Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA):
Research and Innovation Staff Exchange(RISE)
Information Event
Friday, 8 February 2019

Medical Research Council (MRC), Conference Centre, One Kemble Street, London
WC2B 4AN

AgendaHorizon 2020 structure
Excellent
Science
European ResearchCouncil (ERC)
Future and Emerging
Technologies (FET)Marie SkłodowskaCurie Actions (MSCA)
Research
Infrastructures

Industrial
Leadership

Societal
Challenges
Health and Wellbeing

Leadership in
Enabling andIndustrial
Technologies (LEIT)- ICT, NMBP, Space

Access to Risk
FinanceInnovation in SMEs

Food security
Transport
EnergyClimate action
Societies
Security

Widening Participation; Science with and for Society, Mainstreaming ofSocial Sciences and Humanities (SSH) and ICT, Fast Track to Innovation
European Institute of
Innovation andTechnology (EIT)EURATOM

Joint Research Centre(JRC)

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA)

2018-20Work
Programme“…contribute to excellent research,
boosting jobs, growth and investment by
equipping researchers with the newknowledge, skills and international andintersectoral exposure to fill the top
positions of tomorrow and solve current
and future societal challenges...based on
the principle of mobility…open to
researchers and innovation staff at allstages… ensuring good working
conditions and work/life balance…”

MSCA Policy Objectives
Encouraging people tobecome researchers and tocarry out research in Europe
Foster innovation,
research-businesscooperation,including astrong international
component

Contribute to excellent
research, boosting jobs

Develop attractive career
opportunities

Equip researchers with thenecessary skills andinternational experience
for a successful career
either in the public or theprivate sector

Ensure the optimum
development and dynamic
use of Europe’s intellectual
capitalGenerate new skills,
knowledge and innovation

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
Innovative Training Networks (ITN)• For Early Stage Researchers
Individual Fellowships (IF)• For Experienced Researchers
Research and Innovation Staff Exchange (RISE)• Exchange visits (secondments) of staff
Co-funding of programmes (COFUND)• For regional, national, international doctoral or fellowship programmes

Research and Innovation Staff Exchange(RISE)
Overview
MSCA-RISE-2019 Deadline 2 April 2019

RISE Overview• RISE funds short-term exchanges of personnel between academic, industrial
and commercial organisations throughout the world.
• It helps people develop their knowledge, skills and careers, while building
links between organisations working in different sectors of the economy,
including universities, research institutes and SMEs.
• Project implemented through the secondment of staff for a period between
1 and 12 months• The maximum size and duration is 540 person months over 4 years

RISE Objectives
Create newand strengthen
existing
collaborations

Promoteinternational andinter-sectoralcollaboration

Staff
Exchanges

Bridge academic
and non-academic
sectors in andoutside of Europe
Promote sharing of
knowledge and ideas
from research to market(and vice versa).
Foster a shared culture of
Research and Innovation thatwelcomes and rewards
creativity and entrepeneurship
Support the developmentof partnerships (e.g. joint
research and innovation
activities).

RISE Goals- expected impact
Short Term
• Staff members perform tasks to achiever the deliverable of the proposed research and innovation
action• Staff members develop new R&I and transferable skills to boost future career opportunities,
through both the RISE action and connected networking activities

Long Term• At Staff member level:• Increased skills, both research-related and transferable ones, leading to improved employability
and career prospects both in and outside academia• Increase in high impact R&I output, contribution to the knowledge-based economy and society• At Organisation level:• Enhanced cooperation and transfer of knowledge between sectors and disciplines• Strengthening of international and intersectoral collaborative networks• Boosting of R&I capacity among participating organisations• At System level:• Increase in international, interdisciplinary and intersectoral mobility of researchers in Europe• Strengthening of Europe's human capital base and attractiveness as an R&I destination• Better quality R&I contributing to Europe's competitiveness and growthWho can Participate?
Who is eligible for funding?
• All countries and nationalities can participate in RISE
• All institutions fulfilling the requirements of the Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation
can participate in RISE
• EU member states, associated countries and third countries eligible for EU funding• Third countries not eligible for EU funding (specific funding eligibility criteria)
Academic sector:• Public /private higher education establishments awarding academic degrees• Public /private non-profit research organisations whose primary mission is to pursue
research• International European interest organisations (e.g. CERN, EMBL)
Non-academic sector:• Any entity not included in the academic sector• For example: large companies, SMEs, NGOs, museums, hospitals and internationalorganisations (e.g. UN, WHO)

