A general concern of the NCCR selection process is the long timeline – 22 months from the submission of outline proposals to the final selection in Call 5, reduced from 23 months in Call 4 (see Table 1.2, Chapter 1). Especially the time for the review of the outline proposals was reduced, and this was enabled by letters of intent (containing information of topics and teams) that allowed the SNSF to start recruitment of expert reviewers in advance of receiving the outline proposals. As noted in the 2016 evaluation report, the NCCR selection process is considerably longer than that of other funding schemes for large centre grants (Langfeldt and Borlaug 2016, p.60).
In the survey, the applicants were asked about the overall cost efficiency of the NCCR application and selection process, the time and efforts needed to prepare an outline proposal and a full proposal, the time from submitting the outline proposal to the result of the outline proposal round was announced, the time from submit-ting the full proposal to the shortlist was announced, as well as the time from the shortlist was announced to the final decision by the SERI.
The results show that the applicants were moderately satisfied with the time and efforts required, and the efficiency of the process, and that the average rates given are about the same as for previous NCCR calls (Table 5.1). The lowest
5 Effectiveness and efficiency
average score appear on the time from the shortlist was announced to the final decision by the SERI, where half of the applicants used the lower part of the scale, and on the overall cost efficiency of the application and selection process where 35% of the applicants used the lower part of the scale.
We also note that the reduction of the time from outline proposals were sub-mitted to the result of this first stage was announced24 did not result in better scores on this item.25
Table 5.1 Considering your NCCR application, to what extent did you find the fol-lowing issues/processes satisfactory? Replies by NCCR proposal stage. Per cent.
To a 5 The overall cost efficiency of the application and selection process
Outline p only 4.3 % 21.7 % 13.0 % 34.8 % 8.7 % 17.4 % 23 2.7 2.9
Full proposal 14.3 % 21.4 % 35.7 % 7.1 % 14.3 % 7.1 % 14 3.2 3.0
Total 8.1 % 21.6 % 21.6 % 24.3 % 10.8 % 13.5 % 37 2.9 2.9
The time and efforts needed to prepare an outline proposal
Outline p only 4.3 % 43.5 % 26.1 % 17.4 % 8.7 % 23 3.2 3.3
Full proposal 35.7 % 50.0 % 14.3 % 14 4.2 3.8
Total 16.2 % 45.9 % 21.6 % 10.8 % 5.4 % 37 3.6 3.6
The time and efforts needed to prepare a full proposal
Full proposal 21.4 % 35.7 % 28.6 % 14.3 % 14 3.6 3.6
The time from submitting the outline proposal to the result of the outline proposal round was an-nounced (5.5 months)2
Outline p only 17.4 % 52.2 % 21.7 % 4.3 % 4.3 % 23 3.8 3.7
Full proposal 14.3 % 21.4 % 42.9 % 14.3 % 7.1 % 14 3.2 3.7
Total 16.2 % 40.5 % 29.7 % 5.4 % 5.4 % 2.7 % 37 3.5 3.7
The time from submitting the full proposal to the short-list was announced (6.5 months)
Full proposal 14.3 % 28.6 % 28.6 % 14.3 % 14.3 % 14 3.1 (3.6)1
The time from short-list was announced to the final decision by SERI (6 months)
Full proposal 7.1 % 7.1 % 28.6 % 35.7 % 14.3 % 7.1 % 14 2.5 (3.6)1
Source: NIFU survey to applicants to NCCR call 5.
1 Figures are not comparable between surveys. In 2016, these two phases were one item in the question-naire and there was no information about months: “The time from submitting the full proposal to the fi-nal decisions was announced”. See Table 5.1 in the 2016 report.
2 In the 2016 questionnaire there was no information about months.
When asked to compare the time and efficiency of the NCCR application and selec-tion process with other naselec-tional funding sources and with ERC grants, the appli-cants in most cases indicate that the NCCR scheme is about the same or poorer.
62% indicate that time and efficiency of the NCCR application and selection pro-cess is about the same as their other relevant national funding schemes, 27% that it is poorer. 51% indicate that time and efficiency of the NCCR application and se-lection process is about the same as for ERC, 24% that it is poorer. On both items, 5% indicate that the NCCR scheme is better (Table 5.2).
