Cleveland State University EEC 414/503, ESC 720 Writing in Electrical and Computer Engineering

Cleveland State UniversityEEC 414/503, ESC 720Writing in Electrical and Computer Engineering Lecture 10 – Proposals Dan Simon

Proposals • Overview • The Proposal Structure and Writing Process • Small Business Proposals in the United States • Proposal Review Criteria • Proposal Killers

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) 1. 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? 1. 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 2. Proposal Structure/Writing Process

1. Overview • Dan Simon’s success rate at CSU: 1999–2009 • 14 journal rejections, 18 publications (56% success) • 16 proposal rejections, 6 grants (27% success) 2. Proposal Structure/Writing Process

1. Overview • Write for your specific audience (reviewers) • Simpler is better • Balance technical rigor with simplicity • Some repetition is good (like in other technical writing) • Collaborate if possible • Get preliminary reviews from colleagues 2. Proposal Structure/Writing Process

2. Proposal Structure and Writing Process • Analyze your audience – how much detail? • Analyze your purpose – what are you asking? • Research • Draft • Format • while true { proofread edit } 2. Proposal Structure/Writing Process

2. Proposal Structure and Writing Process • 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 2. Proposal Structure/Writing Process

2. Proposal Structure and Writing Process A proposal must persuade its readers. The proposer must: • Understand what the reader wants: Responsiveness • Know what to do: Goal • Know how to do it: Plan • Demonstrate competence • Make a request for specific resources 2. Proposal Structure/Writing Process

2. Proposal Structure and Writing Process • Responsiveness: The proposer must understand what the reader (reviewer) wants • Study the request for proposals (RFP) carefully • Always talk with the requesting organization before submitting. Non-responsive proposals waste everyone’s time. • Get your own peer review before submitting. 2. Proposal Structure/Writing Process

2. Proposal Structure and Writing Process (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) … 2. Proposal Structure/Writing Process

2. Proposal Structure and Writing Process (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!) 2. Proposal Structure/Writing Process

2. Proposal Structure and Writing Process (4) Competence • Are you capable of completing the proposal? • Credentials • Resources (time, equipment, space, personnel) • Past performance • Evaluation plan, including metrics 2. Proposal Structure/Writing Process

2. Proposal Structure and Writing Process (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 2. Proposal Structure/Writing Process

2. Proposal Structure and Writing Process 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) 2. Proposal Structure/Writing Process

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 3. 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 3. Business/Research Proposals

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

4. Proposal Review Criteria • Is there a specific management plan by task for period of performance? • Has the offeror demonstrated efficient use of time and resources? • Is the offeror realistic in the allotted time for each task? • Has the offeror demonstrated competence in related areas? • Are reports keyed to major milestones/events of the study? • Has the offeror provided for use of community resources? • Does the offeror specify the deliverables? 4. Review Criteria

4. Proposal Review Criteria NIH Review Criteria • Impact of research • Other rating criteria (in no particular order): • Significance of proposed research • Qualifications of investigators • Innovation • Approach • Research environment 4. Review Criteria

4. Proposal Review Criteria NSF Review Criteria • What is the intellectual merit? • What are the broader impacts? • What are the plans for dissemination? 4. Review Criteria

4. Proposal Review Criteria CSU Undergraduate Research Criteria • Introduction: clear, complete, consise • Justification: significant, clear, relevant to RFP • Student research: well-defined • Outcomes: clear, relevant to RFP • Budget: clear, complete, without padding 4. Review Criteria

5. Proposal Killers • The research is trivial or is unlikely to produce new or useful information. • The proposed research is based on a hypothesis that rests on doubtful, unsound or insufficient evidence. • The problem is more complex than the author realizes. • The problem is local in significance, or otherwise fails to fall clearly in the mainstream of the discipline. • The research is intellectually premature – only a pilot study. 5. Proposal Killers

5. Proposal Killers • The research as proposed is overly involved with too many elements required to be investigated simultaneously. • The description of the research leaves the proposal nebulous, diffuse, and without a clear aim. • The proposed methodology, including tests and procedures, are unsuited to the objective. May be beyond the competence of the investigator. • The overall design is not carefully thought out. • Statistical aspects are not given sufficient consideration. • Approach lacks imagination or originality. • Controls are either inadequately conceived or described. 5. Proposal Killers

5. Proposal Killers • Available equipment is unsuited to the research. • Investigator does not have experience or training for the proposed research. • Investigator appears to be unfamiliar with pertinent literature or methods, or both. • Investigator's previously published work in the field does not inspire confidence. • Investigator relies too heavily, or insufficiently, on experienced associates. 5. Proposal Killers

5. Proposal Killers • Investigator is spreading himself too thin. • Investigator needs more contact with colleagues in this or related fields. • Requirements for equipment, personnel, or time are unrealistic. • Other responsibilities prevent the investigator from devoting sufficient time to this project. • Institutional setting is unfavorable. • Current research grants held are adequate in scope and funding to cover the proposed research. 5. Proposal Killers

5. Proposal Killers • No white space • Typos 5. Proposal Killers

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

Cleveland State University EEC 414/503, ESC 720 Writing in Electrical and Computer Engineering