11/2/2016

1

Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) 2016

Pengarah Komuniti Penyelidikan (CoRe) Institut Pengurusan Penyelidikan & Inovasi Tingkat 3, Bangunan Wawasan UiTM, 40450 Shah Alam

GERAN PENYELIDIKAN

11/2/2016

2

https://jpt.moe.gov.my/menupenyelidik.php

https://jpt.moe.gov.my/menupenyelidik.php

11/2/2016

3

Visi Penyelidikan fundamental yang berdaya saing untuk transformasi ilmu dan kecemerlangan negara Misi Membudaya, memperkasa dan melestarikan kapasiti penyelidikan berimpak tinggi bagi menjana ilmu yang mampu menyumbang terhadap perkembangan bakat, peningkatan tahap intelektual, penciptaan teknologi baru dan penyuburan peradaban yang dinamik.

FALSAFAH

Sebagai sebuah negara yang beraspirasi untuk menjadi negara maju, Malaysia perlu menyuburkan budaya penyelidikan. Untuk ini sebuah dana khusus diperlukan. Skim Geran Penyelidikan Fundamental (FRGS) dapat menggalakkan penyelidikan asas untuk menjana ilmu yang mampu menyumbang terhadap peningkatan tahap intelektual, penciptaan teknologi baru dan penyuburan budaya yang dinamik selaras dengan aspirasi negara.

11/2/2016

4

Falsafah FRGS

Menggalakkan penjanaan ilmu yang mampu menyumbang terhadap peningkatan tahap intelektual, penciptaan teknologi baru dan penyuburan budaya yang dinamik selaras dengan aspirasi negara

Teori Baru

Konsep Baru Idea Baru

PENGEMBANGAN ILMU

ASPIRASI NEGARA MAJU

Definisi FRGS

Teori Baru Konsep Baru Idea Baru

PENGEMBANGAN ILMU

Penyelidikan Asas

11/2/2016

5

TUJUAN

Melonjakkan Teori Baru Konsep Baru Idea Baru

Pemangkin Penemuan Baru

FRGS

Menerobos Sempadan Ilmu & Penciptaan Inovatif

Kluster FRGS 2016 Sains Tulen dan Gunaan (Pure and Applied Sciences)

Sastera dan Sastera Ikhtisas (Arts and Applied Arts)

Teknologi dan Kejuruteraan (Technology and Engineering) Sains Kesihatan dan Klinikal (Clinical and Health Sciences)

Sains Sosial (Social Sciences)

Warisan Alam dan Budaya (Natural and Cultural Heritage)

Teknologi Maklumat dan Komunikasi (Information and Communication Technology)

11/2/2016

6

SYARAT-SYARAT PERMOHONAN • Warganegara Malaysia. • Kakitangan akademik tetap/kontrak (Profesor, Profesor Madya, Pensyarah Kanan, Pensyarah). • Kakitangan akademik bertaraf kontrak, dimestikan mempunyai penyelidik bersama bertaraf tetap dari institusi yang sama. • Bagi kakitangan akademik bukan warganegara, dimestikan mempunyai penyelidik bersama warganegara Malaysia dan bertaraf tetap dari institusi yang sama. • Felo Penyelidik warganegara Malaysia daripada IPTA dengan tempoh kontrak tidak kurang daripada dua (2) tahun adalah dibenarkan untuk memohon geran sebagai Ketua Penyelidik. Walau bagaimanapun, mesti mempunyai penyelidik bersama warganegara Malaysia yang bertaraf tetap dari institusi yang sama.

SYARAT-SYARAT PERMOHONAN • Permohonan dari Universiti Cawangan perlu mematuhi syarat-syarat berikut:-

• Ketua Penyelidik yang bukan warganegara Malaysia boleh memohon dengan syarat penyelidik bersama mestilah warganegara Malaysia dan bertaraf tetap dari institusi yang sama. • Penyelidikan dan penghasilan bakat mestilah dilakukan dalam negara.

• Jumlah peruntukan yang dipohon hendaklah tidak melebihi siling yang telah ditetapkan dan tempoh penyelidikan tidak melebihi tiga (3) tahun. • Jumlah peruntukan yang dipohon hendaklah tidak melebihi siling yang telah ditetapkan dan tempoh penyelidikan tidak melebihi tiga (3) tahun

11/2/2016

7

SYARAT-SYARAT PERMOHONAN • Setiap pemohon dibenarkan untuk mengemukakan hanya satu permohonan projek sahaja pada setiap fasa • Permohonan baru bagi mereka yang telah diluluskan Geran Penyelidikan Fundamental pada fasa yang terdahulu akan diberi pertimbangan dengan mengemukakan bukti tahap selesai projek pada kadar 75%. • Setiap projek penyelidikan yang dipohon perlu melahirkan bakat dalam penyelidikan seperti mana yang termaktub dalam Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia - Pendidikan Tinggi (PPPMPT). Sehubungan dengan itu penghasilan bakat adalah seperti berikut:

