Science and Technology Facilities Council

1. Marie Curie:- Initial Training Networks- Industry-Academia Partnership and PathwaysEmma CareyUniversity of Bristol, 20 October 2010UK National Contact Pointmariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk http://www.ukro.ac.uk

2. Arts and Humanities Research Council Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Economic and Social Research Council UK Research Office Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Medical Research Council Natural Environment Research Council Science and Technology Facilities Council

3. UKRO’s Services UK Research Office

4. Framework Programme 7 and the ‘People’ specific programme UK NCP for Marie Curiemariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk http://www.ukro.ac.uk/mariecurie

5. FP7 Specific Programmes Co-operation – Collaborative Research Framework Programme 7 European Research Council Marie Curie Actions Capacities – Research Capacity JRC EURATOM

6. Marie Curie Actions Objectives and Policy Context: • Make Europe more attractive to researchers • Structuring effect on the European Research Area through transnational and intersectoral mobility in order to create a European labour market for researchers • Strengthen human potential by: • Encouraging people to become researchers • Encouraging researchers to carry out their research in Europe • Trans-national and inter-sectoral mobility • €4.7 Billion FP7 – Marie Curie Actions

7. Marie Curie Actions Objectives and Policy Context: “The People Work programme actively supports the Commission’s Europe 2020 Strategy, and in particular 3 flagship initiatives: ‘Innovation Union’, ‘Youth on the Move’ and ‘An Agenda for new skills and jobs’” (2011 Work programme) EU 2020: http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/index_en.htm Innovation Union: http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm Youth on the Move: http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/news2540_en.htm FP7 – Marie Curie Actions

8. Overview of Marie Curie Actions People Specific Programme

9. 2011 Deadlines FP7 – People – Marie Curie

10. Definition of researchers FP7 – Marie Curie Actions

11. Transnational Mobility Requirements • Must not have been resident in host country for more than 12 months in the last 3 years date of recruitment or secondment • Researchers can return to the country of their nationality if the mobility rule is respected • For international organisations the country mobility rule does not apply – BUT the fellow must not have spent more than • 12 months in the previous 3 years at the host international organisation. • Note – IOF 3rd country nationals have to have spent 5 years before the deadline in Member States or countries associated to FP7 FP7 – Marie Curie Actions

12. Industry Academia Partnerships and Pathways (IAPPs) http://www.ukr

13. IAPPs – 2011 call info • Publication date: 20 July 2010 • Call deadline: 7 December 2010 • Indicative budget: €80 million • Indicative timetable: • Results expected 4 months after deadline • Grants agreement signature from 9 months after deadline FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP

14. IAPPs in context “ Transnational and intersectoral mobility is a key feature and strong participation by enterprises, in particular SMEs, is considered an important added value. The enhancement of industry-academia co-operation in terms of research training, career development and knowledge-sharing is encouraged.” Indicative budget share for IAPPS 2007-2013 = 5-10% of overall people budget FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP

15. What is an Industry–Academia Pathways and Partnership? • It is a two-way partnership with at least one commercial enterprise and one academic organisation in two different Member or Associated Countries • An IAPP aims to increase industry-academia co-operation by: • Supporting the creation, development, reinforcement and execution of strategic partnerships • Creating diverse career possibilities and experience for researchers • Knowledge sharing/cultural exchange, especially SMEs • Aiming for longer term co-operation between both sectors FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP

16. What can you do with an IAPP? • Projects funded for up to 48 months • Staff exchange – early stage or experienced researchers (and possibly technical staff and research managers!) for between 2 months and 2 years (mandatory) • Recruit experienced researchers for between 12 months and 2 years (optional) • Newly recruited experienced researchers must be appointed under employment contracts only • Focus of the scheme is on inter-sectoral mobility • Organise common workshops/conferences • For SMEs, a contribution towards small equipment costs (up to 10% of project total) FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP

17. Definitions of eligible organisations Each IAPP must involve at least one university/research centre in the non-commercial sector andat least one entity from the commercial sector. An IAPP project can be co-ordinated by a partner from either of the two sectors Commercial sector partners: • must be organisations operating on a commercial enterprise, gaining the majority of their revenue through competitive means with exposure to commercial markets. • may include: incubators; start-ups; spin-offs; venture-capital companies; etc. • may range in size from the smallest- micro-companies with research capacity to very large multi-national enterprises FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP

18. Definitions of eligible organisations Non-commercial sector partners can include; • National organisations, e.g., universities, public non-commercial research centres • Non-profit or charitable organisations (e.g., NGOs, trusts, etc.) • International European interest organisations (e.g. CERN) • The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission • Other international organisations (e.g. WHO, UNESCO, etc.) FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP

