Why We Stopped Writing Grant Proposals Like Academics

Government funding for technology projects has changed over the last few quarters, and the way many small teams approach it hasn't caught up.

Agencies like the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation have tightened their eligibility requirements. They expect immediate, clear results rather than general promises about innovation. A proposal that reads like an academic wish list, with a long horizon and vague deliverables, no longer gets funded. Frankly, that style rarely delivered anything for the teams writing it either.

So here's how we now approach it, and what we'd suggest to anyone building assistive hardware.

We focus on three programs: the SBIR Phase II grant, our state technology commercialization program, and the NSF Convergence Accelerator track. Each is designed for teams that intend to ship, not just to study.

And every proposal follows one rule: it must include a commercialization plan with a pathway to market within 18 months. Not a vision, a plan: who buys it, at what price, through which channel, and what has to be true by month six, twelve and eighteen.

Yes, this is narrow. It's meant to be. Funding is available for teams that can show they'll deliver results, and the discipline of writing an 18-month plan is worth it even if the grant never comes.

---

CTALK is building camera-free glasses for people with hearing loss. If you're on the same road, the funding post before this one lists where the money actually comes from.