The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) Version 2.13 Myer W Morron EFPC (UK) Ltd (www.EFPCGroup.com) 21 Oct 2012 The latest version of this document is available – In pdf format at http://www.EFPCGroup.com/tools The document is downloadable without charge but redistribution is restricted - see copyright on Page 14 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) Version 2.13 Comments to Myer@EFPCGroup.com The method of distribution for this book has changed from previous EFPC books It is only held on the EFPC and Finance Help-desk web sites and only registered users can download It continues to be free But as noted under the copyright notice at the bottom of Page 14, redistribution is not permitted without written permission from EFPC The reason for this is the dynamic nature of the content The new method allows us to notify those that down-load of new drafts and versions and of any important changes In the past we noted that old versions were being held on-line in many sites and this can lead to unfortunate mistakes and errors among users Specific changes – 2.13 Have made changes related to changes in FET Open in ICT Call 10 and 11 EPSS incorporation into Participants Portal and typos have been addressed 2.12 Brought in line with Guide to Financial Issues relating to FP7 Indirect Actions dated 16 Jan 2012 in particular with respect to correct splitting of Project Management into Consortium Management and Scientific Management - see new section 16.15 Updated and extended section 13 with example of being outside Euro-zone and main barriers SMEs face Updated section 21 on Horizon2020 with latest information Updates to reflect DG INFSO becoming DG CONNECT Updated EPSS with SEP information - section 16.16 2.11 Typo on page 210 Have updated the chapter 21 on Horizon 2020 with the latest documentation on the Commission proposal for this follow-on to FP7 Have updated Marie Curie and ERC chapters Have modified Section slightly to reflect changes in new version of Guide to Financial Issues of 16 Jan 2012 Have updated words on Evaluation Hearings Have updated various places with respect to number of pages in a proposal Have added 6.24.2 based on the updated NEF facility Have updated wrt project meetings and kick off meetings under project management Version 2.13 Published 21 Oct 2012 ISBN # 965-90526-2-6 ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents Author Brief CV 14 Overview 15 1.1 Background 15 1.1.1 The Framework Program 15 1.1.2 Reasons for Framework Program .15 1.1.3 The Nature of the Framework Program 16 1.2 Background to changes in FP7 17 1.3.1 Member State 17 1.3.2 Associated Countries 18 1.3.3 Other Countries 18 1.4 Overview of rules of participation .18 1.4.1 The Workprogram .18 1.4.2 Calls for proposal 19 1.4.3 Nature of proposals 19 1.4.4 Nature of Consortia 19 1.4.5 A quick look at the funding rules 19 1.4.6 Advance payments 19 1.4.7 Who can participate? 20 1.5 Benefits of participation in a Collaborative R&D project 20 1.5.1 Development of advanced technology 20 1.5.2 Access to advanced technology 20 1.5.3 Collaboration with key players 20 1.5.4 Collaboration with key customers 20 1.5.5 Facilitating investment in your company 21 1.5.6 Access to a new market .21 1.5.7 Access to a new geographic area 21 1.5.8 Development of an international standard 21 1.5.9 Marketing and/or technological intelligence 21 1.5.10 Funding for something you were planning to 21 1.5.11 Training or retraining for own staff 21 1.5.12 Exposure of staff to new areas of technology 22 1.5.13 Increasing number of trained staff 22 1.5.14 Ability to hold staff during commercial downturns 22 1.5.15 Danger of not being in 22 1.5.16 Sabotage! 22 1.6 Reasons not to participate 22 1.6.1 Work is not a natural fit into the Workprogram 22 1.6.2 Time-table does not fit 22 1.6.3 Time to market is unsuitable .22 1.6.4 Project is too secret 22 Brief Overview of Framework Program Seven and CIP 24 2.1 Framework Program highlights 24 2.1.1 Cooperation .24 2.1.2 Ideas 25 2.1.3 People 25 2.1.4 Capacities 25 2.2 CIP Program 28 ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) 2.2.1 Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme 29 2.2.2 ICT Policy Support Programme 30 2.2.3 Intelligent Energy-Europe Program 30 2.3 FP7 Funding Schemes (Types of Projects) 30 2.3.1 Collaborative projects (CP) .31 2.3.2 Networks of Excellence (NoE) 32 2.3.3 (CSA) .34 2.3.4 Collaborative Projects and Coordination and Support Actions (CP-CSA) .35 2.3.5 ERA-NET and ERA-NET Plus 35 Framework Program Seven changes .37 3.1 Changes in Terminology 37 3.2 Project Management changes 37 3.4 Rules of Participation 38 3.5 Contractual changes .38 3.5.1 Collective responsibility of the participants .39 3.5.2 Agreement coming into force 39 3.5.3 Cost models have been eliminated 39 3.5.4 Intellectual property rights 39 3.5.5 Coordinators or partners with more than 500,000 allocated 40 3.6 Financial Changes 40 3.7 Proposal changes 41 3.8 Evaluation changes 41 3.8.1 Scientific and Technical Quality: 41 3.8.2 Implementation: .41 3.8.3 Impact: 42 3.9 Recourse .42 3.10 Impact Summary 42 Formal process 44 4.1 Workprogram .44 4.2.1 R&D Proposals Suitable for FP7 45 4.2.2 R&D Proposals Unsuitable for FP7 45 4.3 Calls for Proposals .45 4.4 Partner Search 45 4.4.1 To