- Email: [email protected]
Tool for planning the grant application process
Tool for Planning the Grant Application Process Helen C. Crain, RN, PhD Marion E. Broome, PhD, RN, FAAN The purpose of this article is to describe and justify the use of a tool to assist faculty who want to submit a major extramural grant application. Full-support and limited-support research resource services are described.
N
ursing faculty and doctorally prepared nurses in practice are being increasingly expected to acquire funding to support their own research endeavors and to support the infrastructures of their institutions. Many funding agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, have published guidelines for persons that provide a framework for and directions about how to prepare major grant applications. These instructions include guidance related to organization of the proposal section of the application, inclusion and content of appendices, forms to be completed as part of the application, and submission deadlines and procedures. What these agencies do not provide is guidance related to the type, scope, and number of activities that go into planning, developing, and producing the grant application. Some schools of nursing, especially those in Research I Universities, have centers in which experienced researchers and professional staff are available to guide new investigators in managing their time and activities during the 6-month period before grant submission.1 However, this level of support and guidance is not available in many more institutions. Experience is often the only teacher. Unfortunately, few new faculty have had the opportunity to participate in the planning development and submission of a major grant application. Neither predoctoral grant applications nor the dissertation proposal are comparable to a major grant application. In addition, little information is available in the literature to guide beginning researchers who are interested in developing a grant application. In one report that analyzed “advice” from seasoned researchers to novices, two important themes emerged: to stay focused and discipline oneself. The ability to stay focused requires that a person knows what to focus on, what various steps must be taken toward the goal(s), and how much time to spend on each step or group of activities. With prevailing expectations for faculty involvement in teaching, research, and practice,2 the new investigator attempting to submit a grant application Helen C. Crain is the Research Programs Manager, Center for Nursing Research & Evaluation, School of Nursing, University of WisconsinMilwaukee. Marion E. Broome is a professor and the associate dean for Research, School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Nurs Outlook 2000;48:288-93. Copyright © 2000 by Mosby, Inc. 0029-6554/2000/$12.00 + 0 35/1/108065 doi:10.1067/mno.2000.108065
288
Crain and Broome
may waste a great deal of time and energy in activities that will not be useful to the application process nor contribute quality to the finished product. The purpose of this article is to describe a framework used by the staff of one center for research to assist faculty who want to submit a major external grant application. CONTINUUM OF RESEARCH SUPPORT
The continuum of research support resources provided to faculty members, especially those new to grant writing, has tremendous implications for their success in being able to submit fundable grant applications. Several factors influence the degree to which research support services are made available in a school of nursing.3 These factors include a stated research mission, the number of faculty interested in devoting a substantial amount of time to research, the university’s research climate, administrative support, and reward systems. Given variations in those factors, there are a variety of organizational models within which research support services can be provided for nursing faculty, ranging from a “full-service” center for research to a research office that offers only limited support. Table 1 illustrates a few of the differences between these two types of infrastructures.
The continuum of research support resources provided to faculty members, especially those new to grant writing, has tremendous implications for their success in being able to submit fundable grant applications. It is clear that research support services are, in part, based on the types and level of resources (persons, material, and fiscal) made available to faculty researchers who are working to obtain funding for their studies. However, support services offered by center or office staff are only a part of what is needed. Faculty can offer another group of valuable research resources to their colleagues in ways that cannot be duplicated by center or office staff. Expert critique and review, role modeling, mentoring, sharing, and collaboration are critical, but, like other resources, vary from institution to institution. In schools of nursing that offer full research support services, experienced, funded researchers are available to consult with faculty members early in the planning and development of the grant application. These researchers can provide the novice with information, based on their own and colleagues’ experiences, about how to schedule a person’s time developing resources, how to garner resources (eg, consultants), and how to develop a compelling proposal. VOLUME 48 • NUMBER 6
NURSING OUTLOOK
Crain and Broome
Tool for Planning the Grant Application Process
Table 1. Research Support Services Limited support
Full support
Research office
Center for research
Mission/scope of support
General statement in school mission statement declaring/promoting research and scholarship as part of faculty role Small budget item or dependent on “soft” money
Strategic plan goals for extramural funding have high priority Faculty and staff activities related to extramural funding are explicit in strategic plan “Hard” money support for core staff Incentives/rewards
