detailed on the point of capacities,
specifically in regard to scientific expertise, facilities and
infrastructures, to achieve a real experience and know-how
exchange
• IPR aspects are unclear.
MCA – Impact
FP7 – People – Marie Curie
Sub-criteria
No threshold – but 30%
•
Provision to develop new intersectoral and lasting collaboration
• Strategy for the dissemination and facilitation of sharing of knowledge
and culture between the particpants and external researchers (inc.
international conferences, workshops, training events)
• Extent to which SMEs contribute to the project
• In case of SMEs participation: Adequacy of the available
infrastructures for the performance of the project. In case extra
equipment is requested, necessity & justification in the context of the
partnership.
•Impact of proposed outreach activities
Marie Curie – What’s required
Assessors’ comments on Impact: positive
• The project plans for the lasting collaboration between the
partners in a field that is still not widely exploited.
• The circulation of information and the exploitation of results is
well addressed
• There are possible and promising exploitation routes for the
planned results
• It can be foreseen that new and fruitful collaboration will ensue
• Dissemination strategy is accurately designed and has
appropriate targets; tools are adequate and of excellent quality
• The potential impact of the project is relevant, with a clear
European dimension.
Marie Curie – What’s required
Assessors’ comments on Impact: negative
• The intersectoriality of the project is not described in detail in
terms of future collaborations; indeed, it is specifically
mentioned that lasting collaboration will only be foreseen in the
case of developing a spin-off project
• Contribution of the SME to the project is limited
• Standardisation aspects are not properly addressed
• Possible commercial impact, in particular through SME, not
addressed.
• Central role of SME is stressed but the need for key extra
equipment seems to contradict the present adequacy and
availability of infrastructure
• Details of application are not well described.
Marie Curie Initial Training Networks
UK National Contact Point
mariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk
http://www.ukro.ac.uk
ITNs – 2011 call info
FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN
• Publication date: 20 July 2010
• Call deadline: 26 January 2011
• Indicative budget: €318.41 million
• Indicative timetable:
• Results expected 4 months after deadline
• Grants agreement signature from 9 months after
deadline
What is an ITN?
FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN
• Aims:
• Offering a series of fellowships to ESR and EXR
through a Joint Training Programme including
complementary skills modules – focus on development
of early-stage researchers
• Covers networking costs & the organisation of short
training events
• As an option, can recruit ‘visiting scientists’
• Duration of funding for networks = 48 months
• ITNs are in:
• Defined scientific fields as well as inter-disciplinary,
new and emerging supra-disciplinary fields
FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN
Who can participate in an ITN?
• At least 3 different research groups from Member
or Associated States
• BUT ALSO it can be single sites (in Member or
Associated States) if the international context is
strong – role of associated partners key
• Third country partners are eligible, in addition to
the minimum requirements. International Cooperation Partner Countries (ICPC) may receive
funding, whilst those in non-ICPCs may receive
funding if absolutely essential for the project
FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN
Who participates in an ITN?
• An ITN has both industrial and academic partners.
Industry involvement essential at one of two
levels:
• As a full partner
• Provider of specific training or secondment
opportunities
Note: the third-level option of involvement
through membership of an advisory board is no
longer available
FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN
Who participates in an ITN?
Private sector partners:
• must be organisations gaining the majority of their
revenue through competitive means with
exposure to commercial markets.
• Industry representatives can participate but do
not satisfy this criterion
• Think broadly about potential private sector
partners – end users?
ITN must have Coherent quality standards and
mutual recognition of training/ diplomas
FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN
Who can you recruit to an ITN?
• An ITN supports researchers:
• With up to 5 years FTE
• From all over the world
• For periods of 3 - 36 months (ESRs)
• For periods of up to 24 months (EXRs)
Researchers can be of any nationality but must
comply with the mobility rule
ITNs – key issues
FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN
• Ratio ESR/ER:
- ‘The total amount of ESRs and ERs should be
reasonable and in line with what is recommended in
the Guide for Applicants’ (80/20)
• Visiting Scientists:
- Exceptional and duly justified in the context of the
training programme. Even less prominence in 2011 call.
• Conferences:
- ‘should be proportionate to the proposed research
training programme’
- ‘is an opportunity for the recruiter researchers to
exchange knowledge with more experienced
researchers from outside the network’.
