Declaration and signing by the applicant

Surname and initials:

City:

Date:
Regarding STW's Intellectual Property policy, we ask that you answer the following questions. Provide a brief motivation where necessary.

1. 
   Are there applicants or co-applicants who are involved with one of the users stated or in parties to whom activities will be outsourced on a paid or unpaid basis? yes/no If yes, then state the nature of the involvement (appointment, advisor, member of board of directors, etc.).
   
2. 
   Knowledge generated during the project will become the joint property of the knowledge institution(s) and STW. Are the intended user committee members who provide co-funding aware of this? yes/no
   
3. 
   Are the users aware of the final version of the research proposal, of each other's involvement and of possible positions regarding intellectual property? yes/no
   
4. 
   Have agreements already been made (verbal or contractually in writing) between (one of) the users and the applying research institution(s)? yes/no
   
5. 
   Are there users who want contractual agreements if the project is awarded funding? yes/no
   
6. 
   Will materials or methods/technologies/software of third parties be used for which there are restrictions or company secrets? yes/no
   
7. 
   Will materials or methods/technologies/software of third parties be used that have been obtained by the signing of a "material transfer agreement"? yes/no If yes, which conditions have been imposed on the use?
   
8. 
   Are there relevant patents/patent applications of the research groups involved and/or potential users? yes/no
   
9. 
   Are there relevant patents from parties not involved in the project application that might hinder potential utilisation? yes/no
   

Appendix 4

Assessment
Assessment by referees

The questions below will be put to the referees:

1. 
   Is the team competent to carry out this research?
   
2. 
   What is original and innovative about this proposal?
   
3. 
   What is your assessment of the research method the applicant has chosen for the scientific problem?
   
4. 
   What is your assessment of the research programme (and, if applicable, the coherence among the respective subprogrammes)?
   
5. 
   What do you think of the phasing of the project?
   
6. 
   Is the available infrastructure adequate?
   
7. 
   What do you think of the number and nature (PhD, postdoc, etc.) of the personnel positions requested?
   
8. 
   What is your assessment of the size of the material, investment and travel costs?
   
9. 
   Do you have any comments about other scientific aspects of the application?
   

1. 
   
   
2. 
   
   
   1. 
      What is your opinion of the applications previously realised by the team?
      
   2. 
      What do you think are the strong and weak points of the utilisation plan?
      
   3. 
      Imagine that the intended research results are achieved. What are your expectations then about the feasibility of the application? When do you think that will be realised?
      
   4. 
      How will this research and the intended result influence the Dutch economy and its competitive position?
      
   5. 
      Which of the expected research results could possibly be patented and do you think the researchers will come up against existing patents that could hinder the utilisation?
      
   6. 
      Which (other) users do you know who could be involved in the research?
      
   7. 
      Users regularly contribute to the research costs. What is your assessment of the balance between this contribution and their interest in the research being successful?
      
   8. 
      Which practical applications do you foresee for industry, society, technology or science that have not been described in the application?
      
   9. 
      How do you assess the degree of the proposal's relevance in the maritime top sector's innovation and research agenda?
      

The jury uses the following evaluation scale:

1. 
   Excellent
   

• 
  An excellent researcher or research team.
  
• 
  A well-chosen problem.
  
• 
  The method is particularly original and effective.
  
• 
  Extremely urgent.
  

2. 
   Excellent to very good
   
3. 
   Very good
   

• 
  A competent researcher or research team.
  
• 
  A significant problem.
  
• 
  The method is original and effective.
  

4. 
   A rapid approach is important.
   
5. 
   Very good to good
   
6. 
   Good
   

• 
  An average researcher or research team.
  
• 
  A routine problem.
  
• 
  The project can be approached with the method, which shows some originality, although other methods might be considered.
  

7. 
   Good to average
   
8. 
   Average
   

• 
  It is by no means certain that this work is within the capacities of the researcher and/or the research team: the proposal itself contains no obvious errors.
  
• 
  A problem of average interest.
  
• 
  It is questionable whether the project can be successfully conducted with this standard method.
  
• 
  The project can be postponed without consequence.
  

9. 
   Average to substandard
   
10. 
    Substandard
    

• 
  The competence of the researcher or research team is considered insufficient.
  
• 
  Grave errors or mistakes occur in the proposal.
  
• 
  This outdated method is not right for this project.
  

• 
  Do not conduct this project even if funds are still available.
  

1. 
   Excellent
   

• 
  This will certainly lead to important new techniques or to very important applications in industry, society or other sciences.
  
• 
  This research is crucial for an evaluation of the consequences of the use of this technology or technique.
  
• 
  The utilisation has been well thought through and the approach guarantees a high likelihood of the effective use of the results.
  

2. 
   Excellent to very good
   
3. 
   Very good
   

• 
  This research will probably lead to important new techniques or to important applications in industry, society, or in other sciences.
  
• 
  This research is very desirable for an evaluation of the consequences of the use of this technology or technique.
  
• 
  The utilisation has been well thought through and the approach makes it plausible that the good use will be made of the results of this work.
  

4. 
   Very good to good
   
5. 
   Good
   

• 
  This work may possibly result in new techniques or in applications that might be useful for industry, society or other sciences.
  
• 
  This research is probably necessary for an evaluation of the consequences of this technology or technique.
  
• 
  The utilisation has been sufficiently considered; it will probably be able to be improved during the course of the work. The results of this work are likely to be able to be used.
  

6. 
   Good to average
   
7. 
   Average
   

• 
  Technically, this work might at some point be useful or it is conceivable that, at some point, another science, industry or society might well make use of one of the results.
  
• 
  No one in particular is waiting for the results of this research, but they might be useful if an evaluation must be made of the consequences of the use of this technology or technique.
  
• 
  The utilisation is inadequate. This must certainly be improved, otherwise the use of the results of this work is unlikely to occur.
  

8. 
   Average to substandard
   
9. 
   Substandard
   

• 
  Technically, the work is bad and superfluous - i.e., better or equivalent yet cheaper techniques are already available.
  
• 
  This research does not contribute to the use of this technology or technique, although, by contrast, it adds to the confusion about the consequences of this use.
  
• 
  The utilisation is utterly flawed.
  

Timeframe

*target dates

Appendix 6

The justification described on this form will be used as a first screening to determine whether your proposal fits within the priority research themes of TKM Maritime.

Projects without arguments or with insufficient arguments will be excluded from the rest of the procedure.
This form should be submitted as a separate attachment in PDF format together with the factsheet.
The Maritime Sector's Innovation Agenda and Research Agenda are on the following pages.
The entire Maritime Innovation Contract from 23 December 2011 "Netherlands: the Maritime World Top (Safe, durable, economically strong)" can be found at:

http://www.top-sectoren.nl/water/sites/default/files/documents/Innovatiecontract%20Maritiem.pdf
Examples of possible maritime research topics, Joint Industry Projects (JIPs) and contact people in the maritime sector can be found on the following website:

http://stw.nl/nl/content/maritime-2013-open-call
Further information about the Maritime Sector and possible contact persons at maritime companies and knowledge institutions can be requested from Marnix Krikke, TKI Maritime registrar: Marnix.Krikke{at}cmti.nl.

Innovation agenda of the Maritime Sector

1. 
   Capturing resources from the ocean
   
2. 
   Clean ships
   
3. 
   Smart ships
   
4. 
   Smart harbours
   

In each case, the following question is answered: which innovations (services/products) does the Maritime Sector which to achieve? The ambitions for the coming 5 and 10 years are then shown.

Clean ships

Smart ships