RISE Participants
Beneficiaries

Partner Organisations• Organizations from the academic and non-academic sectors• Sign the Grant Agreement and claim costs• Are responsible for the execution of the programme• Organizations from the academic and non-academic sectors• Do not sign the Grant Agreement and do not claim costs• Must include a letter of commitment in the proposal• Are established in a Member State (MS) or
Associated Country (AC)• Are established in a Third Country (TC)

Entities with a capital or legal link
• May implement certain action tasks described in Annex 1 ofthe grant agreement, i.e. seconding and hosting staff.
• The entities with a capital or legal link must be located in
the same country of the Beneficiary/TC Partnerorganisation to which they are linked• cannot be used to circumvent the eligibility conditions• The sector of the Beneficiary (academic or non-academic)
to which this entity is linked prevails over the status of thelatter and is taken into account for intersectoral
secondments.

RISE Secondees• RISE secondees must be members of ‘staff’• Actively engaged in or linked to research/innovation activities
for at least 1 month prior to first secondment– Duration is pro-rata for part time staff• (E.g. 50% FTE must have worked for at least 2 months before secondment)• Types of staff members:– ESR (no PhD and < 4 years experience)– ER (PhD or > 4 years experience)– Managerial staff– Administrative or Technical staff• An in-built return mechanism must be foreseen (no set time
period however)Conditions for Staff Eligibility• Type of relationship between the staff member (secondee) and the sendingorgansiation does not have to be a direct employment contract– The relationships (employment contract, fellowship or other) must comply withthe applicable national law and internal practices• Being a registered PhD candidate is sufficient to be considered staff member
at the organisation where they are registered.
• Staff member (secondee) must be under the direction and instructions of
the sending organisation for the duration of the secondment– Sending organisation must be able to ensure the implementation of the activities
in compliance with the Grant Agreement obligations• The staff member must work 100% of their time on the RISE project when
they are on secondement– For part time staff they must have a contract/ supplementary agreement with
their sending organisation to be able to implement the secondment on a fulltime basis
Guide for Applicants: Table 3 – List of conditions for staff eligibility

Minimum Consortia• Eligible consortia must have at least 3 legal entities in 3 different
countries• At least 2 participants from 2 different MS/AC• If all in MS/AC: at least 1 academic and 1 non-academic

MS/AC

MS/AC

MS/AC
NonAcademic

MS/AC
Academic

TC

MS/AC
Academic

RISE

RISE

RISE Eligible Secondments

Source: Research Executive Agency

Secondment Eligibility
Member State/
Associated Country

Member State/
Associated Country

Third Country

Academic

NonAcademic•••

Minimum of three countries (MS/AC/TC)
Secondments must be intersectoral or outside EU
Any staff members/researchers/students can beseconded

EU Funded Secondments
Invalid Secondments
3rd Country Funded
Secondments

RISE Secondment Example 1

Source: Research Executive Agency

RISE Secondment Example 2

Source: Research Executive Agency

Financial rules – practicalconsiderations

Proposal – Budget
Researcher unit cost [person/month] EUROInstitutional unit cost [person/month]EURO

Staff member unit cost, Top-up allowance
person/month

Research, training andnetworking costs

Management
and overheads

2100

1800

700

•

Funding based fully on unit costs, multiplied by requested person months spent on
secondments•

Institutional costs depend on implementation of secondments•

No detailed financial reporting but need to report on completed secondment months(explain how unit costs work to your financial department)•

Ensure all participants understand the financial rules•

The duration of the secondment is counted from the day of departure to the day ofreturnEU Contribution
Staff member unit cost is intended to support the travel, accommodation andsubsistence costs linked to the secondments:• Sending organisation is expected to continue paying the salary of seconded
staff during the secondment;• Ensure that the EU contribution is fully used for the benefit of the seconded
staff members; and• Use your usual internal policies (the amount can be managed by theinstitution or paid directly to the researcher; in accordance with nationalrules)
RISE EU contribution does notcover salary costs

EU Contribution• The Research, training and networking - covers the costs of R&I related activities,
e.g. consumables, lab costs, conference participation, workshops,
coordination/review meetings and networking activities.
• Management and indirect - covers all general costs connected to organising andimplementing secondments (administrative and financial management, logistics,
ethics, human resources, legal advice, etc.).
Institutional costs can be moved between beneficiaries and redistributed topartners (needs to be agreed in the Consortium Agreement)
The payment of institutional costs is linked to the implementation of thesecondment. If the secondment is not implemented none of the 3categories are paid.

