H2020 Funding Workshop
Introduction • Xavier Aubry – Experienced proposal writer: FP6, FP7, AAL, EUREKA, Eurostars, CIP, H2020 – Expertise: ICT, Health, Transportation, Manufacturing, Energy, Environment
• Academic Record – Doctorate of Veterinary Medicine, Alfort – MBA, Harvard Business School o Baker Scholar o Clayton Christensen’s “Disruptive Innovation” Class
• Work Experience – COO of Medtech SME (5 years) – Founder and CEO of ICT SME (12 years)
Research vs Innovation
New Funding Alternatives New SME Instrument â‚Ź2.5Bn
Research & Innovation Funding level = 100%
Innovation Funding level = 70%
Innovation Funding level = 50-80%
Market Replication Funding level = 50%
Instrument Comparison Collaborative Project
SME Instrument
Fast Track to Innovation
Small or large consortium Industry or academy/research driven
Single applicant (stage 1) Single applicant or SME consortium (stage 2)
Small industry-driven consortium (max 5 organizations)
SMEs encouraged SMEs requested in specific calls
SMEs required
SMEs encouraged
Non prescriptive budget range indicated in the call text
50k Euros (stage 1) 0.5-2.5M Euros (stage 2) (5M Euros for PHC)
3M Euros max
Specific challenge, scope and expected impact, all indicated in the call text
Broad scope per topic (except PHC = clinical biomarkers)
Broad scope: any topic related to LEIT or Societal Challenges
Single stage or two stage deadlines
Continuous submission
Continuous submission
100% for RIAs and CSAs 70% for IAs
Typically 70% (100% for PHC)
Typically 70%
H2020 Collaborative Projects
The Review Process • Specific challenge – adapted to each funding scheme and each thematic area – specified in the work programme
• Main criteria – Scientific & Technological Excellence o Concept, objectives, progress beyond state of the art
– Impact o Contribution to expected impacts listed in work programme o Plans for dissemination/exploitation
– Implementation o WP description, Pert diagram, GANTT chart o Allocation of resources (budget)
• Criteria marked out of 5 – Individual threshold = 3-4; overall threshold = 12
RIA
IA
x1
x1
x1
x1.5
x1
x1
Evaluation Summary Report Subject: Initial information on the outcome of the evaluation of proposals Ref.: Environment Programme (Including Climate Change) Call ID “FP7-ENV-2013-Two-stage" Applications
The Commission services with the help of independent experts have recently evaluated the proposals submitted in the context of the above-mentioned call. This includes the proposal entitled: “Resource Conservative Manufacturingtransforming waste into high value resource through closed-loop product systems”, for which you are the coordinator. Your proposal was evaluated against the criteria published for the call. The attached evaluation summary report (ESR) records the views of the expert evaluators and the scores that your proposal achieved. Based on this evaluation by independent experts, the Commission services will rank in priority those proposals that passed all the evaluation thresholds, and will then take a decision on the lists of proposals for which negotiations of the grant agreement can proceed. This letter does not prejudge the outcome of this process. For information, in this particular call it is estimated that funds will be available to support around 47 projects out of the 82 that have passed all evaluation thresholds. This letter cannot be construed as an offer of funding for your proposal.
Below threshold Above threshold Funded
Evaluation Summary Report 1. Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the call) Score 1: (Threshold 4/5)
4,5
2. Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management Score 2: (Threshold 3/5) 4,5 3. Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results Score 3: (Threshold 3/5) 4,5 Total score (1+2+3): (Threshold 11/15)) 13,5
Evaluation Outcome Threshold
Funding
Effort + 100%
Average Good •Excellent applications applications applications
Creating the Dream Consortium • Finding the right balance – – – –
Academic/research vs industrial/SMEs Geographical balance SME contribution (used as a tie-breaker) Gender balance (used as a tie-breaker)
• Involving end-user organizations – Gain user feedback – Drive exploitation of results (especially in Innovation Actions) – In advisory board, user groups or as full consortium member
• Building a good consortium is key, but takes time! – Online search, social media groups, matchmaking events – Like for any business development activity – qualify! – BANT: Budget, Authority, Need, Timeline
Writing a Successful Funding Proposal • A significant effort that requires discipline and method – – – –
Proposal development (incl. consortium) takes on average 400 hours You need to address all evaluation criteria You need to make it easy for the reviewers Only excellent applications get funded (aim for the max score!)
• Frequent mistakes – – – –
Too late start (less than 3 months before the deadline) Vague objectives and KPIs Weak state-of-the-art review No convincing exploitation & dissemination plan
• How to get started if you have never done it? – Join a consortium led by a good coordinator (track record) – Use external consultant specialized in EU project proposals
Case Study: ResCoM •
Transforming waste into high value resources is a high priority in today’s global economy. ResCoM is an European Commission co-funded project working on the development of closed-loop product systems. The project will focus on some of the key ways to do this including remanufacturing, reuse and multiple lifecycles.