11/2/2016

8

11/2/2016

9

11/2/2016

10

11/2/2016

11

11/2/2016

12

11/2/2016

13

Falsafah FRGS

Menggalakkan penjanaan ilmu yang mampu menyumbang terhadap peningkatan tahap intelektual, penciptaan teknologi baru dan penyuburan budaya yang dinamik selaras dengan aspirasi negara

Teori Baru

Konsep Baru Idea Baru

PENGEMBANGAN ILMU

Inisiatif JPT-KPM

RMK-9 2006: RM200 Juta

2010: RM285 Juta

RMK-10: RM741 Juta

Sains Tulin Teknologi & Kejuruteraan

Sains Sosial Sains Kesihatan &

Klinikal Sastera & Sastera Ikhisas

Sains Tabii & Warisan Negara

Sains Gunaan

Agenda Strategik Negara

11/2/2016

14

Sains Tulin Teknologi & Kejuruteraan

Sains Sosial Sains Kesihatan &

Klinikal Sastera & Sastera Ikhisas

Sains Tabii & Warisan Negara

Sains Gunaan

Agenda Strategik Negara

Modal Insan Ilmu Baru Kaedah Baru Teknologi Baru

11/2/2016

15

How our proposals are

assessed UiTM Panels have the tendency to

recommend KPT Panels have the

tendency to REJECT

11/2/2016

16

11/2/2016

17

Sokongan, komitmen serta dedikasi setiap rakyat Malaysia adalah sangat penting bagi memastikan kejayaan RMKe-11 dan pencapaian aspirasi menjadi negara maju yang inklusif dan mampan menjelang tahun 2020. Saya percaya bahawa kegemilangan negara kita bergantung kepada semangat kental, perkongsian nilai dan impian serta bakat besar rakyat Malaysia. Saya menyeru seluruh rakyat Malaysia untuk bersamasama mengorak langkah dalam pusingan akhir perjalanan kita ke arah menjadi negara maju. 1Malaysia “Rakyat Didahulukan, Pencapaian Diutamakan”

11/2/2016

18

PSPTN: NATIONAL HIGHER LEARNING STRATEGIC PLAN: 7 Strategic Thrusts

36

Pengajian Tinggi 2020

Teras 1 Meluaskan akses & meningkatkan ekuiti

Teras 2 Menambahbaik kualiti pengajaran & pembelajaran

Teras 3 Memperteguh penyelidikan & inovasi

Teras 4 Memperkasakan institusi pengajian tinggi

Teras 5 Mempergiatkan pengantarabangsaan

Teras 6 Membudayakan pembelajaran sepanjang hayat

Teras 7 Mengukuhkan sistem penyampaian KPT

Pusat Perancangan Strategik

11/2/2016

19

TERAS PSPTN 1 Meluaskan akses & meningkatkan ekuiti 2 Menambahbaik kualiti pengajaran & pembelajaran 3 Memperteguh penyelidikan & inovasi 4 Memperkasakan institusi pengajian tinggi 5 Mempergiatkan pengantarabang-saan 6 Membudayakan pembelajaran sepanjang hayat 7 Mengukuhkan sistem penyampaian KPT

1. Tadbir Urus 1. Tadbir Urus

7. Kebolehpasaran siswazah 7. Kebolehpasaran siswazah

6. Pengantarabangsaan 6. Pengantarabangsaan

5. Penyelidikan & Pembangunan 5. Penyelidikan & Pembangunan

4. Pembelajaran & Pengajaran 4. Pembelajaran & Pengajaran

3. Akademia 3. Akademia

8. IPTS 8. IPTS

11. MyBrain15 11. MyBrain15 10. Program APEX 10. Program APEX

9. Pembangunan Holistik Pelajar 9. Pembangunan Holistik Pelajar

2. Kepimpinan 2. Kepimpinan

12. PSH 12. PSH

23 CRITICAL AGENDA PROJECTS (CAPS)

22. Keusahawanan 22. Keusahawanan 21. Centre of Excellence 21. Centre of Excellence 20. Top Business School 20. Top Business School 19. ePembelajaran 19. ePembelajaran 18. Industri - Akademia 18. Industri - Akademia 17. Transformasi Politeknik 17. Transformasi Politeknik 16. Sistem Penyampaian KPT 16. Sistem Penyampaian KPT