coordinate or not 46 4.4.2 Type A .47 4.4.3 Type B .48 4.4.4 Due Diligence 49 4.4.5 Memorandum of Understanding .49 4.5 Idealist Partner Search Quality Team processing 50 4.5.1 Quality Team Scoring System 51 4.6 Proposal preparation and submittal 52 4.6.1 Part A - The Forms 53 4.6.2 Part B - The Proposal 53 4.6.3 Evaluation Criteria 54 4.6.4 Notification of Intention to Submit 55 4.6.5 On-line preparation and submission using EPSS 55 4.7 Proposal Time-line 55 4.8 Collaborative R&D Proposal evaluation .55 4.8.1 Hearings 57 4.9 What to if your Proposal Fails .58 4.9.1 Check the ESR carefully 58 4.9.2 Get further information .58 4.9.3 Use of the Program Committee - “Lobbying” 59 ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) 4.9.4 Resubmit where possible 59 4.9.5 Request for Redress 59 Types of Project, Roles & Structure 61 5.1 Refined Instrument Definitions 61 5.1.1 STREP versus IP .62 5.1.2 NoE 62 5.1.3 CA versus SA 62 5.1.4 Security Program Project Types 63 5.2 ICT STREPs 63 5.2.1 Typical Structure of Small or medium-scale focused research actions .65 5.3 ICT IPs 66 5.3.1 Structure of IPs 68 5.3.2 Potential Scope of an ICT IP .69 5.4 Network of Excellence 70 5.4.1 NoE Practical Points 73 5.4.2 Structure of NoEs 74 5.5 (CSA) 74 5.5.1 Coordination or networking actions (CA) 74 5.5.2 Support actions (SA) 74 5.6 SME Special Measures 75 5.6.1 Research for SMEs (In Previous FPs, called Co-operative Research - CRAFT) .76 5.6.2 Research for (Formerly known as Collective Research) 78 5.7 ICT FET Open Scheme 82 5.7.1 FET One step and two step proposals .82 5.8 Project Roles 83 5.8.1 Beneficiary 83 5.8.2 Coordinator .83 5.8.3 Sub-contractor 83 5.8.4 Project Manager 83 5.9 Two Stage Submission 84 5.10 Research Infrastructures I3 Instrument 84 Financial Aspects 85 6.1 Cost Calculation 85 6.1.1 Interpretation of R&D funding rates for non-profit bodies 88 6.1.2 Definition of Research Organisation 88 6.1.3 Use of Lump Sums by ICPC Beneficiaries .88 6.2 Allowable Consortium Management Costs at 100% 89 6.3 Explanation of activity costs 90 6.3.1 Research Costs 90 6.3.2 Demonstration Costs 90 6.3.3 Other Costs 90 6.3.4 Eligible Costs 91 6.4 Personnel costs .91 6.4.1 Personnel Definitions 92 6.4.2 Personnel Status 92 6.4.3 Overtime 93 6.5 Overhead (or Indirect) Cost Calculation 93 6.5.1 Different Overhead Methods or ICM: 93 6.5.2 Actual 94 6.5.3 Simplified method for calculation of 95 6.5.4 Standard Flat rates for where applicable 95 6.5.5 Special Transition flat rate 96 6.5.6 Mixed systems 96 ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) 6.5.7 Applicability of Overheads .96 6.5.8 Important Overhead Notes: 97 6.5.9 Example of third party costs eligible for project and conditions for acceptability 97 6.5.10 Overheads on “Consortium Management or Other Costs” .98 6.5.11 Special case of CSA 98 6.6 Equipment costs 98 6.7 Non-eligible costs 99 6.8 Costing of Network of Excellence .99 6.9 Creating a Participant’s Budget 100 6.9.1 Items common to all costing methods 100 6.9.2 The fixed overhead participant .100 6.9.3 The calculated overhead participant .101 6.9.4 Note on NoE budgeting 101 6.10 of the Project 101 6.11 Claiming costs in a running project 101 6.11.1 Dealing with Exchange Rates in Financial Statements 101 6.12 Audit Certificates or Certificates on Financial Statements 102 6.12.1 Certification 103 6.13 Accounting Principles 104 6.14 Example of different bases of cost calculation 105 6.15 Participation without funding 106 6.16 Pre-financing Interest .106 6.17 Sub-contracts 106 6.18 Internal or intra participant cross purchasing 107 6.19 Financial Guarantee Fund 107 6.20 Reporting 108 6.21 FP7 Rule Clarification .108 6.22 Research for SMEs, Research for .109 6.23 The People Program - Marie Curie 109 6.24 Participants Portal 109 6.24.1 FORCE 109 6.24.2 NEF Update of Feb 2012 110 6.25 Financial differences under the CIP 112 6.25.1 CIP: Participation 112 6.25.2 CIP: IEE compared to FP7 financial rules 112 6.25.3 CIP: ICT-PSP compared to FP7 financial rules 113 6.26 Simplification of FP7 Rules .115 6.26.1 Why is simplifying research funding important? 115 6.26.2 How did the rules get so complicated in the first place? .115 6.26.3 What are the main changes being made now? 115 6.26.4 How does the reimbursement of personnel costs work? .116 6.26.5 How much money will these changes save? 116 6.26.6 How much time will these measures save ? 116 6.26.7 Will existing projects be affected by the changes, or only new ones? 116 6.26.8 Why has it taken since April to bring these changes forward? .116 6.26.9 How will the Commission ensure these changes not lead to reduced financial control? 116 6.26.10 Do these changes fully reflect the recommendations of the Mid-Term Evaluation? 117 6.26.11 What progress has been made towards simplification so far? .117 6.26.12 Will there be more changes before the end of FP7? 117 6.26.13 What kind of changes can we expect under the next research program? 117 6.26.14 Why not make some of these changes now? .118 6.26.15 What is Tolerable Risk of Error? 118 6.26.16 What is the state of play in the discussions over the Tolerable Risk of Error (TRE)? 118 ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) 6.26.17 Which departments and agencies of the Commission are directly involved in running FP7? 