From the beginning of the year we have submitted three proposals for the Horizon2020 programme. The approach that was taken at the end of the last year was to map the potential calls and go from there. There are three ways of how we usually proceed:
- writing a concept note and building the consortium by reaching out to potential partners
- “recycling” and strenghtening some of the previous applications
- responding to requests for partners we receive (mostly from showing the interest for a particular call on the participants portal).
As the first part of the year was quite busy for @alberto, we didn’t have the capacity to start from writing many concept notes and finally we followed the process under points 2. and 3.
We’ve spent quite some time trying to recycle previously submitted EPICS application and adapt it to the Swafs 27-2020 call (Hands-on citizen science and frugal innovation). Finally, it turned out this call would require too much modifications of the previous idea as "the intended citizen science activities should result in novel means of social inclusion”. This was quite different and also due to the lack of capacity we didn’t go through with it.
This left me with the process under the point no.3. How this looks like is:
- we receive the request to get in touch and a few words about the project idea.
- if it sounds solid and interesting, we get back to this person requesting more information and a document outlining the concept.
- from that point, together with Alberto we respond to the request by a short document describing how we see our role in the project and how we can contribute. We always try to stick as much as possible to the “standard” workpackage and simply adapt to the topic, which I find is a good approach since it doesn’t require much effort. The adaptability of our methodology is a strenght.
- then starts the negotiation in which our input is incorporated in the proposal and we discuss the budget.
This seems to be the easiest way to get in the consortium. But, it also means we often have little control in the writing process. This can result with our tasks being written by some consultancy agency, and our efforts translated in the budget are underestimated - because we have never got the chance to fully explain the complexity of our approach. It looks “attractive” and it gets integrated in the proposal in an “artificial” way.
We participated in the following:
- GOVERNANCE 21-2020 (Developing deliberative and participatory democracies
through experimentation): “Making the Citizens Voice Heard” (VOICE) project. 13 partners in total, led by the Hellenic Mediterranean University (Greece). Our budget: 168,5k. Documents here. - CE-SC5-25-2020 (Understanding the transition to a circular economy and its
implications on the environment, economy and society): “leading the TRansion of the European Automotive SUpply chain towards a circulaR futurE” (TREASURE) project. 12 partners in total, led by the Politecnico di Milano. Two-stage application (so no budget at this point). Documents here. - NMBP-38-2020 (Citizens and industrial technologies): Bringing together SOCiety and KETs (SOCKET) project. 8 partners in total, led by European Federation for Welding, Joining and Cutting, Belgium. Our budget: 251,3k. This was the application in which we were the most involved in writing and were able to communicate quite well with the coordinators.
All in all, it was a good experiment as it gives me a clearer idea on how to proceed in future.
A while ago, I suggested a dedicated website for the RezNet. The reason is: one of my tasks is to reach out to potential partners. I write an e-mail, explain our methodology, point to the ongoing projects, to the Zenodo article on SSNA, to the Graphryder…to the partners who never heard of us, this can be overwhelming. The percentage of those who actually dedicate their time to go through the article and try to handle the Graphryder is low. Also, people coming to the platform, they see a lot is going on, but what does it all mean? How can it work for their project?
A nice website could resolve this. Not a lot of text, more visuals and clear explanation of how everything works. This can be something we present to the outside world.
I think it has to be divided in two parts (meaning showcasing two workpackages):
- our standard WP with launching an online conversation and using the SSNA. We demostrate this on one previous and two ongoing projects. Here the potential partners understand the meaning behind each task and can easily imagine this being replicated to suit their project. Somehow, we fix the “price” and agree that we do not accept projects in which we cannot have the solid budget we need.
- the new WP - instead, we offer another option for a lower budget (again fixed internally so we make sure we can deliver). This is good if we are proceeding as described under the point 3 because usually there are a lot of partners and the budgets are not much negotiable. In terms of content, it is what @hugi suggested: the SSNA based tool to increase value added from events in terms of better documentation and better networking for participants. We visualize this, if possible showing some examples.
@owen what would be the procedure to build something like this?
What do others think? @nadia @johncoate @amelia @matthias @noemi …
is relevant to our conversation next week
