Section Navigation
National Competitive Grants Program
Breadcrumb Navigation
Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities
Selection Report for Funding Commencing in 2008
- Overview
- Selection Process
- Selection Criteria
- Period of Funding
- Summary of Outcomes
- National Research Priorities
- Selection Outcomes by Organisation=
- Selected Statistics for LIEF Proposals for Funding Commencing in 2008
Overview
The objectives of the Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities for Funding Commencing in 2008 (LIEF) scheme are to:
-
encourage Eligible Organisations to develop collaborative arrangements in the higher education sector and with other organisations outside the sector in order to develop research infrastructure;
-
support large-scale cooperative initiatives thereby allowing expensive infrastructure, equipment and facilities to be shared;
-
enhance support for areas of research strength; and
-
ensure that researchers in fields of recognised research potential have access to the support necessary to carry out high-quality research.
[top]
Selection Process
The closing date for LIEF applications was 18 May 2007. Proposals were assessed by a Selection Advisory Committee comprised of twelve members of the ARC’s College of Experts who undertook assessments themselves and who also considered assessments obtained from other members of the ARC’s College of Experts. The Selection Advisory Committee:
-
considered if proposals satisfied the eligibility criteria set out in the Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities Funding Rules for Funding Commencing in 2008;
-
identified and considered any other matters that, under the Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities Funding Rules for Funding Commencing in 2008 might result in the ARC’s recommending that a proposal not be approved for funding;
-
ranked each proposal relative to the others on the basis of the proposal and any assessors’ reports;
-
assessed and agreed on the amount of funding to be made available for a proposal; and
-
prepared funding recommendations for submission to the CEO of the ARC.
The CEO considered the recommendations of the Selection Advisory Committee before making recommendations to the Minister who, in accordance with the ARC Act, determined the funding outcomes.
[top]
Selection Criteria
Selection criteria and corresponding weights for LIEF proposals are:
- Investigator(s) (20%);
- Significance of research to be supported with the proposed infrastructure, equipment and facilities (20%);
- Need for excellent Australian researchers to access the proposed infrastructure, equipment or facility (30%); and
- Strength and benefits of collaboration between researchers and/or across Eligible Organisations and/or other organisations (30%).
Where a Proposal is a Single-Organisation Proposal, a justification is required as to why broader collaboration is not appropriate.
[top]
Period of Funding
Funding for LIEF projects is for one year only, except in the case of subscriptions or other payments in respect of major international research facilities where up to five years of funding may be provided.
Unless otherwise specified, figures presented in this report exclude withdrawn proposals.
[top]
Summary of Outcomes
The ARC received a total of 155 proposals, all of which were considered. These proposals sought $85,222,724 in funding.
In November 2007 seven proposals were approved as "reserves" to be funded at a later time subject to the availability of funds. All seven of these proposals were subsequently funded in April 2008. All figures provided in this report include these “reserve” proposals.
A total of 74 proposals (47.7%) have been approved for funding. In total these proposals requested funding of $50,826,550. Total funding for these approved proposals is $34,940,000 for the 2008 to 2012 funding period.
81 proposals were not approved for funding.
Table 1: Proposed funding allocations for approved LIEF proposals commencing in 2008
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
$28,660,000 |
$2,080,000 |
$1,400,000 |
$1,400,000 |
$1,400,000 |
$34,940,000 |
Table 2: Funding for approved LIEF proposals commencing in 2008
No. of proposals
funded |
Amount requested |
Funding
approved |
Average funding |
% of requested funds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
74 |
$50,826,550 |
$34,940,000 |
$472,162 |
68.7% |
[top]
National Research Priorities
The Australian Government has identified four National Research Priorities and, within these, 21 national research priority goals.
Applicants in this round identified 154 out of a total of 155 proposals as addressing a National Research Priority. Of the 74 proposals approved for funding, 73 were identified by applicants as addressing a National Research Priority. The distribution of approved LIEF proposals by National Research Priority is given in Table 3.
