DECRA Feasibility Risk Table – Pre-Weighted Risk & Mitigation Matrix

Set your application apart by showing clear planning and control from the first page. This guide explains how a pre-weighted matrix can turn research uncertainty into a convincing, evidence-backed narrative for the Australian Research Council.

The matrix links project scope, schedule and methods to the assessment criteria used by the ARC. You will see how to weight issues, set thresholds and define targets that show your team can deliver within the three-year funding window.

Practical steps show how to anchor mitigations to timelines, data sources and institutional support so assessors follow a single line from concern to solution.

By integrating this approach into your application and budget you demonstrate leadership, planning rigour and a clear path to delivery. Expect concise advice you can apply quickly to strengthen your project and make the case for funding.

Key Takeaways

• Use a pre-weighted matrix to make your application clear and evidence-based.
• Map mitigations to ARC assessment criteria to boost Investigator and Project scores.
• Anchor actions to real timelines and institutional supports across the years.
• Translate uncertainties into measurable thresholds and residual targets.
• Integrate the process into your project description and budget for coherence.

Why Feasibility Matters in ARC’s Discovery Early Career Researcher Award

A clear delivery narrative convinces assessors that an early career research project will be completed within the funding period and with the resources requested.

Discovery early career applicants must show methods, milestones and dependencies are understood and manageable. This directly affects the 15% allocated to feasibility in the assessment and strengthens other scoring dimensions.

Assessors and ARC College reviewers look for concise answers to practical questions: scope boundaries, data access, collaborator roles and realistic timelines. Meeting these expectations reduces uncertainty and builds confidence in your application.

1. Connect workplan milestones to budget lines and institutional support.
2. Explain data access and method suitability up front.
3. Anticipate delays and schedule sensible buffers.

Strong planning saves time at rejoinder and through review. Frame feasibility as evidence that your project is high-value and deliverable within ARC grants, so assessors can follow your logic from problem to outcome without friction.

Understanding DECRA: Objectives, funding levels, and assessment balance

Understanding the scheme’s aims and funding helps you match project design to what assessors value.

ARC objectives emphasise support for outstanding early career researchers and growing research leadership. The program funds work that creates economic, social, cultural, environmental or commercial benefit for Australia and encourages national and international collaboration.

Salary, project funding and duration at a glance

Salary support is $112,897 including 30 per cent on‑costs for three consecutive years full‑time. Applicants may choose part‑time arrangements extending up to six consecutive years.

Project funding is available up to $50,000 per year for three years. State these figures clearly so your budget lines and schedule match the scheme’s contours.

Assessment split and strategic emphasis

The assessment is divided into four weighted areas: Investigator/Capability 35 per cent; Project Quality and Innovation 35 per cent; Benefit 15 per cent; Feasibility 15 per cent. Use these weights to prioritise narrative space and evidence.

• Anchor your mitigation and deliverable plan to national benefit and value for money.
• Map deliverables to the three‑year term and note part‑time timings.
• Show collaborations and institutional support where they strengthen delivery and efficient use of funds.

Summary: align objectives, funding and assessment weightings so every project decision links to national impact and measurable outputs. This alignment makes your matrix and delivery plan persuasive to the australian research council and to reviewers assessing time, process and likely benefit.

decra feasibility risk table: what it is and how it powers your application

Use a compact scoring framework to convert identified issues into measurable, fundable responses within your application. This pre-weighted matrix turns a simple list into an objective decision tool with clear scoring and acceptance thresholds.

From list to decision tool: pre-weighting, scoring, and thresholds

Pre-weighting assigns categories such as scope, time, data, ethics, collaboration and environment with consequence and likelihood scores before mitigation.

Set threshold rules so any item above an agreed score requires a contingency plan and resources. Display initial score, mitigation action and residual score to make assessment straightforward for review.

Linking concerns to ARC evidence

Show assessors how each scored item maps to methods, milestones, budget lines and letters of support. This makes the logic traceable and speeds internal review.

