one more opinion...
milan
Dear all,
I had a chance to hear one more opinion about EC reply on our project. This guy has more experience in FP project as he is working as consultant in one Belgium company. He said more or less everything that we knew but together with idea I wanted to share it with you.
Cheers,
Milan
---
Dear Milan,
Thanks for this message. It is a pity that the proposal did not reach the threshold for only half a point... I guess you want me to "interpret" the ESR...
My remarks are the following:
- The evaluation is not so negative... its main criticisms relate to a lack of arguments on statements contained in the proposal. I don't seem to have ready anywhere in the ESR that the work you propose is not feasible...
- As in most cases, the evaluators stress the need to precise the indicators and the clear results (as well as a framework for deployment), which maybe were not clearly presented in the project
I believe that you should first of all discuss with your partners and assess honestly whether you "acknowledge" the weaknesses fingerpointed by the evaluators...
You should also check whether those weaknesses were essentially a lack of clarity by the consortium in the proposal writing, or whether these actually are technical bottlenecks which are not solved by the proposal...
As Plans B you might want to consider... Have a look at the ICT Work-programme challenge 4 (I think you have it, but I'm attaching it anyway – www.ofir.hr/pomoc/Final WP-ICT 2011.pdf) and see if the proposal can be re-adapted to one of the open topics...If you decide that is the way to go, then you'll anyway need to take into account what the evaluators said and address all the issues they raised.
As I said in the beginning, the evaluation is not entirely negative... so I wouldn't surrender immediately... Please let me know if I can help for the next steps.
Kor, Ah-Lian
Thanks Milan for going the extra mile.
Ah Lian
| To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm |
Grimshaw, Mark
Thanks Milan,
I think that’s a fair and accurate assessment as to the state of the bid in relation to the review and what our response should be. Weaknesses have been identified in the bid, we can recognize them and we can deal with them.
Nick – you asked previously about adding extra documentation. My suggestion would be to not add additional files that merely expand upon what is required and stated in the basic proposal as this might be seen as cheating (using additional files to go beyond the word limit). Somehow, we have to pack it all in to the short space given.
Mark
--
Dr. Mark Grimshaw
Reader in Creative Technologies
School of Business & Creative Technologies
University of Bolton
Work: http://www.bolton.ac.uk/gcct/
Personal: http://www.wikindx.com
From: fp7-semantic...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:fp7-semantic...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of milan
Sent: 02 November 2010 15:01
To: fp7-semantic...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [fp7-semantics-consortium] one more opinion...
Dear all,