Staff
Director Secretary Student assistant(s)
Associate dean for research Faculty scientist Biostatistician Funding specialist Grants management specialist Administrative specialist Graduate and undergraduate student assistants
Material resources
Grant application forms and published guidelines Information about funding programs (limited) Contact information for major funders Institutional forms and guidelines related to grant application submission Computer system
Grant application forms and published guidelines Information about funding programs Contact information for most funding sources Grant-related boilerplate/template documents Institutional forms and guidelines related to grant applications Budget and other worksheets Grantsmanship materials Sample applications and critiques Instruments collection Computer laboratory with high-capacity equipment and software for all types of analyses, data management, storage and graphics capability
Services provided
Literature retrieval Typing of application and related forms Internal consultation/critique (limited)
Literature search and retrieval Research development programs offered locally and funds available for remote programs Funding sources search On-site biostatistical consultation Liaison with university research administration, funding agencies, key personnel (as needed) Budget preparation Location of resources and information: instruments, persons, data, pricing, etc Biosketch development and preparation Funding for expert external review Ongoing internal proposal critique by experienced funded researchers Arrangements for mock review Preparation of graphic and complex tabular illustrations Computer-based preparation of all application related forms Proposal formatting and editing Assembly and transmittal of final application
When seasoned researchers counsel new faculty, they often provide some guidance about the grant application process: activities and time line for developing an application. The framework described in this article can provide that type of guidance for a researcher who is planning to submit a grant application. At one center for research, several grantees during the past 2 years have used the Grant Application Process Planning Tool (GAPPT) as they worked NURSING OUTLOOK
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2000
with the grants management specialist and the associate dean for research. The GAPPT is described in the section that follows. GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS PLANNING TOOL Background and Rationale
The Grant Application Process Planning Tool (GAPPT) was 289
Crain and Broome
Tool for Planning the Grant Application Process
developed to assist investigators who were submitting their first federal grant application. Faculty, especially new investigators, are usually able to understand most of the directions in the PHS 398 packet as well as those in published guidelines. However, they often do not conceptualize the development of the grant application as a process. Like any process, this one requires careful assessment, planning, coordination, and execution.5 In addition, novice investigators routinely underestimate the time and effort required to submit a federal grant application. This underestimation is especially problematic when numerous collaborative investigators or consultants are involved or when data will be collected from human subjects at more than one agency. Finally, new investigators do not know how to use available support staff efficiently or how to locate support when staff are not available. All too frequently, these knowledge and skill deficits result in incomplete or poorly executed applications that are prepared and submitted in an atmosphere of crisis. This experience is stressful and even overwhelming for everyone involved. Occasionally, deadlines cannot be met, which means a great deal of work has to be redone before the application can be submitted for the next cycle. We initially developed the GAPPT as a simple checklist of tasks; we are both responsible for working with faculty submitting grant applications. Experience with new investigators and last minute/simultaneous submissions prompted us to build in a second column containing suggestions for task completion in terms of time before the submission date, as well as spaces for personalized completion dates. Suggestions from the university’s Research Services Office were used to add a few tasks and modify others. With time, the word “task” seemed less applicable, and the items in that column were renamed “Events/Actions.” The center’s shift to maximal/full support of faculty submitting grant applications has been very popular with faculty, and their grant application activities have increased. Therefore, it became necessary to build deadlines into the GAPPT for center staff work. Other events/actions were added to the first part of the tool in an attempt to promote staff/investigator collaboration at an early stage in the process. A third column for comments and actual completion date proved less useful and was omitted. Currently, even investigators beginning their second federal application are using the GAPPT to remind them of details and as a basis of coordinating work with center staff. Tentative deadlines for completion of activities (generally forms or other sections of the application) by research support staff appear in the table in boldface. Staff try to accommodate investigators who submit materials after deadlines have passed. If decisions have to be made allocating support staff time/effort, priority is given to investigators who are meeting the deadlines and to those resubmitting federal applications. If staff assistance is not available, faculty researchers are responsible for completing the activity in question themselves or finding alternate assistance in doing so. The GAPPT reflects our center’s emphasis on providing a full range of research support services to faculty working on grant applications. Use of this tool in environments with less 290