• Use time-bound mitigations (start/finish windows, dependencies) to show active management.
• Ask targeted questions: what could block data access, delay ethics, or limit travel — and how will you respond?
• Include a short worked example converting a scored issue into a resourced mitigation pathway.

Keep the matrix living and localised. Update it through peer review and at rejoinder to keep your project credible and controllable across the grant period.

Designing your pre-weighted risk and mitigation matrix

A well-structured matrix makes your project’s uncertainties visible and solvable through targeted actions. Use it to show assessors how each issue links to methods, milestones and funding so the application reads as a single delivery plan.

Choose categories that map to the scheme: eligibility/timing, scope and methods, milestones and buffers, data acquisition and management, ethics, collaboration, institutional resources and budget adequacy.

Assigning weights, likelihood and consequence

Assign higher weights where a problem would stop the project—often data access or time. Use a 1–5 rubric for likelihood and consequence and document what each score means so assessors can follow your judgement.

Mitigations and residual targets

Plan mitigations that reduce scores to a acceptably low residual (for example ≤2). Budget targeted items: travel to archives, dataset licences, participant payments, RA time and secure storage. Mark risks that need ongoing monitoring or contingency funding.

Presenting the matrix in your project description and budget

Thread entries into the project description by mapping each item to a work package and milestone. Use time-based mitigations such as phased pilots, parallel tasks or alternative data sources to protect the critical path.

• Pre-plan decision gates: confirm data agreements before analysis phases.
• List milestone questions to re-evaluate at each review and triggers for plan revision.
• Include a concise visual in the project description and a fuller version as an appendix for internal planning.

Outcome: a living, evidence-led matrix that makes delivery plausible, connects budget to action and helps assessors see how funding buys reliable progress.

Eligibility and timing risks for early career applicants

Eligibility windows and timing choices shape when early career researchers should enter the scheme.

Confirm your PhD award date against the DE25 cut‑off: a PhD must be awarded on or after 1 March 2019, or you must show allowable career interruptions that make your award date effectively fall within that window.

PhD date windows and allowable career interruptions

Document interruptions clearly. Parental leave, part‑time work and health breaks must be recorded so the australian research council can verify eligibility.

If your award is borderline, supply certified evidence early to avoid administrative delay. Link these dates to your application timeline and to deliverables across the funded period.

Playing the odds: when to apply across ECR years

Applicants get two submission attempts. Use them strategically: time an application when your outputs and track record are strongest.

• Consider aiming in year three or four post‑PhD when productivity often peaks, but tailor this to your record.
• Build buffers for collecting letters, agreements and proof documents to avoid last‑minute pressure.
• Show clear year‑by‑year deliverables that match your available time and any part‑time arrangements.

Practical step: include a short mitigation note in your pre-weighted matrix that cites evidence sources for eligibility and timing, and confirm institutional advice well before submission.

Project scope, time, and workplan realism

Keep your project tightly phased: set deliverables for each year and map them to funding lines.

Right-size scope by breaking work into clear, measurable milestones. Front-load permissions and data access. Parallelise tasks that do not depend on each other.

Embed early quality checks such as pilot studies and method validation. These protect later analysis windows and improve confidence in outputs.

• Use targeted funding to clear bottlenecks and speed critical tasks.
• State what is out of scope to avoid scope creep and preserve credibility.
• List interim outputs—conference papers, preprints and datasets—as evidence of steady progress.

Build regular reviews into the process so you can course-correct using stakeholder feedback and new information. Include fallback methods or alternate data sources to keep momentum if assumptions shift.

“A clear, phased workplan turns ambition into deliverable steps that reviewers can trust.”

Summary: a realistic scope and disciplined timing strengthen your application and feed directly into the assessment process via the pre-weighted matrix.

Institutional environment and collaboration risk

Choose a host that demonstrably reduces project exposure by offering mentors, nearby archives and platforms such as HPC. This signals to assessors that practical barriers are already managed.

Selecting the right host: resources, mentors, libraries, and platforms

Look for concrete supports. Document librarian consultations for research data management, eResearch services for storage and compute, and administrative backing for compliance.

