Guidance on the use of the criteria and assessment factors

For calls where dissemination has been made a separate, independent sub-goal, cf. the ‘Purpose’, projects will be expected to define separate results for dissemination. Please note that such results will then be assessed under all assessment factors.

Criterion 1: Relevance of the project

Under this criterion, the following factors will be considered:

1.1 To what extent the need for the project and its significance for the target group(s) are clearly demonstrated.

1.2 To what extent the project’s planned results are concrete and suitable to achieve the call’s objectives.

1.3 Level of ambition of the results.

1.4 To what extent the project is innovative and/or complementary to other measures/activities already initiated by the participating institutions/actors.

*Check the call for any additional, call-specific assessment factors.

Assessment factor 1.1:

The key thing to consider here is how well the application justifies the need for the planned results of the project and the positive impact it is expected to have for the target groups. The assessment of this factor must take into account that the need in many projects may be ‘self-evident’, and that it is thus not always necessary to devote a lot of space to this.

Assessment factor 1.2:

This factor assesses the extent to which the project's planned results will contribute to realising the call’s objectives, cf. the ‘Goals’ of the call. The assessment assumes that the project will succeed in achieving its results. The key question here is to what extent the results will generate relevant effects in relation to the objectives of the call. A result will normally be considered ‘concrete’ if it is clear what the result will entail/mean/consist of in practice. To the extent that the results are too abstract/unclear to be able to properly assess their relevance, the grade will be reduced.

Some calls will have such concrete goals that the relevance of the project results will be fairly obvious. If it is not obvious that a result is relevant, the applicant is expected to explain the relevance in more detail in the application. What are considered relevant results must be in line with a reasonable interpretation of the goals as they are worded in the call.

Assessment factor 1.3:

This factor assesses to what extent there is a clear commitment to the project. This can be reflected in several ways and must therefore be considered in a holistic manner. Factors that may reflect ambition and commitment to the project may include, for example, the ‘volume’ of planned results (number/breadth/depth, etc.), the level of internal support from applicants/partners and the use of own resources in addition to own contribution requirements.Applicants are expected to describe the current state of the area the project seeks to improve. Applicants should support the description by providing specific data and numbers where relevant (baseline), so that it is possible to assess the level of ambition of the results. The key assessment question is to what extent the level of ambition exceeds what could anyway have been expected. A grade should only normally be reduced if the project's ambitions are clearly below what could be expected, or where the level of ambition is clearly unrealistic.

Assessment factor 1.4:

This factor assesses the degree of innovation and positive synergies with other measures. Applicants who address a problem/need in substantially new ways should be rewarded, as long as the plan is well justified and feasible. Both results and working methods can be considered innovative. Furthermore, the project should in one way, or another positively affect other activities/initiatives at the institutions, so that a grant will have an impact also beyond the project (positive synergies). A broad interpretation of what can be considered relevant positive synergies must be applied, and all specific synergies that raise education and skill levels count positively, assuming that the synergies are significant.

Criterion 2: Quality of project design and implementation

Under this criterion, the following factors will be considered:

2.1 To what extent the project has a concrete, comprehensive and realistic implementation plan.

2.2 Occurrence and quality of risk assessments.

2.3 The extent to which the project is cost-effective and has allocated sufficient resources to the implementation of the activities.

2.4 The ability of the project to take into account the needs and interests of the target groups.

*Check the call for any additional, call-specific assessment factors.

Note: Sub-grades over 4 for the criterion ‘Quality of project design and implementation’ should generally be reserved for applications that – overall – are considered to have more than a 60% probability of achieving the results and impacts that the project aims for.

Assessment factor 2.1:

This factor assesses the extent to which the implementation plan is ‘concrete’, ‘comprehensive’ and ‘realistic’. Here, the project's milestone plan and other mention of procedures will be central. A plan is considered concrete if it is clear and understandable how the project should proceed in order to achieve its different results. A plan is considered comprehensive if it is clear how all results are to be achieved, and that the results/activities are listed from most to least important in the description of the plan. Although the plan is concrete and comprehensive, it should also be ‘realistic’, i.e., that there is a good correlation between planned activities and results, and that, overall, the activities/methods/procedure are likely to be feasible.

