http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php ]]> Copyright 2012, Geoff White Geoff White en-US SPHPBLOG 0.4.8 http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100813-110007 www.SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

NEW BLOG ENTRIES

In terms of writing a proposal that has a higher chance of funding, there is not a whole lot of new substantive information that I can add to this Blog. Please read through the entries and you will find a lot of useful info, I think.

In 2009, I helped obtain over $10 million in funding. I am on track to surpass that figure for 2010.

I accept about 10% of potential clients. The other 90% have good ideas, but they will almost certainly not receive SBIR funding, based on my assessment. Because they have little to no chance of success, I do not take them on as clients. Most have come to me after working with other consultants. If they had called me first, they could have saved considerable time and money.

There is no charge for a free consultation to vet your SBIR ideas. 203-980-3905.

]]> http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry100813-110007 Geoff White Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:00:07 GMT http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/comments.php?y=10&m=08&entry=entry100813-110007 http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080702-064011 www.SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF WRITING A PROPOSAL V

One of the key factors in getting your proposal funded is selling your idea to the reviewers. So, how do you sell your idea? There are many techniques for doing this.

It is important that the reviewers think to themselves “Hey, this is a great idea!”

You cannot tell a reviewer that you have a great idea. You must show them. Here is how to show them that you have a great idea.

Write in a simple high level manner, keeping things on a 10th grade reading level. Use short simple words wherever possible. Use short sentences. This allows the reader to focus entirely on your ideas.

Clearly tell the significance of your product to the reader. The significance is in what benefits your product will bring to the user. What will you provide that no other product can provide? Do not be abstract. Give a solid example of the benefits that your product will bring that no other products can bring.

Next, design your experiments to prove the feasibility that your product can bring about those benefits. Keep the approach focused on this and this alone. Leave out all non-critical sets of experiments. Give detailed feasibility criteria. Make sure that the criteria clearly support the idea that your product will indeed bring about the claimed benefits.

This technique gives you the highest probability that the reviewer will get excited about your product and be confident that you will indeed succeed.

For more specific and additional information on this topic, click on this link: High Level SBIR/STTR Grant Writing Techniques.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or go to SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

]]> http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080702-064011 Geoff White Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:40:11 GMT http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/comments.php?y=08&m=07&entry=entry080702-064011 http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080625-062006 www.SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF WRITING A PROPOSAL IV

One of the key factors in getting your proposal funded is selling your idea to the reviewers. So, how do you sell your idea? There are many techniques for doing this.

Sometimes, often in fact, there will be weaknesses in the position behind your proposal. This is a risk factor that is supposed to be there. It is one of the reasons for the SBIR program: to support early risky projects that would not be able to attract venture/angel funding due to the high risk.

NSF encourages this type of proposal and the reviewers at NSF approach risk in this spirit as well.

The NIH is different. The NIH is risk averse. Most reviewers are so used to the no risk RO1 review style that it is difficult for them to adjust to the spirit of the SBIR review criteria.

There are several ways to write your application so that the reviewers will be more likely to accept the risk. Aside from providing preliminary data, which reduces the risk, you can address the risk explicitly in terms of a business venture. First show the reviewer that the reward is high. Next, show the reviewer that the most efficient way to test feasibility is to do the high risk experiments first. That is, if one were to first carry out the preliminary studies to reduce the risk, their cost would not justify the savings of avoiding the high risk experiments in the proposal. Be sure to put this aspect of the proposal in terms of a business venture and not a scientific venture.

This technique gives you the highest probability that the reviewer will walk away with the right idea of the reason for carrying out the risky set of experiments with the high gain.

Finally, for high risk ventures, keep the budget as low as possible. The budget is only discussed after the review is complete, but it still enters into the score whether it is supposed to or not. I have seen this happen many times. Therefore when risky experiments are proposed, keep the budget as low as possible.

For more specific and additional information on this topic, click on this link: High Level SBIR/STTR Grant Writing Techniques.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or go to SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

]]> http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080625-062006 Geoff White Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:20:06 GMT http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/comments.php?y=08&m=06&entry=entry080625-062006 http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080618-071748 www.SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF WRITING A PROPOSAL III

One of the key factors in getting your proposal funded is selling your idea to the reviewers. So, how do you sell your idea? There are many techniques for doing this.

Another important technique is to always put your ideas into the context of the broader picture and then drill down to the details.

A common mistake is for applicants to write their whole application like a marketing brochure, which by definition lacks details.

