NSERC-SFU Research Partnerships Workshop: From Engage to CRD January 22, 2014

1. NSERC-SFU Research Partnerships Workshop: From Engage to CRD January 22, 2014

2. Agenda 12:30pm Lunch & Networking 1:00pm Welcome & Introductory Remarks 1:05pm Engage & Engage Plus Grants Megan Griffith, Research Partnerships Promotion Officer NSERC PacificRegional Office 1:20pm Collaborative Research & Development Grants (CRD) Lynda Wood, RPP Manager NSERC 2:00pmCompany & Researcher Presentations

3. NSERC Engage & Engage Plus Megan Griffith Research Partnerships Promotion Officer NSERC Pacific Regional Office

4. New collaboration 6 month project Up to $25K from NSERC No company cash Company owns the IP No application deadline 4-6 week turnaround A good first step… Engage Grant (EG)

5. Engage Applications to Date

6. Engage Applications to Date

7. Engage Awards by University Also, UBC, SFU and UVIC are 2nd, 16th and 20th respectively for total NSERC support received.

8. Engage Awards by University 2009-2013

9. SFU and the Engage Grant

10. SFU and the Engage Grant

11. Dr. Edward Park, Associate Professor, School of Mechatronic Systems Engineering Company Partner: An SFU Engage Project Engage Project: Development of a GPS aided IMU sensor fusion algorithm for instrumented goggle-based detection of jumping in active sports CRD: Advanced body motion and location tracking in active sports goggles

12. Dr. Robert Britton, Assistant Professor, Department of Chemistry Company Partner: An SFU Engage Project Synergy Semiochemicals Corp. Engage Project: Structural identification of oxidized monoterpenesemiochemicals for monitoring and control of bark beetles CRD: Discovery of oxidized monoterpenes for bark beetle management

13. Key Findings from Companies …at end of project Project was a success ……………………….…………………………….. 94% Problem was partially or completely solved …...…….………... 86% Intend to apply the results ………………..…………………………….. 76% New technology or knowledge gained …………………………….. 95% Provided stimulus for future R&D ……..…………………………….. 60% Provided new business opportunities …….……………………….. 72% Increased profits and/or reduced costs …………………………… 33% Would recommend Engage to another company …………….. 98%

14. Key Findings from Companies …one year later Enhanced skill and knowledge base ….…………………………….. 84% Impact on competitiveness ………………………...…….………........ 49% Impact on business or research direction …………………………. 62% Impact on products or services …………………………………………. 57% Relationship building ……..…………………………………………………. 84% Learned about benefits of academic R&D .………………………... 67% Increased access to HPQ …………………………………………………… 69% Will collaborate further …………………………………………………….. 70%

15. Engage Plus Grants Goal: To increase the impact of Engage • Complete the work started by the Engage project • Bridge to a multi-year continuation of the collaboration • Build upon results achieved in the EG – partners must make the case for need and benefit

16. Engage Plus Grants cont’d… • Launched August 2013 • Normally applications accepted during last month of an Engage Grant or up to six months after end date • NSERC will accept applications for any previously awarded Engage project up to February 3, 2014

17. 6 month project Up to $12.5K from NSERC Company cash required equal to cash requested from NSERC Company owns the IP No application deadline 4-6 week turnaround Engage Plus Grants cont’d… Engage Plus (EPG)

18. Dr. Byron Gates, Assistant Professor, Department of Chemistry Company Partner: An SFU Engage Plus Project Engage Plus Project: Patterning of catalyst layers Company cash contribution: $9600 NSERC contribution: $9600

19. Questions or drafts: • EG2CRD@nserc-crsng.gc.ca • 613-996-6346 EG to CRD TransitionTeam

20. Megan Griffith megan.griffith@nserc-crsng.gc.ca 604-666-8815 Research Partnerships Promotion Officer NSERC Pacific Regional Office Questions?

21. Collaborative Research & Development (CRD) Grants Lynda Wood Manager, RPP January 2014

22. 2012-2013 RPP Budget ($284.4M)* Industry-Driven Collaborative R&D Program(39%) Strategic Partnerships Program (39%) Commercialization Program (3%) College and Community Innovation Program (12%) Training in Industry Program (7%) *Does not include Networks of Centres of Excellence

23. Breadth of R&D Spectrum (research challenge required) • 1 to 5 year projects • Apply at any time – no deadlines • Defined projects with milestones and deliverables Advantages of a CRD Project • Flexible Mechanism Supporting Industry-Driven Collaborative Projects • Apply your expertise to an industrial problem • Give your students experience solving an industrial problem • Access to interesting problems, proprietary data and materials • Success Rate of about 85% • Budget not cash limited at this time

24. Company $60K In-kind $100K Cash $120K $60K Cash $40K for O/H NSERC If your leverage is wrong, we won’t peer review until it is fixed How Does the Leverage Work? CRD $180K cash project + company time/materials