118 6.26.18 How will setting up a new committee of DGs simplify things or achieve consistency? 119 6.26.19 When will this new committee start work and when you expect it to deliver results? 119 6.26.20 How close are we to the 15% target for SME participation in the FP? 119 Use of External Consultants 120 7.1 How to select a consultant 120 7.2 What their role should be 120 7.3 Payment methods .121 7.3.1 Up front agreed sum for specific work 121 7.3.2 Agreed sum plus success fee incentive 121 7.3.3 Pure success fee incentive .121 7.3.4 Project participation 121 7.3.5 Problems with Success Fees 121 7.4 Points to watch 122 7.4.1 Fixed or calculated overhead rate 122 7.4.2 Rights to the Output 122 7.4.3 Last minute pressure .122 7.4.4 Consultants signing up your partners 122 7.4.5 Consultants adding you into a consortium where they are already being paid by 122 7.4.6 Ensuring you agree with proposal 122 7.4.7 Use of .123 7.4.8 Ensure access to all information .123 7.4.9 Pressuring you to be 123 7.4.10 Taking role of Coordinator 123 7.5 Quali4EU 124 7.6 Summary 124 What to when your proposal is to be funded 125 8.1 Contract Negotiation 125 8.1.1 Validation of existence and legal status of participating legal entities 125 8.1.2 Collective responsibility 127 8.1.3 General - Handling of s 127 8.1.4 Financial Viability and Capability of the 128 8.1.5 Negotiation on Annex 128 8.1.6 Funding Distribution between partners 128 8.2 Consortium Agreement .128 8.2.1 Consortium Check-list - Outline of Contents .129 8.2.2 Dealing with serious errors made by Coordinator 130 8.3 Project Initiation 131 8.4 Cash flow during a typical project 131 8.5 Problems during the project 132 8.5.1 Partner problems .132 8.5.2 Technical problems 133 8.5.3 Market problems .133 8.5.4 Problems with the Commission 133 8.5.5 Contract changes .134 8.6 Project end 134 8.7 Potential audits 135 8.8 Grant Agreement amendment 135 Project Management .136 9.1 Introduction to Project Management 136 9.2 Kick off Meeting 137 9.3 Essential Documents 137 9.3.1 Project grant agreement with annexes 137 ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) 9.3.2 Project Handbook 138 9.3.3 Progress tracking .138 9.4 Project reporting guidelines .138 9.4.1 FP7 Interim reporting requirements: .138 9.4.2 FP7 Final reporting requirements: 139 9.5 Project Reviews 139 9.5.1 Introduction .139 9.5.2 Mandate of the Independent Expert(s) 139 9.5.3 Outline of the review process 140 9.5.4 Review material 140 9.5.5 Reporting 140 9.5.6 Reporting Portal 140 9.5.7 Project Assessment of the Commission 140 9.5.8 Template for the Technical Review Report .140 9.5.9 Some notes on the process 141 9.6 Dealing with Crises 141 9.7 Completing the Project/Final Review 141 10 Project Good Practice 142 10.1 Introduction 142 10,2 Why behave properly? .142 10.3 The Role of the Coordinator 142 10.4 Actions at different stages 142 10.4.1 Building a consortium 142 10.4.2 Submitting the proposal 143 10.4.3 Evaluation .143 10.4.4 Contract negotiations 143 10.4.5 Consortium Agreement 144 10.4.6 During the project 144 10.4.7 Project End 144 10.4.8 Sabotage 144 10.5 Unacceptable bias 144 10.6 Summary 144 11 European Technology Platforms 145 11.1 Official view .145 11.2 Interfaces between ICT Platforms 146 11.3 Joint Technology Initiatives .147 11.4 Relationship with Eureka 147 11.4.1 Eurostars 147 11.5 How ETP activities are funded 148 11.5.1 Via Framework funding 148 11.5.2 Joint Technology Initiative 148 11.6 JTI/ETP Structures 149 11.7 Financial Details .150 11.7.1 Funding Aspects 150 11.7.2 Participant funding in JTI project 150 11.7.3 JTI Call, Evaluation and Contract Process 151 11.7.4 ICL JTI Call for proposals 152 11.8 Initial Membership, Funding and Hosting 153 11.8.1 Clean Sky Joint Undertaking 153 11.8.2 Innovative Medicines Joint Undertaking 153 11.8.3 ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking in Embedded Computing Systems 154 11.8.4 ENIAC Joint Undertaking .154 11.8.5 Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking 154 ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) 11.8.6 Ambient Assisted Living Joint Undertaking 155 12 Ethical Considerations in FP7 .156 12.1 Ethical Issues at the Proposal Stage 157 12.2 Typical ICT Ethical Issues .158 12.3 Sensitive Ethical Issues 158 12.4 Request for Ethical Review .158 12.5 Ethical Review 158 12.6 Ethical Review Workings 159 12.7 Contract negotiation and the Ethical Review report 160 12.8 Ethical management 160 12.9 Ethics during the Project 160 12.10 Special Clauses related to Ethics 160 12.10.1 Ethical Rules .161 12.10.2 Research involving the use of human embryos and embryonic stem cells 161 12.10.3 Ethical Review 161 12.10.4 Clinical Research (specific to for biomedical research involving human beings): 161 13 Status 163 13.4.1 Types of SMEs 163 13.4.2 Funding rules for SMEs 164 13.4.3 Opportunities for High Tech SMEs 164 13.4.4 Opportunities for Low Tech SMEs .164 13.4.5 Financial viability issues 164 13.4.6 Domination by large companies 165 13.4.7 Implication of non-monolithic IPs 165 13.5 Verification of status .165 13.6 Definition 165 13.7 Coordinators 165 13.8 Barriers to Participation in FP7 .165 13.8.1 Complexity of the rules 166 13.8.2 Time to payment 166 13.8.3 The currency problem 166 13.8.4 Built in bias against small companies 166 13.8.5 Mistaken