Centennial Challenges  is NASA’s prize program for the “Citizen Inventor”.  $350,000 was awarded at the Astronaut Glove Challenge which took place at the Astronaut Hall of Fame in Titusville, FL.

On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, the National Science Foundation and Florida Institute of Technology will sponsor a one-day workshop for faculty members at universities located within Central Florida.   The event is being coordinated by Secor Strategies, LLC.

The workshop will provide an introduction to and overview of the National Science Foundation, its proposal and merit review process, its crosscutting programs, and its international programs. There will also be presentations on the programs of each of the NSF directorates which include:

Mathematical and Physical Sciences
Biological Sciences
Computer and Information Science and Engineering
Education and Human Resources
Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
Engineering
Geosciences

Time will also be available for participants to chat informally with NSF program managers.

This workshop scheduled for Tuesday, March 9, 2010 will begin with a Welcome Presentation at 8:00 am at the Gleason Performing Arts Center.  Check-in available at 7:30 am.

There is no registration fee for this workshop. However, pre-registration is required as seating is limited.  Please register by Friday, March 1, 2010 by downloading and completing the attached REGISTRATION FORM and emailing it to George Wilson at NSF - gwilson@nsf.gov

What we’ve discovered is that we typically have to read through at least 10 funding opportunities to locate one good opportunity worth a client’s consideration.  This might even be a conservative estimate.  It’s almost like the movie business.  A movie may only be 90 minutes long, but the director probably had to shoot hours and hours of footage in the process.  The unused shots hit the editing room floor just like our unused grant research hits the wastebasket.

Hence, I’ve been working on ways in which we can recycle this unused content into a meaningful way that can also generate a revenue stream for us in the process.

The first thing we did was to set up a Twitter page called http://www.Twitter.com/STEMGrants .  We are currently posting an average of about 12 STEM funding opportunities each week to this twitter page.  We hope to build up a following of people that might have a use for STEM funding related products and services.

The second thing we did was to design a brief 7 question survey that queries people about what types of actual STEM related products and services that they most need and want.   This survey is found on the website http://www.STEMGrants.com .

The third thing we did was create an incentive for people to complete this survey.  We developed a comprehensive 10 page guide entitled “100+ STEM Funding Opportunities for 2010 and Beyond”. We spent more than 30 hours compiling and organizing this guide which contains links to STEM Funding Opportunities within the categories of Grants, Awards, Scholarships, Fellowships, Internships, and Competitions.

The response to the guide has been amazing.  In the first 14 days, we emailed out more than 50 copies to individuals who completed the survey, and the demand has not stopped since then.

So the question is – have you requested your free copy of “100+ STEM Funding Opportunities for 2010 and Beyond”?  If not, simply take the quick survey at http://www.STEMGrants.com .  All we want is your input.

I posted earlier about some of the tidbits I took away from the 2010 Growth 2.0 Conference presented by Entrepreneur Magazine.  It was a great event and there were some really impressive speakers who caused me to take pages of notes.  However, I have a nasty habit.  That habit is that I am a skeptic at heart.  Now, you’ll notice I didn’t say cynic.  The cynic pre-supposes the glass if half full and doesn’t bother to check.  The skeptic, on the other hand, simply wants to know how much fluid is in the glass so he can verify the volume for himself.

Many of the speakers I listened to at the event discussed marketing.  They presented some very good ideas, concepts, and techniques.  So when I got back to the office, I did a quick gut check on each of the sources (just like a god skeptic should).  I queried each of the website addresses of three of the conference speakers into an analytics program at http://www.compete.com. Compete tracks the website usage of more than 2 million people, and then extrapolates the results to estimate how much traffic a specific website is generating.  It is not an exact science and it is subject to the flow of statistics.  However, it is a great tool if you want to analyze who your biggest competitors are or how “big” someone’s site might be.

Compete.com shot back some very interesting stats.

