Preparation of Proposal Narrative, Budget, and … of Proposal Narrative, Budget, and Timeline for MRI Edward Thomas, Jr., Lawrence C. Wit & Charles W. Barkley Professor Physics Department,

Preparation of Proposal Narrative, Budget, and Timeline for MRI Edward Thomas, Jr., Lawrence C. Wit & Charles W. Barkley Professor Physics Department, Auburn University [email protected] Presentation at Joint MRI/RIA QEM meeting: August 19, 2016 http://psl.physics.auburn.edu/etjr/index.html Click on link: QEM/Proposal Info

Experiences with Major Research Instrumentation program

•  NSF-MRI Program:▫ Provides an excellent opportunity to enhance the technical capabilities of your

laboratory.▫ Provides an opportunity to expand your base of collaborations and demonstrate

your ability to provide leadership in the scientific community.

•  Case studies:▫  Track 1: “Acquisition of a stereoscopic particle image velocimetry system for

dusty plasma studies” - PHY-0216421, 2002▫  Track 2: “Development of a magnetized dusty plasma device” - PHY-1126067,

2011

▫ MRI is a “limited submission” program - do you know the rules for submission on your campus?!

What is “Major Research Instrumentation” – NSF perspective?

•  The MRI Program is intended to assist with the acquisition (Track 1) or development (Track 2) of research instrumentation that is, in general, too costly and/or not appropriate for support through other NSF programs.

•  Can be for a single instrument or for equipment that when combined serves as an integrated research instrument (physical or virtual).

•  The MRI program does not support the acquisition or development of a suite of instruments to outfit research laboratories/facilities or to conduct independent experiments simultaneously.

•  Building infrastructure is NOT supported by NSF

What is “Major Research Instrumentation” – PI perspective?

•  Research impact MUST be the key focus of all MRI proposals.

•  Proposals MUST clearly demonstrate how the new instrumentation will impact (transform) current research activities and/or enable new research directions.

•  Educational contributions are part of the broader impact – projects should NOT solely focus on equipping a teaching laboratory.

•  However, demonstrating how the instrumentation positively impact both research and education IS an important feature of the proposal.

•  Integration is the key to the success of the MRI proposal.

Proposal Preparation - The Basics! *Many thanks to (and stolen from) J. Bramwell and J. D. Perez

•  Give yourself time to prepare and plan. !

•  DO NOT JUST START WRITING. !

•  Give yourself time to prepare and plan.

•  DO NOT JUST START WRITING.

•  Think about what science you want to do - consult with collaborators.

•  Research / gather data on the instrument - get quotes / early designs.

•  Prepare the budget and timeline.

•  Outline the proposal in detail (5 - 7 pages).

•  After all that - THEN begin writing.

Proposal Preparation – The preliminaries -

•  The internal “limited submission” competition

•  Is there an internal competition at your institution? Is there a deadline? When is it?

•  What is the format of the internal competition: Presentation? White paper?

•  Who will make the selection: Committee? VPR?

Proposal Preparation - Get organized - Budget (1)

•  Budget (Track 1, acquisition) - The instrument

•  Who are the manufacturers of the instruments? Do you have quotes?

•  How much will the instrument cost? Is there potential for discounts?

•  Where will it be housed?

•  What infrastructure needs to be modified and who will pay for that?

•  GENERALLY CANNOT BE PAID USING MRI AWARD

•  Are the regular maintenance fees? Who will pay?

•  Will some supplies be needed - if so, may be subject to indirect costs?

•  This becomes the largest portion of your budget!!


•  Budget (Track 1, acquisition) - The people

•  Are specialized personnel needed to operate the instrument?

•  Who will pay for them?

•  What long-term mechanisms are in place to support them?

•  Who are the potential users? Internal? External?

•  Who will provide training for students? external users?

•  Only under very special circumstances would personnel costs become part of an acquisition proposal. !

•  It may be more appropriate for development proposals. !


•  Disallowed expenses (Track 1, acquisition) !

