A BPC Centric Approach to NSF Proposal Writing

1
A BPC Centric Approach to NSF Proposal
Writing

• Jan Cuny
• National Science Foundation
• Division of Computer and Network Systems (CNS)
• Directorate for Computer and Information Sciences
  and Engineering (CISE)
• 703-292-8489
• jcuny_at_nsf.gov
• April 14, 2005

2
Outline

• The Review Process
• Content
• Project Descriptions for BPC
• FastLane
• Tips

?
3

• NSF Programs are very competitive
• Having a great idea is not a guarantee of funding
  - you have to sell that idea, and your ability to
  do it, to the reviewers.

4
Proposal Processing

• Submission via FastLane
• Assignment to Program
• Merit Review mail, panel
• Analysis of Reviews
• Action
• Takes 6 months!
• BPC grants will start Nov 1, 2005

5
Possible Conclusions of Review

• Award (negotiation)
• Declination
• Withdrawal
• Returned as Inappropriate or not meeting NSF
  guidelines

6
The Panel Review Process

• A panel for 30 proposals might have 12 -15 people
• Not everyone will read every proposal, 8 -10 per
  person
• The panel is charged with assessing the proposals
  according to the solicitation
• The panels recommendations are advisory

7
Mistake 1
8
Implications of Review Process
?

• Organize your proposal well, make it easy to find
  key sections
• Make the content of your proposal accessible to
  the expert and nonexpert alike

?
9
Mistake 2!

• My programs/ideas are so great Im certain NSF
  wont care whether they fit the program
  guideline.

10
Implications of Review Process (cont)

• Organize your proposal well, make it easy to find
  key sections
• Make the content of your proposal accessible to
  the expert and nonexpert alike
• Make sure that your proposal is responsive to the
  solicitation

?
11
Responsiveness in General

• Read the solicitation completely and carefully
• Talk to the Program Officer
• Write proposal and address each area outlined in
  the solicitation
• Check each solicitation for Additional Criteria

12
Responsiveness for BPC

• BPC Solicitation NSF 05-562
• BPC POs Jan Cuny, Harriet Taylor, Caroline
  Wardle
• Also read
• Report from fall BP Meeting
• Freeman Cuny CRAs CRN article
• All this info linked from Dear Colleague Letter

13
Mistake 3!

• Im sure they dont actually count the
  pages. No one will notice Im over the page
  limit. Maybe I should just use a smaller font.

14
Implications of Review Process (cont)

• Organize your proposal well, make it easy to find
  key sections
• Make the content of your proposal accessible to
  the expert and nonexpert alike
• Make sure that your proposal is responsive
• Follow the GPG guidelines on page limits, font,
  URLs

?
15

• GPG Grant Proposal Guide
• http//www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/nsf04_23/

16
How to make a Reviewer Unhappy

• Don't spell check.
• Change formatting halfway through the paper.
• Use really small text.
• To save space, just add URLs to pertinent
  information.
• Bounce around from subject to subject.
• Claim you're going to do x then actually describe
  y.
• List all of your achievements and describe all of
  your current research and spend one page
  describing new work.
• Make it really difficult to dig out the broader
  impact, intellectual merit, and proposed work.
• Ask for tons of money for lots of students to do
  very little work.
• Assume your reviewer knows your field intimately,
  and jump straight to the details.
• Cut and paste three existing proposals from
  different people into one proposal, and add a
  summary page that "glues" the result together.
• 
  --- Cindy Grimm http//www.cs.wustl.edu/cm
  g/nsf.html

17
Outline

• The Review Process
• Content
• Project Descriptions for BPC
• FastLane
• Tips

?
18
Mistake 4!

• Trust us, we know what were doing.

19
In General

• Original and/or good ideas
• Well-formulated idea(s) clearly statement of
  what you want to do
• Succinct, focused project plan
• Identification of the target communities
• List of specific tasks and timelines
• Realistic amount of work
• Sufficient detail provided

20
In General (cont)

• Background information literature citations that
  demonstrate that you are aware of similar
  efforts/prior work
• Evidence of potential effectiveness
• Address broader picture how can this work scale
  to high impact?
• Cost effective
• Likelihood project will be sustained
• Solid evaluation plan

21
Your Proposal Should Answer these Questions

• What are you going to do?
• Why is this important?
• What is your unique contribution?
• Is it feasible?
• Why are you the best person to do it?
• What are others doing in this area?
• How will you do it?

