This snapshot, taken on 21/12/2003, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Case Study 1: Our Submission Experience - National Power Case Study 2: The Benefits of a CRAFT Award - Brittech Controls Case Study 3: Our ENERGIE Proposal Experience - Mitsui Babcock Energy Limited Case Study 4: Our Proposals Submission Experience - Alstom Power Case Study 5: Experiences of a successful proposer – British Geological Survey Case Study 6: Our Experience of Submitting a Winning Proposal – Advantica Technologies Limited Case Study 7: Our ENERGIE Proposal Experience – 1 year on Case
Study 8:
ESD’s Experience of Submitting a Winning Proposal
Case Study 1
OUR SUBMISSION EXPERIENCE by Tim Barlow, National Power BackgroundNational Power (NP) submitted a FP5 proposal under the first call in June. The proposal is for a combined research and demonstration project based on NP's Regenesys™ energy storage system. The demonstration will be based in a Northern European country with a high penetration of wind power. This therefore addresses the Work Programme areas of "Integration of Renewable Energy" and "Intermittent Energy Storage. This was the first time that any members of NP's energy storage group have been involved with the proposal preparation processes. How we formed the consortiumWe approached the host company for the project in February. They were already pursuing a related proposal and agreed to host and support our proposal. The Cordis web site partner search database was not only difficult to use but also did not generate any leads. It tends to be easier to find academic institutions as they attract 100% funding so it seems logical to concentrate on finding industrial partners first (preferably with past experience of the process) and most importantly, the host. Ensuring that the consortium has the right structure is very important. Care should be taken to ensure that there is no conflict in roles (and IP rights). A partner should bring real value to the consortium rather than just another national flag. Writing the proposalA meeting in March of the main partners proved to be invaluable in setting out a structure for the proposal. The consortium did not meet in full prior to submission but effective communication was made electronically and by phone. Contact was maintained on a regular basis. Careful management of the proposal drafts was required. The Commission's guidelines are long and there does not seem to be a way of getting out of wading your way through them. They also leave a lot of unanswered questions. I attended a proposal writing workshop that proved invaluable in understanding the process. If possible try to get hold of a copy of a past proposal that has been successful. Filling out the forms is a very time consuming process for the amount of paper that actually gets generated at the end of the day. Deciding which part of the form you should put all your information in can also be difficult due to the level of overlap between sections. The forms require input from all the different partners and probably a number of individuals within those organisations so ask for contributions to be made in a timely, planned way. Even though we started thinking about the proposal early, as with any proposal preparation process, the pressure rose during the last six weeks and the work continued right up to the deadline. I am yet to find someone who has submitted a proposal without a last minute rush. Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that one person can mange it on their own as input will be required from a number of areas within your organisation. ProToolI do not think that
you can avoid using Protool as a coordinator and, although it has its
quirks (such as needing to be upgraded periodically, adding partner information
etc), I actually found it relatively easy to use and quite helpful (once
I knew the proposal preparation guidelines backwards). I refrained from
electronic submission as, although I consider myself to be IT literate,
the processes appeared to be complex and I was concerned about reliability. The greatest frustration is persuading partners and contributors in your own organisation of the need for input when the deadline is still weeks away. Trying to understand the IP issues was far from simple. The high was watching the final version come off the printer. ValueThe Energie programme definitely provides value in that it will make projects happen that your organisation couldn't contemplate either at all or at least for 5 to 10 years. The draw back has to be the additional bureaucracy that will result from the management of a consortium project, however I am confident that the value gained from the interaction of the parties will outweigh the disadvantages. ENERGIE Helpline UKI tended to use the Helpline for very specific questions to which I had not expected an instant answer. However this did happen and when it didn't, whoever said they would come back to me almost always did. This was in marked contrast to the EC helpline which was invariably slow to respond and failed to answer the question. If I had to make a recommendation for improved performance from the UK Helpline it would be in providing greater assistance with IP concerns.
Return to top of pageCase Study 2 |
|
Date of Call |
Call |
No. of Proposals |
Successful Projects |
% Successful Projects |
Funds Requested (Keuro) |
Funds Approved (Keuro) |
Success Rate % |
|
Apr 96 |
FP4 Brite |
8 |
4 |
50 |
2,855 |
705 |
24.6 |
|
Apr 97 |
FP4 Brite |
9 |
5 |
55 |
1,219 |
844 |
69.0 |
|
Jun 99 |
FP5 Aero |
8 |
5 |
62 |
2,000 |
1,425 |
71.2 |
|
Oct 99 |
FP5 Energy |
10 |
9 |
90 |
5,667 |
3,117 |
55 |
The total value of projects is over 10 times the Company financial contribution, far outweighing the additional costs of being involved in pan-European Programmes.
