HORIZON 2020 European Commission Research and Innovation First stakeholder workshop on Horizon 2020 Implementation Brussels, 16 January 2015.

HORIZON 2020

European CommissionResearch and Innovation

First stakeholder workshop on Horizon 2020 Implementation

Brussels, 16 January 2015

Research and Innovation

Agenda

1. Welcome and introduction

2. Responding to broader, challenge–based topics in the Work Programme

3. Two-Stage Calls

4. Participant Portal – new set-up: Live Demo

5. Proposal preparation, applicant templates and guidance

6. Evaluation process, and feedback

7. Any other issues?

8. Conclusions

Research and Innovation

Launch of Horizon 2020:

A major achievement

Successful launch of

first calls (WP)immediately after

adoption of Horizon 2020

Research and Innovation

• More than 2.1 million visits on Participant Portal in December 2013 and, just over 3 million visits per month;

• More than 30,000 proposals submitted;

• Nearly 11,000 expert evaluators contracted (more than 60,000 experts registered);

• Attracted newcomers and evidence of increase in industry participation;

• High levels of subscription reflect the popularity of Horizon 2020.

Response to H2020 calls in first ten months

Research and Innovation

Lessons Learned from first H2020 CallsAnalysis of the experiences with the first calls with the objectives:

•Take-stock; •Prepare (necessary) corrective measures;•Feed into WP cycle for 2016-17.

Based on:•Statistical analysis of 33 concluded calls (approx. half of calls launched in 2014) •Feedback from Commission services and Executive Agencies;•Feedback from Member States, and discussion in Programme Committe•Feedback from some NCPs, and discussion with national coordinators•Observers' reports from evaluations, and Round Table (20 January);•Feedback from some stakeholders, and today's meeting!

Research and Innovation

Responding to broader, challenge-based topics

• Challenge based approach generally liked by R&I community

• The calls are attractive, with a high demand

But, therefore, sometimes lower success rates: 8x available budget, 5x under FP7.

– (However, picture remains diverse)

• Trans-disciplinarity is encouraged in Horizon 2020 but how has it worked in practice? In particular: •setting up of consortia•interpretation by experts during evaluations

• SSH and Gender: Description in WP, and coverage in proposals can be enhanced

Research and Innovation

Responding to broader,challenge-based topics

Follow-up, for discussion: •Further analysis necessary •Maintain the challenge-based approach, but improve clarity of topic descriptions (e.g. impact statements)•Address key features and novelties (e.g. embedding SSH, gender…) more clearly – where relevant – in the work programme

Research and Innovation

•Used more frequently than FP7, but not universal

•Generally welcomed

•Concern over second-stage success rates in some areas:

•E.g. Health calls had 626 /1681 proposals passing to stage two

Horizon 2020 and Two-Stage Calls

Research and Innovation

Follow-up, for discussion: •Determining when two-stage calls applicable?•Defining content of proposals at first stage•finding balance between simplicity, and requiring sufficient information for a fair and sound go/no-go judgement

•Proposal length – how short?

•Adapting call conditions for two-stage evaluations ensuring a 1:3 (budget-wise) success rate in the second phase

Horizon 2020 and Two-Stage Calls

European CommissionResearch and Innovation

Lunch

European CommissionResearch and Innovation

Coffee & Tea Break

Research and Innovation

Proposal preparation and applicant templates

• Consistent guidance and templates across the programme (with exceptions…)

• Strong correspondence between templates and evaluation criteria

• Page-limits toughened up ('watermarking') and simplified

• Some concerns over definition of terms; handling of cross-cutting issues (e.g. gender)

Research and Innovation

Proposal preparation and applicant templates

Follow-up, for discussion:

• Review templates and guidance documents

• Further clarify and communicate key concepts

• Note: FAQs already published in summer 2014 on 'innovation', gender, SSH, RRI, trans-disciplinarity, communication…

Research and Innovation

Evaluation process• Expert Questionnaire sent to 3,336 Experts for 49 calls

• 97% rate overall EU evaluation process as satisfactory, good or excellent good; 90% rate it good or excellent when compared with national or international systems

• Consistency across the programme

• Individual reading; consensus; panel review

• Exceptionally, streamlined approaches for high volume and/or low-value and/or fast track calls

• Strict policy of evaluation of proposals "as they're submitted", since no negotiation

• No recommendations for improvement, since But – identified shortcomings can be corrected.

• Some concerns regarding interpretation of criteria (Impact) and new concepts (e.g. innovation management).

Research and Innovation

Evaluation Process

Follow-up, for discussion :

• Carry out further monitoring of implementation processes (especially 'no nego'), particularly when they affect applicants.

• Review wording of criteria; and procedure for ex aequos etc

• Update briefings and guideline documents

• Develop a set of minimum standards on ESR feedback

• Continue to encourage and engage high-quality experts

Research and Innovation

Any other issues?

Research and Innovation

Conclusions

HORIZON 2020

Thank you for your attention!

Find out more:www.ec.europa/research/horizon2020