Not for further consideration, or NFFC, is a bit of an NHMRC special. It says thanks for putting in all that hard work, but your application has been judged in the bottom 50% of everything we received. This outcome sucks. After all the hard work in getting the application written and submitted, you get a slap in the face. Of greatest annoyance is that it is also a result that provides you with no feedback. You have no idea where you went wrong.

So, what now? Wine, chocolate, a long walk with the dog, whatever works; you need to regroup and come up with plan B. Having spent quite some time dealing with the fallout generated from NFFCs, I am providing a few suggestions to kick start the process of dealing with this outcome, and some potential ways to use it to your advantage.

Back to basics

In the granting game of snakes and ladders, this is a back to home base moment. A grant is a way of resourcing your research. However, although it is the main way to drive your research agenda, it is not the only way. Can you resource your research through other means? Through collaboration with an academic buddy or an industry partner as contract research?

Could a version be re-directed to a different NHMRC scheme, the ARC or even some smaller agency?

Has the work got a succession of NFFCs? You may then have the goods for an NHMRC Project Grant. I have reviewed far too many applications submitted with little chance of being funded as an NHMRC project grant. Be wary of the “sunk-cost” trap; there is an opportunity cost in repeatedly whipping a dead-horse. Just resubmitting an application that has little chance of getting funded will cost you in terms of opportunity*. Don’t blame the Assessors for “not getting it”. You wrote it, so it’s down to you. Something has to change – not just the date at the top of the page.

Or, can the work be presented as an ARC application or can a portion of it be used to target philanthropic support? Could it work better as an ARC Linkage or NHMRC Partnerships grant? These schemes currently have better rates of success.

Are you conflating your entire research program with the funding application? The granting space is extraordinarily competitive at the moment and if your grant just got hammered by the NHMRC it is worth considering reshaping it to target another funding body. These small pots of money can help maintain some momentum for the research and keep you in the game.

Look hard at how your team is tracking

Were you on track to score a category 6 for Track Record (TR)? If not, you have a major problem that must be addressed. Firstly, are you as good as you think you are? It’s time for a bit of self-reflection. Look at your Assessors’ comments and try to map to NHMRC category descriptors. Now subtract one. We tend to be overly optimistic about how good we are and lowering our self-estimation by one is more grounded, with respect to GRP outcomes. See if you can get external input - someone with recent GRP experience or success would be valuable. The point is TRs tend to be very metrics based and can be changed with addition/subtraction of team members and, of course, publications.

Next year NHMRC will allow CIs to submit a maximum of two Project Grant applications. The two application cap will have a major impact on establishing highly competitive teams. Those able to lock a competitive team in place early will have a distinct advantage.

Can you join forces with someone else?

This may cost you the CI-A spot, but if you want the money you may have to remind your Research Office that 50% of something is better than three fifths of &*#k-all. Money has a habit of changing people’s behaviour and a pre-award agreement means that you have something to fall back on; indeed it call be useful for deflecting friction (“… my RO is insisting that … ”).

So while the NFFC outcome is disappointing, it is a wakeup call and you have some time before the next funding rounds. Some feedback would be nice, but at least there is time to do something. Rejigging your thinking about your research program, your team, and your strategy for funded your research program are good starting places.

*There is some folk law about a previous year’s applications being dusted off and submitted, and getting funded. Given the current funding success rates this approach seems to be barking mad. Moreover, when I have dug into these situations there is much the folk law does not say. The application was the same - aside from the changes to the team, some more preliminary data, and an altered focus.

[If you need help strategising out of the NFFC pile – give us a call to talk about some support.]

