CSCE 481: Seminar

Spring 2017

• Home
  
  
• Assignments
  
  
• Schedule
  
  

Proposal Long Writing Assignment

Arguably, collaboration is the currency of this decade and of the ones to come! It has a direct impact on productivity. We have at our disposal enabling technologies that facilitate and strengthen collaboration unimpeded by cultural, geographical, economic, and political differences. A real-life example in front of instructors and students is "Piazza" (or "Blackboard") intended to improve collaboration, and therefore efficiency of instruction and learning.

This writing assignment asks you to put together a proposal focused on "improved collaboration." Your proposal should be 2 to 4 pages in length. Imagine that a group has announced a call for proposals for grants to develop new software and/or hardware capabilities that could improve collaboration. Collaboration can have many different meanings, and you can interpret the idea very broadly for the purpose of this assignment. As examples:

• Collaboration is a broad term involving the accomplishment of a task as a real or virtual team, and could include one (or all of): verbal/audio, visual/video, language, electronic (in any form), physical, etc.
• You might focus on improving access to collaboration techniques, or quality of collaboration in some form, or range of collaboration options, or basically any aspect of collaboration you wish.
• The range of options is totally open. You could propose to deploy some known hardware system, or propose to develop a new application, or anything else you can think of. The only restriction is that your proposal should rely on computing technology of some sort. Think of ways in which an individual could use computing technology as a seamless "always connected" partner connecting her to the rest of the world.

Your actual topic can be unrealistic and fanciful as long as it is related to improving collaboration amongst individuals. The goal is to go through the process of putting together a proposal.

As a guideline, you want to aim for a proposal that might be (roughly) in the range of $50,000 to $250,000. That is, you should not be describing a project that would involve hiring a team of 10 developers for a year (that would probably cost a lot more than $250K), or something that you can code in your bedroom in a week (you do not need $50,000 for that). You are welcome to estimate numbers here; you do not have to be precise about how much various things will cost, look up "real" numbers, etc. Very rough estimates are OK for this proposal, but they should be reasonable.

You do not have to (but can, if you wish) propose a fully-developed and deployed system. The proposal can be to investigate or prototype or similarly begin work in an area. You must, of course, be clear about what you are proposing. Assume that the proposal will be judged on how likely it is to impact collaboration of ideas. The organization giving the grant does not require it to become a profitable venture, but would be willing to develop successful proposals into commercial systems.

There are several online resources (e.g. http://writingcenter.tamu.edu/Students/Guides/Alphabetical/Business-Writing/Proposals) that outline the elements of a good proposal. There are many variations, and proposals in particular domains will have different expected structures. We will use "Heilmeier's Catechism" for the elements that go into a good proposal (see http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_other/heilmeiers_cat.html). Specifically, a proposal should answer the following questions:

• What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely no jargon.
• How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?
• What's new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful?
• Who cares? If you're successful, what difference will it make?
• What are the risks and the payoffs?
• How much will it cost? How long will it take? (i.e. include a budget and justification)
• What are the midterm and final "exams" to check for success?

Objectives

• High[15]: The overall objectives of the proposed work are clearly and succinctly stated, with no jargon.
• Medium[10]: The overall objectives are evident, but only vaguely described.
• Low[0]: The overall objective of the proposal is unclear or its description is filled with jargon.

Current State

• High[10]: The state of the art is clearly described, and it is clear how the proposed work fills a gap.
• Medium[5]: The state of the art is described, but it is more difficult to understand the limits.
• Low[0]: It is unclear what might or might not currently be possible in this area

Process and Challenges

• High[20]: The proposed approach is clearly described. The major challenges to be faced are clearly stated, and how they will be addressed is stated directly.
• Medium[10]: A proposed course of action is clear, but the challenges are unstated or unaddressed.
• Low[0]: It is unclear what the course of action will be.

Impact and Payoff

• High[15]: It is very clear how the proposal improves collaboration and the money invested is justified.
• Medium[10]: The proposed work will lead to improved collaboration, but the extent is unclear.
• Low[0]: It is difficult to understand how the proposed work would have a significant impact.

Requirements and Budget

• High[15]: The requirements in terms of money, time, equipment, and personnel are clearly stated.
• Medium[10]: It is clear how money and time will be spent, but little justification is given.
• Low[0]: It is not clear how money, time, and resources will be used, or why they are being requested.

Checkpoints

• High[15]: A series of easily measurable/verifiable checkpoints are included to allow progress to be judged.
• Medium[10]: Checkpoints are given but they are vague and unverifiable, or do not reflect actual progress.
• Low[0]: It is difficult to understand how progress or success will be measured.

Overall Coherence

• High[10]: The entire proposal gives a consistent view of the proposed work.
• Medium[5]: All the aspects of the proposal are present, but are not tied together in a common vision.
• Low[0]: There are inconsistencies in the descriptions of various sections.