Cutting-edge technology can connect far-flung grantmaking staff, boards and reviewers, letting them feel as though they are sitting next to each other, when they are located in different cities, different countries or even on different continents. But adjusting to a new workflow can pose problems, too. How well does automating grant processes really work?

With ReviewerCONNECT^TM online grants review software from MicroEdge, grantmakers can automate their entire proposal lifecycle—from letter of inquiry to application submission to evaluation and feedback.

The National Geographic Society's Committee for Research and Exploration is now able to connect thousands of reviewers who examine grant proposals before the committee makes funding decisions. This revolutionary implementation occurred after an extensive review of the options led to a joint development effort between The National Geographic Society and MicroEdge. Reviewers around the world read grant proposals on field-based scientific research and exploration in anthropology, archeology, astronomy, biology, geography, geology and paleontology.

ReviewerCONNECT^TM enables the society's staff to streamline workflow and better coordinate the review process. Instead of relying on time-consuming data entry and sending paperwork back and forth by mail, wasting staff hours, paper, and postage, reviewers can log in to review the grants assigned to them. Each grant administrator can see who has reviewed grants—and who hasn't. Every reviewer knows exactly where each grant is in the process. And board members have the same up-to-date access to proposals.

Theresa Kelley Minogue, program officer and database manager for research, conservation and exploration at National Geographic, says the society has sent out about 700 applications to grant reviewers since the system was implemented in January 2003. More than 4,500 reviews have been processed online. "The three grant programs that I work with receive all of our applications on the Internet using IGAM^TM (Internet Grant Application Module)," she says. "There are a couple of grantees working in countries where they don't have great Internet access—but 99 percent of applications come in over the Web."

Minogue further describes how automation works for the society: "We have a two-stage application process." First, prospective grantees submit a preapplication, she says. "If their preapplication gets approved, then they are sent a link to their full application. They complete that online and submit it to us, including three names of people who they think are qualified to review their proposal."

Next, reviewers are contacted. "When we bring the application directly into the GIFTS^TM central database, a notice is sent to those reviewers automatically and it sends them the URL and the password to review the application online," Minogue continues. "Then we send the application out to committee members to review online. During the review process, they can list three or four people that they would like to review the proposal as well."

"Originally, once an application came in, we'd have to print it out, make ten copies and mail it to everybody. This has shaved paper use—up to 100,000 pieces of paper a year," Minogue states. "We still have to print out 40 copies of each application for our meetings, though. Before, each review used to be on a separate page sent by e-mail or fax, but now we can put two or three reviews on a page, using Crystal Reports to compile everything from GIFTS. And, if someone doesn't fill out a part of the application, then it just doesn't get included."

Before the process was moved online, organizing and tracking proposals and communicating with reviewers required a lot of staff time and effort. Staff members had to look up each application individually to locate outstanding reviews or contact a reviewer. According to Minogue, using the automated, online process has saved more than 1,600 hours of staff time. She adds, "There are other things we wanted to have staff concentrate on, which they can now do."

Additionally, the online modules calculate total scores for proposals, so the committee can more easily cull through proposals and make funding decisions.

But how did staff, reviewers and committee members adapt to a whole new way of doing things? It wasn't entirely easy to adjust, says Minogue: "With any new system, there are growing pains in the beginning. But they seem to have all worked themselves out. Some people who are less computer-savvy had problems. However, we have one board member who had had a hard time using e-mail [in the past]. She got her first online application a few months ago, and she had no problems at all."

In closing, Minogue remarks, "We started just with one grant program and then rolled it out to two other ones, so it's been a success."

To read the full case study on the National Geographic Society, visit: https://microedge.com/products/reviewerconnect .

MicroEdge is the leading provider of software and services for the grantmaking community worldwide. With effective technology solutions, MicroEdge is helping grantmakers deal with many of today's challenges, such as:

• Compliance, transparency and alignment
• Effective communication with stakeholders
• Emerging social reporting standards
• Evaluation and measurement of giving impact

Find out how you can more efficiently promote, share, manage and measure your giving vision inside and outside your organization.

Visit: http://www.microedge.com

E-mail: info@microedge.com

Call 1-800-899-0890, ext.250