Transcript Presentation topics - Texas A&M University System
TAMU-C Grant Writing Workshop
• • Presenter: Mike Cronan, PE (inactive), Director, Office of Proposal Development, Office of the Vice President for Research, Texas A&M University; System Coordination: Dr. K. Lee Peddicord, Vice Chancellor for Research & Federal Relations, and Tami Davis Sayko, Associate Vice Chancellor R&FR, The Texas A&M University System 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
1
Office of Proposal Development
• • • • Supports faculty in the development and writing of proposals; Supports center-level initiatives, interdisciplinary research teams, junior faculty, and diversity initiatives; Helps develop research partnerships at Texas A&M and among System institutions and the Health Science Center; Offers a full suite of training programs to help faculty develop and write more competitive proposals.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
2
OPD Member List
• • • • • • • Jean Ann Bowman, PhD (Physical Geography/Hydrology), earth ecological, and environmental sciences,
; Libby Childress, Scheduling, workshop management, project coordination,
; Mike Cronan, PE, BSCE, BA, MFA, Center-level proposals, A&M System partnerships, new proposal and training initiatives,
; Lucy Deckard, BSMS, MSMS&E, New faculty initiative, fellowships, engineering and physical science proposals, equipment and instrumentation, OPD web management
; John Ivy, PhD (Molecular Biology), NIH biomedical and biological science initiatives,
; Phyllis McBride, PhD (English), proposal writing training, biomedical, social and behavioral sciences; editing,
; Robyn Pearson, BA, MA, social & behavioral sciences and humanities proposals, support for research group development, editing and rewriting,
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
3
Presenter Background
• • • • • • • • Mike Cronan: 17 years experience at Texas A&M planning, developing, and writing successful research and educational proposals to federal agencies. Authored over $60 million in System-wide proposals funded by NSF: Texas AMP, Texas RSI, South Texas RSI, Texas CETP , CREST Environmental Research Center, Information Technology in Science. Named Regents Fellow (2000-04) by the Board of Regents for leading and developing System partnerships and writing NSF funded grants to support them.
B.S., Civil/Structural Engineering, University of Michigan, 1983 M.F.A., English, University of California, Irvine, 1972 B.A., Political Science, Michigan State University, 1968 Registered Professional Engineer (Texas 063512, inactive)
http://opd.tamu.edu/people
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
4
Open Forum, Q&A Format
•
Participants are encouraged to ask questions continuously;
•
Participant questions will help direct, guide, and focus the discussion on proposal topics.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
5
Presentation topics
• Generic competitive strategies
• Identifying funding solicitations
• Analyzing the funding agency
• Understanding the review process
• Writing the proposal narrative
• Checklist for writing the proposal
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
6
If you don’t write grants, you won’t get any
• Target the proposal at the intersection where: •research dollars are available; •your research interests are met; •a competitive proposal can be written within the time available.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
7
OPD-Web Funding Opportunities
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
8
http://www.grants.gov/
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
9
Receive Grants.gov Funding Email Alerts 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
10
Search & Browse Grant Opportunities • • http://www.grant
s.gov/applicants/s earch_opportuniti es.jsp
http://www.grant
s.gov/search/age ncy.do
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
11
Search Grants.gov Opportunities
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
12
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
13
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
14
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
15
http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/rfp/ 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
16
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
17
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
18
http://www.neh.gov/news/nehconnect.html
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
19
http://listserv.ed.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=edinfo&D=1&H=0&O=D&T=0 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
20
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_list/elists/
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
21
Reading the proposal solicitation
The Request for Proposals (RFP) – also called the Program Announcement (PA), Request for Applications (RFA), or Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) – is one common starting point of the proposal writing process. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
22
Reading the proposal solicitation
Other starting points to the proposal process include investigator-initiated (unsolicited) proposals, or, common to the defense agencies, white papers and quad charts.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
23
Reading the proposal solicitation The solicitation represents an invitation by a funding agency for applicants to submit requests for funding in research areas of
interest to the agency or
foundation.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
24
Program Solicitation
It is used continuously throughout proposal development and writing as a reference point to ensure that an evolving proposal narrative fully addresses and accurately reflects the goals and objectives of the funding agency,
including the review criteria.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
25
Program Solicitation
The RFP contains most of the essential information the researcher needs to develop and write a competitive proposal that is fully responsive to the agency’s funding objectives and review criteria.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
26
Program Solicitation
• • The RFP is not a menu or
smorgasbord offering the applicant
a choice of addressing some topics but not others, depending on interest, or some review criteria but not others.