Split Secondments•

It is possible to split into several stays– Must still respect the maximum and minimum duration rule
• Secondments must be at least 1 month and not exceed 12 months••

All the secondments must take place within the duration of the action
Split secondment:– same staff member going to the same receiving organisation sent by thesame sending organization

Example:• One staff member is seconded from Beneficiary "A" in Germany to a TC Partnerorganisation "B" in Argentina for 17 days. This secondment will be eligible forfunding only if the same staff member is seconded for at least 13 supplementarydays from the same Beneficiary "A" in Germany to the same TC Partnerorganisation "B" in Argentina. A secondment of 45 days of the same staff member
from a Beneficiary "A" in Germany to a TC Partner organisation "C" in Morocco will
be eligible for funding but cannot be added to the secondment (initial 17 days) in
Argentina to reach the minimum duration of one month.

Declaration of costs
Who declares costs…
• Beneficiaries: (not TC partners) in individual financial statements for:– Outgoing secondments of its own staff– Incoming secondments from a TC partner (if eligible for funding)• If agreed by the consortium, a different distribution of institutional costs– shouldn’t be reported in the financial statements

If you are hosting staff from partner Third Country organisations
eligible for funding, you are responsible for declaring costs linked
to incoming secondments.
• Check the eligibility of seconded staff members.
• Retain evidence for potential audit.

Annotated Model Grant Agreement•

AMGA covers financial rules and management(page 504 onwards for RISE)

RISE Consortium Agreements (CA)• Mandatory for RISE projects• No official templates, normally prepared by coordinator• Unofficial templates, based on DESCA 2020 Model Consortium Agreement:
www.desca-2020.eu:
 LERU template for ITNs (could be adapted for RISE): BAK template for ITNs (could be adapted for RISE):• IPR Helpdesk – IP in MSCA Factsheet• Can include TC in the CA or have a secondary agreement

REA is not party to the CA anddoes not verify its content, though may ask to check it is in place.

Application ProcessUp to 5 months

RISE 2018 Call Information

3 months

Indicative budget€80M

Publication date

04 December 2018

Call deadline

2 April 2019(17:00 Brussels time)

Evaluation of proposals

May 2019

Evaluation Outcome

June 2019

Signing of Grant Agreement

October 20191-stagesubmission

Feedback Report(ESR)Funding and Tender Opportunities Portal

Guide for Applicants!

Read as apriority!

RISE FAQs

Proposal Submission•

Two Parts– Part A : Administrative forms (‘Edit forms’) and Part B – (B1 and B2) (‘Download
template’ in MS Word and ‘Upload’ as Pdf.)•

Coordinator:
–
–
–
–

•

Registering the draft proposal
Draft acronym, draft summary, choice of panel
adds beneficiary organisations and Partner Organisations (step 4: Parties)
Submits proposal

Beneficiary and Partner organisations:– Ensure contact details are correct– Ensure tables have been completed correctly– PIC codes•

Proposal is submitted– Submission system checks (‘Validate forms’ and ‘Print preview’)– Submit’ as many time as required until the deadline – submit early andoften!

Parts B: Pdf doc to be
uploadedPart B: Template
available to download

Part APart A
Table A3.1
• To be completed by all beneficiaries and partner organisations;• List the outgoing secondments planned by each participating organisation, indicating
the period, duration and the destination;• Include those secondments from Third Counties (TC) that are not automatically eligible
for funding;• Only the secondments listed in Table A3.1 will be considered during the evaluation;• This table will be used as indicator for assessing the performance of the grant anddeviations will need to be justified in the standard reports; and• The same staff member is identified by the same staff member ID, an integer number;Table A3.2
• Automatically generated from Table A3.1; and• Indicates the number of secondments allocated to each participating organisation, theglobal number of secondments and the total budget requested for the action will beshown.

Part A - BudgetPlease note that:
Applicants must ensure that document 1 does not exceed the total page limit of maximum 32 pages(1 start page + 1 table of content page + 30 pages for sections 1-3).
No reference to the outcome of previous evaluations of this or any similar proposal should be includedin the text. The expert evaluators will be strictly instructed to disregard any such references

Part B – updates from last year
Section 2 Excellence Section•Alignment of gender aspects with article 16 of H2020 regulation 1291/2013•“consideration will be made of how the proposed RISE project promotes gender equality by encouraging equal opportunities
for male and female staff involved”.

