How to Write a Successful RTAR or Work Statement Winter Meeting 2007 – Dallas, TX Monday – January 29, 2007

How to write a successful RTAR (Research Topic Acceptance Request) Identify valuable research Make your case Provide all required information Work closely with your research liaison

Identify valuable research To win, compete: FY 06-07 Research budget $2,528,200 FY 07-08 Draft research budget $2,194,300 Average project ~ $100,000 ~ 20-25 projects/yr ↔ 99 TCs & TGs 2006 Annual Meeting RTARs Accept 13 62% Return 7 33% ~60% of 1st submissions Reject 1 5%

Identify valuable research Focus on the Strategic Plan for Research RTARs that identify the specific Strategic Plan goals served get accepted http://www.ashrae.org/technology/page/39

Identify valuable research Do your homework (1) Review the key literature RTARs that demonstrate a firm grasp of relevant prior work get accepted. Clearly define the State-of-the-Art and info gaps RTARs that do not leave RAC wondering if it’s been done get accepted. Define a valuable and doable objective RTARs that will make a significant contribution and RTARs where the work is well conceived get accepted.

Identify valuable research Do your homework (2) Coordinate with other relevant TCs RTARs where relevant TCs have been consulted and RTARs that do not overlap with others get accepted. Actively solicit co-funding RTARs that have been reviewed by another funding organization that expressed support get extra consideration.

Make your case Identify the Research Strategic Plan goals served RTARs that identify the specific goals served, to what degree, and why get accepted. Clearly define the Advancement to the State-of-the-Art RTARs that provide quantitative estimates of the improvement expected get accepted.

Make your case Clearly define the Justification and Value to ASHRAE RTARs that get accepted: Identify by number, profession or industry the ASHRAE members impacted. State the likelihood that the improvement developed through the research would be adopted. Quantify the anticipated time period over which widespread adoption would take place. Indicate likelihood of ASHRAE intellectual property.

Make your case Address negative votes RTARs having negative votes are at a disadvantage, but those that provide the reasons for the negative vote and a solid response can get accepted. Provide realistic estimated costs/duration Respond to prior RAC comments RTARs with well-reasoned, complete, point-by-point responses get accepted.

Provide all required info Use the current RTAR form!! http://www.ashrae.org/technology/page/39 RTARs that use the current form get accepted. Do not use the form in the Research Manual – it’s out of date.

Provide all required info

Work with your liaison Have your liaison review the RTAR before the TC vote! Liaisons can identify reasons the RTAR might be returned before you vote it and submit it to MORTS/RAC, saving you at least 6 months! Make sure your liaison is informed! Liaisons present arguments for your RTAR to the entire RAC. A liaison knowledgeable about your project is better able to persuade RAC to approve it. If your project is unusual, controversial, or urgent (or if you just have too much free time) attend the RAC meeting to speak for it and answer questions.

Examples of actual past reasons for returns Linkage to ASHRAE Strategic Research plan not explicit. No connection to ASHRAE Strategic Research Plan. No TC vote. Large number of absences in TC vote. I would like to hear a rebuttal of the “Against” vote. Is the estimated cost for the duration of this project enough? 50K seems low. Time frame is missing. Should not TCs in section 5 be partners in this endeavor? Co-funding should be available from the medical fields. No reason for ASHRAE to obtain this information because it is available. Aren't there more references on this? How does the proposed work relate to work by ____? Disappointing discussion of state of the art. Hard to believe that we don't already know this! No real indication of how the research will add to current understanding.

Examples of actual past reasons for returns Is there evidence that the current methods are causing problems? Can you quantify the impact of any problems? How will this work solve these pbs? The TC should do some of this literature search and develop a more focused RTAR and research approach. Weak justification and value to ASHRAE. Justification section should avoid some of the broad numbers and focus on expected savings from reduced fouling. I think this is a good project, but see it as being of interest to a relatively small audience. Objectives for research are much too vague. Specific details are needed. Important project, but I'd like to see more detail on scope and methodology of research. More detail needed in research approach and intermediate steps, probable models to be used. What specific steps are to be taken to get useful tools or information to the ASHRAE membership and the building community?