•  MRI is for the acquisition or development of instruments - ONLY

•  Generally cannot include:

•  PI/co-PI or other personnel support*

•  General student support*

•  Travel (unless directly related to instrument - possible for Track 2)*

•  Lab construction, space renovation, etc.

•  Publication costs

•  Track 1 proposals often have just one budget line - the cost of the instrument itself in the equipment category. !

•  * A Track 2 proposal may include some of these items IF there is a multi-year development plan and IF it can be justified. !


•  Size of the budget !

•  From $100k to $4 million for any MRI-eligible institution

•  Under $100k

•  In fields of Mathematics and Social, Behavioral, Economic (SBE)

•  Non-PhD granting institutions��Definition: awarded 20 or fewer Ph.D./D.Sc. degrees in all NSF-supported fields during the combined previous two academic years

•  Cost-sharing !

•  Required for Ph-D granting institutions

•  Precisely 30% of total project costs

•  Voluntary cost sharing is disallowed


•  Example with cost-sharing [Ph.D. granting institutions ONLY] !

•  Project: Acquire a stereoscopic imaging system

•  Cost of Instrument: $300,000 [total project cost]

•  NSF request: $210,000 [70%]

•  Institutional cost sharing: $90,000 [30%]

•  Additional costs: !

•  Cost to refurbish a room (e.g., air lines, chilled water): $45,000

•  NOT AN ALLOWED EXPENSE and NOT PART OF COST SHARING

•  Important: Start discussions with administrators early if there are going to be additional infrastructure costs and prepare an internal agreement in writing!

Proposal Preparation - Get organized - Timeline

•  Track 1 - Acquisition !

•  Typically will be based upon manufacturers schedules

•  Anticipated that instrument will be nearly “plug and play”

•  Overall project length may be 1 year (sometimes 2 years)

•  Track 2 - Development !

•  Requires a lengthy process involving design, redesign, testing, instrument building, integration, and commissioning phases

•  May require additional personnel / expertise; corporate involvement

•  Detailed plans for project milestones, risks, and management are required

•  Overall project length may be 2 to 4 years

Proposal Preparation - Get organized – Timeline/Gannt Chart

Proj

ect

man

agem

ent

soft

war

e -

Om

niPl

an!

Proposal Preparation - Outline the proposal [1]

•  Title

•  Instrument location and type / MRI code

•  Justification for Track 2 / Development (1 pg T2)

•  Research Activities to be Enabled (9 pgs T1 / 4 pgs T2)

•  Description of Research Instrumentation and Needs ( 2 pgs T1 / 5 pgs T2)

•  Impact on Research Training and Infrastructure (2 pgs)

•  Management Plan ( 2 pgs T1 / 5 pgs T2)

◦ Spend a time developing an outline, adding bullet points, moving sections around, creating figures, but not really WRITING!!

◦ Everyone is in love with their own words - once written, very hard to change !


Title: Development of a Magnetized Complex (dusty) plasma experiment a. Instrument Location – single sentence indicating location of device b. Research activities to be enabled (4 pages) Introduction to dusty plasmas (3 paragraphs)

Dusty plasma field - defineContext for dusty plasma work – space, industry, fusionParticularly highlight plasma lab astro – chart of overlapping parameters?Plasma + dust + magnetic fields – critical justification statement here

Define the two central research themes (3 paragraphs)

Theme 1: Transition from electron to ion to dust magnetizationTheme 2: Magnetic materials and field gradientSummarize as intellectual merit of proposal

Define scientific projects that can be pursued (4 paragraphs - avoid laundry list!!)