Commission reliance on SMEs being able to enforce legal contracts 167 13.8.6 Inexperience of most auditors .167 13.9 Example of company outside Euro-zone 167 13.10 Research for SMEs, Research for 168 14 Intellectual Property Aspects 169 14.1 Comparison between provisions under FP6 and FP7 Main changes 169 14.2 SME projects 175 14.3 Joint Research Units (JRUs) 175 14.4 The common legal structure .175 15 How to write a proposal 176 15.1 Agreement of project abstract, objective and scope 179 15.2 Preliminary commitment of participants 180 15.2.1 Non Disclosure Agreement 180 15.3 Agreement on participant order .181 15.4 Set up of Part B Template 181 15.5 Agreement on document standards and method of working 181 15.6 Agreement on Work package structure and contributing partners 182 15.6.1 Assessment and Evaluation 182 15.7 Production of preliminary Pert and Gantt 183 15.8 Agreement on WP leaders and WP descriptions 183 15.9 Set up of Project Effort form (Guide for Applicants) & costing spread sheet 183 ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) 15.10 Production of B1.1 Concept and Objectives 183 15.11 Production of B1.2 Progress beyond the state of the art 184 15.12 Production of B2.1, B2,2, B2.3, B3.1, B3.2 and B4 (can proceed in parallel) 184 15.12.1 B2.1 Management structure and procedures .184 15.12.2 B2.2 Individual participants 185 15.12.3 B2.3 Consortium as a whole .185 15.12.4 B3.1 Expected impacts listed in the work program 186 15.12.5 B3.2 Dissemination and/or Exploitation of project results and management of 186 15.12.6 B4 Ethical issues 186 15.12.7 B5 Gender and other issues 187 15.13 Initial text for WP descriptions, deliverables & initial manpower 187 15.14 Production of B1.3 work plan 187 15.15 Initial guestimates of other costs per WP per partner 188 15.16 Iterations on costing spread sheet to achieve acceptable cost distribution 188 15.17 Updating of all tables with man months, deliverables and milestones 188 15.18 Addition to B2.4 Resources to be committed 188 15.19 Updating of A3.1 forms, fine tuning, proofing, agreement by partners 189 15.20 Number of pages in a Proposal 189 15.21 Red teaming of proposal i.e external dummy evaluation .189 16 Practical Advice - 2012 collaborative research calls 191 16.1 Gathering of partner information .191 16.2 Setting up EPSS/SEP A Forms 191 16.3 Entering the initial information 191 16.4 Setting up the budget spread sheet 192 16.5 Entering initial cost data for each partner 192 16.6 Finalising the budget 193 16.7 Finalising the proposal .193 16.8 Additional EPSS specific Issues 193 16.9 ICT Calls miscellaneous notes 193 16.9.1 Management activities 194 16.9.2 The transitional overhead rate & SMEs 194 16.10 Result of the first five years Call Evaluations 195 16.11 State of Play 2012 Calls 195 16.12 FP7 Contract negotiations 197 16.13 Project Officers 197 16.14 Deliverable Month 198 16.15 Management Meetings not Management? .198 16.16 SEP 198 17 People Program (Marie Curie) 200 17.1 Program Overview 200 17.2 Early-stage researchers (ESR): 201 17.3 Experienced researchers (ER): 201 17.4 Which Actions to use .201 17.4.1 Fellowships 201 17.4.2 Integration Grants 202 17.4.3 Host Actions 202 17.5 Concept of Panels 203 17.6 Financial Considerations 204 17.7 Eligibility of Tuition Fees in Marie Curie Action Cost Statements in FP7 206 17.8 Transnational Mobility Requirements for all actions .207 17.9 Important Documents .207 17.10 Eligible Organisations 207 17.11 Marie Curie in Horizon 2020 207 ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 10 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) A5.3.2 Partner sheet A5.3.3 Manpower sheet ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 271 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) A5.4 Spread Sheet set-up for a specific proposal In order to set it up for a specific proposal, you should: 1.Insert the Project Acronym in cell A1; 2.Insert each WP short title into row 3.Insert the activity rate for each Workpackage in row 19; it could either be the RTD rate; 50% or 100% Item Sheet Cell WP1 activity rate Project B19 Consortium Management 100% WP2 activity rate Project C19 Dissemination Rate - 100% or RTD - see call WP3-WP6 activity rates Project Note D19-I19 Rate for each WP (RTD rate, 50% for demonstration) This needs to be followed by entering each partner's information in the Project sheet; i.e their short name; average man month rate in Euros; funding rate and overhead rate and EPSS / SEP info: Insert each partner's short name in row 26 Insert each partner's man month rate in Euros in row 27 Insert each partner's RTD rate in row 28 Insert each partner's overhead rate in row 29 Insert each partner's average trip cost including hotel etc in row 30 For each partner that will calculate his overheads check whether overheads will apply to all costs (except subcontracting) and where necessary switch corresponding cell in row 31 to "NO" Insert each partner's PIC number in row 32 8.As each partner signs an NDA or MOU, switch corresponding cell in row 33 to "YES" Item Partner name Row Note Ref short 26 As per proposal - Man rate per month in Euros 27 Average estimated cost of employment including projected inflation Note RTD rate 28 75% for all except 50% for non-SME companies Note Overhead rate 29 20%, 60% or calculated Note Average trip cost 30 Now incorporated into calculations Note Overheads on all costs? 