Nature of internal review

Questionnaire respondents briefly described the processes by which OLT grant applications are appraised for their competitiveness and then endorsed for submission to OLT. What is generally apparent in the data presented below is the quantum of established, staged processes and work associated with the support and appraisal of OLT grant applications. Here are the main themes evident in the data:

1. The smaller institutions generally have less formal processes when it comes to the appraisal and endorsement of OLT grant applications.
2. At most institutions, applications are ultimately assessed by a panel which either supports applicants to proceed to submission to OLT or holds back applications for further development. Feedback to applicants is a common feature of the process.
3. Most panels which appraise applications are multidisciplinary in nature.
4. At a few institutions, including the larger ones, an individual—not a panel—undertakes the appraisal of applications and makes recommendations to the DVC-A for endorsement or otherwise.
5. Compliance checking is a common feature of the appraisal process, including whether or not proposed projects align closely with institutional as well as OLT priorities.  
6. An Expression of Interest / Grant Concept / Intent to Submit form is utilised by a number of institutions (B-size upwards) and seems to be a useful way of establishing where concept/application development work is taking place in an institution. This commonly results in the mobilisation of relevant resources and activities to support applicants, e.g. workshops, mentoring, formative peer review. De-identified samples of these forms are available here: OLT Grant Concept Form / OLT Project Concept Form / Intent to Apply Form / Intent to Submit Form / Notification of Intent to Apply (Note: All made available with permissions of the relevant institutions.) 
7. The use of a staged approach for appraisal purposes is evident in a number of institutions. For example, following the submission of an Expression of Interest / Grant Concept / Intent to Submit form, an ICO will meet with the applicant to discuss the application. At some institutions, the applicant meets with a Dean: Teaching and Learning and/or Head of Department/School. If the proposal has merit, the application will proceed (after further development) to the panel for appraisal.

Visitors to this page are encouraged to carefully read the data presented below to appreciate the diversity and particularity of approaches to supporting the development and appraisal of OLT grant applications. 

A-size institutions (FTE academic staff <500)

• 'As we have only been a partner this is not an issue.'
• 'Typically in the development process the applications are discussed with the Director of Teaching and Learning, and when the proposers think they are ready, they are submitted to the Deputy Principal Academic for approval.'
• 'To date, this has been in the context of the Council of Deans (when) our institution has typically been the lead institution. Normally only one application is under way at any one time.'
• 'Review by panel with discussion against OLT criteria.'
• 'Completed applications and EOIs are assessed by the OLT Institutional Review Panel against the relevant grant program selection criteria. The Panel agrees, through a process of discussion and consensus, which applications and EOIs are competitive enough for submission to the OLT. The Panel recommends these applications to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor who makes final approvals and signs letters of support for applications and EOIs going forward.'
• 'N/A. No applications in the past few years. Would need to develop a proper process.'
• 'Applications are reviewed by (LTU) staff in line with the national OLT strategic priorities and specific schemes available at the time. We also work closely with applicants to refine and develop their ideas and proposal. Once the final draft is agreed at the right standard, it is submitted to the DVC(A) along with the institutional support letter.'
• 'We have had no experience here and have no formal processes, but the Research Committee would review an application and make a recommendation to the Principal/CEO.'
• 'At this stage appraisal for competitiveness is done by a single person (me), and if identified as not competitive, I talk with the applicant to provide feedback. If the applicant is a senior staff member this involves consultation with the Director (LTU). However if feedback is rejected, applications are subject to the minimum requirements: general check on compliance with the OLT requirements, financial exposure of the university (i.e. activities where costs are unspecified), sign-off on time release and other in-kind contributions by the relevant head of cost centre.'

