cfi update - mun.ca · cfi update 2017 cara regional meetings. new & improved •policy updates...
TRANSCRIPT
CFI Update
2017 CARA regional meetings
New & improved
• Policy updates
• Program improvements
Learning from …
• The 2017 Innovation Fund review
• Institutions
• Multi-institutional project working group
Looking to the future
• After the Naylor Report
Agenda
Policy & Programs Guide
Version
November 2017
Fund Improvements
John R. Evans Leaders Fund
Guidelines
• Compute Canada condition
• Eligibility of workhorse-type equipment
Proposal forms
• Streamlined
• Attraction vs. Retention
Merit review
• Assessment scale
• SRPs
Allocations
• Available in CAMS
Fund improvements
College-Industry Innovation Fund
Guidelines
• Removed limit of 1 proposal per stream per college
Proposal forms
• Streamlined
navigator.innovation.ca/en
Benefits: • Raise the profile of your facility• Attract research talent • Attract potential project
partners
> 550 profiles
Observations from the
2017 Innovation Fund
Success rate by institution size
Funding rate by institution size
Funding & success by project size
Collaborations across Canada
Funding by administrative institution
Funding by administrative & collaborative institution
Distribution of Expert Committee
ratings
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
NS PS SW SA EX
# p
rop
osa
ls
ICTR Research Team Infrastructure Sustainability Benefits
Institutional capacity & track record Research or tech devTeamInfrastructureSustainabilityBenefits to Canadians
Learning from the 2017 Innovation FundWeakness identified by expert committees
Details on activity,
grantsmanshipFeasibility, approach,
methodology
Lack of focus, too broad or
ambitious, not integrated
Not innovative
Missing expertise, lacks critical mass
of experts
Work as team, track record, funding history
Not well justified;
wrong equipment; not linked
to research
Availability of similar/existing infrastructure
Pathway not well detailed
Lacks O&M, access, data
plan
Insufficient revenue
& suggested reviewers
Good practices
What is a good practice?
• tested, validated and proven
• produces good results and repeated
• shared and recommended as a model
www.innovation.ca/awards/sharing-good-practices
Newest additions
1. Access to key project
information by relevant
stakeholders
2. Managing the JELF allocation
3. Risk-based management
approach
4. Important considerations for
items involving an in-kind
contribution
• Objectives:
– Identify key challenges
– Identify solutions and good practices
– Identify CFI tools and approaches
• Membership
Multi-institutional projects
working group
Key challenges
@ Instititution• Communications
among institutional
liaisons• Internal review &
selection processes• Envelopes allocations• Provincial regulations
& processes
@ CFI• CAMS alerts
• Contact list of CFI
liaisons
• NOI → NOI posting
→ proposal
@ Instititution• Purchasing practices• IOF allocation• Inter-institutional
agreements • Reporting
responsibilities
Post-award
Pre-award
Stream 1
2017 Innovation Fund
2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8
MSI Fund 2017-2022
Cyberinfrastructure Initiative
Stream 2
College-Industry Innovation Fund
Challenge 1 – competition 2
Board
Notice of Intent Decisions by CFI BoardCall for proposals Appl Proposal deadlineLegend NOICall Board
Finalize awards
BoardAppl
Board
Board
NOI Appl
NOI Appl
Finalize awards
Call NOIFinalize awards
BoardNOI ApplFinalize awards
Finalize awards
John R. Evans Leaders Fund Appl Board BoardAppl ApplBoard Appl Board BoardAppl ApplBoard
CFI’s
ongoing
advocacy
strategy
• An investment horizon
proposition for research
infrastructure
• Strengthens the two core
principles of the CFI’s
service delivery model:• Respond to the evolving needs of
Canadian researchers, their
institutions and their partners across
all sectors
• Provide contributions at the pace of
infrastructure acquisition and
installation.
Questions?
Additional information
2017 Innovation FundWeaknesses identified by the
Expert Committees
Weaknesses identified by ECInstitutional capacity and
track record
•Lack of cohesion between track record and project8.3%
•Lack of detail / supporting documentation needed7.4%
•Project/institutional track record6.8%
•Commitment from institution5.1%
Research or Technology Development
•Details on activity & grantsmanship42%
•Feasibility/ approach/ methodology35%
•Lack of focus, too broad/ambitious, not integrated
30%
•Not innovative20%
•Missing details on comparable programs16%
Weaknesses identified by EC
Team
•Missing expertise / Not critical mass of experts34%
•Track record of working as a team20%
•Missing details on collaboration9%
•Canadian/International collaborations not included9%
•Missing details on team member roles8%
Infrastructure
• Not well justified / not connected to RTD / wrong equipment40%
• No details on availability of similar/existing infrastructure21%
• Weak RTD/Team to justify infrastructure12%
• Location of infrastructure / division between collaborators not detailed
10%• Not enough equipment / budget
too low7%• Infrastructure development/
implementation not well detailed7%
Weaknesses identified by EC
Sustainability
• Infrastructure, access or data management plan missing
22%
•Revenues not sufficient19%
•Costs/revenues not detailed14%
•Underestimated costs13%•Governance/Management
structure12%•Plans beyond 5 years not
detailed9%
Benefits to Canadians
• Pathway not well detailed21%
• Missing details of benefits12%
• Weak research8%
• Overstated impact7%
• HQP plan not well detailed7%
2017 Innovation FundWeaknesses identified by the
MACs
Weaknesses identified by MACs
Objective 1: Global Leadership
27% •Lack of detail
18% •Missing expertise
13% •Lack of cohesion between projects / too broad
10% • Issues with feasibility of approach/methodology
11% •Comparison to external research programs
11% •Not innovative
Objective 2: Enhance Research Capacity
22% • Weak justification for infrastructure
13% • Collaboration
12% • Sustainability plan missing details
11% • Management/governance/ access plan missing details
6% • No details on availability of similar/existing infrastructure
Weaknesses identified by MACs
Objective 3: Benefits to Canadian
16% • Pathway not well detailed
10% • Overstated/weak benefits
6% • Weak RTD/Team to produce benefits
Distribution of MAC ratings
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
NS PS SW SA EX
# p
rop
osa
ls
Objective 1: Strive for global leadership (IF 2017)
Objective 2: Enhance research capacity (IF 2017)
Objective 3: Generate benefits for Canadians (IF 2017)