Work Package (WP)

A work package is a major subdivision of an EU-funded research or innovation project that groups together related tasks, deliverables, milestones, and effort allocations into a coherent and manageable unit. Work packages serve as the primary unit for planning, tracking, and reporting progress in Horizon Europe grants, and in lump sum grants they function as the payment trigger — the fixed amount is paid per completed work package. The work package structure is specified in the grant agreement and forms the backbone of the project's implementation plan, referenced in Article 186 of the EU Financial Regulation (Regulation 2018/1046) as part of the framework for grant management.

How It Works

The work package structure transforms a complex multi-year, multi-partner research project into manageable components, each with clear objectives, responsibilities, timelines, and outputs.

Structure of a work package. Each work package contains the following elements:

Objectives. A concise statement of what the work package will achieve, expressed in terms of measurable outcomes. Good WP objectives are specific, time-bound, and verifiable.
Tasks. Specific activities within the work package, numbered sequentially (e.g., T1.1, T1.2, T1.3 for tasks in WP1). Each task describes the work to be performed, the methodology to be applied, and which partner(s) are responsible.
Deliverables. Tangible outputs produced by the work package, numbered by WP (e.g., D1.1, D1.2). Deliverables may include: reports, datasets, software prototypes, publications, demonstrators, policy recommendations, or other concrete outputs. Each deliverable has a due date (expressed as a project month, e.g., M18) and a dissemination level (public, sensitive, or confidential).
Milestones. Key checkpoints that mark the completion of significant stages within or across work packages. Milestones are typically binary (achieved/not achieved) and may serve as go/no-go decision points. Examples: "Prototype v1.0 operational" (M12), "Clinical trial approval obtained" (M6), "Dataset published in open repository" (M24).
Person-months. The effort allocated to the work package by each partner, expressed in person-months (PM). One person-month represents one person working full-time for one month. The total effort is broken down by partner and by task.
Lead partner. Each work package has a designated leader (WP leader) who is responsible for coordinating the work, managing deliverables, and reporting progress. The WP leader is typically the partner with the strongest expertise in the work package's topic area.
Duration. The start month and end month of the work package within the project timeline. Some work packages run the full project duration (e.g., management); others are time-limited (e.g., a prototyping work package might run from M6 to M24).

Typical work package structure for a Horizon Europe project:

WP	Title	Purpose	Typical Effort
WP1	Project Management and Coordination	Consortium management, reporting, quality assurance, financial management	5-10% of total
WP2-5	Technical Work Packages	Core research, development, and innovation activities	65-80% of total
WP6	Dissemination, Exploitation, and Communication	Publications, conferences, exploitation plans, stakeholder engagement, public communication	10-15% of total
WP7	Ethics Requirements	Ethics deliverables (if flagged during evaluation)	1-3% of total

The number of technical work packages varies by project size and complexity. A EUR 3 million project might have 3-4 technical WPs; a EUR 10 million project might have 5-8. Each technical WP should represent a logically coherent package of work with clear inputs and outputs, and should be sufficiently large to justify dedicated management attention.

Work packages in lump sum grants. In lump sum grants, the work package takes on additional significance as the payment unit. Each partner has a fixed amount per work package, and payment is triggered by work package completion. The WP description in the grant agreement effectively becomes the payment specification: if the deliverables and milestones are achieved, the payment is made. If the work package is not completed, payment is withheld (or proportionally reduced for partial completion).

Inter-WP dependencies. Work packages are designed to be as self-contained as possible, but in practice there are always dependencies. WP3 (system integration) may depend on outputs from WP2 (component development). These dependencies are captured in the project Gantt chart and the description of how work packages relate to each other. Managing these dependencies is a core project management challenge, particularly when different partners lead different work packages.

Legal Framework

Article 186 of the EU Financial Regulation (Regulation 2018/1046) provides the general framework for grant management, including the requirement for a detailed description of the work to be carried out, which is implemented through the work package structure.

The Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement (HE MGA) contains the detailed provisions governing work packages:

Article 4 (Annex 1 - Description of the Action) requires a detailed description of each work package, including tasks, deliverables, milestones, and effort allocations.
Article 5.3 (for lump sum grants) establishes the rules for work package completion assessment and payment triggers.
Article 19 requires periodic technical reports that describe progress at the work package level.
Article 20 requires periodic financial statements broken down by cost category (for actual-cost grants) or by work package completion status (for lump sum grants).

The Horizon Europe Work Programme specifies the proposal template structure, which requires applicants to present their project plan in work package format. The template (Part B, Section 3) includes tables for: the list of work packages, work package descriptions, deliverables list, milestones list, and effort distribution by partner and work package (person-months table).

Evaluation criteria for Horizon Europe proposals assess the quality of the work plan under the third criterion (Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation). Evaluators specifically assess: whether the work packages and tasks are well-defined and logically structured; whether the deliverables and milestones are appropriate and verifiable; whether the effort allocation is realistic and balanced across partners; and whether the management structure is adequate.