15. Transformasi Kolej Komuniti 15. Transformasi Kolej Komuniti

14. Aksesibiliti & Kelestarian 14. Aksesibiliti & Kelestarian 13. Jaminan Kualiti 13. Jaminan Kualiti

23. Knowledge Transfer 23. Knowledge Transfer

Fasa Pelaksanaan

PSPTN

Fasa 2 (2011 - 2015): Peningkatan dan

Pemerkasaan

Fasa 1 (2007 - 2010): Peletakan Asas

Fasa 3 (2016 - 2020): Kecemerlangan

Fasa 4 (melangkaui 2020): Kegemilangan

dan Kelestarian

Dokumen Pelan Tindakan Fasa 1 -menggariskan inisiatif yang perlu dilaksanakan untuk menjayakan objektif strategik yang digariskan

11/2/2016

20

MATLAMAT RMK-10

RMK-10 (741 juta)

FRGS (300 juta)

ERGS (93 juta)

LRGS (166 juta)

INSENTIF (41 juta)

PRGS (41 juta)

PEMBUDAYAAN (2006-2008)

KUALITI (2009-2010)

KECEMERLANGAN

(2011-2012)

1,500 PhD & Master

6,400 PEMBENTANGAN & PENERBITAN

500 IP

RMK-9 FRGS

(315 juta)

923 PhD

123 IP

7,177 PEMBENTANGAN & PENERBITAN

RM337 juta Perbelanjaan

5,866 Bil.Projek

Increases in Indexed Publication & Commercialisation Potential Proven Excellence (2013 onwards)

Introduction

FRGS Fundamental Research Grant Scheme

- Penyelidikan yang menghasilkan teori, konsep, dan idea baru - Menjawab persoalan “WHY?” dan “HOW?”.

ERGS Exploratory Research Grant Scheme

- Hasil penemuan boleh dikembangkan kepada projek bersifat gunaan - Menjawab persoalan “WHAT?” dan “WHERE?”.

LRGS Long-term Research Grant Scheme

- Penyelidikan fundamental yang memerlukan tempoh pelaksanaan melebihi 3 tahun

PRGS Prototype Development Research Grant Scheme

- Penghasilan produk penyelidikan, tetapi belum sampai ke peringkat pengkomersilan

11/2/2016

21

Introduction

Fundamental Applied Industrial Design Pre- Comm Development Business Venture Post- Comm

Spin off Innovation

Development of New Knowledge Development of New Technologies

Development of New Products

ERGS

MOHE MOSTI, MOA , etc.

KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY (RMK-10)

*PRGS FRGS / LRGS/ PRGS Market Test

PENGALAMAN FRGS 1/2015

11/2/2016

22

SKIM GERAN PENYELIDIKAN FUNDAMENTAL (FRGS) KEPUTUSAN FRGS FASA 1/2015 MENGIKUT KLUSTER

BIL KLUSTER BIL LULUS JUMLAH LULUS (RM) %

1 Sains Tulen 4 407,900 3.05 2 Sains Gunaan 14 1,552,200 11.62 3 Teknologi dan Kejuruteraan 55 5,120,850 38.32 4 Sains Kesihatan dan Klinikal 14 1,723,600 12.90 5 Sains Sosial 33 2,247,470 16.82 6 Sastera dan Sastera Ikhtisas 7 516,900 3.87 7 Sains Tabii dan Warisan Negara 10 908,500 6.80 8 Teknologi Maklumat dan Komunikasi 10 886,200 6.63

JUMLAH KESELURUHAN 147 13,363,620 100

SKIM GERAN PENYELIDIKAN FUNDAMENTAL (FRGS) KEPUTUSAN FRGS FASA 1/2015 MENGIKUT FAKULTI

BIL FAKULTI JUMLAH JUMLAH PERUNTUKAN (RM) 1 Akademi Pengajian Bahasa 1 75,200.00 2 Akademi Pengajian Islam Kontemporari 1 60,400.00 3 Fakulti Farmasi 5 614,700.00 4 Fakulti Kejuruteraan Awam 8 781,850.00 5 Fakulti Kejuruteraan Elektrik 24 2,020,900.00 6 Fakulti Kejuruteraan Kimia 7 752,800.00 7 Fakulti Kejuruteraan Mekanikal 8 831,200.00 8 Fakulti Komunikasi & Pengajian Media 1 64,700.00 9 Fakulti Pengurusan Maklumat 4 282,100.00

