Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions

Call H2020-MSCA-IF-2018
PART B-1, Section 3: IMPLEMENTATION

Antoaneta Mateeva, MSCA NCP

Workshop “IF Proposal writing”, 20 June 2018
 Part B-1 20%
Section 3: Implementation

Award criteria:
 Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, incl.
appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and
resources
 Appropriateness of the management structure and
procedures, including risk management
 Appropriateness of the institutional environment
(infrastructure)
 3.1. Coherence and effectiveness of the
work plan, including appropriateness of
the allocation of tasks and resources

 Work Packages (WP) titles

 Major deliverables (= distinct output: report, document,
technical diagram, software, etc.)
 Major milestones (= control points that help to chart
progress)
 Deliverables & milestones - provided in a list; deliverables -
appropriate and linked to the milestones and/or the planned
research activities
 Secondments – where and when; how they correlate to your
research and training programme; what is the added value for
including them; secondments vs short visits
 3.1. Coherence and effectiveness of the
work plan, including appropriateness of
the allocation of tasks and resources

Describe resources, tasks, milestones and

deliverables for each WP:
 How the work planning and the resources
mobilized will ensure that the research and
training objectives will be reached (short
telegraphic description of WP, how you will break
down your work administratively)
 Is the amount of person-months appropriate in
relation to proposed activities?
 Is your project realistic and feasible?
3.1. Coherence and effectiveness of the work
plan, including appropriateness of the
allocation of tasks and resources
3.1. Coherence and effectiveness of the work
plan, including appropriateness of the
allocation of tasks and resources
3.1. Strengths and Weaknesses identified by the evaluators
 The work plan is well-structured and contains a reasonable number of work packages, in line
with the scientific objectives.
 The secondments are very well planned and justified, enhancing the reliability of the research.
 Timing is very clearly explained in the Gantt Chart, and it shows an ongoing and coherent way
of organizing the research.
 In addition to the resources available at the host institute, a set of external collaborators have
committed to provide support
 The project is extremely ambitious for the time and people involved, with a real risk that the
stated objectives of the research fail to be accomplished in the time frame of the project
 The time allocation of training activities is not appropriate to reach the goals of the proposal,
because these activities are concentrated in the first three months of the project.
 The coherence of the work plan is not evident: the work packages lack a common and well
defined goal. The milestones are not sufficiently defined and it is not clear how they may help
in controlling and steering the project.
 Milestones and deliverables are not correctly identified and differentiated, and they are
described as one and the same thing.
 In the secondment, the partner organization’s field of activity is purely managerial with no
clearly outlined connection to the core of the project.
 The person-months foreseen for each main task are insufficiently demonstrated. The specific
allocation of each task to the researcher and to collaborators (e.g. supervisor, co-supervisor,
technicians and other host staff, mentored students) is not clearly stated.
 3.2 Appropriateness of the management
structure and procedures, including risk
management

 Organization and management structure, as well

as the progress monitoring mechanisms:
 Information on the implementation and management
of the fellowship
 Description of the practical arrangements that have
an impact on the feasibility and credibility of the
project
 Decision-Making process and Communication Flow
 3.2 Appropriateness of the management
structure and procedures, including risk
management
 Cover all aspects of project organisation and
management, incl. progress monitoring mechanisms
 Involvement of an entity with a capital or legal link to the
beneficiary (if applicable)
 Mention you have a WP on Project Management
 How is the overall progress in achieving the scientific and
training goals monitored? Project management body/ies; informal
“Advisory Committee/ Group”?
 Include management of IP rights, if applicable
 Describe how the budget will be managed - assistance in
Administrative and Financial issues from the respective
units/departments of the Host? Which ones?
 3.2 Appropriateness of the management
structure and procedures, including
risk management

