CFI Update

2017 CARA regional meetings

New & improved

• Policy updates

• Program improvements

Learning from …

• The 2017 Innovation Fund review

• Institutions

• Multi-institutional project working group

Looking to the future

• After the Naylor Report

Agenda

Policy & Programs Guide

Version

November 2017

Fund Improvements

John R. Evans Leaders Fund

Guidelines

• Compute Canada condition

• Eligibility of workhorse-type equipment

Proposal forms

• Streamlined

• Attraction vs. Retention

Merit review

• Assessment scale

• SRPs

Allocations

• Available in CAMS

Fund improvements

College-Industry Innovation Fund

Guidelines

• Removed limit of 1 proposal per stream per college

Proposal forms

• Streamlined

navigator.innovation.ca/en

Benefits: • Raise the profile of your facility• Attract research talent • Attract potential project

partners

> 550 profiles

Observations from the

2017 Innovation Fund

Success rate by institution size

Funding rate by institution size

Funding & success by project size

Collaborations across Canada

Funding by administrative institution

Funding by administrative & collaborative institution

Distribution of Expert Committee

ratings

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

NS PS SW SA EX

# p

rop

osa

ls

ICTR Research Team Infrastructure Sustainability Benefits

Institutional capacity & track record Research or tech devTeamInfrastructureSustainabilityBenefits to Canadians

Learning from the 2017 Innovation FundWeakness identified by expert committees

Details on activity,

grantsmanshipFeasibility, approach,

methodology

Lack of focus, too broad or

ambitious, not integrated

Not innovative

Missing expertise, lacks critical mass

of experts

Work as team, track record, funding history

Not well justified;

wrong equipment; not linked

to research

Availability of similar/existing infrastructure

Pathway not well detailed

Lacks O&M, access, data

plan

Insufficient revenue

& suggested reviewers

Good practices

What is a good practice?

• tested, validated and proven

• produces good results and repeated

• shared and recommended as a model

www.innovation.ca/awards/sharing-good-practices

Newest additions

1. Access to key project

information by relevant

stakeholders

2. Managing the JELF allocation

3. Risk-based management

approach

4. Important considerations for

items involving an in-kind

contribution

• Objectives:

– Identify key challenges

– Identify solutions and good practices

– Identify CFI tools and approaches

• Membership

Multi-institutional projects

working group

Key challenges

@ Instititution• Communications

among institutional

liaisons• Internal review &

selection processes• Envelopes allocations• Provincial regulations

& processes

@ CFI• CAMS alerts

• Contact list of CFI

liaisons

• NOI → NOI posting

→ proposal

@ Instititution• Purchasing practices• IOF allocation• Inter-institutional

agreements • Reporting

responsibilities

Post-award

Pre-award

Stream 1

2017 Innovation Fund

2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8

MSI Fund 2017-2022

Cyberinfrastructure Initiative

Stream 2

College-Industry Innovation Fund

Challenge 1 – competition 2

Board

Notice of Intent Decisions by CFI BoardCall for proposals Appl Proposal deadlineLegend NOICall Board

Finalize awards

BoardAppl

Board

Board

NOI Appl

NOI Appl

Finalize awards

Call NOIFinalize awards

BoardNOI ApplFinalize awards

Finalize awards

John R. Evans Leaders Fund Appl Board BoardAppl ApplBoard Appl Board BoardAppl ApplBoard

CFI’s

ongoing

advocacy

strategy

• An investment horizon

proposition for research

infrastructure

• Strengthens the two core

principles of the CFI’s

service delivery model:• Respond to the evolving needs of

Canadian researchers, their

institutions and their partners across

all sectors

• Provide contributions at the pace of

infrastructure acquisition and

installation.

Questions?

Additional information

2017 Innovation FundWeaknesses identified by the

Expert Committees

Weaknesses identified by ECInstitutional capacity and

track record

•Lack of cohesion between track record and project8.3%

•Lack of detail / supporting documentation needed7.4%

•Project/institutional track record6.8%

•Commitment from institution5.1%

Research or Technology Development

•Details on activity & grantsmanship42%

•Feasibility/ approach/ methodology35%

•Lack of focus, too broad/ambitious, not integrated

30%

•Not innovative20%

•Missing details on comparable programs16%

Weaknesses identified by EC

Team

•Missing expertise / Not critical mass of experts34%

•Track record of working as a team20%

•Missing details on collaboration9%

•Canadian/International collaborations not included9%

•Missing details on team member roles8%

Infrastructure

• Not well justified / not connected to RTD / wrong equipment40%

• No details on availability of similar/existing infrastructure21%

• Weak RTD/Team to justify infrastructure12%

• Location of infrastructure / division between collaborators not detailed

10%• Not enough equipment / budget

too low7%• Infrastructure development/

implementation not well detailed7%

Weaknesses identified by EC

Sustainability

• Infrastructure, access or data management plan missing

22%

•Revenues not sufficient19%

•Costs/revenues not detailed14%

•Underestimated costs13%•Governance/Management

structure12%•Plans beyond 5 years not

detailed9%

Benefits to Canadians

• Pathway not well detailed21%

• Missing details of benefits12%

• Weak research8%

• Overstated impact7%

• HQP plan not well detailed7%

2017 Innovation FundWeaknesses identified by the

MACs

Weaknesses identified by MACs

Objective 1: Global Leadership

27% •Lack of detail

18% •Missing expertise

13% •Lack of cohesion between projects / too broad

10% • Issues with feasibility of approach/methodology

11% •Comparison to external research programs

11% •Not innovative

Objective 2: Enhance Research Capacity

22% • Weak justification for infrastructure

13% • Collaboration

12% • Sustainability plan missing details

11% • Management/governance/ access plan missing details

6% • No details on availability of similar/existing infrastructure

Weaknesses identified by MACs

Objective 3: Benefits to Canadian

16% • Pathway not well detailed

10% • Overstated/weak benefits

6% • Weak RTD/Team to produce benefits

Distribution of MAC ratings

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

NS PS SW SA EX

# p

rop

osa

ls

Objective 1: Strive for global leadership (IF 2017)

Objective 2: Enhance research capacity (IF 2017)

Objective 3: Generate benefits for Canadians (IF 2017)