than full support is possible. In the instances in which personnel or other resources are identified on the GAPPT but are not available, the investigator will have to locate the resources, delegate the work in other ways, or accomplish the task personally. We encourage the use and modification of the GAPPT in other environments (Figure 1). GAPPT Organization and Content
The first section of the GAPPT is “Preliminary Development.” These activities have to be accomplished as a first proposal draft is being developed and before formal review of a full proposal by colleagues. Most of the actions are directed at delineating the scope of the project, planning the application development process, and completing an abbreviated version of the research plan: a “precis.” It is suggested that these activities be accomplished 4 to 8 months before submission. This and subsequent suggestions for completion are expressed as a range, which reflects the range of investigator experience, previously developed work, and the workload of the center for research. The next set of actions/events falls under the general rubric of “Proposal Development & Review.” During this time frame (2 weeks-4 months before submission), the proposal is fully developed and revised on the basis of internal and external reviews. In addition, the budget and budget justification are developed and refined in this period. Biosketches are collected or created, and letters from consultants and supporters are solicited. Boilerplate computer documents allow the principal investigator (PI) to describe resources, compose letters, and build time lines without too much effort. The final stage of the process is “Application Assembly and Submission,” and encompasses those activities/events in the 2 weeks before submission. In a full-support system, the majority of activities during this period are carried out by center staff. Staff produce the final application forms and text by using computer-generated facsimiles of the PHS forms, in this case Microsoft Word-based templates. The deadlines are for PIs who need assistance understanding the realities of workloads and timing when staff are juggling several applications at one time. In actual practice, staff begin generating these forms and sections early in the process and complete them as soon as all information can be collected. Investigators are urged to select activities that can be accomplished at any time or at any level of energy and to accomplish these as soon as possible. Completing these types of activities early in the process spares time for the inevitable last-minute changes that can turn submissions into a major challenge. While staff are assembling the application, the investigator should begin work on materials required for Institutional Review Board protocol submission. At this point in the application, the information needed for Institutional Review Board review is in its final form and is fresh in the investigator’s mind. EVALUATION
During the past 2 years, we have worked with several faculty who have used the GAPPT while developing their grant applications. Those faculty members have not been required to use the GAPPT, except for the deadlines for staff completion of VOLUME 48 • NUMBER 6
NURSING OUTLOOK
Crain and Broome
Tool for Planning the Grant Application Process
Faculty Name Application Type
______________________________________ ❒ R01
Target Date for Submission
❒ AREA
❒ R03
Best contact method_______________________
❒ Postdoc
❒ Other:_________________________ ❒ Unknown: Need Funding Search
_______/_____/______ I. Preliminary Development Event/Action
Suggested Deadline
➢Decide on problem of interest. ➢Define/specify variables of concern. ➢Start literature search & retrieval. Contact staff to set up search & retrieval services. ➢Meet with staff to arrange funding search if necessary. ➢PI (and co-investigators, if appropriate) to meet with Associate Dean/Director and staff to plan grant application process and support to be provided. ➢Complete literature search & retrieval ➢Meet with Biostatistician, if necessary regarding: design, methods, power analysis. ➢Meet with staff to identify and schedule (Add to Process Planning Tool): •external and internal proposal reviews, •availability/appropriateness of templates, boilerplates and forms and •deadlines for application development/assembly. ➢Write 1-2 page precis outlining project significance, long-term goals, specific aims (if possible), population(s), human subject involvement and tentative time line. ➢Begin process of identifying 3-4 well-known experts in content & methods areas as (1) potential proposal reviewers, &/or (2) consultants. ➢Use precis as basis for meetings with clinical agencies, community groups agencies, etc. in arranging access to subjects/support. If appropriate/relevant: •Offer template letter of support. •Collect information to describe performance site: resources & services to be available, population(s).
6-8 months prior ____/____/____
6 months prior ____/____/____ 5-6 months prior ____/____/____
5 months prior ____/____/____
4-5 months prior ____/____/____
Figure 1. Grant Application Process Planning Tool. (Continued on page 292.)
application materials. One faculty member did follow every single activity and scheduling suggestion. As a novice user, she was extremely grateful for the detailed guidance. Most investigators used it as a general guideline for activities to be accomplished and for requesting assistance. On her evaluation, one user said she used it in “a negative sense”… “to scare myself.” She wrote: It was a powerful message that the grant process was long, and I should get moving…and that I couldn’t expect help and smiles if I got stressed at the end and had not done the up front work in the way the form indicted was timely.
