1. Mobile & Embedded System Lab. Writing a good grant proposal Department of Computer Engineering Kyung Hee Univ. Dae-Young Kim

2. Mobile & Embedded System Lab. 1 Contents nApproaching a proposal nCriteria for a good grant proposal Major criteria Secondary criteria nCommon shortcomings nConclusion

3. Mobile & Embedded System Lab. 2 Approaching a proposal nThe first thing to do Read the advice offered by your funding agency nTwo vital facts Programmed managers and panel members  Won’t be expert  You must write your proposal for their benefit  See tens or hundreds of cases for support  You have one minute or less to grab your reader’s attention nTwo Golden Rules Ask lots of people to help you improve your proposal  Rewrite it until they understand Make sure that the first page acts as a stand-alone summary of the entire proposal

4. Mobile & Embedded System Lab. 3 Criteria for a good grant proposal nMajor criteria Does the proposal address a well-formulated problem? Is it a research problem, or is it just a routine application of known techniques? Is it an important problem, whose solution will have useful effects? Is special funding (resources of a well-found laboratory) necessary to solve the problem? Do the proposers have a good idea on which to base their work? Does the proposal explain clearly what work will be done? Is there evidence that the proposers know about the work that others have done on the problem? Do the proposers have a good track record, both of doing good research and of publishing it?

5. Mobile & Embedded System Lab. 4 Criteria for a good grant proposal (cont’d) nSecondary criteria - for best judgment An applicant may deserve to be placed ahead of well-funded one  Existing funding provides evidence of good track record Keep a strong research team together Balance between different research areas Evidence of industrial interest in a proposal, and of its potential for future exploitation Recommendations of Technology Foresight

6. Mobile & Embedded System Lab. 5 Common Shortcomings nIt is not clear what question is being addressed by the proposal nThe question being addressed is woolly or ill-formed nIt is not clear why the question is worth addressing nThe proposal is just a routine application of known techniques nIndustry ought to be doing it instead nThere is no evidence that the proposers will succeed where others have failed We have an ideas We have a good track record

7. Mobile & Embedded System Lab. 6 Common Shortcomings (cont’d) nA new idea is claimed but insufficient technical details of the idea are given for the committee to be able to judge whether it looks promising nThe proposers seem unaware of related research Related work must be mentioned nThe proposed research has already been done nThe proposal is badly presented, or incomprehensible to all nLack of realism may reflect a poor understanding of the problem nThe proposal is too expensive for the probable gain nThe proposers institution should be funding it

8. Mobile & Embedded System Lab. 7 Conclusion nWe hope that you write better grant proposals and hence to be more successful in obtaining funds for your research