Best Practices for the Development of Collaborative Proposals
Introduction Faculty who have worked on larger, collaborative proposals for funding or been part of a multi-disciplinary research group usually find that they have learned a lot from the process. With an eye toward increasing the success and satisfaction flowing from such endeavors, we’ve drawn on these experiences to assemble a few of the most frequently asked questions about multi-investigator, multidisciplinary proposals for external funding in particular, and about group projects in general. We’ve added some commentary to these questions and hope that this will be useful as a first step toward an outline of “best practices.” We realize, of course, that each situation will be different and any suggestions made here may either not apply or will have to be modified. As always, we welcome any and all ideas and suggestions.
Question:
* When an appropriate (i.e., seemingly congruent with organizational goals and with relevant expertise on hand) RFP/RFA has come to the attention of a faculty member, what should that faculty member do first? Start contacting other faculty, call the program officer, write a concept paper, jump on the Internet?
Comments:
After a thorough reading of the RFP/RFA, looking to the directors of relevant organized interdisciplinary programs (e.g., Life Sciences Consortium; Environmental Consortium; Social Science Research Institute; Children, Youth and Family Consortium, to name a few) or research interest groups (e.g., Science, Medicine, and Technology in Culture, Work and Family, etc.) is one good way to start. This would enable the faculty member to network and identify potential collaborators who are interested in putting together a short concept paper. With this concept paper and the carefully read RFP/RFA in hand, the next step should definitely be a discussion with the relevant department head(s) and/or unit directors with whom the principals are affiliated.
It is not uncommon for faculty members to by-pass their department heads/directors when preparing a proposal for research funding. Experience has shown, however, that keeping the head(s)/director(s) in the communication loop from the very beginning is not only advisable, but usually crucial to the smooth progress of project development.
The head(s) may be able to suggest other faculty, either at Penn State or elsewhere, who are respected in their fields, have a track record of external research support, and could be approached to discuss potential interest in the RFP in question. S/he may also have essential information – not generally available -- that could make problematic the involvement of this or that individual in the project. If appropriate, the time and effort commitment necessary for the project could also be evaluated in terms of current career trajectories of potential team members, especially junior faculty.
Question:
* What about internal support? Is it necessary to discuss the topic right away or can the faculty member wait until later in the proposal development process?
Comments:
If the need for any internal support is anticipated (e.g., to bring colleagues here from other institutions, to engage reviewers, to visit program officers, or to acquire graduate student assistance during the proposal preparation process), this should be raised during the initial discussion with the head. That is also the time to begin exploring the possibility of College or research center support for aspects of the project with the associate dean(s) for research. Cost sharing of any kind must be negotiated right at the outset.
Generally, cost-sharing requests, including funds to be requested from the central administration, must be negotiated by the Associate Dean for Research well before proposal submission; notifying the associate dean of your needs one month before submission would provide adequate lead time, assuming the budgets are in decent shape. Leaving such matters until the last minute is likely to have serious repercussions for the project.
Question:
* Assuming (a) that a potentially interested team of strong faculty has been identified, (b) that a very general conceptual framework for the proposed research has been discussed, (c) that there is sufficient time before the deadline, and (d) that the head(s) and College(s) are supportive of the effort, what are some of the things that should be seen to at the very beginning to increase the probability of the development of a successful proposal?
Comments:
Probably the most important issue to tackle at the very beginning is the dissection of the RFP/RFA language – if possible, in terms of known agency predilections – to determine with reasonable certainty what these guidelines “really” mean and what an appropriate response might be. There are often key words (or “code,” if you will) that are used repeatedly in a call, and these may have a particular meaning in the context of a particular agency.
Do not guess at this meaning or just assume that you know what it is. Get in touch with a program officer and find out whether your interpretation of the RFP coincides with what the agency has in mind. Do not wait until proposal writing is underway before establishing contact with the program officer. There is nothing more demoralizing than devoting a lot of time to a project and then finding out that the approach being utilized is partly or entirely off base.
Additionally, if this is an on-going program (and not a one-time RFA), the funding history of the program should be investigated. With the exception of the most obscure foundations, funding entities usually make available a listing of awards on the Internet or by request to the agency. Awards from agencies such as NIH and NSF also have on-line abstracts. Remember that the research staff in your college(s) and in units such as the SSRI will be of considerable help here. Colleagues who have been funded by this agency should also be contacted for their interpretation of the “code” in the language of the call. If appropriate, and if time allows, copies of successful proposals should be obtained from the agency. These have proven to be quite useful in the past.
In sum, as much advance investigation and preparation as possible should be done before any serious writing takes place. And contact with a program officer – at the outset as well as throughout the proposal process – is an absolute must.
Question:
* Are there any issues that, if not discussed and agreed upon at the very beginning of the proposal process, could potentially sink a larger, multidisciplinary project?
Comments:
Absolutely. First, as already outlined, a consensus should be reached among group members on the interpretation of the RFP/RFA – a consensus based, not on guesswork, but on contacts with the program officer and discussions with colleagues who are familiar with this agency or even with this particular call for proposals.
Second, agreement should be reached on the skeleton of a research plan.
Third, if not already decided, the principal investigator for the project should be selected, not on the basis of “Oh, OK, I’ll do it if nobody else wants to,” but on strength of reputation, record of research funding, availability of time, and commitment to the project at hand.