31 Normally "Yes", however for those "No", overheads only applied to personnel Note PIC 32 For EPSS / SEP, Participant code Note 33 Have signed an (optional but recommended by us) Note Note 1: See 6.4 Personnel costs Note 2: See 6.1 Cost Calculation Note 3: See 6.5 Overhead (or Indirect) Cost Calculation Note 4: One should calculate a normal trip cost say to Brussels including fare, nights accommodation, per diem etc Note 5: See 6.5 Overhead (or Indirect) Cost Calculation Note 6: See 4.6.1 Part A - The Forms and 8.1.1 Note 7: See 4.4.5 Memorandum of Understanding ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 272 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) A5.5 Example Set-up To illustrate how this works we insert the following: We assume the sheet was modified for correct number of WPs and Partners Put project acronym in A1(H-TWO-O) and brief WP names into Row We use examples as “CM, Dissem, Pricing, Desalination, Fish” - these are helpful as reminders In Project sheet, please put in Row 18, 100 for WP1 and WP2 and RTD for each other WP (i.e no Demonstration) Put partner short names in Row 25 (See table below) For each partner enter average monthly man rate in Euros in Row 26 For each partner enter RTD percentage (50 for Large Industrial and User association, 75 for all others in Row 28) For each partner enter overhead rate 20, 60 or calculated in Row 29 Put in average cost of a trip in row 30 Is a function of geography and organisational policy Select overheads only on personnel costs for GW in Row 31 i.e "No" and leave rest as "Yes" 10 Enter PICs in row 32 and status in row 33 Enter the following for initial breakdown in Project sheet: Short Name Man month rate Funding % Overhead % Trip cost Part UoB 6,000 75 60 700 Part GW 5,500 50 120 750 Part CM 3,500 50 110 1,000 Part SS 5,000 75 60 750 Part ADL 6,500 75 60 1,000 Part NWC 5,500 50 115 1,000 Part WCS 6,500 75 60 700 Part FF 3,200 75 60 1,000 Enter the following man power breakdown in each partner sheet: WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 CM WP6 Total UoB 18 10 3 40 GW 3 18 31 CM 15 10 39 SS 1 3 0 ADL 15 0 23 NWC 1 8 10 33 WCS 3 8 28 FF 10 20 36 Totals 29 21 50 42 46 50 238 The estimate of Consortium Management required resource for the Project Manager of 18 man months above was derived from the rule of thumb that Management in a small RTD project is generally around 10% of the R&D labour As this was around 240 man months it follows that an initial reasonable guestimate for PM is 18 man months and allowing some extra for each partner ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 273 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) Enter the following travel for initial breakdown: 18 month project, six monthly meetings = each including reviews Add dissemination and technical meetings Note that for partners the budgeted cost per trip varies between 700 Euros and 1,000 Euros WP1 CM WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 UoB 0 GW 0 CM 0 SS 0 ADL 0 0 NWC 0 WCS 0 FF 0 Enter the following for equipment depreciation (2/3) WP1 CM WP2 WP3 WP4 UoB WP5 WP6 1,667 GW 12,000 CM SS ADL NWC WCS FF Enter the following sub-contract/material - (note we also put in 2,000 for UoB audits): WP1 CM WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 UoB 5,000 GW 0/0 CM 0/0 SS 0/0 ADL 0/0 NWC 0/0 WCS 0/0 FF 0/0 ©Myer W Morron 2012 10,000 5,000 2,500 10,000 5,000 1,500 Version 2.13 Page 274 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) A5.5.1 Project sheet with Data inserted ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 275 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) A5.5.2 Partner sheet with Data inserted A5.5.3 Manpower sheet with Data inserted ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 276 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) Appendix Examples of Blah Blah In Chapter 15, we made reference in proposal writing to tight, succinct, precise, language Too many proposals suffer by being full of blah blah In workshops I have given on proposal writing, I have discovered it rather difficult to get across what is meant by “blah blah” and I have eventually realised that the only way to get the message across is to show examples I therefore put together classic real recent examples and followed each by some italicised comments I have used “BLAH-BLAH” as the proposal acronym 10 11 "BLAH-BLAH will potentially have considerably impact on the industrial, commercial and research sectors." Problem here is lack of specifics and metrics and weasel words such as “potentially” "The numerous commercial and government entities utilizing the data produced by BLAH-BLAH, will primarily enjoy the benefits of affordability and standardisation." Pure unspecific, unquantified generalisations "This industrial sector will potentially enjoy a stronger market position" Pure unspecific, unquantified generalisation "All of the sectors will enjoy the advancements in the standardisation effort by making available standardised data BLAH-BLAH can serve as a technological test-bed" Would be fine as a summary of a set of specifics but not stand alone "Effectively defining a new state of the art in automation of