Difference: CercNotes ( vs. 1)

NOTES

-last of the CERC info meetings
-vehicle to make investments in important areas
-branding Canada, i.e., via external reviewers
-new cochair, Shirley ??, US univ pres, Cdn?
-(bias? recruiting from outside Cda?)
-phase 1:  nothing to do with nominee; mainly instituional
-program not designed to cover things well covered by other programs, e.g., CFI
  -inf
-$30M/CERC avg per CERC  (including in-kind)
  2 under $10M, 
-10 prov / 10 univ / 10 CERC:  water security, global institute
-media friendly chair, e.g., Adrien Owen, vegetative patient awareness
-stats last time
 - ICT: 19/135 -> 7/36 for phase two -> 4/19 reviewed
  -24 chair offers, 19 accepts
-there were 40 nominations, 20 final chairs
-spread across all career stages
-no female nominees
  -at least univ offered CERC's to women, turned down
  -panel setup, linked to web site (selection process)
     -some program design elements to be improved:
         -detail recruitment process
         -two streams:  rising stars vs established researchers
         -# awards closer to # of awards (uncertainty detrimental to recruiting women)
         -greater focus on multidisciplinary elements, open categories
 -changes
   -matching funds:  can count 60% leverage of CFI (but not 40%);  can't count CRC
   -extended timelines;  no phase 2 deadline year (1 year or separate 9 & 15 month deadlines)
   -phase 1:  eval criteria 2 &3 combined (now 6 criteria);  university interviews now in phase 1
   -phase 2: new criteria;  same # of chair allocs as avail
   -post award: formal mid-term evaluation via peer review;  site visit if questions, etc.
   -digital economy (ICT) focus; 4 open to all disciplines
      -old subpriority areas have been merged (digital economy)
-only role of subpriorities:  if two chairs equally strong and we can only do one,
   use it to give preference to one;  never happened last time
  -no need to cater to the subpriority areas -- that is best strategy
-expecting 40-50 proposals;  maybe less with matching?  20-25% success rate
-phase 2:  much more like CRC;  if research makes bar, will be approved
-review:
  -external experts, independent reviews in isolation  (no canadians univ;
      -Cdn govt researchers, expats, mostly international researchers
      -try to recruit at high level
      -1-3 reviews for phase 1;  4-6 for phase 2;
      -phase 1: will use one of your suggestions;  also CRC college of reviewers;  phase 2: two of reviewers
  -review panel: summary in comparative context
      -provide ratings and summaries; bins;  
      -university interviews:  led by president;  finance person, proposal person: dean / head / ...
          -likely after initial triage based upon "deal breaker" criteria; two bins
          -can give update, answer questions, e.g., grad training programs?
      -atleast one person on panel with expertise in equitable recruiting (phase 2 peer review process is a criteria)
          -phase one: can ask about plans
      -smaller (12-15), broad review panel, will add external experts
  -selection board:  where is bar, then do strategic investment assessment
       -do we have a strategic advantage (phase one)
       -create top 10 plus a ranked reversion list
       -membership partly appointed (chair, co-chair), chair of NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR agencies
           -president of European research council;  nobel prize winners, ...
  -steering ctte:  process overview: conflicts, robust, ..., then approve
       -president of CFI, deputy minister for industry, health, ...
-last time anecdote:
  -10min presentations for phase two, etc.
-phase 1: just need expected budget tables;  
-phase 2: letters of confirmation for matching, etc.
   -will be a requirement first year;  award frozen if funding not in place
-phase 1:
  -determine best institutions and research areas in which to establish chairs
  -have a handful of people in mind;  did not get top 1,2,3 people for most univ in round 1
  -scope:  broad but not too broad
DBC: deal breaker criteria
 C1: establish global leadership in area;  be honest, i.e., if #3 say so, but will be #1;  key people, collaborations, NCEs, ...
   -alignment with provincial priorities
   -describe policy component
   -DBC
C2:  promise of field (tell your story: impact, institutional vision)
   -e.g., oil sands: already have best experts, but add something
   -two arctic proposals in last round;  cited each other;  went for related but different proposals
      -process also applies to leveraging existing CERC
  -strategic advice:  selection board has large # of proposals, needs to choose 10
     "if you're already that good, it won't have impact", did happen in the first round
      -describe benefits and impact of investment
  -describe unique leadership role at university, i.e., junior person joining senior term
  -key to success: find 1-3 people who champion proposal, researcher, etc.;  vision for discipline, institution
       -also to help chair once they arrives; met by VPR at airport, etc.
  -DBC
C3:  benefit to Canada
  -global benefit ok, e.g., HIV
  -moving within Canada:  unlikely to be seen as being of net benefit to Canada
  -cite sub priority areas if appropriate;  but not key
C4:  sustainability of chair after seven years
  -some or all of momentum will be maintained
  -phase 2: for career capper, have succession plan;  for more junior, something else
C5:  institution leverage + matching
  -DBC
  -in first round, leverage ranged $8-80 M;  budgets were not an issue in phase two
  -building ok as in-kind
  -$20M avg leverage:  4.6 M, 9M, 7M typical    univ / prov / other
    -Quebec, Sask, Alta matched the CERC award
  -phase 1: describe how fund raising would work
C6: anticipated impact on public policy, commercialization

Don't want a weak score in any of the criteria.

Phase 2 evaluation criteria
C1: excellence of researcher:  also potential to lead institute, leadership and integration role, etc.
C2: quality of institutional recruitment process
   -key is in defining the short list;  how well have you headhunted
   -first competition:  building around handful of names in mind
C3: excellence of the proposed research
C4: fit with Phase 1 proposal;
   -one example in last round where there was no longer not a fit, so was rejected

Timelines
-May 28 phase one; interviews in first or second week of Sept
  -notification of receipt in two weeks
  -beginning of July: will know about interview triage
  -Oct/Nov 2012 phase one results known:  top list, or rank on recall list
-phase 2: Oct/Nov 2012 launch, deadline TBA, results approx 3 months after deadline
  -if on rank reversion list, given same full timeline

carmen.gervais@chairs.gc.ca
613-996-0354   (but leaving progam at end of April)

Thomas Ryan, program officer
thomas.ryan@chairs.gc.ca
613-944-4624

-- MichielVanDePanne - 30 Jan 2012