Practical Examples

Example 1: Battery Technology RIA. A 48-month RIA on solid-state battery development structures its work into seven work packages:

WP1: Management (Months 1-48, 35 PM, Coordinator)
WP2: Materials synthesis (M1-30, 85 PM, University A)
WP3: Cell design and assembly (M6-36, 70 PM, Research Center B)
WP4: Performance testing and characterization (M12-42, 60 PM, University C)
WP5: Manufacturing scale-up (M18-48, 55 PM, Company D)
WP6: Dissemination and exploitation (M1-48, 25 PM, University A)
WP7: Ethics requirements (M1-48, 5 PM, Coordinator) Total: 335 person-months across 10 partners.

Example 2: Lump Sum Digital Health Project. A 36-month IA using lump sum funding defines five work packages with fixed amounts:

WP1: Management (EUR 180,000)
WP2: Platform development (EUR 1,200,000)
WP3: Clinical validation (EUR 800,000)
WP4: Regulatory pathway (EUR 320,000)
WP5: Market preparation and dissemination (EUR 500,000) Total lump sum: EUR 3,000,000. At each 18-month reporting period, completed WPs trigger payment. If WP3 (clinical validation) is delayed, the EUR 800,000 payment is withheld until completion.

Example 3: Inter-WP Dependency Management. In a mobility platform project, WP2 (data integration) must produce a clean, standardized dataset (Deliverable D2.3, due M12) before WP3 (algorithm development) can proceed effectively. If D2.3 is delayed to M15, the WP3 leader must adjust the algorithm development timeline, potentially compressing later tasks or requesting a project extension. The project manager's role is to identify and manage these dependencies through regular monitoring and early intervention.

Key Considerations for Suppliers

Design work packages around clear, logical boundaries. Each work package should represent a coherent package of work that can be managed as a unit. Avoid creating work packages that are too small (trivial management overhead, fragmented work) or too large (unmanageable, unclear progress tracking). A good rule of thumb is 3-7 technical work packages for a typical Horizon Europe project, each lasting at least 12 months and involving at least 30 person-months of effort.

Ensure realistic effort allocation. The person-months allocated to each work package must be credible. Evaluators are experienced researchers who can assess whether the proposed effort is sufficient for the described activities. Under-allocation suggests unrealistic planning; over-allocation suggests inflated budgets. Cross-check your effort estimates against comparable published projects and your organization's actual productivity data.

Define verifiable deliverables and milestones. Vague deliverables ("Report on progress") are difficult to assess and reduce evaluator confidence in your implementation plan. Specific deliverables ("Technical report on electrode material characterization, including XRD, SEM, and electrochemical cycling data for three candidate materials") demonstrate concrete planning and enable objective assessment of completion.

Balance the management work package. WP1 (Management) should be adequately resourced but not overly generous. Best practice allocates 5-10% of total person-months to management, depending on consortium size and complexity. Too little management effort signals a risk of coordination failure in large consortia. Too much signals inefficiency. The management WP should include: project coordination, financial management, internal communication, risk management, quality assurance, and liaison with the European Commission project officer.

Plan the dissemination work package from day one. WP6/7 (Dissemination, Exploitation, and Communication) is often an afterthought in proposal preparation, but evaluators assess it seriously under the Impact criterion. Define specific dissemination activities (target conferences, journals, stakeholder workshops), exploitation activities (patent strategy, licensing plan, spin-off feasibility), and communication activities (website, social media, press releases, public engagement) with clear responsibilities and timelines.

Grant Agreement — The legal document that specifies the work package structure, effort allocations, and deliverables.
Lump Sum Grant — A funding model where work packages serve as payment triggers.
Beneficiary — Each beneficiary's effort is allocated across work packages in the person-months table.
Evaluation Criteria — Work package quality is assessed under the Implementation criterion.
Horizon Europe — The EU programme whose proposal template requires work package structure.
Indirect Costs — In actual-cost grants, indirect costs are calculated on direct costs incurred across all work packages combined.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many work packages should a typical project have?

There is no fixed rule, but successful Horizon Europe projects typically have 5-8 work packages in total (including management and dissemination). The number depends on project size, complexity, and duration. A small project (EUR 2 million, 3 partners, 36 months) might have 5 WPs: management, 2-3 technical WPs, and dissemination. A large project (EUR 10 million, 15 partners, 48 months) might have 8-9 WPs: management, 5-6 technical WPs, dissemination/exploitation, and ethics. More than 10 WPs creates management overhead and fragmenting; fewer than 4 WPs for a substantial project suggests insufficient granularity in planning.

Can work packages be changed during the project?

Minor adjustments to work packages (task timelines, effort reallocation within a WP, deliverable format changes) can typically be managed through informal agreement with the project officer and documented in periodic reports. Significant changes (adding a new WP, fundamentally changing a WP's scope, major effort reallocation between WPs) require a formal grant agreement amendment, which must be requested through the EU Funding & Tenders Portal and approved by the European Commission. In lump sum grants, changes to work package scope and costs are even more restricted because they directly affect payment amounts.

What happens if a work package deliverable is delayed?

A delayed deliverable does not automatically trigger penalties, but it must be reported and managed. In actual-cost grants, the project continues, the partner continues to incur costs, and the delay is explained in the periodic report. Significant delays may lead to a project review, a request for corrective action, or — in extreme cases — project termination. In lump sum grants, a delayed deliverable that prevents work package completion means the corresponding payment is deferred until completion is demonstrated. The project manager should proactively communicate delays, explain their cause, and propose a recovery plan to minimize impact on downstream work packages and the overall project timeline.