Selection Report: Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities 2016
[TOC]
Overview
The Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities (LIEF) scheme provides funding for research infrastructure, equipment and facilities to eligible organisations to support research. The scheme enables higher education researchers to participate in cooperative initiatives so that expensive infrastructure, equipment and facilities can be shared between higher education organisations and also with industry.
The objectives of the Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities (LIEF) scheme are to:
- encourage Eligible Organisations to develop collaborative arrangements with other Eligible Organisations, higher education institutions and/or their Partner Organisations to develop and support research infrastructure
- support large-scale national or international cooperative initiatives thereby allowing expensive research infrastructure to be shared and/or accessed
- support areas of existing and/or emerging research strength
- support and develop research infrastructure for the broader research community.
Selection process
Proposals for projects commencing in 2016 opened on 19 February 2015, and closed on 9 April 2015. Proposals were submitted through the Australian Research Council (ARC) Research Management System (RMS).
The ARC Executive Director responsible for the LIEF scheme, assisted by ARC staff, prepared funding recommendations for submission to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The recommendations were based on advice from the ARC College of Experts which:
- assessed proposals and reviewed assessments made by independent assessors
- reviewed applicants’ comments on assessor reports
- ranked each proposal relative to the others on the basis of the proposal, the assessors’ reports and applicants’ responses to those assessments
- assessed and recommended budgets
and, advice from the ARC Eligibility Committee which:
- considered eligibility issues identified by ARC staff, the ARC College of Experts or independent assessors
- where required, sought advice from institutions with respect to issues raised
- made recommendations to the CEO in respect of ineligible proposals.
This report reflects the recommendations of the ARC CEO to the Minister.
Selection criteria
Selection criteria and corresponding weights for LIEF proposals are:
- Significance of research to be supported with the proposed research infrastructure (20%)
- Need and use of the proposed research infrastructure (30%)
- Nature of the alliance and commitment between the organisations named on the Proposal (30%)
- Investigator(s) (20%)
The ARC assessment and subsequent reporting process for Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities 2016 was managed in the Research Management System (RMS), and used a total of 15 ARC College of Experts members. A total of 538 independent assessor reports were submitted to the ARC for Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities 2016.
Funding duration
Funding for LIEF proposals may be awarded for one year, or, for coordinated access to major national and/or international research facilities or consortia, for up to five years.
Summary of outcomes
The ARC received a total of 173 proposals for Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities for funding commencing in 2016. The overall success rate is 31.2 per cent.
Table 1. Comparison of LIEF proposal numbers, success rates, requested and allocated funding for successful proposals from 2012 to 2016
|
Funding year |
Proposals considered |
Proposals approved |
Success rate |
Requested funds over project life (all proposals) |
Requested funds over project life (approved proposals) |
Funds allocated over project life |
Allocation as a percentage of requested funding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2012 |
170 |
77 |
45.3% |
$94,683,874 |
$48,171,800 |
$28,300,078 |
58.7% |
|
2013 |
169 |
72 |
42.6% |
$85,779,200 |
$39,774,254 |
$29,025,000 |
73.0% |
|
2014 |
148 |
63 |
42.6% |
$90,957,567 |
$48,608,428 |
$31,982,047 |
65.8% |
|
