Download Excellence (Threshold: 0.00/5.00 , Weight: 50.00%) The following

1. Excellence (Threshold: 0.00/5.00 , Weight: 50.00%)
The following aspects will be considered when assigning an overall score for this criterion:
 Quality, innovative aspects and credibility of the research (including inter/multidisciplinary aspects)
 Clarity and quality of transfer of knowledge/training for the development of researcher in light of the research objectives
 Quality of the supervision and the hosting arrangements
 Capacity of the researcher to reach or re-enforce a position of professional maturity in research
5.00/5.00








I
The project has a very clear objective and demonstrated a
credible plan where it will go beyond the current state-ofthe-art. The integration of industrial expertise completes
the very good overall concept.
The interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of the
project are clearly demonstrated.
The project presents clearly the approach and knowledge
transfer from the fellow to the host organization and the
benefits for the host organization.
The host institution has installed a team of supervisors,
where each has a clear role and focus. This overall concept
is very good.
The supervision is of high quality as the supervisors are
senior researcher with a long experience in the field.
The practical and administrative arrangements and support
for the hosting are appropriate.
The researcher has a good opportunity to reach a position
of professional maturity in research.
The fellow´s profile matches very well with the proposed
project.









Panel ENG
5.00/5.00
Strengths of the proposal
II
The Project is innovative and of high scientific and
technical quality and it is focused on a Tm-doped
fibre laser technology.
The state of the art is clearly described and related
references are satisfactory.
The novelty of the proposed research is analysed in
sufficient detail.
The interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary and intersectorial aspects of the proposal are adequately
described.
The training objectives of the proposal will provide
benefit to the development of an independent
research career.
The quality of the host supervisor is very high and
includes participation in projects, publications,
patents and demonstrates a relevant track record of
previous training achievements within the proposed
field of research.
The host is a UK University with a high level of
experience and high reputation.
The practical arrangements in place to host the
researcher are convincingly described.
Although the candidate experience after PHD
graduation (2014) is limited, the potential to reach
professional maturity through the fellowship is well
demonstrated
4.50/5.00






III
The current research challenges, research
objectives and approach and originalities are
well described.
The researcher will benefit from the rich
program of secondments in a
multidisciplinary and focused to the topic
consortium, including an industrial
secondment.
The training and transfer of knowledge
objectives both from the host to the
researcher and from the researcher to the
host is very well described in the proposal
according to the four specific research
objectives.
The researcher has very strong academic
skills and he will have chance to improve
himself for re-enforcing a position of
professional maturity in research with this
proposal.
The benefits for the researcher and for the
organisation are well described.
The quality of supervision is well supported
by relevant information.
Weaknesses of the proposal
I
II

None
No major weaknesses were found.

Panel ENG
III
Possible limitations and disadvantages of
proposed method and measures to overcome
them are not clearly presented.
The specific hosting arrangements for the
researcher are not well described in the
proposal.
2. Impact (Threshold: 0.00/5.00 , Weight: 30.00%)
The following aspects will be considered when assigning an overall score for this criterion:
 Enhancing research- and innovation-related human resources, skills, and working conditions to realise the potential of
 individuals and to provide new career perspectives
 Effectiveness of the proposed measures for communication and results dissemination
5.00/5.00
4.80/5.00
4.60/5.00
Strengths of the proposal









I
The project is likely to contribute to European excellence in
science.
New career perspectives are assured.
The project demonstrates a very strong potential to
increase the competencies of the researcher especially
through experience with the beneficiary hosts and the host
for the secondments.
The benefits both for the fellow and for the host are well
demonstrated.
The publication of papers and presentations and
participation in international conferences and workshops
are well considered.
The resources are well estimated and effective measures
for communication are proposed.
The dissemination activities are well planned.
The exploitation of the results is considered.
The host demonstrates a very good experience in dealing
with intellectual property rights.
Panel ENG







II
The proposed training program address very
important objectives related to the applicant's
academic development, the industrial involvement
and the quality of the supervision.
The partnering organizations offer the applicant the
possibility of gaining experience from an
international setting.
The candidate will acquire a relevant experience in
laser engineering and in advanced modelling
methods.
The communication and the public engagement
strategy are satisfactory.
The proposed outreach activities are convincing and
measurable.
The dissemination of the research results will be
achieved through publications in high-impact
journals and presentations.
Intellectual Property and exploitation of results are
specifically addressed.




