1. Information Session May 2016
Innovation Fund
2017
Information Session
May 2016

2. Agenda Objectives Application process Review process Timeline
Questions

3. Striving for Global Leadership and Reaping the Benefits
$425M

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

5. 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

6. Application process & funding envelopes
NOI %
Proposal
June 23, 2016
October 11, 2016

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

8. 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?

9. Proposal
Project module
Finance module
Suggested reviewers

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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%)

15. 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%)

16. 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

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

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

19. 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