2015 |
159 |
66 |
41.5% |
$88,629,571 |
$37,518,648 |
$28,995,463 |
77.3% |
|
2016 |
173 |
54 |
31.2% |
$120,582,334 |
$48,358,773 |
$37,973,900 |
78.5% |
Selection outcomes by Administering Organisation
Table 2. Numbers of proposals, success rates, ARC approved funding and Collaborating Organisations’* contributions, by Administering Organisation
|
Administering Organisation |
Proposals considered |
Proposals approved |
Success rate |
ARC funding (for approved proposals) |
Collaborating Organisations’* contributions (cash & in-kind for funded proposals) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Australian Capital Territory |
10 |
2 |
20.0% |
$13,000,000 |
$10,634,200 |
|
The Australian National University |
9 |
2 |
22.2% |
$13,000,000 |
$10,634,200 |
|
University of Canberra |
1 |
0 |
0% |
- |
- |
|
New South Wales |
57 |
19 |
33.3% |
$9,110,000 |
$14,919,104 |
|
Macquarie University |
6 |
2 |
33.3% |
$1,195,000 |
$2,901,787 |
|
Southern Cross University |
3 |
0 |
0% |
- |
- |
|
The University of New England |
1 |
0 |
0% |
- |
- |
|
The University of New South Wales |
18 |
9 |
50.0% |
$4,245,000 |
$7,117,436 |
|
The University of Newcastle |
5 |
1 |
20.0% |
$155,000 |
# |
|
The University of Sydney |
16 |
5 |
31.3% |
$2,180,000 |
$2,813,692 |
|
University of Technology, Sydney |
3 |
0 |
0% |
- |
- |
|
University of Western Sydney |
2 |
0 |
0% |
- |
- |
|
University of Wollongong |
3 |
2 |
66.7% |
$1,335,000 |
$1,833,756 |
|
Queensland |
27 |
3 |
11.1% |
$2,290,000 |
$4,086,094 |
|
Griffith University |
4 |
0 |
0% |
- |
- |
|
James Cook University |
2 |
0 |
0% |
- |
- |
|
Queensland University of Technology |
5 |
0 |
0% |
- |
- |
|
The University of Queensland |
16 |
3 |
18.8% |
$2,290,000 |
$4,086,094 |
|
South Australia |
18 |
6 |
33.3% |
$2,160,000 |
$4,340,369 |
|
The Flinders University of South Australia |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
$500,000 |
# |
|
The University of Adelaide |
15 |
4 |
26.7% |
$1,290,000 |
$3,026,198 |
|
University of South Australia |
2 |
1 |
50.0% |
$370,000 |
# |
|
Tasmania |
3 |
1 |
33.3% |
$600,000 |
# |
|
University of Tasmania |
3 |
1 |
33.3% |
$600,000 |
# |
|
Victoria |
45 |
17 |
37.8% |
$7,203,900 |
$12,288,547 |
|
Deakin University |
6 |
1 |
16.7% |
$367,900 |
# |
|
La Trobe University |
1 |
0 |
0% |
- |
- |
|
Monash University |
15 |
6 |
40.0% |
$2,460,000 |
$4,860,367 |
|
RMIT University |
4 |
2 |
50.0% |
$641,500 |
$772,581 |
|
Swinburne University of Technology |
2 |
1 |
50.0% |
$367,000 |
# |
|
The University of Melbourne |
15 |
7 |
46.7% |
$3,367,500 |
$5,463,560 |
|
Victoria University |
2 |
0 |
0% |
- |
- |
|
Western Australia |
13 |
6 |
46.2% |
$3,610,000 |
$6,227,140 |
|
Curtin University of Technology |
4 |
2 |
50.0% |
$1,320,000 |
$2,314,914 |
|
The University of Western Australia |
9 |
4 |
44.4% |
$2,290,000 |
$3,912,226 |
|
Total |
173 |
54 |
31.2 |
$37,973,900 |
$53,288,483 |
* Collaborating Organisations include the Administering Organisation, Other Eligible Organisations, Partner Organisations and Other Organisations.
# For confidentiality reasons, total contributions by Collaborating Organisations are not shown in instances in which Administering Organisations are associated with one approved proposal only. The total does, however, include the total contributions by Collaborating Organisations on approved Projects associated with those Administering Organisations.
Selection outcomes by Field of Research (FoR)
Table 3. Proposal data by FoR category
|
Field of Research category |
Proposals approved* |
Total funding from all sources# |
|---|---|---|
|
Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences |
1 |
^ |
|
Biological Sciences |
9 |
$13,015,258 |
|
Built Environment and Design |
1 |
^ |
|
Chemical Sciences |
5 |
$8,029,824 |
|
Earth Sciences |
7 |
$32,721,633 |
|
Engineering |
11 |
$13,092,686 |
|
Environmental Sciences |
1 |
^ |
|
Information and Computing Sciences |
1 |
^ |
|
Physical Sciences |
12 |
$15,482,705 |
|
Studies in Human Society |
2 |
$1,284,258 |
|
Technology |
4 |
$3,330,893 |
|
Total |
54 |
$91,262,383 |
* Based on the primary FoR.