processing and analysis, BLAHBLAH will utilise and serve to demonstrate the benefits of multidisciplinary advancements in extraction, matching, fusion, and modelling to implement these computationally-intense tasks in an efficient way, allowing for future commercialisation of the technology." Without each claim being substantiated in supplementary text, this is valueless "As the extensive flurry of activities in this discipline demonstrates, there is an acute need for standardisation The language is emotive and does not justify standardisation action "Therefore, as a technological platform producing Reference Data on a mass scale, BLAH-BLAH will serve the interests of data consumers across the continent Bringing together, in the Consortium, participants representative of all stakeholder groups and from several Member States, will ensure wide acceptance to the concepts introduced by this program." As stated, these points assure nothing without specific actions complementing them to ensure the desired result is achieved "The Contractors will try to avoid the result of joint ownership of Knowledge and for this end will try to distinguish the contribution of each of the Parties as much as possible." This is not management, it is the typical situation that an /Knowledge Management activity should try to avoid "The BLAH-BLAH Consortium shares a clear vision for the objectives of the program The vision will be distilled into a formal Vision Statement that will provide guidance to the entire team throughout the program” Yes – sure All this lacks is a project song for everyone to sing each morning "The financial plan for the project was carefully constructed using best practice methods We've used both a top-down and a bottom-up approach, with an outcome consistent with both approaches The plan is consistent with the guidelines of "several tens of man-years and several millions of Euros" It is difficult to know what to make of this – whether to laugh or cry – one thing is sure it does not lead us to have faith that the financial management will be professional "The intends to establish a clear and effective management structure, headed by an authoritative Project Manager The program will follow a strict process for controlling the budget and schedule and for actively managing the risks A clear vision, transformed into methodical action plans will provide the top-notch team with the necessary resources and support required to deliver a top ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 277 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) 12 13 14 quality BLAH-BLAH system that will be completed on schedule and within the budget." What is lacking is even a hint of what this structure and plan will look like This is too journalistic in tone and thus inconsistent with professional management "The intends to maintain a lean management structure, in order to keep the overhead to a required minimum." Good intention – but what does this mean in practice? Should be followed by a list of specifics to achieve "Our technological experience allows us to frame, with reasonable accuracy, a plausible high-level architecture demonstrating the main components of a possible implementation of the BLAHBLAH system." Too many constraining words such as “reasonable”, “plausible”, “possible” etc "Many research and technological development projects are plagued with an inability to produce a high quality product within the allocated budget and schedule These risks are even more pronounced when a significant research component is included in the project activities, as is the case for BLAH-BLAH The Staged Delivery Plan is one of the best-of-practice methods chosen by world leader companies to minimise these risks.” Replace by "We shall use a Staged Delivery Plan as it will minimise risks." ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 278 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) Appendix Brussels-English As referred to earlier, the language used throughout the FP7 program is officially “English” (with most key documents being available in other EU languages), however it has been modified in several ways 1.By addition of words from French (e.g Concertation, valorisation etc) 2.By using normal English but with French meaning (e.g insist, novelty, elaboration) 3.By addition of words from US English – frequently computer related like “Affordance” (quality of an object, or an environment, that allows an individual to perform an action) 4.By using normal English but with multiple meanings (e.g innovation was used with different meanings in FP6 official documentation) 5.By using normal English but with the wrong meanings or incorrect usage - I believe by mistake (e.g the use of the word "folder" to mean a A4 brochure that is folded in three, rather than the correct English usage which is to hold other papers) and (e.g frequent use of the word "Academy" to mean "Universities" or "Academia".) I find the above examples extremely frustrating and can sometimes lead to misunderstandings - especially type above Having during a meeting someone (usually French) "insist" on something can lead to friction - I have found this myself In addition, it has been noted that most FP documents produced by the Commission mainly uses US English I have enquired about