10 Fakulti Pengurusan Perniagaan 6 431,070.00 11 Fakulti Perakaunan 4 313,500.00 12 Fakulti Pergigian 3 379,700.00 13 Fakulti Perubatan 5 714,900.00 14 Fakulti Sains Gunaan 12 1,207,000.00 15 Fakulti Sains Kesihatan 5 452,900.00 16 Fakulti Sains Komputer & Matematik 6 550,100.00 17 Fakulti Seni Lukis & Seni Reka 1 109,000.00 18 Fakulti Senibina Perancangan & Ukur 3 278,000.00 19 Fakulti Undang-undang 3 189,700.00

JUMLAH 107 10,109,720.00

11/2/2016

23

SKIM GERAN PENYELIDIKAN FUNDAMENTAL (FRGS) KEPUTUSAN FRGS FASA 1/2015 MENGIKUT KAMPUS

BIL CAWANGAN KAMPUS JUMLAH JUMLAH PERUNTUKAN (RM)

1 UiTM Selangor Shah Alam 87 7,975,120.00 Puncak Alam 11 1,137,600.00 Puncak Perdana 4 282,100.00 Sungai Buloh 5 714,900.00

Jumlah 107 10,109,720.00 2 UiTM Johor Pasir Gudang 2 212,900.00

Segamat 1 54,100.00 Jumlah 3 267,000.00

3 UiTM Melaka Alor Gajah 5 305,600.00 Bandaraya Melaka 2 129,700.00 Jasin 1 84,200.00 Jumlah 8 519,500.00 4 UiTM Negeri Sembilan Seremban 3 2 144,700.00 Jumlah 2 144,700.00

5 UiTM Pahang Jengka 3 224,400.00 Jumlah 3 224,400.00

6 UiTM Perak Sri Iskandar 4 327,200.00 Tapah 2 244,900.00

Jumlah 6 572,100.00 7 UiTM Perlis Arau 4 417,000.00

Jumlah 4 417,000.00 8 UiTM Pulau Pinang Bukit Mertajam 8 653,700.00

Jumlah 8 653,700.00 9 UiTM Sarawak Samarahan 2 165,200.00

Jumlah 2 165,200.00 10 UiTM Terengganu Kuala Terengganu 1 81,000.00 Dungun 3 209,300.00

Jumlah 4 290,300.00 JUMLAH KESELURUHAN 147 13,363,620.00

ANALISA PERMOHONAN FRGS 1/2015 PERINGKAT UiTM

11/2/2016

24

PERMOHONAN FRGS 1/2015 TIDAK DISOKONG MENGIKUT FAKULTI BIL FAKULTI JUMLAH JUMLAH DIPOHON (RM) 1 Akademi Pengajian Bahasa 1 124,240.00 2 Akademi Pengajian Islam Kontemporari 9 1,386,900.00 3 Fakulti Farmasi 1 185,000.00 4 Fakulti Kejuruteraan Awam 3 545,500.00 5 Fakulti Kejuruteraan Elektrik 19 2,481,830.00 6 Fakulti Kejuruteraan Kimia 9 1,373,700.00 7 Fakulti Kejuruteraan Mekanikal 3 562,250.00 8 Fakulti Komunikasi & Pengajian Media 1 67,790.00 9 Fakulti Pendidikan 2 121,000.00

10 Fakulti Pengurusan Hotel & Pelancongan 1 86,641.00 11 Fakulti Pengurusan Maklumat 5 552,170.00 12 Fakulti Pengurusan Perniagaan 11 1,050,690.00 13 Fakulti Perakaunan 4 747,200.00 14 Fakulti Pergigian 2 399,200.00 15 Fakulti Perubatan 3 632,300.00 16 Fakulti Sains Gunaan 12 1,598,741.00 17 Fakulti Sains Kesihatan 5 677,490.00 18 Fakulti Sains Komputer & Matematik 4 572,089.00 19 Fakulti Seni Lukis & Seni Reka 6 939,000.00 20 Fakulti Senibina Perancangan & Ukur 7 658,600.00 21 Fakulti Undang-undang 6 506,900.00

JUMLAH 114 15,269,231.00

PERMOHONAN FRGS 1/2015 TIDAK DISOKONG MENGIKUT KAMPUS BIL CAWANGAN KAMPUS JUMLAH JUMLAH DIPOHON (RM)

1 UiTM Selangor Shah Alam 97 12,736,430.00 Puncak Alam 7 949,131.00 Puncak Perdana 5 552,170.00 Sungai Buloh 5 1,031,500.00

Jumlah 114 15,269,231.00 2 UiTM Johor Pasir Gudang 5 657,500.00 Segamat 5 426,900.00 Jumlah 10 1,084,400.00 3 UiTM Kelantan Machang 6 456,190.00 6 456,190.00 4 UiTM Melaka

Alor Gajah 7 602,885.00 Bandaraya Melaka 12 925,599.00 Jasin 3 721,500.00 Jumlah 22 2,249,984.00

