Making Successful Grant Applications (or how to sell yourself) Chris Veal (February 2011)

1. Making Successful Grant Applications (or how to sell yourself) Chris Veal (February 2011)

2. Agenda • Presentation • Selling your ideas and why it’s important • Warwick procedures for processing / submitting bids • Funding Agency / Schemes Overview and CSR Outcomes • What makes a successful bid • Tea • Group session • Examine two recent proposals • Feedback from Groups • Final comments and Go away Please do interrupt, ask questions, share experiences - good or bad - as we go along

3. Philosophy of Approach - Selling to a Customer The manufacturer is applying to have its beans accepted by you. It is saying “Pick Me” Assessment Criteria: Quality (Novelty, Taste, Appearance), Impact, Track Record, Value for Money

4. Why is Selling Important? Quality of science paramount, poor science will not get funded. If science is good what else can be done to maximise chances • Demand for research funding greater than supply. Success rates often low (20-30%) • Refereeing is not an exact science. Referees are human. Need to keep your “customer” happy • Rank ordered lists • Outstanding – top 5% • Very good / good – middle 65% • Awful – bottom 30% • Demand management

5. Procedures for Processing and Submitting Bids • Talk to RS Contact as early as possible • Don’t leave things to the last minute – plan well in advance • Provide early alert to HoD or Head of Group • Be aware of internal procedures for approving bids - seek feedback from mentor/colleagues/RS contact on draft(s) • Different funders have different submission procedures • Must get a FEC (except travel grants) – RS contact will help • Must get an FP14 form before submission – electronic or paper • RSS will log all proposals received onto central database • RSS undertakes price / contract negotiation, signing contracts

6. Funding Agencies • Research Councils • AHRC, BBSRC, EPSRC, ESRC, MRC, NERC, STFC • EU FP7 (Cooperation, Ideas, People, Capacities) • Charities • Leverhulme, RS, RAE, Wellcome, CRUK, BHF etc • Industry • Government (UK/O’seas) - Departments, Labs All different with own agenda – scientific, commercial, political. Most staffed by helpful people – talk to them

7. Outcomes for EPSRC from the CSR • EPSRC will have less money to spend – but could have been worse • Focus on themes – Energy, Digital Economy Innovative Manufacturing, Healthcare etc • National capability programme • Early career fellowships retained • Focus resources on best institutions • Focus resources on preferred scientific areas

8. Types of Project • Responsive mode research grant (First Grant) • Fellowship • Travel • Network • Equipment • Symposia / Workshops • Lone Researcher or Collaborative • Major grants Plan a campaign – seek advice on how to do it

9. RC Proposals – Responsive Mode • Detailed layout varies across RCs but much of basic content the same • Form • Track record with/without CV (2 pages) • Research environment (Part of Track Record) • Background / Importance • Aims / Objectives / Hypothesis (6 pages) • Programme and Methodology • Pathways to Impact (2 pages) • Justification of Resources (2 pages) • Diagrammatic work plan (1 page) Read the instructions. Follow closely the suggested layout

10. Observations – General (1) Do what works for you and your project • One column or two • Never use font or margin size below minimum specified • Make sure proposal is easy to read, split into sections of manageable size, • Can mix font styles, font sizes on headings for emphasis or to increase readability • Avoid large blocks of continuous text which can look unappealing

11. Observations - General (2) • Tables / Diagrams – reasonable size, check numbers, can be very useful • Attention grabbing opening section – background, aims, impact in ca 3 sentences • Preliminary results useful – but take care • Boxes with “take home” messages

12. Observations - Track Record Your scientific achievements - not work done - leading to publications and conference presentations. Include impact. Collaborations initiated including industry/users Group size - supervising more junior staff or students Project management experience Workshops / conferences organised or co-organised Journal editorial positions Awards or prizes Previous grants won Outreach – presenting to non-academic audiences eg schools Need to convince the referees that you can deliver a novel and imaginative set of outcomes from the proposed project Include collaborators and named researchers

13. Observations - Case for Support (1) • Background • Show good grasp of literature • Identify the gap to fill and why it’s important to fill it • Include some of your own papers - don’t overdo it • Preliminary results useful – don’t overdo it • If appropriate align proposed project with funder objectives • Research Hypothesis and Objectives • Overall aim useful to help see objectives in context • Objectives must be clear, concise and meaningful in terms of achieving something • Use dot points

14. Observations - Case for Support (2) • Programme and Methodology • Structure should follow the Objectives. Split into logical progressive steps • Include risk analysis / management • Project Management • who will do what, when and why? • who will be responsible for what? • how will collaborations be managed • how will the project be monitored

15. Observations – Case for Support (3) • Industry / user / collaborator involvement • Increasing emphasis from RCs • Include role in Methodology section • Statement of support – • why are you a partner, what do you hope to get out of it, what will you contribute, were you involved in preparing the proposal • avoid a standard letter – leave enough time • References • Part of the CFS or Track Record • Consider length in relation to whole document • Ensure they are readable • Best not use web links – evaluators might not visit them

