Managing
Research Projects from Concept to Conclusion
Dr.
Amartya Kumar Bhattacharya
BCE
(Hons.) ( Jadavpur ), MTech ( Civil ) ( IIT Kharagpur ), PhD ( Civil
) ( IIT Kharagpur ), Cert.MTERM ( AIT Bangkok ), CEng(I), FIE,
FACCE(I), FISH, FIWRS, FIPHE, FIAH, FAE, MIGS, MIGS – Kolkata
Chapter, MIGS – Chennai Chapter, MISTE, MAHI, MISCA, MIAHS, MISTAM,
MNSFMFP, MIIBE, MICI, MIEES, MCITP, MISRS, MISRMTT, MAGGS, MCSI,
MIAENG, MMBSI, MBMSM
Chairman
and Managing Director,
MultiSpectra
Consultants,
23,
Biplabi Ambika Chakraborty Sarani,
Kolkata
– 700029, West Bengal, INDIA,
and
Honorary
Adviser,
Department
of Science and Technology,
Government
of India,
New
Delhi, INDIA.
E-mail:
dramartyakumar@gmail.com
Website:
https://multispectraconsultants.com
Introduction
SERC
(Science and Engineering Research Council) is one of the most popular
programmes of DST (Department of Science and Technology), widely
accessed by individual researchers across institutions and
disciplines. DST receives a large number of research proposals every
year in various areas of science and engineering, for possible
financial support, under this programme. Quite understandably, few
of them are quite outstanding while many are fairly acceptable.
However, still a good number of projects are not so well written and
grossly deficient in content. This article is an attempt to provide
useful information and deeper insight into various stages of a
research project viz. formulation, presentation, implementation,
completion/conclusion and follow up.
Technical
work elements of a research project are obviously of paramount
importance. Nevertheless, it is equally important for the Project
Leader (PI) to understand and appreciate the perspective of funding
agency, respect its policies and comply with its rules and procedures
for efficient execution of the project.
The
information presented here is specific to the PAC (Programme Advisory
Committee) mechanism of funding and more so for Engineering Sciences
Programme. However, it will be relevant and applicable in the general
sense to all similar programmes of DST. To a good extent, the core
philosophy behind the contents may also be valid while dealing with
other funding agencies as well, beyond the procedural aspects.
Project
Formulation
SERC
considers research projects in almost all the disciplines of science
and engineering without any barriers. The areas will have sub-areas
and further specialisations. At times, there are identified thrust
areas to make a significant impact, both from the viewpoint of
creating infrastructure and building expertise. However, one is
ultimately free to give the project in the area of his interest,
which is considered without any prejudice. It is worthwhile to note
here that the idea behind the proposed work is important and not the
area as such. It is quite natural that some of the upcoming areas
would provide better opportunities for new and exciting ideas than
those where significant amount of work has already been done over a
period of time. But as long as the idea is original and challenging,
it would generally find merit for support irrespective of the area it
belongs to. One should, therefore, be primarily concerned with
identifying an original and challenging problem in his area of
interest and where he has adequate background and expertise to deal
with it. The project should be suitably structured around the
identified problem.
SERC
primarily supports basic or fundamental research. This is also a
unique feature of SERC in the sense that some of the sectoral funding
agencies concerned with specific areas do not essentially encourage
basic research in their own areas and are more interested in
applications and process/product development. Basic research should
be idea driven and while evaluating such proposals it is a good
yardstick to see in what way and to what extent the proposed work is
likely to contribute to the existing state of knowledge and lead to
further possibilities in terms of basic research as well as
applications development.
Application/technology
development projects are also considered as long as one can
demonstrate specific value addition over the existing state of
development in terms of enhanced performance, reduced cost, improved
life cycle, environmental impacts, functional aspects, operational
considerations and safety reasons. Strategic importance to the
nation/society could also be a positive consideration in case of
replication, where technology is not freely available. In all such
cases, probability of the output actually implemented by the
downstream user is also an important factor. In general, it is
desirable to have such downstream tie-ups right from the beginning by
way of appropriate technical and financial commitment of the user
industry/agency. This serves two purposes - first it demonstrate the
feasibility of work by way of industry commitment, and secondly it
ensures smooth transition to the next level of work (scale-up
/commercialisation) once the project is complete.
