SBIR Proposal Writing Basics: Explain Yourself
Gail & Jim Greenwood, Greenwood Consulting Group, Inc.
Copyright © 2008 by Greenwood Consulting Group, Inc.

Whether it's a Phase 1 or 2 proposal, the first section of the SBIR/STTR proposal typically is called something like "identification and significance of the problem or opportunity." This is a great opportunity to get the reviewer excited about and committed to your project. Unfortunately, most proposers blow that opportunity.

According to JoAnne Goodnight, the SBIR/STTR Program Manager for National Institutes of Health, "It doesn't matter how good the approach is, how innovative the idea is, how great the PI/team is, or how excellent the research facilities are if what you are proposing lacks significance or has no relevance to our mission of improving human health."

Given that, let's talk this month about what ought to be discussed in the significance section, and what too many proposers do instead.

We refer to the significance as the "so what" issue. Okay, there's a problem, and you have an innovative solution and you have the resources to see if that solution will work, but "so what" if it works? What benefit comes from it? Why should anyone care? Why should a reviewer choose this project over others? And why should taxpayer dollars support this effort?

Significance can come in several forms.

Personally, we like the social significance: if your innovation works and solves the problem, how does that make the world a better place? Who benefits? Who can lead a happier, more productive life? How will this make America more competitive? How will it reduce hunger or ignorance or addiction?

Another form of significance is research significance. If your innovation works, how does this enable others to make scientific advancements or breakthroughs? Does it give other researchers an important tool, or does it answer a question that other scientists or engineers need answered so they can make other advancements?

A third form of significance might be national significance. As an example, a proposer came to us with an innovation that he believed would encourage American companies to move their customer service functions BACK to the States from foreign countries. And certainly innovations that reduce energy consumption, or increase domestic energy sources, could be seen in today's environment as "significant" to the American economy and our world competitiveness.

Yet another form of significance is personal significance. We've seen several proposals where the proposer has a burning personal desire to solve a problem, perhaps because it is a disease that affects their child. This type of significance can be very compelling, but it is critical that the PI and team be technically qualified to perform the proposed SBIR/STTR project (i.e., they won't fund a parent's company, no matter how dedicated to the cause, if that company isn't technically qualified to do the research).

In addition to the basic form of significance, this section of the proposal also needs to address importance to the agency receiving your proposal. Note again Ms. Goodnight's comment: "..relevance to our mission of improving human health." It isn't good enough to be significant: the innovation has to be significant given the agency's purpose, mission, or priority. A few months ago, we saw a proposal going to Department of Defense where there was some relevance to the military, but the REAL significance, at least in terms of what the proposer emphasized, was to the gaming industry. DOD has serious problems and needs, and if a proposal looks like it could only peripherally benefit the warfighter and/or the company seems focused on the non-military application, then they will likely pass over that proposal.

Therefore, you need to clearly state the significance of the project, and why it is something that should be significant, or important, to the agency to which you are applying.

We said early on in this article that many proposers blow the significance section of their proposal. Here are some common misteaks we've seen:

• One proposer wrote that they were addressing "a potential problem." The agencies see more real problems than they can afford to fund, so why would they waste money on a potential one?
  
  
• Many proposers assume that the reader can figure out the significance. They are too busy droning on, page after page after page, on all the technical details and nuances, to take a paragraph or two to explain the significance. Unfortunately, many reviewers do no have time to figure it out, or conclude you can't think it is very significant if you don't talk about it
  
  
• Many proposal writers submitting to DOD simply regurgitate, word for word, the way the topic author wrote up the problem in the solicitation. But does just restating words show understanding of the significance of the problem? We don't think so. Understanding is better demonstrated by paraphrasing the problem, or "putting it into your own words."
  
  
• Finally, some proposers go for the "throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks" approach. They introduce a half dozen things that might be significant, and not really elaborate on any of them. They are hoping they will say SOMETHING that resonates with the reviewer; instead, the reviewer sees a lack of focus.

This section of the SBIR/STTR proposal is known as the significance section, and it is aptly named: this is where you "grab" the reviewer and get them interested in what your innovation could mean to the agency and the world. Recognize its importance, and give plenty of thought to what you will say, and then carefully craft the text.