Stacy Chin says SBIR proposals fail when startups skip quantitative checkpoints for R&D progress. Reviewers need concrete metrics like speed, weight, or cost to assess commercial potential. Vague claims like "prove our innovation is better" lose funding. Define what better means with measurable data.
This is actually one of the biggest mistakes I see on applications all the time from startups. So whenever you propose an R&D strategy in your SBIR application, you should inform reviewers of the key checkpoints that you want to meet that tells you you have successfully completed that experiment. And this shows reviewers that you have a clear idea to evaluate whether your technology or innovation has commercial potential. So to describe what success looks like, you'll want to use quantitative metrics. That can be calculated and measured using data. And what do I mean by this? That means you don't want to say in your SBIR application that we want to prove our innovation is better than the current standard. What does better mean in that case? That means it is your job to define what better means in this situation by using metrics like speed, weight, performance, efficacy, toxicity, cost.
Applying for NIH SBIR in Jan 5, 2027? You Should Be Starting NOW. Here's why...
How to Get Invited to Apply for $305K in NSF SBIR Funding || Step-by-Step Guide