The RFP is a non-negotiable listing
of performance expectations
reflecting the stated goals, objectives, and desired outcomes of the agency.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
27
Map your expertise to the RFP
• • • Is it a fit?
Is it really a fit?
• No partial fits allowed • No wishful thinking • Close doesn’t count If you are not a fit—don’t submit 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
28
You and the RFP need to be like…
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
29
The RFP as Treasure Map
• • • • • • Follow directions Review step by step Understand it Understood by all PIs Keep focused Don’t wander off path 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
30
No irrational exuberance!!
• • • Understand the RFP for what it is…not what you want it to be… It is not a speculative investment… Invest your time, resources, and energy wisely 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
31
Contents of the RFP
• • • • • Agency research goals, objectives, and performance expectations Statement and scope of work Proposal topics to be addressed by the applicant Deliverables or other outcomes Review criteria and process 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
32
Contents of the RFP
• • • Research plan Key personnel, evaluation, & management Eligibility, due dates, available funding, funding limits, anticipated number of awards, performance period, proposal formatting requirements, budget and other process requirements, and reference documents.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
33
Reviewing the RFP
• • • It is not a document to skim quickly, read lightly, or read only once. It defines a very detailed set of research expectations the applicant must meet in order to be competitive for funding. It needs to be read and re-read and fully understood, both in very discrete detail and as an integrated whole. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
34
Reviewing the RFP
• • • The RFP sets the direction and defines the performance parameters of every aspect of proposal development and writing. Read it word by word; sentence by sentence; paragraph by paragraph; and page by page.
Know it well, both at the macro and micro level
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
10-26-06 35
Reviewing the RFP
• • • Clarify ambiguities; if unresolved- Get clarification from officer. a program Ambiguities needs to be resolved prior to proposal writing so the proposal narrative maps to the guidelines with informed certainty.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
36
Reviewing the RFP
A well-written RFP clearly states the funding agency’s research objectives in a concise and comprehensive fashion, and is devoid of wordiness, repetition, and vaguely contradictory re phasing of program requirements. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
37
Reviewing the RFP
• • • Not all RFPs are clearly written. Sometimes the funding agency itself is unclear about specific objectives, particularly in cutting-edge research areas. Where there is ambiguity, keep asking questions: converge on clarity. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
38
Never be timid about contacting a program officer for clarification •
Timidity is never rewarded in the competitive
grant process.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
39
Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization • The RFP provides the key instructions for the construction of a competitive proposal.
• It defines the expectations of the funding agency and the domain of research performance. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
40
Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization • Use the RFP to develop the structure, order, and detail of the proposal narrative. • Use the RFP as an organizational template during proposal development to help ensure every RFP requirement is addressed fully. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
41
Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization • • Copy the requirements in each section of the RFP into the draft text, including the review criteria, as a template for the proposal. This template provides initial section and subsection headings to guide preliminary responses that mirror the program solicitation requirements.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
42
Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization Reviewers will expect to see the narrative text in the same general order as presented in the RFP, along with the review criteria, since that ordering conforms to instructions given to reviewers by program officers. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
43
Role of the RFP in Proposal Organization Using the RFP as a template to create a proposal outline makes it easy for reviewers to compare the proposal to the program objectives and review criteria.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
44
Reading Material Referenced in the RFP If the RFP refers to any publications, reports, or workshops, it is important to read those materials, analyze how that work has influenced the agency’s vision of the program, and cite those publications in the proposal in a way that illustrates the topics are acknowledged and understood. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
45
Analyzing the funding agency
• Analyzing the mission, strategic plan, investment priorities, and culture of a funding agency provides information key to enhancing proposal competitiveness.
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
10-26-06 46
Analyzing the funding agency
Competitiveness depends on a series of well-informed decision points made throughout the writing of a proposal related to arguing the merit of the research and culminating in a well-integrated document that convinces the reviewers to recommend funding. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
47
Analyzing the funding agency
• • • Funding agencies have a clearly defined agenda and mission. Funded grants are those that best advance the mission of the funding agency. If a proposal does not meet an agency's mission, it will not be funded. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
48
Analyzing the funding agency
• Having a "good idea" by itself is not enough. • Good ideas must be clearly connected and integrated with a specific solicitation.
• The funding agency funds research that supports their mission.
