Good idea, poor outline? 5 tips for compelling funding applications

Anyone working in research and development (R&D) is familiar with the dilemma: groundbreaking technologies and sustainable innovations require substantial investment and also entail significant technological and financial risks. Public funding schemes – such as the BMWE’s funding guideline Industrial Bioeconomy – are the ideal tool here for mitigating risks and accelerating the transfer from TRL 6 to widespread industrial application.

But the hurdles are high: competition for funding is fierce, and the assessors at the funding agency review dozens of project outlines every week. As a consultant, I regularly assist companies and research institutions with their funding applications. From my day-to-day experience, I know that applications rarely fail due to a lack of engineering expertise – but rather because of technical errors in the drafting of the proposals.

Based on practical experience with funding calls, five key success factors can be identified which you should definitely bear in mind when making your next submission:

1. The ‘fit’ effect: Explain, right from the first sentence, why you’re the right person for the job

Applicants naturally tend to interpret the funding guidelines through the lens of their own idea – along the lines of: “If it doesn’t fit, make it fit.” In times of intense competition, however, this approach is hardly effective anymore.
From the very first sentence, ensure your project is firmly anchored in the programme’s funding objectives and overarching strategies (such as the National Bioeconomy Strategy). Describe the subject of the funding with crystal-clear precision and objectively assess why your project fits into which component – from process development (Component A) through plant design (Component B) and plant construction (Component C) right through to innovation clusters (Component D). An objective outside perspective helps to guard against wishful thinking here.

2. State of the art vs. innovation: Demonstrate the true level of innovation

The term ‘innovative’ is used far too loosely these days. However, the Industrial Bioeconomy programme does not fund run-of-the-mill developments; instead, it specifically supports the high-risk final 20 to 30 per cent of the journey to market readiness.

• Research shows: A thorough technology and patent search (Freedom to Operate) is essential to ensure differentiation from existing approaches.

• Quantify the impact: Use measurable evidence. In the industrial bioeconomy, this includes, for example, evidence of greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions compared with the fossil-based state of the art.

• Utilising networks: Think beyond your own horizons and exchange ideas with meta-networks such as TransBIB and its competence hubs to avoid duplication of effort or to find partners.

3. The recovery plan is the be-all and end-all

One underestimated weakness of many R&D proposals is the market perspective. Whilst direct market launch activities may not be funded directly, they must be directly linked to the project.

Project sponsors expect a clear roadmap covering three timeframes (short, medium and long term). Whilst industry-led consortia often find this easier, commercialisation plans in heavily research-driven proposals sometimes appear contrived. Do not demonstrate economic viability with empty phrases, but rather with in-depth market knowledge, the commercialisers’ own market access, or concrete letters of intent, e.g. for testing sample quantities.

4. A lean consortium with a clear project rationale

Ideally, the ideal consortium should cover the entire value chain or fill key roles with outstanding stakeholders.
However, avoid overwhelming reviewers with an excessive level of detail. What is required is a transparent, consistent overview:

• Clearly defined work packages with clear interfaces.

• A clear division of roles with no overlap in responsibilities.

• A common thread running through the work plan that contributes directly to the exploitation objectives.

5. No more nested sentences and trivialities

When you analyse hundreds of sketches, a pattern emerges: a great deal of space is wasted on explaining trivialities, lengthy explanations of technical details and convoluted, nested sentences.

Are you currently drawing up a proposal for a funding project and would like to have your chances of success assessed objectively before submission? Make the most of an outside perspective to refine your strengths and iron out any potential pitfalls in good time.
………..

The interviewee was Romann Glowacki, managing director and owner of PIC – Pi Innovation Culture GmbH, based in Leipzig.