In early June, I joined a group of intrepid antipodeans on the long haul to Old Blighty, to find out what impact, and impact measurement means to the UK’s research sector. The driver for this trip comes from the increasing push in Australia to place research impact front and centre. This is impact beyond the traditional bibliometric academic focus and measures, to designing and conducting research which makes a demonstrable contribution to the economy, society, culture, national security, public policy or services, health, the environment, or quality of life. The clanging arrival of the impact agenda has been increasing in volume for some time (like a red-wine hangover dully thudding in the corner of one’s Sunday morning head, some might say). And the introduction by the Federal Government this year of the Engagement and Impact (E&I) Assessment pilot, with the joy of the ‘full blown affair’ scheduled to run alongside the Excellence in Research Australia exercise next year, has pushed poor old impact fairly and squarely into the spotlight.

In the UK, Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise, which last ran in 2014, included the requirement for impact case studies to be submitted across all fields of research. They were rated between one and four stars (four being quality that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour). Impact case studies are meant to prove or illustrate the achievement of impact and importantly, the weighting for the impact assessment part of the REF was 20% of the total assessment – influencing the allocation of around £1.6 billion worth of public funding over the following five years.

In Australia, we are dipping our toes in the water with the E&I Assessment, and the results of the 2018 exercise will not be related to funding allocation…yet…(watch this space, I predict). So, was there any value garnered from our visits to the eight or so UK instiutions we visited? In a word, yes. Two more words; in spades.

Here are the top five lessons from the trip:

Public engagement in the UK, as part of the impact agenda, is more important than in Australia. Some of this appears to be driven from the public’s fatigue of ‘experts’ and the divide between the public and universities. There is a perception battle being waged against public perception of higher education institutions as irrelevant, out of touch, unaccountable and a waste of tax-payer money. They are also considered to be secretive, untrustworthy, elitist and reinforcing inequality. Of course, the Brexit mess hasn’t helped. Our engagement challenge if you will, is more with industry and government than with the public.Leading on from point four is the fact that industry, government, civil society and the research sector have a much more symbiotic relationship than here in Australia. Rather than the mystery and at times master/servant relationship which exists here; in the UK there seems to be a history of mutual trust and value (okay, maybe I’m stretching it a bit) – but honestly the relationships appear deeper than just the next widget and the next election cycle. Our lesson is to stop talking about the need to engage and teach researchers, government, industry and civil society how to engage. We get the theory – now can we practice, practice, practice, please.

The wrap up

This might all sound as though I’ve returned from the study tour starry-eyed about the UK and secretly investigating how I can emigrate (impossible as it turns out), but there’s an up-side for us with the UK being further down the road than we are. We get to learn all the lessons from the UK and hopefully not step in the same mess it has in terms of REF-driven activity being at odds with genuine impact-driven research; and we get to use some of their excellent ideas to smooth the path ahead.In summary, we need an impact culture to be embedded into the DNA of our research institutions top down and bottom up; we need to be able to define and value impact in all its guises – this means hard conversations on a regular basis; we need to invest in supporting researchers to achieve impact (not just do research), and I mean seriously invest; and we must stop talking about engagement and truly be engaged – this can only be achieved though capability-building and resourcing.Australia has some of the best researchers and the best research in the world. This is a true fact (as my nine-year old would say). Let’s make sure they have every possible chance of achieving impact through support, leadership, capacity-building and engagement – doing the research is the easy part (!) – getting it out there and used is the challenge.

* Thanks to ARMA UK, University of Sheffield, University of Nottingham, Loughborough University, Cambridge University, Cranfield University, Kings College London – The Policy Institute, The London School of Economics and the National Centre for Universities and Business; for their time, candour and insights.

Recently my seven year old said “Mummy, today we learnt about how bad the green ones are and how the firefighter gets those ones. Then if the blue ones get in you have to get the policeman to do the rescuing”. I was flummoxed. What on earth was she talking about? The nine year old piped up. “It was in the health education class Mummy – we were talking about germs and the different ways to fight them in your body”.

“Oh I see!” I exclaimed, relieved it wasn’t another modern education term, like ‘place value’ sent to confuse me.

Describing a complex concept clearly is a bit like explaining a human being to an alien – in a letter. If you start with the fingernails and then describe the armpit, they’ll be confused from the beginning.