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
10-26-06 49
Finding information on funded projects • NSF Award Search Site:
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/index.jsp
• NIH Award Search Site:
http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/crisp/crisp_query.generate
_screen
• Dept. of Ed. Awards Search:
http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/grantaward/s tart.cfm
• USDA Awards Search:
http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/
• NEH Awards Search:
http://www.neh.gov/news/recentawards.html
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
50
Analyzing the agency mission
Funding agencies are not passive funders of programs, but see themselves as leaders of a national dialogue on scientific issues, research directions, and driving the national agenda through research solicitations.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
51
Analyzing the agency mission
• • A strong proposal allows the funding agency to form a partnership with the submitting institution that will carry out the agency's vision and mission. The applicant must understand the nature of this partnership and the expectations of the funding agency, both during proposal development and throughout a funded project.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
52
Analyzing the funding agency
Knowledge about a funding agency helps the applicant make good decisions throughout the entire proposal development and writing process by better understanding the relationship of the research to the broader context of the funding agency’s mission, strategic plan, and research investment priorities. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
53
Analyzing the funding agency
• • Who is the audience (e.g., program officers, reviewers) and what is the best way to address them?
What is a fundable idea and how is it best characterized within the context of the agency solicitation?
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
54
Analyzing the funding agency
• • How are claims of research uniqueness and innovation best supported in the proposal text and reflective of agency research objectives?
How does the applicant best communicate his or her passion, excitement, commitment, and capacity to perform the proposed research to review panels?
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
55
Analyzing the funding agency
• • • • • • • • • Mission Culture Language Investment $’s Strategic plan Org chart Management Program officers Reports, pubs • • • • • • • • Web speeches Public testimony Review criteria Review process Review panels Project abstracts Current funding Solicitations 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
56
Analyzing the funding agency
• • Differentiate between funding agencies by mission, strategic plan, investment priorities, culture, etc. Researchers in the social and behavioral sciences and the physical, computational, and biological sciences may have research opportunities at several agencies, e.g., NIH, NSF, DOD, EPA, but these agencies are dissimilar in many ways. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
57
Analyzing the funding agency
• • • • Research focus within disciplines Research that is basic, applied, or applications driven Research scope and performance time horizon Exploratory, open ended research, or targeted to technology develop • • • • Multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary Classified, non classified Proprietary, non proprietary Independent research, or dependent linkages to the agency mission, e.g., health care, education 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
58
Analyzing the funding agency
• • • Differentiate between basic research agencies (e.g., NSF, NIH) and mission-focused agencies (e.g. DOD, NASA, USDA). Differentiate between hypothesis driven research and need- or applications driven research.
Differentiate research at disciplinary boundaries, e.g., social sciences 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
59
Basic research agency
• • • • Independent agency and management Independent research vision, mission, and objectives Award criteria based on intellectual and scientific excellence Peer reviewed, ranked, and awarded by merit • • • Focus on fundamental or basic research at the “frontiers of science,” innovation, and creation of new knowledge Open ended, exploratory, long investment horizon Non-classified, non proprietary 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
60
Mission-oriented agencies
• • • • • Scope of work tightly defines research tasks/deliverables Predominately applied research for meeting near term objectives, technology development and transfer, policy goals Predominately internal review by program officers Awards based on mix of merit, geographic distribution, political distribution, long term relationship with agency, Legislative, and Executive branch policies Classified and non-classified research 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
61
Analyzing the funding agency
• • • Agencies often speak in a dialect unique to them.
Echo the language of the funding agency back to them. This is important in writing the proposal narrative, and helps to frame arguments more clearly and make them more easily understood by program managers and reviewers.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
62
Addressing Review Criteria
A competitive proposal must clearly address each review criterion, and the proposal should be structured so that these discussions are easy for reviewers to find, compare, and contrast.
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
10-26-06 63
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
64
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
65
Addressing Review Criteria
• • • The description of review criteria is a key part of the solicitation.
