CONSENSUS EVALUATION REPORT

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.

5
 6
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)