Regardless of which funding scheme you choose to apply to under the Horizon Europe framework program, your project should be objective-oriented. This means that your proposal should present clear objectives and outline logical steps and actions towards achieving them. The objectives are undoubtedly among the most important components of the project, as they embody its essence and reflect aspects such as its ambitiousness and novelty. In turn, they serve as a main pillar of the evaluation process, reflecting on the competitiveness of your proposal. As such, it is of the utmost importance to properly formulate and present the research objectives to the reviewers, yet, it is not an easy and intuitive task. For this reason, we gathered in this article some of the typical mistakes that applicants make when formulating the objectives and offer routes to avoid them.
Mistake #1: Mismatch between the nature of the grant and the objectives
A discrepancy between a project’s objectives and aims and the grant’s nature and mission is likely the most critical mistake, expected to substantially reduce the likelihood of getting a project funded. Such discrepancy or mismatch indicates that the suggested project’s essence is not in line with the expectations of the funding agency which defined the grant’s nature and scope.
One of the main reasons we see such discrepancies between the project’s objectives and the grant’s nature is ‘recycling’ past grant applications (many times from national grants), without checking and revisiting the project’s objectives in light of the targeted grant. The simplest examples for that is a proposal focused in a specific field, while the grant aims to fund projects in another field, or applying for a grant for translational research (close to market) with a basic research project.
To avoid this mismatch, it is first critical to choose the right funding scheme for the type of project you want to get funded. Then, you must get highly familiar with the chosen funding scheme, its unique requirements and expected outcomes. Based on this knowledge, you’ll be able to formulate objectives that are aligned with the grant’s nature, thus increasing the competitiveness of your proposal and the likelihood of getting it funded.
Below are some examples (non-exhaustive list) of what one should note about the nature of the grant when formulating the project’s objectives:
- In “Top-down” topics, the topic description defines the expected outcomes and scope of the projects that would be funded under this topic, and the project’s objectives should be directly derived from that. When selecting such a topic, make sure to study all related material on the topic. On top of the topic description, pay close attention to the following items, all available in the Funding and Tenders portal per specific topic:
- The topic’s type of action, and what this entails: RIA, IA, CSA or others
- Destination description
- Topic conditions and documents
- Topic Q&A
- Any other relevant information published under the specific call
- ERC or the EIC Pathfinder Open funding schemes should include basic research objectives, while the EIC Pathfinder Open proposals are also expected to include technological objectives, as these grants are about early-stage groundbreaking research/science.
- EIC Transition applications are expected to include objectives related to both technology validation and market readiness, as these are the two aspects that are expected to be addressed under this grant.
- MSCA Doctoral Network applications should include objectives related to PhD training, as this grant focuses on training highly skilled doctoral candidates.
Mistake #2: Mixing requirements and objectives
Horizon Europe funding schemes have certain requirements and expectations that should be met by the applicants. This includes the expectation for dissemination and communication of project results, applying intellectual property protection measures, including a data management plan, etc. While in some cases it can be meaningful to include these requirements as part of the objectives, in most cases it is not necessary and may be seen as redundant.
For example, in ERC, it is expected (and only natural) that Principal Investigators and their teams will publish and present their results in international conferences. However, it is not expected that the ERC proposal lists dissemination as an objective. However, in other types of projects, these requirements are more central to the project’s goal, for example a collaborative project focused on dissemination and communication of R&I results in a specific field. In this case, the project would be expected to include objectives related to dissemination, e.g. creation of a platform contributing to the uptake of results by stakeholders.
Mistake #3: Mixing conceptual and operational objectives (the WHAT vs. the HOW)
First we should clearly define what conceptual and operational objectives are and what is the relation between them. The conceptual objectives are typically the ones that portray the big picture of what it is that we want to do in a project and the conceptual steps towards that. Then, normally the next step is to unfold the operational objectives which are focused on how exactly we are going to do it. That way the macro-level conceptual objectives are complemented by the micro-level operational objectives.
A typical mistake is listing operational objectives instead of – or together with – conceptual objectives. Doing so does not help the reviewers in best assessing the project proposal, its conceptual message and challenges. While it is only natural to think of operational objectives first (due to their more tangible nature), we strongly recommend to list only the conceptual objectives in the opening text of the grant application, as this is what the reviewers will look for. The operational objectives should be listed in the methodology and implementation sections of the project’s proposal.
Here is an example of how a conceptual objective unfolds to operational objectives:
- Develop a 3D virtual learning environment
To realize this objective, several operational objectives should be defined, for example:
- Characterize and specify the 3D virtual learning environment
- Develop the content and features of the 3D virtual learning environment
- Test and maintain the 3D virtual learning environment
The interrelation between these three operational objectives and the above-mentioned conceptual objective is evident, and this is something that should be reflected in the proposal. The operational objectives should derive from the conceptual objectives and reflect how the latter will be achieved. If done correctly, the project proposal should demonstrate how meeting the operational objectives will eventually lead to meeting the project’s conceptual objectives.
Mistake #4: Mixing objectives and outcomes
The big mistake here is presenting an outcome or a product as an objective instead of the conceptual steps towards the desired outcome. It is only natural to do so, as the outcome or the product are normally what we want to achieve. However, the way to achieving the outcome is normally not trivial, nor linear. In most cases, especially in complex unexplored research areas, the pathway is highly challenging, and in direct correlation to that, this is normally the main argument to justify the funding.
When assessing whether your research justifies the requested grant, the reviewers would be interested in the conceptual steps (see also Mistake #3 above) that will be taken to achieve the desired outcomes and realize the potential gain of the project. Practically, this means that the objectives should describe an action rather than a product.
There are some cases (but not in all cases) where this may be only a matter of phrasing. For example, the following will be an outcome and not an objective:
- Active network for research and innovation on cell and gene therapy
This is a result of the project. However, the objective should reflect the way to get there, for example:
- Establish a European network for the cell and gene therapy R&I community
Keep in mind that the outcomes can validate the partial or complete fulfillment of the objective, and therefore they can be used as validation measures for the objectives.
Mistake #5: Too General
An objective should be formulated in a way that would make it clear to the reviewer/reader as soon as possible what the project is about, what are the main questions it asks and what it wants to achieve. The more specific the objectives are, the more clearly the reviewers can assess how the project meets the expectation of the granting agency and how novel and ambitious the project is. Objectives which are too general or those that can be interpreted in different ways, are likely to be unmeasurable and ambiguous, making it difficult to point out specific criteria or indicators that confirm their achievement. This is something to avoid. Therefore, the objectives should be specific, measurable and clear.
Mistake #6: Fragmentation
In most cases, your project will have more than one objective, as Horizon Europe projects are usually large-scale and broad in scope and budget. Without paying appropriate attention and relying on a solid concept, the project may be presented as fragmented and as lacking a backbone that combines all of its different segments.
This is especially true in the case of collaborative projects, where several partners from different disciplines and sectors tend to focus on their research interests and agendas while overlooking the big picture. This could result in objectives that don’t necessarily reflect collaboration, while collaborative projects are expected to entail work that brings partners together. As the objectives are the guiding force underpinning the project, it is important to present a coherent list of objectives, all supporting the realization of a single project concept, rather than an aggregation of several ‘mini-projects’ with no common thread between them.
Conclusion
Successfully formulating objectives for your project is a key step to achieving a competitive proposal. Objectives should align with the grant’s nature, be measurable and verifiable, comprehensively articulate the scope of the project, and reflect its excellence. We recommend dedicating time and thought to this stage of conceptualizing your project as it will affect all other aspects of your proposal.