The most important criterion to apply in joining a collaborative Framework project is to assess the benefit of the results to the company. Do the proposal work packages fit in with the Company’s Technology Route Map? Suitable partners help to keep compromises to the work packages to a minimum. ALSTOM Power is an active member in two pan-European organisations, the (Aero) Engine Industry Management Group (EIMG) and the European Manufacturers of Industrial Gas Turbines (EuMIGT). Many European gas turbine companies are members of these organisations, which act as clearing houses for the identification of suitable partners for a project.
The overall programme of when Calls are to be issued was published at the beginning of FP5 and revised from time to time. Building a good partnership around a good proposal can take longer than the official time allowed for calls so it is a good idea to start early.
Tips on writing proposals
As detailed in Issue 4 of Energie Focus (July 1999), over 70% of UK proposals which failed did so on Scientific/Technological Quality and Innovation (S&T) showing that there is no substitute for good quality RTD. S&T Quality and Innovation carry the highest weighting (x4) in the evaluation process. However, even the best RTD proposal will fail if it does not fit the published Work Programme (WP) and the WP objectives. Individual Calls can relate to different parts of the WP so it is important to check whether a particular Call includes the part you are interested in. It is probably a waste of time to try and distort a proposal to fit a perceived opportunity for your work somewhere else in the WP.
There is far more work involved in co-ordinating a proposal than simply being a partner in the proposal so a project must be very important to the Company if it is to take that role. A co-ordinator’s role can take 3-4 months of dedicated effort to produce a successful proposal.
It is always of benefit to submit a "Pre-Proposal Check" if the service is offered with the Call, and personal contact with the relevant Commission Officer to test out your idea is always worthwhile. Commission Officials try very hard to help before the closing date for proposals. After the closing date, they do not like to be disturbed.
Each Proposal consists of three parts A, B and C. In the Call for proposals the evaluation procedure is described. The focus of evaluation is the Form identified as the one "to be used by individual expert evaluators". It has 5 main headings each with 3 sub-headings. Having written your proposal, check out how successfully it addresses each of the 15 criteria. For S&T Quality and Resources, partnership and management there are minimum scores which have to be achieved in order to have any chance of success.
Part A of the proposal is mainly administration. If there are major mistakes, or the information is not consistent with that in Parts B&C (e.g. each participant does not have the same allocated number throughout or the results of the Work Programme do not meet the defined objectives) then the proposal may not reach the evaluation stage.
It is made clear in the information pack that Part B is anonymous whereas Part C includes the names of the partners. It can also become apparent when following the expert evaluators Form that similar information requested in Parts B&C could relate to the same question on the Form. It is always better to repeat information in different parts of the proposal, than to assume that an evaluator will refer backwards and forwards in a proposal looking for the correct information to evaluate for any given criterion. Also remember that because of the make up of the EU there will be more evaluators for whom English is not their first language. This helps us to write proposals but beware of ‘colloquial’ language. An evaluator will not necessarily give the Proposer the benefit of the doubt.
On timescales, everyone always seems to be at the last minute however long the preparation phase. However the critical path is to obtain the original signatures on the A Forms – two in the case of the co-ordinator. Warn the partners and internal management early.
In summary:
Finally, if your proposal is retained for Contract negotiation, be ready for the Contract Preparation Forms. Sometimes you feel that they are even more difficult than the original Proposal.
Author: David Pollard, is Technology Funding Manager at ALSTOM Power Technology Centre, Whetstone, UK.
Experiences of a successful
proposer –
by Jonathan Pearce, British Geological Survey
Background
The British Geological Survey (BGS) was founded in 1835 and is the world’s oldest national geological survey. Since the European Commission Framework Programmes began, BGS has participated in over 100 projects, and have submitted 48 proposals under the current Fifth Framework Programme (FP5). Out of these 48, 13 proposals have been successful in obtaining funding, a 27% success rate, and almost all of these projects have been in the areas of geological CO2 sequestration and marine geoscience.
There are a number of reasons why BGS feels that participation in FP5 is worthwhile. Firstly it ensures the alignment of our objectives and mission with the rest of society, secondly only 45% of our funding comes directly from the UK Science Budget, and thirdly participation provides good leverage for obtaining other funding, either external or internal.
