grant proposal development system · design of a streamlined university grant proposal development...

Design of a Streamlined University Grant Proposal Development

System

PROPOSAL PROCESS ENHANCEMENT AND AUTOMATION G I S E L LE S O M B I TO, P R A N AV S I K K A , J E F F R E Y P R I N D L E , C H R I S T I A N Y I

FA C U LT Y A D V I S O R

D R . L A N C E S H E R RY

DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM 1

Agenda • Context Analysis

• Research Enterprise Analysis

• Proposal Development at George Mason and Stakeholders

• Proposal Development Process

• Problem Analysis

• Design Alternatives

• Design of Experiment and Simulation

• Results • Simulation Results

• Utility Analysis

• Sensitivity Analysis

• Cost Analysis

• Recommendations


Enterprise Stakeholders Motivations 1. Government Research

• Goal: Improve the quality of life

• Improving productivity through innovations and technological advancements

• Leveraging and involving universities and private companies allows for a broader pool of innovators

• “new and unsuspected phenomena are repeatedly uncovered by scientific research, and radical new theories have again and again been invented by scientists” [Kuhn, 1962]

• Progress through research

2. University Research

• Interests and goals are pursued alongside the government

• Research processes are followed

3. PI/Tenure Track

• Advancements in career

• Interests and goals are aligned with the University and the Government goals

DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM 3 Context: Research Enterprise Analysis

U.S. Government R&D Funding Competition is Increasing

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Grant Awards $623.06 $571.63 $543.90 $523.37 $603.51 $570.13

$500

$520

$540

$560

$580

$600

$620

$640

U.S. Government R&D Funding Trend (in billions of dollars)


Involves All Government Agencies Source: USASpending.gov

Context: Research Enterprise Analysis

Volgenau School of Engineering (VSE) Grant Submissions Focus

579

398

80 61 57 53 53

37 36 34 34 16 15 15 10 6

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Proposal Submissions by VSE (2010 – 2014)


Source: GMU Office of Sponsored Programs


Most proposal submissions

are to smaller agencies,

next is NSF.

GMU Grant Award Amounts



NSF ARMY IARPA OTHERS NAVY DARPA DOD NISTHOMELAN

DDOT NIH AIRFORCE NASA FAA DOE

Funding $19.1787 $10.1916 $9.4263 $7.6731 $6.8230 $6.7851 $4.8355 $3.0565 $2.5057 $2.1729 $1.8464 $0.9160 $0.8805 $0.7006 $0.0800

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

Funding Received from Agencies (2010 – 2014) (in Million $)


Proposal Performance



29.8%

54.0%

16.2%

VSE Proposal Performance (2010 – 2015)

Funded

Rejected

Pending


* Funded ≤ 25%

Agency Award Rates


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

NSF 23% 22% 24% 22% 23%

NIH 20% 18% 18% 17% 18%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Gra

nt

Aw

ard

Rate

s

Agency Grant Award Rates (NSF and NIH)

NSF NIH

2007 2008 2009

NASA 33% 30% 30%

29%

29%

30%

30%

31%

31%

32%

32%

33%

33%

34%

NASA Grant Award Rates

Source: National Science Foundation

Source: National Institute of Health

Source: NASA


NSF – only 23%

NIH – only 18%

NASA – only 30%

Agenda


• Context Analysis • Research Enterprise Analysis









• Cost Analysis

• Recommendations

Proposal Development Process

DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM 10 Context: Proposal Development Process Analysis

Process Summary Overall: ◦ 13 sub-processes

◦ 9 decision points

◦ Labor Intensive Tasks

◦ Non-technical related tasks

◦ Quality Related Tasks

◦ Intellectual labor tasks

DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM 11 Context: Proposal Development Process Analysis

Enhancing Labor Intensive Tasks


(6.2 Days) Significant amount of time spent on non-technical related tasks

Collaboration It is not always known to everyone which sections are

missing or what needs to be changed

Reuse of previous materials

• Document Preparation

• Biosketches

• Other General Document Requirements

(examples):

• Current & Pending

• Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form

Unnecessary iterations and

coordination problems

• Budget Revisions

• Iterative Process (As many as 10 times)

• Budget Justification

Context: Proposal Development at GMU

Sample Budget Justification

DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM 13 Context: Proposal Development at GMU

System Stakeholders Proposal Writers • Tenure Track Faculty

• Advancement in career

• Choosing the right grant to write for

• Technical proposal writing

• Intellectual content

• Project plan

• Invest time: 20 hours / week on research

Office of Sponsored Programs

(OSP)

• Main focus is compliance of proposals

• General requirements

• Announcement specific requirements

School

• Receive funding from grant awards Department


Which stakeholder receives the funding?


