Criteria

Score

Weight

Takes appropriate account of existing studies

7

Quality of methodology used

7

Congruence among objectives, activities and outputs

5

Originality and innovation in the scientific approaches and ideas

8

Would improve efficiency of various components of value chain

4

Proposed methodology eco-friendly and socially coherent

3

Economic merit of the proposed value chain

4

Beneficiaries (target groups well defined)

2

TOTAL

40

Criteria

Score

Weight

Roles of institutions clear; all participating institutions needed

5

Appropriate personnel available

5

Appropriate research management skills available in the research team

3

Uses an appropriate interdisciplinary approach

3

Builds institutional linkages (new partnerships or different use of existing partnerships)

5

Proactive in encouraging stakeholder participation

4

TOTAL

25

Criteria

Score

Weight

Approach on IPR issues

5

Repeatability and reliability of the value chain

5

Approach for institutionalization of information sharing

5

Approach for dissemination of technology

5

Total

20

Criteria

Score

Weight

Patents and Trademarks, Pilot plants

2

Technological Incubation and Up-scaling of Technology

5

IRR of the total value chain vis-à-vis traditional system

5

HRD and capacity building of stakeholders

3

Total

15

A. Scientific/ Technological and Economic Merit

Score

Criteria: Takes appropriate account of existing studies – It may be noted that the proponents were asked to keep this brief.  The presentation of bibliographies was not asked for and should not be expected.  Instead, look for indications that the proponents have read and assimilated relevant background information. This sub-criterion receives the highest weighting of all. Please evaluate it with special care.

0

Complete disregard for previous highly relevant, similar work

1

No mention of existing studies related to CN

2

Minimal indication of awareness of relevant studies but insufficient

3

Some indication of awareness of relevant studies but insufficient

4

Sufficient awareness of relevant studies (with or without naming them)

5

Clear and relevant indication of existing studies in the small space available

6

Sufficiently clear and relevant indication of existing studies in the small space available

7

Extraordinarily clear and relevant indication of existing studies in the small space available

Criteria: Quality of methodology used - This sub-criterion also receives a high weighting of all. Please evaluate it with special care.You will especially be evaluating here the “activities and methodology” section of the CN.

0

Activities and methodology absent, or so general as to provide no information

1

Activities and methodology sketchy to provide little information

2

Methodology incomplete and/or of doubtful suitability

3

Methodology needs refinement

4

Acceptable (probably conventional) methodology, that is appropriate to the outputs 

5

Innovative, appropriate and effective methodology but may still be refined

6

Innovative, complete, appropriate and effective methodology

7

Extraordinarily innovative, complete, appropriate and effective methodology

Criteria: Congruence among objectives, activities and outputs

0

To be used if any of the 3 (objectives, activities and outputs) are absent

1

All 3 (objectives, activities and outputs) are present, but no logical connection among them can be detected

2

Patchy connections among the 3 (objectives, activities and outputs)

3

Standard, but unimaginative approach to presenting objectives, activities and outputs, with repetition of the same ideas and possibly some minor errors or omissions in the logical connection

4

Innovative, complete, appropriate and effective methodology

5

Absolutely clear, informative and imaginative connections among the 3 (objectives, activities and outputs).

Criteria: Originality and innovation in the scientific approaches and ideas - This sub-criterion receives the highest weighting of all. Please evaluate it with special care.

0

No information on the scientific approaches and ideas behind the proposal

1

Outdated approaches and ideas

2

No innovation

3

Generally conventional approaches and ideas

4

Generally conventional approaches and ideas, with one or two innovations 

5

Generally innovative approaches and ideas

6

Quite innovative approaches and ideas

7

Highly innovative approaches and ideas

8

Extraordinarily innovative approaches and ideas

Criteria: Would improve efficiency of various components of value chain

0

Would have no impact at all

1

Limited impact in part of project area, probably in more than 6 years

2

Moderate impact, achievable in 6 years

3

Almost certain impact (external risks already taken into account in project), rapid and very extensive

4

Certain impact (external risks already taken into account in project), rapid and very extensive

Criteria: Proposed value chain eco-friendly and socially coherent

0

No evidence that proposed value chain is eco-friendly and socially coherent

1

Sparse evidence that proposed value chain is eco-friendly and socially coherent

2

Sufficient evidence that proposed value chain is eco-friendly and socially coherent