The BGS mission is to contribute to the economic competitiveness of the UK; the effectiveness of public services and policy, including international policy; and the quality of life, by providing the best, most relevant and up-to-date geoscience information and advice for the United Kingdom, both onshore and offshore, and internationally.
The BGS scientific programme has three elements:
The BGS has around 800 staff of whom over 500 are scientists with a range of governmental, commercial, industrial and managerial experience.
Current BGS/FP5 Project
One of the projects currently being co-ordinated by BGS is NASCENT - a study of Natural Analogues for the Storage of CO2 in the Geological Environment. The total project value is 3.3M€ over three years and involves 11 partners including 5 national geological surveys, 2 universities and 2 multi-national oil companies. The project also involves 2 international "special collaborators" from Australia and the United States. The work is being undertaken in six countries, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy and the Dutch sector of the North Sea.
The original concept for NASCENT resulted from a project completed in 1996, and has taken 5 years to come to fruition. The initial partnerships and project outlines were set out in Spring 1999, the proposal submitted in May 2000, and contract negotiations completed late in 2000. This lengthy process is something that cannot be avoided.
Proposal Preparation
There are a number of areas that BGS has found to be particularly important in our experience of proposal preparation.
Firstly the importance of talking to EC representatives must be stressed. The Scientific Officers for each division of the Work Programme can be contacted to discuss your proposal. It is essential to get to know these people in order to find out what they want to see in a proposal and to discuss how your project fits in with the Commission’s objectives.
In addition it is vital that proposers realise the amount of time needed to prepare a proposal. Adequate resources both in terms of the proposal writer’s time - 6 weeks full time work is the minimum time that should be set aside to co-ordinate a proposal prior to submission - and in terms of secretarial and administrative support. It is also useful to ask your colleagues to set aside some time to give you feedback on the proposal before submission.
When writing the proposal it is important to consider that the evaluator will only have about 1-2 hours to evaluate your proposal. Therefore it is essential to highlight key points and to keep the text brief and succinct. The proposal must address all the points in the guidelines and the forms must be completed exactly as stipulated.
Another significant point to consider is that the costs of the project must be clearly broken down and fully justified. The costs will be examined in detail and over-inflated costs will be noticed.
The Application Forms
Each proposal consists of three parts A, B and C. Part A is mainly administrative, and Part B contains much of the technical detail on the work to be carried out, and the breakdown of that work into work packages. Part C is very important, as it is where four of the five evaluation criteria are addressed. It is essential when completing Part C to demonstrate knowledge of current EU energy, environmental and social policy, and to illustrate a clear understanding of the way in which your project will contribute to these policies.
The Consortium
A strong, well-managed consortium is essential, not only for a successful proposal but also to ensure the smooth running and completion of the project if it receives funding. In order to put together a successful consortium it is important to choose your partners very carefully. If possible, it is advisable to choose partners with whom you have a previous working relationship. When developing the proposal, the main work packages and the partner responsible for their completion should be agreed as soon as possible. At least one meeting of all partners is recommended prior to proposal submission. This will highlight any weaknesses and unclear activities within the proposal and also, importantly, strengthen partner relationships.
The role of the co-ordinator is particularly important when putting together a pan-European consortium. The co-ordinator must be prepared to manage the partners firmly and effectively, whilst being sensitive to language and business culture. Don’t forget, partner management commences at the proposal writing stage – be clear about what you expect from your partners and by when, and also remember that the project wouldn’t be possible without them, so remember to say "thank-you"!.
Contract Negotiation
A successful evaluation is followed by a period of contract negotiation. This process involves completing yet another series of forms, many of which contain the same data as your proposal submission forms, and the process can be incredibly frustrating and stressful.
At this point you will need to manage your partners effectively again, as the deadlines for form completion are often short. An important point to remember if you reach this stage is that you must be prepared for major project changes, including the possibility of the clustering of projects. Additionally, if the Commission is questioning your costs and you feel that they are justifiable, defend them!
In summary:
And remember, the ENERGIE Helpline team are there to help you at all times throughout your proposal submission!
Our Experience
of Submitting a Winning Proposal –
by Russ Pride, Advantica Technologies Limited
Advantica, formerly BG Technology - specialises in supplying technology, software, engineering, training and testing services to customers in gas, pipelines and associated industries internationally. Advantica recently acquired Stoner Associates – the number one network software simulation company in the US – for $26m. Advantica now employs over 1,000 people, predominantly in the UK and North America, bringing together experience in a wide range of technical engineering and commercial disciplines.