Section 4 Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation•keep in mind the “credibility and feasibility of the allocation of secondments proposed to reach the action objectives•Be sure to read carefully and complete all the necessary tables (Tables B2, B3a, B3b)

Section 4.3 Appropriateness of the institutional environment (hosting arrangements,
infrastructure)•Table B3d should be included only if applicable•List beneficiaries/partner organisations that will participate together with other entities under a capital link and briefly•describe the legal arrangement and the roles of each affiliated entity in the proposal

Tables•

Section 2.1: Quality and credibility of the research/innovation action; level of novelty
and appropriate consideration of inter/multidisciplinary, intersectoral and genderaspects•

Section 4.1 Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of theallocation of tasks and resourcesTables•

Section 4.1 Deliverable List (does not include secondments encodes in part A)•

Section 4.1 Milestone list (should not be a repeat of the deliverables)•

Section 4.2 Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including quality
management and risk management

Tables•

Section 4.3 Appropriateness of the institutional environment (hosting arrangements,
infrastructure)

Only if applicable•

Section 6. Participating organisations

Letters of Commitment
•
•

•

•
•
•

Letters of commitment are required for all Third
Country partner organisations.
Proposals including Third Country partnerorganisations without letters will have theircontribution excluded by evaluators and it could
also risk eligibility.
If the proposal is retained for funding after theevaluation, the budget linked to the secondmentsof the TC organisation will be rejected and thetotal reduced.
You cannot submit letters after thedeadline
A template for the letters is now provided
The text of the letter is not evaluatedTips - Application•

Register with the Funding and Tender Opportunities Portal•

Give Access to the proposal to relevant people within/outside yourorganisation (Beneficiaries)•

Choose most appropriate panel and reflect on descriptors and key words – tohelp allocate evaluators from your project’s areas•

Be consistent (Part A and Part B)•

Put yourself in the shoes of the evaluator – read the evaluation criteria!

•

Write clearly and concisely (plain English!)•Stick to formatting rules (page limits, font, etc.)•

Present case clearly: use tables, diagrams, bullet points and summaries whereappropriate•

Ask someone to read through your proposal•

Make sure final version is submitted!

Case Study 1

Evaluation Process and Award
Criteria

Become an evaluator!

Evaluation Process

1. Proposal
Submission• Via Participant Portal• Admissibility/eligibility checks

2. Remote
Evaluations• At least 3 evaluators• Individual reports produced

3. Consensus
Meetings• Consensus reports produced• Agreement on comments/scoreby panel
4. Ranked list of •• Lists
Projects funded in priority order until
proposals
budget is exhausted
Max. 5 Months to Outcome!

RISE Grant Application Process• Applications online through the Funding and Tender Opportunities Portal• Apply to specific discipline panel
Evaluation Panels• Chemistry (CHE)• Social Sciences and Humanities (SOC)• Economic Sciences (ECO)• Information Science and Engineering (ENG)• Environment and Geosciences (ENV)• Life Sciences (LIF)
BUT multidisciplinary encouraged!
• Mathematics (MAT)• Physics (PHY)
Abstract + descriptors matter

No predefined budget allocation among the panels.
Budget distributed based on number of eligible proposals in each panel

RISE evaluation and scoring

•

•
•
•

•
•

Self-evaluation form
– http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/call_ptef/ef/20182020/h2020-call-ef-msca-rise-2018-20_en.pdf
Proposals ranked within panels by overall score
Funded in rank order – need to aim at a score of 86-90+ depending on the panel.
Same scores - prioritization– decided by panel, based on scores for award criteria (weighting above).
– based on criteria in line with the WP (e.g. intersectoral mobility, international cooperation, gender).
Evaluation summary reports provided
No restrictions on re-application

Score Descriptors
0–
1–
2–
3–
4–
5–

•
•
•
•

Proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due tomissing or incomplete information.
Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious
inherent weaknesses.
Fair. Proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant
weaknesses.
Good. Proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number ofshortcomings are present.
Very Good. Proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small
number of shortcomings are present.
Excellent. Proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects ofthe criterion. Any shortcomings are minor.