5 UiTM Negeri Sembilan Kuala Pilah 4 412,260.00 Seremban 3 2 226,750.00 Jumlah 6 639,010.00

6 UiTM Pahang Jengka 10 1,092,860.00 Jumlah 10 1,092,860.00 7 UiTM Perak Sri Iskandar 9 1,048,960.00 Tapah 4 413,240.00 Jumlah 13 1,462,200.00 8 UiTM Perlis Arau 9 1,087,722.00

Jumlah 9 1,087,722.00 9 UiTM Pulau Pinang Bukit Mertajam 8 1,233,790.00

Jumlah 8 1,233,790.00 10 UiTM Sarawak Samarahan 3 311,600.00

Samarahan 2 1 122,805.00 Jumlah 4 434,405.00 11 UiTM Terengganu Bukit Besi 4 297,670.00

Dungun 2 236,400.00 Jumlah 6 534,070.00 JUMLAH KESELURUHAN 208 25,543,862.00

11/2/2016

25

PUNCA PERMOHONAN FRGS TIDAK DISOKONG DI PERINGKAT UiTM

FRGS 1/2015 TIDAK DISOKONG - PERINGKAT UiTM

No correction was being made by the applicant Applicant did not amend the proposal.

54 Weak proposal Poorly written

37 Inadequate fundamental aspect of research 70 No novelty 23 Does not fulfill FRGS criteria 13 Masalah Bajet 8 Salah Kluster 3

Total 208

PUNCA PERMOHONAN FRGS TIDAK DISOKONG DI PERINGKAT UiTM CONTOH KOMEN-KOMEN

No correction Applicant did not amend the proposal. All her responses are just ""noted"“ No correction was being made by the applicant. Leader just acknowledged the comment without any correction Despite the twice guidance by the evaluator, the applicants have not shown much attempt to correct, fine-tune & adjust the proposal to be of a sound quality.

Weak proposal Poorly written

The proposal is poorly written. The research problem lack clarity and the description on research approach is weak. The proposal is not well prepared. There is lacking of fundamental issue to be

addressed. It is difficult to identify the novel knowledge that this project may bring as the

background studies and all other information provided are weakly supporting the proposal Ok Poor Not clear

Inadequate fundamental aspect of research

The title does not reflect a fundamental research in the field of ICT and information systems Title shows applied research, rewrite title focusing on the problem of low cost CCTV

No novelty Rephrase the title to reflect novelty to the study. Revisiting is not a novelty The novelty of the proposed study was not mentioned.

Does not fulfill FRGS criteria

Overall good proposal but it is not suitable for FRGS as the proposal entails applied research. Recommend for escience The proposal fails to meet FRGS criteria

Masalah Bajet Budget does not tally with the depth of research proposed Budget too high. Applicant should refer to FRGS guideline and attend briefing"

Salah Kluster The proposal is more towards a social science/ behavourial type of research, and does not fit into the health and clinical science cluster The wrong choice of cluster is evidenced here where psychology is the mainstay of

the research project rather than religion.

11/2/2016

26

ANALISA PERMOHONAN FRGS 1/2015 PERINGKAT KPM

PERMOHONAN FRGS 1/2015 TIDAK DISOKONG KPM MENGIKUT FAKULTI BIL FAKULTI JUMLAH JUMLAH PERUNTUKAN (RM) 1 Akademi Pengajian Islam Kontemporari 3 379,600.00 4 Fakulti Farmasi 11 1,985,210.00 5 Fakulti Kejuruteraan Awam 8 923,250.00 6 Fakulti Kejuruteraan Elektrik 22 2,691,260.00 7 Fakulti Kejuruteraan Kimia 10 1,416,350.00 8 Fakulti Kejuruteraan Mekanikal 8 1,282,050.00 9 Fakulti Komunikasi & Pengajian Media 1 72,000.00

10 Fakulti Pendidikan 1 109,130.00 11 Fakulti Pengurusan Hotel & Pelancongan 6 448,160.00 12 Fakulti Pengurusan Maklumat 6 438,660.00 13 Fakulti Pengurusan Perniagaan 14 1,237,964.00 14 Fakulti Perakaunan 4 367,002.00 15 Fakulti Pergigian 3 351,200.00 16 Fakulti Perubatan 8 1,734,700.00 17 Fakulti Sains Gunaan 22 3,558,610.00 18 Fakulti Sains Kesihatan 8 1,098,240.00 19 Fakulti Sains Komputer & Matematik 13 1,453,436.00 20 Fakulti Sains Pentadbiran & Pengajian Polisi 1 129,500.00 21 Fakulti Seni Lukis & Seni Reka 7 1,065,800.00 22 Fakulti Senibina Perancangan & Ukur 11 1,312,730.00 23 Fakulti Undang-Undang 2 143,300.00

