Review comments from a declined 2016 iOS NSF SBIR Phase I proposal
I received a decline on a proposal submitted in June. There is a panel summary followed by three individual reviews. The unaltered review comments are below.
__
NSF Program: SMALL BUSINESS PHASE I
Proposal Title: SBIR Phase I: A Location Sharing iOS Application Optimizing Benefit to the User
Proposal Number: 1648361
Panel Summary:
What is the proposed innovation?
This SBIR project proposes to develop an app that will provide matches between local businesses and users that are in the geographic proximity of these businesses.
What are the broader/commercial impacts of the proposed innovation?
The broader/commercial impact of the proposed project will be to enable users and local businesses to get matched with respect to available deals reducing the cost for users and increasing the visibility and the potential revenue for local businesses.
Strengths:
+ Very well-written proposal.
+ Well-done market research and concrete plan with respect to the customer segments that the app is going to target.
+ This is a strong PI, who appears to be knowledgeable wrt the difficulties that will be encountered in the process.
Weaknesses:
- The technical innovation of the proposal is very limited.
- This space is becoming crowded and it is unclear how this proposed solution is different from existing ones.
Suggestions:
* None.
The summary was read by/to the panel and the panel concurred that the summary accurately reflects the panel discussion.
—
Review #1
Rating: Fair
REVIEW:
In the context of the five review elements, please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to intellectual merit.
The proposal will develop a location sharing iOS application, distributed to users through the Apple App Store, optimizes benefit to the user. Applications include crowdsourcing the application’s community for specific deals and, peer-to-peer location-dependent deal-sharing.
It is unclear to the reviewer regarding its innovations, and the proposed idea might have been done separately such as those mentioned in the proposal plus online vendors such as groupon and living social.
In the context of the five review elements, please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to broader impacts.
Location sharing service is very fundamental to many applications, but user privacy is a serious concern.
Please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to any additional solicitation-specific review criteria, if applicable
The proposal itself was not well organized and written. The innovation part is missing. The revenue model might not work as similar efforts usually obtain their revenue directly from the merchants, not Apple Store. Also, why iOS only? how about Android?
Summary Statement
The idea is somewhat interesting, but the proposal was not well written and organized. There are many perspectives still needing to work out for this proposal.
—
Review #2
Proposal Number: 1648361
Rating: Fair
REVIEW:
In the context of the five review elements, please
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to intellectual merit.
The proposal is about the development of an app on location-based deal sharing. Both customers and businesses will be using this app.
Strengths
— very well-written proposal
— well done market research and concrete plan with respect to the customer segments that the app is going to target
— strong PI, who appears to be knowledgeable wrt the difficulties that will be encountered in the process.
Weaknesses:
— It seems that in order for the app to take off it requires some initial participation of users and companies, which is not clear how it is going to be achieved.
— There is not significant technical innovation in the proposal.
In the context of the five review elements, please
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to broader impacts.
Location-based deals are both interesting and beneficial both for customers and local businesses. This is an interesting app for exploring such deals. The only problem I see is that it will be hard for the PI to obtain and maintain the initial set of users.
Please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to any additional solicitation-specific review criteria, if applicable
n/a
Summary Statement
Interesting app, very well-written proposal. Despite the problems related to the acquisition and maintenance of the userbase the proposal seems thorough and the PI very appropriate for the task of developing the proposed app.
—
> Because it might not make sense otherwise, I will add that the proposal excerpt in the third review which follows “The presenter states:” is from the July section of the 2017 r&d timeline.
__
Review #3
Proposal Number:
1648361
Rating:
Fair
REVIEW:
In the context of the five review elements, please
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to intellectual merit.
1. Potential to advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields.
The proposer states that geocoding, map-based search operations, and iBeacon are used in an app that allows the user to “crowdsource the application’s community for specific deals within a specific area and, secondarily, peer-to-peer location-dependent deal-sharing, through which deals can be shared between contacts in different locations to be redeemed in participating locations.” This deal-sharing can also be viewed in a public stream, alerting local users to local activity.
The potential of the project depends on the pervasiveness of Apple’s iBeacon. The technology was introduced in 2013 and is a protocol for “Bluetooth low energy devices that broadcast their identifier to nearby portable electronic devices.” (Wikipedia)
The project uses iBeacon as its differentiating technology. It will advance knowledge of how iBeacon can be used to enable peer-to-peer location-dependent deal-sharing.
2. Do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
A primary goal of R&D is to reduce locational inaccuracy. The creativity is to accomplish this. The accomplishment depends on the extent to which iBeacon is widely adopted.
3. Is the plan well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
The plan is poorly presented, although the important pieces can easily be found in the lengthy narrative. I do feel that the proposer was constantly arguing with himself as he speculated on his app’s relationship with the market.
There is much discussion of assessing success. The presenter states: “Search is re-evaluated for relevancy. User responses may give rise to a rating system that is not run by votes but is conceivably run solely on recommendations. With search representing the vast majority of deals that are found, its refinement is worthwhile. Location awareness is also evaluated. The public stream and its concordant deal-shares are to be evaluated for completeness, i.e., that they are all visible in the form or fashion in which they were sent. Response to user feature requests is implemented. Bug fixes, longstanding code reviews, and team discussions that direct the course of development occur.”
4. How well qualified is the individual, team or institution to conduct the proposed activities?
The proposer appears to be capable of conducting the proposed activity. He is seeking funds for two consultants for iBeacon testing.
5. Are their adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home institution or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?
There are adequate resources.
In the context of the five review elements, please
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to broader impacts.
1. Potential to benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes?
The proposer states, “The interaction facilitated through deal-making activities and their associated public presentation within the app creates social connectedness between its users and as a result creates a diversity of locational activity. For example, users may choose to go to businesses and places of interest that they were not previously aware existed or that they did not realize other users went to. For businesses, the paramount role which they play in creating content gives them a rich opportunity to serve content and deals to users through a medium that generates real-time feedback. Hence, businesses and users become interconnected. Similarly, this application and businesses have a strong connection; the app’s growth is likely contingent upon the participation of its users in deal-making activities which can affect economic activity in the business districts that generate these deals.”
To the extent that increased business activity in an area is generally beneficial to society, the potential exists.
Please evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal with respect to any additional solicitation-specific review criteria, if applicable
Summary Statement
This is a small project with a correspondingly small benefit. The proposer is only asking for $150,000. I think this would make his life a lot easier but I also think he can move forward without it.
—
