Quiz — Chapter 13: Organizational Capacity and Key Personnel
Question 1. State the threshold concept and the reviewer fear it addresses.
Answer
Capacity answers the reviewer's silent question — "can these people actually deliver?" It addresses the first reviewer fear (Ch 2): championing a proposal that fails. A reviewer who doubts your capacity fears funding a flop; establishing capacity removes that fear and makes championing you safe.Question 2. Why does the chapter say capacity "rarely wins but frequently loses" a proposal?
Answer
A capable team with a weak project still loses (capacity doesn't make a bad idea fundable), but a strong project with a doubtful team gets passed over. Capacity comes after significance and approach in the reviewer's sequence, so its job is to *remove doubt* and clear the last hurdle, not to dazzle.Question 3. What's wrong with a generic "about us" capability statement?
Answer
It recites the founding date, mission, and program list without connecting any of it to *this* project's demands, so it answers the reviewer's real question ("can they do *this*?") only by accident. The fix is relevance: name the specific capabilities this project requires and show, with concrete results, that you have them.Question 4. Why is grant-management capacity especially important, and what worry does it address?
Answer
Because it addresses the worry funders have most, especially about small/new organizations: can they handle the money and reporting responsibly, or will it be mismanaged? A funder entrusts money and is accountable for it. Establish it via prior grant management, sound financial systems, a fiscal sponsor, or relevant expertise — don't leave the funder's biggest worry unanswered.Question 5. How does a team's capacity get assessed, and what's the practical implication?
Answer
Collectively — the team together must cover the project's demands; no one person needs every skill. The implication: build the team to fill gaps (bring a statistician, a clinical partner, an evaluator). A thoughtfully assembled team that visibly covers every demand is often more reassuring than a lone star.Question 6. What is the personal statement's job in a biosketch, and what makes it weak?
Answer
To explain why *this person* is suited to *this role* on *this project*, citing the relevant experience — making the biosketch an argument rather than a résumé. It's weak when generic (a paragraph that could appear on any proposal). Tailor it to the project.Question 7. What do reviewers actually look for in a biosketch?
Answer
Fit and capability for the role — does this person have the specific expertise the project needs and have they shown they can do this kind of work — not raw publication counts or prestige. Curate featured contributions for *relevance* to the role, not vanity; a relevant methods paper outweighs a prestigious unrelated one.Question 8. Distinguish a letter of support from a letter of commitment, and when do you need the latter?
Answer
Support = endorsement ("we believe in this"); commitment = a binding promise of a specific resource (space, patient access, matching funds, staff time). You *need* a commitment letter whenever the proposal depends on a partner's contribution — without it, the reviewer doubts the contribution is real.Question 9. Why do you usually draft letters yourself, and is that deceptive?
Answer
Because a busy partner can't write a thoughtful, specific letter on demand, and a generic one they dash off is worse than useless. You draft it tailored to what the proposal needs, and they edit and sign it on their letterhead. It's not deceptive — it's the professional norm and a kindness to the signer, ensuring the letter addresses what your proposal actually needs.Question 10. Why are generic, interchangeable letters a weakness?
Answer
Reviewers can tell pro-forma letters and read them as a last-minute assembly. Strong letters are specific — each makes a particular point only that writer can make (this partner commits this; this stakeholder confirms this need; this collaborator brings this expertise). Specificity signals a real, planned collaboration.Question 11. Name three strategies for establishing capacity without a long track record.
Answer
Any three: borrow credibility through experienced team/partners/mentors (with letters); show relevant capacity in other forms (experienced individual staff, pilot work, strong community ties); leverage a strong environment (institution, fiscal sponsor); and match the ask to demonstrated capacity (propose a right-sized project, building from smaller successes). Also: use funder on-ramps for new applicants (ESI, seed grants).Question 12. What is the "capacity checklist," and why run it?