25. Salaries for scientific/technical staff: identify and define their role, their expertise, what they bring to the project, and their commitment (hours, rate). • Donation of equipment/software: how will it be used and why is it important for success? How was the cost calculated? • Donation of material: what is being provided and why is it important? • Field work logistics: what is being provided and why is it important? • Provision of services: what is cost of providing these services and why are they needed? Examples of EligibleIn-Kind Contributions

26. SR&ED for Collaborative Projects - BC University Collaborative Project Total Cash $180,000 (Total Research value $240,000) $120,000 cash $60,000 project cash + $40,000 overheadcash+ $60,000 in-kind Company SR&ED Calculation SR&ED Project AmountsSR&ED Investment Tax Credits 3rd Party payment cash $ 100,000 Salary (in-kind, SR&ED labour) 30,000 Combined SR&ED Credit $74,500 Materials/Equipment (in-kind) 30,000 Combined Tax on SR&ED Credit ($10,050) Overhead (65% of SR&ED salaries) + 19,500 SR&ED claim $179,500 Total amount of ITC after Tax $64,450 Cash outlay is ONLY $35,550* for a project with a total research value of $240,000 ~7X VALUE *Savings = $100,000- $64,450 Ontario

27. Increased participation of companies in academic research. • New knowledge/technology with strong potential to strengthen Canada’s industrial base, generate wealth, and create employment. • The transfer of this knowledge/technology to Canadian-based organizations that are well positioned to apply the results for economic gain. • Highly qualified personnel. Expected Results

28. Projects are evaluated against six criteria: • Scientific Merit: project must be scientifically sound, technically feasible, and promise to generate new knowledge or apply current knowledge in an innovative way. • Research Competence: the team must have all of the expertise need to address the objectives and complete the project. • Industrial Relevance:demonstrate that the work will benefit the partner and be exploited to benefit the Canadian economy. Selection Criteria

29. Projects are evaluated against six criteria (cont’d): • Private-sector Support: the partner must contribute to the project and be in a position to exploit the results. • Contribution to Training: there must be a student training component that is relevant to the field. • Benefit to Canada:identify any additional economic, social, and environmental benefits to Canada. Selection Criteria

30. Economic benefit to Canada • Able to further develop and exploit research results • Derives the majority of its revenues from the sale of products/services and not from government aid or the tax base • Eligible: • Canadian-based companies • Multinationals – if R&D/Manufacturing/Production in Canada • Industrial Associations and Producer Groups • Public utilities • Foreign companies – only if major Canadian partner present Industrial Partner Eligibility Potential Showstopper

31. Multinationals: if they have commercial activities which take place in Canada (R&D/manufacturing) related to the research and results will benefit Canada. • Foreign firms: an eligible Canadian-based industrial partner must play a major role in the project and will exploit the research results for the economic benefit of Canada. Industrial Partner Eligibility

32. Industrial associations, producer groups, or consortiums •  financial support to the project derived from industrial sources can be leveraged, but there must be active involvement in the research project from at least one of the member companies or the consortium itself, if it can demonstrate the capacity to guide the project and disseminate the results for its member companies.) • Public utilities. • Start-up companies with sound business plans and secure financial backing. Industrial Partners Eligibility

33. Validation sites • Holding companies • Publically funded organizations, even when mandated to support industry • Government departments, labs, agencies • Researcher-owned companies or those companies where the researcher has a decision making role • Sales offices or distribution centres • If there is any doubt at all, contact NSERC to confirm eligibility of an industry partner before investing significant time in discussions and preparation of an application Partners that are not Eligible or Not Sufficient

34. CRD Peer Review Process • All applications are peer-reviewed • Staff will review draft proposals and assign manager • Feedback from reviewers can strengthen proposed research • May be asked for clarification or additional information • In most cases of a negative decision applicants able to revise and resubmit applications

35. CRD Peer Review Process • Be aware that it can take 3 – 6 months for decision • Request up to $150,000/year:paper review only and staff funding recommendation • Request from $150,000/year to $200,000/year:paper review and Advisory Committee on University-Industry Grants (ACUIG) • Request over $200,000/year: site visit by expert committee and ACUIG

36. Lack of detail in proposed methodology • Questionable scientific merit: poor originality, technical issues, not research • Lack of benefit to Canada • Missing expertise • Poor training opportunity • Poorly situated within state of the art • In-kind not essential to project, over estimated, poorly described • Budget items poorly justified, too high • Schedule, scope too ambitious Peer Review Feedback Negative Decision

37. Grantsmanship Developing a Successful Proposal Goal: To ensure that any questions a reviewer might have, are already addressed

38. Application for a Grant (Form 101) Parts I and II • Personal Data Forms(Form 100) + CVs of collaborators (6 pages max) • Form 183A (partner’s information and contributions) • Letter of support describing partner’s involvement CRD Application Components

39. Hours/month to be devoted to the project. • Activity schedule: List/detail the tasks required to achieve the objectives for each year. Link to HQP and partner’s contributions. Should not include literature review or admin tasks. • Budget and Justification:Detail (no page limit!) can help reviewers understand your priorities and focus, especially through the plan for HQP. Ensure all expenses and human resources, especially those that are unusual, are well-justified. Include quotations where required. • Contributions from Supporting Organizations: Opportunity to demonstrate and detail commitment and engagement of partners to project. Ensure contributions are eligible and well-justified. Cash contribution to the direct cost of the research should exclude overhead. • Relationship to other Support: Sufficient detail on how this project is different and/or aligns with similar research Form 101 Part I

