CFI John R Evans Leaders Fund Assessment Criteria – Research or Technology Development

CFI Requirements – Research or Technology Development “The proposed research or technology development is of high quality and originality, and meets international standards. It will create knowledge or develop technology leading to innovation.” Describe the proposed research or technology development program and its innovative aspect. Explain why it is important to pursue the proposed research or technology program at this time. Explain how the proposed research or technology development program complements or differs from comparable programs being conducted nationally and/or internationally. * Ref: John R. Evans Leaders Fund Guidelines – March 2017 version

Suggested Structure for this Section 1. Introductory Statement What is the major goal of the applicant’s research program? How is this goal significant and innovative? How will the infrastructure allow these goals to be met? 2. Proposed Research What are the key objectives for the research? What methods will be used in the research program? What will be the milestones and deliverables from the research program? How will the infrastructure be used to achieve these objectives

Suggested Structure for the Research or Technology Section 3. Innovation and Transformative Potential What sets research program apart from others? Nationally? Internationally? If similar projects exist, how is the proposed research unique? 4. Timeliness and Impact What is the state of knowledge in the field? Why does this research need to be completed now? How will acquiring this equipment enable new opportunities to be seized?

Feedback from Reviewer Comments (for UofA JELF Applications submitted Oct 2013 to June 2016) Analysis of reviewers feedback from submitted JELF applications indicated that: A consistent concern raised by reviewers is that the Research or Technology Development section is insufficiently detailed 48% of all U of A submitted JELF proposals had at least one reviewer commenting on the lack of details for this section 92% of the submitted U of A submitted JELF proposals that were rejected or partially funded had reviewers indicating that the lack of detail in this section of the proposal was a concern to them Reviewers also raised concerns about the feasibility of the research plan and whether the proposed research is sufficiently innovative

(JELF submissions Oct. 2013 to June 2016) CFI Reviewer Comments (JELF submissions Oct. 2013 to June 2016) All Submitted Proposals (n=60) Research or Technology Development Researchers Need for Infrastructure Training of HQP Benefits to Canadians Sustainability % *For Unaffiliated JELF Stream, CFI request $400,000 or less

CFI Reviewer Concerns Rejected/Partially Funded Applications (n=12) % (JELF submissions Oct. 2013 to June 2016) Rejected/Partially Funded Applications (n=12) Research or Technology Development Researchers Need for Infrastructure Training of HQP Benefits to Canadians Sustainability %

Tips for Success Research (science) must be presented as the priority in the proposal The infrastructure requested should logically enable the innovative research plan Innovative nature of the project is crucial “Novel” ≠ “innovative” The innovation should stem from the research plan Requested equipment should enable innovative research plan to be executed The equipment requested does not need to have exceptional features Research plan should represent “new way of doing things” Interdisciplinary and integrative research is viewed by reviewers as particularly innovative

Tips for Success Ability to deliver on the project (feasibility) is a necessity Reviewers must be convinced that research plan can be ‘pulled off’ Quality of the science and the team must be of the highest level Methods in the research plan must be scientifically sound Proposal will be reviewed by expert reviewers Background information should substantiate feasibility of research approach References ≠ bibliography You may choose to include a list of citations, but these are not required Use supporting/preliminary data to substantiate claims Proposal should stand on its own Grantsmanship!!

Tips for Success Clearly outlined objectives, goals and methods will demonstrate to expert reviewers that research plan is sound But … final funding decisions are made by non-expert reviewers All concepts should be fully explained in near-lay terms Explain all acronyms to avoid jargon