What BIMA and BRIN Reviewers Actually Look For in a Hilirisasi Proposal

Tech Transfer Essentials

Across Indonesian university research offices, the question asked most frequently after a failed hilirisasi grant application is: “What did we do wrong?” In the majority of cases, the answer is not the research. The science is often sound, the TRL is often credible, and the team is often well-qualified. What fails is the framing — specifically, the way TRL evidence is presented, the way the mitra’s role is described, the way impact is argued, and the way the business model is constructed. These are not peripheral concerns: they are the evaluation criteria. And they are documented in the Panduan Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat that Kemdiktisaintek publishes for each grant cycle, a 200-plus page document that most BINUS lecturers have never read from the section that matters most: the reviewer rubric. (Kemdiktisaintek, Panduan Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat Tahun 2026 — proposal format referenced at p.235)

Hilirisasi grant proposals are evaluated across five broad dimensions, regardless of scheme. The first is substansi riset — the quality and originality of the research itself, its alignment with the national priority sectors, and the clarity of the scientific problem being addressed. This is the section most researchers spend the most time on — and it is not the most differentiating one. Reviewers screening hilirisasi applications are not primarily evaluating whether the research is scientifically interesting. They are evaluating whether it has a realistic path to market or societal adoption. Proposals that open with a lengthy literature review and arrive at the commercialisation argument on page eight have already lost the reviewer’s attention.

The second dimension is TRL documentation. In the current BIMA and BRIN framework, TRL level is not something the researcher self-reports in a single sentence. It requires evidence: prototype testing reports, validation data, a description of the environment in which testing occurred, and a justification for why that environment is “relevant” in the TRL 6 sense. Many proposals claim TRL 6 or 7 without providing any supporting documentation, and reviewers trained in the TKT assessment process can identify this immediately. A BINUS researcher who has tested their system in a real partner environment — a clinic, a school, a factory floor, an SME operating space — and can document that test with photographs, data logs, and a partner sign-off has a TRL claim that holds. One who describes a laboratory simulation and asserts equivalence does not.

The third dimension — and the one that fails the most otherwise strong proposals — is the mitra narrative. Every hilirisasi scheme requires an industry or government partner, but the review panel distinguishes sharply between a mitra who is invested in the outcome and one who agreed to sign a letter. The signs of real partnership in a proposal are specific: the mitra is named with a contact, their problem is described in the researcher’s own language but clearly sourced from real conversations, their contribution is concrete and tied to a specific project phase, and their incentive for the collaboration is explained. A Letter of Intent that lists a company name and a cash contribution percentage but contains no description of the actual technical or market gap the research addresses reads as a formality. It does not strengthen the proposal; it weakens it.

The fourth dimension is dampak — the breadth and credibility of the claimed societal or economic impact. Reviewers are specifically checking whether the impact narrative is grounded in market evidence, national policy data, or documented community need. An impact argument that reads as hypothetical (“this product could potentially benefit millions of Indonesians”) without anchoring to a specific sector-level problem, a documented adoption pathway, or a realistic scale-up scenario is not convincing. Proposals that cite specific industry adoption case studies, BRIN’s national priority agenda, or documented demand from the mitra’s own planning documents are stronger.

The fifth dimension is kelayakan pelaksanaan — the feasibility of actually delivering the outputs within the timeline and budget. This includes the team composition (does the team collectively cover the technical, commercial, and community engagement skills the project requires?), the work plan (are milestones realistic given the TRL starting point?), and the budget narrative (does the budget allocation match the actual work?). Many proposals over-allocate to equipment and under-explain personnel roles, which is a common flag.

BINUS RTT’s proposal development support addresses all five dimensions: TRL documentation framing, mitra narrative coaching, impact evidence sourcing, and feasibility review. This is not generic editing — it is scheme-specific input from people who understand what Kemdiktisaintek reviewers are trained to look for. The strongest proposals submitted by BINUS researchers are the ones where RTT was involved before the first draft, not after the final one.

For the full guide to hilirisasi grant schemes and to book a proposal development consultation with BINUS RTT, visit the Grant for Applied Research page at BINUS Technology Transfer.

#BIMAproposal #BRINgrant #hilirisasiProposal #proposalTips #hibahTerapan #grantWriting #BINUSResearch #reviewCriteria