Common questions

You receive an organised, reusable account of your organisation’s funding knowledge: what you do, who you serve, the evidence behind your work, approved descriptions and facts a funder may ask you to support. I develop it from material you already hold and knowledge clarified with your team. You approve and own the finished content. The usual handover is a navigable Notion workspace, guidance for using it in AI-assisted drafting, a refresh routine and a walkthrough on a real or example application. The exact deliverables are agreed before work begins. A public case study shows the approach in use; an illustrative example can be shown in a conversation without exposing another client’s material. Optional setup help for the two other free methods is explained under cost.

The build does not include finding grants, managing a pipeline, ongoing bid writing, new external research or personally reviewing every draft for submission. The planned Funding Watch Pack is a self-directed newsletter-screening method, not a managed grant-finding service. The free Application Review Kit provides a method your team can run and check.

That is a useful starting point. Past applications, reports, policies, service descriptions and monitoring data often contain material worth reusing. The more relevant, current information you already have, the more can be adapted and the less new content has to be developed. The work is to decide what is still accurate, resolve contradictions, find missing evidence, and turn good material into an approved account of your organisation that is easy to use for the next funder. A large folder of outdated files does not remove that review. If your team already has a current, well-organised and actively maintained system, the full engagement may add little. I would say so in an initial conversation.

It might well be, especially for a small grassroots group that applies only occasionally or is still building confidence with AI. The Grant Readiness Starter Kit helps you put core information in one usable document. That can be enough for your present needs, even if you are not ready to use AI regularly. A fuller Funding Knowledge Base takes time to review, use and keep current. If nobody in the organisation has the capacity or digital confidence to take ownership of that yet, a simpler resource may be the more useful choice. The guided engagement becomes more relevant as funding work grows or the team is ready to maintain a larger system. The Starter Kit remains a complete, useful first step in its own right.

No. A clearer case cannot make a funder approve an application or make an ineligible project eligible. The aim is to reduce repeated preparation and give your team approved facts and evidence it can find, adapt and check. At Early Years Cocoon, application preparation fell from roughly 10–20 hours to 3–6 hours; the case study describes that organisation’s experience, not a forecast for yours. A practical test at handover is whether someone can find an approved fact, prepare a draft from it and check the result against a funder’s requirements.

The build, AI workflow setup, testing and handover form one core project, designed for your team to use and maintain independently. Most organisations are not expected to need ongoing GRS support.

If your needs change, optimisation, refresh and improvement can be agreed as one optional post-handover support offer. There is no ongoing commitment. See the core project and optional support.

A build is a defined, one-off piece of work at a fixed fee agreed after scoping. It is not a subscription or an ongoing retainer. Third-party tool subscriptions are separate. Payment is 50% before work starts and 50% when the completed work is accepted under the signed agreement.

Depending on the funder’s rules, suitable unrestricted, core or capacity-building funds may cover the work. See the payment and commissioning routes.

You do not need to buy a particular model before an initial conversation. The right choice depends on the tools your team already uses, how often you will work with the knowledge base, the size of your files and your data policies. A free tier can be enough to try a small workflow. For regular work across more material, the first paid tier is usually more comfortable because of usage limits and project or file features. A team or business plan may be more appropriate where several people need access or your organisation needs stronger administration and contractual controls. AI subscriptions are separate from my fee. I can help you choose a setup your team can maintain, with current provider terms checked before organisational material is uploaded. The Starter Kit’s tool guide gives a useful starting point.

Yes. A Funding Knowledge Base is readable and useful even if your team does not yet use AI for drafting; I use AI under supervision during the build. Someone on your side still needs the time and everyday digital confidence to share files, review sections, approve facts and keep the finished resource current. To use the AI-assisted writing method yourselves, you will also need to learn a simple workflow and check every result against your evidence and the funder’s rules. I would assess both forms of readiness in the initial conversation. If the full build would be hard to own right now, the Starter Kit may be a better first step.

Your existing files and systems can be the starting material. My standard handover is currently in Notion, because it gives the finished knowledge base a clear structure. If your organisation needs to stay within Google Workspace or Microsoft 365, raise that at the first conversation. I can assess what a workable handover and AI workflow would look like in your environment, including any extra work or limits. Sensitive records should not be moved into a new tool simply to fit a standard setup.

Use the free resources independently. If you would like help setting up a published resource, enquire about your needs and whether it is workable in your tools. Wanted initial setup and first use of Context and Review can be included within an FKB build’s fixed fee when workable. Third-party subscriptions and later refresh work are separate.

You will need to share material, answer questions and approve the wording that will become your reusable source. I do the organising and drafting, but only your team can confirm what is true of your organisation. Strong, current material reduces new drafting; it still needs checking. A typical build takes an estimated four to six calendar weeks, depending heavily on source availability and how quickly reviewers respond. That is elapsed project time, not a request for four to six weeks of staff work. I agree the contacts and timetable with you before starting. You review sections as they are drafted; the reusable knowledge base and walkthrough are handed over at the end.

