Future Directions consultation paper

The Canada Foundation for Innovation sent the following document to research institutions across the country on November 22, 2004. The CFI produces these updates periodically.  These are shared with the community and its partners.

The third section of this document sollicits views and suggestions about the CFI's future activities.  This matter may be of keen interest to you.  We welcome your comments and suggestions.

Carmen Charette

Dear colleague,

I hope this will find you well! I am writing to share with you information on the following:

A. flexibility – New Opportunities Fund and Canada Research Chairs

Infrastructure Fund

B. finalization of projects of the fourth Innovation Fund competition

C. our current thinking on future activities

A. Flexibility in the management of institutional allocations: New Opportunities Fund and the Canada Research Chairs Infrastructure Fund

I would like to confirm that institutions now have greater flexibility in the way that they manage their allocations under the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) and the Canada Research Chairs Infrastructure Fund as described in a note sent to you by Robert Davidson in late September.

More specifically, institutions can now draw directly from their NOF allocation to finance an infrastructure project submitted under the Canada Research Chairs Fund, provided the candidate also meets the eligibility requirements of the New Opportunities Fund. To take advantage of this increased flexibility, an institution must have the necessary resources in its NOF allocation and be able to draw from it. Current restrictions will remain in effect however: an institution whose 2002 additional allocation is greater than $1 million must retain 50% of this amount for the period from 2006 to 2010.

The existing assessment process for infrastructure projects under the Canada Research Chairs Program will be followed. As well, although a project under the Canada Research Chairs Infrastructure Fund is financed by an institution’s NOF allocation, an institution may not use its Infrastructure Operating Fund allocation to pay the operating costs of a Canada Research Chairs infrastructure project.

We ask institutions to officially notify the CFI of their intention to take advantage of this opportunity when they submit a project and to specify the date when the candidate will take up his or her Chair and first full-time academic appointment in a Canadian university.

This change could be an interim measure. As indicated later in this Update, the CFI is proposing to overhaul its funding mechanisms directed at helping institutions attract and retain high calibre researchers.

For this reason, the proposed change is restricted to using NOF allocations to fund a Canada Research Chair infrastructure project. More specifically, institutions may not use their Canada Research Chair Infrastructure Fund allocation to support an NOF infrastructure project.

B. Budget Finalization

We are rapidly approaching the deadline of December 3, 2004 for the finalization of budgets of projects supported in the last Innovation Fund competition.

Institutions have begun to alert us that in some cases they intend to request an extension because they will not be in a position to finalize their budgets in time for the December deadline. The CFI Coordinators will be asking institutions to provide a brief justification or explanation of the delay. You should note that the granting of an extension does not affect the deadline to begin the construction phase of a project. The CFI expects that normally an institution will begin the construction phase no later than 18 months (i.e. by September 2005) following the CFI Board’s approval.

C. Future activities

Over the past year, the CFI has engaged in discussions with institutions and their partners, government officials and funding agencies on the needs, gaps and challenges with respect to research and infrastructure.

The consultation process intensified with the arrival in July of Dr. Eliot Phillipson, our new President and CEO. Since then, we have had the opportunity to meet with representatives of some 40 institutions and many other stakeholders. We have had excellent discussions across the country on the impact of infrastructure investments so far, future needs and plans of institutions, and on how best to deliver the CFI mandate for the 2006-2010 period.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have taken the time to share their views with us.

We have focussed our discussions on both the shorter term issues and the longer term needs for ongoing investment in infrastructure as part of a successful research and innovation agenda. The following information addresses the more immediate future and the use of the funds available to us. There is a consensus emerging based on discussions to date. We need to further develop the ideas discussed below and welcome your views as we proceed.

1)  How much funding is available?

As you know, there are $750M uncommitted for the 2006-2010 period. Other funds have already been set aside:

o       approximately $400M for projects in Research Hospitals  

o       $35M  for one major international joint venture project

o       $156M for New Opportunities

Unless there is additional funding, the rate at which we will be able to invest in infrastructure is about half of what we have experienced to date, not taking into account the Research Hospital Fund. Managing expectations will therefore be a challenge for all of us.

