Pre-Proposals Feedback

Some general comments on your Pre-Proposals, which should help you write improved Project Proposal Reports for handing in and grading towards the end of term.
 

1. Style:

- Technical proposals should generally be written in the future tense...since you are describing the work, experiments, tests etc. that you will be carrying out at some point ahead in time. Progress reports should be witten in the past tense...since you are reporting on work that was carried out at some point in the past.

- Avoid using "we" and "our"...unless it's actually a team project there's no specific group going to be involved in doing the work. Unfortunately use of the singular "I" isn't really on either...so use phrases like "The hardness of the samples synthesized during Task #1 will be measured using the Vickers microhardness tester, using a 300 g load".

- Be consistent...if you capitalize some of the main words in the title then capitalize ALL the major words...don't mix and match styles.

2. Organization:

- Pretty good for the most part...although one had essentially no structure at all...no cover page, no title, no section headings, no course #, no advisor name, nothing... If you're unsure how to organize your writing then please come see me...that's what I'm here for! 

- Include your Mentor's name on the cover page too. 

- A Gannt chart is one of the best ways of illustrating a project timeline...much better than just listing things.

- Explain trade names of chemicals/materials...just listing a trade name tells the reader little about what the material is.

- Do your literature searches up front, or in parallel with your early work...why wait until the end to search the literature and then find out that Dr. Fred Bloggs in Austria did exactly the same thing as you are proposing to do 3 years ago and published it late last year!

 
3. Quantification:

- When describing your planned experiments, indicate the basis or rationale for what you intend to do....the statement "powders will be cold compacted at several different pressures" is fine...but it needs qualifying to explain how the pressures will be determined and why...there must be a rational basis for the values to be used...and that needs to be explained. Likewise with the statement "In term one I will synthesize my samples in the lab."...how many samples? Think about how many samples and tests need to be done to make your data statistically significant...it could be 3 it could be 30! Think about developing an experimental matrix, using a "Design of Experiment" approach and so on. These are just two examples...there are others which we can discuss when we meet.

 - "Optimization" is one of the most widely misused terms. With many materials it is possible to "optimize" on many different properties...a metal matrix carbide coating, for example, can be "optimized" to exhibit the highest hardness value, and that's fine if that's what the end-use requires, but it is unlikely that a material optimized for its hardness will also be "optimized" for corrosion resistance, or some other application. Both are optimized in some way, but the two materials will be very different. Which one is correct? Both! Bottom line...be careful about how you use the term "Optimize"...make sure you clarify the context.

- Related to the above is the obvious question of how a composition or process will be "optimized"...doing it by trial and error will take forever, and drive you insane...you just can't explore every possible combination of composition and process conditions. This is where Design of Experiment (DoE) techniques can help tremendously...both in minimizing the number of experimental trials needed (fractional factorial matrices etc.) and in determining relationships between variables and identifying whether measured responses depend on multiple parameters...often called confounding variables.

- State simply and clearly what you are going to do...don't talk about how you are going to characterize a material without first indicating what material you are going to synthesize!

- Hope is not a strategy...several pre-proposals say things like "Hopefully the data will show that..."  that's placing a lot on faith. What are you going to do if the data doesn't show whatever it is?  You need to have a plan B. You also need to understand UP FRONT whether the synthesis or characterization technique you are proposing to use has some reasonable chance of success based on similar work, either here, or by others. Formulate some expectations or hypotheses and then devise experiments to validate [or disprove] them.
 

4. References:

- Adopt a common style from a respected materials journal and stick to it. Most journals require inclusive pages...and there's a very good reason for that...try going to a library and requesting a copy of a paper...they're going to want to know the author(s), journal, title, volume, number, date and inclusive pages.

 
5. Budgets:

- There were a few errors in how some of these were formulated...which we can go through when we meet. Main things...there is ALWAYS an Indirect cost, and nothing is free...even donated materials have a value!

 
6. And The Biggest Issue Was....

 The Problem Statement! Some of them are OK, but many are not...and that's soemthing we need to work on. Clearly there are alternative approaches...stating the problem succinctly up front and then explaining the rationale or background behind it, alternatively presenting the background information and then identifying the specific problem that you plan to explore.