• 40% of the grant funding goes to

the PI for the research

• 60% goes to the University

including OSP to cover overhead

Indirect

Stakeholder Tension Diagram

DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM 16 Context: Proposal Development Stakeholders

Agenda











• Cost Analysis

• Recommendations

GMU Proposal Development Process


Proposal Process Statistics


Preparation Period

Distribution: Weibull

Expression: -0.001 + WEIB(20.8, 1.03)

Square Error: 0.002343

Review Period


Expression: -0.5 + WEIB(3.74, 0.914)


Arrival Rate

Distribution: Uniform

Expression: UNIF(992, 1170)



GMU Proposal Process Information

Overall Time

Formal Preparation Duration = 21 days*

• Includes 4-day Review Period

• 6.20 ± 3.71 days are spent on labor intensive tasks

Estimated

Overall Cost

Average Formal Preparation Investment

= $6,440 per proposal*

Overall Quality

54% are rejected

30%** are awarded

16% are pending


*may be larger depending on PI’s effort before the request for assistance

**based on data


System Gap

DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM 21 Context: System Gap and Causes

6.2 Days are spent on Labor Intensive Tasks

Agenda











• Cost Analysis

• Recommendations

Problem Statement

•Time investment = 20.745 ± 14.35 Days

• $6,440 ± $4,400

• Approx. at most $10,840

•Approximately 10%-30% of grant proposals that are submitted by George Mason University receive funding

•Grant proposals that do not get funding become losses to the proposal writer.

•Approximately $4.5M is lost per year

DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM 23 Problem: Problem Statement

Need Statement

There is an opportunity to improve the processing of non-technical portion of proposals in order to reduce costs, avoid

rework and duplicate effort, and reduce the investment losses.

DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM 24 Problem: Need Statement

There is a need to increase collaboration, improve coordination, reuse of previous materials, and reduce

unnecessary iterations

Proposal Process Problems and Solutions

DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM 25 Problem: System Problems and Vision

Improve in the process Solution Design Alternative

Labor

Intensive

Tasks

• Unnecessary Iterations

• Reuse of previous materials

• General and Administrative

Requirements

Identification/Templates

• Supplementary Documents

Templates

Database Management System

• Proper Communication between

parties involved Collaboration

Document Management and

Collaboration System

• Better distribution of time among

important tasks (i.e. more time on

technical proposal writing)

• Coordination

• Unnecessary Iterations

• Eliminate downtime

• Reduce Unnecessary Iterations

Proposal Tracking System

Document Management and


Intellectual

Labor

PI’s review hundreds of available

solicitations

Matching PI’s skills and

experiences with Solicitation Opportunity Management

System PI’s spend time building team Team Building

Mission Requirements


No. Requirement

MR.1.0 The system shall automate the manual tasks of the proposal

writing process

MR.2.0 The system shall increase the utilization of time allotted for

the technical proposal.

MR.3.0 The system shall increase the proposals complying with the 4-

day OSP review period by 10%.

MR.4.0 The system shall eliminate or reduce the average time spent

on budget preparation by 25%.

MR.5.0 The system shall eliminate or reduce the time spent on Labor

Intensive Tasks by 20%

Problem: Mission Requirements

Agenda











• Cost Analysis

• Recommendations

Design Alternatives


Alternative Alternative Name & Description

A Additional OSP GAs

B New Support Group

C Database Management System

• Database of Templates/Requirements

• Database of Previous Proposals

• Database of Users

D Document Management and Collaboration System

• Document Templates for a specific proposal

• Same documents

• Efficient Communication

• Linked Budget and Budget Justification

E Proposal Tracking System

F Opportunity Management System

• Matches PIs to Solicitations

Design Alternatives

System Functional Diagram

DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM 29 Design Alternatives

System Wireframes: Dashboard


System Wireframes: Document Template


System Wireframes: Budget


Value Hierarchy

DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM 33 Design Alternatives: Value Hierarchy

Depends on the deployment method

Agenda











• Cost Analysis

• Recommendations

Simulation Requirements

35 Design of Experiment: Simulation Requirements

No. Requirement

SR. 1 The simulation shall take in input of a solicitation.

