Strategic Proposal Framework April 2012 V1
Development Framework
Research Proposals
for
Major
and
Strategic
Introduction
Major and strategic proposals have become an increasingly important component of the
research landscape. The development of each proposal has individual requirements
relating to the nature of the call, the requirements of the sponsor and the nature of the
research. However, proposal development can benefit from a more systematic approach
which ensures that the proposal development team gets the best possible support and
University requirements are addressed in a timely fashion.
This framework has drawn on those who have prepared or supported major and strategic
research proposals, and sets out procedures and guidance for their development.
The key features of the framework are:





Flexibility of approach to address the requirements of different sponsors and the
need to meet different time scales for proposal development;
Selecting proposals to go forward particularly when sponsors restrict numbers
that can be submitted by an institution.
Supporting the development through various stages (EOI, Full proposal and
interview).
Where required, determining and justifying the institutional commitment from a
combination of School, Faculty and University sources. Sufficient time must be
built in for approvals.
All major and strategic research proposals must be submitted through RGS, who
will advise on approvals. Sufficient time must be built in for this step.
Research Graduate Services (RGS) will continue to develop and refine this framework
and associated guidance and is putting in place new systems and processes for the
management of major and strategic research proposal development, to improve success
rates and link effectively to research and knowledge transfer activities.
Context
The Funding Councils, Charities, government departments and other major research
sponsors have increased the number and proportion of thematic programmes and calls
for high value grant proposals. Such proposals could be large in terms of their financial
value or strategically important for the University irrespective of their value. Such calls
are highly competitive and often have a greater level of complexity which means that
they require considerable energy and effort to develop if they are to be successful.
Alongside this, institutions are being forced by research sponsors to be more proactive in
the selection and assessment of bids for submission, with restrictions on the number of
institutional submissions for many calls, the introduction of demand management
processes and the increasing importance of success rates as an indicator of institutional
performance.
1
University and partner support is an important factor for the success of major and
strategic proposals. In some cases sponsors can specify that support of up to 50% of the
total value of an award is required. This support can take the form of studentships,
fellowships, capital investment or in-kind support.
Such proposals are often collaborative and interdisciplinary, and involve external users in
research and knowledge transfer and so need advice on collaboration and IP
arrangements alongside the full application.
Given the strategic nature of these bids it is crucial that the University’s approach to the
development of major and strategic bids and the institutional commitments and
contractual requirements involved are reviewed and prioritised at the appropriate
University level.
It was also noted that it is absolutely crucial that the Principal investigator (PI), should
fully engage in and communicate effectively with other relevant members of University
Senior management and central services at all stages of the proposal development and
submission process.
Definitions
Major bids can be defined by their financial value, which will be variable across
different disciplines. In the Arts and Social Sciences disciplines, the guide value for a
major bid could be considered as any proposal at or above £500k. For STEM disciplines,
the guide value for a major bid could be considered as any proposal at or above £1M.
Strategic bids are defined by institutional research priorities and external
drivers, as determined by the Research and Knowledge Transfer Board or the
University’s Management Board, and informed by the Research and Knowledge Transfer
Strategy.
1: Identification of Opportunities
1.1.
1.2.
Major and/or strategic research opportunities may first come to light from
announcements from funding bodies, through proactive horizon scanning,
informal intelligence or advance information or from research development
and lobbying activities. Opportunities may be identified by academics, RBDEs,
any member of a research team in Schools or RGS.
Information on such opportunities should be communicated to RGS (Director
of Research and Graduate Services or Head of Research Policy and
Development). So that a decision can be made on whether this constitutes a
major and/or strategic opportunity and if an appropriate managed process
should be put in place. This could include targeted promotion, development
workshop, an internal review processes or research development support.
2
2: Opportunity Confirmation and Selection
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
Given the time and energy involved in the development of a large scale
proposal the University needs to make a number of decisions prior to
proceeding to the development of a full proposal.
- Can Nottingham submit a credible bid? (This will be based on for example
the strategic alignment and the credibility of the team)
- Can Nottingham afford to bid in this area? (This may be influenced by the
level of institutional support required by the funding body and the strategic
fit with the University).
Such a decision clearly needs input from researchers across the institution
and is often arrived at through a promotional meeting with key research staff.