Application form reflects evaluation criteria
Reviewers concentrate on the comments and then assign the score
Each criterion scored between 0 and 5
Decimal points can be awarded

RISE evaluation criteria• Excellence– Quality and credibility of the research/innovation project– Quality and appropriateness of knowledge sharing– Quality of the proposed interaction

It is vital to elaborate on each and every pointof the evaluation criteria

Quality of the Research/Innovation• Quality and credibility of the research/innovation project;– The level of novelty and appropriate consideration of inter/multidisciplinary,intersectoral and gender aspects• Clear, focused research objectives (translated into specific work packages)• Evaluators may not be exact, specific experts in your areas, or familiar withcountry specific aspects• Fit for the scope of the call – why is MSCA funding necessary;• Think about the benefit to Europe of having a RISE in this area
• Up-to-date state of the art (+ literature references in Section 4)• Risk analysis provided• Highlight all inter- and multidisciplinary aspects• Do not underestimate gender aspects

Quality of Knowledge-sharing• Quality and appropriateness of knowledge sharing among theparticipating organisations in light of the research and innovation
objectives.
– Explain methodology and approach (highlight any novelties e.g. social media data
sharing)– Secondments (+ conferences, workshops, etc.) are the tool – explain how the staff
will transfer knowledge to host organisation and back to sending institution– Knowledge-sharing objectives – clear link to research objectives and impact– Clear methodology (use of diagrams)

Quality of Interaction• Quality of the proposed interaction between the participatingorganisations.
– Role and contribution of each participant in the project (in secondments, research,
network activities);– Highlight particular expertise, geographical location, existing links or collaborations– Describe and provide justification of the networking activities (contribution from allparticipants + link to knowledge-sharing)– Opportunity for researchers/staff to be involved in a number of linked activities at different
partners– Highlight the complementarity of participants (academic / non-academic)

Excellence: positive feedback•

Innovation and credibility are convincingly presented and are supported by a very detailed
presentation of the state of art relevant to the project goals•

The project is very challenging and innovative, as well as genuinely intersectoral andinterdisciplinary•

Scientific objects are clearly described and detailed•

The approach of knowledge transfer to the seconded researchers is very precisely described interms of the type of knowledge to be transferred, knowledge providers and beneficiaries, andincludes all sectors•

The quality of the interactions between the participating organisations is convincing. The main
expertise of the involved partners clearly demonstrates complementarity and synergies. The
participants have more than adequate capacity to achieve the goals of the project•Well-planned strategy for secondments providing for effective knowledge transfer•

The proposal is ambitious has clearly described objectives and innovation potential. It also aims
at excellence in its trans-disciplinary approach to research, transfer and dissemination. It is aninteresting and cross-disciplinary project that offers a complete solution: research development
and experimentation and then a lot of effort on dissemination.

Excellence: negative feedback•

The scientific quality and the objectives of the project with regards to the innovation are notadequately formulated against the state of the art•

Specific objectives are not sufficiently focused. There is a lack of quantification in terms oftargeted performances for the different systems to be developed•

The research programme lacks a detailed list of work packages, timetable and particular
involvement of each partner is not specifically included•

The field of investigation of the proposal is not clear enough•

The methodologies proposed within such a diverse partnership are not sufficiently detailed•

The participants’ interactions are not properly presented in terms of content and contribution
to the project’s objectives•

The project research methodology is not properly developed and lacks details as regards risk
assessment, milestones and outcome•

Secondments are only indicated in terms of person/month within a table, but are notdescribed in detail and no additional explanations are given

RISE evaluation criteria• Impact– Enhancing the potential and future career perspectives of the staff
members– Developing new and lasting research collaborations, toachieve transfer of knowledge between research institutions andto improve research and innovation potential at the European andglobal levels– Quality of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate theproject results– Quality of the proposed measures to communicate the project
activities to different target audiences

Impact – Human Resources• Impact on R&I related human resources, skills and working
conditions to realise the potential of individuals and provide newcareer perspectives• Describe impact on involved staff’s (transferable and research skills
enhanced, intersectoral/international experience gained)• Relate to EU documents on HR policy in research (see links at theend of the presentation)• If applicable, mention HR Excellence in Research logo andcompliance with HR Strategy for Researchers

