How to write a business plan: structure, examples and the chapter that loses the most points
The structure of a business plan is actually quite standard: executive summary, market, product, operations, team, financials, timeline, and risks — eight sections, with plenty of templates online. What really sets plans apart is the “team and staffing” chapter, which is exactly the one most people write carelessly. Take Taiwan's government grant programs: reviewers explicitly list “the reasonableness of staffing and budget allocation” as a key criterion, and they look not only at degrees but also at the actual experience of R&D staff. You can copy the structure; you can't copy the staffing chapter.
Start with the structure: eight sections and what matters in each
Whether it's going to investors, a bank or a government grant program, the skeleton is much the same. What differs is who is reading it and which part they care about most (covered separately below).
| Section | Questions to answer | Most common questions |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Executive summary | One page: what you do, who it's for, why you, and how much you need | It reads like a company profile, and after reading it nobody knows what you plan to do |
| 2. Problem and market | Who has what pain point, how big the market is, and how it's solved today | Citing the global market size when you can't actually capture that share |
| 3. Products or Services | What you do, how it differs from existing approaches, and what stage you're at | Describing only what you did, not what sets you apart, so it's unclear why it has to be you |
| 4. Operations and business model | How you sell, how you get paid, cost structure, key partners | Avoids talking about pricing, or the pricing has no cost basis |
| 5. Team and staffing | Who will do it, why they can pull it off, and how you'll fill the gaps | Listing degrees and job titles doesn't tell you who can actually deliver |
| 6. Financial planning | Revenue and expense projections, use of funds, and when you'll break even | Revenue curve rising all the way, with no assumptions explained |
| 7. Timeline and milestones | How many phases, what's delivered in each, and how it's accepted | The timeline is so packed it's obviously not achievable |
| 8. Risks and Mitigation | The three things most likely to fail, and how you plan to handle them | Writing “no major risks” — this line alone costs you points |
Of the eight sections, sections 1, 2, 3, and 6 have plenty of public templates; follow them and you'll reach a basic standard. Section 5 can't be saved by a template, because it describes who you actually have, who you're missing, and how you plan to fill the gap.
Why is the "team" section the easiest place to lose points?
Because it's the only section that writing skill can't cover up.
A well-written market analysis is hard for readers to fact-check; a slightly optimistic financial forecast is still just a forecast. But the team section describes specific people, specific experience, and specific time allocations: one question and it's obvious whether they're real.
And the logic of reviewers and investors is simple: however good the plan, if the people executing it can't deliver, it's worth nothing. So they usually spend far more time on this section than applicants assume.
Companies often ask us one question: "Our proposal is due and we haven't found the people yet — how do we write this section?"
The issue itself isn't the problem—most companies' teams really are incomplete when they apply; that's the norm, not the exception. What goes wrong is how people handle it: many choose to list people who haven't joined yet as if they're already on board, or count one person's hours in three different projects.
Both of these approaches are far riskier than “honestly saying you're short-staffed.” The former causes trouble at the reimbursement or audit stage; the latter gets caught on the spot once reviewers lay several proposals side by side.
An honest version is actually more persuasive: “This project needs to add 2 staff with X capabilities, expected to be in place within 2 months of approval. We have engaged an executive search consultant to begin the search; the market salary band is A to B.” That one passage covers the gap, the timeline, feasibility, and the cost basis—far more complete than forcing a team together on paper.
What do reviewers and investors look for in the team section?
Boiled down to four points, in order of importance:
1. Have these people really done similar work before?
What counts is experience, not just education. Between someone with a master's degree but no relevant project work and someone with an ordinary degree who has actually delivered three times, the latter scores higher here.
Don't just list "X University, Department of X, currently X position." Write "led Project X, responsible for Y, with result Z", spelling out how the person connects to this plan.
2. Is the workload allocation reasonable?
This is the item most often flagged. If someone is committed at 80% of their working hours in the proposal, the question is: who does their original job? When the company has two projects running at once, is that person being counted twice?
Anyone whose total time allocation exceeds 100% drags down the credibility of the entire plan—because it suggests the other numbers may have been estimated the same way.
3. Can you actually fill the missing roles?
No company writes its plan only after its team is complete. The point isn't whether you're missing people, but whether you know what you're missing and have a way to fill the gap.
Applicants who can clearly explain "what skills are missing, how many such people are on the market, roughly what salary band they command, and how long it'll take to bring them on board" come across as having done their homework. Conversely, a proposal that never mentions hiring makes reviewers suspect the execution plan is only half thought through.
4. Are personnel costs budgeted correctly?
Budgeting salaries too low is a common problem. It doesn't save money; it makes reviewers suspect you don't understand market rates, and then doubt your other cost estimates too. If you budget high, explain why (scarce skills, overseas assignment, specific qualifications required).
The sensible approach is to cite a verifiable market benchmark and explain why your number sits where it does.
1. Listing advisors or outside collaborators as full-time team members. You can list them as advisors, but state their role and level of involvement and don't mix them into the core team.