List supervisory roles and mentor time to show how capacity accelerates delivery. Note platform access—software licences, data repositories and high‑performance computing—that saves time.

National and international collaboration that strengthens feasibility

Align partners who bring unique data, field access or specialised methods. Use letters or agreements to lock in access and scheduling.

• Engage internal peer review early via Faculty ADRs or Research Managers.
• Set partner checkpoints and meeting cadence to manage the process.
• Present evidence from services (for example ACU Library Impact Service and ACU eResearch) that supports data plans and in‑kind contributions.

“A supportive environment turns intent into a credible delivery plan.”

Budget construction: feasibility, frugality, and full justification

A tightly built budget tells assessors exactly how funding buys the outputs you promise.

Begin with the workplan and map each cost to a method, dataset, travel leg or deliverable. Note that project funding is available up to $50,000 per year for three years; use this ceiling strategically while avoiding false frugality.

Aligning budget lines to methods, data, and travel

Label items clearly and add a one-line justification linking them to milestones. Provide supplier quotes, travel assumptions and data fees to make the application review straightforward.

Using maximums wisely and justifying unusual items

If you ask for the maximum, show how you worked backwards from outputs to costs. Explain specialist purchases—software, digitisation or bespoke recruitment—and state their direct impact on outcomes.

• Include costed contingencies where needed and separate recurring from one‑off costs.
• Coordinate with your research office to verify salary on‑costs and in‑kind figures for compliance with grants policy.
• Make the budget readable: brief labels, outcome-linked justifications and cross-references to your mitigation matrix.

“Request what you need to de-risk delivery; assessors reward clear links between spend and measurable benefit.”

Research performance and track record alignment

Position your PhD as the springboard. Summarise how core methods, datasets and theoretical threads from your doctorate flow directly into the proposed project. This shows continuity and cumulative expertise to assessors.

Publications and co-authorship matters. Highlight a small set of high-impact papers and explain co-authorship choices that signal collaboration and leadership. Name key outputs and how they demonstrate technique or domain mastery.

Publications, co-authorship strategy, and narrative coherence

Use selective evidence: major papers, influential conference talks and data releases that map to each method in the project. Explain why specific co-authors point to capability rather than padding.

• Link an output to a project method (for example archival processing or large‑scale data cleaning).
• Show where you led analysis, supervised junior researchers, or secured access to unique resources.

Positioning your PhD as the foundation for the project

State concrete year-by-year targets that flow from your track record: Year 1 — pilot and ethics; Year 2 — main data collection and interim paper; Year 3 — synthesis, preprints and dissemination.

Final point: a focused research performance history, clear co-authorship rationale and realistic time estimates strengthen your application. They make your project believable and reduce execution concerns for assessors.

ARC assessment process, reviewers, and rejoinder strategy

Knowing the ARC assessment process timeline helps applicants plan internal reviews and be ready for the rejoinder window. External assessors’ comments arrive before Selection Advisory Committee deliberations, giving you a short, high-value chance to respond.

Organise peer review early. Use Faculty ADRs, research managers and internal panels to surface likely questions and fix gaps before external review.

Peer review pathways and internal review support

Set staged internal deadlines that mirror the ARC calendar. Run mock reviews, collect updated letters and update your project evidence before assessors submit comments.

• Request RMS accounts and follow user guides for submission steps.
• Use institutional peer review to test clarity, data access statements and milestone timing.
• Prepare Request Not to Assess where conflicts exist.

Turning assessor comments into rejoinder advantages

When comments arrive, group them by theme and rank issues that affect scoring across Feasibility, Benefit and Project Quality.

1. Respond briefly and with evidence: updated letters, dataset confirmations or revised milestones.
2. Prioritise points that change scoring and avoid defensive language.
3. Track every rejoinder submission in RMS and meet the window dates (for DE25 the rejoinder period ran 28 March–15 April 2024).

“Treat assessor comments as a roadmap; each clear response can turn concern into confidence.”

