project no.: 831752 (ncp) in the area of quality standards

Project no.: 831752

Project acronym: NCP ACADEMY

Project full title: Fostering transnational cooperation between National Contact Points

(NCP) in the area of quality standards and horizontal issues

Funding scheme: Coordination and support action

Start date of project: 1 November 2018

Duration: 24 months

Deliverable D2.5

Event monitoring report

Due date of deliverable: (Month 24)

Actual submission date: (Month 24)

Dissemination Level: Public

Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: Agency for Mobility and EU Programmes

(AMEUP)

Ref. Ares(2020)7283155 - 02/12/2020

of 255

NCP Academy (GA: 831752) – Deliverable D2.5 Event monitoring report

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Participants’ analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 7

Quantitative analysis ................................................................................................................................... 14

Comprehensive comparative overview of the events (per category of question) ................................... 15

Analysis of results per format of the training .......................................................................................... 19

Analysis results per module ..................................................................................................................... 28

Event cards – analysis of individual trainings .......................................................................................... 32

Masterclass on Proposal Writing and interactive training methods ...................................................................... 32

Personnel Costs in Horizon 2020: application of rules in different EU Member States .............................................. 37

Share your favourite training methods! ......................................................................................................... 41

Crash course on Data management plan ........................................................................................................ 45

Third parties and cascade funding in Horizon 2020 ........................................................................................... 49

‘Cross-cutting issues’ in Horizon 2020: FOCUS on Gender and Open data (advanced level) particularly for RI Projects .... 52

What is Widening and its impact in a view of Horizon Europe? ........................................................................... 58

Masterclass on Proposal Writing .................................................................................................................. 62

Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects ....................................................................................................... 66

Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects and related IPR issues ......................................................................... 70

Meet & Exchange Workshop on NCP mentoring and twinning schemes ................................................................ 73

Training on Legal and Financial Aspects ......................................................................................................... 77

Advanced Train-the-trainer for Legal & Finance NCPs ....................................................................................... 81

International R&I cooperation: Horizon 2020 and the world ............................................................................... 85

Learnings on EIC prizes – An NCP perspective .................................................................................................. 89

Responsible Research and Innovation – RRI .................................................................................................... 93

Advanced info on INCO with special focus on thematic areas of Horizon 2020 ....................................................... 97

Meet & Exchange workshop: International Cooperation in Horizon 2020 ............................................................ 101

NCP Academy Webinar: Pathfinder (FET) Opportunities in EIC – An NCP Perspective ............................................. 104

Building networks & sharing ideas – What an NCP should know about COST!....................................................... 108

Lump-Sum in Horizon 2020 and the future of Lump Sum Pilot in Horizon ............................................................ 112

Joint RICH-2 & NUCL_EU2020 Training on Project Impact, Framework Programmes and Financial Issues ................... 116

Proposal preparation, proposal check ......................................................................................................... 119

Training on Proposal Writing and Interactive Training Methods ........................................................................ 123

H2020 financial reporting and audits ........................................................................................................... 127

of 255


Ready to grow – the Ideal-ist Topic Tree ...................................................................................................... 131

Enhanced EIC Pilot 2019-2020 towards Horizon ............................................................................................. 135

Training on ‘Workshop Interaction Design’ ................................................................................................... 139

Proposal Writing Training ......................................................................................................................... 143

Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe ...................................................................................... 147

Introducing the Horizon Dashboard ............................................................................................................ 151

Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard ......................................................................... 157

Inclusiveness in European R&I Partnership Programmes.................................................................................. 161

Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe (2nd training) ................................................................... 165

The revamped Horizon Results Platform ...................................................................................................... 169

Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Advanced Training II ........................................... 173

European Partnerships – state of play and next steps towards their launch ......................................................... 177

Digital moderation and virtual meeting design .............................................................................................. 182

Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (2nd webinar) ........................................................................... 187

Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events (pt. I) – Webinars and online

trainings – tools how to make them more interactive ..................................................................................... 192

Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs (pt. II) – how to use online whiteboard tools ......................................................... 196

Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events (pt. III) – Organisation of virtual

matchmaking events ............................................................................................................................... 200

Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (3rd webinar) ........................................................................... 204

Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events (2nd training cycle pt. I) .......... 209

Lump Sum: A practical approach from first pilot experiences ............................................................................ 213

Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events (2nd training cycle pt. II) – Webinars

and online trainings – tools how to make them more interactive ...................................................................... 218

Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (4th webinar) ........................................................................... 222

Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events (2nd training cycle pt. III) –

Organisation of virtual matchmaking events ................................................................................................. 227

Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Training III ........................................................ 231

NCP2NCP: sharing working – Good practice and thinking about what we would need for the future? ....................... 235

SDG: Policy Framework and Impact Logic for Horizon Europe ........................................................................... 239

Qualitative analysis ................................................................................................................................... 243

Coding process – answer categories ..................................................................................................... 244

4. I especially liked… ................................................................................................................................ 244

5. Next time I would improve… .................................................................................................................. 245

6. Further NCP Academy events should cover the following topics .................................................................... 246

of 255


Results of the qualitative analysis ......................................................................................................... 247

4. I especially liked… ................................................................................................................................ 247

5. Next time I would improve… .................................................................................................................. 248

6. Further NCP Academy events should cover the following topics .................................................................... 249

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................. 255

of 255


Introduction Deliverable 2.5 Event monitoring report comprises evaluation of trainings, webinars and meet & exchange

workshops organised within the Work package 2 during the 24 months of the NCP Academy (II) project.

A key objective of the NCP Academy project is to build capacity measures tailor-made for the needs of the

NCP community by the implementation of a high-quality training programme and provision of

opportunities for the exchange of experiences and good practices. Capacity building activities are

structured within six different modules:

Legal and financial issues of European Framework Programmes for R&I,

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) + Cross-cutting Issues (CCI),

Widening and synergies,

Innovation & SMEs,

New developments and further topics of relevance

NCP soft skills.

Trainings are developed and deployed within Work package 2 (Tasks 2.1-2.4, corresponding to the main

training areas above). Task leaders are obliged to provide feedback for quality review.

Formats: The previously established formats of on-site trainings, meet and exchange workshops and

webinars have been used.

Standardised NCP Academy feedback forms, developed within Task 2.4 Implementing training measures

and quality assurance led by the Agency for Mobility and EU Programmes, were used in the evaluation of

the trainings conducted in the project´s lifespan. The Agency for Mobility and EU Programmes was in

charge of distribution of the standardised NCP Academy feedback forms and feedback analysis based on

the data collected at the trainings and sent by the training organisers. All these actions enabled an overall

comparative analysis and particular event analysis conducted in the relevant period (M1-M24).

The purpose of the training quality evaluation was:

to identify strengths and weaknesses of the trainings;

to assess whether the trainings were properly implemented;

to assess whether the trainings were suitable in terms of practical relevance, content and other

aspects;

to explore topics of interest of the participants which could be incorporated into future NCP

Academy events.

In total, 62 events were organised till October 31st 2020. Out of 62 events, 511 of them have been

evaluated with standardised NCP Academy feedback forms. This enabled the quantitative and qualitative

analysis of the collected data. Events for which feedback from the participants was not collected by the

training organisers, or non-standard NCP Academy feedback forms were used are not a part of this

report (Table 1 – List of events with missing data). Feedback was primarily collected from the trainees. The

trainers and training organisers were also asked to provide their feedback in the form of ‘Lessons learnt’ and their testimonials were also included in this report.

1 13 On-site trainings, 33 webinars and 5 Meet & Exchange workshops

of 255


In order to determine the gender structure of the participants, the geographical outreach of the NCP

Academy, NCPs’ areas covered by the participants and their level of experience as NCPs, participant lists

were analysed as well.

The Agency for Mobility and EU Programmes conducted the analysis of the participants based on the data

collected and sent by training organisers on 53 events (Monitoring sheets with information taken from

the participants’ lists and registration forms). Events, for which the Agency for Mobility and EU

Programmes did not receive any information about participants, are not a part of this report (Table 1 –

List of events with missing data).

The results of the analysis show that participants are very satisfied with trainings provided. Quantitative

analysis shows that participants are most satisfied with the organisational aspects of NCP Academy events

(average mark 4,61). Looking at the results of qualitative analysis, participants often express satisfaction

with the content of the training or specific content parts and value interactivity and practical relevance of

the training (practical examples, exercises, as well as the practical tips) and suggest some improvements

in the organisational aspects of the trainings.

Table 1: List of events with missing data

Event Participants’ list Feedback information

The Gender Dimension in Horizon 2020 and its relevance for Research

Infrastructures Projects Yes Yes (non-standardised)

EIC Pilot 2018 at a glance Yes Yes (non-standardised)

Widening Show Case 1 No Yes (non-standardised)

Needs and role of NCPs in the future No No

Key Findings of Meet & Exchange Workshop on Legal & Financial

Aspects of International Cooperation No No

Alignment between EU Funds towards HEU, smart specialisation

(Synergies of funds) No No

Citizen Science – beyond a buzzword No No

Open Science – from the current policy context to Horizon Europe No No

Science communication No No

FET Pathfinder pilot for NCPs No Yes (non-standardised)

The Horizon 2020 Green Deal, major elements & background for NCPs No No

of 255


Participants’ analysis Participant lists were collected and analysed for 53 events to determine the participants’ structure

(gender, geographical outreach, NCPs’ area of expertise and level of experience). In analysed activities,

2644 people participated, 87 % of them are NCPs. Events for which participants’ list was not collected do

not form part of this report. In total, 8 webinars and 1 meet & exchange workshop for the

aforementioned reasons are not part of this analysis.

Gender structure, presented in the chart below shows that female participants are the majority in the

NCP Academy events.

Chart 1: Gender structure

Next chart reveals geographical outreach of the NCP Academy. So far, most of the participants come from

the EU-15 countries2 (52 %), followed by EU-13 countries3 (23 %) and Associated Countries4 (16 %).

2 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal,

Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom 3 Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and

Slovenia 4 Iceland, Norway, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey, Israel,

Moldova, Switzerland, Faroe Islands, Ukraine, Tunisia, Georgia, Armenia

68%

32%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 2: Geographical coverage

The areas of expertise of NCPs who participated in NCP Academy events are presented in the next chart.

Based on the data we have analysed, we can conclude we had quite an equal distribution of NCPs covering

different areas of Horizon 2020. The only group that stands out slightly in percentage are Legal and

financial NCPs (12 %).

Chart 3: NCPs’ areas of expertise

52%

23%

16%

6%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Third coumtries

Not listed

Geographical coverage of the participants countries

5%

3%

5%

4%

6%

4%

3%

2%

6%

7%

5%

6%

4%

7%

5%

3%

12%

2%

3%

5%

3%

1%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

European Research Council (ERC)

Future and Emerging Technologies (FET)

Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA)

Research Infrastructures

Information & Communication…Nano, new materials

Space

Access to Risk Finance

Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate

Inclusive Societies (SSH)

Security

Legal and finance

Joint Research Centre (JRC)

Spreading Excellence

Coordinator

SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

of 255


Next chart represents the level of experience of NCPs who participated in the trainings. The analysis of the

participant lists revealed that less experienced NCPs have been more involved in the training: 19 % of

the participants have less than 1 year of experience as NCPs, 28 % of them have experience between 1

and 3 years and 19 % of them have between 3 and 5 years of experience.

Chart 4: Level of experience of NCP

Table 2: List of trainings for which participants’ list has been analysed

No. Event Date Place Organiser Format

1. Masterclass on Proposal Writing

and interactive training methods

3-

4.10.2018. Brussels

C-Energy H2020 and

NCP Academy

Meet &

Exchange

Workshop

2.

Personnel Costs in Horizon 2020:

application of rules in different

EU Member States

15.10.2018. Brussels NCP Academy

Meet &

Exchange

Workshop

3. Share your favourite training

methods! 25.10.2018. Online NCP Academy Webinar

4.

The Gender Dimension in Horizon

2020 and its relevance for

Research Infrastructures Projects

26.10.2018. Online

GenderAction in

cooperation with

NCP Academy &

RICH

Webinar

5. Crash course on Data

management plan 13.11.2018. Online

NCP Academy in

cooperation with

FOSTER

Webinar

6. Third parties and cascade funding

in Horizon 2020 21.11.2018. Online NCP Academy Webinar

7. ‘Cross-cutting issues’ in Horizon

2020: FOCUS on Gender and

21.-

22.11.2018. Lisbon

RICH Network and

NCP Academy

On-site

Training

19%

28%

19%

18%

15%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Less than 1 year of NCP experience

Between 1 and 3 years of NCP

experience


experience


experience

More than 10 years

Level of experience of NCP

of 255


Open data (advanced level)

particularly for RI Projects

(Experts from

GenderAction and

Open Air)

8. What is Widening and its impact

in a view of Horizon Europe?

6.-

7.12.2018. Warsaw

NCP Academy and

NCP WIDE.net

On-site

Training &

Exchange

of

Experiences

9. Masterclass on Proposal Writing 6.12.2018. Brussels NCPsCaREand NCP

Academy

On-site

Training

10. EIC Pilot 2018 at a glance 14.12.2018. Online NCP-Academy and

Access4SMEs Webinar

11. Standardisation in Horizon 2020

projects 18.12.2018. Online NCP Academy Webinar


projects and related IPR issues 23.1.2019. Lisbon NCP Academy

On-site

Training

13.

Meet & Exchange Workshop on

NCP mentoring and twinning

schemes


Meet &

Exchange

Workshop

14. Training on Legal and Financial

Aspects

21.-

22.2.2019. Zagreb

NCP Academy,

Instituto de Salud

Carlos III

On-site

Training

15. Advanced Train-the-trainer for

Legal & Finance NCPs

4.-

5.03.2019. Larnaca NCP Academy

On-site

Training

16. International R&I cooperation:

Horizon 2020 and the world 21.3.2019. Online NCP Academy Webinar

17. Learnings on EIC prizes – An NCP

perspective 4.4.2019. Online NCP Academy Webinar

18. Responsible Research and

Innovation – RRI 8.4.2019. Online

NCP Academy,

NewHoRRIzon Webinar

19.

Advanced info on INCO with

special focus on thematic areas of

Horizon 2020

15.4.2019. Brussels

NCP Academy,

International

Service Facility,

NCPs CaRE,

BioHorizon,

Net4Society5

On-site

Training

20.

Meet & Exchange workshop:

International Cooperation in

Horizon 2020


Meet &

Exchange

Workshop

21.

NCP Academy Webinar:

Pathfinder (FET) Opportunities in

EIC – An NCP Perspective

2.5.2019. Online NCP Academy Webinar

22.

Building networks & sharing ideas

– What an NCP should know

about COST!


of 255


23.

Lump-Sum in Horizon 2020 and

the future of Lump Sum Pilot in

Horizon

27.6.2019. Online NCP Academy, FFG Webinar

24.

Joint RICH-2 & NUCL_EU2020

Training on Project Impact,

Framework Programmes and

Financial Issues

17.-

18.7.2019. Genève

RICH-2,

NUCL_EU2020

On-site

training

25. Proposal preparation, proposal

check

8.-

9.10.2019. Zagreb

HEALTH NCP NET +

NCP Academy

On-site

training

26. Training on Proposal Writing and

Interactive Training Methods

22.-

23.10.2019. Cyprus

IDEALIST + NCP

Academy

On-site

training

27. H2020 financial reporting and

audits (ADVANCED)

4.-

5.11.2019. Prague NCP Academy

On-site

training

28. Ready to grow – the Ideal-ist

Topic Tree 12.11.2019. Online

NCP Academy +

Idealist 2020 Webinar

29. Enhanced EIC Pilot 2019-2020

towards Horizon 28.11.2019. Helsinki

Access for SMEs +

NCP Academy

Meet and

Exchange

Workshop

30. Training on ‘Workshop

Interaction Design’ 4.-

5.12.2019. Prague

NCP Academy +

Technology Centre

CAS

On-site

training

31. Proposal Writing Training 4.2.2020. Athens ETNA + NCP

Academy

On-site

training

32. L&F Basics in H2020 and HEU 25.3.2020. Online Instituto de Salud

Carlos III Webinar

33. Introducing the Horizon

Dashboard 25.3.2020. Online NCP Academy Webinar

34. Best practice examples on how to

use the Horizon Dashboard 28.5.2020. Online DLR-PT Webinar

35. Inclusiveness In European R&I

Partnership Programmes 9.6.2020. Online

NCP_WIDE.NET &

NCP Academy Webinar

36. Legal and Financial Basic Features

in Horizon Europe (2nd Edition) 24.6.2020. Online

ISC III & NCP

Academy Webinar

37. The revamped Horizon Results

Platform 30.6.2020. Online DLR-PT Webinar

38.

Best practice examples on how to

use the Horizon Dashboard

(second webinar)

2.7.2020. Online DLR-PT Webinar

39.

European Partnerships – state of

play and next steps towards their

launch

3.9.2020. Online FFG Webinar

40. Digital moderation and virtual

meeting design 8.9.2020. Online

Technology Centre

CAS Webinar

of 255



meeting design (2nd webinar) 25.9.2020. Online

Technology Centre

CAS Webinar

42.

Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs:

How to effectively manage online

trainings and events (pt. I) –

Webinars and online trainings –

tools how to make them more

interactive

28.9.2020. Online FFG & NCP

Academy Webinar

43.



trainings and events (pt. II) –

Virtual tools for engaging

workshops – how to use online

whiteboard tools


Academy Webinar

44.



trainings and events (pt. III) –

Organisation of virtual

matchmaking events


Academy Webinar


meeting design (3rd webinar) 9.10.2020. Online

Technology Centre

CAS Webinar

46.



trainings and events (2nd training

cycle pt. I) – Webinars and online

trainings – tools how to make

them more interactive


Academy Webinar

47. Lump Sum: A practical approach

from first pilot experiences 20.10.2020. Online

Instituto de Salud

Carlos III Webinar

48.




cycle pt. II) – Virtual tools for

engaging workshops – how to use

online whiteboard tools


Academy Webinar


meeting design (4th webinar) 23.10.2020. Online

Technology Centre

CAS Webinar

50.




cycle pt. III) – Organisation of

virtual matchmaking events


Academy Webinar

51.


use the Horizon Dashboard –

Training III


of 255


52.

NCP2NCP: sharing working –

Good practice and thinking about

what we would need for the

future?

29.10.2020. Online APRE, FCT, IPPT

PAN Webinar

53. SDG: Policy Framework and

Impact Logic for Horizon Europe 30.10.2020. Online FCT/ANI - PT Webinar

of 255


Quantitative analysis

Overall, the feedback analysis conducted for 51 events revealed that trainings were very successful and

well received among the NCP community, no matter the type or topic. Only three events held in the

project´s lifespan were graded with an average mark below 4. Altogether, 51 on-site trainings, meet and

exchange workshops and webinars were analysed based on the feedback data collected from

participants on the standardised NCP Academy feedback forms.

The purpose of the quantitative analysis was to determine the level of participants’ satisfaction according

to three categories: overall satisfaction with the event, satisfaction with practical relevance of the event

and satisfaction with the organisation of the event so we could make a comprehensive comparison of all

evaluated events.

Participants were offered 5-degree scales in the feedback questionnaires:

very satisfied

satisfied

neither satisfied nor unsatisfied

not satisfied

not satisfied at all.

For the presentation purpose, the scale is reversed so the highest mark is 5.

The information on the level of satisfaction is presented in the charts below. Evaluated events are located

on the vertical axis and the horizontal axis shows a scale from 1 to 5. We presented the event comparison

according to the 3 categories of quantitative analysis.

of 255


Comprehensive comparative overview of the events (per category of question)

Chart 5: Comparative overview – overall satisfaction

Overall satisfaction of the participants with the trainings conducted in the project is very high. Most of the

evaluated events in this category (33 of them) received excellent marks (> 4,5).

4,814,11

4,604,35

4,894,66

4,814,68

4,104,30

4,474,75

4,564,05

4,333,64

4,534,744,75

4,444,00

5,005,00

4,454,73

4,604,53

4,784,65

4,044,08

4,174,75

3,974,48

4,634,19

4,684,46

4,953,62

4,644,77

4,634,574,604,59

4,894,86

4,353,86

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00

Masterclass on Proposal Writing and interactive training…Personnel Costs in Horizon 2020: application of rules in…

Share your favourite training methods!

Crash course on Data management plan

Third parties and cascade funding in Horizon 2020

‘Cross-cutting issues’ in Horizon 2020: FOCUS on Gender and …What is Widening and its impact in a view of Horizon Europe?

Masterclass on Proposal Writing

Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects

Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects and related IPR issues

Meet & Exchange Workshop on NCP mentoirng and twinning…Training on Legal and Financial Aspects

Advanced Train-the-trainer for Legal & Finance NCPs

International R&I cooperation: Horizon 2020 and the world

Learnings on EIC prizes – An NCP perspective

Responsible Research and Innovation – RRI

Advanced info on INCO with special focus on thematic areas of…Meet & Exchange workshop: International Cooperation in…

NCP Academy Webinar: Pathfinder (FET) Opportunities in EIC –…Building networks & sharing ideas – What an NCP should know …

Lump-Sum in Horizon 2020 and the future of Lump Sum Pilot…Joint RICH-2 & NUCL_EU2020 Training on Project Impact,…

Proposal preparation, proposal check

Training on Proposal Writing and Interactive Training Methods

H2020 financial reporting and audits (ADVANCED)

Ready to grow – the Ideal-ist Topic Tree

Enhanced EIC Pilot 2019-2020 towards Horizon

Training on ‘Workshop Interaction Design’Proposal Writing Training

Introducing the Horizon Dashboard

L&F Basics in H2020 and HEU

Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard

Inclusiveness In European R&I Partnership Programmes

Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe (2nd…The revamped Horizon Results Platform

Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard -…European Partnerships – state of play and next steps towards …

Digital moderation and virtual meeting design

Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (2nd)

Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage …Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage …Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage …

Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (3rd)

Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage …Lump Sum: A practical approach from first pilot experiences

Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage …Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (4th)

Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage …Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard -…

NCP2NCP: sharing working Good practice and thinking about…SDG: Policy Framework and Impact Logic for Horizon Europe

Overall satisfaction

of 255


Chart 6: Comparative overview – practical relevance

When it comes to the practical relevance of the trainings, the satisfaction of the participants is again

quite high: 22 of them received very good marks (< 4,5) in this category, while the rest of them received

excellent marks (> 4,5).

4,813,95

4,604,31

4,534,77

4,624,77

4,254,30

4,244,67

4,633,89

4,003,46

4,434,65

4,754,34

3,984,884,93

4,414,91

4,844,47

4,894,59

4,464,28

4,004,67

4,094,24

4,794,26

4,464,54

5,003,62

4,434,734,74

4,704,30

4,554,784,76

4,043,71

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00





































Practical relevance

of 255


Chart 7: Comparative overview – organisation

As for the previous categories, the same is valid for the organisation of trainings – participants are very

satisfied with the organisation with only 13 of them receiving very good grades (< 4,5) while the rest of

them received excellent grades (> 4,5).

4,674,26

4,654,794,824,81

4,764,82

4,554,60

4,714,96

4,754,26

3,714,21

4,644,83

4,254,78

4,534,885,00

4,644,914,88

4,724,89

4,763,963,96

4,334,83

3,754,38

4,534,33

4,784,58

5,004,23

4,864,82

4,894,50

4,704,50

5,004,90

4,424,57

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00





































Organisation

of 255


The following chart represents a comparative overview of all analysed capacity building activities in the

NCP Academy project according to events average marks.

Chart 8: Comprehensive comparative overview of events average marks

4,764,11

4,624,49

4,754,744,734,76

4,304,404,47

4,794,65

4,074,02

3,774,53

4,744,58

4,524,17

4,924,98

4,504,85

4,774,57

4,854,67

4,154,114,17

4,753,94

4,374,65

4,264,64

4,534,98

3,824,64

4,774,75

4,594,534,55

4,894,84

4,274,05

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00





































Comprehensive comparative overview of events average marks

of 255


Analysis of results per format of the training

The analysis of the results per format of the training revealed that there are some differences in the level

of satisfaction according to the format of the training. Based on the analysis of 51 events, we can

conclude that participants slightly prefer on-site training formats, in particular: On-site Training in regard

to Meet & Exchange workshops or Webinar format. The situation is represented in the following charts:

Chart 9: Analysis of results per format of the training – overall satisfaction

Chart 10: Analysis of results per format of the training – practical relevance

Chart 11: Analysis of results per format of the training – organisation

4,68

4,41

4,53

1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00

On-site Trainings

Webinars

Meet & Exchange


– overall satisfaction

4,68

4,37

4,42

1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00

On-site Trainings

Webinars

Meet & Exchange


– practical relevance

4,80

4,53

4,64

1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00

On-site Trainings

Webinars

Meet & Exchange


– organisation

of 255


After comparing the level of satisfaction with the format of events, we wanted to compare the individual

events within their respective formats per category of question. The following charts represent a

comparative overview of events within the on-site training format by category of questions.

Chart 12: Comparative overview of results within the on-site training format – overall satisfaction

4,66

4,81

4,68

4,30

4,75

4,56

4,53

5,00

5,00

4,45

4,73

4,78

4,65

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00

‘Cross-cutting issues’ in Horizon 2020: FOCUS on Gender and Open data (advanced level) particularly for RI Projects

What is Widening and its impact in a view of Horizon

Europe?


Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects and related IPR

issues

Training on Legal and Financial Aspects


Advanced info on INCO with special focus on thematic

areas of Horizon 2020

Joint RICH-2 & NUCL_EU2020 Training on Project Impact,

Framework Programs and Financial Issues


Training on Proposal Writing and Interactive Training

Methods


Training on ‘Workshop Interaction Design’

Proposal Writing Training

Comparative overview of results within the on-site training format –overall satisfaction

of 255


Chart 13: Comparative overview of results within the on-site training format – practical relevance

4,77

4,62

4,77

4,30

4,67

4,63

4,43

4,88

4,93

4,41

4,91

4,89

4,59

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00



Europe?



issues









Methods




Comparative overview of results within the on-site training format –practical relevance

of 255


Chart 14: Comparative overview of results within the on-site training format – organisation

4,81

4,76

4,82

4,60

4,96

4,75

4,64

4,88

5,00

4,64

4,91

4,89

4,76

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00



Europe?



issues









Methods




Comparative overview of results within the on-site training format –organisation

of 255


The following charts reveal comparative analysis of events within the webinar format by category of

questions. The situation is as follows:

Chart 15: Comparative overview of results within the online training format – overall satisfaction

4,60

4,35

4,89

4,10

4,05

4,33

3,64

4,75

4,44

4,00

4,60

4,04

4,08

4,17

4,75

3,97

4,48

4,63

4,19

4,68

4,46

4,95

3,62

4,64

4,77

4,63

4,57

4,60

4,59

4,89

4,86

4,35

3,86

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00








NCP Academy Webinar: Pathfinder (FET) Opportunities in EIC –…

Building networks & sharing ideas – What an NCP should know …

Lump-Sum in Horizon 2020 and the future of Lump Sum Pilot in…






Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe (2nd Edition)

The revamped Horizon Results Platform

Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard -…

European Partnerships – state of play and next steps towards …



Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online …





Lump Sum: A practical approach from first pilot experiences


Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (4th)



NCP2NCP: sharing working Good practice and thinking about…

SDG: Policy Framework and Impact Logic for Horizon Europe

Comparative overview of results within the online training format –overall satisfaction

of 255


Chart 16: Comparative overview of results within the online training format – practical relevance

4,60

4,31

4,53

4,25

3,89

4,00

3,46

4,75

4,34

3,98

4,84

4,46

4,28

4,00

4,67

4,09

4,24

4,79

4,26

4,46

4,54

5,00

3,62

4,43

4,73

4,74

4,70

4,30

4,55

4,78

4,76

4,04

3,71

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50


































Comparative overview of results within the online training format –practical relevance

of 255


Chart 17: Comparative overview of results within the online training format – organisation

4,65

4,79

4,82

4,55

4,26

3,71

4,21

4,25

4,78

4,53

4,88

3,96

3,96

4,33

4,83

3,75

4,38

4,53

4,33

4,78

4,58

5,00

4,23

4,86

4,82

4,89

4,50

4,70

4,50

5,00

4,90

4,42

4,57

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00


































Comparative overview of results within the online training format –organisation

of 255


The following charts reveal comparative analysis of events within the meet & exchange training format by

category of questions:

Chart 18: Comparative overview of results within the meet & exchange training format – overall satisfaction

Chart 19: Comparative overview of results within the meet & exchange training format – practical relevance

4,81

4,11

4,47

4,74

4,53

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00

Masterclass on Proposal Writing and interactive training

methods

Personnel Costs in Horizon 2020: application of rules in

different EU Member States

Meet & Exchange Workshop on NCP mentoring and

twinning schemes

Meet & Exchange workshop: International Cooperation in

Horizon 2020


Comparative overview of results within the meet & exchange training

format – overall satisfaction

4,81

3,95

4,24

4,65

4,47

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00


methods




twinning schemes


Horizon 2020



format – practical relevance

of 255


Chart 20: Comparative overview of results within the meet & exchange training format – organisation

4,67

4,26

4,71

4,83

4,72

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50


methods




twinning schemes


Horizon 2020



format – organisation

of 255


Analysis results per module

If we take a look at the analysis results per module of training (Legal and financial issues of European

Framework Programmes for R&I, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) + Cross-cutting Issues (CCI),

Widening and synergies, Innovation & SMEs, New developments and further topics of relevance and NCP

soft skills) the situation is as follows:

Chart 21: Analysis results per module – overall satisfaction

Chart 22: Analysis results per module – practical relevance

4,47

4,23

4,67

4,54

4,10

4,57

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00

Legal and financial issues of European

Framework Programmes for R&I

Responsible Research and Innovation

(RRI) + Cross-cutting Issues (CCI)

Widening and synergies

Innovation &SMEs

New developments and further topics of

relevance

NCP soft skills

Analysis results per module – overall satisfaction

4,46

4,20

4,54

4,41

3,88

4,55

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00






Innovation &SMEs


relevance

NCP soft skills

Analysis results per module – practical relevance

of 255


Chart 23: Analysis results per module – organisation

Based on the results we collected and analysed, it is clear that trainings within Module 3 Widening and

synergies and Module 6 NCP soft skills were rated with the highest marks. After comparing the level of

satisfaction with training modules per category of questions we wanted to compare the individual events

within their respective modules. The following charts represent a comparative overview of individual

events within their respective modules based on their average marks:

Chart 24: Comparative overview of events average marks within the module 1: Legal and financial issues of European Framework

Programmes for R&I

4,56

4,55

4,79

4,23

4,50

4,67

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00






Innovation &SMEs


relevance

NCP soft skills

Analysis results per module – organisation

4,11

4,75

4,40

4,79

4,65

4,74

4,17

4,92

4,85

4,11

3,94

4,59

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00

Personnel Costs in Horizon 2020: application of rules in different…





Meet & Exchange workshop: International Cooperation in…


Joint RICH-2 & NUCL_EU2020 Training on Project Impact,…





Comparative overview of events average marks within the module 1: Legal and

financial issues of European Framework Programmes for R&I

of 255


Chart 25: Comparative overview of events average marks within the module 2: Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) +

Cross-cutting Issues (CCI)

Chart 26: Comparative overview of events average marks within the module 3: Widening and synergies

Chart 27: Comparative overview of events average marks within the module 4: Innovation & SMEs

4,49

4,74

4,30

4,40

4,07

3,77

4,53

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00


‘Cross-cutting issues’ in Horizon 2020: FOCUS on Gender …


Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects and related IPR…



Advanced info on INCO with special focus on thematic…

Comparative overview of events average marks within the module 2: Responsible

Research and Innovation (RRI) + Cross-cutting Issues (CCI)

4,73

4,52

4,75

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00


Europe?

Building networks & sharing ideas – What an NCP should

know about COST!


Comparative overview of events average marks within the module 3: Widening and

synergies

4,02

4,58

4,57

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00




Comparative overview of events average marks within the module 4: Innovation &

SMEs

of 255


Chart 28: Comparative overview of events average marks within the module 5: New developments and further topics of

relevance – event comparison

Chart 29: Comparative overview of events average marks within the module 6: NCP soft skills

4,27

4,05

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50

NCP2NCP: sharing working Good practice and thinking about what

we would need for future?


Comparative overview of events average marks within the module 5: New

developments and further topics of relevance

4,76

4,62

4,76

4,47

4,98

4,50

4,77

4,85

4,67

4,15

4,17

4,37

4,65

4,26

4,64

4,53

4,98

3,82

4,64

4,77

4,75

4,53

4,55

4,89

4,84

1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50

Masterclass on Proposal Writing and interactive training methods



Meet & Exchange Workshop on NCP mentoring and twinning…






















Comparative overview of events average marks within the module 6: NCP soft skills

of 255


Event cards – analysis of individual trainings



Date 3-4.10.2018.

Place Brussels

Organiser C-Energy H2020 and NCP Academy

Main content Proposal writing advanced, proposal checking, sharing experiences with interactive training

methods Number of participants 22

Response rate 95 %

Trainers Astrid Hoebertz ׀ Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG)

Module 6. NCP Skills

Average mark (5 highest mark) 4,76

Analysis of participants & feedback

Masterclass on Proposal Writing and interactive training methods analysis of the participants engaged in

the training showed that 59 % of them were women and 41 % of them were men. Most of the participants

came from the EU-15 countries (55 %), followed by EU-13 countries (32 %) and Associated Countries

(14 %). Keeping in mind the subject of training, its purpose and the target group, understandably, the most

of the NCPs who participated in this training, cover the areas of Secure, Clean and Efficient Energy and

Euratom (76 %) and have a working experience of up to 3 years (66 %).

An overall average grade is excellent (4,76).

Chart 30: Masterclass on Proposal Writing and interactive training methods – gender structure

59%

41%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 31: Masterclass on Proposal Writing and interactive training methods – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 32: Masterclass on Proposal Writing and interactive training methods – NCPs’ area of expertise

Chart 33: Masterclass on Proposal Writing and interactive training methods – level of experience of NCPs

55%

32%

14%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Geographical coverage of the

participants

2%

54%

10%

2%

5%

2%

2%

22 %

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Legal and finance

SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

9%

57%

9%

13%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Less than 1 year of NCP…

Between 1 and 3 years…



More than 10 years

Level of experience of NCPs

of 255


Chart 34: Masterclass on Proposal Writing and interactive training methods – feedback chart

Suggestions/comments/remarks participants gave in the open-ended type of questions

Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d

interactive methods used in this Master Class;

group work, warm-up games, brain walk;

Location (setting) was perfect. Astrid, Helen and Georgious were pros. Registration and timing were

perfect (before the Energy Brokerage event). I thank you for the opportunity to come and meet with the

other NCPs.

discussion and sharing of experience;

the practical aspects of the training;

interactive part, exchange with other NCPs;

including possibilities to adapt exercises to training workshops we need to give;

timing, brain walk;

cosy atmosphere, organisers corresponded quickly and seemed to care, good group size and dynamic; very

practical approach to the subject, nice workshops;

the way to explain arguments, availability of trainer, topics of the training;

moving around the room and working with different groups;

the interactive exercises; They can be used during the national events.

the example of a successful project, practical tips.

the discussion with others, positive and encouraging atmosphere;

the warm-up exercises, having answers immediately after each topic covered;

Interactions help promote more communication.

the interactive exercises;

the interactive elements;

the combination of exercises and presentation, also hearing from NCP colleagues on how they work,

getting ideas on how to run a training – interactive ideas in particular;

The exercises complemented each other – there was a clear ‘red thread’ through the … training. Learning from other NCPs’ experience.

81%

81%

67%

19%

19%

33%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart

1. Very satisfied 2. Satisfied 3. Neither satisfied or unsatisfied

4. Not satisfied 5. Not satisfied at all 6. Missing response

of 255


Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

the way I am checking proposals;

the real cases of good and bad proposals in the following aspects: Innovation potential, Innovation

Management, Risk management, Methodology, exploitation plans, Innovative MNG procedures; bad

proposals that have been approved but have not been funded;

salty snacks, water – not wasting time at the beginning (irrelevant topics in the first 2 hours) – should

have been better left for the last 2 hours; other training companies to be involved;

knowledge about writing …;

Input from the EC officer was a little bit difficult to follow, what was the purpose?

just minor: agenda got published a bit late;

Go in depth.

Confirm Venue earlier, prepare the sound for videos.

More time to talk about how we do the proposal check in our everyday job (talk between us).

Some steps could have been a bit faster.

seating arrangement – not easy for those near the end of the table to see the screen;

more examples, an evaluator present.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y

eve

nts

H2020 project management tools, How to prepare budgets under H2020 proposals?

PCP /PPI instrument, EJP instrument;

this was really strong – could see other NCPs research on coordination, examples. Protecting and

representing NCPs interests vs. Committees and state organisations;

How to promote the organisation on Participants’ Portal?

next framework period;

maybe outlook, discussion on Horizon Europe process;

efficiently communicating feedback (for proposal checks);

date MGT, ETRisc MTH, Exploitation/Innovation, Business plan;

How does the evaluation process work? How do evaluators approach proposals? Horizon Europe – NCPs;

the evaluation of an experts’ review and scoring process, working with templates;

train the trainer, trainings with EC/policy officer about specific topics/FAQ;

financial and IPR issues;

RRI;

KPIs use, TRL how to define, best practice;

GDPR, finance.

of 255


Lessons learnt and impressions from event organiser relevant for next events

Sanna Alaranta, Task leader for Trainings, C-Energy 2020:

Positive points: one very experienced main trainer Astrid, who kept the training ‘on track’ the whole time and managed to reach

all the objectives set. I especially liked how our trainer managed to keep the training as one complete ‘story’ from beginning to end

and always discussing and giving feedback on the exercises. Creating a good and interactive atmosphere for the training from the

start was achieved, thanks to the warm-up.

Points for improvement: It is a challenge to find a suitable venue in Brussels, even if Brussels is generally ideal to organise back-to-

back trainings. Would be better if the organisers could check the venue beforehand (not always possible). The first session with the

EC speaker was a mistake, but beyond our control and all we could do was damage control (nothing to do with NCP Academy).

Would have been better to have just the Masterclass and perhaps a session for a discussion on burning issues for the NCPs.

Helen Fairclough, Team member for Trainings C-Energy 2020:

I agree with Sanna’s comments. In my view, the training offered something for experienced and inexperienced NCPs as it combined

sharing of best practice, coaching on training techniques and reinforcement of knowledge on proposal writing. The combination

of the external trainer and the opportunity for NCPs to contribute was effective and it is positive that the knowledge of the NCP

network is being harnessed through this approach.

Astrid Hoebertz, Trainer NCP Academy:

The masterclass was successful, and it worked well to combine proposal writing with the topic of interactive training methods. Just

to train on proposal elements would not have been interesting for more experienced NCPs. The combination with interactive

training methods to use for their own workshops, and to leave a lot of room for exchange of NCP practices was a good addition.

This joint approach should also be used for future trainings on proposal writing, in order to appeal to all levels of NCPs.

Possible improvement:

The trainer should have a clear knowledge of the venue (pictures beforehand for example) in order to plan the training

content and exercises. This time a lot of things had to be decided spontaneously and flexibly, which might be too

challenging for less experienced trainers.

If possible, the focus should be entirely on proposal writing (no other additions, like this time with an EC officer on a call

topic), confuses people.

To have a trainer who is NOT an NCP for the theme was a good idea – gives more of an ‘outside’ perspective, and adds for a

fruitful exchange and an open mind.

of 255


Personnel Costs in Horizon 2020: application of rules in different EU Member States

Personnel Costs in Horizon 2020: application of rules in different EU Member States

Date 15.10.2018.

Place Brussels

Organiser NCP Academy

Main content

Exchange of lessons learned in the application of rules for personnel costs in H2020 to

contribute to finding common grounds for design of rules for personnel costs in Horizon

Europe

Number of participants 30

Response rate 63 %

Trainers Lenka Chvojková ׀ TC CAS

Module 1. Legal & Financial



Personnel Costs in Horizon 2020: application of rules in different EU Member States analysis of the

participants showed that female participants were the majority in this event. Most of the participants

came from the EU-15 countries (57 %), followed by EU-13 countries (30 %) and Associated Countries

(13 %), and all of them cover only Legal and financial area of Horizon 2020 and most of them (70 %) have

more than 3 years of experience.

An overall average grade is very good (4,11).

Chart 35: Personnel Costs in Horizon 2020: application of rules in different EU Member States – gender structure

63%

37%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 36: Personnel Costs in Horizon 2020: application of rules in different EU Member States – geographical coverage of the

participants

Chart 37: Personnel Costs in Horizon 2020: application of rules in different EU Member States – NCPs’ area of expertise

Chart 38: Personnel Costs in Horizon 2020: application of rules in different EU Member States – NCPs’ level of experience

57%

30%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC


participants

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Legal and finance

NCPs' areas

7%

23%

20%

20%

30%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%





More than 10 years


of 255


Chart 39: Personnel Costs in Horizon 2020: application of rules in different EU Member States – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d

the moderation, the fact that EC was present;

the warm feelings and open discussions with colleagues;

Agenda & Content, Open collaborative approach;

the exchange of opinions;

questionnaire – overview;

the discussion in groups with common interests;

group work;

group work & discussion;

group work exercises;

group discussion;

All the information exchange. It was very useful to know the practices of other countries & institutions.

open discussions, different opinions;

the intention to provide a general overview;

the comparison between countries.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

the speakers’ presentations (some of them);

EC could be more active (e.g. presentations).

Make it shorter.

instructions: more clear;

the creation of groups, task description;

more precise instructions on forming the groups;

to be able to bring the information on the discussions beforehand (to be prepared);

the two group exercises were too similar;

Fix the groups in advance :).

more detailed info on what is on the table for HE.

42%

37%

53%

32%

32%

32%

21%

21%

5%

5%

11%

11%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255


Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

How to assist the applicants in proposal writing? How to help actors to find a consortium?

the changes from Horizon 2020 to Horizon Europe, best practices;

Horizon Europe best ideas on how to improve the programme;

the experiences with Audits of Horizon 2020 projects;

open access;

a dedicated event for countries that have a problem with the project-based remuneration system;

subcontracting, third parties;

GA negotiation – what information can P.O. (project officer) ask for? Horizon Europe;

HE R+P, HE L&F, MGA.


Positive points: the possibility to meet and discuss (including warm and informal atmosphere) was welcomed by all L&F NCPs

(there is not enough space for discussion during official NCP meetings with the EC), the choice of topic was relevant in time

(preparation of the HEU) and therefore the opinion of L&F NCPs was interesting also for the Commission (which is one of the

purposes of the NCP Academy); there are very different practices in EU countries concerning personnel costs which was both a

positive and a negative aspect – it was beneficial for everybody to learn what is going on in different countries, many NCPs

could find inspiration in different countries but at the same time some issues that are vitally important for some countries are

not important for other countries at all and therefore some NCPs could have a feeling that the event was not beneficial for

them. However, it was the purpose of the event, to find differences and similarities and to find out that everybody has

different/same problems and that is the reason why H2020 rules are so complex. The differences will remain and therefore have

to be taken into account even in HEU.

Points for improvement: the timing and leading of the discussion is crucial – L&F NCPs have many issues to discuss and it is

important for the organiser to take control over the time and the issue (which was sometimes a problem at the event); giving

clear instructions for group discussion is important – there were two group discussions which overlapped, it would be better to

have only one or clearly define the difference between the two group discussions to avoid duplications (which was not the case

at the event and therefore many issues that were planned to be discussed in the second part were already covered in the first

part and it was confusing); creation of groups needs to be prepared in advance and it is important to take into account that

some of the registered participants will not participate (the use of interactive methods for creation of groups was probably not

well prepared and thus instead of being welcomed by participants it was considered as chaotic).

of 255




Date 25.10.2018.

Place Online


Main content As inspiration for the design of your national training courses, favourite interactive

training methods will be shared.


Response rate 80 %

Trainers Melanie Buescher ׀ Brain2Business




The analysis of the participants of the training Share your favourite training methods! showed that female

participants were the majority in this event. Most of the participants came from the EU-15 countries

(44 %), followed by Associated Countries (28 %) and EU-13 countries (24 %). Most of the NCPs present at

the training cover European Research Council area (17 %), Legal and finance area (11 %) and Inclusive,

innovative and reflective societies (11 %). Most of them have up to 5 years of experience (57 %).

An overall average grade of the event is excellent (4,62).

Chart 40: Share your favourite training methods! – gender structure

84%

16%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 41: Share your favourite training methods! – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 42: Share your favourite training methods! – NCPs’ area of expertise

44%

24%

28%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

17%

3%

6%

3%

3%

6%

9%

9%

6%

3%

3%

11%

3%

11%

6%

3%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%




Information & Communication…

Nano, new materials

Space

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance

Coordinator

SWAFS

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 43: Share your favourite training methods! – NCPs’ level of expertise

Chart 44: Share your favourite training methods! – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d

concrete exercises, perfectly working connection and technology :);

the huge variety of methods to activate the participants of our trainings; Thank you for sharing.

innovative format – i.e. webinar format;

getting new ideas for methods;

the learning from each other, that everyone contributed;

that this webinar was interactive;

all the Inspiration I got;

new small ideas that can make a one-to-all classical training into something dynamic, and probably also

to stick for a longer time in the memory;

to hear each other's contributions.

33%

24%

24%

14%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%




More than 10 years

Not NCP


70%

70%

75%

20%

20%

15%

10%

10%

10%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255


Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

more time, make it longer;

It would be interesting to see the contributions/questions from other participants in the Chat.

Give it a little bit more time – I would have liked to go a little further into detail on some of the presented

methods.

Stay in the time limit (I know it is not easy!)

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

‘What information is relevant for a business plan in proposals?’ (asked for in Proposal template, chapter

2.2);

What is Innovation Management? Which information is needed to show effective Innovation

Management in the proposal? (see Proposal template, chapter 3.2);

How to motivate, encourage the proposers to apply?

How to organise info days?


Planning an online meet & exchange workshop needs more time in preparation compared to a normal webinar where you

simply give information, e.g. what are the expectations of the trainer and what is possible within the tool in use. It is important

to clearly specify the roles of each person involved. My impression was, that the participants appreciated the webinar as most

of them were actively participating. The trainer expected input from every participant, but we only received 11 templates with

training methods and had 25 participants. The time frame for this webinar was too short!

of 255




Date 13.11.2018.

Place Online

Organiser NCP Academy in cooperation with FOSTER

Main content

The data management plan as an instrument to manage R&I data (open data approach) in

Horizon 2020 projects, how to establish a DMP, what an NCP and an applicant should

take into account, level: basic, Questions and answers session.


Response rate 65 %

Trainers

Michalis Tzatzanis ׀ Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG), Sarah Jones ׀ Digital Curation Centre Glasgow, Ivo Grigorov ׀ Foster – Open Science

Clinique in support of UN SDGs

Module 2. RRI + CCI

Submodule Open access and open data



The analysis of the participants of Crash course on Data management plan webinar revealed that female

participants were the majority in this event (73 %). Most of the participants came from the EU-15 countries

(67 %), followed by EU-13 countries (19 %) and Associated Countries (13 %). Most of the NCPs who

participated cover Legal and finance area (12 %), Research Infrastructures, including e-Infrastructures

(12 %), Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions (10 %) and Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry,

Marine, Maritime and Inland Water Research and the Bioeconomy (10 %) area of Horizon 2020. Most of

the participants have up to 5 years of experience.


Chart 45: Crash course on Data management plan – gender structure

73%

27%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 46: Crash course on Data management plan – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 47: Crash course on Data management plan – NCPs’ areas of expertise

67%

19%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

EU 15

EU 13

AC


participants

2%

2%

10%

12%

2%

4%

6%

2%

8%

10%

6%

2%

8%

4%

2%

12%

2%

2%

2%

2%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%






Nano, new materials

Space

Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance


Coordinator

SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 48: Crash course on Data management plan – NCPs’ level of experience

Chart 49: Crash course on Data management plan – feedback chart

19%

17%

23%

19%

11%

11%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Less than 1 year of NCP…Between 1 and 3 years…Between 3 and 5 years…

Between 5 and 10 years…More than 10 years

Not NCP


41%

41%

82%

53%

41%

15%

6%

12%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

6%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255


Suggestions/comments/remarks participants gave in the open-ended type of questions E

spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

the depth of the discussion of when to use a DMP, why it is relevant, and how to consider integrating it

into the proposal? This was helpful to hear.

MSCA-relevant examples were given (this is often missing, thanks!).

organisation, presenters’ knowledge and skills and the clarity of presentations;

the availability of supporting documents;

practical examples.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

The speed with which the presenters presented the slides was sometimes too fast. Plus, they sometimes

did not really explain some basics which would have been helpful. Most of us aren't that familiar with

DMPs, which is why we took part, and sometimes I just did not understand where the presenters were

coming from. They are experts and need to consider the familiarity of their audience with certain technical

issues.

I have the feeling that the information could be presented a bit more compressed. I guess that one hour

incl. Q&A session would have been sufficient.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

How to write an NCP Network proposal?

EIC;

IPR, Budget estimation;

the new ways of governance for the Implementation part;

lessons learned in H2020 (2014-2017) – might be different seminars for the 3 parts of the proposals;

lessons learned from real audited projects;

a business plan.


Gudrun Reisenauer, FFG, Austria:

Technical check with external speakers was definitely useful (explain the tool).

Michalis, FFG, Austria

Participants were reluctant to ask questions in the Q&A session, maybe prepare 1-2 questions from ‘friendly colleagues’ that

take part to start the ball rolling if the Q&A session is not taking off on its own.

of 255




Date 21.11.2018.

Place Online


Main content Overview of ‘third parties’ in Horizon 2020 projects, information on financial support to

third parties through project partners.


Response rate 56 %

Trainers Tamara-Katharina Mitiska ׀ Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) Module 1. Legal & Financial



The analysis of the participants of Third parties and cascade funding in Horizon 2020 webinar revealed that

female participants were the majority in this event (66 %). Most of the participants came from the EU-15

countries (78 %), followed by EU-13 countries (13 %) and Associated Countries (9 %). Most of the

registered NCPs cover Legal and finance area (17 %), Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing (14 %),

followed by Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry, Marine, Maritime and Inland Water

Research and the Bioeconomy, Secure, Clean and Efficient Energy and Climate Action, Environment,

Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials (11 %) area of Horizon 2020. Less experienced NCPs were the

majority in this event (40 % less than 3 years of working experience).


Chart 50: Third parties and cascade funding in Horizon 2020 – gender structure

66%

34%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 51: Third parties and cascade funding in Horizon 2020 – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 52: Third parties and cascade funding in Horizon 2020 – NCPs’ areas of expertise

Chart 53: Third parties and cascade funding in Horizon 2020 – NCPs’ level of experience

78%

13%

9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EU 15

EU 13

AC


participants

3%

3%

9%

3%

3%

14%

11%

11%

11%

9%

17%

6%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%




Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Climate


Legal and finance

SWAFS

NCPs' areas

9%

31%

16%

19%

16%

9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%



Not NCP


of 255


Chart 54: Third parties and cascade funding in Horizon 2020 – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d extremely good trainer!!!

the clear presentation of the different types and particularities of the third parties;

good overall information on the subject, a competent speaker;

graphics and overview charts;

the balance of information provided; sufficient depth, which option to ask follow-up questions; well-

organised information, also; comparative tables especially very helpful.

Wo

uld

imp

rove

less info – too much info where some crucial details are then not clear;

a few more examples to help the information come alive.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

funding and tender opportunities portal – the main differences from the PP;

ethics, SSH in ICT;

internal invoicing.

89%

56%

78%

11%

33%

17%

0%

6%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

6%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255


‘Cross-cutting issues’ in Horizon 2020: FOCUS on Gender and Open data (advanced level)



Date 21.-22.11.2018.

Place Lisbon

Organiser RICH Network and NCP Academy (Experts from GenderAction and Open Air)

Main content

Visit research vessels (1/2 day) and focus on gender issues in Horizon 2020 and research

projects (1/2 day) Open Science – Focus on Open data (1/2 day), NCP networking in cross-

cutting issues (1/2 day)


Response rate 89 %

Trainers

Maxime Forest ׀ Yelow Window, Pedro Principe ׀ OpenAIRE, Alea López de San Román | European Commission, Konstantinos Repanas | EOSC, European Commission, Marisa

Borges | NCP SWAFS Portugal, Izabela Rottmann | Max Planck Institute for Radio

Astronomy, Suanne Dumouchel | Deutsches Historisches Institut Paris

Module 2. RRI + CCI



The participants’ analysis of the training ‘Cross-cutting issues’ in Horizon 2020: FOCUS on Gender and Open

data (advanced level) particularly for RI Projects revealed that male participants were the majority in this

event (53 %). Most of the participants came from the EU-15 countries (53 %) and Associated Countries

(26 %). Most of the registered NCPs cover Research Infrastructures, including e-Infrastructures area (57 %)

and have working experience as NCPs between 1 and 5 years (65 %).

This event consisted of three different training sessions on the Gender issue, Open science and Responsible

Research and Innovation, which were evaluated separately. An overall average grade of the event is

excellent (4,74). Gender topic was graded with an excellent mark (4,91), Open science with an excellent

mark (4,53) and RRI with an excellent mark (4,78).

Chart 55: ‘Cross-cutting issues’ in Horizon 2020: FOCUS on Gender and Open data (advanced level) particularly for RI Projects –

gender structure

47%53%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255



geographical coverage of the participants


NCPs’ areas of expertise


NCPs’ level of experience

53%

11%

26%

11%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

4%

4%

57%

4%

4%

4%

4%

9%

4%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%




Information & Communication…Space

Health

Energy

Security

Legal and finance


NCPs' areas

10%

30%

35%

20%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%





More than 10 years


of 255



Gender training – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d

the enthusiastic presentation on the vessel, vivid male presentation;

the speakers, practical example;

the Gender workshop – it was much more than a woman vs man, it was just gender. Very interesting

lecture. Maxime Forest!

the attitude and skills of the trainer;

the identified and highlighted challenges we face in the gender issues;

the exercises on Gender balance issues;

Maxime Forest’s session;

the interaction;

the overall presentation;

gender mainstreams, vessel visit;

that the theoretical training was coupled with real-life practice;

the many interactive activities.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

the participation, the timing of the workshop (closing with a major RI event); also the preparation of the

audience ahead of the event and the participation of the proposers;

the presentation´s part concerned the development application, the testing (as a process was relevant to

the proposal);

more examples with best practices on implementation of Gender balance in projects;

catering – dinner – the material distributed;

on case studies as examples;

the practical session – more examples;

slide presentation;

the total duration of the training;

76%

88%

76%

12%

0%

12%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

12%

12%

12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255


Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

L&F, IPR management;

among the cross-cutting issues – the science communication;

topics connected with Horizon Europe; different approaches, the structure of programme etc.

stakeholders’ engagement;

security, climate change;

global issues (climate changes), security;

networking, consortium building;

ethics.