Start with a description of the whole body – a human is an animal approximately 1.5 metres tall and 0.5m wide.

Then move on to the details – start from the top and work your way down in a logical fashion. It has a head the size of a basketball (these are very sporty aliens) on the top, two arms halfway down and two legs at the bottom. It is generally hairless except for the head (you can get to the armpits later). And think about what the alien needs to know. The alien may not need to know that some humans are supertasters, whilst others couldn’t tell the difference between grass fed and grain fed beef (just for the record, I can’t tell the difference).

So imagine describing the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) to someone not in the know. Before you start writing ask yourself three questions:

Why am I writing this document?How much does the reader already know?How much does the reader need to know?

Reading complex business documents that are poorly planned and constructed can send the reader into paroxysms of confusion and frustration. It also makes it much harder for the reader to make the decision you need them to make or clearly understand the information you want them to understand.

So really, it comes down to good planning. Once you’ve answered those first three questions, plan your document carefully. Start with the whole body view and then logically describe the detail. Use a logical structure.

And unless you are penning the next Booker Prize novel, don’t just sit down and write without a good plan first. Why? Because it will take you longer to write and chances are your reader will be confused.

English lexicographer Samuel Johnson said, "A man who uses a great many words to express his meaning is like a bad marksman who, instead of aiming a single stone at an object, takes up a handful and throws in hopes he may hit."

So, plan to hit your mark, don’t just throw words on a page and hope for the best.

We’ve been fortunate enough recently to interview a number of Australian Research Council (ARC) College of Experts members on their top tips for grant writers. The information gathered has been woven into our Grant Writing Workshops, but we want to share one particular pearl of wisdom with you here.

Before we do, we need to highlight why the opinions of these people are so important to you. When you submit your proposal to the ARC for funding under the Discovery Scheme (for example), it is assigned to two ARC College of Experts. These people are responsible for:

directing your proposal to a few experts with similar research interests as your own for their expert opinion on the merit of your proposal, andcrafting the expert reviewers’ scores and your rejoinder into a final decision on whether you receive any money.

Hence, it’s important to please these people and ensure they’re on your side. So, what is the one thing they all say annoys them the most?

Jargon.

All of the ARC College of Expert members we’ve met are regular, albeit extremely intelligent, people and they all hate not being able to understand what the heck you’re on about. Since your aim is to convince these people that your particular piece of research is incredibly relevant and of immediate importance, it’s essential that you succinctly and coherently outline the problem, the current way the problem is (obviously unsuccessfully) being addressed and the new and novel way you are going to approach it. Sounds easy right?

What tends to happen more often than not is that researchers launch straight into a highly technical and illegible account of their pet subject (often peppered with dozens of acronyms and buzz words). They write their application for the expert reviewers who (usually) read their application, forgetting that non-experts actually have primary carriage of their proposal and need to dissect out the immediate political, economic, health or social impact the research will make. Don’t make it hard for them! Don’t forget just how expert you’ve become in your field and that 99% of other intelligent researchers are not nearly as well read on your subject (or, quite frankly, care as much). We’re not saying that all proposals written this way get funded either. Some very well-articulated proposals still fail and there is, no doubt, a lot of luck involved. But you will give yourself the best chance if you make sure an intelligent, non-expert in your field can easily understand why you are doing your piece of pet research and why it is going to change our lives.

Have you reviewed a lot of grants? If you have a “pet hate”, we’d love to hear about it below!

