Individual Assessment Report (IAR) -Iappcall: FP7-PEOPLE-2009-IAPP

Individual Assessment Report (IAR) -IAPPCall: FP7-PEOPLE-2009-IAPP

Proposal Nr. Acronym

Self-evaluation form

This form is made available to applicants who may themselves wish to arrange an evaluation of their proposal (eg. by a disinterested colleague) prior to final editing, submission and deadline. The forms used by the experts during the Commission evaluation will be broadly similar, although the final layout may differ.

Marie Curie Industry- Academia Partnerships and Pathways (IAPP)

Proposal No.: / Acronym: / Panel:

I. Detailed evaluation

Criterion 1. S&T QUALITY
Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for this criterion:

S&T objectives of the research programme, including in terms of intersectoral issues.
Scientific quality of the joint collaborative research programme.
Appropriateness of research methodology.
Originality and innovative aspect of the research programme. Knowledge of the state-of-the-art.

Strengths of the proposal (in bullet point format):
Weaknesses of the proposal (in bullet point format):
Overall comments:
(reflecting the relative importance of the strength and weaknesses above mentioned)
Overall mark (out of 5)
Note : The threshold is 3
Criterion 2. TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE
Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for this criterion:

Quality of the transfer of knowledge programme. Consistency with the research programme.
Importance of the transfer of knowledge in terms of intersectoral issues.

Adequacy of the role of researchers exchanged and recruited from outside the partnership with respect to the transfer of knowledge programme.

Strengths of the proposal (in bullet point format):
Weaknesses of the proposal (in bullet point format):
Overall comments:
(reflecting the relative importance of the strength and weaknesses above mentioned)
Overall mark (out of 5)
Note : The threshold is 3
Criterion 3. Implementation
Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for this criterion:

Capacities (expertise / humanresources/ facilities /infrastructures) to achieve theresearch, and exchange of know-how and experience. Fit between the capacity of host and size of support requested.

Adequate exploitation ofcomplementarities andsynergies among partners interms of transfer of knowledge.
Appropriateness of management plans (recruitments strategy, IPR strategy, demarcation of responsibilities,rules for decision making,etc.).
How essential is non-ICPC Third Country participation, if any, to the objectives of the research training programme.

Strengths of the proposal (in bullet point format):
Weaknesses of the proposal (in bullet point format):
Overall comments:
(reflecting the relative importance of the strength and weaknesses above mentioned)
Overall mark (out of 5)
Note : The threshold is 3
Criterion 4. Impact
Issues to be addressed when assigning an overall mark for this criterion:

Provision to develop new intersectoral and lasting collaboration.
Strategy for the dissemination and facilitation of sharing of knowledge and culture between the participants and external researchers (including international conferences, workshops, training events).
Extent to which SMEs contribute to the project.
In case of SME participation: Adequacy of the available infrastructures for the performance of the project. In case extra equipment is requested, necessity and justification in the context of the partnership.

II. Evaluation Summary

Marks for the evaluation criteria should reflect the quality of the proposal as submitted by the applicants.

Criterion / Mark / Weight / Score
1. S&T Quality / 25%
2. Training/Transfer of Knowledge / 20%
3. Implementation / 25%
4. impact / 30%
Total score expressed out of 5 (threshold 3.5)
Total scoreexpressed out of 100 (threshold 70%)

0=Fails or missing/incomplete information; 1=Very Poor; 2=Poor; 3=Fair; 4= Good; 5=Excellent.

Marks for each criterion are given to one decimal point.Note that the maximum is 5.