Advantica has submitted a wide range of research and technology proposals into the various European Framework programmes, and is proud of the successes it has achieved. This has in part been due to the close collaboration that has existed for many years, between the research departments of the gas utility organisations of Europe. In many cases, and the current one included, this has provided a cornerstone for building a collaborating team, with widely diverse geographical locations and technological capabilities.
Three drivers provided the momentum for submitting our most recent proposal. The first was the common perceived need identified by the gas pipeline operators for improved, more efficient methods of monitoring the overall safety and integrity of the high pressure gas pipeline networks throughout Europe. The second was the recognition that the technological advances that are currently being demonstrated in satellite surveillance, information technology infrastructures, and image processing could offer a viable way forward. The final push came from the success that Advantica had in winning a recent 5th Framework project proposal, and the realisation that perhaps it wasn’t so difficult after all to win an EU funded project.
The submission of a project requires a great deal of pre-planning and may take at least three concentrated months of preparation to make the first submission. Considerable patience is required in all the intensive form filling that is required, and the use of the special software tool "Protool" is well worth pursuing. All this and you know that the evaluators will only spend a short time reviewing your proposal, so it is essential to consolidate thinking into a concise picture of what the project will do and achieve.
An unusual concern in our instance turned out to be the sheer number of partners that wished to join the consortium. The mix of partners appears less of a critical feature than in previous Programmes, however we finished with seventeen, ensuring a considerable diversity of capabilities and organisations. Seven of these are pipeline operators, three are national space agencies, four hold systems expertise and we have one University.
It is essential that a proposal fits closely with the stated requirements of the particular Call. For our proposal, the fit to some of these requirements initially appeared a little obtuse. However, the need to demonstrate ICTs and e-science (Information & Communication Technology and extended science - in Euro-speak) soon became apparent, and emphasis was placed in the proposal on demonstrating the contribution that the project would bring to these activities, not only within the technology of the project itself but also in the management of the project’s progress, especially with 17 partners!
All EU funded projects require an acronym. Ours became PRESENSE - Pipeline Re mote Sensing for Safety and the Environment - which demonstrates that an acronym can be derived from almost any set of available words!
Following the frenzied activity in order to meet the submission deadline date (we hand carried the final proposal to Brussels to ensure its timely delivery), there is then a period of uncertain calm whilst awaiting the evaluators’ reports. When all the effort is duly rewarded there is then a further phase of frenetic activity in order to re-submit the document, taking on-board any recommendations for restructuring the proposal made by the Commission, all to be completed within a very short time frame. The final phase of signing all the contract documents still remains a stressful process, and we found that even at this late stage, problems you thought had been resolved, come back to haunt you once more. However, a consolation is that with so much detail of the project fully prepared in advance, by the time the real project actually starts, you feel sure that everyone in the consortium knows exactly what needs to be done for the next few years. Good luck!
Author: Russ Pride, Advantica Technologies Limited, Loughborough, UK .
Our ENERGIE
Proposal Experience – 1 year on –
by Graham Welford and Stuart Mitchell, Mitsui Babcock
Background
Mitsui Babcock’s ENERGIE proposal ‘Innovative Supercritical Boilers for Emerging Markets’ was successful in the First Call for proposals (June 1999). The two-phase combined research and demonstration project is now entering the 2nd year of Phase 1, which is aimed at developing and optimising the concept designs of three supercritical pulverised coal boilers. Phase 2 of the project will be a demonstration of the most promising boiler design.
The project consortium comprises Mitsui Babcock, Siemens, PowerGen, ENEL and Instituto Technical Superior (IST) and utilises the combined expertise of the five organisations, to undertake fundamental studies and technology development through to the end users. Mitsui Babcock are the project co-ordinator.
Contract Negotiation
The original contract start date was January 2000, but due to prolonged contract negotiations, the contract was not offered until June 2000. Our application for a contract extension of 6 months was rejected but deferment of both the start and end dates by 6 months was accepted.
Contract negotiations were lengthy (7 months in total). However, the negotiations coincided with the re-organisation of the Directorate Generals in Brussels, and this may have contributed to the timescale.
Contract negotiation forms were straightforward and easy to complete, as much of the information required can be transferred directly from the proposal. However, the timescale for completion and return to the Commission is very tight. The provision of electronic forms either in MS-Word or PDF helped and enabled liaison with partners to be both quick and efficient.
