Whole-of-Government Grant Management: Three Shared Service Models That Work
Across government, grant management is under pressure from every direction: rising demand, tighter assurance requirements, higher expectations of transparency, and the practical challenge of running dozens (sometimes hundreds) of schemes across departments, agencies and arm’s-length bodies.
A common theme sits underneath most of these challenges: fragmentation.
The Problem: Why Public Sector Grant Management Is Fragmented
- Duplicate and inconsistent contact records (people and organisations) spread across multiple systems
- Manual uploads into a central grants database that quickly becomes outdated
- Limited cross-government insight into total funding to a recipient, scheme overlaps, cumulative impact, or emerging risks
- Inconsistent processes, controls and reporting standards from one organisation to the next
The question many governments are now asking is: what does “whole of government” grant management look like in practice – and how do you get there without taking on unacceptable delivery risk?
Below are three practical shared-service models we see emerging. Each can be supported by a modern, scalable grant management platform, and each offers a different balance of autonomy, standardisation, and central governance.
Model 1: Shared AIMS platform with a central administration team
In this model, government departments and public agencies share a single AIMS Grant Management System operated as a true shared service.
Crucially, “shared platform” doesn’t mean “one-size-fits-all”.
AIMS can be configured so each participating organisation retains its own:
- branding and portal experience
- forms, funds, eligibility rules and workflows
- scheme calendars, panels and decision routes
- reporting views and operational dashboards
- internal roles, permissions and delegated administration (within governance limits)
Because organisations are on a common platform, you can also introduce something that is exceptionally difficult to achieve in a fragmented landscape: a shared master source for contacts.
That shared master contact record unlocks immediate benefits:
- cleaner data and reduced duplication
- cross-scheme/cross-agency insight (e.g., cumulative awards)
- better fraud/error detection (duplicate registrations, inconsistent identities)
- improved applicant experience (“tell us once”)
What makes this model work is governance. A shared platform typically succeeds when system administration is centralised – either an internal shared service team or an outsourced provider with defined processes, SLAs and change control. All issues, configuration changes and improvement requests flow through that team, building a consistent knowledge base and repeatable best practice.
Best fit when: you want rapid standardisation, shared reporting, and consistent assurance across many schemes, and you can establish a central operating model.
Model 2: Shared AIMS platform plus shared processing for common tasks
Model 2 builds on Model 1, but extends the shared service beyond platform administration into shared processing for work areas that don’t require deep scheme-specific expertise.
Examples of activities often suited to shared processing include:
- scheme setup and release management
- contact management support and updates
- eligibility checks and evidence verification
- KYC / AML checks (where applicable)
- rules-based processing and basic assessments
- meeting administration and panel support
- award generation, contract production and payment scheduling
- standard grant payment management integrated with ERP/finance
In effect, this becomes a Government Grants Shared Service, with AIMS Grant Management Software acting as the workflow and audit backbone, integrated to corporate systems such as ERP/finance, identity tooling, e-signature, and reporting.
Model 2 can also support hybrid realities: if a department or agency retains a local grants platform for specialist programmes, that local system can still integrate into the shared environment for master data and cross-government reporting.
Best fit when: there’s a strong drive for efficiency and standard controls, and the government wants a consistent operating model for scheme delivery at scale.
Model 3: Federated AIMS instances with shared master data and whole-of-government reporting
Model 3 takes a deliberately lower-risk route.
Here, departments and agencies continue to run their own AIMS instances, with local administration and local control. Each organisation owns its own operational data and configuration. That autonomy can be important where security requirements are very high, or where organisations have different governance models and audit constraints.
The shared-service opportunity in Model 3 sits in two places:
1) Shared master data for contacts
A central “Contact Master” holds validated contact records and identifiers. Local AIMS instances reference the master contact ID (and optionally synchronise selected fields) so identity remains consistent across government.
2) Shared reporting and transparency
A central reporting capability supports “whole-of-government” grant insight. Over time, the same architecture can underpin a public-facing government grants portal – a searchable view of grant funding, recipients and awards that’s fed from authoritative departmental systems.
This model also supports integration from other local Grant Management platforms, enabling whole-of-government reporting even where not every organisation uses AIMS for operational delivery.
Best fit when: security and autonomy are paramount, and you want to improve master data quality and reporting first – without a big-bang migration.
Choosing a model: start where you can, evolve where you want to go
These models are not mutually exclusive. In practice, many governments adopt a phased approach:
- Start with Model 3 to establish trusted identities and cross-government reporting
- Move to Model 1 as organisations adopt a shared grant management system
- Extend to Model 2 as confidence grows and shared processing becomes attractive
Across all three, the foundations are the same:
- strong data governance (what is shared, what is not, and why)
- least-privilege access controls and robust audit trails
- scalable infrastructure that can handle thousands of concurrent applications
- clear operating model: who runs what, how changes are controlled, and how assurance evidence is produced
What Modern Grant Management Software Enables
When implemented well, shared-service grant management delivers:
- higher-quality data and fewer duplicate contacts
- better assurance and reduced fraud/error risk
- consistent reporting and credible transparency
- lower cost to run through standardisation and shared capability
- a better applicant experience through “tell us once” identity data
If you’re exploring “whole of government” grantmaking – whether to modernise departmental delivery, replace an ageing grants information database, or support a broader ERP transformation – these three models provide a practical framework to assess options and shape a roadmap.
-
Compliance Across the Grant Management Landscape: Different Sectors, Different Challenges
Compliance in grant management isn’t one-size-fits-all. While public funders face statutory regulations like the AI Act, Data Act, or Procurement Act, other grantmakers — from medical charities to family foundations — operate under different governance, ethical, and regulatory pressures. Understanding these variations is key when selecting or configuring a grant management system (GMS). Education & […]
-
Compliance Beyond the Public Sector: Challenges for Research, NGOs and International Development
When we think about compliance in grant management, most attention falls on public sector obligations like the AI Act, Data Act, Procurement Act, or NIS2. But for research councils, charities, and international development agencies, sector-specific compliance frameworks are just as critical — and sometimes more complex. Research Sector NGOs & Charities International Development Cross-Cutting Themes […]
-
Reliability by Design: How AIMS Stayed Online When Others Went Down
In recent months, major outages have been reported across some of the world’s leading cloud platforms, including Azure and AWS, affecting thousands of organisations worldwide. Systems went offline, websites froze, and essential grant workflows were disrupted — reminding everyone how dependent modern operations have become on large-scale cloud providers. At AIMS, we took note — […]
-
Future-Proofing Compliance in Grant Management: What Funders Need to Know for 2025–2027
Compliance, particularly in the Public Sector, is no longer a background task. For funders in the UK and EU, regulations around artificial intelligence, data, procurement, accessibility, and cybersecurity are reshaping how grant management systems (GMS) must be designed, delivered, and governed. Choosing the right system today is about future-proofing for tomorrow’s obligations. Artificial Intelligence Act […]
-
Making End-of-Year Reporting Easier for Grantmakers
As we enter Q4, grantmaking organisations everywhere are busy compiling reports, analysing outcomes, and preparing for annual reviews. End-of-year grant management reporting can be one of the most time-consuming parts of the grant cycle, but it’s also one of the most valuable. It’s the moment when data turns into insight, helping funders measure impact, identify […]
-
Buy vs Build in Grant Management
When organisations plan new grant management systems, one question surfaces time and again: should we buy a proven solution, or build one on existing platforms? Clear policy direction Governments across Europe have set out strong guidance on this choice. In the UK, the Technology Code of Practice emphasises buying commodity software where it exists, and only building bespoke solutions when there […]
