Debbie Saunders European Funding Officer FP7 – Marie Curie Actions Marie Curie Fellowships Overview • • • • • • • • • Policy Setting Eligibility Fellowship Options Application Process Budget Key Sections Part B Evaluation & Feedback Top Tips for Success Horizon 2020 MC Objectives & Policy Context “The People Work programme 2013 has been designed to support the implementation of the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiatives ‘Innovation Union’, ‘Youth on the Move’ and ‘An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs’.” (2013 People Work Programme) Europe 2020: • http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/index_en.htm Innovation Union: • http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm Youth on the Move: • http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/news2540_en.htm Why Bid for MC Funding Host Organisation Researcher • Prestigious - Benchmark of Research Excellence • Bottom up Funding • Adds valuable Resource capacity to research team • Increase Expertise • Diversity & Knowledge sharing • Networking Opportunities • Future Bid Development & Collaborations • Generous Financial Support – 100% Researcher costs + – Training Expenses • Prestigious - CV & future employment • Professional Independence • International Working • All Research Disciplines • Training Opportunities & Knowledge Development • Opportunity to work with key team/ Access to key facilities Eligibility • Experienced Researchers & Key Principles • Excellence – Researcher quality – Host Reputation – PhD – 4 years research work • Skills & Competence Development experience post 1st • Enhances Career Prospects degree • • Transnational Mobility • • Country Eligibility • All Research • Disciplines* • Any Nationality • International Dimension Equal Opportunities - Appropriate gender and work/life balance Good working environment, Transparent Recruitment Strong participation from Enterprises Marie Curie Country Eligibility Individual Fellowships • ‘Experienced Researchers’ • Skills diversification and knowledge sharing • Three categories: – Intra-European Fellowships (IEF) – International Incoming Fellowships (IIF) – International Outgoing Fellowships (IOF) • Final MC Fellowship FP7 Call Deadline: 14 August 2013 Results in 2010/2011 FP7 – Marie Curie Scheme Submitted Main list Success rate 2010 IEF 2853 504 18% 2010 IIF 1175 137 11.7% 2010 IOF 737 120 16% 2012 IEF 3734 16% 2012 IIF 1462 13% 2012 IOF 962 16% Deadline & Available Funding Final Deadline 14/08/2013 • Intra- European Fellowships (IEF) • €134m (120 m 2012) • International Incoming Fellowships (IIF) • €44.5m (40 m) • International Outgoing Fellowships (IOF) • €44.5m (40m) Intra-European Fellowships - Training • Funds 12 – 24 month projects for advanced research training • Researcher applies with Host • Mobility between EU or Associated Countries • Training & Skill development/ diversification • Career Development • Professional Independence • Resuming a career in research International Outgoing Fellowships Training • Advanced Researcher training in a 3rd country (through a high level research project,) to bring skills/ knowledge back to the EU/AS • Funds 24 - 36 month Research & Career Development projects – 2 Phases:Outgoing 12 - 24 months moving from EU/ AC to a 3rd Party country e.g. USA, Mexico, New Zealand, Japan etc. Re-Integration 12 - 24 months Mandatory return phase in Europe to transfer the knowledge acquired. NB: Researchers must be EU/ AC Nationals (or lived In EU / AC for 5 years) International Incoming Fellowships Knowledge Transfer • Top-class Researchers from 3rd Country’s move to EU/ AC to work on research projects. • Knowledge Sharing / Transfer from a 3rd Country to EU/AC Host Organisation – builds collaborations between EU/AC & the rest of the world Incoming 12 – 24 months in EU/AS Country Reintegration 12 months for International Cooperation (Optional) Partner Countries (fixed budget €15,000) • Mutually-beneficial research co-operation - between Europe and other parts of the world • Researcher Career Advancement Getting Started • • • • • • Identify Researcher Participant Portal Guidance 2 Part Application Part B is Science/ Art Upload final Part B as PDF • Referees Invited • Submit to EU Application • Identify • • • • • • • – Type of Fellowship - Researcher - Host institution & Supervisor/ Scientist in charge - Research Project Idea Read carefully the Guide for Applicants Set Up EPSS Account & Register an Application Develop Application Jointly Host Institution/ Supervisor & Researcher Contact future host institution/ DRI for Supporting Information Start writing your proposal early - DRI & the UKRO NCP can provide some "pre screening“ & give feedback Link proposal to the Key EU Strategic documents – slide 3 Book Mark Call 14th August deadline N.B. No extenuating circumstances will be