Questions & Answers. CGIAR Research Programs Second Call Guidance for Pre-Proposals

Transcription

1 Questions & Answers CGIAR Research Programs Second Call Guidance for Pre-Proposals Q1 Can Centers submitting CRPII pre-proposals submit these with a name that differs from what is used in the Guidance document? A1 Choice of name is the responsibility of the Lead Centre and partners. Obviously the title needs to reflect the content of the pre-proposal. Q2 Is it allowed to change the order of the bullets in the narrative at flagship level to improve the structure and flow of the narrative? A2 The template both tries to indicate the desired elements and a structure that will hopefully result in proposals that are reasonably comparable. It is, however, possible to change the order of sections in the flagship narrative the key is to ensure all the topics are addressed. Q3 How will ISPC assess science quality (SQ)? A3 At the flagship level SQ will be assessed on the basis of: Novelty and soundness of the research proposed Track record of the Flagship leadership and team, assessed on the basis of what was achieved in the previous CRP portfolio (publications and demonstration of commitment to quality, peer review mechanisms, etc.) Lessons learned; evidence of building on previous work (1 st round of CRPs), e.g. how things have changed or even been dropped on the basis of past learning At the CRP level SQ will be assessed on the basis of the scientific arguments underpinning the rationale for the preproposal. Q4 What is expected in terms of novelty? A4 Novelty implies that the research questions being asked have evolved over time for pieces of research that are progressing well towards the development outcomes articulated in the SRF, evidence that areas of research which have not progressed towards development have been dropped and that opportunities for capitalising on new scientific advances to contribute to development outcomes have been adopted. Each CRP would be expected to show how it plans to generate International Public Goods, although individual flagships may not all contribute International Public Goods if they are focused on a particular region. Q5 How will Value for Money be assessed? A5 The Consortium Office will undertake detailed analysis of VFM. The ISPC input on budgets will be qualitative and at a very high level concentrating on the extent to which the funds requested relative to the expected outcomes seem appropriate, including reference to a prioritisation matrix which we are currently working on. Q6 Do we expect integration between CRPs only to be managed within the Integrated Programmes? A6 The ISPC has no particular expectations of where integration will lie. We will be analysing CRP linkages as to whether they give confidence that synergies will be captured in relation to delivery of the IDOs and SLOs. Q7 Do Global Integrating Program CRPs do their own placed-based research in the AFS ecologies? If yes, how to coordinate? If no, do they join AFS CRPs in our sites? If co-investment? Who decides on priorities for intervention? A7 The intent of the site integration process is that it will bring about coordinated research in specific locations.

2 CGI AR R e se arc h P rogram s Se cond C all G ui da nc e for Pre -Pro posals Page 2 Q8 How to decide on Tier 1 partners? Is there consistent criteria across CRPs? When to bring in non-cg organizations? How to choose? A8 This is primarily a question for the Centers leading the pre-proposals. Tier 1 partners are expected to have a shared commitment in terms of capacity and resource. Non CG partners should bring complementary expertise and add-value. May be harder for new CRPs but also an opportunity to bring fresh strategic thinking. Q9 Leadership - Can we not nominate CRP and Flagship Leaders in the pre-proposal, but simply add selection TORs? A9 Yes, particularly if this involves the creation of a fundamentally new CRP and there is projected changes in the leadership of CRPs. The TOR should take into account the need for scientific leadership at CRP and flagship levels and clearly indicate the key areas of responsibility. Q10 Performance Indicator Matrix for Pre-Proposals A10 Here is our considered response attempting to remove ambiguity. The Guidance text asks to specify all results and outcomes for the contract period by year ( ) with direct reference to the CRPs proposed contribution to the CGIAR Targets as expressed in the SRF, disaggregated by flagship, and with a single budget estimate for the period, disaggregated by result or outcome. Given the questions posed, we realize there is apparent ambiguity on how this is interpreted. The intent is that you provide the best possible, relevant information to convey the results of the proposed research and the form provides flexibility to fill this in as it makes most sense. For example: Some results might be single events that are achieved sometime during the 6 year period and placed in year 6. Results might be a continued process, such as scaling out a technology, with meaningful (growing) numbers, such as numbers of farmers adopting a technology, over the period. Some results may be associated with events taking place early, such as establishing baselines, and are placed in the early years. The intent is not that the Pre-proposal Performance Indicator Matrix provides a full set of results to be produced in every year, but rather, that it indicates the key results and outcomes of the proposed CRP over the period and that all available and relevant information regarding the timeline is provided. The intent is not to fill every cell of the matrix with a large number of relatively minor or administrative results, but to use the template to give the reviewers and investors the best possible picture of the key results that justify the investment, with relevant information about the timeline and budget. Our recommendation is to use the template to best present the value proposition of the CRP, with empty cells in the matrix deemed acceptable. Q11 The share-point calendar indicates a range of dates 15-30th July where drafts can be submitted. Does that mean we can defer submission of our drafts up until 30th July and still obtain critical comment back? A11 The timeline of the 15th July for drafts was determined in the Workshop held in MPL in early June. The primary purpose being to share documents at an early enough stage so that a portfolio of CRPs can be built and provide an opportunity for Centres to have an advanced understanding of the entire portfolio prior to submission of the preproposals on the 15th August. Subsequently SPPC offered an opportunity to review drafts received on the 15th July and provide high level strategic feedback to centres in advance of pre-proposal submission. We will endeavour to provide feedback for drafts received up to the 30th July but would encourage centres to submit drafts prior to this so that SPPC will have sufficient time to provide considered feedback and provide Centres with sufficient time to incorporate any changes deemed appropriate.

