Strategic Technology for Cyberinfrastructure (STCI)
|Kevin Thompsonemail@example.com||(703) 292-4220|
|Rudolf Eigenmannfirstname.lastname@example.org||(703) 292-2598|
|William L. Miller (CISE/ACI)||email@example.com||(703) 292-7886|
Important Information for Proposers
ATTENTION: Proposers using the Collaborators and Other Affiliations template for more than 10 senior project personnel will encounter proposal print preview issues. Please see the Collaborators and Other Affiliations Information website for updated guidance.
A revised version of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF 17-1), is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after January 30, 2017. Please be advised that, depending on the specified due date, the guidelines contained in NSF 17-1 may apply to proposals submitted in response to this funding opportunity.
The goal of the NSF Cyberinfrastructure Framework for the 21st Century (CIF21) initiative is to foster the development of a scalable, comprehensive, secure and sustainable cyberinfrastructure that supports potentially transformative research in science and engineering. The development of a mature cyberinfrastructure relies on the evaluation of the potential for new technologies to catalyze transformative research and on an understanding of the strategic role of new technologies in cyberinfrastructure.
The primary goal of the Strategic Technologies for Cyberinfrastructure (STCI) Program is to support activities based on experimental/innovative hardware or software systems or other unique cyberinfrastructure activities that enable leading edge scientific and engineering research and education with broader impact realized across our entire society. These systems or activities should not be appropriate for funding by any other current programs or solicitations, and should be able to demonstrate the potential to evolve into innovative, scalable, highly useful and usable cyberinfrastructure as part of CIF21.
Experimental systems may include hardware and software in the areas of high performance computing, large scale data intensive computing/visualization/analytics and innovative networking.
Eligible projects and unique activities include acquisition, development, deployment, sustaining, research, and educational activities necessary to create or enhance current cyberinfrastructure and positively impact science and education. Projects that include academic-industrial partnerships that address the goals must be discussed with the program officers before submission.
Eligible projects and unique activities should address a clearly identified and described cyberinfrastructure need, explain and support the potential for transformative impacts on science or engineering research, research training, education or broader impacts, and provide a convincing explanation of why the project is not suitable for other NSF programs or solicitations.
Where appropriate, proposals should explicitly address end user involvement, issues of sustainability, self-management, energy efficiency, and data management. Proposals related to software or facilities (broadly construed) should address production development, deployment, and continuing support by including a project management plan and testing approaches.
Before developing a proposal intended for this program, investigators are strongly encouraged to discuss their ideas with program officers associated with the program to make sure that there is no other more appropriate venue for the proposal.
Proposals for workshops, symposia, and EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) clearly related to the goals and scope of the Program described above may be submitted after discussion with relevant program officers. For general information about how to submit such proposals, please see the Grant Proposal Guide (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg).
A group with a proposal that has been declined may not resubmit a new proposal on the same topic without substantial revision. Proposals violating this restriction will be returned to the PI without review.