Assessment factor 2.2:

This factor shall assess conditions that can negatively affect the project achieving its results and impacts. All projects involve an element of risk, which is why any special risks should be identified and assessed. It may be difficult for many projects to identify specific risks of significance, and a grade will therefore not be reduced if this is given limited mention. What is important is that the applicant has an awareness of risk, and that the assessment of how any such specific risk should be handled/mitigated are concrete and sensible. Projects are not required to have risk matrices quantifying probability/consequence etc. What is important is that assessments are sound, and that the measures have a good preventive effect.

For projects that require grant funds to be transferred to foreign partners, corruption risk should generally be identified and assessed if the partner is from a country with a Corruption Perception Index ≤ 69, cf. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. Proposed measures to mitigate such risk should generally be preventive, for example by addressing such risk as a fixed agenda item at meetings with the relevant partners, or by implementing specific control mechanisms.

For environmental and climate risk, projects that implement specific and sensible measures to reduce the project’s carbon footprint shall be rewarded (e.g., choosing digital meetings, climate-friendly forms of travel, etc.).

For projects where there is a clear risk of social discrimination (e.g., on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), this is expected to be assessed and handled. The same applies to the obvious risk of unethical forms of production (e.g., child labour, ‘social dumping’, etc.).

Potential risks in relation to fundamental academic values and national interests including security interests, such as export control and dual use, should also be considered where relevant. For projects that involve the development of digital tools, platforms etc., handling data protection and IT security can often be risk factors that should be mentioned.

For all risk types, raising and reducing grades should normally only apply to applications that clearly deviate, positively or negatively, from what is generally expected. Please also note that projects with a relatively high level of risk should also be able to do well in the assessment if they have a plan for expedient management of specific risks. It must also generally be borne in mind here that the objectives of the call often assume that many projects will aim to achieve results that entail clear risks.

Assessment factor 2.3:

Projects must strive for the most cost-effective implementation possible and ensure that appropriate and sufficient resources are in place to complete the project. Resources can be all kinds of input factors, such as time, personnel, skills, and tools/equipment. Relevant resources are defined based on the activities and results the individual project will carry out/achieve, and it is crucial that the project’s use of resources appears effective and reasonable overall. Given that the costs are reasonable and effective, an application’s grade should not be reduced even if the project concerned entails relatively higher costs than other applications. To the extent budget items are identified that appear to be clearly unreasonable/unrealistic, recommending a budget reduction must be considered.

Assessment factor 2.4:

To ensure that the results to be achieved in the project are appropriate, it is important to involve the target groups targeted by the project. It should therefore be clear from the application that the project has an awareness of the target groups, and that this is taken into account in the design and implementation of the project. There is no requirement for applicants to have conducted user surveys or other more extensive surveys of such interests/needs, and no mention of such can often be justified on the basis that this is ‘self-evident’. Unless it is obvious that such needs/interests are met or that mention of this is considered superfluous, the application should reflect that this has been taken into account. Raising or reducing grades should also here normally be reserved for applications that clearly stand out on this criterion, either positively or negatively.

Criterion 3: Quality of the project group and collaborative structures

Under this criterion, the following factors will be considered:

3.1 The complementarity of the participating institutions/actors and the overall experience and expertise of the project group.

3.2 Whether the division of tasks and responsibilities shows commitment and active contribution from all participating institutions/actors.

3.3 To what extent the project has a clear and comprehensive plan for interaction between the participating institutions/actors as well as with any stakeholders.

*Check the call for any additional, call-specific assessment factors.

