Our high-level objective when working with researchers is to transform proposals from a cluster of great ideas and processes that are not quite doing themselves justice as a ‘pitch’ into a persuasive, surprising and even pleasurable proposition that is ready to be funded. We have done this many hundreds of times and hope to continue to be asked to do so – these are great intellectual challenges on the leading edge of knowledge which is always an exciting place to be working. The core of the process is always our line-by-line analysis of the drafts, the comments we make there and the discussion of those through a number of rounds of review.

We don’t claim to have any field expertise and have worked successfully in every field under the sun and some beyond that! We assume that at the bleeding edge of knowledge only the teams writing the proposal know the science, in fact, that must logically be the case or we won’t need research if it is already known to someone, somewhere and simply needs to be better distributed. So, it is not really clear what role topic expertise could play in research planning from the outside as, strictly, the people who know what the answers to the proposal problems possibly are should be in the research team, anyway. Far more important to have very long-established and battle-tested proposal writing expertise on the team than another scientist who also claims to be able to write proposals – the two skill sets are very distinct and rarely found together.

So, we take responsibility for the logic, the rhetoric, the persuasiveness, the flow and the focus of the work which are a core part of the proposal and need to work in synergy with the science to make an impact in these highly oversubscribed calls. In a nutshell, we might say that our job is to get researchers to focus on why the research is urgent and what difference it will make and why strategic problems are selected and why strategic approaches are the right ones. If we can answer these questions together then the expertise of the researchers will be given a framework in which it can really shine and to argue while this work rather than any other should be funded.

We bring about this change through a close working partnership for the duration of the assignment which is based around a core of very detail review of the emerging draft texts and as many online meetings as necessary to get the job done quickly. We don’t have very strong ideas about the stage of the process at which we might join in the writing process. Often we are involved before ideas are clarified at the start and this is helpful to make sure that the proposal is written for the particular call from the very first moment and it helps to streamline and speed things up. But often we are asked to come in in the last week or two for final, critical reading and stress-testing, which is also a high-value process if researchers are ready and willing to still make any alterations that are necessary to win.

Above all we work in a client-centric way throughout to ensure that the work is completed to the rhythm and in the style of the individuals or teams concerned – we know precisely where we need to end up but understand there are a range of different ways of getting to the right ends.

So, we find the best fit to make this dialogic approach work quickly and effectively is with researchers who are open to working on our detailed recommendations and to consider some often fairly thoroughgoing rethinking and rebalancing. We don’t deal in general recommendations or simply ensure the page limits are observed or take the easiest way through as we will say very openly and clearly if there are serious barriers to success – we’ll also say how to fix them, of course, but don’t work simply to flatter the researchers and encourage them along a pathway to failure just in order to be able to invoice.

In fact, in the end, the only way we know how to do this effectively is to apply the same standards as we use when writing in other areas of our work – we don’t like losing, can’t afford to, therefore, rarely lose and have very, very high standards and in particular a good judges of what the call is for and what to pitch into it.

Clients have often told us of both tangible and intangible benefits – clearly, the tangible ones being much stronger proposals at the end, achieved efficiently and which go on to do much better than even the researchers themselves believe. Intangible a various and are particularly gratifying to us as are not things we can really aim at directly e.g., we are told that we build confidence, demystify the calls, make winning seem perfectly possible, simplify radically and most importantly of all that we for the very first time give researchers skills that can be used for any other proposal writing and which have very significant ripple effects on future success in bidding for research.

We don’t offer proof-reading as it is simply never necessary as researchers are all masters of the English that they need in their fields – we have never found it to be otherwise and, often, researchers underestimate how well they write – all part of the perfectly correct academic modesty with which they approach their work but not a problem. Academic modesty can be a problem – without wishing to open up a vast topic – and an important part of our work together would be putting some aspects of that habit to one side for a moment, just long enough to stand up and say some clear things, some challenging and new things in their own voice. This can make some researchers anxious, in particular the younger crowd as they are never really expected to or expect to be called on to do that – but if you don’t, well, you can’t win, and so going out of the normal professional ‘comfort zone’ is all part of the important task of transformation from academic writing to proposal writing that really forms the core of the purpose of our work.

We make it as simple as it can possibly be to contract with A Bigger Splash Limited and always aim to make the process of engaging us as friction-free as we can to keep the costs of doing business as low they can be – often, with established clients, we do this by exchange of emails and on a trust basis that has never let us down and is much appreciated by lots of clients who already have enough paperwork to take care of. With new clients, once terms are clear on both sides and agreed then the process is also kept very minimal indeed with trust and reciprocity being the foundation of all our assignments. As for our prices – currently €1,600.00 per day for standard two-day ERC review assignments and, of course, flexible for greater numbers of days – we are told are cheaper than any competitors for senior consultants and we think are fair, in particular given that we have guided researchers to millions of euros of funding every year.

We hope these details help in decision making but realise this is a fairly complex topic to cover briefly and will have missed out some things you want to know about – so, please don’t hesitate to be in contact with us for a no-commitment discussion about possible collaboration – we are always very happy to make contact with new people in new places as well as hearing from old colleagues for new work.

Of the many messages of thanks and appreciation from happy clients that we get we’ll leave you with just one as it seems to catch it all in one place – ‘I happened in the recent past to submit proposals generated in other two universities in Europe and USA and I could never count on a help like that to strengthen my presentation. It provides invaluable help to the proponents and in addition I am fairly sure that it is paying for itself!’ (J.C. Spain)