This user said that she found the tool slightly too long, but then suggested additional information that could be added. She thought that she could have done a better job planning for “down time” (her word) had she known in advance which activities—those dependent on work by other persons—had to be accomplished before she could move on. We think this information is best imparted as part of a more thorough discussion during Phase I. Perhaps those Phase I discussions would be improved if staff used a checklist to ensure that important information is noted/discussed. Another suggestion for change NURSING OUTLOOK
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2000
was that first draft of the proposal be briefly reviewed in-house before being sent to any external reviewers or agencies. This suggestion will probably require changes in policy and use of resources, as well as a change to the GAPPT itself. We have observed instances in which Events/Actions that are part of the GAPPT seem to pose a challenge for investigators. The development of a precis is not a proposal step widely used in nursing. Investigators have sometimes had difficulty condensing their thoughts and plans to 2 pages at that early stage of development. The collection of letters, curriculum vitae, and agency information is also a challenge for many investigators. These are not activities that are easily accomplished in one contact. The investigator often has to recontact persons who must supply this information. If there is time, staff can make these contacts and retrieve other information from online documents. Internal review of the proposal by colleagues can be a challenge for some investigators. The goal of this activity is the improvement of the proposal. The internal review needs to be perceived and actualized as a positive and helpful experience by both the investigator and the reviewers. In a broader sense, use of the GAAPT has had 3 major results: 291
Crain and Broome
Tool for Planning the Grant Application Process
II. Proposal Development & Review. Event/Action
Suggested Deadline
➢Change precis to preliminary version of the research plan that includes background & significance, subject access, time line changes, methods summary. ➢Contact funding agency representative if not already done. Send proposal/precis if requested. ➢Contact external reviewer(s): obtain agreement and schedule review. ➢Select, contact, and obtain agreement from consultants. •Discuss roles/responsibilities, periods/methods of contact/support and reimbursement. •Solicit letter of support and modular budget style biosketch, or information to construct one. ➢Revise preliminary proposal to full Research Plan (A-D + G at least). ➢Send Research Plan to expert reviewer. ➢Work with staff and staff who collect specific costs for projected budget items. ➢Collect letters of support/agreement from agencies and consultants & own School, if appropriate. ➢Meetings with Director and staff about budget. Complete budget worksheet for staff, who will begin preparing the detailed budget. ➢Discuss faculty buyout(s) with chairperson(s). ➢Staff follow-up (if necessary) to collect biosketch/biosketch information for all key personnel. Deadline for all CVs that need to be converted to biosketch format/template. ➢Revise Research Plan on the basis of external reviewer comment. Add sections E, H & I. ➢Revised Research Plan to internal reviewers (2-3 weeks prior to review). ➢Deadline for creation of budget spreadsheet (capped budget). ➢Deadline for graphics, complex tables to be created, or instruments to be formatted. ➢Internal Review of proposal. ➢Use template to prepare budget narrative. ➢Finalize title & final changes to personnel. ➢Finalize Research Plan (A-I) on basis of Internal Review feedback. ➢Consortial/subcontractual agreements: get required forms and documents from Consortial/subcontractual agencies. ➢Work with staff to finalize budget and budget narrative. Staff will check budget documents with designated School/College & University Research Office personnel. ➢Collect appendix material → staff for assembly & copying. ➢Add agency/other site information to Resources boilerplate document and tailor to fit project. ➢Schedule transmittal signatures of chairpersons & deans. ➢Write abstract → staff for “fit” & revision, if necessary. ➢Begin work on Institutional Review Board protocol, if human subjects are involved. ➢Deadline for Face Page Information. ➢Deadline for Final version abstract (Form BB). ➢Deadline for Resources document. ➢Deadline for final Research Plan (A-I) to be formatted by staff. ➢Deadline for Budget Justification. ➢Deadline for Transmittal Form information. ➢Deadline for Checklist information. ➢Deadline for Appendix materials. ➢Deadline for Personal Data Form information. ➢Final PI’s check of all application components, if not previously approved. ➢Write cover letter on letterhead → staff. ➢Obtain necessary signatures on Transmittal Form. ➢Staff will copy the application, and assemble and deliver all materials to the University Research Office.
3-4 months prior ____/____/____ 3 months prior ____/____/____
2-3 months prior ____/____/____
2 months prior ____/____/____
1 month prior ____/____/____
2 weeks - 1 month prior ____/____/____
2 weeks prior ____/____/____
1 week prior ____/____/____
Deadline-1 week prior ____/____/____
Figure 1. continued.
• Faculty who are planning to submit a grant application have a much more realistic sense about the activities and scheduling that are part of this process. • Faculty coordinate application-related activities with 292
center staff earlier in the process and are more likely to remain in contract with staff throughout the application process. • The vast majority of faculty applicants do not put off important, detailed activities until the last minute. VOLUME 48 • NUMBER 6
NURSING OUTLOOK
Crain and Broome
Tool for Planning the Grant Application Process
All 3 results have the long-term outcome of reducing stress on everyone involved as submission deadlines approach.
The successful execution of a major research project is as contingent on careful planning and organization during the grant application process as it is on project activities such as data collection and analysis. SUMMARY
As the studies proposed for funding become more complex— and more expensive—competition for available agency monies is increasing. The GAPPT is one resource investigators can use to better manage their activities and precious time. In addition, it might be a useful method of informing administrators
NURSING OUTLOOK
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2000
about the resources and support that are needed for faculty who are working to submit competitive grant applications. The successful execution of a major research project is as contingent on careful planning and organization during the grant application process as it is on project activities such as data collection and analysis. ■
REFERENCES 1. Clinton J, Wahl M, Kelber S. Mechanisms for evaluating a research center: resource use, costs and research productivity. J Prof Nurs 1987;3:13-9. 2. Norbeck J. Teaching, research and service: striking the balance in doctoral education. J Prof Nurs 1998;14:197-205. 3. Evans L, Dienemann J, Dahlen R. University-based nursing research centers: a strategic investment. Nurs Econ 1986;4:23-30. 4. Reif-Lehrer L. Proposal preparation without panic. HMS Beagle: The BioMedNet Magazine [serial online]. Issue 49. Accessed Mar 5, 1999. Available from: URL:http://www.biomednet.com/hmsbeagle/49/ labres/adapt.htm.