Objectives
of the project should be clearly brought out, focussed and realistic.
Similarly, the work plan and methodology should be coherent with the
objectives and properly outlined in sufficient details. Items like
national/international status, literature review, references etc.
should be covered adequately. The duration of the project should
normally be up to three years and work envisaged in the project
should be compatible with the duration. One should realise that a
project is a definite entity in time and space, having a clearly
defined beginning and an end, although the research as such is an
open-ended process, which may continue even beyond the project
duration. Accordingly, one should clearly define the specific work,
proposed to be done as a part of the project and separately list out
likely outcomes and possible follow up work. Later on, there should
be a serious attempt to achieve pre-stated objectives and complete
proposed work within the stipulated duration. Any additional work may
be taken up in the form of a new/follow-up project, which DST would
certainly encourage to support if the previous work is inspiring.
This demonstrates a disciplined–professional approach and is also
important from the administrative point of view. While formulating
the project, this background will help to finalise objectives and
duration, which are realistic and feasible, yet challenging.
The
budgeting part should be decided carefully. The number of research
staff and their positions/qualifications should be commensurate with
the proposed work. One should also keep in mind the ground reality
about the availability of people/students for various positions
within the academic and administrative framework of the host
institution. One can either follow salaries as per DST norms (for
certain specified positions) or go by the norms of host institution.
Generally, a consolidated salary is preferred due to reasons of
simplified handling. Non-scientific support-staff like typist,
mechanic etc., are not permissible and this should be made available
by the host institution, if needed.
Permanent
Equipment (PE) should be those which may be directly required for the
specific work proposed to be done under the project. Use of existing
equipment and centralised facilities in the host institution is
preferred, as far as possible. DST generally does not encourage
creating new/major facilities from scratch or dedicated testing and
characterisation equipment/facilities for individual projects. If
needed, these can be considered separately at the
departmental/institutional level under other suitable programmes like
FIST (Fund for Improvement of S and T Infrastructure in Higher
Educational Institutions)/IRHPA (Intensification of Research in High
Priority Areas). PCs are provided, either as an integral part of an
experimental unit to capture and process data, or when the work
involves a high degree of computation as may be the case with
modelling and simulation work. Stand-alone general-purpose PCs are
not encouraged. While writing the project document itself, one should
have a fairly realistic assessment of the specifications and cost.
This would avoid unnecessary complications later at the time of final
sanction, although the final cost is based on actual quotations and
may vary within marginal limits from the one indicated in the project
document.
Complete
documentation should be sent to DST as per prevailing guidelines and
format, for which one may access DST-SERC website.
Project
Evaluation/Presentation
The
project evaluation is a three-tier process involving peer review, a
formal presentation before the PAC in the concerned area and the
final decision of SERC. Projects below a cut-off value are not
discussed formally by SERC and a decision is taken based on the
recommendations of the PAC.
Investigators
are generally given an opportunity to make a personal presentation on
their project before the PAC unless the reviews are extremely and
consistently un-supportive. Typically, the total time allocated for a
project would be about 30 minutes, out of which 20 minutes are meant
for the presentation and the remaining 10 minutes for discussion. One
should plan and structure the presentation in advance so as to
complete within this time frame. It is always a disadvantage to be
suddenly made to downsize the presentation and still make proper
impact to drive home the core message.
The
presentation should be structured around the core theme of the
project and focussed on the proposed problem, clearly bringing out
the novelty of idea. One should not waste much time on items like
introduction, background, national/international status, literature
review/references, bio-data, publications and budgetary portions.
These items are already covered in adequate details in the project
document, which is made available to all the members of the expert
committee in advance. It may be a good idea to keep the number of
slides for the core presentation to the minimum and keep the back-up
slides on related details separately, in case these are required in
response to some specific query.