Results and funded projects
UK National Contact Point
mariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk
http://www.ukro.ac.uk
ITNs – result of 2007call
FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN
PANEL
Evaluated
proposals
Evaluated
Funded
proposals at
proposals
stg 2
Success
Rate
LIF
229
51
19
8.3%
ENG
183
38
14
7.6%
PHY
152
37
10
6.6%
CHE
115
26
8
7%
ENV
95
17
8
8.4%
SOC
78
16
5
6.4%
MAT
29
5
2
6.9%
ECO
21
6
2
9.5%
TOTAL
902
196
68
7.5%
ITNs – results of 2008 call
FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN
Evaluated
proposals
Funded
proposals
Success Rate
Reserve list
LIF
264
30
11.4%
4
ENG
185
21
11.4%
4
PHY
114
11
9.6%
3
CHE
85
8
9.4%
3
ENV
108
10
9.3%
3
SOC
90
10
11%
3
MAT
19
1
5.3%
1
ECO
21
1
4.8%
2
TOTAL
886
92
10.4%
23
ITNs – results of 2010 call
FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN
Evaluated
proposals
Funded
proposals
Success Rate
LIF
230
19
8.2%
ENG
199
14
7.0%
PHY
126
8
6.3%
CHE
100
7
7.0%
ENV
95
7
7.4%
SOC
77
6
7.8%
MAT
18
1
5.6%
ECO
21
1
4.8%
TOTAL
863
63
7.4%
Evaluation criteria
UK National Contact Point
mariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk
http://www.ukro.ac.uk
MCA – Submission & Evaluations
Process timetable
Publication of call
20-07-2010
Deadline for submission of
proposals
26-01-2011 at 17:00:00,
Brussels
local time
Mid April-2011
Evaluation of proposals
Evaluation Summary Reports sent to Mid May-2011
proposal coordinators ("initial
information letter")
Invitation letter to successful
coordinators to launch grant
agreement
negotiations with REA services
Letter to unsuccessful applicants
July-2011
Signature of first grant agreements
From September-2011
From August-2011
Building your consortium
Who do I need in my consortium?
•
•
•
Depends on topic…
Partners must match activities in proposal
Appropriate balance of sectors – industry,
academia, civil society, user groups, etc
•
•
Industry considered essential but others could
also be important for the topic
Consideration of what the purpose of the
scheme is RESEARCH TRAINING
• NOTE – no more than 40% of funding should go
to one country
• EU dimension/ added-value!
What is EU added-value?
Building your consortium
How does the EU benefit from funding your project and why is it required at
the EU level?
S&T
•
•
•
•
Expertise from other EU countries
Access to data from other countries
Different cultural and social perspectives
Research/training too costly for one country
Implementation
•
Avoid having one partner dominate research/training activities and budget
•
Appropriate geographic spread for that project
Impact
•
Improve competitiveness, health and environment of EU
•
Feed into EU-wide policy objectives and their development
•
Decrease fragmentation and duplication
FP7 – Marie Curie – Your Proposal
Your project is mainly defined in ….
• PART B addresses the evaluation criteria
• …which vary according to MCA
• …and have different weightings and thresholds
• General structure of Part B for ITNs and IAPPs
is:
•
•
•
•
•
Cover Page, Table of Contents
S & T Quality
Training/Transfer of Knowledge
Implementation
Impact
Weightings and thresholds for
ITNs
FP7 – Marie Curie – ITNs
Weighting
Threshold
Scientific quality 30%
of the project
3
Training
30%
4
Implementation
20%
3
Impact
20%
4
Overall threshold of 70% applies
FP7 - Marie Curie – ITN criteria
S & T Quality criteria
• S&T objectives of the research programme,
including in terms of inter/multi-disciplinary,
intersectoral and/ or newly emerging supradisciplinary fields
• Scientific quality of the research programme
• Appropriateness of research methodology
• Originality and innovative aspect of the
research programme - Knowledge of the
state-of-the-art
• Contribution of the private sector and
possible other socio-economic actors
FP7 - Marie Curie – ITN criteria
S&T Quality – positive feedback
• Excellent overview of state-of-the-art in this
research area
• Precise and detailed research work plan
• Scientific quality and originality of the
proposal are excellent
• Research method is appropriate and well
described
• The project is timely and novel
• A series of well defined and relevant project
objectives
• The multidisciplinary is well demonstrated
FP7 - Marie Curie – ITN criteria
S&T Quality : negative feedback
• Interdisciplinary aspect of the project is not
very strong
• Clear references to state-of-the-art and
scientific originality are missing
• The final research outputs and the practical
results of the training programme should be
more clearly described
• Role of the industrial partners is not well
explained
• A precise description of the research
methodology is missing
FP7 - Marie Curie – ITN criteria
Training criteria
• Quality of the training programme;
• Consistency with the research programme
• Contribution and relevance of private sector training
• Transferable skills offered: Management,
Communication, IPR, Ethics, Grant writing,
Commercial exploitation of results, Research Policy,
entrepreneurship, etc. .