293
N
ursing faculty and doctorally prepared nurses in practice are being increasingly expected to acquire funding to support their own research endeavors and to support the infrastructures of their institutions. Many funding agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, have published guidelines for persons that provide a framework for and directions about how to prepare major grant applications. These instructions include guidance related to organization of the proposal section of the application, inclusion and content of appendices, forms to be completed as part of the application, and submission deadlines and procedures. What these agencies do not provide is guidance related to the type, scope, and number of activities that go into planning, developing, and producing the grant application. Some schools of nursing, especially those in Research I Universities, have centers in which experienced researchers and professional staff are available to guide new investigators in managing their time and activities during the 6-month period before grant submission.1 However, this level of support and guidance is not available in many more institutions. Experience is often the only teacher. Unfortunately, few new faculty have had the opportunity to participate in the planning development and submission of a major grant application. Neither predoctoral grant applications nor the dissertation proposal are comparable to a major grant application. In addition, little information is available in the literature to guide beginning researchers who are interested in developing a grant application. In one report that analyzed “advice” from seasoned researchers to novices, two important themes emerged: to stay focused and discipline oneself. The ability to stay focused requires that a person knows what to focus on, what various steps must be taken toward the goal(s), and how much time to spend on each step or group of activities. With prevailing expectations for faculty involvement in teaching, research, and practice,2 the new investigator attempting to submit a grant application Helen C. Crain is the Research Programs Manager, Center for Nursing Research & Evaluation, School of Nursing, University of WisconsinMilwaukee. Marion E. Broome is a professor and the associate dean for Research, School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Nurs Outlook 2000;48:288-93. Copyright © 2000 by Mosby, Inc. 0029-6554/2000/$12.00 + 0 35/1/108065 doi:10.1067/mno.2000.108065
288
Crain and Broome
may waste a great deal of time and energy in activities that will not be useful to the application process nor contribute quality to the finished product. The purpose of this article is to describe a framework used by the staff of one center for research to assist faculty who want to submit a major external grant application. CONTINUUM OF RESEARCH SUPPORT
The continuum of research support resources provided to faculty members, especially those new to grant writing, has tremendous implications for their success in being able to submit fundable grant applications. Several factors influence the degree to which research support services are made available in a school of nursing.3 These factors include a stated research mission, the number of faculty interested in devoting a substantial amount of time to research, the university’s research climate, administrative support, and reward systems. Given variations in those factors, there are a variety of organizational models within which research support services can be provided for nursing faculty, ranging from a “full-service” center for research to a research office that offers only limited support. Table 1 illustrates a few of the differences between these two types of infrastructures.
The continuum of research support resources provided to faculty members, especially those new to grant writing, has tremendous implications for their success in being able to submit fundable grant applications. It is clear that research support services are, in part, based on the types and level of resources (persons, material, and fiscal) made available to faculty researchers who are working to obtain funding for their studies. However, support services offered by center or office staff are only a part of what is needed. Faculty can offer another group of valuable research resources to their colleagues in ways that cannot be duplicated by center or office staff. Expert critique and review, role modeling, mentoring, sharing, and collaboration are critical, but, like other resources, vary from institution to institution. In schools of nursing that offer full research support services, experienced, funded researchers are available to consult with faculty members early in the planning and development of the grant application. These researchers can provide the novice with information, based on their own and colleagues’ experiences, about how to schedule a person’s time developing resources, how to garner resources (eg, consultants), and how to develop a compelling proposal. VOLUME 48 • NUMBER 6
NURSING OUTLOOK
Crain and Broome
Tool for Planning the Grant Application Process
Table 1. Research Support Services Limited support
Full support
Research office
Center for research
Mission/scope of support
General statement in school mission statement declaring/promoting research and scholarship as part of faculty role Small budget item or dependent on “soft” money
Strategic plan goals for extramural funding have high priority Faculty and staff activities related to extramural funding are explicit in strategic plan “Hard” money support for core staff Incentives/rewards
Staff
Director Secretary Student assistant(s)
Associate dean for research Faculty scientist Biostatistician Funding specialist Grants management specialist Administrative specialist Graduate and undergraduate student assistants
Material resources
Grant application forms and published guidelines Information about funding programs (limited) Contact information for major funders Institutional forms and guidelines related to grant application submission Computer system
