Section Navigation
National Competitive Grants Program
Breadcrumb Navigation
Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities
Selection Report for Funding Commencing in 2010
Overview
Selection Process
Selection Criteria
Funding duration
Selection outcomes
Selection outcomes by Administering Organisation
Selection outcomes by FOR and SEO categories
Single-organisation proposals
Leverage of ARC funding
National Research Priorities
Collaboration
Involvement of Eligible Organisations on proposals
Selection outcomes by state or territory
Summary of outcomes
Overview
The objectives of the Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities (LIEF) for funding commencing in 2010 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.
Selection Process
The closing date for LIEF applications was 27 May 2009. The assessment of proposals was carried out under the direction of the relevant ARC Executive Director, who:
- assigned members of the Selection Advisory Committee (SAC) who undertook assessments and considered the assessments of other SAC members;
- identified eligibility issues;
- supported the SAC in ranking each proposal by merit relative to all other proposals and the SAC members’ reports;
- in conjunction with the SAC members assessed and recommended budgets; and
- prepared funding recommendations for submission to the Minister for the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.
Selection Criteria
Selection criteria and corresponding weights for LIEF proposals are:
- 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%);
- Strength and benefits of collaboration between researchers and/or across Eligible Organisations and/or other organisations (30%); and
- Investigator(s) (20%).
Where a proposal is a single-organisation proposal, a justification is required as to why broader collaboration is not appropriate.
Funding duration
Funding for LIEF proposals may be awarded 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. There were no proposals requesting funding for international subscriptions for 2010.
Selection outcomes
The ARC received a total of 172 proposals. Two proposals were withdrawn. The figures presented in this report exclude the withdrawn proposals. The 170 proposals sought a total of $89,640,606 in funding.
A total of 71 proposals (41.8 per cent) were approved for funding. In total these proposals requested funding of $42,348,094. The total funding for approved proposals is $30,367,412 for the 2010 funding period.
In addition, two 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 the approved proposals in the following statistics.
99 proposals were not approved for funding (includes the two reserve proposals).
Table 1: Total funding by year for approved LIEF proposals commencing in 2010
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
$30,367,412 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$30,367,412 |
Table 2: Total and average funding for approved LIEF proposals commencing in 2010
Proposals approved |
Total amount requested |
Total amount of funding approved |
Average funding per approved proposal |
Percentage of requested funds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
71 |
$42,348,094 |
$30,367,412 |
$427,710 |
71.7% |
Selection outcomes by Administering Organisation
Table 3 shows the 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 3: Numbers of proposals, success rates, ARC funding and Collaborating Organisations* contributions for LIEF 2010 proposals by Administering Organisation
Administering Organisation |
Proposals considered |
Proposals approved |
Success rate |
ARC funding (approved proposals) |
Collaborating Organisation* contributions (approved proposals, cash & in-kind) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Institute of Nuclear Science & Engineering | 1 | 1 | 100% | $420,000 | $495,000 |
| Charles Sturt University | 2 | 0 | 0% | $0 | $0 |
| Curtin University of Technology | 6 | 1 | 16.6% | $300,000 | $460,000 |
| Deakin University | 1 | 1 | 100% | $1,000,000 | $1,055,000 |
| Edith Cowan University | 1 | 0 | 0% | $0 | $0 |
| James Cook University | 4 | 0 | 0% | $0 | $0 |
| La Trobe University | 2 | 0 | 0% | $0 | $0 |
| Macquarie University | 5 | 4 | 80.0% | $1,470,000 | $1,906,150 |
| Monash University | 12 | 5 | 42.0% | $1,565,000 | $1,683,663 |
| Murdoch University | 2 | 0 | 0% | $0 | $0 |
| Queensland University of Technology | 6 | 1 | 17.0% | $800,000 | $856,000 |
| RMIT University | 1 | 0 | 0% | $0 | $0 |
| Southern Cross University | 3 | 1 | 33.0% | $170,000 | $332,698 |
| Swinburne University | 5 | 1 | 20.0% | $350,000 | $527,181 |
| The Australian National University | 14 | 8 | 57.0% | $3,565,000 | $5,352,908 |
| The Flinders University of South Australia | 2 | 1 | 50.0% | $650,000 | $847,291 |
| The University of Adelaide | 8 | 3 | 38.0% | $1,320,000 | $1,345,775 |
| The University of Melbourne | 14 | 4 | 29.0% | $1,170,000 | $1,872,418 |
| The University of New South Wales | 21 | 12 | 57.0% | $4,164,410 | $6,551,616 |
| The University of Newcastle | 5 | 3 | 60.0% | $1,345,000 | $1,680,000 |
| The University of Queensland | 11 | 4 | 36.0% | $1,664,000 | $4,165,550 |
| The University of Sydney | 18 | 9 | 50.0% | $5,340,000 | $8,127,152 |
| The University Western Australia | 10 | 5 | 50.0% | $2,110,000 | $6,453,350 |
| University of South Australia | 5 | 1 | 20.0% | $500,000 | $1,315,000 |
| University of Tasmania | 3 | 2 | 67.0% | $600,000 | $547,482 |
| University of Technology, Sydney | 2 | 1 | 50.0% | $164,002 | $291,000 |
| University of Western Sydney | 2 | 1 | 50.0% | $650,000 | $848,722 |
| University of Wollongong | 4 | 2 | 50.0% | $1,050,000 | $1,927,937 |
| Total all Administering Organisations | 170 | 71 | 41.8% | $30,367,412 | $48,641,893 |
* Collaborating Organisations include the Administration Organisation, other Eligible Organisations and Partner Organisations
Selection outcomes by FOR and SEO categories
A summary of the Field of Research (FOR) and Socio-Economic Objectives (SEO) categories identified on approved proposals is shown below in Table 4 and 5.
