Writing an Excellent
Project Plan
Explaining your research to
everyone
Jerry Hatfield
National Soil Tilth Laboratory
SQRO (Ret.)
Some Ground Rules
• No question is too obvious…Ask!
• Easiest way in a large group is to send a question (using
the question box in the lower right corner).
• We will read out questions received (only Mike sees
them) without saying who they are from…
• With this large group we’ll hold questions to the end.
• DO NOT put your phone on HOLD for any reason.
If you must leave use Mute (hold can create noise
problems for the rest of us).
• If you want to see a larger image use Full Screen Mode
under the View tab at the top of your screen. (Esc
returns you to the frames mode)
What Causes the Problems
•
•
•
•
Lack of clarity in project plan
Lack of integration in the overall plan
Lack of details in the experimental plan
Lack of explanation of the role of project team
members
• Lack of explanation of the knowledge gaps and
how project will fill them
• Lack of confidence in the ability of the project
team to accomplish the objectives
Your Plan is a Marketing Tool
…and the reviewers are your customers
By page 5 reviewers should know:
The subject of your research
Why it is important
What it will produce
How you are going to get there
The rest of the document will “flesh out” this but if
the reviewers don’t know it by page 5, they
probably won’t get it easily from the rest of the
document.
this means…
• The project summary should present the overall
thread of your work, the major gaps being
addressed, how you will address them, and what
you will produce…in no more than a dozen
sentences.
• The Objectives should be followed by one to two
paragraphs that explain how they are integrated
and how they address the overall goals of the
work. A chart illustrating this and showing where
individuals on the project team fit is most
helpful.
Where are the problems?
(Science, Data, Writing)
Science
Missing Information
Writing or Organization
3.00
Score/n
2.50
The problem is poor
or inadequate writing!
2.00
1.50
Little difference
1.00
0.50
0.00
No
Minor
Moderate
Major
Not
Rev ision
Rev ision
Rev ision
Rev ision
Feasible
Action Class
Don’t hide
your
details and
expect the
panel to
guess your
path!
Comment Sampling
“No Revision”
…studies will fill rather substantial knowledge
gaps.
…well written and comprehensive
…well written project plan
…well organized, cogently prioritized and
comprehensive research plan…
Comment Sampling
“Minor Revision”
…studies will fill rather substantial knowledge
gaps.
…well written and comprehensive
…well written project plan
…well organized, cogently prioritized and
comprehensive research plan…
…well written, well organized, and easy to
follow.
Comment Sampling
“Moderate Revision”
…one of the better written
…excellent discussion of technology
…large research project plan but poorly organized.
…concerns that some of the objectives can be
completed by this team.
…work and ability described as "adequate"
…missing current information
…hypotheses and plan well conceived, approaches
appropriate
Comment Sampling
“Major Revision”
…a heroic course that…will not achieve the stated objectives
…serious flaws in experimental designs…
General Lack of focus. Plan is so broad that it leaves out
important details…not clear data will be relevant or
interpretable.
…lacks cohesion and clear direction
…writing style, quality, and organization significantly
detract…
Short on details. Not well planned. Need to take process
seriously.
Comment Sampling
“Not Feasible”
…approaches highly flawed, lack detail, many experiments
duplicative
…poorly written…difficult to discern what the authors want to
do.
…proposed research contradicts intention of the proposal.
…exaggerations, incomplete reviews…, and misleading
comments, as well as poor grammar and organization.
…lack of knowledge…incomplete understanding
…fundamental misunderstanding…
Work does not address stated objectives.
Causes of Low Scores
• Presentation of the information, not
necessarily the scientific questions or the
project team
• Can not see the logical path of science
toward the goal
• Not an integrated plan but a collection of
parts, plan looks and reads like it was
assembled by a committee but not read
for its “flow” once assembled.
Attributes of a Good (Great)
Plan
•
•
•
•
Explains the problem, the current state of
knowledge, your expertise in the problem
area, your approach to solving the problem,
and the products from the research program
Convinces the review panel that you are the
best team to conduct this research.
Presents your plan as a narrative from front to
back
Showcases your ability as a project team to
conduct this research and solve a problem
These are not competitive
grants but think about
preparing this plan to
demonstrate to NPS and AO
that your funding for this effort
is a great investment and the
return you provide will benefit
ARS and the American Public
Document Outline
Title and Investigator(s)………….page 1
Signature Page……………...........page 2
Table of Contents……….………….page 3
Project summary (250 words)...page 4
Objectives...…………..................page 5
Need for research (1-2 p)
15 - 30 pages
Scientific Background (5-7 p)
Prior Accomplishments (2 p)
Approach & Procedures (6-15 p)
Literature Cited
Milestone Table (1-3 p)
Past Accomplishments of Project Team Members
Issues of Concern statements
Appendices (letters plus other material)
Project Summary
• Marketing plan for your research plan that
explains the research plan and its
potential impact
• Understandable by the non-technical
reader
Objectives
• Don’t just state the objectives but explain
the goals that are being addressed.
