At a
regular basis, some of us receive requests for advice on chances to find support
for new research initiatives; partners or funding by highly motivated people.
The idea is good but not directed at the right address but also….not
competitive/strong enough. Yet you may try to guide such requests to the best
of their ability to proper channels and proper contacts within your networks.
But you like do something about the quality of the proposal too. It is so
frustrating to see a such a good idea fail, simply because the proposal will
not make it in competitive rounds for money and funding.
Perhaps
these guidelines nay help to help out and help strengthen the proposal writing
skills of the motivated and thus, to stand a better chance in competition for
the funds. That is what these notes deal with:
1. What happens with such requests?
2. What to do to increase chances for
success
These
notes are not the 'stone of wisdom' or the 'alpha et omega', only an attempt to
enhance the chances for success. However: without guarantee for success.
1. What happens with fundamental research /
basic science requests?
Standard
procedure. Within
any country, the addressed Research Organisation does not generally involve
itself directly with individual programmes or proposals at a one to one basis.
Quality is usually their main criterion, there is always a committee making the
selections. So: ask the Ministry what organisations organise the funding and
selection round ups.
This is
usually a rather general standard procedure, also other Ministries in other
countries operate that way; there are only very few exceptions (if at all):
Ministries do not operate resources themselves but involve another organisation
or agency to do that for them. The same applies to supra national
organisations. The EU-General Directorates for instance has a similar approach.
The general idea is that only proposal quality, in competition, qualifies for
resources.
So there is
no offence intended when a proposal is turned down, it is a challenge to
improve.
But what
if .. the proposal
is something short term, less fundamental or applied research, then what
happens? Well, no doubt there is an organisation or agency for that type of
research too. The rules of the game are the same, only the criteria are
different; objected at applied science. Most likely it is an agency of another
Ministry; such as Economical Affairs. For instance, in the Netherlands the
(Dutch) Foreign Departments had a PBSx-arrangement (Programmes for Bilateral Co
operation with country 'x'). It provided a yearly opportunity to acquire
funding (in competition). There were forms and papers to fill out, background
information from the tender could be requested. Other parts of the operations
might be handled by an appointed agency (Senter in the example but the agency
merged with others and was named EVD in the end.) Other specific chances in
general to find forms, partners, contacts or funding are to be found on some
website. (In the example; www.evd.nl).
Here also,
there is no offence intended when a proposal is turned down; it is a challenge
to improve. How? See below.
· Fundamental long term research
initiatives are sent to the organisation appointed by the Ministry;
· Other (research) initiatives are
advised to turn to for instance, the Foreign Departments and/or a specific
agency
· Being turned down is no offence, it is
a challenge to improve the proposal.
2. What to do to increase chances for
success?
What can be
done to increase chances for success? Well that depends upon the quality of the
proposal. So here is a step by step description starting with an idea being
from person only.
The
first step is to
write down the idea on one sheet and find a excellent partner or team to turn
the idea into a solid plan in clear words. And if the two agree on the outline
of the idea, find a third excellent partner.
According
to Mrs. Dr. Mei Li VOS, the successful bilateral research programmes and
proposals are characterised by having teams (at both sides) in which 'the
Skilled, the Motivated and the Bold' are joined. Of course if the team members
are associated with excellent research organisations, it is more easy to find a
suitable first team member in the other country, and a second and a third.
Step two -in the mean time- is writing with the team a plan: try to find
or use a standard form for the request of a grant; it usually demands that you
answer in detail all obligatory and difficult questions. The questions are
"always" the same:
- what are the objectives;
- who is involved and what are the
qualifications of those involved;
- what organisations are involved and
what are the qualifications of those organisation;
- what is the time table;
- what are the go/nogo moments;
- who is doing what at what costs;
- what are the (intermediate) mile
stones;
- what will be the (lasting) and
concrete result in the end;
- what are the costs in total (related
to time table and who is doing what);
- who is willing to finance what part of
the plan.
In short:
make your proposal as 'SMART' as possible:
S= Specific (goals)
M= Measurable (goal achievement / distance to
targets)
A= Acceptable (to those who have to do the
work)
R= Realistic (planning & finances)
T= Time scheduled (it always takes at least
twice the time you thing and last phase four times as much time).
Where can
you find such 'formats'; anywhere. For instance; in the Netherlands at
www.egl.nl, www.kp6.nl, www.nwo.nl, etc. If joint team plan or proposal is organised 'fiche wise'
(that is: treating answers to all the standard questions of these forms as
separate small documents) swift adaptation to any sort of format is easy.
