[AI-assisted for speed]
Every strong proposal needs a structure that carries weight. The 1-2-3 is that structure. It’s the conceptual and strategic spine of your proposal—the part that distills your entire plan into three interdependent components.
When done well, a 1-2-3 doesn’t just summarize the work. It reveals how you believe change happens. It creates internal coherence. And it makes it easier for others—especially funders—to grasp the full shape of your strategy, without getting lost in the details.
This post outlines what the 1-2-3 is, how to use it, and what separates a strong one from a weak one.
What Is a 1-2-3?
The 1-2-3 is the backbone of your plan. It’s the answer to “What are you doing?”—not in narrative form, but in structure. Each of the three elements should name a core component of your strategy, together forming a complete system of change. You’ll revisit this same triad across your proposal—in your narrative, outcomes, budget, bios, and even your request.
A good 1-2-3 creates clarity and confidence. A weak one makes the work sound generic, fragmented, or improvised.
A Strong 1-2-3…
…Feels cohesive. Each part should stand alone, but together they form a strategic whole. It shouldn’t feel like a list of activities; it should feel like a system at work.
…Reveals strategy. It makes visible where you’re applying pressure, what systems you’re intervening in, and why those levers matter.
…Guides the rest of the document. When the 1-2-3 is clear, everything else—what you’re doing, what it costs, who’s doing it—falls into place.
…Uses precise language. Each line should signal direction, consequence, and intentionality. If it sounds like it could appear in any proposal in any field, it’s probably not doing enough.
…Holds up across contexts. You should be able to say it out loud to a funder, summarize it in a deck, or use it to onboard a new collaborator. It should be flexible, repeatable, and real.
A Quick Example
Weaker 1-2-3:
- Research best practices
- Host convenings
- Provide technical assistance
(Too tactical. Too generic. No visible strategy.)
Stronger 1-2-3:
- Shift dominant narratives around public technology
- Equip state-level coalitions to organize and act
- Align policy, procurement, and legal tools to institutionalize change
(Each part is directional, grounded, and part of a larger theory of change.)
A Deeper Breakdown: What Makes for a Good 1-2-3 Core
For those building or evaluating proposals, here’s a more detailed framework to assess whether your 1-2-3 is doing the work it should.
1. Structural Qualities: It Feels Complete and Cohesive
- Triadic Shape: Good 1-2-3s follow a natural rhythm—beginning, middle, end—or a meaningful progression (set-up, action, consequence).
- Distinct but Interdependent: Each part stands on its own, but all three belong to the same system. No redundancy. No filler.
- Progression or Fractal Shape: The elements often reflect a nested system (e.g., narrative, organizing, policy) or build on one another (e.g., seed → scale → lock in).
2. Strategic Substance: It Captures the Real Theory of Change
- Reveals the Levers of Power: It’s clear what systems or dynamics are being engaged.
- Matches the Moment: It responds to real-world conditions—political, cultural, or technological—without being reactive or trendy.
- Embeds a Worldview: It conveys a theory about how change happens and who makes it happen.
3. Narrative Power: It Tells a Compelling Story
- Evokes a Journey or Struggle: There’s motion—something is unfolding or being contested.
- Contains a Lyrical or Moral Element: At least one line hints at shared purpose or moral stakes.
- Avoids Bureaucratic Language: Say what you’re actually doing. “Capacity-building” isn’t a strategy.
4. Reusable Across Sections: It Can Be Refracted and Repeated
- Surfaces in Every Section: It anchors the What We’ll Do, What Will Result, and What It Will Take sections.
- Shapes the Bios: Each team member’s role maps onto a piece of the 1-2-3.
- Shapes the Budget: Resource lines align directly with the three parts.
5. Linguistic Sharpness: It Sounds Like Strategy, Not Admin
- Starts with Strong Verbs or Nouns of Force: Use action-oriented language—organize, build, shift, coordinate, pressure, deliver.
- Avoids Filler and Jargon: Terms like “inclusive,” “transformative,” or “stakeholder engagement” often obscure rather than clarify.
- Has Rhythm and Weight: It should land with confidence when read aloud. No drifting or hedging.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
- Too Abstract: “Accelerate change” or “reimagine systems” without saying what or how.
- Too Tactical: “Publish a white paper, host events, develop toolkit” reads like a task list, not a strategy.
- Redundancy: If two parts overlap, combine or reframe them. Three items should mean three core moves.
- Misalignment: If the rest of the proposal doesn’t clearly stem from the 1-2-3, the reader will sense a disconnect.
A good 1-2-3 is more than a formatting device. It’s your proposal’s central nervous system. It brings focus, exposes strategy, and creates cohesion across every section of your pitch.
If you’re struggling to explain what your work actually is—start here.
Geoffrey MacDougall 
2 comments