SR. 2 The simulation shall assign parameters to the input that will

affect the results.

SR. 3 The simulation shall identify bottlenecks in the system

SR. 4 The simulation shall be run with 1000 replications

SR. 5 The simulation shall be run with a duration based on the

parameters of the input.

SR. 6 The simulation shall output time spent on the different sub

processes in the system.

Simulation Objective: To evaluate design alternatives

DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM

CPN Model

36 Design of Experiment: CPN Model DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM

Baseline Simulation Inputs


Preparation Period


Expression: -0.001 + WEIB(20.8, 1.03)


Review Period


Expression: -0.5 + WEIB(3.74, 0.914)


Arrival Rate

Distribution: Uniform

Expression: UNIF(992, 1170)


Design of Experiment: System Inputs

Baseline Information for Validation


Arrival Rate UNIFORM(992,1170)

Preparation Time (PT) -0.001+ WEIB(20.8,1.03)

Technical Proposal Writing 70%

Budget Preparation 15%

Document Gathering 10%

Formatting and General Req 5%

Review Time -0.5 + WEIB(3.74, 0.914)

Design of Experiment:mSystem Inputs

Simulation Validation

39 Design of Experiment: Baseline Validation

Sub-Processes Duration (𝜇) (days) Stdev (𝜎)

Total Preparation Time 20.715 14.35

Writing Time 14.557 13.306

Formatting/General Req. Time 1.033 0.990

Budget Preparation Time 3.091 2.982

Document Gathering Time 2.076 1.976

OSP Review Time 3.445 4.29

Internal OSP Deadline Reached 31%

95% CI for difference: (-2.11, 2.80)

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs ≠): T-Value = 0.28

P-Value = 0.783

Result: PASS

Total Preparation Time t-test

H0: No statistical significant difference in mean

HA: Statistical significant difference in mean

Difference = μ (t1) - μ (t2)

t1 = mean of the raw data obtained from the OSP

t2 = mean of total preparation time result of the simulation


Design of Experiment


Treatment Configuration Alternatives

A B C D E F

1 Baseline

2 A x

3 A, C x x

4 A, C, D x x x

5 A, C, D, E x x x x

6 A, C, D, E, F x x x x x

7 A, F x x

8 C, D x x

9 C, D, E x x x

10 C, D, E, F x x x x

11 C, E x x

12 F x

13 B x

14 B, C x x

15 B, C, D x x x

16 B, C, D, E x x x x

17 B, C, D, E, F x x x x x

18 B, F x x

Design of Experiment: Treatments

Alt Alternative Name


B New Support Group





Design of Experiment Treatments

Alternative

Efficiency Gain

Labor Intensive

Tasks

Quality Related

Tasks

A -10%

B -10%

C -10% +5%

D -20% +5%

E -15% +5%

F +20%




B New Support Group





Example:

Alternative E: Proposal Tracking System

Budget Time reduced by 10%

0.9*(0.15*(Weibull(20.8,1.05)))

Document Gathering reduced by 5%

0.95*(0.1(Weibull(20.8,1.05)))

Design of Experiment: Treatments

Agenda











• Cost Analysis

• Recommendations

Effects of Individual Design Alternatives




B New Support Group





-0.637

-0.487

-0.567

0.623

0.053

-0.7

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

A B C D E F

Time Saved on Labor Intensive Tasks (in Days)

D

E

S

I

R

E

D

Simulation Results: Alternatives

Time Spent on Labor Intensive Tasks


Two-sample T for Baseline vs Alternative D

H0: μ (Baseline) = μ (Alternative D)

HA: μ (Baseline) > μ (Alternative D)

Difference = μ (Baseline) - μ (Alternative D)

Estimate for difference: 0.620

90% lower bound for difference: 0.056

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = 1.42

P-Value = 0.080

Result: Pass


3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Time Saved -0.27 0.583 0.893 0.883 -0.64 0.583 0.573 1.333 0.653 -0.33 -0.51 -0.36 0.693 1.323 1.323 -0.51