First, I inputted StarrHall.com. This site is operated by none other than -  Starr Hall.  She is the author of “GET CONNECTED-The Social Networking Toolkit for Businesses” and she presented a session at the conference entitled “Internet Power Marketing”.

Next, I put in gmarketing.com, which is owned by Jay Conrad Levinson.  Mr. Levinson has authored several Guerrilla Marketing books.  In fact, I remember buying his first book in the early 90’s.

Last, I entered WomenOnBusiness.com, which is operated by Susan Gunelis.  Ms. Gunelis ran a session called “Build Your Brand, Build Your Business”.  She is the author of 5 books including “Blogging for dummies”.

After entering these websites into Compete.com, I took an average of the website traffic estimates for each site during the last three months.  Here are the results:

1.  Gmarketing.com by Levinson – average 8,284 unique visitors per month

2.  WomenOnBusiness.com by Gunelis – average 2,822 unique visitors per month

3.  StarrHall.com by Hall – average 925 unique visitors per month

The results weren’t terribly surprising.  Levinson has been around for years and is a marketing icon.  However, what was surprising was the lady who surpassed all these speakers.  I listened to her at lunch.  She wasn’t a key note speaker, but was rather one of my lunch mates.  Her name is Valerie Young and she runs a website called http://www.changingcourse.com .  Her business is focused on “living life with a purpose, working at what you love, and following your own road.
Valerie’s website was estimated to attract 8,688 unique visitors per month.

That was more than Levinson. It was also more than the other two speakers combined!

Now, I know that website traffic is just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to  marketing.  I also realize that website traffic does not automatically equate to profits.  However, I took two things away from this quick analysis:

1) Maybe the gap between us and the gurus we admire isn’t as wide as we think.
2) Gurus can indeed be found on stage, but if you look carefully, you might just find one sitting across from you as well.

By the way, the guru behind the camera who took the picture shown above is Valerie Young.

Paul Secor with Entrepreneur Magazine Editor-in-Chief, Amy Cosper

I recently had the chance to attend the 2010 Growth 2.0 Conference presented by Entrepreneur Magazine.  The event took place in Miami on January, 26^th.  (see my picture with Editor-in-Chief Amy Cosper).  Here is a quick list of interesting facts and pieces of advice I picked up.

From Jay Conrad Levinson – Chairman of Guerrilla Marketing Intl

• · The famous book Guerilla Marketing was originally titles “527 Ways to Market Your Business For Free”.

• 68% of business is lost because there is no follow-up after the sale (repeat business and referrals are lost)

• Top 3 reasons people buy from McDonald’s, in order: (1) clean restrooms, (2) the French fries, (3) the hamburgers

• You cannot be “in charge” in social media.  Everyone else is “in charge”.

From Ivan Misner – Founder & Chairman at BNI

• · You get hired because of your IQ, but you get promoted because of your EQ (emotional qualities)

• 3 Stages of Networking: (1) Visibility – They know you. (2) Credibility – They know you are good at it.  (3) Profitability -  willing to pass you referrals on a reciprocal basis.

• To maximize your network, break your contact database into these 3 categories and figure who you need to advance in stages and how to do it

From Starr Hall – International Publicist/Social Media Strategist/Author

• Social Proof means the credibility you have online via referrals, mentions, media coverage, etc.

• Never respond to general questions and calls for help more than 3 times from a person and limit it to 3 minutes each time, before you ask for a business engagement (get paid)

• Use ping.fm to update all your social media at one time

• If you want to outsource your social media consider smartyVA.com
• A good mass emailing program can be found at infusionsoftnow.com

Well if I am a small high-tech business that is exactly how I would feel right now.  The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program has been in limbo since 2008.  It keeps getting extended, but only for a few months at a time.  The reasons boil down to (a) some members of congress want to expand the program to include venture owned firms and (b) congress has been embroiled in other “priorities” including the likes of Health Care Reform.  All of these delays in reauthorizing SBIR are happening while our nation is facing its worst unemployment crisis in decades.

