Early Impact Call

Research Associates can be Principal Investigators on Early Impact calls and run projects up to £50,000. Eligible costs are the same as for all other PQA projects, however, RAs leading projects are able to claim their directly incurred salary costs. Projects must be driven by the individual Research Associate leading the proposal. Where appropriate a suitable industry champion or KE mentor should be identified and incorporated into the proposal. In addition to a completed standard PQA Application Form, please include in your submission a short statement outlining how you expect that the award of this funding will support your career development and confirmation that your line manager, supervisor, or main project PI are supportive of your application.

10: The project outcomes are fully described and the route to achieving them planned. Partners and their roles are described in detail, and their benefits and impacts explained. How Impact in Central Scotland will be realised is detailed and is highly likely to occur. The long-term impacts are described and credible pathways to achieving them.

8-9: Project outcomes and routes to achieving them are detailed. The role of partners is explained and how they will benefit from the project. Impact in Central Scotland is explained and is credible. Long term impacts are considered, with a plan to achieve them.

5-7: Project outcomes are outlined, but no clear plan to realise them provided. Partners are discussed, but it isn’t clear what their role is or how they benefit from participating. There could be Impact in Central Scotland, however how this will be achieved requires more work. Long term impacts are mentioned, with some explanation how they might be achieved.

1-4: Project outcomes are missing or not detailed, there’s little or no plan on how they will be realised. It is unclear why partners are involved and what they will do. Impact in Scotland is tenuous or highly unlikely. Long terms impacts need more explanation or are not detailed at all.

10: The project has a detailed and well managed plan. A Gantt chart is provided with work packages explained and clear roles for the team. Credible Project Milestones are provided and risks mitigated. There is confidence the plan will be run well and complete on time.

8-9: The project has a well-managed plan. A Gantt chart details the task and timeline. Project Milestones set and risks highlighted. The plan is good, will likely complete on time.

5-7: The project plan requires more work. A simple Gantt chart is provided. Milestones and risks require more rigour in their assessment, key risks are missing. The plan is functional and may finish in time.

1-4: There is not enough detail about the project plan. No Gantt chart is provided. Only a few milestones and risks are provided and not well assessed. It is unlikely the project will finish in time.

10: The resources required for the project are fully described. Strong justification is made for why they are all required to meet the project outcomes. Where necessary funds are used to enable the team to fully participate in the project. The funding requested is only what is needed. The project impacts are significantly greater than the funds requested. The project provides excellent value for money.

8-9: The resources required for the project are described. There is good justification made for why they are needed. Where necessary funds are used to enable team members to participate in the project. The project impacts are much greater than the funds requested. The project provides great value for money.

5-7: Most of the resources required for the project are outlined. Justification is made for why some are needed. Some funds may be used to enable participation in the project. The project impacts are more than the fund requested. The project provides some value for money.

1-4: The resources required are not well described or not mentioned at all. There is little or no justification for the resources. Funds are not used to support the needs of team members. The project impacts do not exceed the funds requested. There is little or no value for money.

10: There is a full understanding of the market, customers identified, and the opportunity. The state of the art is considered in depth, the market size evaluated from published reports, and the Project innovations are shown to improve on or have potential to exceed the capabilities of competing innovations, or other technologies used in the same area. If appropriate to the level of development of the innovation: stakeholders/customers have been involved, strong letters of support are provided.

8-9: There is a good understanding of the market, customer types, and the opportunity, the market size has been estimated. The state of the art is broadly discussed, there is good indication of how the Project innovation is better than competing innovations. If appropriate to the level of development of the innovation: a few stakeholders/customers have been approached, some letters of support are provided.

5-7: There is some understanding of the market and customers, and the market size is considered, but some detail is missing. Customers/stakeholders have been identified, but not approached, when this might be expected for the level of development. Some other examples of competing technologies are mentioned.

1-4: There is limited understanding of the market and customers, and the market size is not understood. No customers or stakeholders are identified when this might be expected for the level of development. The state of the art may be touched on, but there is limited analysis or understanding and no comparison of the Project innovation with other solutions.

10: The project outcomes are fully described and the route to achieving them planned. The partners and their roles are described in detail, and their benefits and impacts explained. How Impact in Central Scotland will be realised is detailed and is highly likely to occur. The long term impacts are described and credible pathways to achieving them.

8-9: Project outcomes and routes to achieving them are detailed. The role of the partners is explained and how they will benefit from the project. Impact in Central Scotland is explained and is credible. Long term impacts are considered, with a plan to achieve them.

5-7: Project outcome are outlined, but no clear plan to realise them provided. Partners are discussed, but it isn’t clear what their role is or how they benefit from participating. There could be Impact in Central Scotland, however how this will be achieved requires more work. Long term impacts are mentioned, with some explanation how they might be achieved.

1-4: Project outcomes are missing or not detailed, there’s little or no plan on how they will be realised. It is unclear why the partners are involved and what they will do. Impact in Scotland is tenuous or highly unlikely. Long terms impacts need more explanation or are not detailed at all.

10: The project has a detailed and well managed plan. The Project Management methodology is described. The project team is introduced. A Gantt chart is provided with work packages explained and clear roles for the team. Credible Project Milestones are provided. The Risk Register is completed with credible mitigation and contingency plans. There is confidence the plan will be run well and complete on time.

8-9: The project has a well managed plan. Project Management process is explained. The project team and their roles are outlined. A Gantt chart details the task and timeline. Project Milestones and Risk Register have been completed. The plan is good, will likely complete on time.

5-7: The project plan requires more work. No Project Management approach is mentioned. The team is briefly mentioned. A simple Gantt chart is provided. Milestones and Risk Register require more rigour in their assessment, key risks are missing. The plan is functional, and may finish in time.

1-4: There is not enough detail about the project plan. The team is not mentioned. No Gantt chart is provided. Only a few milestones and risks are provided and not well assessed. It is unlikely the project will finish in time.

10: The resources required for the project are fully described. Strong justification is made for why they are all required to meet the project outcomes. Where necessary funds are used to enable the team to fully participate in the project. The funding requested is only what is needed. The project impacts are significantly greater than the funds requested. The project provides excellent value for money.

8-9: The resources required for the project are described. There is good justification made for why they are needed. Where necessary funds are used to enable team members to participate in the project. The project impacts are much greater than the funds requested. The project provides great value for money.

5-7: Most of the resources required for the project are outlined. Justification is made for why some are needed. Some funds may be used to enable partcipation in the project. The project impacts are more than the fund requested. The project provides some value for money.

1-4: The resources required are not well described, or not mentioned at all. There is little or no justification for the resources. Fund are no used to support the needs of team members. The project impacts do not exceed the funds requested. There is little or no value for money.

10: Best practice in EDI and Sustainability is detailed. e.g. biases are considered in project design, users are central to device and system design. Support for the team identified and implemented. Sustainable or minimal travel is considered. Use of materials, energy, and waste is considered and reduced where possible. Responsible Innovation is well considered, and credible plans made to tackle any issues arising.

8-9: EDI and Sustainability plans are described. e.g. biases and end users considered during the design and development of the outcomes. Team consulted on their needs. Sustainability plans are credible. Responsible Innovation is thought through and good plan in place to tackle issues.

5-7: EDI and Sustainability are outlined. e.g. some consideration is made for bias or users in project and device design. The teams needs are mentioned. Sustainability plans need more rigour. Responsible Innovation has been considered but details are not shared.

1-4: EDI and Sustainability thoughts are perfunctory, e.g. little consideration is made for bias, users are not considered in designs. The teams needs are not discussed. No sustainability plans are described. Responsible Innovation is not considered.