Case Study: ResCoM • Coordinator – Leading Swedish Academic Institution – Cutting-edge research in resource-conservative manufacturing
• Proposal – Stage 1 – 15 pages – Stage 2 – 70 pages
• Consortium – Good balance of academic/research vs industrials – Convincing end-user demonstrators – Missing exploitation/dissemination partner added at stage 2
Case Study: ResCoM Acronym
Participant legal name
Type
Country
#1
KTH
KTH Royal Institute of Technology (Coordinator)
R&D
Sweden
#2
FHG-BT
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Angewandten Forschung E.V.
R&D
Germany
#3
TUD
Technische Universiteit Delft
R&D
Netherlands
#4
INS
Institut EuropÊen d’Administration des Affaires
R&D
France
#5
EUR
Eurostep AB
SME
Sweden
#6
IDE
Ideal & Co BV
SME
Netherlands
#7
GRAN
Granta Design Limited
SME
UK
#8
ELX
Electrolux AB
Large company Sweden
#9
LOW
Loewe Opta GmbH
Large company Germany
#10 TSS
tedrive Steering Systems GmbH
Large company Germany
#11 BGB
Bugaboo International BV
Large company Netherlands
#12 EMF
Ellen Macarthur Foundation
R&D Non Profit
Nb
UK
Key contributor fell seriously ill during proposal preparation Legal status was not approved by EC Dropped from the consortium after project submission Had major budget misunderstanding 2 days before submission
Getting started • Understand the instrument – Timeframe – Funding rate – Eligibility requirements
RI IA CSA
SME-INST FTI PCP CO-FUND...
• Understand the topic – Alignment with your own objectives and timeframe – Alignment with your own Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
• Understand the expected impact – Partners and steps required
• Don’t be afraid of getting started – First timers do get financed!
H2020 SME Instrument
SME Instrument - Overview
SME Instrument Timeline • Cut off dates (phase 1) – – – – – – –
2014-06-18 +17:00:00 (Brussels local time) 2014-09-24 2014-12-17 2015-03-18 2015-06-17 2015-09-17 2015-12-16
Only 1 application (phase 1 or phase 2) per SME allowed
• Cut off dates (phase 2) – – – – – –
2014-10-09 +17:00:00 (Brussels local time) 2014-12-17 2015-03-18 2015-06-17 2015-09-17 2015-12-16
SME can apply directly in phase 2 (success in phase 1 is not a requirement)
SME Instrument - LEIT Work Programme
Focus Area (Topic)
Funding Size
Funding %
Timeline
LEIT – Space
Any aspect of the Space WP (with a preference for applications related to the flagship programmes Galileo and Copernicus)
70% €0.5-2.5M 2014-2015
LEIT – Information and Communication Technologies
ICT 37 - Open Disruptive Innovation
70% €0.5-2.5M 2014-2015
LEIT – Nanotechnologies and Biotechnology
NMP 25 - Accelerating the uptake of nanotechnologies, advanced materials or advanced manufacturing and processing technologies by SMEs
70% €0.5-2.5M 2014-2015
LEIT – Nanotechnologies and Biotechnology
BIOTEC 5 - SME boosting biotechnologybased industrial processes driving competitiveness and sustainability
70% €0.5-2.5M 2014-2015
SME Instrument – Societal Challenges SC2 - Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research and the bioeconomy
SFS 08: Resource-efficient eco-innovative food production and processing
SC3 - Secure, clean and efficient energy
SIE 1: Stimulating the innovation potential of SMEs for a low carbon energy system
70% €0.5-2.5M 2014-2015
SC4 – Smart, green and integrated transport
IT 1: Small business innovation research for Transport
70% €0.5-2.5M 2014-2015
SC5 - Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials
SC5-20: Boosting the potential of small businesses for eco-innovation and a sustainable supply of raw materials
70% €0.5-2.5M 2014-2015
SC7 - Secure societies – Protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens
DRS 17: Protection of urban soft targets and urban critical infrastructures
70% €0.5-2.5M 2014-2015
BG12: Supporting SMEs efforts for the development - deployment and market replication of innovative solutions for blue growth
70% €0.5-2.5M 2014-2015
SME Instrument – Exceptions research type activities in clinical validation
SC1 – Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing
PHC 12: Clinical validation of biomarkers
100% €1-5M 2014-2015
SC6 - Europe in a changing world – inclusive, innovative and reflective Societies
INSO-9-2015: Innovative mobile e-government applications by SMEs
70% €0.5-2.5M 2015 only
INSO-10-2015: SME business model innovation
Evaluation Process • Main criteria – Impact (out of 5) – Scientific & Technological Excellence (out of 5) – Implementation (out of 5)
• Evaluation process – – – – – –
Proposals evaluated individually when they arrive Proposals ranked after the respective cut-off dates Phase 1 threshold for individual criteria = 4 Phase 1 overall threshold = 13 (not enough to have 4 in all 3 sections) Proposals below threshold could receive notifications before cut of date Score = median of the individual scores of the individual evaluators
Evaluation Outcome Threshold
Funding
Effort + 100%
Average applications
Good Excellent applications applications
First Cut-off Statistics
IT = 10%
PHC = 20%
ICT = 3%
Getting Started • Decide if the SME instrument is adequate for you
• Write down your objectives, impacts and results • Choose the phase of application (phase 1 or phase 2)
• Do your homework • Recruit your team
• Start writing!
