Download PDF version of the LOI Response Template.

LOI Response Template Instructions

Based on the LOI submissions, an initial draft of the overall Phase 2 project portfolio has been prepared and distributed, along with feedback, to LOI Project and Subproject Leaders.

The purpose of this initial approximation is to provide some guidance to the project teams of the LOI Submissions regarding how they might fit into the final set of 20-25 projects that will form GRAND’s Phase 2 research project portfolio. The LOI Responses will be new submissions, each under a primary challenge. There are 22 separate project slots in the draft outline, and it is expected that there will be no more than 25 submissions of LOI Responses to fill these slots. These new submissions should incorporate the feedback received from the initial LOI Submissions, as well as reflect to some extent the suggested groupings that are included in the draft outline. Please note that the inclusion of a project on the draft outline is not an indicator that a project has been “accepted”, but rather it indicates that there is expected to be space in the Phase 2 project portfolio for a project like the one indicated, provided the concerns and outstanding issues identified in the feedback are adequately addressed.

These twenty-two project groups that have been identified are encouraged to submit an LOI Response to address the concerns and identified issues for each of its constituent parts. The LOI Response form is essentially the same format as the earlier LOI Submission template. The key differences for the LOI Response round of the process are as follows.

1. The Research Management Committee hopes to receive no more than 25 (and will ideally receive 22-23) LOI Responses, in accordance with the draft of the overall project portfolio. There is an expectation that the separate LOI Submission projects that have been grouped together in a single LOI Response project will work together to submit a single LOI Response. These LOI Responses are to be submitted via email to [email protected] no later than Friday, September 13, 2013. 

2. The Project Title and Description should be revised as necessary to reflect the full scope of the (new) Project.

3. The proposed Project Leader and Co-Leader should be identified. Please note that the Project Leader and Co-Leader must be from different universities. If a CV was submitted with the earlier LOI submission, this should be indicated; in such cases it is not necessary to submit the CV again. If no CV was submitted with the earlier LOI submission for one of the identified individuals, please submit the CV along with the Response. Please note that the proposed Project Leader and Co- Leader will be reviewed by the RMC for suitability, and alternatives may be suggested.

4. The proposed Project Champion should be a named individual and should have been contacted. Please note that a Project Champion will generally represent a receptor organization for the research outcomes.

5. Regarding Part A, please list the most representative set of up to six Receptors and Partners from the constituent parts of the Project.

6. Regarding Part B, please identify the constituent parts of the Project, based solely on the separate LOI Submissions that are included under the Project.

7. Regarding Part C, please list the most representative set or up to nine researchers or project champions from the constituent parts of the Project. This is not intended to indicate an overall limit, but merely gain an indication of the best representative sample of the group.

8. Regarding Part D, the summary of the problem to be solved should be revised as necessary to reflect the full scope of the (new) Project.

9. Regarding Part E, the summary of the proposed solution and approach should address the revised Part D.

10. Regarding Part F, please include descriptions of the most representative set of up to six Subprojects from the constituent parts of the Project. This is not intended to indicate an overall limit, but merely gain an indication of the best representative sample of the group.

11. Regarding Part G, the summary of the knowledge and technology exchange and exploitation activities should reflect the full scope of the (new) Project.

12. Regarding Part H, the summary on network with other projects within GRAND should focus on the LOI Response Projects.

13. Regarding Part I, the summary of partner engagement should reflect the range of partners of the (new) Project.

14. Regarding Part J, the impact on the GRAND Challenges should identify whether the Project is expected to have Major Impact, Minor Impact or Negligible Impact on each Challenge area. Where the impact is expected to Major or Minor, a brief description of the anticipated impact is requested.

Blueprint for the GRAND NCE Phase 2 Renewal Process