III
The proposal has a potential to contribute
European research area in the field of tunable
mode fibre laser.
The proposed research will pave way to
decrease power consumption and impacting
the environment.
The proposal will contribute EU-Malaysia
collaboration.
Exploitation and IPR issues are well described.
Weaknesses of the proposal
I (successful)

None
Panel ENG
II
It is not sufficiently detailed how the various actions
mentioned are tailored to the applicant's particular
needs, in order for the candidate's full potential to
be realized


III
Career Development Plan is addressed in a
general manner and not sufficiently
structured in time.
Dissemination activities are generic.
3. Implementation (Threshold: 0.00/5.00 , Weight: 20.00%)
The following aspects will be considered when assigning an overall score for this criterion:
 Overall coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources
 Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including quality management and risk management
 Appropriateness of the institutional environment (infrastructure)
 Competences, experience and complementarity of the participating organisations and institutional commitment
4.70/5.00











I
The project presents a well thought out work plan, well
planned work packages, tasks, deliverables, milestones and
secondments, with a great level of detail.
The presented management structures are appropriate.
Competences and experiences of all participating
organizations are excellent.
The practical arrangements for the implementation and
management of the research project are well described.
The infrastructure, facilities and international
collaborations of the host are very good to execute the
proposed project.
The participating organizations are experienced and
complementary in this field.
Institutional commitment is assured.
The project demonstrates that the institutions providing
the secondment have also the needed facilities and
infrastructure to guarantee the success of the project
The consortium is well balanced and the knowledge
qualities are complementary.
The scientists in charge of supervising the researcher are
excellent.
The team has a significant theoretical and practical
experience in the area.
Panel ENG










4.80/5.00
Strengths of the proposal
II
A coherent and effective work plan is presented.
The project phases and milestones are very well
elaborated.
The allocation of tasks and resources are adequate
to reach the goals.
The management structure is appropriate and
adequate procedures are in place.
Progress monitoring, including a personal career
development plan, is convincingly included in the
project.
The assessment of the possible risks and
contingency plans is well described.
The available infrastructures in the host institution
are very good and adequate for the project
execution.
Practical and administrative arrangements and
support for the hosting of the fellow are well
presented.
Strong connection with industry is anticipated. The
participating organizations from Academia and
industrial companies are experienced. They provide
the project with complementary scientific and
industrial aspects.
The fellowship will be beneficial for both the
Experienced Researcher, the host organization and
the project partners.
4.20/5.00








III
The workpackages, major deliverables and
secondments are well described and are
included in the Gantt Chart.
The participating organizations have a
complementary competence profile and
substantially enrich the fellowship potential.
Each work package includes five tasks. The
allocation of the tasks and resources is
suitable.
The defined management structures and
procedures (e.g. progress monitoring,
assessment of the possible risks and
contingency plans,
Intellectual Property Rights) are good.
The host has very strong background in the
field of fibre lasers and their implementation,
which is the proposed research area.
The host has also expertise in research skills
training program, which the researcher will get
high benefit.
There is evidence of institutional commitment.
Weaknesses of the proposal

I (successful)
The risk management plan is generic.

II
The scheduled output may prove to be
overambitious given the framework of a timelimited Marie Curie scholarship.




III
The major milestones are not adequately
described and they are not included in the
Gantt Chart.
The required and existing infrastructures are
not well elaborated in the proposal in
relation to the fellowship.
Deliverables are not fully measurable in
terms of outcomes.
Risk management and contingency plans are
not adequately addressed.
Overall Score
98.8%
Panel ENG
98%
89.4%