cleveland state university esc 720 research communications proposals dan simon

Cleveland State UniversityESC 720

Research Communications

ProposalsDan Simon

Proposals

1. Overview2. The Proposal Structure and Writing Process3. Small Business Proposals in the United States4. Proposal Review Criteria5. Proposal Killers

2

1. Overview

• A proposal might request:– Approval for a project (internal)– Money for a project (internal or external)• Salary• Equipment• Employees• Travel

– Time for a project (internal)

31. Overview

1. Overview

• What is the risk/reward tradeoff for writing a proposal?– Build on your existing strengths– Expand your area of expertise– How much time are you willing to invest?– What is the risk of writing a poor proposal?– Will you be able to deliver on your promises?

41. Overview

1. Overview

• Proposals must be better than journal papers• Chapter 16 of Mike Markel’s book has a good

sample proposal• If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again– Use reviewer feedback to improve your proposal– NIH proposal success rates (approximate):• 10% success on first submission• 20% success on second submission• 30% success on third submission

52. Proposal Structure/Writing Process

1. Overview

• My success rate at CSU: 1999–2009– 14 journal rejections, 18 publications (56% success)– 16 proposal rejections, 6 grants (27% success)


1. Overview and a Few Tips

• Try, try again– My 2006 NSF Proposal: “Ethics Optimization

Software for Graduate Research Issues”• ECE / Philosophy collaboration• “Not Competitive”• “Unthinkable, bizarre, does not benefit society,

engineer’s fantasy, dangerous, …”• One lesson: interdisciplinary research is hard

– Over $3 million in NSF grants since then


1. Overview

• Write for your specific audience (reviewers)• Simpler is better• Balance technical rigor with simplicity• Some repetition is good• Some repetition is good• Collaborate if possible• Get preliminary reviews from colleagues


Proposals


9

2. Proposal Structure and Writing Process

1. Analyze your audience – how much detail?2. Analyze your purpose – what are you asking?3. Research4. Draft5. Format6. while true {

proofreadedit }



• Proposals need to promise something– Reports or papers– Goods or services

• The deliverables are mentioned in the summary, introduction, and body of the proposal – repetition is good



A proposal must persuade its readers. The proposer must:1.Understand what the reader wants: Responsiveness2.Know what to do: Goal3.Know how to do it: Plan4.Demonstrate competence5.Make a request for specific resources



(1) Responsiveness: The proposer must understand what the reader (reviewer) wants

• Study the request for proposals (RFP) carefully– Look for words like “should,” “must,” “required,” “need,” “encouraged”– But don’t try to do everything at once

• Always talk with the requesting organization before submitting or resubmitting. Non-responsive proposals waste everyone’s time.

• Get your own internal peer review before submitting.



(2) Goal: What do you want to accomplish? •Make your goal clear to your audience•Be specific in your description•Goals are high-level, objectives more specific• Goal: develop flying robotic gnats• Objectives: (1) develop miniature motors;

(2) develop simulation models; (3) develop motor controllers; (4) …



(3) Plan• How are you going to accomplish your goal?– Procedures– Equipment– Schedule and timeline– Failure contingencies

• Analyze tradeoffs to your approach, and justify your decisions

• Preliminary data – you must make an initial investment to get additional resources (like school!)



(4) Competence• Are you capable of completing the proposal?– Credentials– Resources (time, equipment, space, personnel)– Past performance– Evaluation plan, including metrics



(5) Resources• Be specific about your request– Equipment, salary, travel, etc.– Don’t pad the budget with excess charges, tasks,

travel, equipment, etc.– Don’t use round numbers in your budget (in

general)– Don’t mention money until the budget section



Proposal Outline• Summary – this is like an extended abstract• Introduction– Discuss the problem/opportunity– Background/literature review– Summarize your proposal idea and organization

• Plan of work, including timeline• Qualifications (may be a separate document)• Budget (may be a separate document)



Sample NSF Proposal OutlinePreamble (1 page)– Summary paragraph (abstract)– Table of contents / outline

1. Introduction: goals and objectives (1 page)– Discuss the problem, opportunity, and literature

2. Related research (yours and others’) (2 pages)3. Proposed research and preliminary results (7 pages)4. Evaluation plan, metrics, testing, verification (1 page)5. Under-represented groups (1/2 page)6. Dissemination of results (1/2 page)7. Broader impacts (1/2 page)8. Investigators’ qualifications (1 page)



• Related Research (Section 2)– Do not downplay the work of others• Previous attempts to solve the problem unaccountably

ignored the interaction between … In contrast, our approach provides a systematic …

– Instead, build on the work of others• Like our colleagues, we attempt to compensate for the

interaction between … We build on this previous research by …

20


• Dissemination of results (Section 6)– Make results available to other researchers,

students, etc. Be specific.• Web sites• Software• Integration into course work• Outreach (Fenn Academy)• Commercialization (Data Management Plan)

21


• Broader Impacts (Section 7)– Sustainability– Use your imagination for cross-fertilization with

other disciplines– Some of the “broader impacts” are closely related

to “dissemination” (Section 6)

22


• NSF Review Criteria: Intellectual Merit– Emphasize the “transformative” potential of your

proposed research– Words to avoid: design, develop, improve,

optimize, advance [incremental improvements]– Better words: introduce, invent, new, innovate– Balance “transformation” with “feasibility”

23

Proposals


24

3. Small Business Proposals

• Small Business Innovation Research: SBIR– Start-up funds for specific high-risk innovations

• Small Business Technology Transfer: STTR– Cooperative university/business research

• Phase I – Feasibility: $150,000 for 6 months (often at a loss)

• Phase II – R&D: $750,000 for 2 years

253. Business/Research Proposals

3. Small Business Proposals

• SBIR/STTR programs are in place at many government agencies– Department of Defense (DOD), Department of

Energy (DOE), National Institutes of Health (NIH), NASA, National Science Foundation (NSF), etc.