Fourth, a detailed work plan and timeline should be drawn up and necessary time and effort commitments on the part of all participants should be established. If a firm commitment is not forthcoming from any key participant (i.e., s/he can attend only two of six meetings, will be out of town for three weeks, and so forth), that individual should consider withdrawing from the project.
It is crucial to construct a work plan and timeline. Some researchers promote a “construct as you go” approach as being more “collegial,” but, without a firm timeline in hand that has definite tasks and responsible parties clearly noted (e.g., sections to be written, readers to schedule, etc.,) the probability of breakdown increases with each day. Certainly, a work plan is dynamic in nature, and things will undoubtedly change, but this should not be an argument for not establishing a work plan at the outset.
Fifth, a Plan B should be formulated in the event that one or more researchers must either leave the group or modify the extent of time and effort devoted to the project. How would the group cope, especially if the “drop-out” happens to be a major player in the plan? Would the participants be willing to re-group and continue? Will they elect not to continue? Will the departing researcher be obligated to contribute anything to the group effort or not? A potential coping mechanism/guideline should be established at the outset so that no time is wasted in crying “foul” if there is a serious change in plans.
Finally, it is not unusual for a project to become large and unwieldy, and for it to lose focus, if the PI(s) give undue weight to being inclusive rather than to targeting a focused intellectual agenda. This balance between “inclusive” and “focused” is a pivotal and difficult point to reach in the life of a project. In general, experience suggests that an unwillingness to stay focused and to pare back, even if this requires that someone be asked to step aside, will undermine the entire effort. This possibility needs to be discussed candidly and a consensus reached from the start.
Question:
* What would be an effective way to organize the actual writing of a large, multidisciplinary proposal? Should this be done by committee? By one or two selected individuals? By the PI with input from others?
Comments:
For the first draft, the “committee” approach might be the preferred one – that is, various members of the team are asked by the project director to draft discrete sections of the proposal based on their expertise and interest. These sections would then be circulated among everyone in the group and subsequently discussed in a group brainstorming session.
Once this is done, however, the project director should become the organizing core of the group and assume responsibility for “stitching” together and integrating various pieces so that the proposal flows smoothly. S/he would determine if pieces need more detail, if they hang together, and would annotate as necessary before sending back out to the group (not just to the individuals who wrote them). H/she would develop an appropriate “back-and-forth” process for the various drafts of the proposal, but should not feel compelled to circulate everything to everyone every single time. In other words, the consensual process should, of course, be followed to the extent possible and all members of the group should be kept up to date on decisions made or actions taken.
However, there will be times when a vote is not appropriate or where there is no consensus, and when the person in charge has to make the decision. This also should be discussed with the group from the very beginning so that bruised egos do not enter the equation at a later point in time.
For all phases of proposal development, RGSO staff would be available for research, substantive editing, copy editing, partial re-writing, budget development, guidance on agency regulations, transmittal to sponsor (electronic or paper) and any other assistance required.
It is therefore important that project directors include selected research staff members in group meetings from the outset so that the assistance provided may be offered from a more informed perspective. Included in meetings might also be technical staff whose experience with other research groups could be valuable in suggesting alternate ways of carrying out project tasks.
Question:
* Is it really necessary to engage an external consultant/reviewer – possibly someone who has been on review panels for the agency in question? If so, when should this be done and who will pay for any fees?
Comments:
Although not absolutely required, an external reviewer for a proposal can often be of significant help in determining if there are any red flags in the project upon which agency panels might focus. An external reader may also be less reluctant than most close colleagues to offer very direct, but constructive, comments. If time permits, such a reader or readers should be engaged for feedback on early drafts in addition to the penultimate one.
If there are any fees involved or other proposal development expenses, the RGSO, the department head, and appropriate centers, institutes and consortia should be approached for assistance. Such requests should be coordinated and each unit should be aware of the full support package being requested.
Question:
* If a proposal is going to be submitted under the auspices of an institute or a center, and the specialty area of the director of that center/institute is in the same field as the proposal being written, does this mean that s/he should automatically be the PI on the proposal?
Comments:
No, not unless the group developing the proposal wants this to be so. Generally speaking, project directors are individuals chosen by the group on the basis of reputation in field, track record of sponsored funding, and leadership qualities. They cannot be imposed on the group by virtue of university position or any other rationale. In the above scenario, the relevant institute or center director must agree, of course, to the proposed submission process.
The very nature of most multidisciplinary projects often results in more than one College/institute/center/research group being involved, and/or in subcontracts with other institutions in various parts of the country or even abroad. It is therefore imperative that research office staff in the unit that will serve as the submitting locus have as much information as possible as quickly as possible. A phone call or an e-mail to the relevant grants administrator should be part of the very first steps of getting a project on the table. Follow-up information should also be transmitted to the grants office as soon as it becomes available (e.g., contact names at other institutions, the number of the RFP to which the proposal will respond, the generic outline of budgetary needs, etc.).
As a last nugget of wisdom from past experience, it is very useful to remember that yours is never the only proposal being submitted in a particular timeframe, and that grants staff are people with lives outside of the office too.
Research
Contact Us
Research Office
119 Sparks Building
University Park, PA 16802
Phone: 814-865-8030
Fax: 814-863-7287