2. The same person's hours are double-counted across multiple proposals. This is the item most often flagged in reviews.
3. "The company will hire additional staff as needed." This sentence says nothing, and it will be read as a sign you haven't seriously thought about execution.
Business Plan vs. Government Grant Proposal: Not the Same Document
Many people send the same résumé everywhere. That's understandable for efficiency, but you should know where the differences lie:
| Aspect | Investor version | Government-subsidized version |
|---|---|---|
| Core issue | How big can this business grow? | Can this plan actually be delivered? |
| The heaviest section | Market size and business model | Technical innovation, implementation approach, timeline |
| Attitude toward risk | Willing to accept high risk for high reward | You need to show you can control risk |
| The staffing section | Look at the founding team's capability and chemistry | They check whether the budget is reasonable, line by line |
| Finance | Growth curve and exit outlook | Breakdown of fund use and ability to self-finance |
| Format | Free format, with an emphasis on readability | There's a required format and page limit; exceed it and it gets returned |
The most practical difference: staffing and budgets in a government grant proposal have to be reconciled against actual spending. The numbers you write must hold up later, so the level of care in budgeting is completely different from an investor version.
There's one more thing that rarely gets mentioned but really does cause trouble: work that's already finished and already paid for usually can't be used again, with the same content, to apply for an R&D grant.
Companies that have done government tenders or school projects are especially prone to this. Listing that work under "past experience" is a plus, but packaging the same already-delivered results as "to be developed under this project" is a double-funding problem.
If you do apply, draw the line clearly: what you've done before, what you'll newly do this time, and the technical difference between the two. If you can't explain the difference, perhaps you really shouldn't apply with that topic.
Three things to do before you start writing
- Download the official template for the program you're applying to. Section order, page limits, and required attachments differ by program; writing to its structure from the start is far easier than revising afterward
- Take an honest inventory of the team. Who's here, who isn't, and whose hours are already filled by other work. This table becomes the draft for the staffing section and directly affects whether your timeline is feasible
- Write the timeline first, then go back to the product. Many proposals describe the product grandly, but against the timeline it could never be finished. Writing in reverse avoids that gap
FAQ
How long should a business plan be?
For investors, aim for 15–25 pages plus a one-page executive summary; anything longer won't get read through. Government grant proposals must follow the program's rules, and most set a clear page limit (excluding appendices) — going over can get your proposal sent back for revision or even rejected, so always download the official template first. The common principle: put the details in the appendices and keep only what decision-makers need in the main text.
Can we submit if the team isn't complete yet?
Yes, and that's the norm. The key is to describe the gap clearly: which capability is missing, why this project needs it, when the person is expected to be in place, how you'll fill it (hiring yourself or engaging a headhunter), and what the salary budget is based on. Honestly listing the gap with a workable hiring plan is far safer than inventing a complete team—the latter causes problems at the reimbursement or audit stage.
Can consultants be listed as part of the team?
You can, but state their role and level of involvement, and list them under "advisors" or "external support" rather than mixing them into the core team. Note that they're project advisors, roughly how many hours they contribute, and which part they cover. Presenting outside advisors as full-time team members will hurt the credibility of the whole plan the moment someone asks.
How should personnel costs be budgeted to be reasonable?
Use verifiable market rates as your baseline and explain why your figures fall where they do. Budget too low and reviewers will doubt that you understand the market, which casts doubt on your other cost estimates too. Budget too high and you need to justify it — scarce skills, overseas assignments, specific qualifications, and so on. Also make sure no one's total time allocation exceeds 100%; that's the item most often flagged.
Can past government contracts go into the proposal?
Listing it under “past track record” helps, since it shows execution capability and a delivery history. But be careful: work that's already completed and paid for usually can't be used again with the same content to apply for an R&D grant—that counts as double funding. If you apply on a related topic, you must clearly separate “what was delivered before” from “what this project will newly develop,” and explain the technical difference between them. If you can't explain the difference, the topic may not be suitable for the application.
How candid should the risk section be?
Be candid, but pair every risk with a response. Writing "no major risks" will cost you points outright. Any experienced reviewer knows there's no such thing as a risk-free plan, and that sentence only shows you didn't assess it seriously. We suggest picking the three most likely risks (for example, delays in bringing key staff on board, failed technical validation, or slower-than-expected customer adoption) and clearly describing the impact and your backup plan for each.
Stuck on the people section?
If your proposal is due but key staff aren't in place yet, we can start by helping you take stock of the market: whether people with this skill set are available, where the pay range sits, and roughly how long it would take to hire. You can write this information straight into the staffing plan and budget of your proposal, and it also helps you judge whether your timeline is realistic. There's no charge at this stage and no contract required.
Talk with a consultant on LINEFurther reading: Executive role open for six months and still unfilled? Five bottlenecks and fixes · How should Taiwanese companies work with headhunters? · Legal pitfalls for companies using staffing
Finished your proposal but short of people to execute it? Tell us the role requirements and we'll assess whether a headhunter makes sense.
Take the hiring-model assessment first Ask a consultant on LINE