Treatments for red tape

We all know that reviewers of grant applications make an initial decision based on a small amount of the information provided. That’s why so much effort goes into summaries and the first pages of a proposal.
So the first round of an application process should only seek the information that is used for that initial decision: enough to say ‘yes, this one should be looked at in more detail but that one isn’t going anywhere’.
The NHMRC is doing this better than the ARC. The latter requires an enormous amount of information all at once, although much of it is irrelevant if the project doesn’t have potential. For example, there is no point providing information about communication and data management plans and budget justifications if the idea isn’t significant and the researchers’ outputs to date (in the context of their opportunities, for course) indicates they don’t have the capacity to deliver.
It isn’t just a matter of saving researchers’ time, which is where much of this discussion focuses. Shorter applications will also reduce the pressure on assessors (and agencies always struggle to get assessors engaged) and reduce the time spent by non-research staff at universities before the applications are submitted. Yes, two-step processes are more work for agencies, and agencies are under incredible resource pressures, but the ROI for the innovation system overall is pretty clear.
The CRC process is an exemplar of progressively refining the list of applications with potential, which is why I found the Commission of Audit’s proposal about merging this proposal into the ARC so surprising.