3 CGI AR R e se arc h P rogram s Se cond C all G ui da nc e for Pre -Pro posals Page 3 Q12 EOI for Big Data - What does robust landscape analysis mean? A12 The landscape analysis is intended to identify what the status quo is, what sorts of approaches, communities, tools etc. are out there already that may be leveraged to enhance this effort. It is NOT intended to be dealt with before the EoI is submitted, but is one of the listed general goals of the funded platform. Q13 EOI for Big Data Partners: what is the % contribution for? A13 As an EOI this is simply an indication of what proportion of the total effort a partner would contribute. At this stage it does not necessarily mean funds or FTE but an indication of the overall effort. Q14 EOI for Big Data What is the difference between collaborator (Col) and PI? A14 The reference to collaborator and PI occurs in the 1st column of the tables, which is trying to get respondents to clarify who will play what role in the project. Who will the PI/s (project lead/s) be? Who will the collaborators be for CGIAR and external partners? Q15 EOI for Big Data For the estimated resources requested: shall we put details of staff time needed, operational etc. or just a rough total figure? A15 This is intended to be just the expression of interest, not a full proposal. So it would be fine to put in just a rough total figure. Q16 More guidance on cross cutting platforms - Can CRPs lead platforms? Or they have to be led by Centers? Do these platforms have to perform policing roles (implementing policies)? If so do they have authorities or resources to do it? A16 CRPs are not legal entities, so they cannot submit proposals lead centers do so on their behalf. The kind of coordination (rather than policing) across the portfolio expected from the platforms could also be conducted by CRPs. A case in point: coordination of gender research can be implemented through a platform, particularly if the CRPs do not propose this themselves. Alternatively, a CRP could dedicate a flagship or a significant component of a flagship to coordinating gender research. We are seeking the best and most compelling cases. Q17 Pre-proposal narrative - sub-section Leadership, management and governance structure and proposed activities. What is meant by proposed activities? A17 This section is an opportunity for you to describe the leadership, management and governance structure together with the commitment that the Centers and partners would bring to ensure that this is functional. For example what support would be provided, how will it function in practice, how will it draw the different strands of the CRP activities together to create added value. It is essentially about demonstrating that you have thought through how this will function in practice rather than in an abstract manner. There may also be useful feedback from the IEA reviews that you may wish to consider to strengthen the scientific leadership and management of CRPs. Q18 ISPC CRP-II review process A18 A revised version of the ISPC process guideline for CRP-II pre-proposal reviews, based on the feedback received in the recent ISPC discussion has been posted on the ISPC website: Q19 Pre-proposal narrative how to translate stakeholder commitment A19 It is the commitment of stakeholders to address the targets defined in the CRP, to include the strategy to be adopted.