• Link the objectives together by using a
diagram that shows the project team and
the products (A picture is worth a 1000
words).
Need for Research & Scientific
Background
• Why is a solution to this problem
important?
• How does it fit into the NP action plan?
• What are the current knowledge gaps?
• What preliminary data exists from your
program (graphs and tables help)?
• This section doesn’t have to be long but
set the stage for this research
Need for Research & Scientific
Background (Hints)
• Your literature review doesn’t have to cover all
of the information known on this topic.
• Present related projects as more than a list from
the CRIS search, show the linkages.
• What the panel wants to see is what gaps exist
in the current literature and how your project
plan fills those gaps.
• Most of the comments state that this is “great”
literature review but it doesn’t tell us why the
problem is important.
Hypotheses
• Clear, concise, and testable hypothesis
statements.
• Divide project plan into subobjectives each
with testable hypothesis statements.
• Question: Does your hypothesis
statement relate to your experimental
plan?
Approach and Procedures
• Adequate detail on experimental
procedures
• Data to be collected
• Approach for the data analysis
• Who is responsible for the conduct of the
research?
Approach and Procedures
(Hints)
• If you are using a new technique show that your
project team has the expertise to use this
method.
• If you have a vacancy describe how this SY will
fit into the project plan and if the objective is
totally the responsibility of the vacant SY then
give scope of what this SY will do and have a 6month milestone that their job will be to develop
an experimental plan.
Approach and Procedures
(Hints)
• Link the experiments back to the
knowledge gaps and conclude by how
these studies fill these gaps.
• Lay the foundation for the research
program by showing what you will be
doing in the first set of experiments.
• Link to the contingency section
Contingencies
• This is not the whining section!
• Show how you will use the results from
the initial studies to determine your next
steps in the project plan.
• If you are using a new technology, state
how you will evaluate it’s effectiveness
against other methods.
Collaborations
• Don’t merely list the collaborators but
explain what they “bring” to the project
plan.
• Use the collaborator letters to provide
evidence of their involvement.
• If you have a SCA with a group provide a
copy of the agreement in the appendix
with a summary in the Collaboration
section.
Collaborations (Hints)
• If there is a project within the location or
area that is within the same NP show how
these are linked or complement each
other.
• Don’t overstate collaborations for
“window-dressing” but show viable
collaborations.
Project Management
• How is the project team going to evaluate
the progress of the project?
• If you have collaborators how will the
overall project team assess progress?
Human & Physical
Resources
• Provide the confidence that you have the
resources needed to conduct the research.
– This is not the place to ask for more.
• Human Resources
– Vacancy- explain the vacancy and expected date it
will be filled.
– Training- explain any training needed on new
methods and how this will be obtained (classes, time
in other laboratories).
• Physical Resources
– Provide confidence that you have the resources
required to answer the problems.
Milestone Table
• Use this table as a summary of your
project.
• Include the products and milestones that
you expect to deliver over the life-cycle.
• Remember these are only the starting
points and will be changed each year
through the life-cycle as the project
progresses.
Previous Accomplishments
• Summary of each investigator in a related
project objectives
• Pertinent publications to the project
objectives
• Remember, the review team is probably
aware of your research, but they still like
to read about your assessment of your
accomplishments.
Supporting Materials
• Letters from collaborators
• Other material that helps support your
ability to conduct the research
Separating the Good from the
Great
• Prepare an integrated narrative that
provides the detail and instills confidence
about the project team approach to
addressing the problem.
• Shows that the project plan will fill
important gaps needed for science and
the National Program Action Plan.
• Shows that outcomes will address
problems.
Hints
• Read your plan with a fresh set of eyes
after you have assembled the plan.
• The plan should read as an integrated
effort to solve a problem.
• Use the plan as a reflection of the project
teams ability to conduct problem-solving
science.
• Proofread your plan!
Parting Thoughts
• Don’t expect anyone else other than the
Project Team to add quality to the project
plan
• Be proud of your research
accomplishments and your approach to
address this problem
• Producing a quality plan takes time. Start
early and seek the input of colleagues.