We conducted a longitudinal study to determine whether or not a proactive effort is a key differentiating element to winning grants. We conducted this experiment as part of a public university’s initiative to increase non-dilutive funding for its spinout companies through the SBIR/STTR program. A decisive variable in the overall experiment was when materials were planned, written, and submitted. It stands to reason that when grants are planned and proactively executed there is a demonstrated favorable effect on their successful award. Indeed, scientists need more time to think.
We, in collaboration with the university-sponsored accelerator office and the university school of medicine, completed a study to evaluate funding outcomes based on start date and level of planning, among other factors. Grant Engine was contacted because public universities are not able to submit spinout company grants, as their grants administration office is funded by state resources for public benefit. To address this tactical problem, the university enlisted us an independent external writing firm to assist in grant submissions. In discussions, the university recognized that Grant Engine has a proven track record of success in an SBIR/STTR environment. Grant Engine proposed and was selected to conduct a controlled experiment with two distinct arms.
Our study ran from June 2017 to January 2022, and included two arms, as described below. Both arms were composed of primarily academic teams who recruited collaborators, wrote the grant proposal, and refined the grant strategy as part of the proposal writing process. We had no role in selecting the companies that participated in the study. The timeframe provided for sufficient time of evaluation to assess the eventual outcome of grants in each cohort. Importantly, there are no structural differences in the data set generated through 2022 to today’s implications: the conclusion of this study are as relevant today as they were in 2022.
The two arms were:
Arm A: Submission only.
Our role was limited to submission only, including uploading all proposal-related documents to the government websites and submitting the proposal once the company approved submission. In this arm, the companies and principal investigators worked on their own without external input or assistance. It was widely acknowledged that Arm A companies prepared their grants late in the process. Grants were most often started within two weeks of the deadline and grant documents for submission were most often received one to two days before the submission deadline, and in some cases within 24 hours of the deadline.
Arm B: Planning, strategy, and submission.
In addition to activities associated with submission in Arm A, Grant Engine was involved in strategic planning, content analysis, proposal development, and review. Specifically, we participated in a planning meeting at least two months before the deadline and attended bi-weekly meetings. Arm B companies accepted and generally adhered to the overall timeline that included milestones for two drafts, a formal review, and a final draft.
Results: The study included 22 grant submissions, 12 in Arm A and 10 in Arm B, spanning a mix of Phase I and Phase II submissions to the SBIR/STTR program.
including uploading all proposal-related documents to the government websites and submitting the proposal once the company approved submission. In this arm, the companies and principal investigators worked on their own without external input or assistance. It was widely acknowledged that Arm A companies prepared their grants late in the process. Grants were most often started within two weeks of the deadline and grant documents for submission were most often received one to two days before the submission deadline, and in some cases within 24 hours of the deadline.
Arm B: Planning, strategy, and submission.
In addition to activities associated with submission in Arm A, Grant Engine was involved in strategic planning, content analysis, proposal development, and review. Specifically, we participated in a planning meeting at least two months before the deadline and attended bi-weekly meetings. Arm B companies accepted and generally adhered to the overall timeline that included milestones for two drafts, a formal review, and a final draft.
Results: The study included 22 grant submissions, 12 in Arm A and 10 in Arm B, spanning a mix of Phase I and Phase II submissions to the SBIR/STTR program.
Table 1: Grants that are worked on and submitted early afford the opportunity for content refinement, grant strategy, and review and therefore yield a greater chance of success as compared to grants that are not.
We evaluated whether each proposal was scored, received a Notice of Award, or abandoned.
Outcomes were measured based on whether the grant was scored, eventually won, or abandoned. The results:
- Arm A: 3 grants awarded out of 12 submissions, a 25% win rate. 75% were scored and 25% were in the bottom half of that review panel’s submissions.
- Arm B: 6 grants awarded out of 10 submissions, a 60% win rate. 90% of the grants received a score and thus were in the top fifty percent of that review panel’s submissions, and 10% were in the bottom half.
These results clearly point to the benefits of (1) starting early and (2) being proactive, with regular meetings for planning and refining strategy.
Given that a key difference between the two arms is that the more successful Arm B had more time to write and prepare the grant, it is key to assess whether this was a correlative or a causal factor.
Causation or Correlation?
Does it matter if a grant is submitted early or later, if it is the same grant, provided it is submitted before the deadline? Yes, in that grants submitted earlier have a higher likelihood of being reviewed in the desired study section. Late submissions may be assigned to less desirable sections, which can impact the outcome.
However, being proactive and early matters because time affords quality and quality greatly affects the outcome of a grant’s success. This study demonstrates that proactive planning significantly influences the success of grant submissions. Taking time to allow the grant proposal to mature enables refinement of the message for clarity and conciseness. Clarity is well recognized as a key factor at winning and refinement of the message provides this. When a writer is afforded time, clarity is easier to achieve. Proactive work allows for detailed market analysis of competing technologies, honing of the points of differentiation of the proposed product, and a thorough review of NIH RePORTER awards to articulate differentiation or confirm a product gap that NIH may want to fill. Additionally, this extra time provides an opportunity to secure key opinion leaders, collaborators, and partners, and positions the investigative team for maximum grant success. Refining the principal investigators track record and reputation for each specific grant is crucial to winning grants, as discussed in the literature. When grant efforts are started late, there just is not time to refine the message and improve the structural aspects of the grant. As a result, the outcome is affected unfavorably with a loss of time, resources, and can unfavorably affect the reputation of the firm.
Mark Twain remarked, “It takes longer to write a short letter than a long one,” emphasizing that concise and effective communication is challenging, crucial, and takes time. A well prepared grant reflects that work and shows up in the review and the outcome.
Lastly, it’s important to realize that revising a grant proposal beyond the point where changes no longer affect the score can be counterproductive and might even decrease the proposal’s competitiveness, as outlined in this blog post.
To discuss this piece or for more information and to explore potential collaborations, contact us at Grant Engine by filling out a consultation request form, contacting us via greatscience@grantengine.com or by giving us a call on (650) 937-9164.
Are you ready to get started on winning the non-dilutive funding your company needs?
Recent Comments