Open science training – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d

the data management plans explanations, very practical;

the participation of KOM, good practice example;

active EC speakers;

the possibility of direct communication with persons involved in the project and the first-hand information;

All presentations are very useful and informative.

the introduction of the existing … source;

Pedro Principe’s session;

the EC participation;

the presentation, very concrete.

41%

59%

59%

35%

24%

29%

12%

6%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

12%

12%

12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255


Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

more time to share experience between the NCPs;

the participation preparation, the timing & the concrete examples, the participation of the proposers;

The topic is very important, but the sessions were a bit too long/dry. An active workshop such as building

OMP, playing with the online tools would have been more productive.

DMP presentation a bit too unfocused + too long;

the weird session with three persons;

more practical examples, more interactive sessions;

the communication and interactive component while organising the info - / training days for the national

clients;

more practical information on current state and problems faced;

N/A

catering – more concrete examples;

the examples used regarding DMP;

time management; This was a very long session.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

EOSC – how it will support the goal of open science;

L&F, IPR management;

the access to policy for Open Data;

… EOSC and global aspect of OSC;

networking, consortium building;

stakeholders’ engagement.

Chart 61: ‘Cross-cutting issues’ in Horizon 2020: FOCUS on Gender and Open data (advanced level) particularly for RI Projects – RI

training – feedback chart

82%

88%

88%

12%

0%

12%

6%

6%

0%

0%

6%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

the speakers, open forum for discussion, moderation and exercises;

the practical example;

It was interactive and very important.

the speaker;

the review of RRI tools available on the internet;

Marisa;

work in small groups + good summarising of the whole puzzle;

the trainer;

the interactive mode of training;

exercise and discussions around it;

all the presentations…;

the active moderator;

interactivity;

the Marisa Borges´ approach;

the puzzle part.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

the participation preparation, concrete example, IA spend more time on RRI toolkit;

better explaining in advance the goal of the exercise we were doing in groups;

the priority in the whole programme;

this approach in my work;

I enjoyed the approach.

Please do not show websites or toolkits and let us watch you telling us how good this is. It is better if the

trainees have something to do, some tasks. Maybe a little bit more structure would be useful. First a short

presentation, then interactivity (see gender training which was really good).

more time for this session;

This was too late in the afternoon.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

L & F, IPR management;

ethical issue;

networking, budgeting;

the issues of science education;

RRI vs disruptive technologies;

civil society;

governance and public engagement.


When collaborating with other networks, it should be clear from the beginning what the role of the NCP Academy is.

of 255


What is Widening and its impact in a view of Horizon Europe?

What is Widening and its impact in a view of Horizon Europe?

Date 6.-7.12.2018.

Place Warsaw

Organiser NCP Academy and NCP WIDE.net

Main content Political background, Impact of Widening measures, the future of Widening


Response rate 64 %

Trainers

Andrea Conte ׀ Joint Research Centre, Ewa Domke ׀ Institute of Fluid Flow Machinery –

Polish Academy of Science, Jaroslaw Piekarski ׀ Institute of Fundamental Technological

Research – Polish Academy of Science, Dr. Karina Firkavičiūtė ׀ policy officer

DG RTD

Module 3. Widening and synergies



The participants’ analysis of the training What is Widening and its impact in a view of Horizon Europe?

showed that female participants were the majority in this event (61 %). The majority of participants came

from the EU-13 countries (61 %), followed by EU-15 countries (30 %) and Associated Countries (9 %). Most

of the NCPs who participated cover Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation area of Horizon 2020

(47 %). Less experienced NCPs were the majority in this event (27 % less than 1 year of working experience,

24 % of the participants without an assigned NCP area).


Chart 62: What is Widening and its impact in a view of Horizon Europe? – gender structure

61%

39%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 63: What is Widening and its impact in a view of Horizon Europe? – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 64: What is Widening and its impact in a view of Horizon Europe? – NCPs’ areas of expertise

Chart 65: What is Widening and its impact in a view of Horizon Europe? – NCPs’ level of experience

30%

61%

9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

EU 15

EU 13

AC


participants

6%

3%

6%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

6%

47%

15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%





Nano, new materials


Innovation in SMEs

Food


Legal and finance


Coordinator

NCPs' areas

27%

15%

9%

24%

24%

0% 10% 20% 30%




More than 10 years

Not NCP


of 255


Chart 66: What is Widening and its impact in a view of Horizon Europe? – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d

countries’ case studies;

the presentations of widening projects and experiences/best practices of the NCPs;

the systematic approach and variety of speakers;

the interactive session;

the balanced programme with general info and good examples, very inspiring;

the quality of presentations;

the willingness of everyone to listen and engage in the topics;

the atmosphere.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

more presentations from project coordinators and more time for case studies at country level – time was

really pressing and we couldn’t follow;

I would suggest including a presentation of an advanced partner to show their perspective and their

experience in a widening project.

inviting an NCP from widening and non-widening countries to prepare their statistics and present them;

a little more time for discussion.

81%

62%

81%

19%

38%

14%

0%

0%

5%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



The big number of applications among participants proved that the topic is very relevant in the NCP Community. The NCPs

stressed during the workshop that thanks to a very broad approach to the topic they gained relevant knowledge and practical

experience towards Widening issues in Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe.

Further conclusions of the organisers are as follow:

a) Well planning in advance allows gaining top speakers from the EC and projects.

b) The organisation of the workshop in a hotel where participants can stay is a very practical solution and was

appreciated, especially in the cold period of the year.

c) Including site visit into the programme is a very relevant part of the training as it gives broad and practical

perspectives on the issues tackled – in this case, centre of excellence in a Widening country.

d) Optional and on a self-paid basis evening activity allows the organisers better planning of resources dedicated to

the training. However, evening activity is a must to ensure the proper atmosphere of the training.

e) The training plan should include well-balanced methodology, presenting the content such as site visit,

presentations, analysis of case studies, interactive sessions (e.g. brain walk exercise), group work, pitches, Q&A

session replying to cognitive requirements of all participants.

f) During the registration process, it is relevant to collect information on NCPs’ experience and expectations towards

the workshop in order to tune the content.

g) Keeping a positive and friendly atmosphere is a must.

of 255




Date 6.12.2018.

Place Brussels

Organiser NCPs Care and NCP Academy

Main content Proposal writing advanced, proposal checking, exchange of good practice


Response rate 88 %

Trainers Michalis Tzatzanis ׀ Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) Module 6. NCP Skills



The analysis of the participants of Masterclass on Proposal Writing training showed that female


(52 %), followed by EU-13 countries (24 %) and Associated Countries (20 %). Most of the NCPs who

participated in the training cover Climate Action, Environment, Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials area

(54 %) and most of them have working experience as NCPs up to 5 years (62 %).


Chart 67: Masterclass on Proposal Writing – gender structure

72%

28%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 68: Masterclass on Proposal Writing – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 69: Masterclass on Proposal Writing – NCPs’ areas of expertise

Chart 70: Masterclass on Proposal Writing – NCPs’ level of experience

52%

24%

20%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

4%

2%

4%

2%

2%

2%

2%

7%

7%

54%

2%

4%

2%

2%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%






Health

Food

Energy

Climate


Security


SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

4%

33%

25%

25%

13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%





More than 10 years


of 255


Chart 71: Masterclass on Proposal Writing – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y

lik

ed

the combination of presentation, interactive exercises, group discussion and icebreakers; the exchange of

good practices, experiences and tips, specific text to be evaluated, the experience of the trainer;

free atmosphere, large accommodation, excellent catering.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

the air quality of the room;

Select people according to their experience; name card for participants;

Perform evaluation on an anonymised proposal, more mixing of people with different exercises, training

over 2 days to have a look at the real SC5 proposal, or practical exercises on how to improve the impact

session, tips about adapting the training to different audiences, deepen the work on a real topic/call and

start its writing.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

managing a project, innovation management, business plan, IPR, financial aspects, Horizon Europe,

emphasis on NCP training from EAP region, implementation in detail, project management (after its

financing), impact session.

68%

77%

82%

32%

23%

18%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



Sanna, Luxinnovation, Luxembourg:

I was very happy with the training! The challenge was the very short timing after already 1-2 days in Brussels for most

participants.

The training was very well organised and the trainer Michalis is very experienced. I appreciated the way how Michalis shared

his own experience in a kind of storytelling way. The personal style of the trainer to include humour in the training is in my

opinion a good way to create a relaxed learning atmosphere. Exercises were relevant and useful, although we should have had

one last Skype meeting between ourselves to check we have the same idea (headstand exercise).

We weren’t always on time, but since the participants were not given the exact timing, it doesn’t matter. Overall, the training was a nice package following the same ‘red thread’ from the beginning to the end. There was plenty of room for discussions

that I think was an added value and people asked a lot of questions which is a good sign.

The venue was as optimal as one can have in Brussels; plenty of space and enough walls/ windows for all the exercises we had.

One participant suffered from the air quality that might have been triggered when the remaining food was brought to the room.

Michalis, FFG, Austria:

I am very satisfied how the training went. It was a double challenge for me a) to hold a proposal writing training in a time slot

of 7-8 hours and b) to have several very experienced, ‘veteran’ NCPs as participants. The group was really diverse with both

participants with over 10 years of experience and those with only a couple of months in the NCP business. However, the highly

interactive character of the training worked out well, including the expertise of the participants in the group discussions and

the exercises.

The timing was within the planned flexibility of the agenda, although the end time was revised to 16:30 on the previous evening!

The only thing that had to be shortened was the feedback session. The participants asked to work with an anonymised real

proposal, something that is foreseen in the proposal writing module of the NCP Academy, which had to be taken out in order

to shorten a two-day training under 8 hours. Of course, a two-day training was also not feasible under this circumstance because

the participants were already two days before in Brussels for their PC and NCP meetings.

The venue was excellent, with the only exception being that we could not open the windows to let some fresh air in during the

breaks. The overall preparation of the training and the cooperation with Luxinnovation was excellent, as was the organisation

of the host Belspo. Many thanks to both Sanna and Marieke for all their support!

of 255




Date 18.12.2018.

Place Online


Main content

Participants will learn what the standards are, why it is important to consider

standardisation from the conception of a Horizon 2020 project to project completion and,

in particular, the exploitation of project results, and what support is available at the

European and national level.


Response rate 56 %

Trainers

Astrid Hoebertz | Austrian Research Promotion (FFG), Luc Van den Bergh | CEN-CENELEC

Management Centre – European Committee for Standardisation, European Committee

for Electrotechnical Standardisation, Belgium

Module 2. RRI + CCI



The analysis of the participants of Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects webinar showed that female


(56 %), followed by Associated Countries (25 %) and EU-13 countries (19 %). The NCPs who participated in

the training cover wide areas of Horizon 2020 so most of the areas were fairly equally represented. This

event was mainly attended by NCPs with less work experience (less than 3 years).

An overall average grade of the event is very good (4,30).

Chart 72: Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects – gender structure

72%

28%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 73: Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 74: Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects – NCPs’ areas of expertise

Chart 75: Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects – NCPs’ level of expertise

56%

19%

25%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC


participants

2%

5%

5%

5%

10%

7%

5%

7%

17%

10%

5%

2%

7%

2%

2%

5%

2%

2%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%







Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance


SWAFS

NCPs' areas

14%

28%

17%

11%

17%

14%

0% 10% 20% 30%



Not NCP


of 255


Chart 76: Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d

the topic and the importance because we have received a lot of questions regarding standardisation;

practical information (the examples of projects, links to websites and where to search);

a clear explanation of terms that are sometimes confusing;

recommendations when preparing a proposal;

the degree of relevance to the various thematic priorities of H2020, how it related to the thematic priority

of interest (transport) and as well as where it appears in the proposal template;

attention to a subject that I never really thought about :-).

Wo

uld

imp

rove

the financial aspects of H2020 proposals;

the example of the CWA more detailed, basic recommendations to organise it and resources required, so

we can guide the participants;

some examples of proposals where standardisation was not well addressed/ typical mistakes.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

Circular Economy aspects in NMBP topics;

cross-cutting issues: specific modules as this one on standardisation or presented with several ones

(repeating the one that took place in Lisbon);

the trainings on Social networks and communication;

a combination of cross-cutting subjects that blend with each other affecting positively proposal writing

such as IPR and Impact, SSH and Impact etc.

40%

40%

65%

30%

45%

25%

30%

15%

10%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



If planning webinars in cooperation with external speakers, an early planning and a detailed briefing of what they should cover,

and instructing them how much time they have, is essential.

An early deadline (e.g. a week before the webinar) should be given to the external speaker to send a draft version of their slides

to the co-organising NCP, so that changes can still be made. And so that NCPs, if they have their own additional slides, can

make them complementary to the external speaker’s slides.

External speakers can sometimes not estimate what level of knowledge NCPs have, and how they should adapt the content to

be targeted at NCPs. For example, in this case, standardisation is a very theoretical and sometimes abstract area, so the speaker

was asked to give more examples at the beginning in which areas standardisation is important.

Several sound issues were experienced with the external speaker (loss of sound several times), but this was not experienced in

the test run, so difficult to plan for this. In the optimal case, the co-organising NCP can be a thematic back-up, but this is not

always possible.

of 255




Date 23.1.2019.

Place Lisbon


Main content Standardisation issues with showcases from the transport sector and related H2020 IPR

rules will be presented.


Response rate 63 %

Trainers Fernando Utrilla | UNE – Spanish Association for Standardisation (CEN and CENELEC)

Nicole Schröder | DLR

Module 2. RRI+CCI + 1. L&F



The participants’ analysis of the training Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects and related IPR issues

showed that male participants were the majority in this event (56 %). Most of the participants came from

the EU-15 countries (69 %), followed by EU-13 countries (31 %). Most of the NCPs who participated in the

training cover Smart, Green and Integrated Transport area of Horizon 2020. Regarding working experience,

at this event, the majority were NCPs with more than 5 years of experience (69 %).


Chart 77: Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects and related IPR issues – gender structure

44%56%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 78: Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects and related IPR issues – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 79: Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects and related IPR issues – NCPs’ areas of expertise

Chart 80: Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects and related IPR issues – NCPs’ level of experience

69%

31%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

EU 15

EU 13


participants

5%

5%

63%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Innovation in SMEs

Food

Transport

Climate

Security

Legal and finance


EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

6%

25%

44%

25%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%




More than 10 years


of 255


Chart 81: Standardisation in Horizon 2020 projects and related IPR issues – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y

lik

ed

the focus on transport and milestones of standardisation and IPR;

examples, hands-on training, practice;

The speakers were very good and dynamic. Presentations and interactions were very insightful.

The overall organisation was very smooth.

Wo

uld

imp

rove

catering;

timing, planning;

Nothing, keep going!

It was fine.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

communication strategy;

the development of business models;

financial issues, cross-cutting issues, cascade funding.


I learnt that the interactive element is more than necessary in training events.

Customisation of training materials to the NCP theme gives considerable added value.

It was a great experience working with you! Thanks!

50%

40%

70%

30%

50%

20%

20%

10%

10%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255


Meet & Exchange Workshop on NCP mentoring and twinning schemes

Meet & Exchange Workshop on NCP mentoring and twinning schemes

Date 30.1.2019.

Place Brussels


Main content

By sharing mentoring and twinning practices of NCP Academy and thematic NCP

networks, we will get inspiration from each other and reflect on how to provide

adequate support to newly appointed NCPs. Mentors, mentees and organisers of NCP

mentoring and twinning programme will discuss their aims, content, ways of working, … and evolve toward shared practices and quality approaches.


Response rate 77 %

Trainers

Tania VAN LOON | hub.brussels, Piotr SWIATEK | Fz-Juelich, Marta BARRIONUEVO |

Carlos III National Health Institute (ISCIII), Manfred HALVER | FFG – Austrian Research

Promotion Agency, Gonzalo AREVALO | Carlos III National Health Institute (ISCIII), Elena

ANGIOLINI | hub.brussels




The analysis of the participants of the Meet & Exchange Workshop on NCP mentoring and twinning

schemes revealed that female participants were the majority in this event (59 %). Most of the participants

came from the EU-15 countries (55 %) and EU-13 countries (32 %) followed by Associated Countries (9 %).

Most of the NCPs who participated in the training cover Legal and finance area (17 %) and most of them

have less than 3 years of experience (50 %).


Chart 82: Meet & Exchange Workshop on NCP mentoring and twinning schemes – gender structure

59%

41%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 83: Meet & Exchange Workshop on NCP mentoring and twinning schemes – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 84: Meet & Exchange Workshop on NCP mentoring and twinning schemes – NCPs’ areas of expertise

Chart 85: Meet & Exchange Workshop on NCP mentoring and twinning schemes – NCPs’ level of experience

55%

32%

9%

5%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

3%

3%

3%

7%

7%

7%

7%

7%

7%

10%

7%

17%

7%

3%

3%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%



Information & Communication…Access to Risk Finance

Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Legal and finance

Coordinator

SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

17%

33%

4%

21%

21%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%



Not NCP


of 255


Chart 86: Meet & Exchange Workshop on NCP mentoring and twinning schemes – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d

group discussion;

presentation;

interactive;

organisation;

the diversity of attendees;

a better understanding of the process;

atmosphere.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

too many questions in the first session (hard to follow);

more description of the target audience;

to participate with diverse cases;

send in advance some documents as preparation;

cross-cutting issues.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

trainings;

meet & exchange on delivering support to clients;

audits;

NCP system in Horizon Europe;

the pre-screening of proposals.

59%

47%

82%

35%

35%

12%

0%

12%

0%

6%

6%

6%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



very collaborative participants, methods were appreciated;

good focus and outputs are very relevant;

the tight schedule was appreciated, as usual, it requires a lot of advanced design and planning;

the additional impact of the workshop: we have a new mentee, so the relevancy of mentoring is supported;

some ideas could be taken up for WP3;

possibly slightly too many questions asked through all the sessions;

possibly ask participants to prepare something in advance.

of 255




Date 21.-22.2.2019.

Place Zagreb

Organiser NCP Academy, Instituto de Salud Carlos III

Main content Preparation phase: Consortium Building & Budgeting; Execution phase: Grant

Agreement and CA & IPR, Audits; Conflicts Mgmt


Response rate 75 %

Trainers Jiří KOTOUCECK | Technology Centre Cas, CZ, Andrés MARTÍNEZ | CDTI, ES, Liisa EWART

| Business Finland, FI




The analysis of the participants of the Training on Legal and Financial Aspects revealed that female

participants were the majority in this event (69 %). Most of the participants came from EU-13 countries

(53 %) and EU-15 countries (28 %) followed by Associated Countries (9 %) and Third Countries (9 %). Most

of the NCPs who participated in the training cover Legal and finance, Inclusive, innovative and reflective

societies, Climate Action, Environment, Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials, Innovation and SMEs,

Research Infrastructures, including e-Infrastructures and Future and Emerging Technologies area (12 %)

and most of them were newcomers (31 % less than 1 year of experience, 38 % not NCP).


Chart 87: Training on Legal and Financial Aspects – gender structure

69%

31%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 88: Training on Legal and Financial Aspects – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 89: Training on Legal and Financial Aspects – NCPs’ areas of expertise

Chart 90: Training on Legal and Financial Aspects – NCPs’ level of experience

28%

53%

9%

9%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

12%

6%

12%

6%

12%

6%

6%

6%

12%

6%

12%

6%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%




Nano, new materials

Innovation in SMEs

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Legal and finance


NCPs' areas

31%

13%

6%

6%

6%

38%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%



Not NCP


of 255


Chart 91: Training on Legal and Financial Aspects – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d

the interactive exercises, peer-to-peer discussions;

information and presentation of GA and CA;

The content was very comprehensive and useful. I especially liked Andres Martinez and his exercises.

sightseeing and great food!; presentation and exercises given by Andres Martinez;

very detailed presentations and experienced and knowledgeable presenters;

the first presentation of GA-CA and the session of project management. The dinner was lovely!

the very professional trainers who went above and beyond to present the very difficult topics in easy-to-

understand terms. Thank you Jiri, Andres and Liisa!!!

the exercises: they were very interesting and useful;

the process of GA & CA;

meeting all at the event;

very good organisation; nice;

the interactive part;

All sessions are useful and helpful.

the presentation on project management, direct costs & consortium members & types of third parties;

energisers;

exercises/examples;

the organisation;

the presentations of project management, GA and the eligibility of work and actions;

the clarity of the presentations & availability of speakers to reply to all questions;

The exercises were very good.

interactivity; Exercises after the presentations were very useful.

Exercises. I find them useful.

practical examples;

how to manage a project, and Tender Portal;

75%

67%

96%

25%

33%

4%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255


Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

timing – different starting times;

the duration of presentations because it is difficult to follow so much information without a break;

More coffee breaks, please. The content is very engaging so more smaller breaks would be very useful.

more coffee breaks;

have a presentation on the WP preparation of the proposals;

More training days are necessary.

IPR: it was very general;

follow up on the exercises for the ‘correct’ answer or at least possible solution;

lunch a bit early on Friday;

maybe split in 3 days, with a maximum of five-hour courses per day;

first review and more participation;

The presentation on GA & CA was not particularly useful, the presenter was lacking presenting skills.

more time for debate & group work, microphone;

maybe to provide more detailed information on the topics;

Make better use of the time available, since we travelled a long way, we could have done more exercises,

go further into details.

Maybe sitting arrangement – I couldn´t quite hear all the comments and questions from the audience. the duration of the presentations and exercises; We need more time for exercises.

more about costs and funding; less about Tenders portal.

RRI concepts.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y e

ve

nts

the best practice of NCPs – how best to do our job?

GA, CA, types of costs, financial aspects, limits;

horizontal aspects on H2020 – gender, open access, open science;

the impact and implementation of proposals, building a budget, advanced legal and financial aspects

(consorting and SME);

cover more of the basics;

IPR – it will be interesting to have a deeper training, NDA and MOU – more comments about these

agreements, Horizon Europe – explain new legal and financial rules;

more into details in, for example, financial reporting with examples and possibilities to discuss actual

cases;

an example exercise on how the audit is conducted;

the major changes of next FP (Horizon Europe);

proposal evaluation, proposal writing, impact, acceptable cost within each action;

proposal evaluation;

communication and dissemination, calculating PM;

the evaluation of projects;

IPR, Audit and checks and review;

reporting and such;

Horizon Europe;

the deadlines for the financial reports;

project management – in practice! Horizon Europe.


Andres Martinez: I would say that having the most homogeneous attendance as possible, would help us to better target our presentation and

deliver better results.

of 255




Date 4.-5.03.2019.

Place Larnaca


Main content L&F NCPs will increase their knowledge on how to design interactive information and

training sessions. Already gained experiences will be shared.


Response rate 84 %

Trainers Melanie Büscher ׀ Brain2Business




The analysis of the participants of Advanced Train-the-trainer for Legal & Finance NCPs training revealed

that female participants were the majority in this event (63 %). Most of the participants came from EU-13

countries (68 %) and EU-15 countries (26 %) followed by Associated Countries (5 %). Most of the NCPs who

participated in the training cover Legal and financial area (56 %) and have more than 10 years of

experience (45 %).


Chart 92: Advanced Train-the-trainer for Legal & Finance NCPs – gender structure

63%

37%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 93: Advanced Train-the-trainer for Legal & Finance NCPs – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 94: Advanced Train-the-trainer for Legal & Finance NCPs – NCPs’ areas of expertise

Chart 95: Advanced Train-the-trainer for Legal & Finance NCPs – NCPs’ level of experience

26%

68%

5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

EU 15

EU 13

AC


participants

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

56%

4%

7%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%




Information & Communication…Access to Risk Finance

Climate


Security

Legal and finance


Coordinator

SWAFS

NCPs' areas

10%

10%

15%

15%

45%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%



Not NCP


of 255


Chart 96: Advanced Train-the-trainer for Legal & Finance NCPs – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d

the new methods introduced and applied to l&f content (2);

All participants were familiar with TTT techniques and that helped a lot.

atmosphere and content (3);

sharing active learning methods (3);

working in groups (2);

interactive methods (3);

practical examples (2);

excellent organising, high service, lovely dinner (2);

the exchange of experience (2);

Thank you for the 2 great days!

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

Everything was perfect (2).

more correlation to l&f topics (2);

even more personal exchange;

design a training as an example (2);

the length of the workshop.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

advance training on l&f issues (3);

proposal writing for budget;

proposal writing;

audits (2);

IPR;

EIC;

ITN & RISE financial aspects;

reporting;

lump sum;

Structural Funds.

69%

75%

88%

25%

19%

6%

0%

0%

0%

6%

6%

6%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



The selection of a qualified trainer is of the highest importance for an event’s success. Also, the fact that all participants had previous experience with TTT techniques created a common understanding as a starter point and facilitate the exchange of

experiences. The venue has to be convenient for the participants (easy access from airport, close to central area etc.).

of 255




Date 21.3.2019.

Place Online


Main content General information on the Open the World approach – preparatory webinar for INCO

Training


Response rate 40 %

Trainers Beate Warneck│Dr. Lois Ann Woestman│Ralf König

Module 2. RRI + CCI



The analysis of the participants of the webinar International R&I cooperation: Horizon 2020 and the world

revealed that female participants were the majority in this event (80 %). Most of the participants came

from the EU-15 countries (54 %) and Third Countries (19 %) followed by EU-13 countries (14 %) and

Associated Countries (12 %). Most of the NCPs who participated in the training cover Inclusive, innovative

and reflective societies area (15 %) and have between 1 and 3 years of experience (50 %).


Chart 97: International R&I cooperation: Horizon 2020 and the world – gender structure

80%

20%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 98: International R&I cooperation: Horizon 2020 and the world – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 99: International R&I cooperation: Horizon 2020 and the world – NCPs’ area of expertise

54%

14%

12%

19%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

5%

4%

5%

3%

4%

3%

2%

2%

5%

6%

3%

5%

4%

11%

15%

5%

7%

2%

3%

2%

4%

2%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%






Nano, new materials

Space


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance



Coordinator

SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 100: International R&I cooperation: Horizon 2020 and the world – NCPs’ level of experience

Chart 101: International R&I cooperation: Horizon 2020 and the world – feedback chart

6%

50%

19%

6%

15%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60%



Not NCP


16%

11%

42%

74%

68%

42%

11%

21%

16%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

The information is clear, the duration of the event is perfect.

everything;

It was great.

Cover the statistics of 3rd countries’ participation from Fp7 to H2020.

the live chat system in order to have the possibility to ask questions; the structure and order of the

presentations;

The presentations were good to understand the basics in international cooperation.

the clarity around the role of non-EU countries as partners;

the comparison between H2020 rules and HEU framework;

a good overview for newcomers;

The idea to share experiences, the strategy differentiates between the countries and I have a general

background about the int. participation (I confess that we would like to increase the role of the LA

countries).

int. participation in H2020 – statistics + 3. Country Participation Statistics;

the move towards HEU.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

The speaker has to be attentive to the request by text of the participants since we cannot express

ourselves by voice during the presentation. There was a moment that the speaker was speaking very

quietly and the request was not met to increase his sound which compromised the communication.

skip the introduction on h2020, you talk to NCPs;

sound check obviously, even though this is just minor;

to speak specifically about calls in the specific field;

the sound of some speakers – just a little louder please;

The presentations were good to understand the basics in international cooperation.