Assessment factor 3.1:

This factor will assess the extent to which the key actors and people in the project are, overall, suitable to ensure good implementation/achievement of the planned activities and results. This means that it may be relevant to reduce a grade if a specific actor/type of actor who should have been involved has not been involved. However, reducing a grade for such shortcomings should normally be reserved for cases where the involvement of the actor/type of actor in question must be perceived as being fairly obvious.

The application’s mention of the actors’ profile/activities and capacity, as well as key participants’ experience/expertise, will thus be central. The same applies to the extent to which the expertise of the actors/participants can be said to complement each other – so that, overall, they ensure good project implementation. Applicants should generally avoid listing all experience/expertise and focus instead on those parts of the participants’ competencies that are particularly relevant to the project in question. However, disproportionate use of space on the listing of peripheral experience, etc., should normally not merit reducing a grade if the listing nevertheless shows that the participants have the relevant experience/expertise needed. The grounds provided under this section should otherwise be seen in the context of the realism assessment under section 2.1.

Assessment factor 3.2:

A division of tasks and responsibilities that shows commitment and active contribution from all actors/participants will indicate that all actors/participants have been chosen with care and because they individually contribute to strengthening the project’s results and impact. Similarly, an unclear division of responsibilities and tasks will often indicate that the project’s plans are not well thought out, and that the project therefore runs a greater risk of encountering various challenges and problems. How big a grade reduction is given for such ambiguity will normally depend on how extensive it is, and whether it relates to key activities/results. Clear ‘gaps’ in the division of tasks and responsibilities should normally lead to a grade reduction, and even more so if this also contributes to doubt about whether the financial management of the project is good. Similarly, a clear, comprehensive, and carefully weighed division of tasks and responsibilities should count positively.

Assessment factor 3.3:

This factor will assess to what extent the project facilitates good and effective interaction between the different actors/participants. Awareness of and concrete plans for interaction are more important the more actors are involved, and the more geographically dispersed they are. The key thing here is that the application shows how such interaction is to be ensured, both through clear management structures/decision-making processes and the more operational aspects of the project implementation (e.g., communication lines/ procedures etc.). Applications that seem unclear or are perceived to have a fragmented approach should be given a lower grade. Similarly, applications that show how different actors/participants will work together towards common goals should be awarded a higher grade.

Criterion 4: Project impact

Under this criterion, the following factors will be considered:

4.1 Potential impact for the project’s target groups, participating institutions and actors in and outside the project.

4.2 The quality of planned measures to ensure that the impacts are maintained after the end of the project period.

4.3 The quality of planned measures to evaluate and document the project’s impact.

*Check the call for any additional, call-specific assessment factors.

Assessment factor 4.1:

This factor evaluates the overall effectiveness of the project. It invites you to broaden your perspective and evaluate the project comprehensively, considering the anticipated real impact in relation to the overall project costs. In this overall assessment, it is natural to look in particular at the assessments made of the suitability of the results (see assessment factor 1.2), how realistic the project’s implementation plan is (see assessment factor 2.1) and the project’s cost-effectiveness (see assessment factor 2.3). Although dissemination has not been made a separate sub-goal under the call, any impact will also count positively.

Assessment factor 4.2:

This factor entails that applicants are expected to have a plan for how the project’s impact will be maintained after the project/grant funding has ended. It should thus normally count negatively if no such plan is in place, or it is unclear/inadequate. Projects that have an acceptable plan should be rewarded based on how likely the plan is to succeed, to what extent/how many of the impacts are assumed to be maintained, and the horizon of the plan for maintaining the impact.

Assessment factor 4.3:

The purpose of this factor is primarily to ensure that the applicant institution has a plan for how to assess the project’s impact. The requirements for such an evaluation/documentation plan should not be very strict in order to count positively.However, a minimum requirement is that the plan appears feasible and cost-effective. Unless the call requires otherwise, carrying out simple surveys or similar will normally be considered sufficient. Applicants who through planned measures show that they will follow up evaluations and/or integrate statistics from evaluations into internal systems for management information or similar, should be rewarded for this.