Great Solution Out-of-the-Box.
Rating: 8 out of 10
IncentivizedUse Cases and Deployment Scope
We use Submittable for online grant application review and processing and workflow automation. We used to have applicants fill out Application Forms in MS Word templates, circulate them to review committees via email and gather feedback and approvals by email. Submittable has allowed us to automate a variety of processes, including i) centralizing all application processing online in a single site using customizable logic-based form templates, ii) making it easier to manage workflows like assigning applications to review team members, recording interactions, and following up queries externally with applicants, as well as internally with review team members) communicating application decisions, and iv) managing additional or follow-up forms processing (e.g., collecting bank wire info for approved disbursements), etc. It also acts as a central repository for past/archived applications for easy reference or learning retention to help with new application decisions.
Pros
- Form-logic: Allows application forms to adjust based on answers to crucial questions (if-then-else) so that all applications don't have to see extended questions that may not apply to them or their situation.
- Messaging Platform: This platform allows interactions with applicants or internal review teams to be associated with the specific submission, allowing for an easier, complete view of an application being considered and as an audit trail.
- Good Voting/Polling Management: It makes it easier to record the latest vote/feedback from assigned team members and allows customization of the vote/feedback review as a form. It also summarizes the votes for easy review in a submissions dashboard view.
Cons
- Subscribe to Types of Activity Alerts: It would make tracking of key activity or status of each submission a lot easier if all assigned review team members could subscribe to key actions taken on a submission (e.g., updates/edits by the applicant, responses to queries over the messaging platform, etc.) As the central workflow coordinator, I only get alerts or notifications if an applicant has submitted a new application or updated their submission or if I have been directly messaged. I then have to triage all activities and decide if I need to notify review team members of significant activity on a relevant submission that might require their attention (e.g., an answer by the applicant to a query that might alter a review team member's vote/feedback). Think of it like online discussion boards where you might want to sign up for alerts if there have been responses to a question you posed or a topic you expressed an interest in.
- More User-Friendly Reporting Features: The ability to rename Report Column Headers. Right now, report field names are based on question text in the submission form. For example, instead of a Report Field being called "New Applicant," the default reporting tool labels the Report Field "Is this your first time submitting a Grant Application to XYZ?"
- More Granular Access/Permissions Control: It would be great to allow auditors read-only access without having to add them to the Review Team.
Likelihood to Recommend
The best solution we found for Grant Application Processing is where applicants can submit their grant request, make updates in response to queries, get updates on status, and submit follow-up progress reports if approved.
Vetted Review
5 years of experience