This document provides a consensus evaluation report for a proposal called FOUNDATION that aims to improve understanding of convective scale phenomena for numerical weather prediction. It received an overall score of 42 out of 60. Strengths included establishing relevant objectives and identifying stakeholders. Weaknesses included a lack of clear scientific questions and innovation, and risks related to the large consortium size and ensuring interaction between working groups. The evaluation determined the proposal addressed the evaluation criteria in a generally good manner but would benefit from improvements such as more detailed objectives, plans for innovation and stakeholder engagement, and risk mitigation strategies.
This document provides a consensus evaluation report for a proposal called FOUNDATION that aims to improve understanding of convective scale phenomena for numerical weather prediction. It received an overall score of 42 out of 60. Strengths included establishing relevant objectives and identifying stakeholders. Weaknesses included a lack of clear scientific questions and innovation, and risks related to the large consortium size and ensuring interaction between working groups. The evaluation determined the proposal addressed the evaluation criteria in a generally good manner but would benefit from improvements such as more detailed objectives, plans for innovation and stakeholder engagement, and risk mitigation strategies.
This document provides a consensus evaluation report for a proposal called FOUNDATION that aims to improve understanding of convective scale phenomena for numerical weather prediction. It received an overall score of 42 out of 60. Strengths included establishing relevant objectives and identifying stakeholders. Weaknesses included a lack of clear scientific questions and innovation, and risks related to the large consortium size and ensuring interaction between working groups. The evaluation determined the proposal addressed the evaluation criteria in a generally good manner but would benefit from improvements such as more detailed objectives, plans for innovation and stakeholder engagement, and risk mitigation strategies.
This document provides a consensus evaluation report for a proposal called FOUNDATION that aims to improve understanding of convective scale phenomena for numerical weather prediction. It received an overall score of 42 out of 60. Strengths included establishing relevant objectives and identifying stakeholders. Weaknesses included a lack of clear scientific questions and innovation, and risks related to the large consortium size and ensuring interaction between working groups. The evaluation determined the proposal addressed the evaluation criteria in a generally good manner but would benefit from improvements such as more detailed objectives, plans for innovation and stakeholder engagement, and risk mitigation strategies.
GENERAL OVERVIEW Open Call Collection OC-2018-1 Proposal Reference OC-2018-1-22796 Proposal Title FrOm fUNDamentals to the prAcTIce Of coNvective-scale Numerical Weather Prediction Proposal Acronym FOUNDATION Review Panel RP5 Towards Well Being: looking at Growth and Environment Evaluation Status Final
EVALUATION
SUMMARY TABLE S&T EXCELLENCE IMPACT IMPLEMENTATION Marks
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Total
4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 2 3 2 3 4 42
COMMENTS
S&T EXCELLENCE Soundness of the challenge Q1 - Is the challenge relevant and timely? Mark
The proposal addresses this question in a very good manner. 4
Main strengths: The proposed action has set an ambitious objective to improve understanding of convective scale phenomena for improving NWP fusing mathematical, modeling and physics terms. The proposed implementation addressing four interrelated WG to advance knowledge and better understanding of the processes taking into account characteristics from diverse scientific fields, although a more precise formulation of the proposed scientific questions was expected. The challenge is addressed in a timely manner as we experience significant impacts from convective scale phenomena.
The proposal would benefit from certain improvements:
The consortium, however, does not address how data needed to validate their findings will be collected and processed. Q2 - Are the objectives presented clear and pertinent to tackle the challenge? Mark
The proposal addresses this question in a very good manner. 4
Main strengths: The proposal has established well identified objectives that are coherent with the overall important target of improving knowledge on convective flows. Critical role to the established objectives is the coordination with existing EU consortia on numerical weather prediction.
The proposal would benefit from certain improvements:
A more detailed list of objectives was expected to clarify how the proposal will go beyond existing networks and also link different scientific domains.
Progress beyond the state-of-the-art and innovation potential
Q3 - Does the proposal advance the state-of-the-art and introduce an innovative approach to the Mark challenge?
The proposal addresses this question in a good manner. 3
Main strengths: The proposal presents a high level description of the state of the art and few references, possibly due to limitation of the COST proposal framework. The focus on the “interdisciplinary forum” and exchange of knowledge between and within domains is considered as a credible approach for bringing the necessary innovation in the field.
The proposal has some weaknesses and the following improvements are necessary: The foreseen scientific innovations are presented on a very general level without the required elaboration. Creating an “interdisciplinary forum” is important but not a major innovation.
Added value of networking
Q4 - Is networking the best approach to tackle the challenge? Mark
The proposal addresses this question in a very good manner. 4
Main strengths: The proposal presents a positive element of merging different and diverge scientific fields for advancing knowledge on convective-scale Numerical Weather Prediction. Networking plays the primary role in this effort.
The proposal would benefit from certain improvements:
Specific details and practical elements of the expected output are not highlighted.
2 Q5 - What is the added value of the proposed network in relation to former and existing efforts at Mark European and/or international level?
The proposal addresses this question in a good manner. 3
Main strengths: The proposal aspires to involve already existing European NWP consortia in order to ensure monitoring of the deliverables together with the involvement of other more theoretical communities interested to more fundamental aspect of the physics (and mathematics) of the atmosphere might lead to important synergies.
