Section Navigation
National Competitive Grants Program
Breadcrumb Navigation
Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities
Selection Report for Funding Commencing in 2009
- 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 2009
Overview
The objectives of the Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities (LIEF) for funding commencing in 2009 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 16 May 2008. Proposals were assessed by a Selection Advisory Committee (SAC) comprised of twelve independent experts who undertook assessments themselves and considered the assessments of other SAC members. The SAC members:
- considered if proposals satisfied the eligibility criteria set out in the LIEF Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2009;
- identified and considered any other matters that, under the LIEF Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2009 might result in the ARC recommending that a proposal not be approved for funding;
- ranked each proposal relative to the others on the basis of the proposal and SAC members’ reports;
- assessed and recommended 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 SAC before making recommendations to the Minister who, in accordance with the Australian Research Council Act 2001, 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 169 proposals. These proposals sought $86,028,730 in funding.
A total of 73 proposals (43.2%) were approved for funding. In total these proposals requested funding of $44,520,262. The total funding for the approved proposals is $31,681,456 for the 2009 to 2012 funding period.
In addition, eight proposals were approved as "reserves", to be funded subject to the availability of ARC funds. The "reserve" proposals are not included in figures relating to approved proposals in the following statistics.
96 proposals were not approved for funding (includes the eight reserves).
Table 1: Funding allocations for approved LIEF proposals commencing in 2009
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
$30,101,456 |
$680,000 |
$500,000 |
$400,000 |
$31,681,456 |
Table 2: Funding for approved LIEF proposals commencing in 2009
No. of proposals approved |
Amount requested |
Approved funding |
Average funding |
% of requested funds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
73 |
$44,520,262 |
$31,681,456 |
$433,993 |
71.2% |
[top]
National Research Priorities
The Australian Government has identified four National Research Priorities and, within these, 21 national research priority goals.
Of 169 proposals, applicants in this round identified 166 proposals as addressing a National Research Priority. Of the 73 proposals approved for funding, 72 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
Priority Area |
Proposals considered |
Proposals funded |
Success rate % |
Funding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
None Selected |
3 |
1 |
33.3% |
$150,000 |
An Environmentally Sustainable Australia |
40 |
18 |
45.0% |
$6,509,000 |
Promoting and Maintaining Good Health |
23 |
12 |
52.2% |
$5,533,481 |
Frontier Technologies for Building and Transforming
Australian Industries |
96 |
41 |
42.7% |
$19,038,975 |
Safeguarding Australia |
7 |
1 |
14.3% |
$450,000 |
Total proposals |
169 |
73 |
43.2% |
$31,681,456 |
Total Priority Area proposals |
166 |
72 |
43.4% |
$31,531,456 |
% within priority areas |
98.2% |
98.6% |
[top]
Selection Outcomes by Organisation
Table 4 shows the requested ARC funding and total cash contributions pledged by contributing organisations for 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, approved funding and cash contributions of contributing organisations for approved LIEF proposals commencing in 2009 by Administering Organisation
Administering Organisation |
No. of approved proposals |
Requested ARC funding for approved proposals |
Total cash contributions pledged by contributing
organisations |
Approved ARC funding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering |
1 |
$533,694 |
$510,000 |
$400,000 |
Curtin University of Technology |
1 |
$185,000 |
$220,000 |
$150,000 |
Flinders University |
2 |
$1,313,809 |
$805,000 |
$1,087,120 |
Griffith University |
1 |
$638,976 |
$423,000 |
$350,000 |
James Cook University |
1 |
$191,874 |
$125,000 |
$150,000 |
La Trobe University |
2 |
$1,001,834 |
$440,000 |
$577,000 |
Monash University |
3 |
$2,759,189 |
$2,437,000 |
$2,275,000 |
RMIT University |
2 |
$1,238,614 |
$1,048,000 |
$550,000 |
Southern Cross University |
1 |
$268,768 |
$150,000 |
$220,000 |
Swinburne University of Technology |
1 |
$299,574 |
$100,000 |
$175,000 |
The Australian National University |
9 |
$6,544,377 |
$150,907,809 |
$4,610,000 |
The University of Adelaide |
3 |
$2,566,095 |
$1,663,400 |
$1,510,000 |
The University of Melbourne |
6 |
$2,581,349 |
$2,770,874 |
$2,138,000 |
The University of New South Wales |
9 |
$6,106,928 |
$5,579,552 |
$4,714,230 |
The University of Newcastle |
3 |
$2,051,732 |
$1,545,015 |
$1,420,000 |
The University of Queensland |
6 |
$3,855,176 |
$3,395,100 |
$2,770,000 |
The University of Sydney |
4 |
$3,353,387 |
$2,036,284 |
$2,350,000 |
The University of Western Australia |
5 |
$3,332,464 |
$2,015,500 |
$2,457,481 |
University of Canberra |
1 |
$198,471 |
$200,000 |
$150,000 |
University of Tasmania |
3 |
$733,992 |
$472,814 |
$667,025 |
University of Technology, Sydney |
3 |
$2,413,840 |
$1,700,000 |
$1,400,000 |
University of Western Sydney |
2 |
$910,000 |
$390,000 |
$435,000 |
University of Wollongong |
4 |
$1,441,119 |
$1,090,281 |
$1,125,600 |
Total |
73 |
$44,520,262 |
$180,024,629 |
$31,681,456 |
Table 5 lists considered and approved LIEF proposals by Administering Organisation.
