Our Aspiration for Proposal Quality

Dear all, off the back of the industry panel session on proposal readiness of CIRPe 2019 conference contributions we need to take a hard look at the quality of proposals we are aspiring to achieve. While calls such as Erasmus+ provide specific evaluation criteria, we need to make sure we also cover the basics. In this post therefore a summary of evaluation criteria used and the aspired level of quality. Before submitting any proposal we need to make sure that we have addressed the below with the highest quality (and of course met the specific call requirements).
 
The image suggest we might want to take our own medicine J
 
Question 1:  The intent of the proposal was clear.
1.1 The challenge addressed by the proposal was described using industry standards.
1. 2 The purpose of the proposal could be clearly aligned to the challenge and standard classifications.
1.3 The direct and indirect benefits and beneficiaries of implementing the proposal were clearly identified.
                                                                                                                                                            
Question 2. The authors of the proposal were competent.                                                  
2. 1 The formal requirements were fully met (including references).
2.2 The authors have theoretical knowledge of the domain as shown by previous publications in top 10% of domain relevant journals.
2.3 The authors have 10+ years practical experience in the domain.
 
Question 3. The effort in preparing the proposal was sufficient.                                          
3.1 Revision comments by other participants were revised above and beyond the revision comments.
3.2 The support of all key stakeholders is clearly articulated.
                                                                                                                                                            
Question 4. The requirements for implementing the proposal were clear.                      
4.1 The requirements for implementing the proposal were fully described and aligned with to key stakeholders.
4.2 The novelty of the proposal was clearly assessed and there is referenced experience with this type of proposal.
4.3 The support needed by stakeholders to implement the proposal was clearly defined, including low level work packages / activities with specific support requirements.
                                                                                                                                                            
Question 5. The estimate was based on credible data.                                                           
5.1 Quantitative data was used and correlated with qualitative data.
5.2 Data is confirmed to be fully relevant for the specific proposal.
5.3 Data is < 3 years old.
5.4 The source of the data is fully available to the public and has been used in other proposals.
 
If you are interested in learning more please visit us at www.innovation-web.eu, our LinkedIn Group at https://www.linkedin.com/groups/8779542/, our blog at https://www.innovation-web.eu/entov-hvm-blog, our Researchgate project page at https://www.researchgate.net/project/Open-European-Network-for-Enterprise-Innovation-in-High-Value-Manufacturing-ENTOV-HVM and our Facebook page at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2014779865300180/. You can also follow us via Twitter: @owschwabe (#innovationweb) and the LinkedIn Group page https://www.linkedin.com/company/entov.

Kommentare

Kommentar veröffentlichen

Beliebte Posts aus diesem Blog

Design Principle #3 for 84% Innovation Adoption – Degree of Innovativeness

Bild
This series of blog posts describes the principles relevant for designing an innovation for rapid adoption by 84% of a target group. 84% adoption is the threshold for achieving sustainable change. The underlying theory stems from the "invisible college" around Rogers, E.M. (2003) “Diffusion of Innovations.” which reminds us that adopters are grouped as Innovators 2%, Early Adopters 14%, Early Majority 34%, Late Majority 34% and Laggards 16%. Designing innovations (and the change intended by them) to reach the Late Majority is a very different game than that typically "played" (which actually only focuses on the Innovators and Early Adopters). Such "designs" depend on understanding our own body of work which skilfully integrates systems thinking, living systems principles, complexity thinking etc. None of the design principles we will discuss are “innovative” – it their blending and orchestration to achieve 84% adoption that is the art of “deep diffusion”...
Mehr anzeigen

Forecasting Whole Life Cycle Cost Uncertainty of EU Municipalities - Consolidator/Marie Curie Proposals

Bild
T ogether with Lisbon University Instituto Superior Técnico Department of Civil Engineering and relevant research team (to be determined), we will be preparing an ERC Consolidator grant request for submission in mid-October 2021 with funding decision expected in March 2022 (see https://erc.europa.eu/news/calls-2022-tentative-dates ). This proposal will include one or more post-doctoral positions for which we will set up individual / parallel Marie Skłodowska-Curie European Fellowship applications (see https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/actions/individual-fellowships_en and https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/actions/get-funding_en ). Title: “A Framework for Forecasting Whole Life Cycle Cost Uncertainty of EU Municipalities” Abstract: “Directly and indirectly people and societies task nations and cities to aspire to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. A primary challenge on this journey is forecasting the related whole life cycle costs as robustly as poss...
Mehr anzeigen

Summer Update – Now earning a warm meal a day and suffering from indigestion!

Bild
  Hi everyone – greetings from the Open European Network for Enterprise Innovation team and perhaps a long-awaited update on where we have been, are and are going. We have admittedly been rather quiet over the past months – not for lack of having anything to share as you will see, but more from finally getting traction in a number of projects, commercializing enough to buy us a warm meal a day and realizing that we need to have small meals to prevent indigestion with ensuing frustration. So, what have been up to? Below a summary of ongoing activities and as ever, if you are interested in getting more engaged do reach out – enough exciting activities to join! Besides the below there is a wide spectrum of funding proposals we are working on. Horizon Europe and the Eureka program are offering many great opportunities, and our emerging commercial model of “appreciation” fees plus work-package reservation and success “commission” is being warmly received. With a bit of luck we will ...
Mehr anzeigen