Information Session May 2016 Innovation Fund 2017 Information Session May 2016

Agenda Objectives Application process Review process Timeline Questions

Striving for Global Leadership and Reaping the Benefits $425M

Objectives Strive for global leadership Enhance research capacity by forging productive partnerships Generate social, health, environmental and/or economic benefits for Canadians

Key changes Competition budget Streamlined proposal Review process 2.75X budget  36% funding rate Align objectives & assessment criteria; fewer aspects Strategic research plan Min envelope $1.75 M ≤2 M (CFI) --> 30 pages >2 M (CFI) --> 35 pages F2F threshold of $8M (CFI) Min request $750K ( total project costs) Shorter CV Small institutions MAC

Application process & funding envelopes NOI + 10% Proposal June 23, 2016 October 11, 2016

Notice of intent Project information Collaborating institutions Up to 10 principal users Project description Minimum 6 suggested reviewers PDF

Notice of intent Advanced research computing infrastructure Consult with Compute Canada as outlined on its website: computecanada.ca Infrastructure located at national or international research facilities  Consult host facility and obtain approval Not a change, but maybe still useful?

Proposal Project module Finance module Suggested reviewers

Proposal : Project module Project information Plain language summary and project summary Principal and other users Collaborating institutions Financial resources for operation and maintenance Assessment criteria PDF PDF

Objective 1: Strive for global leadership by conducting world-class research or technology development activities in the areas of institutional priority. Institutional capacity and track record Criterion standard: The proposal builds on existing capacity and track record of key investments in people and infrastructure in the area of institutional priority. Research or technology development Criterion standard: The research or technology development activities are innovative, feasible, have the potential to lead to breakthroughs, and will enhance international competitiveness. Team Criterion standard: The team is comprised of established or emerging leaders and has the expertise and breadth, including relevant collaborations, to conduct the research or technology development activities.

Objective 2: Enhance research capacity by forging productive partnerships within and among institutions, sectors and disciplines for the effective and sustainable use of the infrastructure and facilities. Criterion standard: The infrastructure is necessary and appropriate to conduct the research or technology development activities. Infrastructure Criterion standard: The research or technology development activities are innovative, feasible, have the potential to lead to breakthroughs, and will enhance international competitiveness. Sustainability

Objective 3: Generate social, health, environmental and/or economic benefits for Canadians, including better training, improved skills for highly qualified personnel, through appropriate pathways. Criterion standard: The research or technology development results will be transferred through appropriate pathways to potential end users and are likely to generate social, health, environmental and/or economic benefits for Canadians Benefits to Canadians Sustainability

2015 IF – proposal weaknesses Team (43%) Expertise (28%) Collaborations (Canada:12%, details:11%, working as a team:10%, international:5%) Track record (11%) Institutional track record and commitment; directly related to project (9%) Track record (6%) Commitment (4%) Research; include references (51%) Details on activities (26%) Comparable programs (details:16%, weaker in comparison:6%) Feasibility/approach/methodology (18%) Innovativeness (13.5%) Integration/focus (12%)

2015 IF – proposal weaknesses Infrastructure (34%) Not well justified/wrong equipment (27%) Maximal use, limited user base (6%) Infrastructure development/implementation (5%) Similar infrastructure (5%) Sustainability (24%) Revenues (user fees: 9%, limited: 5%, plan B: 3%) Costs (details: 3.5%, unrealistic: 3%, personnel: 3%) Management/access plan (8.5%) Benefits (39%) Pathways (details: 17%, weak: 4%, timeframe: 2.5%) Research (15%) Partnerships with end users (details: 8%, limited: 7%) Benefits (indirect/overstated: 7%, details: 4%, HQP: 2%)

Proposal: Finance module Cost of individual items Construction/renovation plans (if applicable)  Contributions from eligible partners Infrastructure utilization Overview of infrastructure project funding Suggested reviewers PDF Floor plans should be changed to construction/renovation

Submission process Electronic submission Paper copies not required Summarize internal review process

Merit review process Expert review MAC SMAC Strengths Weaknesses Excellence Competition objectives Exceptional merit MAC Mandate Portfolio SMAC

Timeline ? February 2016 October 11, 2016 June 2017 Proposals Call for proposals Proposals Board decisions Notices of intent Merit review November 2016 – May 2017 June 23, 2016