Dependant on the nature of the opportunity it may be necessary to set up a
short listing panel to select the particular proposal and research team or
teams the institution wishes to support. The short-listing panel should be
formed at the University level, and be chaired by the Pro-Vice Chancellor for
Research (or their nominee). Other members of the panel would include
Deans, senior academic staff with knowledge of the research sponsor and
representatives of RGS.
The shortlisted research team(s) will be advised to establish a Proposal
Development Team. This team will be led by the Principal Investigator and
membership should include the co-investigators, a bid coordinator (usually
the relevant RBDE) and when appropriate representatives from RGS. It may
also include when timely Finance, the school manager, Estates, IS, Marketing,
or other central services. The bid coordinator will have responsibility to report
on progress to RGS.
3: Proposal Development
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
Funding bodies often require a phased application process for larger awards.
This could involve an Expression of Interest (EOI) as the first stage, and a more
detailed full application and which may include an interview at the second or
third stage. If applicable the PI will develop an Expression of Interest, with
support from the bid coordinator over budgets and other information required.
If the EOI stage requires supporting statements from the institution the PI
should initially discuss with the Head of School and Dean of Faculty then if
necessary provide an outline request to the PVC for Research via RGS.
The PI will submit the EOI to the funding body when complete and advise RGS
of the outcome of this stage.
If the EOI is successful, the PI will be responsible for developing the full
application to the funding body, and a strategic business case if necessary to
the University. The PI will also be responsible for identifying internal and
external stakeholders and contributors. (See annex A, Guidance on Developing
the Research Case for the Investigator.)
The bid coordinator will communicate with RGS and other relevant internal and
external stakeholders to obtain the necessary documentation, such as letters of
support or CVs, and to keep them informed of progress on the bid application.
The PI will identify any School, Faculty or University commitments that may
strengthen the bid. These commitments are likely to be for staff, studentships,
3
equipment and buildings, space or facility or in kind contributions. Such
commitments will need to be justified and approved.
3.7. Agreements on the type and scale of institutional commitments are dependent on
different levels of institutional approvals.
3.7.1. For most bids commitments will be agreed at the School level and will
require approval from the Head of School and appropriate Finance Adviser. It is
the PI’s responsibility to negotiate this commitment.
3.7.2. For interdisciplinary bids this may require commitments from a number of
schools. In this case co-investigators will be asked to negotiate details with their
Head of School and Finance Adviser.
3.7.3. When institutional commitments for additional studentships are requested, these
need to be approved by the PVC Research.
3.7.4. For additional space and buildings the involvement of the Faculty Dean and PVC
may also be required. With a strategic business case prepared with the relevant
Finance Adviser.
3.8.
For these more complex scenarios the PI should make an initial request for
support to the PVC for Research, via an outline Statement of Intent that may also
have to be submitted to MB. (See annex B, Guidance on Developing the Strategic
Business Case for the Investigator.) This 2-3 page document should include:
i.
the nature of the call and the associated timescales,
ii.
the alignment with University strategies,
iii.
evidence of the credibility of the team to respond to the call,
iv.
the scope of support anticipated by the funding body, and
v.
the identified size and form of support to be requested.
3.9. In some cases, MB will then require a strategic and business case to be
submitted. The PI will write the strategic case in partnership with RGS and the
bid-coordinator and a business case that the investigator will complete in
partnership with Finance. The strategic case should be 2-3 pages and make
clear
- The strategic importance of the case.
- The need for university commitment to support the case.
- The commitments made by the Heads of Schools, Deans and Directors of
Institutes involved.
- Any space and resource implications and comments from estates on these.
3.10. The associated business case will be developed by finance based on figures
within pFact, the projected income to accrue directly from the research grant
and other associated income streams.
3.11. The PI should present the strategic business case for final institutional support
approval via the PVC Research to Management Board (MB). Only when the
package of support has been approved by MB can a formal letter of support
from the University be signed by the appropriate senior manager (either the VC
or the PVC for Research).
3.12. The receipt of approval from MB should be communicated from MB to the PI and
RGS.
4: Sign Off
4.1.
The investigator will need to develop a completed case for support, ensure the
project costings are agreed with RGS and that the figures from pFACT are
4
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
4.5.
4.6.
4.7.
transferred to Je-S (for Research Councils). However, the size of these awards
often stresses the limits of the application software systems involved. It is worth
starting the process of completing the JeS forms as soon as the investigator
possibly can as they can be time consuming.