A link to webinar access was sent several times, that was a bit confusing.

The fact that the US is eligible for costs in SC1 was mentioned a bit late during the webinar (as SC1 NCP I

especially noticed this).

In this case, the time was ok but other webinars are very early in the morning and it is impossible to

attend for LA countries (especially for the south region).

How to empower the role of the NCP through establishing links with EU delegations, in particular for third

countries (in my country, ERASMUS+ has this advantage)?

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

How to obtain support from the local EU Delegation (inc. financial) for promotion and dissemination in the

network formation for participation in future calls?

something on NCP systems and practices in different countries;

ERA-nets, lessons learned in H2020;

Next events should tackle the real example of application and real problems that researchers faced.

issues relating to the eligibility of non EU-countries in Horizon Europe (IP and democracy were mentioned);

HEU rules (not only for int. cooperation);

visit to experts in LAC countries with the idea to coordinate workshops and we could learn and discuss

about the European experience in STI; the organisation of events in LAC countries;

It. participation in HEU.


The cooperation with other NCP networks or other tenders like the service facility becomes more and more important.

The preparation of joint networks events takes more time. (Different standards, different perspectives, different target groups).

This should be taken into consideration for future events.

of 255




Date 4.4.2019.

Place Online


Main content What an NCP should know about Prizes in EIC?


Response rate 37 %

Trainers Dr Sergio Fernandez-Ceballos │ Biotech Enterprise Ireland

Module 4. Innovation & SMEs



The analysis of the participants of the webinar Learnings on EIC prizes – An NCP perspective showed that


countries (60 %) and EU-13 countries (27 %) followed by Associated Countries (11 %). Most of the NCPs

who participated in the training are NCP Coordinators (20 %) or cover Innovation in SMEs area of Horizon

2020, and have up to 5 years of experience (67 %).


Chart 102: Learning on EIC prizes – An NCP perspective – gender structure

76%

24%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 103: Learnings on EIC prizes – An NCP perspective – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 104: Learnings on EIC prizes – An NCP perspective – NCPs’ areas of expertise

60%

27%

11%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

2%

5%

3%

2%

4%

8%

6%

2%

11%

5%

5%

6%

3%

6%

5%

2%

4%

2%

20%

2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%






Nano, new materials

Space


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance


Coordinator

SWAFS

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 105: Learnings on EIC prizes – An NCP perspective – NCPs’ level of experience

Chart 106: Learnings on EIC prizes – An NCP perspective – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d the clarity and contents of the presentation;

The explanations given on a concrete case were of great help and helped to better understand the concept

of a prize.

the use of Skype + sound of participants off;

Q&A via chat (visible for everyone);

that I could participate even though the official registration was already closed.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

Unfortunately, I couldn’t follow the webinar as my PC didn’t have Skype for Business and didn’t accept installing the Skype Web App. Since the beginning of this week, the administrator of our institution

installed Skype for Business so next time it should work.

Request via email that participants ensure they are ready to start the meeting on time – it is unfair on the

host and other participants.

21%

24%

22%

14%

19%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%





More than 10 years


43%

43%

43%

29%

14%

29%

14%

14%

0%

0%

14%

14%

0%

0%

14%

14%

14%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255


Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

Lump Sums Pilot;

EIC Accelerator: especially SME grant versus grant + equity – will be applied in June whereas the NCPs

SMEs have no extra info/guidance on how to help the clients;

Financial Instruments – How to Use Financial Instruments?

the transition to Horizon Europe.


There were several participants who could not hear the webinar as their Skype settings were not adjusted properly in advance.

Also, a number of participants were confused with the timing ’11 am (CET)’ and tried to log in post-event. It is suggested that

‘Brussels time’ is better when describing timings for next webinars.

of 255




Date 8.4.2019.

Place Online

Organiser NCP Academy, NewHoRRIzon

Main content RRI at a glance – Theory and case studies


Response rate 48 %

Trainers Ulrich Schoisswohl | FFG – Austrian Research Promotion Agency, Erich Grießler | IHS –

Project coordinator NH

Module 2. RRI + CCI



The analysis of the participants of the webinar Responsible Research and Innovation – RRI showed that


countries (48 %) and EU-13 countries (31 %) followed by Third Countries (14 %) and Associated Countries

(7 %). Most of the NCPs who participated in the training cover Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture and

Forestry, Marine, Maritime and Inland Water Research and the Bioeconomy area (13 %), Inclusive,

innovative and reflective societies (11 %) and Climate Action, Environment, Resource Efficiency and Raw

Materials area (11 %). Most of them are newcomers (29 %) or not NCPs (23 %).


Chart 107: Responsible Research and Innovation – RRI – gender structure

86%

14%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 108: Responsible Research and Innovation – RRI – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 109: Responsible Research and Innovation – RRI – NCPs’ areas of expertise

48%

31%

7%

14%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

3%

3%

3%

8%

3%

3%

3%

8%

13%

8%

5%

11%

11%

8%

3%

5%

5%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%





Nano, new materials

Space

Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Legal and finance



SWAFS

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 110: Responsible Research and Innovation – RRI – NCPs’ level of experience

Chart 111: Responsible Research and Innovation – RRI – feedback chart

29%

16%

10%

10%

13%

23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%



Not NCP


14%

14%

57%

36%

21%

21%

50%

50%

14%

0%

7%

0%

0%

0%

7%

0%

7%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

the first presentation;

RRI is an important issue that applies to every single R&I area. I've liked the theoretical part explaining

what RRI is and why is it important to include the different aspects into R&I.

the presentation about NewHoRRIzon project;

the organisation, the technical systems and such;

the quality of the presentations and the competence of the speakers;

to get all this information.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

Maybe announce topics for discussion, so that the audience gets more active and involved in the Q&A part

of the session.

Maybe it'd have been very interesting to provide more examples from different areas and tackle different

issues (e.g. gender aspects or stakeholders’ involvement).

The first presentation was difficult to follow, a different perspective on RRI basis, at least to my

knowledge.

The internet connection. The slides! Some of the slides were too packed with information. Animations

helped, but it was still too much to follow and stay focused. I also had the feeling that too much time was

spent on more ‘basic’ slides, but on the other hand, the presenter rushed through more important slides

afterwards...

Make it more applicable to the work of NCPs. The first presentation, while interesting, was very

theoretical. The second was too focused on the inner workings of that particular project (f.ex. work

packages) that I lost interest.

prefer to listen to speakers in person; a webinar is the best substitution.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

Lump Sums Pilot;

EIC Accelerator: especially SME grant versus grant + equity – will be applied in June whereas the NCPs

SMEs have no extra info/guidance on how to help the clients;

Financial Instruments – How to Use Financial Instruments?

the transition to Horizon Europe.


- at least one or two interim queries to make it more lively;

- content-wise: highlight the fact that every NCP is already practising RRI in one way or another.

of 255


Advanced info on INCO with special focus on thematic areas of Horizon 2020

Advanced info on INCO with special focus on thematic areas of Horizon 2020

Date 15.4.2019.

Place Brussels

Organiser NCP Academy, International Service Facility, NCPs CaRE, BioHorizon, Net4Society5

Main content Funding opportunities – share best practice


Response rate 52 %

Trainers

Adam Tyson, DG RTD │ Nicole Schröder, DLR-PT │ Shilpi Saxena, NCPs CaRE │ Marie Shrestha, ttz Bremerhaven│ Serena Borgna, BioHorizon │ Dominik Klinkenberg & Fundação

Getulio Vargas, Net4Society5 │ Goret Pereira Paulo, NCP Brazil │ Stefan Haffner, DLR-P │ Michele Dubbini, IPR helpdesk,

Module 2. RRI + CCI



The participants & feedback analysis of the training Advanced info on INCO with special focus on thematic

areas of Horizon 2020 revealed that female participants were the majority in this event (76 %). Most of

the participants came from the EU-15 countries (79 %) and EU-13 countries (14 %) followed by Associated

Countries (7 %). Most of the NCPs who participated in the training cover Legal and finance area and

Climate Action, Environment, Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials area (13 %) and have up to 3 years of

experience (34 %).


Chart 112: Advanced info on INCO with special focus on thematic areas of Horizon 2020 – gender structure

76%

24%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 113: Advanced info on INCO with special focus on thematic areas of Horizon 2020 – geographical coverage of the

participants

Chart 114: Advanced info on INCO with special focus on thematic areas of Horizon 2020 – NCPs’ areas of expertise

79%

14%

7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EU 15

EU 13

Other


participants

6%

4%

4%

6%

2%

8%

9%

4%

9%

13%

2%

4%

13%

4%

2%

8%

4%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%



Nano, new materials

Space

Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance



Coordinator

SWAFS

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 115: Advanced info on INCO with special focus on thematic areas of Horizon 2020 – NCPs’ level of experience

Chart 116: Advanced info on INCO with special focus on thematic areas of Horizon 2020 – feedback chart

34%

21%

10%

10%

24%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%




More than 10 years

Not NCP


53%

47%

67%

47%

40%

20%

0%

7%

7%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

7%

7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

active participants, many useful real cases;

sharing practical experiences;

IPR presentation;

SC2 and 5 presentation;

information provided by lots of speakers;

the overview on statistics;

the presence of 3rd countries;

the different interventions with concrete examples and suggestions;

exercises.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

presentation in advance, I like to make notes on them;

more time for discussion;

the catering;

Monday is not the best day;

more cases;

IP was a bit too much;

the length of the meeting;

the presentation of other societal challenges.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

European partnerships in HEU;

also Inco calls in all Societal Challenges;

NCP work in HEU;

more about Inco;

NCP Academy events to be continued;

IP in consortium agreements.


The cooperation with Int. Service Facility was very good.

of 255


Meet & Exchange workshop: International Cooperation in Horizon 2020

Meet & Exchange workshop: International Cooperation in Horizon 2020

Date 16.4.2019.

Place Brussels


Main content

Exchange of good practices and bottlenecks both from the viewpoint of MS/AC and from

(non-funded) third countries. Better mutual understanding, exploration of possibilities for

simplification under Horizon Europe.


Response rate 72 %

Trainers

Michael Leskiw, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Rainer L.C. Frost, International

Senior Contract Administrator │ Ann Van Hauwaert, NCP Coordinator, NCP Flanders, FWO │ Ji-Hyeon Kim Vanguers, NCP Coordinator, NCP Brussels, hub.brussels │ Martin

Baumgartner, Legal NCP Austria, Austrian Research Promotion Agency │ Natacha Wittorski, NCP French-speaking community, Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique – FNRS │ Nicole Schröder, Legal and Finance NCP Germany, DLR PT │ Sara Sarkar, Senior Analyst,

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and/or Jacqueline Jorge, Senior STI Officer, Global

Affairs Canada




The participants and feedback analysis of Meet & Exchange workshop: International Cooperation in

Horizon 2020 showed that female participants were the majority in this event (62 %). Most of the

participants came from the EU-15 countries (63 %) followed by Third (INCO) Countries (16 %). Most of the

NCPs who participated in the workshop cover Legal and finance area (35 %). Most of the participants in

this event were not NCPs, or have not been assigned an area of expertise (41 %).


Chart 117: Meet & Exchange workshop: International Cooperation in Horizon 2020 – gender structure

62%

38%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 118: Meet & Exchange workshop: International Cooperation in Horizon 2020 – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 119: Meet & Exchange workshop: International Cooperation in Horizon 2020 – NCPs’ areas of expertise

Chart 120: Meet & Exchange workshop: International Cooperation in Horizon 2020 – NCPs’ level of experience

63%

6%

3%

16%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other

Not listed


participants

4%

4%

4%

4%

8%

4%

8%

8%

35%

4%

12%

8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%



Space

Food

Energy

Climate


Security

Legal and finance


Coordinator

SWAFS

NCPs' areas

13%

9%

16%

16%

6%

41%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%



Not NCP


of 255


Chart 121: Meet & Exchange workshop: International Cooperation in Horizon 2020 – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d

the opportunity to hear the perspectives of the EC legal services;

the presence of third countries and openness of the event;

practical examples;

active participation;

the general organisation;

the possibility to meet people;

the opportunity to learn additional details on the EU rules of participation.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

longer day to continue the discussion;

ran out of time;

The facility service should not compete with the NCP Academy where collaboration would be more

beneficial to all parties (overlapping event).

Put questions up on a screen so everyone is on the same page.

Send out detailed agenda earlier (2 weeks).

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

Horizon Europe;

practise for consortium agreements;

Horizon2020: transition NCP systems towards Horizon Europe;

Lump Sum pilot & CA management;

other administrative issues;

intellectual property rights;

ethics and security.


more time to discuss;

need more training, Meet & Exchange.

83%

78%

96%

13%

13%

0%

0%

4%

0%

4%

4%

0%

0%

0%

4%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255


NCP Academy Webinar: Pathfinder (FET) Opportunities in EIC – An NCP Perspective

NCP Academy Webinar: Pathfinder (FET) Opportunities in EIC – An NCP Perspective

Date 2.5.2019.

Place Online


Main content What an NCP should know about FET in EIC


Response rate 11 %

Trainers Stephen O’Reilly Horizon 2020 – EU advisor Future & Emerging Technologies (FET), ICT and

ECSEL




The participants & feedback analysis of the webinar NCP Academy Webinar: Pathfinder (FET) Opportunities

in EIC – An NCP Perspective showed that female participants were the majority in this event (67 %). Most

of the participants came from the EU-15 countries (54 %) followed by EU-13 countries (24 %) and

Associated Countries (16 %). Most of the NCPs who participated in the training are NCP Coordinators

(22 %) and cover the areas Innovation in SMEs (17 %) and Future and Emerging Technologies (11 %). Most

of the participants in this event have up to 3 years of experience as NCPs (41 %).


Chart 122: NCP Academy Webinar: Pathfinder (FET) Opportunities in EIC – An NCP Perspective – gender structure

67%

33%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 123: NCP Academy Webinar: Pathfinder (FET) Opportunities in EIC – An NCP Perspective – geographical coverage of the

participants

Chart 124: NCP Academy Webinar: Pathfinder (FET) Opportunities in EIC – An NCP Perspective – NCPs’ areas of expertise

54%

24%

16%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

2%

11%

3%

1%

2%

3%

3%

8%

17%

2%

4%

5%

2%

5%

2%

3%

5%

1%

22%

1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%






Nano, new materials

Space


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance


Coordinator

SWAFS

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 125: NCP Academy Webinar: Pathfinder (FET) Opportunities in EIC – An NCP Perspective – NCPs’ level of experience

Chart 126: NCP Academy Webinar: Pathfinder (FET) Opportunities in EIC – An NCP Perspective – feedback chart

12%

29%

24%

13%

13%

9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%



Not NCP


75%

75%

50%

25%

25%

25%

0%

0%

25%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

Clear explanation about the difference to the other parts of H2020 and about the expectations.

Wo

uld

imp

rove

Respect the timing announced for the webinar.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

explaining the difference between the SME instrument and the EIC;

good practices for H2020 project coordinators (project implementation).


Stephen O’Reilly We had a mix up with the start time of the webinar – efforts should be taken to avoid such confusion in the future. Other than

that, the event seemed to run smoothly. Very few questions were received at the end of the webinar. Maybe for future events,

participants could be asked to send in some queries in advance.

of 255


Building networks & sharing ideas – What an NCP should know about COST!

Building networks & sharing ideas – What an NCP should know about COST!

Date 14.5.2019.

Place Online


Main content

The COST programme is set to be integrated in H-EU under the pillar Sharing Excellence.

With its already strong focus on widening, it’s worth looking at. Not only for Widening

NCPs but also for all other NCPs, who want to learn more about synergies and cooperation

potential.


Response rate 43 %

Trainers Bart Veys, Policy Officer | COST Association

Nicole Schmidt, COST National Coordinator | FFG




The analysis of the participants of the webinar Building networks & sharing ideas – What an NCP should

know about COST! showed that female participants were the majority in this event (70 % ). Most of the

participants came from the EU-15 countries (61 %) followed by EU-13 countries (17 %) and Associated

Countries (17 %). Most of the NCPs who participated in the webinar are Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions

(MSCA) NCPs (14 %), and the European Research Council (ERC) and Inclusive, innovative and reflective

societies (SSH) NCPs (11 %). Most of the participants in this event are not NCPs or have not been assigned

an area of expertise (52 %).


Chart 127: Building networks & sharing ideas – What an NCP should know about COST! – gender structure

70%

30%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 128: Building networks & sharing ideas – What an NCP should know about COST! – geographical coverage of the

participants

Chart 129: Building networks & sharing ideas – What an NCP should know about COST! – NCPs’ areas of expertise

61%

17%

17%

5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

11%

3%

14%

1%

4%

1%

1%

4%

8%

3%

8%

5%

5%

11%

4%

4%

4%

1%

4%

1%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%





Nano, new materials

Space


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Legal and finance



Coordinator

SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 130: Building networks & sharing ideas – What an NCP should know about COST! – NCPs’ level of experience

Chart 131: Building networks & sharing ideas – What an NCP should know about COST! – feedback chart

24%

10%

4%

5%

3%

52%

0% 20% 40% 60%



Not NCP


56%

52%

84%

32%

30%

10%

12%

18%

6%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

clear messages, compact overview, and exchange of experiences...;

COMPLEMENTARITY of speakers – Bart and Nicole are an excellent team!

information that related success rates of COST to Horizon 2020 – will be helpful in explaining the value of

this form of financing;

interactive polls & quizzes;

clarity;

Q&A part.

Wo

uld

imp

rove

bit too long;

the explanations of the requirements for participation;

The first part was already known to COST CNCs, they could have skipped this part.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

MC Membership monitoring tools might be a hot topic for the next webinar.


Shorten webinars to a max of 1 hour.

Better define the target group.

Continue to work with polls and chat questions.

Shorten introduction.

of 255


Lump-Sum in Horizon 2020 and the future of Lump Sum Pilot in Horizon

Lump-Sum in Horizon 2020 and the future of Lump Sum Pilot in Horizon

Date 27.6.2019.

Place Online

Organiser NCP Academy, FFG

Main content Lump-Sum Pilot Scheme, Practical information and Lessons learnt


Response rate 56 %

Trainers

Maria Alfayate | Common Support Centre, European Commission

Martin Baumgartner | FFG Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG), Austria

Gonzalo Arevalo | National Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII), Spain




The participants & feedback analysis of the webinar Lump-Sum in Horizon 2020 and the future of Lump

Sum Pilot in Horizon showed that female participants were the majority in this event (70 %). Most of the

participants came from the EU-15 countries (66 %) followed by EU-13 countries (16 %) and Associated

Countries (12 %). Most of the NCPs who participated in the webinar cover Climate Action, Environment,

Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials (16 %), Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing (12 %) and

Legal and financial areas (11 %) of Horizon 2020. Most of the participants in this event have up to 5 years

of experience as NCPs.


Chart 132: Lump-Sum in Horizon 2020 and the future of Lump Sum Pilot in Horizon – gender structure

70%

30%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 133: Lump-Sum in Horizon 2020 and the future of Lump Sum Pilot in Horizon – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 134: Lump-Sum in Horizon 2020 and the future of Lump Sum Pilot in Horizon – NCPs’ areas of expertise

66%

16%

12%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

5%

2%

1%

1%

5%

3%

3%

4%

4%

12%

6%

3%

5%

16%

6%

3%

11%

1%

3%

2%

2%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%






Nano, new materials

Space


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance



Coordinator

SWAFS

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 135: Lump-Sum in Horizon 2020 and the future of Lump Sum Pilot in Horizon – NCPs’ level of experience

Chart 136: Lump-Sum in Horizon 2020 and the future of Lump Sum Pilot in Horizon – feedback chart

18%

28%

14%

22%

14%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30%



Not NCP


39%

37%

71%

35%

35%

20%

18%

20%

4%

2%

4%

4%

6%

4%

2%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

balanced analysis and presentation;

the detailed, thoughtful, and clear (due to the examples given) explanations to questions posed;

to have the Commission participating together with the NCP Academy people is a plus;

the possibility to interact with the speakers in real time by participating in the surveys;

the identification of job opportunities in conjunction with European partners;

the milestones for payment, pros and cons.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

For room for discussion of what you call ‘comments rather than a question’ it is really important to discuss

problems during the implementation of the projects.

1-2 concrete examples or case studies which repeat throughout all stages of the

presentation/proposal/reporting;

The presentation and discussion of important background information. It is clear that the presenters know

what they are talking about, but sometimes their explanation of slide content was very difficult to

understand. It needed to be presented from the perspective of the non-expert a bit more. I also found the

webinar to be a bit difficult to follow sometimes. Even with the introduction, I was not really sure what

some of the Initial Information presented during the introduction had to do with other Topics.

Develop case studies in order to present the key activities for the management of projects.

recommendations for coordinating and managing this kind of projects, tips to overcome risky situations;

timekeeping.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

on Lump Sums: WP building / budget building (+ budget at the end of project / budget for horizontal WPs);

Horizon Europe: rules and AGA;

The very limited experience on this scheme makes any information we can have about the different steps

(proposal, GA preparation, etc.) very valuable, both for 2020 and Horizon Europe. So, a follow up on this

hot topic would be very welcome.

digitalization as the main driver;

lump sum – WPs preparation exercise;

partnerships – including a list of all possible partnerships with MGA applicable to those partnerships;

missions;

PCP/PPI funding scheme; lessons learnt;

proposals reading and reviewing;

I agree that another webinar after the first reporting period for lump sum projects is an excellent idea.


Martin Baumgartner, FFG, Austria: Everything went perfect due to a perfect background organisation. Also showing all speakers at the beginning via webcam is a

huge advantage as participants see the speakers live at the beginning.

of 255


Joint RICH-2 & NUCL_EU2020 Training on Project Impact, Framework Programmes and Financial

Issues

Joint RICH-2 & NUCL_EU2020 Training on Project Impact, Framework Programmes and Financial Issues

Date 17.-18.7.2019.

Place Genève

Organiser RICH-2, NUCL_EU2020

Main content Financial issues

Eligible Costs, Auditing, Exercise


Response rate 36 %

Trainers Liane Lewerentz |NCP Academy




The participants’ analysis of the training Joint RICH-2 & NUCL_EU2020 Training on Project Impact,

Framework Programmes and Financial Issues showed that female participants were the majority in this

event (59 %). Most of the participants came from the EU-13 countries (36 %) followed by EU-15 countries

(28 %) and Third (INCO) Countries (20 %). Most of the NCPs who participated in the training cover Research

Infrastructures, including e-Infrastructures (68 %), Euratom (26 %) and Legal and financial areas (6 %) of

Horizon 2020. Since the organisers did not include the question regarding the NCPs’ level of experience in

the registrations, unfortunately, we do not have this type of information available for this webinar.


Chart 137: Joint RICH-2 & NUCL_EU2020 Training on Project Impact, Framework Programmes and Financial Issues – gender

structure

59%

41%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 138: Joint RICH-2 & NUCL_EU2020 Training on Project Impact, Framework Programmes and Financial Issues –

geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 139: Joint RICH-2 & NUCL_EU2020 Training on Project Impact, Framework Programmes and Financial Issues – NCPs’ areas

of expertise

Chart 140: Joint RICH-2 & NUCL_EU2020 Training on Project Impact, Framework Programmes and Financial Issues – feedback

chart

28%

36%

16%

20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

68%

6%

26%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%


Legal and finance

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

100%

88%

88%

0%

13%

13%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

the examples and insights into CERN experiences;

the relevance of the topics;

having a common meeting with NCPs from another project;

practical examples;

exercises;

well prepared speakers and new, interesting infos.

Wo

uld

imp

rove

I would like to have the list of participants in advance.

a bit shorter;

including FAQ;

better to share the presentations in advance.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

training on HEU and Missions;

training on ethical issues.

of 255




Date 8.-9.10.2019.

Place Zagreb

Organiser HEALTH NCP NET + NCP Academy

Main content Training session based on previously designed proposal writing training


Response rate 88 %




The participants and feedback analysis of the training Proposal preparation, proposal check showed that

female participants were the majority in this event (69 %). Most of the participants came from Associated

Countries (38 %) followed by EU-15 countries (31 %) and EU-13 countries (31 %). Most of the NCPs who

participated in the training cover Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing area (57 %) and Food

Security, Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry, Marine, Maritime and Inland Water Research and the

Bioeconomy area (18 %) of Horizon 2020. Most of the participants in this event have between 1 and 5

years of experience as NCPs.


Chart 141: Proposal preparation, proposal check – gender structure

69%

31%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 142: Proposal preparation, proposal check – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 143: Proposal preparation, proposal check – NCPs’ areas of expertise

Chart 144: Proposal preparation, proposal check – NCPs’ level of experience

31%

31%

38%

28% 30% 32% 34% 36% 38%

EU 15

EU 13

AC


participants

4%

4%

4%

57%

18%

4%

4%

4%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


Nano, new materials

Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food




SWAFS

NCPs' areas

6%

31%

38%

6%

19%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%





More than 10 years


of 255


Chart 145: Proposal preparation, proposal check – feedback chart

100%

93%

100%

0%

7%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

The ice breakers will be very useful to me.

the practical parts regarding the proposal parts;

interactive possibilities;

games;

interaction, the examples from the real courses;

brain walking;

diversity bingo;

Astrid is a great moderator, the presentations were well structured, examples useful and for me, as a new

NCP, it really helped in my approach to reading proposals. I finally know where to start from when reading

clients proposals.

the activities between the working exercises;

The training was very interactive and informative at the same time. It made the experience much better.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

The placement in the room was making acoustics a bit difficult.

even more of real examples;

the main aspects of projects’ expertise mechanisms in connection with the competitiveness of projects;

advise HNN project materials relevant to the workshop;

adding successful projects to analyses and extract the pros & cons;

It was a great training and did not need improvement.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

innovation procurement;

the engagement of public actors;

What’s new in HEU?

Project Evaluators: how do they work?

Exploitation Plan (IAs);

PCP project preparation;

a workshop on the impact & the implementation sectors;

IPR Issues.


Astrid Hoebertz, FFG, Austria: The training was very successful, the combination of proposal writing with the topic of interactive training methods has worked

very well again, and the participants liked it. Just to train on proposal elements would not have been interesting for more

experienced NCPs. There was a lot of room for the exchange of experiences, which was good for the more experienced NCPs.

This joint approach should also be used for future trainings on proposal writing, in order to appeal to all levels of NCPs.

Important things to consider for all similar future trainings:

the trainer should have a clear knowledge of the venue (pictures beforehand for example) in order to plan the training

content and exercises;

the room needs to be big enough to have space for the group works and interactivity, and to hang the results on walls.

of 255




Date 22.-23.10.2019.

Place Cyprus

Organiser IDEALIST + NCP Academy

Main content Training session based on previously designed proposal writing training


Response rate 81 %

Trainers 0




The participants and feedback analysis of the Training on Proposal Writing and Interactive Training

Methods showed that male participants were the majority in this event (56 %). Most of the participants

came from the EU-13 countries (41 %) followed by Associated Countries (33 %) and EU-15 countries (26 %).

Most of the NCPs who participated in the training cover Information and Communication Technologies

(52 %) and Future and Emerging Technologies (21 %) areas of Horizon 2020. Most of the participants in

this event have less than 3 years of experience as NCPs and 19 % of them have not been assigned an area

of expertise.


