Proposal Review Process Optimization

Can we improve how we assess interdisciplinary research proposals? Having spent 10 years working in interdisciplinary research, I saw firsthand how funding panels struggle to evaluate these proposals fairly. Yet interdisciplinary research is essential for tackling complex societal challenges—from climate change to health inequalities. If we don’t get the assessment process right, we risk undervaluing the very research that can drive real-world change. This recent paper, "How qualitative criteria can improve the assessment process of interdisciplinary research proposals" by Schölvinck et al. (2024), highlights how qualitative criteria- rather than rigid metrics- can enhance fairness and clarity in the review process. Key takeaways: ✅ Qualitative criteria improve assessment 💡 Panels benefited from structured discussions on integration, feasibility, and impact rather than relying on narrow scoring systems. ✅ Interdisciplinary research needs different evaluation tools 📖 Disciplinary review panels often struggle with proposals that cross boundaries, reinforcing barriers to truly integrative research. ✅ Team composition & institutional support matter 🤝 Successful interdisciplinary projects rely on collaborative skills, open-mindedness, and strong institutional backing-factors that traditional funding criteria can overlook. ✅ Bibliometric indicators have limitations 📊 While tools like the Rao-Stirling Index can measure interdisciplinarity, they don’t capture the conceptual or methodological depth of collaboration. 💬 What’s next? This study reinforces something I’ve long believed—peer review processes must adapt to recognise the unique nature of IDR. Instead of rigid scoring, qualitative criteria should be used to guide discussions rather than dictate funding decisions. It’s such an important shift if we are serious about tackling the most pressing societal challenges. #InterdisciplinaryResearch #ResearchFunding #PeerReview #KnowledgeExchange #ResearchAssessment

RFP responses can be a real challenge. They’re often slow and inconsistent due to scattered knowledge and manual processes. This was the case for a global consultancy that wanted to speed up how it brought its offerings to market. Sales teams struggled to access past proposals, relevant case studies, and client-specific context. This customer was an early Glean Agent adopter, and we’re thankful for their feedback along the journey. To address this challenge, they deployed a suite of Glean agents. The goal was to unify content discovery and streamline proposal workflows, pulling from their company knowledge bases, CRM systems, and external research to support end-to-end RFP generation. This was paired with a methodical approach to enablement and adoption. Some examples of agents they built: • A Client Need Triage agent that maps client requirements to standard service offerings • A Research agent to pull together industry and company-specific insights • A Historian agent to surface past engagements and account activity right from the CRM • A Proposal Helper agent to accelerate proposal creation with standardized, offering-aligned drafts This foundation delivered real business value: • Proposal development time dropped from 4 weeks to just a few hours. That’s a 97% productivity gain. • A heuristic metric of deflecting over $150K if a single point enablement Saas solution was chosen. By embedding agents directly into the sales workflow, the consultancy improved both speed and precision in proposal development. Now, they’re looking to apply the same agent-driven approach to other parts of the business, like managed services and engineering, to bring that same efficiency and intelligence everywhere.

Proposal hell used to eat Marketing Agencies lunch Better Together Agency was drowning in 1-2 week proposal cycles... Every RFP meant pulling multiple team members off client work, burning through research, and scrambling to meet deadlines. They were essentially paying 1.5 full-time employees just to chase new business. Then they flipped the script with Suits.ai Now they knock out proposals in 3 days flat. Same quality, same strategic thinking, but with 75% less time investment. The math is simple: no more FTE overhead and save $5K-$8K per proposal cycle. Here's how Better Together Agency changed everything with Suits.ai: • Research acceleration: Client research dropped from 12 hours to 3 hours with AI-powered insights • Strategic framework speed: Framework development cut from 8 hours to 2 hours using Suits.ai's methodology capture • Narrative automation: Proposal writing reduced from 16 hours to 4 hours while maintaining our authentic voice • Resource optimization: One team member with AI support now handles what required three full-time people The team now spends those extra days refining strategy instead of formatting documents becoming more competitive, less stressed, with proposals that actually got better. As CEO Catharine Montgomery, MBA put it: "We were at a crossroads. Either we hire more people to handle proposal work, or keep saying no to potential clients. Suits.ai gave us a third option that we didn't know existed." Excited to partner with you!

