Strategic considerations and the role of the two-stage procedure in evaluation – ISINNOVA
Feedback on the application to and evaluation of European research & innovation projects
Enhancing the quality and impact of European research and innovation is a prerequisite for strengthening Europe’s competitiveness and improving the quality of life of its citizens. Beyond the level of ambition embedded in policy objectives and work programmes, the effectiveness of the next European Research & Innovation (R&I) Framework critically depends on the design of application and evaluation processes that are able to identify, support, and accelerate the most promising ideas and consortia.
In this perspective, meaningful gains in R&I performance can be achieved not only by increasing resources, but also by refining the mechanisms through which proposals are prepared, assessed, and supported. A more effective and coherent application and evaluation system would contribute to higher-quality proposals, more strategic alignment with European priorities, reduced administrative burden, and a more efficient use of public funds.
We therefore consider it essential to pursue a targeted revision of the proposals’ application and evaluation process, structured around four mutually reinforcing pillars:
- Improving the evaluation process through a more careful selection of evaluators and a streamlined, impact-oriented evaluation checklist.
- Consolidating the use of lump-sum funding to shift focus from administrative compliance to results and outcomes.
- Expanding the systematic use of two-stage procedures to improve efficiency and proposal quality.
- Strengthening the role and financial support of National Contact Points (NCPs) as a cornerstone of an inclusive, high-quality participation system.
Together, these measures would create a more coherent, transparent, and outcome-driven framework, better equipped to capture scientific excellence, foster innovation, and respond to Europe’s real economic, societal, and technological needs.
Substantially improving the evaluation process
The effectiveness and credibility of the evaluation of proposals critically depend on the availability, competence, and diversity of evaluators, both internal to the Commission and external experts. Equally important is a balanced composition of evaluation panels, which should also allow, where appropriate, for the inclusion of business-oriented profiles. The selection of evaluators must itself be carried out by Commission staff with adequate expertise, in order to ensure that the panels collectively possess the necessary scientific, technical, and strategic capabilities.
At the same time, there is a clear need to strengthen interaction mechanisms between applicants and evaluators. This could include reintroducing a scientific officer role, covering both the proposal evaluation phase and any redress procedure initiated by applicants. Such a role, grounded in full familiarity with the proposal content, would enable:
- A genuine discussion on the substantive merits of proposals, rather than a focus limited to procedural aspects (see below under evaluation checklist).
- The provision of concrete, actionable feedback that applicants could effectively use to improve future submissions.
A further factor increasingly undermining the ability of Executive Agencies to properly assess the R&I quality of proposals is the excessive articulation of both the Horizon Europe application template and evaluation checklist. Currently structured around three criteria and no fewer than twenty-five sub-criteria, the checklist, while conceptually well-intended, has resulted in application and evaluation processes that are dispersive and overly mechanistic. Applicants and evaluators are required to devote disproportionate effort to addressing individual sub-criteria, at the expense of a holistic assessment of the proposal’s overall quality, coherence, and potential for impact. This is frequently reflected in Evaluation Summary Reports (ESRs) that are highly articulated in structure but limited in substantive, well-argued and grounded commentary, reflecting a form of “tunnel evaluation” induced by the template’s and checklist’s granularity. More streamlined templates and checklists, more strongly focused on the core concept and the proposal’s capacity to deliver meaningful research, innovation and impact, would significantly enhance the quality and usefulness of funded projects.
This tendency towards overgranularity is at odds with the progressive reduction in proposal page limits. The resulting mismatch between the large number of criteria and sub-criteria to be addressed and the comparatively limited space available to applicants to articulate, evidence, and cross-reference complex arguments creates a structural tension that hampers the evaluation process. This heightens the risk of superficial or box-ticking ESRs and disproportionately penalises proposals that are conceptually ambitious, systemic, or inherently interdisciplinary, precisely those that Horizon Europe seeks to promote.
In parallel, greater reliance should be placed on evaluators with the ability to assess proposals against the fundamental strategic objectives of each Topic, rather than predominantly on narrowly specialised expertise linked to individual sub-criteria. Such a shift would help rebalance evaluations towards strategic relevance, ambition, and transformative potential. Greater care in the selection of both internal and external evaluators would significantly improve effectiveness and transparency, while better valorising the scientific quality, innovation capacity, and socio-economic potential of the selected proposals.
Generalised adoption of Lump Sum
The generalisation of lump-sum funding is another intervention that can make a decisive contribution to improved R&I quality. On the one hand, it substantially reduces administrative burdens and associated costs for both programme managers and beneficiaries. On the other hand, it shifts attention away from process-oriented controls (such as timesheets and detailed analytical accounting) towards results-oriented assessment centred on deliverables and achievements.
Expanding the adoption of the two-stage procedure
A more systematic and consistent use of the two-stage proposal procedure would be extremely beneficial. This approach allows applicants to better calibrate their efforts and resources by limiting the initial investment at the first stage to the articulation of the core concept, strategic relevance, and expected contribution to the objectives of the Topic. To ensure a genuine optimisation of time and resources for both applicants and evaluators, first-stage proposals should be short and focused, following a concept-note format of approximately 3–5 pages. Emphasis should be placed on the quality, originality, and innovative content of the project idea, enabling evaluators to screen proposals primarily on their R&I value rather than on formal completeness.
In highly competitive calls, this significantly reduces unnecessary upfront effort and associated costs, while also easing the evaluation burden. The second stage, restricted to a smaller and pre-selected pool of proposals, then enables applicants to concentrate their most substantial resources where the likelihood of funding is materially higher. When accompanied by constructive and sufficiently informative feedback after the first-stage evaluation, this process allows proposers to refine their approach, address weaknesses, and improve overall coherence.
For this scheme to function effectively and transparently, evaluators must be selected and empowered to exercise both individual and collective responsibility, grounded in recognised scientific, technical, and strategic competence. By progressively narrowing competition while increasing proposal maturity and focus, two-stage procedures contribute to higher-quality submissions and a more efficient use of resources across the programme, benefiting applicants, evaluators, and the Commission alike.
Enhanced applicants support
Finally, the role of NCPs and the financial support provided to them should be enhanced, making it an explicit goal of the 2028–2034 programme. We consider it essential that the new framework programme recognise the role of NCPs and ensure their increased financial support. Today, also because of limited funding, NCPs frequently fail to fulfil their mandate, providing limited guidance, information, and assistance on calls, rules, and procedures, and especially little to no assistance to applicants in interpreting topic scope and expected impacts, advising on proposal structure, consortium building, and participation rules.
Written by Mario Gualdi & Andrea Ricci, ISINNOVA