2. Assessing Readiness

When an investigator is especially passionate about a research project, he or she may find it tempting to begin drafting the grant application right away.  However, preparing an application requires a significant investment of time. The competitiveness of a proposal will be enhanced when the investigator takes the time up front to assess his or her readiness before proceeding. If all the elements of a competitive application are in place – a great idea, along with the appropriate qualifications, resources, and preliminary data to support that idea – the researcher may proceed with confidence. On the other hand, if any of these elements is lacking, certain steps can be taken – such as refining the idea, seeking additional training, securing needed resources, or gathering additional preliminary data – to increase the proposal’s competitiveness, whether for the current grant cycle or a subsequent cycle. Assessment of readiness should involve consideration of three things:  the research idea, the competition, and the investigator him- or herself.

Assess the Idea

When assessing an idea, the investigator should first determine whether or not it is a truly good one – that it is based on strong scholarship and/or excellent science, and that it is fresh, innovative, and significant. It is important to understand that a good idea, in and of itself, does not necessarily merit funding. To merit funding, the idea must be closely aligned with and supportive of the agency’s mission, strategic plan, and investment priorities. At a minimum, making this determination requires obtaining and analyzing background information on the target funding agency to determine whether or not the research idea is a good “match” for the agency, which results in a more competitive application.

To further verify that the idea is a good one and that it will be a good match for the agency, it is helpful to discuss it with trusted colleagues, especially those who have been successful in obtaining funding from the target agency and/or who have served as program managers or reviewers for that agency. Such colleagues will not only be able to help strengthen the research idea by sharing their insights, but also by calling attention to any issues that may raise red flags for reviewers, thereby giving the investigator the opportunity to address these issues before submitting the application.

It is also useful to contact the agency’s program manager to discuss the research idea. In fact, it is essential to do so – and to do so as early in the project planning and proposal development process as possible. More than anyone else, the program manager will be able to confirm whether or not a proposed research project will be a good match for the agency. If it is, the program manager can provide guidance in refining the idea, addressing program hot buttons, and developing an appropriate scope of work, project period, and budget. If it is not, the program manager can often help identify another program within the same agency – and sometimes even within another agency – that would provide a better home for the proposed project.

Assess the Competition

Before submitting a grant application, it is important to find out whether or not the target funding agency has already funded a research project that is identical or very similar to the project being proposed. If it has, it is unlikely that it will fund another such project. After all, even very large federal agencies and well-endowed private foundations have a finite number of grant dollars to go around. Therefore, program managers typically prefer to support a diverse portfolio of grants that address a wide range of issues in a given field of research rather than to support a project whose goals duplicate that of a previously funded project.

It is generally quite easy to determine which projects an agency has funded. Indeed, most federal agencies and a surprising number of private foundations maintain award databases that investigators can search online. Conducting such a search is well worth the time and effort required. On the most basic level, search results will enable an investigator to determine whether or not the idea for a proposed research project has already been funded. On a more sophisticated level, such a search can help detect funding patterns and priorities. Analyzing these can help an investigator determine whether or not the target funding agency’s program managers and reviewers will be likely to view the proposed research project as one that will complement – and perhaps even enhance – the agency’s current portfolio of grants.

Search results can also enable an investigator to glean a significant amount of information about funded grants. Most award database records include the name of the principal investigator, the title of the project, and the abstract of the project, as well as the project period and the award amount. An investigator can analyze the abstract, project period, and award amount to better gauge the standard scope of work of the agency’s average funded project, which can in turn help in developing a project that is appropriate in scope, rather than one that will be considered under- or (more commonly) over-ambitious. Analysis of this information can also help the investigator identify well-accepted and/or preferred approaches, which can indicate the best practices to incorporate into a research project.

While gaining access to the abstract, project period, and award amount of funded projects is useful, so, too, is having access to the principal investigator’s name. It is important to try to contact the principal investigators of similar projects and ask if they would be willing to take a few moments to discuss their project and perhaps particular proposal strategies that they believe helped them become successful in obtaining funding. Most will be willing – and even excited – to discuss their projects, and many will share their proposal strategies or even send a copy of their proposal and review comments. The insights gained from such a contact can provide a significant competitive advantage when preparing a grant application.

Search Award Databases

Links to the funded awards databases for some of the top sponsors of research at Texas A&M University appear below. Lists of funded awards for other sponsors can be found by searching those sponsors’ web sites and/or searching Google or Yahoo.

Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects (CRISP)

      Funded awards database..... http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/

Includes award information on all grants funded through the Public Health Service
(i.e., through AHRQ, CDC, FDA, HRSA, NIH, and SAMSHA).

National Science Foundation (NSF)

      Funded awards database..... http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/index.jsp

Includes award information on all grants funded through NSF.

Current Research Information System (CRIS)

      Funded awards database..... http://cris.crees.usda.gov/

Includes award information on all grants funded through the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(i.e., through BRAG, NRI, and SBIR).

Department of Education (ED)

      Funded awards database..... http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/grantaward/start.cfm 

Includes award information on all grants funded through the U.S. Department of Education.

Assess the Principal Investigator and/or Project Team

Because virtually every funding agency’s review criteria include an assessment of the applicant’s qualifications, it is also important for an investigator to determine – as objectively as possible –  whether or not he or she possesses the qualifications, resources, and preliminary data sufficient to manage and conduct the proposed project.

Qualifications – The role of principal investigator requires the experience to manage the proposed research project, as well as the education, training, and expertise to carry out the project. After analyzing the target funding agency, program, and solicitation, an investigator may determine that he or she does, in fact, possess all of the necessary qualifications. However, if the project is especially complex or interdisciplinary, the investigator may realize that he or she lacks certain qualifications to carry out one or more project tasks. In these instances, the investigator may need to consider recruiting colleagues who can bring these qualifications to the project and serve as co-investigators.

Resources – The investigator must demonstrate to reviewers that he or she has the resources required to manage and conduct the proposed project. On the most basic level, resources include such tangible items as office and laboratory space, equipment and instrumentation, computers and printers, materials and supplies, and start-up funds or other sources of institutional support. On a more sophisticated level, however, resources include more intangible things, such as the research environment where the work will be conducted. Therefore, it is also important to describe access to intellectual capital – that is, to colleagues, faculty research groups, invited speaker and seminar series, etc. –  since program managers and reviewers understand that an intellectually stimulating environment helps encourage exciting research.   

Preliminary Data – Unless an investigator is planning to submit a grant application to a program that is specifically designed to fund preliminary studies, the investigator must demonstrate to reviewers that both the quantity and quality of his or her preliminary data indicate that the proposed research project is likely to be successful. If preliminary data in either published or unpublished form are not available, the program manager will likely recommend that the investigator postpone submitting the grant application until preliminary research has been completed and/or published.

Time – When assessing readiness to prepare a grant application, an investigator may realize that despite having a great idea, along with the qualifications, resources, and preliminary data required to support that idea, there is simply not enough time to prepare an application and/or to conduct the proposed research project should it be funded. In some instances, an investigator may be able to create the time needed by rearranging a schedule, streamlining work habits, or even delegating some responsibilities. In others, even these modifications may not allow the necessary time. In these instances, it is advisable to postpone preparation of an application to a later grant cycle when more time is available to prepare a truly competitive application.