SBIR Proposal Writing Basics: Reviewers on Ice
Gail
& Jim Greenwood,
Copyright © 2006 by
Like
many of you, we spent a lot of time the past month watching the Winter Olympics.
We noticed that it took no fewer than four commentators to cover the
figure skating competitions. We also
noticed that those commentators reminded us a lot of how SBIR/STTR proposals are
reviewed by the agencies. Let us
explain…
There
are strict criteria about how to score a figure skater, and therefore who wins
and who loses. Despite those strict
criteria, the commentators were all over the map in terms of what was of
interest or concern to them. Some
simply reported the action. Others
seemed more focused on the technical issues, while others sought aesthetically
pleasing performances. Some seemed
stodgy, making us wonder why they even wanted to watch the skaters, while others
got so excited that they could hardly maintain their composure.
Some seemed to look for the slightest mistake, while others showed
forgiveness, especially for their thinly disguised favorite skaters.
So
what do these figure skating commentators have in common with those folks who
review SBIR/STTR proposals for the agencies?
A lot, we think. The
reviewers have a set of criteria (found in the agency’s solicitation) by which
they are to judge SBIR/STTR proposals. Despite
this, they show tremendous differences in what they look for and what they
disdain in a proposal. Some simply
report the action: they oversee the other reviewers, seeking concurrence and
compromise among them. Others are
very focused on the technology, while others seek the most innovative ideas,
while others put their priority on commercial potential.
Some seem only remotely interested in what is being proposed, while
others get excited about new innovations and technologies.
Some offer genuine and constructive criticism, while others seem to have
their favorites and biases.
The
bottom line is that SBIR and STTR are programs in which humanoids, in all their
glory and imperfections, make decisions on who wins and loses, and why.
Because each reviewer is a unique and complex person, it is futile to
expect to always know what will appeal to a reviewer and what will turn him or
her off. Therefore, avoid like the
plague anyone who tells you they have discovered “the” key to success in
SBIR/STTR because that means they are ignoring the often unpredictable human
factor.
We
suggest you do the following:
First,
take every opportunity to get to know your topic author, agency representatives,
and others who might be able to shed some light onto the preferences and
peculiarities relative to an SBIR/STTR proposal.
These folks may be the reviewers who select winners, or they may be able
to offer some insights into the people who are the reviewers.
Second,
read the selection criteria in the SBIR/STTR solicitation for your agency, and
make it clear in your proposal how you meet (or, better yet, exceed) each
criterion.
Third,
avoid any sort of remark that might be taken as inflammatory by a reviewer.
Don’t talk about the dysfunctional health care system if you are
writing to NIH, and don’t talk about replacing an inefficient and half-baked
computer system at DOD. Similarly,
do not be overly negative in your assessment of what research others have done,
including those deemed to have contributed to the state-of-the-art.
Murphy’s Law of SBIR/STTR Proposal Writing says that anyone you
chastise in your proposal will be on your review panel.
Fourth,
don’t use a cookie-cutter approach to your SBIR/STTR proposals.
Each proposal should be customized to the agency to which it is being
submitted, and customized to the reviewers who will critique and rate it.
Fifth,
never try to lobby reviewers during the proposal review period.
This is considered to be in VERY bad taste in the SBIR/STTR programs.
However, you might ask if an agency representative can shed light on the
background (experience, education) of the reviewers so that you can tailor the
level of presentation in your proposal accordingly.
NEVER suggest that you want to know the name or other personal
information about a reviewer.
Sixth,
always get a debriefing after winners have been selected.
The debriefing can help you learn what to do differently next time.
And, if there is an opportunity to resubmit the proposal, the debriefing
remarks may give you insight into what the reviewer wants you to change.
Remember, these reviewers are humanoids, so be understanding if they view
the world a bit differently than you do.