JUMLAH 169 22,198,152.00

11/2/2016

27

PERMOHONAN FRGS 1/2015 TIDAK DISOKONG KPM MENGIKUT KAMPUS BIL CAWANGAN KAMPUS JUMLAH JUMLAH DIPOHON (RM)

1 UiTM Selangor Shah Alam 128 15,878,062.00 Puncak Alam 25 3,838,730.00 Puncak Perdana 5 395,460.00 Sungai Buloh 11 2,085,900.00

Jumlah 169 22,198,152.00 2 UiTM Johor Pasir Gudang 2 380,400.00 Segamat 2 135,400.00

Jumlah 4 515,800.00 3 UiTM Kedah Sungai Petani 3 196,700.00

Jumlah 3 196,700.00 4 UiTM Kelantan Machang 1 66,400.00 1 66,400.00 5 UiTM Melaka

Alor Gajah 2 272,900.00 Bandaraya Melaka 5 344,960.00 Jasin 6 655,150.00

Jumlah 13 1,273,010.00 6 UiTM Negeri Sembilan Kuala Pilah 5 778,350.00 Seremban 3 5 389,000.00

Jumlah 10 1,167,350.00 7 UiTM Pahang Jengka 4 378,002.00 Jumlah 4 378,002.00 8 UiTM Perak Sri Iskandar 9 1,021,900.00

Tapah 4 454,420.00 Jumlah 13 1,476,320.00

9 UiTM Perlis Arau 6 698,450.00 Jumlah 6 698,450.00

10 UiTM Pulau Pinang Bukit Mertajam 17 2,723,342.00 Jumlah 17 2,723,342.00

11 UiTM Sabah Kota Kinabalu 1 120,480.00 Jumlah 1 120,480.00

12 UiTM Sarawak Samarahan 1 103,600.00 Samarahan 2 3 370,372.00

Jumlah 4 473,972.00 13 UiTM Terengganu Bukit Besi 2 271,350.00

Dungun 3 322,640.00 Jumlah 5 593,990.00 JUMLAH KESELURUHAN 250 31,881,968.00

PUNCA PERMOHONAN FRGS TIDAK DISOKONG DI PERINGKAT KPM

FRGS 1/2015 TIDAK DISOKONG - PERINGKAT KPM

Need corrections 5 Weak proposal Poorly written

73 Inadequate fundamental aspect of research 88 No novelty 25 Does not fulfill FRGS criteria 13 Budget problems 12 Wrong cluster 0 Inadequate team members 11 Not cutting edge research 13 Limited funding 10

Total 250

11/2/2016

28

PUNCA PERMOHONAN FRGS TIDAK DISOKONG DI PERINGKAT KPM CONTOH KOMEN-KOMEN

Need corrections Need corrections before it can be accepted. Weak proposal Poorly written

The problem statement needs to be strengthened. Research questions and research objectives are not aligned. The proposal has potential, but its weaknesses have to be firstly ironed out.

Inadequate fundamental aspect of research

The title does not reflect the fundamental research that the proposal intends to undertake.

the proposal is more towards applied research the relationship studies failed to indicate the fundamental research

No novelty Novelty of the work and research outcome is not well explained in the executive summary

The write-up is not convincing that any novelty would arise from this research. Does not fulfill FRGS criteria

The proposal did not meet the criteria of a fundamental scientific research. It is appropriate to apply for a Social Science Grant.

Nature of work is developmental and exploratory in nature. Objectives involve mainly synthesis and characterization of developed material.Does not support fundamental criteria of FRGS funding

Budget problems Unconsistency budget planning (GRA) However, the proposal was written with full carelessness, inconsistency with budget

and output The understanding of allotment of budget materials need to be studied further.

Inadequate team members

Also the research background and track record of the team members are not incoherence with the proposed work.

From the information given, none of the team members have ever written on the topic of sukuk.

The leader has one FRGS grant scheme which is in progress -The members should have at least one senior researcher

Not cutting edge research

Coming up with a needs analysis framework cannot be regarded as cutting edge research.

No cutting age finding proposed No cutting edge and high impact findings are expected form the study.

Limited funding Due to limited funding, only highly recommended projects are funded for this FRGS cycle

Tajuk cadangan penyelidikan yang sesuai dengan kehendak penaja dan menepati kontrak Elakkan tajuk yang kelihatan cetek seperti meninjau, memeta, mengenalpasti dan kajian awal.

