Transcription
Strategies for Planning,Developing, and WritingLarge Team GrantsMike Cronan
Strategies for Planning, Developing, and Writing Large Team Grants Strategies for Planning,Developing, and Writing LargeTeam GrantsWhat all faculty and research professionals need to know aboutwriting center-level proposals in a team environmentThis book is a step-by-step guide for faculty and research professionalstransitioning to large team grantsPartsIntroduction to Team GrantsStrategic PlanningProposal Planning and ProductionWriting the Project DescriptionWriting Key Narrative SectionsCharacteristics of Successful NarrativesRed Teaming and Writing for ReviewersThis book addresses the challenges facing faculty and research offices intransitioning from smaller research grants to large team grants. While the term“team science” will be used throughout this book, it is not a book about the theoryof team science but rather a “how to” for practitioners challenged with actuallyplanning, developing, and writing LTGs—both faculty and the research offices thatsupport them.ByMike Cronan, AuthorKatherine E. Kelly, EditorLucy Deckard, Production ManagerAcademic Research Funding Strategies, LLCPage 1
Strategies for Planning, Developing, and Writing Large Team Grants About the BookThis book was published by Academic Research Funding Strategies, LLC, a consultingfirm that specializes in helping faculty and universities compete more successfully for researchfunding. We also publish a monthly research newsletter, Research Development & GrantWriting News, and a companion eBook, New Faculty Guide to Competing for ResearchFunding, all available on our web site.Author Mike Cronan, consultant and principal co-publisher of Research Developmentand Grant Writing News, and co-author of the New Faculty Guide, joined Academic ResearchFunding Strategies in 2010. His insights are based on 23 years of experience developing andwriting successful proposals at Texas A&M University. He was named a Texas A&M UniversitySystem Regents Fellow (2001-2010) for developing and writing A&M System-wide grantsfunded at over 100 million by NSF and other research agencies, 1990-2000. He developed,staffed, and directed two highly successful proposal development offices at Texas A&M, one inthe Texas Engineering Experiment Station (Office of Research Development & Grant Writing,1994-2004), a state-wide engineering research agency with divisions at 14 universities, and thesecond for the Vice President for Research (Office of Proposal Development, 2004-09), workingacross all academic disciplines in 11 colleges. Mike Cronan has undergraduate degrees in civilengineering (University of Michigan), political science (Michigan State University), and a MFA inEnglish (University of California-Irvine). He is a registered professional engineer in Texas.Production Manager Lucy Deckard, established Academic Research Funding Strategies,LLC in 2010 and is co-publisher of Research Development & Grant Writing News and co-authorof the New Faculty Guide. She works with universities and faculty across the country to helpthem develop and write more competitive proposals, ranging from large, center-level proposalsto single-PI CAREER and Young Investigator proposals. Previously, Ms. Deckard worked inresearch development at Texas A&M University for 8 years, most recently serving as AssociateDirector of the university's Office of Proposal Development. She has helped to develop andwrite successful proposals to NSF, NIH, the Department of Education, the Department ofDefense, and other agencies and foundations. In addition, she directed the university's NewFaculty Initiative, working with new faculty to jumpstart their research by helping them toidentify funding opportunities, develop a strategy for pursuing funding, understand fundingagencies, and learn how to write competitive proposals. Ms. Deckard also worked with facultyin Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions and Minority Serving Institutions across the TexasA&M University System. Before joining Texas A&M, she worked for 16 years as a researchengineer in industry, including at Lockheed Martin and Hughes Research Labs, obtainingfunding from DoD, DARPA and DOE. She has a B.S. in Materials Science from Rice University andan M.S. in Materials Science and Engineering from Northwestern University.Editor Katherine E. Kelly, PhD is a retired English professor from Texas A&M University.She is the author of several books and numerous articles and served as a contributing editor foran academic journal for five years. She provides editorial services to Research Development &Grant Writing News and to ARFS clients seeking editorial help with proposals, journal articles,and manuscripts.Academic Research Funding Strategies, LLCPage 2
Strategies for Planning, Developing, and Writing Large Team Grants Table of ContentsPart 1, Introduction . 5Part 2, Strategic Planning . 12Understanding the Funding Agency .Submitting for the Right Reasons with the Right PI The Role of Self-Assessment in Large Team Grant Success The Transition to Writing Large Team Grants The Strategic Planning Role of the Funding Solicitation .Role of the Solicitation in Large Team Grants Organization Red Teaming the Solicitation .Know the Context of Your Research .A Case Study: NSF Science and Technology Centers .Strategies for Developing Competitive Partnership Proposals .Optimizing the Proposal Planning and Development Process .Budgeting Strategies for Team Proposals .The Role of Research Support Offices on Team Grants 13171922272930323440464952Part 3, Proposal Planning and Production . 53Role of the Solicitation in Proposal Planning and Organization The Schedule and Task Assignment Table Asking Yourself the Right Questions . 545765Part 4, Writing the Research Narrative 78Writing the Vision, Goals, Objectives, Rationale, Outcomes . 79Writing the Project Summary . 82The Evolving Proposal Narrative 87Starter Templates to Guide Multiple Authors . 89Do You Have a Narrative Integration Plan? . 93The Challenge of Integrating Multiple Authors 95Integrating PI Experiences from Various Agencies 98The Background Researcher on Proposals . 101Part 5, Other Narrative Components . 102Writing a Successful Project Management Plan 103Writing the Project Sustainability Statement . 106Evaluation Resources on the Internet .109NSF Broader Impacts . 113The NRC, a Partner for Writing More Competitive Proposals 115STEM Learning and Activity Models for Proposals . 117Academic Research Funding Strategies, LLCPage 3
