Elevating Your Grant Proposal
Lessons from a $25M Journey, or: What murder mysteries can teach us about proposal writing
You're at the threshold of an exciting proposal competition. You've meticulously read the call for proposals, you are sure that your innovative idea addresses the identified problem, and you can meet all the compliance and budget requirements. But the looming question is: how do you write a winning narrative?
As someone who has navigated the world of proposal writing for entities like the Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, various philanthropies, and commercial clients, amassing over $25 million in winning proposals, as well as having served on many proposal review panels, I've learned some valuable lessons worth sharing.
Writing a winning proposal is a complex task. Reviewers, often overwhelmed by the volume of submissions, look for reasons to narrow down the pile. They have limited time per proposal, which means they might not grasp the full depth of your proposal's nuances.
This means that your narrative needs to clearly stand out to the entire review committee–and, in the best case, result in a champion among them (hopefully including the program officer!).
First, let me point out what to avoid: do not go into the proposal thinking you should describe every possible thing that you might be able to do, enumerating all the interesting questions you might be able to investigate. This “kid in a candy store” approach is not a winning strategy. You will dilute your main message, and give your reviewers the impression that you don’t have the focus to run a successful project (editorial note: they will be correct!).
Instead, invest the time pinpointing the single most critical need your project addresses. No matter how revolutionary or innovative your ideas or methods are, they must solve a pressing and significant need to gain traction with reviewers. Don't mistake the general problem statement in the RFP for your specific need: While the RFP may be written as though as though the need is predetermined (e.g. the We need to increase Algebra achievement or increase literacy), you need to drill down into the underlying issue (e.g. the lack of high quality materials; the need for different professional development, etc.). If you are unsure if your need is precise enough, it may help to engage in root cause analysis, such as the “five whys”. A sharply defined, insightful need is your key to capturing reviewer interest.
Don’t trust yourself to articulate this need in a way that the reviewers will find compelling: Engage with a broad spectrum of individuals to refine and validate the need. This collaborative approach will ensure that your need resonates not just with you, but with a wider audience.
Once you've identified this need, clarify your approach to addressing it. This approach should directly address your specific need in a way that is innovative, unique, addresses known risks, and has clear benefits. It should also be easily comprehensible to your reviewers. Again, do not trust yourself to articulate your approach in a compelling manner. You should once more seek diverse opinions, listen attentively, and integrate feedback.
Now that you have a well-defined need and a robust approach, it's time to craft a narrative that compels your reviewers to advocate for your proposal. Your writing should be engaging, leading readers to the logical conclusion that your solution is the best fit. It should also underscore the uniqueness and non-obvious nature of your solution.
Perhaps surprisingly, there is a popular and compelling genre of narrative that meets these requirements, and that many proposal writers seem to gravitate to: the murder mystery. In a murder mystery there’s a problem (someone was killed; akin to the RFP problem statement); a need (finding the killer; your specific need); a mystery (how to find the clues that link the killer to the crime; what is an approach that will address the need); and a resolution (finding the killer; how implementing your approach will address your need and accrue concomitant benefits).
Importantly, there are two sub-genres of the murder mystery: one is the “whodunit”, exemplified by “Murder She Wrote” or, more recently, “Only Murders in the Building”. In this sub-genre the solution to the mystery remains elusive until the very end. Only after several dead-ends are pursued (in proposals, this typically involves bringing the reader along a detailed explanation of why existing approaches don’t work), there is the big “reveal” in which the mystery is solved. The goal of this sub-genre is to keep the reader interested by having them surprised at the twists and turns taken by following these dead-ends, with the ultimate surprise being the revelation of the murderer (or, when proposal writing, the innovative approach).
Spoiler alert: reviewers hate this.
Why? Reviewers consider themselves smart and well-informed experts. They don’t want to be surprised by a series of twists and turns followed by a “big reveal”. They want to nod along as they read, thinking that they are your confidant as you expertly walk them through the act of addressing the problem, based on your identified need, using your unique approach.
The other murder mystery sub-genre captures these elements: the “howcatchem”, exemplified by “Columbo” or, more recently, “Poker Face”.
In this version of the murder mystery the details of the crime, including the identify of the culprit, is down from the beginning. There is no “big reveal”. The intrigue lies in methodically and logically piecing together the specific, individual components of the mystery in an elegant, logical, and irrefutable manner. Along the way we see why current thinking (e.g. clues linked to the obvious, but incorrect suspect; current approaches) does not adequately address the need: but the viewer (or reader) already knows this! The reviewer feels that they are your knowledgeable confidant, who at the end of the narrative is not surprised, but is impressed by your (and their!) ability to put the pieces together in such a compelling way. By the end of the narrative it is clear that your specific need is the way to address the problem, and your specific solution is the only logical way to address that need!
So remember: in the competitive world of grant proposals, your narrative is more than just a description; it's a strategic tool that transforms your idea into a compelling story. By focusing on a specific, critical need and presenting a clear, innovative solution, you engage reviewers as partners in your vision. In the end reviewers should realize that your proposal is not just another submission, but a path to meaningful impact.
