The budget is really one of the most essential parts of the proposal if you are involved in a project that is going to cost upwards of thousands of dollars. I think it should be the second thing that you do after you have a good handle of the methodology. In many respects, the methodology and budget will reveal if you are capable of carrying out the project. It will show you if you have the proper equipment, enough man-power to follow through, and have decided to use the funds properly.
The issue of indirect costs can be confusing. That is something that I am just beginning to get a handle on, even though I'm not even sure I understand it fully (yay Virginia's spreadsheets! =) The few times I have done budgets I have been fortunate enough to have templates in spreadsheets from which to work that automatically calculate the costs. It is amazing how many details you have to consider when you sit down to do a budget. If you do not think of it before you submit the proposal, you've missed your opportunity, so it is important to think long and hard before finalizing a budget.
Finally, not really discussed, is that some proposals may last a couple of years and you have to consider inflation rates in order to make sure that you budget enough. If you're not familiar with constructing budgets, I highly recommend you consult someone who is your first few attempts. They can be tricky and they are a very critical piece to the proposal.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Bio
Because my blog insists on being fussy for the moment, I'm temporarily going to put my bio here until it decides to behave and allow me to put it in the "About Me" section.
Katie Goergen
B.A., English, Clemson University
M.A., Professional Communication, Clemson University, Candidate
Katie Goergen
B.A., English, Clemson University
M.A., Professional Communication, Clemson University, Candidate
In the course of my studies I have focused most of my attention on proposal writing. I have conducted a usability test that examines this process as a birth-to-death cycle beginning with the creation of the Request For Proposal (RFP) to the eventual acceptance/rejection of the proposal itself. I have worked with a number of different faculty and grant officers within the university to continue building upon this knowledge to better understand the components necessary to write a winning proposal.
Along with this vested interest in proposal writing, I also have experience creating websites and creating and implementing university programs. While at Clemson, I have participated in a number of faculty’s funded research programs such as the Freshman Alcohol Awareness program, and the Community Coalition research program in which Clemson is working to assist and collaborate with local community coalitions to work towards a healthier community. I assisted in creating and conducting the Research Training Program which is coordinated through Clemson and Voorhees College. In regards to websites, I helped design and currently maintain the department of Public Health Sciences website.
Week 3: Post 8, Progress Report 2
Date: 05-June 2008
To: Dr. Jan Holmevick
From: Katie Goergen
Introduction
A usability test of the Office of Sponsored Programs website and the Limited Submission Program will be conducted in order better understand how users use these tools. This study will reveal usability flaws and provide recommendations forboth of these interfaces which will in effect improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the pre-award submission phase at Clemson University.
Work Completed
Thus far I have the majority of my proposal drafted as the introduction, current situation, and project plan are currently constructed. I spoke with Karen (POC) yesterday and there has been a slight change due to budetary issues. I am now vieing for an assistantship in the Office of Sponsored Programs for the fall semester. What I am battling is the $6000 requested for equipment to complete the study. This $6000 would cover the software program Morae, a laptop on which to install it, a web camera, and a license for Adobe Premiere. Well, risk losing the chance for an assistantship, as much as I would like to use Morae, I'm thinking I can benefit more from the work experience than a program I can read up on and view tutorials online. Besides, Morae is really not the wave of the future in the field of eye-tracking. It's the TOBE eye-tracking system that is currently possible and which is still very expensive (approx. $25,000) and still has technical problems that need to be worked out. So, risk losing the opportunity for an assistantship through the Office of Sponsored Programs, I opted to nix equipment that is not necessary to complete the study. This will not effect my study in anyway as proof from the last study in which I did not use any of that equipment and it still yielded valid and reliable data. But, I am getting closer to getting approval to conduct the usability test. Should have an answer within the next week or two.
Next Steps
I need to now sit down and begin refining my draft and constructing a more formal and finalized version. As I do this, I also need to consider the methodology in regards to eliminating the use of Morae. Again, in place of Morae, I will rely on field notes, video-taping, direct-observation, and talk-aloud protocol, so as you see, it is not a detrimental to remove the Morae component. I need to whittle down my current situation so that I do not exceed the page limit, as well as follow Ron's advice and be sure to separate the more "active" components of the current situation and perhaps apply them to the methodology or even conclusion in identifying future steps. So, by Monday, I will have a complete draft of the entire proposal.
