Arvid Hunze

arvid@grantconsultingnz.com

Menu
Menu

Author: admin

How I get started on an MBIE Endeavour proposal

Single post

How I get started on an MBIE Endeavour proposal

Starting is always the hardest, especially on a complex task. Writing a good MBIE Endeavour proposal is in that category.

How do I usually get going? Two basic and one specific tip.

This only works if you’ve started talking to stakeholders and have a clear idea about your research. If you’re still in the self-discovery stage, I will discuss a different strategy in a later newsletter.

Tip Nr 1 Compare this round to last year’s

That is basic but important stuff. Read (and compare) all documents relevant to the grant, especially the new ones, meticulously. For Endeavour, this usually includes the Call for Proposals and Assessment Guidelines. Also, have a look at the documents that remained the same. These are often and Science Panel members, Investment plan and the Vision Matauranga booklet.

This is not only to see what changed but also to refresh my memory of Endeavour and get in the mood and mindset to write a proposal. Everyone’s busy but this time is not wasted.

Attend the MBIE roadshow or view the recording. Then, everything will make sense.

Tip: Create or update a cheat sheet for yourself with everything you want or need to remember. I have a whole wall covered in these cheat sheets for various funds and examples of ideal writing practise. Whenever I begin a new section or get confused about the proposal, I recheck.

Tip Nr 2 Make a simple plan and (Gantt) chart

I just use a simple Excel sheet. This should include all sections you need to write as well as any other work you need to complete, e.g. internet research for numbers, references, stakeholder engagement, review’s, proofreading. Insert important internal and external deadlines. Decide which order will work best for you and how long the task will take. Check it while you write.

Tip Nr 3 Start on the Science Excellence and Benefits to New Zealand section in parallel

Science Excellence is the 1st hurdle to overcome. It is often the hardest part to get right. I ask my customers to write as much as possible for this section asap. That shows us where we are at and if all key questions are addressed. Then we progress to the more detailed sections. Sometimes the team has a (clear) idea, but we can’t define the excellence, novelty science stretch etc. well. In this scenario, I invert the usual process by quickly writing the research specifics to drill into them to see if I can extract any “nuggets”.

I strongly advise to work on the Benefits to NZ part while drafting the Science Excellence. I typically begin the research on benefits, statistics, and policies once I have the idea and the need. The reason is that I want quickly to collect a list of the research’s benefits, their expected size/importance and beneficiaries. Note that this should be much more detailed than just the “the worldwide/New Zealand market in $Bio” or “xyz policy is in place”. I try to be as specific as I can to estimate the numbers or outline why policy xyz is so important.

Doing this has two advantages:

First, it helps me to check if my present stakeholder involvement logic makes sense. For instance, if I create a device for a particular industry, I always try to reason from numbers why they would purchase it and what savings or new items they would experience because of doing so. In addition, I estimate which business, best in New Zealand, could sell how many to the industry. This often reveals that there are additional industries and/or groups that should be interested in the technology I haven’t anticipated. Sometimes I find these groups can realise even greater benefits than the original ones. I need to talk to them immediately and enlist their support.

Second, this exercise gives us a solid foundation to talk to the stakeholders and ask more specific questions about problems we encountered. Just presenting the technology and then hoping stakeholders will tell you all the needs and numbers will not work. In the best case, they can help us refine our numbers. In the worst case, they might tell us we are on the wrong path but often they can clearly explain why and what when they see the numbers/ideas. Be open for that. Since you have done the groundwork already, it is often relatively easy to dig deeper and adjust everything.

Analysis MBIE Endeavour 2022/2023 Funding documents

Single post

Analysis MBIE Endeavour 2022/2023 Funding documents

You can find all important documents here:

MBIE home page

Note

I can’t stress this enough: read the documents yourself, at the very least, the call for proposals and the assessment guidelines. Sitting in the 90 minutes MBIE Zoom roadshow will not replace that. In fact, you can only understand the finer details and ask sensible questions during the roadshow when you have read the documents.

I have written dozens of proposals now and have helped to win quite a few. I still read all the documents every year. I have a printout beside me and regular recheck key sections and criteria while writing. Please do the same.

 

One-sentence Summary

No major but some details/wording changes, new risk sections for all criteria and possibility to choose CV style.