considered if missed Application Form Part A Part A (completed online via the PPSS system) • A1 Information on the Proposal • A2 Information on the Host organisation – including information about Supervisors & administration* • A3 Information on the Researcher • A4 Funding Request *Contact DRI Budget Category 1*: Living allowance €58,500 pa (€78,500) Category 2*: Mobility allowance €700 pm (Dependants - €1000) Category 3 : Training Expenses €800 pm Category 5* : Overheads pm €700 Category 6: Other - IIF only; flat rate for one year of €15,000 if returning to ICPC country *multiplied by Country Correction Coefficient (UK Coefficient = 134.4%) Application Form – Part B Part B (maximum length is 27 pages, (exc table of contents, ethics issues section and start and end pages) • • • • • • B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 Research and technological quality (max 8 pages) Training / Transfer of Knowledge (max 2 pages) Researcher (maximum 7 pages) Implementation (maximum 6 pages) Impact (maximum 4 pages) Ethics issues (no page limit) Draft your Proposal for an easy Evaluation • Write exactly what is asked for – no more/ no less! • Stick to the scope of the call IEF & IOF = Training; IIF = Knowledge Transfer • Logical flow - Project/ Host Expertise/ Host Infrastructure/ Researcher Profile/ Researcher Ambitions; Cooperation: objectives/ work plan/ expertise / Impact • Use ’Cross-references’ – page nos.in proposal, not ”as mentioned above” • Be strong in all aspects - no weaknesses! • Be clear, concise, consistent! The key for writing a successful proposal: experience with proposal evaluation! Training Tips – B2 Training – IEF / IOF • APECS - Generic training • Individual training – list courses – how many/ how long? • Monitoring training – How? • Meetings? • Any formal monitoring at Grad School level? • Match of Training to Research? • Role of Scientist in charge – experience in mentoring • Role of larger SU research community Transfer of Knowledge - IIF • What knowledge will be transferred? • Researcher’s unique skills/knowledge • Dissemination of knowledge? • Seminars? • Supervision of PhD students? • Teaching? • Conferences? Training TIPS Methods for Skills & Expertise Acquisition:• • • • • • Training-through-Research Hands-on Training Knowledge Transfer Building Collaborations Scientific and Financial management Organisational Skills Researcher Tips – B3 • • • • • • • • Work experience (in research) Industrial experience and expertise Transferable skills Prizes, Awards, Lectures etc Research potential Independent thinking and leadership qualities Match between fellow’s profile and project Cross and multi-disciplinary experience Give evidence of statements • Referee assessment Implementation – B4 Contact DRI for Assistance B 4.1 Quality of infrastructure/facilities and international collaboration of host B 4.2 Practical arrangements for the implementation and management of the research project B 4.3 Feasibility and credibility of the project, including work plan B 4.4 Practical and administrative arrangements and support for the hosting of the fellow Also ’Academic & Professional Enhancement Centre’ (APECs) can provide advice, guidance and generic material – Rebecca Williams B 4.4 Practical and administrative arrangements and support for the hosting of the fellow Describe what practical arrangements are in place to host a researcher coming from another country. What support will be given to him/her to settle into their new host country (in terms of language teaching, help with local administration, obtaining permits, accommodation, schools, childcare etc.) Example for a STRONG proposal: “Joint support from the Human Resources, Internationalisation Office, Academic and Professional Enhancement Centre and Student Support Services, ensures the researcher is able to settle quickly at Swansea University. They provide practical assistance with personal I.D., VISA/permits, health services, banking, tax issues, language courses, and up-to-date local Information. Guest researchers either stay in a room in the University’s residences or guest house accommodation is arranged. Residential Services provide support in finding suitable accomodation for guest researchers coming with their family. They are guaranteed a place in the University’s Nursery/ Childcare Scheme.” B 4.4 Practical and administrative arrangements and support for the hosting of the fellow Describe what practical arrangements are in place to host a researcher coming from another country. What support will be given to him/her to settle into their new host country (in terms of language teaching, help with local administration, obtaining permits, accommodation, schools, childcare etc.) Example for a WEAK proposal: “Assistance in finding an apartment and in administrative issues will be provided by colleagues.” “The institutes’ secretaries will help the researcher with the administrative issues and practical arrangements” College Support for MC Fellows • Develop Supportive Infrastructure for International Researchers Welcome events - designated personel for practical help Procedures for hosting international researchers PreArrival Support Arrival Checklist – meet from airport/ station Useful Contact Numbers Familiarisation activities / meeting key staff in 1st week Introduction to local area etc Researcher Responsibilities Handbook & academic contacts • Plan each fellowship individually with respect to specific needs (work permit, visa, childcare etc.) • Communicate this Infrastructure /Procedures to the researcher at the Proposal Writing stage & assist them to develop the Bid Strong proposal with high chance to get funded Successful experience & good feedback Impact Tips B5 Impact on Researcher:• Career and Skills development • Improves career prospects How? • Mobility – Benefits of working in a different country? – Linguistic skills? Specialisation? Facilities? • Will they have exposure to the commercial sector? Impact of:• Societal, Economic, Academic impacts of the research • How research meets EU priorities ? – Innovation Union, – Youth on the Move • Dissemination/public engagement plans? • Host organisation - List any lasting collaborations • How will the host/ country/ EU benefit from researcher’s stay? Impact Outreach • • • • • Marie Curie Ambassador Workshop Day Summer-School Marie Curie Project Open Day Public talks, TV-Talks, podcasts and articles in newspapers • e-Newsletters • Multimedia releases Evaluation • • • • • • • Experts in the field Need to address all of the issues to maximise scores Total score = 100% Overall threshold (70% or 3.5/5) Most Criteria - have a threshold Each area is weighted When developing the Proposal, focus on the objectives of the activity, to be successful Proposal Evaluation • Evaluation criteria for each chapter and sub-chapter is listed in the Guide for Applicants • Experts use guiding questions to measure & check the evaluation criteria for each chapter • A list of strengths and weaknesses is made for each chapter • Based on the strengths/weaknesses: marks from 0 - 5 are given with justifications Evaluation criteria - Marie Curie - IEF Evaluation process: Marie Curie Remote phase: • 3 evaluators/proposal • 4-24 proposals/evaluator (!!!) • > 100 evaluators for > 700 proposals (ENV) • 3 weeks remote evaluation Individual Assessment Reports: • Submitted online • Visible to other experts after they submitted Consensus meeting: • Experts meet in Brussels • Consensus report (CR) Remote Proposal X copy 1 Proposal X copy 2 Proposal X copy 3 IAR expert 1 IAR CR expert 2 3 experts IAR expert 3 Marie Curie Consensus Meeting - Brussels Experts discuss their IARs: 30 min pr proposal! Agree on strengths/ weaknesses and marks Rapporteur drafts Consensus Report (CR) A commission member quality-controls the CR No Clear, consistent, detailed? Match marks and comments? Yes Checked + approved CRs delivered to commission Evaluation Criteria S & T Quality Training Researcher Implementation Impact Threshold 3/5 3/5 4/5 NA 3.5/5 Weighting 25% 15% 25% 15% 20% S & T Quality Assessment Criteria Threshold Weighting 3/5 25% • Scientific/technological quality, including any interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of the proposal • Appropriateness of research methodology and approach • Originality & innovative nature of project, and relationship to ‘state of the art’ of research in the field • Timeliness and relevance of project • Host scientific expertise in the field • Quality of the group / scientist in charge S & T Quality Feedback Positive Feedback • Research is timely with number of innovations beyond ‘state of the art’ • Research methodology is detailed and clearly • Explained Negative Feedback • Techniques to be used are well known in the field so not very innovative • Research methodology not given in full detail Training / Knowledge Transfer Assessment Criteria Threshold 3/5 Weighting 15% IEF/ IOF – Training • Clarity and quality of the research training objectives for the researcher IEF/ IOF Training IEF/ IOF Training • Relevance & quality of the additional scientific training & complementary skills offered, with special attention to exposure to the industry sector, where appropriate • Measures taken by the host for quantitative and qualitative mentoring and tutoring IIF – Knowl’dge Transfer IIF – Knowl’dge Transfer •Clarity and quality of the transfer of knowledge objectives • Potential of transferring knowledge to European host and/or bringing knowledge to Europe Training/ Knowledge Transfer Assessor Feedback Positive feedback • Contemplates training courses specifically designed for postdoctoral fellows • Research training objectives are clearly