Buat carian untuk memastikan bahawa tajuk yang dipilih tidak overused atau cliché atau out of date. Tajuk perlu melambang kajian semasa dan ada ump! Cari terminology cross breed yang menampakkan kekuatan/kecanggihan penyelidikan

Tajuk

11/2/2016

29

Cadangan penyelidikan memastikan kerja bersifat supplement/complement kepada keperluan penaja (NEM, NKEA, dasar berkaitan dengan kajian yang telah digubal)

Kajian tekal atau konsisten dengan dasar klien (kerajaan, industri)

Pusat sepunya (ruang pertemuan dan mempunyai sistem sokongan yang mantap)

Lain-lain

The DON’TS Tajuk yang dangkal /shallow Penyelidikan yang basi, over cycle Terlalu menjurus dan mendalam Menyelidik apa yang penyelidik suka tanpa pertimbangan tentang the bigger picture (syok sendiri) Penyelidikan yang memerlukan kos yang terlalu tinggi dan tidak munasabah Jangan gunakan permohonan untuk bina makmal dan instrumentasi Bajet perjalanan perlu ikut garis panduan

Lain-lain

11/2/2016

30

Kertas Kerja Penuh

Introduction Quality of the Proposal The measures for a good quality proposal are: Informative title; Convincing executive summary; Clear problem statement; Scientific background and rationale; Good selection of research methods; Ethical considerations; and Realistic budget and schedule.

11/2/2016

31

Introduction

A document that is neat, well organized and easy to read; Responsiveness to the program need, with specific references showing how the proposed project will achieve program goals and objectives; Fresh insight into an important problem; Writing that communicates the enthusiasm and commitment of the researcher; Evidence that the PI knows the field; Convincing preliminary data; and A feasible work plan that is supported by an appropriate budget.

Characteristics of a good proposal:

Assessment: Assessor Research Proposal VS Research Assessment Module of LRGS/F/ERGS Proposal Title Details of Researcher Research Information Executive Summary Research Background Problem Statement Hypotheses Literature Review Research Objectives Methodology/Research Design Timeline/Schedule Expected Results Facilities and Special Resources Budget Resume/Brief CV Appendices

What Ext. Assessors Look For: Title (1) Details of Researcher Research Information Executive Summary (2) Research Background Problem Statement (3) Hypotheses Literature Review Research Objectives (4) Methodology/Research Design (5) Timeline/Schedule Expected Results (6) Facilities and Special Resources Budget (7) Resume/Brief CV Appendices

11/2/2016

32

Assessment: Assessor External Assessment Sponsor level Assessors focus on the Four Cs Clarity. How GWs do cross-reference current literature in laying out their premises. Content. How GWs organize their ideas around aims linked to their hypothesis. Coherence of concepts. How GWs present coherent set of ideas predicated by previous work. Cutting edge. Are GWs ready to take legitimate risks.

Assessment: Assessor Internal Assessment Department/Faculty/Institute level University level Internal assessors improve the quality of grant submissions How to “improve”

11/2/2016

33

Assessment: Assessor External Assessment Sponsor level Many constraints Number of proposals, amount of money available, etc. To find mistakes/weaknesses, etc. To find ways on… How to “reject”

11/2/2016 66

SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT Completeness of project background

•Is the literature review that gives the background adequate, current and relevant to the proposal? •Is the statement of the issues and problems to be addressed sufficiently clear to the committee •Is the title an accurate one for the proposal?

Research Approach and Technical Objectives •The research approach should be consistent with the objectives and the scientific and practical aspects of the research methodology •Consider the approach to data collection, data analysis and applicability of the proposed equipment.

11/2/2016

34

11/2/2016 67

SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT Viability of Research

• Are the issues to be addressed realistic and narrow for 24 months study? Is the methodology (the procedure and the methods to be applied in the study) current, reasonable, adequate and appropriate? The Evaluation Committee should assess this by taking into consideration the risks of support equipment failure, inadequate technical support, etc.

The Experience, Qualifications and Availability of Research Team • The reviewer should consider the relevant experience and background of the key projects individuals and co-researcher. Have they successfully completed related projects? The reviewers’ evaluation should be based on the evidence contained in the proposal pertaining to their experience, availability and the indicated amount of effort by the principal investigator and team.

11/2/2016 68

SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT Capability of project leader

• Has the applicant conducted relevant research in the area/field of specializations? Has the applicant published within the proposed area? Are his/her previous works relevant to the current proposal? If the applicant is a beginner, please indicate so as special consideration is always given to new staff to start them into research.

Capability, appropriateness and availability of research team • Are the co-researchers in the relevant area? Are there sufficient grounds given to justify recruitment of more than one project assistants?

11/2/2016

35

11/2/2016 Khairul RMI 69

SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT Appropriateness of cost estimates

• Is the budget reasonable and acceptable?

