Assessment procedure

Proposal requirements

The receipt of the research proposal will be confirmed. Next, it will be determined whether the proposal meets the general requirements with regard to composition of project group and proposal format (completeness, size and inclusion of a budget plan. 

Assessment of the proposal

The PIHC Innovation Fund has appointed an assessment committee representing all four partners of the fund to assess and evaluate the submitted proposals (max. 2 persons per partner). The committee consists of

  • the management team of the MIRA research institute of the UT or their representatives;
  • the management teams of the academies of MST and ZGT or their representatives;
  • the strategy and policy advisor(s) of Menzis.

Each of the partners in the assessment committee score the submitted proposals on an assessment form with all criteria as described below. Projects can score 10 to 50 points, based on all criteria except the Menzis criterium.

The scores and discrepancies in the scores are being discussed in a meeting of the assessment committee. A unanimous advice concerning the awarding of the vouchers to the projects will be presented to the board of the PIHC Innovation Fund. 

Decision of awarding of the vouchers

The board of the PIHC Innovation fund will make the ultimate decision in the awarding of the vouchers to projects. The board consists of

  • the scientific director of the MIRA institute of the UT;
  • the chairmen of the Board of Directors of MST and ZGT;
  • the senior manager Strategy and Proposition / member of the Board of Directors of Menzis.

For the regular vouchers the advice of Menzis will be incorporated in decision-making, but UT, MST and ZGT make the final decision. For the Menzis vouchers, Menzis is the ultimate decision-maker, taking into account the assessments of UT, MST and ZGT.

The vouchers will be awarded during a PIHC event for which all applicants are invited.

Assessment criteria (1-5 points each)

  • Clear description of the clinical need;
  • Level of technical-scientific challenge to answer the clinical need, clear description of challenge;
  • Impact of the project on patient care (factor 2);
  • Realistic plan of action and financial plan;
  • Level of synergy between team members (factor 2);
  • Chance for long-term collaboration, including follow-up funding (factor 2);
  • Potential for valorization;
  • Menzis: Quality improvement and cost savings due to the described innovation.