Successful Failures and Failed Successes: Untangling the Obstacles Facing Collaborative Proposal Writing

The first task faced by many teams endeavoring to solve complex scientific problems is to seek funding for their research venture. Often, this necessitates forming new, geographically dispersed teams of researchers from multiple disciplines. While the team science and organizational management fields have studied project teams extensively, nascent teams are underrepresented in the literature. Nonetheless, understanding proposal team dynamics is important because if left unaddressed, obstacles may persist beyond the funding decision and undermine the possibility of team successes adjunctive to funding. Participant observation of more than 100 multi-investigator proposal teams and semi-structured interviews with six leaders of multidisciplinary proposal teams identified investigator motivations for collaboration, obstacles to collaboration, and indicators of proposal team success. The motivations ranged from technical interests in the research question to a desire to have impact beyond oneself. The obstacles included inconsistent or non-existent communication protocols, unclear processes for producing and reviewing documents, ad hoc file and citation management systems, short and stressful time horizons, ambiguous decision-making procedures, and uncertainty in establishing a shared vision. While funding outcome was the most objective indicator of a proposal team’s success, other success indicators emerged, including whether the needs of the team member(s) had been met and the willingness of team members to continue collaborating. This multi-dimensional definition of success makes it possible for teams to simultaneously be considered successes and failures. As a framework to analyze and overcome obstacles, this work turned to the United States military’s command and control (C2) approach, which relies on specifying the following elements to increase an organization’s agility: patterns of interaction, distribution of information, and allocation of decision rights. To address disciplinary differences and varied motivations for collaboration, this work added a fourth element: shared meaning-making. The broader impact of this work is that by implementing a C2 framework to uncover and address obstacles, the proposal experience—from team creation, to idea generation, to document creation, to final submittal—becomes more rewarding for faculty, leading to greater job satisfaction. This in turn will change how university research enterprises create, organize, and share knowledge to solve complex problems in the post-industrial information age.