September1999 October 1999 Proposals Marie desJardins CMSC 691B March 16, 2004 Updated April 14, 2008, by Charles Nicholas

September1999 October /6/04 2 Sources u Robert L. Peters, Getting What You Came For: The Smart Student’s Guide to Earning a Master’s or Ph.D. (Revised Edition). NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, u Peter J. Feibelman, A Ph.D. Is Not Enough! A Guide to Survival in Science. Basic Books, u Tom Dietterich, CS 519 course slides, Oregon State University. u Caroline Wardle, Obtaining Federal Funding, CRA-W Workshop Slides, 1993/1994/1999.

September1999 October /6/04 3 Outline u Proposal Contents u General Advice u Sources of Funding u Proposal Evaluation

September1999 October 1999 Proposal Contents

September1999 October /6/04 5 Know Your Goals u Dissertation proposal  Convince committee you’re on the right track u Funding proposal  Convince reviewers and program manager to give you money

September1999 October /6/04 6 Proposal Strategy u Just having a good idea is not enough! u Need to convince reviewers that:  The problem is important  You have a good approach to solve the problem  Your approach is likely to succeed  You have a well developed research plan u Chicken-and-egg problem   If you don’t have preliminary results and a well developed approach, you’re not likely to make a convincing case for success   If you already have preliminary results and a well developed approach, you’re already doing the research!  → By the time you get the funding, you’ll be done! ...so with the funding you get, you’ll write the journal papers, and start developing preliminary results for the next proposal...

September1999 October /6/04 7 Topics to Cover u Long-term goals u Significance u Specific goals u Methods and experiments u Feasibility u Risks u Current state of knowledge u Timetable u Budget/budget justification u Biographies Typically 15 pages or less!

September1999 October /6/04 8 Long-Term Goals u Vision  Big picture  Broad focus u Motivation behind your work

September1999 October /6/04 9 Significance u Why do you want to work on this problem? u Why will other people care about it? ...in the field ...in other fields ...in society ...in the program ...on your committee

September1999 October /6/04 10 Specific Goals u What part of the big picture will you focus on? u What specific tasks will you accomplish?

September1999 October /6/04 11 Methods and Experiments u How will you demonstrate success? u How will you test your claims? u Data sets, domains, experimental methodologies, evaluation criteria

September1999 October /6/04 12 Feasibility u Why should we believe you will be able to carry out this research plan?

September1999 October /6/04 13 Risks u What might go wrong? u How will you recover? u What’s your backup/contingency plan?

September1999 October /6/04 14 Current State of Knowledge u Who else has worked on this problem? u Why have previous approaches been unsuccessful? ...or if this is a new problem, why are new approaches needed? u How does your method build on, or depart from, previous approaches?

September1999 October /6/04 15 Timetable u Typical research grant: 2-3 years, sometimes up to 5 u Typical dissertation timeline (from proposal): 1-3 years u What are your milestones? u Approximately when do you expect to complete each milestone? u Relevant deadlines (conference deadlines, program meetings, integrated demonstrations)

September1999 October /6/04 16 Budget / Justification u How much money do you need? u Why is each line item important to the project?

September1999 October /6/04 17 Biographies u Typically one- or two-page abbreviated CV

September1999 October /6/04 18 References u For thesis proposal only:  Annotated bibliography is very helpful  Can include important/relevant papers that you plan to read, but haven’t read yet. (should discuss these separately in Related Work section)

September1999 October 1999 General Advice

September1999 October /6/04 20 General Proposal Advice u Start writing early! u First impressions count:  A good introduction/summary is absolutely essential!!  Be neat! u Be as specific as possible u Don’t make your reviewers work too hard u Keep revising u Get feedback from peers and mentors u Resubmit if necessary u Read other people’s proposals u Serving on panels is one way to do this!

September1999 October 1999 Sources of Funding

September1999 October /6/04 22 Government Agencies u NSF u NIH u DoD  DARPA  AFOSR  ARL u Departments of Education, Energy,... u State agencies: MIPS, DBED

September1999 October /6/04 23 Industry u Sponsored research u Partnerships u Equipment grants

September1999 October 1999 Proposal Evaluation

September1999 October /6/04 25 NSF Review Criteria u Intellectual Merit  Increasing knowledge and understanding within a field  Qualifications of proposers  Creativity and originality  Scope and organization of proposed research  Access to resources u Broader Impact  Teaching, training, and learning  Participation of underrepresented groups  Enhancement of research infrastructure  Dissemination of results  Benefits to society

September1999 October /6/04 26 NSF Ratings u Excellent  Perhaps 10% of proposals; should definitely be funded u Very Good  Top 1/3 of proposals; should be considered for funding if sufficient funds are available u Good  Middle 1/3 of proposals; worthy of support (but likely will not be enough funding for this category) u Fair  Bottom 1/3 of proposals; not likely to be considered for funding u Poor  Proposal has serious deficiencies and should not be funded u Typical funded proposal has at least one Excellent and two Very Goods u Many NSF programs have a <= 10% funding rate

September1999 October /6/04 27 NSF: How it Really Works u Specific areas are usually not targeted... ...but some program managers have areas they like or dislike ...and sometimes your research won’t fit in any of the NSF programs, especially if you’re doing interdisciplinary work  It never hurts to visit and chat with the program manager(s) u Peer review panel provides primary input  If you don’t get a good peer rating, you’re doomed  Panelist who knows your area inside and out can shoot your proposal down (or champion it!)  Panelists who don’t know your area can shoot you proposal down (or be intrigued by it!)

September1999 October /6/04 28 DARPA Proposal Roadmap u Goal u Tangible benefits to end users u Critical technical barriers u Main elements of proposed approach u Rationale  Why will the proposed approach overcome the technical barriers? u Nature of expected results u Risk if the work is not done u Criteria for evaluating progress u Cost of the proposed effort

September1999 October /6/04 29 DARPA: How it Really Works u Who you know is of primary importance u Marketing to program managers is key  White papers, or a visit! u Contributing to the development of program announcements (BAA = Broad Agency Announcement) u Awards are contracts (many deliverables; much program manager control)

September1999 October /6/04 30 NSF vs. DARPA u Politics and agency goals notwithstanding... u NSF awards are grants  No specific deliverables (except annual reports)  Little program manager control  Work on what you want to (but do good work!)  Funding rarely goes away, once awarded   Extremely competitive   Less $$ u DARPA awards are contracts   Many deliverables   Much program manager control   Focus might change   Funding might disappear  Once you’re hooked in, the money can be pretty steady  More $$