this on many occasions The only reasonable reply I ever had was that the version of Microsoft Word English dictionaries licensed/installed by the Commission is the US English version one and that results in what we note I was also told that CEN - the European Standards Body head-quartered in Brussels adopted US English as the form to be used in European Standards I have never checked this out, as I not think I could control my sarcasm Incorrect use/function of automatic spelling checkers also results in examples of obvious wrong English being widespread in Commission documents The most frequent example is “SME's” being used as the plural of “SME” I personally find this extremely irritating Some words are “Good” some words are “Bad” Good and Bad Synonyms: Marketing (bad) – Dissemination (good) Demonstration (bad) – Trial (good) Brussels English is full of TLAs TLA is Three Letter Acronym FP experience is therefore very important ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 279 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) Key Topic Index accrual based accounting system, 98 Agreed Upon Procedure, 103, 234p Article 169, 24, 235, 249, 253, 264 Article 171, 147, 235 audit certificate, 64, 90, 106p., 189, 235 Audit certificate, 89, 130, 235 Audit Certificate, 37, 41, 102, 193, 206, 236 AUP, 103, 234p., 259 beneficiary, 86, 91p., 94p., 97, 102, 104 Beneficiary, 37, 83, 235, 239 budget, 19, 28, 41, 46, 52, 54, 59, 62, 68p., 91, 100p., 121, 123, 131, 143, 165, 176, 227, 236, 238, 245, 247, 251, 256pp., 260, 262, 265, 269, 277p Budget, 100, 235, 269 CA, 34, 37, 61pp., 74, 87, 236 cash based accounting system, 98p Certificate on financial statement, 89 Certificate on Financial Statement, 37, 235p certificates on financial statements, 98 Certificates on Financial Statements, 102p certification, 38, 92, 102p., 264 Certification, 89, 102p., 235p CIP, 24, 28pp., 75, 241, 264 closing date, 45, 55, 181 collective research, 87, 170 Collective research, 87, 264 Collective Research, 78, 109, 168, 236 Collective Responsibility, 237 Community financial contribution, 85p., 106, 173, 238, 245, 247, 256 Concertation, 47, 238 consortium agreement, 64, 69, 87, 90, 129, 132, 170, 172, 174, 185, 255 Consortium agreement, 81 Consortium Agreement, 19, 47, 49p., 83, 127pp., 131, 135, 137, 144, 185p., 238, 264 Consortium Management, 17, 37pp., 84, 86p., 89p., 98, 136, 269, 272p continuous submission, 240 Continuous submission, 239 contractor, 37, 41, 46, 49, 83, 90, 96, 107, 121, 129pp., 135, 173, 175, 185, 235pp., 246, 248, 251p., 255p., 258p Contractor, 37p., 83, 135, 234p., 239, 277 Coordination actions, 239 Coordination Actions, 37, 239 Coordination and support actions, 34, 74, 239 Coordination and Support Actions, 37 coordinator, 32, 39, 45pp., 55, 58, 67, 73, 77, 83p., 106, 108, 120, 122p., 125, 127p., 131p., 142p., 176, 181, 183, 185, 188, 191pp., 197, 246, 263, 269 Coordinator, 19, 38pp., 46pp., 52p., 55pp., 81, 83p., 101, 123, 125, 127p., 131p., 135, 137, 142pp., 159p., 165, 183, 236, 239, 263, 269, 277p CORDIS, 48p., 59, 77, 79, 126, 197, 236, 239p., 242, 246, 264pp cost models, 40, 73, 164, 245 Cost models, 38p Cost Models, 40, 85, 240 costs, 106 ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 280 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) CP, 14, 31, 37, 54, 59, 61p., 67, 87, 123, 189, 236, 240, 246, 265p CRAFT, 76, 109, 168, 170, 239p., 256, 264 CSA, 17, 34, 37, 42, 54, 57, 61, 63, 74, 240 CSAs, 39, 42, 61, 98, 269 current costs, 99 deliverable, 31p., 63, 66, 90, 131, 134, 138, 178, 184, 187p., 240, 260 Deliverable, 188, 240 demonstration, 17, 29pp., 39, 63, 66p., 71, 75, 96, 106, 147, 155, 184, 192, 194, 235, 247, 256, 272 Demonstration, 29, 39, 42p., 62p., 76pp., 81, 86p., 90, 92, 96, 193, 230, 240p., 257, 269, 273 derogation, 17, 39, 85, 96, 106, 125 direct costs, 39, 85, 90, 94pp., 98, 106 Direct costs, 95 dissemination, 29, 32, 34p., 39p., 42, 54, 62p., 65pp., 72, 74pp., 80, 91, 108, 137, 141, 164, 170pp., 174, 183, 186, 192, 194, 239, 256p., 274 Dissemination, 38p., 53, 86p., 135, 152, 171, 182, 186, 192, 194, 241, 269, 272 durable equipment, 98p eligible costs, 34, 71, 85pp., 89, 91, 94, 96, 99, 104, 106p., 173, 245, 248, 256 Eligible costs, 38, 242 Eligible Costs, 91, 234 EPSS, 41, 52, 55, 178, 181, 191pp., 195, 242, 254, 265 ERA, 24, 242, 265 ESR, 57pp., 143, 158, 244 Ethical Issues, 42, 54, 156pp Ethical review, 160, 243, 265 ETP, 42, 145, 148, 243 eureka, 243, 265 Eureka, 145, 147, 265 EUREKA, 15, 49, 243 European Technology Platform, 48p., 243p evaluation criteria, 18, 41, 54, 152, 195, 244, 260 Evaluation criteria, 42, 54, 244 Evaluation Criteria, 41, 53p., 152, 244 Evaluation Summary report, 249 Evaluation Summary Report, 57p., 158, 243p Exploratory Award, 258 FET, 19, 41p., 47, 54, 56, 82pp., 129, 164, 235, 244p financial guidelines, 245 Financial Guidelines, 37, 104, 245 financial rules, 122 Financial Rules, 245 FORCE, 109p., 245 FORCE/NEF, 110 Form C, 97, 109p., 139, 245 Funding Regime, 240, 245 funding scheme, 30, 33, 38, 53, 71, 164, 238, 245 Funding scheme, 53p., 61 Funding Scheme, 30p., 34, 37p., 74, 245, 249 GAAP, 105, 245, 247 GPF, 127 Grant Agreement, 37p., 83, 103, 129p., 135, 235, 246, 252, 259 guarantee fund, 41, 107p., 163, 194 Guarantee Fund, 101, 107 Hearings, 57p ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 281 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) ICPC, 18, 24, 37p., 61, 247p., 258 ICT PSP, 28pp IFRS, 105, 245, 247, 250 In-house consultant, 92 indirect action, 102, 173p., 238p., 245, 252, 256, 258 Indirect action, 248 indirect costs, 39, 85pp., 94pp., 106, 195, 240, 257 Indirect costs, 38, 95 Indirect Costs, 95 indirect costs (Actual), 93 instrument, 17, 26, 30, 38, 45p., 54, 61, 74p., 77, 79, 81, 107, 137, 176, 181, 235pp., 243, 247p., 250, 252p., 263 Instrument, 30, 37p., 61p., 81, 100, 142, 164, 245, 249 integrated project, 68, 70 Integrated Project, 32, 37, 235, 238, 246pp., 250, 252p integrating project, 31, 37, 236, 252 Integrating Project, 32, 65, 67p., 250 intellectual property rights, 258 Intellectual property rights, 39, 250 Intellectual Property Rights, 250 intra-muros consultant, 92 IP, 31, 37p., 41, 45, 47, 55, 61p., 65pp., 79, 84, 164, 194, 235, 249p., 257p., 260 IPR, 21, 38, 40, 50, 72, 76pp., 87, 90, 123, 129p., 169p., 172, 175, 186, 194, 197, 250, 263, 266, 277 Joint Program of Activities, 33, 62, 71pp., 99, 101, 251 jrc, 246 JRC, 24, 239, 241, 251, 266 JRU, 106, 175 JTI, 42, 146pp., 244, 251, 266 JU, 150, 152 LEAR, 126 legal entity, 20, 83, 91, 96, 107, 165, 171p., 174p., 248 Legal entity, 252 lobbying, 59, 143 Lobbying, 59 Management, 182 Marie Curie, 25, 27, 200, 244, 252 MIXED accounting system, 96 model contract, 171, 173, 252 Model contract, 252 Model Contract, 37p., 252 MoU, 49p., 176, 180 NCP, 253 nda, 57, 129, 147, 152, 227, 277 NDA, 50, 180, 272 Necessary costs, 37, 253 NEF, 127 Network of Excellence, 33, 70pp., 87, 99, 238, 241, 251, 253p., 256 NoE, 32p., 54p., 61p., 67, 70pp., 87, 101, 164, 254 non-disclosure agreement, 142, 181 Non-disclosure agreement, 50, 253 Non-Disclosure Agreement, 180 notional costs, 99 Official Journal, 45, 236, 243, 254 ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 282 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) Ombudsman, 134 overhead rate, 39, 85, 96, 98, 103, 120, 122, 178, 180, 183, 191, 194p., 234, 272p Overhead rate, 272 overheads, 39, 42, 47, 84, 86, 90, 92, 94pp., 98, 100p., 103p., 122, 240, 272 Overheads, 90, 96, 98, 101, 106 Part A, 53, 55, 77, 79, 84, 254 Part B, 53, 55p., 78pp., 84, 106, 176, 178, 181, 193, 196, 254 Participants, 21, 238, 243, 254, 263 Participants Portal, 45, 109, 126, 140 partner search, 46pp., 264, 266 Partner Search, 45, 48p., 267 PIC, 178, 180, 272 project manager, 144, 181p., 186, 188 Project Manager, 46p., 83p., 131, 133, 136, 138, 141, 185, 273, 277 project officer, 123, 128, 131, 141, 144 Project Officer, 48, 57pp., 107, 123, 127p., 131pp., 137p., 141, 158, 160 Quali4EU, 124, 267 receipt, 97p., 101, 106, 121, 131, 143p., 234, 256 Receipts, 101, 256 redress, 58pp., 163, 267 Redress, 59p., 267 reimbursement rate, 107 Reimbursement rate, 256 RTD performer, 76pp., 173pp., 236 rules of participation, 18 Rules of participation, 257 Rules of Participation, 38 See also 6.26 Simplification of FP7 Rules., 103 SESAM, 140, 268 SICA, 38, 61 simplified method, 95 Simplified method, 93, 95 Simplified Method, 95, 257 sme, 67, 70, 75, 77, 79, 91, 171, 235, 243, 248, 257, 259, 267p SME, 14, 17, 25p., 29pp., 35, 38pp., 42, 61pp., 66p., 70, 72p., 75pp., 85, 87, 91, 96, 108p., 122p., 125, 142, 150p., 163pp., 168, 170p., 175, 194p., 235p., 239p., 243, 248p., 253, 256pp., 267p STREP, 31, 37p., 41, 55, 57, 61p., 65p., 77, 79, 90, 164, 176, 182, 184, 188, 192pp., 249, 258, 269 Sub-, 83 Sub-contractor, 83 subcontractor, 107, 120 Subcontractor, 258 subsidiarity, 17 Subsidiarity, 259 Support Action, 37, 238pp., 257pp support actions, 28, 34p., 74p., 238p Support actions, 34, 74 Support Actions, 37 technical collective responsibility, 127 Technical collective responsibility, 259 third party, 90, 97p., 101, 107, 123, 170, 172, 175, 192, 239 Third party, 38, 130, 258 training, 14, 25, 32, 34, 62, 65pp., 69pp., 91, 94, 164, 174, 194, 236, 247, 256p., 259 Training, 15, 20p., 39, 62, 76, 78, 86p., 91, 192, 257 ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 283 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) training activities, 32, 66, 236, 259 Training activities, 87, 259 Type A, 46pp Type B, 46, 48p URF, 88 Valorisation, 260 VAT, 19, 92, 99, 103, 107, 260 weightings, 54, 260 Weightings, 260 work package, 63, 69, 182p., 187p., 260, 269 Work package, 69, 137, 178, 182, 187p., 260 Work Package, 48, 183, 185 Workprogram, 16, 18p., 22, 24, 32, 44p., 53, 57, 65p., 70, 137, 148p., 190, 234, 244, 257, 260 , 272 Associations, 77pp., 109, 168 Measures, 123 specific measures, 75 ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 284 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 285 of 285 ... encourage and facilitate the participation of ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 34 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) SMEs, civil society organisations and their... Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 35 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) •Under ERA-NET Plus actions, the Commission provides an incentive to the organisation of... programs for research, technological development and demonstration ©Myer W Morron 2012 Version 2.13 Page 29 of 285 The European Union’s Framework Program (with an emphasis on ICT) ● ● ● The program