40. The Synopsisserves as a introduction to the proposal and is sometimes sent by staff to potential reviewers. Half a page is sufficient. • Background:Must relate the proposed project to current scientific, technical and commercial developments in the field. Include critical references and not just your own work. Presentation of preliminary data always strengthens an application (2-3 pages). • Detailed Proposal: Most important part of the application – this is where the reviewers will be looking to assess the scientific merit and feasibility of the project. Do not repeat information. Form 101 Part II- Proposal (10 pages)

41. Form 101 Part II- Proposal (cont’d) • Detailed Proposal (5-7 pages): • Each objective should be clearly identified and the workplan well-described. Link the objectives, workplan and activity schedule together. • The research methodology and experimental design must be described, including plans for statistical analysis. The research challenges must be clearly identified. • Ensure that the roles of students, PDFs and other resources are described within the context of the proposed work and linked to the above items – do not repeat info already in the budget justification. • Identify the technical risk or uncertainty and discuss how it will be managed.If you don’t, the reviewers will raise questions.

42. Form 101 Part II- Proposal (cont’d) • Team Expertise: • Make sure the team includes all the expertise needed to carry out the project. • Include expertise of collaborators, plus company personnel, technical staff and post-doctoral fellows, if relevant. • If a particular expertise is missing, or if the area is somewhat new to the team, make sure to address how this will be overcome. • Include the collaborator’s CV if his/her expertise is essential for the project to succeed. • Research Management: • This section is particularly important for large, complex and/or multidisciplinary projects.

43. Form 101 Part II- Proposal (cont’d) • Training Component: • Consider using the budget justification as a place to provide some of this information • Training includes PDFs, graduate and undergraduate students (particularly in the case of small universities or universities lacking a graduate program.) • Number of students to be trained should be commensurate with size of grant. If the ratio of HQP to professional staff is low, substantial justification required. • How will trainees benefit? How will the project benefit? • Will they interact with industry personnel? • What are their roles and responsibilities?

44. Form 101 Part II- Proposal (cont’d) • Letter of Support from Company is Critical • Value of Results and Industrial Relevance: • Emphasize the industrial relevance of the results – How will the partner(s) benefit? • Be specific regarding how the outcome will address a current or future industrial or market need. • Include statistics if at all possible. • Benefits to Canada: • Expectation for a CRD project is that there will be an economic benefit forCanada (not just training, royalties or access to an improved product). • Describe how the research will result in the industrial partner becoming more competitive, increasing profits and/or job creation (must occur in Canada).

45. Form 101 References and Appendix C • References: • Not included in the 10 page limit. • Do not refer readers to Web sites for additional information on your proposaland do not introduce hyperlinks. • Suggested Referees (Appendix C): • Please do not include individuals with whom you collaborate or have collaborated with in the past six years. • Do not include individuals who collaborate with one of the industry partners. • Please include industry-based or non-academic experts who are not in conflict.

46. Must include: • Support for and agreement with the proposal; • Reasons for being involved in the collaboration; • Anticipated benefits from the project outcomes; • Effort required to exploit the results in Canada; • Benefits to the Canadian economy and the relevant time frame; • Anticipated interaction of personnel with the university team; • The contribution to the direct costs of the research (cash and in-kind); • In the case of a small company, it is recommended that a company profile be included. Partner’s Letter of Support: • Take time to get this right - Scrutinized by Peer Review

47. Must be essential for success of project • Salaries for scientific/technical staff: identify and define their role, their expertise, what they bring to the project, and their commitment (hours, rate). • Donation of equipment/software: how will it be used and why is it important for success? How was the cost calculated? • Donation of material: what is being provided and why is it important? • Field work logistics: what is being provided and why is it important? • Provision of services: what is cost of providing these services and why are they needed? In-Kind Contributions Clear and Quantifiable Justification Required for Leverage

48. Avoid surprises - begin IP discussions while proposal under development • Agreement must be finalized and conform to NSERC’s policy before funds released • Flexible IP Access + Mandatory Elements: • Maximum benefit to Canada; • Protection of IP assets (including partner proprietary information); • Publishable results (maximum 6 month delay); • No delay for student’s thesis defence; • Researchers’ right to use the results for non-commercial purposes. IntellectualPropertyAgreement

49. Innovative science / engineering • Team with appropriate background and experience • Focus on shared priorities • Shared risks / benefits for all partners • Open communication, trust and respect • Opportunities for cross-training • Leadership / Common Vision / Management • Intellectual Property Management Strategy / Agreement Successful U-I Partnerships…

50. Call your NSERC Regional Office • Participate in NSERC “Connector” events (hosted by Regional Offices) • Through students (work terms, scholarships, after graduation) • Conferences and Workshops • Colleagues • University Liaison Office Establishcontact