General Issues
A project start-up meeting involving all partners in the consortium was held over two days. Our experience has identified that a one-day meeting is insufficient to finalise the work programme details, and to ensure that all the partners recognise the requirements of the contract both in terms of administration and technical progress throughout the life of the project.
One year into the project there are significant differences in the approaches being adopted by individual partners, despite the contractual pressures to adhere to the original programme of work. This is not unusual for a large project and it should be anticipated that the motivation of individual partners towards the programme of work will change over the lifetime of the project, particularly if the market for the product being developed changes significantly. This can be a more significant problem when projects are designed to address the shorter-term goals of the Commission and the ‘snapshot’ market needs of the Industry – there are few in the power generation business who can predict markets and products four to five years ahead!
Despite some difficulties in progressing the programme of work, the consortium continues to work well together towards a successful conclusion of Phase 1 and are currently discussing the preparation of the proposal submission for Phase 2.
Authors: Graham Welford/Stuart Mitchell, Mitsui Babcock - Technology Centre, Renfrew, UK
ESD’s Experience
of Submitting a Winning Proposal – by Hannah Issac, Energy for Sustainable
Development International Projects Assistant
ESD's Experience of Submitting a Winning Proposal
Energy for Sustainable Development Limited (ESD) was founded in 1989,
and today is one of the UK's leading carbon management and sustainable
energy companies. Our experience spans a range of services from
policy research to project development and implementation, and extends
from the UK to the rest of Europe and the developing world. ESD
employs a UK staff of 45, and has offices in Nairobi and Sofia, with associates
in every European country and many developing nations.
Background
ESD has a long and successful experience of participating in projects
supported by various European Commission (EC) programmes, including the
Fifth Framework Programme, Altener, SAVE, Synergy, THERMIE, JOULE, PHARE
and the ACP countries (Lome, now Cotonou). Such projects have not
only enhanced ESD's experience of sustainable energy in both Europe and
further afield, but have also allowed us to develop working relationships
with project partners that continue to flourish. In our experience, a
strong project team has been the key to success. In the case of
ESD's most recent proposal under the 5th Framework Programme, Baselines
for Accession States in Europe (BASE), the consortium of eight partners
was selected as a result of successful cooperation between these organisations
on previous projects, both private and public.
The Project
The inspiration for BASE emerged from previous work, and builds directly
on the needs identified within the JOINT project, also funded under the
5th Framework Programme. The JOINT project was designed to progress the
development of projects under Joint Implementation (JI), identify potential
funding sources, assess baselines for projects, look into the procedures
for validation, monitoring and verification as well as the institutional
framework necessary for JI in 14 European countries. The overwhelming
need to further the work on baseline assessment in Central and Eastern
Europe was made evident through this project.
The fifth call under the EC's 5th Framework Programme provided ESD with
a timely opportunity to address the issues raised in JOINT and to progress
JI a stage further in those countries. However, in turning this winning
concept into a successful proposal, a great deal of work was needed to
develop it to the submission stage. After setting up an internal
proposal team, we developed a plan for the months leading up to the proposal
deadline.
The BASE proposal was submitted to the Energie Programme in February 2001
as an Accompanying Measure, under the Open Call for Proposals for RTD
actions.
The process
The Fifth Framework guidelines for the proposal preparation were very
clear, with sufficient detail to answer all of our questions. These
were downloaded from the Cordis website http://www.cordis.lu/fp5
. In addition to the technical content of the proposal, a great
deal of information was required from each member of the consortium.
This included detailed financial data, as well as capability statements.
To set this proposal apart, the consortium also needed to demonstrate
strong support for the project on the part of key stakeholders, in this
case host governments. This showed the proposal was demand-led, rather
than ‘consultant-led’, and went far to demonstrate the real
need for the project.
As Co-ordinator of the project, ESD was responsible for ensuring that
the information requirements were clearly articulated to the partners
first time round. Once the information had been sent to ESD, this
was entered into the proposal using ProTool, the software package provided
by the EC for electronic proposal submission. The proposal was submitted
successfully in February 2001 and three months later our efforts were
rewarded by the news that BASE had received a high ranking from the evaluation
committee, and would proceed to the contract negotiation stage.
After a 4-5 month period, we were awarded a contract for BASE
http://base.energyprojects.net , and the project work began in November
2001 with a kick-off meeting of all the partners in Budapest.