Now, more than ever, precious opportunities to secure revenue for your organisation through tendering are scarce and very competitive. Once you’ve discovered a request for tender (RFT) your organisation is perfect for you need to be 100% ready to win it. In order to ensure you’re in the best position to win any bid, you need to start preparing way before you pen a single word. Some of our recommendations for improved success are:

Build strong past-performance data

To date, we’ve not known any organisation to win a tender on the back of poor past performance. But they’ve tried. Regardless of how good you are at spin, your KPI data for the past 12 months needs to meet the minimum requirements outlined in the RFT you’re about to apply for. If you haven’t delivered the product or service on time or to the prescribed specifications for this client, it just isn’t worth bidding. In order to set yourself up for continued and sustainable business success, you need to meet or exceed KPIs set by your clients. This will not only provide you with an outstanding track record when you re-tender with this client again, but also provide you with a valuable reference site and testimonial for prospects.

Research your competitors

Don’t be shocked when you get to the tender box to submit your bid just before closing time to find it already full and overflowing. In most cases, you're going to be tendering against a variety of organisations every time. You can get a good idea of the identity of other contenders by attending the tender briefing, if offered. How can you differentiate your offer without knowing who you’re up against? Do you know how your pricing compares to the market average? How many of those other submissions are local companies best suited to service the client? Use your (legal) private investigator skills to find out as much as you can about potential competitors and ensure you can offer a better value proposition.

Get your house in order

Spending the last day before a tender is due trying to get a copy of your product liability insurance certificate of currency is not the best use of your time. Practically every request for tender will ask for base information about your company. If it’s ready and up to date, it’s one less thing to write when you’re time poor and trying to get your tender ready for submission. These items could include insurance, org charts, company history, staff photos and profiles, product descriptions and financial statements. Design and maintain a tender content library – it will save you time and sanity in the long run.

This is a small taste of the content presented in our half-day, public “Tender Readiness” workshop to be held in November 2014 (date TBA). To be informed of event details once confirmed, please email us at hello@thegrantedgroup.com.au with your expression of interest.

Someone said to me recently “Why don’t you work as a scientist anymore? Why don’t you do what you’re qualified to do?”. Good questions, both of them.

Do you remember deciding what you wanted to be when you grew up? I don’t (but, admittedly, I don’t remember much earlier than 2001; something to do with that debaucherous post-PhD year I spent living in a hostel in London). My recollection of my decision to “become a scientist” revolves vaguely around several influential people telling me I was “good at science” and some other (as it turns out, misinformed) influential people telling me that scientists make heaps of money. Since I grew up in the country, my only real desire was to do something which propelled me out of small town South Australia.

Without doing any due diligence of my own, I was encouraged to apply for a Bachelor of Biotechnology at Flinders University, at a time when it was the only degree of its kind in Australia and the course was only two years old. The Biotech Revolution!

Four years later, I was lucky enough to have churned out enough well-written essays and a thesis with sufficient scanty data, to pass with first class honours. From that point on, until I left science in 2009, I really had my scientific career laid out for me. Due to the collaborations I’d made during my honours year, I was offered a PhD at a lab in Melbourne. Wait, did you say Melbourne? Did you say adventure? Where do I sign up? Then (after the aforementioned “freedom year” in London), I sent an email to a great guy I’d met at an international conference once asking if I could come and work with him. Yes, really, just like that. “Well, it just so happens we’re hiring!” After three delightful post-doc years in the UK, I made my way back to Melbourne and found a job waiting for me back in the same lab in Melbourne.

Perfect, right? Lucky, right? Well actually, it turns out I didn’t ever really want to be a scientist. It turns out it was always just really easy to float along into the next “golden opportunity”. Oops.

Here is a small sample of my thoughts at the time: How could I have just “wasted” 17 years of my life on this career path? It’s too late to just change careers now, I’ll just have to make the best of it. My job could be so much worse, look at how noble this is! This actually pays quite well, what’s the problem?

The problem, actually, was that I had been concentrating for so long on making a living, that I had never stopped to consider making a life. Lucky for me, in this day and age career reinvention is pretty standard. Inspired by the success of my friend, mentor and now business partner Kirsten, I took the plunge and made a radical career change. Sure that involved a bit more study and hard work, but the reward today is seeing Universities, not-for-profits and commercial businesses win bids and advance their projects with our help. What more could anyone ask for?