Make no mistake about it, the application is indeed a marketing tool; but it is just not a brochure. Your audience is looking for the meat in the application. So it is fine to start with broad generalizations, but then drill down to the facts that support the broad statements.

A good technique to use is to use your topic sentence of key paragraphs to give the bottom line of the paragraph. Then give a broad generalization to put the paragraph into context. Then drill down to the facts that lead to the final sentence of the paragraph. This final sentence should be a restatement of the topic sentence.

This technique gives you the highest probability that the reviewer will walk away with the right idea of the paragraph. Many reviewers will only remember the first sentence of a paragraph. If the bottom line is not there, then they will never get the point.

Have you ever gotten back a critique from a reviewer in which it appears that the reviewer never read the application? Everybody has. The above writing style is one technique that you can use to increase the chances that the reviewers will indeed get your point and understand it.

Use this technique to your advantage.

For more specific and additional information on this topic, click on this link: High Level SBIR/STTR Grant Writing Techniques.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or go to SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

]]> http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080618-071748 Geoff White Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:17:48 GMT http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/comments.php?y=08&m=06&entry=entry080618-071748 http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080611-065752 www.SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF WRITING A PROPOSAL II

One of the key factors in getting your proposal funded is selling your idea to the reviewers. So, how do you sell your idea? There are many techniques for doing this.

Another important technique is to always control the reviewers’ thought process in terms of where their mind will wander as they read your application.

As the reviewers read your application, their minds will start to ask questions. You must learn to anticipate these questions and answer them immediately in your writing. If you do not answer them immediately (or say where in the application the answer can be found), then one of two bad things can happen or one of two good things can happen.

For the good, a reviewer might forget the question and move on or the reviewer might figure out the correct answer, thus no problem.

However, why take that chance in a proposal?

When writing a proposal, take steps to reduce the risk of failure and increase the probability of success.

Here are two bad things that can happen when you let the reviewers' minds wander:

First and worst, they will come up with the wrong answer to the question that was left hanging. You do not want this to happen.

Second, a feeling of incompleteness in the application will set in, even if the question is addressed later. Do not expect the reviewer to put in the effort to keep everything straight. That is your job as the applicant. The reviewer has a lot of applications to go over and does it in a short period of time, so make the proposal as easy and thought free to read as possible.

Use this technique to your advantage.

For more specific and additional information on this topic, click on this link: High Level SBIR/STTR Grant Writing Techniques.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or go to SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

]]> http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080611-065752 Geoff White Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:57:52 GMT http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/comments.php?y=08&m=06&entry=entry080611-065752 http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080604-072922 www.SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF WRITING A PROPOSAL

One of the key factors in getting your proposal funded is selling your idea to the reviewers. So, how do you sell your idea? There are many techniques for doing this.

One important technique is to gain the reviewers' trust. Do not upset their comfort level. To accomplish this, you must know your field and repeat the field dogma. Do not challenge the current dogma in the background section. SBIR grant applications that will change the current paradigm are few, so you really do not have to worry about this. Do not try to position your application to appear as if it does change the current paradigm unless it actually does, which is very rare.

Almost always, your idea will extend the current paradigm. Put your idea in this context. That way the reviewers will feel that they trust your judgment. They have seen that you understand what they understand and they can see the logical extension. Now you have their trust and they will be more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt in other areas of the application. In fact, they will want to give you a good score because they trust you and feel comfortable with your proposal, so they will be willing to overlook other areas of weakness.

I have seen this happen many times. Use this technique to your advantage.

For more specific and additional information on this topic, click on this link: High Level SBIR/STTR Grant Writing Techniques.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or go to SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

]]> http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080604-072922 Geoff White Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:29:22 GMT http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/comments.php?y=08&m=06&entry=entry080604-072922 http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080528-064529 www.SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

NIH REVIEWERS

Picking up from last weeks thoughts, methods descriptions are also important for the NIH, whereas they are far less important for most other agencies.

NSF, DoD, DoE, and the other funding sources that I have worked with are very logical and goal oriented in their grant review process. They are clearly focused on whether the product is significant, whether the team can make the product, and whether a market exists for the product. This is clearly seen from the bare bones and focused approach to writing the application and reviewing the application for these funding sources.

On the other hand, the NIH is more focused on academic credentials, as opposed to real life credentials and methods versus “can this group do it?”

