Transcript proposals_apr16.ppt

Proposals
Marie desJardins ([email protected])
CMSC 601
April 16, 2009
Sources
 Robert L. Peters, Getting What You Came For: The
Smart Student’s Guide to Earning a Master’s or Ph.D.
(Revised Edition). NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux,
1997.
 Peter J. Feibelman, A Ph.D. Is Not Enough! A Guide
to Survival in Science. Basic Books, 1993.
 Tom Dietterich, CS 519 course slides, Oregon State
University.
 Caroline Wardle, Obtaining Federal Funding, CRA-W
Workshop Slides, 1993/1994/1999.
4/16/09
2
Outline
 Proposal Contents
 General Advice
 Sources of Funding
 Proposal Evaluation
4/16/09
3
Proposal Contents
Know Your Goals
 Dissertation proposal
 Convince committee you’re on the right track
 Funding proposal
 Convince reviewers and program manager to give you
money
4/16/09
5
Proposal Strategy
 Just having a good idea is not enough!
 Need to convince reviewers that:
The problem is important
 You have a good approach to solve the problem
 Your approach is likely to succeed
 You have a well developed research plan

 Chicken-and-egg problem
 If you don’t have preliminary results and a well developed
approach, you’re not likely to make a convincing case for success
  If you already have preliminary results and a well developed
approach, you’re already doing the research!
 → By the time you get the funding, you’ll be done!
  ...so with the funding you get, you’ll write the journal papers, and
start developing preliminary results for the next proposal...

4/16/09
6
Topics to Cover
 Long-term goals
 Significance
 Specific goals
 Methods and experiments
 Feasibility
Typically 15 pages
or less!
 Risks
 Current state of knowledge
 Timetable
 Budget/budget justification
 Biographies
4/16/09
7
Long-Term Goals
 Vision
 Big picture
 Broad focus
 Motivation behind your work
4/16/09
8
Significance
 Why do you want to work on this problem?
 Why will other people care about it?
 ...in the field
 ...in other fields
 ...in society
 ...in the program
 ...on your committee
4/16/09
9
Specific Goals
 What part of the big picture will you focus on?
 What specific tasks will you accomplish?
4/16/09
10
Methods and Experiments
 How will you demonstrate success?
 How will you test your claims?
 Data sets, domains, experimental methodologies,
evaluation criteria
4/16/09
11
Feasibility
 Why should we believe you will be able to carry out
this research plan?
4/16/09
12
Risks
 What might go wrong?
 How will you recover?
 What’s your backup/contingency plan?
4/16/09
13
Current State of Knowledge
 Who else has worked on this problem?
 Why have previous approaches been unsuccessful?
 ...or if this is a new problem, why are new approaches
needed?
 How does your method build on, or depart from,
previous approaches?
4/16/09
14
Timetable
 Typical research grant: 2-3 years, sometimes up to 5
 Typical dissertation timeline (from proposal): 1-3
years
 What are your milestones?
 Approximately when do you expect to complete each
milestone?
 Relevant deadlines (conference deadlines, program
meetings, integrated demonstrations)
4/16/09
15
Budget / Justification
 How much money do you need?
 Why is each line item important to the project?
4/16/09
16
Biographies
 Typically one- or two-page abbreviated CV
4/16/09
17
References
 For thesis proposal only:
 Annotated bibliography is very helpful
 Can include important/relevant papers that you plan to read,
but haven’t read yet. (should discuss these separately in
Related Work section)
4/16/09
18
General Advice
General Proposal Advice
 Start writing early!
 First impressions count:
 A good introduction/summary is absolutely essential!!
 Be neat!
 Be as specific as possible
 Don’t make your reviewers work too hard
 Keep revising
 Get feedback from peers and mentors
 Resubmit if necessary
 Read other people’s proposals
4/16/09
20
Sources of Funding
Government Agencies
 NSF
 NIH
 DoD
 DARPA
 AFOSR
 ARL
 Departments of Education, Energy, ...
 Other agencies
4/16/09
22
Industry
 Sponsored research
 Partnerships
 Equipment grants
4/16/09
23
Proposal Evaluation
NSF Review Criteria
 Intellectual Merit
 Increasing knowledge and understanding within a field
 Qualifications of proposers
 Creativity and originality
 Scope and organization of proposed research
 Access to resources
 Broader Impact
 Teaching, training, and learning
 Participation of underrepresented groups
 Enhancement of research infrastructure
 Dissemination of results
 Benefits to society
4/16/09
25
NSF Ratings
 Excellent

Perhaps 10% of proposals; should definitely be funded
 Very Good

Top 1/3 of proposals; should be considered for funding if sufficient
funds are available
 Good

Middle 1/3 of proposals; worthy of support (but likely will not be
enough funding for this category)
 Fair

Bottom 1/3 of proposals; not likely to be considered for funding
 Poor

Proposal has serious deficiencies and should not be funded
 Typical funded proposal has at least one Excellent and two Very
Goods
 Many NSF programs have a 10% funding rate
4/16/09
26
NSF: How it Really Works
 Specific areas are usually not targeted...
 ...but some program managers have areas they like or
dislike
 ...and sometimes your research won’t fit in any of the NSF
programs, especially if you’re doing interdisciplinary work
 It never hurts to visit and chat with the program manager(s)
 Peer review panel provides primary input
 If you don’t get a good peer rating, you’re doomed
 Panelist who knows your area inside and out can shoot your
proposal down (or champion it!)
 Panelists who don’t know your area can shoot you proposal
down (or be intrigued by it!)
4/16/09
27
DARPA Proposal Roadmap
 Goal
 Tangible benefits to end users
 Critical technical barriers
 Main elements of proposed approach
 Rationale
 Why will the proposed approach overcome the technical
barriers?
 Nature of expected results
 Risk if the work is not done
 Criteria for evaluating progress
 Cost of the proposed effort
4/16/09
28
DARPA: How it Really Works
 Who you know is of primary importance
 Marketing to program managers is key
 Contributing to the development of program
announcements (BAA = Broad Agency
Announcement)
 Awards are contracts (many deliverables; much
program manager control)
4/16/09
29
NSF vs. DARPA
 Politics and agency goals notwithstanding...
 NSF awards are grants






 No specific deliverables (except annual reports)
 Little program manager control
 Work on what you want to (but do good work!)
 Funding rarely goes away, once awarded
 Extremely competitive
 Less $$
 DARPA awards are contracts

4/16/09





 Many deliverables
 Much program manager control
 Focus might change
 Funding might disappear
 Once you’re hooked in, the money can be pretty steady
 More $$
30