Why is the Research Council introducing a new application system?

It has been necessary to introduce a new application and case processing system. Here you can read more about the reasons for the biggest changes.

A system for the future

Artificial intelligence is already changing  the way research applications are written and assessed, and the new system is designed to be further developed and adapted. In this connection, we would like to clarify that we do not use AI for screening of samples.  

It is important that the researchers describe their project well and that they have confidence in our system and our schemes. Therefore, we systematically collect feedback through search surveys. These are very important in order to further develop our system in the best way possible. We send the survey to everyone who has applied after the application deadline.  

Why did we choose to build a new system?

The new system replaces an old system from the early 2000s that consisted of several fragmented and partly outdated solutions that are communicating poorly, that were expensive to maintain and cumbersome to develop further. The old system was not suitable to support modern working methods and new user needs, and was not equipped to use new technology, or meet new safety requirements.

We also want to strengthen data quality and use the data from the case system for insight, analysis and use of data, for example to exploit the potential of AI technology.

We are building a comprehensive case system

We are not just building an application system, but a comprehensive case management system that will handle all parts of the case processing process. We have built up our own registers and have integrated with several other public registers and built up a number of parts adapted to calls of proposals, applications, assessments, decisions, appeals, projects and project follow-up and access.

The application form will be a little bit different for different calls for proposals. The forms are structured according to the criteria according to which the application is assessed. The new application forms are clearer on how the applications are actually assessed, but the criteria themselves remain unchanged. The new system is designed to be adapted and further developed depending on feedback we receive from applicants and technological developments.  

The structure of the new application forms

The application forms are structured according to the assessment criteria according to which the application will be assessed. The project description will become part of the application form and should no longer be sent as an attachment.  We ask applicants to describe their project in one or more text fields within each assessment criterion. What you write under each criterion will be assessed according to that criterion. We have introduced the amendment to make it clearer to applicants and referees assessing the application which part of the application is being assessed under which criteria.

Feedback from applicant surveys over several years has been clear: There is a need for better coherence between application and assessment, it must be clearer what is being assessed, and what distinguishes good and very good applications. The new system has been developed with this as a starting point.

Most of the feedback recently has been about the number of fields and the number of characters allowed. This can be adjusted in application forms for new calls for proposals, and we will take the input with us when we further develop the solution.

The feedback has also been about the possibilities of downloading the submitted application as a PDF. We are introducing this already now before the summer holidays.

Textual description of competence

We have asked applicants to describe the project participants and the group's competence in text fields, not in the form of a traditional CV. This also opens up for documenting different skills and experiences than a traditional CV. This is referred to as narrative CV, something that researchers recommend, in line with international developments and agreements.  

Through international agreements such as DORA and CoARA, the Research Council of Norway and most universities in Norway have committed themselves to changing how research is assessed, with an emphasis on quality and societal relevance rather than quantitative measures such as publication volume and journal impact factor. Narrative CV is a step in such a direction. The template is inspired by the British Royal Society's Résumé for Researchers (R4R) which was developed in collaboration with DORA. We will look at how this can be further developed and designed in our system.

New requirements for those who will participate in the application

Some have encountered challenges because we ask for confirmation from partners/those who have a mandatory role in a project before submitting the application.  Previously, applicants sent a signed agreement or letter of intent, now this is done with a confirmation in the system.  When organisations participate in a search for the Research Council, they will be part of what the evaluators assess.  

We must be sure that the organisations commit themselves and have available resources to carry out the project if approved.  

For some, who were unable to get electronic confirmation of a partner in place, we have in this application round opened up for this to be entered later.

We have also introduced a new way to set up a plan and project budget. We have some standard elements in the budget that everyone uses, and some we adapt depending on the call and the criteria that form the basis. This is part of the standardization we are trying to achieve.

In the new solution, we use ID-porten in the login, or a multi-factor authentication (MFA solution) with the Authenticator app, which requires a mobile number. We have chosen this solution to meet security requirements for the solution and GDPR requirements. There were several who were challenged with this in the first round, but we were able to help those concerned.

Further development

We will gather user insights and experiences and adapt and adjust the solution in line with the feedback.

We have a common goal of creating a solution that gives the researcher the opportunity to describe their project well, so that we can choose the right research projects. The important thing for us now is to collect all the feedback we have received and work systematically to translate it into changes and improvements in the solution. We will also listen to the evaluators and hear their feedback on the new structure and the different work surfaces in the solution.