Impact – Collaborations and EU
Innovation potential• Developing new and lasting research collaborations, to achievetransfer of knowledge between research institutions and to improveresearch and innovation potential at the European and global levels.
– Describe plans for building the co-operation and sustaining it after theend of the project (link to the EU International Co-operation policy)– Explain innovation capacity – contribution of your research to R&D in
EU and globally (link to Innovation Union, research roadmaps)– Check H2020 Work Programme in your area – make links to EUpriorities where possible

Impact – Dissemination, Exploitation andCommunication• Quality of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate theproject results– Don’t underestimate this section – read the EC guidelines and think outside
the box– Develop a detailed dissemination strategy – involve all partners, target
audiences outside research community (i.e. policy makers, general public,
industry) and adjust your measures to reach them
– Explain the impact of your activities during and after the project– Consider IP issues, explain exploitation strategy– Relate to EC documents (public engagement) and link with existing initiatives(e.g. the European Researchers Night, UK events)

Dissemination of results - Open AccessObligation to provide open
access when publishing

Related costs eligible
Open Access to Research Data Pilot for
all areas of H2020, including MSCA/RISE!

Source: European Commission

Openaire Resource

www.openaire.eu

Open Access Data
The following applies for all calls with an opening date on or after 26/07/2016:• Grant beneficiaries under this work programme part will engage in research data
sharing by default, as stipulated under Article 29.3 of the Horizon 2020 Model
Grant Agreement (including the creation of a Data Management Plan).
Participants may however opt out of these arrangements, both before and after
the signature of the grant agreement. More information can be found under
General Annex L of the work programme.

Foresee a Research Data Management Plan
as delivery of the project in month 6
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2
020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/openaccess-data-management/datamanagement_en.htm

Impact: positive feedback• The project addresses the expected impacts of the call very well. The tools to achievethis, instruments and the measures are clearly outlined and well described• The training programme enhances knowledge transfer and skills, boosts the academic
prospects of the researchers and, working in close collaboration with industrial partners,
the career perspectives. Both the ERs and ESRs will benefit from the exchange
programme.
• The knowledge transfer will have positive implications at European and at global level
and is clearly described• The proposal will contribute positively to develop long-lasting research collaborations
between EU and TC building on already existing links. The participation of the industrial
partners will result in close academia-industry collaborations and commercially-driven
project ideas• Intellectual property rights aspects and exploitation of results are clearly articulated• Dissemination strategy is accurately designed and has appropriate targets; tools are•adequate and of excellent quality

Impact: negative feedback• The expected additional research skills to be developed within academics are
not well demonstrated, and this fact limits the perspectives for the careerdevelopment of the researchers• The description of the working conditions is not sufficiently elaborated; theproposal does not particularly demonstrate how the working conditions will
improve the performance of the researchers• Contributions to the improvement of the innovation potential at the global level
have not been presented in sufficient detail• The measures for disseminating the results have been presented only in generalterms• The proposed communication and dissemination measures are mainly based on
conferences and papers and their objectives are not sufficiently described withreference to the project activities• The potential for innovation claimed in the field of clinical pharmacy is notproperly sustained and, therefore, the contribution of this proposal to thepotential of European research and worldwide research is narrow• Possible commercial impact, in particular through SME, not addressed

RISE Evaluation Criteria• Implementation– Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including
appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources– Appropriateness of the management structures andprocedures including quality management and risk management– Appropriateness of the institutional environment (hostingarrangements, infrastructure)– Competences, experience and complementarity of theparticipating organisations and their commitment to the projectWork Plan and Management• Provide a detailed work plan (who, what, how)
• Divide the project into coherent Work Packages, define clear andspecific milestones and deliverables; not only for research WPs, but also
for Management, Dissemination and Communication, Transfer ofKnowledge WPs• Use Gantt chart, organisational schemes, etc.
• Describe a sound management plan (consortium agreement,
monitoring processes, financial management, risk monitoring, IPR
management)• Describe management team capacity

Complementarity & Genuine Involvement• Highlight complementarity of skills and expertise in the
consortium• Consider financial implications of participation of partners
from TC not automatically eligible for EU funding• Demonstrate institutional commitment (return mechanism
built-in after exchanges; knowledge-sharing)• Provide Letters of Commitment from Third Country partnerorganisations (expertise, responsibilities in the project, selffinancing if necessary)Gender Aspects• Don’t underestimate gender aspects (gender experts in all
Evaluation Panels) now explicit evaluation criteria!
• Relate to EU policies on Gender Equality – cross-cutting
priority in Horizon 2020
• Equal opportunities (among seconded staff and decisionmakers/supervisors)• Gender dimension in the research content (e.g. subjects or
end-users)• Gender dimension in project management, secondments andnetworking activities

