Funding Application For Joint Applied Research Projects

Funding Application for Joint Applied Research Projects

PN-II-PT-PCCA-2012-4

This document uses Times New Roman font, 11 point, interline space single and 2 cm margins. Any modification of these parameters (excepting the figures and their captions), as well as exceeding the maximum number of pages set for each section can lead to the automatic disqualification of the application.

This document must be uploaded imperatively as an unprotected PDF file (document generated from a word processor file to a PDF, no scanned document), on the submission website. It will not be possible to upload to the submission website a document not satisfying these requirements.

Executive summary of the proposal

Copy the summary used on the submission website, www.uefiscdi-direct.ro.

(maximum 4000 characters).

This summary will be sent to external peer reviewers during the selection process. It is recommended to pay special attention to the writing of this summary in order to encourage the acceptance of the approached external peer reviewers and to allow an appropriate evaluation of your proposal.

context, position and objectives of the proposal

For information only: 5 to 10 pages for this section.

The content of this section corresponds to the first evaluation criterion (technical and scientific quality of the proposal).

To what extent:

Is the proposal well suited to the thematic of the call?

Does the proposal contribute to scientific excellence and significant progress towards the state of the art?

Are the objectives of the proposal appropriate?

Are the technological bottlenecks addressed?

Is the proposal innovative in terms of technological innovation or prospects of innovation, and ambitious?

Does the proposal integrate satisfactory the different disciplinary fields?

Is there a strategy for the valorisation of the project results?

objectives, originality and novelty of the project

Describe the project objectives and the scientific and technical barriers that will be lifted by carrying out the project. Emphasise the original and/or innovative nature of the project.

If applicable, describe the project end-product(s), present the expected results, with if possible appropriate evaluation and success criteria to determine the end-of-project results.

2.2. state of the art –

Present current state of knowledge on the subject.

Show any contributions by the Coordinator and project partners to the state of the art.

Show any preliminary results.

Include the necessary bibliographic references in section 6.

2.3 dissemination and exploitation of results and intellectual property

……

technical and scientific programme, project organisation

For information only: 8 to 12 pages for this section, depending on the number of tasks

The content of this section corresponds to the second evaluation criterion (project management, methodology, work plan, milestones).

To what extent:

Is the proposal positioning well describe with respect to the state of the art or to technological innovation?

Is the proposal scientifically and technologically feasible? Are the proposed methods sound?

Is the proposal structured with clearly identified and adequate milestones and deliverables?

Is the coordination plan adequate?

scientific programme and project structure

Describe “who does what”: present the scientific programme for all partners and justify the programme work breakdown into tasks consistent with the objectives.

In case of multidisciplinary projects, show how the scientific disciplines are interlinked.

Describe the ethical aspects of the project if the thematic researches could undermine human beings, animals and/or environment.

description by task

The tasks represent the broad phases of the project. Their number is limited.

Describe all the tasks for all partners. For each task describe:

the objectives and success indicators if any,

the task leader and the partners involved (this can be indicated in graphic form),

the detailed work programme,

the deliverables,

the contributions of the partners (“who does what”),

a description of the methods and technical choices and the way in which solutions will be brought,

the risks and the back-up solutions envisaged.

task schedule

The schedule of the tasks and their dependencies may be presented in a graphic form (Gantt diagram for example).

A table summarizing all the project deliverables may be provided (task number, date, title, leader) specifying the technical and scientific milestones, the bottlenecks or contingencies that could jeopardize the project outcome, and the planned project meetings.

consortium description

The content of this section corresponds to the third evaluation criterion (quality of the consortium).

Is the scientific level or expertise of the team excellent in accordance with the project topic?

Are the partners able to complete the project (experience, technical skills, environment)?

Is the partnership appropriate with regards to the scientific and technical objectives?

Are there synergies and complementarities between the partners?

Is the project director able to lead the project?

When you take into account each partner research team leader’s career and other key persons ‘career, how do you rate the quality of the scientific outcomes?

Is the project bringing new collaborations?

