Just how much time does it take to write a competitive MRFF grant application? Insights from a fellow applicant
- Dr Sharon Brennan-Olsen
- Oct 28
- 7 min read
It takes time to write a clearly articulated research grant application. But given the value placed by MRFF on co-designed projects, there’s plenty of work to be done before writing begins.
Effective collaboration with consumers, partners and other stakeholders requires relationships built on trust, mutual respect and a shared vision. Establishing effective and mutually beneficial relationships requires the investment of time and effort, sometimes spanning many months or even years. Only then can the co-designed processes begin.
But how much time is ‘enough’?
We asked a fellow applicant to MRFF opportunities about the foundations they laid for a competitive MRFF application.
We thank Assoc Prof Kate McBride, Western Sydney University, for donating time to be interviewed for her valuable insights.
The different stages that Assoc Prof McBride discussed have been conceptualised in our MRFF Process Pyramid (Figure 1). Notably, stages requiring the most time appear at the bottom of the process pyramid while progressively less time is required for stages that appear higher on the pyramid. The stages are also chronological. In other words, building relationships of trust with end-users will underpin co-designing: both of which inform the writing of your proposal.
Figure 1: GrantEd’s MRFF Process Pyramid that underpins competitiveness
It’s clear from Figure 1 that writing the proposal isn’t the first stage that should be attempted, nor is it what takes the most time: instead, the most time intensive activities are establishing relationships with end-users, and collaboratively discussing, planning and problem-solving the research idea and approach.
Let’s consider each stage on GrantEd’s MRFF Process Pyramid, in chronological order.
Building relationships of trust
MRFF places much weight on quality engagement with end-users of the research. MRFF’s guidance about the value of end-user engagement across the lifecycle of research projects was presented in our previous blog.
While the type and extent of end-user engagement must be appropriate to the specific proposal and cohort of end-users likely to benefit, MRFF nonetheless considers engagement paramount to successful research, even for discovery (basic) science.
Indeed, who better to guide the subsequent stages of co-conceptualisation and prioritisation than the very end-users who know the problems, what they urgently need, and/or who are embedded where change is to be made?
But developing effective engagement and fostering reciprocal relationships require time: for some end-users this could take many months or even years to build relationships of trust. For instance, researching with people with a disability, those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, First Nations Elders, or even commercial businesses or pharmaceutical industries, requires time to establish a shared vision and commitment to influence change.
For other end-users the collaborative relationships might be established over a shorter term, as long as the relationship is meaningful and reciprocal.
How long do you need to build relationships of trust?
This could take anywhere from a couple of months of solid, meaningful engagement to several years, depending on who the end-users are. Ideally, once relationships are formed, they should be maintained even when the research project is finished so that subsequent reciprocal research can continue.
Prioritising issues, co-conceptualising and co-designing
If you’re wondering how co-conceptualisation and co-design differ – you’re not alone.While terminology differs across disciplines, it can be helpful to think of co-conceptualisation as collaborative thinking and brainstorming about the utility of the solution – it’s about considering potential barriers and enablers and discussing how they will be addressed or leveraged.In contrast, co-design is about ensuring an effective approach to, and implementation of, the proposed solution – it’s about problem solving and detailing the ‘nuts and bolts’ of what will be done to who or what, when and how, and how the dissemination and evaluation strategies will be put into action. |
The second stage is where targeted discussions are held with end-users to identify issues of concern and to prioritise them, and to generate new ideas that address the needs, values, priorities and preferences of all end-users.
A thorough understanding of these factors enables collaborative thinking and brainstorming, which underpins the identification of potential solutions. So, while discussions may have been held individually with end-users during the previous stage, it is common to see all end-users come together during the co-conceptualisation and co-design activities.
This is also the stage where problem solving occurs, so that macro, meso and micro details of the project can be determined.
Roles and responsibilities of end-users in implementation, dissemination and evaluation should also be collaboratively determined during the co-design activities. Keep in mind, if your MRFF application focuses on a Priority Population, it is mandatory that they hold meaningful leadership roles.
How long do you need to prioritise the issues, and co-conceptualise and co-design the project?
With so much to plan and reach consensus on, rarely would one discussion with end-users suffice. The extent of time necessary depends on many factors, for instance: the type of project being proposed; the number and background of end-users; the extent of end-user engagement e.g. to problem solve implementation barriers; and whether a shared vision between all end-users is cemented or needs to be nurtured.
