GrantDesk discussion topics for agency IT
Agency IT, security, program, and procurement staff can use these topics to decide whether a proposed grant-management pilot is appropriate. No implementation begins without the agency's own approvals.
1. Proposed program scope
A potential pilot would begin with one agency-approved grant program or application cycle. Agency staff would identify the application, reviewer, recordkeeping, security, and purchasing requirements before agreeing to an implementation scope.
The public homepage contains fictional example screens only. There is no applicant-facing system, active agency deployment, connected finance system, production review workflow, or measured program outcome.
ILLUSTRATIVE PLANNING ONLY
agency program requirements
|
agency privacy and security review
|
separately approved pilot scope
|
staff-reviewed proposed workflow
2. Potential data exchange requirements
Agency permissions come first
Any real applicant, program, reviewer, or financial information would require approved access, a written data-handling agreement, and an agency-verified purpose before collection or transfer.
No production connector is deployed
Any identity provider, finance system, case system, file transfer, application form, or API connection would require separate agency authorization, technical implementation, security review, and verification.
Transfer and retention are not yet implemented
Transport methods, encryption, access controls, retention, rejection handling, monitoring, backups, and incident response would need to be defined with the agency. No existing production pipeline or security implementation is represented.
3. Illustrative record categories
The categories below are examples for a scoping conversation. They are not implemented file formats, existing agency integrations, or real applicant records.
Program requirements
An agency could identify its program name, application period, staff roles, required documents, review criteria, and reporting obligations.
Application and review records
Any proposed application or reviewer record would use only fields the agency approves. Access, retention, reviewer permissions, and applicant privacy would require separate verification.
Award and monitoring records
An agency could evaluate whether award status, staff review notes, or subrecipient reporting dates are useful. No production award, disbursement, accounting, or monitoring feed exists.
Illustrative fields only: sample_program_id, sample_application_id, proposed_review_status fictional-program-01, fictional-application-01, pending-agency-review
4. Proposed reviewer and screening requirements
An agency would determine its own eligibility rules, review criteria, application completeness requirements, reviewer assignments, and conflict-of-interest procedures.
No automatic application screening, reviewer scoring, AI-generated summary, conflict detection, live agency record, or production audit trail has been implemented.
Potential exception categories
Missing information, a reviewer question, or an unresolved agency requirement may be useful topics for a future workflow. These are illustrative examples, not existing automated rules.
5. Proposed security and privacy review
Any agency handling requirement would need to be agreed, implemented, and verified before real applicant information is received.
- Applicant privacy: the agency determines permitted fields, approved purpose, retention, and privacy terms.
- Access and hosting: identity, role-based access, hosting location, encryption, and support processes are proposed requirements only.
- Recordkeeping: auditability, export, monitoring, and deletion are proposed requirements, not deployed capabilities.
- Human decisions: funding, applicant communication, and purchasing remain with authorized agency staff.
No production security control, completed agency assessment, third-party audit, or security certification is claimed.
6. Scoping and agency approval
A potential implementation would require written agency approval, one defined program, an agreed statement of work, confirmed data permissions, and an agency-selected purchasing process.
- Review actual program, reviewer, and applicant requirements.
- Agree on privacy, security, access, and retention requirements.
- Confirm any proposed integration or workflow feasibility separately.
- Define staff approvals, validation criteria, and pilot boundaries.
No established onboarding duration, delivery date, production environment, or implementation outcome is promised.
7. Agency IT questions
Is a working GrantDesk application available?
No. GrantDesk currently provides an illustrative public sample workflow only.
Are finance, identity, or agency systems already connected?
No. Every proposed connector or data mapping would require separate agency approval, implementation, and verification.
Are AI-assisted features already implemented?
No. Any automation or AI-assisted feature would be a separately reviewed potential requirement, and agency staff retain all decisions.
Where would applicant data be hosted?
No production applicant data environment exists. Any hosting arrangement would require agency security and privacy approval before data collection.
Does GrantDesk claim a security certification?
No security certification, third-party audit, or implemented production control is claimed.
Who approves the agency's purchase?
The agency determines its own purchasing process, required approvals, documentation, and whether a quote or purchase order is appropriate. Review the pilot purchasing guide.