24 It was reduced from 9.5 to 5.5 months, see Table 1.2.
25 Figures are not fully comparable as in the previous survey the questions did not include information about the number of months.
These figures are much the same as in the previous survey, with the exception that a significantly higher proportion of the full proposal applicants indicate that the NCCR application and selection process is poorer than ERC.26 Notably the com-parisons are with less complex grants and selection processes, and when appli-cants rate the time and efficiency of the NCCR application and selection process as about the same as other funding schemes, it can be interpreted as a positive result.
Table 5.2 Time and efficiency of the NCCR application and selection process com-pared to other national funding sources and to ERC. Replies by proposal stage. Per cent.
Source: NIFU survey to applicants to NCCR calls 3 and 4. Question: When comparing the NCCR scheme to your other relevant national funding sources/ to the selection process of the European Research Council, is the NCCR poorer, about the same or better, concerning Time and efficiency of the application and selec-tion process.
1 25 respondents entered information on which other funding source they compared with. 23 of these compared with other SNSF funding, 2 with funding schemes in other countries.
* Difference between the calls is statistically significant (more find NCCR poorer compared to ERC in Call 5 than in Call3&4).
The applicants were given four months for preparing the full proposals in Call 5 (and in previous calls). In the 2020 survey, we asked the applications how much time – after receiving the feedback letter on the outline proposals – they would like to have for preparing their full proposal. As shown in Table 5.3, half of the full proposal applicants would like more than four months. 36% of them indicate six months, 14% indicate five months, 36% of them indicate four months and 14%
three months (no one indicates two months or more than six months). In sum, only a small minority of the applicants seem to agree with cutting time for full proposal preparation as a means to shorten the NCCR selection process.
26 50% in 2020 compared to 13% in 2016. Fewer reply cannot say, and fewer reply better, in 2020.
Time and efficiency of
NCCR compared to your relevant national funding sources1
Only pre-proposal 8.7 % 69.6 % 13.0 % 8.7 % 23 -4.3 -23.1
Full proposal 0.0 % 50.0 % 50.0 % 0.0 % 14 -50.0 -33.4
Total 5.4 % 62.2 % 27.0 % 5.4 % 37 -21.6 -28.6
NCCR compared to the European Research Council
Only pre-proposal 8.7 % 56.5 % 8.7 % 26.1 % 23 0.0 7.7
Full proposal 0.0 % 42.9 % *50.0 % 7.1 % 14 -50.0 0.0
Total 5.4 % 51.4 % 24.3 % 18.9 % 37 -18.9 3.5
Table 5.3 Time wanted for preparing an NCCR full proposal. Replies by NCCR appli-cant’s proposal stage. Per cent.
Applicant stage
Number of months wanted for full proposal
3 4 5 6 7 8 Don't know N
Only outline proposal 12.5 % 6.3 % 25.0 % 12.5 % 6.3 % 12.5 % 25.0 % 16
Submitted full proposal 14.3 % 35.7 % 14.3 % 35.7 % 14
Total 13.3 % 20.0 % 20.0 % 23.3 % 3.3 % 6.7 % 13.3 % 30
Source: NIFU survey to applicants to NCCR Call 5. Question 2. “Time for preparing an NCCR full proposal:
How much time would you like to have for preparing the full proposal (after receiving the feedback letter on the outline proposal)?” Reply categories also included 2 months, which no one selected.
The free text sections in the survey also display different views on the time and efficiency of the process. Comparing with previous NCCR selection processes, one applicant stated that Call 5 was “more efficient and leaner”. Another expressed that “The complete review process is long, but adequate for the complexity and schemes of the undertakings in the NCCRs”. On the other hand, some expressed concerns that the application process demanded too much work, and that also the length of the selection process was a burden. Concerns were mostly regarding the last parts of the process. One applicant suggested that “If possible, the time until a decision is communicated should be shortened”, another was concerned that
“there is again a very long time even after the decision to be able to actually start”.