The HP Methodical Approach to writing a grant proposal

Writing a successful grant application requires a methodical approach that balances thorough research, strategic planning, and clear communication. This ensures that each application aligns with the goals of the funding organization and compellingly conveys the merits of our project.

At HP, we use a proprietary methodical approach to writing grant applications, focusing on the highest level of clarity.

Let's take a look at the five main steps of our approach:

Step 1: Categorization

We classify each question into one of our predefined categories based on our previous application work. Although grant applications may phrase questions differently, the most important questions typically seek the same or very similar information.

For example:

1. There is usually a Summary chapter, which we write at the end.

2. A chapter that asks to describe in detail the project and its goals.

3. A chapter for Work packages and milestones.

4. Chapters for technical and methodological novelty and excellence.

5. Chapters for the need and the market, and sometimes the problem or the opportunity.

6. Chapters for the State of the Art, substitute solutions, how we are different, and our value proposition.

7. Chapters for more executional aspects like Status Now, Team, Partnerships/LOIs, cost allocation (how the grant will be spent), a detailed 5-10 year Financial plan, and a Go-To-Market plan for commercializing the project's results.

8. Chapters on the broader social impact that the project can have.

Step 2: Pre-set pitch/message application

After labeling each question, we apply a set of our key points to ensure they are conveyed in the answer for that specific type of question.

In a one-page summary, this might include:

1. A very short and concise description of the problem and previous attempts to solve it.

2. A brief description of how we will solve it, including a description of the project and its goals, in plain language.

3. Sometimes an iteration on that, explaining one level deeper.

4. A paragraph on our novelty and value proposition, which is very important.

5. Factual details about Partnerships.

6. A bit about our company (not the project), current status, revenues, previous developments, and why our team is great for this project.

7. Reasons we need the grant, our higher goal for the project, and how it can benefit our community, country, Europe, or the world.

Step 3: Question dissection

We ensure that each additional detail the question asks for is answered, making it clear that each sentence directly addresses the specific details of the question, often by repeating the words of the question.

Step 4: The HP 7-rules application

A crucial step in our process involves reviewing each question against our set of seven grant writing rules, which are:

1. Are we citing enough details and examples, such as names of people, partners, degrees, schools, competitors, software tools used in the project, and so on?

2. Are we quantifying enough? For instance, when discussing our solution's impact on reducing carbon footprint, are we specifying the amount reduced in Euros, according to our best calculations?

3. Are we citing references sufficiently? For example, if we state that "Germans suffer more and more from anxiety and depression," do we have data to back this up, or has the anxiety rate in Germany maybe even decreased in the last four years?

4. Is every paragraph, and even every sentence, adding something to our pitch? If not, can we remove it? Note that a grant application is a "pitch" with the clear goal of convincing the evaluator to fund our project. Every paragraph, or even every sentence, must contribute to that pitch somehow.

5. Are there sections with too much personal opinion or adjectives, and can we replace them with facts that convey the same or even better information?

6. Are we generalizing too much or making statements about future scenarios where it is obvious we can’t make these statements, and can we replace them with softer words like "we estimate," "we plan," or "we believe"?

7. Are there paragraphs that read more like educational or textbook content, where it's not clear why they are included, and can we remove these paragraphs? Or can we better link them to our plans, the question itself, or our intention, ensuring our intention is stated clearly and not in the subjunctive mode of "could," "would," or "should"?

Step 5: One cohesive story

This step happens during and after the previous steps. We synchronize the message and standardize the use of words, ensuring the whole application reads like one cohesive and engaging story. This step is crucial, this is where we put ourselves into the right mindset, having a clear picture of why we are committed to this project, why it is great, and why we are the best to execute it. We ensure there is a flow between chapters, so reading the application doesn't feel disjointed or robotic.