Stop Wasting Time on Low-Probability Grant Opportunities

by Narges Tafreshi - Grant Consultant

For many founders, researchers, and small business teams, grant funding is supposed to be a catalyst, not a distraction. Yet too often, teams find themselves pouring months of effort into applications that were never realistically competitive in the first place.

The result? Burned time, exhausted teams, and stalled momentum.

The Hidden Cost of “Shot-in-the-Dark” Applications

Grant writing isn’t just about filling out forms. It requires:

• Strategic planning

• Scientific and technical alignment

• Budget modeling

• Internal coordination and reviews

When an opportunity has a very low probability of success, the real cost isn’t just the submission fee or consultant time; it’s the opportunity cost. Those months could have gone toward product development, customer discovery, partnerships, or higher-probability funding paths.

Why So Many Grant Opportunities Are Low Probability

Many grant solicitations look promising on the surface, but hide structural challenges that drastically reduce competitiveness:

• Overly broad solicitations that attract hundreds of applications

• Unpublished or shifting paylines, especially in SBIR/STTR programs

• Institute-specific preferences that aren’t obvious from the FOA

• Portfolio-balancing decisions that have little to do with scientific quality

Without insight into how funding decisions are actually made, teams often assume that a “decent” application is good enough. In reality, competitiveness is relative, and often far more selective than it appears.

Scoring Alone Doesn’t Tell the Whole Story

NIH and other agencies rely on impact scores and review outcomes, but funding decisions are rarely mechanical.

A technically strong application can still fall short if:

• It doesn’t align tightly with current program priorities

• The institute’s budget is constrained in that cycle

• Similar projects were recently funded

• The application lands just outside a practical zone of consideration

This is why many applicants receive solid reviews, and still no award.

A Smarter Question to Ask Before Applying

Instead of asking, “Can we apply?”, more teams are now asking:

“Is this opportunity actually worth our time?”

High-probability opportunities tend to share a few characteristics:

• Clear alignment with institute or program priorities

• Realistic competitiveness based on recent funding patterns

• A defined scoring or selection pathway

• A credible strategy to address reviewer risk

If those elements aren’t present, even a well-written application may be a long shot.

Fewer Applications, Better Outcomes

The most successful grant-funded teams are not applying to everything. They are:

• Selective about where they invest effort

• Strategic in how they use prior scores and reviewer feedback

• Focused on opportunities where marginal improvements can meaningfully change outcomes

This approach doesn’t reduce ambition, it increases efficiency.

Moving From Hope-Based to Strategy-Based

Grant funding will always involve uncertainty. That’s inherent to competitive, peer-reviewed systems. But uncertainty does not have to mean guesswork, and it doesn’t have to mean going it alone.

A strategy-based approach replaces blind optimism with informed confidence. It allows teams to make deliberate decisions about where to invest their time, energy, and scientific effort before months are spent writing.

By prioritizing fit, probability, and timing, organizations can move away from low-yield opportunities and toward a funding roadmap that is both realistic and forward-looking. This includes understanding which programs are actively funding work like yours, how competitiveness is assessed, and when small adjustments can meaningfully improve outcomes.

Importantly, this approach doesn’t limit opportunity, it focuses it. Many strong ideas fail to secure funding not because they lack merit, but because they were submitted to the wrong mechanism, the wrong institute, or at the wrong moment. Strategy turns those uncertainties into informed choices.

When teams apply selectively and intentionally:

• Applications become clearer and more compelling

• Reviewer feedback becomes more actionable

• Resubmissions are more efficient and targeted

• Funding outcomes feel repeatable, not random

The goal isn’t to submit more applications. It’s to win the right ones, at the right time, with the right positioning. With a strategy-driven approach, grant funding becomes not just possible, but increasingly predictable.

Need help with crafting your grant strategy? Contact our team today.