In completing this draft I want to first focus on the current situation and get that down to a reasonable page limit, and then I want to focus closely on the methodology. I feel as though I have identified the major steps and maybe start working on those smaller components, such as the instruments (but that may be a little too much, we'll see). Finally, once these parts are written, I think finally, I will have a very clear idea and understanding of what I am trying to accomplish and I will go back and re-write my executive summary to reflect this.
Conclusion
I am starting to get excited over the prospect of this actually coming to fruition. If the short one page proposal I have submitted to Dr. Gallicciho and Dr. Prizrembel is rejected, I need to start from scratch with this. That's OK, it wouldn't be the end of the world, I do have another idea lined up as a back-up, but still, I would really like to see this happen. As of now, I am going to keep working on this proposal and hoping for the best =)
To: Dr. Jan Holmevick
From: Katie Goergen
Introduction
A usability test of the Office of Sponsored Programs website and the Limited Submission Program will be conducted in order better understand how users use these tools. This study will reveal usability flaws and provide recommendations forboth of these interfaces which will in effect improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the pre-award submission phase at Clemson University.
Work Completed
Thus far I have the majority of my proposal drafted as the introduction, current situation, and project plan are currently constructed. I spoke with Karen (POC) yesterday and there has been a slight change due to budetary issues. I am now vieing for an assistantship in the Office of Sponsored Programs for the fall semester. What I am battling is the $6000 requested for equipment to complete the study. This $6000 would cover the software program Morae, a laptop on which to install it, a web camera, and a license for Adobe Premiere. Well, risk losing the chance for an assistantship, as much as I would like to use Morae, I'm thinking I can benefit more from the work experience than a program I can read up on and view tutorials online. Besides, Morae is really not the wave of the future in the field of eye-tracking. It's the TOBE eye-tracking system that is currently possible and which is still very expensive (approx. $25,000) and still has technical problems that need to be worked out. So, risk losing the opportunity for an assistantship through the Office of Sponsored Programs, I opted to nix equipment that is not necessary to complete the study. This will not effect my study in anyway as proof from the last study in which I did not use any of that equipment and it still yielded valid and reliable data. But, I am getting closer to getting approval to conduct the usability test. Should have an answer within the next week or two.
Next Steps
I need to now sit down and begin refining my draft and constructing a more formal and finalized version. As I do this, I also need to consider the methodology in regards to eliminating the use of Morae. Again, in place of Morae, I will rely on field notes, video-taping, direct-observation, and talk-aloud protocol, so as you see, it is not a detrimental to remove the Morae component. I need to whittle down my current situation so that I do not exceed the page limit, as well as follow Ron's advice and be sure to separate the more "active" components of the current situation and perhaps apply them to the methodology or even conclusion in identifying future steps. So, by Monday, I will have a complete draft of the entire proposal.
In completing this draft I want to first focus on the current situation and get that down to a reasonable page limit, and then I want to focus closely on the methodology. I feel as though I have identified the major steps and maybe start working on those smaller components, such as the instruments (but that may be a little too much, we'll see). Finally, once these parts are written, I think finally, I will have a very clear idea and understanding of what I am trying to accomplish and I will go back and re-write my executive summary to reflect this.
Conclusion
I am starting to get excited over the prospect of this actually coming to fruition. If the short one page proposal I have submitted to Dr. Gallicciho and Dr. Prizrembel is rejected, I need to start from scratch with this. That's OK, it wouldn't be the end of the world, I do have another idea lined up as a back-up, but still, I would really like to see this happen. As of now, I am going to keep working on this proposal and hoping for the best =)
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Week 3, Post 7: Chapter 7
Repetition, repetition, repetition. It may sound a little crazy and a little condescending for your audience if you are being so repetitive, but it does work. Reviewers are often busy and have a large volume of proposals to read, and as we've discussed in class, some can be very short while others can be quite long and extensive. Regardless, you want to remind your reviewers of your purpose throughout so that they do not forget. This is why the beginning and conclusion are framed in the same fashion.
The transitions are so vital. You can assume that most reviewers are probably skimming your proposal so use some common transitional words that will alert them and guide them through the proposal. This comes full circle to the importance of repetition because after they are alerted of the transition the next section should continue to build or reiterate your purpose.
