TT4D: Frequently Made Mistakes in Research Proposals: What to Avoid for Success
by Jeff Decker, PhD and Nilay Papila, PhD Technology Transfer for Defense, Stanford University
Submitting a research proposal can be a daunting task, especially given the competitive funding landscape. While researchers are often experts in their fields, the nuances of proposal writing can lead to oversights that jeopardize their chances of securing funding. This guide will delve into the most frequent mistakes encountered in proposal submissions and provide actionable insights to help researchers navigate the complexities of crafting successful proposals.
1. Lack of Alignment with Funding Organization’s Objectives: Have you ever seen a solicitation you wanted to apply for knowing that the alignment between your research and the call wasn't ideal? Maybe you found a large dollar amount solicitation or maybe it was with an organization you'd love to collaborate with. You think, I only need to tweak my research a little to have a shot at winning it. The truth is that it's much more difficult than that.
Mistake: Submitting a proposal that does not clearly align with the funding organization’s goals or mission.
Why it Happens: Researchers focus on their own project without researching the organization’s priorities.
Solution: Review strategic documents and agency priorities (like the DoD's National Defense Strategy or Service Component strategies) to ensure your proposal aligns with the funder’s goals.
2. Incomplete or Poorly Structured Proposals
Mistake: Submitting incomplete forms or failing to follow the required structure.
Why it Happens: Rushing or misunderstanding submission guidelines.
Solution: Carefully review submission guidelines and use templates when available (such as TT4D templates). Double-check that all sections are completed and properly formatted.
3. Lack of Detail in the Technical Section
Mistake: Failing to provide sufficient detail about methodologies, research design, or expected results.
Why it Happens: Researchers may try to condense technical content into limited space or assume reviewers will understand without explanation.
Solution: Provide detailed explanations of your methodology, key technical aspects, and how you will measure success. Use figures or graphs where necessary. Understanding how much detail (and on what) can be determined by meeting with the corresponding Program Manager (PM). Please see our earlier blog post on this topic: TT4D: Contacting the Program Manager and Seeking Feedback
4. Ignoring Feedback or Failing to Revise
Mistake: Not incorporating feedback from internal reviews or collaborators.
Why it Happens: Overconfidence in the initial draft or lack of time for revisions.
Solution: Allocate time for internal reviews from colleagues or administrative teams like TT4D and the PM as mentioned here. Revise based on feedback to strengthen the proposal.
5. Vague or Weak "Impact" Section
Mistake: Failing to articulate the significance and real-world application of the research.
Why it Happens: Researchers often focus too heavily on technical details and neglect how the research, and potential output, will benefit the funding organization.
Solution: Emphasize the ways your research addresses key challenges and adds value to the funding organization’s R&D priorities and strategy. For example, if your research is intended to provide value to a specific Navy office or program, securing a letter of support from the Navy or a related entity can significantly strengthen your impact statement. Connecting it with the agency’s strategy documents usually strengthens the proposal. Here are our earlier posts related to this topic for DoD: Where R&D Money comes and Why it matters to your proposal and Leveraging the Heilmeier Catechism: A Blueprint for Effective Project Framing.
6. Weak Budget Estimate and Budget Justifications
Mistake: Failing to provide clear and detailed explanations for budget requests. When asking for ~$100k you can be general in your budget but for anything close to $1M the budget request needs to be clearly justified even at the whitepaper stage so the Program Manager can assess whether the budget is reasonable and feasible for their budget.
Why it Happens: Researchers may assume the numbers speak for themselves or do not prioritize the budget section.
Solution: Justify all costs clearly, explaining how each item supports the research. Ensure the budget aligns with the scope of work.
7. Lack of Collaboration or Letters of Support
Mistake: Not securing collaborators or letters of support from key stakeholders.
Why it Happens: Neglecting to build partnerships or underestimating their importance in the review process.
Solution: Reach out to government or industry partners early, and secure letters of support that demonstrate institutional backing and relevance to the proposal. For instance, if you are emphasizing the impact of your research on a Navy program, obtaining a letter of support from a Navy office can not only validate your claims but also align your proposal with the specific needs of that program. This collaboration enhances your impact section and increases the credibility of your research proposal.
8. Missing Deadlines
Mistake: Submitting the proposal too late or too close to the deadline.
Why it Happens: Poor planning or last-minute revisions.
Solution: Create a clear timeline for proposal development, allowing buffer time for reviews, edits, and administrative approvals. Submit early to avoid last-minute technical issues.
Conclusion
Common mistakes often stem from a lack of understanding of the funding organization’s priorities, inadequate alignment of research objectives, or even simple formatting errors. By identifying and addressing these pitfalls, researchers can significantly enhance the quality of their proposals.
In conclusion, avoiding frequently made mistakes in research proposals is essential for researchers aiming to secure funding and advance their projects. By understanding common pitfalls—ranging from misalignment with funding priorities to vague impact statements—researchers can take proactive steps to improve their submissions. Careful attention to detail, thorough preparation, and an understanding of the funding landscape are vital components of a successful proposal. By applying the insights provided in this guide, researchers can enhance their proposal-writing skills, thereby increasing their chances of receiving the funding necessary to bring their innovative ideas to fruition. In summary, it's crucial to:
Recap the importance of avoiding these mistakes.
Encourage researchers to invest time in preparing strong proposals, aligning their work with agency goals, and ensuring attention to detail in every section.
Remember that a well-prepared proposal significantly increases the chances of securing funding.
______________________________________________________________________________
Technology Transfer for Defense (TT4D) at Stanford University specializes in matching Defense Department funding with academic research projects. In the past six years, TT4D has worked with numerous faculty members at more than a dozen universities to help them win Defense Department grants and with the Office of Naval Research, totaling more than $13 million, to support research funding and transition academic technologies from lab to defense capabilities. TT4D is based at Stanford University and is run by Jeffrey Decker, PhD, program director, Precourt Institute for Energy, Fu-Kuo Chang, professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and Nilay Papila, PhD, senior program manager, Precourt Institute for Energy. To contact the TT4D team, visit techtransferfordefense.stanford.edu.
To read previous TT4D posts, see:
TT4D: Tech Transfer for Defense's 4-Step Guide to Winning Defense Department Research Funding
TT4D: How to Find Existing Research Broad Agency Announcements
TT4D and Researchers Looking for Government Financing $$$: Prepare and Submit Your Application
TT4D: Maximizing Your Event's Impact with Army Conference Support