The description of review criteria is a key part and the proposal template. Make the reviewers job easier by using language similar to that used in the solicitation.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
66
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
67
Understanding the review process
• • • When evaluating a grant application, reviewers will not only consider the quality of the ideas, but also the extent to which the application addresses the funding agency’s review criteria. Therefore, it is important to identify these review criteria, understand exactly how the agency defines them, and determine the relative weight (if any) that the agency assigns to each of them. This information can then be used to develop an application that clearly addresses these criteria and that is therefore much more competitive. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
68
Identify the review criteria
• • Most agencies publish standard review criteria on their web pages and in each solicitation. Some programs will have additional review criteria specific to the solicitation. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
69
DHHS (NIH)
Center for Scientific Review NIH review criteria NIH peer review process NIH review groups NIH study section rosters
NSF
NSF review process, criteria
DOD
Sec. 3 http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/basics/basics_b3.htm
http://cms.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR/OverviewofPeerReviewProcess.htm
http://cms.csr.nih.gov/PeerReviewMeetings/CSRIRGDescription/ http://www.csr.nih.gov/Committees/rosterindex.asp
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/nsf04_23/3.jsp
AFOSR review process, criteria Sec. 2.14
http://www.afosr.af.mil/pdfs/proguide.PDF
ARO review process, criteria DARPA review process, criteria Sec. 3 http://www.aro.army.mil/research/arl/arobaa06a.pdf
http://www.darpa.mil/body/information/proposal.html
ONR review process, criteria
USDA
NRI review process, criteria
NASA
NASA review process, criteria
Department of Energy
DOE review process, criteria
US Department of Education
ED review process, criteria 10-26-06 Sec. 5 App. C Sec. 5 http://www.onr.navy.mil/02/baa/docs/baa_05_024.pdf
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/nri/pdfs/nri_review_guidelines.pdf
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/proposer2005.
doc http://www.sc.doe.gov/grants/process.html
http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/about/grantmaking/pt504.html
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
70
Understand the review process
• • • The review process varies from agency to agency The review process may include a peer review of outside experts from related fields; an internal review by agency personnel; or a combination of both. Most agency review processes share some common features. At most agencies, for instance, an application will first undergo a merit review and, depending upon the results, an administrative review. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
71
• • •
Difference between NSF & NIH
This is a fundamental difference between NIH's and NSF's selection methods--by the end of the NIH review, applications are ranked alongside other entries according to an overall numerical priority score. At NSF, proposals are not given a numerical rating but are classified according to written "recommendations." Fred Stollnitz, program director at NSF explains further: "When panels review, [the reviewers] put each proposal into categories such as 'outstanding,' 'good and should be funded,' 'not ready in its present form,' or 'decline.' " A particularly vocal reviewer could influence the final rating of the panel or where the proposal should be classified, but because there is no absolute score, only opinions are noted in the review analysis report--not actual decisions. An opinionated NIH reviewer on the other hand could affect the scores an application receives and so alter its ranking.
Source: http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/10/06/3 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
72
• •
NSF review panelists
NSF panelists convey their opinions and recommendations in a “panel summary.” They compose an overall analysis of review for each proposal that incorporate factors such as the panel summary, subject area, available resources, and the potential impact of the research. They then make final award decisions with the division director. Proposals that receive lower classifications by the panel can sometimes be funded over "higher rated“ research proposals because their overall assessment by the program officer is more favorable.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
73
NSF review panelists
• • The budgetary consideration also plays a key role in the decision-making process. “The program officer doesn't just make 'yes' or 'no' decisions,” explains Stollnitz. “They have to balance all those proposals that should be funded with the actual funds that are available.” Sometimes a proposal classified as ‘good and should be funded’ submitted by an investigator with minimal existing funds may be given the edge over an ‘outstanding’ proposal submitted by an established and well-funded candidate.
Source: http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/10/06/3 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
74
NSF proposal process and timelines 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
75
NSF example review criterion 1
• • • • • • What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?
How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts?
How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?
Is there sufficient access to resources?
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
76
NIH review criteria
• • • • • Significance. Does the study address an important problem?
Approach. Are the methods appropriate to the aims of the project?
Innovation. Does the project employ novel concepts or methods?
Investigator. Is the investigator well trained to do the work?
Environment. Does the environment contribute to success?
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
77
Developing the proposal narrative
Contrary to what some people seem to believe, simple writing is not the product of simple minds. A simple, unpretentious style has both grace and power. By not calling attention to itself, it allows the reader to focus on the message.--Richard Lederer and Richards Dowis, Sleeping Dogs Don't Lay, 1999. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
78
Craft of writing
Good writing lies at the core of the competitive proposal. It is the framework for crafting and structuring the arguments, ideas, concepts, goals, performance commitments, and the logical, internal connectedness and balance of the proposal.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
79
Charles Mingus on Grant Writing
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
80
Albert Einstein on Grant Writing
• • • If you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it well." Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in language comprehensible to everyone.
Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius--and a lot of courage--to move in the opposite direction.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
81
The proposal is the only reality
A proposal is not unlike a novel or a movie. It creates its own, self contained reality. The proposal contains all the funding agency and review panel will know about your capabilities and your capacity to perform. With few exceptions, an agency bases its decision to fund or not fund entirely on the proposal and the persuasive reality it creates.
