REA Space Unit guidelines for Individual Evaluation Report Coordination & support actions. DT-SPACE-07-BIZ-2018: Space hubs for Copernicus

Transcription

1 REA Space Unit guidelines fr Individual Evaluatin Reprt Crdinatin & supprt actins DT-SPACE-07-BIZ-2018: Space hubs fr Cpernicus These guidelines are intended t help and guide evaluatin experts n what shuld be elabrated upn under each criterin and sub-criterin. They are based n the Individual Evaluatin Reprt frmat as used in SEP, with additinal text in the text bxes that is based mainly n guidance in the prpsal template, the wrk prgramme tpic text (in red), r REA guidance. (Nte that legally this dcument is nt relevant.) Ideally experts shuld make a statement, which includes a judgement, fr each bullet pint. Please als read: Wrk prgramme tpic descriptin, p.23: Criterin 1 Excellence The fllwing aspects will be taken int accunt, t the extent that the prpsed wrk crrespnds t the tpic descriptin in the wrk prgramme: Clarity and pertinence f the bjectives Hw des the prpsal address the specific challenge and scpe f the wrk prgramme tpic? And in particular, "Supprt the Cpernicus Relays and Academy t strengthen their R&D dimensin... t be better linked with research and innvatin activities and with the ESA Space Slutins the expertise and tls develped need t be used als at the service f research and innvatin with a view t bsting their innvatin ptential: and the uptake f space in general." Are the bjectives f the prpsal clear, measurable, realistic and achievable within prject duratin? Sundness f the cncept, and credibility f the prpsed methdlgy Is the cncept f the prpsal sund (i.e. based n mdels r assumptins which are valid and cnvincing)? Des the prpsal shw that the prpsed methdlgy is apprpriate and effective fr achieving the stated bjectives? Des the prpsal "Supprt the activities f the Cpernicus Relays and the Cpernicus Academy by: jint initiatives f interest (such as events and educatinal pprtunities) and sharing cmmunicatin tls; publicatins and reference lectures fr training n Cpernicus data and infrmatin use (under a public license and Including Cpernicus-related material and mdules in existing curses); Fstering user uptake and spin-ff strategies f the members, by interacting with the Space Research Unit guideline fr IER 2018 BIZ-7-1

2 Cpernicus entrusted entities, Cpernicus partners and lcal actrs; Supprting the rganisatin f events and initiatives at lcal level t prmte Cpernicus t ptential users."? Quality f the prpsed crdinatin and/r supprt measures Are any natinal r internatinal research and innvatin activities which will be linked with the prject, especially where the utputs frm these will feed int the prject, described? Des the prpsal " demnstrate that they avid verlap with the varius activities financed under Cpernicus, such as the Cpernicus supprt ffice and Cpernicus User Uptake Framewrk Partnership Agreement."? Criterin 2 - Impact The extent t which the utputs f the prject wuld cntribute t each f the expected impacts mentined in the wrk prgramme under the relevant tpic Expected Impact as listed in the Wrk Prgramme tpic: Strengthen the synergies and cperatin between members by sharing knwledge building, educatin experiences, best practices and Cpernicus-related research and applicatins utcme and by enabling develped innvatins t hit the market as quickly as pssible; Build up a knwledge culture and a strategic think-tank arund the benefits f the Cpernicus prgramme and its ptential fr bth public services needs and scietal challenges; Increase awareness abut Cpernicus tward all ptential user cmmunities. Expand these tw netwrks t ther Eurpean Regins and t ther space technlgies (e.g. Galile) and activities frm ther majr space and innvatin actrs (such as thse f reginal clusters, natinal space agencies and the ESA). Hw much wuld the prpsal cntribute t each f the expected impacts mentined in the wrk prgramme? (Here yu shuld base yur evaluatin n the assumptin that the prpsed cncept and methdlgy wuld wrk in rder t avid penalising the prpsal twice fr the same shrtcmings.) Quality f the prpsed measures t: - explit and disseminate the prject results (including management f IPR), and t manage research data where relevant - cmmunicate the prject activities t different target audiences Please assess the quality f the "draft Plan fr the Explitatin and Disseminatin f the prject's Results (PEDR)" with respect t the specific measures t be implemented bth during and after the end f the prject? Are there plans fr the sustainability f the actin beynd the prject funding? Is the strategy fr the management f IPR apprpriate? Des it describe the main backgrund IPR needed t carry ut the prject, its wnership and accessibility, authrisatin t use Third Party rights, and the wnership principles that will gvern the prject results? Space Research Unit guideline fr IER 2018 BIZ-7-2

