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 is a clear need. EU and national digital strategies take a similar stance, highlighting interoperability, standards, and cost-effectiveness.
Why build is tempting
With platforms such as Microsoft Power Platform, Oracle Fusion, Workday, SAP, or ServiceNow already in place, building grant processes onto them can appear attractive. These platforms are licensed, widely adopted, and marketed as low-code environments that promise speed and flexibility.
The challenges of building
But experience shows that extending enterprise platforms into full lifecycle grant management brings risk:
- Complex governance and release management overheads
- Weaker user experience for external applicants and reviewers
- Projects that grow in scope and cost over time
- Gaps in meeting the sector-specific compliance and audit needs of funders
The case for buying
Specialist GMS platforms like AIMS are built for the complete grant lifecycle — from call design and application, through review and award, to payments and monitoring. They deliver quicker implementations, lower long-term risk, and sector-specific functionality out of the box.
Not buy or build, but buy and align
Buying doesn’t mean abandoning platforms. The right approach is often to buy and integrate: adopting a specialist GMS as the system of record for grants, while aligning with enterprise finance, HR, and analytics systems already in place.
AIMS’ position
With over 30 years in the grant management market, AIMS combines the strengths of a proven, configurable solution with the ability to align to broader digital strategies. For funders, this means:
- Confidence in a system designed for grants
- Flexibility to configure to unique programmes
- Alignment with enterprise IT investments
- Compliance with UK and European digital standards
For organisations weighing buy vs build, the evidence and policy direction point the same way: buy and align. And AIMS is designed to deliver exactly that.
-
Grantmaking 101: Assessment Panels, Scoring and Moderation
Assessment isn’t really about giving applications a score. It’s about making good funding decisions. Good assessment means applying published criteria consistently, considering evidence fairly and making decisions that can be explained with confidence.
-
Grantmaking 101: What Makes a Good Grant Programme?
Good grant programmes do not start with software. They start with clarity. This Grantmaking 101 article explores the foundations of effective grant programme design.
-
EU Tech Sovereignty: Why It Matters for Grant Management in 2025 and Beyond
EU tech sovereignty is reshaping how organisations think about data, compliance, AI, and digital resilience. For grant-makers, it raises important questions about control, transparency, audit trails, and the systems used to manage public and organisational funding.
-
Grantmaking 101: Standardisation vs Flexibility in Grantmaking
Should grantmakers standardise their processes or allow flexibility across programmes? This article explores how organisations can balance governance, efficiency and consistency with the need for programme-specific design in modern grantmaking.
-
Grantmaking 101: What is a shared grant management service?
Grant programmes rarely sit neatly in one place. Across government, local authorities and public bodies, different teams often manage different funding schemes with their own processes, systems and reporting requirements. But while grant programmes may vary in purpose, many of the core grant management activities are fundamentally the same.
A shared grant management service provides a common foundation for managing multiple grant programmes through shared systems, governance controls and operational processes. Rather than forcing every scheme into a single rigid model, a well-designed shared service standardises the areas that should remain consistent — such as audit trails, reporting, approvals and applicant registration — while still allowing flexibility for different policy objectives and funding models.
For organisations managing grants at scale, shared grant management services can improve governance, reduce duplication, strengthen reporting and create a more consistent experience for applicants and administrators alike.
-
How Manual Grant Processes Slow Teams Down
Manual grant management processes can quietly slow down entire organisations. From spreadsheets and email chains to reporting delays and compliance risks, disconnected workflows create inefficiencies that impact teams, applicants, and leadership alike. This article explores the hidden operational costs of manual grant administration and why more organisations are moving toward modern grant management software.
