Putting the most important information first seems like an obvious strategy, when you know your reader is pressed for time. Of course you want them to get your key point before their attention wanders. So why do so many proposal writers bury the lead? 

The culprit is our training as scientists. A typical research paper is a record of work accomplished and usually starts out with an introduction of the background, relevant literature, describes your methodology, and finally presents your findings and conclusions. In contrast, a well written proposal starts with painting a picture of the not-yet-accomplished, successful outcome. It then offers increasingly detailed information how and why this can be achieved. A proposal takes the reviewer on a journey of imagination while providing concrete evidence of the realism of the implementation.  You want them to get excited about the possibility of getting closer to the sponsor’s goals and reassure them that their funds will be well spent.

I have often been told to use the “inverted pyramid” technique from journalism to solve this issue. Though I  have a problem with this image. Especially when I compare it with the food pyramid. Isn’t the bottom of the pyramid where most of the structure is and where I should spend most of my time and words? Clearly I am taking this too literally. I find Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF) a much easier-to-grasp concept. 

In the bottom line up front structure, we state a clear outcome at the beginning: “Today we are baking a birthday cake!” Compare this with an initial list of equipment, ingredients, required techniques, and a comparative history of celebrating life’s milestones. BLUF gives the reader a reason to continue to read and builds the argument step-by-step why you are the right team to be entrusted with the precious funding. 

If you are watching as many YouTube videos as I am, you may be tempted to enhance this opening statement and start with: “Today we are baking the best ever birthday cake in three easy steps.” How far you want to go with this is clearly a matter of personal preference. I just want to remind you of the classic Carl Sagan quote: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” So just make sure that by the end of your document, your initial claim is well supported. Though if your approach is similar to the scientists I have had the chance to work with, you will have to push yourself far outside your comfort zone before you are in danger of overreaching.

Or to give another comparison a chance, the structure of the typical research paper is that of a good old Sir Arthur Conan Doyle story: “It was dark and stormy night. A lone figure was fighting their way across the moor towards the manor house, barely visible by the light of the rising moon. Wait, was that noise the wind, or was it the howling of a hound?” And and a good 400 pages later, while he has everyone’s attention in the stately library, the detective reveals: it was the gardener. Starting with the bottom line up front, this story reads: It was the gardener. Sherlock Holmes closes another case showing that the gardener stabbed Sir Walter Dogoody and left him to die three days ago.

Yes, this is an unfamiliar structure, but it is easier to implement than you think. Especially, if you have your argument already laid out in the traditional, scientific paper style. If you are helping a colleague with this, it is likely that all you have to do is look at the very end of the page or introduction to find the “bottom line.” Take that and move it to the very beginning of your introduction. You will be surprised how much easier it will be to read for your reviewers. But most importantly, forget about inverted pyramids.