Grant application forms and published guidelines Information about funding programs Contact information for most funding sources Grant-related boilerplate/template documents Institutional forms and guidelines related to grant applications Budget and other worksheets Grantsmanship materials Sample applications and critiques Instruments collection Computer laboratory with high-capacity equipment and software for all types of analyses, data management, storage and graphics capability
Services provided
Literature retrieval Typing of application and related forms Internal consultation/critique (limited)
Literature search and retrieval Research development programs offered locally and funds available for remote programs Funding sources search On-site biostatistical consultation Liaison with university research administration, funding agencies, key personnel (as needed) Budget preparation Location of resources and information: instruments, persons, data, pricing, etc Biosketch development and preparation Funding for expert external review Ongoing internal proposal critique by experienced funded researchers Arrangements for mock review Preparation of graphic and complex tabular illustrations Computer-based preparation of all application related forms Proposal formatting and editing Assembly and transmittal of final application
When seasoned researchers counsel new faculty, they often provide some guidance about the grant application process: activities and time line for developing an application. The framework described in this article can provide that type of guidance for a researcher who is planning to submit a grant application. At one center for research, several grantees during the past 2 years have used the Grant Application Process Planning Tool (GAPPT) as they worked NURSING OUTLOOK
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2000
with the grants management specialist and the associate dean for research. The GAPPT is described in the section that follows. GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS PLANNING TOOL Background and Rationale
The Grant Application Process Planning Tool (GAPPT) was 289
Crain and Broome
Tool for Planning the Grant Application Process
developed to assist investigators who were submitting their first federal grant application. Faculty, especially new investigators, are usually able to understand most of the directions in the PHS 398 packet as well as those in published guidelines. However, they often do not conceptualize the development of the grant application as a process. Like any process, this one requires careful assessment, planning, coordination, and execution.5 In addition, novice investigators routinely underestimate the time and effort required to submit a federal grant application. This underestimation is especially problematic when numerous collaborative investigators or consultants are involved or when data will be collected from human subjects at more than one agency. Finally, new investigators do not know how to use available support staff efficiently or how to locate support when staff are not available. All too frequently, these knowledge and skill deficits result in incomplete or poorly executed applications that are prepared and submitted in an atmosphere of crisis. This experience is stressful and even overwhelming for everyone involved. Occasionally, deadlines cannot be met, which means a great deal of work has to be redone before the application can be submitted for the next cycle. We initially developed the GAPPT as a simple checklist of tasks; we are both responsible for working with faculty submitting grant applications. Experience with new investigators and last minute/simultaneous submissions prompted us to build in a second column containing suggestions for task completion in terms of time before the submission date, as well as spaces for personalized completion dates. Suggestions from the university’s Research Services Office were used to add a few tasks and modify others. With time, the word “task” seemed less applicable, and the items in that column were renamed “Events/Actions.” The center’s shift to maximal/full support of faculty submitting grant applications has been very popular with faculty, and their grant application activities have increased. Therefore, it became necessary to build deadlines into the GAPPT for center staff work. Other events/actions were added to the first part of the tool in an attempt to promote staff/investigator collaboration at an early stage in the process. A third column for comments and actual completion date proved less useful and was omitted. Currently, even investigators beginning their second federal application are using the GAPPT to remind them of details and as a basis of coordinating work with center staff. Tentative deadlines for completion of activities (generally forms or other sections of the application) by research support staff appear in the table in boldface. Staff try to accommodate investigators who submit materials after deadlines have passed. If decisions have to be made allocating support staff time/effort, priority is given to investigators who are meeting the deadlines and to those resubmitting federal applications. If staff assistance is not available, faculty researchers are responsible for completing the activity in question themselves or finding alternate assistance in doing so. The GAPPT reflects our center’s emphasis on providing a full range of research support services to faculty working on grant applications. Use of this tool in environments with less 290
than full support is possible. In the instances in which personnel or other resources are identified on the GAPPT but are not available, the investigator will have to locate the resources, delegate the work in other ways, or accomplish the task personally. We encourage the use and modification of the GAPPT in other environments (Figure 1). GAPPT Organization and Content
