Comments on: One Person, One Proposal: Don’t Split Grant Writing Tasks http://blog.seliger.com/2009/08/23/one-person-one-proposal-dont-split-grant-writing-tasks/ Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:06:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Elizabeth http://blog.seliger.com/2009/08/23/one-person-one-proposal-dont-split-grant-writing-tasks/comment-page-1/#comment-12150 Elizabeth Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:24:34 +0000 http://blog.seliger.com/?p=400#comment-12150 I just love you guys. You nail it. Every time. Elize I just love you guys. You nail it. Every time.
Elize

]]> By: Tom Roberts http://blog.seliger.com/2009/08/23/one-person-one-proposal-dont-split-grant-writing-tasks/comment-page-1/#comment-12077 Tom Roberts Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:39:49 +0000 http://blog.seliger.com/?p=400#comment-12077 WRT my position of someone who has to read research proposals for DoD, this is very apt advice. I'd go further: the proposing entity needs to have one person who is the authority on which RFPs or Solicitations will be addressed in proposals, who the soliciting authority can contact as a matter of course even before the solicitation comes out. Having this person be the normal author for ensuing proposals isn't needed, though in small businesses it might be wise. But some sort of continuity between "why we are proposing" and "how we are proposing" needs to be clear. Otherwise, solicitations get back proposals which are clear mismatches between solicitation goals, company capabilities or finances, and what a proposal might say. I could go further and state that past performance should be consistent with the proposal and overall solicitation needs, but sometimes that is hard to ensure when proposing novel concepts or in new arenas (perhaps following corporately some new "Siren Songs..."). But unity of purpose should extend across the whole management process from looking for new opportunities through proposing right down to rendering the bills for work done on time. If this means that this compromises the latitude of PMs/PIs to wander as they will, that is simply too bad. For the most part, government solicitations are constrained environments which are not conducive to unfettered initiatives. WRT my position of someone who has to read research proposals for DoD, this is very apt advice. I’d go further: the proposing entity needs to have one person who is the authority on which RFPs or Solicitations will be addressed in proposals, who the soliciting authority can contact as a matter of course even before the solicitation comes out. Having this person be the normal author for ensuing proposals isn’t needed, though in small businesses it might be wise. But some sort of continuity between “why we are proposing” and “how we are proposing” needs to be clear. Otherwise, solicitations get back proposals which are clear mismatches between solicitation goals, company capabilities or finances, and what a proposal might say.

I could go further and state that past performance should be consistent with the proposal and overall solicitation needs, but sometimes that is hard to ensure when proposing novel concepts or in new arenas (perhaps following corporately some new “Siren Songs…”). But unity of purpose should extend across the whole management process from looking for new opportunities through proposing right down to rendering the bills for work done on time.

If this means that this compromises the latitude of PMs/PIs to wander as they will, that is simply too bad. For the most part, government solicitations are constrained environments which are not conducive to unfettered initiatives.

]]>