16. Observations – Resources (1) • Most typical cost categories: • Salaries (investigators, researchers, students, technicians etc) • Consumables (chemicals, small equipment, computers, software • Travel (conferences, meetings, collaboration, workshops) • Equipment with or without maintenance agreements • Other (equipment hire, fees, recruitment, access charges etc) • Estates / Indirects • Be familiar with the principles of full economic costing • Consider carefully what is needed and justifiable, don’t be greedy, or cheap. Think what the sponsor can afford • Named vs unnamed researchers • JoR - ensure each cost line item included and justified)

17. Observations – Resources (2) Must work out Full Economic Cost (FEC) before submission • Budget - guesswork, based on experience • Ask for too little - may run out, not achieve objectives • Ask for too much - budget reduced, proposal rejected • Balancing Act: • What can you justify as essential? • How much can you get away with? • How much can the sponsor afford? • You will never get it exactly right. Can vire money

18. Observations – Resources (2) Cost: money to do project. Price: money we can charge a sponsor • Many funding agencies pricing rules: • Research Councils – FEC (80%) (EPSRC vs BBSRC) • Charities - “FEC oriented” but usually don’t pay estates and indirects • EU (FP7) – a law unto itself • Industry – the University expects 100% FEC • Government Depts – same as industry • Rules on pricing for RCs, Charities, EU cannot be challenged • Industry pricing – let RSS help negotiate • Most funding agencies don’t pay 100% FEC – the University makes up the difference from other sources

19. Observations – Pathways to Impact Must answer three questions: who will benefit, how will they benefit, what will you do to ensure they do benefit • You are not expected to say what the impact will be – only to identify what you will do to realise it • Usually include academic and user beneficiaries • Need to consider all beneficiaries and all routes to them • Referees usually helpful especially for newer applicants • Avoid extravagant claims – these will be criticised • Can include funding for impact activities in the budget • Build on existing experience and facilities

20. Observations – Evaluation Referees are customers. Be familiar with what they have to do • Referee selection • Someone who will give a fair and well-informed assessment • Not your mates • Conflict of interest. • Referee form – read it • Refereeing process • Expert referees selected by EPSRC/BBSRC • Receipt of referees’ comments • Response to comments (seek help) • Panels (EPSRC) or Committees (BBSRC)

21. Pulling it all together Proposal should be a coherent unit with linkages between sections • Investigator Track Record Background • Background Hypothesis / Aims / Objectives • Science: Objectives Methodology Work Plan • People: Methodology / Project Management JoR Work Plan • Named Researchers/Collaborators: Track Record -- Methodology JoR Work Plan • Beneficiaries Impact Summary Pathways to Impact

22. Group Session – Bid Evaluation • Two proposals • One from Chemistry • One from Computer Science • Objective – to identify what makes a good proposal good • Materials provided – proposal, EPSRC Guidelines, Referees’ Form • Procedure: • Split into Groups • Use EPSRC Guidelines and your own expertise to identify strengths and weaknesses of the proposals – use EPSRC’s criteria as a guide • Groups provide feedback to all on each section of the proposal • Compare with referees’ reports, whether funded or not Please do not write on the proposals. Please return them at the end

23. And Finally - You’ll (Should) Never Work Alone... When preparing your proposal talk to: The Funding Agency Your mentor Other academics Your peers Your partner or friends Research Support Services

24. Research Support LS / WMS – Liz Cromwell Sarah Holcroft (LS), Maria Ovens, Debbie Greer (WMS) WMG – Barry Turner, Nicola Gardner, Jo Tuck Engineering – Rachel Corke, Sam Gannon Chemistry - Katherine Branch, Adrian Fowle Mathematics/Physics/Psychology– James Smith, Adrian Fowle Computer Science/Stats/Systems Biology – Chris Veal, Sam Gannon John Burden – training for post docs

25. Research Support To help with all facets of preparing research grant proposals • Advice on Eligibility • Advice/assistance on preparing proposals – lay out, content, wording, writing, timing. Can’t help with the science • Undertake project costings - FEC • Help with electronic proposal submission systems • Help with navigation through the University approvals process • Advice on which funding agency to approach and how

26. And really finally, hopefully got….. • An overview on how to approach the writing of research proposals • Perceived the need to regard proposal writing as an exercise in selling to a customer • Some tips on the previous experience of others • Critically reviewed some real proposals to get clearer in your mind the things that work for you the next time you start writing…. Allen’s axiom – when all else fails, read the instructions

27. Observations (6) • EU (Framework 7) different to all other agencies • Four Strands – Cooperation, Ideas, People, Capacities (all different). Huge money available • Projects range from multi £M multi-partner projects to single 2 year fellowships • Proposals usually large • Lots of help available for getting started • Useful for developing academic and user contacts, European profile, etc. Do what works for you and your project

28. Full Economic Costing (FEC) • Directly Incurred • PDRA Salary, Travel, Consumables, Equipment • Directly Allocated • Investigator Salary, Technician Salary, Lab Costs, Estates • Indirects • Exceptions • PhD Student Stipend and Fees, Equipment Directly Incurred - attributed to the project and monitored in the accounts Directly allocated – attributed to the project but cannot be monitored in the accounts