NSERC-SFU Research Partnerships Workshop: From Engage to CRD January 22, 2014
53
NSERC-SFU Research Partnerships Workshop: From Engage to CRD January 22, 2014
description
NSERC-SFU Research Partnerships Workshop: From Engage to CRD January 22, 2014. Agenda. 12:30pmLunch & Networking 1:00pm Welcome & Introductory Remarks 1:05pm Engage & Engage Plus Grants Megan Griffith, Research Partnerships Promotion Officer NSERC Pacific Regional Office - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of NSERC-SFU Research Partnerships Workshop: From Engage to CRD January 22, 2014
NSERC-SFU Research Partnerships Workshop: From Engage to CRD
January 22, 2014
Agenda
12:30pmLunch & Networking 1:00pm Welcome & Introductory Remarks
1:05pm Engage & Engage Plus Grants
Megan Griffith, Research Partnerships Promotion OfficerNSERC Pacific Regional Office
1:20pm Collaborative Research & Development Grants (CRD)
Lynda Wood, RPP ManagerNSERC
2:00pm Company & Researcher Presentations
NSERC Engage & Engage Plus
Megan GriffithResearch Partnerships Promotion Officer
NSERC Pacific Regional Office
Engage Grant (EG)
• 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 Applications to Date
Engage Applications to DateJa
n
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1
91 90
113
132
122
133
125
110
88
103
130
97
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Engage Awards by University
Also, UBC, SFU and UVIC are 2nd, 16th and 20th respectively for total NSERC support received.
British
Columbia
Toro
nto
Wate
rloo
Simon Fr
aser
Alberta
Ryerso
n
Manito
ba
Ottawa
Carleto
nMcG
ill
Guelph
West
ern O
ntario
Dalhousie
Saska
tchew
an
New Bru
nswick
Victoria
École
de tech
nologie su
périeu
re
École
Polytech
nique
McMast
erINRS
0
50
100
150
200
250
300294
222 214
171142
125108 106 105 105 95 90 89 87 86 80 76 72 71 71
20 Universities Most Often Participating in Engage Awards
Num
ber o
f aw
ards
Engage Awards by University2009-2013
BCIT
British
Columbia
Fraser
Valley
Northern
British
Columbia
Royal R
oads
Simon Fr
aser
Thompso
n Rivers
Trinity
West
ern
Vanco
uver Is
land
Victoria
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
20092010201120122013
Awar
ds
SFU and the Engage Grant
2009 2010 2011 2012 20130
10
20
30
40
50
60
4
45
3633
53
Engage Grants for Simon Fraser (University) by Competition Year from Total of 171 Awards to December 31, 2013
SFU and the Engage Grant
Engage Grants for Simon Fraser (University) by Competition Year from Total of 171 Awards to December 31, 2013
1%
3%9%
20%
1%
38%
1%
6%
1%
13%
2%4%
1%1%
SFU Awards Departmental Breakdown - All Years(Updated: 2014-01-21)
Applied Science
Biological Sciences
Chemistry
Computing Science
Earth Sciences
Engineering Science
Health Sciences
Interactive Arts & Technology
Mathematics
Mechatronic Systems Engineer-ing
Molecular Biology & Biochem
Physics
Psychology
Statistics & Actuarial Science
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
Dr. Robert Britton, Assistant Professor, Department of Chemistry
Company Partner:
An SFU Engage Project
Engage Project: Structural identification of oxidized monoterpene semiochemicals for monitoring and control of bark beetles
CRD: Discovery of oxidized monoterpenes for bark beetle management
Synergy
Semiochemicals
Corp.
New technology or knowledge gained …………………………….. 95%
Project was a success ……………………….…………………………….. 94%
Intend to apply the results ………………..…………………………….. 76%
Provided stimulus for future R&D ……..…………………………….. 60%
Provided new business opportunities …….……………………….. 72%
Would recommend Engage to another company …………….. 98%
Problem was partially or completely solved …...…….………... 86%
Increased profits and/or reduced costs …………………………… 33%
Key Findings from Companies…at end of project
Impact on products or services …………………………………………. 57%
Enhanced skill and knowledge base ….…………………………….. 84%
Impact on business or research direction …………………………. 62%
Relationship building ……..…………………………………………………. 84%
Learned about benefits of academic R&D .………………………... 67%
Will collaborate further …………………………………………………….. 70%
Impact on competitiveness ………………………...…….………........ 49%
Increased access to HPQ …………………………………………………… 69%
Key Findings from Companies…one year later
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
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
Engage Plus (EPG)
• 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…
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
Questions?
Megan [email protected]
Research Partnerships Promotion OfficerNSERC Pacific Regional Office
Collaborative Research & Development (CRD) GrantsLynda WoodManager, RPPJanuary 2014
2012-2013 RPP Budget ($284.4M)*
CommercializationProgram (3%)
Industry-Driven Collaborative R&D Program (39%)Strategic Partnerships
Program (39%)
Training in IndustryProgram (7%)
College and Community Innovation Program (12%)
*Does not include Networks of Centres of Excellence
Advantages of a CRD ProjectFlexible Mechanism Supporting Industry-Driven Collaborative Projects• 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
• 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
How Does the Leverage Work?
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
CRD$180K cash project
+ company time/materials
Examples of Eligible In-Kind Contributions• 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?
Ontario
SR&ED for Collaborative Projects - BC
University Collaborative ProjectTotal Cash $180,000
(Total Research value $240,000) $120,000 cash $60,000 project cash + $40,000 overhead cash + $60,000 in-kindCompany SR&ED Calculation
SR&ED Project Amounts SR&ED Investment Tax Credits3rd Party payment cash $ 100,000Salary (in-kind, SR&ED labour) 30,000 Combined SR&ED Credit $74,500Materials/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
~7X VALUE
Cash outlay is ONLY $35,550* for a project with a total research value of $240,000 *Savings = $100,000- $64,450
Expected Results
• 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.
Selection Criteria
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
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.
Industrial Partner Eligibility Potential Showstopper 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
• 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 Partners Eligibility
• 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.
Partners that are not Eligible or Not Sufficient
• 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
• 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
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
CRD Peer Review Process
Peer Review Feedback Negative Decision• 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
Grantsmanship
Developing a Successful Proposal
Goal: To ensure that any questions a reviewer might have, are already addressed
CRD Application Components
• 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
Form 101 Part I• 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 II- Proposal (10 pages)
• The Synopsis serves 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.
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.
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.
Form 101 Part II- Proposal (cont’d)
Research Management:
• This section is particularly important for large, complex and/or multidisciplinary projects.
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?
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 for Canada (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).
Form 101 Part II- Proposal (cont’d)
References:
• Not included in the 10 page limit.
• Do not refer readers to Web sites for additional information on your proposal and do not introduce hyperlinks.
Form 101 References and Appendix C
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.
Partner’s Letter of Support: Take time to get this right - Scrutinized by Peer Review
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.
In-Kind Contributions Clear and Quantifiable Justification
Required for Leverage
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?
Intellectual Property Agreement
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.
Successful U-I Partnerships…
• 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
Establish contact
• 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
Final Words of Advice
• Read the program guidelines and instructions
• Meet the program criteria
• Establish strong collaborations with industrial partners
• Contact NSERC staff in advance
Victoria British Columbia Simon Fraser Toronto Alberta0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
Discovery, CRD and Engage Grants Funding by University 2012-2013
Discovery Grants CRD Grants Engage Grants
% o
f T
ota
l F
un
din
g
Contacts
NSERC Partnerships Programs:(613) 995-1111 [email protected]
NSERC Pacific Regional Office:(877)[email protected]