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
10-26-06 82
Good writing is more than mechanics
• • • • • • Strong, comprehensive, integrated knowledge base; Organizational clarity (stepwise logic/connections; sequencing); Structural clarity (integrative logic; logical transitions) Argumentative clarity (reasoning; ordering; synthesis) Capacity for synthesis Connect, connect, connect 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
83
Good writing is more than mechanics
• • • • Descriptive clarity (who, what, how, when, why, & results) Clear, consistent vision sustained throughout text Comprehensive problem definition; corresponding innovative solutions Confidence in performance and excitement for your ideas must be instilled in reviewers 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
84
Internal consistency & synthesis
• • • A competitive proposal must be internally consistent by language, structure, and argument; All internal ambiguities must be resolved.
The competitiveness of a proposal increases exponentially with the capacity of the author to synthesize information. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
85
Internal consistency & synthesis
• • Synthesis represents the relational framework and conceptual balance of the proposal. It is the synaptic connections among concepts, ideas, arguments, goals, objectives, and performance.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
86
Ideas matter (Slogans are not Ideas)
• • • • • Shaping ideas by language is hard work.
Do not confuse slogans, effusive exuberance, and clichés with substantive ideas.
Show the reviewers something new by developing ideas that are clear, concise, coherent, contextually logical, and insightful.
Capitalize on every opportunity you have to define, link, relate, expand, synthesize, connect, or illuminate ideas as you write the narrative.
Connect, connect, connect! (E.M. Forrester).
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
87
Positioning to submit
• Find an appropriate solicitation • Review the solicitation in detail • Assess your capacity to perform • Map your expertise to the RFP • Assess your capacity to write a competitive proposal 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
88
Poor planning
Everybody has a plan--until they are shot at, Colin Powell • • • • • • • • • • Match the RFP Schedule a timeline Start proposal early Partnerships take more time Collaborator compatibility Let ideas develop slowly No midnight warriors Periodic calibration to RFP Define and schedule development tasks Anticipate the unexpected 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
89
Poor Process Planning
• • What do you control?
• Proposal narrative • Collaborators • Budget What do others control?
• Routing & signatures • Budget approvals • Submission • Data requests • Institutional support 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
90
Keep focused on development tasks
• • • • • Define and develop goals & objectives Plan narrative iterations Who does what and when Review and assess progress of goals & objectives Budget process by task 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
91
Anticipate the unexpected
• • • • Some ideas don’t work out Some partnerships don’t work out Some budgets don’t work out Some proposals don’t work out 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
92
Project Summary/Abstract
• • • • • • • May be the only section read by some reviewers Use it to give a clear, concise, and complete overview of the proposal Start with the global vision of the proposal Provide finer grain detail: goals, objectives Emphasize significance Describes expected outcomes
Hook the reviewers
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
93
Proposal Introduction
• • • Compressed version of proposal Summary overview of response to RFP • Vision/global response • Performance details linked to objectives • Integrate ideas and concepts • Connect multiple research strands • Explain how • Explain synergy • Explain outcomes and importance Roadmap to entire proposal 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
94
Resubmitting proposals
• • • Take reviewers’ comments to heart, but not necessarily as inerrant; Assess next step: • Start over • Major renovation • Minor renovation Re-conceptualize 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
95
• • •
Write for the reviewers
Reviewers are typically given multiple proposals to review, and often tight timelines for completion; “While you may be viewing your grant application
as the magnum opus of your life's ambitions and plans--for the next 5 years anyway--a reviewer sees it as one of six to 12 other "magnum opii"
projects to evaluate.” (Source:
http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2003/12/10/6
) The proposal needs to clearly present everything the reviewers will need to read, understand, and evaluate the proposed research project; 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
96
Intrigue the Reviewers
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
97
Write for the reviewers
• Synthesize key concepts and articulate the links- • between the overarching goal and the specific objectives, • between the specific objectives and the hypotheses, • between the hypotheses and the approach, • between the approach and the expected outcomes, and • between the expected outcomes and the significance and broader impacts of the project. 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
98
Create reviewer-friendly text
• • • • • • Divide the proposal into the required sections.
Place the sections in the required order.
Use parallel structure at both the section and sentence levels.
Incorporate logical paragraph breaks.
Open paragraphs with clear topic sentences.
Discuss important items first.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
99
Create reviewer-friendly text
• • • • • • • Avoid the use of inflated language.
