Over the course of my career, I have worked on scores of contract and partnership proposals for social-impact projects around the world. I have collected field data, designed project strategies, written technical proposals, negotiated partner agreements, developed cost proposals, ensured alignment with donor priorities and requirements, and overseen proposal quality management.
I have seen a range of proposals on the spectrum of competitiveness and thought it might be helpful to share some thoughts about lessons learned over the years. What does make for a successful proposal? What are pitfalls to avoid? This is the first of a series of articles on the proposal development process. Each will be a deeper dive into some aspect of proposal development that is often neglected or not responsive to donor expectations.
The first and perhaps most often neglected issue in proposal development is appreciating how an upcoming project fits into the arc of development in a country. This means anchoring the proposal in the historical work that has been done to date but also then ensuring that what the aspiring implementer is proposing helps move the project to the next milestone of social development. This sounds straightforward and should be the starting point for any proposal planning but often is ignored or under-explored.
The idea of grounding a proposal for future work in historical context is core to almost everything we do in the social sciences and social impact work. Take, for example, the common structure for most research studies and academic articles. Early in any write up is a literature review, in which the author attempts to explain the historical trajectory of the research question. What has been done in the past? What questions are left unanswered? How will this new work move the state of the field forward in some meaningful way? What are the skills and approaches that the author brings to the issue that should make the client or readers confident that reading further or funding the project is a good investment.
Understanding the historical context and working environment is easier for organizations that have already worked on the ground or, as is sometimes the case, may even be the incumbent on the predecessor project. However, it can also be the case that local organizations and incumbents take ahistorical approaches to proposal development—or, possibly equally as problematic, assume that the client wants them to continue the historical work almost exactly as it had been implemented instead of pivoting to a somewhat different direction.
Why do organizations often default to ahistorical views on proposals? This is for a few reasons. First, history is complex and not always easy to piece together as a coherent story. There are twists and turns, decisions that may be overturned or new stakeholders that shift directions on activities mid-stream. There may be contrary views or approaches that cannot be reconciled through a single project. Second, organizations often feel more comfortable promoting their own strengths and successes than adjusting their proposed approaches based on the historical trajectory of work. They know their own work intimately, can explain what they do clearly, and can tout successes in their own approaches that they think might inspire client interest.
In some cases, grounding a new proposal in one’s historical work can be a winning strategy. An organization can convince the client that its approach or outcome is possibly more compelling than what the client has included in the solicitation. However, in most cases, this can be perceived as non-responsive, perhaps redundant, perhaps an approach that had been attempted previously but failed, or just out of sync with the arc of historical work and current context.
Another common mistake in proposals is dismissing historical approaches to project implementation—denigrating an incumbent’s approach for mistakes or failure, and touting the superiority of a new approach. Although it may very well be the case that a new organization may be proposing a better approach, historical work should not be discounted so quickly. There is a reason that the predecessor organization was hired in the first place and likely an important story behind why the previous approach may not have been as successful as expected.
For all these reasons, it is important that new proposals appreciate the arc of development when planning new activities. This includes historical trajectories, current context, and future opportunities and challenges. Following are ways to think about each of these pieces of the proposal puzzle:
- Collect as much information as possible about historical activities that have led to the current stage of development, including past successes and failures. This can be done by reviewing country plans, statistical trends, project reviews, and project reports. It should also include interviewing historical stakeholders to learn about original project plans, how these evolved over time, and why. What were the opportunities that historical activities were able to exploit to achieve project goals? What were the barriers that limited impact? This last question is crucial, because it is important to understand how challenging these historical barriers may also be to future implementation. Why were these difficult to overcome, and what is it about the new proposal that will mitigate or overcome these challenges completely?
- Think more critically about the current context for a new solicitation. The real trick for placing the new project within the arc of development is understanding the donor’s view about the current context and what can be accomplished during the upcoming project period. Presumably, to develop the solicitation in the first place, the donor has worked with the host country government and other stakeholders to craft a project scope to accomplish some unmet demand. The donor already has a theory of the case as to why the proposed investment is important and how it will meet project goals. In many ways, the donor has also tried to understand the role of the new project in the historical trajectory and has some ideas about the opportunities and challenges to overcome. Learning the donor’s perspective through document reviews and interviews will help align the proposal with those donor assumptions and respond to donor expectations in a more direct way.
- Anticipate opportunities and challenges during the future project period. One last piece of the proposal puzzle that is often neglected is to place the project in the context of future events and trends. For example, where is the country in its current development plan? Is it at the beginning, in which it will be important for the project to help the country achieve current objectives? Might it be in the middle, in which case project activities can inform the next plan? Or might it be close to the end of a cyclical plan, in which the project might have to pivot to new country goals? It is also important to think about a country’s political cycle. When are the next set of local, regional, or national elections? What might be the impact of those elections on government priorities and project objectives? What is the likelihood that historical project champions will continue to be in power in the future, and what might the effect of possible future changes on project stability? In addition, how stable are country-level reforms in the wake of larger regional or international trends? Do country priorities stay on track irrespective of external issues, or might positive or negative externalities likely have a dramatic effect on project implementation? Thinking about future contextual issues up front can improve a proposal’s credibility and then help future project implementers build opportunities and contingency plans into their workflow.
How have you helped your organization or others root project proposals in the arc of development? How important is this? Please join the conversation, and let us know what you think.
