Take care not to adopt the high-risk approach of the evaluators down-scoring your proposal because they consider your project critical risk analysis to be of a superficial generic nature rather than the robust and rigorous analysis required.
Risk identification/mitigation needs to be addressed in the Implementation section of Horizon 2020 proposals and risk management is listed as one of the aspects to be taken account of in the evaluation criteria for Implementation.
Proposal template 3.2 Management structure, milestones and procedures – Bullet 4:
Describe any critical risks, relating to project implementation, that the stated project’s objectives may not be achieved. Detail any risk mitigation measures. Please provide a table with critical risks identified and mitigating actions (table 3.2b)
While this is an aspect that comes late in the proposal, covered typically in the last but one or two of a 70 page RIA/IA proposal, it should, rather than an afterthought quickly cobbled together before proposal submission deadline, be given due care and consideration, particularly towards completion of the risk register in:
Table 3.2b: Critical risks for implementation
There are two primary elements for consideration here:
- Risk/Mitigation description
Firstly, we note the “critical” terminology used above, so we need only address the core risks of the project and it is not required to collate a huge number of risks., I’d suggest perhaps something in the 5 – 10 range to be appropriate, distributed across three managerial / technical / business categories. That is to say, less is more; better to concentrate on a smaller number that are project specific showing evidence of forethought and careful analysis, with convincing mitigation measures (a plan B) to address each one identified. Try to go beyond the more generic (the dog ate my homework!) type often resorted to – consortium conflict, budget over-run, scheduling delays, etc. –but additionally focus on some real project specific technical/scientific challenges with appropriate and imaginative mitigation approaches offered.
Another point to note if including business risks relating to the exploitation/commercialisation aspects of your work plan, be careful not to confuse or duplicate material already covered in 2.1 Expected Impacts describing any barriers/obstacles to achievement of these. Table 3.2 shows risks over the project implementation period whereas 2.1 relates more to future market/regulatory uncertainty hindering product commercialisation after the current project is finished.
- Risk Probability
We are asked to indicate the level of likelihood across Low/Medium/High and the proposal template advises “the likelihood is the estimated probability that the risk will materialise even after taking account of the mitigating measures put in place”
Many applicants find this highlighting of potential risk to be counter-intuitive and the temptation is to categorise all risks in the Low category. However, it’s important not to try to underplay risks; an innovative project is by its nature challenging and high risk/high reward. If all risk is perceived as low, the question can be asked if public funding to de-risk the project is indeed the better funding option, or if a bank loan or private investor funding would be the more appropriate funding vehicle. My recommendation would be to aspire to at least showing a few Medium categorisations, always remembering that it is the mitigation measure that is the crucial aspect in terms of demonstrating a rigorous and robust risk management plan.
Preferably, preceding Table 3.2b, include a few lines of general descriptive text highlighting risk management as an inherent part of the project management framework. This will include a mechanism for continual monitoring/reporting/correction throughout, including also the identification of new risks arising over the project period. This should also align with a dedicated task included in the Management work package description in Table 3.1b.
Finally, and to highlight again the importance of such risk analysis, it is instructive to consider some typical past evaluator comments relating to this aspect:-
‘Risks are not defined with sufficient precision and the contingency plan is too generic’
‘Risk management is too generally addressed and not credible’
The take-away message – go beyond the generic too often employed here; with a small bit of care and consideration there is no reason not to be able to navigate this final section of proposal development while avoiding the concession of a key 0.5 score in your Implementation assessment!