Chart 146: Training on Proposal Writing and Interactive Training Methods – gender structure

44%56%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 147: Training on Proposal Writing and Interactive Training Methods – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 148: Training on Proposal Writing and Interactive Training Methods – NCPs’ areas of expertise

Chart 149: Training on Proposal Writing and Interactive Training Methods – NCPs’ level of experience

26%

41%

33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

EU 15

EU 13

AC


participants

2%

5%

52%

2%

5%

5%

5%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%




Nano, new materials

Space

Energy

Transport

Security

NCPs' areas

19%

15%

7%

33%

7%

19%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%



Not NCP


of 255


Chart 150: Training on Proposal Writing and Interactive Training Methods – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d

the focus on warm human contact to strengthen links between people during training;

practical issues;

methods, the exchange of experiences old – new NCPs;

creating work packages;

using real proposals (come up several times);

sharing best practices from experienced NCPs;

the entertaining way of training;

complete package, very systematic ways to look into proposal writing;

the method of instruction;

more templates for proposers how they can work on impact, diagrams etc.;

group discussions;

content, exercises, the practical analysis of the proposal;

dynamic, good attendance, well organised, content appropriate;

practical work, clarity, exercises, quiz;

methods used, a lot of new information;

very interactive;

the variety of activities;

friendliness;

creativity to keep interaction;

59%

55%

77%

32%

36%

18%

5%

5%

0%

5%

5%

0%

0%

0%

5%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255


Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

the themes for discussion;

more practical work on proposal writing, fewer discussions;

the focus on ICT proposal, more up-to-date topic text;

Separate the newcomers for half a day?

Separate basic and advanced parts of training?

small group discussions, use ICT proposal;

more clear summaries of group discussions;

better location, bigger room;

full 2 days training, 1.5 day not enough;

pace too quick;

the time management of activities;

sometimes too ‘administrative’; Invite a real evaluator to give feedback.

better management of feedback, some participants monopolised the room;

more tips from the trainer;

the comparisons of proposals.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

new ICT initiatives and schemes;

innovation management;

innovation actions, how to be successful?

project management, financial management, project reporting;

Lump Sum topics;

EIC;

IPR issues;

Horizon Europe;

Digital Europe Programme;

Legal and Financial.


Astrid Hoebertz, FFG, Austria: The training was successful, the combination of proposal writing with the topic of interactive training methods has worked very

well again, and the participants liked it. There was a lot of room for the exchange of experiences, which was good for the more

experienced NCPs, and for the newer ones to learn from the more experienced NCPs.

The work on a real proposal was appreciated; although this time, we did not manage to get an ICT proposal from the network,

but had to work with an Energy proposal.

The venue room was far too small for an interactive training, almost no wall space, one could not move in the room, which in

my opinion had a (small negative) impact on the overall satisfaction with the event.

The limit for this type of event should be set to 20 participants, almost 27 on Day 2 was too much for this interactive training.

Attendants tend to get more passive the bigger the group is.

of 255


H2020 financial reporting and audits


Date 4.-5.11.2019.

Place Prague


Main content Financial reporting, financial audits


Response rate 88 %

Trainers 0




The analysis of the participants of the training H2020 financial reporting and audits (ADVANCED) showed

that female participants were the majority in this event (56 %). Most of the participants came from the

EU-13 countries (48 %) followed by EU-15 countries (44 %) and Associated Countries (8 %). Most of the

NCPs who participated in the training cover Legal & finance area of Horizon 2020 (80 %). Most of the

participants in this event have between 1 and 5 years of experience as NCPs (60 %).


Chart 151: H2020 financial reporting and audits (ADVANCED) – gender structure

56%44%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 152: H2020 financial reporting and audits (ADVANCED) – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 153: H2020 financial reporting and audits (ADVANCED) – NCPs’ areas of expertise

Chart 154: H2020 financial reporting and audits (ADVANCED) – NCPs’ level of experience

44%

48%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC


participants

7%

7%

3%

80%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%


Innovation in SMEs

Energy

Legal and finance

Coordinator

NCPs' areas

12%

32%

28%

20%

8%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%





More than 10 years

Not NCP


of 255


Chart 155: H2020 financial reporting and audits (ADVANCED) – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d

practical relevance (exercise and examples);

the time for discussion and the exchange of experience and knowledge;

good training interactive practices;

good atmosphere;

good organisation and venue.

Wo

uld

imp

rove

more time;

better time management of the 1st day and better-structured discussion on the 2nd day.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

HEU;

IPR;

PM2 Methodology;

lump sum;

ethics;

partnerships;

personnel costs;

3rd countries;

SMEs specificities.

77%

91%

91%

18%

9%

9%

5%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



Lenka Chvojková, Technology centre CAS, Czechia: Participants liked especially the opportunity to learn from each other (NCPs teach NPCs) and exchange practical information.

The informal atmosphere and interactive format helped to discuss any issues informally and find not only answers to many

questions, but also the inspiration for organising their own financial workshops. Participants appreciate it and it seems that all

participants had fun during both days and felt comfortable. At the same time, NCPs have a lot of information to share and

therefore it is essential to moderate the discussion more strictly to stick to the issue and keep the time. More time for such an

event would be welcomed next time.

of 255




Date 12.11.2019.

Place Online

Organiser NCP Academy + Idealist 2020

Main content

The Topic Tree is a visual tool illustrating connections between closed, open and

forthcoming Horizon 2020 topics related to ICT. It helps NCPs and the public to identify

historical and future links to call topics and offers background information provided by

Ideal-ist and EC Participant Portal. The webinar on the Ideal-ist Topic Tree is a short

training session presenting the Topic Tree tool in its main features and objectives to all

interested National Contact Points. NCPs are invited to use the tool and consider new ways

of collaboration between NCP networks.


Response rate 66 %

Trainers Daniela Hackl | FFG




The participants and feedback analysis of the webinar Ready to grow – the Ideal-ist Topic Tree showed that


countries (33 %) followed by Associated Countries (31 %) and EU-13 countries (28 %). Most of the NCPs

who participated in the training cover Information and Communication Technologies (21 %) and Secure,

Clean and Efficient Energy (13 %) areas of Horizon 2020. Most of the participants in this event have up to

5 years of experience as NCPs (61 %).


Chart 156: Ready to grow – the Ideal-ist Topic – gender structure

71%

29%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 157: Ready to grow – the Ideal-ist Topic – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 158: Ready to grow – the Ideal-ist Topic – NCPs’ areas of expertise

33%

28%

31%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

7%

5%

7%

5%

21%

2%

2%

3%

3%

2%

5%

13%

5%

5%

7%

7%

3%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%






Nano, new materials

Space


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate

Security

Legal and finance

SWAFS

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 159: Ready to grow – the Ideal-ist Topic – NCPs’ level of experience

Chart 160: Ready to grow – the Ideal-ist Topic – feedback chart

22%

28%

11%

16%

19%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30%



Not NCP


72%

84%

88%

16%

16%

12%

12%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

the relevance of the topic; This approach should be used, as a horizontal tool, in the NCP Academy.

get to know new tools for my job;

short duration;

the timing and live demo;

the quality of speakers;

short time, condensed information;

the survey during the webinar;

that you clearly provided focused information.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

Use PPPTX network's slides to present the project.

Explain how to get access to the private version (not that clear) – register to the website AND mark your

position as NCP AND contact coordinator of the project to complete the approval process, make sure you

have access.

‘A clearer bottom line:

* We want you to get further explanation on the project;

* Get feedback of an outsider;

* Stimulate the possibility for cooperation.’ Dani should show more of her rockstar qualities all over :-)

I think this webinar would be more useful if it was organised with other NCP thematic networks.

Collaboration from other NCPs beyond ICT was mentioned, however it was not clear to me if this

collaboration is expected in an individual way, or some contact among thematic networks is expected, or

already started. (At least, it seems the best way to do it ...).

more details on how to implement the topic tree;

more examples to go through;

I was upset to realise that the tool supports only ICT calls and ICT related calls.

I would like to get more information about ICT connections with other research areas (energy, health etc.).

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

HEU;

IPR;

PM2 Methodology;

lump sum;

ethics;

partnerships;

personnel costs;

3rd countries;

SMEs specificities.


*The webinar was a great success in terms of participations from different NCP networks!

*Show more examples (also from other thematic areas already implemented).

*Sharing best practices during short (!) webinars seems to be a suitable approach (of course only if they have enough relevance

to other NCP networks).

*Be very concrete in defining what listeners can expect from the webinar.

of 255




Date 28.11.2019.

Place Helsinki

Organiser Access for SMEs + NCP Academy

Main content This M&E will initiate the exchange on the role and tasks of NCPs with regards to the EIC


Response rate 78 %

Trainers 0




The analysis of the participants of the workshop Enhanced EIC Pilot 2019-2020 towards Horizon showed

that men and women were equally represented in this event. Most of the participants came from the EU-

15 countries (49 %) followed by EU-13 countries (26 %) and Associated Countries (26 %). Most of the NCPs

who participated in this workshop cover Innovation in SMEs (49 %) and Access to risk finance (21 %) areas

of Horizon 2020 and most of them have up to 5 years of experience as NCPs (60 %).


Chart 161: Enhanced EIC Pilot 2019-2020 towards Horizon – gender structure

50%50%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 162: Enhanced EIC Pilot 2019-2020 towards Horizon – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 163: Enhanced EIC Pilot 2019-2020 towards Horizon – NCPs’ areas of expertise

Chart 164: Enhanced EIC Pilot 2019-2020 towards Horizon – NCPs’ level of experience

49%

26%

26%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC


participants

2%

11%

5%

2%

21%

49%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%





Innovation in SMEs

Food

Transport

Climate

Legal and finance


Coordinator

NCPs' areas

8%

26%

26%

34%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%





More than 10 years


of 255


Chart 165: Enhanced EIC Pilot 2019-2020 towards Horizon – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d the exchange between colleagues;

interaction, openness, group work;

lively Q&A sessions;

very good facilitation;

to dance and network –> the energizer exercise!

EC presentation.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

It was perfect! All was great!

main presentations sent in advance in order to prepare questions;

even bit more group work, discussions and Q&A;

presence on-site of EC;

the connections between pathfinder & accelerator;

hands-on experience from companies or evaluators.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

bridging the gap between Pathfinder and Accelerator;

FET-Open and FET-proactive (without FET there is no Accelerator);

the seal of excellence schemes;

missions & clusters;

pitching

bankability & scalability details;

step by step application process.

64%

61%

78%

28%

31%

17%

6%

3%

6%

3%

6%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



- Two of the four presentations during the day were through a remote connection from Brussels.

While this worked ok for the presentation, the EC official presenting could obviously not participate in the discussion and

exchange of ideas that followed (group work). This is not ideal for a Meet & Exchange, where the enhance part is a key

ingredient of the event.

- There is definitely a need to continue Meet & Exchange type events (in addition to trainings) as NCPs are keen to share

experiences and to learn from each other.

of 255



Training on ‘Workshop Interaction Design’ Date 4.-5.12.2019.

Place Prague

Organiser NCP Academy + Technology Centre CAS

Main content

This workshop will show you, how to make your workshops, trainings and events more

effective, more fun and definitely more worthwhile. The workshop will be fully interactive,

allowing you to prepare your own workshop and practice all basic moderation skills.


Response rate 90 %

Trainers Hans Etman

Jan-Jaap In der Maur




The participants and feedback analysis of the Training on ‘Workshop Interaction Design’ Horizon showed

that women were the majority in this event (90 %). Most of the participants came from the EU-13 countries

(80 %) followed by EU-15 countries (20 %). Most of the NCPs who participated cover the area of expertise

Legal and finance (33 %) and most of them have between 5 and 10 years of experience as NCPs (30 %).


Chart 166: Training on ‘Workshop Interaction Design’ – gender structure

90%

10%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 167: Training on ‘Workshop Interaction Design’– geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 168: Training on ‘Workshop Interaction Design’ – NCPs’ areas of expertise

Chart 169: Training on ‘Workshop Interaction Design’- NCPs’ level of experience

20%

80%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EU 15

EU 13


participants

8%

8%

8%

8%

8%

33%

8%

8%

8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%


Energy

Climate


Security

Legal and finance


Coordinator

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

10%

10%

20%

30%

20%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%



Not NCP


of 255


Chart 170: Training on ‘Workshop Interaction Design’ – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y

lik

ed

active involvement, examples, exercises, the communication and enthusiasm of the trainers;

the composition of the group, methodology, trainers, exercise.

Wo

uld

imp

rove

drawing exercise (for the trainers);

omitting of more theoretical parts (for the trainers);

documents, records, links.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

same topic (advanced);

presentation/facilitation;

communication, moderation, facilitating skills.

78%

89%

89%

22%

11%

11%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



The main problem, from my point of view, was the rate of cancelled registrations. We had 17 people registered in few days, but

during the week before the start of the action many people wrote they can’t come. Two didn’t write anything, didn’t react to my e-mail and didn’t come. The result was I had to take Czech NCPs there because there was no possibility of cancelling this event as an external company was paid to come and train us. I understand that some people had relevant reasons, but am not

sure if all of them found out just a couple of days before the event. In the end, the training was a success and we enjoyed it, but

I was still thinking about how great it could have been if all registered participants could come. Don’t know how to improve

this. Maybe some participation fee or refundable deposit could help. 😊

of 255




Date 4.2.2020.

Place Athens

Organiser ETNA + NCP Academy

Main content Proposal Writing, Proposal Checking


Response rate 100 %

Trainers 0




The analysis of the participants of Proposal Writing Training showed that male participants were the

majority in this event (53 %). Most of the participants came from the EU-15 countries (59 %) followed by

Associated countries (24 %). Most of the NCPs who participated cover the area of Smart, Green and

Integrated Transport (55 %) and a slight majority of them have up to 5 years of experience as NCPs (60 %).


Chart 171: Proposal Writing Training – gender structure

47%53%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 172: Proposal Writing Training – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 173: Proposal Writing Training – NCPs’ areas of expertise

Chart 174: Proposal Writing Training – NCPs’ level of experience

59%

18%

24%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

EU 15

EU 13

AC


participants

7%

7%

3%

7%

55%

7%

3%

7%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Nano, new materials

Space

Innovation in SMEs

Energy

Transport

Climate

Security


SWAFS

NCPs' areas

29%

18%

12%

29%

12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%





More than 10 years


of 255


Chart 175: Proposal Writing Training – feedback chart

65%

65%

76%

35%

29%

24%

0%

6%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

the interactive exercises (this was mentioned several times);

first working individually, then in groups and then attending discussions between tables;

headstand training technique;

group discussions, Mentimeter, bingo;

the innovative approach of the trainer, lots of exercises and humorous practices;

the activities and playful side;

the role-playing games as proposal writers;

the possibility of being involved;

the interactive work, esp. the brainstorming session;

the practical applications and games;

It has been very fun.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

more contribution from the trainer regarding the assessment of work from the groups;

advanced training – bring a real proposal and examine it;

add a second day to the training for more info & exercises;

the references to real proposals, good and bad examples;

an example of a winning proposal, evaluation process;

A two-day training with deeper activities could be even more relevant.

Nothing at all.

Organise a 2-day training to go more into details, with examples.

more general information as an introduction of each exercise;

more specific information;

the theoretical part.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

Horizon Europe;

How to write a good abstract, risk plan, innovation management plan?

partner search strategies, tools;

an interview with SME about the efforts of joining a proposal;

budget formation, proposal pre-screening, evaluators experience;

evaluation process;

Present open calls.


Astrid Hoebertz, FFG, Austria: The training was held for the 5th time, and was again very successful, despite the short planning period. The ETNA network only

had time for a one-day training (normally training is designed for 1.5 day), therefore important parts had to be shortened, for

example, the reading of a real proposal. But exactly this missing part was then listed as one of the shortcomings/possible

improvements.

Therefore, this kind of training should always be designed for 1.5 days, in order to meet all expectations.

The venue was perfect this time, very spacious room.

of 255


Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe

Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe

Date 25.3.2020.

Place Online

Organiser Instituto de Salud Carlos III

Main content Training will focus on the new structure as well as the main changes expected between

Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe


Response rate 32 %

Trainers Lucía del Río, Instituto de Salud Carlos III

Maria Carmen Bello, Instituto de Salud Carlos III




The analysis of the participants of Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe webinar showed


EU-15 countries (57 %) followed by EU-13 countries (19 %). Most of the NCPs who participated in this

webinar cover Legal and financial area (14 %) and the area of Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing

(13 %). Since the organisers did not include the question regarding the NCPs’ level of experience in the

registrations, unfortunately, we do not have this type of information available for this webinar.


Chart 176: Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe– gender structure

78%

22%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 177: Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 178: Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe – NCPs’ areas of expertise

57%

19%

13%

3%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other

Not listed


participants

5%

3%

3%

3%

8%

2%

2%

6%

13%

7%

6%

3%

5%

7%

1%

14%

2%

2%

3%

3%

1%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%






Nano, new materials


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance



Coordinator

SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 179: Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe – feedback chart


Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d

the compilation about what’s next in HE;

The presenters did a good job of explaining Horizon Europe features and novelties.

practical examples from H2020 to HE;

the part on third parties in HE;

the part of the webinar related to funding rules;

the clarity of presentation;

explanation in simple English terms;

the subject that was approached; Even though I am not an L&F NCP, I am quite interested in the subject.

the speakers;

the relevance of the subjects and the good performance of speakers, whose exposition was really clear

and helpful;

the details on news, e.g. daily rate instead of hourly rate;

I liked the format of the Webinar and good explanations. The PowerPoint, very clear and clean

presentation.

the content;

the speakers and the content;

It was very interesting, the content of the webinar in general.

the clarity of the presentation, content + explanations provided.

32%

52%

36%

48%

36%

28%

16%

4%

32%

4%

4%

4%

0%

4%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255


Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

too basic in the introduction;

IT system used;

technical facilities: unfortunately, there were many breaks in connection.

Technical aspects of the webinar since the sound was going on and off during the whole webinar.

THIRD PARTIES case study;

The quality of the sound was very bad, so very difficult to follow…

the quality of connection;

sound and hosting, mute mic function;

to organise such kind of event when more information can be facilitated; I didn't find anything new.

the web connection;

My connection was so bad, I could not follow it properly.

The sound was poor at some moments.

the possibility to download the recording (if it is recorded) and send the PowerPoint presentation;

And the audio was a little bad.

the sound;

the web platform;

To show examples would be useful to help understand the problems and how to solve them.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y

eve

nts

Missions in HE;

Missions: what does it mean? What are the basic rules? Where does this instrument come from?

Successful examples in the part elsewhere?

I am interested in IPR webinar/workshop.

eligible cost;

more on HEU L&F aspects, on missions and partnerships;

proposal review/check;

same topic, but more information;

Horizon Results Platform, Horizon Dashboard;

EiC Accelerator and support for SMEs through Horizon Europe;

ethics, data management;

H2020 for more;

lump sums management;

The experience after the first lump sum funding scheme-based topics. Practical hints for NCPs to provide

with proper advice. L&F aspects based on examples. A practical view of the real life of NCPs: the most

common questions to be addressed.


ISCIII, Spain: Improve the IT system used for Webinars because of sound problems for participants and because of difficulties to gather

information from the ones registered and actually participating.

In case of a webinar, better send the link to the online feedback form to participants instead of the Word template, to increase

the return rate.

of 255




Date 25.3.2020.

Place Online


Main content

The Webinar will provide a general knowledge about the Horizon Dashboard. It is

mandatory for NCPs who want to participate in the on-site training and/or the Meet and

Exchange on the Horizon Dashboard in Paris.


Response rate 13 %

Trainers




The analysis of the participants of Introducing the Horizon Dashboard webinar showed that female


(68 %) followed by EU-13 countries (18 %). Most of the NCPs who participated in this webinar cover Legal

and financial area (10 %), Climate Action, Environment, Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials (8 %) and

Secure, Clean and Efficient Energy (8 %). Since the organisers did not include the question regarding the

NCPs’ level of experience in the registrations, unfortunately, we do not have this type of information

available for this webinar.


Chart 180: Introducing the Horizon Dashboard – gender structure

58%

42%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 181: Introducing the Horizon Dashboard – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 182: Introducing the Horizon Dashboard – NCPs’ areas of expertise

68%

18%

13%

1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

5%

3%

4%

2%

5%

7%

5%

3%

5%

7%

7%

8%

3%

8%

4%

3%

10%

1%

1%

6%

3%

1%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%






Nano, new materials

Space


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance



Coordinator

SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 183: Introducing the Horizon Dashboard – feedback chart

38%

58%

35%

35%

35%

31%

19%

4%

31%

8%

4%

4%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

the clear scope of content;

Those more complex questions were answered, too. Learning that more functions will be added according

to demand.

the spontaneity to react to questions;

The way the event was organised – it was based on the questions of participants.

presentation quality;

the information on how to use the dashboard (and what is available in the dashboard);

I gained basic info on using the information on the Dashboard.

the announcement of the new features – organisations profiles and research department data;

I was able to understand everything thanks to the professionalism of the trainers. Examples based

methodology is really efficient for participants.

I also learned a few things from the participant questions which took a response in real time by H2020

experts.

The online immediate answers to all the questions asked and a summary at the end of the webinar; I

would also like to thank you for the presentation and the recording would be much appreciated as well!

the information as an introduction to the Dashboard tool, though I would have liked a longer seminar (2

hours at least);

practical examples;

the reference documents given;

the specific examples presented and the answers provided to the most common questions;

case studies;

presentation and application;

It is an important topic that was made in a harsh environment. The overall presentation was fine and it

seems that the presenters know the material very well.

The concrete visualization of the search online, since there are really many opportunities that we don’t know about. And – you continue with further development of this too, so new options are constantly

appearing! It’s great, so it’s important to inform us about them and show them in a live way.

the way the speaker demonstrated all practical aspects;

the topic itself; Dashboard is a nice instrument and I feel sorry about not using all its functionalities just

because of not knowing exactly ‘how’; content and presentation – relevant content presented in a nice, comprehensive way, with appropriate

pace;

the division of work – one presenting, other specialists answering questions in the chat – super efficient for

a webinar!

the short intro of new features in Dashboard; The direct comparison of two or more countries is especially

helpful.

to learn about some features of the Dashboard that I had not been aware of;

It was also useful to learn what new features are planned to be developed in the near future.

of 255


Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

Improve the management of and communication with participants for the different needs (mgt: how to

keep things ‘silent’ in view of technical checks/problems; incoming, sound check, mute signals,

microphones, there is a chat function people can use anyway) – do not rely on people’s capability.

Briefing of the speaker on the tool and some (not many) tips for a good presentation, maybe through a

briefing note to send in advance (small info or similar) on speaking/moving over slides – it is small things

making a big difference: using the mouse, pausing between sentences (not necessarily speaking slowly),

not rushing through slides (the speaker knows by heart, the participant not), have a sound check before

the actual event.

Organise the feedback online, not through a word file.

Sending a link to the dashboard before would have been good to allow everyone to just try around a bit

and ask better questions.

Short live demonstration since it is already remote after the introduction with slide magnification of

particular parts of the screen after showing the overview.

Sometimes a bit difficult to follow on ‘how to’, but improved during the webinar by using the arrow in the

presentation.

the technical organisation of the webinar;

Check all the functions at the beginning of the webinar – unmute participants at the beginning. Next time

it would be useful if the dashboard is shown in live – not as ppt.

learning more details over the statistics tools to be used by H2020 dashboard;

better technology would assist with all the noises around;

more time;

more examples;

Send the slides beforehand.

Next time split into 2 webinars: click view basics and data basics.

The limitation to the public so that they can solely read and watch the presentation, muting everyone (but

I understand completely that this was a new type of webinar to you and everybody).

I would also propose to go from time to time live to the dashboard during the presentation, if feasible, so

that we really see the functionalities – especially the ones that are more or less hidden.

However – I think it should be arranged with fewer participants in order to investigate deeper and get

more knowledge of specific needs – to show practical examples about a country or an organisation.

As a continuation of my comment above – since there are many options, it would be good to have a bit

more time for showing them. As usually, it takes some time for connection of all participants, so it reduces

the time for explanations.

Perhaps use another webinar platform.

It could be repeated and extended further to an ‘advanced training’;

of 255


Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y e

ve

nts

the methods for online brokerage events;

L&F in HEU and other topics related to HEU;

EIC accelerator: SMEi – more insight on how to proceed with due diligence/equity;

IPR and Liability of beneficiaries in H2020 projects;

anything related to HE, as well as cross-cutting issues;

HORIZON EUROPE, NCPs’ issue;

future NCP systems; I would like to be part of a workshop where we discuss how the different MS plan to

organise themselves and for what reason. This way we get a chance to learn from each other. However, I

understand if the current NCP academy cannot cover questions related to HEU.

As an NCP for JRC, I would need a special training for the Joint Research Centre and what statistics I can

access via the H2020 dashboard related to JRC results and to realise how associated countries can benefit

from JRC calls, application forms and which are the difficulties in project implementation.

If the modalities that were proposed (eg. Organisation profile) are available, a new webinar with these

updates and some live sessions (if feasible) would be interesting.

It may be interesting in the future to organise a practical course/exercise, in a way that participants

practice/try different things with the platform.

the updates and examples of the practical application;

How do I get information about a country – success rate overall and in a specific area, best participants,

best coordinators, most relevant topics?

How do I get information about participants – coordination success, participant success, which topics, who

are the top partners?

I think it could be great to propose an interactive session, at the end of the presentation for example, with

an exercise, in order to give the possibility for the audience to manipulate the platform simultaneously.

Indeed, learning by doing appears to be the best method to understand fully the potential of the

dashboard.

As a total newcomer with everything new to me, I need a bit more time to map my exact training needs.

As an NCP, I have been looking into the data structures of the Funding & Tenders Portal with an intention

to automate transferring data of calls into our local web pages. I believe that you and/or your colleagues,

who are working on the Dashboard, are using the same (or supposedly even wider) data background and I

am looking for someone with whom I could verify that these data structures will be maintained in the

coming period of HEurope so that our intended work does not come in vain. Would it be possible to discuss

that with you or your colleagues or could you provide me with a contact of someone in the EC data

administration? I guess you might be in touch with someone relevant in this sense.


Liane Lewerentz/Benjamin Bas, DLR, Germany:

A webinar based on previously collected questions and examples was very effective.

The division of work – one presenting, other specialists answering questions in the chat, was efficient for a webinar.

Next time use online feedback forms.

We had to change the webinar platform just before the webinar took place due to technical reasons related to the Corona

situation in a wider sense. Next time, the technical platform has to be prepared more in advance. Also sound checks with

participants and rules for participants such as how and when to unmute the microphone, rules for the Q&A section.

Could be repeated and extended further to an ‘advanced training’.

Check the options of the live presentation of an example and send the presentations in advance.

More webinars on the Dashboard are requested from the community.

of 255




Date 28.5.2020.

Place Online

Organiser DLR-PT

Main content

The goal of the webinar is to practice statistical data analyses with the Horizon dashboard

starting from concrete business questions. Participants are therefore asked to send

examples from practice in advance. NCPs should then be able to convey important Horizon

dashboard tools to the community itself.


Response rate 33 %

Trainers Liane Lewerentz




The analysis of the participants of Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard showed


EU-15 countries (48 %) followed by Associated countries (28 %). Most of the NCPs who participated cover

the areas of European Research Council (13 %) and Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing (11 %) and

most of them have up to 3 years of experience as NCPs (45 %).