Table 4: Proposal data by FOR category for LIEF proposals 2010
Field of Research category |
Number of proposals approved † |
Total funding from all sources* |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and veterinary sciences | 1 | $1,260,000 |
| Biological Sciences | 10 | $11,399,034 |
| Chemical Sciences | 16 | $15,230,738 |
| Earth Sciences | 7 | $5,419,938 |
| Engineering | 12 | $13,661,407 |
| Environmental Sciences | 3 | $5,507,977 |
| History and Archaeology | 2 | $1,121,185 |
| Information and Computing Sciences | 2 | $5,027,119 |
| Language, Communication and Culture | 1 | $455,002 |
| Medical and Health Sciences | 2 | $2,451,520 |
| Physical Sciences | 7 | $6,567,593 |
| Psychology and Cognitive Sciences | 1 | $1,133,000 |
| Studies in Creative Arts and Writing | 2 | $2,322,630 |
| Technology | 5 | $7,452,162 |
| Grand Total | 71 | $79,009,305 |
† Based on the primary 2 digit FOR code selected on each proposal
* Funding from all sources includes ARC approved funding as well as Administering Organisation, Eligible Organisation/s, and Partner Organisation/s cash and in-kind contributions.
Table 5: Proposal data by SEO category for LIEF proposals 2010
Socio-Economic Outcome category |
Numbers of proposals approved † |
Total funding from all sources* |
|---|---|---|
| Animal Production and Animal Primary Products | 2 | $887,977 |
| Construction | 1 | $492,975 |
| Defence | 1 | $906,350 |
| Education and Training | 1 | $384,000 |
| Energy Resources | 1 | $760,000 |
| Energy Supply | 5 | $3,586,321 |
| Environmental Management | 6 | $7,359,198 |
| Health | 4 | $4,296,183 |
| Information and Communication Services | 4 | $1,904,187 |
| Manufacturing | 10 | $13,343,804 |
| Mineral Resources (Excl. Energy) | 4 | $4,050,700 |
| Non-Oriented Research | 27 | $32,537,196 |
| Plant Production and Plant Primary Products | 2 | $2,649,387 |
| Social Development and Community Services | 3 | $5,851,027 |
| Grand Total | 71 | $79,009,305 |
† Based on the primary 2 digit SEO code selected on each proposal
* Funding from all sources includes ARC approved funding as well as Administering Organisation, Eligible Organisation/s, and Partner Organisation/s cash and in-kind contributions.
Single-organisation proposals
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).
In the 2010 funding round, a total of 32 LIEF proposals were submitted as single-organisation proposals. Of these proposals, six were approved for funding, corresponding to a success rate of 8.5 per cent for single-organisation proposals as a proportion of the total number of approved proposals.
Table 6 shows comparative statistics for single and multiple organisation proposals under the LIEF scheme for the funding period 2003 to 2010.
Table 6: Number of approved single-organisation proposals for the LIEF scheme for funding commencing in calendar years 2003 to 2010
Year |
Proposals considered |
Total number of single organisation proposals considered |
Single-organisation proposals as a proportion of total proposals |
Total number of approved proposals |
Approved single-organisation proposals as a proportion of total approved proposals |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 170 | 32 | 18.8% | 71 | 8.5% |
| 2009 | 169 | 34 | 20.1% | 73 | 13.7% |
| 2008 | 155 | 28 | 18.1% | 67 | 5.2% |
| 2007 | 165 | 32 | 19.4% | 73 | 9.6% |
| 2006 | 168 | 32 | 19.0% | 83 | 6.0% |
| 2005 | 159 | 21 | 13.2% | 78 | 7.1% |
| 2004 | 146 | 17 | 11.6% | 67 | 8.0% |
| 2003 | 121 | 20 | 16.5% | 67 | 10.4% |
Leverage of ARC funding
The ARC considered 170 proposals seeking a total of $89,640,606 of ARC funding. These proposals were linked to 142 instances of Collaborating Organisation* involvement, with total (cash and in-kind) pledged contributions of $122,848,520.
