Universities sit on both sides of the grants management equation — applying for external research funding from government agencies and foundations, and distributing their own internal research funds to academic staff. Both roles have specific grants management requirements, and the two functions increasingly need to work together as universities grow their internal research investment portfolios.
Research offices (pre-award and post-award). University research offices manage the external funding pipeline — identifying funding opportunities, supporting academics to prepare applications, processing funding agreements, and ensuring compliance with funder requirements throughout the grant lifecycle. Research offices operate as administrators rather than funders, but their grants management systems need to mirror the accountability requirements of the external funders they work with.
Internal grant programmes. Universities distribute their own research funds through internal programmes — seeding grants, conference travel funding, equipment grants, capacity-building grants for emerging researchers. These internal programmes are grantmaking — the university is the funder, academics are applicants, and research offices administer the process. Internal grant programmes have grown significantly as universities compete for research talent and try to build pipeline for external funding.
Multi-funder complexity. University research offices deal with dozens of different external funders simultaneously — the Health Research Council, Marsden, MBIE's Endeavour Fund, NHMRC, ARC, industry-funded research contracts, and international funders including the European Research Council and NIH. Each funder has different application systems, reporting requirements, financial management rules, and compliance expectations.
Named investigator accountability. External grants are awarded to named principal investigators (PIs), who are personally accountable to the funder for the scientific delivery. The institution is accountable for financial management. Managing this split accountability — and navigating the handover when a PI moves between institutions — is a persistent challenge.
Sub-contracting and consortia. Many large research grants involve multiple institutions — a lead university with co-investigators at partner universities or Crown Research Institutes. Managing financial flows, accountability, and reporting across consortium members requires clear agreement structures and disciplined financial tracking.
Ethics and regulatory compliance. Research involving humans, animals, or certain hazardous materials requires ethics committee approval, regulatory permits, and ongoing compliance monitoring. Grants management systems that can track these compliance milestones — and hold payment pending compliance clearance — reduce the risk of compliance breaches.
Eligibility criteria. Who can apply for internal research funds? Full-time academic staff only? Postdoctoral researchers? PhD students? Jointly with industry partners? Eligibility criteria for internal grant programmes need to reflect the strategic intent of the programme — whether it's building early-career researcher capability, seeding transformational research, or supporting applied industry partnerships.
Merit assessment. Internal grant assessment typically uses peer review by academic colleagues. In universities, managing COI in internal peer review is challenging — most academics know each other, reviewers have departmental interests, and seniority hierarchies can distort assessment. Internal assessment panels need clear COI management protocols and ideally include external reviewers for larger internal grants.
Financial administration. Internal grants are administered through university financial systems — research codes, fund accounts, expenditure approval workflows. Grants management systems need to integrate with (or at minimum export cleanly to) university financial systems so internal grant funds are correctly tracked against budgets.
Accountability proportionate to size. Small internal grants (seed funding of $5,000-$20,000) need proportionate accountability. Requiring full financial acquittals and detailed outcome reports for small seed grants creates administrative burden without improving accountability. Proportionate reporting — a brief narrative outcome for small grants, full acquittal only for substantial funding — is better design.
Researchers as reluctant administrators. Academics are hired to do research, not to administer grant processes. Every hour spent on administration is an hour not spent on science. Grants management processes that minimise administrative burden on researchers — while maintaining necessary accountability — are more likely to be used well and to attract strong applications.
Overhead and indirect cost recovery. External grants often include allowances for institutional overhead (indirect costs). Internal grant programmes need clear policies on whether indirect costs apply to internal grants — and if so, at what rate and where those funds go. Inconsistent overhead policies create friction and perverse incentives.
IP and commercialisation. Research grants that produce commercially valuable intellectual property need clear IP policies established before the grant begins. Grants management systems that capture IP provisions and flag when IP-generating research is being funded help universities protect their commercialisation interests.
Progress reporting. External funders require progress reporting — typically annual for multi-year grants, final at completion. Progress reports cover scientific progress, financial expenditure, personnel changes, and ethics compliance. Research offices track outstanding reports and chase non-compliant PIs.
Research output tracking. What publications, conference presentations, patent applications, or practice changes did a grant produce? Tracking research outputs — and connecting them back to the grants that funded them — is important for demonstrating research return on investment to internal and external funders.
Impact assessment. Research funders increasingly want to know about the real-world impact of the research they funded — beyond outputs to outcomes. Capturing impact evidence (policy changes, clinical practice adoption, technology adoption) over long timescales (3-5 years post-grant) requires long-lived records and active follow-up processes.
Tahua supports university research offices and internal grant programmes with peer assessment management, multi-year grant tracking, compliance milestone workflows, and reporting frameworks designed for academic contexts.