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

Time Saved on Labor Intensive Tasks (Days)

Effects of DOE Treatments

45

Saves the most time:

Treatment 10

C, D, E, F

• 1.33 ± 2.848 days

• 21.49% to 66.95%

reduction in time

spent on labor

intensive tasks



B New Support Group





Simulation Results: Treatments DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM

D

E

S

I

R

E

D

Time Spent on Labor Intensive Tasks Baseline & Treatment 10


Two-sample T for Baseline vs Treatment 10

H0: μ (Baseline) = μ (Treatment 10)

HA: μ (Baseline) > μ (Treatment 10)

Difference = μ (Baseline) - μ (Treatment 10)

Estimate for difference: 1.264

95% lower bound for difference: 0.577

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = 3.08 P-Value = 0.002

Result: Pass

Simulation Results: Treatments

OSP 4-Day Review Period




B New Support Group





31

40 40 41

35

38

31

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Baseline A B C D E F

%

% of Proposal that Meet 4-Day Period D

E

S

I

R

E

D


OSP 4-Day Review Period




B New Support Group





35

30

35 35

40

32 30 30

44

31

40

37 38

35 35

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

%

Treatment

% of Proposal that Meet 4-Day Period

Treatment 11 – C, E D

E

S

I

R

E

D

Simulation Results: Treatments

Agenda











• Cost Analysis

• Recommendations

Utility Analysis of All Treatments PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTE OVERALL UTILITY


Treatment 10

• Database Mgmt System

• Document Mgmt &


• Proposal Tracking System

• Opportunity Mgmt System

• Mean Time Saved:1.33

days

Utility Analysis: All Treatments

Utility Analysis of Tech Alternatives PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTE OVERALL UTILITY


Treatment 10

• Database Mgmt System

• Document Mgmt & Collaboration System


• Opportunity Mgmt System

• Mean Time Saved: 1.33 Days



B New Support Group





Utility Analysis: Tech Treatments

Agenda











• Cost Analysis

• Recommendations

Sensitivity Analysis of Tech Alternatives COMPLIANCE PERFORMANCE


• As weight for compliance increases (≥ 0.27)

decision becomes Treatment 11:

• Database Management System


• As weight for performance decreases (≤ 0.27)

decision Treatment 11:

• Database Management System


Sensitivity Analysis

Agenda











• Cost Analysis

• Recommendations

Cost vs Utility


Vendor Annual

Cost

Alternatives

C D E F

Commercial

Off the Shelf

Product 1 $118,800.00 x x

Commercial

Off the Shelf

Product 1

2

$70,800.00 x x

Swiftgrant $192,000.00 x x x x



B New Support Group





0.686

0.648

0.727

0.64

0.65

0.66

0.67

0.68

0.69

0.7

0.71

0.72

0.73

0.74

$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000

Off the Shelf Product 1 Off the Shelf Product 2 Swiftgrant

Cost vs Utility Analysis

Agenda











• Cost Analysis

• Recommendations

Proposed System: Swiftgrant

SWIFTGRANT: Streamlined, Collaborative University Grant System

• Cloud-based grant proposal development system

• Includes maintenance/updates and training

• All functionality alternatives are applicable

DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM 57 Business Plan

Business Model

Basic Subscription Premium

Subscription

Premium Plus

Subscription

Database of Proposal Requirements* ✓ ✓ ✓

Database of Templates* ✓ ✓ ✓

Document Management and Repository ✓ ✓ ✓

Biosketch or CV Creator ✓ ✓ ✓

Collaboration Feature ✓ ✓ ✓

Solicitation Matching ✓ ✓

Capabilities Matching ✓

$120/mo/user $140/mo/user $160/mo/user

* - Five agencies will be provided

• Subscription Based

• Cost-Based Pricing

Business Plan DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM

Market Analysis and Opportunity


Market Value

Tier 1 Universities 200

Users/University x 100

Price per user per month x $160

Total Per Month $3,200,000

Annual Total Mkt Value $38,400,000

5th Year Market Share

5% $1,920,000

8.5% $3,264,000

10% $3,840,000

Market Penetration Est. Addt'l Annual Revenue

1% $384,000

2% $768,000

2.50% $960,000

Business Plan

-$750,000.00

$250,000.00

$1,250,000.00

$2,250,000.00

$3,250,000.00

$4,250,000.00

$5,250,000.00

0 1 2 3 4 5

Cumulative Cost Cumulative Revenue Cumulative Net Profit (Loss)

