Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Demand Management:Progress and Issues
Gary Grubb
Associate Director of Programmes AHRC
Context Across Research Councils• Total cost of RC Peer review (2006) estimated £196m
p.a. Most of this is incurred by Ros / researchers in preparing applications.
• ~ £9.8m (5%) of this cost is directly incurred by RCs• RC admin costs 4.7% (2006); ~ 3% currently and
declining• Number of proposals to RCs doubled since 1988 /89 -
now circa 30,000 and increasing with corresponding increases in the number of peer reviews sought.
• Success falling: 30 - 40% in 1988 to 20% and lower in 2011 (some RC / scheme variation)
Working Together Across RCUK• In September 2010 the Research Councils established a Demand
Management Working Group to consider ways in which RCs could work together/ share experiences in implementing demand management approaches but recognising that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is unlikely to be appropriate or effective.
• A shared set of principles (and tools), which underpin RC’s approaches to demand management, have been developed. These principles were integrated into Council Delivery Plan submissions in December 2010.
• A core set of metrics, to monitor the impact of demand management practices across RCs, is being developed.
• The Working Group is also a forum for the exchange of information and knowledge across RCs on demand management and related issues.
A Shared Set of Principles
• Work in partnership with Research Organisations such that they self-manage demand and quality control.
• Use quality, impact/added-value and Research Council strategy in delivering quality decision making.
• Consolidate and simplify / streamline funding schemes where possible.
• Maintain a range of funding models to deliver the objectives of each Research Council (e.g. for core business, capacity building, translational research etc).
• Use sift / triage processes robustly to reduce the burden on the peer review system.
A Shared Set of Principles (cont.)• Share good practice and strive for continual improvement. • Remain sensitive to the challenges of reviewing and
supporting multidisciplinary and collaborative research. • Discuss plans for demand management with stakeholders. • Develop and share tools for demand management across
Research Councils and research organisations.• Maintain awareness of the effect of demand management
on the wider community and relevant stakeholders.
Demand Management in AHRC’s Delivery Plan Aim to reduce demand significantly and raise overall quality and success rates. Measures outlined included:•Building on progress already made (e.g. BGPs, open deadlines)•working with HEIs to stimulate good practice•monitoring success rates, only introducing sanctions if and where necessary•Tightening resubmissions policy•More tightly defining strategic calls and moving towards longer and larger grants in some strategic areas•Redefinition of fellowships scheme•Using different approaches such as expressions of interest, highlight calls, ‘sandpits’ etc as well as conventional ‘calls’
Steps Taken• Discussions with HEIs during HEI visits, discussion with ARMA, PRC
members etc to promote good practice• Refocused the Fellowship Scheme around strategic focus on
developing leadership and with specific demand management expectations / measures
• Introduced revised resubmissions policy• Piloted use of expressions of interest (e.g. KE hubs) and ‘sandpit’ /
follow-up funding (e.g. Connected Communities) leading to longer and larger awards and highlight notices in core schemes.
• Consolidation of some small schemes (e.g. Speculative Route, RGPLA, KT fellowships) into main funding schemes
• Introduced the Research Outcomes System (ROS) to replace final reports to collect research outcomes more efficiently over time and reduce demands on peer review system
7
Revised Fellowship Scheme• Stronger expectations for leadership / leadership potential,
for transformational potential and for institutional support• Fewer, more prestigious, longer (6-18 / 24 months) awards
with expectations for leadership development and associated collaborative activities
• Both Research Organisations and individual applicants will have an important role in ensuring that only applications that meet the required revised aims and remit of the scheme are submitted
• But we still want to encourage innovative, high quality applications from researchers across the breadth of the AHRC remit
Revised Fellowship SchemeResearch organisations expected to put in place:• Arrangements for identifying research leaders, or potential future research
leaders, within their institutions who might be suitable candidates to apply under the scheme.
• Processes for agreeing an appropriate package of support for the career and leadership development for applicants and for securing senior institutional confirmation of this support as a part of the Research Organisation’s processes for approving submissions under the scheme;
• Internal sift, support and quality assurance processes to ensure that only proposals of the highest quality are submitted to the scheme from outstanding candidates who meet the expectations of the scheme.
• Systems for monitoring that the institutional support committed to in the application is delivered and that evidence on this could be provided to the AHRC if requested.
AHRC will monitor for evidence of selectivity and adequate support for applications and raise concerns with ROs with a possibility of sanctions if adequate assurances not provided
Revised Fellowship SchemeImplications for applicants:• Essential that they discuss their interest in applying with senior
managers within their institution at an early stage before starting detailed work on their application, to ensure that they meet the criteria and that the necessary institutional support for their application is in place
• Applicants may not have more than one application under consideration under the scheme at any one time.
• Unsuccessful applicants will not be allowed to submit a new application under the scheme within one year of the announcement of the outcome of their application (only exception would be a resubmission specifically invited by AHRC).
• Funded Fellows will not be permitted to submit new applications under the scheme until at least one year after the end date of their Fellowship. However they will be able to apply during this period under other schemes including AHRC’s follow-on funding scheme.
Revised Resubmissions Policy• wef 1 April 2012 applicants will not be permitted to resubmit
unsuccessful applications unless specifically invited by AHRC• Decisions on whether to invite resubmission will be made by panels
but it is expected that this will happen only as an exception when panels consider proposals to have exceptional potential and can identify specific changes to the application that could significantly enhance its competitiveness
• Invited resubmissions will be assessed in the usual way in competition with the other applications being considered.
• Removes the link between grade descriptors and resubmission which feedback from panellists suggested caused problems with grades not matching comments
• Places increased emphasis on getting applications right the first time and on PI responses, with conditional awards also exceptionally an option for panels
Some Issues• Role of PRC members in supporting institutions to develop their
approach to demand management and the potential implications for PRC members workloads of increasing peer review within institutions
• Ways that AHRC help institutions and PRC members with demand management, e.g. what information / feedback from AHRC is most helpful in supporting demand management?
• Potential to share and learn from good practice in institutions • Ensuring that higher risk, cross-disciplinary, collaborative (e.g.
between institutions) and/or early career etc proposals are not disadvantaged by demand management
• Tackling the frustratingly large number of proposals that ‘do not fit the scheme/call requirements’
• Early stage sifting before proposals are fully worked up could save the most effort – are there ways to encourage this within ROs?
Discussion GroupsDemand Management
• How can Strategic Reviewers help their institutions to develop their approach to demand management but without becoming over-burdened themselves with both institutional and AHRC peer review activities?
• Are there good practices in institutions that AHRC could help to share?
• Are there ways to encourage early stage sifting of proposals within research organisations before proposals are fully worked up that could save the most effort and ensure that those proposals that are developed and submitted fully address scheme / call criteria?
Thank you!
