School of Mechanical Engineering Seminar Friday, 12 December 2008 Recipes for losing an ARC grant application! Dongke Zhang, FTSE

Early Career Researcher-Only proposals Proposals Funded Success rate24.7%18.8%20.8%22.6%18.0%14.6%17.3%

Application & Selection Processes Project Idea Development Application Preparation Peer Review Rejoinder Preparation College of Experts Selection Process How are our proposals assessed? What are the Common Factors for Failure?

–Investigators (Track Record) 20% –Project significance and innovation25% –Project approach and training20% –Project national benefit 10% –Partner Organisation commitment 25% Selection Criteria – Investigators (Track record) 40% – Project significance and innovation30% – Project approach 20% – Project national benefit 10% Linkage ProjectDiscovery Project

WAPR Weighted Average Percent Rank Percent Rank = 100 (1 - (rank - 1)/(n – 1)) A “weight factor” is given to an assessor, depending on the number of proposal read, maximum 25 (EAC1, EAC2 and OzReaders)

Application Preparation Track Record Choose the right Research Field, Course and Discipline (RFCD code) National Research Priorities Summary and National Benefits Tangible Outcomes Plain English Enthusiastic Realistic Budget The key is to make it easy and attractive to Assessors

Peer Review OzReaders (ca. 25 proposals, paid) IntReaders (ca. 5 proposals, unpaid) Knowing “friends” and “enemies”, avoiding direct competition or threats Australia is a small country, “everyone knows everyone” “Soft language” Finding out who is doing what Choose the right Research Field, Course and Discipline (RFCD code) – panel and OzReaders are determined based on the RFCD’s

Rejoinder This is probably of the least impact…… but Don’t make any mistakes…… Only read by EAC’s Concise and straight to the point Don’t admit any mistakes – go around it if you did make one Prove that assessors were wrong with evidence, citing references, preferably from your own

College of Experts College of Experts are not experts in everything They choose IntReaders They moderate the assessors assessments They are busy They are powerful They are real people They are strictly guided by rules Make things easy for them!

A “research outcome” is a tangible consequence of ARC funded research that “advances Australia's research excellence to be globally competitive and deliver benefits to the community”. i.e. addresses the Mission Focusing on “Outcomes”

Where & Why “Outcomes”? Real outcomes from ARC-funded research are a reasonable expectation of Government and the tax-payer

Contribute to National Research Priorities –environmentally sustainable Australia –promoting & maintaining good health –frontier technologies transforming industry –safeguarding Australia Validate expenditure of public money and Justify levels of ARC budget allocation Need for “Outcomes”

Types of “Outcomes” Economic –generate wealth; create employment in sustainable industries Social and Cultural –improve equity, quality of life; reduce social risk Environmental –protect/restore environment; sustainable development Policy & Administration –improve decision making & governance Scientific Advancement –understanding ourselves & nature!

Communicating Outcomes Writing in plain English is a good start! Identify key message(s) we wish to send and potential impact Tailor the message to our audience –explain it to my mum or grandma (KISS principle)! –taxpayers will support what they understand Reinforce the message –words & pictures; examples; what it means Be enthusiastic!

To Summarise

Thank you