4 CGI AR R e se arc h P rogram s Se cond C all G ui da nc e for Pre -Pro posals Page 4 Q20 ISPC work on prioritization A20 Refer to ISPC short note on the process they are undertaking on prioritization. Q21 Performance matrix - How should overall program level management costs be shown? Should this be shown as a proportion of each flagship or separately from the flagships? A21 This should be included in the flagship. We are seeking transparency so that we can evaluate value for money. Q22 Page 36 of the guidance requests for management costs to be given at the flagship level. However the performance matrix is designed in such a way as to include management costs for each outcome. Should we break this cost down by flagship or by outcome? A22 Both, as described in the guidance document we seek disaggregated data. Q23 The requirements given on partnership budgets on page 49 and on page 22 of the guidance document are contradictory as regards what is needed at the proposal stage. Which of these should we follow? A23 Page 22 clearly states the following: CRP pre-proposals will indicate who the key strategic partners are and briefly describe their roles and added value. It is expected that in the pre-proposal, the initial or outline of a partnership strategy will describe a plan of how the CRP will deliver from discovery science to integrated delivery at scale. This is what you should follow. Page 49 Annex 4 provides explanatory notes on budgets for full proposals. Q24 W1 & W2 budget to non-cgiar partners - Page 49 of the guidance states that the expected share of W1-2 budget that go to non CGIAR partners will have to be specified in both the CRP pre proposals (in outline) and in full proposal (in details). As there is no requirement to provide a break down by source of funding in the pre-proposal budget and nowhere within the performance matrix to identify this, it would not be possible to go further and specify the share to non-cgiar partners. Could this guidance please be clarified? A24 It should be possible to indicate what proportion of the W1 & W2 budget would go to non-cgiar partners based on a strategic approach to the development and identification of partners. This obviously needs to reflect the main goals of the CRP where a balanced and strategic approach to resource allocation reflects the anticipated contribution of partners. Q25 Flagship level - Are the CVs only requested for Flagship leaders or are they also required for selected principle investigators in a given Flagship? A25 It would be helpful to have both because the quality of the team assembled will be part of the evaluation process. Q26 Performance Matrix col L "total dedicated to administration/management" Does this include substantive oversight of the research within a flagship, overhead at standard rates, all administration associated with oversight of the flagship (i.e., including the support staff, budget staff, etc.). Is this item separate from overall management of the program within the PMU? A26 Refer to p36 of the guidance document: A high-level summary budget for the 6-year CRP period, by Flagship, and then overall for the CRP, to demonstrate the overall cost of achieving the planned outcomes over the implementation period. The budget must also include disaggregated information of the amount of management/ administrative expenses within each Flagship, and for the CRP overall [ ]. We are seeking transparency regarding the management and administration costs which are disaggregated. Management costs outside the PMU (if any) should be drawn out in this column.

5 CGI AR R e se arc h P rogram s Se cond C all G ui da nc e for Pre -Pro posals Page 5 Q27 Docking the outputs between the CRPs to deliver on a portfolio approach A27 Pre-proposals will be reviewed to specifically consider the issue of docking/integrating the outputs. In addition, following the Science leaders Montpellier meeting in June 2015, drafts are being shared on a collaboration site to support the development of a portfolio rather than a series of independent programs. The targeted call for preproposals, and two-step process (full proposals after an initial review) support this. Q28 Where are the boundaries between the agrifood systems and integrative CRPs? A28 The principles describing the agrifood CRPs and integrating programs were discussed during the Montpellier meeting, with outcomes forming the basis for the CRP pre-proposal call material. Avoiding overlap is therefore a goal of the early review process. However, the question of whether research can give rises to synergies for other CRPs goes much deeper and is part of the enabling environment or scientific culture within a program/center. Indeed this requires a bottom up approach at the level of individual Principal investigators who will be designing experiments and testing hypotheses. It will also involve the organization of more research meetings across CRPs to foster a better understanding of the problems and strategies to tackle problems. This is a big opportunity that needs to be grasped in the next round of CRPs. An early idea of an innovation fund was not carried forward into the final version of the SRF. A question therefore continues to exist on how to capitalize on this opportunity.