 

Nice touch: MBIE changed to more active language. Hopefully this will inspire applicants to do the same see also here : 

Article

A word-for-word comparison between this and last year’s Call for proposal and Assessment Guidelines please see

Call: Call 

Assessment Guidelines: Assessment  

 

 

Call for proposal important changes/adaptions

 

Registration/General

 

Words in images: barest minimum, explanatory only and not introduce new information (page 11 and all sections which allow images), this includes words in a table.

This is a better definition than in the previous years and the philosophy I applied since I read this the first time. Essentially, MBEI doesn’t want people to cheat the word limit by including tables, speech bubbles, boxes etc. as images, especially when it is information, which is not described in the main text.

Title can be changed after registration (page 12)

Nice, sometimes while writing the focus sharpens and you want to adjust the title. However, if you entirely change the title it signals to me that it was not well thought trough. I doubt that a good MBIE proposal can come together between the registration and March if the basics are not right.  Take your time to do this right the first time

Investment signals – may instead of are (page 13)

Not sure what that means. We will see at the roadshow.

 

Eligibility criteria changed as already outlined in the Gazette (page 15)

No Russian state institution/organisation contributing to war, no activities already funded

 

Smart Ideas Concept

 

Executive summary mentions explicitly team (page 18)

It was kind of clear it should be always included, so probably just a clean-up by MBIE.

 

Science Excellence change in specific words and structure (page 19)

Still, the same philosophy applies, but to my interpretation that MBIE tries to help the applicants to better structure the section.

 

Team (Excellence) sharpened using specific words, shorter bullet point list than last year (page 19)

More concrete examples from MBIE for Māori involvement and team risks. “Partnerships/Collaborations” bullet point out.

 

Benefit to NZ shorter bullet point list and more specific words than last year (page 19)

Missing bullet points from last year: “How a proposal responds to Investments signals” and “Assumption for Benefits” out.  That makes sense given 280 words and comes back in the full proposal.

 

Narrative style CVs Template (page 20)

More to come in the Roadshow but it looks and reads like this will help to better accommodate team members with a less academic background, good move by MBIE.

 

Full proposal (Smart Idea and Research Programme)

 

Eligibility criteria, Investment signals, Executive, new CV style similar changes as in Smart Idea concept

 

New sections: Science Risk (page 27), Team Risk (page 27), Benefits to NZ Risk (page 30), Implementation Pathway Risk (page 30)

All will give you an additional 280 words. Read by yourself. This makes all sense to me. Benefits risk section is really about assumptions/evidence for the benefit claims. I am glad that MBIE kept that and put it a bit more prominent.

 

Science, Team, Benefits, Implementation Pathway – Changes in specific words and structure, longer bullet point list than Concept and slightly different bullet point list than last year (Page 27-32)

Benefits: More bullet points than in the concept but leaning towards investment signals, “Base for the assumptions” is out but now folded in its own category “Benefits to NZ risk”. Research programmes definition of Transform benefits sharpened towards “radical change”.

Team/Science: collaborations/partnership bullet point moves from Team to Science section.

 

Research Plan – new bullet point (page 33)

New bullet point “Approximate allocation of resources across all research aims.”

 

Project Budget– more explanations (page 34/35)

Better definition of the different budget items and emphasizing proper allocation of resources for Māori.

 

Assessment guidelines

 

Assessment will be passed on the applicants (Page 6/7/10)

Seems that applicants get specific feedback on strengths and weaknesses and not just the summary which is originally intended for the Science board as now. Hopefully, we still get the summary for the Science board too. We will see, any feedback is valuable see here: Article

Much better guidance for Vison Matauranga assessment – read it (page 11)

 

Specific Points to note “Excellence” – minor word changes (page 12/13)

“Minor impact” changed to “Incremental advance” in Novelty. Shorter paragraph about residual risk assessment.

 

Science/Team Grid– added bullet point in Science Grid (page 14)

Says now “For example” above all bullet points. Different order and some changed words in the bullet point list. In the Science grid, a bullet point was added asking how well the risk is managed. This makes sense given the additional risk sections.

 

Specific Points to note for Impact – added bullet point (page 16/17)

Alignment with area of future value, growth or critical need added. Some words changed: “investment, knowledge uptake” instead of “leveraging”.

Transform: “indicative pathway out” “Immediate impact” and “Ultimate impact” changed to “Outcome” and “Impact”

 

Protect and add value – Benefit/Implementation grid – bullet point out (page 19-22)  

Different order and some changed words in the bullet point list. Bullet point in Benefits grid “Additional value for NZ” out. Implementation pathway grid empathizes credibility.

