1. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 1 Funding Notes Michael Bieber Information Systems Department College of Computing Sciences New Jersey Institute of Technology http://web.njit.edu/~bieber bieber@njit.edu Version 1 - 9/24/08

2. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 2 Funding Agencies Federal (most prestigious) State Foundations (non-profit, corporate) Companies

3. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 3 What to Do Regularly Talk to program officers Participate in lots of grant panels as reviewer

4. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 4 Talk to Program Officers What about? –Your ideas in general –Your ideas on a particular proposal –Ask to sit on review panels Why? –Finding out the story behind the CFP –Finding out what to focus on and avoid in particular grant programs –recommending other programs –recommending whom to talk to

5. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 5 Talk to Program Officers, cont. Program officers –are friendly –paid to help you –like to guide and encourage junior faculty –Sometimes have exploratory grant funds for new ideas –sometimes hard to get hold of, so persevere (sometimes catch them at conferences) Often department will pay for trip If you’re nervous, get a colleague to introduce you –But don’t be nervous, just do it

6. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 6 Sit on Grant Review Panels What is a review panel? –Each program has 1+ review panels of several reviewers –Reviewers evaluate several proposals in advance (come prepared!) –Then discuss and rank order together Why? –Understand review process (really insightful) –Understand what reviewers look for (really important) –Spend a lot of time with respected colleagues –Chance to talk to program officers

7. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 7 I have an idea - Now what? Research the state-of-the-art Talk to: –(senior) colleagues at NJIT and elsewhere –leaders (grant holders) in the field Whether you know them or not by email or phone (during office hours) –especially if someone recommends you (“XXX suggested that I talk with you”) or at conferences –(ask: “do you have a few minutes for a question?”) –program officers May suggest an exploratory grant to further develop idea

8. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 8 Preparation Time Writing takes twice as long as you expect Collaboration takes 8 times longer Plan for English review (if necessary) Plan 4-6 weeks for friendly reviewing College & Grant office needs proposal early 2 days - 1 week On-line systems clog up on submission date submit early!

9. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 9 What makes your proposal stand out? Fierce competition: –Maybe only 5% of proposals are accepted –But many people do not follow advice here This raises your odds substantially! So, what makes your proposal stand out?

10. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 10 Proposal Focus Much more “marketing document” than “journal article” –You need to “sell” your idea, contributions and capability to the reviewers –Reviewers may have little, no, or false knowledge of your field –or reviewers may be experts in your field

11. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 11 Proposal Credibility Substantial intellectual component Reasonable scope Engaging title, project summary and motivation Real educational component Supports students, especially undergraduates Solid evaluation Useful Dissemination Adequate budget Qualified team Management plan for team Solid agreements for external partners Clear, well-written, good English, clear, clarity

12. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 12 Proposal Credibility Substantial intellectual component –Incremental improvement or true innovation? –Broad or narrow contribution? Reasonable scope –Is your proposal realistic for the timeframe?

13. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 13 Proposal Credibility Engaging project summary and motivation –Need to sell your idea and contribution in first paragraph (or a least first page) –Marketing document: contributions/deliverables up front Engaging title –Make memorable, especially for reviewer discussions A great acronym helps –Format: : e.g., IntLib: Integrating Library Collections and Services

14. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 14 Proposal Credibility Real educational component –Do you pay lip service to education, or have you integrated the educational component well? –Will students truly benefit? –Focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) domains Support students, especially undergraduates –Expose students to research if you can –Involve students in the research if you can

15. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 15 Proposal Credibility Solid evaluation –Have a realistic plan –Even technical proposals may need qualitative evaluation –Collaborate with an evaluator if necessary –Some programs require or recommend external evaluators and/or advisory boards –need to budget for this (money and time) Useful Dissemination –Course materials –Workshops, tutorials –Journal and conference publications –Web posting –Form a web community around your work

16. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 16 Proposal Credibility Adequate budget for what you promise? –Provide detailed enough budget justification –Plan budget early: Plan for >50% overhead & fringe benefits –Don’t overpromise funds to collaborators –Include academic year release time a lot of overhead –Matching funds generally not available unless mandatory from grant agency –Research office will help you work out a preliminary budget

17. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 17 Proposal Credibility Qualified team –All necessary expertise covered? Qualifications must be clear –in proposal or in CV –Utilize NSF “Synergistic Activities” category of CV –How to get expertise: Co-PIs & Investigators (NJIT or external) Consultants Management plan for team –For investigators, students, consultants –Especially if the team is dispersed –How will you communicate effectively?

18. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 18 Proposal Credibility Solid agreements for external partners –Support letters are worthless unless they contain explicit, solid commitment of participation or financial support how this will be provided or executed –Official letters from organizations may require a lot of time Alternatively get a strong letter stating that the writer will advocate strongly to organization once the project is at a certain stage Consultants/External evaluators must provide explicit letters of agreement You may need to provide a lot of guidance on writing letters –especially with details of how collaboration will be executed

19. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 19 Proposal Credibility Clarity –Reviewers must not misunderstand/have questions unanswered –Solicit friendly but critical pre-reviewers Experts you know, and experts you don’t know Can also be people outside the field to ensure clarity Ask your department chair to pay for a pre-reviewer Give enough time to do the pre-review Well-written, good English –non-native speakers should hire somebody to proof-read

20. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 20 Revise and Resubmit Often it takes 2-3 tries, even for seasoned researchers –Don’t be discouraged! Discuss reviews with program officer Discuss reviews with colleagues Revise and resubmit next year

21. Bieber et al., NJIT ©2008 - Slide 21 Once Awarded Be proud! Announce to the community –include basic info and abstract Keep in regular touch with program officer Give program officer a “heads up” if you experience problems or delays –always keep him/her in the loop! Keep up to date on reports Manage your budget actively –Check if you have any questions/concerns –Anyone can get audited…