Theme 1 projects – charging, transport, wavesExp. 1 – g x B drift (plot – compare gyro, full gxB, compensated gravityExp. 2 – Include calc/plot – EDC wave


Title: Development of a Magnetized Complex (dusty) plasma experiment

Theme 2 projects – attractive/repulsive forces, binary crystalsInclude calc – magnetic packing force (grad-B)

Possible new science – material growth (astro, fusion); Dia- / ferromagnetic particle behavior – important in astrophysicsParticle growth / breakup – for astro/fusion studies

Brief paragraph on IMPACT of the project (1 paragraph)

Introduce transformational merit of proposal (science)Building on 30+ years of plasma science & 10+ in dusty plasmas (university)Community impacts

Research (novel, new), Education (undergrad, grad, post-doc)First large scale US experimentFirst community-wide US experiment (ref. upcoming text)

…

Proposal Preparation for the MRI

•  Read the proposal guidelines CAREFULLY - they change!

•  Title: must be concise and convey the primary purpose of the proposal, e.g., ▫  “MRI: Acquisition of ____," or ▫  "MRI: Development of ____."

•  Consortium project titles must also be identified in the title:▫  "MRIConsortium: Acquisition of ___," or ▫  "MRIConsortium: Development of ___.”

The preliminaries:

•  Instrument location and type: opening lines of the proposal - list as specific as possible where the instrument will be located and the Instrument Code (first few lines) - Maps to: Sec. a1

▫ MRI instruments enable new research capabilities for your organization• This line illustrates that there is clear organizational understanding about the commitment

to supporting this new instrument

•  Justification for submission as Development (Track 2 only): explain why this proposal is justified as a development - Maps to: Sec. a2

▫  Is the instrument more than a collection of parts? Is it beyond what vendors provide?▫  Is this a shared use instruments? What are new capabilities?

Establishing the scientific need for MRI funding

•  Scientific need 1: most important feature of the proposal: ��Maps to: “Research Activities to be Enabled” (9 pages acq. / 4 pages dev.)

▫  What are the current research capabilities – yours and your field?• What is the current baseline for experiments in your scientific field?• What is the current baseline for experiments in your laboratory?• What scientific information are you currently lacking?• Why is this information important to your laboratory / field?

▫  What new research capabilities will be created by the instrument?• Are there new experimental parameter regimes that will be accessible?• Are there improved measurement capabilities – e.g., speed,

reproducibility…? • Will there be enhanced spatial or temporal resolution?• Will new theoretical / computational models be tested by the new

instrument?


•  Scientific need 2: most important feature of the proposal: ��Maps to: “Research Activities to be Enabled” (9 pages acq. / 4 pages dev.)

▫  Why is your laboratory suited to obtain this new instrument?• How will your laboratory integrate the new instrument into its existing

infrastructure?

• What skills / capabilities does your laboratory have to support the new instrument?

• What new scientific contributions will your laboratory be able to make because of this instrumentation?

• Who in your laboratory and/or field will be impacted by the measurements obtained by this instrument?


•  Scientific need 3: most important feature of the proposal: ��Maps to: “Description of the Research Instrumentation and Needs”��(2 pages acq. / 5 pages dev.)

▫ What specifically will this instrument do?• What are the specific capabilities of the instrument?• How does this specific instrument help your laboratory accomplish its

scientific mission; i.e., why this one instead of some other?

•  For development proposals: an extended discussion of the design methodology, expected new capabilities that will arise, etc.?

Establishing the broader impact “need” for MRI funding

•  Broader impact need: ��Maps to: “Impact on Research Training and Infrastructure” (2 pages)

▫ Who will make use of this instrumentation?• Will students, post-doctoral researchers, outside researchers have

opportunities to use the instrument?• How will these personnel be trained to use the instrument?• How will the instrumentation be used to broaden participation to

groups historically under-represented in the sciences?

Establishing the broader impact “need” for MRI funding

•  Broader impact need: ��Maps to: “Impact on Research Training and Infrastructure” (2 pages)

▫ Special caution: (Updated for 2015) ��Proposals requesting over $1 million should address the potential impact of the instrument on the research community of interest and at the regional or national level when appropriate. For large multi-user instruments that provide service beyond a single institution, concrete plans for enabling access by external users (including those from non-Ph.D. and/or minority-serving institutions) through physical or virtual access should be presented, and the uniqueness of the requested instrument should also be described.