A $99.4 billion market cap company came to us because they were losing RFPs to the competition. The problem: The average document would go through 5 rounds of review with 7 reviewers. By the time they submitted the RFP, the potential client had already moved on. This kind of inefficiency wasn’t just mind-boggingly staggering. It was also costing them millions every month in lost business. And if you don’t mind me bringing in a dating analogy— Was like having every one of your friends and relatives give their suggestions on how to craft the first message you send after matching with someone on Tinder. Who, by the time the message finally comes through, is already married with kids… Anyway, our audit revealed they had: — No guidelines for review in place — Nor internal standard for what constituted a "quality" document — And a vindictive penchant for focusing on pet peeves instead of substantive feedback So we helped them standardize their reviewing process. That meant instituting: — Consensus on what constitutes a "quality" document — Guidelines for a review process to reduce iterations — Best practices for feedback that contributes to document quality After that: — Reviewing time was cut by half — Proposals looked sharp and crisp — They started winning new projects — People stopped arguing about politics — All plastics disappeared from our oceans — Every Zoom meeting that could have been an email was canceled, permanently and in perpetuity Fine, I made the last three items up to bring in some humor. But the first three are legit. Bottom line: If you’ve got a time-sensitive document going to a gajillion decision-makers who each leave vague comments like “not good, make better,” you’re going to lose money. And while a revamp of your writing and reviewing process won’t necessarily eliminate unnecessary meetings (actually, it might!) or result in everlasting romantic love— It’ll make you money while reducing human frustration.

I am currently supporting a contract doing merit reviews of grant proposals for economic development programs. It has reinforced my practices of strategically designing proposal documents and narrative to make it easy on the reviewer. The proposals are all over the 😣 Part of the problem is the government’s instructions don’t align easily with the evaluation criteria, which has every proposal just a bit different and results in the reviewers hunting all over the application documents to find the information we need to score them. It is painful, tedious, and incredibly inefficient. (BTW – I wrote the proposal that won this work, never thinking I would have to be part of the implementation team.) Here are my takeaways. ✅Zero in on evaluation factors, particularly if the instructions are minimal and/or they don’t align well with the evaluation criteria. ✅If the evaluation criteria calls out specifics, make sure the reviewer can find them easily, and I don’t mean buried in an endless paragraphs and bolded. Put it up front or in a call out. ✅Don’t provide extraneous information that you think is cool. You are just wasting space, distracting the reviewer, and clogging the information pipeline. ✅Don’t make assumptions about anything. You have no idea who is going to be reviewing and scoring, so speak to the novice and the expert. ✅You can’t always assume the reviewer is seeing your other submission documents, either. So, make sure each volume directly addresses it’s specific requirements and evaluation factors, including context as needed and space allows. ✅Last, structure your paragraphs strategically, assuming the reviewer isn’t going to read every word. Put the information most important to the reviewer first, then explain your how and why. 👉Remember you want to make it as easy as possible to find the information they need and articulate their justifications for their scores. Be reviewer friendly. ++++++++ This is exactly what Writing is Easy does. We help make your responses easier to read and score, through carefully crafted language and document design.

One thing is certain: every proposal process could be improved. Managing a proposal team isn’t something that you learn once and do perfectly for the rest of your life. Each team and proposal are a new opportunity. Part of how we continue improving is by gathering all the information we can.   Enter: the proposal debrief. The proposal debrief is a best practice that can have valuable payoffs! When approaching a post-submission debrief, there are a few mindset considerations that will help: 1. It is impossible to change the past. Look forward to what you can do differently next time. 2. Human beings are imperfect. We all make errors and owning them helps us learn how to fix them together. 3. If you come down hard on someone else for their error, it will be your error next time. So, treat every mistake as if you made it. The purpose of an internal debrief is for your entire organization to learn from the experience of assembling proposals and working on proposal teams, so that you can improve the process. Often, an internal debrief intends to answer these types of questions: • What processes worked well? • What needs improvement next time? • How well did our team work together? • What worked in our technical design process? • Was our proposal team staffing appropriate? Most commonly, an internal debrief is based on a standard format of questions that the proposal team can use to assess and review the proposal process to determine what worked and what could go better next time. Many organizations choose to gather proposal team members into a debrief 1-2 weeks after proposal submission.   The facilitator, often a proposal manager, moves the group through questions, capturing notes and action items. When facilitating a debrief, the proposal manager should be conscious of avoiding placing blame on anyone.   One deficiency I commonly see is that internal debriefs prioritize the feedback from headquarters staff on headquarters-driven processes. Consider facilitation processes for your debrief that encourage inputs from country teams and partners as well.   Key Points to Remember: • An internal debrief can tempt participants to play the blame game, but as proposal manager, you can help them stay focused on learning together. Setting the right tone can create an internal debrief process that doesn’t place blame on any one person, but helps your organization learn and improve. • Learning doesn’t happen unless you can cultivate an environment where people are trying to improve and support each other through that process. A big component of crafting that culture is to learn how to give constructive feedback. • No feedback is useful unless you use it! a strategy to put learning into action in your next proposal. Next time you wrap up a proposal, consider holding a proposal debrief. Chances are you will learn something about your process that can be improved and applied next time around!