Table 3: Numbers of proposals and success rates for LIEF proposals by National Research Priority
National Research Priority |
Proposals received |
Proposals approved |
Success rate % |
Funding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| None Selected | 1 | 1 | 100.0% | $169,776 |
| An Environmentally Sustainable Australia | 34 | 12 | 35.3% | $9,355,000 |
| Promoting and Maintaining Good Health | 25 | 10 | 40.0% | $3,241,000 |
| Frontier Technologies for Building and Transforming Australian Industries | 89 | 48 | 53.9% | $21,284,224 |
| Safeguarding Australia | 6 | 3 | 50.0% | $890,000 |
| Total for National Priority Proposals | 154 | 73 | 47.4% | $34,770,224 |
| Total for all proposals | 155 | 74 | 47.7% | $34,940,000 |
| % within priority areas | 99.3% | 98.6% |
[top]
Selection Outcomes by Organisation
Table 4 shows requested ARC funding and total cash contributions pledged by contributing organisations for the approved LIEF proposals by Administering Organisation. The term ‘contributing organisation’ includes the Administering Organisation and other organisations (Collaborating and Partner Organisations) specified on proposals as providing contributions.
Table 4: Requested funding, ARC funding and cash contributions of contributing organisations for approved LIEF proposals commencing in 2008 by Administering Organisation
| Administering Organisation | No. of funded proposals | Requested ARC funding for funded proposals | Total cash contributions pledged by contributing organisations for funded proposals | ARC funding |
| Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering | 1 | $1,178,750 | $821,250 | $1,000,000 |
| Curtin University of Technology | 1 | $267,500 | $159,500 | $160,000 |
| Deakin University | 3 | $1,424,094 | $980,000 | $1,025,000 |
| Flinders University | 1 | $149,668 | $49,890 | $120,000 |
| La Trobe University | 2 | $1,127,000 | $718,000 | $700,000 |
| Monash University | 5 | $3,957,837 | $2,433,000 | $2,250,000 |
| Queensland University of Technology | 2 | $1,363,454 | $890,000 | $950,000 |
| Swinburne University of Technology | 1 | $130,286 | $48,000 | $100,000 |
| The Australian National University | 5 | $9,411,492 | $3,385,000 | $6,985,000 |
| The University of Adelaide | 1 | $974,773 | $860,000 | $700,000 |
| The University of Melbourne | 10 | $5,936,908 | $3,833,000 | $4,163,000 |
| The University of New South Wales | 11 | $5,244,424 | $3,756,051 | $3,536,000 |
| The University of Newcastle | 1 | $809,000 | $695,000 | $750,000 |
| The University of Queensland | 10 | $6,235,098 | $5,677,787 | $4,340,000 |
| The University of Sydney | 10 | $7,257,288 | $5,583,112 | $4,356,000 |
| The University of Western Australia | 4 | $2,126,626 | $1,132,000 | $1,550,000 |
| University of South Australia | 1 | $408,352 | $357,000 | $245,000 |
| University of Tasmania | 1 | $365,023 | $365,682 | $300,000 |
| University of Wollongong | 4 | $2,458,977 | $1,602,725 | $1,710,000 |
| Total | 74 | $50,826,550 | $33,346,997 | $34,940,000 |
Table 5 lists considered and approved LIEFproposals by Administering Organisation.
Table 5: Number of LIEF proposals by Administering Organisation
| Administering Organisation | No. of proposals considered | No. of proposals approved | Success rate % |
| Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering | 1 | 1 | 100.0% |
| Curtin University of Technology | 11 | 1 | 9.1% |
| Deakin University | 3 | 3 | 100.0% |
| Flinders University of South Australia | 3 | 1 | 33.3% |
| Griffith University | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| James Cook University | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| La Trobe University | 5 | 2 | 40.0% |
| Macquarie University | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Monash University | 11 | 5 | 45.5% |
| Murdoch University | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Queensland University of Technology | 4 | 2 | 50.0% |
| Southern Cross University | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Swinburne University of Technology | 4 | 1 | 25.0% |
| The Australian National University | 8 | 5 | 62.5% |
| The University of Adelaide | 6 | 1 | 16.7% |
| The University of Melbourne | 15 | 10 | 66.7% |
| The University of New South Wales | 19 | 11 | 57.9% |
| The University of Newcastle | 7 | 1 | 14.3% |
| The University of Queensland | 12 | 10 | 83.3% |
| The University of Sydney | 12 | 10 | 83.3% |
| The University of Western Australia | 7 | 4 | 57.1% |
| University of Canberra | 3 | 0 | 0.0% |
| University of South Australia | 4 | 1 | 25.0% |
| University of Tasmania | 6 | 1 | 16.7% |
| University of Western Sydney | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| University of Wollongong | 6 | 4 | 66.7% |
| Victoria University | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Total | 155 | 74 | 47.7% |
[top]
Selected Statistics for LIEF Proposals for Funding Commencing in 2008
Library and research information infrastructure
Tables 6a and 6b provide information on LIEF proposals for library and research information infrastructure.