B-size institutions (FTE academic staff 500 to 1,000)

• 'This is a very new process - this year, for 2015. Applicants are required to advise the ICO that they intend to submit an application to a particular round of grants. They are then required to have a face to face meeting with the ICO, and then complete the (institution's) Grant Concept Form, after which another meeting is held with the applicant/s and ICO. If there is a suitable mentor available, the team will then be paired with the mentor. The development continues, with drafts of applications reviewed at least twice by the ICO. Final versions of applications are due to the ICO for compliance checking one month before the OLT closing date, at which time further feedback can be given, and adjustments made if needed. An applicant would be discouraged from continuing for a present round if the initial discussions with the ICO/mentor revealed a premature concept, or if the concept was not suitable for the aims and priorities of OLT grants (for example, if an ARC application was trying to be retro-fitted for a 'funding' lottery grab). The new (institution) OLT Grant Concept form has also assisted applicants to recognise where they have gaps in their preparation for submitting a proposal, so they would then be encouraged to do further preparation.'
• '(An) instrument is used to review the application in relation to each requirement within the OLT criteria. The instrument is linked to a rubric. The instrument does have a comment section to tie together the different aspects of the application in order to provide feedback as well as the basis for discussion within the selection panel in relation to competitiveness and endorsement.'
• 'Support provided by (Research Services) Officers with the development of the application. The application is then submitted to the review panel for approval to proceed. The panel will access the application and request a revised application (if necessary) to be submitted for a second review by the panel. They also receive support from the (Research Services) Administration Officer who will check the final application for grammar, formatting and compliance requirements prior to being submitted.'
• 'Internal panel review and feedback. Subsequent review before (DVC-A) approval.'
• 'There are several informal appraisal processes within the faculty, then by me (ICO) before the application reaches the committee. The committee meets and discusses and feedback is provided immediately after the meeting allowing time for changes. Once changes have been made, endorsement is organised through our (LTU) office. Our office also provides quality checks on formatting and budget aspects.'
• '(First) discuss initial ideation and ensure it aligns with OLT objectives. If it does not, advice is given that the application won't be supported in the current form and guidance provided as to how it may be adapted for OLT submission. (Second) Read and review and provide guidance and feedback on early drafts (according to OLT feedback, such as previous Assessors' Evaluations). (Third) Review and minor editing of later drafts. (Fourth) Send Letter of Support outline to (DVC-A) for review, finalisation and signing if supported.'
• 'Alignment with OLT priorities; alignment of skills and expertise; structure and design of project proposal, e.g. is it well defined? Is the methodological approach appropriate? Is the timeline and resourcing realistic?'
• 'Applicants submit their draft proposals one month prior to the OLT closing date. The proposals are assessed by a panel according to their alignment to the OLT Instructions. Feedback is provided to the applicants, and the proposal is either endorsed at that point, or invited to resubmit for the panel's final consideration a week and a half prior to the OLT closing date.'

C-size institutions (FTE academic staff >1,000 but <1,500)

• 'Draft applications are subjected to a thorough peer-review process to determine their suitability and help ensure compliance, before obtaining endorsement from the (DVC-A).'
• 'An intention to submit process to introduce the idea, then support throughout the development period (up to 12 months for some applicants), through a peer review process, conversations between our team and the (DVC-A) and then a final endorsement reading/signing on all grants/partner submissions.'
• 'In the first instance, interested applicants are asked to submit an Intent to Submit form. This form requires details of lead and partner institutions, team members, summary of the proposed project etc. The Grants and Awards Officer will then contact the project leader from each Intent to Submit form received to discuss suitability of the project for OLT funding, compliance requirements, readiness of the project, help determine which funding program is most appropriate etc. At this stage, applicants are strongly encouraged to discuss the project with their Head of School, Associate Dean Education, Executive Dean and/or any other relevant stakeholders. On some occasions we will hold a group information or writing workshop depending on the number of Intent to Submit forms we receive in any one round. Depending on the outcome of the above step, applicants will then submit a draft. Typically these draft applications are appraised for competitiveness and compliance on an individual and ongoing basis for each project. Throughout this writing and refining process, applicants are (also) required to submit an (External Funding) Submission Form. This form requests details required by the research office, but also requires sign off/endorsement by the applicants Head of School and Associate Dean Education. When the project is deemed to be ready for submission and endorsement has been given via the (External Funding) Submission Form, a letter of support is sought from the (DVC-A).'
• 'Faculty Associate Deans L&T and Office Directors are required to liaise with applicants prior to a submission ... for consideration by the (DVC-A).'
• 'Potential applicants are asked to submit a (Intent to Submit) Form prior to commencing work on their application. This form is useful in the applicant performing a self-appraisal against the OLT guidelines. Applications are reviewed internally and feedback is provided with suggested areas of amendment.  Final drafts are provided to the (Director L&T), as the (DVC-A)'s nominee, to provide final decision on institutional endorsement.'
• 'The internal panel) appraises applications at the internal review meeting. This has traditionally been held 5-10 working days before the OLT deadline. Applicants and other ... team members (from this institution) are invited to the (panel) meeting to discuss their application and answer questions from (panel) members. This normally takes between 15-30mins for each application. At the meeting, (the panel) generally gives applicants an idea of what the recommendation to the (DVC-A) will be. After the meeting the (panel) chair produces a report for the (DVC-A) which contains recommendations, accompanied by a brief overview of each project and feedback for authors. The materials submitted by applicants are attached to the report as appendixes. The (DVC-A) then provides the endorsement. In almost all cases, the (DVC-A) follows the recommendation of (the panel).'
• '(First) EOI to submit sent to ICO at least six weeks in advance of deadline. (Second) Developed proposals are required to be sent to the ICO no later than three weeks prior to submission. (Third) Appraisal occurs either proceed or delay till next round. Feedback given with requirement to return two weeks prior in the case of those to proceed. (Fourth) ICO writes to (DVC-A) seeking institutional endorsement for applications given approval to proceed. (Fifth) ICO submits list to OLT one week prior to submission date. (Sixth) Applicants upload applications when signed letter is returned.'