 In accordance with the funding agreement between the Government of Canada and the CFI, none of the $750M can be committed until the beginning of 2006. In the meantime, investments will continue through New Opportunities and Canada Research Chairs Infrastructure Funds to assist with the attraction and the retention of researchers.

2)  When will be the next call for proposals?

Many of you are anxious to know when the next ‘Innovation Fund’ Call for Proposals will be issued and how it will be designed. The CFI will not be making decisions on awards until the summer or fall 2006, except for ongoing candidate based awards. Our plan is therefore to inform you of initiatives to be launched with the remaining funding and issue a call(s) for proposals following the 2005 March Board meeting. These could be quite different so keep that in mind as you proceed with your planning. Deadlines for submission of applications would allow sufficient time for the planning and design of complex projects.

3)  What have we heard from various stakeholders?

The following summarizes the key issues.

• Access to state-of-the-art infrastructure has transformed the landscape for research and technology development in Canada. There is an ongoing need for infrastructure.
• Decisions must continue to be made using a competitive merit based process.
• Consideration needs to be given to the fact that different institutions, smaller and larger ones, are at different points of their evolution and development and, as a result, have different needs.
• Research infrastructure involves more than capital costs. It must include the highly qualified personnel required to operate sophisticated equipment and manage facilities.
• Sustainability is key. Technology is evolving quickly and therefore requires renewal or enhancements. Ongoing operations and maintenance are challenging.
• There is a need for balance between providing support for new projects versus protecting and enhancing existing investments in research infrastructure.
• Research infrastructure remains a critical asset to attract and retain the very best, and for the training of highly qualified personnel. Continued support for new faculty and Canada Research Chairs is critical but the renewal of infrastructure for past recipients of New Opps and others is becoming increasingly important as a retention mechanism.
• There is a need for enhanced planning at the institutional, regional and national levels. How much research should be done? What research and technology development will ensure Canada’s place in the knowledge based economy? What is the balance between institutional planning and niche development vs fostering region wide and nationwide priority setting and approaches to infrastructure. Choices must be made.
• Although the partnership model has many benefits, finding partner funding is becoming more challenging.
• Some provinces wish to become more involved in the planning, setting of priorities and the review process.
• The differences between research and technology development should be further recognized in the evaluation of proposals.
• Where possible and beneficial, we should work towards some convergence of funding instruments and collaboration between organizations involved in the funding of research.
• Research enabled by infrastructure must lead to benefits for Canada, but the timelines for such benefits must be understood.

4)  Proposed activities for the next few years

Based on discussions so far, our current thinking on possible funding mechanisms for the next few years is set out below. There is still a lot of work to do on the details. We therefore welcome any ideas you may have on the general concepts and on implementation issues.

We have yet to decide on the proportion of the funding available for each component. Any views you may have on the priority among these activities are welcome. This will certainly be a challenging decision!

Expansion of the New Opportunities Fund and Canada Research Chairs Infrastructure Fund

Infrastructure provided under the New Opportunities Fund and the Canada Research Chairs program has greatly assisted universities in attracting and retaining outstanding individuals over the last six years.

Since its creation, the objective of the New Opportunities Fund has focussed on the attraction of the best researchers. There are now signs that we need to consider also the retention of researchers, given the internationally competitive environment and the high mobility of researchers.

We therefore propose to make this fund more flexible so that institutions can meet both their objectives of attraction and retention of the best researchers.

Possible key features:

• One fund with institutional allocations for the 2006-2010 period rather than separate funds for New Opportunities and Canada Research Chairs.
• This fund would not be restricted to faculty meeting current NOF or Canada Research Chair infrastructure fund requirements.
• This fund could be used for any researcher or group of researchers that an institution may want to attract or retain e.g. researchers who received a New Opportunities award in the past, NSERC Industrial Chairs, holders of provincial awards, renewal of, or new Canada Research Chairs, etc.
• It would be up to each university and its affiliated hospitals to define the ‘eligible’ candidates based on their needs and their institutional priorities, recognizing that institutions have different needs at different times.
• Merit based review of applications preselected by institutions would still apply.
• If requested by the institution, the CFI could endeavour to work with other organizations in joint reviews, i.e. one-stop shopping approach, to minimize the number of applications and review processes.