Use declarative sentences.
Define potentially unfamiliar terms.
Spell out acronyms and abbreviations.
Employ appropriate style and usage.
Use correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
Run a spell-check and proofread the application.
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
100
Introductory writing tips
• • • The abstract, proposal summary, and introduction are key—that may be all many reviewers read– and it is here you must excite and grab the attention of the reviewers; Reviewers will assume errors in language and usage will translate into errors in the research; Don’t be overly ambitious in what you propose, but convey credibility and capacity to perform; 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
101
Introductory writing tips
• • • • Sell your proposal to a good scientist but not an expert; Some review panels may not have an expert in your field, or panels may be blended for multidisciplinary initiatives; Agencies & reviewers fund compelling, exciting science, not just correct science; Proposals are not journal articles— proposals must be user friendly and offer a narrative that tells a story that is memorable to reviewers; 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
102
The proposal introduction
• • • • Serves as reviewers’ “road map” to the full text Opportunity to make most important points up front and organizes the conceptual framework of ideas States vision, concepts, goals, objectives, outcomes, and deliverables Briefly tells who you are; what you are going to do; how you are going to do it; who is going to do it; why you are going to do it; and demonstrates your capacity to perform
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
10-26-06 103
Beware of boiler plate ; don’t copy & paste • • • • Boiler plate refers only to the application forms required by the agency, not the narrative Thinking of the proposal narrative as “boiler plate” will result in a mediocre proposal Begin each proposal as a new effort, not a copy & paste; be cautious integrating text inserts Strong proposals clearly reflect a coherent, sustained, and integrated argument grounded on good ideas 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
104
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
105
Checklist for writing proposals • • Preparing to write • • • Developing the hypothesis & research plan • Preliminary data & research readiness Writing the proposal Post review process Competitive resubmissions 10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
106
Preparing to write
• • • • • • Understand the program guidelines in planning, developing, and writing the proposal.
What should be your relationship with program officers?
Develop a sound, testable hypothesis.
Ask senior faculty to review & assess competitiveness of ideas and research, particularly appropriateness to agency research agenda.
What do you need to know about funding agency culture, language, mission, strategic plan, & research investment priorities?
What do you need to know about agency review criteria, review process, & review panels?
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
10-26-06 107
Developing the hypothesis & research plan • • • • • • • Who is your audience (e.g., agency, program officers and reviewers) and how do you best address them?
What is a fundable idea and how is it best characterized?
How are claims of research uniqueness and innovation best supported in the proposal text?
Can research plans be overly ambitious?
What are important distinctions to note between mission focused agencies and basic research agencies in proposing research plans?
Differentiate between hypothesis driven research & application driven at basic research and mission agencies?
How do you best communicate your passion, excitement, commitment, and capacity to perform your research to review panels?
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
108
Preliminary data & research readiness
• • • • • What evidence needs to be presented to show the proposed work can be accomplished?
What evidence of institutional support for the research, e.g., facilities, equipment & instrumentation, is important to demonstrate?
What counts as preliminary data and how much is sufficient?
How do you best map your research directions and interests to funding agency research priorities?
What do you need to know about research currently funded by a particular agency within your research domain, e.g., through reports, publications, journals?
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
10-26-06 109
Writing the proposal
• • • Who do you need to impress with your research?
How do you tell a good story grounded in good science that excites the reviewers and program officers?
The successful proposal represents an accumulation of marginal advantage accrued at decision points over a period of weeks or months to ensure the proposal is competitive for funding— • What are key decision points in proposal development?
• How do you best plan and schedule proposal writing?
• How do you use program guidelines as a proposal template?
• Importance of good writing, clear arguments, and reviewer friendly text, structure, and organization in proposals • What are other core competitive characteristics of a successful proposal needed to complement research merit?
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
10-26-06 110
Post review process
• • • • • • Respecting views of peers Response to reviewer comments Discussion of reviews with program officers Discussion of reviews with senior faculty Reviewing the reviews How do you make an assessment of reviews as a reliable guide for the next funding cycle?
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
111
Competitive resubmissions
• • • • How do you best plan and position for a competitive resubmission?
How do you conduct a reassessment of the intellectual merit and excellence of your research based on reviews?
How to you assess if a research direction should be abandoned, or the research submitted to another agency?
What are strategies for identifying more appropriate research directions and funding opportunities?
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
112
Finally…Be confident
10-26-06
Office of Proposal Development (http://opd.tamu.edu)
113