Template for the technical review report



Download 61.61 Kb.
Date conversion13.07.2018
Size61.61 Kb.
TypeReport








TEMPLATE FOR THE TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT



The template hereafter provides the structure for the technical review report that needs to be prepared by the expert(s) after the review.

For the projects managed by DG RTD and DG ENTR and the Research Executive Agency (REA), technical review reports have to be completed and submitted only via the specific IT reporting tool system (so-called SESAM). A "quick guide" explaining how the users can use this specific IT reporting tool is available at the following address: http://webgate.ec.europa.eu/sesam.
If the expert feels that he/she does not have the competence or the information to answer a question, he/she must declare it in the corresponding sections.
TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT

Grant Agreement number:


Project Acronym:
Project title:
Funding Scheme:
Project starting date:
Project duration:
Name of the scientific representative of the project's coordinator and organisation:
Project web site:
Type of technical review:

□ Periodic regular/foreseen technical review


□ Unforeseen Technical Review

Period covered by the technical review report, from …………………… to ……………………..


Date and place of review meeting (if applicable):


Name(s) of expert(s):

-

-



-

Name of expert drafting the report:

□ Individual report

Consolidated report


Name of the Project Officer:


1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

a. Executive summary

Comments, in particular highlighting the scientific/technical achievements of the project, its contribution to the State of the Art and its impact:






  • Excellent progress (the project has fully achieved its objectives and technical goals for the period or has even exceeded expectations).




  • Good progress (the project has achieved most of its objectives and technical goals for the period with relatively minor deviations).




  • Acceptable progress (the project has achieved some of its objectives; however, corrective action will be required)




  • Unsatisfactory progress (the project has failed to achieve critical objectives and/or is not at all on schedule).

b. Overall recommendations (e.g. on overall modifications, corrective actions at WP level, or re-tuning the objectives to optimise the impact or keep up with the State of the Art, or for other reasons, like best use of resources, re-focusing…).



2. OBJECTIVES and WORKPLAN
a. Progress towards project objectives: Have the objectives for the period been achieved? In particular, has the project as a whole been making satisfactory progress in relation to the Description of Work (Annex I to the grant agreement)?


Comments

b. Progress in individual work packages: Has each work package (WP) been making satisfactory progress in relation to the Description of Work (Annex I of the grant agreement)?



Comments



c. Milestones and deliverables: Have planned milestones and deliverables been achieved for the reporting period?




Comments





DELIVERABLES LIST STATUS

No.

Title

Suggested Actions (To be Approved/Rejected)

Remarks





































d. Relevance of the objectives in the coming periods: Are the objectives for the coming period(s) i) still relevant and ii) still achievable within the time and resources available to the project?




Comments




e. For Networks of Excellence (NoEs) only:


Has the Joint Programme of Activities been realised for the period, with all activities foreseen satisfactorily completed?


Comments



f. For ERA NET only:


Has the Joint Programme of Activities been realised for the period, with all activities foreseen satisfactorily completed?


Comments






3. RESOURCES
a. Assessment of the use of resources : To the best of your estimate, have resources used, i.e. personnel resources and other major cost items, been (i) utilised for achieving the progress, (ii) in a manner consistent with the principle of economy, efficiency and effectiveness1. Note that both aspects (i) and (ii) have to be covered in the answer.



Comments


b. Deviations: If applicable, please comment on large deviations with respect to the planned resources.


Comments





4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT
a. Management: Has the project management been performed as required?


Comments

b. Collaboration between beneficiaries: Has the collaboration between the beneficiaries been effective?





Comments


c. Beneficiaries' roles: Do you identify evidence of underperforming beneficiaries, lack of commitment or change of interest of any beneficiaries?




Comments





5. USE AND DISSEMINATION OF FOREGROUND

a. Impact: Is there evidence that the project has/will produce significant scientific, technical, commercial, social, or environmental impacts (where applicable)?






Comments



a.1. Is there an impact on participating Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)?




Comments




a.2. Is there an exploitation potential for the participating SMEs?



Comments




b. Use of results: Is the plan for the use of foreground, including any update, appropriate? Namely, please comment on the plan for the exploitation and use of foreground for the consortium as a whole, or for individual beneficiary or groups of beneficiaries and its progress to date.


Comments



c. Dissemination: Have the beneficiaries disseminated project results and information adequately (publications, conferences…)?




Comments


d. Please identify potential information that should be disseminated to:




  • Policy makers







  • The scientific community






  • The general public







  • A specific group of end users



e. Involvement of potential users and stakeholders: Are potential users and other stakeholders (outside the consortium) suitably involved (if applicable)?





Comments




f. Links with other projects and/or programmes: Is the consortium interacting in a satisfactory manner with other related Framework Programme projects and/or other R&D national/international programmes, standardisation bodies (if relevant), existing relevant networks?




Comments




6. OTHER ISSUES
If applicable comment on whether other relevant issues (e.g ethical, policy-related/regulatory, safety and gender issues) have been handled appropriately.


Comments





7. FLAG THE PROJECT

 Highlight as a success/case story

 High visibility/media attractive project

 Substantial R&D breakthrough character

 Project linked to R&D national/international programmes

 Project with an impact on EU policies (click on which EU policy: http://ec.europa.eu/policies/index_fr.htm )

 Project with an impact on promoting Joint Programming (especially for ERA-NET)

 Outstanding Use/Exploitation of results

 Significant R&D participation from outside EU

 Involvement of non-RTD actors in the field (economic, policy makers, civil society, end-users, standardisation bodies…)

 Good innovation potential

 No Flag

 Other


Comments



Name (s) of the expert(s):



Date:
Signature(s):


1


The principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness: refers to the standard of “good housekeeping” in spending public money effectively. Economy can be understood as minimising the costs of resources used for an activity (input), having regard to the appropriate quality and can be linked to efficiency, which is the relationship between the outputs and the resources used to produce them. Effectiveness is concerned with measuring the extent to which the objectives have been achieved and the relationship between the intended impact and the actual impact of an activity. Cost effectiveness means the relationship between project costs and outcomes, expressed as costs per unit of outcome achieved. Guide to Financial Issues, Version 30/06/2010p.37.


TECHNICAL REVIEW TEMPLATE – January 2011






The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page