Published on 22.09.2026
Write better grant proposals without wasting time
Writing a proposal for a major funding scheme (SNSF Project Funding, ERC Starting Grant, etc.) is often perceived as taking a full month of work, an estimate that is largely borne out in practice. Importantly, more time spent on a proposal does not automatically mean a better chance of success. Once a proposal reaches a sufficient level of quality, additional effort has diminishing returns.
As a researcher, there is only so much you can do to reduce the time spent preparing a proposal. Much depends on factors outside your control, such as the funder's requirements. However, for the aspects you can control, the following seven-step workflow can help you avoid unnecessary work.
A seven-step workflow
1. Confirm eligibility before you start
Before developing the project, verify that you are eligible for the scheme. Check not only your own status, but also the eligibility of co-applicants, partners and participating institutions. This is especially important if you are working on an international project involving a funder you are not familiar with.
If a rule is unclear, contact your Grants Office. At Unifr, this is the Research Promotion Service.
2. Assess the fit with the funding scheme
Another question you should ask early is whether your proposed research fits the call:
- Is the call intended for fundamental or applied research?
- Does the call support projects of this size and ambition?
- Does the project address the funder’s objectives and evaluation criteria?
You should also make a realistic initial assessment of competitiveness. To take an extreme example: if you are considering an ERC Plus Grant, bear in mind that only around 30 projects will be funded each year across all fields and career stages.
3. Identify what is required at the current stage
Read the call documents, guidelines, templates and evaluation criteria closely. Identify what the funder is asking for, and provide exactly that.
This is especially important in multi-stage calls. If the first stage requires only a short notification of intent, do not draft the full second-stage proposal in advance. It can be useful to think ahead when this strengthens the current submission, but detailed work for a future stage should wait until it is actually needed.
4. Build the proposal spine
Before drafting full sections of your proposal, define its spine by answering the following questions.
- What is the main research objective? State clearly what the project will achieve.
- What are the research questions? Translate the objective into focused questions or hypotheses.
- What is the relevant literature or state of the art? Include your own work where relevant and clarify the gap the project addresses.
- What methodology will be used? In empirical projects, this may concern data, methods and analysis. In disciplines such as philosophy, theology or literature, it may instead involve the choice of sources, interpretative approaches or background assumptions.
- How will the project be run? Outline work packages, responsibilities, timeline, outputs, risks and contingency measures.
- What will the project change? Describe its expected contribution to the specific field, the wider discipline, science and, where relevant, society in general.
Once the spine is clear, reassess the project’s fit with the scheme. If the project no longer appears well aligned, be prepared to revise it substantially, or even to discard it.
5. Turn the spine into a proposal skeleton
Next, create a structured document with all required headings already in place. Start from the funder’s template or recommended structure whenever one is available, then add meaningful subheadings as needed.
Use your word processor’s built-in heading styles rather than formatting headings manually. This makes the hierarchy visible, supports navigation and allows the structure to be revised efficiently.
Aim for an hourglass structure: begin broadly enough to establish the context and significance, narrow the discussion toward the specific research gap addressed by the project, and then broaden it again toward the expected contribution and impact. The reader should always know where the proposal is going.
6. Flesh out the proposal
Only now should you begin the most time-consuming step: turning the spine and skeleton into a complete research plan.
Because the core decisions have already been made, drafting becomes less about discovering the project while writing and more about explaining an already coherent design. Use the material from the proposal spine to populate the sections of the skeleton, adding evidence, detail and transitions where required.
7. Complete the administrative parts last
Prepare the administrative information and detailed budget after the research plan has stabilized. This makes it easier to ensure consistency between the scientific activities, personnel, timeline, resources and requested funds.
Where possible, enter information directly into the submission portal rather than drafting it in a separate format that will later require copying and reformatting.
Make sure to allow enough time for institutional checks, signatures, and approvals. Here, “last” means after the research plan is ready, not immediately before the deadline.
Key takeways
- Be wary of diminishing returns. Stop polishing when further changes no longer improve clarity, compliance, or persuasiveness.
- Be willing to discard and restart. Time already spent is not a reason to continue with a poorly aligned idea. Don't fall for the sunk cost fallacy.
- Use a structured workflow. Whether you follow the sequence presented here or adapt it, make deliberate decisions before drafting at length.
Ultimately, a structured workflow helps ensure that time and effort are invested where they have the greatest impact on the quality of the proposal.
This article is based on the talk “Submitting Grants with Minimal Effort”, delivered on 22 June 2026 as part of the Research & Cookies seminar series.