3

Proposed value chain is undoubtedly eco-friendly and socially coherent

Criteria: Economic merit of the proposed value chain

0

No evidence on economic merit of the proposed value chain

1

Little evidence on economic merit of the proposed value chain

2

Evidence for moderate economic merit of the proposed value chain

3

Evidence for high economic merit of the proposed value chain

4

Evidence for extraordinary economic merit of the proposed value chain

Criteria: Beneficiaries (target groups/s well defined)

0

Beneficiaries not mentioned

1

Adequate description of beneficiaries

2

Complete description of all groups of beneficiaries relevant to the project

B. Quality and Institutional Mix of the Research Team; Stakeholder Participation

Criteria: Roles of institutions clear; all participating institutions needed - Here, please evaluate whether the institutions are well chosen and whether their role is clear (i.e. a low score shows they have just been included, without thought, to obey the rules)

0

Rules on institutions barely fulfilled

1

Rules fulfilled, but no information on roles

2

Role not clear with apparent duplications and omissions in the coverage of activities

3

Good institutional mix, with roles apparent in the CN

4

Superior use and balance of institutions, with roles clearly specified

5

Highly effective, balanced, complete and innovative institutional mix, with roles clearly specified for each

Criteria: Appropriate personnel available - This can be evaluated from the CVs. Please remember that only 2 CVs were requested, of 2 pages. There was also the option to list additional personnel, or give brief biographies, as one of the 3 pages maximum of additional attachments allowed. Proponents may also have specified personnel in the activities and methodologies section, which is permissible. Those who abused these limits should not be given an unfair advantage for the extra information they supplied

0

No information on experience or activities of personnel

1

Personnel apparently not appropriate or qualified for the project proposed

2

Some doubts about suitability of personnel for project

3

Personnel mentioned are qualified and relevant for the project

4

Personnel mentioned are well qualified and relevant for the project

5

Exceptionally qualified and relevant personnel (“world-class”). Within the space limits of the document the proponents have shown they have an effective and complete team

Criteria: Appropriate research management skills available in the research team - Unlike the previous criterion, here the question is the likely research management ability (in the institutional context in which they operate) of the project manager, and any other researchers who are indicated in the CN to have a management role

0

Managers not named. No other information

1

Clearly deficient research management skills

2

Suitable, well proven, research management skills

3

Highly effective management skills, ideal to this project

Criteria: Uses an appropriate interdisciplinary approach - Have the proponents taken into account, and do they have available, the different disciplines likely to be necessary to conduct the activities and produce the outputs?

0

No evidence of an interdisciplinary approach even though it would be needed – all scientists mentioned are from the same discipline

1

Some doubts about whether inter-disciplinarity will be achieved

2

Suitable attention to inter-disciplinarity

3

Highly suitable and innovative attention to interdisciplinarity

Criteria: Builds institutional linkages (new partnerships or different use of existing partnerships)

0

No attention at all to this concern

1

Sparse and ineffective linkages

2

Some linkages but may not be effective

3

Good linkages

4

Very good linkages

5

Outstanding linkages

Criteria: Proactive in encouraging stakeholder participation - If present, this should be apparent in beneficiaries and impacts, but also in activities and methodology and outputs

0

No mention of beneficiaries or other stakeholders

1

Stakeholders mentioned but no evidence of strategy to involve them

2

Some limited attention to participation

3

Proactive in participation – sensible range of stakeholders

4

Highly proactive – most stakeholders covered

C. Knowledge Management, Information Sharing and Dissemination Plan

Criteria: Approach on IPR issues (to be taken by the value chain and/or produced by the value chain

0

No mention at all

1

Mention of IPR issues, but plans are poorly developed

2

Mention of IPR issues, plans are adequately developed

3

IPR issues sufficiently covered

4

IPR issues extensively covered

5

Very effective and innovative coverage IPR issues

Criteria: Repeatability and reliability of the value chain

0

No mention at all

1

Conditions laid for repeatability and reliability poorly mentioned

2

Conditions laid for repeatability and reliability adequately mentioned

3

Conditions laid for repeatability and reliability sufficiently mentioned

4

Conditions laid for repeatability and reliability well mentioned

5

All the conditions laid for repeatability and reliability have been mentioned very well