Table 6a: LIEF proposals for library and research information infrastructure for funding commencing in 2008
| No. of proposals | Total requested ARC funding | Total contributing organisation cash contributions pledged |
| 9 | $3,912,798 | $2,418,000 |
Table 6b: Approved LIEF proposals for library and research information infrastructure for funding commencing in 2008
| No. of approved proposals | Success rate % | Requested ARC funding | Total contributing organisation cash contributions pledged | ARC funding | % of requested funding |
| 4 | 44.4% | $1,314,884 | $1,218,500 | $919,776 | 70.0% |
Selection outcomes by State/Territory
Table 7 shows the number of considered and approved LIEF proposals and the total ARC funding by State/Territory of the Administering Organisation.
Table 7: Number of considered and approved LIEF proposals and ARC funding commencing in 2008 by State/Territory of the Administering Organisation
| State/Territory | No. of considered proposals | No. of approved proposals | Success rate % | Funding | % of total funding |
| ACT | 11 | 5 | 45.5% | $6,985,000 | 20.0% |
| NSW | 48 | 27 | 56.3% | $11,352,000 | 32.5% |
| QLD | 18 | 12 | 66.7% | $5,290,000 | 15.1% |
| SA | 13 | 3 | 23.1% | $1,065,000 | 3.0% |
| TAS | 6 | 1 | 16.7% | $300,000 | 0.9% |
| VIC | 40 | 21 | 52.5% | $8,238,000 | 23.6% |
| WA | 19 | 5 | 26.3% | $1,710,000 | 4.9% |
| Total | 155 | 74 | 47.7% | $34,940,000 | 100.0% |
Single-organisation proposals
In the 2008 funding round, a total of 28 LIEF proposals were submitted as single-organisation proposals. Of these proposals, eight were funded, corresponding to a success rate of 28.6% for single-organisation proposals.
Table 8 shows comparative statistics for single- and multiple-organisation proposals under the LIEF scheme for the funding period 2002 to 2008.
Table 8: Number of single-organisation* proposals for the LIEF scheme for funding commencing in calendar years 2002 to 2008
| Year | Total no. of proposals | Total no. of single-organisation proposals considered | Single-organisation proposals as a proportion of total proposals % | Approved single-organisation proposals as a proportion of total approved proposals % |
| 2002 | 129 | 15 | 11.6% | 6.6% |
| 2003 | 121 | 20 | 16.5% | 10.4% |
| 2004 | 146 | 17 | 11.6% | 8.0% |
| 2005 | 159 | 21 | 13.2% | 7.1% |
| 2006 | 168 | 32 | 19.0% | 6.0% |
| 2007 | 165 | 32 | 19.4% | 9.6% |
| 2008 | 155 | 28 | 18.1% | 10.8% |
* A single-organisation proposal is defined as a proposal on which only one Eligible Organisation is listed as a contributor to the project. There may be Partner Organisations involved (that is, organisations which are not themselves eligible to apply for and receive funding under the LIEF scheme).
Collaboration
A total of 33 Eligible Organisations and 104 Partner Organisations were involved in LIEF proposals considered for funding commencing in 2008.
Table 9 categorises considered and funded proposals by the number of contributing organisations participating in the proposed projects and provides success rates.