 Research and/or administrative risks and

contingency plans, incl. IPR plan
 Identification of risks - both scientific and administrative, e.g.
data availability, equipment failure, delay of permits, etc.
 Rating (high-medium-low) --> contingency measures (this
could be done in a table)
 Contingency/ Risk Management Plan (it could also be a
Milestone and a Deliverable) – back-up/alternative plans to
manage risk
 A well-thought out risk management strategy indicates a well-
planned project
Example: Contingency Plan
Example: Contingency Plan
 3.2. Strengths and Weaknesses identified by the evaluators
 The management structures and procedures are appropriate. All technical and research management
issues will be addressed in a timely manner by the supervisor and the host specialized services;
competent departments of the host will manage the financial and administrative aspects of the
fellowship.
 The monitoring processes for the action are credible and based on compulsory written quarterly reports
by the researcher, weekly group meetings with the participation of the supervisor and quarterly
specialized project meetings. Moreover, two external mentors will oversee the research progress of the
action and will aid in the supervision of the researcher
 The beneficiary's active contribution to the research and training activities is sufficiently described in
terms of training, supervision, scientific networking as well as providing the necessary administrative
support and office space to the researcher.
 The management structure and procedures lack detail.
 Progress monitoring mechanisms are inadequately presented. No information is provided on the way
of cooperation with the supervisor, and on the frequency of meetings.
 Despite the clear risk management concerning some specific risks, there is insufficient consideration
given to the knock-on effects of failure at any given work package. Since the results of the work
packages are cumulative, any failure at an early stage will engender and propagate risk to subsequent
work packages.
 Contingency planning for the risks associated with the work is totally inadequate.
 Compatibility issues with teaching duties and their risk for the implementation of the project in the
return phase are not clearly addressed.
 3.3 Appropriateness of the institutional
environment (infrastructure)

 Active contribution of the beneficiary to the research

and training activities/ hosts-of-secondment/ for GF-
also role of partner organizations in TC/ outgoing
phase, description of main tasks and commitments of
the beneficiary and all partner organizations

 Infrastructure, logistics, facilities offered - brief

description of the host in terms of overall size of
research community and infrastructure; description of
the unit you’ll join; particular infrastructure& facilities
pertinent to your project and access to all necessary
equipment and facilities, laboratories, libraries, collections,
etc. and all necessary administrative and logistics
support
 3.3 Appropriateness of the institutional
environment (infrastructure)

 Experience in hosting researchers and academics as

well as in tutoring programmes, experience in
international competitively funded projects
 Appropriateness of the institutional environment: is it
stimulating research and working conditions as well as
training and networking? (Charter & Code, “HR logo”)
 Section 5: ‘Capacities of the participating
organizations’ is evaluated here!
Section 5: 1 page/each: beneficiary, entity with a capital or legal link to the beneficiary,
partner organisation GF, partner organisation for secondment
General description

Academic organisation (Yes / No) delete as appropriate

Role and profile of key persons (names, title, qualifications of the main supervisor)
(supervisor)

Dept./Division / Laboratory

Key research facilities, Infrastructure Demonstrate that the beneficiary has sufficient facilities and infrastructure
and Equipment to host and/or offer a suitable environment for training and transfer of
knowledge to the recruited experienced researcher
If applicable, indicate the name of the entity with a capital or legal link to the
beneficiary and its role in the action in the following table.

Independent research premises? Explain the status of the beneficiary's research facilities
– i.e. are they owned by the beneficiary or rented by it? Are its research
premises wholly independent from other entities?
If applicable, indicate the name of the entity with a capital or legal link to the
beneficiary and describe the nature of the link in the following table.

Previous and current involvement in research Indicate up to 5 relevant EU, national or international
and training programmes research and training actions/projects in which the beneficiary has previously
participated and/or is currently participating

Relevant publications and/or (Max 5) Only list items (co-)produced by the supervisor
research/innovation products
 3.3. Strengths and Weaknesses identified by the evaluators

 The infrastructure (e.g. analytical facilities and specific equipment) available at the host institution
has been described in detail and is appropriate for the proposed objectives.
 The host institution has a well developed analytical and laboratory infrastructure to achieve the
tasks included in the proposal and the host is willing to utilise other laboratories and experts of the
institution to make the project a success (e.g. additional instrumental techniques, electrochemistry,
biological screening
 Both host institutions have substantial experience in hosting international fellows
 The description of the hosting institution is very generic and does not add useful information in
order to understand a real appropriateness.
 The institution-level contribution to training is not presented in a project-specific manner
 The benefits from wider research relations with academic and non-academic partners are not fully
demonstrated. The commitment of the host to the proposed research programme is not
convincingly described.
 Sufficient information concerning the working conditions and proceedings at the secondary host
institutions is not comprehensively made available in the proposal
 The description of the infrastructure and planned involvement of the beneficiary is insufficient.
There is inadequate information on the workplace for the researcher, as well as on help in organising
the quite complicated and demanding research
За информация и консултации:

Антоанета Матеева Габриела Чупренска

НКЛ за България НКЛ за България
тел.: 02 979 52 35 тел.: 02 979 52 41
e-mail: mateeva@cu.bas.bg e-mail: tchouprenska@cu.bas.bg

Facebook: MSCA NCP - Bulgaria