Citaterne stammer fra 50 evalueringsrapporter for Horizon Europe-ansøgninger indsendt i 2022 og er givet til afsnittene 'Project’s pathway towards impact' og 'Measures to maximise impact – Dissemination, exploitation and communication'.
Tryk på + og læs udvalgte citater fra evaluatorerne om det gode og mindre gode afsnit om impact.
Sådan siger EU-evaluatorerne om det gode impact-afsnit under 2.1. Project’s pathway towards impact
"The project pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts are credible. The proposal convincingly addresses the expected outcomes and impacts from the work programme. For example, the proposed contribution towards (..“Problem”…) is very well addressed and supported by the work and efforts planned"
"Significance will be high as the research objectives cover areas not yet researched in such an in-depth research and in such a consortium"
"The scale and significance of the project’s contribution to the expected outcomes and impacts are quantified and discussed in a convincing and detailed way"
"The pathways (to impact) are sound and fully considered. Potential regulatory and technical barriers and actions to overcome them, such as the development of …(…)…,are fully considered. This is excellent"
"The potential barriers that can affect the achievement of the impacts are analysed in an effective manner and cover all the relevant organisational, technical and social aspects of the involved stakeholders. The proposed mitigation measures are clear and appropriate, thus increasing credibility"
"Specifically, the key objectives are directly related to each of the expected outcomes and reliable targets are defined. Wider impacts have been described and measured with reliable information"
Sådan siger EU-evaluatorerne om det gode impact-afsnit under 2.2 Measures to maximise impact – Dissemination, exploitation and communication:
"The dissemination approach is very broad-based, carefully prepared and very convincing. Very well-adjusted and defined actions are foreseen for various target groups, which are also appropriately quantified"
"Dissemination and communication measures are adequately considered and target groups are very well defined, with associated key messages, channels and outcomes"
"The proposal outlines a three-step exploitation approach, through the identification of all key exploitable results (KERs), IPR assessment and design of specific activities through which the results could be used or commercialised beyond the project activities and duration"
"The dissemination, exploitation, and communication strategies and plans provided are of high quality. A variety of channels are employed and activities are planned to reach the broader scientific community and the general public, both during the project and beyond. Clear and ambitious KPIs are proposed. There is good identification of target groups, and expected outcomes and expected impact for each group"
"A preliminary IP analysis for each identified exploitable result has been made at the proposal stage, which is a very good approach. On top of the above, the consortium outlines the business strategy of each partner"
Sådan siger EU-evaluatorerne om det mindre gode impact-afsnit under 2.1. Project’s pathway towards impact
"The contribution of the proposed work to the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme is weakly argued. Most of the proposed pathways are only generically described, lacking adequate reference to specific proposed outcomes"
"The likely scale and significance of the contributions from the proposed project are high, although the proposal does not adequately quantify these aspects"
"The baselines, assumptions and barriers are not sufficiently elaborated and they are mostly too generic, for example baselines are expressed qualitatively for O1 Monitoring Performance. This is a shortcoming"
"Potential barriers to the expected outcomes are not sufficiently described and there is no clear reference to any potential negative outcome or impact or how to handle them"
"The pathways to how other industries could benefit from the suggested solutions are not sufficiently elaborated. This is a minor shortcoming"
"Outcome…(..)..refers to a 50% increase without explaining the baseline. The method to monitor this outcome (surveys) is also too generic. This is a shortcoming"
"Impact indicators for societal impact are hard to tie solely to the project's efforts in isolation from other factors unless specifically measured in connection to the various project tools"
"The project is somewhat lacking in the dimension of citizen involvement"
Sådan siger EU-evaluatorerne om det mindre gode impact-afsnit under 2.2 Measures to maximise impact – Dissemination, exploitation and communication
"The dissemination goals are not sufficiently quantified. For example, minimum numbers of planned publications and dissemination activities are not adequately defined. This is a minor shortcoming"
"The number of planned publications in peer reviewed journals is low considering the number of partners, the proposed project’s duration, and the targeted impact on the scientific community. This is a minor shortcoming"
"The planned dissemination and communication measures are not sufficiently well aligned with the ambition and scope of the proposed project. For example, the number of planned publications in peer reviewed journals and conferences is low considering the proposed project’s duration and the targeted impact on the scientific community. Moreover, scientific venues related to (specific) topics are not sufficiently defined. Overall, there is inadequate identification of dissemination and communication indicators. This is a shortcoming"
"The exploitation plan is only briefly presented. The IPR issues are included but their description is rather general"
"The elements provided for exploitation are not consistent because they are not justifying sufficiently the matching of value chains, show enhancing product robustness, secure industrial integrators, and user acceptance. Therefore, the proposal's exploitation strategy is not sufficient"