Break-even and ROI for 1% Penetration Rate

All are Premium Plus Subscriptions:

Break-even point is during Year 4

Yr Mkt Share ROI

1 0.50%

2 1.5%

3 2.5%

4 3.5%

5 5.0% 357%

• 1 University = 100 Users

Initial Investment

$272,000


-$1,000,000.00

-$500,000.00

$0.00

$500,000.00

$1,000,000.00

$1,500,000.00

$2,000,000.00

$2,500,000.00

$3,000,000.00

$3,500,000.00

$4,000,000.00

$4,500,000.00

$5,000,000.00

$5,500,000.00

0 1 2 3 4 5


All are Premium Plus Subscriptions:


Venture Capital Pitch Implement Swiftgrant, will reduce the time inefficiencies in the

process: • Treatment 10

• Saves approximately 1.33 ± 2.85 days on labor intensive tasks

• With the collaboration system won’t need the 4-day Review period

• 3.09 Days Average OSP 4-day Review Period

• Swiftgrant

• $192,000.00 Annual User Cost

• Initial Investment of $272,000

• 357% ROI on 5th Year with 1% Market Penetration Rate

• $969,945 Profit on Year 5

DESIGN OF A GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM 61 Business Plan

Business Case


Proposed System: SwiftGrant

SWIFTGRANT: Streamlined, Collaborative University Grant System

• Cloud-based grant proposal development system

• Includes maintenance/updates and training

• All functionality alternatives are applicable


Product Distribution Methods Basic

Subscription

Premium

Subscription

Premium Plus

Subscription

Database of Proposal Requirements* ✓ ✓ ✓

Database of Templates* ✓ ✓ ✓

Document Management and Repository ✓ ✓ ✓

Biosketch or CV Creator ✓ ✓ ✓

Collaboration Feature ✓ ✓ ✓

Solicitation Matching ✓ ✓

Capabilities Matching ✓

$120/mo/user $140/mo/user $160/mo/user

* - Five agencies will be provided

Market Analysis and Opportunity


Market Value

Tier 1 Universities 200

Users/University x 100

Price per User x $160

Total Per Month $3,200,000.00

Annual Total Mkt Value $38,400,000.00

5th Year Market Share

5% $1,920,000.00

8.5% $3,264,000.00

10% $3,840,000.00

Market Penetration Est. Addt'l Annual Revenue

1% $384,000.00

2% $768,000.00

2.50% $960,000.00

Initial Investment Cost

Initial Investment $272,000.00

Cost

Rent $60,000.00

Licenses & Fees $3,000.00

Testing $10,000.00

Legal and Consulting Fees $6,000.00

Equipment & Supplies $10,000.00

Research and Design $90,000.00

Development $108,000.00

Consultants $15,000.00

Advertising $30,000.00

Total Initial Investment $272,000.00

Recurring Costs Year 1 2 3 4 5

Rent $5,000.00 $5,250.00 $5,500.00 $5,750.00 $6,000.00

Utilities $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00

Salaries and Wages $33,000.00 $33,000.00 $34,650.00 $40,792.50 $40,792.50

Advertising $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $7,000.00

Insurance $1,000.00 $1,250.00 $1,500.00 $1,750.00 $2,000.00

Taxes $1,000.00 $1,250.00 $1,500.00 $1,750.00 $2,000.00

Cloud Fees $7,311.59 $7,311.59 $9,140.07 $9,140.07 $10,966.23

Consulting Fees $500.00 $550.00 $600.00 $650.00 $700.00

Accounting/Payroll Fees $400.00 $400.00 $500.00 $500.00 $600.00

Total (monthly) $54,711.59 $55,511.59 $61,390.07 $68,332.57 $72,558.73

Annual $656,539.08 $666,139.08 $736,680.84 $819,990.84 $870,704.76

Revenue Projections for ~ 1% Penetration

0 1 2 3 4 5

Basic $- $144,000.00 $576,000.00 $1,296,000.00 $2,304,000.00 $3,744,000.00

Premium $- $168,000.00 $672,000.00 $1,512,000.00 $2,688,000.00 $4,368,000.00

Premium Plus $- $192,000.00 $768,000.00 $1,728,000.00 $3,072,000.00 $4,992,000.00