Most other funding agencies assume that you can do the experiments outlined in your application as long as you have demonstrated success in this area or similar areas before. The agencies do not require a complete description of the experimental design and methods, as would be found in a publication. Most NIH reviewers do require this type of detail.

There are numerous reasons for this. First and foremost, this type of information is asked for in the application from the NIH, whereas it is not asked for in the applications of the other agencies. Again, this reflects the academic bent of the NIH, as opposed to a real life get it done attitude of the other agencies.

Thus for NIH applications, be sure to put in all the details of an experimental design and methods. Lack of details is one of the most common reasons why truly outstanding applications do not get funded by the NIH. Other agencies avoid this problem by assuming that if an applicant can show that they have already accomplished a task, then they should not have to describe that task in detail…clearly the team already knows how to do it. The NIH insists on knowing how you did the task, just in case you did not do it right the first time; so be sure to include sufficient details for NIH proposals.

Reviewers are instructed to not get caught up in the details and to ask the bigger question: can the team succeed given the overall approach? However, my experience has shown me time that most reviewers do get caught up in the need for details of the experiments. As a result, they sink excellent applications when all of the details of the methods are not present. A typical reviewer response is: “How can I evaluate the application if the methods are not complete?” To avoid this problem, be sure to include all of the details for NIH applications.

This weakness is being addressed by the current head of CSR, however it is difficult to change the course of a large ship overnight. In the meantime, be sure to put in the necessary details for the experimental approach and methods.

For more specific and additional information on this topic, click on this link: High Level SBIR/STTR Grant Writing Techniques.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or go to SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

]]> http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080528-064529 Geoff White Wed, 28 May 2008 12:45:29 GMT http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/comments.php?y=08&m=05&entry=entry080528-064529 http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080521-060518 www.SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

NIH REVIEWERS

There are numerous sources for SBIR/STTR funding. The NIH is the largest source of such funding. However, the NIH has its idiosyncrasies in terms of grant review.

DoD, DoE, and the other funding sources that I have worked with are very logical and goal oriented in their grant review process. They are clearly focused on whether the product is significant, whether the team can make the product, and whether a market exists for the product. This is clearly seen from the bare bones and focused approach to writing the application and reviewing the application for these funding sources.

On the other hand, the NIH is more focused on academic reviewer credentials as opposed to real life credentials and methods versus “can this group do it?”

PI credentials are very important; however the NIH focuses mainly on publications versus real life product development. For example, if a person does not have a PhD but has started a successful company, and developed numerous products, has tested those products, and has millions of dollars in sales, this is still not enough for the NIH reviewer. Most NIH reviewers will still insist on a PhD level member of the team with a current publishing record in the area of interest, regardless of how solid the proposed set of experiments may be. Therefore be sure to have a member of your team with such credentials in order to avoid an unnecessary resubmission.

Here is an example: a BS level person has started a software company for process control software. The main algorithm has been patented and won numerous awards from the process control industry. The software is universally accepted in the process control industry and the company is making millions of dollars a year. The person applies for an NIH SBIR grant multiple times and the reviewers consistently nit pick the algorithm without actually ever understanding it from a real life perspective. This person then applies for an SBIR from DoD and the application is accepted the first time based on the innovative and cutting edge aspect of the algorithm being used.

By adding a PhD level software engineer with recent publications in the control algorithm area, the above mentioned person can now also receive funding from the NIH for improving health care.

This is a practical matter. You will not be at the NIH review meeting to personally convince the reviewers that you can do the job. Therefore, the simplest solution is to have someone on board whom the reviewers will find acceptable from their vantage point.

Be assured that this weakness is being addressed by the current head of CSR, however it is difficult to change the course of a large ship overnight. In the meantime, be sure to put your team together knowing what is required to get funding as opposed to what is required to get the real job done.

More on this subject next week.

For more specific and additional information on this topic, click on this link: High Level SBIR/STTR Grant Writing Techniques.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or go to SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

]]> http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080521-060518 Geoff White Wed, 21 May 2008 12:05:18 GMT http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/comments.php?y=08&m=05&entry=entry080521-060518 http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080514-101422 www.SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

SBIR FUNDING ON THE UPSWING

SBIR/STTR funding is very likely to increase substantially.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xp ... ab=summary

Get those applications ready to submit to all agencies now. Previously, the NIH was preferable when possible because the NIH allowed much higher Phase I and II awards than any other SBIR funding agency. The DOE (Energy) for example, limited most of its Phase I awards to only 70K. It is highly likely that all agencies will increase their levels.

