New ideas start out like uncut gems. To the casual observer, they can look like any other rock, instead of a precious commodity.
For the person proposing the new idea, it can be very frustrating when others don’t instantly grasp its potential value. That can especially be true when the idea in question relates to science or engineering, and describing it includes layer upon layer of specific technical detail intended to validate the concept and prove the author’s qualifications. Many people may struggle to understand the core concept and its value proposition among all of the nuance of technical detail.
Does this matter? Not always – such as when the idea is being presented in a scientific journal aimed at fellow scientists working in the same specific field, or a conference of industry experts. However, consider a situation where an organization’s leadership is considering many different ideas for funding. In this instance, a clear articulation of the idea (without requiring a Ph.D. in the associated field) becomes critical: the idea needs to be polished to appeal to a broader audience.
‘Are We Missing Hidden Gems?’
The Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), where we work, is a non-profit, university-affiliated research lab whose vision is to create previously unimaginable solutions to the nation’s most complex challenges. In recent years, APL has implemented various internal mechanisms to spur the creation of innovative ideas and technologies, and foster the development of critical skills needed by innovators. This includes grants that provide funding for staff members’ bold ideas in pursuit of future “defining innovations” — game-changing breakthroughs in technology that have created inflection points in history.
One mechanism the organization uses are Combustion Grants, which focus on providing mid-level funding and time for staff to develop longer-term, high-risk ideas that are beyond APL’s current strategy or vision. Staff members anonymously propose ideas with an opportunity to be awarded $50,000 for time and materials to pursue their idea. APL’s original selection process for these awards focused solely on the technical merits of each idea, via a traditional “peer review” evaluation.
Over time, questions arose around whether the best ideas were being funded, or if there was something missing in the process. Among the questions that surfaced:
- “Are we missing some great ideas due to gaps in communication?”
- “Have the idea submitters considered their audience when developing their proposals?”
- “Have all the key elements needed for a successful proposal been included?”
- “If successful, would the proposer be able to share their results with the rest of the lab and beyond?”
- “As we continue to expand our organization’s technical expertise and encourage cross collaboration, how would anyone have the expertise to understand these novel ideas?”
The APL’s Innovation and Collaboration program team examined all submitted ideas, and determined that there was a difference in the way that successful proposals communicated key points. This insight resulted in the creation of Clarity Reviews, addressing staff and leadership concerns of potentially missing the opportunity to identify game-changing ideas.
What’s a Clarity Review?
Clarity Reviews step outside of the standard process for reviewing technical ideas on technical merit, and instead focus on communication. They simply ask, “Is the idea understood? Is the proposed concept clear and understandable?” Judgment of the idea (“will it work?” or “is this feasible?”) remains in the separate technical review phase to follow, conducted by staff with some expertise associated with the idea.
At the most basic level, this approach leans into the notion that if an idea isn’t understood, its chance of receiving a fair technical evaluation becomes uncertain at best…
At the most basic level, this approach leans into the notion that if an idea isn’t understood, its chance of receiving a fair technical evaluation becomes uncertain at best, and it will most likely be rejected. Clarity Reviewers are not expected to evaluate the technical merit of proposals but rather provide feedback on the ease with which reviewers can understand the proposal.
Clarity Reviews are now an integral part of APL’s grant review process, providing submitters with valuable feedback on the clarity and organization of their proposals, prior to technical review. The review feedback helps submitters improve the readability of their proposals and increase their chances of success in the peer review and final panel selection stages.
Best Practices for Clarity Reviews
The Clarity Review process involves soliciting volunteers, providing guidance to the reviewers, setting a budget for the reviewers’ time, and assigning reviewers through an automated matching system. While the Clarity Review is not optional for the idea submitter (which we sometimes refer to as a Principal Investigator, or PI), they have the autonomy to choose whether to make updates to their proposals based on the feedback they receive. Best practices for Clarity Reviews include:
1. Seeking enthusiastic volunteers from all parts of the organization (not limited to editors or communications staff)
2. Creating easy-to-use feedback forms
3. Offering opportunities to improve the process
4. Sending recognition to Clarity Reviewers who help ideas get funded.
A key element of Clarity Reviews is the sense of partnership between the reviewer and the idea submitter, to facilitate meaningful, actionable, and well-intentioned feedback.
The Benefits of Polishing ’Hidden Gems’
Clarity Reviews have significantly contributed to the improvement of the Combustion Grant process in several ways:
Before You Start Polishing…
While Clarity Reviews have proven to be a valuable part of the process, they are not without unintended consequences and considerations:
It is important to address these challenges by setting clear expectations, providing appropriate reviewer training, allocating resources accurately, and creating clear feedback forms that reflect the purpose of the reviews.
More Polishing = More Brilliance
Following the success and positive impact of Clarity Reviews, the practice has been expanded beyond its initial implementation. It was first extended to Propulsion Grants, APL’s largest internal innovation initiative, allowing for a more comprehensive and consistent review process of these more substantive investments.
To further enhance the accessibility and inclusivity of Clarity Reviews, we developed a new platform called Proposal Launchpad. This platform offers an opportunity for any proposal to any funding mechanism, both internal and external, to receive a Clarity Review, promoting clarity and refinement across various funding avenues. This expansion of Clarity Reviews demonstrates the commitment to enhancing the quality and effectiveness of all innovation-related endeavors within the organization.
Finding new ideas for innovation is a starting point, not the end. To get to the final “great idea” requires lots of ideation, examination, iteration, and evolving of that idea. Having an early support mechanism like Clarity Reviews can greatly help idea submitters along that journey, providing clarity to game-changing innovations.
Co-authors Erin Conroy, Jason Fayer, and Dennis Smith all work at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Smith will be leading a session at InnoLead’s Impact conference in October.