The investigator should develop the costing with the presumption of support from
the institution as the business case cannot be completed without the final
proposal and costing.
However, the final project and costing may need to be amended dependent on
MB’s decision on the level of support.
It is suggested that the investigator should seek to allow their business case to be
presented in sufficient time to allow it to be presented to more than one
management group meeting. This will allow them to refine the case if requested
by the management group.
Once agreement from MB about the level of institutional support is received, it is
recommended that the investigator drafts a letter from the University outlining
the nature of the support and the strategic alignment of the particular project
with the University of Nottingham strategy in partnership with RGS.
RGS will ensure that the letter is signed by either the appropriate Pro-Vice
Chancellor or if needed the Vice Chancellor.
The bid co-ordinator should keep RGS informed of any results of the bid proposal,
whether successful or unsuccessful.
5: Interview Stage
5.1
5.2
5.3
For bids which require an interview stage, the lead academic is strongly advised
to arrange a mock interview within the University.
Mock interview panel members should be selected from academic staff with
knowledge of the research sponsor and research field and reflect the size and
scale of the formal panel. A panel member should be selected to chair the panel
and questions prepared in advance.
The interview and any presentations should be carried out in the same time
planned for the formal interview, with sufficient time for critical feedback to the
interview team.
6: Follow-up and Communications
6.1
6.2
6.3
If the bid is successful, the lead academic or bid coordinator should advise RGS
and Finance Adviser so that any School or University commitments that have
been made can be incorporated in school and university financial plans.
A Project Management Board, with a composition agreed in the proposal and
depending on the type of project, should be set up by the academic lead in
collaboration with RGS to project manage the initial implementation of the bid.
Should the bid be unsuccessful at any stage, the PI should hold a review meeting
to evaluate alternate funding options, or any lessons that can be learned from the
process. In addition the proposal should also be entered into a knowledge bank to
be established by RGS that can be reviewed for future funding opportunities.
5
Annex A: Guidance on Developing the Research Case for
the Investigator
In order to submit a high quality proposal an investigator usually needs to address some
or all of the following challenges:




The assembly of a research case that sometimes brings together disparate disciplines
with quite different research traditions and cultures.
The development of the research proposal is time-consuming, requiring a significant
programme of proposal development meetings and liaison with different parts of the
university’s administration.
For the recruitment and integration of external research partners, it is crucial to
demonstrate their role in the research and to develop a strategy for working with
them to exploit results. This requires significant liaison meetings and visits to
external partners.
The demonstration within the research case of substantial university commitment to
the proposal and alignment with university strategy. This also requires the
investigator to work with a number of bodies within the university to develop a solid
strategic and business case for the university commitment.
Developing the research case at the core of any proposal is highly individual given the
nature of the disciplines involved, the predicted needs of reviewers and the criteria of the
call. The development of a case for a large grant requires the elaboration of a research
case to be coordinated with other endeavours within the institution. This can be aided
through a number of simple practical measures.
Establish a series of regular meetings to develop a research case
Large grants require the involvement of a large number of people nearly all of whom
have very busy diaries. Although ultimately the writing of the proposal will be done by
you or with only one or two others you really need to establish a timetable of meetings
to gather input for the proposal as early as possible. Ideally, you should extend a broad
set of invitations at the outset prior to focusing these meeting as the proposal takes
shape. It often makes sense to have large open meeting at a regular time slot
supplemented by more focused meetings with particular sub groupings.
Involve RGS & Finance early in proposal development
When establishing the meetings to elaborate a research case you should extend
invitations to members of RGS, Finance, IS, Estates or other central services who may
need to be involved in the costing of the proposal and the later development of any
strategic business case. Early exposure to the research case will allow everyone to
understand the rationale for the various resources involved. RGS will usually assign a
RBDE to provide support for major proposal development. It is imperative that you start
costing a proposal as soon as possible through pFACT as this allows RGS and Finance to
aid in the development of a strategic business case.
6
Ask team members to inform Heads of Schools as soon as possible
You should ensure that all Heads of School and Deans are informed as soon as possible
about the involvement of researchers in proposal development. It is important that
researchers involved in proposal development inform Heads of School as soon as
possible of their involvement and highlight that the proposal may require institutional
support. At this stage the aim is to inform Heads of School that this request will be
made to allow them to manage internal school process, rather than provide the detail of
the request.