Do/Does the companies/company involved play an active role in the project?

partners description, relevance and complementarity

Briefly describe each partner (CO, P1-Pn) and provide the necessary elements to assess their qualification in the project ("why who does what"). These elements can be past achievements, indicators (publications, patents), why the partner is interested in the project, etc. (maximum 0.5 page per partner)

CO – Coordination Organisation

P1-Pn – Partner Organisation

Show the complementarity and added value of the collaborations between partners. The interdisciplinary and the openness to diverse collaborations must be justified in accordance with the project orientations. (maximum 1 page)

qualification and contribution of each partner

Provide elements to assess the ability of the project director to coordinate the project (maximum 0.5 page).

For the project director, for each partner research team leader and for the other key persons, provide a short curriculum vitae of 0.5 page maximum, containing:

name, first name, age, career path, current situation

professional experience in the topic of the project

list of the five most significant publications related to the project (and/or patents), number of publications in international reviews or peer-reviewed conference proceedings.

prizes, distinctions

For all partners, indicate in a table (see the below example) other on-going projects having possible links with the proposed research work.

scientific justification of requested resources

The content of this section corresponds to the forth evaluation criterion (mobilisation of resources).

La experiența anterioară a directorului de proiect să se acorde punctajul maxim dacă acesta a publicat în ultimii cinci ani cel puțin 5 articole ISI în legătură cu tematică și a solicitat și/sau a primit cel puțin 1 brevete de invenție și/sau înregistrări de creații originale la ORDA – se scade câte un punct pentru fiecare nerealizare

Directorul de proiect sa faca dovada ca a omologat (certificate) sau a transferat catre un IMM un produs (sau tehnologie)

Present the scientific and technical justification for the resources requested by each partner. Also indicate the resources requested by each partner (2 pages maximum per partner).

coordinator Organisation: XXX

Research Team

Project Director and the key persons

Indicate the number of person/months per project year and their tasks and contribution to the project.

Indicate the non-permanent staff (doctoral and post-doctoral researchers, fixed-term contract staff, interns, etc.) to hire and their allocated tasks.

Equipment (max. 30% from the public budget requested by the project)

Indicate the nature of the equipment and justify their choice and their requirement to carry out the project.

Subcontracting costs (max. 25% from the public budget requested by the project)

Indicate the nature of the external services, the type of service provider and the tasks involved.

Travel costs (max.15% from the public budget requested by the project)

Indicate travel associated with field data acquisition work (measurement campaigns, etc.) and travel associated with symposiums, conferences, etc.

Indicate the type of expendable and other operating expenses and overheads required to carry out of the project.

Partner 1: XXX

Research Team

Research team leader and the key persons

Indicate the number of person/months per project year and their tasks and contribution to the project.

Indicate the non-permanent staff (doctoral and post-doctoral researchers, fixed-term contract staff, interns, etc.) to hire and their allocated tasks

…

references

Include the list of bibliographic references used in the ”State of the art" section and the partners' bibliographic references related to the project.

Criteriul 5 socio-economic

Potențialul aplicativ (20%) Cum ați clasifica potențialul obiectivelor proiectului pentru a putea conduce la o îmbunătățire considerabilă a calității, performanței sau eficienței bunurilor sau serviciilor? Rezultatele propuse se deosebesc suficient de produsele/tehnologiile/serviciile ce au fost deja patentate sau disponibile pe piață, internațional ? Cât de bine poziționat este proiectul pentru a contribui considerabil la rezolvarea/îmbunătățirea nevoii sociale cuantificabile ?

gradul de finalizare a proiectului: – 5%: – model experimental 7%; model funcțional 9%; prototip (cu draft de referențial/specificație tehnică) 15% și prototip (cu referențial/specificație tehnică) certificate cu potențialii utilizatori 20%.

Criteriul 6 – mobilizarea resurselor

the schedule realistic?

Are the resources adequate to the project?

Is the requested funding well justified and adequate?

Are the manpower resources well justified?

Are the non permanent manpower resources (trainees, PhD students, post-docs) well justified?

Are the requested equipment purchases well justified and relevant?

Is the financial part (travel budget, subcontracting, consumables…) well justified and adequate?