Generally,
the reviews are made available to the PI before the presentation in
whatever form, which may vary from one programme to another. These
may be edited, un-edited or excerpts involving key concerns.
Sometimes, a formal response is also required from the investigator.
One should examine the comments objectively and use them as an input
for the presentation. Presentation can be accordingly moderated to
address the relevant portions of the reviews. The expert committee
will ignore the irrelevant portions and try to clarify the relevant
concerns even if they are not a part of the presentation. It may be
noted here that the reviews alone are not the only criteria for the
final decision. The final recommendation is a considered opinion
based on the information in the project document, reviews and the
presentation, the later being the most important and carrying maximum
weightage. The criteria for accepting a project is strictly based on
the technical merits of the proposed work it terms of its novelty
and/or utility as well as the competence (publications record and the
presentation) of the PI to be able to do justice to it.
The
final decision on the project is communicated shortly after the
presentation day and if favourable, the PI is to furnish additional
documentation (salary norms, quotations, etc.) to finalise the budget
and issue a formal sanction. Specific instructions to this effect are
communicated to the PI subsequently, along with the decision.
The
entire process of evaluation outlined above involves many steps,
individuals and activities taking considerable amount of time, which
may appear unrealistic or even unjustified to an outsider. The DST
person handling a particular programme has to depend on number of
individuals from within DST and outside. Most of the field experts
and reviewers are from academic/research institutions or industry,
who do a voluntary job. Then, there are independent nodes like
Finance, which has its own style of functioning, yet having
considerable influence on the overall processing cycle. The volumes
are often significantly high as compared to resources available to
the programme.
In
view of all this, an overall processing cycle time of 4-6 months
(from receipt to sanction) can be considered fast and efficient.
Anything up to 9 months could be considered fairly acceptable.
However, anything beyond that would be undesirable for the reasons of
obsolescence as well as discouragement to the researcher. The reasons
for such inordinate delay can either be attributed to the general
inefficiency in a programme or at times to the PI concerned himself
in terms of failing to meet certain requirements or not being
responsive fast enough. It may be appreciated that overall systemic
deficiencies and constraints, either at DST or at the host
institution, need to be addressed at a different level. These should
not be allowed to unduly affect the process, for which a degree of
initiative and perseverance is required both on the part of DST
person coordinating a particular programme as well as the concerned
PI.
Project
Implementation
There
is some time lag between the technical and the administrative
approval (decision of PAC/SERC and the issue of formal sanction) of
the project, which could generally be about one to two months. Prompt
response from the PI in terms of additional documentation comprising
of budgetary quotations for PE and salary norms etc. would help in
reducing this time lag to some extent. This should be possible if
these documents are arranged in advance and kept ready in
anticipation of technical approval of the project. This time lag
should also be utilised to do necessary preparatory work such as
identification of project staff and other in-house paper work for
recruitment and procurement, before the final administrative approval
is received. All this planning and coordination will ensure that the
technical work can be started immediately after receiving the formal
sanction without wasting much time in these administrative/procedural
matters. It may sound trivial but these matters do eat up a lot of
actual project duration, if not handled in a planned and controlled
manner. The month following the date of sanction is generally taken
as the project start up date. The money reaches the host institute in
about a month’s time from the date of sanction. But the actual
project work can start (recruitment of staff and placement of orders
for PE), once the formal sanction order is received without waiting
for the bank draft, if the host institute so permits. One should try
to keep the start up time to the minimum so that most of the project
duration is effectively and optimally utilised for actual technical
work. Things like literature survey should have been done even before
submitting the proposal (during formulation) and should be a part of
project documentation. Any topping-up work, if necessary, should also
be completed during the period between the technical and the
administrative approval of the project.
DST
assigns great importance to monitoring the progress of ongoing
projects. Review meetings are organised to monitor the progress of
sanctioned projects at regular intervals, normally every year but at
least once during the currency of the project. This is considered a
serious business and the PI is himself expected to attend these
meetings to present the technical work carried out during the period
since last review. As an exception, if the PI is not able to attend
due to genuine reasons, the Co-PI is allowed to present the work.
