Innovation Partnership Investment Committee Observations

As the Proposal Writing Assistance program enters its third month of operation, sixteen companies have submitted their SBIR Phase I proposal concepts for evaluation. To date, six have been ruled eligible for financial assistance in preparing their final proposal (two are pending). Dr. David Counts, Director of Life Sciences for Ben Franklin Technology Partners of Southeastern Pennsylvania and Chairman of the Innovation Partnership Investment Committee, teamed up with Peggy Shults, President of Lytmos Group, LLC, to offer several general suggestions for not only increasing the likelihood of receiving the $4,000 in program funding, but also getting greater benefit from this evaluation process.

1. Read the questions carefully.
   
   The Investment Committee has observed that the application questions are often not answered. That is, the information offered does not directly address what has been requested. It’s worth spending a little extra time considering what is being asked before you begin writing; make sure you’re supplying relevant information, rather than something else you’d rather write about.
   
   
2. Be clear in your application when describing the following items:
   
   
   1. The technology to be exploited
      It is critical to differentiate your proposed technology from that which has been done before. The only way to do so successfully is to be specific about what makes your technology, or use of an existing technology, unique or innovative. The review panel will include subject matter experts in your field, so it is safe to assume a fundamental understanding of your industry.
      
      
   2. The project team
      The ideal project team is well rounded. A technically credible investigator strengthens the application (and the resulting proposal). When needed, additional technical support can be obtained through a university (academic) subcontractor or through a consultant. Often, a need for greater technical support is evident when an application lacks sufficient detail to adequately address item a (above). Conversely, a project team light on commercial experience raises doubts about the likelihood of an ensuing product ever reaching its intended market.
      
      
   3. The potential product to be developed
      While this may seem like an obvious point, both the review panel and the Investment Committee are often left without a clear picture of the resulting end product of the project. Your proposed work needs to lead to something concrete.
      
      
   4. The end users
      Often a “pure technologist” will be convinced that everyone will desire the technology as much as he/she does. However, don’t make such assumptions. Show the review panel who can benefit from your technology; identify one or more categories of users with a significant problem for which this product potentially offers a reasonable solution.
      
      Keep in mind that it is not always the case that the end user pays directly for the use of the potential product. Often, a producer or service provider sells their output to a third party who further packages it or adds additional value and sells the combined offering.
      
      
   5. The competitive landscape
      How are your potential users’ needs currently being met? What are their available alternatives from other sources, and what is known to be in the works?
      
      
3. Be concise
   You must strike a balance between describing your proposal concept well enough to support an Innovation Partnership evaluation, and being brief. The application form is designed to cut to the heart of your planned proposal without demanding a lot of extra supporting information. It is not necessary to elaborate in great detail. The default spaces provided on the application should be sufficient to include enough key information for a reader skilled in your technology or experienced in your commercial market to grasp your intention.
   
   
4. Know that your intellectual property is protected
   All parties involved in the review and decision process are bound to treat your information confidentially. Consequently, the Innovation Partnership evaluation provides a rare opportunity to obtain meaningful, objective feedback on your proposal concept from subject matter experts in your field. Omitting essential elements when describing your plans for the sake of protecting your intellectual property not only wastes this opportunity, but also casts doubt as to whether your project offers genuine technical innovation.
   
   The federal review of SBIR grant applications is also performed by reviewers bound by confidentiality agreements with the various funding agencies. If you are uncomfortable disclosing enough information to permit an objective assessment of your technology development plans, federal funding may not be an appropriate option for you.
   
   
5. Be coachable
   The most beneficial outcome from this evaluation process is not the financial assistance that may result, but the impartial, constructive feedback extended. The best way to succeed in the world of technology commercialization is to seize every opportunity to learn from those who have experience and insight. Applicants who become defensive when confronted with weaknesses in their plans are usually sentencing themselves to the difficult path of learning the hard way. For those brave enough to face their own blind spots, there is a wealth of assistance available through the Innovation Partnership and elsewhere. The Innovation Partnership welcomes repeat applications when the shortcomings in earlier proposal concepts have been addressed.
   