Now here is the kicker – SBIR is a $2 billion annual program in which more than 7,000 different businesses have participated in during the last 5 years.  Many of these businesses have also been recipients of multiple SBIR awards.  So, the question I have struggled with is “Why doesn’t this constituency have the political power to expedite a meaningful reauthorization of SBIR?”  My analysis comes down to two things: (1) The ability to fund lobbyists and (2) The challenge of mobilizing the grassroots.

Lobbyists
A $2 billion “SBIR industry” may be considered small when compared to other industries in the Unites States.  However, other industries of this same size know the importance of investing money in federal lobbying.  For instance, the limousine industry was recently estimated to total $2.57 billion per year and the National Limousine Association spent $120,000 in federal lobbying in 2009.

When it comes to the SBIR, the industry is mainly represented by the National Small Business Association (NSBA) and its Small Business Technology Council (SBTC). The SBTC has done an outstanding job in waving the flag for SBIR authorization. However, while reports show that a total of $230,000 was spent by NSBA during last year (after querying all reports filed for 2009 and locating Q1-Q3), the NSBA uses these funds to lobby for a multitude of issues facing small businesses.  In fact, it is common for the NSBA to work on more than 20 different bills simultaenously.

I’m sure there are larger organizations that the limousine industry could have tied into, but the limousine business owners saw the benefit of funding a lobbying effort focused exclusively on their specific issues.  It is also important to recognize that while the limousine industry is seeking to influence legislation, their customers come from the private industry.  Conversely, every customer in the $2 billion SBIR industry is a federal agency.  Hence, the entire industry lives or dies by the federal legislation.  So the stakes are actually much higher for SBIR.  Consequently, I think it’s time that leaders within the 7,000+ SBIR recipient companies step up to the plate and fund their own lobbyist effort.

Grassroots
Most associations would absolutely love to have a membership base like the SBIR industry.  Here are the top five reasons why:

(1) Mass numbers
Unlike some industries that might be dominated by a small number of companies, the SBIR industry is flush with thousands of companies.

(2) Diverse geographic coverage
SBIR awardees can be found in every state and I am about 99% sure you can find them in every congressional district if you sample a few years.  Most industries have clusters in specific geographic areas.  The technologies found within SBIR are so diverse that it results in a diverse geographic scattering.

(3) Likeable People
The public likes small business owners and what they stand for.  Moreover, they love stories about how someone took an invention or technology and built a successful business around it.  The association of bankers, lawyers, realtors, doctors, limousine services, etc. just can’t bring that same feeling of “mom, baseball, and apple pie”.

(4) Jobs
Unemployment is at an all time high in decades and everyone on a federal, state, and local governmental level is talking about creating jobs.  The SBIR program represents a very tangible and visible way to help small businesses create jobs.

(5) Everyone is accounted for
Most industries rely on NAICS codes to identify the total number of participants in their industry.  These NAICS codes serve as a good way to estimate the total number of participants, but the end product is still only an estimate.  Furthermore, there is no way to pinpoint the exact total revenue generated by an industry.  Such statistics are based on extrapolations of basic statistics and assumptions.  When it comes to SBIR, the federal government can identify every company that has received an award and the exact amount of each award.

The problem is that all of these great attributes mentioned above remain fairly untapped when it comes to mobilizing a grassroots political force for SBIR.  The SBTC has worked to valiantly to organize SBIR companies and raise awareness for the industry. It has a membership program, provides timely and meaningful political updates, and represents the SBIR industry on Capitol Hill.  One of its most impressive activities was its annual Tibbetts awards where it recognized outstanding SBIR companies along with proponents of the SBIR program at a dinner in Washington DC.  It is also my understanding that the SBTC coupled this event with visits to congressional offices during the day.