 

Transform – Benefit /Implementation grid – bullet point out (page 23-24)

Different order and some changed words in the bullet point list. Bullet point in Benefits grid “Change in status quo” out. Implementation pathway grid empathizes credibility.

How to read, structure and apply proposal assessors/referee comments

Single post

How to read, structure and apply proposal assessors/referee comments

1. Read the feedback, but take some time to cool down and to digest it.

At least for me, when I read a strong criticism on a project and it was not funded, I get upset and even offended. This is especially true if I believe it was good. So much work and thinking that went into it, and the assessors just didn't get it….

My first instinct is to rip out a page and write down what they got wrong if I can write a rebuttal. It's not a good idea...

2. Own the feedback

Assessors have a reason for what they critic and everyone we all have a logic and are right inside our own little skull kingdom. When I let feedback sit for a day and reread it, I often see and agree with the referee's point.

Most significantly, if they get it wrong, it is usually our fault. We just did not explain it well enough, supplied too much or too little information, or arranged the proposals incorrectly. I now always read the feedback a second time with the mindset that what is said there is correct, and I am incorrect.

What can I learn and how will it help me better my proposal?

3. Structure the feedback: “must be addressed”, “should be addressed”, “does not need to be addressed”

After taking a step back and owing it, I return into defence mode and structure the feedback. This is useful for seeing the main arguments and for writing a rebid or response.
If I find a point being criticised more than once, I copy the comments and put it in the “must be addressed” category since it informs me that something is obviously incorrect/missing in the proposal. Also, if there is a comment that entirely undermines the grant, I will place it in this category.
It is usually difficult to respond to these "sinkers." A common issue I notice is a misunderstanding of the core fund philosophy, such as examining the grant like a journal manuscript or criticizing a Marsden application for not having or a specific plan for achieving “impact”. Comments claiming that the research has already been done or that anything critical is lacking are also difficult to respond. It depends on the circumstances, but I usually try to reformulate the perceived problem and use as much evidence as possible to refute it, such as new research, publications, or a reminder of the proposal guidelines. It is important not to criticise or attack the reviewer rather to provide facts, such as stating that “there was a misunderstanding concerning xyz due to”. The trivial stuff, side notes, etc. I put it the “does not need to be addressed” category, anything in between in the “should be addressed” category.
Be aware that “should” and not need category can be dangerous in a Marsden rebuttal since the quality or missing rebuttal is included in the grades see page 8 in the link below.
However, often there is not enough room to address everything. This system also gives you an indication how much room you should spend on each point and where you can cluster answers.
I recommend and if time allows, I will go over this list with the Associate Investigators and other trusted individuals (see also 6) and create a final list.

Link to Marsden Council Guidelines: Link

4. Be clear about your audience

As always, being aware of your audience and writing for them is essential.

In a Marsden reply, for example, your rebuttal will get to the panel members rather than the referees. Your panel's "champion(s)," means the people who will present and/or best-case fight for your grant, are especially critical. Provide them with enough ammunition to defend your proposition if they still liked your full proposal.
As said in the Marsden Panel and Council Guidelines:
"Where referees disagree, the Council and panel members must use their own judgment in determining which referee reports to emphasise and what score to assign. These deliberations should be guided by considerations such as: • the member's own level of expertise on the subject • the comments made by referees to explain their grades • the relative competencies of the referees • the responses by applicants to the referees’ comments • possible conflicts of interest."
There is no rebuttal in an MBIE rebid, but you may get some of the same assessors as last year. They might remember what they didn't like the last time, so address their concerns to the letter in a rebid. This is usually easier because you can overhaul, align, and restructure your rebid.

5. Use positive words and if the feedback is stellar remind them of it

If you address a criticism, phrase it positively e.g. rather than writing "referee 2 criticised the lack of abc," say "referee 2 proposed that in experiment yxz we could add abc." It is beneficial to repeat the favourable comments from the referees, but only if there is adequate space and it organically flows into the text. Again, you must provide enough ammunition for panel members who support your proposal to defend it. There will be a trade-off between good referee comments that reinforce the opinion of your champion(s) and more important a forceful defence of the perceived weak parts.

6. Get feedback on your feedback/rebuttal

Sounds silly, but it is valuable especially for a rebuttal to get more feedback. At least include your Associate Investigators but also check that with your research office and maybe trusted colleagues’ who have won a Marden or know the system very well. They will be busy, so ask for their help and timeline early. I always wonder how much a rebuttal can accomplish but you should give it your best shot. If the proposal is rejected at least, you will have a solid starting point for next year's rebid.