The first section of the GAPPT is “Preliminary Development.” These activities have to be accomplished as a first proposal draft is being developed and before formal review of a full proposal by colleagues. Most of the actions are directed at delineating the scope of the project, planning the application development process, and completing an abbreviated version of the research plan: a “precis.” It is suggested that these activities be accomplished 4 to 8 months before submission. This and subsequent suggestions for completion are expressed as a range, which reflects the range of investigator experience, previously developed work, and the workload of the center for research. The next set of actions/events falls under the general rubric of “Proposal Development & Review.” During this time frame (2 weeks-4 months before submission), the proposal is fully developed and revised on the basis of internal and external reviews. In addition, the budget and budget justification are developed and refined in this period. Biosketches are collected or created, and letters from consultants and supporters are solicited. Boilerplate computer documents allow the principal investigator (PI) to describe resources, compose letters, and build time lines without too much effort. The final stage of the process is “Application Assembly and Submission,” and encompasses those activities/events in the 2 weeks before submission. In a full-support system, the majority of activities during this period are carried out by center staff. Staff produce the final application forms and text by using computer-generated facsimiles of the PHS forms, in this case Microsoft Word-based templates. The deadlines are for PIs who need assistance understanding the realities of workloads and timing when staff are juggling several applications at one time. In actual practice, staff begin generating these forms and sections early in the process and complete them as soon as all information can be collected. Investigators are urged to select activities that can be accomplished at any time or at any level of energy and to accomplish these as soon as possible. Completing these types of activities early in the process spares time for the inevitable last-minute changes that can turn submissions into a major challenge. While staff are assembling the application, the investigator should begin work on materials required for Institutional Review Board protocol submission. At this point in the application, the information needed for Institutional Review Board review is in its final form and is fresh in the investigator’s mind. EVALUATION
During the past 2 years, we have worked with several faculty who have used the GAPPT while developing their grant applications. Those faculty members have not been required to use the GAPPT, except for the deadlines for staff completion of VOLUME 48 • NUMBER 6
NURSING OUTLOOK
Crain and Broome
Tool for Planning the Grant Application Process
Faculty Name Application Type
______________________________________ ❒ R01
Target Date for Submission
❒ AREA
❒ R03
Best contact method_______________________
❒ Postdoc
❒ Other:_________________________ ❒ Unknown: Need Funding Search
_______/_____/______ I. Preliminary Development Event/Action
Suggested Deadline
➢Decide on problem of interest. ➢Define/specify variables of concern. ➢Start literature search & retrieval. Contact staff to set up search & retrieval services. ➢Meet with staff to arrange funding search if necessary. ➢PI (and co-investigators, if appropriate) to meet with Associate Dean/Director and staff to plan grant application process and support to be provided. ➢Complete literature search & retrieval ➢Meet with Biostatistician, if necessary regarding: design, methods, power analysis. ➢Meet with staff to identify and schedule (Add to Process Planning Tool): •external and internal proposal reviews, •availability/appropriateness of templates, boilerplates and forms and •deadlines for application development/assembly. ➢Write 1-2 page precis outlining project significance, long-term goals, specific aims (if possible), population(s), human subject involvement and tentative time line. ➢Begin process of identifying 3-4 well-known experts in content & methods areas as (1) potential proposal reviewers, &/or (2) consultants. ➢Use precis as basis for meetings with clinical agencies, community groups agencies, etc. in arranging access to subjects/support. If appropriate/relevant: •Offer template letter of support. •Collect information to describe performance site: resources & services to be available, population(s).
6-8 months prior ____/____/____
6 months prior ____/____/____ 5-6 months prior ____/____/____
5 months prior ____/____/____
4-5 months prior ____/____/____
Figure 1. Grant Application Process Planning Tool. (Continued on page 292.)
application materials. One faculty member did follow every single activity and scheduling suggestion. As a novice user, she was extremely grateful for the detailed guidance. Most investigators used it as a general guideline for activities to be accomplished and for requesting assistance. On her evaluation, one user said she used it in “a negative sense”… “to scare myself.” She wrote: It was a powerful message that the grant process was long, and I should get moving…and that I couldn’t expect help and smiles if I got stressed at the end and had not done the up front work in the way the form indicted was timely.
This user said that she found the tool slightly too long, but then suggested additional information that could be added. She thought that she could have done a better job planning for “down time” (her word) had she known in advance which activities—those dependent on work by other persons—had to be accomplished before she could move on. We think this information is best imparted as part of a more thorough discussion during Phase I. Perhaps those Phase I discussions would be improved if staff used a checklist to ensure that important information is noted/discussed. Another suggestion for change NURSING OUTLOOK
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2000
was that first draft of the proposal be briefly reviewed in-house before being sent to any external reviewers or agencies. This suggestion will probably require changes in policy and use of resources, as well as a change to the GAPPT itself. We have observed instances in which Events/Actions that are part of the GAPPT seem to pose a challenge for investigators. The development of a precis is not a proposal step widely used in nursing. Investigators have sometimes had difficulty condensing their thoughts and plans to 2 pages at that early stage of development. The collection of letters, curriculum vitae, and agency information is also a challenge for many investigators. These are not activities that are easily accomplished in one contact. The investigator often has to recontact persons who must supply this information. If there is time, staff can make these contacts and retrieve other information from online documents. Internal review of the proposal by colleagues can be a challenge for some investigators. The goal of this activity is the improvement of the proposal. The internal review needs to be perceived and actualized as a positive and helpful experience by both the investigator and the reviewers. In a broader sense, use of the GAAPT has had 3 major results: 291