• Importance and timeliness of the training
needs (e.g. multidisciplinary, intersectoral ,
and newly emerging supra-disciplinary fields)
FP7 - Marie Curie – ITN criteria
Training criteria
• a) For multi-site proposals: Adequate
combination of local specialist training with
network-wide training activities
b) For mono-site proposals: Adequate
exploitation of the international network of
the participants for the training programme
• Appropriateness of the size of the requested
training programme with respect to the
capacity of the host
• NEW – Meaningful exposure of each
researcher to another sector – particularly
secondments
FP7 - Marie Curie – ITN criteria
Training : positive feedback
• The training programme is very well
structured and is fully consistent with the
research programme
• Local and network wide training will be
provided
• Complementary skills training is well thought
of
• The training topics are well identified and
defined
• The role of the participants are well described
and exploitation of the network potential is
adequately considered and discussed
FP7 - Marie Curie – ITN criteria
Training: negative feedback
• The role of the Supervisory Board should be
better defined
• Reason for the need for Visiting Scientist
should be given
• Description of the training project for each
researcher is too vague
• Average number of ESRs per partner seems
exaggerated
• The role of the associate partners and their
participation in the training events should be
more clearly defined
FP7 - Marie Curie – ITN criteria
Quality of training - tips
• Training in research methods and
techniques
• Personal Development Plan
• Complementary skills training – ethics,
research management
• Transferable skills training – cf Roberts
• Graduate School Provision – including
RC courses
• Conferences, seminars, public fora et
FP7 - Marie Curie – ITN criteria
Implementation criteria
• Capacities (expertise / human resources /
facilities /infrastructure) to achieve the
research and adequate task distribution and
schedule
• Adequate exploitation of complementarities
and synergies among partners in terms of
research and training
• Private sector involvement at the highest
possible level appropriate to the research
topic & sufficient evidence of commitment
• Non-ICPC participation – essential to the
objectives of the research training
programme?
FP7 – ITN – Implementation
Implementation: positive
feedback
• The type and frequency of meetings seem
appropriate
• The industrial partners play an essential and
active role both in the training and research
aspects of the proposal
• The recruitment strategy is clearly defined
• The management structure is clear and
appropriate to the proposed project
• The plan for dissemination of project results is
well done
FP7 – ITN – Implementation
Implementation: negative
feedback
• The industry involvement is poor in
comparison to the industrial importance of the
project theme and potential results
• Description of a research PhD theme for each
ESR is not provided
• More details should be provided on the
milestones and deliverables within the
workplan
• Limited rules for decision making
FP7 - Marie Curie – ITN criteria
Impact criteria
• Contribution of the proposed training
programme to:
• Acquisition of skills needed in both the public and
private sectors
• Improvement of career prospects
• Stimulation of creativity and entrepreneurial thinking
• Contribution of the training programme to the
policy objective of structuring the initial
research training capacity at European level
(through establishing longer-term
collaborations and/or lasting structured
training programmes between the partners’
organisations)
FP7 - Marie Curie – ITN criteria
Impact criteria
• The contribution of the training programme
towards the policy objective of enhancing
public-private sector collaborations in terms
of research training
• Where appropriate, mutual recognition by all
partners of the training acquired, including
training periods in the private sector
• NEW – outreach activities such as articles in
non-specialised press, public talks,
workshops for teachers/students, science
fairs, etc.
FP7 - Marie Curie – ITN criteria
Impact: positive feedback
• Clear impact of the involvement of visiting
scientists
• Good prospects for potential long term
collaborations
• The involvement of industrial partners will be
mutually beneficial for the companies and for
the ESRs/ERs
• The project can offer great career
opportunities to both ESR and ER involved
• The training proposed by the network is such
that probably no single institution in Europe
would be capable of providing it on its own.