identified, described, and planned • Both participants will benefit from their mutual collaboration, not only through direct joint work, but also through the interaction with the whole research group • Fellow has range of relevant knowledge and expertise to be brought to the project Training/ Knowledge Transfer Assessor Feedback Negative Feedback • A research project with no training element • The host asserts skills without presenting convincing • evidence of competence • Techniques described will clearly be valuable to the researcher, but the lack of detailed description doesn’t inspire confidence in the quality of training available • Objective are research objectives with out specifying the unique knowledge the fellow will bring Researcher Assessment Criteria Threshold Weighting 4/5 25% • Research experience • Results including patents/ publications/ teaching • Independent thinking & leadership qualities (and capacity to transfer knowledge (IIF)) • Match between the fellow’s profile and research • IEF and IOF: Potential for reaching a position of professional maturity • IEF and IOF: Potential to acquire new knowledge Researcher Feedback Positive Feedback • Clear proof of independent thinking during PhD and the possibility to progress and develop • Clear evidence of leadership qualities • Potential to acquire new knowledge is high • Good references and clear list of Prizes, Awards, Lectures, etc Negative Feedback • CV lacks data on record • Continuation of previous research so exposure to new approaches is lacking • References were similar and from one institution Implementation Assessment Criteria Threshold Weighting N/A 15% • Quality of infrastructure / facilities & international collaborations of host • Practical arrangements for implementation & management of scientific projects • Independent thinking & leadership qualities (and capacity to transfer knowledge (IIF)) • Feasibility & credibility of project, including work plan • Practical & administrative arrangements & support for the hosting of the fellow Impact Assessment Criteria Threshold 3.5/5 Weighting 20% All • Potential for creating long term collaborations and mutually beneficial co-operation with other countries (IEF) / between Europe and the other third country (IIF/IOF) All • Contribution to European excellence and European Competitiveness regarding the expected research results (IEF) / through valuable transfer of knowledge (IIF/IOF) All • Impact of the proposed outreach activities IEF & IOF • Impact of competencies acquired during the fellowship on the future career prospects of the researcher, in particular through exposure to transferable skills training (IEF only: with special attention to exposure to the industrial sector, where appropriate) IEF & IOF • Contribution to the career development, or re-establishment where relevant IEF • Benefit of the mobility to the European Research Area Impact Assessor Feedback Positive Feedback • Contribution to European excellence and competitiveness is well presented • Skill acquired during the project will greatly contribute to the fellow’s career development Negative Feedback • Lack of career development plan for the applicant • Lack of details means it is difficult to judge whether a independent position is achievable Major pitfalls • Too much focus on the research project, too little on all other aspects • Host not sufficiently involved in proposal writing (= weak implementation and training chapter) • Imbalance between ”fellow profile and project match” and ”Benefit from training” (candidate not qualified / too experienced) • Instructions in GFA not followed word by word; information insufficient or lacking TOP TIPS for SUCCESS • • • • Find Successful Researcher Develop Excellent Project Allow sufficient time Key Categories – Impact * – Training * * Get help from DRI / APECs SCoRE Cymru – Supporting Collaborative Research and innovation in Europe • Replaces WECF - Wales European Collaboration Fund • Provides 50% towards travel & subsistence for FP7 application development. • SCoRE can part cover a visit to an EU HEI/ Meeting/ Conference to discuss a potential Fellowship • UK researcher interested in IOF could visit 3rd country to scope out application & meet non EU host. Proposed Horizon 2020 Structure Excellent Science Base • • • • European Research Council (ERC) Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) Marie Curie Actions Research Infrastructures Industrial Leadership and Competitive Frameworks • • • Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies: • ICT; Nanotechnologies; Advanced Materials; Biotechnology; • Advanced Manufacturing and Processing; and Space Access to risk finance Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) Development of Horizon 2020 Development of Horizon 2020 Tackling Societal Challenges • • • • • • • Health, demographics