7
Annex B – Guidance on Developing the Strategic
Business Case for the Investigator
Dependent on the size and scale of requested institutional support, as you develop the
research case you may need to also construct the strategic business case required to
allow the university to support the proposal. The challenge here is the number of people
you need to liaise with in order to develop this case. The development of certain large
grants will require you to:
-
-
Discuss the space implications of a successful bid with estates - this will require you
to know how many researchers will be involved and what sort of research space you
require.
This is often required before you have agreed the detailed research
programme within the proposal team or the distribution of staff between schools but
remember this is about operational issues rather than part of the strategic decision.
Develop a strategic business case in partnership with Finance and RGS - this will
require you to know what you are requesting from funders and the level of support
from each of the Schools involved.
The distributed budgeting model at Nottingham means that prior to the development of
a strategic case you will need to discuss involvement and research commitments with all
Heads of School involved as well Directors of Institutes and the various Deans of Faculty.
In the case of a large bid this can involve over 20 people. This can feel both
daunting and runs the real risk of being very time consuming and distracting from the
development of the research case. Remember the priority is the development of a
convincing proposal to the funding council. Consequently, it is important that you
structure your engagement with the various people involved. You should envisage that
the development of the liaison with schools to gain support is of the order of 1-2 days
work per school. For a large scale proposal this can equates to significant effort to be
done alongside the development of the research case for support. The bid-coordinator
(usually an assigned RBDE) will be very important in supporting you to develop this
business case.
Understand the demands of Heads of School
One of the most challenging aspects of developing a strategic business case for large
grants is the need to understand your request for resources and support from the
perspective of a Head of School. Naturally, you are convinced about the merits of your
research proposal and its strategic importance to the institution. You are enthusiastic
and excited about the new ideas and the possibilities opened up by new interdisciplinary
research. Heads of School at Nottingham tend to be universally supportive of research
initiatives but need to operate within a broad set of constraints. Your request needs to
be balanced alongside the various pressure and demands on Heads of Schools who are
responsible for stewardship of their school and balancing of the budget involved. They
need to check commitments with the schools financial advisors. They are concerned
about the number of students recruited and covering the demands of teaching. They
need to ensure support across a number of research groups is properly discussed and
supported within the school. Please be tolerant of Heads of School when they request
additional information, or ask for clarification or state that they cannot give an
immediate answer.
8
You will also find that the individual culture of schools vary tremendously. Some schools
have a management structure that gives the Head of School considerable discretionary
ability meaning that they are able to offer a rapid response to any requests. Others have
much more devolved structures requiring them to consult with a management group and
committees. You will also find that some schools have considerable more experience with
research margins and have more flexibility in their budget. For example, schools within
the Arts and Humanities have less experience to date about how external awards
generate research margins and have less established models for how these can be used
to support grants. This means that schools will all respond differently and you will need
to be flexible in how you integrate the various responses involved.
Decide what forms of support are required and target your requests
Given the variability of responses, it will help in your discussion with Heads of Schools,
Deans and Directors of Institutes if you are as specific as possible about the form of
support you require from them. It is useful to discuss what form of support you require
from your bid with your project team and to target requests to individual schools and
units. It is best to make request for something that is reasonable and to work with
Heads of School to see how they may be able to deliver this. To do this you will need to
develop a small 1-2 page request for resources for each Head of School. This will need
to:
-
Outline the nature of the proposal and the call it responds to
Outline the overall strategic importance of the proposal
Identify the people involved from their school and the role they will play
State the nature of the resource your requesting and why.
It makes sense to send these resource requests by email to each of the Heads
of School involved. Some of the text is common but it is advised to make the specific
requests to the schools as distinct and targeted as possible.
If meetings are required then meet Heads of Schools in groups
Given the time constraints involved and the needs for Heads of School to understand
how a commitment relates to rest of the institution it may make sense to arrange any
required meetings with Heads of School in groups. These can often be structured around
faculties and it is worth speaking with Deans in order to arrange these meetings. This is
particularly useful in Engineering given their structure into different Divisions. However,
these meeting will often require individual follow up with Heads of School.
Once you have consulted with the various parties involved you are in a position where
you can now start to develop a case for the university management group to sign off on
the commitments. At this stage time will be tight as you will be under pressure to
complete the final case for support but will not be able to do this until you have sign off
from the Management Board who will wish to have a well argued strategic case and
financial sound costing. The best way round this log jam is to develop the costing with
the presumption of support from the institution.
9