CHE 594 Lecture 18

1. CHE 594 Lecture 18 The Work Plan

2. Review: Keys To Building A Successful Proposal Create Excitement Describe The Work Well Solid Research Plan Qualified Investigator Good Research Idea Lect 20 Lect 16-18 Lect 18 Lect 1-6,12

3. My Typical Outline • Introduction • One page giving an overview of the work, describe how it advances the literature and make a case for funding • Figure that gives a picture of the work I am proposing • Literature review (NSF, DOE, NIH not DARPA, DHS) • 1-2 pages giving the main themes in the literature • Proposed work • Specific Objectives • Paragraph outlining the entire scope of work & its major challenges • Experimental design • Work Plan • Variables I will vary • Techniques I will use • Sometimes data analysis if that is significant • Description of preliminary data • Summary • Highlight the significance - Lect 6,7 12 Lect 13-16 Lect 17 Lect 18

4. Today The Experimental Plan • Needs to answer: who, what, when, where, why and how about the proposed research • Work plan needs to be 8+ pages of a 15 page NSF proposal, 13+ pages of a 20 page NIH proposal • Important to have a clear connection between the questions you raised and the experiments you will do Adapted from http://www.sba.gov/gopher/Innovation-And-Research/SBIR-Pro-Prep/

5. Two Parts To The Work Plan • Experimental design (Part Of Specific Objectives) • 2 page overview of what types of experiments will you do, how do they fit together, how will you analyze • The experimental methods • Procedures – detailed statements of exact procedures

6. The Experimental Design • I find it helpful to organize the Experimental design around a task table • Program managers love task tables • NSF reviewers hate them • Write the proposal around a task table • Be sure to be explicit • What variables will you consider • Exactly how will you do the measurements • Appendix D in Ogden and Goldberg Has Many examples of experimental designs

7. General Structure Of The Task Table

8. Table 1 Task Summary, Roadmap A Task Table For a MURI project Current Status Issues Proposed Approaches Microburners as heat sources Masel and Shannon already demonstrated that flames can propagate in 100-1000 micron spaces Need equations for flame stability as a function of geometry, wall composition, wall temperature, fuel, oxidizer, stoichiometric ratio Measure combustion limits in micron to millimeter scale burners Develop model of combustion process Analyze results to produce design correlations, scaling rules Need equations for heat output as a function of geometry, wall composition, wall temperature, fuel, oxidizer, stoichiometric ratio Measure conversion, heat output in micron scale burners Use model to calculate conversion, heat output Analyze results to produce design correlations, scaling rules Key properties that determine flame stability have not yet been measured for many candidate wall materials Measure key wall properties: accommodation coefficients, radical reflectivities of key species $1,000,000/yr for 5 yr effort Program managers love this; NSF reviewers hate it, NIH OK

9. Key Issues In The Experimental Design • The experimental design is 2-3 pages • Spell out your approach, methodology, options, reasons for choices, priorities and sequence of work in detail • You must clearly discuss both what you intend to do and how you will go about each task • Include a discussion of possible problems which might emerge how you intend to overcome those problems Adapted from http://www.sba.gov/gopher/Innovation-And-Research/SBIR-Pro-Prep/

10. Example Experimental Design • Specific question 1: How does the flow of water in a gas diffusion layer(GDL) vary with the properties of the GDL • Rationale: People choose GDL’s by trial and error. … • Experimental plan • Pick samples of 7 commercially available GDL’s varying … • Build model Fuel cells with the different GDLs • Use microCT to measure key properties: the shape of the water channel through the GDL ….

