Plan. Start with the glorious 10 year vision. what is needed 5 years after the project ends, 2 years after and finally 1 year after. So backwards, chronologically.
Then one knows the why (impact) the proposal needs to be carried out. The what should be clear when the project is completed. With the why and what, the how (implementation) can be laid out. The who (consortium) follows on from the what, who is needed to do the tasks.
Note: many EU applications start with the who, friends, friends of friends etc. then we plan the work. This is basically the wrong way around, so read these pages for this approach, if not continue below.
Panic!
You have 2 months left, you’ve been talking for 4-6 months, started brightly, and people had ideas, some even read the call text. Then chaos ensued. Mostly about how to write the proposal, bottom up (small tech pieces glued together) top down, “let’s get the narrative / story right, first”. Oh the silent ones say something and through the chaos into a tailspin. oh my oh my.
Read my pages on what to do if you are there.
As a side result the implementation and impact sections will be much easier to write. Probably the excellence section too. That is the how’s too.
Digression: Consider building a bridge, one starts with the need, requirements, costs etc. The why, what, and the who is done via procurement and may not be that important in the overall process.
The point remains, if one can envisage a project from the longest time horizon and backfill, the proposal will be unique, consequent, clear, have logical steps and the right people to implement it.
A bridge and an IT project are, of course, different as there are more degrees of freedom in an IT project, the design can be a little more fluid.
Will AI Save me? – possibly, AI and EU applications, read here.
-> 10 year after the proposal ends, 5 year, 1 year, and end (see below)
Consider the emotional response of the reviewer (see document)