The sector challenge
A promising theme is not yet a credible consortium.
Collaborative research requires alignment between a funding topic, eligible participants, technical work and realistic resources. Gaps in one area can undermine an otherwise strong idea: a missing capability, an unsupported budget assumption or an unclear interface between work packages.
The programme is developing a coordination framework for identifying research and proposal gaps early. Opportunity screening, capability mapping and work-package design connect the technical objective to the people, resources and evidence needed for a coherent submission.
Programme development priorities
- Distinguish technical relevance from formal eligibility.
- Connect work packages to capability, resources and deliverables.
- Identify critical proposal gaps before organizations commit to preparation.
Technical scope & method
A structured approach to the question.
- 01Opportunity screening
- Interpret a specific call and its official documents. Record eligibility conditions, topic fit, expected outcomes and decision deadlines without assuming that an organization qualifies.
- 02Capability architecture
- Map the expertise, facilities, data and management capabilities needed. Define prospective partner roles and dependencies before making any invitation or commitment.
- 03Work-package design
- Connect objectives to tasks, milestones, deliverables and review points. Examine technical interfaces, resource assumptions and the logic of the preliminary budget.
- 04Proposal readiness
- Consider intellectual property, data management, collaboration conditions, risks and administrative gaps. A readiness review informs preparation; it does not predict an award.
- 01Research themeCall fit and eligibility
- 02Capability requirementsProspective roles and missing expertise
- 03Work-package mapTasks, interfaces and resources
- 04Readiness reviewRisk register and preparation gaps
Pilot development & application
A research theme translated into a consortium architecture.
Consortium development begins with a documented aerospace research theme and its governing call material. The working framework maps eligibility, technical objectives, work packages, required capabilities and resource assumptions. A structured readiness review identifies gaps before organizations make submission or collaboration commitments.
Read the call
Produce a preliminary eligibility matrix distinguishing mandatory conditions, interpretations and questions for the funding authority.
Build the concept
Define work packages and capability requirements using role descriptions, not fictitious partner names. Show dependencies and indicative resource categories rather than an invented funded budget.
Challenge readiness
Review topic fit, delivery logic, risks, resource realism and unresolved collaboration terms. Record a decision on whether further proposal work is justified.
Development connects a defined application, measurable criteria and a traceable technical review.
Technical deliverables
Outputs and evaluation.
The development workstreams connect these deliverables to reviewable evidence and application-specific evaluation criteria.
- Funding opportunity briefing
- Eligibility matrix
- Consortium concept note
- Work-package outline
- Preliminary risk register
- Proposal preparation checklist
Evaluation priorities
- Eligibility completeness
- Each relevant condition is checked or explicitly left unresolved.
- Technical coherence
- Objectives, work packages, interfaces and outputs form a defensible delivery logic.
- Resource realism
- Critical capability and effort assumptions are visible, with gaps assigned for further review.
Participation & boundaries
The right expertise. Clear responsibilities.
The collaboration framework addresses the roles of research organizations, universities, industrial specialists and proposal or project-management practitioners. Responsibilities, intellectual property and consortium terms are defined with the relevant organizations.
Scope and safeguards
Funding conditions depend on the authority and the individual call. Eligibility and submission readiness are checked against authoritative material; funding decisions remain with the responsible funding body.
Proposal confidentiality, intellectual property, data management and resource commitments require controlled information sharing and clear agreements between the parties.
Participation and technical decisions remain separate.
Participation does not automatically confer membership rights, AF Recognition, accreditation, certification, standards-setting authority or procurement preference. Sponsorship must not determine technical conclusions, evaluation results or governance decisions.
Development pathway
Development, grounded in evidence.
Technical objectives, responsible coordination and application needs shape the development process. Resources, safety, confidentiality, data protection, intellectual property and reporting arrangements are reviewed alongside the methods and deliverables, keeping progress focused and accountable.
A structured development pathwayExplore the seven connected development stages
Programme development connects technical requirements, responsible coordination and reviewable evidence. Each stage informs the next, while review findings refine the scope, methods and priorities.
- Requirements & Objectives
Define the technical problem, user need and scope.
- Feasibility & Evidence
Examine methods, resources, interfaces and dependencies.
- Scope & Responsibilities
Align workstreams, coordination and review arrangements.
- Pilot Development
Connect the evaluation plan to funding, safety, data and intellectual-property controls.
- Controlled Implementation
Maintain the agreed technical boundary and responsible delivery arrangements.
- Technical Evaluation
Review evidence and outcomes against application-specific criteria.
- Knowledge & Further Development
Translate reviewed findings into useful outputs and the next development priorities.