Gender Aspects - Links••••

Gendered Innovations - Stanford University project: practical tools for researchers:
methods to be used in a research project; case studies; checklist
Horizon 2020 Manual - part on Gender equality
H2020 Gender Advisory Group paper on preparing grants that integrate thegender dimension into research.
Gender Action CSA project to support the implementation of gender equality on R&I
throughout ERA

MSCA video on Gender Dimension

http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/gallery/understanding-gender-dimension-msca-projects_enImplementation: positive feedback
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

The work plan and the activities proposed to reach the project objectives arewell conceived and convincing
The coordinator has a relevant experience in managing large and complex
international projects
The partners have specific expertise and highly qualified personnel necessary to
carry out the specific task of the proposal. The mix of skill and expertise
between the organizations is excellent and covers all relevant aspects of the
project
The key scientific staff involved are experienced and have an appropriate levelof involvement
The credibility, feasibility and gender aspects are well-provided in the proposal
The infrastructural facilities are first class and fully adequate for the needs of the
project
Gender aspects in the planning of the activities are duly considered
IP generated under this project will be carefully managed and the strategy takes
carefully into account development perspectives of the industrial partner

Implementation: negative comments
•

•
•

•
•
•

The project work plan proposed is not sufficiently detailed: deliverables are
not appropriately measurable; the secondments and partners allocated toeach task are not properly described; with interconnections between thework packages missing, and limited detail regarding the scheduling of tasks
Although the work plan is well depicted, the R&D related work packages
look overambitious and not well focused
The complementarity of the participating organizations is not adequately
discussed. The overall project offers a scheme characterized by a strong
prevalence of one partner without a clear demonstration of the coordination
with other partners
The risk management and contingency plans are outlined only briefly andare insufficiently specified for a project of this size
Secondments are not sufficiently specified or balanced between participants
IPR aspects are unclear

Other key considerations•

Operational capacity of the organisations– Use well tables in Section 5 of Part B– Profile of key staff, description of key infrastructure or technical equipment, all partnerorganisations contributing towards the proposed work (special attention to SMEs)•

Ethics Issues– Self-assessment in Part A and strategy in Section 6 of Part B– Outside the 30-page limit – provide detailed strategy– Crucial for all research domains  need to identify any potential ethical issues anddescribe they will be addressed– All proposals considered for funding subject to Ethics Review– Read the Ethics Self-Assessment Guidelines

Responsible Research and Innovation‘’Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions endorse the Horizon 2020 Responsible Research andInnovation (RRI) cross-cutting issue, engaging society, integrating the gender and ethicaldimensions, ensuring the access to research outcomes and encouraging formal andinformal science education.
All applicants to the MSCA calls are encouraged to adopt an RRI approach into their
proposals.’’
Rome Declaration on Responsible Research andInnovation in Europe, November 2014

Report from the Expert Group on Policy Indicators
for Responsible Research and Innovation

Open ScienceHorizon 2020 IPR• For further information see the IPR Helpdesk:– Horizon 2020 IPR Helpdesk (advice, events, articles,
webinars)– IPR Helpdesk – IP in MSCA Factsheet

RISE 2014 – success rate by Panel
Retain ListThresholdReserve ListThresholdSuccess Rate

Chemistry

82.6

76.2

50%

Economic Sciences

70.6

70

33.3%

Information Science andEngineering

78.6

75.6

40.7%

Environment andGeosciences

78.4

75.8

45.8%

Life Sciences

78.2

76.4

45.5%

Mathematics

76.4

n/a

25%

Physics

81.4

79

32%

Social Sciences andHumanities

77.2

75.2

47.6%

Evaluated proposals

RISE 2015 – Success Rate by Panel
Evaluated
Proposals'Retained' list
thresholdReserve list
thresholdSuccess rate

Chemistry

86.4

86.2

24%

Economic Sciences

88

75.2

17.60%

Information
Science andEngineering

84.2

82.8

23%

​Environment andGeosciences

90.8

88.4

​19.60%​Life Sciences

81.4

81

34.60%

Mathematics

84.6

78

36%

​Physics

88.6

88.2

28%

Social Sciencesand Humanities

88.3

86.4

20%

RISE 2016 – Success Rate by Panel
Evaluated
Proposals'Retained' list
thresholdReserve list
thresholdSuccess rate

