1 / 9

Impact of Proposal and Award Management Mechanisms (IPAMM) Working Group

Impact of Proposal and Award Management Mechanisms (IPAMM) Working Group. Discussions with the Advisory Committees. IPAMM Working Group. Charge: Identify best practices to achieve an appropriate balance between proposal success rates, award sizes and award duration

ismail
Télécharger la présentation

Impact of Proposal and Award Management Mechanisms (IPAMM) Working Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impact of Proposal and Award Management Mechanisms (IPAMM) Working Group Discussions with the Advisory Committees

  2. IPAMM Working Group • Charge: • Identify best practices to achieve an appropriate balance between proposal success rates, award sizes and award duration • Emphasis on individual, investigator-initiated grants. • Members from across NSF: EHR, R&RAs, OISE, OPP, and BFA • Program Directors and Division Directors • Rotators and Permanent Staff

  3. What Is the Issue? • Success rate for research proposals was 20% in FY05, down from 30% in FY00 • Potential impact on merit review • Increased workload on reviewer community • Increased workload on NSF staff • Potential loss of capacity

  4. What is the likelihood that a given proposal will be funded? • Research proposal success rates dropped from 30% in FY 2000 to 20% in FY 2005, leveled off in FY 2006 (21%) • Coincided with: • 47% increase in proposal submissions (began in FY 2000, peaked in FY 2004, leveled off in FY 2005 and 2006) • 41% increase in average award size • 39% increase in median award size • Research proposal success rates varied across the R&RA directorates, however all experienced declines

  5. Decrease in proposal success rates coincides with increases in proposal submissions and average award size/duration

  6. Funding Rate for Select Directorates Competitive Research Grants 50% 40% NSF BIO 30% CISE Funding Rate ENG GEO 20% MPS SBE 10% 0% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 All R&RA directorates experienced a decline in funding rates between FY 2000 and FY2005

  7. Observations • # of PIs submitting to NSF increased from FY 2000-2005 • 29% increase in first-time submitters • 38% increase overall • 30% increase in # proposals PIs submit to gain a single award • 1998-2000: 1.7 per PI • 2003-2005: 2.2 per PI

  8. Potential Drivers Affecting Proposal Submissions • Increased use of solicitations with specific research foci • Limits on submissions in specific cases • Congress authorizes doubling the NSF budget (2002, 2007?) • NSF budgets decrease or are flat (2004-2005) • NSB calls for increased award size and duration • Potential effect of PI fatigue

  9. Next steps • Case studies of various practices related to proposal submissions • Additional data analyses • Obtain external input • Focus groups with new rotators • Applicant Survey to assess external drivers • Visits with Advisory Committees

More Related