PROCESS OPTIMIZATIONImproving a grant research and application

process

Overview

Current situation: Problems with PHA’s (Piedmont Housing Alliance)

grant writing process

CMM (Capability Maturity Model) sets the groundwork for process Improvement:

The five phases of CMM: Initial, Repeatable, Defined, Managed, Optimize

Capability Maturation at PHA Implications of an optimized grant writing process

Problems in the grant writing process

Management’s time diverted from other projects

Missed grant opportunities due to being uninformed

No established review process

Lack of well-compiled data

Management roles not clearly defined

Lack of organization

Management unaware of all opportunities

The resulting problem

72%

24%

4%

Variable funding from grant applications is lim-ited to only 4%

Funding available Fixed funding (gov) Variable funding

CMM: Level 1 – Initial

Email received by management giving

notification of a grant opportunity

Due to late notification, opportunity is briefly

evaluated– decision is made to proceed

Data from divisional managers as the grant

is worked on

Managers briefly convene— time

permitting— to follow-up with the manager completing the grant

application

Upon grant completion, deadline only allows for a quick overview before

submittal

The process is not stable or repeatable— success is dependent upon the diligence of the manager completing the application

CMM: Level 2 – Repeatable

Fundraising Software identifies grant application opportunities and notifies

managers

Managers briefly convene to evaluate, schedule, and assess

tasks

Data is gathered from divisional managers to

add to the grant

Grant application is worked on by one manager for the duration of the

timeline

Managers briefly convene— time

permitting— as the deadline draws near

Application is completed with

enough time to review certain aspects of the

document before submittal.

The process is repeatable via the presence of fundraising search software— process is relatively transparent and there is a somewhat of a schedule to adhere to. However, it still runs the risk of poor time management without a control component.

CMM: Level 3 – Defined

Fundraising Software identifies grant

application opportunities and notifies managers

Managers convene to evaluate, schedule,

and assess tasks

Data is gathered from divisional

managers to add to the grant

Grant application is worked on by

designated manager

Managers schedule to meet to discuss

progress and answer questions

Application is completed and passed on for

review

Review committee reviews the

document and approves it

The process is standardized as the overall objective is to get the application to the review committee before the deadline. A schedule is more clearly defined and the level of consistency will improve with a more explicit process.

CMM: Level 4 – Managed

Fundraising Software identifies grant

application opportunities and notifies managers Managers convene

to evaluate, schedule, and assess tasks

Data is gathered from divisional managers to

add to the grant

Grant application is worked on by

designated manager

Managers schedule to meet to discuss

progress and answer questions

Application is completed and

passed on for review

Review committee reviews the

document and approves it

Managers modify software search profile

to tailor to needs

Review committee and managers analyze results with past

performance

The process is now dependent on how results measure up with past performance. Software is modified to tailor the search to the organization’s needs. The success of the process is now quantitatively predictable.

CMM: Level 5 – Optimized

Fundraising Software identifies grant application opportunities

and notifies managers

Researcher and managers meet to schedule and task

Researcher gather data from divisional managers

Researcher works on grant based on

schedule

Researcher meets with managers for progress report and approval to

move forward

Application is completed and passed on for review

Review committee reviews the document

and approves it

Researcher modifies the software to fit

organization’s needs

Review committee managers, and

researcher discuss improvements and objectives for next

grant

Researcher gets results of the grant application results and produces a

performance report

An Optimized Process

Level 5 shows continuous process improvement— efficiency

The addition of the researcher creates more functionality

Managers have clearly defined roles

Measurement and analysis is done to improve future results

Virtually all process components will be improved at this level of maturity

References

Harmon, P. (2007). Business Process Change: A Guide for Business Managers and BPM and Six Sigma Professionals,

(Second Edition). Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann

Publishers, Inc.