Crain and Broome
Tool for Planning the Grant Application Process
II. Proposal Development & Review. Event/Action
Suggested Deadline
➢Change precis to preliminary version of the research plan that includes background & significance, subject access, time line changes, methods summary. ➢Contact funding agency representative if not already done. Send proposal/precis if requested. ➢Contact external reviewer(s): obtain agreement and schedule review. ➢Select, contact, and obtain agreement from consultants. •Discuss roles/responsibilities, periods/methods of contact/support and reimbursement. •Solicit letter of support and modular budget style biosketch, or information to construct one. ➢Revise preliminary proposal to full Research Plan (A-D + G at least). ➢Send Research Plan to expert reviewer. ➢Work with staff and staff who collect specific costs for projected budget items. ➢Collect letters of support/agreement from agencies and consultants & own School, if appropriate. ➢Meetings with Director and staff about budget. Complete budget worksheet for staff, who will begin preparing the detailed budget. ➢Discuss faculty buyout(s) with chairperson(s). ➢Staff follow-up (if necessary) to collect biosketch/biosketch information for all key personnel. Deadline for all CVs that need to be converted to biosketch format/template. ➢Revise Research Plan on the basis of external reviewer comment. Add sections E, H & I. ➢Revised Research Plan to internal reviewers (2-3 weeks prior to review). ➢Deadline for creation of budget spreadsheet (capped budget). ➢Deadline for graphics, complex tables to be created, or instruments to be formatted. ➢Internal Review of proposal. ➢Use template to prepare budget narrative. ➢Finalize title & final changes to personnel. ➢Finalize Research Plan (A-I) on basis of Internal Review feedback. ➢Consortial/subcontractual agreements: get required forms and documents from Consortial/subcontractual agencies. ➢Work with staff to finalize budget and budget narrative. Staff will check budget documents with designated School/College & University Research Office personnel. ➢Collect appendix material → staff for assembly & copying. ➢Add agency/other site information to Resources boilerplate document and tailor to fit project. ➢Schedule transmittal signatures of chairpersons & deans. ➢Write abstract → staff for “fit” & revision, if necessary. ➢Begin work on Institutional Review Board protocol, if human subjects are involved. ➢Deadline for Face Page Information. ➢Deadline for Final version abstract (Form BB). ➢Deadline for Resources document. ➢Deadline for final Research Plan (A-I) to be formatted by staff. ➢Deadline for Budget Justification. ➢Deadline for Transmittal Form information. ➢Deadline for Checklist information. ➢Deadline for Appendix materials. ➢Deadline for Personal Data Form information. ➢Final PI’s check of all application components, if not previously approved. ➢Write cover letter on letterhead → staff. ➢Obtain necessary signatures on Transmittal Form. ➢Staff will copy the application, and assemble and deliver all materials to the University Research Office.
3-4 months prior ____/____/____ 3 months prior ____/____/____
2-3 months prior ____/____/____
2 months prior ____/____/____
1 month prior ____/____/____
2 weeks - 1 month prior ____/____/____
2 weeks prior ____/____/____
1 week prior ____/____/____
Deadline-1 week prior ____/____/____
Figure 1. continued.
• Faculty who are planning to submit a grant application have a much more realistic sense about the activities and scheduling that are part of this process. • Faculty coordinate application-related activities with 292
center staff earlier in the process and are more likely to remain in contract with staff throughout the application process. • The vast majority of faculty applicants do not put off important, detailed activities until the last minute. VOLUME 48 • NUMBER 6
NURSING OUTLOOK
Crain and Broome
Tool for Planning the Grant Application Process
All 3 results have the long-term outcome of reducing stress on everyone involved as submission deadlines approach.
The successful execution of a major research project is as contingent on careful planning and organization during the grant application process as it is on project activities such as data collection and analysis. SUMMARY
As the studies proposed for funding become more complex— and more expensive—competition for available agency monies is increasing. The GAPPT is one resource investigators can use to better manage their activities and precious time. In addition, it might be a useful method of informing administrators
NURSING OUTLOOK
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2000
about the resources and support that are needed for faculty who are working to submit competitive grant applications. The successful execution of a major research project is as contingent on careful planning and organization during the grant application process as it is on project activities such as data collection and analysis. ■
REFERENCES 1. Clinton J, Wahl M, Kelber S. Mechanisms for evaluating a research center: resource use, costs and research productivity. J Prof Nurs 1987;3:13-9. 2. Norbeck J. Teaching, research and service: striking the balance in doctoral education. J Prof Nurs 1998;14:197-205. 3. Evans L, Dienemann J, Dahlen R. University-based nursing research centers: a strategic investment. Nurs Econ 1986;4:23-30. 4. Reif-Lehrer L. Proposal preparation without panic. HMS Beagle: The BioMedNet Magazine [serial online]. Issue 49. Accessed Mar 5, 1999. Available from: URL:http://www.biomednet.com/hmsbeagle/49/ labres/adapt.htm.
293