Final tip: show how feedback improved the project—tightened milestones, added confirmations or clarified methods—to leave assessors confident in your deliverability under the australian research council process.

National Interest and Benefit: framing your Australian research impact

Frame your project impact in terms of clear national priorities: name the economic, social, environmental or cultural interest your work advances and state why Australia needs this answer now.

Translate activities into outcomes. Write one-line outcomes statements that show who benefits, what changes, and how you will measure success. Link each activity to a concrete metric or milestone.

Be specific about alignment. Cite relevant Australian research priorities or a government focus area and explain the direct connection without overstating scope.

• Use local examples, datasets or case sites to demonstrate relevance and practicality.
• Show value for money in arc grants by tying major costs to clear community or industry benefits.
• List partners who will help adopt findings—policy units, industry players or cultural organisations.

End with impact pathways: map methods to outputs and then to uptake steps. This keeps benefit statements tightly integrated with delivery and answers the key questions assessors will ask about national impact and applicability.

“Clear, measurable impact pathways turn excellent research into national benefit.”

Project description, methods, and data management for feasibility

A project description should link research aims, core questions and methods to a clear sequence of milestones. State what will be completed in each year and what artefacts will show progress.

Methodological clarity means listing steps with timing, inputs and expected outputs. For each method note the start and finish windows, required personnel, and the deliverable (pilot dataset, coded scripts, analysed sample).

Methodological clarity and milestones

Break methods into phased tasks: pilot, main collection, processing, analysis and synthesis. Add short checkpoints for ethics approvals and partner confirmations so time is visible in the process.

Assign responsibilities to applicants and collaborators. This keeps approvals and approvals and data work on schedule.

Data management plans, storage, and access

Develop a formal Research Data Management Plan covering storage, back‑ups, access controls, retention and sharing. Use ACU Library and ACU eResearch for advice and cost estimates for storage and compute.

Identify dataset access modes: Open, Conditional or Restricted. Provide licence information such as CC‑BY, CC‑BY‑NC or AusGOAL where relevant so assessors see compliance and reuse rules.

“Lock data agreements early and reflect them as dependencies in the timeline.”

• Document provenance, formats (CSV, NetCDF, TIFF) and quality checks for ingestion and validation.
• Include checkpoints for cleaning, validation and archiving to avoid late-stage delays.
• Cost storage, HPC and consultation as budget items and reference institutional in‑kind support.

Final practical step: list data access agreements and ethics timelines as explicit dependencies in the project description so the assessment process can trace how outputs will be delivered on time.

Using search and query logic to surface feasibility risks early

Targeted searching reveals whether the evidence base and data pipelines back your project plan. Start by framing the key questions your proposal must answer, then translate those into searchable fields and conditions.

Building advanced queries to map literature, datasets, and gaps

Use a boolean query builder across Title and Description fields. Combine exact phrases in quotes, wildcards (* and ?), and operators (AND/OR/NOT) to broaden or narrow results.

Practical tip: run a saved query that captures core methods and compare counts over time to spot where information is thin or clustered.

Filtering by subjects, providers, time period, and location to test assumptions

Apply subject filters such as ANZSRC to test disciplinary breadth. Limit by Data Provider to check consistent, high‑quality sources and their access practices.

Use Time Period and Licence filters to verify whether recent or longitudinal datasets exist and whether licence terms allow reuse. Draw a location filter on the map to confirm geographic coverage for fieldwork or case selection.

• Iterate using the Review tab to see how filters change result counts and refine your focus.
• Document the query strings, provider checks and licence notes as evidence for your application to the research council.
• Translate findings into concrete actions: alternative sources, modified methods, or adjusted timeframes so the project stays on time.

“Make search logic part of your planning process: it turns uncertainty into a manageable checklist of data, access and time dependencies.”

Key dates, internal deadlines, and dependency mapping

Work backwards from the ARC close and rejoinder windows to fix non-negotiable milestones and free up time for high-quality submission work.