The Content Workshop is a controlled workspace for agreed source material, drafts and feedback. It is separate from the final knowledge base in your organisation’s workspace. The engagement agreement defines confidentiality, access, processing and retention. The database is hosted in London; other platform services can process information internationally. No cloud service is risk-free. See the privacy notice.

Selected organisational material can pass to agreed AI tools for supervised drafting. Paid individual tools are configured with model training off; provider operational and safety retention can still apply. Training controls do not mean zero retention. Providers and requirements should be confirmed before processing. See the information-handling notice.

Keep beneficiary and donor records, safeguarding, children’s and health information, private HR records, bank details and identifying case material out of the normal workflow. Removing a name may still leave a person identifiable. Share cleaned organisational information and raise confidentiality requirements before supplying material.

Your organisation owns its source material and final Funding Knowledge Base content. GRS retains its general methods and templates. Master terms provide for platform and uploaded AI-file deletion 30 days after completion, and up to 12 months for local continuity copies. AI conversation history follows provider settings. The signed agreement governs your engagement. See privacy.

Yes. AI can invent a plausible claim or turn an approved paragraph into generic wording. The Funding Knowledge Base gives it real facts and examples to work from, while your team checks each draft. An important claim should be traceable to a record or a person who can stand behind it. Each new application still needs a real project plan, current costs, the funder’s rules and your organisation’s voice. The knowledge base helps the team repeat those checks; it cannot supply a missing project design.

That is common, and it is useful to know early. I can help identify what can be reused, what needs a better explanation, and what is genuinely missing. Some gaps can be filled through conversations with your team or by finding existing records. Other claims may have to wait for better data. The knowledge base should show those limits rather than cover them with confident wording. You do not need a perfect archive to begin, but you do need people who can answer questions and approve what is written.

Start with the free resource that fits the job, or enquire about focused setup. A full build can include wanted initial Context and Review setup when workable. After handover, refresh and improvement support is separately scoped. Your team still checks and approves changes. The public pack is not claimed to automatically maintain a Starter Kit document.

Yes. The Funding Knowledge Base is a readable resource for people as well as AI tools. A colleague can use it to find an approved description of a service, check an outcome figure, prepare a report or brief a new grant writer. AI can make retrieval and drafting quicker, but the underlying work of agreeing accurate, reusable organisational knowledge has value on its own.

A Case for Support is a focused document making the case for a cause, project or organisation. A Funding Knowledge Base can hold that thinking alongside the approved facts, evidence, service descriptions and past learning that many different applications or reports may need. The point is to keep the underlying material findable and current, then select what fits each audience. If your existing Case for Support already does that job for your current workload, a larger build may add little.

Say so in the Content Workshop. You can correct a fact, explain what the wording misses or flag a gap in the evidence. I revise the section with AI assistance and check the result before returning it to you. A section enters the final resource only after your organisation approves it. At handover, the walkthrough provides a further chance to check that the finished resource is understandable and usable. The proposal and agreement set the deliverables and completion process.

First check the programme’s eligible costs, timing and procurement rules. Some funders support specialist organisational development but exclude fundraising work or application writing. A broader label cannot make an excluded activity eligible.

Where the programme permits the actual work, a possible heading is “Organisational knowledge management and grant-readiness workflow development.” Explain the deliverable plainly: review existing evidence, build a client-owned Funding Knowledge Base, set up its agreed AI-assisted drafting workflow and establish a refresh process. If initial setup of the free context or review method is in scope, describe it as part of the same engagement, without a separate charge. The budget must reflect the proposed work and any AI disclosure the funder requires. If you have a likely funder in mind, I can help describe the scope accurately for a conversation with them.

Yes. A free member introduction shares the approach and open Starter Kit, with dates agreed subject to availability. Hands-on work on participants’ own material, individual reviews and cohort programmes are separately scoped. See For partners.

A host or funder can also commission a separately scoped programme, including a cohort. Shared sessions can cover the common approach, while each participating organisation works with its own material, evidence gaps and reviewers. Before pricing it, the intended output, number and readiness of participants, amount of individual support and the host’s role would be agreed. Depending on the programme, participants might develop their own knowledge document with guidance or receive more hands-on support to build a fuller Funding Knowledge Base. Payment could come from the host, a funder or the participating organisations. A free member session can happen first, but a commissioned programme is a separate decision.

The discovery call is free and carries no obligation. It is a conversation about your organisation, current funding work, tools, source material and who could review the content. You need not send a full document pack or prepare for a product demonstration. Bring any rules on AI or personal data, and mention an imminent bid deadline. I can then say whether a Funding Knowledge Base build, a free resource or another kind of help looks sensible. A call can end without a project.

Yes. The source sharing, section reviews and handover can be done online, so the build does not depend on your organisation being near me. The proposal can set any meetings or accessibility arrangements your team needs.