Applications, awards & grants · Practical course
Design an application review your team can explain
An application-to-award evidence plan with a rubric, review process and continuing record.
For: Teams managing applications, reviewer decisions, awards or grants.
Start the first lesson →See the course plan ↓A manageable place to begin
Use the supplied examples first. Bring one real workflow when you are ready to adapt the exercises. You do not need to buy software or prepare a complete dataset to start.
Each lesson should leave you with one decision or piece of your plan. Continue when it is useful, and return to the next unfinished lesson on this browser.
Download the course workbook (PDF)Your learning path
Build the plan one lesson at a time
- Lesson 1
Design application intake around a defensible decision
- Lesson 2
Review applications with evidence, clear criteria and human judgment
- Lesson 3
Connect the application, decision and post-award evidence
- Lesson 4
Keep selection criteria and award-reporting definitions consistent
- Lesson 5
Run a review cycle with clear ownership and controlled access
Completion is a personal checklist stored in this browser, not a certificate or an assessment of your work.
Examples and further guidance
More about what you will build
Start small. Build something you can use.
You can work through the example without preparing files or buying software. Then use the workbook to adapt the method to one real workflow. Work one lesson at a time; you can return to the next unfinished lesson on this browser.
By the end, you’ll be able to…
- Collect forms, narrative and supporting files against the right applicant, opportunity and review criteria.
- Plan AI-assisted evidence review with source passages, consistent criteria and recorded human decisions.
- Carry the approved agreement into follow-up reporting, with amendments, ownership and access visible.
Make the practice useful.
First, try the supplied example. Then test your plan with a reviewer or committee member who will use the criteria.
Reading explains the method; the exercises produce a first plan. Applying it to your organization may need further review and implementation work.
The fictional Horizon award reviews project proposals, budgets and references across languages. Follow submission A-31 from intake through review, an approved agreement and later reporting. Adapt the evidence and criteria for a fellowship, admission or grant program.
Use these fictional inputs.
- Applicant details; essays or proposals; references; budgets and supporting files; interview transcripts; reviewer assessments; decisions and agreements; recurring updates.
First thought: What evidence should two reviewers see so they can explain a decision and preserve what was agreed afterward?
What this course covers
This course includes the award lifecycle. Deep cross-investee analysis belongs in the portfolio course. It does not promise automated fairness or full enterprise grant-system replacement.
Agree purpose, essential definitions and access before collecting. The lesson order deepens those practices; it does not postpone them.
How a connected workflow changes the work
Make the next question easier to answer.
When tools stay separate
Forms collect submissions; reviewers download files and build their own scoring sheets.
The connected approach
Collect evidence against a versioned review plan and retain source-backed assessments, human decisions and later updates together.
Sopact’s approach brings collection, qualitative analysis, record context and operational control into the same working process. The benefit to test is how much reconciliation and specialist support your team needs each cycle—not simply how many features a tool lists.
A simple one-off survey may need no more than a form. This course is for work where evidence accumulates and must stay usable. Existing systems can remain sources; agree and test the relevant imports and access before relying on them.
See the example before you begin
Keep the decision connected to the promise that follows.
Fictional example: A program is selected with an agreed target of 200 enrollments. Its first update reports 180 registrations and says 108 of 150 eligible participants attended at least three of the first four sessions.
These figures answer different questions. Registrations describe intake; 108 ÷ 150 = 72% describes attendance among the defined eligible group. Neither establishes that the original enrollment commitment has been met. The remaining registrations need a status: not yet eligible, not started, withdrawn or unknown. Do not assign a status without evidence.
Try it: List what the application, reviewer decision and approved agreement must preserve so the next update can be interpreted. Include the agreed definition of enrollment, reporting period and owner of any amendment. Module 1 turns that list into a collection plan; later modules address analysis, history and review.
Review your completed plan
Test the plan you have built.
Use the pilot checklist on workbook page 7. Ask a colleague to trace an application through review, decision and a follow-up request. Record any gap, its owner and the next review point.
Download workbook (fillable PDF)Workbook answers stay in your saved file. Chapter completion is remembered only in this browser.
Explore the applications and grants solution →