​Chemistry

​89

​89

​26.47%

Economic Sciences

81

80.4

22.22%

Information
Science andEngineering

83.2

81.4

24.78%

Environment andGeosciences

91.2

89.4

17.31%

Life Sciences

82.8

80.4

25%

Mathematics

83.2

79.8

27.27%

Physics

87.6

86.4

20.59%

Social Sciencesand Humanities

90.8

89

21.67%

RISE 2017 – Success Rate by Panel'Retained' list
thresholdReserve list
thresholdSuccess rate %

86.4

84.6

28.00%

Economic Sciences 86

76.8

20.00%

Information
Science andEngineering

83.2

79.2

27.27%

Environment andGeosciences

88.6

85.4

26.32%

Life Sciences

84.8

82.2

21.05%

Mathematics

86.6

75.4

21.43%

Physics

85.4

81.8

26.92%

Social Sciencesand Humanities

82.6

79

23.40%

ChemistryRISE Experiences andFinal Tips

RISE Experiences So Far…
• No ‘typical’ RISE project size – the largest supported RISE project is 40 times
larger than the smallest• RISE averages:• 10.1 participants• 2.2 month secondment length

RISE projects advance well scientifically
However, often lag behind with secondments (with big variations)
Only 50 % secondments completed against schedule (in on-going projects)
Remember, eligible secondments are the source of income for RISE projects
and salaries not covered, so some co-financing expected!
• Immediate reporting is important (on-line – declarations of secondments)• Purely administrative/managerial secondments not eligible• Split secondments are generally more expensive so need careful consideration••••

Abstract – Have a story to tell…
• Make the relevance very clear• Clearly but shortly explain what you are going to do• Highlight impact~ EU impact? Knowledge gap? Why your project? Why now?

Overall presentation matters…
• Use tables, colours, graphs and schematic representations of concepts &information you want them to see and understand (this takes time…)• Check consistency across the whole proposal• Avoid repetition, highlight key information• Use the Gantt Chart wellClosing Thoughts…
•

Set aside enough time•

Clarify your own goals for applying•

Read all Call documentation (i.e. Guide for Applicants and Work Programme)
and consider any relevant EU policy documents•

Fully appreciate the evaluation criteria - think IMPACT!

•

Help evaluators (success is in the detail!)–

Address well the main objectives–

Use clear and concise language–

Explain country specific jargon–

Provide them with the evidence they need•

Discuss with and meet your partners (aim high; you need the best experts)•

Research previous and current projects, particularly those in your area•

Find colleagues to proof read the drafts with the evaluation criteria in hand•

Create a ‘perfect’ project, ready for implementation

Key Messages fromToday
RISE is not only about secondments,
you need a research and training
project – be realistic about the budget
Put yourself in the shoes of theevaluators – make their life easy…

The Guide for Applicants – don’t let itout of your sight!

Additional Resources

How to find partners?
Domain specific NCP example search platforms• MSCA: https://www.net4mobility.eu/eoi.html• ICT: http://www.ideal-ist.eu/partner-search/pssearch• Nanotechnologies: https://www.nmp-partnersearch.eu/index.php• Pharmaceuticals: https://cloud.imi.europa.eu/web/eimi-pst• Environment: http://www.irc.ee/envncp/?page=search• Social Science & Humanities: http://net4society.eu/public/pss.php

How to find partners?
Partner Search Tool on the RISE Call Page in the Funding and
Tenders Portal

Information Resources
•

•

•

•

•
•

•
•

MSCA 2018-2020 Work Programme
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2018-2020/main/h2020wp1820-msca_en.pdf
RISE Guide for Applicants
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/guides_for_applicants/h20
20-guide-appl-msca-rise_en.pdf
MSCA RISE Self-evaluation form
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/call_ptef/ef/2018-2020/h2020call-ef-msca-rise-2018-20_en.pdf
Net4Mobility RISE Handbook
https://www.net4mobilityplus.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/N4M_MSCARISE_Handbook_2019.pdf
2018 RISE Coordinators Day https://ec.europa.eu/info/h2020-msca-rise-2018coordinators-day_en
H2020 AMGA
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/amga/h2020amga_en.pdf
Previously funded RISE projects on CORDIS
Evaluation Guidance and TemplatesCase Study 2