Scientists have to devote an increasing amount of time to drawing up the proposals that are to secure the funding of their research for a few more years again. One reason for this is that the success score has dropped. Ever more fishermen are casting out in the same waters.

This has resulted in scientists submitting even more proposals. Which is an understandable reaction, but does consume even more of their valuable time. The complaint can be heard in all the universities in the Netherlands, and TU/e scientists are no exception.

The growth of student numbers at TU/e, which has compelled researchers to spend more time on teaching so that they have less time left to spend on research, is one of the reasons mentioned by Innovation Lab director Steef Blok why the number of publications at TU/e in the period from 2011 to 2015 has dropped by 15 percent. The decline in natural gas revenues for the funding of research, the so-called ‘FES-gelden’, made a sizeable hole in the available resources. It is estimated that TU/e has thereby lost €30 million on an annual basis.

Blok: “Consequently our income from the secondary and tertiary flows of funds were at risk of dropping from €80 to €60 million in due course. That translates into some two hundred and fifty PhD candidates less. Yet it is even worse, as our success score for the application of European subsidies also declined by some 10 to 15 percent. In the worst-case scenario this means that a researcher has to submit ten proposals to be awarded just one. On average the drafting of a proposal takes some two hundred hours, so the total time invested amounts to 2,000 hours! That is equivalent to some 50 percent of your time. And, perhaps slightly exaggerated, the other 50 percent is spent on teaching.”

The comparison with shooting at anything that moves is one that Blok has no trouble making. “This is why it is important that there are certain things that we should not be doing anymore”, says Blok. “Let’s try to halve the number of applications and let us immediately give strong support in this respect to the new people we recruit as Assistant Professors.”

‘Keep scientists far away from bureaucracy’

In order to raise the income to €100 million in the next four years it will be necessary, according to Blok, to adopt an entirely different mode of operation. “Initiating and setting up budget holder statuses is an important factor here. It implies that you stay close to your own research, you can set up your own consortiums with it and in that way the support of your research is included in the financing. At first that will involve a tremendous effort, because it is something that you will need to organize yourself. Still, if you are more selective in submitting proposals, you create time to work on them.”

If we are to make life easier on scientists, says Blok, it is also essential to keep them far away from bureaucracy. “That begins even at the Departmental Office. Scientists should already be facilitated and supported at once by that Office and the process of the application must be ‘organized’. For nowadays two-thirds of such an application no longer relates directly to the excellent research, but to the organization around it and to the impact it has on society. That is something which the Departmental Office – and at central level the Innovation Lab – can organize far better than the scientists. At this moment we have situations in which we have a scientist managing a project amounting to €25 million. This is tantamount to managing a medium-sized business. That scientist will need staff and facilities for this, as well as an appropriate budget. Have the supporting group see where the funding may be obtained, how the project is composed legally and contractually and what the preconditions for the proposal should be. Too often I see applications passing by of which I know in advance that they have no chance of success whatsoever. Then the application is drafted in such a way that it is not in keeping with the requirements for the relevant kitty.”

 By just budgeting in a realistic manner, also taking into account the costs for staff and facilities, Blok expects that he can attain a rise in income by some eight to ten percent. In his opinion, scientists often only consider the financing of warm bodies. “They only look at the PhD student they want to appoint, and say: he will cost €50,000. Then I say: ‘no, he will cost €95,000, including everything around such a PhD student’. Those are the costs that a university has to incur. In that way you also provide funding for the organization.”

Closing the system together

In addition to more attention to budget holder status, Blok also sees big benefits in setting up strategic accounts with the business community. TU/e intends to set up at least some twenty of those over the next few years. As a case in point Blok mentions the agreement which TU/e concluded with Philips in June 2014. “That agreement has yielded as many as eighty PhD students in the past few years and there are some three hundred people involved in it. Meanwhile Philips is quite content with the sixty invention disclosures (confidential research results, which may lead to a patent - ed.), which it has produced for them.”

Such prolonged cooperation entails working with a roadmap, says Blok, “which runs from the research up to the product development. That way everybody knows which way things are going and who is doing what and what needs to be done. Then it stops being a best efforts obligation and starts being an obligation of result. If you form a consortium in such a way, it gives other groups within the university an opportunity to link up with it. Multidisciplinary ways of working invite people to join. In the cooperation with Philips we have seen the Maxima Medical Center and Kempenhaeghe expertise center hooking up as well, and that way you already have a consortium. If you then take a proposal to the EU, the only thing you still need is a European partner. And surely that must be found within our EuroTech cooperation with the universities of technology of Lausanne, Munich and Copenhagen. That is a way to close the system.”

Blok thinks that it will be important in the coming years to see which companies can be linked to the main strategic research themes of TU/e. “For data science, for example, we are negotiating with KPN at present. Then you easily talk about thirty PhD students. With the consortiums that you build with those, you can then turn to the EU, to STW, to the Top Sector Policy.”

'It should act like a kind of flywheel'

Within the Departments, project development managers must be appointed and a good overview must be obtained of the research lines. According to Blok a great deal of support can be obtained at a central level from his Innovation Lab, as in the design of a roadmap. For the next two years the Executive Board is making €250,000 available each year to support the setup of the Research Support Network. The Departments that are joining in, have to match the amount they get from that kitty. Anyone who joins in, will join in for the next five years, Blok expects. “The funds now made available by the Executive Board will be used in two years’ time, but in fact it should act like a kind of flywheel”, says Blok.

His answer to the question whether the Departments are actually waiting for even more work: “Often there are already many things available in this area, but they are hardly known or are too fragmented. We need to organize it better together. Then it will save us time and will be a less painstaking effort. We are going to submit fewer applications, but their success score will rise. That is a feat which we must fulfil jointly: the scientist in close cooperation with the supporter.”