changes and well being Food security, sustainable agriculture marine and maritime research and the bio-economy Secure, clean and efficient energy Smart, green and integrated transport Climate action and resource efficiency including raw materials Inclusive, innovative and secure societies European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) Joint Research Centre (JRC) Euratom (2014-2018) Horizon 2020 • Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions – MSCA • 4 Broader Actions – Individual Fellowships (IF) – Innovative Training Networks (ITN) – Research & Innovation Staff Exchange (RISE) – Cofund Excellent Science Overarching objective: “to ensure optimum development and dynamic use of Europe’s intellectual capital in order to generate new skills and innovation and, thus, to realise its full potential across all sectors and regions” Goes from 9 actions to 4 broader lines of activity: Horizon 2020 • Fostering new skills by means of excellent initial training of researchers • Doctoral level training: innovative, intersectoral, interdisciplinary, international • Follows on from ITN scheme (including new European Industrial Doctorate and Innovative Doctoral Programme strands) Horizon 2020 Excellent Science • Nurturing excellence by means of cross-border and cross-sector mobility • Opportunities for researchers at all career levels • Supports cross-border and cross-sector mobility • Follows on from FP7 individual fellowships • Stimulating innovation by means of cross-fertilisation of knowledge • Staff exchange – international cross-border and/or inter-sectoral • Follows on from IAPP/IRSES schemes • Co-funding of activities across other three strands • Aims to “leverage additional funds to increase the numerical and structural impact of MCA” UK Research Office Swansea University UKRO contact Edward Heelas UKRO Rue du Trône 4 B-1000 Brussels, Belgium Tel.: 0032 2 230 5275 / 1535 Fax: 0032 2 230 4803 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.ukro.ac.uk EURAXESS UK • • • • Resource for Recruitment and International Mobility of researchers/PhD to Europe and inside Europe Consists of 4 web portals: Jobs Services - mobile researchers and their families going abroad Rights & duties for employers and employees - regarding recruitment and hiring of researchers and PhD’s. Charter & Code documents Links and resources in specific countries around the world, currently USA, China, India, Japan and Singapore). EURAXESS LCP – Rebecca Williams APECs Tel 602390 [email protected] Recap • • • • • • • • Fellowship Options Eligibility Application Process Budgets Key Sections Part B Evaluation & Feedback Top Tips for Success Horizon 2020 Career Integration Grant • Research project funding to supports a fellow integrating back into research career in Europe • Fixed amount €25 000 pa flat rate funding - for 2- 4 years, used for: Part of researchers salary (or other staff on project); Equipment, Consumables, Travel; & Overheads/ Management costs. • Host contributes to research costs • Researcher applies with Host Institution • Gives Fellow stability to do own research/ have own budget • Mobility Rule applies • Enables Transfer of Knowledge & Links with original Country • Deadline 18th September 2013 Good Luck with your Application & Thank you for Attending Debbie Saunders European Funding Officer Room 709, Faraday Building Tel 602094 [email protected] DRI PreAward Team • Debbie Saunders European Funding Officer ext 2094 [email protected] Co-ordination & Support Actions; Convergence & Non research EU Funding • Julie Williams Head of Pre Award & Senior External Funding Officer ext 5824 [email protected] European Projects Chris Beynon External Funding Officer ext 5015 [email protected] College of Business, Economics & Law; College of Science • • Bethan Lewis External Funding Officer ext 6895 [email protected] College of Arts & Humanities; College of Medicine • Adrian Walters External Funding Officer ext 3724 [email protected] College of Engineering; College of Human & Health Sciences Member States - 27 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom. Associated Countries Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Moldova, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey 3rd Country Participants • International Cooperation Partner Countries (ICPCs) ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/icpc-list.pdf • High-income countries USA, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand, Taiwan, Hong Kong & Macao, Vatican, San Marino, Monaco and Andorra Interpretation of the scores 0: Fail -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 3: Good - The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary 4: Very Good - The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible 5: Excellent - The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.