For a more in-depth look, check out this article on panel dynamics, rebuttals I came across recently: Article 

How to get a three-month head start on your next MBIE Endeavour proposal

Single post

How to get a three-month head start on your next MBIE Endeavour proposal

Analysis of the 

Gazette Notice 2023

You can find the 2023 Gazette Notice here:

Gazette Notice 2023

Why is the NZ Gazette Notice important? – It underpins all funding documents

Often people haven’t heard of the Gazette notice. It is the constitutional record and contains official commercial and government notifications that are required by legislation to be published.

The Gazette Notice for the MBIE Endeavour fund is published on the government’s website every year, typically in July. This is the fundamental document and foundation of all other documents of the MBIE Endeavour fund including the Guidelines normally issued in October.

If you read and analyse the Gazette Notice in conjunction with the Investment plan, we can guess whether or not there will be significant changes in the future round.

What can you learn from the Gazette? – Can I expect any major changes?

Important to note is that even if the Gazette Notice doesn’t change, there may be some specific changes in the Guidelines. However, the overall logic, philosophy and major restrictions will not change. That means if you write the proposal now and follow the logic from last year, you will likely be able to change what you have when the Guidelines are out in October quite easily.

Connecting with the Research office/Funding support team now is a good idea. It will help you to find out what they already know or guess regarding specific changes. This has also the additional advantage that you get in early and can get assistance now rather than rushing in with all others in November or December.

 A word-for-word comparison to last year sometimes shows where specifics might change. 

Word by word comparison to last year’s Gazette

I did a word-by-word comparison of last years and this year’s Gazette:

Link

There almost no change’s part form fixing a few things and words. The only substantial ones are new Eligibility Criteria related to working with Russian state institutions or organisations and a reminder not to apply for activities are already funded elsewhere:

“For proposals to be eligible under the Endeavour Fund, they must: …

f) not benefit a Russian state institution (including but not limited to support for Russian military or security activity) or an organisation outside government that may be perceived as contributing to the war effort;” …

i) “must not be for activities already funded elsewhere.”

What does that it mean? - You can start writing now and get a head start

Since the Investment plan is still valid till 2024, it is likely we will not see any big changes in the Guidelines, maybe some adjustments.

Investment Plan is here:

Investment Plan

Editing programs – Are they any good?

Single post

Editing programs – Are they any good?

I tested a few of them before starting my business to find out if they can streamline and improve the process and writing. As expected, they can help to tweak and improve the writing structure, grammar, and punctuation, but cannot take off the main burden of organizing and writing a solid narrative.

Some programs and tools I tested are (the links are below):

Hemingway

I tested a few of them before starting my business to find out if they can streamline and improve the process and writing. As expected, they can help to tweak and improve the writing structure, grammar, and punctuation, but cannot take off the main burden of organizing and writing a solid narrative.

Pro Writing Aid

The is the program I use to check grammar and basic style elements. It has a lot of functions to get your head around. It integrates with Word. Premium yearly subscription is around 50 US$.

Grammarly

Probably best-known program due to massive online advertising. I tested it and was not convinced that it is better than Pro Writing Aid. Premium version starts at around 10 US$/month.

The writers diet test

A nice little online tool to check if your writing needs a “work out”. After a few iterations you are more aware of your style and weakness in your writing. I use it to check critical passages. It is based on a book written by Helen Sword. She is a poet, scholar, master teacher, and international expert on academic and professional writing across the disciplines at the University of Auckland. Helen assured me that the text you put in is not analysed or stored.

AI writer

Intriguing idea to let an Artificial Intelligence to improve your writing. I believe this will be the future for non-creative documents soon. Who knows what it can do in a few years? I tested this specific program. The texts and rewrites are a bit off, but I will watch the space. The website does not claim that it can replace a human yet but will save you 1/3 in writing time.

The power of headings and subheadings

Single post

The power of headings and subheadings

Pretty much every book I read about grant writing talks about the power of title, headings, and subheadings.

It makes sense. They are like signposts helping to guide the busy reviewer trough the document. They indicate what will come next. But the most important advantage is often forgotten: It helps the writer to organize the writing. Most people do not make use of them.