Establishing the institutional “need” for MRI funding [1] •  Institutional need: the forgotten part of MRI proposals��

Maps to: “Management Plan” (2 pages acq. / 5 pages dev.)

▫ What is the relationship between the instrument and the university?• Where will the instrument be housed?• Does the facility have the necessary infrastructure to support

the instrument (space, electrical power, backup power HVAC, network capabilities, chilled water, etc.)? If not, how will the organization provide for this infrastructure?

• What long-term organizational resources are needed to support the instrument and where will these resources come from (e.g., expendables such as LN2)?

• Avoid – “build it and they will come”!

Establishing the institutional “need” for MRI funding [2] •  Institutional need: the forgotten part of MRI proposals��

Maps to: “Management Plan” (2 pages acq. / 5 pages dev.)

▫ What is the relationship between the instrument and the university?• How will the instrument be maintained and where will the

funding come from to support maintenance and upgrades?• How will the university be impacted by having this instrument

(leadership, prestige, etc.)?• Are there safety/IRB issues related to the instrument? Who are

the responsible persons? How will these issues be addressed?• What are the risks/challenges faced by the project (Particularly

for Track 2)?

My MRI experiences: •  “Acquisition of a stereoscopic particle image velocimetry system for dusty

plasma studies”, PHY-0216421, 2002, $150k ($105k + $45k)

•  “Development of a Magnetized Dusty Plasma Device”, PHY-1126067, 2011, $2.1M ($1.488M + $653k) + $300k (lab infrastructure - Auburn Univ.)

Need for Stereo-PIV system (MRI acquisition):

•  Scientific▫  PI’s group was the first to develop and apply 2D PIV to dusty plasmas▫  2D PIV approach provided valuable information on transport, but limited

to laser sheet plane.

▫  Stereo-PIV offers full three-dimensional velocity reconstruction.▫  Enables potential to measure velocity distribution function.▫  With distribution function, can obtain information on thermodynamic

state of the dusty plasma.

▫  Stereo-PIV hardware had 2x improvement in spatial resolution compared to 2D PIV system.

▫  Improved calibration technique that provides auto-calibration of images.

Why

us?

New

Scie

nce

Inst

rum

ent

feat

ures

Need for Stereo-PIV system (MRI acquisition):

•  Broader impact▫  PI’s group had a track-record of incorporating undergraduate students

into dusty plasma research – including undergrad co-authors on papers.▫  Undergrads and grad students tasked with building support hardware and

then operating the stereo-PIV system.▫  We offered to use 2D PIV system as a “traveling” diagnostic for other

laboratories.

•  Institutional impact▫  AU has +20 year record of plasma science research▫  Maintain leadership in a novel area of plasma science research▫  Opens new opportunities for collaborations at national labs and other

universities – i.e., new funding opportunities.

Need for Magnetized Dusty Plasma Experiment (MRI Development):

•  Scientific▫  A 3-year community effort, led by PI’s, to build consensus for the need for a

unique, next-generation, multi-user device▫  Builds on knowledge-base of existing labs and exceed their capabilities

▫  First studies of waves in magnetized dusty plasma.▫  Extensive new studies of para-, ferromagnetic dusty plasma systems▫ New studies of charge screening effects parallel and perp to magnetic field

▫  First extended device with over 10x larger plasma volume that previous ones.▫  Potential for direct imaging of nanometer sized particles.▫  Independent superconducting coils -> extensive magnetic field shaping▫  Extensive use of cyber-infrastructure including remote operation

Why

us?

New

Scie

nce

Inst

rum

ent

feat

ures

Need for Magnetized Dusty Plasma Experiment (MRI Development):

•  Broader impact▫  Research team includes national and international researchers – PhD and

undergrad schools, national labs, industrial partner▫  Incorporates plasma, astrophysics, fusion, engineering▫  Partner with national lab on education and outreach

•  Institutional impact▫  Establishes a new, one-of-a-kind research instrument – a national and

international multi-user experiment.▫  Enhance scientific leadership in a research field.▫  Auburn hiring a new faculty member, technical staff to support project,

release time (part of cost share).▫  Auburn committing additional $250k (above cost share) to build a new

laboratory facility.

