I think that realistic expectations for objectives, goals, and
performance measures are extremely important. Those things can be
managed using project management principles (whether more or less
formalized). Perhaps at some point, Title III project directors and
managers could get together and discuss project management strategies
that have worked.
I'd say that even more important is that *all* identified grant
project/program stakeholders have a clear, mutual outcomes-based
understanding of common and individual expectations. Especially if
there are already-started projects that a new grant is meant to help
support, it is absolutely critical for all who administer, and could
potentially benefit from, grant funding to understand exactly how the
grant supports whatever activities it does. This includes how the
grant administrators communicate, work with, and share information
about/evaluate the activities of, any extant project teams.
Scott Garrison, MLS
Title III Project Manager
312 Warriner Hall
Central Michigan University
Mount Pleasant, MI 48859-4260 USA
v: 989.774.2897 f: 989.774.1408
e: scott <dot> garrison <at> cmich <dot> edu
On Nov 3, 2004, at 3:19 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Dear Title III grant personnel,
> I will be presenting a seminar about the difficulties encountered when
> trying to implement a grant component that was inadequately written by
> a writer or consultant. The subjects for the presentation include:
> number of and time commitments for personnel,
> control and oversight of budget,
> realistic expectations for objectives and goals, and
> institutional support.
> Being on both ends of the process, as a grant writer as well as an
> activities director for a grant, I have learned how proposals can be
> better written to benefit the project.
> Question: As grant administrators, what would you like to tell a grant
> writer and/or consultant about how the writing has affected the
> implementation of your grant? What is working? What isn't?
> Thank you.
> If you would like to comment, please respond by Friday, Nov. 5, to
> [log in to unmask]