The first thing I do when I edit a proposal is using headings and subheadings to structure the document for myself. It helps me to see the main parts, to make sense of the whole story and move sentences and paragraphs to the right place. It provides also a very quick and simple way to check if we have considered all criteria from the Request for Proposal.

So, what makes a good heading and subheading?

In its simplest form it is only a description of what is next like “Background”, “Methodology”, “Excellence”. A better way is to extend by a very short summary of what the section entails for example “Excellence – A new way to do xyz”. Again this prepares the reader for what will come. It also helps to refer and find passages when they discuss the proposals during a reviewer board meeting.

How many headings and subheadings do we need?

That depends on word and page limits, no simple answer. But for a typical grant a good rule of thumb is a main heading every 1-2 pages and 1-3 subheadings per page. More and it gets busy. I tend to put the main headings in bold and the subheadings in italic.

Words and expressions to avoid when writing a research grant proposal

Single post

Words and expressions to avoid when writing a research grant proposal

-“To the best of our knowledge”

Problem: Reviewer might think: “Do they know their field? What do they know anyway?” Better: Describe what you did to validate the statement. “We performed a literature search via abc / We searched in database abc with keywords xyz and found …”

-“if”, “may”, “might”, “could”

Problem: They express too much uncertainty. Better: Be clear and forward looking. “We will…”, “Our goal is…”

-Any superlatives “Our strong/interesting/clever…”

Problem: The reviewer might not agree with your statement. It will put them off. Better: Describe your idea/science/impact and the context and let the reviewer decide on its merits.

-Unnecessary adverbs “really”, “very”, “extremely”

Problem: They are just fill words and do not add much. Better: Avoid them.

5 reasons research grant proposals are rejected

Single post

5 reasons research grant proposals are rejected

It happens to everyone who has ever written a proposal for a competitive grant. Rejection is part of the game. Dealing with a rejected proposal is one of the hardest and most frustrating parts of the process. There are probably as many reasons for rejection as rejected proposals. Often good proposals fail. Bad luck is part of the game, but there is not much we can do about it.

However, there are of course some things we should and can avoid.

Here are my top 5:

1. Insufficient time allocated

Writing a good proposal is a big job. It takes time to develop ideas and relationships. Last-minute jobs hastily put together are usually not good and miss crucial components.

2. Did not follow the instructions

I am sure that a lot of applicants do not read the request for proposal and crucial documents properly. Often, they forget or misinterpret things.

3. The research idea is not good enough.

Comes also back to the first point. Developing a good idea involves screening literature, discussions and rechecking, reviewing and refining the proposal with colleagues. It takes time and should not be done in a hurry.

4. The need or narrative is not clear

A good bid needs a good overall narrative and clear description of the need. There are techniques to improve this. A quick good start is the for example a “Message box”. https://www.compassscicomm.org/the-message-box-workbook

5. It is a “fishing expedition”

Fishing expedition means that the proposed research is exploring rather than targeted: “Let’s try this and see what happens.” This often comes down to missing a research hypothesis.

The Science Board/Expert Panel and the decision making process – A few links

Single post

The Science Board/Expert Panel and the decision making process – A few links

The science board, committee, council or whatever it is called is an important part of every grant application process. Often, they make the funding decision independent of the funding body. The receive important input from the expert reviewer(s) but they make the final call.

It is important to understand the working mechanisms and factors influencing their decision. Knowing the nuts and bolts of the process can help you to write a better proposal.

Unfortunately, it seems like a black box to most applicants. I did some google research and found a few publications and an interesting little video providing a little bit more insight.

 A 15 min video of a mock National Institutes of Health grant panel (USA) is a good watch for your lunch break.

The one single thing to make your writing more engaging and alive

Single post

The one single thing to make your writing more engaging and alive

Amazingly simple: Use the active voice!

What is the active voice?

Active voice: I eat an apple.

Passive voice: An apple is eaten by me.

Test: If you are unsure and you can add “by zombies” it is the passive voice. It also reminds you that passive voice is a bit lifeless.

This recommendation is nothing new see Rule 14 in “Elements of Style” published in 1920. The Elements of Style was listed as one of the 100 most influential books by Time Magazine in its 2011 list.

Active Voice is also a good writing practice for journal publications. Have a look at the Nature research web page How to write your paper – Instructions for authors: “Nature journals prefer authors to write in the active voice (“we performed the experiment…”) as experience has shown that readers find concepts and results to be conveyed more clearly if written directly. “