For the 71 approved proposals, the ARC allocation over the life of these projects is $30,367,412. There are a total of 71 Collaborating Organisations involved with these projects and they have pledged a total (cash and in-kind) of $48,641,893. This represents $1.60 from Collaborating Organisations for every dollar funded by the ARC.
Table 7: Leverage of ARC funds for approved LIEFproposals for 2010
Funding year |
Total ARC funding |
Total Collaborating Organisation contribution (cash & in-kind) |
Leverage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | $30,367,412 | $48,641,893 | 1.60 |
* Collaborating Organisations on a project include the Administration Organisation, other Eligible Organisations and/or Partner Organisations.
National Research Priorities
The Australian Government has identified four National Research Priorities, and within each of these, 21 national research priority goals.
All 170 proposals considered in this round identified a National Research Priority. The distribution of approved LIEF proposals by National Research Priority is given in Table 8 below.
Table 8: Numbers of proposals and success rates for LIEF proposals by National Research Priority
Priority Area |
Proposals considered |
Proposals approved |
Success rate |
ARC funding (approved proposals) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| An Environmentally Sustainable Australia | 35 | 16 | 45.7% | $4,985,000 |
| Promoting and Maintaining Good Health | 25 | 8 | 32.0% | $3,870,000 |
| Frontier Technologies for Building and Transforming Australian Industries | 104 | 45 | 43.3% | $20,732,412 |
| Safeguarding Australia | 6 | 2 | 33.3% | $780,000 |
| None selected | 0 | 0 | 0% | $0 |
| Total proposals | 170 | 71 | 41.8% | $30,367,412 |
Collaboration
A total of 38 Eligible Organisations and 104 Partner Organisations were involved in LIEF proposals considered for funding commencing in 2010.
In Table 9 the number of proposals which were considered and which were approved are categorised by the number of contributing organisations participating in the proposed projects. Success rates are also provided.
Table 9: Number of considered and approved LIEF proposals for funding commencing in 2010 by number of contributing organisations
Number of contributing organisations involved |
Number of proposals considered |
Number of proposals approved |
Success rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 17 | 4 | 23.5% |
| 2 | 31 | 12 | 38.7% |
| 3 | 39 | 14 | 35.9% |
| 4 | 24 | 10 | 41.7% |
| 5 | 25 | 12 | 48.0% |
| 6 | 14 | 8 | 57.0% |
| 7 | 6 | 3 | 50.0% |
| 8 | 4 | 1 | 25.0% |
| 9 | 3 | 2 | 66.7% |
| 10 | 2 | 1 | 50.0% |
| 12 | 1 | 0 | 0% |
| 13 | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| 18 | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| 23 | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| Total | 170 | 71 | 41.8% |
Involvement of Eligible Organisations on proposals
Table 10 lists Eligible Organisations and the total cash contributions pledged by each on all the proposals which were considered as well as on those proposals which were approved for funding commencing in 2010.