11. Key Issues in Experimental Design • Generally about 2-3 pages • You must convince the reviewers that your proposed experiments will answer the questions you raise, that the experiments can be done within the time period • Good to include a gaant chart showing the timeline and a diagram of how things fit together

12. Key Issues in Techniques • 5 pages in NSF, 9 pages in NIH • You must convince the reviewers that your proposed experiments will answer the questions you raise, and that you have the expertise and facilities to do the work • Reviewers usually put themselves in your place – they ask could they do the experiment given the facilities at your university– if so they believe you if not they do not • They also need to be convinced that you can do it

13. Key Features Of The Work Plan • Elaborate on the techniques you will use to accomplish the objectives • Indicate why these techniques are appropriate • Demonstrate your expertise by highlighting any techniques which are state-of-the-art or which you have developed yourself • Indicate any past experience that you have in using these techniques • Refer to other studies that support the appropriateness of your methodology to accomplish the objectives Adapted from http://www.sba.gov/gopher/Innovation-And-Research/SBIR-Pro-Prep/

14. Hints For The Work Plan • First give an overview of the experimental design , then give the details of the methods • Relate the design and methods back to each specific aim • Use diagrams or flow charts to explain complex protocols • Give enough detail to demonstrate that you know what you are talking about, without crowding page limits (This is an art form; get help if needed.) • Make good use of space by referring to standard methods papers or protocol books where appropriate • Make good use of space by referring to the preliminary data section when methods were described there • Give examples of the results you expect and how you will interpret them • Anticipate pitfalls you might face and explain how to deal with them • Provide a time line that shows you have not designed an overly ambitious project Source http://www.washington.edu/research/guide/content.html

15. Preliminary Data Critical For An NIH, NSF Proposal • You must demonstrate that you can actually do the work • New molecules: show that you have made one and it has interesting properties • Devices: show that you have made a similar device and it works • Key experimental techniques: demonstrate on at least one example or include a supporting letter from an expert that has agreed to help you

16. Table 1.Risk Mitigation Strategy NIH, DARPA, ARO Ask For Risk Mitigation Risk Likelihood Mitigation Strategy Pumps, valves cannot be scaled Negligible – the pumps and valves already have been demonstrated in more demanding applications Design of experiments varying fabrication technology to meet device goals. Pre-concentrator gives insufficient gain Low – Tenax already gives sufficient gain. We just need to find ways to put enough in Design of experiments on nanograss fabrication procedures to obtain higher surface area Try porous silicon posts GC column does not meet resolution goal Very low – the columns already work on the macroscale; and our simulations indicate that the resolution is enhanced on the microscale Design of experiments to optimize column and heating profile to meet resolution goal

17. Four Most Common Mistakes • Writing too ambitious a proposal • Proposing too much • Unfocused technical objectives • Talking about the large problem instead of a narrower idea that you can really do • Proposal hard for reviewers to navigate • No clear sections (i.e. introduction, literature review, technical objectives) that the reviewers can jump to • Hoping that the reviewers will get the idea instead of telling them directly • Unclear/unfocused writing

18. Other Common Errors In The Work Plan • Proposing things that are insufficiently novel • Proposals that propose to use a well established technique on a small variation of a problem that has already been solved • Exception if the variation is of great importance • Failure to consider important variables • Makes reviewer doubt your qualifications • OK to say that we will control these variables and only consider variations in these variables • Unfounded claims • Important new conclusions from preliminary data without strong evidence

19. Items To Improve Your Odds Of Success • Pretty pictures showing your expected molecules, devices • Table outlining your research plan • Diagram outlining and complex procedures • Table outlining your risk mitigation strategy Remember that most reviewers will not read every word in your proposal so it is important to make it easy for them. The saying “A Picture is worth 1000 words” is doubly true in proposals

20. Other Important Points On Writing • Read the instructions • NSF requires you to discuss the broad impacts of your work http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf07046/nsf07046.jsp • NIH requires risk mitigation • Be sure to give the review panel what they want to hear • NSF – 50+ references, some theory • NIH – Lots of preliminary data, real application to human health, all details of procedures, supporting letters

21. Good Communication Is Important • Need to explain your proposal in a way that someone outside your field gets it • Most reviewers will be outside your field • Proposals need to be easy to understand with no leap of faith or detective work by the reviewer • Reviewers are busy people. If he cannot get your ideas quickly, he will not recommend your proposal. • The review panel has more fundable proposal than can be funded. If yours is hard to understand, he will recommend someone else’s proposal for funding

22. Questions?