Chart 684: Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – gender chart

61%

39%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 185: Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 186: Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – NCPs’ areas of expertise

48%

21%

28%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

13%

5%

3%

3%

5%

8%

5%

11%

3%

5%

5%

5%

8%

5%

5%

3%

5%

3%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%






Nano, new materials

Space

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance


Coordinator

SWAFS

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 187: Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Level of experience of NCPs

Chart 188: Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – feedback chart

7%

38%

17%

14%

14%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%



Not NCP


67%

50%

83%

17%

33%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

17%

17%

17%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



Esp

eci

all

y

lik

ed

the poll system;

the way the webinar was delivered;

exercises;

the presentation.

Wo

uld

imp

rove

the difficulty level of the practical exercises (The ones proposed in this webinar were easy.);

more exercises and more time;

my efficiency.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

futu

re N

CP

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

Mission-oriented research: how is it going to work?

How to properly prepare the financial report (Form C) for the ERA-NET Cofund Projects?

Horizon Europe;

We are interested in approaches on how to increase the participation of BY specialists in Horizon Europe,

how to make this participation (the participation of the third country) more effective and desirable.

of 255


Inclusiveness in European R&I Partnership Programmes


Date 9.6.2020.

Place Online

Organiser NCP_WIDE.NET & NCP Academy

Main content

The webinar will focus on inclusiveness/ widening issues within the European

Partnerships. The first case will be related to the results and conclusions of the study

presenting EU13 participation in partnerships programmes performed within ERA-LEARN

project. Examples of solutions adopted within partnerships dedicated to include EU13

countries will be presented as well. The second case will present the QuantERA ERA-NET in

Quantum Technologies as an example of partnership designing dedicated calls enabling

participation of Widening countries. The scheme and its impact will be described. The

webinar will be delivered by the experts of the National Science Centre in Poland.


Response rate 21 %

Trainers Dr. Malwina Gębalska │ National Science Centre Poland

Sylwia Kostka │ National Science Centre Poland




The analysis of the participants of Inclusiveness In European R&I Partnership Programmes showed that


countries (37 %) followed by EU-13 countries (33 %). Most of the NCPs who participated cover the areas

of Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation (10 %), Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies

(9 %) and European Research Council (8 %) and most of them have up to 5 years of experience as NCPs

(60 %).


Chart 189: Inclusiveness in European R&I Partnership Programmes – gender chart

60%

40%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 190: Inclusiveness in European R&I Partnership Programmes – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 191: Inclusiveness in European R&I Partnership Programmes – NCPs’ areas

37%

33%

6%

24%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

8%

2%

5%

3%

5%

2%

0%

3%

2%

3%

3%

5%

4%

5%

3%

9%

1%

6%

4%

10%

8%

5%

2%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%






Biotechnology

Space


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance



Coordinator

SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 192: Inclusiveness in European R&I Partnership Programmes – Level of experience of NCPs

Chart 193: Inclusiveness in European R&I Partnership Programmes – feedback chart

19%

21%

20%

13%

22%

5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%



Not NCP


75%

67%

83%

25%

33%

17%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d

the clarity of the presentations, the fact that the presenters took time to answer all questions;

reminder & technical instruction beforehand; switch between two speakers & complementary

presentations;

perfectly prepared speakers including their presentations;

opportunities and measures supporting widening;

the effort to present concrete measures taken or proposed in a limited time;

the good tips on widening;

practical tips and examples;

the clarity of the explanations;

the topic and the high-value content of the webinar.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

Send an Outlook invitation for the calendar early on (I almost forgot).

the registration process and the information;

I have not seen the list of participants. Maybe it was my fault?

All was nice.

Nothing, I think everything went great!

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n

the

fu

ture

NC

P

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

EIT, future KICs and scheme RIS in Horizon Europe (in light of the fact that an EIT NCP will be newly

established);

All topics are welcomed.

JRC projects;

the synergies between European Programmes.

of 255


Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe (2nd training)

Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe (2nd training)

Date 24.6.2020.

Place Online

Organiser ISC III & NCP Academy

Main content

This event is of particular importance since it will focus on the new structure as well as the

main changes expected between Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe. Taking into account

that the legal framework of the new Programme is still under discussion and that the

documents are not yet final, this webinar aims at giving an overview on the status of

discussion and the expected main changes, as well as highlighting those aspects that are

already settled or that remain unchanged from the previous Programme.


Response rate 32 %

Trainers Lucía del Río, NCP for L&F Issues

Mª Carmen Bello – Technical Officer




The analysis of the participants of Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe (2nd training)

showed that female participants were the majority in this event (69 %). Most of the participants came

from the EU-15 countries (63 %) followed by Associated countries (18 %). Most of the NCPs who

participated cover Legal and financial area (16 %), European Research Council (8 %) and Research

Infrastructures, including e-Infrastructures (8 %) and most of them have up to 5 years of experience as

NCPs (57 %).


Chart 794: Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe (2nd training) – gender chart

69%

31%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 195: Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe (2nd training) – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 196: Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe (2nd training) – NCPs’ areas of expertise

63%

16%

18%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

8%

3%

4%

8%

6%

2%

1%

1%

4%

6%

4%

6%

6%

4%

4%

4%

16%

3%

3%

3%

3%

1%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%






Nano, new materials

Space


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance



Coordinator

SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 197: Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe (2nd training) – Level of experience of NCPs

Chart 198: Legal and Financial Basic Features in Horizon Europe (2nd training) – feedback chart

14%

27%

16%

20%

14%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30%



Not NCP


47%

56%

50%

22%

16%

19%

16%

13%

0%

13%

13%

19%

3%

3%

13%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



Esp

eci

all

y l

ike

d

the questions and answer session at the end;

the useful information on upcoming changes;

the preparation of the teachers;

Was very interesting to learn what news is expected in the next Programme.

the updated information;

the information about Horizon Europe;

practical examples;

the slide with differences and the slide with what remains;

the speakers and the platform;

the clarity of the presentation;

the latest news concerning Horizon Europe;

clear structure;

The presentation was clear.

It was good for people who are relatively new to Horizon 2020.

the speakers, very good;

the Q&A Session.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

There needs to be more information beyond the slides – the current information that was given was too

general and not detailed enough.

Stop the bell ringing all the time. It was disturbing.

Maybe the first, introductory part on the structure of the Horizon Europe could be shorter, with more

emphasis on the main part.

The noise. It sometimes goes up and other times down.

Everything was excellent.

All was perfect.

including more examples;

technical aspects;

I could not access the webinar, problems of connectivity with the web page.

more emphasis on differences and what remains than on the general aspects of the structure;

No suggestions – thank you.

I find it easier to ask questions than to write questions. Maybe the inter-activity could be improved.

Connection to the session was not straightforward.

The sound, sometimes the sound was so low it was difficult to follow the speech.

recording the Q&A and providing it as a separate record/document.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

actual changes in L&F in much more detail – how will personnel be calculated, how will participation

work?

Please repeat the event after some things have been finalised with Horizon Europe.

There will be some new opportunities introduced for partner search in Horizon Europe?

a good calendar of events;

the information on the calculation of daily rate; Please send the presentation. Thank you! news in Horizon Europe;

the presentation about missions and partnerships;

Green Deal, HE Partnerships;

the state of play on Horizon Europe – focus on changes compared to H2020;

elaborate L&F even further, also civil security;

‘1. How to organise proposals reviewing services? 2. How to demonstrate NCP services impact vis-à-vis our authorities?’

of 255




Date 30.6.2020.

Place Online

Organiser DLR-PT

Main content

The webinar will give you an overview of the platform's ability to make project

results visible. The main features and novelties of the platform will be presented.

NCPs should then be able to communicate the possibilities of using the results

platform in their communities.


Response rate 34 %


Average mark (5 highest

mark) 4,37


The analysis of the participants of The revamped Horizon Results Platform webinar showed that female


(50 %) followed by EU-13 countries (26 %). Most of the NCPs who participated cover Legal and financial

area (10 %), Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies (8 %) and most of them have up to 3 years of

experience as NCPs (50 %).


Chart 899: The revamped Horizon Results Platform – gender chart

76%

24%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 900: The revamped Horizon Results Platform – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 201: The revamped Horizon Results Platform – NCPs’ areas of expertise

50%

26%

14%

10%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

7%

1%

3%

5%

6%

2%

3%

4%

5%

5%

7%

5%

7%

8%

5%

10%

5%

4%

7%

3%

1%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%






Space


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance



Coordinator

SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 202: The revamped Horizon Results Platform – Level of experience of NCPs

Chart 203: The revamped Horizon Results Platform – feedback chart

27%

23%

15%

15%

10%

9%

0% 10% 20% 30%



Not NCP


59%

52%

52%

34%

21%

41%

3%

28%

3%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

the demos;

the content;

the clarity of the explanations of the speaker;

the opportunities for innovative SMEs & the better account portfolio management;

It was a good, all-round overview.

the presentation;

the good news about new features of the electronic platform of EU for R&I;

the design of the slides as well as the detailed answers to the questions;

the demos on how to put the results on the platform and how to consult;

It was valuable information and the speaker was very easy to understand.

good slides;

the presentation;

It was a detailed presentation with examples, demonstration.

the presentation and comments;

details and tips;

the friendly reminders by the organiser before the meeting;

the info provided, the useful Q&A that clarified even more.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

more anticipation of questions and low-level explanations that were only done after questions were

asked;

The technical issues encountered at the beginning, but we should all be more tolerant given the

circumstances. Overall very satisfied!

nothing;

the quality of the slides, prepare better to avoid technical issues (like beeping sounds);

more time, practical cases;

Concerning content – it was excellent, everything. Some technical inconveniences appeared in the

beginning of the session with a repeated beep.

the message of why/how this platform fits into other existing tools and services;

no beeping;

the connection quality, but this is not on the NCP Academy;

Someone else than the speaker takes care of the technical problems and also reads the questions in the

chat for the speaker.

If the presenter cannot read the chat during the presentation maybe someone else could check the chat

for him/her.

the beeping sounds :)

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y

eve

nts

the changes to the templates in HE, Legal and financial changes – how to newly calculate PM?, Missions in

HE;

TRLs Explanation with clear examples;

the funding opportunities in the Horizon Europe era;

Horizon EU;

open data in a proposal;

I am not sure if it allows the format of such sessions, because it is related to more conceptual issues, not

technical. So, I'd like to propose topics connected with the increase of the cooperation in technology and

engineering between EU and USA, Canada, South-East Asia due to the very strong competition on a.m.

dimensions.

JRC role and importance;

The proposed calendar is ok.

Green Deal Calls;

the risks on activities of NCPs and adjustment of activities to possible risks;

Alliances;

the update on Horizon Europe.

of 255


Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Advanced Training II

Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Advanced Training II

Date 2.7.2020.

Place Online

Organiser DLR-PT

Main content This webinar is aimed at NCPs who unfortunately could not register for the webinar on 28

May 2020.


Response rate 35 %

Trainers Ioana-Andreea VLAD │

DG RTD




The analysis of the participants of Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Advanced

Training II showed that female participants were the majority in this event (62 %). Most of the participants

came from the EU-15 countries (47 %) followed by Associated countries (28 %). Most of the NCPs who

participated cover Legal and financial area (10 %), Information and Communication Technologies (8 %),

and most of them have up to 3 years of experience as NCPs (58 %).


Chart 204: Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Advanced Training II – gender chart

62%

38%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 1005: Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Advanced Training II – geographical coverage of the

participants

Chart 206: Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Advanced Training II – NCPs’ areas of expertise

47%

19%

28%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

7%

3%

4%

2%

9%

6%

2%

2%

4%

4%

4%

7%

4%

3%

4%

3%

10%

2%

3%

7%

7%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%






Nano, new materials

Space


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance



Coordinator

SWAFS

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 207: Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Advanced Training II – Level of experience of NCPs

Chart 208: Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Advanced Training II – feedback chart

23%

35%

18%

11%

11%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%



Not NCP


63%

79%

53%

37%

21%

47%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

practical examples;

active parts, not only front-lesson;

practical issues;

very detailed explained things;

information and speaker;

to have to do the exercises during the webinar;

I liked the interactive part and that we had a chance to practice the dashboard search ourselves.

practical examples;

the practical aspect of the webinar, the interactive polls, and the clarity of the presentation;

practical examples;

practical examples;

the audio and video;

practical examples;

worked examples;

that this was an online event.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

I had some technical issues at the beginning.

time management (Maybe a longer session?);

more time;

to refer a little to Nuts;

Some of the explanations were too quick for someone, who is not used to working on that website.

nothing;

have more time for questions;

the summary of improvements/novelties from the start;

The speaker should be quieter in the explanations, lack of time for the exercises online.

I would repeat my participation in the webinar.

a little bit slower for beginners;

the length of the training, by giving more time for the exercises; It was too quick to follow (because I had

practically no previous knowledge of the Dashboard), but I will manage with practising on my own and

with the material.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y e

ve

nts

Dashboard with a higher level of functionality/showing more tricks;

Horizon EU Calls;

the roles in the projects;

Euratom

cross-cutting areas 9-10-11 of EU Green Deal Call;

the links between Framework Programme and other funding programmes, synergies;

H2020 Dashboard again.

of 255


European Partnerships – state of play and next steps towards their launch

European Partnerships – state of play and next steps towards their launch

Date 3.9.2020.

Place Online

Organiser FFG

Main content

This webinar will give you some insight into the new approach for European Partnerships

tackling the 3 types of partnerships, financing modes, the current discussion and future

implementation steps.


Response rate 18 %

Trainers Joerg Niehoff │ Head of sector Partnerships, DG Research, European Commission




The analysis of the participants of European Partnerships – state of play and next steps towards their

launch showed that female participants were the majority in this event (70 %). Most of the participants

came from the EU-15 countries (51 %) followed by Third countries (19 %). Most of the NCPs who

participated cover Legal and financial area (10 %), Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing (9 %),

Information and Communication Technologies (7 %), Nanotechnologies, Advanced Materials, Advanced

Manufacturing and Processing, and Biotechnology (7 %) and most of them have up to 3 years of experience

as NCPs (50 %).


Chart 209 - European Partnerships – state of play and next steps towards their launch - gender chart

70%

30%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 1110: European Partnerships – state of play and next steps towards their launch – geographical coverage of the

participants

Chart 211: European Partnerships – state of play and next steps towards their launch – NCPs’ areas of expertise

51%

17%

13%

19%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

2%

5%

4%

3%

7%

7%

4%

2%

4%

9%

6%

6%

4%

7%

4%

4%

10%

1%

2%

5%

3%

2%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%






Nano, new materials

Space


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance



Coordinator

SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 212: European Partnerships – state of play and next steps towards their launch – Level of experience of NCPs

Chart 213: European Partnerships – state of play and next steps towards their launch – feedback chart

26%

24%

14%

13%

14%

9%

0% 10% 20% 30%



Not NCP


53%

60%

74%

30%

23%

12%

2%

2%

0%

9%

9%

0%

5%

5%

14%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

the content covered by the speaker and the level of details;

Q&A session;

detailed information, well organised, the energy of the presentation;

Q&A;

the short presentation from Jörg and the long and very detailed Q&A session;

the high expertise of Jörg Niehof and the clear presentation and answering questions; and the smooth

organisation by FFG – Great!

the time given for Q&A;

the partnership;

all of the topics;

The topic is very interesting and Q&A session was excellent.

new programmes and collaboration mechanism;

exhaustive Q&A session;

the future partnerships;

how every question was tackled;

How to link with partners?

There was plenty of time for questions at the end.

the completeness of answers and time for Q&A, very much appreciated;

the willingness and preparedness of the speaker to answer questions posted by the participants.

the Q&A session where I was able to gain insights on the opportunities in partnership;

I liked the presentation as well as the Q&A portion.

The speaker addressed questions in a direct way and there was ample time for questions and follow up

questions.

How to link with partners?

Very professionally organised and implemented. Well done!

Everything, from the explanation of Jörg to all the questions being answered in a very direct & clear way.

how the queries were answered patiently and thoroughly.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

Give more examples for each type of partnerships (especially for people not knowing the existing

partnerships) to present the 3 types.

none;

I know GDPR and all... but it would have been nice to see who else was online, since we were all NCP

colleagues.

none;

n/a;

nothing;

There is a sample infographic of mechanics for each collaboration and mechanics.

nothing;

none;

More specific examples would be helpful, especially for NCPs who are new and who have no experience in

partnerships.

The speaker delivered his presentation so quickly, it was a little difficult to follow and take notes at this

pace.

Nothing to improve, honestly.

It's organised well enough :-)

none;

more time for Q&A;

longer Q&A;

Good as it is.

the possibilities of partnerships in ASEAN countries;

none;

my participation in the different events;

of 255


Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y e

ve

nts

Partnerships;

Missions – State of Play?

Missions, Green Deal Call;

the processes involved in the partnerships;

IPR;

programme implementation and monitoring plans;

funding in Horizon Europe;

Partnerships (Further developments follow-up webinar), MSCA developments, What role will NCPs play in

Missions? ;

NCPs’ status, involvement in HE activities of 3rd countries;

partner agencies and opportunities;

Work Programmes of European Partnerships, HE Cluster Work Programmes, Synergies of HE with other EU

programmes and structural funds;

internationalisation;

For me, this was too quick, very specialised and for people who already know the details about the

Partnerships. As NCP on other areas, I could still use a basic introduction to how the partnerships work,

differences between e.g. art 185 and 187 etc. But I am aware this was a ‘state of play’ presentation.

My 1st time to attend the NPC event and I was very impressed. Thank you very much.

of 255




Date 8.9.2020.

Place Online

Organiser Technology Centre CAS

Main content This event is the first one of the series of online events on virtual event and training tools

that will be organised by the NCP Academy in 2020.


Response rate 75 %

Trainers Jan-Jaap In der Maur │ Masters in Moderation




The analysis of the participants of Digital moderation and virtual meeting design showed that female


(59 %) followed by Third countries (41 %). Most of the NCPs who participated cover Legal and financial

area (38 %) and Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing (12 %) and most of them have up to 5 years

of experience as NCPs (60 %).


Chart 214: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design – gender chart

87%

13%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 1215: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 216: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design – NCPs’ areas of expertise

59%

41%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

EU 15

EU 13


participants

5%

5%

7%

2%

5%

12%

10%

2%

5%

38%

2%

7%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%




Information & Communication

Tehnologies (ICT)

Space

Health

Energy

Transport

Security

Legal and finance


SWAFS

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 217: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design – Level of experience of NCPs

Chart 218: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design – feedback chart

22%

27%

11%

22%

19%

0% 10% 20% 30%





More than 10 years


63%

58%

79%

29%

29%

13%

0%

13%

4%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

8%

0%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

energy management;

the practice examples and demonstrations, as well as the professionalism of JJ and Sybern;

your enthusiasm for the topic and your positivity; I also greatly appreciated your explanations and

openness to helping us after the event and the useful tips.

excellent hints;

liveliness;

the demonstration of the theory;

the exercises and live usage of the tools;

practical work, possibility to comment;

the different ways of interaction ;

Questions were welcome.

the hints on the importance of Body language;

the inspiration and a fabulous moderator;

get ideas on how to stay connected with the audience ;

the first part before lunch – very energetic and lively;

Thanks, you are a great entertainer.

the ideas for engagement;

the examples on how to introduce breaks and involve people;

the energy of JJ;

interactivity;

being kept alert, not possible to snooze off even in front of the screen for hours; quite amazing.

JJ’s way of presenting the topics;

the great expertise of JJ;

the humour at the event.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

none;

the relevance to our work with actual examples;

I think it would be good to share an agenda in advance, but otherwise, I felt the event flowed very well

and was easy to follow.

You could activate all, not some 10 persons WHO talked all the time.

more chocolate;

the distribution of breaks;

a bit shorter session;

a longer lunch break;

no tasks during breaks :);

more examples on how to technically integrate different sites ;

NCP examples;

entering my photo into the document sent before the event...;

Don't talk about breakfast if we have to work first. Chocolate for everyone ;-);

I would make the second part after lunch a little shorter.

Just a tiny little bit less intensity by the trainer. But only 0.5 degree;

a shorter meeting;

shorter;

of 255


Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

ethics;

MGA 2021;

HE – all changes, legal and financial, partnerships, cascade funding;

How to work with difficult clients and their requests? In this case, ministries or other official bodies.

Better & quot; slide shows & quot;

the design of the agenda;

ERC;

live workshops;

all good;

Communication and Impact trainings;

New MGA;

Do not know.

I would have liked to know that the session is recorded beforehand as it is obligatory to use the camera.

maybe technical examples on how to do something on dig pat.


There is a high demand for training on digital skills and digital events. It is essential for NCPs and their work these days

(COVID situation) to learn how to do online events the best way. Originally, there was a plan to organise only one event for 40

people. At the end, there are 4 of them plus people on the reserve list. Events on digital skills and online soft skills should

continue in the future.

of 255


Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (2nd webinar)

Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (2nd webinar)

Date 25.9.2020.

Place Online





Response rate 65 %





The analysis of the participants of Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (2nd webinar) showed


EU-15 countries (54 %) followed by EU-13 countries (27 %). Most of the NCPs who participated cover Legal

and financial area (17 %), and European Research Council (17 %) and most of them have up to 5 years of



Chart 219: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (2nd webinar) – gender chart

73%

27%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 1320: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (2nd webinar) – geographical coverage of the participants

Chart 221: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (2nd webinar) – NCPs’ areas of expertise

54%

27%

19%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC


participants

17%

8%

4%

4%

4%

2%

8%

2%

2%

6%

6%

2%

17%

6%

9%

6%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%





Nano, new materials

Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Climate


Security

Legal and finance


Coordinator

SWAFS

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 222: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (2nd webinar) – Level of experience of NCPs

Chart 223: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (2nd webinar) – feedback chart

5%

32%

16%

19%

27%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%





More than 10 years


67%

71%

71%

25%

21%

25%

0%

4%

0%

4%

0%

0%

4%

4%

4%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

interactive format;

heavy interaction;

the tips and tricks suggested in the session;

many exercises;

all the tools and interest creation sessions;

interactivity and practical tools, lively and engaging moderators;

different methods testing;

interactivity, professional speakers, perfect organisation, practical relevance for NCP work;

practical elements and interactive features;

Rick’s sharing all the tips in the chat;

all the different tips and tricks and that you really engaged with the participants;

the variety of suggestions for solutions, everyone could choose at least something that will work;

the possibility to train and interact;

the various tools and techniques;

the tips from the moderators from their practical experience (i.e. the best size of breakout groups, best

interactive apps and platforms);

meeting in small groups;

technical co-moderator role, breakout sessions;

hands-on, practical;

the breakout sessions;

the interaction;

This was the most interactive event I have ever participated in and I'm sure I'll incorporate your hints in my

webinars.

interactive and practical with some exercise; It was fun!

the answers to our concrete questions.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

shorter;

the same duration, but split in two days;

less time overall;

The relevance of timing, and take time zones into account.

nothing;

Do more of such events :)

Stick to ‘voluntary volunteers’. clearer instructions from moderator what to do; in the breakout rooms and when to go back; with exercise

when we were supposed to talk over each other...

Smaller groups would be even better as people would have a higher possibility to try the exercises

themselves.

I would like to have documentation, materials.

a bit shorter day;

more practical tips about how to move a physical event online;

using IT tools;

No idea.

If you share docs in Google, do it with an open link. Some people cannot open Google accounts on

professional computers...

Make sure people have the technical setup required. We are not allowed to install apps or use Google

tools without the IT department being involved. This caused me to miss out on a lot of the exercises.

engaging the audience, paying attention that everyone has said a word;

a bit shorter;

not more than 25 participants, to be able to see everyone in one screen;

of 255


Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y

eve

nts

networking events, how to organise them?

a similar event about online events;

financial issues, HEU issues, soft skills;

other tools, we know Zoom, Adobe, WebEx....that s all;

online panel discussions and how to best moderate them;

public speaking skills;

more on moderating;

new ideas for representing topics;

How to prepare an interesting presentation (slides)?

more trainings on digital skills, digital events and also on other soft skills;

‘Horizon Europe proposal reviews /

- How to build a consortium?, How to help clients to build a consortium?/

- more on online events (experienced level) once we are all more experienced in this (even when Covid will

be over, we will have to continue online events because clients ask a mix of physical and online events for

the future).’


There is a high demand for training on digital skills and digital events. It is essential for NCPs and their work these days

(COVID situation) to learn how to do online events the best way. Originally, there was a plan to organise only one event for 40

people. At the end, there are 4 of them plus people on the reserve list. Events on digital skills and online soft skills should

continue in the future.

of 255


Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events (pt. I) –

Webinars and online trainings – tools how to make them more interactive

Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events (pt. I) –

Webinars and online trainings – tools how to make them more interactive

Date 28.9.2020.

Place Online

Organiser FFG & NCP Academy

Main content

In this 90-minute webinar (part 1 of the series ‘Online tools for “digital” NCPs’) you

will hear about and experience different easy-to-use tools for the various parts of a

webinar/online training:

- The beginning: tools for ‘warm-up’– participants get to know each other

- The middle: tools for interaction during the webinar

- The end: tools for closing and feedback.


Response rate 61 %

Trainers Astrid Hoebertz │ FFG


Average mark (5 highest

mark) 4,98


The analysis of the participants of Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online

trainings and events (pt. I) – Webinars and online trainings – tools how to make them more interactive


from the EU-15 countries (45 %) followed by EU-13 countries (42 %). Most of the NCPs who participated

cover European Research Council (9 %), Nanotechnologies, Advanced Materials, Advanced Manufacturing

and Processing, and Biotechnology (9 %), Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing (9 %), Climate

Action, Environment, Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials (9 %), and most of them have up to 3 years of



Chart 224: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events (pt. I) – Webinars and online

trainings – tools how to make them more interactive – gender chart

85%

15%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255



trainings – tools how to make them more interactive – geographical coverage of the participants


trainings – tools how to make them more interactive – NCPs’ areas of expertise

45%

42%

9%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

9%

2%

7%

2%

7%

9%

2%

4%

9%

7%

9%

7%

7%

7%

2%

4%

4%

2%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%






Nano, new materials

Space

Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Climate


Security

Legal and finance



Coordinator

SWAFS

NCPs' areas

of 255



trainings – tools how to make them more interactive – level of experience of NCPs


trainings – tools how to make them more interactive – feedback chart

17%

34%

21%

10%

17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%





More than 10 years


95%

100%

100%

5%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

the interactive part;

the interactive format of the webinar, the level of preparation, the variety of tools presented;

sharing questions Astrid asks at her events;

the interaction with participants, precise information given, not too long event;

It was very clear and ‘to the point’, short and fun!

the recommendation of the specific tools we could use;

useful, practical examples of tools;

All the information was very interesting!

the interactivity / the structure / the clarity of the information;

the interactive part, many ideas for our upcoming trainings;

the examples of tools to be used;

the interactive application/testing of the tools presented;

every detail;

the different tools/techniques presented to improve training events and especially how to make them

interactive;

that it was interactive;

very good examples; Coincidentally, at the next webinar, one hour later, I applied exactly what I learned

in the present webinar.

everything.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

I can't think of anything to improve.

nothing;

Nothing, everything was fine.

more on designing the agenda for workshops, info days (time, etc.) and how to combine virtual and on-

site events;

I cannot think of anything.

Nothing, thanks!

So far, no improvements necessary.

more examples;

more time for interaction between participants;

It was ok.

maybe presenting more tools.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y e

ve

nts

more on partnerships ;

the New Elements of Horizon Europe;

Digital skills and adaptation to online events are definitely needed; more on soft skills for NCPs;

the transition to Horizon Europe;

How to manage hybrid events (when part of the audience is present and part are online)?

‘Training on how to build a consortium;

training on pre-screening of proposals;

online interview trainings;

Missions for example???