Table 10: Involvement of Eligible Organisations
Eligible Organisations participating in proposals |
Number of proposals in which named Organisation is involved |
Total cash contributions pledged by Eligible Organisation to proposals |
Number of approved proposals in which named Organisation is involved |
Total cash to be contributed by Eligible Organisation in approved proposals |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Institute of Nuclear Science & Engineering | 1 | $20,000 | 1 | $20,000 |
| Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education | 1 | $0 | 1 | $0 |
| Central Queensland University | 2 | $60,000 | 0 | $0 |
| Charles Darwin University | 1 | $20,000 | 1 | $20,000 |
| Charles Sturt University | 2 | $372,000 | 0 | $0 |
| Curtin University of Technology | 20 | $1,510,000 | 9 | $460,000 |
| Deakin University | 11 | $1,006,000 | 6 | $806,000 |
| Edith Cowan University | 10 | $373,000 | 4 | $66,000 |
| Griffith University | 8 | $330,000 | 3 | $170,000 |
| James Cook University | 9 | $486,000 | 3 | $110,000 |
| La Trobe University | 12 | $806,500 | 6 | $396,000 |
| Macquarie University | 24 | $2,003,141 | 15 | $1,483,141 |
| Monash University | 39 | $6,235,500 | 20 | $2,041,500 |
| Murdoch University | 7 | $576,000 | 3 | $51,000 |
| Queensland University of Technology | 15 | $1,788,000 | 4 | $476,000 |
| RMIT University | 12 | $576,000 | 5 | $304,000 |
| Southern Cross University | 6 | $850,000 | 2 | $130,000 |
| Swinburne University of Technology | 16 | $1,490,188 | 7 | $338,000 |
| The Australian Museum | 1 | $0 | 0 | $0 |
| The Australian National University | 34 | $4,636,164 | 20 | $3,291,535 |
| The Flinders University of South Australia | 15 | $850,147 | 7 | $460,147 |
| The University of Adelaide | 21 | $1,517,750 | 10 | $886,500 |
| The University of Melbourne | 29 | $3,801,750 | 10 | $897,500 |
| The University of New England | 3 | $46,000 | 3 | $46,000 |
| The University of New South Wales | 56 | $5,265,737 | 34 | $3,704,998 |
| The University of Newcastle | 18 | $1,797,592 | 13 | $1,032,592 |
| The University of Queensland | 30 | $4,094,433 | 17 | $1,406,433 |
| The University of Sydney | 50 | $6,176,912 | 26 | $4,150,866 |
| The University of Western Australia | 30 | $2,408,444 | 15 | $1,501,000 |
| University of Ballarat | 4 | $76,000 | 2 | $36,000 |
| University of Canberra | 2 | $52,000 | 2 | $52,000 |
| University of South Australia | 13 | $1,052,000 | 5 | $345,000 |
| University of Southern Queensland | 3 | $70,000 | 1 | $10,000 |
| University of Tasmania | 9 | $588,000 | 8 | $501,000 |
| University of Technology, Sydney | 13 | $477,875 | 8 | $172,875 |
| University of Western Sydney | 19 | $828,000 | 10 | $391,000 |
| University of Wollongong | 18 | $1,954,375 | 13 | $1,499,375 |
| Victoria University | 5 | $75,000 | 1 | $20,000 |
| Total | 569 | $54,270,508 | 295 | $27,276,462 |
Selection outcomes by state or territory
Table 11 shows the number of proposals which were considered and which were approved as well as the total approved ARC funding by the state or territory of the Administering Organisation.
Table 11: Number of LIEF proposals and approved ARC funding commencing in 2010 by State/Territory of the Administering Organisation
State/ Territory |
Proposals considered |
Proposals approved |
Success rate |
Approved ARC funding |
Percentage of total approved funding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACT | 14 | 8 | 57.1% | $3,565,000 | 11.7% |
| NSW | 63 | 34 | 54.0% | $14,773,412 | 48.6% |
| NT | 0 | 0 | 0% | $0 | 0% |
| QLD | 21 | 5 | 23.8% | $2,464,000 | 8.1% |
| SA | 15 | 5 | 33.3% | $2,470,000 | 8.1% |
| TAS | 3 | 2 | 66.7% | $600,000 | 2.0% |
| VIC | 35 | 11 | 31.4% | $4,085,000 | 13.5% |
| WA | 19 | 6 | 31.6% | $2,410,000 | 7.9% |
| Total | 170 | 71 | 41.8% | $30,367,412 | 100% |
Summary of outcomes
Table 12: Comparison of LIEF proposal numbers, success rates, requested and approved funding for successful proposals from 2004 to 2010
Funding year |
Proposals considered |
Proposals approved |
Success rate |
Requested funds (all proposals) |
Requested funds (in approved proposals) |
Approved ARC funding |
Allocation as a percentage of requested funding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 170 | 71 | 41.8% | $89,640,606 | $42,348,094 | $30,367,412 | 71.7% |
| 2009 | 169 | 73 | 43.2% | $224,544,891 | $44,520,262 | $31,681,456 | 71.2% |
| 2008 | 155 | 74 | 47.7% | $84,173,547 | $50,826,550 | $34,940,000 | 68.7% |
| 2007 | 165 | 73 | 44.2% | $66,085,641 | $40,637,342 | $27,647,917 | 68.0% |
| 2006 | 168 | 83 | 49.4% | $79,689,949 | $45,130,007 | $37,314,577 | 82.7% |
| 2005 | 159 | 78 | 49.1% | $81,272,351 | $36,597,196 | $30,400,105 | 83.1% |
| 2004 | 146 | 75 | 51.4% | $68,924,780 | $38,413,671 | $28,190,991 | 73.4% |
02/12/09