Table 9: Number of considered and approved LIEF proposals for funding commencing in 2008 by number of contributing organisations
| No. of contributing organisations involved | No. of proposals received | No. of approved proposals | Success rate % |
| 1 | 16 | 4 | 25.0% |
| 2 | 42 | 19 | 45.2% |
| 3 | 47 | 26 | 55.3% |
| 4 | 18 | 8 | 44.4% |
| 5 | 12 | 8 | 66.7% |
| 6 | 9 | 3 | 33.3% |
| 7 | 1 | 1 | 100.0% |
| 8 | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 9 | 2 | 0 | 0.0% |
| 10 | 1 | 1 | 100.0% |
| 11 | 1 | 1 | 100.0% |
| 12 | 1 | 1 | 100.0% |
| 14 | 1 | 1 | 100.0% |
| 16 | 1 | 1 | 100.0% |
| 21 | 1 | 0 | 0.0% |
| Total | 155 | 74 | 47.7% |
Proposals by Eligible Organisations
Table 10 lists all Eligible Organisations and the total cash contributions pledged by each in considered and funded LIEF proposals for funding commencing in 2008.
Table 10: Involvement of Eligible Organisations
| Participation of Eligible Organisations in LIEF proposals |
No. of proposals in which organisation involved | Total cash contributions pledged by eligible organisations in proposals | No. of funded proposals in which organisation involved | Total cash contributions pledged by eligible organisations in funded proposals |
| Australian Catholic University | 1 | $10,000 | 1 | $10,000 |
| Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering (AINSE) | 1 | $25,000 | 1 | $25,000 |
| Central Queensland University | 1 | $60,000 | 1 | $60,000 |
| Charles Sturt University | 1 | $8,000 | 0 | - |
| Curtin University of Technology | 19 | $1,441,500 | 5 | $277,000 |
| Deakin University | 8 | $1,103,000 | 8 | $1,103,000 |
| Edith Cowan University | 4 | $145,000 | 3 | $105,000 |
| Flinders University of South Australia | 10 | $853,260 | 4 | $208,260 |
| Griffith University | 11 | $1,006,000 | 5 | $192,500 |
| James Cook University | 7 | $420,000 | 4 | $260,000 |
| La Trobe University | 9 | $1,372,250 | 4 | $760,000 |
| Macquarie University | 10 | $970,325 | 5 | $765,000 |
| Monash University | 30 | $5,623,664 | 19 | $2,734,000 |
| Murdoch University | 3 | $185,000 | 1 | $50,000 |
| Queensland University of Technology | 8 | $1,028,000 | 4 | $568,000 |
| RMIT University | 6 | $311,000 | 3 | $230,000 |
| Southern Cross University | 2 | $172,000 | 0 | - |
| Swinburne University of Technology | 7 | $1,196,000 | 4 | $200,000 |
| The Australian National University | 24 | $2,862,014 | 16 | $2,072,725 |
| The University of Adelaide | 18 | $1,819,315 | 12 | $674,315 |
| The University of Melbourne | 36 | $4,636,258 | 19 | $3,258,500 |
| The University of New South Wales | 39 | $4,621,915 | 25 | $3,415,101 |
| The University of Newcastle | 16 | $1,631,733 | 8 | $753,000 |
| The University of Queensland | 30 | $5,909,337 | 21 | $4,730,287 |
| The University of Sydney | 37 | $4,718,801 | 25 | $4,335,553 |
| The University of Western Australia | 28 | $2,037,600 | 11 | $1,204,500 |
| University of Canberra | 5 | $200,000 | 0 | - |
| University of South Australia | 11 | $731,315 | 3 | $218,315 |
| University of Tasmania | 10 | $1,189,358 | 5 | $552,682 |
| University of Technology, Sydney | 6 | $241,000 | 4 | $224,000 |
| University of Western Sydney | 8 | $280,000 | 2 | $45,000 |
| University of Wollongong | 15 | $1,806,759 | 12 | $1,546,759 |
| Victoria University | 5 | $219,000 | 1 | $48,000 |
| Total | 426 | $48,834,404 | 236 | $30,626,497 |
22/01/09
