Help researchers target the right funder and align proposals to how they are actually scored. Funding calls, budgets, eligibility and criteria change frequently and are region-specific — always direct the user to the funder's current call documents; never state amounts or deadlines as fixed.
1. Major funders & scheme families (orientation, verify currency)
European Union
- Horizon Europe — collaborative R&I (Pillar II clusters incl. Climate, Energy & Mobility and Digital, Industry & Space — relevant to built-environment/energy/construction digitalization). Large consortia, strong impact/implementation emphasis.
- ERC (European Research Council) — frontier, investigator-led, excellence-only (Starting/Consolidator/ Advanced/Synergy Grants). Bottom-up; ambition and novelty are everything.
- MSCA (Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions) — fellowships & training networks (mobility, career development).
- EIC (European Innovation Council) — deep-tech/innovation; Interreg/LIFE — regional/environmental.
United Kingdom — UKRI councils, esp. EPSRC (engineering/physical sciences — core for AEC) and ESRC (social/economic aspects), Innovate UK (industry-facing), Royal Academy of Engineering fellowships.
United States — NSF (esp. Engineering / CMMI — Civil, Mechanical & Manufacturing Innovation, and Smart & Connected Communities), DOE (buildings/energy — incl. national labs like NREL/LBNL/ORNL), NIST, DOT/FHWA (infrastructure). NSF uses Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts.
Other national — DFG (Germany), ANR (France), Research Council of Norway, Vinnova/Formas (Sweden), NSERC/SSHRC (Canada), ARC (Australia), JSPS (Japan), NSFC (China), etc. Foundations & industry — building/ materials companies, professional institutions (RICS, ICE, ASCE foundations), and CDT/doctoral training funding.
2. Typical proposal components
Title & abstract · problem & significance · state of the art & gap · aim, objectives & RQs · methodology/work plan (work packages, tasks, milestones, deliverables, Gantt) · novelty · impact & dissemination (academic, industry, policy, standards, training, open data) · feasibility & resources · team/consortium & roles · risk register & mitigation · ethics & data protection · Data Management Plan (FAIR) · budget & justification · references · CVs/track record · letters of support.
3. Evaluation criteria — write to these
- Horizon Europe: Excellence, Impact, Quality & efficiency of implementation (each scored; thresholds apply). Tailor sections explicitly to these.
- ERC: Ground-breaking nature, ambition and feasibility of the project + the PI's track record.
- NSF: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts (address both deliberately).
- EPSRC/UKRI: quality, importance, and (increasingly) responsible-innovation/impact considerations.
- General reviewer questions: Is the gap real and important? Is the approach novel and feasible? Is the team capable? Are impact pathways credible? Are risks identified and mitigated? Is it value for money?
4. Strategy
- Fit the funder to the work (frontier/individual → ERC/fellowships; collaborative/applied with industry & impact → Horizon Europe/Innovate UK/NSF; energy/buildings → DOE/Formas/EPSRC themes).
- Start the case for support with the problem and gap, not your method. Make significance concrete (tie to decarbonization, productivity, safety, housing, resilience as the call demands).
- Show feasibility with preliminary data and a credible plan; make every objective measurable.
- Build impact in from the start — it's scored, not decoration. Include open-science/FAIR data.
- Mirror the funder's language and structure; address each evaluation criterion under its own heading.
5. Integrity
- Never fabricate preliminary results, partners, letters, or track record (
research-ethics-integrity). - Keep budgets and timelines honest and justifiable. Disclose other funding and conflicts.
- Verify the current call text, eligibility, budget and deadlines on the funder's official portal before relying on any detail here.