Step
three is made clear
by the questions from step two: what organisations are involved and what are
the qualifications of those organisations. Likewise, the question about the
persons involved: who are involved and what are their qualifications of those
involved. This means that the team that took the initiative, may have to
"give away" their idea and proposal to a trusted other team
(organisations or persons), in order to get its support and thus jointly
increase the chances for success for the proposal. Or to give away 'the lead'.
This might be necessary since the proposal/plan has to prove itself in fierce
competition with other excellent proposals. If this happens, it is not a defeat
or a disgrace. On the contrary, it is a victory and a show of character many do
not equal.
Appropriate
contacts can easily be found of course through personal networks of one self.
For instance by contacting organisations and persons with the Step One result
of the two of you (the idea at one page in clear words) and asking them
directly for chances, advice and suggestions for further contacts.
A source of
huge networks are alumni networks. For instance, the IKANED society of
Indonesian alumni who studied in the Netherlands; (Website: www.ikaned.com). Or
check out the international alumni networks of www.iss.org. Or the quick scans
of research organisations at this website.
Step
four. All this
effort of course is not a guarantee for success. Success is always a matter of
persistence and getting the right request or paper work delivered at the right
person at the right time etc. Experience learns that most science policy
advisers actively help to link and match "supply and demand".
In the
meantime, initiatives are best served by improving its quality; talk about it
with as much (relevant) people as possible, just don't stop and cherish your
allies. Nobody is blamed for an active search for fund organisations and
opportunities.
Also be
aware of chances to join and team up with other excellent proposals; merging
proposals in a broad (long term) programme can increase everybody's chances.
Don't think of other proposals as 'competition' but as 'birds of one feather':
brilliant and in search for 'food' (chances to compete with the best for grants
and funding). Flocking together and by merging, one can cover more ground and
guide each other to chances. Sooner or later there will be chances to get a
step further (no matter how long the road ahead is).
Last but not
least; it helps to help others to link and match "supply and demand".
If that somebody comes across an opportunity to return the favour, it is
important that he or she remembers and is motivated to return the favour !
Step
five. Suppose that
after ten days, weeks, months or years still nobody wants to give support or
funding. What then. Well. There are a few examples and methods of autonomous
best practice in a number of developing countries. It usually involves a small
community bringing together finances and labour force to realise -the
best- project proposal of one member
of the community; drilling a well for the community, building a village school
or library or sometimes building a house if a member of the community is left
homeless after a fire or a bolt of lightning. And after realisation of one
project, the community takes the next project and the next. The general idea
is: 'Together you stand, divided you fall'.
This type
of approach will not work to organise long term fundamental research but for
very short term applied research or concrete action -combating rodents, cleaning the village's appearance- it might bring some relief to the local
community.
At the same
time, there is no reason not to pursue funding or grants by second or third parties;
often co-funding is a criterion (f.i. for EU-subsidies or IMF-grants). And it
is wise to re-apply each year; being turned down one year does not
automatically mean that one will be turned down every next year. Especially not
when the year is used to improve the proposal and make it more 'SMART'. And
also to ask for the reason for being turned down; the answer might provide
clues for improving the proposal.
Finally. All effort has resulted in a
superb initiative and has provided you with a host of important contacts on the
sides of 'demand as well as supply'. A final effort to create and improve your
chances for success, is to organise or to participate in (yearly) brokering
events; nothing ventured means nothing gained. The costs can be very low; a
website using an already existing account, some flyers using the Step One
result mentioned above, a person motivated enough to spend some time
maintaining the website or showing up at brokering events.
And showing
results of ongoing or previous projects at such happenings do improve the
credibility and feasibility of new plans and projects.
. take time for the necessary steps, the
procedure described above, does not guarantee success;
. research showed that successful
bilateral research programmes and proposals are characterised by having teams
(at both sides) in which 'the Skilled, the Motivated and the Bold' are joined.*)
----
*)
The
Motivated is needed to persist if the Skilled and the Bold believe to be out of
options; there is always another option. However, the Skilled is needed to fine
tune the presentation using his or her experience and wisdom concerning the
subjects, organisations and persons involved. The Bold in turn is needed to
bluntly present the proposal to important organisations and persons and ask
-politely and persistent- 'why' when
turned down. The answers provide new input and information that help the
Motivated and the Skilled to adapt and improve the proposal.