19. Statistics (1) FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP

20. Statistics (2) Industry/Academia ratio (A list) FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP SME participation

21. Size of consortia: “There is no predefined maximum number of participants. However under similar schemes in the past the most common number of participants was 2-3. Largest projects ranged from 4 to 6 participants. Past experience has shown that this is a manageable size.”(2011 Guide to Applicants) Size of grants in 2007 • Funding model flexible: smallest €270,000, largest > €2.2m • Smallest consortium = 2 partners • Largest consortium = 15 partners • Average consortium size = 3.7 partners FP7 – Marie Curie - IAPP

22. Submission and Evaluation http://www.ukro.ac.uk

23. Your project is mainly defined in …. …PART B of the proposal forms(Part A is administrative info) • PART B addresses the evaluation criteria • …which vary according to MCA • …and have different weightings and thresholds • General structure of Part B for individual fellowships is: • Cover Page, Table of Contents • S & T Quality • Transfer of Knowledge • Implementation • Impact FP7 – Marie Curie – Your Proposal

24. Evaluation of proposals • Evaluation by competent experts in the field • Need to address all of the issues to maximise scores • Total score is 100% • Overall threshold (70%) • Some criteria have a threshold • Each area is weighted • Science counts for 25%; Impact counts for 30%!! • You must focus on the objectives of the activity to be successful MCA – Submission & Evaluations

25. Process timetable MCA – Submission & Evaluations

26. Maximising Your Chances of Success http://www.ukro.ac.uk

27. What does the Commission want? A project that matches “their” objectives: “This action seeks to enhance industry-academia co-operation in terms of research training, career development and knowledge sharing, in particular with SMEs, and including traditional manufacturing industries. It is based on longer-term co-operation programmes with a high potential for increasing mutual understanding of different cultural settings and skill requirements of both the industrial and academic sectors. The IAPP action in 2010 will provide EUR 80 million to support the ‘Innovation Union’ flagship initiative by strengthening research and business performance and by promoting innovation and knowledge transfer throughout the EU.” Text taken from 2011 People Work Programme Marie Curie – What’s required

28. IAPPS – Part B 3/5 FP7 – People – Marie Curie S & T Quality 25% 3/5 Transfer of knowledge 20% Researcher N/A • Implementation 25% 3/5 Impact 30% No threshold Overall threshold 70%

29. MCA – S&T Quality FP7 – People – Marie Curie

30. Assessors’ comments on S & T quality: positive • The project is very challenging and innovative • The involvement of the private sector is meaningful and complementary to the academic partners • The proposal is genuinely inter-sectoral and interdisciplinary • Science and Technological objects are clearly described and detailed • Valuable and innovative scientific advances with respect to the state-of –the-art are envisaged • The research methodology is appropriate, comprehensive and well-planned • The research programme and methodology are very well detailed and integrated with the envisaged transfer of knowledge and training. Marie Curie – What’s required

31. Assessors’ comments on S & T quality: negative • The research programme lacks a detailed list of workpackages, timetable and particular involvement of each partner is not specifically included. • The project is not very original since it is based on previous results obtained by academic partners. • The project research methodology is not properly developed and lacks details as regards risk assessment, milestones and outcomes. • Presents limited intersectoriality • No previous documented information – articles, scientifc journals, conferences, and so on. Marie Curie – What’s required

32. MCA – Transfer of Knowledge FP7 – People – Marie Curie

33. Assessors’ comments on Transfer of Knowledge: positive • Well-planned strategy for secondments and recruitments providing for effective knowledge transfer between public and private sectors • The inter-sectoral secondments are planned in detail (names of researchers and scientific areas in which they will be involved) • The involvement of ESRs in the secondment scheme is important for the advancement of their scientific careers • The partners demonstrate sound capacity to receive and transfer knowledge; suitable scientific, training and complementary training course are planned • The researchers who will be recruited have defined research tasks and the requested duration and time of recruitments is appropriate • The human resources in the proposal are clear, relevant, consistent with the research, well justified and of high quality Marie Curie – What’s required

34. Assessors’ comments on Transfer of Knowledge: negative • Secondments are only indicated in terms of person/month within a table, but are not described in detail and no additional explanations are given. • ToK referring to young researchers is not addressed in sufficient detail. • There is only a limited consistency between the research programme and ToK due to the vague description of the latter. • Transfer of knowledge is unbalanced with too much emphasis on academic research • Importance of ToK in terms of intersectorialty is not demonstrated as the industrial partner has limited participation in research • The precise role in training of the industrial partner is not clearly described. Marie Curie – What’s required