Strategies for Planning, Developing, and Writing Large Team Grants Social Science Components of NSF Proposals . 119Preparing Letters of Support and Collaboration . 123No Squishy Commitments or Weasel Clauses . 125Part 6, Characteristics of the Successful Narrative . 127Writing a Compelling Project Narrative . 128The Role of Specificity in a Successful Proposal . 131Avoid the Generic Introduction . . 134Narrative Silos Are Like Weeds . 136Why Generalities Suffocate the Narrative . . 138Do Not Build Your Proposal Out of Spare Parts . 141Echo but Don’t Parrot Agency Language . . 144Interviewing Schrödinger’s Cat: Eradicating Ambiguity . 146Graphics as a Narrative Integrator . 148Too Much Data? . 150No Tweaking, No Nudging, No Band Aids: Re-writing the Declined Proposal . 152The Role of Context in a Successful Proposal 154From Silos to Synergy: The Yellow Brick Road of Grant Writing 156Integrating PI Experiences from Various Agencies 159Saturated Superlatives Clog the Arteries of Proposals 162Proportionality and Sequence in the Narrative 164Getting the Writing Right 166Quantifying the Project Narrative . 168Logic Models: Scalable, Adaptable, and Versatile .170Part 7, Preparing for Reviews and Red Teaming for Success . 172Writing for Reviewers 173Observations on Critiquing a Proposal 177Red Teaming Proposals for Funding Success .180Academic Research Funding Strategies, LLCPage 4
Strategies for Planning, Developing, and Writing Large Team Grants Part 1, IntroductionCenter-level and large team research grants (LTGs) can range in funding from a fewmillion dollars to tens of millions of dollars with award durations from a few years to ten yearsor more, often with the option of continued funding based on performance. The major federalresearch agencies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health(NIH), Department of Defense (DoD), and the Department of Energy (DOE), among others, fundLTGs. The Engineering Research Centers (ERC) and Science and Technology Centers (STC)funded for decades by NSF are well-known examples of LTGs.There are multiple reasons why federal research agencies fund LTGs. The origins forthese grants may begin with national research reports from the National Academies that definea national research grand challenge, perhaps in genomics, materials, energy, climate change,biological systems, education and workforce training, among numerous others. In other cases,LTGs may originate within a specific federal agency, or, in the case of NIH, within a specificInstitute’s research road map or strategic research plan. The common denominator of LTGs,however, relates to the complexity of the scientific problem being addressed, disciplinesrequired to address the problem, value-added benefits team research brings to solving theproblem, capacity of the team research approach to bring multidisciplinary integration andsynergistic solutions to the problem, and the capacity for the development of newtechnologies, scientific innovation, and commercialization.The scale and scope of LTGs are characterized in several ways that differentiate themfrom smaller grants with only a few Principal Investigators (PI) working in a more narrowdisciplinary domain or range. LTGs represent premier agency investments, more dollars overmore years, more disciplines, components and moving parts (i.e., complexity), more teammembers and team dynamics, more partnered institutions, more time needed to plan, developand write, more interdisciplinarity and synergy required to demonstrate the value-addedbenefits of team research, and, unfortunately, more development challenges for the PIs.Moreover, LTGs are unique and more complex to plan, develop, and write than aresmaller grants. Successful LTGs must communicate a compelling research vision; demonstratemajor value-added benefits to the team structure; achieve research synthesis, integration, andsynergy; address multiple program components that build on the research core; offer amanagement plan that enables the research vision; propose a convincing research strategicplan over a five or ten-year performance period; convince program officers and reviewers thatthe proposed research is transformational and not merely incremental; and navigate multiplereview gates to funding success.Existing faculty research teams and research affinity groups can position themselves forpotential LTG opportunities by using an existing research team with a track record ofcollaboration in place, creating a strategic plan for the team, defining the significance of theteam’s research capacities and research synergies, identifying potential funding opportunities,mapping the team’s research expertise and interests to possible funding opportunities,becoming knowledgeable about the agency specific background, context, and rationale forspecific LTG opportunities (e.g., through agency reports, workshops, and examination of moreAcademic Research Funding Strategies, LLCPage 5
Strategies for Planning, Developing, and Writing Large Team Grants recently funded LTGs), and by anticipating future LTG funding directions and opportunitieswhile positioning the team to compete for them.There are many benefits to building research teams and research affinity groups guidedby a strategic plan to lay the competitive foundation needed to succeed in responding to LTGopportunities that occur, both with and without the benefit of a long time horizon before thedue date. Regardless, team strategic planning helps build a competitive configuration ofresearch capacities, collaborative experiences, and successes to serve as the foundation of afuture LTG. Moreover, team strategic planning serves as a generator of new research ideas andhelps test the validity of existing research directions in the context of LTG opportunities. Wellconfigured teams guided by a team strategic plan offer the depth and breadth of expertise toaddress complex, multidimensional