-$500,000.00

$500,000.00

$1,500,000.00

$2,500,000.00

$3,500,000.00

$4,500,000.00

$5,500,000.00C

um

ula

tive R

evenue

-$1,000,000.00

$0.00

$1,000,000.00

$2,000,000.00

$3,000,000.00

$4,000,000.00

$5,000,000.00

0 1 2 3 4 5


Break-even and ROI for ~1% Penetration Rate

All are Premium Subscriptions:


Yr Mkt Share ROI

1 0.50%

2 1.5%

3 2.5%

4 3.5%

5 5.0% 121%

• 1 University = 100 Users

Initial Investment

$272,000

Agency Evaluation


Agency Evaluation


NSF NIH DARPA DOD NASA

All agencies evaluate the compliance to general and administrative guidelines (i.e. formatting, page limitations, documents)

Review Team is assembled after

proposals are submitted

Scientific Review Group is created

after the proposals are submitted

Review Team is

established before the

BAA is publicized

Merit Criteria:

Broader Impacts

Intellectual Merit

Qualification of Individual

Extent of activities suggest and

explore creative, original or

potentially transformative

concepts

Well reasoned, well organized

plans, and based on a sound

rationale

Adequacy of resources available

to the PI to conduct activities

Evaluation Criteria:

Overall Impact

Approach

Investigators

Significance

Environment Effects

Innovation

Evaluation criteria is

different for each

solicitation

(how advantageous the

research is to the

government)

Technical Rating Evaluation:

Technical and Risk

Rating

Technical Rating

Risk Rating

Evaluation Criteria:

70% of the overall score goes to

the Technical Evaluation

30% of the overall score goes to

the experiment safety evaluation

o includes the outreach plan

Budget is reviewed after the content is

reviewed

Two levels

Scored review criteria is

created on the first level

Percentile rankings are

created on the second level

Budget is reviewed after

the content is reviewed

Cost or Price Evaluation

Past Performance Confidence

Assessment

Context Materials


PI Trainers Companies that provide direction on proposal process such as

◦ Principle Investigators Association

◦ American Grant Writers Association

Their objective is to assist proposal writers on aspects of the proposal process that they are not familiar with.

They are a third party to the actual proposal process and therefore have no stake in the acceptance of a proposal other then potential marketing value if the proposal writers feel that their information led to their proposal being accepted.

Through their websites they offer information pack and online webinars that detail different aspects of the proposal process.

74

Professional Associations Association of Proposal Management Professionals (APMP)

Grant Professionals Association (GPA)

Mission and Goals:

Promote professional growth of its members

◦ Dedicated to winning business through proposals, bids, tenders and presentations

◦ Share best practices and trends in the field

Networking with different professionals

75

•COEUS •Grant management system designed by MIT

•Captures proposal information into database

•Budget estimation

•Proposal submission

• Input: Financial Information

•Output: Budget

76

Other Inefficiencies Inconsistent Approval Results

◦ PI does not have an idea of what the rubric is

◦ Who needs to approve?

OSP Approvals and Deadlines

◦ Approvals are done last minute

Proposal status is unknown

Unsolicited Proposals

◦ Proposal receipt is not checked or verified

No one is in charge of the whole system

◦ No governing body

77

Requirements


Functional Requirements FR 1.0 Dashboard Requirements

- The system shall provide a dashboard interface.

FR 2.0 Template Requirements

-The system shall provide for proposal templates

FR 3.0 Checklist of Requirements

-The system shall be able to provide a list of the components of the selected proposal.

FR 4.0 Progress Requirements

-The system shall track the progress of the fulfillment of proposal requirements.

FR 5.0 Collaboration Requirements

-The system shall allow multiple users to access, edit and monitor the proposal.

FR 6.0 Automatic Formatting Requirements

-The system shall format the document automatically based on the type of proposal selected

79

Functional Requirements FR 7.0 Document Management Requirements

- The system shall provide space for the proposal package.

FR 8.0 Opportunity Management Requirements

- The system shall allow users to match their qualifications to available opportunities.

FR 9.0 Security Requirements

- The system shall provide for a safe workspace for the PI and the GA.

FR 10.0 Database Requirements

- The system shall provide for a database of different content.