Is the SME instrument for you? SME Instrument
Check list
Funding at T+3 months (phase 1) or T+8 months (phase 2)
Can I wait 3-8 months before starting the project?
Bottom-up topics but aligned with EC societal challenges (ex: PHC, ICT)
Does my technology fits within the innovation priorities of the EC?
TRL level above 6
Do I have a system prototype that has been tested?
Funding 70% (except PHC)
Can I co-fund 30% of the efforts?
If you have answered �no� to any of these 4 questions, then the SME instrument is not for you (yet)
Objectives, Impacts and Results Objective:
To develop a new, faster compiler for C++
Result:
New, faster compiler for C++
Objectives
Objective:
Enable practical adoption of iterative development methods, involving frequent re-compilation of programs
Answer the question WHY? An outcome: something new that becomes possible, and “makes the world a better place�
Answer the question WHAT?
Result:
New, faster compiler for C++
Can be a concrete result (report, software, hardware) or an immaterial result (knowledge)
Objectives, Impacts and Results Describe “Vision”: long-term objectives outside/beyond the project
Section 1.1 Objectives
Needed to achieve Describe “Objectives”: objectives to be achieved within the project itself Links to
Section 2 Impact
Describe “Results”: to be produced within the project itself
Describe “Expected Impacts” (more detail than “Vision”) Describe “Exploitable Results”
Needed to achieve
Subset of
Watch the TRL!
Which phase should you apply to? • Look at the maturity of your business plan – Early draft = phase 1 – Elaborated = phase 2 – Ready for VC pitch = phase 2 or phase 3
• But it is not only about a business-plan! – Section 2 = impact = business plan – Section 1 = scientific excellence – Section 3 = implementation plan
• A typical catch 22 – Section 2 has the most weight in your score, but a weak section 1 will lead the expert to question your impact, i.e. lower your score in section 2 – All sections are crucial (given the level of competition) but section 1 remains the most important because that is what establishes the reader’s early interest – The maturity of your section 1 is therefore an important driver to decide if you should go for phase 1 or phase 2
Do your Homework! • Most proposals fail because of the lack of preparation – Poor prior art review unclear innovation beyond state of the art – Limited market research unclear dissemination and exploitation strategy – Last minute ”panic” writing 1 week before the cut-off poor writing quality
Time spent Writing the proposal
With homework
Without homework
Phase 1
40 hours
100 hours
Phase 2
80 hours
200 hours
Be prepared for a significant effort (1 person full time for a month, with technical writing and project management capabilities)
Do your Homework! • Section 1 homework – Prior art: litterature search – Freedom to operate: patent search
• Section 2 homework – Market analysis (market reports) – Competitive analysis (public websites, presentations, etc.)
• Section 3 homework – PERT chart, Gantt chart – Budget
" We are the first and only company to develop XXX "
Recruit your Team • As manager of the company, your time is better spent on operations • It is very unlikely you will have the time and focus to spend on a thorough application preparation • Allocate a specific resource or recruit an external consultant • Seek advice from NCPs and SMEinst coaches but keep in mind – They are not here to write your proposal – They don’t evaluate proposals as experts – They can be wrong too!
• Recruit an application advisory board, that will become your project advisory board if successful
ESR Example - Q-Bot (SIE-01)
ESR Example - Skeleton Tech (SIE 01)
ESR Example – Transmetrics (IT.1)
Lessons learned • 10 pages is very short – – – –
Don’t repeat: any new paragraph must bring something new or disappear A good picture/table is worth a 100 words (and can save you a lot of space) Don’t try to talk about everything: pick your topics wisely and make them concrete Avoid “blabla” at all costs
• Don’t wait until the last minute – – – –
ECAS registration and PIC number SME validation Form A Section 4-5 (section 4 is taken in account in section 3 scoring)
• Don’t submit necessarily at the cut-off – Between cut-offs, the EC ”evaluation machine” is less stressed – The quality / accuracy of the evaluation is likely to be higher
Follow us!