research problems in an integrative and synergistic way, afeature that lies at the heart of a successful LTG.The development of team proposals also serves the long-term interests of an emergingresearch partnership by moving it towards a more competitive configuration better positionedand experienced for new research horizons, which are the usual domain of LTGs. Additionally,the team process of strategic planning will help prepare the research partnership for thepossible submission of smaller, more focused research grants (building blocks of LTGs) that willprovide an important research component for the future, i.e., components required for aresearch center, particularly since center-level awards often are built on a strategicconfiguration of successful small research grants that de facto form the core researchframework of a future center. At NSF, for example, the long-standing ERC and SRC programs inpart represent a forward-looking aggregate of many smaller programs funded by the agency,whereby the center structure itself enables a synergistic benefit not possible without the centerserving as the integrator, and not just for the research but for other actives as well, e.g.,education and training, technology development, innovation, commercialization, etc.It is important to keep in mind when considering LTGs that many successful LTGs areawarded on resubmission rather than on first submission, and hence the submission of an LTG,even if declined, provides an important long-term learning experience for the research team.Developing and writing an LTG and receiving reviewer comments should the grant be declineddoes advance the research team towards its goal of a funded center on a second or third orfourth attempt, if the team learns from the review comments and discussions with programofficers.Of course, an informed decision to submit an LTG must be grounded on a candid selfassessment of the capacity to perform and to develop a competitive proposal in the timeallotted. LTGs represent a major commitment of time and resources—the decision to submit ornot to submit is a critical one. Several factors need to be assessed in making a determination ofthe readiness of the team to submit, foremost among them the team research vision and astrategic plan that will guide the research goals and objectives. There needs to be anassessment of whether or not a competitive team configuration is in place and sufficientlymature for a submittal, and whether the existing team needs to be complemented byadditional partnerships that will bring additional competitive benefits to the effort. In makingthis determination, the research team should be able to demonstrate a history of collaborativesuccess, for example, by funded projects and publications that validate the team’s researchcredentials.Academic Research Funding Strategies, LLCPage 6
Strategies for Planning, Developing, and Writing Large Team Grants This process of team self-assessment is further advanced by the capacity to understandthe funding agency’s vision and rationale for the program and the specific way in which theprogram will advance the agency’s mission. In turn, this requires that the research team mapits research vision to that of the agency offering the specific LTG opportunity. In this criticalstep, the team’s research vision must map tightly to the agency’s vision and motivation forfunding the program, and the team’s research expertise and experience should position themto plan, develop, and write a competitive LTG. Of course, for this to work, there must be acommitted team comprised of a committed PI and committed team members.As equally important as team self-assessment is the team’s detailed understanding ofthe agency’s motivations and rationale for funding a specific LTG. For example, the team mustunderstand why the agency is funding the LTG program; how and why the program began andevolved over time; what specific influences transformed the program over time; the agency’svision for the program going forward; how the program fits the national research context; thereports, workshops, conferences, etc. that have examined the program; how the program fitsthe agency’s strategic plan; and whether other agency-funded programs exist at differentscales.This process of strategic planning and self-assessment will help ensure that theconfiguration of the research team is appropriate for the LTG opportunity, something that willbe key to its competitiveness. Each collaborator or team member, for example, must bringspecific expertise to the project and take a distinct and well-defined role with clear relevance tothe research goals and objectives defined in the solicitation. Moreover, it is critical that thebudget should be performance based on the value-added contributions by each team member,and each member of the team should benefit from the project long term.One key to a successful LTG is that it be lead by a successful PI. A successful PI ischaracterized by many factors, chief among them an appropriate record of research fundingand publications relevant to the LTG opportunity. However, other important characteristics ofa successful LTG PI go beyond just research credentials. For example, the PI must have strongproject management and strategic planning skills, understand the funding agency’sexpectations for the LTG, function as a strong team builder with the respect and trust of theteam members, possess strong planning and organizational skills, have the ability to manageteam dynamics and keep the team focused, have strong scientific and technical communicationskills, have strong team communication skills, possess the capacity to communicate acompelling research vision for the LTG, know how each team member’s expertise fits the visionand contributes to the competitiveness of the LTG, and have the ability to advance the projectfrom research silos to research synergy.This book addresses the challenges facing faculty and research offices in transition fromsmaller r
the team process of strategic planning will help prepare the research partnership for the possible submission of smaller, more focused research grants (building blocks of LTGs) that will provide an important research