22
Project Description

• Problem Statement
• Significance
• Related Work
• Feasibility
• Strategy for Accomplishing Project
• Assessment Plan
• Dissemination Method
• Future Intentions
• Qualifications of the PIs
• Prior results

23
Why Proposals dont get Funded

• Its already been done
• Not enough details/vagueness
• Theres not enough research/nothing new
• Too ambitious
• Lack of evaluation/no application
• Poorly written

24
Mistake 7!
NSF should know what Ive done in the past
without my having to tell them. After all, they
paid for it.
25
Outline

• The Review Process
• Content
• Project Descriptions for BPC
• FastLane
• Tips

?
26
BPC Instructions for Project Description

• Alliance and Demonstration Projects, must include
  4 sections
• Project Goals and Outcomes
• Implementation Plan
• Partnership Plan
• Evaluation Plan

Have these be sections with headers!
27
Project Goals and Outcomes

• Describe the goals and anticipated outcomes of
  the proposed project.
• clearly informed by the PIs demonstrated
  knowledge of factors affecting the successful
  recruitment and retention of students from the
  targeted underrepresented communities

28
Implementation Plan

• Describe in detail activities to be undertaken
• Highlight potential for successfully aligning
  with similar programs and efforts
• Describe creative, strategic actions that
  promise significant improvements in
  underrepresentation

29
Implementation Plan (cont)

• Describe the research base on which the project
  builds and any research that will further
  contribute to the knowledge base
• Describe plans to disseminate the results of the
  project, both positive and negative.

30
Partnership Plan

• Provide evidence that participating
  organizations will work together and that all
  key stakeholders participated in project
  planning and design.
• Provide evidence of the institutional and
  organizational commitment to the project goals.

31
Mistake 5!

• Evaluation will be ongoing and consist of a
  variety of methods.

32
Evaluation Plan

• Describe the evaluation plan that guides project
  progress and measures its impact
• Describe instruments/metrics used to measure,
  document, and report on the project's progress

33
BPC Additional Criteria

• demonstrates awareness of issues and remedies of
  underrepresentation
• has comprehensive evaluation plan.
• (Alliance) demonstrates institutional and
  organizational commitment sustainable part of
  a comprehensive effort to address
  underrepresentation
• (Alliance) includes an effective plan for
  dissemination

34
Outline

• The Review Process
• Content
• Project Descriptions for BPC
• FastLane
• Tips

?
35
Mistake 6!
I wont need to know anything about FastLane
until moments before the deadline.
36

• Time sinks
• You need a PIN
• Your organization must be set
• up submit to grants
• Subcontracts take time!
• Human subject clearance takes
• lots of time
• Talk to your SRO!

37
A Proposal Contains

• Cover Sheet and other special forms
• Suggested List of Reviewers to (not) use
• Project Summary - 1 page
• Table of Contents - automatically generated
• Project Description (including results from prior
  NSF support) - maximum 15 pages
• References Cited
• Biographical Sketches - 2 pages/senior person
• Budget sheets and justifications
• Current and Pending Support - all sources
• Facilities, Equipment and other Resources - only
  those relevant

38

39
GPG Proposal Summary

• Suitable for publication not an abstract a
  self-contained description of the activity
• Include a statement of objectives and methods to
  be employed
• Written in third person
• Not more than one page in length
• MUST clearly address in separate statements
• Intellectual merit
• Broader impacts

40
Mistake 8!

• NSFs not serious about those Intellectual
  Merit and Broader Impact statements in the
  summary. Theyre so obvious anyway.

Put them in with clear headings!!
41
Evaluation Criteria I Intellectual Merit

• Does it advance knowledge and understanding?
• How well qualified is the proposer?
• Does it suggest and explore creative and
  original concepts?
• Is it well-conceived and organized?
• Are there sufficient access to resources?

42
Evaluation Criteria II Broader Impact

• Does it advance discovery and understanding
  while promoting teaching, training, and learning?
  
• Does it broaden the participation of
  underrepresented groups?
• Does it enhance the infrastructure for research
  and education, such as partnerships?
• What are the benefits to society?

43
?
44
Advice on Budgets

• Request Realistic Items and Amounts
• Justify Anything at all Unusual
• Include Necessary Items Only
• Remain within Guidelines
• Indicate Institutional Cost Sharing if required
• Get assistance from your sponsored research
  office
• Excessive budgets really irritate reviewers!
• Expect budget negotiations with NSF

45
Mistake 9!

• Ill inflate my budget because NSF always ends
  up cutting it anyways.

46
Outline

• The Review Process
• Content
• Project Descriptions for BPC
• FastLane
• Tips

?
47
General Tips!

• Talk to your program officers
• Participate on a panel
• Get copies of previous proposals from your
  colleagues
• Do your own peer review
• EVERYBODY has NSF declines be persistent

48
Credits

• Thanks to
• Caroline Wardle
• Harriet Taylor