AIM Fund Proposals Evaluation Process

Proposals will be scored on a 120 point basis along six dimensions (work plan and five criteria)

1. Proposals scored 90 and above (90/120) will be considered by the Committee for recommendation for funding.
2. Each proposal will be scored by a team of three committee members, with comments on strengths and weaknesses of the proposals.
3. When team members’ scores for proposals differ by 20 or more points, they will confer to reach a more consistent score.
4. The Committee as a whole will consider and discuss each proposal that meets the qualifying score and vote by paper ballot to either “Highly Recommend” (2 points) or “Recommend” (1 point) or “Not Recommend” (0 points).
5. Proposals receiving a majority of “Highly Recommend” or “Recommend” votes will be forwarded to the Provost for his consideration, as “Highly Recommend (1.5-2.0 points on average), “Recommend” (1.0-1.4), or “Not Recommend” (0.0-0.9).
6. The Committee’s Recommendations to the Provost will include a written evaluation of each recommended proposal’s strengths and weaknesses and a record of the Committee’s votes for the proposal.
7. A summary of reviewers’ comments will be shared with the Lead Faculty for each proposal, whether forwarded to the Provost or not—together with the notification that the proposal was either recommended or not recommended to the Provost for consideration.
8. The Provost’s Office will formulate its recommendations to the President based on the quality and potential impact of the proposal, availability of funding, and category of funding (it may be desirable to balance funding across categories of funding). Before the Provost makes final recommendations to the President for his approval, budget requests may be negotiated and modified as appropriate by the Provost’s Office in consultation with the lead faculty for proposals.