Work Statement cover sheet

Work Statement items Title: Executive Summary: Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan: Application of Results: State-of-the-Art (Background): Advancement to the State-of-the-Art: Justification and Value to ASHRAE: Objective: Scope: Deliverables/Where Results Will Be Published: Level of Effort: Other Information to Bidders (Optional): Proposal Evaluation Criteria & Weighting Factors: References:

RTAR and Work Statement items Title: Executive Summary: Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan: Application of Results: State-of-the-Art (Background): Advancement to the State-of-the-Art: Justification and Value to ASHRAE: Objective: Scope: Deliverables/Where Results Will Be Published: Level of Effort: Other Information to Bidders (Optional): Proposal Evaluation Criteria & Weighting Factors: References: 100 words GREEN = RTAR items RED = New WS items

Work Statement items in RFP Items not included in RFP Title: Executive Summary: Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan: Application of Results: State-of-the-Art (Background): Advancement to the State-of-the-Art: Justification and Value to ASHRAE: Objective: Scope: Deliverables/Where Results Will Be Published: Level of Effort: Other Information to Bidders (Optional): Proposal Evaluation Criteria & Weighting Factors: References: GREEN = RTAR items Insert generic ASHRAE requirements plus any project specific deliverables RED = New WS items Research Manual provides examples

Work Statement items in RFP Title: Executive Summary: Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan: Application of Results: State-of-the-Art (Background): Advancement to the State-of-the-Art: Justification and Value to ASHRAE: Objective: Scope: Deliverables/Where Results Will Be Published: Level of Effort: Other Information to Bidders (Optional): Proposal Evaluation Criteria & Weighting Factors: References: GREEN = RTAR items Man-months, calendar-months, and total dollars RED = New WS items Additional information not included elsewhere

Work Statement items in RFP Title: Executive Summary: Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan: Application of Results: State-of-the-Art (Background): Advancement to the State-of-the-Art: Justification and Value to ASHRAE: Objective: Scope: Deliverables/Where Results Will Be Published: Level of Effort: Other Information to Bidders (Optional): Proposal Evaluation Criteria & Weighting Factors: References: GREEN = RTAR items Technical Approach and Task Statement RED = New WS items

SCOPE = of Work Statement The subject matter to be explored Materials, equipment, literature or other variables to be researched Outline of the research methods to be used Description of the standards to be followed Consideration on how the data might be reduced, analyzed and presented Description of the form in which the results will be reported Description of each task and distinct phase of the project (if appropriate) Objectives Tasks Deliverables Level of effort Identify significant task results as task deliverables to facilitate project monitoring

Work Statement goes to RAC Have the WS reviewed by your research liaison before submitting to the MORTS. Possible outcomes of RAC review WS approved WS conditionally approved Research liaison approves the modified WS and decides whether a TC vote is required. WS returned WS rejected

Common Work Statement problems Incomplete information on the Cover Sheet (TC vote, recommended bidders) Improper WS format WS writing lacks clarity WS is unclear or inconsistent technically (not biddable) A non-uniform playing field (Information available to TC members/possible bidders is not available to the general public)

If RAC returns your Work Statement Modify the WS per RAC’s comments In the transmittal letter explain how you addressed each comment If you disagree with any RAC’s comment, explain why Have the WS reviewed by your research liaison

TC voting Work Statement Contractor selection - At a meeting: Quorum =>50 % of voting members WS is approved by a majority of the present voting members - Via e-mail: WS is approved by a majority of all voting members Contractor selection Proposal is approved by 2/3 of the present voting members which must constitute a majority of all voting members - Via e-mail: Proposal is approved by 2/3 of all voting members Meeting requirements executive session (committee voting and non-voting members, excluding those with conflict of interest; ASHRAE Staff) Identification of the recommended contractor shall be kept confidential until approved by the RAC, Tech. Council, and Board of Directors

Final comments Think about the researcher who will bid on the project Use common sense and Research Manual http://www.ashrae.org/technology/page/39 Remember RTAR and WS deadlines: August 15 (for Fall Meeting), December 15 (for winter Meeting), May 15 (for Summer Meeting) Work with your research liaison Objectives Tasks Level of effort Deliverables