– Get on their email lists to hear about program announcements

263. Business/Research Proposals

Proposals


27

4. Proposal Review CriteriaDepartment of Health and Human Services (includes NIH): Guide for Evaluation of Proposals (edited)1.Has the offeror demonstrated adequate knowledge about the background, operations, and status of the program to be evaluated?2.Has the offeror presented an approach which will achieve the stated objectives of the RFP?3.Is the proposed approach supported with justification of why it should achieve the evaluation objectives?4.Do you think the suggested approach will work?5.Has the offeror introduced unanticipated events which may result in a project overrun or an expanded scope of work?

284. Review Criteria

4. Proposal Review Criteria6. Is there a specific management plan by task for period of

performance?7. Has the offeror demonstrated efficient use of time and

resources?8. Is the offeror realistic in the allotted time for each task?9. Has the offeror demonstrated competence in related areas?10. Are reports keyed to major milestones/events of the study?11. Has the offeror provided for use of community resources?12. Does the offeror specify the deliverables?


4. Proposal Review Criteria

NIH Review Criteria1. Impact of research2. Other rating criteria (in no particular order):– Significance of proposed research– Qualifications of investigators– Innovation– Approach– Research environment



NSF Review Criteria• What is the intellectual merit?• What are the broader impacts?• What are the plans for dissemination?



CSU Undergraduate Research Criteria1. Introduction: clear, complete, concise2. Justification: significant, clear, relevant to

RFP3. Student research: well-defined4. Outcomes: clear, relevant to RFP5. Budget: clear, complete, without padding



CSU Dissertation Research Award Criteria1. Quality of research objectives2. Significance of research3. Applied Methods and Procedures4. Credentials of the doctoral student5. Budget justification6. Letter of support from research advisor


Proposals


34

5. Proposal Killers

1. The research is trivial or is unlikely to produce new or useful information.

2. The proposed research is based on a hypothesis that rests on doubtful, unsound or insufficient evidence.

3. The problem is more complex than the author realizes.4. The problem is local in significance, or otherwise fails to fall

clearly in the mainstream of the discipline.5. The research is intellectually premature – only a pilot study.

355. Proposal Killers

5. Proposal Killers

6. The research as proposed is overly involved with too many elements required to be investigated simultaneously.

7. The description of the research leaves the proposal nebulous, diffuse, and without a clear aim.

8. The proposed methodology, including tests and procedures, are unsuited to the objective. May be beyond the competence of the investigator.

9. The overall design is not carefully thought out.10. Statistical aspects are not given sufficient consideration.11. Approach lacks imagination or originality.12. Controls are either inadequately conceived or described.


5. Proposal Killers

13. Available equipment is unsuited to the research.14. Investigator does not have experience or training for the

proposed research.15. Investigator appears to be unfamiliar with pertinent

literature or methods, or both.16. Investigator's previously published work in the field does not

inspire confidence.17. Investigator relies too heavily, or insufficiently, on

experienced associates.


5. Proposal Killers

18. Investigator is spreading himself too thin.19. Investigator needs more contact with colleagues in this or

related fields.20. Requirements for equipment, personnel, or time are

unrealistic.21. Other responsibilities prevent the investigator from devoting

sufficient time to this project.22. Institutional setting is unfavorable.23. Current research grants held are adequate in scope and

funding to cover the proposed research.


5. Proposal Killers


How to get your Proposal Rejected

• Don’t bother talking to the program director – after all, it’s just too much trouble

• Don’t bother reading the proposal guidelines – after all, that’s the Research Office’s job – anyway, you probably read it once a few years ago

• Don’t bother reading the program solicitation – after all, that would hinder your creativity

• Make sure to condense as much detailed, technical information as possible –lots of acronyms, no figures, and writing at a level only an expert can understand

40


• Don’t bother with a timeline, deliverables, or a mapping of tasks to specific investigators – after all, that’s why it’s research

• Don’t worry about alternative approaches – after all, failure is not an option

• Don’t worry about plans for data or software maintenance or dissemination – after all, you can take care of that after you get funded

• Don’t worry about connecting your proposal with other research – after all, your job is to conduct new research, not worry about old publications

41


• Don’t worry about spelling or grammar – after all, reviewers should be able to figure it out

• Don’t worry if you don’t have time to make the proposal perfect – throw something together and send it off – after all, what do you have to lose?

• Don’t worry about making it interesting – after all, technical material is supposed to be boring – and it’s the reviewers’ job to get through boring proposals

• If you get rejected, don’t try again – after all, you may get rejected again

42


• Don’t collaborate with other researchers on your proposal – after all, you are the expert here

• Don’t bother getting preliminary reviews from colleagues – after all, the proposal is already perfect since you wrote it

• Don’t worry about submitting it early – after all, the submission process will be flawless

• Don’t bother with an evaluation plan – after all, your job is to do research, not to evaluate research

43

Acknowledgments

• Technical Communication, by Mike Markel (Chapter 15)• Pocket Book of Technical Writing, by Leo Finkelstein

(Chapter 6)• http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~ebrown/infobr3.htm

44

cleveland state university esc 720 research communications proposals dan simon

Documents

proposal repetition

nsf proposal

poor proposal

overviewa proposal

writing processa proposal

success16 proposal rejections

writing processresponsiveness

writing processanalyze