The proposal has some weaknesses and the following improvements are necessary: The links to existing projects could have been identified as an additional element of the proposal, as a way of enhancing advancement over state of the art. There is a difficulty in assessing how the networking will extend beyond the existing research communities working on the topic as most proposers come from the field that traditionally studies this kind of problems.
IMPACT Scientific, technological and/or socio-economic impact Q6 - Does the proposal clearly identify relevant, and realistic short-term/long-term impacts? Mark
The proposal addresses this question in a good manner. 3
Main strengths: The proposal has identified a set of clear impacts which are relevant to the scope of the proposal.
The proposal has some weaknesses and the following improvements are necessary: There is not a convincing plan on how to attain the expected impacts, other than networking between participants. Training, possibly through increased number of STSM and more training schools, could present an option for increasing expected impacts.
Measures to maximise impact
Q7 - Does the proposal identify the most relevant stakeholders and present a clear plan to involve them Mark as Action's participants?
The proposal addresses this question in a good manner. 3
Main strengths: The consortium has identified a relevant number of stakeholders coming from the academia and NWP consortia and are involved as project partners. Standard networking actions are foreseen such as meetings, training schools, e-mail communication.
The proposal has some weaknesses and the following improvements are necessary: A methodology that the identified groups, and especially those not consortium members, will be involved is not adequately described. A workshop and possibly targeted interviews could aid in external stakeholder engagement from other fields like civil protection, farmers, insurance companies etc.
3 Q8 - Is there a clear and attainable plan for dissemination and/or exploitation of results? Mark
The proposal addresses this question in a very good manner. 4
Main strengths: The consortium presents a standard dissemination plan emphasizing activities such as web site, workshops, schools and promising popular lectures, without any new ideas (e.g. online courses) that would help spreading the knowledge to a larger community.
The proposal would benefit from certain improvements:
The proposal does not mention exploitation activities.
Level of risk and level of potential innovation/breakthroughs
Q9 - How well does the proposal succeed in putting forward potential innovation/ breakthroughs with a Mark convincing risk/return trade-off?
The proposal addresses this question in a fair manner. 2
Positive aspects: The potential future breakthrough implied in the proposal rests on the mix of researchers from the fields of basic science and applied science.
The proposal has significant weaknesses:
How these two groups with different background will communicate and work together contains a certain risk for the generated innovation.
The FOUNDATION proposal appears to heavily rely on networking activities and already existing consortia contains the risk of not providing original innovation
IMPLEMENTATION Overall Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan Q10 - Is the work plan (WGs, tasks, activities, timeframe and deliverables) coherent, realistic and Mark appropriate to ensure the achievement of the objectives?
The proposal addresses this question in a good manner. 3
Main strengths: The consortium sets a number of very pertinent scientific questions which contribute to the establishment of a reasonable and well-structured WorkPlan.
The proposal has some weaknesses and the following improvements are necessary: The observed lacking of clear objectives makes the WorkPlan fuzzy as it does not clearly describe the interaction between the WG and communities, and also scope and content of Deliverables.
4 Q11 - Does the proposal identify the main risks related to the work plan and have a plan for Mark contingencies?
The proposal addresses this question in a fair manner. 2
Positive aspects: The FOUNDATION consortium exhibits a good awareness on how COST projects operate, but does not present a coherent identification, assessment and mitigation plan of potential risks.
The proposal has significant weaknesses:
Risk management heavily relies on its management structure which could be overwhelmed due to the size of the consortium. Other issues identified as potentially placing FOUNDATION at risk include the internal dynamics of WG as a means of ending in isolated “sub-actions”, which needed a more convincing response than decisions following a spontaneous evolution of the WG activities and the lack of QC procedures. There is a risk on a qualitative level is the contribution from other communities (turbulence, statistics, …) that are underrepresented in the network of proposers Although the proposal mentions a strict quality control procedure, it does not present any further details in the WorkPlan.
Appropriateness of management structures and procedures
Q12 - Are the management structure and procedures appropriate? Mark
The proposal addresses this question in a good manner. 3
Main strengths: The FOUNDATION has a clear management structure, with clear vision, in accordance to COST standards. The roles of Chair and Vice Chairs are quite demanding given the size of the consortium. The fact that organizers of previous meetings will be asked to join the organization committee of future events, will help in the continuity of the events.
The proposal has some weaknesses and the following improvements are necessary: There is a gap of how STSM would be evaluated and probably an internal committee could be a solution rather than relying on Chair and Vice-Chairs. The management structure is highly dependent upon the selection of the persons and this could potentially hinder the implementation of the action.
Network as a whole Q13 - Does the proposed Network envisage the critical mass, expertise and geographical distribution Mark for addressing the challenge and the objectives? If not, does the proposal identify the gaps in the Network and present a clear plan for overcoming the gaps? Are mutual benefits clearly ascertained in case of involvement of NNC and IPC institutions?
The proposal addresses this question in a very good manner. 4
Main strengths: There is a good heterogeneity concerning nationalities and therefore ensures a good geographical distribution. The proposal relies a lot in mathematical and stochastic analysis of the relevant questions, but the core expertise of the proposers does not show a large participation of mathematics experts, shifting towards the Earth science community.
The proposal would benefit from certain improvements:
There is a bit of disproportion toward representatives of the Earth science community, risking to make the Action not too interdisciplinary.