# Funding from all sources includes ARC approved funding as well as cash and in-kind contributions from the Administering Organisation, Other Eligible Organisations, Partner Organisations and Other Organisations.
^ For confidentiality reasons, total contributions by Collaborating Organisations are not shown in instances in which Administering Organisations are associated with one approved proposal only. The total does, however, include the total contributions by Collaborating Organisations on approved Projects associated with those Administering Organisations.
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). Proposals normally are expected to involve two or more Eligible Organisations unless they can demonstrate that collaborative use of the proposed research infrastructure by other Eligible Organisations would not be practicable.
Table 4: Approved single-organisation proposals for calendar years 2012 to 2016
|
Year |
Total Proposals considered |
Total Proposals approved |
Total number of single organisation proposals considered |
Total number of single organisation proposals approved |
Single-organisation proposals as a proportion of total proposals |
Single-organisation proposals approved as a proportion of total approved proposals |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2012 |
170 |
77 |
19 |
6 |
11.2% |
7.8% |
|
2013 |
169 |
72 |
14 |
4 |
8.3% |
5.6% |
|
2014 |
148 |
63 |
17 |
6 |
11.5% |
9.5% |
|
2015 |
159 |
66 |
17 |
5 |
10.7% |
7.6% |
|
2016 |
173 |
54 |
14 |
1 |
8.1% |
1.9% |
Leverage of ARC funding
Table 5. Leverage of ARC funds for approved proposals
|
Proposals approved |
Approved ARC funding |
Number of Collaborating Organisations* |
Incidence of involvement of Collaborating Organisations* |
Collaborating Organisation* contribution - Cash |
Collaborating Organisation* contribution - In-kind |
Leverage# |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
54 |
$37,973,900 |
72 |
292 |
$32,915,547 |
$20,372,936 |
$1.40 |
*Collaborating Organisations include the Administration Organisation, Other Eligible Organisations, Partner Organisations and Other Organisations.
#This represents $1.40 from Collaborating Organisations for every dollar funded by the ARC.
Strategic Research Priorities
Table 6. Numbers of proposals and success rates by Strategic Research Priority
|
Strategic Research Priority |
Proposals considered |
Proposals approved |
Success rate |
ARC funding (approved proposals) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Lifting productivity and economic growth |
100 |
33 |
33.0% |
$15,819,400 |
|
Living in a changing environment |
28 |
10 |
35.7% |
$15,944,500 |
|
Managing our food and water assets |
11 |
2 |
18.2% |
$1,450,000 |
|
Promoting population health and wellbeing |
13 |
4 |
30.8% |
$1,720,000 |
|
Securing Australia's place in a changing world |
7 |
2 |
28.6% |
$900,000 |
|
None selected |
14 |
3 |
21.4% |
$2,140,000 |
|
Total |
173 |
54 |
31.2% |
$37,973,900 |
Collaboration
Table 7. Number of considered and approved proposals by number of Collaborating Organisations
|
Number of Collaborating Organisations* |
Proposals considered |
Proposals approved |
Success rate |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
8 |
0 |
0% |
|
2 |
21 |
6 |
28.6% |
|
3 |
41 |
10 |
24.4% |
|
4 |
28 |
6 |
21.4% |
|
5 |
27 |
12 |
44.4% |
|
6 |
15 |
5 |
33.3% |
|
7 |
13 |
6 |
46.2% |
|
8 |
5 |
1 |
20.0% |
|
9 |
2 |
1 |
50.0% |
|
10 |
6 |
4 |
66.7% |
|
11 |
4 |
2 |
50.0% |
|
12 |
1 |
0 |
0% |
|
13 |
1 |
0 |
0% |
|
15 |
1 |
1 |
100% |
|
Total |
173 |
54 |
31.2% |
*Collaborating Organisations include the Administration Organisation, Other Eligible Organisations, Partner Organisations and Other Organisations.