Utilization of existing/available infrastructure • The Evaluation Committee should ensure that the applicant reduces to a minimum any call upon outside facilities and as far as possible and within the context of the research that the applicant intends this must mean confining the research to the closest available sites to their campus.

Conclusion Ethical Statement Researchers undertaking any form of fundamental research using animals or people have to submit a proposal to either the animal ethics committee or the human ethics committee for approval before the data gathering can begin.

11/2/2016

36

Conclusion Good Proposal

Grant Proposal (Failed/Success)-Sample Good Ideas Good Grantsmanship Good Presentation Good Review Good Luck

Examples of Successful FRGS

Proposal

11/2/2016

37

Executive Summary of Research Proposal (maximum 300 words) Congestion problem is one of the catastrophic issues in power system. A few decades ago congestion was not serious issues in power system due to the fact that load increment is substantially not critical resulted from slow development. However, in recent years power demand has increased accordingly resulted from industrial plants in many countries. The existence of new industrial areas and with the immensity of populations had led to as a congestion problem in power system. The current traditional technique is found to be troublesome since it involves heavily mathematical equation, solved through linear programming and dynamic programming. This has demonstrated the complicated solution to power system operators. This project proposes a different approach which begins with the fundamental mechanics of swarm algorithm for solving the power system model. Decision making processes which will be based on Fuzzy logic technique, hybridized with swarm algorithm are considered new in power system studies. The ability to Fuzzy approach is extracted and will be hybridized will the swarm algorithm to tackle the problem, through the off-line studies. The study begins with the accumulation of related knowledge and revision on the previous technique related to congestion management and optimization techniques. It will be followed by the design of algorithms for optimization of congestion and optimization engine will be developed accordingly. The power system model will be utilized to validate the workability of the proposed technique.

The aspiration of Malaysia Prime Minister, YAB Dato’ Seri Mohd Najib Bin Tun Abdul Razak to make Malaysia as a high income country is profoundly a brave and very determined decision. In line with that, the Prime Minister has formed portfolio at the ministry level to consistently assess the performance of government body through the National Key Results Area (NKRA). All ministries have been directed by the government to enhance their productivity through Research and Development activities in broad aspects so as to ensure Malaysian Citizens are at par with the high income group country. Research and Development activities have been initiated by several government bodies so as to realize the government aspiration. On the side of Science and Technology, Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water (KETTHA) and Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) are among the several bodies which have been striving to achieve the government vision. On the sides of MOSTI, KETTHA and MOHE, electrical energy is always an issue since the electricity demand is progressing non-linearly.

11/2/2016

38

(b) Objective (s) of the Research Objektif Penyelidikan Example /Contoh: This study embarks on the following objectives: • To formulate Fuzzy logic Rules in order to determine the location for

compensating devices implemented on a power system model. • To develop algorithm for Swarm Algorithm in the optimization of

congestion management parameters. • To characterize the performance of proposed Hybrid Fuzzy-Swarm

with the variation of parameters of swarm.

Contoh-Contoh Tajuk yang Berjaya:

1. An investigation to overcome thermal instability of schottky junction by employing nanostructured carbon based on silicon

2. An Energy Aware QoS Algorithm of Video Surveillance based on Internet of Things (IoT)

3. Characterization of Ultra Wideband (UWB) Electromagnetic Signatures reflected from Pedestrians based on Polarimetric Waveforms over an Orthogonal Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) Scheme

4. Developing Employee Engagement Model For Work Organizations In Malaysia

5. Modelling a Comprehensive SMEs' Internationalization Readiness Framework

11/2/2016

39

Contoh-Contoh Objektif Yang Berjaya 1. To propose an efficient and reliable method for the growth of

nanostructures Nb2O5 with various types of morphologies via manipulating electric field concept

2. To investigate the influence of electrolytes composition and annealing on tuning and engineering nanostructures Nb2O5.

3. To study the relationship between morphology and their impact on electronic and optical properties of nanostructures Nb2O5.

4. To model magnetic circuit arrangement for achieving constant thrust of slot-less electric linear actuator using PAM.

5. To simulate the thrust characteritics and performance of slot-less linear actuator using FEM.

KESIMPULAN

Your title SHOULD sound FUNDAMENTAL

Your Objectives SHOULD sound FUNDAMENTAL Executive Summary SHOULD be precise, self explanatory and realistic Your Team Member SHOULD be BALANCED

Your team SHOULD demonstrate that the work can be done

Your KPI should be realistic and addressed the requirement

11/2/2016

40

YANG TERAKHIR

JANGAN LUPA BERDOA DAN BERTAWAKAL

KEPADA ALLAH

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.

Q & A Session