FR 11.0 Compatibility

- The system shall be compatible with different document and browser formats.

80

Design Requirements DR.1 The system shall have a homepage that will provide access to system functions.

DR.2 The system shall output documents in pdf and word.

DR.3.1 The system shall incorporate appropriate encryption.

DR.3.2 The system shall provide security for the user.

DR.4 The system shall be compatible with widely used web browsers.

DR.5 The system shall provide for error correction via an undo button.

81

Costs


Proposal Investment


$92,000.00

Weeks 30 $3,066.67

Days 5 $613.33

Effort 0.5 $306.67

Weeks 21 $6,440

Proposal Investment


Investment per proposal $3,864

Proposals per year 1,000 per year

Total Investment per year $3,864,000

Rejection Rate ~70%

Total Investment Lost $2,704,800

IDEF0s


External Systems

86

System Diagram

87

88

System Diagram

89

System Diagram

System Diagram

90

System Diagram

91

System Diagram

92

System Diagram

93

Budget Document Budget Justification

Simulation


Time Statistics


Arrival Rate UNIFORM(992,1170)

Preparation Time (PT) -0.001+ WEIB(20.8,1.03)

Technical Proposal Writing 70%

Budget Preparation 15%

Document Gathering 10%

Formatting and General Req 5%

Review Time -0.5 + WEIB(3.74, 0.914)

Design of Experiment: Simulation Statistics

Design Alternative Simulation Results

Alternative Total

Time

(days) 𝜎

Quality Labor Intensive Tasks Compliance

%

deadline Writing

Time

(days)

𝜎

Formatting

Time

(days)

𝜎

Doc

Gathering

(days)

𝜎

Budget

Preparation

(days)

𝜎

Total Labor

Intensive

Tasks

(days)

OSP

Review

Time

(days)

𝜎

Baseline 21.72 14.36 14.55 13.31 1.033 0.99 2.08 1.98 3.09 2.98 6.203 3.45 4.29 31

A 23.34 11.98 12.24 10.11 0.99 0.86 2.14 2.02 3.71 3.09 6.84 4.36 4.83 40

B 21.39 9.7 11.04 9.07 1.11 1.07 2.1 1.88 3.48 3.17 6.69 4.08 3.99 40

C 22.72 11.82 11.79 10.11 0.9 0.77 2.21 2.03 3.66 3.24 6.77 4.25 4.65 41

D 23.12 13.47 14.27 13.89 1.06 0.99 1.95 1.63 2.57 2.18 5.58 3.6 3.96 35

E 21.82 14.24 12.3 13.00 0.84 0.77 2.09 1.55 3.22 3.07 6.15 3.7 3.65 38

F 21.72 14.36 14.55 13.31 1.033 0.99 2.08 1.98 3.09 2.98 6.203 3.45 4.29 31


Good

Treatment Simulation Results

Treatment

Total

Time

(days)

𝜎


%

deadline Writing

Time

(days)

𝜎

Formatting

Time

(days)

𝜎

Doc

Gathering

(days)

𝜎

Budget

Preparation

(days)

𝜎

Total Labor

Intensive

Tasks

(days)

OSP

Review

Time

(days)

𝜎

Baseline 21.72 14.36 14.55 13.31 1.033 0.99 2.08 1.98 3.09 2.98 6.203 3.45 4.29 31