   By keeping each of the previous suggestions in mind during the evaluation process, you’ll be able to communicate the pertinent details of your project, obtain frank, constructive feedback from experts, and use the entire experience to strengthen your proposal—and your chances for funding success.

“The reward for work well done is the opportunity to do more.”

Jonas Salk, M.D.

Words from a Winner—Hx Technologies

COMPANY NAME: Hx Technologies, Inc. (HxTI)
WEBSITE: www.hxti.com
ADDRESS: 3600 Market St. Suite 370, Philadelphia, PA 19104
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES: 4
NUMBER OF PHASE I SBIR GRANTS AWARDED: 2
AWARDED BY: Department of Health and Human Services (NIH)

Anyone who’s ever been involved in starting a small business is well aware that financing is often a daunting if not all-consuming task. For science and technology startups, however, federal SBIR programs represent an accessible source of R&D capital, provided their grant application can demonstrate significance, innovation, and adequate resources for the proposed research (including an appropriate scientific team and environment). Dr. Elliot Menschik, Chief Executive Officer at Hx Technologies, notes that while early-stage companies may not have all such resources on hand, they can still achieve success in their SBIR applications by building relationships with academic institutions or even other companies that can add both capability and credibility.

Founded in 2000, Hx Technologies has successfully developed iHistory™, a first-of-its-kind technology platform and information service that enables physicians to securely access their patient’s digital imaging records (x-rays, CT scans, MRI scans, radiology reports, etc.) wherever they are scattered across multiple information systems, multiple hospitals--even multiple health systems within or between geographic regions. Their goal is to enhance patient safety by providing physicians with access to the data that will improve diagnostic accuracy while reducing the overuse of medical imaging that occurs when such information is unavailable. In addition to the two Phase I awards, the company is awaiting word on several more proposals submitted to NIH, including one Phase II application.

Dr. Menschik attributes part of HxTI’s success in receiving SBIR funding to their relationship with the radiology department at the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS). Due to the wealth of data and resources available at UPHS, HxTI could perform research that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive for a young company. At the same time, their technology addresses some long-standing problems the radiology department has had with image distribution. “As a beta testing site, UPHS certainly strengthens our SBIR applications, which, while noted for their significance and innovation by the scientific review committees at NIH, might otherwise be seen as too difficult to execute within the confines of an isolated laboratory merely simulating real-life conditions in a hospital. The relationship, though, is mutually beneficial in that our technology can be applied to enhance care delivery in the health system while continuing to stimulate Penn’s own cutting-edge research in the area of medical informatics,” says Menschik.

Dr. Menschik emphasizes how important it is to talk with others knowledgeable about the SBIR process while preparing a proposal. He found it particularly helpful to speak with relevant program directors at various NIH institutes to assess their level of interest in the line of research being proposed. He also recommends asking someone who has had a great deal of success in the SBIR program to serve as a mentor during the proposal process. In fact, Hx Technologies relied heavily on a mentor when it was just starting out with the SBIR program. Dr. Menschik suggests that if an applicant doesn’t already know such a person, checking publicly available SBIR award databases for local awardees in one’s field of research might be a useful approach.

The NIH annual SBIR/STTR conference, he adds, is a valuable educational experience for both novices and successful applicants. “In addition to the multiple workshops taking you through the inner working of the SBIR process, there is the key opportunity to meet with program directors and other NIH officials from each institute to seek their advice regarding potential proposals,” he says.

One of the most challenging parts of the SBIR application process, in Dr. Menschik’s opinion, is “getting your ducks in a row” in time for the deadline. In addition to demonstrating a command of the scientific literature, the significance of the problem being addressed, and the merit of the approach, the likelihood of success can be raised by collecting and including preliminary data as well as one bringing on board one or more advisors who are experts in the field and whose letters of support lend additional credibility to your project.