Get documents about "Tarleton Grant Writing Workshop Generic Strategies for Competitive
Shared by: xkp52206
Categories
Tags
how to, case study, the american, texas a&m university, proposal development, southwestern medical center, information technology, the university of texas, university of texas at austin, texas tech university, university of texas at dallas, rice university, university of houston, texas agricultural experiment station, castle peak
-
Stats
- views:
- 18
- posted:
- 8/1/2010
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 134
Document Sample
Tarleton Grant Writing Workshop
Generic Strategies for Competitive Proposals
•Mike Cronan, PE (inactive)
•Director, Office of Proposal
Development, Office of the
Vice President for Research,
Texas A&M University;
•http://opd.tamu.edu/
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 1
A&M System Coordination
• Dr. K. Lee Peddicord, System
Vice Chancellor for Research
& Federal Relations;
• Tami Davis Sayko, System
Associate Vice Chancellor for
Research & Federal Relations.
• ―Dr. Peddicord and Ms. Sayko
are to research promotion
what Jerry Lee Lewis is to the
piano.‖ (Texas A&M research
administrator comment)
• http://tamusystem.tamu.edu/offices/r
esearch-federal/index.html
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 2
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;
• OPDWeb: http://opd.tamu.edu/
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 3
OPD Member List
• Jean Ann Bowman, PhD (Physical Geography/Hydrology),
earth, ecological, and environmental sciences,
jbowman@tamu.edu;
• Libby Childress, Scheduling, workshop management, project
coordination, libbyc@tamu.edu;
• Mike Cronan, PE, BSCE, BA, MFA, Center-level proposals, A&M
System partnerships, new proposal and training initiatives,
mikecronan@tamu.edu;
• Lucy Deckard, BSMS, MSMS&E, New faculty initiative,
fellowships, engineering and physical science proposals,
equipment and instrumentation, l-deckard@tamu.edu;
• John Ivy, PhD (Molecular Biology), NIH biomedical and
biological science initiatives, johnivy@tamu.edu;
• Phyllis McBride, PhD (English), proposal writing training,
biomedical, editing, p-mcbride@tamu.edu;
• Robyn Pearson, BA, MA, social sciences and humanities
proposals, editing and rewriting, rlpearson@tamu.edu
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 4
Presenter Background
• Mike Cronan: 20 years at Texas A&M University planning,
developing, and writing successful research and educational
proposals to federal agencies.
• Developed and built the TEES Office of Research Development &
Grant Writing (Director, 1994-2004); restructured the Texas
A&M University Office of Proposal Development (Director, 2004-
current).
• 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, among others.
• Named Regents Fellow (2000-04) by the Board of Regents
for leading, developing & writing System partnership proposals
funded by NSF and other federal agencies.
• 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)
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 5
Open Forum, Q&A Format
• Curious? Please
ask questions;
• Questions will
help direct,
guide, and focus
the discussion on
proposal topics.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 6
Presentation topics
• Introductory comments
• Identifying funding solicitations
• Analyzing the solicitation
• Analyzing the funding agency
• Understanding the review process
• Writing the proposal narrative
• Checklist for writing the proposal
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 7
Types of University Proposals
• Research (basic, applied, applications,
mission, etc.)