3 23.09 12.93 13.82 12.73 0.89 0.81 1.99 1.83 3.59 3.1 6.47 3.7 4.16 35

4 22.45 12.21 14.86 12.74 0.83 0.76 1.86 1.73 2.93 2.51 5.62 3.27 3.75 30

5 20.77 12.09 13.61 12.07 1.12 0.89 1.9 1.78 2.29 2.38 5.31 3.15 3.64 35

6 20.77 12.03 13.61 12.07 1.13 0.89 1.9 1.78 2.29 2.38 5.05 4.37 3.64 35

7 23.34 11.98 12.24 10.11 0.99 0.86 2.14 2.02 3.71 3.09 5.97 3.31 4.83 40

8 22.49 12.21 14.86 12.74 0.83 0.76 1.86 1.72 2.93 2.51 5.62 3.09 3.76 32

9 21.09 11.78 12.86 11.21 1.04 0.99 1.98 1.92 2.61 2.46 5.63 3.09 3.17 30

10 22.75 15.81 18.29 15.56 0.94 1.08 1.86 1.65 2.07 2.04 4.87 4.45 3.62 29

11 23.89 12.85 13.69 12.36 0.9 0.92 1.88 1.83 2.77 2.32 5.55 3.99 4.56 44

12 24.16 15.81 14.79 15.56 1.01 1.08 2.13 1.65 3.39 2.04 6.53 4.08 3.62 31

13 21.39 9.7 11.04 9.07 1.12 1.06 2.1 1.87 3.49 3.17 6.71 3.59 4 40

14 21.11 10.1 11.57 10.68 0.95 0.89 1.87 1.82 3.74 2.66 6.56 4.04 4.25 37

15 21.73 12.96 12.51 10.29 0.95 0.85 1.55 1.21 3.01 2.68 5.51 3.99 4.49 38

16 20.94 11.14 12.74 11.52 0.89 0.9 1.49 1.45 2.5 1.95 4.88 3.89 4.55 35

17 20.94 11.14 12.74 11.52 0.89 0.9 1.49 1.45 2.5 1.95 4.88 3.89 4.55 35

18 21.39 9.7 11.04 9.07 1.12 1.06 2.1 1.87 3.49 3.17 6.71 3.59 4 40


Good

Treatment Simulation Results

Treatment

Total

Time

(days)

𝜎


%

deadline Writing

Time

(days)

𝜎

Format

Time

(days)

𝜎

Doc

Gathering

(days)

𝜎 Budget Prep

(days) 𝜎

%

Dec/Inc

Total

Labor

Intensive

Tasks

(days)

OSP

Review

Time

𝜎

Baseline 21.72 14.36 14.55 13.31 1.033 0.99 2.08 1.98 3.09 2.98 6.203 3.45 4.29 31

3 23.09 12.93 13.82 12.73 0.89 0.81 1.99 1.83 3.59 3.1 -16.18% 6.47 3.7 4.16 35

4 22.45 12.21 14.86 12.74 0.83 0.76 1.86 1.73 2.93 2.51 5.18% 5.62 3.27 3.75 30

5 20.77 12.09 13.61 12.07 1.12 0.89 1.9 1.78 2.29 2.38 25.89% 5.31 3.15 3.64 35

6 20.77 12.03 13.61 12.07 1.13 0.89 1.9 1.78 2.29 2.38 25.89% 5.05 4.37 3.64 35

7 23.34 11.98 12.24 10.11 0.99 0.86 2.14 2.02 3.71 3.09 -20.06% 5.97 3.31 4.83 40

8 22.49 12.21 14.86 12.74 0.83 0.76 1.86 1.72 2.93 2.51 5.18% 5.62 3.09 3.76 32

9 21.09 11.78 12.86 11.21 1.04 0.99 1.98 1.92 2.61 2.46 15.53% 5.63 3.09 3.17 30

10 22.75 15.81 18.29 15.56 0.94 1.08 1.86 1.65 2.07 2.04 33.01% 4.87 4.45 3.62 29

11 23.89 12.85 13.69 12.36 0.9 0.92 1.88 1.83 2.77 2.32 10.36% 5.55 3.99 4.56 44

12 24.16 15.81 14.79 15.56 1.01 1.08 2.13 1.65 3.39 2.04 -9.71% 6.53 4.08 3.62 31

13 21.39 9.7 11.04 9.07 1.12 1.06 2.1 1.87 3.49 3.17 -12.94% 6.71 3.59 4 40

14 21.11 10.1 11.57 10.68 0.95 0.89 1.87 1.82 3.74 2.66 -21.04% 6.56 4.04 4.25 37

15 21.73 12.96 12.51 10.29 0.95 0.85 1.55 1.21 3.01 2.68 2.59% 5.51 3.99 4.49 38

16 20.94 11.14 12.74 11.52 0.89 0.9 1.49 1.45 2.5 1.95 19.09% 4.88 3.89 4.55 35

17 20.94 11.14 12.74 11.52 0.89 0.9 1.49 1.45 2.5 1.95 19.09% 4.88 3.89 4.55 35

18 21.39 9.7 11.04 9.07 1.12 1.06 2.1 1.87 3.49 3.17 -12.94% 6.71 3.59 4 40


Good