Here are some highlights of likely coming changes:

Increases, for FY2009 and thereafter, from: (1) 2.5% to 3.0% of participating federal agencies' extramural research budget the set-aside for SBIR program activities; and (2) 0.3% to 0.6% of such budget the set-aside for STTR program activities.
Increases, for both the SBIR and STTR programs, the individual small business award levels from: (1) $100,000 to $300,000, for participation at a Phase One level; and (2) $750,000 to $2.2 million, for participation at a Phase Two level. Allows participating federal agencies (agencies) to exceed such award levels if such agencies notify, and provide annual reports concerning such increase to, the congressional small business committees.

Includes energy-related and rare disease-related research topics as "special consideration" SBIR research topics.

Adds nanotechnology-related research to the SBIR list of research topics deserving special consideration.

Requires agencies to give a priority to SBIR and STTR award applications submitted by rural companies.

Directs the Administrator to make two-year grants to organizations to: (1) conduct SBIR outreach efforts to increase small business participation; and (2) provide application support and entrepreneurial and business skills support to prospective participants. Provides assistance limits. Requires organizations receiving grants to direct activities towards small business concerns located in underrepresented geographic areas and/or small business concerns owned and controlled by women, small business concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans, and small business concerns owned and controlled by minorities.

A business concern shall be deemed to be independently owned and operated if it is owned in majority part by one or more natural persons or venture capital operating companies, there is no single venture capital operating company that owns 50% or more of the business concern, and there is no single venture capital operating company the employees of which constitute a majority of the board of directors of the business concern; and (4) to be eligible to receive an award under the SBIR or STTR program, a small business concern may not have an ownership interest by more than one venture capital operating company controlled by a business with more than 500 employees, and that venture capital operating company may not own more than 10% of that small business concern.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or go to SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

]]> http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080514-101422 Geoff White Wed, 14 May 2008 16:14:22 GMT http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/comments.php?y=08&m=05&entry=entry080514-101422 http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080507-142228 www.SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

INTERPRETING REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS

When you read the critiques of your application, be sure to listen to the reviewers. They are telling you how to improve your application.

It is always possible to improve an application. Even the best applications can receive unfundable scores or be unscored because of an unforeseeable interpretation of a sentence. Simply respond to the reviewers’ comments in such instances.

Keep in mind that at least two of the three reviewers of your application are probably not true experts in the field of your application. Instead they are generalists in that field. You have to strike the right balance between technical writing and generalist writing in order to avoid loosing your reviewers.

Usually, if you respond well to reviewers’ comments, your score will improve, but not always. This occurs for two reasons. First, you may have a different set of reviewers who pick up on different aspects of the application. Secondly, many reviewers do not address all of the major weaknesses in an application. They only address enough to justify the low score. Therefore, when you rewrite your application, be sure to correct or improve all areas and not just the ones that the reviewers comment on.

That being said, I find that it is very difficult for many applicants to get the key messages that the reviewers are giving them. If a reviewer says that your team needs strengthening in a specific area, then find the best person in that area that you can. Do not defend the qualities of the team member. Instead find a new or additional team member. Do not find a new team member who is just adequate, however. Find someone who is excellent in that area. This shows not only that you have responded seriously to the reviewer, it also shows that you can attract top notch people.

Likewise, if a reviewer suggests that your significance is low because the market for your product is small, document that size of the market. You may feel that you already documented the size of the market, but the reviewer is telling you that you have not done so! Basically, this does not mean the reviewer did not read your application, it more likely means that the reviewer does not believe your market projections. Therefore you need to find more convincing evidence the next time around. Listen to this feedback. Address this type of weakness by including better evidence or get better letters of commitment in order to demonstrate your market size.

This same line of reasoning applies to many areas of the application. Next time, instead of assuming that the reviewer did not read the application closely, assume that the reviewer did not believe what you said. When you rewrite the application, keep this in mind to address what is probably the real issue. Therefore do not simply repeat what you said in the previous application or put it in bold. Instead find better support for the statements and restate the assertions in a different manner.

For more specific and additional information on this topic, click on this link: High Level SBIR/STTR Grant Writing Techniques.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or go to SBIR-STTRgrantshelp.com.

]]> http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080507-142228 Geoff White Wed, 07 May 2008 20:22:28 GMT http://www.sbir-sttrgrantshelp.com/blog/comments.php?y=08&m=05&entry=entry080507-142228