• Educational
• Institutional (e.g., McNair, GAANN, STEP)
• Direct to applicant (e.g., NSF Fellowships,
dissertation grants)
• Hybrid research and educational (REU)
• Small $, few PIs
• Large $, multiple PIs, center-level
• Supplements to grants (NSF, NIH)
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 8
Applications based research
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 9
Funding unlikely to pan out…
• Grand visions
• Ambitious plans to
improve the world,
or your corner of it
• Administrative
infrastructures
• Bricks & mortar
• Unfocused ideas &
enthusiasm
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 10
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 11
Narrative Detail
Agencies will not fund an
idea not embedded in a
convincing pattern of
narrative detail and
performance specificity
tightly mapped to funding
agency objectives.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 12
Searching for funding
• Develop
search
protocols to fit
research
interests;
• Know relevant
agencies;
• Learn grant
cycles.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 13
Focus on your research interests
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 14
Search in the right places
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 15
Searching for research funding
• Define a general disciplinary domain of interest (e.g.,
science, social science, humanities, education, health
and biomedical sciences, engineering);
• Characterize the nature of the research interests
within the disciplinary domain (basic, applied,
applications, contract, mission agency);
• Identify funding agencies whose mission, strategic
plan, and investment priorities are aligned with the
specific research interests;
• Focus on this subset of agencies in the search for
funding opportunities, a process that may go through
several search iterations until the researcher
converges on a reasonable alignment of research
interests with possible funding sources;
• Further align research interests with funding agency
funding opportunities by reviewing past funding
solicitations, agency mission statements, strategic
investment plans, and related documentation.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 16
OPD-Web Funding Opportunities
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 17
Grants. gov
The Grants.gov web portal serves as
a single point of access for all federal
agency grant announcements. New
funding announcements from federal
agency are posted to this site daily,
and a range of other features allow
subscribing to email funding alerts,
linking to agency web sites, and
searching for funding among
agencies.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 18
http://www.grants.gov/
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 19
Receive Grants.gov Funding Email Alerts
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 20
Search & Browse Grant Opportunities
• http://www.grant
s.gov/applicants/s
earch_opportuniti
es.jsp
• http://www.grant
s.gov/search/age
ncy.do
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 21
Search Grants.gov Opportunities
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 22
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 23
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 24
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 25
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 26
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 27
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 28
http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/rfp/
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 29
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 30
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 31
http://www.neh.gov/news/nehconnect.html
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 32
http://listserv.ed.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=edinfo&D=1&H=0&O=D&T=0
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 33
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_list/elists/
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 34
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 35
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 36
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 37
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 38
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 39
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 40
RFP: Read & Follow Directions
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 41
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 42
You and the RFP need to be like…
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 43
The RFP as Treasure Map
• Follow directions
• Review step by step
• Understand it
• Understood by all PIs
• Keep focused
• Don‘t wander off path
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 44
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 45
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 46
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 47
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 48
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 49
Reviewing the RFP
• Focus
• Carefully
• On
• Directions.
• Don‘t
• Get
• Distracted.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 50
Reviewing the RFP
• Clarify ambiguities;
if unresolved--
• Get clarification
from a program
officer.
• Ambiguities needs to
be resolved prior to
proposal writing so
the proposal
narrative maps to
the guidelines with
informed certainty.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 51
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 52
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 53
Never be timid about contacting a
program officer for clarification
• Timidity is
never
rewarded in
the
competitive
grant process.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 54
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 55
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 56
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 57
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 58
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 59
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 60
Analyzing the funding agency
• Analyzing the
mission, strategic
plan, investment
priorities, and
culture of a
funding agency
provides
information key to
enhancing
proposal
competitiveness.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 61
Know the funding agency
• In marking our 50th anniversary [Dr. Rita
R. Colwell, former NSF Director], we are
celebrating vision and foresight. The
recently retired hockey-great, Wayne
Gretzky, used to say, "I skate to where
the puck is going, not to where it's
been."
• At NSF, we try to fund where the fields
are going, not to where they've been.
• We have a strong record across all fields of
science and engineering for choosing to
fund insightful proposals and visionary
investigators.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 62
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 63
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 64
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 65
Know what was recently funded
• Learning about recently funded
research in your area helps you
understand what an agency is looking
for in the review process
• Review abstracts of funded proposals on
agency web sites
• Talk to the principal investigators of
funded proposals in your area
• Obtain copies of funded proposals
• Ask the PI
• Ask the agency (funded proposals are public)
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 66
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 67
Learn about proposals funded by
foundations
• Foundation Center (Find Funders)
• http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/
• Foundation Finder
• http://lnp.foundationcenter.org/finder.html
• 990 Finder
• http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/
• http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990pffly.pdf
• http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/tutorials/demystify/
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 68
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 69
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 70
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 71
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 72
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 73
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?
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 74
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?