This has been positive but it is obvious that the SBIR is out hustled by many industries when it comes to grassroots organizing.  If you have ever visited Capitol Hill there are always several different groups of people walking around with the identical polo shirts or t-shirts.  These people are members of a particular industry group that are pounding the marble floors in Washington DC to make sure that members of Congress understand the importance of their issues.

I have personally seen how these types of initiatives can be effective.  I participated for seven annual trips to Washington DC with the Citizens for Space Exploration. This group usually gathered about 150 people from 25-30 different states and we spent 2 ½ days making scheduled visits to 300+ congressional offices.  We also had an evening reception that was typically attended by 6-8 Congressional reps.  I can even remember one year when the NASA administrator attended the event.  The whole effort was about educating our elected officials about the importance of space exploration and funding a robust NASA budget.

While I was in Washington DC, I would run into several other different industry groups and associations.  One of the most interesting ones was the Ebay Sellers group.   They had members from all over the country and were very focused on educating elected officials about legislation related to internet sales.  When I visited one of the Ebay Chat boards to learn more about this effort, here is a quote I found from one of the participants: “Did we make a difference? I am certain we did. We didn’t go into the Congressional offices pretending to be experts on the issues facing our businesses. We did something better—we shared our unique success stories and reminded Congress that we were counting on them to protect this path for our businesses and also for the success stories of the future.”

Doesn’t this statement and approach sound like something that would be applicable to SBIR as well?

Solution
So, how would I get a lobbying and grassroots effort moving with the SBIR industry.  Here are the seven steps I would take:

1.  Form an SBIR Association
Develop a plan to establish an SBIR association and register for the appropriate non-profit designation.  The word “SBIR absolutely needs to be in found within the name of the organization, so that its identity is absolutely clear to everyone ranging from potential participants to staff at Congressional offices.

2.  Use the Power of 10
The effort to organize the association should be organic.  It needs to spring forward from the SBIR companies themselves.  I would start by trying to get 10 SBIR small business owners to step forward and act as both leaders and board members.  I would target the companies that are most active in terms of winning awards and consequently have the most to gain/lose.  I would set the membership fee at $1,000 for each company.  Each board member would also be charged with recruiting 10 additional members who would also be willing to pay a $1,000 membership fee.  This would result in a membership of 110 companies and a war chest of $110,000

3.  Get a Lobbyist
I would immediately set aside at least $60,000 for a lobbyist.  It would be nice to invest more, but this would be a good start.  Maybe in future years the association could work its way up to $100,000. However, $60,000 will get the effort moving especially if activity is condensed around key points during the year.

4.  Go electronic
The NSBA uses an electronic grassroots system to identify supporters, initiate letter writing campaigns, and provide political updates.  It is a very powerful system and they have used it support SBIR.  However, this tool needs to be used continually and maximized to its full potential.  It is important to tap into the advanced features it offers.  Maybe NSBA would allow the association to use this electronic system.  Or maybe the association gets its own system set-up so it has complete control of it.  Annual Cost: $10,000

5.  Fly to Washington DC
The association would organize an initiative for SBIR companies to gather in Washington DC to make visits to Congressional Offices.  In order to maximize attendance, the event would be scheduled around the Navy Opportunity Forum which already brings hundreds of SBIR companies to Washington DC in the May/June timeframe.  Participants will pay their own expenses associated with participating.  However, there will be some room rental fees and other expenses like printing educational materials.  Cost: $10,000

6.  Hire part-time staff
Organizing the fly-in to Washington DC will require manpower.  Someone also needs to handle basic bookkeeping, membership records, and manage the electronic grassroots system.  Cost: $25,000

7.  Promotional Campaign
The association needs to reach out to the larger base of SBIR companies to increase membership and spur participation in association activities.  However, funds are tight during the first year, so it will start with a single mailing to the 7,000 businesses.  Cost: $5,000

Of course these 7 steps are all dependent on the success of steps 1 and 2.  I also know how difficult it is to start a membership based organization.  However, it is a plan that could happen if leaders within the SBIR industry stepped forward.  It’s all about putting your fate in your own hands.  After all, isn’t that what small business is all about.