Looking to the future and providing your audience with reasons as to how your proposal will benefit them later is essential. It also again, reiterates the purpose of your proposal. You're not just trying to solve a singular issue or problem, but you're offering possible future solutions, or rather, relaying the benefits.
The transitions are so vital. You can assume that most reviewers are probably skimming your proposal so use some common transitional words that will alert them and guide them through the proposal. This comes full circle to the importance of repetition because after they are alerted of the transition the next section should continue to build or reiterate your purpose.
Looking to the future and providing your audience with reasons as to how your proposal will benefit them later is essential. It also again, reiterates the purpose of your proposal. You're not just trying to solve a singular issue or problem, but you're offering possible future solutions, or rather, relaying the benefits.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Week 3, Post 6: Chapter 6
The qualifications section can be tricky to write because there is a fine line between telling the reviewers what you want them to know and what they need to know. With that also comes the problem of sounding pompous and selling yourself short. I think the best way to establish trust is to first initiate contact with the program officer. Do not let the first a funder ever even learns of your existence be your proposal. Initiate contact from the beginning in order to show that you have a vested interst in this opportunity. Obviously have a reason for establishing contact, but more times than not, it is a good habit to form.
There are some instances when an actual narrative is not required, but a biographical sketch is. And it is that, a very brief synopsis about how and why you're qualified, such as a condensed vitae. Some of these can be very short, no more than 2-4 pages for example. The point is, is that any information you include had better be pertinent and pertain directly to that opportunity to show how you are properly qualified.
Avoid the boilerplate at all costs. You would not have a generic resume to send out, you have different versions of a resume in order to curtail it to the appropriate organization. It is the same thing here. Boilerplates fail because you cannot portray yourself as unique. If you have a "one size fits all" mentality, you're going to be lumped together with everyone else. The key is to find a way to stand out, or at the very least, prove that you have the credentials to carry out your proposal.
There are some instances when an actual narrative is not required, but a biographical sketch is. And it is that, a very brief synopsis about how and why you're qualified, such as a condensed vitae. Some of these can be very short, no more than 2-4 pages for example. The point is, is that any information you include had better be pertinent and pertain directly to that opportunity to show how you are properly qualified.
Avoid the boilerplate at all costs. You would not have a generic resume to send out, you have different versions of a resume in order to curtail it to the appropriate organization. It is the same thing here. Boilerplates fail because you cannot portray yourself as unique. If you have a "one size fits all" mentality, you're going to be lumped together with everyone else. The key is to find a way to stand out, or at the very least, prove that you have the credentials to carry out your proposal.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Week 3, Post 5: Project Plan Draft
Project Plan
Write a recommendation report based on the results of the usability study in order to assist in creating a more effective and efficient Office of Sponsored Programs website and Limited Submission Program.Step One: Associate Research Deans, Committee, and IRB approve proposal
Step Two: Create Instruments for study
Step Three: Preparing to conduct usability study
- URGC reviewers who used Limited Submission Program
- Clemson faculty and staff
- Recruit through word of mouth, email invitation, and phone calls
- Digital video camera, tripod, blue tooth recorder, headphones
- Morae software
- Adobe Premire for creating highlight reels
Step Four: Conduct Usability Test
Step Five: Analyze data and create recommendation report
Methodology
In conducting a usability test of the Limited Submission Program, this will require the perspective of both the reviewers and authors. To collect this data, pre- and post- test interviews, direct observation, and a read-aloud protocol that is video recorded would be the best means of data collection.
A thorough usability test of the Limited Submission Program would include using those data collection methods listed above with the proposal authors and the reviewers. The pre- and post-interviews will yield perceptions, opinions and suggestions on behalf of the participants. This kind of information proves useful in making recommendations and changes to the writing and reviewing process completed internally at
To conduct the actual usability test, the software Morae would be used. An eye-tracking device that calculates, graphs, and codes usability measurements, this software automatically records the session and allows the researcher to code the information in real-time. The advantages of this software include that it is easy to use; it will give a true account of using an online program such as the Limited Submission Program; and problems and challenges that are encountered while using the Limited Submission Program will be captured, recorded, coded and compared to other users ‘experiences.
The purpose of this usability test is to improve the efficiency and ease of use of the Limited Submission Program. In doing so, it becomes more cost effective in regards to authors and reviewers time if they are able to maneuver through the process quickly.
October - defend
(Maybe too optimistic. It is kind of dependent if it even gets approved by Gallichio in the first place)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)