D-size institutions (FTE academic staff ≥1,500)

• 'The potential applicant must complete a Grant Concept form. The form is compliance checked and then sent for review. It will be accepted (move forward to apply to the OLT) or rejected (try next round or needs radical re-development) with feedback.'
• 'Applications are received through the Awards and Grants team three/four weeks prior to the OLT due date for checking, OLT compliance and focus on university priorities. Once finalised, applications are signed off by (DVC-A) before being returned to applicants for submission.'
• 'Applicants work with faculty staff to develop their proposals and some faculties have committees which vet and exclude applications that lack development. Applications that complete this process are then forwarded to the Dean, Learning and Teaching, who reads them and then decides whether they are suitable for endorsement. Once recommended for endorsement they are sent up to the (DVC-A) for signature.'
• '(The ICO) read(s) the applications. Once the intention to submit a grant is made known, a letter of support from the author's HOD is required with a copy of the application as well as a draft of the letter of institutional support. These are reviewed by our office (LTU) and then endorsed to the (DVC-A) who arranges for the letter of institutional support to be written and then signs it. It is then returned to the author (for submission to OLT).'
• 'Applications are read by a number of people, including the (LTU grants and awards) team, ... colleagues of the applicant and also by a member of a network in (this institution) who can comment from the point of view of a different discipline. All applications are then given to the (DVC-A) to endorse or to make further comments on before they are returned to the applicants for submission to OLT.'
• 'Applications are submitted to the ICO by a certain date, and then passed to the selection panel along with a copy of the OLT selection criteria and a form for initial assessment and feedback. At the meeting, panel members give an initial response of Yes/No/Maybe. If there is consensus, endorsement is agreed. If there is a lack of consensus, that application is discussed further before a decision is made. In some instances, endorsement may only be granted provided the applicant makes certain revisions to the application. Regardless of the outcome, feedback is provided for all applicants. Feedback is discussed in the meeting and noted by the ICO, who then passes the feedback onto the applicants.'
• 'The applications are assessed against the OLT criteria. Feedback is given well in advance of due dates. They (the applications) are then reassessed by the Director (LTU) and taken to the (DVC-A) for endorsement.'
• 'The panel receives all applications a week before assessment. They are provided with a ranking and feedback form. They have the power to say Yes or Reject or recommend revision and resubmission. The (Grants and Awards ) team are responsible for feeding back the panel's decisions/comments. The internal closing date for (our institution) is six weeks before the OLT closing date.'
• 'We (the LTU) read drafts of applications and offer advice.'
• 'This is not done formally but the ICOs do play this role ... through workshops and individual support in the development of applications. The (ICOs) deal with compliance issues, e.g. checking budgets and (academic/conceptual) issues.'