35. MCA – Implementation (1) FP7 – People – Marie Curie

36. MCA – Implementation (2) FP7 – People – Marie Curie

37. Assessors’ comments on Implementation: positive • The partners are complementary and well-suited for the envisaged research and ToK • The key scientific staff involved are experienced and have an appropriate level of involvement • Project management and risk assessment are well-structured and approached • The envisaged work plan is very well thought out and structured, with detailed and suitable deliverables, clear allocation of roles and effective progress reporting measures • IP generated under this project will be carefully managed and the strategy takes carefully into account development perspectives of the industrial partner • Facilities and infrastructures are up-to-date and suitable for the project outcomes. Marie Curie – What’s required

38. Assessors’ comments on Implementation: negative • Secondments are not sufficiently specified • Some aspects of management structure are not described in detail • The management plan is scarcely defined in some points • Time commitment of the co-ordinator to project activities is limited • Recruitment strategy and its contribution to research activities is not detailed • The technical background of the academic partners is not clear • It is not sufficiently detailed on the point of capacities, specifically in regard to scientific expertise, facilities and infrastructures, to achieve a real experience and know-how exchange • IPR aspects are unclear. Marie Curie – What’s required

39. MCA – Impact FP7 – People – Marie Curie

40. Assessors’ comments on Impact: positive • The project plans for the lasting collaboration between the partners in a field that is still not widely exploited. • The circulation of information and the exploitation of results is well addressed • There are possible and promising exploitation routes for the planned results • It can be foreseen that new and fruitful collaboration will ensue • Dissemination strategy is accurately designed and has appropriate targets; tools are adequate and of excellent quality • The potential impact of the project is relevant, with a clear European dimension. Marie Curie – What’s required

41. Assessors’ comments on Impact: negative • The intersectoriality of the project is not described in detail in terms of future collaborations; indeed, it is specifically mentioned that lasting collaboration will only be foreseen in the case of developing a spin-off project • Contribution of the SME to the project is limited • Standardisation aspects are not properly addressed • Possible commercial impact, in particular through SME, not addressed. • Central role of SME is stressed but the need for key extra equipment seems to contradict the present adequacy and availability of infrastructure • Details of application are not well described. Marie Curie – What’s required

42. Marie Curie Initial Training Networks UK National Contact Pointmariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk http://www.ukro.ac.uk

43. ITNs – 2011 call info • Publication date: 20 July 2010 • Call deadline: 26 January 2011 • Indicative budget: €318.41 million • Indicative timetable: • Results expected 4 months after deadline • Grants agreement signature from 9 months after deadline FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN

44. What is an ITN? • Aims: • Offering a series of fellowships to ESR and EXR through a Joint Training Programme including complementary skills modules – focus on development of early-stage researchers • Covers networking costs & the organisation of short training events • As an option, can recruit ‘visiting scientists’ • Duration of funding for networks = 48 months • ITNs are in: • Defined scientific fields as well as inter-disciplinary, new and emerging supra-disciplinary fields FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN

45. Who can participate in an ITN? • At least 3 different research groups from Member or Associated States • BUT ALSO it can be single sites (in Member or Associated States) if the international context is strong – role of associated partners key • Third country partners are eligible, in addition to the minimum requirements. International Co-operation Partner Countries (ICPC) may receive funding, whilst those in non-ICPCs may receive funding if absolutely essential for the project FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN

46. Who participates in an ITN? • An ITN has both industrial and academic partners. Industry involvement essential at one of two levels: • As a full partner • Provider of specific training or secondment opportunities Note: the third-level option of involvement through membership of an advisory board is no longer available FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN

47. Who participates in an ITN? Private sector partners: • must be organisations gaining the majority of their revenue through competitive means with exposure to commercial markets. • Industry representatives can participate but do not satisfy this criterion • Think broadly about potential private sector partners – end users? ITN must have Coherent quality standards and mutual recognition of training/ diplomas FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN

48. Who can you recruit to an ITN? • An ITN supports researchers: • With up to 5 years FTE • From all over the world • For periods of 3 - 36 months (ESRs) • For periods of up to 24 months (EXRs) Researchers can be of any nationality but must comply with the mobility rule FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN

49. ITNs – key issues • Ratio ESR/ER: - ‘The total amount of ESRs and ERs should be reasonableand in line with what is recommended in the Guide for Applicants’ (80/20) • Visiting Scientists: - Exceptional and duly justifiedin the context of the training programme. Even less prominence in 2011 call. • Conferences: • ‘should be proportionate to the proposed research training programme’ • ‘is an opportunity for the recruiter researchers to exchange knowledge with more experienced researchers from outside the network’. FP7 – Marie Curie - ITN

50. Results and funded projects UK National Contact Pointmariecurie-uk@bbsrc.ac.uk http://www.ukro.ac.uk