(2) “Let’s schedule about 5 more meetings before we decide to move forward”
Someone found an opportunity months in advance of the deadline.  The good news is your team has plenty of time to draft the proposal.  However, since you have so much time and most people have only skimmed the solicitation (see point #1) you dedicate considerable extra time to analyzing the opportunity.   This is further amplified by the fact that team members have differing opinions on whether to pursue the opportunity or not.  Some say “full speed ahead”, some are cautious, and some never want to sign on to a project where their individual success is not 100% guaranteed.  Hence, the team has numerous meetings trying to get a unanimous decision.  Someone needs to make the final call and everyone on the team needs to give their best efforts from that decision point forward.

(3) “Getting a letter of support will be easy”
We live in the age of collaboration.  Most solicitations want you to demonstrate how you can leverage support beyond your existing organization.  So, the proposal team quickly comes up with a list of people who they think will sign a generic letter that says “X is a great idea and we support it”.  However, that type of letter is actually referred to as an endorsement letter and most solicitations do not want an endorsement letter.  They want a support letter that spells out how the additional organization will specifically support the project via finances, resources, in-kind support, etc.  Support can be small but it must be tangible.

(4) “We need partners, but let’s not show our hand”
Sometimes your organization doesn’t have everything a solicitation requires and you need a partner or sub-contractor.  Or, sometimes you want a partner that will help you blow the competition out of the water.  The challenge becomes getting your proposal team to cut off a piece of the financial pie for another organization.  No one wants to give away too much at the onset so the proposal team talks with potential partners about everything except money.  What follows is a long-winded courtship that wastes time for both parties.  At its worst, it can endanger a proposal because the planned partnerships might collapse near the deadline when money is finally discussed.  This means having to start the entire partner recruitment process over again.  Instead, discuss money during the initial contact. Map out what services you need and simply ballpark what you think is fair in terms of compensation if the grant is won.  You can always negotiate further, but at least the ball is rolling in terms of signing the partner or moving on quickly to a different onw.

(5) “Let’s just push what we already do”
Many organizations simply seek funding for their existing activities and programs.  However, most grants have very specific goals, objectives, and metrics they are seeking to meet.  If your team is unwilling to modify, re-purpose, tweak, or expand a project, you should be commended for having such a defined vision.  However, you probably shouldn’t expect too much in the way of outside funds either.

(6) “We are so awesome!”
Nobody knows the strength of your organization like your own proposal team.  However, don’t fall into the trap of spending valuable internal meeting time paying lip service to how great your organization’s staff, experience, and achievements are.  Those are the easy things to write about.  The team needs to spend more time discussing how they will fill gaps and shortcomings.

(7) “I need a page to explain X”
If something is very complex and requires a great deal of explanation, upping the word count is not always the answer.  Most people are better visual learners when it comes to understanding concepts.  Hence, creating a chart, graph, or diagram (which is preceded by a couple of sentences) is probably much more effective and saves valuable proposal space.

(8) “That’s not a tough question.  I can answer it in one sentence”
The proposal looks good, but the team is having a tough time addressing a specific issue.  As an example -  maybe the issue is how the project will be sustained beyond the grant period.  So, after the team racks its collective brain on several different revenue models, someone on the team blurts out “Just tell them we’ll get corporate sponsorship!” The team is so tired they begin to convince themselves that “less is actually more”.  Or, they convince themselves that they are better off being vague rather than running the risk of getting criticized for the details of the plan.  However, this seldom works.  Like my high school science teacher used to say – “I’d rather have a well thought out incorrect answer than an answer left blank or barely completed.”  Even if the reviewers don’t agree with the details of the plan they do know that your organization respects and recognizes the importance of the issue raised in the solicitation.