This stage could take anywhere between a few weeks to a few months, depending on the research and end-users. If you are proposing multisite research, securing agreements between the sites could add months to this stage.
NOTE: You should continually revisit the MRFF guidelines for your chosen grant opportunity and stream to ensure alignment -- particularly given a potential solution may morph many times during the co-designing before consensus is reached.
Writing
Investing in the previous stages will mean you have established why the research is needed, wanted and of value to end-users; identified priorities that form the research questions; understand the potential solution; have a robust, near flawless, highly detailed approach to deliver and implement the solution; and can clearly articulate the intended outcomes. Now there’s nothing stopping you putting this information into writing.
NOTE: Beginning to write before the research is completely co-designed might mean that major changes to address design flaws or embed the feedback of newly acquired end-users as partners will introduce inconsistencies or other problems, and your application may begin to resemble a patchwork blanket.
How long do you need to allow for writing?
The answer to this question depends on how long the quality of your grant wizardry and if you’re juggling multiple tasks or have uninterrupted writing time. If seasoned and uninterrupted, and relying on robust notes from previous stages, you could develop the first draft within a few days. However, those circumstances would be a rarity. More common, applicants invest weeks writing their application.
Peer review and revision
When it comes to seeking feedback from others about your fully drafted proposal, the concept is simple: the more, the better.
While CIs, AIs, and end-users should contribute their expertise to fine tuning the proposal, the value of feedback provided by trusted colleagues who are not from your immediate team shouldn’t be underestimated. Why?
They bring diverse viewpoints, which may represent the potential diversity of the Grant Assessment Committee (GAC) allocated to assess and score the competitiveness of your proposal.
If we look at the composition of the 44 Grant Assessment Committees (GACs) that assessed MRFF applications between 6 November 2022 and 5 November 2024 (presented in MRFF’s June 2025 report: Financial assistance to support the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities 2022-2024, pp 44-45), there was diversity across gender (55.3% were women, 04% non-binary and other identities: all genders were self-described), background, organisational affiliation, and expertise (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Diversity of individuals that were within the GACs, 6 Nov 2022 to 5 Nov 2024.
The word cloud (Figure 3) shows biostatistics, cardiovascular disease, health economics and epidemiology were the most common fields of expertise held by those in the GACs.
Figure 3: MRFF’s word cloud presenting the common fields of expertise characterising the GACs.
How long do you need to allow for peer review and revision?
Like you, your colleagues may have workloads, responsibilities and deadlines that are sometimes inflexible. If you gave them a few weeks’ notice of when to expect your proposal for their feedback, you could expect to receive their feedback within a couple of days. However, often a quick turnaround just isn’t possible for them.
Once you’ve received feedback from colleagues, each arriving at different times, there is the process of collating and considering which feedback is relevant to address, followed by another opportunity for the research team and end-users to read the revisions and make any further adjustments.
So, how long should you allow? You may need no less than 2-3 weeks for this stage. It could even be reasonably expected to take about a month if there are delays in receiving feedback and/or a lack of consensus among the research team and end-users about if, and how, to address your colleague’s feedback. Circulating revised versions for further comments is also necessary.
Polish
A rushed application is noticeable to assessors for all the wrong reasons:
a lack of clear articulation and/or inconsistencies across sections suggest a poorly planned project
missing details raise questions and introduce doubt about quality and feasibility
typographical errors, poor sentence structure, partial sentences and/or a mix of past, future and present tense suggest a lack of attention to detail.
How long do you need to polish your application?
In short, the more polish the better. Regardless of being a seasoned or new applicant, a better polish can be achieved if you’ve first managed to take some time away from looking at the application. Turning your attention to a different task for two or three days, if possible, means that you return to the application with ‘fresh eyes’ and have greater capacity to pick up any minor issues.
Including taking some time away from looking at the application, this process should take a day or two, but only if the peer review and revision stage has occurred (and possibly occurred multiple times).
Final word
Your challenge is to be ‘ready’ when relevant MRFF grant opportunities open, so there’s no time like now to ensure you have:
well-established relationships with end-users in place (this will avoid a frantic scramble to engage end-users before submission dates)
regularly engaged end-users in casual and targeted conversations over an extended time (this means you’re already aware of their values and concerns even before the MRFF grant opportunity is opened)
workshopped problems with the end-users to prioritise their issues and determine potential solutions acceptable to their needs (this will see you poised to begin co-designing and then writing).
Comments