3 Is the plan t disseminate prject results t audiences wh might use the results in their wn wrk (e.g. Presentatins in cnferences, publicatins in peer review jurnals etc.) apprpriate? Are activities t cmmunicate prject activities t multiple audiences beynd the prject's wn cmmunity (media, public etc.) included? Hw are these tailred t the needs f varius audiences? Criterin 3 - Quality and efficiency f the implementatin The fllwing aspects will be taken int accunt: Quality and effectiveness f the wrk plan, including extent t which the resurces assigned t wrk packages are in line with their bjectives and deliverables Hw gd is the verall structure f the wrk plan? Have the different wrk packages been scheduled and linked apprpriately? Are their interdependencies clear? Are milestnes and deliverables well defined and apprpriately timed? Are the wrk packages and assciated tasks s sufficiently described t prvide a gd understanding f the wrk invlved and justify the prpsed resurces t be allcated? Apprpriateness f the management structures and prcedures, including risk and innvatin management Are the described rganisatinal structure and decisin making mechanisms apprpriate t the scale and cmplexity f the prject? Are the management prcedures, including quality management and cnflict reslutin, apprpriate t the scale and cmplexity f the prject? Are critical internal and external risks related t prject implementatin described with apprpriate mitigatin measures and severity/prbability estimates? Cmplementarity f the participants and extent t which the cnsrtium as a whle brings tgether the necessary expertise Hw is the cmplementarity f the participants described? Des the cnsrtium bring tgether the necessary expertise fr the prject? Space Research Unit guideline fr IER 2018 BIZ-7-3

4 Apprpriateness f the allcatin f tasks, ensuring that all participants have a valid rle and adequate resurces in the prject t fulfil that rle Des each partner have a valid rle and adequate resurces (bth effrt and budget) t fulfil that rle? If "Other Direct Csts" exceed 15% f persnnel csts, have they been explained adequately? Are these csts "reasnable, justified and cmply with the principle f sund financial management, in particular regarding ecnmy and efficiency"(art. 6.1.)? Please particular attentin shuld be given fr prpsal with very high Other Direct Csts. If any f the wrk will be subcntracted t third parties, has this been justified cnvincingly? Scpe f the prpsal Cmments (in case the prpsal is ut f scpe) Reply "N" nly if the prpsal is cmpletely unrelated t the tpic descriptin against which it has been submitted. Reply "Yes" if it is whlly r partially related t the tpic, cmment it under Criterin 1 (Excellence) if it is nly partially related. Operatinal Capacity Accrding t the infrmatin available t yu during evaluatin, d all the partners in this prpsal pssess the basic peratinal capacity t carry ut the prpsed wrk? If N, please list the cncerned partner(s), the reasns fr the rejectin, and the requested amunt. Exceptinal funding f third cuntry participants/internatinal rganisatins A third cuntry participant/internatinal rganisatin nt listed in General Annex A t the Main Wrk Prgramme may exceptinally receive funding if their participatin is essential fr carrying ut the prject (fr instance due t utstanding expertise, access t unique knw-hw, access t research infrastructure, access t particular gegraphical envirnments, pssibility t invlve key partners in emerging markets, access t data, etc.). (Fr mre infrmatin, see the Online Manual ) Please use the fllwing text: Based n the infrmatin prvided in the prpsal, I cnsider that the fllwing participant(s)/internatinal rganisatin(s) that requested funding shuld exceptinally be funded: (Please list the Name and acrnym f the applicant, Reasns fr exceptinal funding and the Requested grant amunt.) OR Based n the infrmatin prvided in the prpsal, I cnsider that the fllwing participant(s)/internatinal rganisatin(s) that requested funding shuld NOT be funded: (Please list the Name and acrnym f the applicant, Reasns fr exceptinal funding and the Requested grant amunt.) Space Research Unit guideline fr IER 2018 BIZ-7-4

5 Use f human embrynic stem cells (hesc) Des this prpsal invlve the use f hesc? This is usually nt relevant in space prjects Overall cmments Yu may write here additinal cmments that d nt fit anywhere else in the evaluatin frmat, but this is nt bligatry. This dcument is intended fr infrmatin purpses nly within the framewrk f the evaluatin f the call H2020-SPACE Please refrain frm sharing it with ther parties nt invlved in this prcess r frm making it publicly available. Space Research Unit guideline fr IER 2018 BIZ-7-5