(9) “We may be weak in this section, but we’ll make up for it in the other one”
Evaluation factors are almost always compartmentalized.  Points are usually distributed based on specific criteria.  It’s like the Olympic decathlon events.  If you are really good at the shot put, it doesn’t mean that will help you in the points awarded for the 100 meter dash.  So, if you are prepared to take a hit in a section make sure you analyze the true mathematical impacts of making that concession.

(10) “Everybody is Equally Responsible”
A good proposal requires a good team to write it.  Accountability amongst team members is essential, but it sometimes gets twisted into a desire to portion all responsibilities into equal parts.  The problem becomes when no one is verbally assigned as the team leader.  Or just as bad, a team leader is assigned from the lower ranks of the organization but not given any authority.  If those in higher ranks don’t respect the deadlines, formatting, or the need to supply high quality content in a final format, you are probably destined to submit a poorly constructed proposal that was thrown together at the last minute.

(PICTURE) Contest winners Peter Homer and Ted Southern are congratulated by Robert Cabana – Kennedy Space Center Director, Doug Comstock – Director of NASA Innovative Partnerships Program, Andy Petro – Manager of the NASA Centennial Challenges Program, and Dave Makufka – NASA KSC IPP Manager. Also pictured are contest organizers, technical experts, volunteers, and sponsors.

The Astronaut Glove Challenge seeks innovative glove design concepts to reduce the effort needed to perform tasks during spacewalks. In this challenge, competitors demonstrated their glove design by performing a range of tasks with the glove in an evacuated chamber. The gloves were also tested to ensure that they would not leak. In order to qualify for a prize, the gloves had to meet all of the basic requirements and also exceed the flexibility of the current NASA spacesuit glove. For the 2009 Challenge, teams had to provide a complete glove, including the outer, thermal-micrometeoroid-protection layer and the inner, pressure-restraining layer. In, the 2007 competition, only the pressure-restraining layer was required.

The two competitors were tied in several categories but Peter Homer, who won $200,000 in the first Astronaut Glove Challenge in 2007, claimed first prize this time by outscoring his rival in joint-flexibility and in the pressure test. Ted Southern, who captured second place, also competed in 2007 but was not successful in his first attempt. According to Alan Hayes, Chairman and CEO of of Volanz Aerospace Inc., “Both competitors improved their designs significantly from 2007, but Ted’s progress was especially impressive.”

The designs presented in the competition were measured and evaluated by engineers from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center and Johnson Space Center and NASA’s spacesuit-manufacturer, ILC Dover. “It is remarkable that two designers working on their own could create gloves that meet the requirements for spaceflight – a task that normally requires a large team of experts”, said engineer Kate Mitchell of the Johnson Space Center.

The Astronaut Glove Challenge is one of six Centennial Challenges managed by NASA’s Innovative Partnership Program, which provides the prize funds. This was the fourth consecutive Centennial Challenge event with prize winners and the program has awarded 3.65 million dollars this year. “Our challenges have been difficult, multi-year efforts and in many cases it has taken several years for competitors to perfect their designs. We are now seeing the results of their perseverance.” according to Andrew Petro, Centennial Challenges Program Manager.

The Titusville, Florida based small business and Historically Black University will work together to launch the Minority Innovation Challenges Institute (MICI). This new initiative will seek to mentor undergraduate students at Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) across the country in an effort to spur their interest in technical competitions sponsored by NASA. MICI will utilize a year-round virtual conference platform to deliver information from contest organizers, subject matter experts, scientists, and engineers. The goal of the program is to increase the participation of minority students in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).

FAMU will lead the program, while Secor Strategies will provide program management services for the virtual conference platform, marketing efforts, and recruitment of contest organizers. “This is going to be a very exciting program. We will be using cutting-edge technology to help minority students enter these real world competitions. I’m honored to have worked with FAMU in developing the concept and drafting the proposal. They are a prestigious university and we are proud to team with them,” states Secor Strategies president, Paul Secor.

The project will operate over the next three years. NASA will fund the first year at $350,000 and has plans to renew the program for two subsequent years at the same amount.