Table 5: Number of LIEF proposals by Administering Organisation
Administering Organisation |
No. of proposals considered |
No. of approved proposals |
Success rate % |
|---|---|---|---|
Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering |
2 |
1 |
50.0% |
Curtin University of Technology |
5 |
1 |
20.0% |
Deakin University |
2 |
0 |
0.0% |
Edith Cowan University |
1 |
0 |
0.0% |
Flinders University |
2 |
2 |
100.0% |
Griffith University |
3 |
1 |
33.3% |
James Cook University |
6 |
1 |
16.7% |
La Trobe University |
3 |
2 |
66.7% |
Macquarie University |
3 |
0 |
0.0% |
Monash University |
12 |
3 |
25.0% |
Murdoch University |
2 |
0 |
0.0% |
Queensland University of Technology |
8 |
0 |
0.0% |
RMIT |
3 |
2 |
66.7% |
Southern Cross University |
2 |
1 |
50.0% |
Swinburne University of Technology |
8 |
1 |
12.5% |
The Australian National University |
14 |
9 |
64.3% |
The University of Adelaide |
8 |
3 |
37.5% |
The University of Melbourne |
10 |
6 |
60.0% |
The University of New South Wales |
19 |
9 |
47.4% |
The University of Newcastle |
4 |
3 |
75.0% |
The University of Queensland |
12 |
6 |
50.0% |
The University of Sydney |
10 |
4 |
40.0% |
The University of Western Australia |
7 |
5 |
71.4% |
University of Ballarat |
1 |
0 |
0.0% |
University of Canberra |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
University of South Australia |
5 |
0 |
0.0% |
University of Tasmania |
5 |
3 |
60.0% |
University of Technology, Sydney |
3 |
3 |
100.0% |
University of Western Sydney |
3 |
2 |
66.7% |
University of Wollongong |
5 |
4 |
80.0% |
Total all Administering Organisations |
169 |
73 |
43.2% |
[top]
Selected Statistics for LIEF Proposals for Funding Commencing in 2009
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 2009
No. of proposals considered |
Total requested ARC funding |
Total contributing organisation cash contributions
pledged |
|---|---|---|
8 |
$2,904,345 |
$1,898,000 |
Table 6b: Approved LIEF proposals for library and research information infrastructure for funding commencing in 2009
No. of approved proposals |
Success rate % |
Requested ARC funding |
Total contributing organisation cash contributions
pledged |
Approved funding |
% of requested funding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4 |
50% |
$1,956,421 |
$1,268,000 |
$1,180,000 |
60.3% |
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 2009 by State/Territory of the Administering Organisation
State/Territory |
No. of considered proposals |
No. of approved proposals |
Success rate % |
Approved funding |
% of total approved funding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACT |
15 |
10 |
66.7% |
$4,760,000 |
15.0% |
NSW |
51 |
27 |
52.9% |
$12,064,830 |
38.1% |
QLD |
29 |
8 |
27.6% |
$3,270,000 |
10.3% |
SA |
15 |
5 |
33.3% |
$2,597,120 |
8.2% |
TAS |
5 |
3 |
60.0% |
$667,025 |
2.1% |
VIC |
39 |
14 |
35.9% |
$5,715,000 |
18.0% |
WA |
15 |
6 |
40.0% |
$2,607,481 |
8.2% |
Total |
169 |
73 |
43.2% |
$31,681,456 |
100.0% |
Single-organisation proposals
In the 2009 funding round, a total of 34 LIEF proposals were submitted as single-organisation proposals. Of these proposals, ten were approved for funding, corresponding to a success rate of 13.7% for single-organisation proposals as a proportion of the total number of approved proposals.
Table 8 shows comparative statistics for single- and multiple-organisation proposals under the LIEF scheme for the funding period 2003 to 2009.