FP7 - Marie Curie – ITN criteria
Impact: negative feedback
• The proposed impact, as described [in the
field of science] is not convincing
• The number of visiting scientists is too high
and not appropriate for the proposed
programme
• The lack of training in an industrial context is
a major drawback
• The description of the impact on the scientific
community outside the network should be
elaborated upon
FP7 - Marie Curie – ITN criteria
Impact: tips
Think about impact on different levels, e.g.
• Personal – what will researcher gain beyond that
available at single institution?
• European – address fragmentation, common courses,
sustainability of collaboration, including that with
private sector
• Discipline – what is available in single country? Why
EU level needed? Why need for trained researchers in
area?
• Others?
ITNs – final tips
FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN
• Industrial participation is key
• Addressed under all four criteria: and has been
strengthened with respect to training. Aspects that are
assessed under more than one evaluation criteria will
count under each of these criteria
• Evaluation criteria
• Address thoroughly: make sure you cover each one; do
not bury in text
• Clarity of presentation
• Present case clearly: use tables, diagrams and
summaries where appropriate
Hints & Tips – ITNs and IAPPs
FP7 –Marie Curie – Hints & Tips
Approaching your project proposal
writing
• Keep the Guide for Applicants in front of
you
• Treat the criteria as examination
questions
• Think about the way your write
• Brainstorm each section
• Then focus on a section at a time
• Plan your proposal writing
FP7 –Marie Curie – Hints & Tips
Approaching your project proposal
writing
• It will feel repetitive – addressing issues from
different angles
• Stick to the page limit
• Think about your evaluators
•
•
•
•
Clearly address the main objectives
Use clear and concise language
Explain country specific jargon
Provide them with the evidence they need
• Find colleagues to read it through
Financial information – ITNs and IAPPs
http://www.ukro.ac.uk
Cost Category Comparison
Former Cost Categories
FP7 – Marie Curie
Eligible expenses for the activities carried out by the
researcher
Eligible expenses for the activities carried out by the host organisations
-A-
-B-
-C-
- D–
-E-
-F -
-G-
-H-
-I-
Monthly living
and mobility
allowance
Travel
Allowance
Career
exploratory
allowance
Contribution
to the
participation
expenses of
eligible
researchers
Contribution
to the
research/
training
/transfer of
knowledge
programme
expenses
Contribution
to the
organisation
of
international
conferences,
workshops
and events
Management
activities
(including
audit
certification
if applicable)
Contribution
to overheads
Other
types of
eligible
expenses
/ specific
condition
s
Cost Categories from 2011 Work Programme
-1-
-2-
-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-
Monthly living
allowance
Monthly
Mobility
allowance
Contribution to the training
expenses of eligible
researchers
and
research/transfer of
knowledge programme
expenses
Management
activities
(including audit
certification if
applicable)
Contribution to
overheads
Other types of
eligible expenses /
specific conditions
Allowance rates – ITNs and IAPPs
• Category 1:
FP7 – Marie Curie - Rates
• Living allowance (including salary)
Correction factor applied
• Category 2:
• Mobility allowance
Without family: €700 per month
With family: €1000 per month
Correction factor applied
• Category 3:
• Training / research expenses of eligible researchers
€1800 per research per month
*Category 3 also includes costs for the host
Benefits for the institution – ITNs and IAPPs
• Category 3:
FP7 – Marie Curie - Rates
• Contribution to Research/Training/Transfer of Knowledge
€1800 per research per month
*Category 3 also includes costs for the researcher
• Category 4:
• Management Activities
Maximum 10% of the total EC contribution
• Category 5:
• Contribution to overheads
10% of direct costs except for subcontractors
• Category 6: Applicable to IAPP and participating SMEs only
• Other types of eligible expenses (small equipment expenses)
Researcher Living Allowance for
ITNs and IAPPs
FP7 – Marie Curie - Rates
Experience
Early-Stage
researchers
Experienced
researchers (<
10yrs)
Experienced
Researchers
(>10yrs)
Stipend
(€/yr)
Employment
contract (€/yr)
38,000
50% of
full rate
58,500
87,500
Salaries are inclusive of all compulsory deductions
Correction factor applied for cost of living (UK Co-efficient now
120.3%)
FP7 – Marie Curie Actions
Further Information
UKRO NCP website:
http://www.ukro.ac.uk/mariecurie/index.htm
Queries on the schemes:
mariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk
Tel: +32 2 230 0318; Fax +32 2 230 4803
Other useful websites:
• http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/people/home_en.html
•http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/inde
x.htm