Financial issues are always useful.

of 255


Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs (pt. II) – how to use online whiteboard tools

Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events (pt. II)

Virtual tools for engaging workshops – how to use online whiteboard tools

Date 5.10.2020.

Place Online


Main content

In this 90-minute webinar (part 2 of the series ‘Online tools for “digital” NCPs’) you will get

the basic knowledge and fresh inspirations about how to use online whiteboards for your

trainings & workshops. In particular, you will get:

*an overview of relevant, easy-to-use electronic tools for online whiteboards

*a first impression of the online-tool Conceptboard

*hands-on examples from event planning to energizers and online group work.


Response rate 50 %

Trainers Yasmin Dolak-Struss │ FFG




The analysis of the participants of Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs (ptII) – how to use online whiteboard tools


from the EU-13 countries (59 %) followed by EU-15 countries (41 %). Most of the NCPs who participated

cover Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing (14 %), Climate Action, Environment, Resource

Efficiency and Raw Materials (11 %) and Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies (11 %) and most of

them have up to 5 years of experience as NCPs (59 %).


Chart 229: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs (pt. II) – how to use online whiteboard tools – gender chart

81%

19%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 1530: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs (pt. II) – how to use online whiteboard tools – geographical coverage

Chart 231: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs (pt. II) – how to use online whiteboard tools – NCPs’ areas of expertise

41%

59%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

EU 15

EU 13


participants

3%

3%

5%

3%

5%

5%

3%

14%

5%

5%

11%

11%

5%

5%

3%

5%

5%

3%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%






Nano, new materials

Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Climate


Security

Legal and finance



Coordinator

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 232: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs (pt. II) – how to use online whiteboard tools – Level of experience of NCPs

Chart 233: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs (pt. II) – how to use online whiteboard tools – feedback chart

17%

17%

25%

21%

21%

0% 10% 20% 30%





More than 10 years


23%

38%

54%

31%

8%

23%

31%

31%

15%

15%

23%

8%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

Zoom discussion and also the very practical approach of the training;

the concept board;

practical exercises;

the examples from real life, the use of whiteboard;

the tool itself;

quick replies, the possibility to ask questions in between;

How Yasmin managed to handle difficulties!

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

Test more tools by spending less time on the first one.

The trainer should have been much better prepared! She needs to take an example from Trainer

style/speaking/explaining who did Webinars & Online Trainings.

I would change the order of training: first show examples of real-life use, then explain the technical side.

Better instructions on what to do in the tool; maybe even do the exercise on how to create the 'half circle'

with thumbs up/down; clearer instructions for sticky notes exercise (copy/paste from Google); not sure if

we were supposed to turn off the arrows or was this just shown to us; recommend using mouse, not the

laptop pad (hard to move objects); workshop needs more polishing – better instructions; if it was the first

one given, thanks to Congrats and thank you.

the way of work;

Start with the basic information on the tool; could have been a little bit better/clearer structured.

clear instructions, step-by-step, announcement ‘we are doing this because...’, ‘this will help you in your...’; Provide some basic instruction in Conceptboard before training, step by step advice in the beginning.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y e

ve

nts

the organisation of hybrid events;

Missions and how will they interfere with the H-EU pillars?

proposal evaluation, online tools, moderation;

How to do the workshop, practical examples, e.g. how to divide in groups, how to harvest the ideas

online…?

online interview trainings.

of 255


Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events (pt. III) –

Organisation of virtual matchmaking events

Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events (pt. III) –

Organisation of virtual matchmaking events

Date 7.10.2020.

Place Online


Main content

In this 90-minute webinar (part 3 of the series ‘Online tools for “digital” NCPs’) you will

learn how to effectively organise and manage virtual brokerage events (a.k.a. face-to-face

events). More specifically, the webinar includes:

• How to set-up and organise a virtual brokerage event?

• Recording, Streaming, Interacting with the participants during the conference part

• Going deeper: using and setting-up b2match to host face-2-face meetings online

• Going hybrid: can we combine a virtual and a physical event together?

• Practical examples and lessons learned: what to do, what to avoid?


Response rate 38 %

Trainers Iraklis Agiovlasitis │ FFG





trainings and events (pt. III) – Organisation of virtual matchmaking events showed that female participants

were the majority in this event (79 %). Most of the participants came from the EU-15 countries (55 %)

followed by EU-13 countries (29 %). Most of the NCPs who participated cover Information and

Communication Technologies (18 %), Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (13 %) and most of them have up to

5 years of experience as NCPs (63 %).


Chart 234: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: Organisation of virtual matchmaking events – gender chart

79%

21%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 1635: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: Organisation of virtual matchmaking events – geographical coverage

Chart 236: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: Organisation of virtual matchmaking events – NCPs’ areas of expertise

55%

29%

10%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

2%

7%

13%

2%

18%

2%

2%

2%

2%

9%

4%

4%

9%

4%

4%

7%

2%

2%

2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%






Nano, new materials

Space


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Climate


Security

Legal and finance



Coordinator

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 237: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: Organisation of virtual matchmaking events – Level of experience of NCPs

Chart 238: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: Organisation of virtual matchmaking events – feedback chart

13%

25%

25%

19%

19%

0% 10% 20% 30%





More than 10 years


64%

50%

86%

36%

43%

14%

0%

7%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

the organisation of the presentation, very well done!!

the practical tips and experience shared by the speaker;

the experience of the speaker and the suggestions Iraklis gave, the list of tools;

the take out messages;

the clarity of the speaker and the examples provided;

Menti.com part;

the tips about integrating different tools in one platform and about leaving matchmaking open for some

time after the meeting;

practical aspects;

knowing how to organise the events and a list of things to do;

the information on what is important, tools and lessons learnt;

the interaction with the audience using different tools.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

time management :)

spending more time on the specificity of a brokerage event and less on online events in general;

nothing;

You showed a list of possible platforms, would be nice to have some info on the pros and cons of the

different options. Now we only say b2m.

by allowing the session to be recorded so we can look over it again;

I have not organised an event using B2match so I found this part a little hard to follow as the text is very

small on the slides, but I'm sure it will be useful to refer to the slides when I try the system. It would have

been good to have more time to hear the experience of others, but the training was still very useful.

a bit more time for Q&A and exchange of experience.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

HEU MGA, Financial aspects of HEU;

Under the current situation, we all clearly need more trainings to explore the available online tools very

important to our current daily work.

a beginners’ guide to Horizon 2020;

how to give a good pitch at a brokerage event or how to get the most out of 1-2-1 brokerage meetings so

that NCPs can advise their clients;

the practical tips for collaboration with EEN.

of 255


Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (3rd webinar)

Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (3rd webinar)

Date 9.10.2020.

Place Online





Response rate 79 %





The analysis of the participants of Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (3rd webinar) showed



NCPs who participated cover Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing (13 %), Marie Skłodowska-Curie

actions (10 %), European Research Council (7 %), Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies (7 %), Science

with and for Society (7 %), NCP Coordinators (7 %) and most of them have up to 5 years of experience as

NCPs (55 %).


Chart 239: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (3rd webinar) – gender chart

82%

18%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 240: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (3rd webinar) – geographical coverage

Chart 241: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (3rd webinar) – NCPs’ areas of expertise

62%

24%

10%

5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

7%

3%

10%

5%

5%

3%

3%

5%

3%

13%

5%

3%

2%

2%

7%

3%

3%

2%

7%

7%

2%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%






Nano, new materials

Space


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance


Coordinator

SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 242: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (3rd webinar) – Level of experience of NCPs

Chart 243: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (3rd webinar) – feedback chart

17%

26%

12%

21%

24%

0% 10% 20% 30%





More than 10 years


82%

77%

86%

14%

18%

9%

5%

5%

5%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

the interaction with others :-);

the way they managed to keep everyone's attention;

the practical side of the training, the introduction of new tools we can use to interact more with the

audience;

speaker being open to answer questions, suggest solutions;

the interaction; really practical;

lots of animation tested;

interactive approach;

a lot of interactive work;

the trainer Kjell, a very good trainer;

the practical tips (example of icebreakers, tools, small exercise to engage participants);

the creative applications;

that it was interactive :-);

The moderation team was very good. It was good to practically apply the moderation techniques.

We were actively involved.

the games and the suggestions of platforms for networking;

all practical examples of how things can be done;

variation, giving different tools; humorous and easy dialogue;

interactivity, friendly atmosphere, practicality ;

the way it was conducted.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

Do not organise it on a Friday afternoon :-));

Maybe better to do it over two half days.

one more break in the morning;

It is ok.

Keep smaller groups for breakout so that everyone can speak, miro/mural test.

the planning of the event;

the tools for interaction among participants (e.g. mural, miro, etc.); It's interesting to understand how to

moderate sessions with these tools.

my knowledge of IT for videoconferences;

It is difficult to take a full day off from work so not every event should be this long. I still liked it and it was

nice to see that it is possible to have a full days webinar.

The registration process – I did not receive a link. However, the organiser reacted very quickly just before

the meeting – thank you for this!

Share materials between several screens :-).

nothing;

slightly fewer interactive sessions and more summaries of the main points (so a bit more traditional;)

As it is a course for NCPs, there could be examples from our typical digital meetings. But the general

discussions (networking, breakout rooms) and the example of the lawyers' info-meeting came close.

Sometimes the moderator speaks too fast.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y e

ve

nts

more moderation related topics, how to engage people, public speaking tips;

using miro/mural;

Horizon Europe;

the examples of moderation directed to different groups of listeners;

networking events;

data management, Open Data;

any ... (no clear ideas);

organising online info days;

Horizon Europe – new features in implementation.

of 255



There is a high demand for training on digital skills and digital events + soft skills. It is essential for NCPs and their work these

days (COVID situation) to learn how to do online events the best way. Originally, there was a plan to organise only one event

for 40 people. At the end, there are 4 of them plus people on the reserve list. NCPs especially liked the tips and tricks on how

to humanise the online events. Events on digital skills and online soft skills should continue in the future.

of 255


Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events (2nd

training cycle pt. I)

Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events

(2nd training cycle pt. I)

Date 14.10.2020.

Place Online


Main content


hear about and experience different easy-to-use tools for the various parts of a

webinar/online training:

- The beginning: tools for ‘warm-up’– participants get to know each other

- The middle: tools for interaction during the webinar

- The end: tools for closing and feedback.


Response rate 61 %

Trainers Astrid Hoebertz │ FFG





trainings and events (2nd training cycle pt. I) showed that female participants were the majority in this

event (71 %). Most of the participants came from the EU-15 countries (47 %) followed by EU-13 countries

(33 %). Most of the NCPs who participated cover Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies (14 %),

European Research Council (12 %), Legal and financial area (12 %), Health, Demographic Change and

Wellbeing (10 %). Regarding the level of experiences of NCPs participated in this training, we had a good

ratio of more experienced and less experienced ones.


Chart 244: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events (2nd training cycle pt. I) –

gender chart

71%

29%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 245: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events (2nd training cycle pt. I)–

geographical coverage

Chart 246: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events (2nd training cycle pt. I)–NCPs’ areas

47%

33%

20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

EU 15

EU 13

AC


participants

12%

2%

8%

2%

2%

6%

2%

4%

10%

6%

2%

14%

2%

12%

6%

4%

8%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%






Nano, new materials

Space


Health

Food

Transport


Security

Legal and finance


Coordinator

SWAFS

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 247: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events (2nd training cycle pt. I)– Level

of experience of NCPs

Chart 248: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events (2nd training cycle pt. I)–

feedback chart

10%

20%

20%

23%

27%

0% 10% 20% 30%





More than 10 years


68%

79%

89%

26%

16%

11%

5%

5%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

the many different ideas/suggestions for tools;

very informative;

relaxing environment;

practical examples;

the interaction provided; You were able to save the distance of these remote meetings.

short event, a good list of many relevant tools, clear presentation, some involvement;

the good atmosphere and the practical part;

the application part of the knowledge that we receive during the webinar;

the various tools to be used in different parts of the event;

the warm-up tools;

… that it was well-prepared;

the interaction and that we have received many practical tricks and tips;

a good overview of different tools!

practical work; menti.com, sli.do;

event interactive mode;

practical examples;

learning by doing, not just listening.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

It would be better to have a little more time, so that the trainer does not need to rush.

More time (the whole day event) and possibilities for participants to practice the tools by themselves.

Keep the same level.

It felt like a redo of the long seminar we had with JJ about moderating online meetings.

Get the names of the different tools in writing, especially those mentioned by attendees.

more time for practising;

nothing;

professional microphone.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y e

ve

nts

HE MGA, financial issues, audits, implementation strategy;

anything; and everything can be repeated.

HE, HE, HE – Super important to have available information as close to new news coming out as possible –

like the new annexes for example, or the new personnel calculator.

specific Horizon Europe calls;

this same topic, also in an extended version with more practical exercises.

of 255




Date 20.10.2020.

Place Online

Organiser Instituto de Salud Carlos III

Main content

The NCP Academy organises a webinar on Lump-Sum grants with a double and mixed

approach. The first part entails the novel concepts that this funding scheme has

introduced, as well as the main features and technical aspects to consider. The second

part, similar questions are addressed from the perspective of participants, to recognise the

main differences between lump-sum and cost-reimbursement projects under H2020.


Response rate 39 %

Trainers

Bénédicte Charbonnel | Common Service for business processes, European Commission

Ulrich Genschel | Common Service for business processes, European Commission

Miriam Bolz (HELP project) |Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Switzerland

Dr. Kosmas ALEXOPOULOS (MARKET4.0 project) | LMS, University of Patras, Greece




The analysis of the participants of Lump Sum: A practical approach from first pilot experiences showed that


countries (56 %) followed by EU-13 countries (27 %) and Associated Countries (15 %). Most of the NCPs

who participated cover Legal and financial area (20 %), Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing (9 %),

Innovation in SMEs (9 %), European Research Council (9 %) and most of them have up to 5 years of



Chart 249: Lump Sum: A practical approach from first pilot experiences – gender chart

74%

26%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 1750: Lump Sum: A practical approach from first pilot experiences – geographical coverage

Chart 251: Lump Sum: A practical approach from first pilot experiences – NCPs’ areas of expertise

56%

27%

15%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

9%

2%

7%

2%

2%

6%

1%

9%

9%

8%

7%

1%

6%

3%

20%

1%

4%

2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%





Nano, new materials

Space


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Legal and finance


Coordinator

SWAFS

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 252: Lump Sum: A practical approach from first pilot experiences – Level of experience of NCPs

Chart 253: Lump Sum: A practical approach from first pilot experiences – feedback chart

12%

27%

27%

16%

7%

11%

0% 10% 20% 30%



Not NCP


60%

77%

60%

37%

20%

33%

3%

0%

3%

0%

3%

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

practical information;

the report of Miriam Bolz;

the examples given by actual Lump Sum projects;

the point of view from participants;

The insights of Switzerland! Very practical!

the first and the second presentation;

the practical experiences;

the first 2 presentations;

the Commission speakers – they gave a very clear presentation (although the content was a little limited –

please see the following answer). It was also very interesting to hear such honest practitioner

perspectives.

the content;

The shared experiences of beneficiaries and presentations focused on the advantages and disadvantages.

the speakers, Ulrich Genschel and the opportunity of two experiences;

the invited speakers sharing their experience;

speakers addressing practical questions;

the presentation on practical experience from SUI and GRE;

The state of play part, with first feedback on lump sum pilot.

the organisation;

the presentation of people from the Commission and to get the feedback from participants;

the practical input of experienced stakeholders and the honest views;

the experiences shown from the practical point of view.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

mute all participants, the fact there is no Q&A in the end;

the chat; Some questions were answered, some not really. It took a long time until someone felt

responsible.

The organisation – Everyone should be muted automatically, and there should be a Q&A function to keep

track of questions and answers.

more time for Q&A;

I encourage you to take a stronger role as host of the meeting and switch off micros to avoid background

noise.

nothing;

Time to answer the questions in the chat: it is difficult to follow the presentations and the chat at the

same time, and also many questions were not answered. Also, I would suggest to consider a break and

maybe an overall longer online event, rather than rushing through the slides and presenting. It was

sometimes very difficult to follow everything: much info, very fast presentations, questions answered in

the chat, no breaks.

1) Have time for Q&A with the Commission speakers.

2) Provide more information on the pros and cons of the scheme – these learning points were available

last year (after applicants had submitted for the earlier pilots, and indeed we ran an event on this content

then) as such, it would have been nice to perhaps hear about future plans to the lump sums and how they

might be used in Horizon Europe, to provide a bit more 'new' information for the more experienced

listeners.

3) Make sure that at least one practitioner has experience in reporting under the lump sum scheme or

hold the event later on when reporting has taken place.

---

It was well done.

I don't like the Eventbrite platform. It is always difficult to find the link to the session back.

more time for Q&A or answering the questions from the chat box on the spot;

This is a detail, but please mute the microphone of the person who doesn't need to speak.

the sound difficulties;

I would appreciate a short Q&A session after the Commission's presentations and at the end.

The treatment of the questions – there were more questions that were not handled orally.

of 255


Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y e

ve

nts

HE changes and updates – calculations of personnel costs, new MGA, new proposal documents;

News on HE RoP and MGA;

1) EIC Transition fund results and details which, I understand, are already in the pilot phase. It combines

with the ERC to create a sort of 'Super Proof of Concept'.

2) Marie Curie novelties under Horizon Europe;

Consortium creation;

NCP structure in Horizon Europe;

European Partnerships – Art 187 – the differences between what was in H2020 and what will be in HEU

regarding MS commitments and project beneficiaries;

the novelties in proposal preparation and evaluation foreseen for HEU;

the calculating and reporting of daily rates;

The content was very good. Maybe a focus about the FAQs on lump sum projects?

DG Santé new programme;

the legal issues in preparing a project proposal based on a European consortium; the most common

hurdles and how to deal with them;

Horizon Europe project-based remuneration.


(+) There were enough tickets.

(+) Last-minute registrations were taken into account and the link was sent to them the same morning before the webinar

started to avoid any problems.

(-) Prepare and publish the event more in advance to increase registration and participation rate.

of 255



training cycle pt. II) – Webinars and online trainings – tools how to make them more interactive

Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: (2nd training cycle pt. II) –

Virtual tools for engaging workshops – how to use online whiteboard tools

Date 21.10.2020.

Place Online


Main content

In this 90-minute webinar (part 2 of the series ‘Online tools for “digital” NCPs’) you will get

the basic knowledge and fresh inspirations about how to use online whiteboards for your

trainings & workshops. In particular, you will get:

*an overview of relevant, easy-to-use electronic tools for online whiteboards

*a first impression of the online-tool Conceptboard

*hands-on examples from event planning to energizers and online group work.


Response rate 71 %

Trainers Yasmin Dolak-Struss │ FFG




The analysis of the participants of Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs (2nd training cycle pt. II) – Virtual tools for

engaging workshops – how to use online whiteboard tools showed that female participants were the

majority in this event (86 %). Most of the participants came from the EU-15 countries (43 %) followed by

EU-13 countries (36 %). Most of the NCPs who participated cover European Research Council (16 %), Marie

Skłodowska-Curie actions (12 %), Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies (12 %), Health, Demographic

Change and Wellbeing (8 %), Spreading Excellence and Widening Participation (8 %), Science with and for

Society (8 %) and most of them have more than 5 years of experience as NCPs (64 %).


Chart 254: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs (2nd training cycle pt. II) – Virtual tools for engaging workshops – how to use online

whiteboard tools – gender chart

86%

14%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255



whiteboard tools – geographical coverage


whiteboard tools – NCPs’ areas of expertise

43%

36%

21%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

EU 15

EU 13

AC


participants

16%

4%

12%

4%

4%

4%

8%

4%

4%

4%

12%

4%

8%

4%

8%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%






Tehnologies (ICT)

Nano, new materials

Health

Food

Energy

Climate


Legal and finance


Coordinator

SWAFS

NCPs' areas

of 255



whiteboard tools – Level of experience of NCPs


whiteboard tools – feedback chart

14%

21%

43%

21%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%




More than 10 years


60%

40%

70%

40%

50%

30%

0%

10%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

insights and tips;

giving info on how to use, choose a tool according to the needs, and discussing with others;

practical exercises;

trying things out;

the possibility to work on the board for a longer time;

getting aware of nice web-based tools and some opportunities those offer to us;

hands-on experience!

that we could actively try the tool;

the opportunity to try the tool out – and generally learning about a useful tool;

‘The tool Conceptboard is very interesting, useful and relatively cheap.

I don't think it could be widely implemented, since it is complicated – our companies need to know it quite

well in advance.’

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

Present more tools, not just one.

Nothing needs improvement.

Maybe also show a Conceptboard with just one board instead of 5, to reduce the negative effects

(zooming).

more time for learning how to set up the board and less time for a breakout;

I liked everything!

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y e

ve

nts

The offer of trainings provided by the NCP Academy is excellent.

of 255


Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (4th webinar)

Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (4th webinar)

Date 23.10.2020.

Place Online





Response rate 85 %





The analysis of the participants of Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (4th webinar) showed



NCPs who participated cover Legal and financial area (23 %), Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing

(9 %), Information and Communication Technologies (9 %), and most of them have up to 5 years of



Chart 259: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (4th webinar) – gender chart

78%

22%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 1860: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (4th webinar) – geographical coverage

Chart 261: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (4th webinar) – NCPs’ areas of expertise

62%

24%

14%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

EU 15

EU 13

AC


participants

5%

2%

5%

9%

5%

9%

2%

7%

7%

7%

23%

7%

5%

7%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%





Tehnologies (ICT)

Nano, new materials

Health

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance


Coordinator

SWAFS

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 262: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (4th webinar) – Level of experience of NCPs

Chart 263: Digital moderation and virtual meeting design (4th webinar) – feedback chart

11%

19%

24%

19%

27%

0% 10% 20% 30%





More than 10 years


77%

73%

68%

9%

18%

18%

9%

5%

9%

5%

0%

5%

0%

5%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

The interaction all day – I was invested to stay and be active all day!

the part before noon;

the intensive interaction forcing the participants to use what they are learning;

moderator and Otto, group size, Friday is a good day for a training;

the breakout sessions;

hands-on approach, getting to know different tools;

the tips about online events;

interactiveness;

interactive design;

the interactivity, breakout sessions, good balance of breaks;

the fact that it was very interactive and lots of time for Q&A;

Kjell as a moderator, breakout sessions – teamwork, breaks :);

the many breakout groups, the possibility to train hands-on;

the immediate implementation of different types of moderations;

getting to know the tools that were new to me;

many practical methods on how to handle different situations with the audience, and a lot of practice

during the event engaging the participants;

the breakout sessions, the live question with somgo;

the practical tips for digital events;

the practical exercises with moderation in ‘difficult’ conditions;

that it was hands-on, answers to all questions, interactive and open-minded;

the practical use of cases.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

Nothing :)

the talk about the on-site agenda – it felt a bit too long;

to know breaks beforehand;

divide into 2 half-day trainings;

split into 2 sessions;

Perhaps the duration could be shortened a bit.

More time for people to try moderating – maybe ask for real volunteers, not just randomly chosen ones.

There were some technical issues. So I think that's the thing you can never avoid. :)

Say clearly at what TIME breaks are over.

Cannot think about anything right now!

Maybe speed up some aspects, especially the initiation of the moderation.

the time for training with digital tools;

timing (too long);

There were just a few technical issues, but that happens a lot, so no problem.

good practices.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y e

ve

nts

the evaluation of proposals;

How to host a matchmaking session online?

maybe Exchange on the use of online tools (not sure myself);

N/A

learn more about moderating digital events.

of 255



There is a high demand for training on digital skills and digital events + soft skills. It is essential for NCPs and their work these

days (COVID situation) to learn how to do online events the best way. Originally, there was a plan to organise only one event

for 40 people. At the end, there are 4 of them plus people on the reserve list. NCPs especially liked the tips and tricks on how

to humanise the online events. Events on digital skills and online soft skills should continue in the future.

of 255



training cycle pt. III) – Organisation of virtual matchmaking events

Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs: How to effectively manage online trainings and events

(2nd training cycle pt. III) – Organisation of virtual matchmaking events

Date 27.10.2020.

Place Online


Main content


learn how to effectively organise and manage virtual brokerage events (a.k.a. face-to-face

events). More specifically, the webinar includes:

• How to set-up and organise a virtual brokerage event?

• Recording, Streaming, Interacting with the participants during the conference part

• Going deeper: using and setting-up b2match to host face-2-face meetings online

• Going hybrid: can we combine a virtual and a physical event together?

• Practical examples and lessons learned: what to do, what to avoid?


Response rate 36 %

Trainers Iraklis Agiovlasitis │ FFG




The analysis of the participants of Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs (2nd training cycle pt. III) – Organisation

of virtual matchmaking events showed that male participants were the majority in this event (54 %). Most

of the participants came from the EU-15 countries (45 %) followed by Associated Countries (30 %) and EU-

13 countries (20 %). Most of the NCPs who participated cover European Research Council (10 %), Food

Security, Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry, Marine, Maritime and Inland Water Research and the

Bioeconomy (10 %), Legal and financial area (10 %), Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies (10 %),

EURATOM (10 %) and most of them have up to 5 years of experience as NCPs (70 %).


Chart 264: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs (2nd training cycle pt. III) – Organisation of virtual matchmaking events – gender chart

46%54%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 1965: Online Tools for digital NCPs (2nd training cycle pt. III) – Organisation of virtual matchmaking events – geographical

coverage

Chart 266: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs (2nd training cycle pt. III) – Organisation of virtual matchmaking events – NCPs’ areas

of expertise

45%

20%

30%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

10%

3%

6%

6%

6%

3%

3%

3%

10%

3%

3%

3%

10%

3%

10%

3%

3%

10%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%





Nano, new materials


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance

Coordinator

SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 267: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs (2nd training cycle pt. III) – Organisation of virtual matchmaking events – Level of

experience of NCPs

Chart 268: Online Tools for ‘digital’ NCPs (2nd training cycle pt. III) – Organisation of virtual matchmaking events – feedback

chart

25%

20%

25%

25%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30%





More than 10 years


89%

89%

100%

11%

0%

0%

0%

11%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

concrete information;

The speaker was very good.

B2match demo;

Menti;

very effective, attentive moderation by Iraklis, perfect keeping track of time, a great piece of advice on

keeping a Do´s and Dont´s pad, very pragmatic and easy-to-understand tips;

practical tips;

very good explanations;

to learn from the other NCPs;

the speaker.

Wo

uld

imp

rov

e even more practical examples;

Nothing. It´s been a very smooth event. No.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y e

ve

nts

of 255


Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Training III

Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Training III

Date 29.10.2020.

Place Online

Organiser DLR-PT

Main content

The goal of this online seminar will be to practice statistical data analyses with the Horizon

Dashboard starting from concrete business questions. NCPs should then be able to convey

important Horizon Dashboard tools to the community itself.


Response rate 30 %

Trainers Ioana-Andreea VLAD │

DG RTD




The analysis of the participants of Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Training

III showed that female participants were the majority in this event (70 %). Most of the participants came

from the EU-15 countries (52 %) followed by EU-13 countries (19 %) and Associated Countries (19 %). Most

of the NCPs who participated cover Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (9 %) Legal and financial area (8 %),

European Research Council (8 %), Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing (7 %), Information and

Communication Technologies (7 %), Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry, Marine, Maritime

and Inland Water Research and the Bioeconomy (7 %), 7 % of them are Coordinators and most of them

have up to 3 years of experience as NCPs (54 %).