Working back from ARC close and rejoinders

Start with these DE25 anchors: applications open 12 October 2023; internal final draft due 16 November 2023; Requests Not to Assess by 20 November (internal) and 23 November (to ARC); applications close to ARC 7 December 2023. Rejoinder period ran 28 March–15 April 2024 and announcements were expected 2–13 September 2024.

Build a master schedule that places ethics, data agreements and letters of support early so they do not bottleneck the final weeks.

Coordinating with Research Offices, libraries, and eResearch

Lock meeting times with the Research Office, Library and eResearch teams for budget checks, RDM plans and IT estimates. Confirm their turnaround times and add buffer days for revisions.

• Map dependencies: ethics, data access, letters, and supplier quotes.
• Assign owners for each dependency and record contact availability.
• Maintain a weekly status log tied to each deadline and update it as the submission period approaches.

“Clear calendars and agreed responsibilities turn deadline pressure into manageable tasks.”

Practical checkpoints — schedule internal reviews with buffer days, reserve a period before rejoinder for collating responses to comments, and mark year-specific events (field seasons, conferences) that affect timing.

1. Master schedule built from ARC close and rejoinder dates.
2. Dependency map with owners and deadlines.
3. Weekly updates and final buffer before rejoinder.

Calendar checkpoints: internal final draft, sign-off from Research Office, library/RDM confirmation, eResearch estimates, and rejoinder assembly window. Keep these visible to collaborators so the whole project moves in step.

Teaching, service, and workload risks across the DECRA period

Teaching commitments and service duties can reduce the time available for analysis and writing unless you plan them into your project timeline.

Identify expected teaching and administrative obligations early. Discuss typical semester loads, marking peaks and committee cycles with your line manager so you can set realistic milestones for each year.

Negotiate protected research time and capture that agreement in a support letter where possible. If part‑time arrangements apply, clarify how teaching scales across the funded period.

• Phase high‑cognitive tasks like data analysis and manuscript drafting into quieter teaching windows.
• Build contingency for peak teaching weeks and explicit handovers for service tasks.
• Use research assistants and administrative support during busy periods to preserve momentum.

Record workload models and agreed processes in your workplan and reflect them in the pre‑project matrix. Regular check‑ins with line managers let you adjust duties if pressures rise.

“Plan teaching against milestones so your research year stays productive.”

Demonstrate in your application that you know your institutional policies and have steps to protect core research windows across the three‑year salary period.

Putting it all together: a sample DECRA risk matrix for discovery early career researchers

A practical matrix converts project uncertainties into timed responses that align with budget and assessor questions. Below is a compact worked example and guidance on how assessors read it alongside the assessment process.

Example risks, weights, mitigations, and residual scores

Mitigations: secured data agreements, pre‑booked archive visits, a pilot protocol, backup datasets and funded RA support. Each mitigation maps to a budget line and milestone date so assessors can trace action to cost and timing.

How assessors read your matrix alongside feasibility

Assessors look for clarity, proportionality and a credible path from initial to residual scores. Use mock review comments to refine scores and wording. Show how a pilot shortens analysis time and speeds outputs.

• Link each mitigation to a milestone and budget code.
• Record reviewer comments and update scoring logic.
• Demonstrate expected outcomes research pathways: pilot → cleaned dataset → rapid paper.

“A concise, evidence‑linked matrix helps applicants and reviewers focus on deliverability.”

Checklist for applicants: verify weights add to 100 per cent, map mitigations to budget lines, confirm dates for critical dependencies, and run an internal review before submission.

When used during project delivery the matrix becomes a living decision aid, not just an application artefact. It supports clearer choices and better delivery across the grant period.

Conclusion

Treat your submission as a leadership statement that links your early career trajectory and career aims to a tightly managed plan. Make the case that your work will deliver measurable outcomes within three years.

Practical advice: align scope, milestones and resources; protect time with explicit buffers; use institutional supports and peer review to sharpen arguments. Show how each year converts effort into outputs that matter for australian research and for ARC grants.

Close confidently. Submit an application that shows you know the arc assessment process and can steward funds, people and time across the round. Iterate each year and carry lessons into future grants and research leadership.