Writing a proposal is an art form, based on the team and the science. While we know there is such a thing as a perfect score, because we’ve gotten one, the reality is that there is no perfect grant and more importantly it’s impossible to know whether you’ve reached that place before you submit. It’s not possible to predict whether a grant will reach a perfect score a priori because of many factors, including reviewer bias, investigator reputation, available preliminary data, inadequate alignment with funding priorities, racial bias, among many other factors. We aim to wring out that bias through our process. However, because we’ve written thousands of grants we do know when a proposal has reached its competitive threshold and that’s an important threshold to recognize because it has implications for your success.
Figure 1: Stylized motif of when working on a proposal does not improve competitiveness. This figure builds on an original work from Stephen Floor, PhD previously at UCSF and now at Inceptive.
While knowing when a proposal is “perfect” would be ideal, the previously mentioned confounding variables make that impossible, and even then that doesn’t stop us from trying. But pursuing a competitive proposal is the smartest strategy and therefore, that is the goal. Importantly, it is also crucial to note that there are certain administrative and programmatic content and strategies that won’t affect an impact score, but can prevent the grant from getting funded. These components are often added late in the process.
Time and Work Effort Does Not Equal a Perfect Proposal. An excellent proposal doesn’t come from the absolute time or energy expended on them but from ensuring the right elements are in place. Don’t burn time. Rather, focus on the key drivers of a successful outcome. It’s focusing on the key drivers that will make your proposal competitive, not the number of revisions you make or the number of hours you spend on a proposal. More time spent doesn’t typically equate to a better outcome because time does not equal winning content. Plus, you simply don’t know how the reviewers will react or what they will focus on in their critique. By concentrating on the critical areas, you’ll be better positioned to achieve a score that meets the funding line, regardless of the individual preferences of the reviewers or their bias.
Focus on Aspects That Drive Improved Score Outcomes. It’s important to acknowledge that there is no definitive end to the revision process. If we had the time, we could continue to revise a proposal indefinitely, making small tweaks and adjustments every day for the rest of our lives. However, instead of endlessly refining, focus on the aspects that drive an improved impact score. Prioritize the positioning and showcase of an excellent PI and a strong investigative team because this adds credibility and gravity to your proposal. Be clear and concise in the writing as clarity allows reviewers to easily grasp your ideas. Excite them with the potential impact of your work because excitement will make your proposal stand out and therefore can often tip the scales. Ensure that your approach section is rigorous and credible, demonstrating a well-thought-out plan that reviewers can trust. Provide sufficient preliminary data to back up your claims and demonstrate feasibility as this reassures reviewers that your project is grounded in solid evidence. There are other big-picture elements like being persistent, but at a proposal level these are the key factors.
The Goal: Just Below the Payline. Our prime directive is to win every grant on its first submission. We strive for that and it is a tall order. It’s well documented that in virtually all proposal submission cycles and study sections, there are more proposals worthy of funding than available funding. This means that your goal should not be to write a perfect proposal but rather to ensure that it beats the funding line: good enough to cross the threshold for funding consideration. And then, be persistent over time. Once your proposal reaches a competitive level, striving for perfection typically leads to diminishing returns as additional revisions add little to its competitiveness. However, a realistic outcome for a first submission is to receive a score, and then secure the award on the resubmission. Third submissions in a sequence are allowed, as a new submission. The effort to make progress on your company and product, and continue to submit competitive grants, greatly increases your chance to consistently secure funding. It’s better to follow the process to work on multiple submissions than to try and craft one perfect proposal.
Process > Outcome. Because you can’t control the outcome, its vital to acknowledge that you can only influence the outcome through your inputs and the grant creation and revision process. The outcome of your proposal isn’t something you can dictate. However, by recognizing that you can control the inputs and your process, the key is to be mindful of utilizing a productive set of steps and work your inputs such that changes you make favorably influence the outcome. Think big and be bold. Focus on content and process that creates meaningful changes and improvements in the proposal.
Revision Fatigue: Diminishing Returns. The revision process is where some proposals stagnate and some clients get stuck. Dithering over small changes in a grant application is counterproductive because it leads to diminishing returns, where minor tweaks add little value while consuming valuable time and energy. It’s easy to fall into a cycle where each version of your proposal feels like it needs to be better than the last, leading you to tinker endlessly. The hard truth is that this can often result in differences that do not matter or revisions that simply revert to earlier ideas or changes that don’t substantially improve the proposal. Be aware that others who are not super close to the proposal can have a more objective view. To avoid the trap of diminishing returns, it’s helpful to have other people review your proposal and to take breaks where you don’t look at the document for days (and ideally weeks). Objectivity can provide clarity and help you recognize when further revisions are no longer productive.
By focusing on the variables that matter, as outlined herein, you have the greatest chance to secure valuable non-dilutive funding. 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.
Recent Comments