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 75
Analyzing the funding agency
• Mission • Web speeches
• Culture • Public testimony
• Language • Review criteria
• Investment $‘s • Review process
• Strategic plan • Review panels
• Org chart • Project abstracts
• Management • Current funding
• Program officers • Solicitations
• Reports, pubs
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 76
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 77
Analyzing the funding agency
• Research focus • Multidisciplinary or
within disciplines interdisciplinary
• Research that is • Classified, non-
basic, applied, or classified
applications driven • Proprietary, non-
• Research scope and proprietary
performance time • Independent
horizon research, or
• Exploratory, open- dependent linkages
ended research, or to the agency
targeted to mission, e.g., health
technology develop care, education
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 78
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 79
Basic research agency
• Independent agency • Focus on
and management fundamental or basic
• Independent research at the
research vision, ―frontiers of
mission, and science,‖ innovation,
objectives and creation of new
• Award criteria based knowledge
on intellectual and • Open ended,
scientific excellence exploratory, long
• Peer reviewed, investment horizon
ranked, and awarded • Non-classified, non-
by merit proprietary
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 80
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 program officer,
Legislative, and Executive branch policies
• Classified and non-classified research
• http://opd.tamu.edu/seminar-materials/seminar-
materials-by-date/seminars-by-date
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 81
Mission-Oriented Agencies
• Have a specific, focused mission
• All research funding must clearly advance
that mission
• Research often a small part of overall budget
• Often have intramural research
• Shifts in focus and priorities within the overall
mission may change rapidly – often short
time horizons for research payoff
• Often sensitive to changes in political
leadership
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 82
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 83
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 84
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 85
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 86
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 87
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 88
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 89
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 90
DHHS (NIH)
Center for Scientific Review http://cms.csr.nih.gov/
NIH review criteria http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/basics/basics_b3.htm
NIH peer review process http://cms.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR/OverviewofPeerReviewProcess.htm
NIH review groups http://cms.csr.nih.gov/PeerReviewMeetings/CSRIRGDescription/
NIH study section rosters http://www.csr.nih.gov/Committees/rosterindex.asp
NSF
NSF review process, criteria Sec. 3 http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/nsf04_23/3.jsp
DOD
AFOSR review process, criteria Sec. 2.14 http://www.afosr.af.mil/pdfs/proguide.PDF
ARO review process, criteria Sec. 3 http://www.aro.army.mil/research/arl/arobaa06a.pdf
DARPA review process, criteria http://www.darpa.mil/body/information/proposal.html
ONR review process, criteria Sec. 5 http://www.onr.navy.mil/02/baa/docs/baa_05_024.pdf
USDA
NRI review process, criteria http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/nri/pdfs/nri_review_guidelines.pdf
NASA
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/nraguidebook/proposer2005.
NASA review process, criteria App. C
doc
Department of Energy
DOE review process, criteria http://www.sc.doe.gov/grants/process.html
US Department of Education
ED review process, criteria Sec. 5 http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/about/grantmaking/pt504.html
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 91
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 92
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 93
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 94
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 95
NSF proposal process and timelines
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 96
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?
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 97
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?
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 98
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 99
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 100
Charles Mingus on Grant Writing
Making the simple
complicated is
commonplace;
making the
complicated
simple,
awesomely
simple, that's
creativity.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 101
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 102
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 103
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 104
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 105
Grammar and spelling count
• Proposals are not graded on grammar.
But if the grammar is not perfect, the
result is ambiguities left to the reviewer
to resolve.
• Ambiguities make the proposal difficult
to read and often impossible to
understand, and often result in low
ratings. Be sure your grammar is
perfect.
George A. Hazelrigg, National Science Foundation
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 106
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 107
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 108
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).
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 109
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 110
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 111
Poor Process Planning
• What do you control?
• Proposal narrative
• Collaborators
• Budget
• What do others
control?
• Routing & signatures
• Budget approvals
• Submission
• Data requests
• Institutional support
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 112
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 113
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 114
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 115
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 116
Resubmitting proposals
• Take reviewers‘
comments to
heart, but not
necessarily as
inerrant;
• Assess next step:
• Start over
• Major renovation
• Minor renovation
• Re-conceptualize
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 117
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;
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 118
Intrigue the Reviewers
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 119
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 120
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 121
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.
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 122
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;
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 123
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;
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 124
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 125
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
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 126
Checklist for writing proposals
• Preparing to write
• Developing the hypothesis &
research plan
• Preliminary data & research
readiness
• Writing the proposal
• Post review process
• Competitive resubmissions
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 127
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?
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 128
Developing the hypothesis & research plan
• Who is your audience (agency, program officers,
reviewers) & 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?
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 129
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?
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 130
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?
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 131
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?
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 132
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?
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 133
Finally…Be confident
Tarleton 4/10/07 Mike Cronan, Office of Proposal Development, Texas A&M 134
Related docs