Building on strengths: protecting and enhancing existing investments vs investments in new projects

Seven years ago, there were few facilities of the scale made possible by the Innovation Fund. Now, there are hundreds of major leading edge facilities of international calibre across the country.

There is a growing recognition of the need to protect investments in this infrastructure by providing funds to sustain and enhance projects if they are to continue to support leading edge research and technology development. This is further supported by the fact that, in the last Innovation Fund, about a third of the successful applications and about 40% of the funds allocated were for projects that were building on projects funded in previous Innovation Fund competitions. At the same time, there is a continuing need to invest in new infrastructure as research opportunities arise and new areas emerge.

We are considering having two streams of application and review processes recognizing the differences between these two broad categories: one for projects that build on existing infrastructure and one for new projects. This would help ensure the most effective use of limited resources.

Possible key features:

• Existing projects:
  
  • The objective of the mechanism for existing projects would be to support infrastructure for research and technology development at the leading edge through the protection or enhancement of particularly productive infrastructure projects supported previously in the context of further institutional, regional/provincial and national planning.
  • Funds could be used for: upgrades, replacement or upgrades of obsolete infrastructure because of technological advances, expansion, new access, or to advance the project to the prototyping or proof of concept stage.
  • Decisions would be based on a rigorous assessment of progress and outcomes as a result of previous investments. Why more now? What is the value added? Projects would still have to meet criteria of quality, innovativeness and benefits including potential commercialization

• New Projects
  
  • We need to think through what objectives are to be met with new initiatives given the changing environment and evolving needs for infrastructure. New initiatives should be developed in the context of further institutional, regional/provincial and national strategic planning.
  • Value added and complementarity with existing ventures: where does it fit in the current landscape?
  • We may want to design a call with a different approach e.g. more narrowly focussed, more emphasis on collaboration, partnerships, and benefits to Canada. We will explore possible options.

• These two funds could be on separate timetables or on the same timeline to allow for comparisons between the two groups. One possible approach for different timelines could be:
  
  • Existing projects: possibly two deadlines for submissions between 2005 and 2008 given the various stages of development of existing projects.
  • New projects: possibly one deadline, after the first deadline for existing projects, given it is likely to take more time to define the parameters for the call, and more time for the institutions to plan these projects.

• We could look for convergence of various instruments of supporting not only the infrastructure but also the research operating costs by working with other organizations involved in the funding of research.

• The Research Hospital Fund could be integrated with these two funds. Details need to be worked out. We are also exploring with CIHR a proposal for the establishment of a National Network of Clinical Research Centres. Recent discussions with VPs Research of hospitals and other stakeholders indicate a high level of interest in pursuing this idea and in using parts of the RHF funding for such a purpose.

• How do we manage expectations? In the last Innovation Fund competition, we introduced an envelope system in light of the huge demand. There will be less funding available than in the last competition. We need to plan ahead. Should it be a two stage approach, an envelope approach or a combination?

Operations and maintenance

Many of you have indicated the importance of using some of the remaining funding for operations and maintenance. Unless we hear much differently, we will give this a high priority. The current model is 30% of the awards, with flexibility given to each institution to manage the funds among their projects. Is there a better way? Should it be linked to each project? Given other priorities, should we consider less than 30% as this would represent a significant portion of the remaining funds? What priority should we give to capital vs operating and maintenance?

A different approach for certain types of infrastructure

There are some types of infrastructure, especially in the computing and knowledge management technologies, that are used by a wide range of institutions and researchers across the country. There may be a better approach to plan and invest in these types of infrastructure than through the regular competition process.

The one type of infrastructure that immediately comes to mind is high performance computing. The CFI has invested significant amounts in HPC facilities and has funded the renewal of these over a number of competitions. There may be an opportunity to identify the needs and plan investments over a number of years in this area. This could be done in a more strategic way to ensure timely availability of state-of-the-art technology outside regular competitions while keeping high standards.

We welcome your views

Thank you for your time. I invite you to share this information with your colleagues. We look forward to your comments on these important issues over the next few weeks, preferably before the holidays.

Carmen Charette

Senior Vice-President

Canada Foundation for Innovation

(613) 947-6125

carmen.charette@innovation.ca