Table 8: Number of single-organisation* proposals for the LIEF scheme for funding commencing in calendar years 2003 to 2009
Year |
Total no. of proposals |
Total no. of single- organisation proposals considered |
Single-organisation proposals as a proportion
of total proposals % |
Total no. of approved proposals |
Approved single-organisation proposals as a proportion
of total approved proposals % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2003 |
121 |
20 |
16.5% |
67 |
10.4% |
2004 |
146 |
17 |
11.6% |
75 |
8.0% |
2005 |
159 |
21 |
13.2% |
78 |
6.4% |
2006 |
168 |
32 |
19.0% |
83 |
6.0% |
2007 |
165 |
32 |
19.4% |
73 |
9.6% |
2008 |
155 |
28 |
18.1% |
74 |
10.8% |
2009 |
169 |
34 |
20.1% |
73 |
13.7% |
* 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 34 Eligible Organisations and 83 Partner Organisations were involved in LIEF proposals considered for funding commencing in 2009.
Table 9 categorises considered and approved 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 2009 by number of contributing organisations
No. of contributing organisations involved |
No. of proposals considered |
No. of approved proposals |
Success rate % |
|---|---|---|---|
1 |
25 |
6 |
24.0% |
2 |
45 |
11 |
24.4% |
3 |
36 |
19 |
52.8% |
4 |
21 |
11 |
52.4% |
5 |
17 |
11 |
64.7% |
6 |
10 |
7 |
70.0% |
7 |
7 |
4 |
57.1% |
8 |
1 |
0 |
0.0% |
9 |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
10 |
3 |
2 |
66.7% |
11 |
1 |
0 |
0.0% |
13 |
2 |
1 |
50.0% |
Total |
169 |
73 |
43.2% |
Proposals by Eligible Organisations
Table 10 lists all Eligible Organisations and the total cash contributions pledged by each in considered and approved proposals for funding commencing in 2009.
Table 10: Involvement of Eligible Organisations
Eligible Organisations participating in proposals |
No. of proposals in which named Organisation
is involved |
Total cash contributions pledged by Eligible
Organisations in proposals |
No. of approved proposals in which named Organisation
is involved |
Total cash to be contributed by Eligible Organisations
in approved proposals |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering |
2 |
$50,000 |
1 |
$30,000 |
Central Queensland University |
1 |
$2,000 |
0 |
- |
Charles Darwin University |
3 |
$105,000 |
3 |
$105,000 |
Charles Sturt University |
1 |
$10,000 |
1 |
$10,000 |
Curtin University of Technology |
21 |
$1,272,995 |
9 |
$395,000 |
Deakin University |
7 |
$567,000 |
3 |
$210,000 |
Edith Cowan University |
7 |
$395,000 |
4 |
$101,000 |
Flinders University |
14 |
$1,095,000 |
7 |
$705,000 |
Griffith University |
10 |
$1,075,500 |
4 |
$430,000 |
James Cook University |
10 |
$847,000 |
3 |
$160,000 |
La Trobe University |
8 |
$655,000 |
5 |
$545,000 |
Macquarie University |
16 |
$706,552 |
6 |
$310,552 |
Monash University |
33 |
$4,337,000 |
16 |
$2,394,000 |
Murdoch University |
8 |
$307,000 |
4 |
$146,000 |
Queensland University of Technology |
17 |
$2,969,000 |
5 |
$175,000 |
RMIT University |
7 |
$932,795 |
5 |
$697,795 |
Southern Cross University |
7 |
$700,000 |
3 |
$470,000 |
Swinburne University of Technology |
11 |
$2,956,000 |
2 |
$130,000 |
The Australian National University |
32 |
$4,226,481 |
21 |
$2,992,309 |
The University of Adelaide |
19 |
$2,312,000 |
9 |
$1,542,000 |
The University of Melbourne |
22 |
$3,828,627 |
15 |
$3,200,374 |
The University of New South Wales |
46 |
$6,275,637 |
24 |
$4,477,950 |
The University of Newcastle |
15 |
$1,938,015 |
11 |
$1,695,015 |
The University of Queensland |
25 |
$5,301,150 |
11 |
$2,351,150 |
The University of Sydney |
42 |
$4,880,180 |
20 |
$2,667,284 |
The University of Western Australia |
20 |
$2,145,500 |
8 |
$1,710,500 |
University of Ballarat |
2 |
$60,000 |
0 |
- |
University of Canberra |
7 |
$340,000 |
5 |
$295,000 |
University of South Australia |
14 |
$1,763,400 |
7 |
$343,400 |
University of Tasmania |
6 |
$736,224 |
3 |
$397,224 |
University of Technology, Sydney |
8 |
$888,000 |
4 |
$785,000 |
University of Western Sydney |
10 |
$452,795 |
6 |
$267,795 |
University of Wollongong |
19 |
$1,485,281 |
16 |
$1,145,281 |
Victoria University |
5 |
$182,000 |
1 |
$30,000 |
Total |
475 |
$55,798,132 |
242 |
$30,914,629 |
12/11/08
