Most grants programmes start with spreadsheets. When volumes are low and the team is small, spreadsheets are adequate — they are free, flexible, and everyone knows how to use them. The problems emerge gradually, then suddenly. This guide is for funders at the point where "gradually" has become "suddenly" and the question is how to move to a purpose-built online grant management system without disrupting an active programme.
Spreadsheets were designed for analysis, not administration. Using them to manage a grants process introduces structural problems that accumulate over time:
No concurrent editing. Multiple administrators editing the same spreadsheet create conflicts. Someone's work gets overwritten. Data diverges across copies. The team spends time reconciling rather than administering.
No process enforcement. A spreadsheet does not enforce that a COI declaration was collected before assessment, or that an eligibility check was completed before an application was advanced. The process exists in people's heads and in checklist documents, not in the system.
No audit trail. When a cell is overwritten, the history is gone. For funders with OIA obligations, audit requirements, or probity standards, a spreadsheet provides no meaningful audit trail.
No applicant portal. Applicants submit through forms or email. Someone transcribes the data into the spreadsheet. This transcription step introduces errors and consumes significant staff time.
Reporting requires manual work. Every governance report requires someone to manually summarise and format spreadsheet data. This is slow, error-prone, and means reports are always slightly outdated.
Search is fragile. Finding a specific application or filtering by criteria becomes unreliable as datasets grow. A search that works at 100 records fails at 1,000.
Moving to a purpose-built online grant management platform changes the operational reality of running a grants programme in several specific ways:
Applications arrive structured. Applicants complete a configured form in the applicant portal. The application arrives in the system in structured form, already attached to the correct round, with documents filed and word limits enforced. No transcription. No missing fields.
The process is in the system. Assessment workflows, COI declarations, eligibility checks, scoring — these happen inside the platform. The workflow drives the process and documents it simultaneously. What used to be enforced by email reminders and checklist PDFs is now enforced by the system.
The database is always current. Because the workflow happens in the platform, the database reflects the current state of every application at any point. Programme managers can see where every application sits without asking anyone or manually updating a spreadsheet.
Post-award management is tracked. Conditions, milestones, reporting requirements, payments — all attached to the grant record. The system tracks what is due and what is outstanding. Grantee correspondence is logged. Nothing falls through because it was in someone's inbox.
Reporting is instant. Governance reports are generated from the live database, not manually compiled from spreadsheets. What used to take half a day takes minutes.
Audit trail is automatic. Every decision, every change, every piece of correspondence is timestamped and attributed. OIA responses and audit requests can be answered from the system rather than reconstructed from email threads.
The practical challenge of moving to online grant management is not choosing a platform — it is managing the transition without disrupting an active programme. The components of a migration are:
Data migration. Historical grant records need to move from spreadsheets (and possibly a previous system) into the new platform. The quality of this process depends on how cleanly structured your existing data is. Funders with consistent, well-maintained spreadsheets have an easier migration than those with years of accumulated inconsistencies. Ask vendors specifically: what format do you import, who does the migration work, and what happens to data that does not map cleanly?
Process configuration. The platform needs to be configured to your programme — your application form, your assessment criteria, your workflow, your reporting requirements. Purpose-built grants platforms have this configuration built in; generic tools adapted for grants require more extensive setup. Factor in the configuration time when evaluating timelines.
Parallel running. Most funders run the new platform in parallel with spreadsheets for at least one round — often for active applications that started before the migration. This parallel period has real overhead. Plan for it explicitly rather than assuming it will be brief.
Team training. Even intuitive platforms require training, particularly for assessors who may only interact with the system once or twice per year. Training should cover the workflow, not just the interface — assessors need to understand why certain steps are required, not just how to complete them.
Applicant communication. If your applicants are accustomed to a previous process, the new portal will need to be communicated clearly. First-time applicants to the new system have higher support needs than returning applicants.
The right time to migrate is when the cost of staying on spreadsheets exceeds the cost of migration. Indicators that you have crossed that line:
Indicators that you should wait:
The online grant management market includes purpose-built platforms, adapted CRM and project management tools, and generic form-builder-plus-database combinations. The differences matter:
Assessment workflow. Purpose-built platforms handle COI declarations, assessor assignment, panel scoring, and recommendation records as native features. Adapted tools often require significant configuration to approximate these features — and the approximation is rarely as clean in practice.
Post-award tracking. This is where adapted tools most commonly fall short. A platform that ends at the decision point leaves the hardest part of grants administration — condition tracking, milestone management, grantee reporting — back in spreadsheets.
Audit trail completeness. Purpose-built platforms log everything by design. Adapted tools may log some things but not others, depending on how they were configured.
Applicant portal. The quality of the applicant-facing portal varies significantly. A portal that is confusing, inaccessible, or not mobile-friendly will reduce application quality and create support overhead.
The most reliable way to evaluate a platform is a structured trial with a real test case — your application form, your assessment criteria, a mock round run through to decision. If a vendor cannot provide this, that is itself a signal.
For funders evaluating online grant management platforms, the government grants management and community foundations solution pages explain how Tahua supports specific programme types. To see the platform in action with your requirements.
**.