MRI: lessons learned •  Know your local environment and audience:▫  What the rules/criteria of any internal competition?▫  When do you need to begin negotiations for cost sharing (if required)?▫  Are there others on campus (in region) you can partner with?

▫  Have early discussions on long-term support / commitment to the project from campus leaders.

▫  Get commitments for any needed infrastructure work in writing from as high an authority as possible (Dean, Provost, VPR).

•  Writing the proposal: what is important to NSF may not always be important to the internal competition!

•  Commitment to the project: Criticism of a project can be good, if you use it to strengthen the proposal!

•  Good communications: Essential to completing project on time and on budget.

Results from MRI-2010 – Panel Summary (not awarded)

The reviews were generally quite supportive of this MRI proposal. The ratings received were 3 E’s, 4 VG’s & 1 G. All reviewers thought the area of magnetized dusty plasmas to be important and of fundamental scientific interest, and some noted it was relatively unexplored, thus adding to their level of support for the project. All felt that this proposed multi-user, multi-institutional user facility would be the first of its kind in the US and truly world class. Most reviewers also felt the team of PI / Co-PIs to be very solid, each with a well established track record. A few of the reviewers thought that more should have been said about the other fields where the research would have an impact (e.g. fusion plasmas & astrophysics) and more done regarding outreach to such non-dusty plasma communities. The broader impacts were noted by the reviewers to include the reach to a national and international cadre of researchers, training of students, and the broad diversity of the fields that the enabled research would influence. On balance, the reviewers supported funding this proposal, based upon its intellectual merit and broader impacts. The panel agreed, recommending "Fund if Possible" for this proposal.

Results from MRI-2011 – Panel Summary (awarded)

This MRI project proposes the development of a new multi-user experimental research instrument -- a magnetized dusty plasma device -- that will enable laboratory investigations of phenomena relevant to plasma physics, astrophysics, and soft condensed matter physics. The focus of the research that would be enabled by this instrument would be to address the following questions: 1) As a dusty plasma is taken from an unmagnetized system through a progression of regimes where first the electrons, then the ions, and then charged microparticles become magnetized - how do the structural, thermal, charging, and collective properties of the system evolve? 2) If a dusty plasma is composed of microparticles that have paramagnetic or ferromagnetic properties, how do the properties of the dusty plasma evolve in the presence of uniform and non-uniform magnetic fields? The reviews were quite supportive of this MRI proposal. The ratings received were 2 Es, 1 E/V & 2 Vs. All reviewers thought the area of magnetized dusty plasmas to be important and of fundamental scientific interest, and some noted it was relatively unexplored, thus adding to their level of support for the project. All felt that this proposed multi-user, multi-institutional user facility would be the first of its kind in the US and truly world class. All reviewers also felt the team of PI / Co-PIs to be very solid, each with a well established track record. The broader impacts were noted by the reviewers to include the reach to a national and international cadre of researchers, training of students, and the broad diversity of the fields that the enabled research would influence. All the reviewers supported funding this proposal, based upon its intellectual merit and broader impacts. The panel agreed, recommending a rating of "Must Fund" for this proposal.

Payoff for careful planning and management

+ =

After almost 2.5 years and $2.1 million - integration of the two major components took ~15 minutes!

MRI Proposal Development: final thoughts

•  Establishing needs “thought process” is similar for acquisition and development proposals – although the balance of the proposal will be different.

•  MRI is limited submission by institutions – make sure you know the internal deadlines, know your cost-share category and have discussions with your local leadership (and research community) to build support for your project.

•  For large or complex projects, get research community buy-in. This may take time – START EARLY!

•  Talk to the NSF program managers - they are extremely helpful in helping you plan for a MRI submission!

Documents

Preparation of Proposal Narrative, Budget, and … of Proposal Narrative, Budget, and Timeline for MRI Edward Thomas, Jr., Lawrence C. Wit & Charles W. Barkley Professor Physics Department,