Chart 269: Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Training III – gender chart

70%

30%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 270: Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Training III – geographical coverage

Chart 271: Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Training III – NCPs’ areas of expertise

52%

19%

19%

9%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

8%

1%

9%

5%

7%

4%

3%

2%

5%

7%

7%

5%

1%

5%

5%

1%

8%

3%

3%

7%

4%

1%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%






Nano, new materials

Space


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance



Coordinator

SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 272: Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Training III – Level of experience of NCPs

Chart 273: Best practice examples on how to use the Horizon Dashboard – Training III – feedback chart

22%

32%

18%

14%

14%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%





More than 10 years


86%

76%

90%

14%

24%

10%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

practical examples;

the clarity of the explanations, the practical examples presented;

interactivity;

exercises;

practical examples and explanations when using the Dashboard;

the examples;

the practical examples with a pole;

hands-on through interactive exercises;

exercises very practical and useful;

ta variety of examples;

practical explanations;

There is an enormous amount of information in the Dashboard, the webinar gave us an idea of some of it.

I appreciated it very much.

practice;

the trainer and practical exercises.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

slower pace;

advice to use a computer and phone side by side – much easier to do real time exercise;

Everything was very useful!

doing more examples or having more time in doing them by ourselves;

Make the complexity of the exercises more gradual, so from easy to very complex.

to have more time to give the answers in the Pool.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y e

ve

nts

Missions and partnerships;

Communication, Dissemination, Exploitation in HE;

the NCPs in Horizon Europe / Financial and Legal aspects in HE;

Dashboard half day;

the link with other programmes, cascade funding, ...;

the policies related to the Framework Programme – Synergies with other funds;

Horizon Europe final version and first work programmes.

of 255


NCP2NCP: sharing working – Good practice and thinking about what we would need for the

future?

NCP2NCP: sharing working – Good practice and thinking about what we would need for the future?

Date 29.10.2020.

Place Online

Organiser APRE, FCT, IPPT PAN

Main content

Are you thinking about new activities as NCP? Would you like new ideas in view of Horizon

Europe?

In this 90-minute webinar we will show the results of the joint effort to create a

Knowledge hub Structure, and the different best practices developed that we could use

while programming our NCP work towards Horizon Europe.

We will end this webinar with an interactive session between NCPs for sharing new ideas

and experiences.


Response rate 47 %

Trainers

Caterina Buonocore │ APRE

Margarida Santos │ FCT

Magdalena Głogowska │ IPPT PAN

Katja Wirth │ Euresearch

Zygmunt Krasinski │ IPPT PAN

Serena Borgna │ APRE

Module 5. New developments and further topics of relevance



The analysis of the participants of NCP2NCP: sharing working – Good practice and thinking about what we

would need for the future? showed that female participants were the majority in this event (80 %). Most

of the participants came from the EU-15 countries (47 %) followed by EU-13 countries (28 %). Most of the

NCPs who participated cover Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (16 %), European Research Council (12 %)

and Legal and financial area (8 %) and most of them have up to 3 years of experience as NCPs (60 %).


Chart 274: NCP2NCP: sharing working – Good practice and thinking about what we would need for the future? – gender chart

80%

20%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 2075: NCP2NCP: sharing working – Good practice and thinking about what we would need for the future? – geographical

coverage

Chart 276: NCP2NCP: sharing working – Good practice and thinking about what we would need for the future? – NCPs’ areas of

expertise

47%

28%

19%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

12%

2%

16%

3%

7%

5%

3%

6%

5%

2%

7%

1%

2%

3%

8%

4%

4%

7%

2%

1%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%






Nano, new materials

Space

Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Climate


Security

Legal and finance



Coordinator

SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 277: - NCP2NCP: sharing working – Good practice and thinking about what we would need for the future? – Level of

experience of NCPs

Chart 278: NCP2NCP: sharing working – Good practice and thinking about what we would need for the future? – feedback chart

19%

41%

22%

19%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%






46%

27%

58%

46%

54%

31%

4%

15%

8%

4%

4%

4%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

practical examples;

best practices presentations;

Katja Wirth’s presentation;

the best practice catalogue;

the tips from other NCPs – I wish the event could be more interactive, but I completely understand the

complexities posed by COVID.

presentations and polls;

clear information;

the insight into the future;

the sharing of experience;

EURESEARCH and APRE's best practices; I do appreciate all colleagues who shared!

the contact and the BP guide;

BPs;

the shortness of each speech;

the variety of speakers, the clarity of the presentations.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

earlier start would be nice :-);

more time dedicated to explaining the good practices; Some speakers did not have visuals.

the presentation of the best practice examples;

Interactivity by having an opportunity for attendees to go into smaller groups/breakout rooms/working

groups. Also, to highlight better if there is reading to be done before the meeting!

the technical aspects of the online transition;

the time of the event for countries such as Colombia;

Nothing, All has been perfect!

the innovative aspects of the best practices; What we heard, is mostly what we already do. It indeed is

hard to innovate the tools, but it is possible. Academic and research community would value innovation in

NCPs' services.

Try doing a test before, especially for anyone who is not friendly with WebEx.

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P

Aca

de

my

eve

nts

Horizon Europe;

Horizon Europe (proposal writing, brokerage events, general info, etc.);

Thank you so much, see you on the new platform. For us, the new NCP from LT, your experience is very

valuable.

Horizon Europe preparation;

HE, soft skills, online moderation and event design (incl. interactive tools);

gender;

synergies;

the new mechanism for HE;

Horizon Europe guidelines in all aspects of the programme: rules, implementation, expected impacts, calls,

etc. Practical examples of the HE synergies with other EU funding – what does it mean for institutions and

on the project level (not on a programme or strategic levels only). Thank you!

consortium building;

cascade funding, the impact approach in clusters;

Horizon Europe.


There is a strong interest between NCPs about sharing best practices and ideas. We have collected several interesting inputs

for the future, in view of the new FQ.

of 255




Date 30.10.2020.

Place Online

Organiser FCT/ANI – PT

Main content

The NCP Academy organises with the European Commission a webinar on the Sustainable

Development Goals and their context in Horizon Europe. There will be a first short

presentation on the SDG policy framework by the EC Advisor for the SDG, followed by a

second short presentation on the Impact Logic for Horizon Europe (EC Unit A3). There will

also be plenty of time for questions.


Response rate 18 %

Trainers

Thomas ARNOLD, Advisor ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ DG Research & Innovation │ European Commission

Clément Evroux, Unit A3 – Horizon Strategic Planning & Programming │ European Commission

Module 5. New developments and further topics of relevance



The analysis of the participants of SDG: Policy Framework and Impact Logic for Horizon Europe showed



NCPs who participated cover Climate Action, Environment, Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials (11 %),

Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (9 %), European Research Council (8 %), Secure, Clean and Efficient Energy

(8 %), Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies (8 %) and most of them have up to 5 years of experience

as NCPs (67 %).


Chart 279: SDG: Policy Framework and Impact Logic for Horizon Europe – gender chart

71%

29%

Gender structure

Female Male

of 255


Chart 2180: SDG: Policy Framework and Impact Logic for Horizon Europe – geographical coverage

Chart 281: SDG: Policy Framework and Impact Logic for Horizon Europe – NCPs’ areas of expertise

49%

29%

19%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60%

EU 15

EU 13

AC

Other


participants

8%

1%

9%

3%

4%

5%

2%

3%

3%

7%

4%

8%

3%

11%

8%

3%

5%

4%

3%

3%

2%

1%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%






Nano, new materials

Space


Innovation in SMEs

Health

Food

Energy

Transport

Climate


Security

Legal and finance



Coordinator

SWAFS

EUROATOM

NCPs' areas

of 255


Chart 282: SDG: Policy Framework and Impact Logic for Horizon Europe – Level of experience of NCPs

Chart 283: SDG: Policy Framework and Impact Logic for Horizon Europe – feedback chart

16%

33%

18%

15%

18%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%





More than 10 years


14%

14%

64%

57%

43%

29%

29%

43%

7%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Practical relevance

Organisation

Feedback chart



of 255



spe

cia

lly

lik

ed

the presentation;

the overview of the SDG implementation into the EU policy framework;

the policy framework and the vision from Thomas Arnold;

Thomas Arnold's presentation was very clear.

a well-organised meeting, easy to access.

Wo

uld

im

pro

ve

more practical advice to NCPs;

nothing,

I suggest a test with the speakers before the event.

Instructions how to handle the Zoom tool...as the black box was disturbing!

Strengthen connection to the role of NCPs in advocating, implementing, informing on the SDGs. Invite

someone who can go into the ‘impact’ & evaluation questions – that is clearly something both speakers

were not so familiar with. –> Make sure there is someone who can ‘translate’ the EU policy to the NCPs (a

lot of issues concerning SDGs/implementation need to be looked at much earlier levels than NCPs whose

main role is to advise on the practical issues of how to write successful applications).

Su

gg

est

ed

to

pic

s o

n t

he

fu

ture

NC

P A

cad

em

y e

ve

nts

SDG in Horizon Europe, practical aspects;

a more detailed discussion on Impact – Outcome – Output with respect to the WPs and how it can be

ensured that there is one coherent and stringent approach in all clusters;

NCPs’ structure in HE / Training for NCPs in HE;

the ’impact’ from a practical evaluation point of view.

of 255


Qualitative analysis

To determine which aspect of the event participants liked the most, what would they improve and what

topics should NCP Academy events cover in the future, qualitative analysis was conducted as well. The

purpose of the qualitative analysis was to compare the results with one given by the quantitative analysis.

The open-ended type of questions in the feedback forms aimed to identify aspects of the training

participants liked, aspects of the training participants would like to see improved and the topics that should

be covered by future NCP Academy events are listed below:

4. I especially liked…

5. Next time I would improve…

6. Further NCP Academy events should cover the following topics.

The answers to the open-ended type of questions were analysed by assigning categories to them. The

categories represent different aspects of the training participants liked or believe it should be improved.

Description of the categories is listed below. In the analysis, we present the frequency of the answers in

assigned categories in order to determine which aspects of training participants liked and how to improve

future trainings. The qualitative analysis also gives an interesting insight into the topics that the NCP

Academy offers and which ones should it offer in the future.

of 255


Coding process – answer categories


Category Description

Practical relevance

The answers in this category expressed satisfaction with the practical examples and exercises

provided. Participants also expressed satisfaction with shared recommendations and best practices,

as well as with the relevance of invited experts (such as evaluators or experts from the EC).

Content This category includes participants’ satisfaction with the content of the training or specific parts of

the content.

Interactivity Participants expressed satisfaction with possibilities for discussion, as well as collaboration through

group work. They also expressed gratitude for opportunities to ask questions.

Trainers In this category, participants expressed satisfaction with the trainers and their level of preparation,

expertise, enthusiasm, moderating and training skills.

Structure & Methods

The answers in this category include satisfaction with the structure and methods used, including

how the information was presented, was the content understandable to the participants and were

the important aspects clearly indicated.

Atmosphere This category includes satisfaction with the atmosphere which trainers created during the training.

Organisation

This category includes satisfaction with the organisation in general and with the following

subcategories:

the meeting room: participants notice the meeting room setup, size, as well as if the

meeting room was adequate for the group size;

time management: participants express satisfaction with the training schedule (in terms

of the length of training sessions and training breaks), punctuality and providing enough

breaks;

catering;

group size;

event format.

Material &

Presentations

Participants appreciate when handouts are delivered beforehand which enables them to take

notes. They might also express satisfaction with how the handouts were structured.

Networking Participants value the possibility to meet other NCPs and share experiences, best practices and

solutions to various challenges they are faced with.

Other This category includes miscellaneous comments, mostly friendly remarks (for example, expressions

of satisfaction with the event or some parts of the event).

Illegible Illegible comments

of 255




Organisation

This category includes suggestions on improvement of organisation in general and with the

following subcategories:

meeting room and sitting arrangement (‘seating arrangement – not easy for those near

the end of the table to see the screen’); technical equipment: participants expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that there was

no possibility for charging electronic devices, there was no internet access or acoustics

were inadequate. Some explicitly requested that microphones should be available for

participants’ questions since they were not able to hear the questions. For online events

participants sometimes mention problems with the connection.

group size: includes dissatisfaction with the group size and suggestions to split the group.

time management: includes requests for better time management. Participants suggest

for punctuality in terms of the length of training and breaks, agenda flexibility (shortening

or prolonging parts of training according to trainees’ needs), scheduling ‘heavy’ topics

earlier in the day, scheduling more and longer breaks and shorter sessions, shortening

the training, finishing at the scheduled time.

catering: this category included dissatisfaction with the quality or amount of food,

desserts, coffee and water.

Practical relevance

This category includes requests for more practical examples and exercises. This category also

includes requests for improving the practical examples and exercises such as giving more

information before the exercise and including examples from different countries.

Interactivity In this category, participants request more discussion, group work and interactivity and less

content.

Content delivery

This category includes requests for improvement of content or specific parts of the content. It may

also include requests for improving clarity (more understandable presentations and more detailed

explanations) or complaints when participants feel that certain issues were insufficiently addressed.

Content scope

This category includes a request to either reduce the content scope or prolong the training.

Sometimes participants have perceived that too much information was given in too little time (for

instance, they suggested to reduce the number of topics included which would enable trainers to

give a more detailed presentation of each selected topic).

Material &

Presentations

In this category, participants suggested that presentations and material should be handed to them

before the training starts so they could take notes. They also expressed dissatisfaction if slides

and/or handouts were not readable, if there was a mismatch between the slides and handouts, or

if there were missing pages, if sources were not provided and information and/or data were not

up-to-date. For some trainings, handouts were not provided and participants suggested they should

be.

Structure & Methods

This category includes requests for the improvement of structure and methods used in the training,

webinar or workshop (for example ‘sessions were a little bit dry/long – an active workshop would

have been more productive’).

Training fit This category includes dissatisfaction with the training fit. For instance, a newcomer may find the

training difficult to follow, whereas an experienced participant may find it too basic.

Other This category includes miscellaneous, mostly friendly remarks (expressing once more their

satisfaction with the event or some parts of the event).

Illegible Illegible comments

of 255


6. Further NCP Academy events should cover the following topics


Project

cycle

Preparation

Participants expressed their interest in topics regarding the preparation phase of the

project cycle, such as writing the projects proposal, budgeting, business plan, evaluation

etc.

Implementation Participants expressed their interest in topics regarding the implementation phase of the

project cycle, such as review, project management in practice etc.

Reporting Participants expressed their interest in topics regarding the reporting phase of the project

cycle (audits, reporting).

L&F issues

This category includes participants’ interest regarding topics such as IPR, innovation

management, internal invoicing, subcontracting, third parties, lump sum, personnel cost

etc.

Next FP

In this category, we put comments in which participants requested some overall, or

specific information about next framework programme Horizon Europe (changes in

regard to H2020, best ideas how to improve a programme, GA negotiation, L&F, NCP

system, European partnerships in HE, missions, clusters, alliances, funding opportunities,

updates on HE etc.).

RRI This category includes participants’ interest in RRI topics such as public engagements,

open access, open data, gender, ethics, science education, EOSC.

Best practices This category includes participants’ interest regarding lessons learned in Horizon 2020,

real audited projects, how to provide better service etc.

Promotion

This category consists of answers in which participants requested topics on promotion.

For instance, this includes some specific knowledge about the promotion of organisation

on Funding & Tenders Portal or how to organise info days, or on overall dissemination

process.

Societal challenges Participants expressed their interest in topics concerning societal challenges such as

climate, security, civil societies.

Networking Participants expressed their interest in topics concerning networking without any other

specific requests.

Social networks &

communication

In this category, we included a request that participants have for trainings on topics of

social network and communication.

EIC

This category includes participants’ interest regarding the topic of EIC such as the

differences between SME instrument and the EIC, bridging the gap between pathfinder

and accelerator, FET-Open and FET-proactive, bankability & scalability details etc.

INCO Calls in all societal challenges, general information.

NCP digital skills & tools

Upgrading digital skills and familiarising with available online tools (for instance tools NCPs

use in their work such as Dashboard, or strengthening digital competences in order to

provide quality online trainings or organise events).

Other

Friendly remarks, GDPR, suggestions on the level of the event (basic-advance) or event

type (TTT, ME), JRC projects, synergies between European Programmes, Green Deal,

EURATOM etc.

of 255


Results of the qualitative analysis


Chart 284: Qualitative analysis – I especially liked...

Interpretation of the results:

When answering this question, participants mostly expressed satisfaction with the content of the training

or specific content parts. They have also expressed satisfaction with the interactivity of trainings,

especially the time given for asking questions and getting valuable answers from the trainers, discussion

on the different subjects with colleagues from NCP community and group work. Participants also

expressed their satisfaction with experienced and skilful trainers and appreciated the practical relevance

of the training (practical examples, exercises, as well as the practical tips). When we compare the results

of quantitative and qualitative analysis in the project, we find that in an open type of questions participants

value more content, interactivity and practical relevance of the training than organisational aspects (in the

quantitative analysis, the category of the organisation got the highest mark 4,61).

21%

30%

21%

11%

6%

4%

5%

1%

1%

0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Practical relevance

Content

Interactivity

Trainers

Structure & Methods

Atmosphere

Organisation

Networking

Other

Illegible

I especially liked...

of 255



Chart 285: Qualitative analysis – Next time I would improve...


Participants often expressed that certain aspects of the organisation should be improved and this is

particularly the case with time management. Participants find both punctuality in terms of length of

training and break important.

Although participants often expressed satisfaction with the content of the training when answering

question 4. I especially liked…, part of them stated that some of its parts could be improved.

Participants also suggested some improvements regarding the practical relevance (asking for more

examples from practice) and interactivity (expressing more time for discussion).

In comparison, when looking at the results of the quantitative analysis in which organisation scored the

highest mark, qualitative analysis revealed that participants are most critical of organisational aspects of

the trainings. However, it should also be pointed out that most of the comments in the category ‘other’ are friendly remarks and compliments to the organisers for successful event management.

38%

10%

4%

20%

4%

2%

2%

2%

19%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Organisation

Practical relevance

Interactivity

Content delivery

Content scope

Material & Presentations

Structure & Methods

Training fit

Other

Next time, I would improve...

of 255


6. Further NCP Academy events should cover the following topics

Chart 286: Qualitative analysis – Further NCP Academy events should cover the following topics


At the end of the project, the qualitative analysis showed that in the further NCP Academy events

participants would like to hear more on the topics regarding project cycle, in particular project preparation

(writing project´s proposal, budgeting, business plan, evaluation), project implementation (review, project

management in practice) and project reporting (audits). Also, participants suggested more topics on legal

and financial issues (IPR, innovation management, internal invoicing, subcontracting, third parties, lump

sum etc.). However, topics related to the next framework programme – Horizon Europe (differences in

regard to H2020, best ideas how to improve a programme, GA negotiation, L&F, NCP system, European

partnerships in HE, missions, clusters alliances, funding opportunities, updates on HE etc.) proved to be

the most interesting to the participants. In addition, topics related to RRI (public engagement, open access,

open data, gender, ethics, science education, EOSC) are also recognised as important by the NCP

community. Therefore, the feedback provided by participants suggested that these topics should be

included in further NCP Academy events.

8%

3%

3%

17%

25%

7%

1%

2%

1%

2%

1%

3%

1%

13%

14%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Project preparation

Project implementation

Project reporting

L&F issues

Next FP

RRI

Best practices

Promotion

Societal Challenges

Networking

Social network & communication

EIC

INCO

NCP skills & tools (soft skills, digital skills

Other

Further NCP Academy events should cover the folowing topics

of 255


Table 3: List of evaluated trainings (in chronological order)

No. Event Date Place Organiser Format

1. Masterclass on Proposal Writing

and interactive training methods

3-

4.10.2018. Brussels

C-Energy H2020 and

NCP Academy

Meet &

Exchange

Workshop

2.

Personnel Costs in Horizon 2020:

application of rules in different

EU Member States


Meet &

Exchange

Workshop

3. Share your favourite training

methods! 25.10.2018. Online NCP Academy Webinar

4. Crash course on Data

management plan 13.11.2018. Online

NCP Academy in

cooperation with

FOSTER

Webinar

5. Third parties and cascade funding

in Horizon 2020 21.11.2018. Online NCP Academy Webinar

6.

‘Cross-cutting issues’ in Horizon

2020: FOCUS on Gender and

Open data (advanced level)


21.-

22.11.2018. Lisbon

RICH Network and

NCP Academy

(Experts from

GenderAction and

Open Air)

On-site

Training

7. What is Widening and its impact

in a view of Horizon Europe?

6.-

7.12.2018. Warsaw

NCP Academy and

NCP WIDE.net

On-site

Training &

Exchange

of

Experiences

8. Masterclass on Proposal Writing 6.12.2018. Brussels NCPsCaREand NCP

Academy

On-site

Training


projects 18.12.2018. Online NCP Academy Webinar


projects and related IPR issues 23.1.2019. Lisbon NCP Academy

On-site

Training

11.

Meet & Exchange Workshop on

NCP mentoring and twinning

schemes


Meet &

Exchange

Workshop

12. Training on Legal and Financial

Aspects

21.-

22.2.2019. Zagreb

NCP Academy,

Instituto de Salud

Carlos III

On-site

Training

13. Advanced Train-the-trainer for

Legal & Finance NCPs

4.-

5.3.2019. Larnaca NCP Academy

On-site

Training

14. International R&I cooperation:

Horizon 2020 and the world 21.3.2019. Online NCP Academy Webinar

15. Learnings on EIC prizes – An NCP

perspective 4.4.2019. Online NCP Academy Webinar

of 255


16. Responsible Research and

Innovation – RRI 8.4.2019. Online

NCP Academy,

NewHoRRIzon Webinar

17.

Advanced info on INCO with

special focus on thematic areas of

Horizon 2020

15.4.2019. Brussels

NCP Academy,

International

Service Facility,

NCPs CaRE,

BioHorizon,

Net4Society5

On-site

Training

18.

Meet & Exchange workshop:

International Cooperation in

Horizon 2020


Meet &

Exchange

Workshop

19.

NCP Academy Webinar:

Pathfinder (FET) Opportunities in

EIC – An NCP Perspective


20.

Building networks & sharing ideas

– What an NCP should know

about COST!


21.

Lump-Sum in Horizon 2020 and

the future of Lump Sum Pilot in

Horizon

27.6.2019. Online NCP Academy, FFG Webinar

22.

Joint RICH-2 & NUCL_EU2020

Training on Project Impact,

Framework Programmes and

Financial Issues

17.-

18.7.2019. Genève

RICH-2,

NUCL_EU2020

On-site

training

23. Proposal preparation, proposal

check

8.-

9.10.2019. Zagreb

HEALTH NCP NET +

NCP Academy

On-site

training

24. Training on Proposal Writing and

Interactive Training Methods

22.-

23.10.2019. Cyprus

IDEALIST + NCP

Academy

On-site

training

25. H2020 financial reporting and

audits (ADVANCED)

4.-

5.11.2019. Prague NCP Academy

On-site

training

26. Ready to grow – the Ideal-ist

Topic Tree 12.11.2019. Online

NCP Academy +

Idealist 2020 Webinar

27. Enhanced EIC Pilot 2019-2020

towards Horizon 28.11.2019. Helsinki

Access for SMEs +

NCP Academy

Meet and

Exchange

Workshop

28. Training on ‘Workshop

Interaction Design’ 4.-

5.12.2019. Prague

NCP Academy +

Technology Centre

CAS

On-site

training

29. Proposal Writing Training 4.2.2020. Athens ETNA + NCP

Academy

On-site

training

30. L&F Basics in H2020 and HEU 25.3.2020. Online Instituto de Salud

Carlos III Webinar

31. Introducing the Horizon

Dashboard 25.3.2020. Online NCP Academy Webinar

of 255


32. Best practice examples on how to

use the Horizon Dashboard 28.5.2020. Online DLR-PT Webinar

33. Inclusiveness In European R&I

Partnership Programmes 9.6.2020. Online

NCP_WIDE.NET &

NCP Academy Webinar

34. Legal and Financial Basic Features

in Horizon Europe (2nd Edition) 24.6.2020. Online

ISC III & NCP

Academy Webinar

35. The revamped Horizon Results

Platform 30.6.2020. Online DLR-PT Webinar

36.


use the Horizon Dashboard

(second webinar)


37.

European Partnerships – state of

play and next steps towards their

launch

3.9.2020. Online FFG Webinar


meeting design 8.9.2020. Online

Technology Centre

CAS Webinar


meeting design (2nd webinar) 25.9.2020. Online

Technology Centre

CAS Webinar

40.



trainings and events (pt. I) –

Webinars and online trainings –

tools how to make them more

interactive


Academy Webinar

41.



trainings and events (pt. II) –

Virtual tools for engaging

workshops – how to use online

whiteboard tools


Academy Webinar

42.



trainings and events (pt. III) –

Organisation of virtual

matchmaking events


Academy Webinar


meeting design (3rd webinar) 9.10.2020. Online

Technology Centre

CAS Webinar

44.




cycle pt. I) – Webinars and online

trainings – tools how to make

them more interactive


Academy Webinar

45. Lump Sum: A practical approach

from first pilot experiences 20.10.2020. Online

Instituto de Salud

Carlos III Webinar

of 255


46.




cycle pt. II) – Virtual tools for

engaging workshops – how to use

online whiteboard tools


Academy Webinar


meeting design (4th webinar) 23.10.2020. Online

Technology Centre

CAS Webinar

48.




cycle pt. III) – Organisation of

virtual matchmaking events


Academy Webinar

49.


use the Horizon Dashboard –

Training III


50.

NCP2NCP: sharing working –

Good practice and thinking about

what we would need for the

future?

29.10.2020. Online APRE, FCT, IPPT

PAN Webinar

51. SDG: Policy Framework and

Impact Logic for Horizon Europe 30.10.2020. Online FCT/ANI - PT Webinar

of 255


Figure 1: NCP Academy feedback form

Your Feedback is important for us!

In order to meet participants’ wishes better in the future and improve the organisation of such

events, we gladly ask your opinion concerning a number of aspects.

Thank you for answering the following questions:

1. Overall, how satisfied are you with this event?

very satisfied not satisfied at all

2. How satisfied are you with the practical relevance of this event (i.e. applicability/usefulness to your work)?


3. How satisfied are you with the organisation of this event?


4. I especially liked...

5. Next time, I would improve...

6. Further NCP Academy events should cover the following topics:

of 255


Conclusion

In total, 51 events were analysed in the project´s lifespan, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The

events for which feedback forms were not collected or non-standard NCP Academy feedback forms were

used, do not form part of this analysis. The results of the analysis showed that participants are very

satisfied with trainings. Quantitative analysis showed that participants are most satisfied with the

organisational aspects of NCP Academy events (average mark 4,61). Based on the analysis of 51 events,

we can conclude that participants slightly prefer on-site training formats, in particular: on-site training in

regard to meet & exchange workshops or webinar format. In addition, the analysis shows that trainings

within Module 3 Widening and synergies and Module 6 NCP soft skills were rated with the highest

marks. Looking at the results of qualitative analysis, participants often express satisfaction with the

content of the training or specific content parts, appreciate the practical relevance of the training

(practical examples, exercises, as well as the practical tips) and their interactivity. On the other hand,

participants would improve some organisational aspect of the event. In the future NCP Academy events,

participants would like to hear more on the topics related to the next framework programme – Horizon

Europe, project cycle (proposal writing, budget, project management, the evaluation of a project proposal,

audits etc.) and legal and financial issues (IPR, subcontracting, third parties etc.).

project no.: 831752 (ncp) in the area of quality standards

Documents