Warsztaty szkoleniowe dla pocz Warszawa tkuj cych planuj cych start w konkursach Programów CIP-ICT PSP oraz FP7 ICT

Wielkość: px

Rozpocząć pokaz od strony:

Download "Warsztaty szkoleniowe dla pocz Warszawa tkuj cych planuj cych start w konkursach Programów CIP-ICT PSP oraz FP7 ICT"

Mikołaj Maciejewski
7 lat temu
Przeglądów:

1 Praktyczne spostrzeżenia podczas ewaulacji wniosków w ramach FP&7, CIP-ICT oraz AAL Adam Koprowski: koprowski.adam@gmail.com Obszar kompetencji: ehealth, telemedicine, mobile devices, einclusion. Uniwersytet Jagielloński, KSS m. Jana Pawła II, Kraków, Instytut Kardiologii, Warszawa, CSIOZ oraz Ministerstwo Zdrowia, Warszawa, Wojskowy Instytut Medyczny, Warszawa, współpraca: ThinkTank Magazine, Poltransplant, Katedra Informatyki AGH, Cyfronet

2 Ocena składanych wniosków

3 Wybór ekspertów

4 Introduction This tutorial gives guidelines on how to carry out ICT evaluation How to assess the proposal Scoring the proposal Filling in and returning the Individual Evaluation Report (IER)

5 But first, remember your responsibilities You have signed a non-disclosure agreement Before, during and after the evaluation you do not disclose any information about the proposals we have sent you Keep the proposals secure when not in use You are the evaluator do not pass this responsibility to anybody else do not discuss the proposals with anybody else

6 But first, remember your responsibilities Do not contact the proposers for clarifications proposals are evaluated on the information that is presented in them, any lack of information will downgrade the score the identities of evaluating experts are never revealed to the proposers concerned Declare any potential conflict of interest If there is a situation which might prevent you evaluating a proposal impartially, click on I cannot evaluate this proposal

7 The Rivet tool For the remote stage of this evaluation we are using a software tool borrowed from elsewhere in the Framework programme Rivet In Rivet the Individual Evaluation Report (IER) is called the Individual Assessment Report (IAR), but the meaning is the same Save your work regularly, unsaved work is lost if you are idle too long and Rivet times you out. If you are reading, thinking or typing Rivet believes you are idle. Only saving is considered to be an activity! Save at least every 20 minutes

8 The Evaluation Criteria Proposals are evaluated on three criteria only Scientific and technical quality Implementation Impact Assess the proposal in terms of all three criteria Each criterion is more fully defined by descriptive bullet points, adapted to the instrument type. These are shown on the evaluation form Provide a comment on each of the bullet points (but the bullet points are not scored individually or separately)

9 The scoring scale First develop your comments on each criterion Then select scores accordingly Each criterion is given a score out of five, corresponding to the explanatory comments A threshold of 3/5 is applied on each criterion An overall score is calculated for each proposal by simple addition A threshold of 10/15 is applied on the overall score Out of scope proposals are given low scores on Criterion 1 Scientific and technical quality Different thresholds, bullet points and a weighting scheme apply in FET Proactive objectives : as shown on the evaluation forms

10 The scoring scale Use the full scale! Half marks may be given 0 -The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information 1 -Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses 2 -Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses 1 3 -Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary 2 4 -Very good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible 2 5 -Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor 1 Problems which can t be solved in grant agreement negotiations 2 Your comments must identify the required improvements

11 How to fill in IER - General Comments are confined only to the criterion concerned Comments describe only your final view of the proposal Comments are clear and unambiguous. Try to avoid obscure acronyms and technical terms Comments are of adequate length and cover all the bullet points under each criterion Comments provide full justification for the score given

12 IER Factual Evidence Comments are substantial; do not write generic criticisms; be specific, explain Comments are facts not opinions, don t show doubt or indecision not I don t understand why... but The proposers do not make clear why... Poor comments include words like: Perhaps, think, seems, assume, probably, Good comments include words like: Because, percent, specifically, for example,

13 IER Give Clear Messages Poor comments are vague - Good ones are precise : I think the consortium management plan is probably inadequate. The consortium management plan is inadequate. It does not include clear overall responsibility for the demonstration activities; it omits a problem-solving mechanism in the event of disputes between partners. The resources for the project seem unrealistic. The resources in Workpackages 4 and 6 are seriously underestimated given the complexity of the activity involved.

14 IER Avoiding Conflicts Poor comments provide an opening for a debate - Good comments close the question: There is no discussion of dissemination activities. Dissemination activities are not adequately discussed. There is only one end-user organisation in the consortium. The consortium lacks a sufficient participation of end-users. The proposal coordinator is not adequately experienced. The proposal coordinator does not demonstrate in this proposal an adequate level of experience of work in this field.

15 IER Final Check Have you fully explained the proposal s strengths and weaknesses on all criteria? Do your scores match your comments (high scores = positive comments, low scores = negative comments)? Have you double-checked any matters-of-fact which you have quoted? Have you written at adequate length? If this was my proposal, would I find this report fair, accurate clear and complete?

16 Submitting your IERs First, read over all your proposals to get an idea of the general standard and content When you have completed the evaluation of each proposal, submit your IER (IAR) in the Rivet tool - Don t wait until you have evaluated all your proposals before starting to submit You will see that the Rivet tool has the facility to create Consensus Reports CRs and Evaluation Summary Reports ESRs. We will not use this in this evaluation; you stop at the creation of IERs (IARs)

17 Finally, Give a fair and clear opinion on each proposal. You are: Independent : you represent yourself, not your employer, not your country..) Objective : you evaluate the proposal as written Accurate : you use the official evaluation criteria only Consistent : you apply the same standard of judgment to each proposal Incommunicado : you do not disclose to anybody the contents of the proposals which you see

18 Dziękuję za uwagę Tel

Podobne dokumenty

Ekspert Horizon2020: doświadczenie z oceny wniosków

Ekspert Horizon2020: doświadczenie z oceny wniosków dr inż. Wojciech Wiza Katedra Technologii Informacyjnych Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Poznaniu Doświadczenie Ocena wniosków 7 PR i H2020 Ocena wniosków