The second session, held on 6 August 2026, moved participants further into the practical development of a complete proposal. Participants worked through the core requirements that need to align within a competitive application: applicant eligibility, alignment with funder priorities, evidence of need, target populations, project design, evaluation, timelines, budgets, sustainability and submission requirements. The training distinguished between a project’s vision, goal, and objectives, emphasizing that objectives translate an overall project goal into measurable commitments. Participants were encouraged to specify what will change, who will experience the change, where it will occur, when it will happen, and how that change will be measured.
The session also introduced participants to logic models as both planning and communication tools. By connecting inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes, a logic model can help identify gaps, keep activities aligned with objectives, clarify what needs to be measured, create shared understanding within the project team and demonstrate to funders how the proposed intervention is expected to generate impact.
Project design was subjected to a practical “stress test”: Is the intervention logical? Evidence-informed? Context-sensitive? Feasible within the available resources? Measurable? Adaptable when implementation challenges arise? This reinforced the importance of developing projects that are not only scientifically sound but also realistic and implementable in their intended settings.
A particularly valuable feature of the program was the use of “Project Ubuntu,” a practical AMS case study that followed participants through different stages of proposal development. The hypothetical project focused on improving adherence to national antibiotic treatment guidelines for adults with pneumonia across three district hospitals. Participants worked through potential interventions including baseline prescription reviews, identification of prescribing gaps and barriers, development of guideline-support resources, capacity strengthening, regular prescription audits, structured feedback to healthcare teams and support for local stewardship champions.
Using an AMR-specific example allowed participants to see how individual components of a proposal connect and how a broad concern such as inappropriate antimicrobial use can be translated into a focused, measurable, and implementable project. The case study also demonstrated how an intervention could align with funding priorities by strengthening AMS in healthcare settings, improving rational antibiotic use, addressing gaps in clinical practice, and generating measurable indicators of improvement.
Another important focus of the training was helping participants demonstrate the pathway between what a project does and what it ultimately changes. Participants explored the resources “or inputs” required to implement a project, including project teams, funding, staff time, participating facilities, guidelines and training resources, data systems, partnerships and stakeholder support. This thinking was then connected to activities, outputs, outcomes and longer-term impact through logic models and MEL frameworks. The approach encouraged participants to design measurement into projects from the beginning rather than treating monitoring and evaluation as an addition at the end of proposal development.
Budgeting was similarly positioned as an integral component of project design rather than a separate financial exercise. Participants learned that a credible budget should be aligned, realistic, complete, proportionate, justified, and compliant with funder requirements, while avoiding unexplained costs, unfunded activities, and unrealistic estimates.