While these reviews provide vital technical inputs for mid-course
corrective actions, they are also helpful in sorting out various
administrative and financial matters to facilitate smooth execution
of the project work. A brief report on the technical work/progress is
generally required in advance of the review meeting for circulation
to experts. This is in addition to the routine Annual Progress
Report.
Minor
changes to the original terms of the grant, arising due to reasons
beyond control in genuine cases, may be permissible. However, this
should be viewed as an exception rather than rule. It is encouraged
to observe a strict sense of discipline in project implementation and
every effort should be made to adhere to the original terms and
schedules. In any case, it is important to note that any such changes
can be made/effected only with the prior and formal permission of
DST.
During
the currency/tenure of the project, the PI is required to furnish
financial statements, comprising of Utilisation Certificate (UC) and
Statement of Expenditure (SE), in the prescribed format. These
statements are to be furnished financial year-wise, at the end of
each financial year. While a separate UC is required for the
concerned financial year, the SE is a consolidated one reflecting
separate expenditures in all preceding financial years and the total
expenditure.
The
total project cost and yearly head-wise allocations are reflected in
the original sanction letter, however, the money is released in
instalments. The first instalment is released in the beginning of the
project and the subsequent instalments are considered depending upon
the actual expenditure position. A formal request should be made to
this effect when the earlier funds are nearly used-up and an abridged
SE should be furnished to indicate up-to-date expenditure position to
substantiate the claim. Request for subsequent release can be made
any time depending upon the actual expenditure position and need not
coincide either with the close of financial year or the twelve
calendar months period. Release of next instalment may roughly take
about a month from the date of receipt of papers, and assuming that
they are in order.
The
financial and administrative matters should not be exclusively left
to the concerned function in the host institute. One must keep
regular track and do necessary follow up/coordination to avoid
oversights and last minute surprises.
Round-up/Completion
While
the project is in last lap of its tenure (last 3-6 months), work
should also start on the winding up activities, as well. This
includes preparation of Project Completion Report (PCR). The PCR
should be prepared so as to present the entire technical work in
totality and continuity, including conclusion of findings with
respect to pre-stated objectives. A mere compilation of publications
is not acceptable as PCR.
The
PCR should be furnished to DST immediately after the project
completion (say within 1-3 months) along with list of
publications/patents, final UC/SE and list of PE with their
individual costs. The unspent balance, if any, should be refunded by
a bank draft to DST. On the other hand, if some money is due from
DST, it may be claimed as final settlement based upon the expenditure
indicated in the final UC/SE. It is expected that financial support
of DST for the work is acknowledged in the publications. Also, PI
should cooperate with DST in case of any follow-up matter like
user/industry interaction or additional information, even when the
project is complete.
The
project is considered complete in technical, financial and
administrative terms when the aforesaid project closure formalities,
comprising of PCR and settlement of accounts, are over. DST generally
considers only one project at any given time. A new/follow-up project
can be submitted about six months prior to the anticipated completion
of the current project. The new project, if approved, should be
through the procedural mill and functional by the time old project is
complete. This would ensure adequate interface between the two
projects and continuity of work and project staff, if necessary.
Conclusion
It
is believed that the above information will be helpful for writing,
presenting and implementing research projects, particularly for young
researchers and first-timers who do not have much prior experience.
It will also bring in a sense of transparency into the functioning of
the funding agency and the evaluation process. It has been attempted
to cover the process over the entire life cycle of a research project
with sufficient details, in the general sense. However, it is
impractical to visualise and incorporate answers to all possible
situations, which may actually arise during the implementation. In
such situations, the best thing is to consult the concerned DST
person, facilitating that particular scheme, for appropriate advice.
Effective communication is the most important step in dealing with
seemingly difficult situations and it is advisable to remain in
constant touch with the facilitator during the implementation of the
project.
©
MultiSpectra Consultants, 2020.
